Execution of civils on the East [Archive]

Librarian

07-31-2008, 03:13 PM

Excuse me for my interferance, honorable gentlemen, but the most severe formally issued reprisals ratio during the WW2 against the civilian population was established by German OKW upon the basis of the 100 Serbian civilians for every killed German soldier, or 50 civilians for every wounded member of the German armed forces.

This directive was issued on 16th of September, 1941, by Field-marshal Keitel personally, toward the suppression of the insurgent movement in occupied Serbia, with strict order for official dissemination of the document to all subordinate commanders. This order stated:

"Measures taken up to now to counteract this general communist insurgent movement have proven themselves to be inadequate. The Führer now has ordered that severest means are to be employed in order to break down this movement in the shortest time possible. Only in this manner, which has always been applied successfully in the history of the extension of power of great peoples can quiet be restored.

The following directives are to be applied:

(a) Each incident of insurrection against the German Wehrmacht, regardless of individual circumstances, must be assumed to be of communist origin.

(b) In order to stop these intrigues at their inception, severest measures are to be applied immediately at the first appearance, in order to demonstrate the authority of the occupying power, and in order to prevent further, progress. One must keep in mind that a human life frequently counts for naught in the affected countries and a deterring effect can only be achieved by unusual severity. In such a case the death penalty for 50 to 100 communists must in general be deemed appropriate as retaliation for the life of a German soldier. The manner of execution must increase the deterrent effect. The reverse procedure-to proceed at first with relatively easy punishment and to be satisfied with the threat of measures of increased severity as a deterrent does not correspond with these principles and is not to be applied."

Aforementioned order was carried out by Wehrmacht General Franz Friedrich Böhme (oh yes, honorable ladies and gentlemen: the SS was completely innocent in this case!) on 21st October, 1941, in retaliation action at Kragujevac, when approximately 5000 Serbian civilians were executed, amongst them more than 300 pupils taken directly from the high school, along with 18 teachers.

The executions were performed by troops of the 1st Battalion of the 724th Infantry Regiment commanded by Major Paul Koenig. In his report he stated that: "For every dead German soldier, 100 residents have been executed, and for every wounded German soldier, 50 residents have been executed - before all others, Communists, bandits, and their assistants were targeted, all totaling 2,300."

On October 29, envoy Felix Benzler - representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – sent another report to his ministry, noting that 2,300 Serbian civilians had been executed in Kragujevac: "In the past week there have been executions of a large number of Serbs in Kragujevac, as reprisals for the killing of members of the Wehrmacht in the proportion of 100 Serbs for one German."

General Franz Böhme, plenipotentiary commanding general in Serbia, personally informed his superior, field-marshal List as well: "Execution by shooting of about 2,000 Communists and Jews in reprisal for 22 murdered of the Second Battalion of the 421st Army Signal Communication Regiment is in progress."

This distressing occurrence represents one of the most horrific war crimes during the World War II, and it was recognized as such by United Nations War Crimes Commission.

Complete legal evaluation of the aforementioned case is available here:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/List1.htm

And yes – I think that I will be able to find dependable information about that previously presented dramatic photo. As far as I remember, that picture was only one in a string of horrific snapshots illustrating "pacification" of the occupied regions in the ex-USSR. Just give me a couple of days…

Vlaams-Legioen

07-31-2008, 03:17 PM

Thanks for the information. Also German soldiers who left behind (auto needs new part etc) had a "Life-Insurance".

flamethrowerguy

07-31-2008, 10:20 PM

Chevan

08-01-2008, 12:10 AM

These were Partizans. Women were involved too. It doens't mean, that they had to kill a German soldier before they were executed. When they stole food from the Germans or weapons, ammonution or they disabled German vehicles, they were executed too.

I know the woman were partisans too.
But i was asking about THAT two peoples, who looks like teenagers rather then pertisans.
Do you know the TRUE story of them?
Or do you simply repeat the coomon phrases?

Chevan

08-01-2008, 12:19 AM

The following directives are to be applied:

(a) Each incident of insurrection against the German Wehrmacht, regardless of individual circumstances, must be assumed to be of communist origin.

(b) In order to stop these intrigues at their inception, severest measures are to be applied immediately at the first appearance, in order to demonstrate the authority of the occupying power, and in order to prevent further, progress. One must keep in mind that a human life frequently counts for naught in the affected countries and a deterring effect can only be achieved by unusual severity. In such a case the death penalty for 50 to 100 communists must in general be deemed appropriate as retaliation for the life of a German soldier. The manner of execution must increase the deterrent effect. The reverse procedure-to proceed at first with relatively easy punishment and to be satisfied with the threat of measures of increased severity as a deterrent does not correspond with these principles and is not to be applied."

Thank you very much my friend.
I knew this order was existed, but can't find it in english net.
Don't need to remind us that the executed "communist" were the simple local civils hostages: peasants and woman from neighbourd villages.

And yes – I think that I will be able to find dependable information about that previously presented dramatic photo. As far as I remember, that picture was only one in a string of horrific snapshots illustrating "pacification" of the occupied regions in the ex-USSR. Just give me a couple of days…

I will wait resault of you investigation with great impatience dear sir.
I know you migh find the unique, amazing information almost about any field in your Library:)

flamethrowerguy

08-01-2008, 01:09 AM

I found two more photos of this "session" in one of my books (Der Angriff auf Russland/The attack on Russia by Nicholas Bethell). It says the incident took place not in Ukraine but in Belorussia. The board around the womans neck says, both in german and russian: "We are partisans and shot at german soldiers."

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6190/partbelooa8.jpg

ptimms

08-01-2008, 03:52 AM

She is 17yr old Jewess Masha Brushkina, also executed are 16 year old Volodia Shcherbatsevich (his mother was hung elsewhere in Minsk on the same day according to some sources) and First World War veteran, Kiril Trus. They were executed 26th October 1941 in Minsk. Her crime was as a nurse at the hospital in the Polytechnic Institute she helped wounded Red Army soldiers escape by smuggling into the hospital civilian clothing and false identity papers. Betrayed by someone in the hospital she was arrested and tortured but is said to have not revealed her contacts. I don't know what the others crimes were. The prisoners were neither hooded nor blindfolded, and they were given no drop, so their deaths were cruel and slow. As this was the first public execution in Minsk it was well documented by the 707th Infantry Division which is where the photo's come from. Interestingly in her native Belorussia they refuse to recognize her, some speculate this is as she is Jewish.

Librarian

08-01-2008, 05:26 AM

Yes, my dear Mr. Ptimms: these pictures were definitely taken in Minsk, Belarus. The girl is a 17 year-old Masha Bruskina. She is accompanied to the gallows by Kiril Trus and Volodia Shcherbatschevich. Their executioners were the officers and soldiers of the 707th Infantry division under Gustav baron von Bechtolsheim.

This professional Army officer, a fanatical Antisemit, who remained undisturbed after the war (he peacefully died in 1969 in Münster), left a horrendous legacy in Belarus - until December of 1941 soldiers and German military policemen under his command killed 19,000 civilians, mostly Jews.

Indeed excellent documentary on-line presentation of the existing photographs, which were taken by the unknown German Army photographer and presented for the first time in 1963 by Novosti Press Agency (Агентство печати "Новости") in a book Фотографии великой отечественной войны (Photographs of the Great Patriotic War) is available here:

http://www.geocities.com/epjacobs4/masha.htm

Nickdfresh

08-01-2008, 08:46 AM

Nick, as far as I know, it depended only on the number of killed soldiers - just the same with allied troops in occupied Germany. the quota was mostly 10:1.

Um, Allied troops did not arbitrarily execute civilians in response to "Werewolf" partisan operations. And the (ex-SS) Werewolves were not all that popular anyways and some were even 'given-up' by the locals I understand.

Chevan

08-01-2008, 08:51 AM

I am in shock , gentlemens.:(
The one accidental photo, but so many tarical personal details you have found out.
Thank you very much ptimms and Labrarian.
Yes now we can learn more about Masha Bruskina
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0,_ %D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80% D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0#.D0.91.D0.B8.D 0.BE.D0.B3.D1.80.D0.B0.D1.84.D0.B8.D1.8F
Маша Брускина в 1941 году окончила 28-ю школу города Минска. Когда в конце июня в город вошли подразделения вермахта, в здании Минского политехнического института они организовали лазарет для советских военнопленных. Брускина по заданию подполья устроилась в этот лазарет, чтобы помогать военнопленным бежать. Она раздобыла фотоаппарат, за несдачу и хранение которого оккупанты расстреливали. С помощью фотоаппарата изготовлялись документы для солдат и офицеров. Кроме того, Брускина через подпольщика Кирилла Труса распространяла сводки Информбюро о положении на фронтах.

В октябре 1941 года был организован побег группы военнопленных. Однако им не удалось бежать; при выходе из Минска они были схвачены полицейскими. Часть группы была расстреляна, а один из беглецов выдал Брускину.

26 октября 1941 года Маша Брускина и её товарищи по подполью Кирилл Трус и Володя Щербацевич были повешены на арке дрожжевого завода в Минске. Казнь совершили добровольцы 2-го батальона полицейской вспомогательной службы из Литвы. Вся казнь была заснята фотографом. Подпольщикам удалось сделать дубликаты фотографий, которые после освобождения Минска были переданы органам советской власти. Эти фотографии фигурировали на Нюрнбергском процессе в качестве документов обвинения нацистских преступников.

