PDA

View Full Version : Execution of civils in the East



Pages : [1] 2

Chevan
07-31-2008, 05:32 AM
Hey guys i,m interesting what does this photo mean
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/25655-2/Russia-partisanen02
http://www.ww2incolor.com/dramatic/Russia-partisanen02
The photo was taken in Ukraine.
The posters under photo discuss it as and "execution of partisans".
However i have a serious doubt of it.
The hunged peoples loo like teenagers. Probably jewish.
This was sort of Nazy lovely execution of "Jewish criminals", very tupical for captured Ukraine in 1941.
What do you think about?

32Bravo
07-31-2008, 09:00 AM
Is it authentic?

flamethrowerguy
07-31-2008, 09:05 AM
It's a well known photo and definitely authentic and yes, I know it under the caption of the execution of partisans.

Nickdfresh
07-31-2008, 09:55 AM
They might have just been the unlucky victim-bystanders of retaliation for an actual partisan attack...

P.S. Wasn't there a Nazi-German execution ratio that varied by the equipment destroyed and the rank of the German personnel killed?

Vlaams-Legioen
07-31-2008, 11:03 AM
Hey guys i,m interesting what does this photo mean
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/25655-2/Russia-partisanen02
http://www.ww2incolor.com/dramatic/Russia-partisanen02
The photo was taken in Ukraine.
The posters under photo discuss it as and "execution of partisans".
However i have a serious doubt of it.
The hunged peoples loo like teenagers. Probably jewish.
This was sort of Nazy lovely execution of "Jewish criminals", very tupical for captured Ukraine in 1941.
What do you think about?

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.

What it means? Common..
It means these 2 people cut the German Officer in Line while he was waiting to order a meal in McDonalds and he was already pissed off that day. The Germans hang people for less, you know.

Kindly Regards
- Bart

www.winter-offensive.be

flamethrowerguy
07-31-2008, 11:32 AM
They might have just been the unlucky victim-bystanders of retaliation for an actual partisan attack...

P.S. Wasn't there a Nazi-German execution ratio that varied by the equipment destroyed and the rank of the German personnel killed?

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.

Egorka
07-31-2008, 12:17 PM
just the same with allied troops in occupied Germany. the quota was mostly 10:1.
Could you elaborate on the bold, please.

In USSR the Germans had quota og 50:1, AFAIR.

Vlaams-Legioen
07-31-2008, 12:19 PM
Could you elaborate on the bold, please.

In USSR the Germans had quota og 50:1, AFAIR.

Source?

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
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…

A book of mine (Das Ehrenbuch des deutschen Soldaten by Walther Dahl) says the determined ratio in Leutkirch/Saulgau (Southern Germany) was even 200:1. Unfortunately the book doesn't say which of the allied parties put this ratio up.

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
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.


Yes, well. Unfortunately the French, as with the Soviets, were a bit more rough with the Germans. Something to do with formerly being the occupied...

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
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.

You totaly right.
The plate around their neck calls her as fire starter.

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.

Rising Sun*
08-07-2008, 10:35 AM
PART II

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, [U]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.

Despite the rather squeamish attitude of modern university ethics committees, Jerry Burger has demonstrated that Milgram's findings still hold true.

I attribute the differences in conduct in the experimental subjects primarily to the orientation of the individual. Some people want to please others or conform with them. Others determine their conduct by principle. All of us have a bit of both in us.

How we act depends upon the circumstance. I doubt that many, probably any, of Milgram's or Burger's subjects would have decapitated someone, because that involves a direct action with patently harmful consequences unlike administering unseen electric shocks after being told that the victim will not be harmed as in Milgram's experiment, which is rather too confused to be the basis for extrapolating how, say, concentration camp guards will behave.

Too much has been made of Milgram's experiments as sound predictors of human behaviour, like much of the stuff that comes out of psychological theory and experimentation.

But then again, I'm not an experimental psychologist, so what would I know?

Apart from the fact that psywar run by genius psychologists has to be the least effective employment of manpower on the battlefield or in war. :rolleyes:



Decades later, still asking: Would I pull that switch?
By Benedict Carey

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Some of psychology's most famous experiments are those that expose the skull beneath the skin, the apparent cowardice or depravity pooling in almost every heart.

The findings force a question. Would I really do that? Could I betray my own eyes, my judgment, even my humanity, just to complete some experiment?

The answer, if it's an honest one, often gives rise to observations about the cruelties of the day, whether suicide bombing, torture or gang atrocities. And so a psych experiment — a mock exercise, testing individual behavior — can become something else, a changing prism through which people view the larger culture, for better and for worse.

Consider the psychologist Stanley Milgram's obedience studies of the early 1960s that together form one of the darkest mirrors the field has held up to the human face. In a series of about 20 experiments, hundreds of decent, well-intentioned people agreed to deliver what appeared to be increasingly painful electric shocks to another person, as part of what they thought was a learning experiment. The "learner" was in fact an actor, usually seated out of sight in an adjacent room, pretending to be zapped.

Researchers, social commentators and armchair psychologists have pored through Milgram's data ever since, claiming psychological and cultural insights. Now, decades after the original work (Milgram died in 1984, at 51), two new papers illustrate the continuing power of the shock experiments — and the diverse interpretations they still inspire.

In one, a statistical analysis to appear in the July issue of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, a postdoctoral student at Ohio State University verifies a crucial turning point in Milgram's experiments, the voltage level at which participants were most likely to disobey the experimenter and quit delivering shocks.

The participants usually began with what they thought were 15-volt shocks, and worked upward in 15-volt increments, as the experimenter instructed. At 75 volts, the "learner" in the next room began grunting in apparent pain. At 150 volts he cried out: "Stop, let me out! I don't want to do this anymore."

At that point about a third of the participants refused to continue, found Dr. Dominic Packer, author of the new paper. "The previous expressions of pain were insufficient," Packer said. But at 150 volts, he continued, those who disobeyed decided that the learner's right to stop trumped the experimenter's right to continue. Before the end of the experiments, at 450 volts, an additional 10 to 15 percent had dropped out.

This appreciation of another's right is crucial in interrogation, Packer suggests. When prisoners' rights are ambiguous, inhumane treatment can follow. Milgram's work, in short, makes a statement about the importance of human rights, as well as obedience.

In the other paper, due out in the journal American Psychologist, a professor at Santa Clara University replicates part of the Milgram studies — stopping at 150 volts, the critical juncture at which the subject cries out to stop — to see whether people today would still obey. Ethics committees bar researchers from pushing subjects through to an imaginary 450 volts, as Milgram did.

The answer was yes. Once again, more than half the participants agreed to proceed with the experiment past the 150-volt mark. Dr. Jerry Burger, the author, interviewed the participants afterward and found that those who stopped generally believed themselves to be responsible for the shocks, whereas those who kept going tended to hold the experimenter accountable. That is, the Milgram work also demonstrated individual differences in perceptions of accountability — of who's on the hook for what.

Dr. Thomas Blass, a psychologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and the author of a biography of Milgram, "The Man Who Shocked the World" (Basic Books, 2004), said establishing the demand by the subject to stop as the turning point was itself a significant achievement. "It's a simple but important discovery," Blass said. "I had been mining this data for years and somehow missed it."

He added that extrapolating Milgram's findings to larger events like the Holocaust, as Milgram himself did, or Abu Ghraib was a big leap. "The power of the Milgram work was it showed how people can act destructively without coercion," he said. "In things like interrogations, we don't know the complexities involved. People are under enormous pressure to produce results."

The Milgram data have unappreciated complexities of their own. In his new report, Burger argues that at least two other factors were at work when participants walked into the psychologist's lab at Yale decades ago. Uncertainty, as it was an unfamiliar situation. And time pressure, as they had to make decisions quickly. Rushed and disoriented, they were likely more compliant than they would otherwise have been, Burger said.

In short, the Milgram experiments may have shown physical, biological differences in moral decision making and obedience, as well as psychological ones. Some people can be as quick on the draw as Doc Holliday when they feel something's not right. Others need a little time to do the right thing, thank you, and would rather not be considered sadistic prison guards just yet.

"The most remarkable thing," Burger said, "is that we're still talking about the work, almost 50 years after it was done. You can't say that about many experiments." http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/healthscience/01mind.php

Egorka
08-07-2008, 11:00 AM
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.
Ohh, come on!!!
It does not limit. On the contrary! It says that you have to treat your enemy AS IT ALSO SIGNED the convention. So it does not limit, but widens it to ALL the countries in the world.
What you say is true for the 1907 convention, but not for the convention of 1929.

You examples with Lada is not to the point. The better example is Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty), where all the countries who signed it take voluntarily obligation not to use antipersonnel mine REGARDLESS if the enemy does use it.
It is all about assuming obligation voluntarily. A gesture of goodwill if you wish.
That is the whole point that if you dare to sign Geneva 1929 then you have to follow it in all circumstances because you by signing assume obligation to do so.

So with all due respect... :)

DHOO UOY SPEKA INGLISHA, UGHHH?

Krad42
08-07-2008, 11:13 AM
Quote from Librarian:
"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."

Dear Librarian,
You're very eloquent. While it is true that man has the ability to learn from experience, history will tell you in a very matter of fact way that we really don't! The same mistakes have been made over and over again throughout history. The names are different, sometimes the countries are different...that's all. Having the ability to learn from experience doesn't necessarily mean that we use it!
Man is also the only animal that kills for the heck of it and tortures others. Animals, in general, kill when they're hungry or when their young are threatened. While science drives technological feats, most of what humans fight about relies solely on faith anf beliefs, which is why so many wars have been fought over religion throughout history. How many soldiers ask for evidence of wrongdoing in the part of the enemy before they fight? Not many...they act on faith that they're fighting a justified war.
IMO, Arendt was indeed correct. We like to think, arrogant as we are, that only insane or truly evil people are capable of such things. But, the turth is that we all are! While science has made life better for many of us, it has certainly NOT changed man's mental powers. It has only made it possible to deliver death and torture in more efficient ways!
I'm also sorry to say that when it comes to WW2, many facts remain hidden from us because, at the time, nobody cared to hear them! So, when you ask for evidence, please remember that almost nobody cared about keeping evidence of wrongs done to the losing side. Any evidence of those wrongdoings was probably destroyed or is collecting dust in the many files that are still classified. The evidence also may lie in those that survived, but feel compelled to reamin in silence. The prevalent assertion was that they deserved anything they got, an attitude that I consider to be as immoral as anything done by the Nazis.
When I was trying to make up my mind about what I wanted to study in college, I almost decided on history. I wrote a paper that contained some information that was personally given to me by the mother of a friend of mine. She had been a refugee who had survived the return to Germany from Poland. Her husband had been killed in the Eastern Front, but not before communicating certain events to her via mail before even mail became almost impossible to deliver. I got a high grade, but the professor called me aside after class and, in no uncertain terms, told me that if I chose history as my path, I could not concentrate on doing work like the one I had done on that paper. I would never find a professor who would take me as a graduate student and publishing anything on that subject matter would be difficult if it went away from conventional wisdom. He told me that anything like that would be considered disrespectful to the many that died at the hands of the Germans. To me, that is not history, is a biased account full of half truths. I chose not to major in history, choosing science instead.
Abuses and violations to the Geneva Convention were committed by all sides. Abuses to civilians, especially in the Eastern Front, were committed by all sides. It became a vicious cycle of retaliation and vengeance. But, evidence in behalf of the losers is rather elusive after sixty plus years of depicting WW2 as a battle between good (Allies) and evil (Germans). History, if well studied without bias, will tell us that no war is ever that simple!
To this day, the Geneva Convention continues to be violated, sometimes by those that mention it most frequently. What happened in Yugoslavia, what is happening in Darfur, Myanmar, Africa, the Middle East....it all proves that the assertion that humanity learns from its mistakes in light of evidence is nothing but a misguided leap of faith. So, in fact, it would seem that you're as guilty as anyone else in using faith to argue a point. :)
Respectfully, Krad42

imi
08-07-2008, 12:32 PM
"DHOO UOY SPEKA INGLISHA, UGHHH?"
That's funny!
I also have some english problem,but I use dictionary to get around.
Try it,it's helpful sometimes.
Really.

Egorka
08-07-2008, 04:28 PM
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?
Right. Very well noted indeed!
It is obviously puts an extra dimention to the problem when one considers that sertain areas were in fact not occupied.

Said all this my point remains: not everyone who went to the forest with rifle was a partisan in true sense.
There are more to it than just traditional and slightly propagandistic version of the events.

Rising Sun*
08-07-2008, 10:57 PM
Ohh, come on!!!
It does not limit. On the contrary! It says that you have to treat your enemy AS IT ALSO SIGNED the convention. So it does not limit, but widens it to ALL the countries in the world.
What you say is true for the 1907 convention, but not for the convention of 1929.

You examples with Lada is not to the point. The better example is Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty), where all the countries who signed it take voluntarily obligation not to use antipersonnel mine REGARDLESS if the enemy does use it.
It is all about assuming obligation voluntarily. A gesture of goodwill if you wish.
That is the whole point that if you dare to sign Geneva 1929 then you have to follow it in all circumstances because you by signing assume obligation to do so.

So with all due respect... :)

DHOO UOY SPEKA INGLISHA, UGHHH?

Not only do I speak English, I happen to know a bit about law and can even recall a bit of international law.

The opinion I expressed is basic international law. Treaties do not bind states which have not signed them. But don't take just my opinion on it.


“Treaties do not, of themselves, create general international law. As the PCIJ observed, ‘a treaty only creates law as between the states which are parties to it.’ 197” (My bold) Gillian Triggs, International Law – Contemporary Principles and Practices, (Chatswood, Australia) 2007, p.78 , para 2.54, citing the case at footnote 197 Certain German Interests in Upper Silesia (Merits) (1926) PCIJ, Series A, No. 7, 29. (PCIJ means it's a decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice established under the League of Nations.)
I think Ms Triggs, who happened to teach me international law sufficiently well that I won the university prize in it, is qualified to express an opinion in her 2,000 or so page compendium of international law http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/GillianTriggs/index.shtml , which is but one of her many publications http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/about/staff/GillianTriggs/index.shtml#pubs



‘No treaty can create legally binding obligations or rights for a third party without the latter’s consent.’
Glahn & Taulbee, Law Among Nations – An Introduction to Public International Law, 8th ed, New York, 2007, p.287

So far as the 1929 Geneva and earlier Hague Conventions could bind or confer rights on non-parties, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg carefully avoided deciding that question, claiming instead that the conventions had become customary international law which gave jurisdiction over the crimes created by Article 6 (b) of the Tribunal’s Charter.

The Tribunal is of course bound by the Charter, in the definition which it gives both of war crimes and crimes against humanity. With respect to war crimes, however, as has already been pointed out, the crimes defined by Article 6, section (b), of the Charter were already recognised as war crimes under international law. They were covered by Articles 46, 50, 52, and 56 of the Hague Convention of 1907, and Articles 2, 3, 4, 46 and 51 of the Geneva Convention of 1929. That violations of these provisions constituted crimes for which the guilty individuals were punishable is too well settled to admit of argument.

But it is argued that the Hague Convention does not apply in this case, because of the " general participation " clause in Article 2 of the Hague Convention of 1907. That clause provided:
"The provisions contained in the regulations (Rules of Land Warfare 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."

Several of the belligerents in the recent war were not parties to this Convention.

In the opinion of the Tribunal it is not necessary to decide this question. The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt " to revise the general laws and customs of war," which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

If it was clear law that non-signatories were bound by or acquired rights under the conventions, the Tribunal would not have skirted that point.

Even the wider terms of the 1949 Geneva Convention recognise that it does not bind or confer rights on non-signatories unless they accept and apply its provisions.


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. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm

And that’s not just my interpretation, but that of the United States Court of Appeals.


There is, I believe, a fundamental logic to the Convention’s provisions on its application. Article 2 (¶ 1) covers armed conflicts between two or more contracting parties. Article 2 (¶ 3) makes clear that in a multi-party conflict, where any two or more signatories are on opposite sides, those parties “are bound by [the Convention] in their mutual relations”--but not (by implication) vis-à-vis any non- signatory. And as the court points out, Maj. Op. at 14, under Article 2 (¶ 3) even a non-signatory “Power” is entitled to the benefits of the Convention, as against a signatory adversary, if it “accepts and applies” its provisions. http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf

And of the United States Supreme Court, upholding the Court of Appeals’ opinion.


That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory “accepts and applies” those terms. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZS.html

Chevan
08-08-2008, 02:20 AM
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.

No way mate.
The critical word "remain binding AS between the belligerents who are parties thereto."
The Egorka and pdf are right.
The Geneva convention of 1929 rules toward enemy pows the has been shared all over the belligerents states independently on , whatever the enemy state signed it or not.


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.

But no one "doctrine of privity in English speaking countries " can't prevent me with Egorka to catch you in ,for instance, the Neitral non-english speaking territory and treat you just like the Germans, who signed the Geneva convention in 1929, was treating the Soviet pows,
Until you would have finaly bought my "new" Lada for ....only $50 000.:);)


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.
This case however did not share in situation when the A and B who signed the treaty not to fish in the neitral waters, start the warfare and blame each other in war crimes and sink each other without any limitation ( Unlimited warfare).
Doest it mean A and B can sink also and C ships just because the C has signed nothing and both A and B are obligated to folow the "rules" that C isn't ?

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 02:34 AM
Doest it mean A and B can sink also and C ships just because the C has signed nothing and both A and B are obligated to folow the "rules" that C isn't ?

Exactly (ignoring the question of whether sinking is actually permissible to enforce access to fishing grounds).

A and B must observe the treaty as between themselves, but as between A and C and as between B and C neither A nor B has any treaty obligations towards C, and C cannot claim any rights under it, because C is not a party to the treaty.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 02:39 AM
But no one "doctrine of privity in English speaking countries " can't prevent me with Egorka to catch you in ,for instance, the Neitral non-english speaking territory and treat you just like the Germans, who signed the Geneva convention in 1929, was treating the Soviet pows,

At the risk of being a bit brutal about it, if the USSR wanted the protection of the 1929 treaty, it should have signed it.

Not that it was likely to have made any difference to what happened, although the Germans did make the point that they treated American and British POWs properly (well, most of them, for most of the war) because of their treaty obligations. Nonetheless, I think the Nazi race hatred towards the Russians was so strong that they probably would have acted just as they did.


Until you would have finaly bought my "new" Lada for ....only $50 000.:);)

I thought you'd just steal my bicycle. ;) :D

Chevan
08-08-2008, 02:49 AM
Not only do I speak English, I happen to know a bit about law and can even recall a bit of international law.

The opinion I expressed is basic international law. Treaties do not bind states which have not signed them. But don't take just my opinion on it.
‘No treaty can create legally binding obligations or rights for a third party without the latter’s consent.’


there is nothign wrong.
Nobody try to blind the obligation to the states who didn't signed the Geneva Treaty.
For instance the USSR has a legal international righ not to folow the Conventions but Germany , that signed all of them in 1929, has not.
Becouse there were never told about "special condition to hold the pows of the states that didn't signed the Treaty"
But in practice, the Geneva convention meant NOTHING for both sides, but especially for Axis.
The GErmans , who signed both the Huge and Geneva's "rules or war" that limits the bombing of civils areas , started to bomb the Coventry and London first.
Also Japanese treated the Chinas pows with asian cruely , didn't even wish to hear about Geneva conventions ( although both Japane and China signed it in 1929 too).

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 03:03 AM
PART IIExactly, 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?

This is tangential to your personal history, my dear Librarian, but it is relevant to the question of whether or not Germans could be tried for war crimes in Poland under the Hague and Geneva conventions after Poland surrendered. If the Allies had applied the same reasoning to that as they did to their conduct in running war crimes trials at Nuremberg, then the Germans should not have been tried for anything that breached the conventions in Poland after the surrender.

Conversely, as the USSR never surrendered and armies remained in the field trying to regain its territory, Germans could be tried for doing things on Soviet territory which would not be crimes on Polish territory.

Makes sense, doesn't it? :confused:


Few Americans at home may be aware of it, but their representatives at Nuremberg have expressly stated that the victors are not bound by the same laws as the vanquished. When the German defense counsel argued that if it was a crime against international law for the Germans in occupied Poland and Russia to confiscate private property, use civilians and prisoners of war as forced laborers, and starve the people in the occupied territories, then why is it not also a crime for American, British, French or Russian Military Government to do the same thing, they were told:

“The Allied Powers are not subject to the limitations of the Hague Convention and rules of land warfare.”

Why?

“Because,” said the American judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg, “the rules of land warfare apply to the conduct of a belligerent in occupied territory so long as there is an army in the field attempting to restore the country to its true owner, but these rules do not apply when belligerency is ended, there is no longer any army in the field, and, as in the case of Germany, subjugation has occurred by virtue of Military conquest.”(2) (Italics added.)

In other words, if Germany had won the war, she would have ceased to be bound by international law, and none of her nationals could be held guilty of having committed war crimes or “crimes against humanity.” Since we won it we are not limited in any way by provisions of the Hague or Geneva conventions, or by any international or recognized law.

The argument that what is a crime during war ceases to be one as soon as the fighting stops, is surely the choicest bit of legal sophistry thought up by Mr. Justice Jackson, or Brigadier General Telford Taylor who succeeded him as chief United States Prosecutor at Nuremberg. It is tantamount to saying that you must not hit a man below the belt while you are fighting him, but you can kick him in the most sensitive spot once he is down and out.

The argument that the Hague and Geneva conventions ceased to be binding on us the moment the Germans surrendered unconditionally was continually repeated by the American judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg: “A distinction is clearly warranted,” it was stated in the Judges case, “between the measures taken by the Allies prior to destruction of the German Government, and those taken thereafter. Only the former need to be tested by the Hague Regulations, which are inapplicable in the situation now prevailing in Germany.” http://www.fredautley.com/nuremberg.htm

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 03:08 AM
Also Japanese treated the Chinas pows with asian cruely , didn't even wish to hear about Geneva conventions ( although both Japane and China signed it in 1929 too).

