 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In both Northern Italy and Greece, yes. |
Not to mention Yugoslavia.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-06-2002 08:17
|
|