When in end of june 1941 the Germans has entered to Minsk - Masha just has finished school month ago.
She was 17 years old, almost child.
She has been send to the Hospital for soviet POWs with special mission - asist the POWS to escape. she has found a photo camera to make a false documents for fugitives. With ther mate Kirill Trus she was trying to organize an escape of group of soviet pows.
That group , was caught in outskirts of Minsk and almost fully executed. One traitor( his name Boris Rudzanko http://www.russian-globe.com/N3/Bruskina.htm), however has betrayed the Masha with all their friends.
The Germans has organized a whole Public Show - "marsh of partisans" in Minsk, becouse as it was noticed , it was just first case of "partisan" execution. The execution was carefully documented by Germans photographer.
I still don't know the detail of their detention- probably some of them tryed to resist and open fire.But obvioulsy not Masha.
I think no one germans soldier were killed- so the plaque in her neck simply lied.
The soviet resistence made a copies of the photos and later those copies photos have been demonstrated in Nurenberg Tribunal as a evidence of crimes.

I think she died not as a jew, but as a brave member of resistence.She clearly realized the mortal threat of her job.
What a brave girl.
BTW some soruce claime that it was not her execution took active part the 2 police battalion of Baltic voluntaries- not just the member of 707 infantry deivitsion.

Librarian

08-01-2008, 09:38 AM

Yes, my dear Mr. Chevan – poor Mashenyka really was brave, and above all – deeply ethical personality. :(

You know, I think that after all these horrifying pictures one additional factographic account is desperately needed here. One highly unknown, but ethically extremely important example of unabridged moral heroism, which - by its own inexorable and immortal humanity - preserved the dignity of the ordinary German soldier in the WW2.

This highly specific historical tribute will be dedicated to a single person equipped with one highly admirable human virtue – ethicality. Habitually described by contemporary "thinkers" as a needless ballast, this intrinsically human grace was fortunately present in a human being even during numerous ordeals of war. Our simple story hopefully will be capable to make clear that real, unabridged humanism, requires no exceptional qualifications, no magic formulas, no special combinations of time, place and circumstance. It will be capable to show that humanism and morality are representing an opportunity that sooner or later is presented to us all.

I am sure that this example of virtue will be able to show us clearly that not all soldiers of the German Armed Forces were prepared to participate in atrocities against innocent people.

Therefore my personal moral hero from the other side of the hill is Joseph Schultz, a simple German enlisted man, member of the 714th Infantry Division of Wehrmacht, who served in Yugoslavia in 1941. When after annihilation of a Serbian village Orahovac near Smederevska Planka he was ordered to join a firing squad and to execute a group of captured "partisans" he silently but determinatively refused, thus being immediately executed along with the poor hostages on July 19, 1941. He preferred, with calm but still impressive dignity, to share the fate of those unfortunate persons.

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/23/jozefschultzpu2.jpg

Joseph Schulz is stadily walking onward in the path of his ethical duty - a German officer who commanded the execution took this photo

This quiet, modest and incredibly brave man, whose personal destiny was part of every elementary school history book in former Yugoslavia, has demonstrated that in whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of ethicality, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his own conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, even his own life – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past morality can teach, they can offer a hope and they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply morality itself. For that, each man has to look into his own soul.

flamethrowerguy

08-01-2008, 10:01 AM

Um, Allied troops did not arbitrarily execute civilians in response to "Werewolf" partisan operations. And the (ex-SS) Werewolves were not all that popular anyways and some were even 'given-up' by the locals I understand.

Of course allied troops didn't, I am just saying that it was the determined ratio if one of their men would have been killed by Werwolf hits.
Strange enough, the responsible persons of the biggest werwolf action, the Penzberger Mordnacht (Penzberg night of murder) weren't ex-SS but members of a Nebelwerfer regiment. And, yes, the werwolf wasn't that popular with the population because they were simply sick and tired of war.

ptimms

08-01-2008, 10:12 AM

Thanks Guys,
I thought I'd seen the photo before and remembered it was part of a series.
Yes and certainly some of the uniforms have an auxillary look. they were Lithuanians It said on one of the sites.

Nickdfresh.

There were certainly hostages taken in some areas and in the French zone the highest level of reprisals were threatened. I'm not saying they did but this poster says they would shoot civilians in a ratio of 50:1.

Chevan

08-01-2008, 10:21 AM

Yes, my dear Mr. Chevan – poor Mashenyka really was brave, and above all – deeply ethical personality. :(

What do you mean she was an ethnical personality?

Joseph Schulz is stadily walking onward in the path of his ethical duty - a German officer who commanded the execution took this photo

This quiet, modest and incredibly brave man, whose personal destiny was part of every elementary school history book in former Yugoslavia, has demonstrated that in whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of ethicality, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his own conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, even his own life – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past morality can teach, they can offer a hope and they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply morality itself. For that, each man has to look into his own soul.

This was incredible, mate. I 've never heard about him
Great man.
But what was a reason of his amazing deed? Just simple simphaty to the Yugoslavian partisans?They probably could kill him in battle , just like any other germans soldier they fought against.
I don't see on photo the children and woman to be executed.
Or the real reason was deeper?

Librarian

08-01-2008, 11:07 AM

What do you mean she was an ethnical personality?

No, my dear Mr. Chevan: not ethnical but ethical – something based upon practices acceptable within certain humanistic ideals, correct, acceptable and sensitive behavior of a human being inside certain social group. :)

This was incredible, mate. I 've never heard about him. Great man. But what was a reason of his amazing deed? Just simple simphaty to the Yugoslavian partisans?

Yes, my dear Mr. Chevan – he definitely represented an authentically honest human being. And as far as I know, the main reason for his brave accomplishment was his deep and completely sincere personal insight that his orders are not in congruence with the Articles 1. and 3. printed in every single Soldbuch issued to all German soldiers, namely with these utterly simple but essential regulations:

1: The German soldier fights fairly to win victory for his people. Acts of cruelty and unnecessary destruction are unworthy of him.

3: No opponent who surrenders may be killed, not even irregulars or spies. These will be suitably punished by the courts.

You know, sometimes certain chaps really do believe in certain stupid philosophical postulates. Unfortunately, they are always representing some kind of a miserable and pathetic minority… :(

Rising Sun*

08-01-2008, 11:21 AM

FWIW, I have read several accounts of German soldiers (ORs = enlisted men rather than officers) refusing orders of an unacceptable nature with no consquences. I can't recall references but I suspect they were on the Western front, which might explain a more tolerant attitude.

Nickdfresh

08-01-2008, 12:57 PM

Yes, my dear Mr. Chevan – poor Mashenyka really was brave, and above all – deeply ethical personality. :(

....
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/23/jozefschultzpu2.jpg

Joseph Schulz is stadily walking onward in the path of his ethical duty - a German officer who commanded the execution took this photo

...

FWIW, I have read several accounts of German soldiers (ORs = enlisted men rather than officers) refusing orders of an unacceptable nature with no consquences. I can't recall references but I suspect they were on the Western front, which might explain a more tolerant attitude.

There are accounts in Beavor's "Stalingrad" of many German soldiers actually laying down their weapons and joining the victims rather than shoot...

Nickdfresh

08-01-2008, 01:01 PM

Chevan

08-01-2008, 01:58 PM

There are accounts in Beavor's "Stalingrad" of many German soldiers actually laying down their weapons and joining the victims rather than shoot...

I/m not sure this is true Nick.
The battle of Stalingrad was probably most cruel battle of the war. Plus the terrible frost.
no one side has reasons to be a human to their enemy.
I've read a story ( Alan Clarke, Barbarossa)when Germans executed POWs right near red Army trenches, specially to show the russians what fate is waiting for them.
Simular cruel relation to pows was in Red Army too i guess.
If even OWN had had no enough food- what was sense to capture the enemy pows?Or to save them life?

Nickdfresh

08-01-2008, 02:25 PM

I/m not sure this is true Nick.
The battle of Stalingrad was probably most cruel battle of the war. Plus the terrible frost.
no one side has reasons to be a human to their enemy.
I've read a story ( Alan Clarke, Barbarossa)when Germans executed POWs right near red Army trenches, specially to show the russians what fate is waiting for them.
Simular cruel relation to pows was in Red Army too i guess.
If even OWN had had no enough food- what was sense to capture the enemy pows?Or to save them life?

The book actually is more encompassing than the battle itself.

Beavor actually starts with the beginning of Operation Barbarossa...

I believe he was talking about massacres of Russian civilians behind German lines...

Chevan

08-01-2008, 02:51 PM

The book actually is more encompassing that the battle itself.

Beavor actually starts with the beginning of Operation Barbarossa...

I believe he was talking about massacres of Russian civilians behind German lines...
Well probably i know what are you talking about..
Actualy when i read the Stalingrad, on one page Beevour wrote that the Paulus refuse to interact with SS in "supporting the order" on the captured territories.He obviously didn't wish to have something common with mass violence.I ve read he even order to withdrow some of SS units out of area of his responsibility.
This was also the REASON , why after the ending of war Paulus has not beed charged with war crimes in Stalingrad. The Soviets has nathing against him ( as against the Mainstain)

Egorka

08-01-2008, 03:01 PM

Source?
See the Librarians post #9. The same order by Keitel applied to the Eastern Front.