Don't have time to look for a source, but around 1941-42 Japan actually responded to American (and perhaps British, Dutch and Australian - can't remember details) requests for assurances about its wartime conduct that it would observe the Hague and Geneva conventions.

We all know how that worked out.

Chevan
08-08-2008, 03:10 AM
At the risk of being a bit brutal about it, if the USSR wanted the protection of the 1929 treaty, it should have signed it.

Not that it was likely to have made any difference to what happened, although the Germans did make the point that they treated American and British POWs properly (well, most of them, for most of the war) because of their treaty obligations. Nonetheless, I think the Nazi race hatred towards the Russians was so strong that they probably would have acted just as they did.

That's the right your point mate.
If even USSR was hurring to sign it first in 1929 - this din't nessesary protect their civils from Nacis race hate terror in the East.Whatever did wish the USSR protect their civils or not.
Becase the Treaty didn't really help the China who signed it.


I thought you'd just steal my bicycle. ;) :D
Why? The mush better steal you to make you "happy owner of lada" :)

Egorka
08-08-2008, 03:30 AM
USSR sent an official note to Germany on 17 of July 1941 stating that it will follow the Geneva convention. Germany declined to accept the note.
On November 25th 1941 USSR declared again that they follow Geneva 1929.
On April 27th 1942 USSR declared that they join Geneva 1929 de facto.

No more time right now...

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 05:25 AM
Why? The mush better steal you to make you "happy owner of lada" :)

Inflicting a Lada on an innocent civilian, even if they don't have to pay for it, is definitely a crime against humanity. :D

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 06:11 AM
USSR sent an official note to Germany on 17 of July 1941 stating that it will follow the Geneva convention. Germany declined to accept the note.
On November 25th 1941 USSR declared again that they follow Geneva 1929.
On April 27th 1942 USSR declared that they join Geneva 1929 de facto.

No more time right now...

As the USSR chose not to sign or ratify the POW convention until its soldiers became POWs, why should Germany accept its sudden desire to observe the terms of a treaty it had had a dozen years to accept?

Any fault in that area is not Germany's in declining the USSR's desire to obtain the protection of a POW treaty after war began, but the USSR's in not signing and ratifying the treaty like other major nations during the dozen years the USSR chose to reject its protection for its soldiers.

Egorka
08-08-2008, 06:40 AM
As the USSR chose not to sign or ratify the POW convention until its soldiers became POWs, why should Germany accept its sudden desire to observe the terms of a treaty it had had a dozen years to accept?

Any fault in that area is not Germany's in declining the USSR's desire to obtain the protection of a POW treaty after war began, but the USSR's in not signing and ratifying the treaty like other major nations during the dozen years the USSR chose to reject its protection for its soldiers.
I suppose the reason why Germans did not accept the Soviet note was esentially the same why USSR did not sign the convention in the first place.
You see, accordign to the Soviet military doctrine a war would be very quick and soon after the start moved to the enemy's territory. Hense it did not even assume that sizeable number of RKKA soldiers would end up as POW. Therefor Soviet govegment did not volunteraly take obligations without benefiting in return.
Though USSR did sign "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/300?OpenDocument)" on 29 of September 1931. See here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/155DF8B1DFE2C477C1256402003F7BA6?OpenDocument

As for Germany, early in the war they did not expect that USSR would capture any German POW in noticeable numbers. IIRC there were just about 8.000 German POW in Soviet captivity by the September 1942. Before Stalingrad there were very few German POW.

So I guess the inner intentions were rather similar.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 06:50 AM
In the interests of a clarity which is usually lacking in these sorts of discussions, and bearing in mind the title of this thread, it should be remembered that there were no laws which prohibited many of the forms of the abuses of civilians which occurred in eastern Europe by agents of various nations during WWII.


The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories. The International Conferences of the Red Cross of the 1920's took the first steps towards laying down supplementary rules for the protection of civilians in time of war. The 1929 Diplomatic Conference, which revised the Geneva Convention on wounded and sick and drew up the Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, limited itself to recommending that "studies should be made with a view to concluding a convention on the protection of civilians in enemy territory and in enemy occupied territory." A draft convention containing forty articles prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross was approved by the International Conference of the Red Cross in Tokyo in 1934 and is generally referred to as the "Tokyo Draft". It was to be submitted to a diplomatic conference planned for 1940, but this was postponed on account of the war. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380?OpenDocument

It should also be noted that, contrary to popular belief that international law is somehow equivalent to or even superior to municipal (or domestic or national) law, it is far weaker because it relies upon the submission of states to its jurisdiction and upon those states to incorporate international law into municipal law; it lacks a sovereign legislature; it lacks an effective police force; it lacks an effective prosecution office; and it lacks a court of competent jurisdiction. Apart from those slight deficiencies, it's a great system. :rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 07:10 AM
You see, accordign to the Soviet military doctrine a war would be very quick and soon after the start moved to the enemy's territory. Hense it did not even assume that sizeable number of RKKA soldiers would end up as POW. Therefor Soviet govegment did not volunteraly take obligations without benefiting in return.

Would that have applied in 1929 and the early to mid 1930s?

Or would there then have been a greater focus on defending the USSR rather than plunging west?


As for Germany, early in the war they did not expect that USSR would capture any German POW in noticeable numbers. IIRC there were just about 8.000 German POW in Soviet captivity by the September 1942. Before Stalingrad there were very few German POW.

So I guess the inner intentions were rather similar.

Maybe.

Stalin must have had a reason for not signing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want Soviet soldiers knowing that they would (or, at least, should) be treated well if they surrendered. The standards of treatment for POWs under the conventions were rather better than some Soviets experienced in the 1930s. But maybe that's just my cynical view of Stalin, the utter bastard that he was.

Maybe you can find something in Russian documents to explain why Stalin didn't want to sign?

Egorka
08-08-2008, 09:18 AM
Would that have applied in 1929 and the early to mid 1930s?
Or would there then have been a greater focus on defending the USSR rather than plunging west?
You see, M.Tuhachevsky's military doctrine was based on a strong counter attack with quick relocation of the hostilities to the enemy territory.
So it is essentially a Blitzkreig conducted in response to agression. This has to implications: 1) it's the enemy's infrastracture that get damaged during war; and 2) few Soviet POW will be taken.
This doctrine was in force, AFAIK, untill June 1941. That is why the public was so shoked as the war progressed because the front line kept going the wrong way.


Maybe.
I do not think it is maybe. Whole world (Axis and Allies) was sure that fall of USSR is a matter of weeks.
So from practical point of view Hitler had no use accepting the USSR's note.


Stalin must have had a reason for not signing it.
I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't want Soviet soldiers knowing that they would (or, at least, should) be treated well if they surrendered. The standards of treatment for POWs under the conventions were rather better than some Soviets experienced in the 1930s. But maybe that's just my cynical view of Stalin, the utter bastard that he was.
I guess partly.
It is obvioulsy a challenge of every army to prevent soldier to surrender and just spend the rest of the war in calmness of captivity.
The enemy has an opposite goal - to seduce opponents to surrender.
Hense German leaflets with texts like: "Soldiers! Hurry to come to our side! The soup is ready!"
http://www.chamtec.com/materials/list8.jpg


Maybe you can find something in Russian documents to explain why Stalin didn't want to sign?
I have something... I have to translate it first...

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 10:08 AM
You see, M.Tuhachevsky's military doctrine was based on a strong counter attack with quick relocation of the hostilities to the enemy territory.
So it is essentially a Blitzkreig conducted in response to agression. This has to implications: 1) it's the enemy's infrastracture that get damaged during war; and 2) few Soviet POW will be taken.
This doctrine was in force, AFAIK, untill June 1941. That is why the public was so shoked as the war progressed because the front line kept going the wrong way.

Did the doctrine survive Tukhachevsky's execution in 1937?

I would have thought that Stalin's suspicion about the Marshal and his mates would have encouraged Stalin to review Tukhachevsky's military doctrine.

I have no idea what the stirring song over it is, but I like this video about him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV0LWktASTY



I do not think it is maybe. Whole world (Axis and Allies) was sure that fall of USSR is a matter of weeks.

What is the basis of that opinion? For the rest of the world's opinion about the Soviet fall?


So from practical point of view Hitler had no use accepting the USSR's note.

I suspect that Nazi rejection of the note was related less to any belief about how long it would take to defeat the USSR and more about clearing the decks in international law for Einzatzgruppen operations against Russian civilians to give the Nazis the lebensraum they were pursuing by the war and to cleanse the world of Slavic untermensch which infected Nazi thinking. The Nazis were crooked thugs but, like Stalin with his show trials, they liked to give the appearance of complying with something approximating law.



have something... I have to translate it first...

I look forward to it.

Egorka
08-08-2008, 10:17 AM
Maybe you can find something in Russian documents to explain why Stalin didn't want to sign?
On March 19, 1931 USSR signed a "Regulation regarding treatment of POW". Here it is in Russian: http://www.hrono.info/dokum/193_dok/19310319plen.html
And here is internal document describing it's relation to the Geneva convention of 1929.
Mind my lousy translation...



source in Russian: http://www.hrono.info/dokum/193_dok/19310327mal.html


Conclusion of the consultant Mr.Malitsky
on the project decision the Central Executive Committee (TsIK) and Council of People's Commissars USSR (SNK)
“Regulation about the Prisoners of War”
Moscow. On March 27, 1931.

On July 27, 1929. Geneva conference adopted the convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The government of the USSR participated neither in the composition of this convention nor in its ratification. Instead of this convention USSR adopted the regulation, which is accepted by SNK of the union of SSR dated March 19 of this year.
Three thoughts are assumed as the basis of the project of this position:

to create for the prisoners of war we have the regime, which would not be worse than the regime of the Geneva convention,
to issue, if possible, a brief law, which would not reproduce in it in details all those guarantees, which gives the Geneva convention, so that the details would be described in instructions to the law;
to create regulations that, which corresponds to the Soviet principles of rights system (inadmissibility of privileges for the officers, unforced labor of prisoners and so forth).


Thus, this regulation is based on essentially the same principles as the Geneva convention, namely: the prohibition of brutal treatment of POW, insults and threats, prohibition of measures for obtaining information of military nature by force, provision of civil rights and the propagation on them of the general laws of the country, prohibition to use them in the zone of military operations and so forth.
However, for purposes of the agreement of this regulations with the general principles of Soviet right system, the following differences from the Geneva convention are introduced:

a) there are no privileges for the officers, with the indication of the possibility of allocating them separately from other prisoners of war (st. 3);
b) propagation on the prisoners of war of civil, but not military regime (st. 8 and 9);
c) the assignment of political rights to prisoners of war, who belong to the working class or peasantry, on the general bases with other foreigners located on the territory of the USSR (st. 10);
d) allowing for possibility to the prisoners of war of identical nationality be placed together according to their desire;
e) the so-called camp POW committees obtain wider function, having the right without hindrance to address the government bodies for purposes of representation of all as such interests of prisoners of war, and they are not being limited to tasks like obtaining and distributing the aid and parcels or administration of mutual aid found. (st. 14):
f) prohibition to bear insignia and cancellation of rules about saluting (st. 18);
g) the prohibition of batmans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_%28military%29)(st. 34).
h) allowing of salary not only for the officers, but for all prisoners of war (T 32);
i) employing of prisoners of war used or labor only with their consent (T 34) and with the application to them of common legislation about the protection and the working conditions (T 36), as well as provision of equal pay in the size not lower than existing in this locality for the corresponding category of works and so forth.

Taking into account, that

this bill establishes regime for the treatment of prisoners of war not worse than the Geneva Convention,
that the principle of reciprocity can be established to the mutual advantage of USSR and the POW
that the total number of articles is 45 instead of 97 in Geneva Convention
that the regulation takes into account the principles of Soviet right system

we find no points hindering acceptance of the aforementioned regulation.

Consultant Malitsky on March 27, 1931

Type-writing original document.
Location: GARF, Storage Fund 3316. op64. d1049 p.1-1 o

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 10:22 AM
P.S. Tukhachevsky actually escaped to Australia; was cryogencally frozen for a few years; and re-emerged as Flacco. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfkXVg_7KY

Egorka
08-08-2008, 10:26 AM
ARTICLE 82.
Les dispositions de la présente Convention devront être respectées par les Hautes Parties Contractantes en toutes circonstances.
Au cas où, en temps de guerre, un des belligérants ne serait pas partie à la Convention, ses dispositions demeureront néanmoins obligatoires entre les belligérants qui y participent.
Rising_Sun*, you are right. Geneva 1929 does not imply that the signatories have to respect it when at war wit hnon-signatory.
My fault.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 10:44 AM
On March 19, 1931 USSR signed a "Regulation regarding treatment of POW". Here it is in Russian: http://www.hrono.info/dokum/193_dok/19310319plen.html
And here is internal document describing it's relation to the Geneva convention of 1929.
Mind my lousy translation...

Your lousy translation seems pretty clear. In English, anyway. :D
Thanks for doing it.

My impression from the document you have translated is that there were aspects of the Convention which offended Soviet thinking, and some of it rather curious.


(a) there are no privileges for the officers, with the indication of the possibility of allocating them separately from other prisoners of war (st. 3);

A bit odd in a classless society. ;)


(b) propagation on the prisoners of war of civil, but not military regime (st. 8 and 9);

Is there here a fear of the POWs coming under foreign civil control rather than continuing their Soviet military control?


(c) the assignment of political rights to prisoners of war, who belong to the working class or peasantry, on the general bases with other foreigners located on the territory of the USSR (st. 10);

Seems like another fear by the upper classes in the classless society of the lower classes getting ideas above their station by being treated too well as POWs by a foreign power which fails to recognise their inferiority.


(d) allowing for possibility to the prisoners of war of identical nationality be placed together according to their desire;

What fear of national unity of attitude and action is implicit in this?


(e)the so-called camp POW committees obtain wider function, having the right without hindrance to address the government bodies for purposes of representation of all as such interests of prisoners of war, and they are not being limited to tasks like obtaining and distributing the aid and parcels or administration of mutual aid found. (st. 14):

There appears here to be a fear of POWs addressing foreign governments on matters beyond their immediate needs, such as raising issues of concern about the treatment of people in the USSR.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2008, 10:50 AM
Rising_Sun*, you are right. Geneva 1929 does not imply that the signatories have to respect it when at war wit hnon-signatory.
My fault.

Well, if I'd known that you'd agree with my incisively brilliant ;) interpretation when it's in French, I would have got some Froggie to put it in French. :D

Do you have any idea how much of General Sandworm's valuable bandwidth we've wasted on this, just because we've been debating it in English. :D

Anyway, for the time being: Merde! ;) :D

Ashes
08-09-2008, 01:36 AM
I was curious about the photos of the decapitation crimes....one was called ''Execution of the captured Partisan by decapitation – No.1''

On post 41, it states the crime was committed 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.

But the photograph was also referenced as.....

Professor Edmond Paris: "Genocide in Satellite Croatia 1941 - 1945" on page 229.
The caption under the photograph reads (quote):

An Ustashi, with a sadistic smile on his face, chopping off a man's head with an axe.
(End quote).
On the link.... http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/priest.html

Can't tell by the uniforms, but it doesn't seem to be SS insignia, and the SS Polizei-Gebirgsjäger Regiment No.18 was by all accounts formed in May '42, and went to Slovenia in July '42, so couldn't have committed those crimes in March '42.

Can anyone pick the uniforms?


The site says the Croatian Ustashi under Pavelic was soon to make even the Germans and Italians shudder with the ferocity of the foul racial cleansing, were slaughtered with horrific medieval brutality using hammers and knives, hatchets and saws, and even crucifixion.

So it looks like typical Ustashi modus operandi, but I can't be sure.

Nickdfresh
08-09-2008, 06:34 PM
...
Can anyone pick the uniforms?


The site says the Croatian Ustashi under Pavelic was soon to make even the Germans and Italians shudder with the ferocity of the foul racial cleansing, were slaughtered with horrific medieval brutality using hammers and knives, hatchets and saws, and even crucifixion.

So it looks like typical Ustashi modus operandi, but I can't be sure.

I've heard this as well. The Ustashi offended even hardened SS members as I recall with their methods-- methods not only involving medieval creativity with basic tools-- but also a predilection towards sadistic mutilation and senseless torture that even the most brutal German Nazi warrior considered unprofessional...

Ashes
08-10-2008, 03:31 AM
Yeah, Hitler tried to insist that Mussolini should have his forces work with the Ustashi, but most senior Italian commanders ignored the orders.

The thing I can't get my head around is that not being content to murder men, women and children en masse, [between 300,000 and 700,000] but doing it in the most base, disgusting way imaginable, what the Ustashi did at the Jasenovac concentration camp is enough to make anyone sick.

After World War 2, the remaining Ustashi went underground or fled to countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany and South America, with the assistance of Roman Catholic churches and their grassroots supporters, their leader, Pavelic, with the help of associates among the Franciscans, managed to escape and hide in Austria and Rome, later fleeing to Argentina.

A brief overview on Wiki.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustashe

Who would be the experts on German uniforms, flamethrowerguy, Panzerknacker?

Rising Sun*
08-10-2008, 07:55 AM
After World War 2, the remaining Ustashi went underground or fled to countries such as ... Australia ...

Where along with other European fascists they were welcomed with open arms by the anti-communist, semi-fascist elements in Australia's federal and state governments and security services, and duly allowed to continue Yugoslav disputes here, including setting off a bomb one night not far from where I was, which left an impressive pall of smoke trailing from a high rise public housing building.


But it should also be remembered that Hope’s inquiry was partly prompted by ASIO’s relationship with the Croatian fascist group, the Ustasha. In the late sixties and early seventies, the Ustasha conducted the most serious terrorist campaign in Australian history, with bombings in Sydney in 1967, 1969 and 1972, Canberra in 1969, Melbourne in 1970 and 1972. Ustasha activities were discussed openly in the Croatian press but ASIO, while monitoring even the most mild-mannered activists of the Left, took no action whatsoever against these fully-fledged terrorists.

Why not?

The historian Frank Cain suggests two reasons.

Most obviously, the Ustasha was an anti-Communist body, attacking Communist Yugoslavia’s consulates and local Left-wingers. Many ASIO agents were, in all probability, sympathetic to its aims.

Secondly, ASIO knew that Yugoslav secret agents were monitoring the Ustasha. Accordingly, it allowed the bombers free rein, so that Australian agencies could study the techniques of their Yugoslav counterparts. In the Byzantine world of the security services, low-level violence, mostly directed against foreigners, paled beside an opportunity to garner information against rival spies. http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080528-ASIO.html



Broadcast: 21/5/2001
Sanctuary for war criminals?
In 1950, a wanted Croatian war criminal slipped into Australia and settled here, but not to a quiet life in hiding. He became an ASIO informant, he set up terrorist cells, and he helped train Croatian-Australians for future conflict.
In 1991, one of those followers went back to Bosnia to become the leader of a murderous militia. It's stories like this that make sense of Mark Aarons' 25-year pursuit of war criminals in Australia. His detailed research led directly to an inquiry and the establishment of the Special Investigations Unit. His new book is the culmination of that work and makes a compelling case that Australia remains a sanctuary for war criminals today. But instead of Nazis, they're now more likely to be Khmer Rouge or members of the Chilean and Afghan secret police.


---------
Compere: Tony Jones
Reporter: Philippa McDonald



PHILIPPA McDONALD: Mark Aarons's documentary back in the mid-1980s alleged Australia had become a sanctuary for Nazi mass murderers and it prompted a Federal Government inquiry.

KONRAD KWIET, HISTORIAN, SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT: I think his investigations were immensely credible and he was the first going into the countries, tracing the alleged war criminals and coming back with an enormous amount of evidence which we then followed up.

PHILIPPA McDONALD: Professor Konrad Kwiet was the chief historian at the Federal Government's special investigation unit.

How many war criminals were you uncovering in Australia during that time?

KONRAD KWIET: We were, out of these 840, which we investigated there were approximately 250-300 who were still alive and who were living in Australia.

PHILIPPA McDONALD: But three unsuccessful prosecutions contributed to the unit being closed down, and Aarons says by turning a "blind eye" we've made war criminals welcome in Australia.

People like Strecko Rover, a Nazi security police officer in Sarajevo and member of a mobile killing unit Despite his background, when Rover came to Australia, he provided information to ASIO, all the while organising his own terrorist network.

KONRAD KWIET: ASIO, and for that matter, the Australian Government after the war turned not only a blind eye on the issue of prosecuting war criminals but also of using alleged war criminals for their operative measures.

PHILIPPA McDONALD: Despite overwhelming evidence alleging he'd killed thousands of Jews during World War II, the Federal Government abandoned efforts to prosecute Carlos Ozols, who died in Australia in March.

And to this day, Mark Aarons says Australia provides a sanctuary for people accused of the most horrific atrocities in Afganhistan.

KONRAD KWIET: I think it's a political, moral, and international task and obligation for Australia to set up a war crimes commission, not only looking into the old historic cases, but looking into modern war crimes cases.

PHILIPPA McDONALD: Both the Federal Justice Minister and Attorney-General declined to be interviewed.

Philippa McDonald, Lateline. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s300459.htm

Rising Sun*
08-10-2008, 07:58 AM
roadcast: 21/5/2001
War Criminals, Welcome
Tony Jones speaks with Mark Aarons, the author of War Criminals, Welcome, which makes a compelling case that Australia remains a sanctuary for war criminals today.


---------
Compere: Tony Jones
Reporter: Tony Jones



TONY JONES: Mark Aarons, let's start with the Strecko Rover case.

It must be unique in that it's connected to war crimes in the same place but divided by 50 years of history.

MARK AARONS, AUTHOR: Yes, it is quite an extraordinary tale really.

He was a member of the Nazi security police.

He was a member of a mobile killing unit that slaughtered Jews, Serbs, Communists, anyone who was opposed to the Nazi regime in and around Sarajevo in 1941.

After the war, he rose to a senior rank in the post-war Croatian movement to be a terrorist leader.

He immigrated to Australia and re-established his terrorist cells.

In 1967, he recruited a young 19-year-old called Blej Cralavich who had just emigrated to Australia.

He joined the underground terrorist cells and was exceedingly lucky not to have been sent on a mission in the early 1970s where nearly all his comrades were killed.

