German court rules Nazi reprisal executions justified

[faded glory]

pacificism only works when everybodys pacificst. That will never happen. pacificism in modern form is just setting up aggressors for the kill.

[Ethelred]

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

Should he wait for a psychiarist to arive before he defends his girlfriend?

Everything has a reason. Everything has a root cause.

Yes sometimes a person simply is crazy, or viscious even if not actually insane. There are dangerous people in the world and you can't ask why untill after you have stopped them from committing violence.

What if they gave a war an nobody came?

People don't give wars. They start them and they come wether the victim wants a war or not. It only takes one side to initiate violence and the victim can either:

Run - hard to do without giving up all that you worked for.

Be passive and hope for good will from someone that is showing none at the moment. Evolution in action is a frequent result of this.

Die. See above but suicide is the other way and does occur.

Fight back and at least have a chance of keeping both life and property.

The real question is:

What if someone started a war and only one side came?

What would happen to those that in place in the war zone but did not wish to participate?

In both Israel and Palestine they often get dead.

[Ned]

Faded, Really? Gandhi and King were very effective with passive resistance. I often feel the Palestinians would get a lot more sympathy and be more effective if they adopted these methods.

Also watch out. The US will soon be an occupying power in Iraq.

[markusf]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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

war crimes is a bunch of bs.. its nothing more then the difference between those who win a war and those who lose a war.

Its pretty much a guarentee whenever you have a war that both sides will commit war crimes. The US won't join the ICC because they want to keep immunity from prosocution no matter how many people prove thier soldiers commited war crimes.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Ned
Faded, Really? Gandhi and King were very effective with passive resistance. I often feel the Palestinians would get a lot more sympathy and be more effective if they adopted these methods.

Both where just figure heads for a movement already in place. gandhi only "won" because after WW2 the USA dictated the end of major monarchies around the world. This ment england was forced to give up India. Same with king, civil rights where changing thoughout the world and he was mearly the figurehead in the states.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Faded, Really? Gandhi and King were very effective with passive resistance. I often feel the Palestinians would get a lot more sympathy and be more effective if they adopted these methods.

Gandhi and King were dealing with people that needed to be reminded that they had a conscience. The Nazis had none.

In The Some of All Frears Tom Clancey had the Palestinians do that. Odd that the Palestinians didn't use that idea from him. It would really put a crimp in the hard liners style in Israel and the US would have to back them at least to fairly large degree.

Every time some fine example of what drives evolution straps on a bomb, and kills people and joins the dodos at the same time that hurts the Palestinians. Its bloody stupid when passive resistance is just about guaranteed to work against any democracy as long you are looking for reasonable rights. Sure it might take a five or ten years but they have been trying to win the Darwin award for a long time now. You don't win by killing yourself even if it hurts others. It just convinces people that you are deranged and cannot be reasoned with.

[faded glory]

"Faded, Really? Gandhi and King were very effective with passive resistance. I often feel the Palestinians would get a lot more sympathy and be more effective if they adopted these methods. "

Ghandi wouldnt of stood a chance against someone like Hussien,Castro,Stalin or hitler. You damn well know this. His ass would of been in a Siberian gulag or be burnt a few shades darker. Dont give that BS. Most of the revolutions pacifism has brought down there was an element of mercy on the people. i gave you reasons why a handful of madmen could waste a pacifist movement. Cause they are willing to go to extremes.



Now if you don't mind, I'll go roll in my grassy hills and chase some leprachauns that are hiding under the mushrooms.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

So, they justify too when they killed french citizen during WWII in reprisal of partisans attacks...

[Roland]

"German court rules Nazi reprisal executions justified"

"The Hamburg state court upheld that argument Wednesday"

"A verdict is expected next month"

What is it now ?

Seems the presiding judge has a strange view of reprisals. Let's wait for an actual verdict and a possible appeal before you talk your balls into a twist.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by markusf

Both where just figure heads for a movement already in place. gandhi only "won" because after WW2 the USA dictated the end of major monarchies around the world. This ment england was forced to give up India. Same with king, civil rights where changing thoughout the world and he was mearly the figurehead in the states.

This comment needs no other answer, its humorous on so many levels.

[Ned]

On further thought, during time of a shooting war, passive resistance make no sense. It also makes no sense even in peace if you have a ruthless dictator in charge. It seems to be effective only against a democracy.

But, Israel is a democracy.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by markusf


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.

During WWII the Nazis made a point of advertising that as a civilized nation they upheld the principles of the Geneva Convention, which expressly forbade the usage of hostages and the execution of prisoners. It stands to reason then that the major was indeed violating established law. I am certain that the Nazis retained basic German law against homicide, and were quite capable of applying it when doing so suited their needs. I am certain that if a German policeman shot the teenage son of a prominent Nazis party member while the lad was in custody for some infraction of the law he would have been punished to the maximum extent of the law. Since the Italian prisoners were technically no longer combatants then the penalty for murdering them should be the same as for murdering a civilian.

It is not clear to me whether this crime took place in Germany or Italy. Since it was a reprisal for an act committed by local Italian partisans I'd guess that it took place in Itlay. Why was the case tried in Germany? Since Italy is an EU member there is no risk that ther major would be executed, then Germany has no real excuse for not handing him over to Italian authorities other than it has become sick and tired of being held accountable for atrocities committed during the war. Germany is now on the verge of exonerating itself of the heinous acts committed by its citizens which to me is only one step away from saying that if they had to do it all over they wouldn't have changed a thing (except for the loosing part).

Frankly I sleep better at night knowing that the US still maintains an armed force in Germany. I think we all should be grateful for that.

[SpencerH]

Partisans are not protected by the Genava conventions.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH





This comment needs no other answer, its humorous on so many levels.

No, it's true. The US threatened to cut off aid, even life sustaining food aid, to various european colonial powers at times in order to coerce them into divesting themselves of their colonies. The US applied pressure on the British to divest themselves of India and Palestine and to the Netherlands to divest themselves of the East Indies in the 1940s. The US withheld critical military supplies from the French during the war in Indochina. The US threatened intervention in the 1956 war to retake the Suez canal. I'm not saying that there wasn't also pressure at home within these colonial powers that also mitigated against retaining the colonies, or that internal pressures weren't the deciding factor.

[Chris 62]

I think someone said it, but I'll also say it, irregular warfare is, and always has been, illeagal, meaning partisans.

All nations have encouraged it, especially in WW II, but it has never been leagal in either the Geneva or Hague conventions.

Putting on a uniform and acting as an insurgent is acceptable, but civilians wearing no distiguishing marks are illeagal combatants.

I believe a lot of you, growing up in the last 20 odd years, asscociate some sort of glamour and rightinous to this type of warfare, but it's never been condoned by treaty.

Paiktis, no issurgency can be looked at in a vacum, without the colaspe of the German forces in Russia, and the subsequent ordered retreat in the balkans, no part of Greece or Yugoslavis could be truly considered liberated from the Nazis, unless they felt it wasn't worth keeping.

Even Tito was nearly killed in 43, and his resistance nearly destroyed by a concerted effort by the Germans.
Over estimation of the effectivness of partisans is quite common these days.