An example:
Letter sent home by Wehrmacht privat Fritz F. 13 November 1941:
"In the beginning I was often inclined to think that it would be more practical to make a move towards understanding of the locals. But it makes no sense. A couple of days ago again three guards were killed. As the result almost all village inhabitants, nearly 300 people, were shot by the order of the field tribunal. It seems to be the only solution. Only by iron fist of cruelty can we gain anything here. Obviously many innosent should had been among the shot, but what can be done and what differnece does it make at all? The core of the issue is that fear of death is the only option where common sense fails."

Egorka

08-01-2008, 03:20 PM

God bless Joseph Schulz!
Also to be fair I should mention that Wehrmacht soldiers friequently gave food to the locals.
Though later in war it was specificly forbiden by the OKW.

And another thing is that Germany counted very much on the Ukrainian harvest 1941.
Germany expected to get 5,2 mil. tonns, but in reality the harvest was only 1 million tonns.
Out of that 1.000.000 tonns 900.000 were confiscated to feed Wehrmacht and the homeland.

imi

08-03-2008, 11:41 AM

I sorry these guys but they are partisans and in a war be partisan in civil clothes fight against uniform wearing soldiers,just the same be a terrorist.
Partisan is a shifty thing,just also terrorists

pdf27

08-03-2008, 02:48 PM

in a war be partisan in civil clothes fight against uniform wearing soldiers,just the same be a terrorist.
That is utter bollocks, and quite offensive too. There is in fact a very simple and clear difference between the two - Partisans carry their weapons openly and attack uniformed enemy combatants. Terrorists carry their weapons clandestinely and attack anyone. Hell, the Yugoslav Partisans even wore uniforms - calling them terrorists is downright ludicrous.

Chevan

08-03-2008, 03:36 PM

more cruel photo of execution of "terrorist"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/a/ad/Kosm1.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/d/de/Kosm2.jpg
This amateur photo was taken from killed german soldier during battle of Moscow (jenuary 1942).
This is the 18 years girl that was caught, treated with cruely and publically executed 29 november 1941 in one of village.
The body was hang over month!!!, germans forbid take it off. Prefer to demonstrate body as "anti-partican revenge".
Beofr the NEw 1942 year the germans passed through village had undress her body off and disfigured it by daggers, even cut off one of brest
http://www.peoples.ru/state/citizen/kosmodemianskaya/kosmodemianskaya_zoya_source_middle.jpg
Before thier retreat from Moscow in jenuary 1942, German administration allowed to take body off and hury it.
Do somebody know this story?

flamethrowerguy

08-03-2008, 04:08 PM

I know her story from a book of mine, her name is Soja Kosmodemjanskaja (german spelling). For her detailed story, please look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoya_Kosmodemyanskaya

BTW, the board she's wearing says: I am a fire starter.

Chevan

08-03-2008, 04:24 PM

Librarian

08-03-2008, 06:49 PM

I sorry these guys but they are partisans and in a war be partisan in civil clothes fight against uniform wearing soldiers,just the same be a terrorist.

The only problem with your stance, my dear Mr. Imi, is the inexorable legal fact that previously presented actions against completely non-combatant civilians represented a direct violation of the Hague CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, entered into force on the 26th of January, 1910, namely its article Article 50, which straightforwardly declares:

No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.

Do you have, by any chance, any legally acceptable and undeniable evidence that those casualties of the Wehrmacht in 1941 were consequences of the collective activity of the whole civilian population of Kragujevac, thus providing legally based accountability for those civilians? If you have, please – present those proofs to us here.

In the meantime, I will ask you for a simple favor. Please observe very carefully the subsequently presented snapshots. You will see one highly explicite scene which was connected with the execution of the unfortunate personality who - on the approach of the enemy forces – had spontaneously took up arms to resist the enemy troops without having time to organize herself in complete accordance with Article 1 of the Hague Convention, but nevertheless carried arms openly and otherwise completely respected the codified laws and customs of war.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/096.jpg

Execution of the captured Partisan by decapitation – No.1

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/099.jpg

Execution of the captured Partisan by decapitation – No.2

After that, we will have a nice little academic chat about everyday significance of the Aristotelian as well as Christian ethics in war.

In the mantime, as always – all the best.

Chevan

08-04-2008, 12:37 AM

The only problem with your stance, my dear Mr. Imi, is the inexorable legal fact that previously presented actions against completely non-combatant civilians represented a direct violation of the Hague CONVENTION RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND, entered into force on the 26th of January, 1910, namely its article Article 50, which straightforwardly declares:

No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.

As i know my friend , usially Nazis explain it as the Partisan "never folowed the laws and castoms of war".
Therefoer they all were are "War criminals" independently on - where they teenager who only feeded a wounded enemy pows or real partisans who attacks the Germans troops.

After that, we will have a nice little academic chat about everyday significance of the Aristotelian as well as Christian ethics in war.

Really they used the Middle-Age cruel decapitation in Yogoslavia?
I/m in shock.
BTW what this a Germans troops that commited that actiona?
Were it SS or other punitive units?
I heard some of soviet collaborationists like "Waffen-SS Galicia", "Kossaken" took active participation in "Pacification of Yugoslavia".
Do you know something about them?

ptimms

08-04-2008, 01:23 AM

Are these photo's an execution by the troops of the Karsjager Division ? I know they were involved in some beheading incidents. Also you have got to be some sick MF to casually take snapshots of this.

imi

08-04-2008, 06:41 AM

To Mr.Librarian:The only problem is the partisans also not consider the Hague Convention when they stop a Red Cross train with full of injured soldier,sprinkled these unlucky peoples,and torch them.
And I speak about partisans,not civilians,and make military,or other actions(exactly:mix with civilians,that is specious) in civil suit,isn't a straight thing,in a "official annuncation" war.
I convict the brutality,but a burned body isn't look better,than a body without head.
I think this topic is go murder of civilians,and the partisan isn't civilian.
Tough pictures

Librarian

08-04-2008, 11:01 AM

Really they used the Middle-Age cruel decapitation in Yogoslavia? I/m in shock.

In that case, my dear Mr. Chevan, better do take some tranquilisers: I am assuring you - with a great sorrow in my soul! - that thus far you haven’t seen factual, true-life horrors of war at all. Sometimes it is almost unimaginable how fragile the boundary between humanity and beastiality is, and how human beings are capable of committing unimaginable crimes.:(

Are these photo's an execution by the troops of the Karsjager Division

No, my dear Mr. Ptimms – presented crime was commited by the SS Polizei-Gebirgsjäger Regiment No.18 in March of 1942, in the vicinity of the Slovenian village Renčah pri Gorici, and those pictures were taken by the unknown SS trooper. Snapshots were initially published in a book Mučeniška pot k svobodi : Ljubljana, Slovenski Knjižni Zavod, 1946. -135 pp.

To Mr.Librarian:The only problem is the partisans also not consider the Hague Convention when they stop a Red Cross train with full of injured soldier,sprinkled these unlucky peoples,and torch them.

Would you be so kind to present your sources, as well as some additonal factographic materials about that horrenduous occurrence, my dear Mr. Imi? You see, scientifically correct investigations, which are highly reccomanded in these cases as the only truly helpful solution for numerous historical disputes that ulcerate our common future, are highly demanding toward those means of factual attestation of different historical claims.

Furthermore, your allegations are in sharp contradiction with the factual historical events. You see, the People's Liberation Army and Partisan Detachments of Yugoslavia were instructed from the very start of the uprising to take German prisoners of war and to treat them in full accordance with the regulations prescribed and approved by the Geneva Convention, because aforementioned procedure and subsequent negotiations between officially appointed representatives of the beligerant sides actually secured the official recognition of the NOVJ as a regular fighting force.

Combat operations between NOVJ and Wehrmacht during the First anti-Partisan Offensive in September of 1941, for example, resulted with 286 German POWs and a whole series of POW exchanges between Germans and Yugoslav Partisans during October of 1941, and they all concluded completely fruitfully - not a single German prisoner of war had been executed. Here you have certain pictorial evidence:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/GermanPOW-Uzice1941.jpg

Captured German soldiers escorted by Yugoslav Partisans – Užice, October 1941

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/POWexchangePilinHanBosnia-1942.jpg

Succesfuly accomplished mutual exchange of POWs – Pilin Han near Posušje, Bosnia and Herzegovina, September 1942

Perhaps the best-known occurrence connected wit this pretty unknown issue is the case of the Major Arthur Strecker, commanding officer of the 2nd Battalion, 738th Infantry regiment, 718th Infantry Division of theWehrmacht, captured during operation Weiss in Bosnia on May 4th, 1943.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/POWArthurStrecker.jpg

Major Arthur Strecker, accompanied by young Partisans as a prisoner of war – May 4th, 1943

He and 24 further German soldiers were treated in full accordance with the International law, and offered for official exchange for certain number of captured members of the Partisan forces. From the NOVJ side negotiations were led by Vladimir Velebit, Milovan Đilas and Koča Popovic, while German side was represented by Hans Ott, General der Infanterie Edmund Glaise von Horstenau and partly by General Benignus Dippold from the 717th Infantry division of the Wehrmacht. Talks were held in Gornji Vakuf, Sarajevo and Zagreb. All prisoners were successfully exchanged.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/03.jpg

Major Strecker as a POW during the completely civilized conversation with the Partisan commanders

Certain highly dependable informations about these POWs exchanges are available in a book Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgfangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges 1941-1949, BAND I/1, p.80-87.