TONY JONES: A mission where?

MARK AARONS: A mission back to Yugoslavia that was allegedly aimed at the overthrow of the Tito Communist Government.

After the fall of Communism in Croatia and the outbreak of the Balkans War in 1991, Blej Cralavich became the commanding general of the Croatian defence forces, a paramilitary, irregular unit that was responsible for some of the worst ethnic cleansing which really is a euphemism for rounding up, torturing, raping, humiliating and ultimately slaughtering, quite literally butchering, men, women and children.

MARK AARONS: I have to declare a journalistic interest here because I, back in 1992, went looking for Blej Cralavich, the Australia militia leader in Bosnia, and we failed to find him for the simple reason that he was murdered a week earlier, but I did come across his group of militia.

They were still there.

They were wearing black uniforms in the style of the old black legion.

What do we know about what they actually did?

Is -- was there a investigation into what his men did in the 1990s?

MARK AARONS: Certainly.

The international investigation into the various acts of genocide in the Balkans established quite definitively that they ran a series of concentration camps.

In those concentration camps, innocent civilians, mainly Serbs, but also a significant number of Bosnian Muslims were rounded up, tortured in the most inhumane ways, cigarette burns, knives were used, people's genitals were mutilated.

People's brains were literally spilled on the floor, their intestines pulled out.

This was a savage, brutal, almost medieval slaughter that was going on directly under Cralavich's command and, I must say, with strong indications that he was not the only Australian Croat who was participating had these crimes TONY JONES: Nor the only Australian Serb, it must be pointed out.

There were Australian Serbs operating in Bosnia as well.

MARK AARONS: Absolutely.

The most notorious of them was the somewhat mysterious 'Captain Dragon', Vasil Covic, who was a resident of Australia, a low-life petty criminal who was recruited very early by Milosevic's intelligence services to become principally an organiser of similar Serbian paramilitary units that conducted the very early and some of the most brutal Serbian ethnic cleansing which again was a euphemism for the sort of roundup torture and massacre of innocent civilians, mostly Croats.

TONY JONES: Let's go back 50 years to the old man, the old Croatian Strecko Rover.

Was he typical of the war criminals who were coming here straight after the Second World War from Eastern Europe?

MARK AARONS: Absolutely.

Most of the war criminals who settled in Australia were not Germans or Austrians.

They were people from Central and Eastern Europe, from the Ukraine, the Baltic States, the central European countries of Czechoslovakia, Croatia and Serbia.

Most of them had been members like Rover was of pre-war fascist organisations.

They had volunteered as soon as the Nazis invaded their homelands to serve in police units that very quickly degenerated into mass killing units.

TONY JONES: And many of them, after the war, had connections to western intelligence.

I mean, one classic example is a new case you have brought up.

That is Nicolai Alfacic who was operating in Russia.

MARK AARONS: He was a typical case because he had all the characteristics that I have just outlined.

He went in with the invading Nazi forces into the Soviet Union, carried out massacres of Jews and Communists, fled westward as the war finished, and very soon after was recruited by western intelligence, and indeed, a massive dossier of his work on behalf of US intelligence has been declassified which shows definitively that they knew he was a senior Nazi official, that he was wanted for war crimes, but nonetheless recruited for anti-Communist operations and ultimately allowed to emigrate to Australia.

TONY JONES: Now, you claim a lot of this is -- we learned much of this, anyway, some years ago, largely because of your work -- but you claim many of these things are still going on, that we are still a sanctuary for war criminals albeit from other countries like Afghanistan, for example.

MARK AARONS: Absolutely.

There's no doubt at all over the last 10-12 years, a significant number, dozens, probably well over 100, senior Afghan war criminals have emigrated to Australia.

They include men like General Miakal who lives here in Sydney, where this program is January generating from.

He was a senior official in the KGB controlled security police, the HUD, notorious for the rounding up and slaughter of not only military opposition figures in the Mujahadeen but also of innocent civilians in the most brutal ways.

He's living here as an exemplar of the Afghan war criminals.

TONY JONES: How did these sort of people get here?

We can understand from your research that, in the past, there were reasons.

These people had done deals with western intelligence organisations, having given them intelligence were then secreted or allowed to go to third countries like Australia.

I mean, you're not suggesting the same thing has happened with these modern war criminals, are you?

MARK AARONS: I think that we have to see this as a combination of, first of all, indifference.

Indeed, the Government was warned that General Miakal, for instance, was on his way to Australia by the Afghan community, and despite promises that he would be screened out, he arrived here, took up residency, and has never been removed.

Others of his close circle, however, there is strong, I think, indications that they have been working for Australian intelligence.

We have seen, for example, in one instance, a ACIS officer who says he wanted to screen out a particular senior Afghan war criminal who conducted a long campaign of terror against the opposition, and he was overruled by his superiors in Australia, and the man was allowed to emigrate and settle here.

Now, I think that that's strong prima facie evidence that there is probably a repetition of the recruitment of war criminals by Australian intelligence.

TONY JONES: Your new book is a huge compendium of both new and old research and new research into some of these old cases as well as that.

What is it that, in this new research, that's leading you to call for the special investigations unit to be reopened?

MARK AARONS: Well, the special investigations unit that was established by the Hawke Government to investigate World War II Nazis should never have been closed in the first place.

The head of the unit at the time, Graham Blewett, now the deputy prosecutor of the international tribunal in the Hague investigating the Balkans genocide of the 1990s warned the Keating Government that unless a standing war crimes units was kept in place, we would become a safe haven for modern war criminals.

Every word of his warning has come true in the last decade.

We require, therefore, not only a standing unit that specialises in it, that's adequately resourced to do nothing other than investigate war crimes, but we need legislation that would actually enable us to prosecute war criminals.

TONY JONES: Very briefly, this is an election year, and these cases, inevitably, and these decisions become very political.

Do you expect either of the major parties to take up your call?

MARK AARONS: Well, I certainly hope that both the parties will.

I have very little faith that the present Government will.

I understand that not only would they not appear on your program this evening, they wouldn't appear on radio national breakfast this morning and that they're basically repeating the same words of previous governments about Nazis in the 1950s.

"Well, if you've got any evidence, bring it to us and we'll investigate it."

I think it's the only crime in Australian law where journalists and the communities affected by the crime are expected to produce the evidence and to conduct the investigations.

The Government is entirely indifferent.

I hope that Mr Beazley and the opposition will take a different course.

TONY JONES: Mark AARONS, I have to leave it there.

Thanks for joining us tonight on Lateline.

MARK AARONS: Thanks, Tony. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s300455.htm

Rising Sun*
08-10-2008, 08:00 AM
Neo-Nazis split Croat community
Greg Roberts | October 27, 2007

MELBOURNE'S Croatian community is under fire for hosting a rock concert for neo-Nazi skinheads, publishing anti-Semitic material on the internet and naming a building after fascist Croatian dictator Ante Pavelic.

The Melbourne Knights Soccer Club yesterday launched an extraordinary attack on its social arm, the Croatia Social Club, for hosting the October 13 concert by groups that incite violence and attacks against Jews and other minorities. "I am deeply disturbed that the good reputation of our football club has been tarnished by the social club's incompetence," Knights chairman Matt Tomas said.

The concert at the Knights' North Sunshine complex was headlined by US neo-Nazi band Final War. The band describes itself as "defenders of the Reich", and its songs boast: "We fight Jews".

Australian skinhead band Fortress also played. Its song, Parasites, urges repatriation of immigrants: "If they don't f..king like it, it'll be in body bags".

The concert was organised by the Australian chapters of neo-Nazi skinhead groups Blood and Honour and Southern Cross Hammer Skins. Group members in the US and Europe have been convicted of assaults, bombings and murders.

Anti-Semitic messages from the Knights' Croatian fans are posted on the Knights Army Forum website. One posting says Jews would "sell their mothers for a dollar".

Melbourne campaigner Cam Smith said anti-racism activists alerted the Knights to the nature of the concert several hours before it started. "As soon as we found out, we contacted whoever we could at the Knights through phone numbers on their website," Mr Smith said. "They weren't interested. One of their people asked one of our people if he was a dirty Jew."

Mr Tomas said he did not know who was attending the concert, but he would investigate Mr Smith's claim that Knights members were contacted, adding: "I don't associate with that sort of scum. I'm utterly disgusted about this."

Mr Tomas said the concert was approved by the Croatia Social Club, a separate legal entity to the football club.

Contacted by The Weekend Australian, social club manager Catarina Malacic denied the event was held. "There was nothing on at the venue that night," she said.

Later, club committee member Ivan Skunca confirmed the premises were booked for a concert, but said the club did not know who made the booking. "It was a mistake. Perhaps we had an obligation to check these people out and we didn't. We apologise for that."

B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation Commission director Manny Waks said he was disturbed the concert was held in view of links between the Croatian community and neo-Nazi elements.

Mr Waks said the Croatia Club -- a separate entity to the Knights' social club -- had ignored Jewish protests against the naming of its Footscray hall after Ustashi Nazi collaborator Ante Pavelic, who was responsible for the slaughter of 700,000 Serbs, Jews and Gypsies. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22655912-5006785,00.html

PA.Dutchman
08-11-2008, 12:09 AM
This site will give you just about every crime, massacre and worse of WWII,

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_east.html

Ashes
08-11-2008, 04:52 AM
including setting off a bomb one night not far from where I was, which left an impressive pall of smoke trailing from a high rise public housing building.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s300459.htm

Almost cut you off in your prime, RS.:shock:

Serbs and Croats have been at each others throats for years in Melbourne, old hatreds never cease.

Chevan
08-11-2008, 06:34 AM
This site will give you just about every crime, massacre and worse of WWII,

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_east.html

Hmnn.
Very interesting.

Poland
ATROCITIES IN POLAND (Polish Revenge)

Unable to stem the onrush of German forces during the invasion of their country, Polish soldiers and civilians started fleeing eastwards. It was during this flight to the east that the ethnic German civilians, resident in Poland for many years, received the full impact of the spite and hate stored up in the hearts of the fleeing Polish soldiers and their civilian followers. Between September 4 and September 8, 1939, in the communities of Eichdorf, Hopfengarten and Narzheim near Bromberg, the polish soldiers began an orgy of murder and rape that is beyond belief. German houses were entered and the occupants arrested and then murdered. Not all were shot, many were brutally put to death by all sorts of tools and their bodies severely mutilated. As the soldiers left to search for more German houses, their civilian helpers were left behind to plunder and steal and in most cases, to set the house on fire. Many of the German women were raped before being shot. During this retreat from the west, the Polish soldiers, together with the communist civilian irregulars, were responsible for the deaths of many thousands of German residents. At a later investigation, the testimonies of 593 witnesses established the fact that at least 3,841 named ethnic Germans were murdered by the Poles prior to the full German occupation. These revenge murders were carried out as early as April, 1939 in the Polish Corridor.
Poor poles who so suffered from rapes of Red Army , was lucky enough to rape the others:)
Accidentally , is it not revisionist site?.

Chevan
08-11-2008, 06:39 AM
After World War 2, the remaining Ustashi went underground or fled to countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany and South America,th the assistance of Roman Catholic churches and their grassroots supporters, their leader, Pavelic, with the help of associates among the Franciscans, managed to escape and hide in Austria and Rome, later fleeing to Argentina.


Oh shit, i didn't know the Pavelic has escaped of justice.
Damn.
BTW so the communist were right about the Roman Catholich Church has been tied with covering and hiding war criminals?

Rising Sun*
08-11-2008, 07:09 AM
Almost cut you off in your prime, RS.:shock:

Nah. It was blocks away from me. More bang than damage, from memory. We're used to poor bombings down here, like the Armenian ****head who drove a pretty powerful car bomb under the Turkish consulate years ago. http://turkishviewpoint.blogspot.com/2007/04/terror-attack-in-toorak-by-tamara-heath.html Apparently they had the detonator rigged to a mercury switch. Not a great idea when the car had to go down a slope into the underground car park. :rolleyes:


Serbs and Croats have been at each others throats for years in Melbourne, old hatreds never cease.

I think it's dying among a lot of them, and the sooner the better, although some of them still like to have their soccer fights etc.

My son's girlfriend is more or less second generation Australian of Croatian descent (her parents both came here from Croatia as very young children). I asked her if she'd worded my son up about the Croatian - Serb issue, so he didn't step on a landmine with his big mouth (mixed metaphors, but you know what I mean). She said she wasn't interested in that bullshit because she was an Aussie, and her parents weren't interested either, for the same reason. Her paternal grandmother, however, was a different issue, along with some people who couldn't let the past go and wanted to continue the conflict here, even if they'd never been to Croatia. She can't stand them. The whole point of coming here was to get away from that crap. Pity a few more migrants and their descendants can't get that idea into their thick heads.

Rising Sun*
08-11-2008, 07:39 AM
BTW so the communist were right about the Roman Catholich Church has been tied with covering and hiding war criminals?

No, [turn on sarcasm] the Vatican upheld the highest moral and humanitarian standards during the whole of WWII. It's just that some people wrong accuse it and the pope of complicity in war crimes, for which there is absolutely no evidence. [sarcasm ends]

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/vatican_and_war_crimes_in_.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/ustashe.htm

http://www.globalallianceforethiopia.org/files/2008_PETITION-ENGLISH-FINAL.pdf

While this might be seen to be from a partisan (in the sense of favouring a particular view, not a wartime guerrilla) source, it's a very balanced assessment.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Marrus.html

See also http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

That's not to say that everyone in the Church supported the Vatican's approach. http://www.shoahrose.com/srpeople.html

The Catholic Church still hasn't quite come to terms with the Jews, despite being founded by one and being the only Christian church which can trace its foundation in an unbroken line to Christ. http://ncrcafe.org/node/1712

Ashes
08-12-2008, 01:27 AM
Wiki on the fate of Pavelic..........

On April 10, 1957, the 16th anniversary of the founding of the Independent State of Croatia, the 67 year old Pavelić was shot and seriously wounded by an unknown assailant in Buenos Aires. The shooting was generally attributed to Tito's Yugoslav intelligence, although the anniversary also suggested that it may have been an act of revenge by a Chetnik activist.

Two weeks after the shooting, the Argentine government agreed to grant the Tito government's request to extradite Pavelić, but he went into hiding before he could be extradited. Although there were reports that Pavelić had fled to Paraguay to work for the Stroessner regime, his whereabouts remained unknown until late 1959, when it was learned that he had been granted asylum in Spain. Pavelić died on December 28, 1959, at the German hospital in Madrid, reportedly from complications due to the bullet in his spine.

Ashes
08-12-2008, 02:02 AM
Hmnn.
Very interesting.

Poor poles who so suffered from rapes of Red Army , was lucky enough to rape the others:)
Accidentally , is it not revisionist site?.

Wondering why you would choose that particular atrocity from all the others, especially when you think it could be a revisionist site?

Chevan
08-12-2008, 02:16 AM
No, [turn on sarcasm] the Vatican upheld the highest moral and humanitarian standards during the whole of WWII. It's just that some people wrong accuse it and the pope of complicity in war crimes, for which there is absolutely no evidence. [sarcasm ends]

I heard the pope Pius XI ( or XII) welcomed Nazic.
[Without any hint on sarcasm]

http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/vati...crimes_in_.htm
http://www.remnantofgod.org/ustashe.htm

http://www.globalallianceforethiopia...LISH-FINAL.pdf

While this might be seen to be from a partisan (in the sense of favouring a particular view, not a wartime guerrilla) source, it's a very balanced assessment.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...st/Marrus.html

See also http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...tism/pius.html

That's not to say that everyone in the Church supported the Vatican's approach. http://www.shoahrose.com/srpeople.html

The Catholic Church still hasn't quite come to terms with the Jews, despite being founded by one and being the only Christian church which can trace its foundation in an unbroken line to Christ. http://ncrcafe.org/node/1712
Mate could you please expound you thoughts by more short way?
You know i have no enough time to study that entire Library in englis ( i/m to busy right now to folow the Georgian unfair attack on Osetia, you know)

Chevan
08-12-2008, 02:18 AM
Wondering why you would choose that particular atrocity from all the others, especially when you think it could be a revisionist site?
Becouse this is the ONLY wondering new atrocity for me in whole this site.
I'm not sure this is revisionsits, but just ask.
\So you think this atrocity has really took place?

Ashes
08-12-2008, 04:27 AM
Becouse this is the ONLY wondering new atrocity for me in whole this site.
I'm not sure this is revisionsits, but just ask.
\So you think this atrocity has really took place?

Well, your sure are an expert on atrocities, if that was the only new one for you of the several hundred on that site.

As to did I know if it happened or not, nope, I haven't heard of that one, or plenty of others such as THE PIG BASKET ATROCITY, LOA KULU MASSACRE, and DEATH ON RAMREE ISLAND or THE 'AKIKAZE' EXECUTIONS which happened closer to home, let alone some lesser known ones in Europe.

Do you think it happened?

Chevan
08-12-2008, 07:16 AM
Well, your sure are an expert on atrocities, if that was the only new one for you of the several hundred on that site.

I meant the Eastern front /USSR ww2 atrocities.
That actualy is not so much.Not hundreds.


As to did I know if it happened or not, nope, I haven't heard of that one, or plenty of others such as THE PIG BASKET ATROCITY, LOA KULU MASSACRE, and DEATH ON RAMREE ISLAND or THE 'AKIKAZE' EXECUTIONS which happened closer to home, let alone some lesser known ones in Europe.

i do also hear it in first time in my life.
Never even read about this ones.


Do you think it happened?
I don't know.
But my/your ignorance does not mean it never happend, right?

Ashes
08-13-2008, 04:34 AM
I meant the Eastern front /USSR ww2 atrocities.
That actualy is not so much.Not hundreds.

Just going by you saying ''whole'' of this site, but even out of the 60 or so atrocities on the Eastern section, THE GRISCHINO MASSACRE, MASSACRE IN KONIUCHY, TRANDUM FOREST and others were new to me.



I don't know.
But my/your ignorance does not mean it never happend, right?

Just about anything is possible, especially in the East, as atrocities were par for the course, but it says in part that.....
''revenge murders were carried out as early as April, 1939 in the Polish Corridor'' and that ''These massacres were one of the causes that gave Hitler the excuse to invade.''

Which was Nazi propaganda like the Gleiwitz incident, a staged attack against the German radio station leading up to the invasion of Poland, and operation Himmler, comprising 21 incidents in all, was intended to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, so I have serious doubts.

Like to see some collaborating info on it.

Chevan
08-14-2008, 02:45 AM
Just going by you saying ''whole'' of this site, but even out of the 60 or so atrocities on the Eastern section, THE GRISCHINO MASSACRE, MASSACRE IN KONIUCHY, TRANDUM FOREST and others were new to me.

Well i/m actually heard most of them.
Even the Hatyn massacre in Belarussia in 1943.( don't confuse with Katyn)


Just about anything is possible, especially in the East, as atrocities were par for the course, but it says in part that.....
''revenge murders were carried out as early as April, 1939 in the Polish Corridor'' and that ''These massacres were one of the causes that gave Hitler the excuse to invade.''

Which was Nazi propaganda like the Gleiwitz incident, a staged attack against the German radio station leading up to the invasion of Poland, and operation Himmler, comprising 21 incidents in all, was intended to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, so I have serious doubts.

Like to see some collaborating info on it.

Of course you are right.
The Nazis propogand used it in its dirty aims.
For instance the Katyn, Goebbels pretty hard trued to destroy the Alled coalition by it.
But from other hand- if even the GErman propogand get it - does it mean it never happened?
We know the Katyn massacre was real although the Nacis used it.
So we can't know for sure that those murders in Poland was false, just because nacis tells about it
BTW i read from other source tht the German population of Danzig have been opressed since the Poland took controll over it.
And Hitler played on German national feeling , beeing pissed on poles for that, to justify his agression against Poland.
Also i heard from russian veterans recollections that the 1 polish army that fought alongside the Red Army in the 1944-45, behave itself very cruel toward the Germans POWs.
Even the Red Army soldiers ( who as you may be know were harsh with germans POWs) were in CHOCK how poles treat the GErmans pows.
Once, i've read, the Poles cuptured the group of Germans ( about 30 mans).The Russian officers who commanded by the poles, order to escort them to the headquarter for cross-examination.
What was a real wonder of the NKVD officer in rear when poles had arrived with only.... 5 germans- -where are the rest pows, he asked?
-they have been shoted trying to escape!!
But when he send the rest of the POWs to the pows camp -
Poles has delivered ONLY two.
This case also have been described in the A. Clarck's book -"Barbarossa"
After that case, russian veteran said, we never more pass the German pows to be escorted by Poles.
But then he add- i understand the Poles, after all the GErmans has commited in Poland- i don't condemn them.
So from this case i/m not sure the Ethnical murders of GErman civils in Poland were impossible

Ashes
08-15-2008, 03:52 AM
Of course you are right.
The Nazis propogand used it in its dirty aims.
For instance the Katyn, Goebbels pretty hard trued to destroy the Alled coalition by it.
But from other hand- if even the GErman propogand get it - does it mean it never happened?
We know the Katyn massacre was real although the Nacis used it.
So we can't know for sure that those murders in Poland was false, just because nacis tells about it

As I posted, anything was possible in the East, where massive atrocities were committed by all sides. But although the Germans made great propaganda value of the Katyn massacre of Polish POW's by the NKVD, it was, despite Russian denials for 45 years, ''proven'' to be true.




BTW i read from other source tht the German population of Danzig have been opressed since the Poland took controll over it.
And Hitler played on German national feeling , beeing pissed on poles for that, to justify his agression against Poland.


Yep, Hitler was continuing to use his lying propaganda ploy like he did in the Sudetenland, that thousands of Germans were being killed, trying to justify his invasion plans.
But he wasn't satisfied with those lies, he went one better with the pathetic Gleiwitz incident.




