German court rules Nazi reprisal executions justified

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
che, what kind of thing you can't solve peacefully?

Someone trying to attack my girlfriend, for example.

[Pekka]

che, True true.. I guess i missed the point. I thought assumed that if everyone else was peaceful, which isn't often the case.

[Lorizael]

Well then you have to find out why in the world that person would want to kick your girlfriend.

Everything has a reason. Everything has a root cause.

[chequita guevara]

My gf was once attacked by a crazy person. Sometimes you can't stop these things from happening, not even by running away. Remember, we Americans live in a considerably more violent society that most of the rest of you. We don't really like it, but it's what we've inherited. It's what we find ourselves in. Pretending that it isn't won't make it go away.

While we try and make it better, we have to realize that there are some situations that will not resolve themselves in the way we wish. We do not have complete control of them. And if we wish to survive them, we may need to react on a more animal level.

[Lorizael]

I live in America, too.

I mean on a broader scale. Someone needs to make sure that the crazy person isn't crazy.

I understand we don't live in a perfect world. And I know violence is sometimes necessary because not all of us have absolute control of our surroundings.

But when violence is the only option, it should be as minimal as possible.

Chopping off limbs and slaughtering people as was mentioned earlier should never be needed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by El Awrence
How can partisan activities be outlawed? The ICC takes away your right to defend yourself against foreign invasion by granting the right of life to the enemy soldier?! WTF?!

El Awrence, I don't think sabotage has been outlawed. But deliberate attacks on enemy troops by treachery have.

I was sitting here trying to think of any American movie or book which favorably portrayed partisan attacks on Axis troops, such a blowing up a movie theater full of officers as opposed to trying to blow up a bridge, for example. I can't think of any.

I would suspect that it would still be legitimate to stealthily take out the guards as part of a partisan assault on a military objective. However, sniping a patrolling guard for no other reason than killing him would be forbidden.

I think the following passage from the story is most interesting:

“Anger flickered, though, when he denounced the partisans who fought Nazi occupying forces in Italy. "We Germans were provoked with treacherous, underhanded attacks," he said. "The partisans were not honest fighters."

Engel said he was among officials who attended a meeting in Florence led by a Nazi general that laid out Germany's reprisal policy in Italy after a March 23, 1944, bombing killed 32 German policemen in Rome.

The meeting discussed an order by Hitler that 10 Italians should die for every German killed, Engel said.�

Note the words he used, the very same words we find in the new ICC statue, “treacherously.�

I think this topic deserves very serious discussion. I have sat here for a couple of months now observing the passion of the debate on the ME. Most of the arguments have been about the deliberate attacks on civilians being an outrage – implying and sometimes overtly stating that deliberate attacks on occupying soldiers was permissible.

Well it is not under the new ICC that goes into effect next week.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


In both Northern Italy and Greece, yes.

Not to mention Yugoslavia.

[chequita guevara]

I don't care what the ICC says. An occupying soldier is fair game.

They haven't defined "treacherously," but I imagine it would be something along the lines of executing prisoners or agreeing to peace talks and then attacking.

[Dr Strangelove]

Hold on guys. The original subject of the thread was the execution of Italian soldiers in reprisal for partisan activities wasn't it? These soldiers were legitimate prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention. The Nazis then essentially used them as hostages, as human shields. How can the Fourth Reich, er, the Federal Republic of Germany, consider this act justifiable and still face its fellow europeans, particularily the Italians, in the EU council. By all rights this decision ought to earn a vocal condemnation from every member of the EU.

Can you see now why the US refuses to put its soldiers under the jurisdiction of any court system other than our own?

[markusf]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's silly to say that we expected the Nazis not to fight back. Hoever, the targetting of non-combatants is a crime.

Oh please, when did it become a crime? When the english and americans carpet bombed germany cities specifically targeting civilians? When USA droped atomic bombs specifically targeting civilians..

Its funny how each country claims the moral highground but when put in a similar position they do exactly the same as everyone else.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Hold on guys. The original subject of the thread was the execution of Italian soldiers in reprisal for partisan activities wasn't it? These soldiers were legitimate prisoners of war protected by the Geneva Convention. The Nazis then essentially used them as hostages, as human shields. How can the Fourth Reich, er, the Federal Republic of Germany, consider this act justifiable and still face its fellow europeans, particularily the Italians, in the EU council. By all rights this decision ought to earn a vocal condemnation from every member of the EU.

Can you see now why the US refuses to put its soldiers under the jurisdiction of any court system other than our own?

uhm, one of the most basic parts of law is you can only try sometime by the laws that existed at that time. you can't just make up any old law you feel like and then arrest anyone alive that voilated this law sometime in the past.

[chequita guevara]

Executing prisoners has always been considered treachery and a war crime.

The fact that others committed war crimes does not absolve your countrymen from their war crimes.

[Ned]

CG, I agree. Somehow I think this case is going to be overturned on appeal, if that is if an appeal is allowed the prosecution in a war crimes trial.

It also seems to illustrates the "home town" factor in war crimes trials. Engle was convicted in Italy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't care what the ICC says.

Neither do I.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Why, paiktis, why? Violence only begets more violence. Causing pain is only a short term solution. In the long run it causes more problems than were there to begin with.

Did German occupation end because of the violent acts of partisans?

Violence often ends violence. Will you next claim violence never solves anything?

Violence solved Hitler and all indications are that nothing else would or could have. All that pacificism would have brought about is even more bodies in ovens just for not fitting the Nazi definition of a human being.

Oh and yes German occupation was ended with the help of partisans. Without the partisans the D-Day invasion would have at best been harder. Partisans cut communications and roads. That too helped solve the problem that was Nazi Germany.