Tough pictures

Really, my dear Mr. Imi? Well, in that case please pay special attention to those specific facial expressions, that this time really are a little bit more visible than before. After that, be so kind and tell me what kind of a emotional feeling is actually in attendance there?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/095.jpg

Execution of the captured Partisan by decapitation – No.3

Your answer will be highly essential for the next part of our mutual conversation.

In the meantime, as always – all the best.

imi

08-04-2008, 11:27 AM

Librarian:
okay,that's my opinion,and that is yours.
also I remember a name called,József Grassy hungarian waffen ss gruppenführer executed,exactly hang up and cut off,bury over his neck when his alive,and make a horse grand prix into his head.
Thats called humanity isn't it?

pdf27

08-04-2008, 01:34 PM

also I remember a name called,József Grassy hungarian waffen ss gruppenführer executed,exactly hang up and cut off,bury over his neck when his alive,and make a horse grand prix into his head.
You pick a poor target for your sympathy. This particular specimen was convicted by both Hungary (twice, in 1943 and postwar) and Yugoslavia of war crimes in relation to actions in Yugoslavia (specifically the massacre of mainly Serbian and Jewish civilians - men, women and children - in southern Bačka during 1942).
Frankly he appears to have been a deeply unpleasant specimen of humanity who richly deserved everything which happened to him. You'll be defending Dirlewanger or Höss next...

Panzerknacker

08-04-2008, 07:10 PM

This has evolved in the most vomitive topic ever.

Rising Sun*

08-05-2008, 03:16 AM

Really they used the Middle-Age cruel decapitation in Yogoslavia?
I/m in shock.

A long, long time ago I was shocked by what I recall looking almost like a studio picture of a uniformed Yugoslav holding the severed head of a Yugoslav enemy during WWII, which was probably picture 1244 here - Warning - B&W and colour images of other badly mutilated bodies from WWII and 1990s in link http://sokolac.slavicnet.com/sokolac/sokolac_history2_forum.html

It's not a unique photo of a Yugoslav trophy head held by other Yugoslavs, as this other photo demonstrates http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/priest.html

As the first link indicates, decapitation in the former Yugoslavia was still practised in the 1990s, as it is among some Muslim terrorists elsewhere today.

I'm with PK about this subject being nauseating, but as Librarian said there's a fine line between humanity and bestiality and it demonstrates how humans are capable of committing unimaginable crimes. I don't see how anyone can glory in defiling and humiliating a corpse, but a significant part of the human race has and still will if it gets the chance.

flamethrowerguy

08-05-2008, 05:50 AM

Seems like beheading has a long tradition on the Balkans...incomprehensible that incidents like these can happen in the last decade of the 20th century. At least in Europe...

Man of Stoat

08-05-2008, 06:03 AM

Beheading was the most common form of execution in Germany for civil offences in most Länder until the abolition of capital punishment in 1949, and it was mostly carried out with the German version of the guillotine, the Fallbeil (literally "falling axe".)

The French last used the guillotine in 1977, and executed publicly until 1939.

And the Spanish last used the garrotte in the mid-70s.

imi

08-05-2008, 07:54 AM

József Grassy executed undeserving,and morbid style,and if we speak about Hague convention,or brutality,this is brutality.
I not defend him,his also a sinner murder of many innocent,but the hungarian army march in to his ancient land,the partisans are shoot the hungarian soldiers under the parade,from the rooftops,under the tiles.
This isn't a really straight thing.
I haven't got any photo or evidence the attack of the german red cross train,I read this story in a old book.
Maybe someone in this forum know the story.
I'm not a anti partisan member,but the soldiers also not like the partisans because they are do cruel things,with the captured soldiers,interrogate and torture them.
Of course that is not a good reason to cut someone head with a axe.
Many peoples have bad minds about the war,or murders without photo or evidence but therefrom these things are occured,if you believe or not.
I don't want hurt anybody feelings,but if we search faliures,we found both side.
I think when I hate a power structure,or someone try to occupy my country I try to join the opponent army,and fight in uniform.
Have a nice day.

imi

08-05-2008, 08:58 AM

Man Of Stoat:I saw a document film,and the narrator say when you are executed with a guillotine,you saw what happening after,the execution,the information is still move to the brain a few seconds.
Interesting,but no one can tell,this is true or false...

Rising Sun*

08-05-2008, 09:31 AM

Seems like beheading has a long tradition on the Balkans...incomprehensible that incidents like these can happen in the last decade of the 20th century. At least in Europe...

The fact that they can happen in Europe within the last fifteen or so years shows that there is nothing special about Europe that won't stop it, or anywhere else, descending again into the savagery which has been indicated in this thread.

Every country has its own elements ready to staff concentration camps and execution squads.

It requires only a modest relaxation in the standards and controls of civil society to let the monsters reign.

Egorka

08-05-2008, 10:29 AM

Some extracts form the interview with Leonid Bernstein, the comander of a partisan brigade "Pozharsky". This was one of the most successful partisan brigades in the whole Soviet partisan movement during WW2 with some rather impudent and successful operations against Wermacht.
His interview in Russian here - http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/568/24/ - an extraordinary story!
And some info in English here: "Undisputed Heroes. Leonid Bernstein: The Story of a Jewish Fighter (http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_yad/magazine/magazine_37/data_mag37/undisputed.html)"

http://www.peoples.ru/military/hero/berenshtein/berenshtein_1_s.jpg
Question:
Did Germqans try to infiltrate the brigade?

Bernstein:
All the time.
...
There was an Abwehr school in Slavuta where special agents were trained. Their task was to infiltrate the partisan movement and to eliminate their heads and officers.
...
And then I told him: "Comrade, here a clean paper sheet and a pencil. Write down your autobiography and what happened to you during the war time. Here is some food and some boos, if you wish. I will go get some sleep."
And I left the dug-out. I ordered four guards on each side of the dug-out and warned them if the "guest" escapes I personally would shoot the "sleeping guard"!
But in my heart I still had some doubts, what if all the worries are for nothing, maybe the guy had difficult life and just is not comfortable to tell everything.

I visited him in the morning. The paper sheet was untouched. The food and the spirit are on the table - he did not touch them. Clear, he did not eat anything because he was afraid to be poisoned.

Then I straightly tell him: "You, my dear friend, a German spy. We will have to get rid of you!" And he answered in such manner that all my doubts in his guilt evaporated, were blown away like dust on the wind. He tried to recruit me to work for German intelligence service, offered huge amounts of money, German citizenship and high position in police. All if I help him to escape and give my brigade into German hands. He turned out to be a German, but could speak Russian without even a sign of accent.

He, poor soul. did not even imagine that he is offering all this not to the cheif of staf Vasiliev [Vasiliev - Bernstin's undercover name in partisans], but to a Jew, Lieutenant Bernstein.
I called for Mr.Goriachiy and informed him "what kind of bird came to our nest".
Goriachy listened carefully and looked at the German, who sat with a stone face, and said - "Write him off!" Came our brigade's "specialist in writing people off", took the agent to the nearest forest, in to the last venture.
But the "specialist" worked exclusively by dagger. Apparently he was no quick enough and the agent, though wounded, managed to escape. But such fruit we could let go. We arranged area sweep. And we found him in one of the villages. One old woman said: "Sons, there is a wounded partisan in my house. He was wounded by Germans." We came in and there is our old friend. So we just shot.
And the "specialist" got sevier reprimand and warning.

Question:
Such "specialists"... was there some kind od selection on this position or any volunteer could do that?

Bernstein:
Your question is inappropriate, if not to say "outright stupid".
The short answer: the commander assigned one to such "position".
By far not every one could do that. Even the experienced partisans who killed tens of Germans and Police men with their rifle could kill unarmed enemy or a traitor with a knife. It is not even a hand fight... To kill a man with a knife - a rear quality, which requires skill and steel nerves. And, by the way, such "handy men" were not really ahead in real battle. Not always were they the best people...

But the partisan or civil war does not know mercy. In 1944 one of our partisan was caught by the Polish AK fighters. He was tortured. They cut his fingers one by one with an axe. But the partisan kept silence.
The Poles then hanged him with head down and left him behind thinking that he would just die there. But he was discovered by some herdsmen.

I ordered my brigade to find the monsters. We got them alive. Brought to our camp. I call the partisan to whoom they cut fingers and ask - Are these the people who hurt you? - Yes. - Here is an axe. Shred them. - I can not. - You have to be able!
But he could not do it...
But there were some volunteers. We returned one of those monster back alive to the Polish gang... a shortened version of him... to tell them how we can take vengeance. After that those AK people keept miles away from us.

to be continued...

imi

08-05-2008, 10:42 AM

Egorka:"But the partisan or civil war does not know mercy."
That is I want to reveal,any side have peoples who not know mercy,and this gonna start a never ending battle,and this battle is more brutish,because the opponent sides expose each other.

pdf27

08-05-2008, 11:57 AM

József Grassy executed undeserving,and morbid style,and if we speak about Hague convention,or brutality,this is brutality.
So what? The Hague convention exists only to provide a framework of laws within which a war may be fought and it's worst excesses blunted, and a set of rules by which the treatment of PoWs may be regulated. It - explicitly - does not apply to the punishment of convicted criminals such as Grassy. Execution is by it's very nature a brutal and violent business. As for undeserving, given his crimes I find it very hard indeed to find any sympathy whatsoever for him.