Also i heard from russian veterans recollections that the 1 polish army that fought alongside the Red Army in the 1944-45, behave itself very cruel toward the Germans POWs.
Even the Red Army soldiers ( who as you may be know were harsh with germans POWs) were in CHOCK how poles treat the GErmans pows.
Once, i've read, the Poles cuptured the group of Germans ( about 30 mans).The Russian officers who commanded by the poles, order to escort them to the headquarter for cross-examination.
What was a real wonder of the NKVD officer in rear when poles had arrived with only.... 5 germans- -where are the rest pows, he asked?
-they have been shoted trying to escape!!
But when he send the rest of the POWs to the pows camp -
Poles has delivered ONLY two.
This case also have been described in the A. Clarck's book -"Barbarossa"
After that case, russian veteran said, we never more pass the German pows to be escorted by Poles.
But then he add- i understand the Poles, after all the GErmans has commited in Poland- i don't condemn them.
So from this case i/m not sure the Ethnical murders of GErman civils in Poland were impossible

Interesting story. Only problem with it is that I have Clarke's book, "Barbarossa" and it doesn't say anything at all about Poles shooting prisoners like you describe.

The only shooting of German POW's in the book is by Russians on page 336, quote........''Totenkopf was still on its own, and suffered from the Russian propensity to kill all prisoners wearing its insignia.''

So until some collaborating ''proof'' comes to light, I for one wouldn't condemn the Poles of those massacres in '39, on that story at least....the same as I wouldn't have condemned the Russians about Katyn on Nazi say so, until it was proven.

Kovalski
08-15-2008, 05:51 PM
BTW i read from other source tht the German population of Danzig have been opressed since the Poland took controll over it.


Chevan, could you give us some more info about the source?
Because as far as I know the city of Danzig (polish: Gdansk) from 15.11.1920 was a independent quasi-state with 98% german population, and it was not under polish control.
Better search the Russian archives for some info about events which took place in Danzig in 1945 after the Red Army entered the city...

Egorka
08-18-2008, 03:20 AM
Chevan, could you give us some more info about the source?
My guess is that Chevan is talking about the expultion of the Germans after the WWII.

Chevan
08-18-2008, 03:36 AM
As I posted, anything was possible in the East, where massive atrocities were committed by all sides. But although the Germans made great propaganda value of the Katyn massacre of Polish POW's by the NKVD, it was, despite Russian denials for 45 years, ''proven'' to be true.

But why then , the other "bolshevics crimes" were not proven?
If GErmans suffer NOT from the Red Army- why we shall ignore those facts?
Especially if you write the everything was possible in the East.


Yep, Hitler was continuing to use his lying propaganda ploy like he did in the Sudetenland, that thousands of Germans were being killed, trying to justify his invasion plans.
But he wasn't satisfied with those lies, he went one better with the pathetic Gleiwitz incident.

true.
But Goebbels propogand also lie about many facts , sometimes simply Cynical OVERESTIMATING the figures of victims.
For instance he declard that Allies mass have killed 250 000 of civils in Dresden fro 13 hours.
We know the real victims were much lesser, but is the "Goebbels lie" can make to dany Dresden firebombing ?


Interesting story. Only problem with it is that I have Clarke's book, "Barbarossa" and it doesn't say anything at all about Poles shooting prisoners like you describe.

Nothing is problem.
Sorry i have confused the Barbarossa with A.Beevor book "Berlin The Downfall 1945":)
My typo
Unfortinatelly i cant find his book in English in Internet.
So i will use the quotes from the copy ,published in Russia..
A.Beevor "Berlin The Downfall 1945".
Chapter 5 :Rush to Oder"
Page 71.
http://militera.lib.ru/research/beevor2/

Желание поляков отомстить было настолько велико, что это стало даже вредить сбору разведывательной информации. Начальник управления НКВД 1-го Белорусского фронта Серов жаловался Берии, что солдаты 1-й армии Войска Польского относятся к немецким военнослужащим особенно жестоко{157}. Он докладывал, что захваченные немецкие пленные часто не доходят до места сбора. Их расстреливают по дороге. Например, на участке 2-го стрелкового полка 1-й стрелковой дивизии поляками были взяты в плен восемьдесят германских солдат, но только двое из них добрались до штаба. Всех остальных убили в пути. После того как эти двое счастливчиков были допрошены полковым начальством, их отправили в разведотдел. Но до него они так и не дошли. Их также расстреляли неподалеку от штаба

.................................................. ..............................................
The Polish will of revenge to GErmans was such great - that it getting to bother to take the information from Germans pows.
The CHief of NKVD of 1-belorusshian front Cerov, complained to Beria, that soldiers of 1-Polish Army ( that fought with Red Army) treat the GErmans pows with senseless cruelty. He reported that the cuptured Germans pows very often don't reach the pows camps- the poles simply shoted them all.
For instance in 2-rifle regiment of 1- polish division there were cuptured the 80 germans pows, but ONLY two of them have arrived to the headquarters The rest have been killed in a way.After the cross-examination, they both have been sended to the Army intelligence department for the next talks. But they haven't reached it, they have been shoted right near the hearquarters by poles.


You can check it in your English copy of Beevor, if you have it.
As i've wrote , i've read this story in memours of Russuan veterans ( forgot his name). He also described tghis case with Polish 1-Army in more interesting details.
BTW sorry i wos wrong about 30 Germans pows- there actualy have been 80 executed.
So i think it can be considered as the Military crime, commited by the Poles that simular to the Malmedy massacre.( senseless mass execution of Allies POWs by Germans)
But of course nobody in Red Army did not even guessed to blame poles for that cruelty.
The most of our soldiers saw what GErmans have commited in Poland.
But though:)
BTW you have a good habit to check the sources:mrgreen:


So until some collaborating ''proof'' comes to light, I for one wouldn't condemn the Poles of those massacres in '39, on that story at least....the same as I wouldn't have condemned the Russians about Katyn on Nazi say so, until it was proven.

I don't even mind to condemn the poles for supposed MAssacres of GErmans civils in 1939 as this site has mentioned. But for sake of historical true, we can't simply forget about it, don't we?

Chevan
08-18-2008, 05:29 AM
Chevan, could you give us some more info about the source?
Because as far as I know the city of Danzig (polish: Gdansk) from 15.11.1920 was a independent quasi-state with 98% german population, and it was not under polish control.

Well there were a few point that the German civils have been under opresion.
Hitler used if in his Anti-Polish propogand, so they are quite disputable. However the certain events took place of course.


Better search the Russian archives for some info about events which took place in Danzig in 1945 after the Red Army entered the city...
Do you mean the Red Army behaviour or the Deportations of Germans population of Danzig that was indeed the pure ethnical clearing commited by Polish authorities since 1945?

Ashes
08-20-2008, 04:46 AM
Sorry i have confused the Barbarossa with A.Beevor book "Berlin The Downfall 1945":)
My typo
Unfortinatelly i cant find his book in English in Internet.
So i will use the quotes from the copy ,published in Russia..
A.Beevor "Berlin The Downfall 1945".
Chapter 5 :Rush to Oder"
Page 71.
http://militera.lib.ru/research/beevor2/

You can check it in your English copy of Beevor, if you have it.

Beever's book was the first time I'd seen the full scale of the atrocities by the Red Army in Germany.

Beaver's book featured here............
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

Natalya Gesse, a close friend of the scientist Andrei Sakharov, had observed the Red Army in action in 1945 as a Soviet war correspondent. "The Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty," she recounted later. "It was an army of rapists."

Calls to avenge the Motherland, violated by the Wehrmacht's invasion, had given the idea that almost any cruelty would be allowed.

The novelist Vasily Grossman, a war correspondent attached to the invading Red Army, soon discovered that rape victims were not just Germans. Polish women also suffered. So did young Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian women who had been sent back to Germany by the Wehrmacht for slave labour.

Nuns, young girls, old women, pregnant women and mothers who had just given birth were all raped without pity.

Beria and Stalin, back in Moscow, knew perfectly well what was going on from a number of detailed reports. One stated that "many Germans declare that all German women in East Prussia who stayed behind were raped by Red Army soldiers". Numerous examples of gang rape were given - "girls under 18 and old women included".

"Red Army soldiers don't believe in 'individual liaisons' with German women," wrote the playwright Zakhar Agranenko in his diary when serving as an officer of marine infantry in East Prussia. "Nine, ten, twelve men at a time - they rape them on a collective basis."

Estimates of rape victims from the city's two main hospitals ranged from 95,000 to 130,000. One doctor deduced that out of approximately 100,000 women raped in the city, some 10,000 died as a result, mostly from suicide. The death rate was thought to have been much higher among the 1.4 million estimated victims in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. Altogether at least two million German women are thought to have been raped, and a substantial minority, if not a majority, appear to have suffered multiple rape.

Seen a few brief references to it in other books before, such as Erickson in ''The Road to Berlin'' saying ''successive Soviet combat echelons moved through killing and looting at will..... a slur and stain on Slav honour..........

Chevan
08-20-2008, 06:12 AM
Beever's book was the first time I'd seen the full scale of the atrocities by the Red Army in Germany.

Beaver's book featured here............
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11


So i hope now, you will not deny the episode in Beevor.s book when he described the mass killing of GErmans POWs by poles in 1945.
Well, so as i said , if the killing and raping of GErmans were real- why we shall dany the possible fact of raping and massacres the GErmans in 1939 on polish territory.

Ashes
08-21-2008, 04:32 AM
So i hope now, you will not deny the episode in Beevor.s book when he described the mass killing of GErmans POWs by poles in 1945.
Well, so as i said , if the killing and raping of GErmans were real- why we shall dany the possible fact of raping and massacres the GErmans in 1939 on polish territory.

Only thing I denied [correctly] was that Clarke didn't write it.

You corrected your mistake, so, no problems.

Can't see the conection between the Russian attrocities in Germany, which are well documented, with that one post of what the Poles are accused of in '39, which has a possible link to Nazi propaganda, the only thing about it I can find, is on a neo Nazi site, but if you have some supportive info i'd be interested in seeing it.

Chevan
08-21-2008, 07:28 AM
Only thing I denied [correctly] was that Clarke didn't write it.

You corrected your mistake, so, no problems.

Can't see the conection between the Russian attrocities in Germany, which are well documented, with that one post of what the Poles are accused of in '39,
which has a possible link to Nazi propaganda, the only thing about it I can find, is on a neo Nazi site, but if you have some supportive info i'd be interested in seeing it.
Well i doubt this is nazis site that we are talking about.
There a lot of Jewish massacres are documented - so we can know for sure - this i sn ot pro-nazi site..
hardly we can call the described events in Poland '39 as link to Nazi propogand.
But this is very amazing new information for me, that i did n't even guess about.Will try to find out more ...

Egorka
11-03-2008, 06:02 AM
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.

Hi Librarian,
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/3578/josephschultzxa9.jpg

I was moved by this story. And I looked a bit into it.
Here is more info about Josepf Schultz:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3247744&postcount=66
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3250588&postcount=69


But is there more to it?
Librarian, do you have better photage of the two mentioned monuments?
Were those all partisans or some of them were civil hostages?

flamethrowerguy
11-03-2008, 09:37 AM
This is really an amazing, touching story. I was very impressed when I read about it here a couple of months ago.
Then I encountered the story once again in one of my books and it indeed told the story differently - just like in the links that Egorka posted:

"It is alleged that german soldier Josef Schulz refused to be involved in the execution of yugoslavian civilians and therefore was murdered together with the Yugoslavs by his Wehrmacht comrades on July 20, 1941. As an example for a "good German" Belgrad established a memorial for Schulz in the village of Vrncani.
As a matter of fact Josef Schulz was murdered by Tito-partisans on July 19, 1941 in close distance to the village of Smederevska Palanka. On July 20, 1941, the day when the partisans were shot - according to internationally effective law of warfare- the report of his death one day before was already transmitted. These circumstances of the case were confirmed in 1981 by Senior Prosecutor Rückerl of the Ludwigsburg Central Office of Prosecution of NS war crimes. Surveyors of the military archives at Freiburg found out about the imposture of the alleged self-sacrifice of the soldier Schulz already in 1972. It can not be discovered how this legend arose. However it is macaber to say after someone who was murdered by partisans, that he had himself shot in benefit of his murderers."

Just thought it was interesting to quote this source. ("Ehrenbuch des deutschen Soldaten" by W. Dahl)

Librarian
11-04-2008, 01:49 PM
But is there more to it?

Yes, my dear Mr. Egorka – there is much more to it.

The opinion that the so-called contemporary history is not a scientific discipline unfortunately still prevails in the historical science. Regrettably, it is actually considered as a variant of politicology. Basically, there are two basic reasons for this critical understanding. The first is that the ruling circles do not like the criticism by the public, in spite of the development of the formal democracy. The second reason is that certain archives are still under sturdy locks.

Fortunately, these sad examples of rationally backed fixation are to be confronted with a scientific method, both when establishment of the number of victims and the establishment of the whole factual history is in question.

Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia providentially acted upon all prescribed scientific recommendations within the boundaries of anthropology, post-mortem forensic investigation, archivist inquiry in both domestic and foreign archives. Numerous archeological, anthropological, pedographic and forensic investigations attempting to establish the exact number and factual names of the people killed took place on several occasions on the territory of the SFRJ, but the data gathered by means of these scientific disciplines have been used to a very little extent so far.

In 1947 the State Commision for Establishment of the Crimes Commited by the Occupier and His Collaborators collected and preserved numerous photographs, facsimiles, documents and forensic findings, thus acknowledging the killing carried out over Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians, Albanians, Jews, Gypsies, Germans, Hungarians and Italians, disregarding their sex and age. In this particular case, original German photographs and facsimiles of the German documents are supplementing previously mentioned claim that Mr. Josef Schulz was executed on the spot in vicinity of the Smederevska Palanka (Orahovac) on July 20th, 1941. However, 16 individually different forensic remnants of the victims (amongst them only 9 partisans!) were fortunately found upon excavation and reburial – and amongst them is the mandibula of late Mr. Schulz.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SCECCOHC-06-77-2.jpg

The State Commision for Establishment of Crimes Commited by the Occupier and His Collaborators – Forensic Item No. 21.068 – Limbus alveolaris et Juga alveolaria of Mr. Josef Schulz

Being in possession of the standard forensic methods based upon Polymerase chain reaction, DNA analysis of the remnants is therefore absolutely available for identification of human remains from mass graves. DNA of all those fortunately preserved remnants is completely isolable by usage of standard phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol extraction.

Although decalcification and repurification surely will be necessary prior to the extraction to overcome inhibition of amplification process, different systems for DNA quantification and amplification (AluQuant, short tandem repeats (STR), Y chromosome STRs, and mitochondrial DNA [mtDNA] sequence-specific oligonucleotide (SSO) probes are completely obtainable for the final solution of this historical case.

I am completely convinced that numerous and distinguished experts of the Bundeskriminalamt Wiesbaden, FBI Crime Laboratory Division and The Russian Centre for Forensic Medicine will be able to sustain official findings of their Yugoslav colleagues.

In the meantime, I shall take the liberty to present a number of other photographical proofs connected with our main theme in this thread.

Factographic example of the sadistic butchery committed by the members of the 188. Reserve Gebirgs Division of the Wehrmacht (188th Reserve Mountain Division). Photo taken by unknown German soldier.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/JozeMirticmajor-1944.jpg

Five-point star carved by bayonet into the face of captured partisan major Jože Mirtić – village of Lokve, Slovenia, 11. october 1944. (DKZUZONP - N. Br.877-45)

Photographic confirmation of the pretty forgotten and suppressed attitude of the Wehrmacht towards Russians that served as a philosophical and moral excuse for atrocities:

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

Der Russe muß sterben, damit wir leben - Die stramme 6 Kompanie (The Russian must die, for this reason we live - The rugged 6th company)

Perhaps the Russian Federal Archive has various additional informations about this case?

Egorka
11-06-2008, 04:17 AM
Librarian,

Where does the photo of Joseph's remains come from? From a book?

You also mention that among 16 executed Yogoslavians only 9 were partisans. Does this info come from the same source as the photograph?

Thank in advance!

Librarian
11-06-2008, 10:06 AM
All above presented informations are originating from different half-forgotten books, my dear Mr. Egorka. :)

Presented photo derives from a book "Demokratska federativna Jugoslavija – Državna komisija za utvrđivanje zločina okupatora i njihovih pomagača – Knjiga br. 3 – Zločini okupatora u Srbiji; Sveska 2". - Beograd, 1948.

All other informations about the aforesaid occurence, with some additional captured German photos, are available in publication "Jugoslavija u Drugom svetskom ratu" by Petar Brajović. – (Novinsko-izdavačko i grafičko preduzeće 'Borba') . – Beograd, 1977.

Do you need anything else, my dear Mr. Egorka? If so, just give me a whistle. :!:

Egorka
11-06-2008, 06:06 PM
Librarian,

Is it possible to get a scan of the pages where Schultz is mentioned from the book "Demokratska federativna Jugoslavija – Državna komisija za utvrđivanje zločina okupatora i njihovih pomagača – Knjiga br. 3 – Zločini okupatora u Srbiji; Sveska 2". - Beograd, 1948.???

:)
I know you can do wonders when it comes to books... :)

Egorka
11-08-2008, 06:06 AM
Librarian,

I found this on Internet: http://vbcg.cnb.cg.ac.yu/scripts/cobiss?ukaz=DISP&id=1157372280649452&fmt=11&rec=1&sid=1
Is this the book you reffered to?

Card:

JUGOSLAVIJA. Državna komisija za utvrđivanje zločina okupatora i
njihovih pomagača iz Drugog svetskog rata
Dokumenti iz istorije Jugoslavije / Državna komisija za utvrđivanje
zločina okupatora i njegovih pomagača iz drugog svetskog rata ; priredili
Miodrag Đ. Zečević i Jovan P. Popović. - Beograd : Arhiv Jugoslavije :
Printer Komerc, 1999-. - Knj. <1-4> : ilustr. ; 24 cm

Dosadašnji sadržaj:
T. 3 : propisi, saopštenja, odluke i spiskovi pripadnika okupacionih snaga
Italije, Bugarske i neokupacionih naroda Jugoslavije koje je državna
komisija proglasila za ratne zločince i spiskovi lica koje je Komisija
Ujedinjenih nacija proglasila za ratne zločince za zločine izvršene u
Jugoslaviji . - 1999 (Beograd : Printer komerc). - 720 str. - Tiraž 500. -
Predgovor / priređivači: 7-15.
T. 4 : saopštenja,odluke i spiskovi pripadnika okupacionih snaga Nemačke i
Mađarske koje je Državna komisija proglasila za ratne zločince i spiskove
licakoje je Komisija Ujedinjenih nacija proglasila za ratne zločince ili
osumnjičila za zločine vršene u Jugoslaviji . - 2000 (Zemun : Kuća štampe)
. - 959 str. - Tiraž 500.
(Broš.)

940.540.56(497.1)(093.2)
949.71"1941/1945"(093.2)
940.53(497.1)-058.55(093.2)

COBISS.CG-ID 5780240

Librarian
11-08-2008, 04:31 PM
You will forgive me for my short absence, my dear Mr. Egorka, but I was unfortunately beleaguered with my proffesional obligations (two young doctorands on my back + a coursed influenza!), but finally I do have some spare time, so here we go!


Is this the book you reffered to?

No, my dear Mr Egorka. This is the book I am talking about. The front page with a direct, previously presented title was, alas, rebinded in 1967.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/DFJ-DKZUZOINP.jpg

Original book connected with our current theme

However, as my personal friend you will be privileged with the very best, original materials, otherwise available only to members of the scientific community, and contained in specialized libraries with limited right of entry. ;)


Is it possible to get a scan of the pages where Schultz is mentioned

Of course, my dear Mr. Egorka. Although I think that you surely will be dissapointed to a certain extent. You see, in those times Mr. Schulz was known only as a "The young man, German soldier, who refused to fire into binded people, found himself in a couple of moments amongst communists of Palanka, in front of a haystack. Song and shouts devoted to the Communist party, Red Army and Soviet Union were abrupted by a salvo." (Младић, немачки војник, који је одбио да пуца у везане људе пред собом, нашао се за неколико тренутака међу паланачким комунистима испред сламе. Песму и поклике Комунистичкој партији, Црвеној армији и Совјетском Савезу прекинуо је плотун.)

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

Page about tragic occurrence in Smederevska Palanka - 1

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

Page about tragic occurrence in Smederevska Palanka – 2

And finally an additional snapshot with reference to the incidence – with a precise description of the place, clearly presented date and an explanation about factual victims:

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

Smederevska Palanka – execution of captured partisans and local non-combatant communists

This snapshot was taken before that previously presented one with Mr. Schulz in attendance.

Do you have any further wishes, my dear Mr. Egorka? :D

Egorka
11-09-2008, 04:43 PM
(two young doctorands on my back + a coursed influenza!)
Good luck with all of your problems! :)


Of course, my dear Mr. Egorka. Although I think that you surely will be dissapointed to a certain extent. You see, in those times Mr. Schulz was known only as a "The young man, German soldier, who refused to fire into binded people, found himself in a couple of moments amongst communists of Palanka, in front of a haystack. Song and shouts devoted to the Communist party, Red Army and Soviet Union were abrupted by a salvo." (Младић, немачки војник, који је одбио да пуца у везане људе пред собом, нашао се за неколико тренутака међу паланачким комунистима испред сламе. Песму и поклике Комунистичкој партији, Црвеној армији и Совјетском Савезу прекинуо је плотун.)
Thanks for the scans!
As you know there is opinion that the story about a german private J.Schultz denying order and being executed wuth partisans is forged.
I can try to trsanslate a German article on this (from an orher Russian translation), but, unfortunately, I have no time right now for that.
The thing is that there fere arguments against this story as presented in your post previously.

In any case this incident may be split into two sub issues.

Did a young german soldier do it?
If yes, then was it J.Schultz?

The second question is answered negatively by the Schultz's platoon mates who said that Schultz was killed the night before. The first time J.Schultz's name was used in connection to the execution event on the 20 of July 1941 in Smederevska Palanka was in 1972, i.e. some 30 years after the event took place.

But IMHO, it is not the most important issue here. The most important is the first question. It is not an easy one to answer, as my understanding is that German papers speak nothing of such incidenet at that time in 714th infantry division of Wehrmacht. There are also othe contre-arguments.

