German court rules Nazi reprisal executions justified

[SpencerH]

Thats not what that post says.

The US may have applied pressure to effect change, that doesnt mean that

the USA dictated the end of major monarchies around the world. This ment england was forced to give up India.

That comment, and the one that followed it are absurd. Perhaps you havent noticed, but Britain still retains a number of small colonies worldwide one of which (containing more sheep than people) it sailed a force 10000 miles to defend.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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.

While I agree with most of your points, this is a rather gross exaggeration of German sentiment. Germany, perhaps moreso than any other Western country with a past history of gross inhumanity, has done much to face up to its crimes and deal with the problems that created the Holocaust. The sense of national regret over it far exceeds anything you'll find in the United States over slavery or treatment of the Native Americans.

U.S. troops remain in Germany because Germany wants the bases there. If it didn't, you can bet the U.S. would have to leave.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Thats not what that post says.

The US may have applied pressure to effect change, that doesnt mean that That comment, and the one that followed it are absurd. Perhaps you havent noticed, but Britain still retains a number of small colonies worldwide one of which (containing more sheep than people) it sailed a force 10000 miles to defend.

The Falkland Islands are not an occupied colony in the same sense as India or Indochina. The Falklands is populated entirely by British people, it never had a native people. The people who live there desire British citizenship. They are the only people whose opinion really matters with regards to the status of the islands.

[Ecthy]

There's no such news on our news channels, therefore that court decision never happened.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

The Falkland Islands are not an occupied colony in the same sense as India or Indochina. The Falklands is populated entirely by British people, it never had a native people. The people who live there desire British citizenship. They are the only people whose opinion really matters with regards to the status of the islands.

I suppose thats true, but I was merely using it as an example of the lengths to which Britain would go to protect its colonies/holdings if it deemed it important or necessary.

[Boris Godunov]

Ecth:

The decision hasn't happened yet, the trial is ongoing. Ned's title of the thread was misleading.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Partisans are not protected by the Genava conventions.

They didn't execute partisans, they executed Italian soldiers. Shortly after the allies landed in Italy the government of Italy deposed Mussolini. The new government sued for peace with the allies. Germany occupied Italy and placed many Italian soldiers in prison camps. It was these legitimate soldiers that Germany executed. The Nazis maintained that the ouster of Mussolini was illegal and that the soldiers who remained loyal to the (new) government were therefore rebels who had no more status than partisans.

Mussolini's ouster was not illegal, because the Fascist Council (who actually accomplished his removal ) employed powers given to it by the very same fascist goverment that Hitler recognized as legal.

For a German court to take it upon itself to decide such an issue, i.e., the legality of the goverment that followed Mussolini, should be viewed by every EU nation as an affront to everything their people bled for in that war.

Does anyone know if other EU goverments have made public statements about this decision?

[Ecthy]

As a matter of fact, Wehrmacht soldiers are said to not only have executed prisoners of war (soldiers) but also civilians in reprisal "attack" or executions. That's undeniable, so any raising of the Geneva convention not counting for partisans point is futile. And I agree, from a moral point of view, partisan warfare as such is mostly righteous. Now whether their practises are always morally right (Russian partisans are said to have slaughtered German soldiers while they were in rail wagons, as an example, and I personally doubt that that is made up), is another question.

[Arrian]

My $.02:

"Partisan" or "guerilla" attacks against occupying soldiers are ok in my book. The occupier, of course, can fight back.

Killing PoW's or civilians in reprisal attacks, however, is well beyond the Pale. Terrible ruling by this German court. Can/will it be appealed? If so, I imagine it stands a good chance of being reversed.

The Falkland Islands are not an occupied colony in the same sense as India or Indochina. The Falklands is populated entirely by British people, it never had a native people. The people who live there desire British citizenship. They are the only people whose opinion really matters with regards to the status of the islands.

Correct. But, just for ****s and giggles, allow me to quote Eddie Izzard:

"England, what's that behind your back?"
"It's India and a number of other countries"
"Come on, we've had a bloody war, give 'em back"
"Oh, all right. There's that one there and that one there... oh, no, not the Falklands Islands. We need the Falklands Islands... for strategic sheep purposes."

-Arrian

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
As a matter of fact, Wehrmacht soldiers are said to not only have executed prisoners of war (soldiers) but also civilians in reprisal "attack" or executions. That's undeniable, so any raising of the Geneva convention not counting for partisans point is futile. And I agree, from a moral point of view, partisan warfare as such is mostly righteous. Now whether their practises are always morally right (Russian partisans are said to have slaughtered German soldiers while they were in rail wagons, as an example, and I personally doubt that that is made up), is another question.

IIRC firing on troop transport, trains, and trucks is not generally considered unethical. Soldiers in transport are considered combatants. For that matter there really is no such thing as being "off duty" in a war zone.

From the Nazis standpoint the troops in Italy were there at the behest of the legal government ( Mussolini ), and even uniformed Italian soldiers were rebel/ partisans. From the Italian point of view the Germans were invading troops in a country which had not capitulated and therefore was a war zone.

[Boris Godunov]

Dr. S: There hasn't yet been a ruling. This is premature.

[Ecthy]

To me, shooting at a soldier who can't defend himself is always unethical. You can always take him as POW.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Dr. S: There hasn't yet been a ruling. This is premature.

Hmmmm.....I guess I misunderstood the meaing of the phrase "the court upheld the argument...."

[Boris Godunov]

Ah...was referring to a verdict as to his guilt in the matter, so I see.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
To me, shooting at a soldier who can't defend himself is always unethical. You can always take him as POW.

If that's true then it would be unethical for coastal troops to shoot at landing ships, for fighter pilots to shoot at bombers which have dropped their loads, for infantry to fire on artillery troops once they've managed to crawl inside the guns' minimum range, for infantry to fire on an officer leading troops with (only) sword in hand. Using artillery beyond the range of the opposing forces guns would also be illegal.

A machine gun crew could have one guy stand up with his arms in the air and then wait for his would be captors to walk into range.

As Allied forces moved into Germany they would have troops armed with Panzerfaust play dead along the roadside. As tanks approached they'd pop up, fire their rocket at the tank, then throw up their hands. After a few weeks of this Eisenhower issued an order allowing allied soldiers to shoot these ambushers on the principle that they were violating the principles of war.