I not defend him,his also a sinner murder of many innocent,but the hungarian army march in to his ancient land,the partisans are shoot the hungarian soldiers under the parade,from the rooftops,under the tiles.
B*llocks are you not defending him. You're trying to whip up sympathy for a mass murderer of women and children by saying that his execution wasn't a very pleasant experience. Boo fricking hoo.
As far as the Partisans firing from cover, that's a total canard as well. The last time I'm aware of that a halfway competent army dressed up in bright colours and stood out on the field of battle saying "shoot me, please" was the British Army in the Boer war. The use of camouflage is an ancient art, and one recognised as entirely legitimate in the Hage conventions.
Furthermore, the Hungarians may have been invading areas once part of Hungary when they entered Yugoslavia, but that's got naff all to do with anything. The English once owned Bordeaux, but you don't see us claiming the place is ours do you? Furthermore, the 1907 Hague convention specifically protects the civil populace when it takes up arms spontaneously against an invading army.

I haven't got any photo or evidence the attack of the german red cross train,I read this story in a old book.
So in other words you have no evidence whatsoever, and for all we know you (or someone else) could have made the whole thing up. Riiight.
The whole story makes about as much sense as the atrocity stories from Belgium about the "Bestial Hun" in 1914 in any case.

I'm not a anti partisan member,but the soldiers also not like the partisans because they are do cruel things,with the captured soldiers,interrogate and torture them.
Uh huh. Evidence? Soldiers rarely like their opponents, something about trying to kill each other tends to engender that sort of feeling.

I think when I hate a power structure,or someone try to occupy my country I try to join the opponent army,and fight in uniform.
Very, very few Yugoslavs had the option of joining a force equivalent to the Free French. So what would your plan B be?

Egorka

08-05-2008, 05:08 PM

Furthermore, the 1907 Hague convention specifically protects the civil populace when it takes up arms spontaneously against an invading army.

Here is the relevant part of the Hague convention (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm):
Annex to the Convention
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS
OF WAR ON LAND
SECTION I
ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I
The Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2.
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Art. 3.
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.

Please observe that the four conditions in the Article 1 are ALL to be met in otrder for militia or volunteers to qualify as belligerents.
But in fact there was problem with fulfilling all of the conditions, especially 2nd, 3rd and 4th.
So from an ordinary Wehrmacht soldier point of view the partisans were bandits. And so were often called in the letters home, for example.
To my mind a big portion of partisans would be considered to be non billigerents according to the Hauge convention.

Note that Article 2 does allow for some of the conditions to be ommited, but ONLY for the "the inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied" yet.
So Article 2 can not be used for the period considerably after the territory has been under occupation.

Saying all this brings me to my point: The Conventions in general are not a yardstick of moral and justice.
Tough without them it would be even worse...

Originally Posted by imi View Post
I'm not a anti partisan member,but the soldiers also not like the partisans because they are do cruel things,with the captured soldiers,interrogate and torture them.
Uh huh. Evidence? Soldiers rarely like their opponents, something about trying to kill each other tends to engender that sort of feeling.
Evidance? There is plenty of partisan's accounts where they say that they almost never took Germans and Germnan collaborators prisoners. And according to the accounts bullets were spared while execution was going on. There were used other execution means...

pdf27

08-05-2008, 05:27 PM

Bit of a mixture - those in Yugoslavia tended to fight as almost a regular army, while those in Russia were more irregular. Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (previously mentioned in this thread) for instance appears to have been in civilian clothes when she carried out her attack, and thus would not have been eligible for protection under the Hague convention.
One important point though - while Hague 1907 doesn't mention it, Geneva 1949 specifically states that if there is any doubt as to the status of a prisoner then a "competent tribunal" should determine it and they must be treated as PoWs until this takes place. This is unlikely to be totally new law, and probably represents the accepted practice for most countries immediately prior to WW2.

flamethrowerguy

08-05-2008, 08:06 PM

As for nowadays treatment of POW's you could watch the link I'll add. It's from the chechen-russian war (first or second I don't know) and you'll see that not much improved since WW2 in interrogating and general treatment of POW's.
I just want to warn every single one of you guys before you choose to watch it (if you don't know it yet). Personally I gotta say, it's the worst thing I ever saw in my life (and I've seen a lot of crap out of occupational reasons). Call me a wimp but after I watched it for the first (and only) time I wasn't able to sleep for hours.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=203_1211367584

Chevan

08-06-2008, 01:03 AM

Bit of a mixture - those in Yugoslavia tended to fight as almost a regular army, while those in Russia were more irregular. Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya (previously mentioned in this thread) for instance appears to have been in civilian clothes when she carried out her attack, and thus would not have been eligible for protection under the Hague convention. .
Did a f..ng Hauge convention permit to treat the POWs as a subhumans only becouse they were not in the uniform?
OR for instance is the any resistance( even passive) was determined as a "terrorism" by convention?
Occupant executed even family members of partisans.We have a lot of facts of it.

pdf27

08-06-2008, 02:21 AM

Did a f..ng Hauge convention permit to treat the POWs as a subhumans only becouse they were not in the uniform?
OR for instance is the any resistance( even passive) was determined as a "terrorism" by convention?
Not quite. The Hague convention only covered people in the three classes mentioned by Egorka above (his post is largely a direct quote from the Hague convention). It doesn't say that PoWs can be treated as subhumans because they aren't in uniform - rather it simply doesn't provide protection to such people. Their treatment is then at the discretion of the power which captured them.

Egorka

08-06-2008, 03:00 AM

Did a f..ng Hauge convention permit to treat the POWs as a subhumans only becouse they were not in the uniform?
OR for instance is the any resistance( even passive) was determined as a "terrorism" by convention?
Occupant executed even family members of partisans.We have a lot of facts of it.
In no way Hauge convention allow for mistreatment of anyone. What it baisicly sais is that a captured anemy soldier can not be punished by the inanyway for killing his enemy if it was done according to customs of war.

But the question is what to do with people who does not quialify as a legitimate enemy?
That is where it is not clear: are partisans bandits or patriots?
IMO there is not a clear answer. It is obvious that NOT everyone who went to the forest with a gun was a partisan in true sense. Lots and lots of them were just criminals who would steal, robe and rape. As one of the partisan said: "The human life in the forest was not worth a dime. (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/450/24/lang,en/)"
Needless to say that after the war those shady individuals were all calling themself partisans.

The issues about partisans are very controvercial.

The matter of hostages is a slightly different matter. Becasue as I understand the German regulations regarding "special character" of the Eastern front were either before 22 of June 1941 or in the first few months of war, when the partisan movement was still very-very weak.
So the partisan's brutality was not the initial drive for some of the criminal directives of OKW.

imi

08-06-2008, 07:55 AM

pdf27:my answers
1.I don't think so a official negotation aftermath is a good thing this style of execution.That was not execution,more than unnecessary brutality.
2.I don't defend peoples,who murdered child's,womans,old's or anybody,who killing innocents.József Grassy was hungarian,and I think every people,from every nations stand out his owns.
I not try to clean this name,because is dirty from innocents blood,he was earned the death sentence,but I try to demonstrate this style of execution was unnecessary,in a official action at law.
When you deliver a judgement,try to be different from guys like Grassy,when you aren't try,you be the same.
3. Okay I give up,but these peoples,are died with extra suffering that's a fact,and I think God not appreciate this,and isn't better any side.
4.My "evidence" is died a few years before,he was tell me,the soldiers are hate the partisans they make traps,make brutal interrogations for the soldiers and Egorka was right,because the partisans isn't like too much capturing pows,because the pows only setback the partisans.
5.That Yugoslavians who join,are straight guys.I think be a partisan a heroic thing because they fight for liberty,but also a little shifty.
Mixing with civilians,watch out the enemy positions and supply,like a spy.
A few men maybe win a battle,but isn't a war.
And the end as usual the innocent civilians pay for this.

ptimms

08-06-2008, 02:27 PM

The Hague Convention is irrelevant as the German Army certainly ignored the following articles.
Art. 3.
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
Art. 4.
Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government, but not of the individuals or corps who capture them.

They must be humanely treated.

All their personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property.

Art. 6.
The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.

Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work executed.

When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military authorities.

The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

Art. 7.
The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is charged with their maintenance.

In the absence of a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them.

Art. 8.
Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the army of the State in whose power they are. Any act of insubordination justifies the adoption towards them of such measures of severity as may be considered necessary.

Escaped prisoners who are retaken before being able to rejoin their own army or before leaving the territory occupied by the army which captured them are liable to disciplinary punishment.

Prisoners who, after succeeding in escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any punishment on account of the previous flight.

My highlighting.
There are loads of other clauses they broke so it makes no difference if partisans are or aren't protected. The Hague convention was ignored anyway.

pdf27

08-06-2008, 04:13 PM

1) Non-combatants would be for example NAAFI staff, etc. I don't know of any instance of the Germans breaking this.
2) Largely true of western PoWs, with some exceptions (notably Jewish PoWs) - Russian prisoners however were treated abominably.
3) Again, AIUI they largely followed this one.
4) Everyone broke this one. The English for instance relied heavily on Italian PoWs for farm work - clearly war related when a country is under blockade and has totally mobilized it's workforce.
5) Again, everyone broke this one - far more so on the Eastern front than in the West.
6) I'm not aware of anyone being punished for this one. This isn't about punishing escaped prisoners (where the Germans did indeed break the rules - notably with the large number of RAF PoWs they shot on one occasion), but about not punishing those who succeed in rejoining their own forces and then are recaptured.