This might be a story twisted for some politico-propagandistic purposes - to show a "good German" in WW2 Yugoslavia. But it is not very clear either. Because there were already a number of such examples that could be used for the purpose - the German communists Soldiers that run over to partisans. It is not very clear why there was need to make one more up when there was plenty real ones to choose from.

This brings me to a question: What is the factual ground for the cited by you passage?
The book of 1948 speaks of a "young German soldier". But based on what? Does the source provide info on how those facts were recorded?

Librarian
11-09-2008, 06:04 PM
This brings me to a question: What is the factual ground for the cited by you passage? The book of 1948 speaks of a "young German soldier". But based on what?

Based upon signed testimonials of the Serbian witnesses, preserved photographs, as well as post-mortem leftovers - including not only human bones, but also parts of the German uniform and infantry equipment, discovered on the very spot of the previously mentioned executions, and mixed up with mortal remains of the Serbian patriots. Fortunately, all those leftovers are completely preserved in an hermetically sealed spelter coffin that was built in a concrete basement of the commemorative monument.

All original documents, photos, records, etc. connected with this case are completely available in a archival box No. 21897, located at Institut za izučavanje radničkog pokreta Srbije (Center for the Study of the Workers Movement of Serbia). Unfortunately, I think that your personal visit will be necessary.

BTW: do you have, by any chance, a copy, or photo of the Divisional diaries of the German 704th and 714th Infantry division for the 19 th and 20th of July, 1941? As well as those signed testimonials of the Germans soldiers connected with the case? You know, I am deeply interested for their names, as well as for the names of all active NCOs who were in direct charge on that very day.

As a former First Assistant to the District Attorney I think that I will be able to examine their factual role in this case… in a significantly innovative way. But for those strictly historical purposes I desperately do need those German documents. Could you provide those documents for me, my dear Mr. Egorka? If you can - thank you in advance. Just post them here and dont worry – everything else will be my job!

As always – all the best! :)

Egorka
11-10-2008, 05:57 AM
BTW: do you have, by any chance, a copy, or photo of the Divisional diaries of the German 704th and 714th Infantry division for the 19 th and 20th of July, 1941? As well as those signed testimonials of the Germans soldiers connected with the case? You know, I am deeply interested for their names, as well as for the names of all active NCOs who were in direct charge on that very day.
Unfortunately, I am no help on this one... :(
But maybe Flamethrowerguy may help???

flamethrowerguy
11-10-2008, 07:02 AM
I already told Egorka per PM that it is basically hard to get information about these high-numbered divisions like the 704th (a pure occupational unit) or the 714th (all reserve personell) Infanterie-Division since there were no divisional histories published in book-form. First I like to re-advert to my last post regarding the "Josef Schulz" issue:
http://ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=140519&postcount=131

However I found another source (Karl Bethke, Das Bild vom deutschen Widerstand gegen Hitler im ehemaligen Jugoslawien) saying the following:
"...For years the case of the Gefreiter (PFC) Josef Schulz from Wuppertal circulated throughout the debates. As a member of the 714th Infantry-Division he was supposed to have refused to take part in an execution of 16 partisans in Smerderevska Palanka/Yugoslavia on July 20th, 1941 and was hereupon shot himself. However it was doubtlessly determined that PFC Schulz was killed the day before during a descent of partisans. This means, there is no case noted that a german soldier was shot because he refused to be involved in executions like the one in question..."

I had some thoughts about this remarkable case myself and I think it would be an unlikely act that Schulz would have been executed with the alleged partisans immediately. It's doubtful that in a well-organized army like the Wehrmacht (which it still was in May 1941) a leader of a firing-squad would take the responsibility and execute a german soldier without being court-martialed and convicted before. But that's only my pure subjective mindset of course.

Egorka
11-10-2008, 07:26 AM
However I found another source (Karl Bethke, Das Bild vom deutschen Widerstand gegen Hitler im ehemaligen Jugoslawien) saying the following:
"...For years the case of the Gefreiter (PFC) Josef Schulz from Wuppertal circulated throughout the debates. As a member of the 714th Infantry-Division he was supposed to have refused to take part in an execution of 16 partisans in Smerderevska Palanka/Yugoslavia on July 20th, 1941 and was hereupon shot himself. However it was doubtlessly determined that PFC Schulz was killed the day before during a descent of partisans. This means, there is no case noted that a german soldier was shot because he refused to be involved in executions like the one in question..."
I actually read Russian translation of the Karl Bethke's article you quoted.
Flametrhrowerguy, I would not mind if you translate the whole thing into English... :rolleyes:

EDIT: see the next post.

Egorka
11-10-2008, 07:29 AM
Carl Bethke
Das Bild des deutschen Widerstandes gegen Hitler In (ex-) Jugoslawien
http://www.drustvosns.org/kultura/pdf/Carl%20Bethke,%20Deutscher%20Widerstand%20gegen%20 Hitler%20aus%20YU-Sicht.pdf

Der „Fall Schulz“
Die bizarrste Seite deutsch-jugoslawischer Erinnerungskultur ist der Fall des Gefreiten Josef
Schulz aus Wuppertal, der sich am 20. Juli 1941 in Smederevska Palanka geweigert haben
soll, an einer Erschießung von 16 Partisanen teilzunehmen, wofür er selber hingerichtet
worden sei. Der Vorgang ist angezweifelt worden (Heiner Lichtensteinlxxvi, Albert Rückerl,
Friedrich Stahl) da Expertisen der Zentralen Untersuchungsstelle Ludwigsburg und des
Freiburger Militärarchivs belegen, daß Schulz schon einen Tag vorher gefallen ist - bereits um
2.00 morgens des 20.7.1941 war der Tod beim Armeeoberkommando gemeldet worden, den
Angehörigen wurde ein Photo zugesandt. Eingewandt wird seitdem, daß mit dem Fall Schulz
ein Exempel für „Befehlsnotstand“ statuiert würde. Tatsächlich aber fand der Schulz-Mythos
vor allem in Jugoslawien selbst viele Anhänger -und nur deswegen konnte er sich entfalten-,
sowie insbesondere bei jenen Deutschen, denen eine Verständigung mit Jugoslawien und den
Serben am Herzen lag. Der Dichter Antonije Iskaović hat die Erschießung in Palanka als
Augenzeuge miterlebt und in einer Erzählung „Satovi“ beschrieben, nennt jedoch nur 16
erschossene und erwähnt einen deutschen Soldaten nicht, berichtet aber Bilder von der
Erschießung schon 1945 in einer Ausstellung der Kommission für Kriegsverbrechen in
Belgrad gesehen zu haben.lxxvii Laut der Erzählung des Direktors jener Mineralwasserfabrik,
auf dessen Grundstück die Erschiessung stattfand (damals eine Kaserne), Časlav Vlajić, habe
man bei Exhumierungen nach dem Krieg, bei denen er als Schüler dabi gewesen sei,
Stiefelnägel und Teile eines Koppelschlosses gefunden- offenbar ein deutscher Soldat, die
Erkennungsmarke sei damals verloren gegangen. Die Geschichte eines Soldaten, der sich aus
ethischen Gründen gegen seine Mitstreiter wandte -ein klassischer Stoff der Heldenliteraturhabe
man auf dem 1947 errichten Denkmal dokumentieren wollen, dazu habe man den
Namen eines damals erschossenen Arbeiters aus Kroatien, Marsel Mezic in Marcel Masel
-11-
"germanisiert"- wegen des fremd klingenden Vornamens nahm man an, er sei deutscher
Abstammung. Jedenfalls taucht die Geschichte über den erschossenen Deutschen 1961 in der
jugoslawischen Presse auflxxviii, im Dezember deselben Jahres wurden Photos aus den
Beständen des Militärarchivs, datiert auf den 20.7.1941, in der deutschen Presse abgedruckt
(Neuen Illustrierte, 1966 auch in Quick)lxxix: Sie zeigen im Rahmen einer Geiselerschießung
im ländlichen Raum unscharf einen „deutschen Soldaten dessen Abzeichen nicht erkennbar
sind“. Ohne Helm und ohne Kopel, möglichwerweise auf dem Rücken gefesselt, wird er
anscheinend in die Reihe der Opfer geschickt. Die Illustrierten wandten sich mit der Frage an
die deutschen Leser, wer sich an diese Begebenheit erinnern könne. Der Film soll, so der
Angestellte des Archivs in Palanka, bei einem lokalen Fotografen entwickelt worden und bei
der Verlegung der Einheit an die Ostfront zurückgelassen worden sein. Eigenartig ist, daß die
Heimatchroniken von Palanka zwar die Bilder abdrucken, den Fall Schulz aber nicht
schildern.lxxx Der SPD- Bundestagsabgeordnete Wilderich Freiher Ostmann von der Leye
„identifizierte“ anhand des Kriegstagebuchs des Kommandeurs der 714. Infanteriedivision,
Generalmajor Stahl, das Photo mit der Erschießung in Palanka und den Erschossenen mit dem
an diesem Tag gefallenen Schulz- das Tagebuch Stahls hatte Ostmann, von dessen Sohn,
inzwischen Leiter des Freiburger Militärarchivs, erhalten.lxxxi Ostmann, seit 1969 SPDBundestagsabgeordneter,
spürte Schulzens Bruder Walter auf und regte 1972 dessen
Jugoslawien-Reise an. Mit den Photos und der Geschichte konfrontiert, wollte Schulz seinen
Bruder identifiziert haben. Doch Kameraden von Schulz´ versicherten in der Wuppertaler
Tageszeitung sie hätten gesehen wie dieser durch Partisanen gefallen seilxxxii, ein Gutachten
der Zentralen Ermittlungsstelle von 1972 bestritt den Fall explizit. Direktor Vlajić,
deutschsprachig und Interviewpartner vieler Medien, stand damals in geschäftlichem Kontakt
mit deutschen Firmen; gegenüber dem Autor gab er zu, daß er mit dem „Fall Schulz“ auch
touristische Ziele verfolgt habe. In serbischen Zeitungen erzählt er heute, er halte die Sache
„noch immer für ein großes Rätsel“.lxxxiii Als Augenzeuge wurde nach diesen Zweifeln
Zvonimr Janković ins Feld geführt; er habe gesehen wie ein Offizier mit einem
protestierenden Deutschen ohne Abzeichen zornig und „mit verstärkter Lautstärke“
gesprochen habe. Passend zur Aufnahme diplomatischer Beziehungen wurde Schulz von
beiden Seiten zum Symbol des „anderen Deutschland“ aufgebaut; in Jugoslawien, wo die
Geschichte in viele Publikationenlxxxiv und sogar die Schulbücherlxxxv eingegangen ist, wohl
auch als Ausweg aus den anti-deutschen Affekten der Nachkriegszeit, die den Erfahrungen
der Jüngeren und den wirtschaftlichen Erfordernissen nicht mehr entsprachen. Damit hatten
nun beide deutschen Staaten ihre „guten Deutschen“ für symbolsche Rituale gefunden, die
DDR im Gedenken an die linken Volksdeutschen und Überläufer in Mikleuš, „Bonn“
hingegen in Schulz in Smedervska Palanka. Predrag Golubović hat über Schulz 1972 einen
Kurzfilm gedreht (ursprünglich für den Armee- Filmdienst „Zastava“), der im Vorprogramm
der Kinos lief und 1973 auf dem Festival in Oberhausen (sowie in Atlanta, Birmingham u.a.)
gezeigt wurde. Der Film stellt die Szene der umstrittenen Photos nach. Bemerkenswert ist,
daß hier und in Reportagen der Einwand wegen der fehlenden Abzeichen auf der Uniform in
einer theatralischen Degradierungsszene verarbeitet wurde. Die Landeszentrale für politische
Bildung NRW verbreitete den Filmlxxxvi, auch der NDR arbeitete an einer Produktion. Mira
Alečković vefasste eine Dichtung über den Helden, nicht realisiert wurde die Absicht eine
Straße nach Schulz zu bennenen. Ende der siebziger Jahre machte sich jedoch Unmut breit:
Als die Künstlerin „Duša“ Mina Kovačević 1978 in ihrem Garten in Gornji Lokva bei
Milanovac ein Denkmal für Schulz aufstellte, entrüsteten sich der Altpartisanenverband und
lokale Politiker. Es entbrannte ein bis 1981 währender Rechtsstreit -der mit der Niederlage
der Künsterlin- endete: Ganz offiziell hieß es von der Gemeindebehörde und den „Kämpfern“,
ein Denkmal für einen ausländischen Soldaten, und besonders für einen Deutschen, könne
ohne Rücksicht auf dessen Heroismus, nicht Teil einer „organisierten gesellschaftlichen
-12-
Aktion“ sein. Unterstützung erhielt die Künstlerin von der Kultur-Erzeihungsgemeinschaft
und Schriftstellern aus Belgrad. Schließlich wandte sie sich an den deutschen Botschafter um
Hilfe; der Stern wurde auf „die Engstirnigkeit der Genossen aus dem serbischen Hinterwald“
aufmerksam.lxxxvii Horst Grabert legte im Sommer 1981 zusammen mit dem jugoslawischen
Außenminister Vrbovec Kränze nieder, welcher kurz darauf gegenüber Genscher erklärte
ganz Jugoslawien sei auf der Seite von Schulz.lxxxviii Doch Ludwigsburg informierte die
deutsche Botschaft von der Unstimmigkeit der Schulz-Legende. Grabert gab sich unbeirrt:
Mit Blick auf den Zeugen Janković und weitere Indizien erklärte er, man möge verstehen, daß
er „den hiesigen Überzeugungen nicht widersprechen möchte“. lxxxix Im Vorwort zum Buch
von Kühnrich-Hitze (1997) kam Grabert wieder auf den Fall zurück und wartete nun mit der
Wertung auf, es habe sich um einen „gläubigen Katholiken“ gehandelt.xc Auch in
jugoslawischen Zeitungen werden seit einem Besuch von Politika-Journalisten bei Walter
Schulz 1973 immer wieder Einzelheiten nachgelegt, man betont sein künsterisches Talent, er
sei sogar Mitglied einer geheimen anti-Hitler Organisation gewesen. Nur wenige Meter vom
Denkmal wurde Anfang der achtziger Jahre ein weiteres errichtet, welches den Nachnamen
des Dalmatiners wieder in der urspüngliche Schreibweise brachte, und nun mit Schulz 17
Namen nannte. Im Zusammenhang mit dem Krieg am Balkan und der Wehrmachtsaustellung
erhielt der Fall Schulz erneut Konjunktur, Kriegsdienstverweigerer, Pax Christixci und SPDPolitikerxcii
beriefen sich auf sein Beispiel; der in Amsterdam lebende serbische Bildhauer
Slavomir Miletić wollte ein Denkmal für Schulz schaffen . Zuletzt trat am 20.7.1997
Botschafter Wilfried Gruber am Denkmal (und anschließend im Fernsehen) auf. Bei der
Zeremonie lobte der Vertreter des Altpartisanenverbandes, das Buch von Kühnrich/Hitze, die
Wehrmachtsaustellung - und nutze die Gelegenheit einzuschärfen, Jugoslawien wünsche
Beziehungen auf der Grundlage territorialer Integrität und Nichteinmischung in „innere
Angelegenheiten“, welche „jedes Land nach seinen Erfordernissen, Traditionen und Kulturen
löse“. xciii Mehr als in Deutschland ist Schulz in Serbien selbst ein im kollektiven Gedächtnis
abrufbares Symbol geworden, seine Wirkungsgeschichte ist vom Wahrheitsgehalt unabhängig
geworden : Der Vorsitzende der Liga der Sozialdemokraten in der Vojvodina Nenad Čanak
rief zur Zeit der Demonstrationen im Oktober 1999 die serbischen Polizisten dazu auf, dem
Beispiel des Josef Schulz zu folgen und sich, wie dieser in „Kragujevac“, auf die Seite des
Volkes zu stellen und dem Protest anschließen. xciv - Über Schulz sind in Jugoslawien im
Laufe von fast 40 Jahren Dutzende von Zeitungsartiklen verfasst worden, von denen sich fast
alle gegenüber den Einwänden von wissenschaftlicher Seite immun oder reserviert zeigten.xcv
1981 wurde von Borislav Komad die biographische Essaysammlung „Privi Pucanj u Hitlera“
(Der erste Schuß auf Hitler) vorgestellt, die die Schulz-Debatte nachzeichnet und sich
außerdem in halb-romanhafter Form mit dem Schicksal der Belgrader Volksdeutschen
Leotina Kraus befasst, die 1942 ihre Hinrichtung anstelle des 18 jährigen Kommunisten Stojic
anbot- dessen Bild sie in der Zeitung gesehen hätte.xcvi

flamethrowerguy
11-10-2008, 09:57 AM
Ouch, give me some time for this, please! :shock:

Librarian
11-11-2008, 09:22 AM
However it was doubtlessly determined that PFC Schulz was killed the day before during a descent of partisans. This means, there is no case noted that a german soldier was shot because he refused to be involved in executions like the one in question...

Dobtlessly determined? Well, In that case I have two questions, honorable gentlemen:

1) Where is the grave of PFC Schultz? (Clear snapshot of it will be highly appreciated!)

2)Where is the official death certificate, signed by officially appointed German officer, and confirmed by a divisional privy seal ? (Facsimile, or photo of it would be just fine!)

And please, gentlemen - take your time. We are not in a hurry.

flamethrowerguy
11-11-2008, 09:29 AM
Dobtlessly determined? Well, In that case I have two questions, honorable gentlemen:

1) Where is the grave of PFC Schultz? (Clear snapshot of it will be highly appreciated!)

2)Where is the official death certificate, signed by officially appointed German officer, and confirmed by a divisional privy seal ? (Facsimile, or photo of it would be just fine!)

And please, gentlemen - take your time. We are not in a hurry.

I can answer your question No. 1 immediately, Mr. Librarian: There is no known grave of Gefreiter Josef Schulz, born February 16, 1909 in Dortmund, killed on July 19, 1941 near Adzibegovac/Serbia.

Hooray for the modern internet options!
http://www.volksbund.de/graebersuche/content_ergebnis_detail.asp?id=3533498&sec_id=A68656FC1B45F071CD6F67ED93E42CC3980780CC

Librarian
11-11-2008, 09:34 AM
Therefore it is completely possible that the very first place of his burial is on the very spot of the execution, isn’t it my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy?

flamethrowerguy
11-11-2008, 09:39 AM
Therefore it is completely possible that the very first place of his burial is on the very spot of the execution, isn’t it my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy?

Certainly possible! But what about the date of July 19?
To solve this and coevally answer your second question I'd have to file an application to the Wehrmachtsauskunftsstelle (WASt) respectively Deutsche Dienststelle in Berlin. But this would take about 6 months before answered upon and costs about 25 euro, but it would be definitely worth that!

Librarian
11-11-2008, 09:47 AM
Well, falsified dates are only a tiny part of the history of a governmental forgery, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy. Do you remember that highly known case with those "killed German officials" at Gleiwitz? You know… those nicely prepared activities of that good and utterly honest fellow Naujocks? If I remembered that case well, certain officially issued certificates were higly persuasive in those times…

And please, don’t worry – history is always a very slow and painstaking work! ;)

flamethrowerguy
11-11-2008, 12:54 PM
Well, falsified dates are only a tiny part of the history of a governmental forgery, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy. Do you remember that highly known case with those "killed German officials" at Gleiwitz? You know… those nicely prepared activities of that good and utterly honest fellow Naujocks? If I remembered that case well, certain officially issued certificates were higly persuasive in those times…

Agreed. But the Gleiwitz incident and Naujocks' (aka Müller, Bonsen, Möbert) involvement was an excuse to start a war. I mean, all that effort for a little Private "gone astray"?

Egorka
11-11-2008, 01:30 PM
Certainly possible! But what about the date of July 19?
To solve this and coevally answer your second question I'd have to file an application to the Wehrmachtsauskunftsstelle (WASt) respectively Deutsche Dienststelle in Berlin. But this would take about 6 months before answered upon and costs about 25 euro, but it would be definitely worth that!
Flamethrowerguy, if you can fill in the application to archive I am willing to pay for it provided it costs €30 or so.:)

Librarian
11-11-2008, 02:50 PM
Oh, you are asking me now about factual motives, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy? Well, although we are here walking upon the slippery slope of a hypothetic guessing, we surely do have certain suggestions. So why not, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy if the stake in our case is a highly usable discreditation of the modern history of the Balkans in genera, as well as the credibility of those generally exceptionally wild and extremely murderous commie bastards – in partibus infidelium?

Why to Hell we have to care about the preservation of a potentially dangerous example of the supra-national brotherhood? Alternatively, about the ethical capacity of a single soldier to disobey his direct orders in non-standardized circumstances? Or about that infectuous and malignant, deeply humanistic example capable to undermine otherwise not so towering quality of the German occupational troops? To hell with all that – our brand new vacuous revisionism will be able to cure all those potentially dangerous and terrifying authenticities! We will ruine all those childlike archetypes of completely unusable humanity! Our new age, our freshly wrought functional utilitarism requires that in this sadly complicated world of ours.

After all, my dear Mr. Flamethroverguy – what if someone (like that unknown German NCO who actually shot his stubborn and indocile soldier, or a or a regimental commander, or someone else) was anxious in relation to certain… legal and especially ethical consequences? In the end - that is completely possible as well.

But all those issues are completely insignificant in our case, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy. Fortunately, applied science and human intelligence will be capable to resolve this little quandary we have here. You see, those stubborn, ill-fated Serbian idiots do have certain material artifacts - bones, sealed carcasses, real-world material and human remnants - totally suitable for a truly scientific examination. As a consequence, the path for a full-scale, unabridged hard-science exploration will be completely available.

Like in this tiny factographic example, that was discovered in 1943 in a rucksack of the German soldier, with a truly gorgeous and poetic inscription:

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

Baumblüte in Serbien, Frühling 1941 - Tree blossom in Serbia, spring of 1941

Of course, authenticity of the original photo will be completely verifiable by hard-science means, more precisely by neutron –activation analyses at the FBI Crime Lab.

BTW: if you are interested, and if you do have a really strong stomach, I shall present some pretty unknown photos for you. All of them are connected with our main theme in this thread, and all of them are connected with the German activities. Not to mention that all of them were taken in the former Yugoslavia.

I am assuring you that up until now you have not seen a real-war atrocities.

Therefore – just relax, give me a whistle and don’t worry – my photo repository is bottomless. :)

As always – all the best.

flamethrowerguy
11-11-2008, 04:16 PM
Well, Mr. Librarian, I guess I've never experienced you that wound-up here! Anyway, I don't want you to get the impression that I foreclose that the Schulz-case did happen they way yugoslavian sources report...or that I am denying german war crimes and atrocities on the Balkans generally here. Like you and Egorka I am anxious to know the whole truth about Josef Schulz and I was just bringing in german sources here (and not even revisionist ones), just collecting all available sources.
If I didn't get the bigger political picture of it all...well, most likely for I try to keep away from politics as much as I can and do not know too much about it.


BTW: if you are interested, and if you do have a really strong stomach, I shall present some pretty unknown photos for you. All of them are connected with our main theme in this thread, and all of them are connected with the German activities. Not to mention that all of them were taken in the former Yugoslavia. I am assuring you that up until now you have not seen a real-war atrocities. Therefore – just relax, give me a whistle and don’t worry – my photo repository is bottomless.
Uhm, thanx but no, thanx. The "serbian spring impressions" and the beheadings you uploaded a couple of months ago are totally sufficient for my taste.


in partibus infidelium
Why is that? Orthodox yes, unbeliever no.

PA.Dutchman
11-12-2008, 01:29 AM
The American History Channel said that the regular German Army could refuse to help the SS in their murdering acts and did from time to time.

It was never part of the Regular Army Corp rule book. Therefore on a few occasions the commanding officer of a Regular Unit did not take part in the murders.

It probably meant moving to the Eastern Front,:) but the units' commanding officer could refuse. I doubt a enlisted man could but he might have appealed to a good regular army commander.

Librarian
11-12-2008, 04:02 PM
Thank you, my dear Mr. Flamethrowerguy for your sincere clarification – as always, reasonable people always will be able to remain in sagacity within the boundaries of reason. :)

I’m also sure that you will be able to understand my personal stance in this whole issue.

I was infinitely saddened to discover myself unexpectedly surrounded by a sense of some… terrible loss of nerve, some kind of a retreat from positive scientific knowledge into interpretability of uncorroborated claims. We are both members of a scientific civilization. That means, a civilization in which factual knowledge and its integrity are crucial. And knowledge is not only a loose-leaf notebook of simple facts. Above all, it is a responsibility for the integrity of what we are, primarily of what we are as ethical creatures. The personal commitment of a man to his analytic skill, the intellectual commitment and the rational scientific equipment working together as one has made the history of humankind.

And history is not events, but people. And it is not just people remembering, it is people acting and living their past in the present. History is our everyday act of decision, which crystallizes all the knowledge, all the science, all the humanity, all that has been learned since man began.

That’s why I like it so much. And that’s why I am delighted being accompanied in that devotion by courteous and eloquent personalities like you.

As always – all the best! ;)

Egorka
11-13-2008, 08:12 AM
Otto Schimek (May 5, 1925 – November 14, 1944) was an Austrian soldier in the German Wehrmacht during World War II who served as a member of a firing squad. He was himself executed for refusing to carry out a death sentence on Poles. His actions have served as a source of inspiration to many Poles and pacifists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Schimek

Egorka
11-18-2008, 03:57 PM
The opinion I expressed is basic international law. Treaties do not bind states which have not signed them.

If it was clear law that non-signatories were bound by or acquired rights under the conventions, the Tribunal would not have skirted that point.

Even the wider terms of the 1949 Geneva Convention recognise that it does not bind or confer rights on non-signatories unless they accept and apply its provisions.
Raisin Sun* :)

In the light of our previous discussion, how would you comment the following text?



source: www.ICRC.org - Commentary for Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590005?OpenDocument)

There was no discussion, at the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, on the Committee's proposal (which did not include the second sentence of paragraph 3); the experience of the Second World War had [p.21] convinced all concerned that it was necessary. But the draft text said nothing about the relations between a belligerent, or belligerents, bound by the Conventions on the one hand, and a belligerent, or belligerents, not bound by it on the other hand. The ' clausula si omnes ' (4) which was included in the 1906 Geneva Convention -- but which was never invoked during the First World War, although it might appropriately have been in the case of Montenegro -- was omitted in 1929. But although the Convention was binding upon the Contracting States in their relations as between each other, they were still under no obligation in regard to States which were not parties to that instrument. The ideal solution would obviously have been that all the Parties to a conflict should be obliged to apply the Convention in all circumstances, i.e. even if the adversary was not a party to it, and despite the fact that the Convention would be a ' res inter alios acta ' for the latter.
There could be no question of reverting to the ' clausula si omnes ', which had fortunately been abandoned in recent times, since it no longer corresponded to humanitarian needs. The 1929 Convention had already departed from it by stating in the second paragraph of Article 82 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' that "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". Thus the provisions concerning prisoners of war were given the binding force of which they had been deprived by the solutions adopted at the Peace Conferences. The fact that one of the belligerents was not a party to the Convention could no longer nullify its applicability.
Although from the legal point of view there was no way to extend the scope of the Convention, it was necessary to find one on the humanitarian plane. The Committee accordingly suggested to the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference of 1949 that the following two sentences be added to Article 2 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article':

"In the event of an international conflict between one of the High Contracting Parties and a Power which is not bound by the present Convention, the Contracting Party shall apply the provisions thereof. This obligation shall stand unless, after a reasonable lapse of time, the Power not bound by the present Convention states its refusal to apply it, or in fact fails to apply it." (5)

I am lost. At one point it supports your position but an other - mine...

Rising Sun*
11-19-2008, 07:28 AM
Raisin Sun* :)

Do not trifle with me, little one, for I am about to be elevated from a raisin to a sultana. :D (Which could be a bit awkward, as in another context a sultana is a sultan's missus. :shock: )


I am lost. At one point it supports your position but an other - mine...

Clearly, you have had little to do with lawyers.

Our stock in trade is "On one hand..... , but on the other hand....". This ensures that we advise the client of all possibilities and are correct whatever happens and, most importantly, cannot be sued for negligent advice. ;)

More seriously, my reading of your ICRC quote is that it recognises the problem of conflict between a contracting and non-contracting party and ultimately attempts to resolve it by requiring a contracting party to observe the Convention until it becomes clear from an explicit refusal or failure to observe the Convention by the non-contracting party that the latter will not observe it.

This then creates the curious situation that a contracting party may act contrary to the Convention because the other side is doing so, which rather cuts the high moral ground out from under the contracting party.

This illustrates one of the central problems in international law, which is that it is based on the notion of sovereign states not being able to be subjected to another or higher jurisdiction unless they voluntarily submit to it. If we applied the same rules to people within those states then those states would be ungovernable. The difference is that within a state there is a legal system which is enforced by various mechanisms of the state, such as police, courts and prisons, but there are no corresponding international mechanisms. The nearest is the UN and the International Court of Justice, but they still come back to issues of sovereignty and submission to jurisdiction by sovereign states, further corrupted by the Security Council being hamstrung in many instances by political rather than humanitarian or other high motives determining votes.

Egorka
11-19-2008, 07:42 AM
More seriously, my reading of your ICRC quote is that it recognises the problem of conflict between a contracting and non-contracting party and ultimately attempts to resolve it by requiring a contracting party to observe the Convention until it becomes clear from an explicit refusal or failure to observe the Convention by the non-contracting party that the latter will not observe it.
OK. Thanks!
Well the quote I presented is coments on the Convention of 1949. So the rule that a contracting party should follow the convention during war with a non contracting party until the later one makes a declaration, is only applicable to the document of 1949.

About the document of 1929 it sais:
"But although the Convention was binding upon the Contracting States in their relations as between each other, they were still under no obligation in regard to States which were not parties to that instrument."
Which is explicit enough... Right?

Rising Sun*
11-19-2008, 08:18 AM
Well the quote I presented is coments on the Convention of 1949. So the rule that a contracting party should follow the convention during war with a non contracting party until the later one makes a declaration, is only applicable to the document of 1949.

I'm not sure.

Surprising though it may seem for a ferocious intellect like mine ;), I don't keep a stock of international conventions on my bedside table to lull me off to sleep each night, although reading a few paragraphs of such turgid documents ought to put a chronic insomniac to sleep in no time. :D

My comment was responding to your ICRC quote, which in the sentence preceding the final paragraph says only that the final paragraph was suggested. I don't know if that suggestion was adopted.


About the document of 1929 it sais:
"But although the Convention was binding upon the Contracting States in their relations as between each other, they were still under no obligation in regard to States which were not parties to that instrument."
Which is explicit enough... Right?

Right.

Even if the suggestion for the 1949 Convention was implemented, it still leaves open the question of enforcement.

As a general legal principle which I've mentioned earlier, only parties to a contract may enforce it.

So, if Upper Duodenum is not a party to one of these conventions and Lower Bowel is, and Lower Bowel goes through Upper Duodenum like a dose of salts and breaches every provision of a convention, Upper Duodenum has no standing to complain.

Unless one of the contracting parties wants to make an issue of Lower Bowel's breach of the convention, then Lower Bowel will get away with it.

Even if one of the contracting parties makes an issue of it, which is the proper forum (court etc) to determine the matter? After the UN was established, it's presumably the International Court of Justice.

Yeah, right!

The previous international law position is preserved, that sovereign states can be judged only if they submit to the ICJ's jurisdiction, which usually won't happen when a state knows it's in the wrong.

This all comes back to the notion of states being sovereign and, in effect, deciding to which laws and tribunals they will submit.

I wish I had the same luxury on, among other things, traffic laws. :(

Egorka
11-19-2008, 08:45 AM
I'm not sure.
I am. :)


My comment was responding to your ICRC quote, which in the sentence preceding the final paragraph says only that the final paragraph was suggested. I don't know if that suggestion was adopted.
The quote from ICRC is comments to the document of 1949.
Never mind...


May I ask you to explain a bit about "clausula si omnes" and "res inter alios acta"?
What is the difference and pssible implication for the conventions of 1907 and 1929?
In 1929 they abandonet clausula si omnes. But in my understanding it makes no difference in relations to the non contracting parties.

Librarian
11-19-2008, 12:44 PM
Well, in that case, my dear Mr. Rising Sun, please explain to our young Student at Law also those less known, but highly important legal concepts such as de lege ferenda and obligatio erga omnes, which – with a bit of luck! – will be sufficient to explain how a state which becomes a party to international convention is able to recognize the rules of that given character in its own respect as having an obligatory character in relation to everyone, thus binding not only its contracting parties on a strictly contractual basis, but as parts of customary international law. :)

On the other hand, I shall try to explain one much more important problem, beautifully expressed with these words of yours:


If we applied the same rules to people within those states then those states would be ungovernable. The difference is that within a state there is a legal system which is enforced by various mechanisms of the state, such as police, courts and prisons, but there are no corresponding international mechanisms.

Bulls Eye, my esteemed coleague! Indeed, honorable ladies and gentlemen, if we accept so called command definition of law as the rules established by the State and enforced by the State, then clearly there can be little hope for any juridical development in the field of world affairs unless a Super–State is created which has the power to enforce its commands on the subordinate national States. According to this view, the present national States can only be legally bound to each other if there is some superior power which is capable of enforcing its rules by applying a sanction in case there is a breach of them. This doctrine was accepted by the majority of the jurists during the XIX century, when the command interpretation of law held the field. To them the idea of a law which was not enforced by a specific sanction was a contradictio in adjecto.

International law, therefore, was not law in the true sense, and it could not legally bind the various nations. Every State must be a sovereign state, because no law could limit its powers. It may be said that the facts seemed to abide by the rules of International law only in so far as it suited their interests. A rule which can be disregarded at will obviously has not got that compulsive nature which is an essential element in all law. Without a sanction there could be no compulsion to obedience. But in that case we are facinng an enormous threat. :(

If law in a nation State based upon direct or indirect democracy is merely the codification of the will of the majority, then, honorable ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing the law cannot be made to do! Anything that is possible can be made legal by the legislative enactments of an elected parliament: the confiscation of property, the abrogation of freedom, the sterilization of paupers, the racial discrimination and even genocide.

The Nazi legislation that paved the way for the Holocaust was an unprecedented example of a legalistic law-making run amok. But, in one of history’s more astounding ironies, this law without justice was righted by justice without law. Following the defeat of Germany some Germans found themselves being tried for complying with the very laws that their government had made in a decade earlier. But there was no legal precedent for trying the law of the land, however evil that law might be, and the Allied prosecutors had to rely on the IDEA OF HIGHER LAW, of the Natural Right of men, women and children not to be abused by any government – domestic or foreign.

Before Nuremberg, the doctrine and approach of International Law was that the way in which a government treated people was entirely a matter for the sovereign decisions of that sovereign state. After the war and the creation of an International Code of Human Rights (in 1948), the position of the individual human being was transformed as a matter of law from being a mere object of compassion to being a subjet of RIGHTS!

To be continued…

Egorka
11-20-2008, 06:30 AM
@Rising Sun*

Another question: Did not Germany have to apply Geneva 1929 to Soviet POW anyway on the ground of "Customary international law"?

I mean could one argue that by 1941 the provisions of Geneva convention became Customary international law (http://www.icrc.org/eng/customary-law) and therefor should have been applied even towards the nonsignatiory conflict parties?

@Librarian, you are very welcome to comment as well. :)

Rising Sun*
11-20-2008, 08:28 AM
@Rising Sun*

Another question: Did not Germany have to apply Geneva 1929 to Soviet POW anyway on the ground of "Customary international law"?

The short answer to your question is, in my view: No. If it was customary international law it wouldn't have needed to be codified in a convention as, in theory which is all international law is in any case, all nations would already have known the customary law and could be relied upon (Yeah! Right!) to observe it without requiring them to sign the Convention.

That said, there is a huge and long standing debate beneath my confident statements, which revolves around exactly what is customary international law; when it becomes customary; what makes it customary; what is customary among which nations; and, in relation to your question, the sources of customary international law during WWII.

If you want to make your brain hurt exploring some of these aspects, settle down with a large bucket of lemon tea and a small bucket of your preferred pain killer (or maybe vice versa ;) ) and plough through this http://www.asil.org/ajil/roberts.pdf


I mean could one argue that by 1941 the provisions of Geneva convention became Customary international law (http://www.icrc.org/eng/customary-law) and therefor should have been applied even towards the nonsignatiory conflict parties?

The very short, in international law terms, existence by WWII of the 1929 Convention signed by some nations did not make its contents customary international law.

One could also raise the argument that, while not a strict requirement in international law but nonetheless recognised in various forms in some legal systems as expressed in the English legal system, he who seeks equity must do equity or, expressing a similar notion differently, seek it with clean hands. The situation with the USSR is complicated by questions about the legitimacy of its government in international law terms and its own expansionist actions and crimes against humanity (although on one view those crimes weren't part of customary or any other international law at the time) preceding its war with Germany when it colluded with Germany in carving up Poland and the Baltic states.

As with many issues which descend into debates about the law and its supposed failures, the real problem is not the law but the failure of people or, in this case, nations controlled by people to observe the law. If Germany and the USSR had both respected the sovereignty of other nations and stayed within their borders 1939-45 and conformed to international law, whether under customary law or conventions, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Just on your link which refers to customary international humanitarian law, that has no bearing on treatment of POWs which was regulated by the laws of war rather than humanitarian laws.

It is common in most discussions outside serious legal or academic circles for people to proceed as if the international laws affecting treatment of intra-state civilians (e.g. German Jews in Holocaust); extra-state civilians (e.g. Russian civilians under Einsatzgruppen); and POWs (e.g. Russian prisoners in Germany, and vice versa) were all the same. They're not, which is one of the reasons the Hague Conventions were initiated, to protect civilians in time of and in the path of war.

Overall, the problem with focusing on a specific issue such as the outrageously brutal and inhumane treatment of Russian POWs by Germany, or vice versa, is that it can become a plank in an argument to establish the moral guilt or superiority of one side when, on a balanced view of all events, they are often about as bad as each other, regardless of who started the conflict.

Instead of international law being expected to deal with issues such as the German mistreatment and extermination of Russian POWs (and vice versa), a better approach from a legal point of view would be to prosecute each offence individually and punish those responsible for each act. But there wouldn't be enough courtrooms and enough time between the end of the war and the death of everyone involved in it to begin to deal with every case.

Librarian
11-20-2008, 11:05 AM
You really are a very good student, my dear Mr. Egorka. And please – dont worry: your older colleague Librarian is preparing one large article about this knotty issue. You will excuse me for a moment, because I currently have to reexamine certain.. texts which were given to me by my dearly beloved and deeply respecrted teacher, the Right Honorable Elwyn Jones, former Lord Chancellor of Britain, who, by the way, was a junior prosecutor on the British team at Nuremberg. Therefore please, have some patience. After all, I have to retranslate those thoughts in our current lingua franca.:D

However, for time being, here is another example of highly useful literature for you:

http://books.google.hu/books?id=a0JSDR_yxfQC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=erga+omnes,+Nuremberg&source=bl&ots=qAtFl6rvRG&sig=07_-O1Xu5ETGvjacqdSDX3zbjjc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

In the meantime, as always - all the best! ;)

Egorka
11-20-2008, 04:00 PM
However, for time being, here is another example of highly useful literature for you:
http://books.google.hu/books?id=a0JSDR_yxfQC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=erga+omnes,+Nuremberg&source=bl&ots=qAtFl6rvRG&sig=07_-O1Xu5ETGvjacqdSDX3zbjjc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
In the meantime, as always - all the best! ;)
Librarian,
Do I understand it right that the legal notion Erga omnes was first established and recognised only in 1970, i.e. way after WW2?

Chevan
11-21-2008, 01:37 AM
..... The situation with the USSR is complicated by questions about the legitimacy of its government in international law terms and its own expansionist actions and crimes against humanity (although on one view those crimes weren't part of customary or any other international law at the time) preceding its war with Germany when it colluded with Germany in carving up Poland and the Baltic states.

As with many issues which descend into debates about the law and its supposed failures, the real problem is not the law but the failure of people or, in this case, nations controlled by people to observe the law. If Germany and the USSR had both respected the sovereignty of other nations and stayed within their borders 1939-45 and conformed to international law, whether under customary law or conventions, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

There were nothing complicated with neither with USSR nor with Nazis Germany.
Both gov have been recogniged officialy by the West ( USA and Britain) . Besides Nazis won the official election by the more or less democratic way.
Official diplomatic SU-US relation have been established 13 November of 1933
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D 0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1 %88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F#.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0. A0_.E2.80.94_.D0.A1.D0.A8.D0.90
The British Empire has recognized the USSR before - in 1924 and immediatelly start trade with them.
In the 1924 the USSR has been adopted to League of Nations.
So there is no any point about question of "legitimacy of its government". West actively traded and interacted with SU since the 1930-yy.USA even supplied the wearpon to Soviet Russia.
As for Nazi Germany , west start the active International interaction with Hitler before even Stalin was his friend:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
In 1938 France and Britain cooperated with Nazis very well, curving up the their ally Chehoslovakia.
So hardly somebody might cry about "unfair" to German Nazis govenment.That's just funny.
Everything was OK , before 1939.:)
AS for "carving up" Poland and Baltic states- can you remind me how Poland themself curved up the Western Ukraine?
No?What a surprise:D
P.S. The Nazis GErmany and USSR was an equal legitime members of international law till the most its' end in 1945 and 1991 respectively.

Rising Sun*
11-21-2008, 04:19 AM
There were nothing complicated with neither with USSR nor with Nazis Germany.
Both gov have been recogniged officialy by the West ( USA and Britain) . Besides Nazis won the official election by the more or less democratic way.
Official diplomatic SU-US relation have been established 13 November of 1933
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D 0%BE-%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D 1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1 %88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F#.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0. A0_.E2.80.94_.D0.A1.D0.A8.D0.90
The British Empire has recognized the USSR before - in 1924 and immediatelly start trade with them.
In the 1924 the USSR has been adopted to League of Nations.
So there is no any point about question of "legitimacy of its government". West actively traded and interacted with SU since the 1930-yy.USA even supplied the wearpon to Soviet Russia.
As for Nazi Germany , west start the active International interaction with Hitler before even Stalin was his friend:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
In 1938 France and Britain cooperated with Nazis very well, curving up the their ally Chehoslovakia.
So hardly somebody might cry about "unfair" to German Nazis govenment.That's just funny.
Everything was OK , before 1939.:)
AS for "carving up" Poland and Baltic states- can you remind me how Poland themself curved up the Western Ukraine?
No?What a surprise:D
P.S. The Nazis GErmany and USSR was an equal legitime members of international law till the most its' end in 1945 and 1991 respectively.

Well, that's what I get for commenting on what I thought was the case rather than checking it first. :(

It really pisses me off when people upset my uninformed comments by introducing contradictory facts. ;) :D

Egorka
11-21-2008, 04:23 AM
It really pisses me off when people upset my uninformed comments by introducing contradictory facts. ;) :D
Hey, tell me... That is the worst!!!

heheheheheheee

Chevan
11-21-2008, 08:24 AM
It really pisses me off when people upset my uninformed comments by introducing contradictory facts. ;) :D
Oh sorry mate, to piss you off with my comments:)
Come on , you do have enough feeling of humour to take it easy, my friend.
BTW what a "contradictory facts" did you mean?

Librarian
11-21-2008, 08:27 AM
You really are an impatient student, my dear Mr. Egorka. Unfortunatelly, in this very moment I am pretty unable to finish that previously mentioned large article due to my unalterable professional obligations, nowadays – pretty unexpectedly! – associated with my dearly beloved ex-company, and directly connected with certain chemical processes within sugar beat slurry operated bio-gas rectors. Nevertheless, a direct answer to your enthusiastic question is - no. :)

Although obligatory erga omnes legal regulations were codified in the early XVIII century, the machinery of law was actually altered in this manner between 1832 and 1882, and this highly innovative legal improvement was actually introduced under the various Companies Acts, beginning in 1844. Unfortunately, it was not until 1871 that the science of law gave them adequate recognition. However, this completely legal academic evaluation – although highly interesting! - is not important for our case we do have here. What is important for us here is the fact that the regulation erga omnes was formally and unquestionably accepted by the German government before the WW2.