Librarian

08-06-2008, 07:08 PM

You will pardon me, honorable ladies and gentlemen, for my protracted silence – simply, I was preoccupied with my professional obligations. However, here I am and here are my answers to your previous posts.

Librarian: okay,that's my opinion,and that is yours.

Compared to other animals, the major crucial advantage of Homo sapiens sapiens, my dear Mr. Imi, has been the continued development of his intellectual flexibility and ability to learn from experience. The very peak of this ascent of the human animal was a product known as Science, and the real beneficial power of Science always was and still is within her capability for attestation and the resulting capacity to change otherwise erroneous human apprehensions. Our modern society and technology could not have been built on views, opinions, or faith. Nor can modern society have any hope of the solving the problems we face by reliance based upon sheer belief. The real power of scientific knowledge lies in its capability to present the power of evidence and the resulting ability to change, to update mental power of human beings.

People who are searching for different excuses to believe completely silly things frequently make a simple mistake – they are completely relying on their faith. But when a believer makes a positive assertion, and then declines to provide a basis for it, an rationally based refutation is always deemed invalid because it is impossible to prove a denial. The rules of logic and science are always indicating that there must be some kind of presented basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied.

An assertion, without the evidence, is not acceptable as true. That is the default position in every science, the position that defines what critical, rational thought really is. Rational and critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science - the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with - are to be abandoned. To reject critical, rationally based thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.

Final result of your attitude is perfect example of an exercise in non-communication, which forces one either to take your "higher vision" of pure faith, or to remain completely silent. Faith has a certain validity, but validity of a very limited and relative kind, like a Rorschach test which conjures up different associations in each spectator. Will all due respect, my dear Mr. Imi, your reluctance to communicate concretely casts serious doubts on your factual insights. No one here is under any compulsion to communicate, but it is irrational to assume that he is more profound if he cannot get through with his bare feelings.

But we may take solace in the fact that we here do have personalities who are eloquent, individualistic, and above all sympathetic to the claims of science, and who without any doubt will outlast this contemporary, sadly amplified cult of unthinking. Please, don’t understand me wrongly: I always will be completely compassionately inclined toward you, because I do understand your deportment. Therefore allow me just one, indeed last demonstration of the scientific method in History which is connected with our case.

My "evidence" is died a few years before,he was tell me,the soldiers are hate the partisans they make traps,make brutal interrogations for the soldiers and Egorka was right,because the partisans isn't like too much capturing pows,because the pows only setback the partisans.

Firstly, I am a little bit surprised that your source has not mentioned that the factual reason for enormous augmentation of the partisan forces, as well as for the enormous extension of the uprisal in Vojvodina (avagy Vajdaság, vagy Délvidék – nekem igazán mindegy, tisztelt Uram, történelmileg teljessen elfogadható kifejezésekről van szó) was exactly that coursed massacre, committed in northern Serbia in January of 1942, in which more than 6000 citizens in the towns and villages of Novi Sad, Pašićevo, Petrovac, Srbobran, Gajdobra, Tovariševo and Stari Bečej were brutally killed.

Everything started when a completely ill-qualified commander of the Hungarian forces, namely commanding officer of the 15th Infantry Brigade, lieutenant-colonel Bátori Géza – as a matter of fact an police officer! - issued a foolish order for a direct frontal attack against entrenched partisan forces (Prvi šajkaški NOP odred)- with 80 fighters - equipped only with rifles and pistols, and without MG’s or artillery. This small partisan company, positioned at location Pustajićev Salaš (Pustajic's Homestead) near the village of Žabalj, not only was able to inflict serious losses (42 killed soldiers, including 2 officers) but even to escape, with 8 killed and 5 wounded partisans left behind.

So what was a result, of that idiotic action, my dear Mr. Imi? An unadorned massacre. Hungarian forces simply rounded up hundreds of families and literally mowed them down with bayonets, bullets, gunstocks, axes, hammers, knifes and hand grenades. The bodies were dumped into the icy waters of Danube, which had to be broken up by hand grenades. More than 1300 completely innocent residents of Novi Sad were brutally murdered by Hungarian forces in an unprecedented orgy of drunken violence, which did not spare even Germans, Hungarians or Muslims: 813 Jews, 380 Serbs, 18 Hungarians, 15 Russians, 13 Slovaks, 8 Croats, 3 Germans, 2 Ruthenians, 2 Slovenians, and 1 Muslim, to be exact. Amongst them, there were 492 males, 418 women, 168 children, and 177 elderly. In addition, seven Serbian Orthodox priests were among those killed, along with 1 Jewish Rabbi, 126 salesmen and shopkeepers, 100 tradesmen, and 81 pupils.

Do you wish to see those fantastic combat achievements of the chivalrous Hungarian troopers of the 15th Infantry regiment, 16th Borderguard battalion or the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, my dear Mr. Imi? Please, look:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ujvidekimeszarlas-1.jpg

Hungarian Gendarmes are observing dead civilian bodies in the middle of the Mileticeva street – Novi Sad, (Újvidék, Neusatz) January 23rd,1942

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ujvidekimeszarlas-2.jpg

Hungarian soldiers and Gendarmes are looting the pockets of dead civilians before the transportation - Mileticeva Street, Novi Sad, (Újvidék, Neusatz) January 23rd,1942

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ujvidekimeszarlas-3.jpg

Hungarian soldiers are pulling away dead civilian corpses - Mileticeva Street, Novi Sad, (Újvidék, Neusatz) January 23rd,1942

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ujvidekimeszarlas-4.jpg

Killing of innocent civilians and their hurling into the frozen Danube - The Danube Strand, Novi Sad, (Újvidék, Neusatz) January 23rd,1942

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ujvidekimeszarlas-5.jpg

Civilian corpses which remained stationary after the hurling, - The Danube Strand, Novi Sad, (Újvidék, Neusatz) January 23rd,1942

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Ujvidekimeszarlas-6.jpg

Cadavers of the innocent professional Serbian grave-digger Jovan Gonđa, his wife Ljubica, his 9 years old daughter Mara and her 13 year old friend in front of his home – Uspensko Groblje (Ascent Cemetery) Novi Sad, (Újvidék, Neusatz) January 23rd,1942

You see, my dear Mr. Imi, this represents real, fact-based historical exploration. In this case zou don’t have to believe me, or Mr. Pdf 27, or Mr. Rising Sun, or Mr. Egorka, or Mr. Ptimms or anyone else on this planet – all you have to do is to open your eyes, to sit in front of your computer, to use your mental power and to observe the factual evidence presented in an electronic configuration. Completely logical conclusions about factual nature of the historical role and deeds of Mr. Grassy, about his moral effigy, etc, etc. will automatically arrive in a split second. That’s the internal advantage of the scientific method in history.

BTW: If you do want any additional materials – for example, close photos of the mutilated female corpses which were taken out from the water by the German authorities in Banat, just say a word. My scanner is still completely functional, therefore additional factographic evidence needed for competent historical evaluation will be completely attainable.

József Grassy executed undeserving,and morbid style

No, my dear Mr. Imi – he indeed was executed by means of proper judicial hanging, which still was the standard method of execution of personalities with officially certified capital punishment in the former Yugoslavia until 1948, when aforementioned procedure was replaced by the firing squad with 8 shooters, all of them being employed as professional executioners by the Ministry of Interior.

Perhaps you don’t agree with this statement? No problem, scientific method is recommending a simple solution: presentation of supportive facts. Therefore, please – present some supportive factographic evidence for us. I am assuring you that those artefacts will have our most devoted attention.

Alas, another forced brake of the post, honorable ladies and gentlemen. Zou know...The text that you have entered is too long (10385 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long... OK - no problem – we will be here again within a minute or two … :roll:

Librarian

08-06-2008, 07:18 PM

PART II

In the meantime, here is a tiny historical experiment for you: this genuine photo was taken during the court session in Novi Sad after the war. It perhaps sounds completely unbelievable, but every court has a strict task to document and to preserve evidence about his own work, including executions.

These personalities – all of them Hungarian officers and governmental officials - were photographed as the defendants in a war-crime trial at the very moment when previously presented snapshots were revealed to them. Can you identify the persons in the picture?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SudzaratnizlocinNoviSad.jpg

Hungarian war Criminals before the Peoples Tribunal in Novi Sad

Please observe that the four conditions in the Article 1 are ALL to be met in otrder for militia or volunteers to qualify as belligerents. But in fact there was problem with fulfilling all of the conditions, especially 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

Fortunately, certain saved photo-materials from the WW2, nowadays completely available in the Military Museum in Belgrade, will be able to provide sufficiently legally binding evidence for the aforementioned legal dilemmas – at least those connected with Yugoslav partisans.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/NOP-CrnaGora.jpg

Clearly fixed and sufficiently distinctive emblem (the five-pointed red star), completely recognizable at a distance, accompanied by open carrying of firearms

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/PrvaDalmatinskaVis.jpg

Identifiable deployment of the chain of command, performed by means of a personal responsibility for the action of subordinates

So Article 2 can not be used for the period considerably after the territory has been under occupation.

Exactly, my dear Mr. Egorka. However, we still have some highly legally intriguing, but historically completely approved legal situations, which are requesting some outstandingly hard and eloquent official answers. You see, my dear Mr. Egorka, from a strict legal point of view, certain territory is considered "occupied" when it is actually placed under the authority of foreign armed forces - whether partially or entirely - without the formally given consent of the legitimately elected domestic government. The occupation, however, extends only to the territory where such authority has been officially established (formally proclaimed) and can be practically exercised.

And at this juncture we are confronted with a truthfully amazing legal problem – what if certain parts of a given state were officially excluded from the occupation, or even never formally occupied? You see, my factual birthplace – Bačka, a sub-region of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina – never was legally occupied! Officially, it was only re-attached to Hungary, without plebiscitary approved popular consent of the domestic residents, thus representing a variety of administrative annexation - unilateral legal act when territory is seized and held by one state. What are we supposed to do now, my dear Mr. Egorka? What will be our answer to the old question about rights of the ordinary citizens to protect themselves from abuse by every tyranny, including the evident tyranny of the government nominally protective toward them?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Humiliation-1941.jpg

Putting a yoke on captured soldiers of the Royal Yugoslav Army – vicinity of Sombor, Vojvodina, April of 1941

Vim vi repelere licet – an old Roman legal maxim perhaps is acceptable as a legal justification for the subsequent actions of a domestic population in Vojvodina, my dear Mr. Egorka. However, I am still inclined to think that aforesaid saying is only a pale substitute for the utterly simple regulation, which – alas – was and still is desperately remote in a human community, a truly simple rule with only 11 words, but completely capable to secure the rights of individuals and promises of life and individual contentment for each man on the planet: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It requires only a modest relaxation in the standards and controls of civil society to let the monsters reign.

Absolutely correct statement, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, and our highly demanding civilizational task as well.

During the WW2 millions of innocent people were systematically put to death. The initiator of that horror, Adolph Hitler, may well have been psychopathic monster, although aforesaid statement is highly uncertain. But what about all those who ran the day-to-day operations, who actually killed, decapitated, hanged, raped, pillaged, flared, counted bodies, and did the necessary paperwork. Were they all monsters, honorable ladies and gentlemen?

No, they were not, according to social philosopher Hannah Arendt (1963), who covered the trial of Adolph Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal who was found guilty and was executed for causing the murder of millions of Jews. She described him as a dull, ordinary, unaggressive bureaucrat who saw himself as a little cog in a big machine. The recent publication of a partial transcript of Eichmann's pretrial interrogation supports Arendt's view. Several psychiatrists found Eichmann to be quite sane, and his personal relationships were quite normal. He sincerely believed that the Jews should have been allowed to emigrate to a separate territory and had argued that position within Hitler's security service. Moreover, he had a Jewish mistress in secret - a crime for an SS officer - and a Jewish half cousin whom he arranged to have protected during the war (Von Lang & Sibyll, 1983).

Arendt subtitled her book about Eichmann "A Report on the Banality of Evil" and concluded that most of the "evil men" of the Third Reich were just ordinary people following orders from their superiors. This suggests that all of us might be capable of such evil and that Nazis were an event less wildly alien from the normal human condition than we might like to think. As Arendt put it, "in certain circumstances the most ordinary decent person can become a criminal."

This is not an easy conclusion to accept because it is more comforting to believe that monstrous evil is done only by monstrous persons. In fact, our emotional attachment to this explanation of evil was vividly shown by the intensity of the attacks on Arendt and her conclusions.

This knotty issue was scientifically explored in a series of important and sadly neglected, completely scientifically undertaken studies conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram at Yale University. And what exactly he did? Well, he officially confirmed the theory that vast majority of completely normal human beings, without any apparent prior psychological problems, can become brutal unless great efforts are made by the society, and that people will always torture each other if instructed to. Please, just follow these links:

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_perils_authority_1974.html

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/milgrams-progress

And that’s exactly why we have to start to inoculate people against different irrational persuasions, honorable ladies and gentlemen, to immunize the general public against absurd phantasms embedded in pure ignorance. This thread we have here is just a right place for that rational disobedience, which is completely justified by the intrinsic human values of the collectivity commonly known as mankind.

Chevan

08-07-2008, 12:56 AM

The Hague Convention is irrelevant as the German Army certainly ignored the following articles.
.............
My highlighting.
There are loads of other clauses they broke so it makes no difference if partisans are or aren't protected. The Hague convention was ignored anyway.

Good job mr ptimms.
2) Largely true of western PoWs, with some exceptions (notably Jewish PoWs) - Russian prisoners however were treated abominably.

Hard not to agree.
The death-rate of the soviet POWS was about 60%.More then 2 mln soldier died or have been executed for different "reasons"
I heard the GErmans side explained it by very interesting way- if the USSR has not signed the Huge convention - we are free of obligation to treat the soviet POWs according the Rules of it.
Finaly it has played an Evil Joke with Germans- the Liberation Red Army in 1945 did not even wish to hear about right of GErman population initially:(
The ALL their property was considering as the "Grabed in the East" and can be confiscated for any reasons.
While the special order of Stavka ( march 1945) did not prevent the mass violation and started the persecution of marauders.

Chevan

08-07-2008, 01:07 AM

So what was a result, of that idiotic action, my dear Mr. Imi? An unadorned massacre. Hungarian forces simply rounded up hundreds of families and literally mowed them down with bayonets, bullets, gunstocks, axes, hammers, knifes and hand grenades. The bodies were dumped into the icy waters of Danube, which had to be broken up by hand grenades. More than 1300 completely innocent residents of Novi Sad were brutally murdered by Hungarian forces in an unprecedented orgy of drunken violence, which did not spare even Germans, Hungarians or Muslims: 813 Jews, 380 Serbs, 18 Hungarians, 15 Russians, 13 Slovaks, 8 Croats, 3 Germans, 2 Ruthenians, 2 Slovenians, and 1 Muslim, to be exact. Amongst them, there were 492 males, 418 women, 168 children, and 177 elderly. In addition, seven Serbian Orthodox priests were among those killed, along with 1 Jewish Rabbi, 126 salesmen and shopkeepers, 100 tradesmen, and 81 pupils.

Do you wish to see those fantastic combat achievements of the chivalrous Hungarian troopers of the 15th Infantry regiment, 16th Borderguard battalion or the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, my dear Mr. Imi?

Oh my god.
You always know how to impress the people with quite new amazing sources, dear Librarian.
I never heard about uprising in Novi Sad before.
The post-uprising massacre could be easy compared with simular sensless terror after the Warsaw getto uprising in 1943.

pdf27

08-07-2008, 01:33 AM

I heard the GErmans side explained it by very interesting way- if the USSR has not signed the Huge convention - we are free of obligation to treat the soviet POWs according the Rules of it.
Somewhat surprisingly they are actually correct in this!
Art. 2.

The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention.
See the full text of the convention here (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm).

Funnily enough, the Geneva conventions provide no such wriggle room (after having seen how the Germans treated Russian PoWs) where the equivalent article is:
ARTICLE 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Source (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm)

Egorka

08-07-2008, 03:33 AM

Somewhat surprisingly they are actually correct in this!
Somewhat is not good enough. ;)
The Hauge convention of 1907 was amended by the Geneva convention of 1929.
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Geneva, 27 July 1929.
...
PART VIII
EXECUTION OF THE CONVENTION
SECTION I
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Art. 82. The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.
In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.
...
see full text (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebPrint/305-FULL?OpenDocument)

As I understand all countries who signed Geneva convention of 1929 had to follow it regardless if the other side has not sign it.

Besides USSR declared that it will follow the Hauge convention except the clause of free mail deliveries to and from POWs.
I mean USSR did not officially signed it, but declared that it will be followed.

Rising Sun*

08-07-2008, 08:02 AM

As I understand all countries who signed Geneva convention of 1929 had to follow it regardless if the other side has not sign it.

Alas, no.

Art. 82. The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.
In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.

This limits observance to the parties to the Convention between themselves.

So, for example, if countries A, B, and C are at war but only A and B have signed the Convention, then they have to observe it in relation to their conduct between each other but neither has to observe it in relation to their conduct towards C.

Rising Sun*

08-07-2008, 08:25 AM

I heard the GErmans side explained it by very interesting way- if the USSR has not signed the Huge convention - we are free of obligation to treat the soviet POWs according the Rules of it.

There is considerable irony in excluding Soviets from the protection of the Conventions as it was the Russian Tsar who was responsible for initiating the international peace conference which resulted in the first Convention in 1899, which was the basis for all subsequent laws of war by international treaty.

This commentary on it relates the past to the present.

In his foreign policy speech to the diplomatic corps in Moscow on 15 July [2008], President Dmitri Medvedev made the interesting claim that the falsification of history is often a prelude to the violation of international law - something for which he implicitly attacked the West. It is certainly true that the study of the history of the law of nations can illuminate the way it has recently been perverted. And as it happens, that history is one in which Russia has played a key role.

Medvedev's address, and especially his call for a Europe-wide security treaty, recall the initiatives taken by Russia's last emperor, Nicholas II, the 90th anniversary of whose murder fell the following evening. Tsar Nicholas' violent overthrow in 1917 has obscured the historical memory of his achievements, but perhaps the greatest of these was his decision, taken 110 years ago in 1898, to invite the Great Powers to attend an international peace conference. They did so, in the capital of the Netherlands in 1899, and this, the first Hague Peace Conference, took important decisions about how to make warfare more civilised.