Our modern, sorrowfully unacquainted general populace is completely ignorant about the fact that an professionally brilliant, ethically superb and personally incredibly brave German iurist of the Wehrmacht, Colonel General Helmuth James Count von Moltke, directly claimed in his official memorandum to OKW that the order issued by a great legal genius and democratically elected omnipotent governor of the Reich, Mr. Adolf Hitler, who instructed German soldiers to execute Soviet prisoners of war because the Soviet Union had not signed international conventions protecting prisoners of war, thus refuting their protection under international law - actually was completely illegal.

He was sufficiently convinced and unshakably resolved to emphasize publically the fact that although the Soviets had not signed the Geneva Convention regarding POWs, the Germans had. Completely incredibly, but article No. 82 of the Convention obliged signatories to treat all prisoners, from any state, according to the dictates of humanity, thus providing an excellent example of completely valid obligatory disposition erga omnes.

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 only thing that allied prosecution in Nuremberg was beholden to prove was the per se inconsistency of the German factual deeds with the general principles of humanity. And that task, my dear Mr. Egorka was an easy one:

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

Bodies of Soviet prisoners of war

Across the years, one cannot help but admire the personal courage and moral integrity of German military lawyers who openly advised the OKW that numerous Hitler’s edicts were completely illegal, and that Soviet prisoners of war should be handled humanely as a matter of customary international law even though the Soviet Union was not a party to the relevant conventions. Another legal expert, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, called "Nickesel" ("the nodding donkey") by other colleagues, wrote some highly brainless, nowadays sorrowfully revitalized remarks about the obsolescence of the Geneva rules as resources of the International customary law, but places where those outstanding German lawyers were executed fortunately still are German national memorials today.

In the mantime, my precious young apprentice, as always – all the best! ;)

Rising Sun*
11-21-2008, 08:41 AM
Oh sorry mate, to piss you off with my comments:)
Come on , you do have enough feeling of humour to take it easy, my friend.

I was being ironic and self-deprecating in what I thought was a humorous fashion.

Hard to believe, I know, but it looks like it might be another one of my attempts at humour which failed. :(



BTW what a "contradictory facts" did you mean?

Well, there are lots of facts and they don't matter to me, but there are facts which contradict me and they do matter to me, and even more so when, like your post on the legitimacy of the Soviet government, they prove me wrong. ;) :D

Chevan
11-21-2008, 09:01 AM
You really are an impatient student, my dear Mr. Egorka.

We all are getting impatient students when you post the brilliant, unique ORIGINAL information with amazing ( always new for me) graphic context , that found out in your priceless Library, dear mr Librarian.

Egorka
11-21-2008, 03:44 PM
Hi!

First, as I understand, and I am sure you will correct me if needed, some regulations regarding international law can come in force between 2 countriess by mean of 3 ways only:

Through "Treaty Law" (Conventions, treaties and so on);
Through "Customary Law" (when law becomes internationaly recognised custom);
And voluntarily undertakes obligations.


He was sufficiently convinced and unshakably resolved to emphasize publically the fact that although the Soviets had not signed the Geneva Convention regarding POWs, the Germans had. Completely incredibly, but article No. 82 of the Convention obliged signatories to treat all prisoners, from any state, according to the dictates of humanity, thus providing an excellent example of completely valid obligatory disposition erga omnes.
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.
With all due respect, but I have an objection.
That "thereto" in the art. 82 referes to what? War or Convention?
The matter is that it referes to "Convention", and NOT to "War". So now replace "thereto" in the article with word "Convention" and see what meaning the article 82 has.

The thing is that the both Russian and, as I was assured, German translation of the article 82 can be ambigously understood, because it is grammaticaly not possible to distinguish to what (war or convention) the article referes in its last part.

Nonetheless in the original Frenchtext of the Geneva 1929 document this double understanding is avoided:

ARTICLE 82.
Les dispositions de la présente Convention devront être respectées par les Hautes Parties Contractantes en toutes circonstances.
Au cas où, en temps de guerre, un des belligérants ne serait pas partie à la Convention, ses dispositions demeureront néanmoins obligatoires entre les belligérants qui y participent.
This "y participient" can not possibly refer to word "guerre", but only to the word "la Convention".
This means that the Geneva 1929 was not applicable through "Treaty law" between Germany and USSR as of 22 June 1941. (The later period of war is actually another story.)

The only way it could be in force between Germany and USSR as of 22-06-1941 is through "Customary law" or voluntarily.

Do you agree so far?

Librarian
11-22-2008, 03:55 PM
Briefly, my dear Mr. Egorka: no, I don't. And I am assuring you that I am not alone. You see, the science of law is much more than pure grammar.

Therefore please - do some further research. ;)

Egorka
11-22-2008, 04:33 PM
Briefly, my dear Mr. Egorka: no, I don't. And I am assuring you that I am not alone. You see, the science of law is much more than pure grammar.

Therefore please - do some further research. ;)
I am a bit confused by briefness of your answer. If I made mistake then, please, tell me where.

Librarian
11-22-2008, 05:12 PM
Oh, please, don’t be so confused, my dear Mr. Egorka. As far as I remeber I have clearly stated in my previous post that in this very moment I do have some other, more important business. I am sure that you will understand that even I have to earn my own salary. :)

And if you do need a completely free advice, concentrate on two things:

a)Unilateral obligations erga omnes;

b)History of the consensus legis.

You will excuse me, but right now I have to concentrate on my dearly beloved cellulose degrading enzymes...:roll: You know, those Americans are willing to pay certain amount of money for my skills in this specific field. But don’t worry, I will be available very soon, probably next week. Till then – all the best. :D

Egorka
11-22-2008, 08:09 PM
Oh, please, don’t be so confused, my dear Mr. Egorka. As far as I remeber I have clearly stated in my previous post that in this very moment I do have some other, more important business. I am sure that you will understand that even I have to earn my own salary. :)

And if you do need a completely free advice, concentrate on two things:

a)Unilateral obligations erga omnes;

b)History of the consensus legis.

You will excuse me, but right now I have to concentrate on my dearly beloved cellulose degrading enzymes...:roll: You know, those Americans are willing to pay certain amount of money for my skills in this specific field. But don’t worry, I will be available very soon, probably next week. Till then – all the best. :D
Fair enough! I do understand that we chat here in our spare time which we have little off. :)


But do you at least agree that the French text is the text of original and has priority over translations?
And do you object my understanding of french original text?

Librarian
11-22-2008, 09:03 PM
Oh, my Lord… I shall never finish these calculations! :cry:

Extremly briefly, my dear Mr. Egorka: I really do like to chat with you, as well as with all our members here, but I simply have to fulfill my professional obligations! :)

And no, that French text is absolutely valid, as well as that previously posted English variant! Our strictly legal problem is not connected with the text! Text is completely clear in both cases – the only problem is that for some completely unknown reasons you are thinking that the presence of the General Participation Clause of Treaty (generally known amongst jurists as clause Si Omnes - 'if' clause - which lays down a condition!) previously undeniably introduced in the Hague convention of 1907 is somehow still valid, but it is not!

The Hague convention equipped with this restrictive clause really was applied only to states in conflict which were parties to the previously mentioned legal instrument. But the Geneva convention of 1929 explicitly REVERSED that previous Si Omnes clause – a clause of stipulation which provides that the rights and duties of the given treaty will ONLY be applied to a situation when ALL STATES involved in an issue ARE PARTIES to the subject treaty, thus creating strictly mutual, reciprocal legal relations amongst participants – into ERGA OMNES obligation, unlimited obligation with universal, but unilaterally given character! You don’t believe this – no problem, just follow this link:

http://books.google.hu/books?id=6QjrSHfoEiAC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Geneva+convention+1929,+obligatory+clausule&source=web&ots=5qLIcxjUL6&sig=aKiKXM3W8iXTmo2OzM_fdBD0GFk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA180,M1

Another direct explanation is mentioned in the very preamble of the Convention:

The 1929 Convention had already departed from it by stating in the second paragraph of Article 82 that "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". Thus the provisions concerning prisoners of war were given the binding force. The fact that one of the belligerents was not a party to the Convention could no longer nullify its applicability.

And if you think that generally known paragraph signed by General Reinecke on the 8th September, 1941 which stated that: "The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is not binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore only the principles of general international law on the treatment of prisoners of war apply. - is valid in this case – you are wrong! In point of fact, Kanaris and Reinecke were just a little bit more concerned for their own skin!

And now back to the Organic Chemistry…:roll:

Egorka
11-23-2008, 06:15 AM
Extremly briefly, my dear Mr. Egorka: I really do like to chat with you, as well as with all our members here, but I simply have to fulfill my professional obligations! :)
I DO understand that.
So take all the time you need!

And no, that French text is absolutely valid, as well as that previously posted English variant! Our strictly legal problem is not connected with the text! Text is completely clear in both cases – the only problem is that for some completely unknown reasons you are thinking that the presence of the General Participation Clause of Treaty (generally known amongst jurists as clause Si Omnes - 'if' clause - which lays down a condition!) previously undeniably introduced in the Hague convention of 1907 is somehow still valid, but it is not!Again, I DO realise that "si omnes" was intentionaly removed from the article 82 of 1929 as compared to article 2 of 1907! And that "si omnes" did not apply after for the Convention 1929.

But I see it that absence of "si omnes" in article 82 did not automaticaly give rights to the nonsignatories.
That is why I again repeat my point: From the "Treaty law" point of view, the text of art.82 does NOT itself give rights to the none-signatories, but only forces signatories to fullfill the obligation as between each other.

But than remains "Customary law". I understand that!!! But in order to procede gradually, can we first settle the issue from the "Treaty law" pont of view???


The Hague convention equipped with this restrictive clause really was applied only to states in conflict which were parties to the previously mentioned legal instrument.With all due respect, "si omnes" does not mean what you wrote here.
The art.2 of 1907 is clear about it - in case at least one of the beligerents was a nonsignatory the provisions did apply at all. Not just between the signatories, but AT ALL.

And than we face an other issue - Montenegro and Ottoman Empire signed the convention in 1907, but NEVER ratified it!!! Which, speaking from the "Treaty law" point of view, made the Convention 1907 unapplicable in WWI!!!

But we all know that did not happen in practice! And here we have situation where "Customary law" comes in to picture. You see, the signatories wisely chose not to depart from the Convention's obligations, and doing it they excercised their "Customary law" rights to keep the treaty nonetheless, regardless of formal opportunity not to do so.

So we approach, IMHO, the core issue - both "Treaty law" and "Customary law" are equaly the part of the internation law.

You don’t believe this – no problem, just follow this link: http://books.google.hu/books?id=6QjrSHfoEiAC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Geneva+convention+1929,+obligatory+clausule&source=web&ots=5qLIcxjUL6&sig=aKiKXM3W8iXTmo2OzM_fdBD0GFk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA180,M1
I will readt it.

Another direct explanation is mentioned in the very preamble of the Convention:
The 1929 Convention had already departed from it by stating in the second paragraph of Article 82 that "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". Thus the provisions concerning prisoners of war were given the binding force. The fact that one of the belligerents was not a party to the Convention could no longer nullify its applicability.
Right! I do understand that The fact that one of the belligerents was not a party to the Convention could no longer nullify its applicability.!
But it is applicability as between the Convention participants. NOT the participants in the conflict.

And if you think that generally known paragraph signed by General Reinecke on the 8th September, 1941 which stated that: "The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war is not binding in the relationship between Germany and the U.S.S.R. Therefore only the principles of general international law on the treatment of prisoners of war apply. - is valid in this case – you are wrong! In point of fact, Kanaris and Reinecke were just a little bit more concerned for their own skin!
I quoted the German directive only to show what Germans self thought of it.
I am not stating that German official position itself created or modified the general international law.

Egorka
11-23-2008, 06:38 AM
You don’t believe this – no problem, just follow this link: http://books.google.hu/books?id=6QjrSHfoEiAC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=Geneva+convention+1929,+obligatory+clausule&source=web&ots=5qLIcxjUL6&sig=aKiKXM3W8iXTmo2OzM_fdBD0GFk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA180,M1
I have read it.
It sais exactly what I say about applicability of Hague 1907 - the mentioned issue with Montenegro and Ottoman Empire.
See last paragraph on page 180 and remark 6 on page 181.

Regarding Geneva 1929 it is not to me clear enough what the author wanted to say - as he piculiarly only used exactly ONE sentense to cover the issue. Here is the sentnse (top of page 181): "The Geneva conventions of 1929 explicitly reversed this "si omnes" clause.". And then in remark 7 the article 82 is quoted.

But the text of art.82 does not say that the provisions apply to the nonsignatories!!! I repeat it again. I understand that you disagree but you so far could not show me that the sentenses in art. 82 have different meaning.

And here are the page scans for every one to see. Click to enlarge. Size - app. 500KB each.

pages 179 and 180:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/3051904683_281c7c22dc_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/3051904683_e8744dce73_o.jpg)

pages 181 and 182:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/3052740920_7535e60a42_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/3052740920_0838109ec5_o.jpg)

Librarian
11-23-2008, 05:34 PM
Again, I DO realise that "si omnes" was intentionaly removed from the article 82 of 1929 as compared to article 2 of 1907! And that "si omnes" did not apply after for the Convention 1929.

Excellent. One problem is than completely eliminated.:!:


But I see it that absence of "si omnes" in article 82 did not automaticaly give rights to the nonsignatories.

On the contrary, my dear Mr. Egorka – as a matter of fact that article 82 automatically gave rights to the non-signatories! This single coursed point actually represents the only problematic issue in this whole issue here.

Obligations arising under the Geneva Convention were not limited only to contractors – they held universal character of the condemnation and prevention of mistreatment, as well as the duty of international cooperation required in order to liberate humankind from such an odious scourge. The very essence of the treaty is that the human dignity of all individuals must be respected at all times, and that everything possible must be done, without any kind of discrimination, to reduce the suffering of people in captivity.

Because of this universality, the rights and duties enshrined by the Convention were actually unilaterally expanded by the obligation Erga Omnes expressed with the article 82. Unilateral contractual statement Erga Omnes, however, has to be regarded as binding upon the signatory state because it imposes an obligation not to go back on its legally accepted undertakings. Being an Erga Omnes obligation, article 82 could not be contractually limited only to the Convention participants due to the legal doctrine Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest. Therefore text of the Article 82 automatically gave rights to the non-signatories as well.


Can we first settle the issue from the "Treaty law" pont of view???

Just settled! :D


With all due respect, "si omnes" does not mean what you wrote here.
The art.2 of 1907 is clear about it - in case at least one of the beligerents was a nonsignatory the provisions did apply at all. Not just between the signatories, but AT ALL.

When someone is in a hurry, he obviously will be prone to minor mistakes. Correct sentence has to be: "The Hague Convention applied only to the states in conflict being parties to the previously mentioned legal instrument." But, after all, there is obvious absence of the word "not" in your sentence as well, my dear Mr. Egorka.


So we approach, IMHO, the core issue - both "Treaty law" and "Customary law" are equaly the part of the internation law.

Absolutely correct statement which never was previously disputed by me.


But it is applicability as between the Convention participants. NOT the participants in the conflict.

Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest. :D


I am not stating that German official position itself created or modified the general international law.

Thank you very much for this highly important clarification. It is accepted with gratitude.


I understand that you disagree but you so far could not show me that the sentenses in art. 82 have different meaning.

I see, my dear Mr. Egorka. So actually my obligation from now on will be only a direct presentation of the independent and unambiguously confirmed professional legal opinion, presentable in a completely visible form of a quotation for every claim in every line of my post? OK. I shall try. In the meantime, may I ask you for a personal favor? Please present to me some officially corroborated and professionally supported legal opinions connected with your personal stance in this issue? Thank you in advance. :)

Egorka
11-24-2008, 06:04 AM
On the contrary, my dear Mr. Egorka – as a matter of fact that article 82 automatically gave rights to the non-signatories! This single coursed point actually represents the only problematic issue in this whole issue here.

...

Because of this universality, the rights and duties enshrined by the Convention were actually unilaterally expanded by the obligation Erga Omnes expressed with the article 82. Unilateral contractual statement Erga Omnes, however, has to be regarded as binding upon the signatory state because it imposes an obligation not to go back on its legally accepted undertakings. Being an Erga Omnes obligation, article 82 could not be contractually limited only to the Convention participants due to the legal doctrine Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest. Therefore text of the Article 82 automatically gave rights to the non-signatories as well.

Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest
Ok... Maybe I starting to grab the core of it...
So... You mean that when Geneva convention including art.82 was signed in 1929 all the signatories were aware that they do it under stipulations of "Erga Omnes" and NOT under stipulations of "Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest"??? Right?
So from very begining of the GEneva 1929 that was the common understanding of article 82 among the signatories to view it through "Erga Omnes"? And that later on, Gemany solely distorted it and singlehandadly decided to depart from "Erga Omnes" towards "Res inter alios acta..."?


When someone is in a hurry, he obviously will be prone to minor mistakes. Correct sentence has to be: "The Hague Convention applied only to the states in conflict being parties to the previously mentioned legal instrument." But, after all, there is obvious absence of the word "not" in your sentence as well, my dear Mr. Egorka.
Right, there is not word "NO" in art.82.
F.ex. if you and I sign a treaty, we would not nessesary had to mention that it does not apply to Mr.Mickey Mouse. since we are the one signing - we are the ones mentioned in the treaty.
As you mentioned self: Res inter alios acta, aliis nec nocet nec prodest


Please present to me some officially corroborated and professionally supported legal opinions connected with your personal stance in this issue? Thank you in advance. :)
Fair enough! Mind that I am not a lawyer and I might treat the discussed issues not in a strict way.
I will show you what, appart from my own weak thinking, makes me still wonder - the quotes from some respectable books and web sites. Maybe I just simply misunderstand them.

I will try to assemble tonight a set of quotes from the sources that I have.

Egorka
11-24-2008, 05:34 PM
Please present to me some officially corroborated and professionally supported legal opinions connected with your personal stance in this issue? Thank you in advance. :)
I do not have much except the previously quoted Mr.Keitel.

;)

Well that is what I have at hand right away:

ICRC website, Comments on Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590005?OpenDocument
"There was no discussion, at the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, on the Committee's proposal (which did not include the second sentence of paragraph 3); the experience of the Second World War had [p.21] convinced all concerned that it was necessary. But the draft text said nothing about the relations between a belligerent, or belligerents, bound by the Conventions on the one hand, and a belligerent, or belligerents, not bound by it on the other hand. The ' clausula si omnes ' (4) which was included in the 1906 Geneva Convention -- but which was never invoked during the First World War, although it might appropriately have been in the case of Montenegro -- was omitted in 1929. But although the Convention was binding upon the Contracting States in their relations as between each other, they were still under no obligation in regard to States which were not parties to that instrument. The ideal solution would obviously have been that all the Parties to a conflict should be obliged to apply the Convention in all circumstances, i.e. even if the adversary was not a party to it, and despite the fact that the Convention would be a ' res inter alios acta ' for the latter.
There could be no question of reverting to the ' clausula si omnes ', which had fortunately been abandoned in recent times, since it no longer corresponded to humanitarian needs. The 1929 Convention had already departed from it by stating in the second paragraph of Article 82 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article' that "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". Thus the provisions concerning prisoners of war were given the binding force of which they had been deprived by the solutions adopted at the Peace Conferences. The fact that one of the belligerents was not a party to the Convention could no longer nullify its applicability.
Although from the legal point of view there was no way to extend the scope of the Convention, it was necessary to find one on the humanitarian plane. The Committee accordingly suggested to the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference of 1949 that the following two sentences be added to Article 2 Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article':
"In the event of an international conflict between one of the High Contracting Parties and a Power which is not bound by the present Convention, the Contracting Party shall apply the provisions thereof. This obligation shall stand unless, after a reasonable lapse of time, the Power not bound by the present Convention states its refusal to apply it, or in fact fails to apply it." (5)"

ICRC website, Answer on the question "What is customary international law?"
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/customary-law-q-and-a-150805
"Both treaty law and customary international law are sources of international law. Treaties, such as the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, are written conventions in which States formally establish certain rules. Treaties bind only those States which have expressed their consent to be bound by them, usually through ratification."

Nurenberg trial papers: TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT GENERAL DEFENSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 79 SUPPLEMENT TO EXPERT LEGAL OPINION BY PROFESSOR REINHART MAURACH* [UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH), SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE IN CASE NO. 12).
Page 52 of http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-XI.pdf
"Herewith the expression "fuer" [for], implying an absolute sense. in the German translation is replaced by the relative expression "entre" in the authoritative French text, and by the corresponding expression "between" in the English translation. Here is the result of the purely reciprocal effect of the obligation. In the case of the participation of the U.S.S.R.• in hostilities from 1939-1945. the Geneva Convention was to be applicable in relations between the German Reich on the one hand and the Western Powers on the other, but not, however, between the German Reich and the U.S.S.R"
THough here I have to make a remark that Prof.Maurch at the end arrives to the conclusion that the Geneva 1929 had to also apply to Soviet POW because USSR being a nonsignatory still applied corresponding to the Geneva 1929 Convention policies.

I think I have more... I need to look.

I realise that these are not the best source but they are not too bad either. It is not like I just rely on my own opinion.

Egorka
11-24-2008, 06:03 PM
Just found another one:

Nurenberg trial. "Hague and Geneva Convention"
page 534 of the document: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-XI.pdf

"It would appear from the above quotation that that Tribunal accepted ,asinternational law the statement of Admiral Canaris to the effect that the Geneva Convention was not binding as between Germany and Russia as a contractual agreement but that the general principles of international law as outlined in those conventions were applicable. In other words, it would appear that the IMT in the case above cited followed the same lines of thought with regard to the Geneva Convention as with respect to the Hague. Convention to the effect that they were binding insofar as they were in substance an expression of international law as accepted' by the civilized nations of the world, and this Tribunal adopts this viewpoint."