It also laid the groundwork for the much fuller Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907. Nicholas can therefore be called the founder, or at least the patron, of the international laws of war. Many of the rules he sponsored are still in force today - although sadly some of them, especially the condemnation of aerial bombardment which was agreed in 1899 before the aeroplane had even been invented, have been quietly dropped. The original conference's most lasting achievement was to create an international court of arbitration, the direct predecessor of the International Court of Justice which still exists in The Hague today.

However, just as Nicholas' own reign came to an end as the forces of modern warfare unleashed the tidal wave of revolution which swept three emperors from their thrones, so the Hague laws of war have now been largely eclipsed (even if they remain in force) by the laws of Geneva, passed in 1949 in the aftermath of the terrible suffering inflicted on civilians during the Second World War. They govern the treatment of non-combatants, the sick and the wounded: in other words, the focus is now more on victims than on combatants.

Geneva did not, though, change the underlying structure of the international system. States continued to be regarded as legally equal and sovereign. Since the end of the Cold War, by contrast, the Western powers - the United States in first place - have sought to destroy this structure at its conceptual core. The doctrine of "rogue states" was invented, and the doctrine of universal human rights was abused, to justify attacks against Iraq and Yugoslavia whose regimes were presented as illegitimate because criminal. Moreover, the Western powers arrogated to themselves the right to adjudicate international law, usurping the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice.

When President Medvedev invokes international law, therefore, what he is defending is this key principle of sovereign statehood as the basis for the international system, and the right of the existing and legally constituted authoritative bodies to adjudicate its law. Of course some governments abuse their sovereignty, and tyranny is certainly a bad thing. But the proposition that one state or body of states has the legal right to judge the internal affairs of another, and to impose its judgement by force, is a recipe for chaos and constant war - vigilantism, in fact, on an international scale.

Even worse, the dismantling of the concept of sovereignty would destroy the laws of war themselves. The doctrine of state sovereignty underpins these laws because the rights accorded to soldiers and prisoners of war derive from the fact that they are recognised as fighting legitimately for their countries. By contrast, the abuses committed at Guantánamo Bay, and the widespread attack on the civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia, are the logical and inevitable consequences of wars waged against enemies who were proclaimed to be criminal in their very essence, and to have therefore no right to sovereignty.

Many of the claims made by the West in support of its interventionism - including those made to justify the recognition of Kosovo, which President Medvedev continues explicitly to oppose - have in fact been struck down in recent rulings by the International Court of Justice. The ICJ has repeatedly affirmed the continuing validity of state sovereignty, and the illegality of judicial and military intervention in the internal affairs of other states. Russia would do well, therefore, to lend strong support to this court as the true upholder of international law. It is also the only truly international court because, unlike the new misleadingly named International Criminal Court whose charter the largest countries in the world have refused to sign, the ICJ's jurisdiction and powers are universally recognised by all states. http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080718/114348813.html

Rising Sun*

08-07-2008, 08:31 AM

But it should be remembered that, as indicated by the opening paragraph and paragraphs 4 to 8 of the imperial rescript, it was not so much humanitarian concerns as the growing cost of arming nations which prompted the Tsar's proposal and encouraged other nations to consider it favourably.

Peace Conference at the Hague 1899:
Rescript of the Russian Emperor(1) August 24 (12, Old Style), 1898

The maintenance of general peace, and a possible reduction of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations, present themselves in the existing condition of the whole world, as the ideal towards which the endeavors of all Governments should be directed.

The humanitarian and magnanimous ideas of His Majesty the Emperor, my August Master, have been won over to this view. In the conviction that this lofty aim is in conformity with the most essential interests and the legitimate views of all Powers, the Imperial Government thinks that the present moment would be very favorable for seeking, by means of international discussion, the most effectual means of insuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and durable peace, and, above all, of putting an end to the progressive development of the present armaments.

In the course of the last twenty years the longings for a general appeasement have become especially pronounced in the consciences of civilized nations. The preservation of peace has been put forward as the object of international policy; in its name great States have concluded between themselves powerful alliances; it is the better to guarantee peace that they have developed, in proportions hitherto unprecedented, their military forces, and still continue to increase them without shrinking from any sacrifice.

All these efforts nevertheless have not yet been able to bring about the beneficent results of the desired pacification. The financial charges following an upward march strike at the public prosperity at its very source.

The intellectual and physical strength of the nations, labor and capital, are for the major part diverted from their natural application, and unproductively consumed. Hundreds of millions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines of destruction, which, though today regarded as the last word of science, are destined tomorrow to lose all value in consequence of some fresh discovery in the same field.

National culture, economic progress, and the production of wealth are either paralyzed or checked in their development. Moreover, in proportion as the armaments of each Power increase, so do they less and less fulfill the object which the Governments have set before themselves.

The economic crises, due in great part to the system of armaments a L'outrance, and the continual danger which lies in this massing of war material, are transforming the armed peace of our days into a crushing burden, which the peoples have more and more difficulty in bearing. It appears evident, then, that if this state of things were prolonged, it would inevitably lead to the very cataclysm which it is desired to avert, and the horrors of which make every thinking man shudder in advance.

To put an end to these incessant armaments and to seek the means of warding off the calamities which are threatening the whole world-such is the supreme duty which is today imposed on all States.

Filled with this idea, His Majesty has been pleased to order me to propose to all the Governments whose representatives are accredited to the Imperial Court, the meeting of a conference which would have to occupy itself with this grave problem.

This conference should be, by the help of God, a happy presage for the century which is about to open. It would converge in one powerful focus the efforts of all States which are sincerely seeking to make the great idea of universal peace triumph over the elements of trouble and discord.

It would, at the same time, confirm their agreement by the solemn establishment of the principles of justice and right, upon which repose the security of States and the welfare of peoples.

Notes:
(1) Handed to diplomatic representatives by Count Mouravieff, Russian Foreign Minister, at weekly reception in the Foreign Office, St. Petersburg, August 24/12, 1898. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague99/hag99-01.htm

Egorka

08-07-2008, 09:18 AM

This limits observance to the parties to the Convention between themselves.

So, for example, if countries A, B, and C are at war but only A and B have signed the Convention, then they have to observe it in relation to their conduct between each other but neither has to observe it in relation to their conduct towards C.
I do not get it...
So what is the message of the Article 82 then?

I am not an expert or anything, but I read it as the article 82 from 1929 axplains, ammends and modifies article 2 from 1907.

Art. 82.

The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.
In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.

The first sentnse of article 82, 1929 sais that everyone who signed the convention of 1929 HAS to respect it ALWAYS, i.e. "in all circumstances".
Then the second sentense elaborates on this topic.
So the convention "remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto."
In this case "as between" is not a restrictive condition, but rather directive to the party which signed convention that it HAS to treat the opponent AS it was a party to the convention of 1929.

So with all due respect...

imi

08-07-2008, 09:26 AM

Librarian:
There was a unnecessary massacre this is a fact,and I known the premises,I saw a document film,of this massacre,many victim go to the front of the line,to shoot down quickly,because many of them naked.
I accept your comment.
When we speak about the barbarous habit,every side is quilty.
But I see a official trial,and a barbarous unnecessary execution.
Grassy deserved for death,but if anybody do this style of execution,is the same man.
A man with a small intelligence,do things fast,not try to make long suffering.
I haven't got any evidence(I think everybody here a C.S.I. fan) of this also,but you beleive to me in our present day families must to die,and murdered for nothing,for stupid feigned ideas?
But I haven't got evidence also to attest this.
However,that is the truth,without evidence.
Things what we do,without evidence are undone?
I see some guys paste the Hague Convention.
The partisans aren't a military corps,and I donk think so they interest by military,or any law.
Mainly not collect Pow's.
My old friend say to me,they are hate the order to search partisans because they are brutal.
I see you speak hungarian:
(Ne hívjál az uradnak,mert nem vagyok úr,te meg még nem vagy a feleségem szerintem.)

Rising Sun*

08-07-2008, 09:55 AM

I do not get it...
So what is the message of the Article 82 then?

I am not an expert or anything, but I read it as the article 82 from 1929 axplains, ammends and modifies article 2 from 1907.

The first sentnse of article 82, 1929 sais that everyone who signed the convention of 1929 HAS to respect it ALWAYS, i.e. "in all circumstances".
Then the second sentense elaborates on this topic.
So the convention "remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto."
In this case "as between" is not a restrictive condition, but rather directive to the party which signed convention that it HAS to treat the opponent AS it too signed the convention.

So with all due respect...

The critical elements are 'as between' and 'the belligerents who are parties thereto'.

'As between' refers and limits it to 'the belligerents who are parties thereto', being belligerents who signed (and, strictly, also later ratified) the Convention.

It might make more sense if one considers the doctrine of privity of contract in civil law in English speaking (common law) countries, which holds that only the parties to a contract are bound by it. So, for example, if you and I contract that I will buy Chevan a new Lada then you can sue me if I don't perform the contract, but Chevan can't. (Why he would want to force me to inflict a Lada on him is a different question. ;) :D) Whatever happens, Chevan isn't a party to our contract and can't claim any legally enforceable benefit under it.

The same general idea applies to international treaties. For example, if countries A and B sign a treaty not to fish a certain area of ocean, that doesn't impose any obligation on country C, which hasn't signed it, not to fish there nor does it confer any right on C to stop A and B fishing there if either of them breaches the treaty between A and B.

Conversely, if the treaty requires A and B to bring any dispute between them about fishing there to arbitration, it doesn't stop either of them sending a gunboat to eject C from the area, even if the treaty prevents them doing it to each other.