Librarian
11-29-2008, 12:01 PM
Excellent presentation of the case, my dear Mr. Egorka! :D

Of, course - you can count on my reply, but in this very moment I am unable to act in response because I am waiting... certain previously undigitalized documents from the Russian archives. However, with a little bit of luck, they will be in my possession very soon.

In the meantime, I do have an insignificant, but in the same time truly interesting legal precedent for you, the criminal case of Josias Erbprinz zu Waldeck-Pyrmont. It is located here:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/BuchenwaldTrial2A.html

You will see that my American colleagues actually stated that:

"…Under this charge, one of the main crimes was the shooting of Soviet Prisoners of War, which was a violation of the Geneva Convention. The prosecution was of the opinion that the defeated Germans should be held to the rules of the Convention with regard to Soviet POWs…"

Perhaps our American colleagues will be able to provide some additional papers about this truly intriguing case?

In the meantime, as always – all the best! ;)

Egorka
11-29-2008, 06:40 PM
Nice to know that you are still out there and kicking! :)

In the meantime, I do have an insignificant, but in the same time truly interesting legal precedent for you, the criminal case of Josias Erbprinz zu Waldeck-Pyrmont.
You will see that my American colleagues actually stated that:
"…Under this charge, one of the main crimes was the shooting of Soviet Prisoners of War, which was a violation of the Geneva Convention. The prosecution was of the opinion that the defeated Germans should be held to the rules of the Convention with regard to Soviet POWs…"
Right. But... maybe I am not remembering it correctly right now but intentional execution of POWs was defined as a crime already in the Hague 1907.
In fact, to make it clear, when I am asking if Germany actualy had to full fill the Geneva 1929 as beteween Russia I actually mean the smaller things like letters exchange, POWs camps visitations by Red Cross and other ones. All the gross crimes agains the POWs were already covered in Hague 1907, IIRC.

And again, this one is a tough one to refute, is it not?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142636&postcount=185

Kovalski
12-02-2008, 01:11 AM
I've just heard something that German public prosecutor's office of Pottsdam asked the general prosecutor's office of Russian Federation for help in the investigation of the massacre of 1000 men in Treuenbrietzen near Pottsdam, comitted by the Soviets in April 1945.
Can anybody confirm that?
Wouldn't that be the first investigation of Soviet war crime run by the German side?

Chevan
12-02-2008, 02:18 AM
I've just heard something that German public prosecutor's office of Pottsdam asked the general prosecutor's office of Russian Federation for help in the investigation of the massacre of 1000 men in Treuenbrietzen near Pottsdam, comitted by the Soviets in April 1945.
Can anybody confirm that?

Never heard anything like that.
I suppose this is a rumours or propogand.

flamethrowerguy
12-02-2008, 07:27 AM
I've just heard something that German public prosecutor's office of Pottsdam asked the general prosecutor's office of Russian Federation for help in the investigation of the massacre of 1000 men in Treuenbrietzen near Pottsdam, comitted by the Soviets in April 1945.
Can anybody confirm that?
Wouldn't that be the first investigation of Soviet war crime run by the German side?

It's true. During the so-called "Second massacer of Treuenbietzen" 800-1000 inhabitants and refugees from east german regions were executed by the Red Army on April 23, 1945. And indeed the Office of Public Prosecutor in Potsdam addressed a request for information to the russian authorities.
I assume there will be more cases like this one in the future for the truth about different incidents comes to light slowly. During the GDR aera the official version was that the 800-1000 people were killed during a bombing raid, however there wasn't one in that time and place.

Kovalski
12-02-2008, 10:39 AM
Never heard anything like that.
I suppose this is a rumours or propogand.

I Love your way of thinking Chevan :)
If you haven't heard about something it simply means that the thing never occured.
Or at the most it is a rumour or propaganda. :D

It reminds me some jokes from the communist era about so-called "Radio Erevan".

Librarian
12-02-2008, 12:47 PM
Finally, my dear Mr. Egorka, I do have some spare time, so here are my answers to your questions. :)


Right. But... maybe I am not remembering it correctly right now but intentional execution of POWs was defined as a crime already in the Hague 1907.

Yes, my dear Mr. Egorka – without any doubt it was defined as a crime. However, the more legally pertinent Convention in this specific case is the Geneva Convention of 1929, which containes no Si Omnes provision, requiring that all beligerents are parties to the Convention to make it of binding force.


In fact, to make it clear, when I am asking if Germany actualy had to full fill the Geneva 1929 as beteween Russia I actually mean the smaller things like letters exchange…

Well, my dear Mr. Egorka, I have to admit that I was absolutely concentrated upon executions, torturing, medical experiments on prisoners, etc. However, if we reconsider the established legal praxis that the lawful principle Stare decisis et quieta non movere is sufficent as the effective agent of legal pooling into a unified decision and a amalgamated Statement of Law (William O. Douglas: Stare Decisis, Columbia Law Review, XLIX . – 1949, p. 735), and that aforepresented decision of the US Military Tribunal at Dachau was additionaly confirmed by the absolute absence of the interlocutory appeal, we can declare that obligatory Erga Omnes nature of the Convention was judicially confirmed, thus providing deducible peremptory character of Ius Cogens to all chapters of the aforesaid Convention. :)

However, factual non-existance of the bilateral agreements between previously mentioned belligerents concerning Protecting Powers charged with the protection of the interests of the belligerents in these specific issues, as well as the absence of detailed agreements between the German and Soviet governments prescribed by the Convention will be sufficient for the abolishment of the legal responsibility of the German government in these specific issues.

In the very same time it has to be mentioned that obligatory character of the Geneva Convention toward Soviet POWs was confirmed by the Supreme National Tribunal of Poland (Najwyższy Trybunał Narodowy) during the Auschwitz trial in Kraków (1947) as well. I am still waiting for the scans of the original papers connected with this question.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/SNT-Cracow.jpg

Members of the military garison of the concentration camp in Auschwitz standing before the Supreme National Tribunal in Cracow

As you know, the first major transport of Soviet prisoners of war came to the Auschwitz camp on the 7th of October, 1941. Other transports followed. In accordance with the amount of camp numberes issued to the prisoners, it was acertained that all togerther 13,775 prisoners of war had been brought to the camp (Jerzy Brandhuber: Soviet prisoners of war in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. - Hefte von Auschwitz, Oświecim, 4, 1961, pp. 45 – 46).

During the period from October 1941 to the end of Fwebruary 1942, 8,320 prisoners of war had perished. The names of those murdered were entered into the book of deaths (Totenbuch), where cause and time of death were recorded. The most astonishing thing in those records is the fact that 653 Soviet POWs had officially died in succesive intervals of 5 minutes due to heart failure, which never was confirmed by a proffesional medical post mortem examination.

Also an attempt at mass killing of Soviet POW’s by gassing was made on September 3, 1941 by the order of the SS Hauptsturmführer Karl Fritsch, when 600 prisoners of war and 250 prisoners from the camp hospital had than perished. (Danuta Czech: Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau.- Hefte von Auschwitz, Oświecim, 4, 1961, p. 109.).

Soviet prisoners of war were also shot in the Block of Death (Block 11), where they were shot in the back of the head. When the number of those victims was small, they were shot in the lavatory situated in a passage-way leading to the yard. The officers of the SS camp garrison took part in all executions.

Finally, I have another highly interesting legal precedent for you, my dear Mr Egorka. Do you remember that highly persuasive statement given by your legal expert, the right honorable Prof. dr. Reinhard Maurach?

Well, his shadowed acuity was somehow… extraordinarily familiar, therefore with a little help from my German friends I have checked a few things connected with his distinguished pesonality. And do you know what actually was the most astonishing thing in all that? The verity that your distinguished legal adviser, My dear Mr. Egorka, actually was a registered member of the NSDAP, prolific anti-Semitic writer, Nazi – appointed Admonisher of the District Court, and officially non-denazified professor of Law who openly stated that NS legal prescriptions against the Jews actually represented a for of a legal self-defense. :shock:

Here is a brief bio-biographical refference:

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

Professor Reinhart Maurach – professor of Law and fervent NS-Ideologist

Of course, complete translation of the aforesaid passage will be available if necessary.

And here is the source of information:

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

Of course, original scans of his highly intellectual anti-semitic articles published in the notorious "Weltkampf" will be available very soon as well.

Well, that’s all for today. In the meantime, as always – all the best. ;)

Uyraell
03-07-2009, 11:00 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

I watched it through.
Yes, it was barbaric.
It also, seemed to me that that group (one might almost say "Einsatz Kommando", (though I'd wish no insult to current day German forum members)), was very familiar with the methods they were using to obtain the information they were seeking.

I have known of worse, but not by a large degree.

If one was to allow the footage to do so, it would be very mentally disturbing.

I would NOT recommend those of a gentle nature to view what I just have.

Another saddening event in the long list of human inhumanity towards humans.

Regards, Uyraell.

Chevan
03-08-2009, 03:11 AM
It's true. During the so-called "Second massacer of Treuenbietzen" 800-1000 inhabitants and refugees from east german regions were executed by the Red Army on April 23, 1945. And indeed the Office of Public Prosecutor in Potsdam addressed a request for information to the russian authorities.
I assume there will be more cases like this one in the future for the truth about different incidents comes to light slowly. During the GDR aera the official version was that the 800-1000 people were killed during a bombing raid, however there wasn't one in that time and place.
Oh i did not really hear of it.
How it was happend?And what did Russian authorities answer?

flamethrowerguy
03-08-2009, 08:42 AM
And what did Russian authorities answer?

Last info on this case I got is from late December 2008. It says that the Potsdam Prosecutors are still waiting for a response from Moscow which is supposed to tell about the involved Soviet units and their commanders.

Chevan
03-08-2009, 01:08 PM
Last info on this case I got is from late December 2008. It says that the Potsdam Prosecutors are still waiting for a response from Moscow which is supposed to tell about the involved Soviet units and their commanders.
I don't understand. If there were a war crime in Potsdam in 1945 ( the mass execution of civils/pows is a crime on definition) then why the GErman state prosecutor shall wait.
They might to appeal to an International Court of Justice or Huge tribunal , that might to demand the Russian side to present the documents.
And why is the GErman mass media still keeping the silence about that unfair crime?

flamethrowerguy
03-08-2009, 02:09 PM
I don't understand. If there were a war crime in Potsdam in 1945 ( the mass execution of civils/pows is a crime on definition) then why the GErman state prosecutor shall wait.

Well, they're waiting for Moscow to react. And -this should be the case in every country- the mills of justice grind slowly as we say here. Basically, preliminary investigation by public prosecution takes time, especially in a sensitive case like this one.


They might to appeal to an International Court of Justice or Huge tribunal , that might to demand the Russian side to present the documents.

I don't really know about the competency of courts regarding WW2 war crimes but from rememberance I'm almost sure that local courts are competent when German war criminals were accused during the last couple of years.


And why is the GErman mass media still keeping the silence about that unfair crime?

That's common German conduct nowadays. By shouting the incident from the rooftops German authorities certainly fear feeding the right wing extremists with reasons to march in the streets once more - especially in eastern German regions like Potsdam/Brandenburg.

Chevan
03-08-2009, 02:43 PM
Well, they're waiting for Moscow to react. And -this should be the case in every country- the mills of justice grind slowly as we say here. Basically, preliminary investigation by public prosecution takes time, especially in a sensitive case like this one.

But why to hell they need to wait the Moscow's reaction?
Do you still exist in ....Soviet Block?
Hey , the Berlin wall has been broken 20 years ago.
It's already time to Broke it in YOUR minds, Guyes.
Why the crime against German civils shall be MORE "sensetive" then crimes commited against others?


I don't really know about the competency of courts regarding WW2 war crimes but from rememberance I'm almost sure that local courts are competent when German war criminals were accused during the last couple of years.

The international court is obviously competent in WW2 war crimes, coz recently as i heard the Poles charged a suit agains Russia , to judge the war criminals in Katyn.
I think this is VERY right.Better to jugle the PERSONAL criminals then to ignore the problem , spoiling the mutual relations.
Besides the War Crimes have not time of expiration.
Even your own courts are competent, so you might to start the procedure yourself.
Without the somebody's reaction.


That's common German conduct nowadays. By shouting the incident from the rooftops German authorities certainly fear feeding the right wing extremists with reasons to march in the streets once more - especially in eastern German regions like Potsdam/Brandenburg.
And why it's so happend that nobody except the Right Wing parties CARES about crimes , commited against GErmans civils?
Why do you GIVE then that strong propogandic matter?
Are you living in Second-hand country?Where the lives of YOUR people costs less then others?
Why , in mythical fear of "feeding the extremists", the Auhtorities ACTUALY feed them, hiding the crimes against YOUR own peoples?
Is it authority of YOUR country or alien, you shall to ask.
I think Germany has enough control-levels to Russia, including the Gazprom property , to make the Kremlin be interesting in Justice;)

flamethrowerguy
03-08-2009, 04:50 PM
But why to hell they need to wait the Moscow's reaction?
Do you still exist in ....Soviet Block?
Hey , the Berlin wall has been broken 20 years ago.
It's already time to Broke it in YOUR minds, Guyes.
Why the crime against German civils shall be MORE "sensetive" then crimes commited against others?

I think you got me wrong here. German prosecutors want unit numbers and officers' names from Moscow. They don't want a charge against persons unknown.


The international court is obviously competent in WW2 war crimes, coz recently as i heard the Poles charged a suit agains Russia , to judge the war criminals in Katyn.
I think this is VERY right.Better to jugle the PERSONAL criminals then to ignore the problem , spoiling the mutual relations.
Besides the War Crimes have not time of expiration.
Even your own courts are competent, so you might to start the procedure yourself.
Without the somebody's reaction.

As I mentioned before in this thread. Potsdam is on former GDR soil. GDR historiography did not know about war crimes/atrocities committed against the German population by the Red Army. This was imperialistic propaganda, the Treuenbrietzen victims were killed during an allied air-raid, period. The incidents came to light when Italian authorities examined the death of 127 Italian forced laborers on April 23, 1945 (the so-called First Treuenbrietzen Massacer).
As for competency of courts: right now in my hometown a 86-year-old native Dutchman and former Waffen-SS member is charged by the local District Court for the assassination of three Dutchmen in 1945.
Also watch the Scheungraber Case:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26720207/
So, local courts are competent and Potsdam prosecution will move on when (if) Moscow responds.


And why it's so happend that nobody except the Right Wing parties CARES about crimes , commited against GErmans civils?
Why do you GIVE then that strong propogandic matter?
Are you living in Second-hand country?Where the lives of YOUR people costs less then others?
Why , in mythical fear of "feeding the extremists", the Auhtorities ACTUALY feed them, hiding the crimes against YOUR own peoples?
Is it authority of YOUR country or alien, you shall to ask.

Germany lost the war, that's the reason. Nowadays' Germans still cherish their very own "We started the whole mess, we deserved the consequences (and still do)" attitude. Means, people won't dare accusing the violent death of a 1000 Germans in Treuenbrietzen as their country is responsible for the death of 55-60 millions.
Anyway, atrocities against German civilians are not kept hidden here, they're just mentioned kind of parenthetically in the press.

Cojimar 1945
03-09-2009, 02:13 AM
I think it is understandable that the government in Germany would be very reluctant to bring up crimes against German civilians in 1944/45 due to guilt over the enormity of the crimes of the nazis and the guilt of the German people of that period. The murderous acts were on such an enormous scale that it seems difficult to believe that most Germans did not know what was going on.

Chevan
03-09-2009, 03:26 AM
I think you got me wrong here. German prosecutors want unit numbers and officers' names from Moscow. They don't want a charge against persons unknown.

They can't learn the names untill the court investigation is started.
So what they waiting for to start the procedure?
If robber killed your relaitve- will you to wait while he names you his name befor to go at Police?


As I mentioned before in this thread. Potsdam is on former GDR soil. GDR historiography did not know about war crimes/atrocities committed against the German population by the Red Army. This was imperialistic propaganda, the Treuenbrietzen victims were killed during an allied air-raid, period. The incidents came to light when Italian authorities examined the death of 127 Italian forced laborers on April 23, 1945 (the so-called First Treuenbrietzen Massacer).
As for competency of courts: right now in my hometown a 86-year-old native Dutchman and former Waffen-SS member is charged by the local District Court for the assassination of three Dutchmen in 1945.
Also watch the Scheungraber Case:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26720207/

DDR and imperialistic propogand is in a past.
It's time to forget about.
In Germany there are the man might be charged for killing three foreigners 60 years ago, but if someone to kill the germans - is' all right, we are afraid to feed the OUR right wings.
This is immoral.Plus this is double-standards to your own people.
Now i do understand why the German Ultra-right feel good and rise their popularity.


So, local courts are competent and Potsdam prosecution will move on when (if) Moscow responds.

That's fine.
So if Kremlin say NO- them there will be no court at all.
Nice justice.


Germany lost the war, that's the reason. Nowadays' Germans still cherish their very own "We started the whole mess, we deserved the consequences (and still do)" attitude. Means, people won't dare accusing the violent death of a 1000 Germans in Treuenbrietzen as their country is responsible for the death of 55-60 millions.

Yes Germany lost the war, but all whom started the war died or have been executed in Nurenberg.
As for German war criminals - the essential part of them aslo has been judged and executed.( sure not all, some has escaped to Arabs or Canada but though)
SO what's problem to persecute few of Soviet war criminals NOW?

flamethrowerguy
03-09-2009, 11:19 AM
They can't learn the names untill the court investigation is started.
So what they waiting for to start the procedure?
If robber killed your relaitve- will you to wait while he names you his name befor to go at Police?

Preliminary investigation by public prosecution are on, the request for information to Moscow is just one part of it.


DDR and imperialistic propogand is in a past.
It's time to forget about.

That's easily said. Are you sure people in Russia have closed the topic USSR in their minds completely?


In Germany there are the man might be charged for killing three foreigners 60 years ago, but if someone to kill the germans - is' all right, we are afraid to feed the OUR right wings.
This is immoral.Plus this is double-standards to your own people.

It's not considered "alright". There's basically just a lower kind of feedback in the press etc.



Now i do understand why the German Ultra-right feel good and rise their popularity.

I don't know if their popularity is actually increasing. After all even their top people in politics don't miss a chance to show their true nature, being just simple thugs, nothing more.


That's fine.
So if Kremlin say NO- them there will be no court at all.
Nice justice.

Well, then it will be the "charge against unknown" I mentioned.



SO what's problem to persecute few of Soviet war criminals NOW?

We'll see. Personally I got the impression that Moscow isn't too anxious about sending some of their vets to their doom. Just remember how long it took them to admit the responsibility for Katyn...

Schuultz
03-09-2009, 01:08 PM
Flamethrowerguy put it exactly to the point: Germans fear that if they speak out for Germans against their enemies in WW2, they both feed the Right Wing and might get associated with them. It's turned into a Paranoia, though this Paranoia is slowly (literally) dying away together with the older Generations.

I've talked to many friends in Germany, and oddly enough, though they usually don't dare to speak out on their own, they're proud of their country, and they're disgusted by both crimes committed by them and against them. They just don't talk about it publicly, because, well, it's somewhat of a taboo.

You can usually always trust into some proud-less ******* to show up and accuse you of being a Nazi if you speak Pro-Germany, and not everybody has the character or the will to oppose them and explain them that you can be a proud German without being a Nazi - something I usually try to do whenever possible/necessary - I love showing these kinds of people what assholes they are.

In my opinion, the Nazis took from the Germans one of the most precious things that any people owns: Our history and national pride.

The Nazis took from us one of the medals most strongly associated with the creation of Germany, the Iron Cross, and made it their own in public conception.
They took from us the pride in our past military victories, and made it their own.
They took from us the pride in being a unified, strong German nation, and made it their own.

And now, it's the younger Generations that have to make these things their own again, by stopping to associate all this with the Nazi regime. I, for one, hope that we can achieve that rather sooner than later.

Self-pity is no good sentiment for a nation, and it cannot lead to any good, just think of the numbers of people migrating away (My parents included). Not until we finally manage to get this dark period of our history behind us, can Germany once again become a real nation.

Uyraell
03-10-2009, 01:48 AM
Flamethrowerguy put it exactly to the point: Germans fear that if they speak out for Germans against their enemies in WW2, they both feed the Right Wing and might get associated with them. It's turned into a Paranoia, though this Paranoia is slowly (literally) dying away together with the older Generations.

I've talked to many friends in Germany, and oddly enough, though they usually don't dare to speak out on their own, they're proud of their country, and they're disgusted by both crimes committed by them and against them. They just don't talk about it publicly, because, well, it's somewhat of a taboo.

You can usually always trust into some proud-less ******* to show up and accuse you of being a Nazi if you speak Pro-Germany, and not everybody has the character or the will to oppose them and explain them that you can be a proud German without being a Nazi - something I usually try to do whenever possible/necessary - I love showing these kinds of people what assholes they are.

In my opinion, the Nazis took from the Germans one of the most precious things that any people exists: Our history and national pride.

The Nazis took from us one of the medals most strongly associated with the creation of Germany, the Iron Cross, and made it their own in public conception.
They took from us the pride in our past military victories, and made it their own.
They took from us the pride in being a unified, strong German nation, and made it their own.

And now, it's the younger Generations that have to make these things their own again, by stopping to associate all this with the Nazi regime. I, for one, hope that we can achieve that rather sooner than later.

Self-pity is no good sentiment for a nation, and it cannot lead to any good, just think of the numbers of people migrating away (My parents included). Not until we finally manage to get this dark period of our history behind us, can Germany once again become a real nation.

Jawohl! Das ist Stimmt!

I couldn't agree more, my friend!

You have hit the nail on the head.

Very well reasoned posting, with which I agree.

Regards, Uyraell.

freyir_33
03-10-2009, 12:32 PM
Flamethrowerguy put it exactly to the point: Germans fear that if they speak out for Germans against their enemies in WW2, they both feed the Right Wing and might get associated with them. It's turned into a Paranoia, though this Paranoia is slowly (literally) dying away together with the older Generations.

I've talked to many friends in Germany, and oddly enough, though they usually don't dare to speak out on their own, they're proud of their country, and they're disgusted by both crimes committed by them and against them. They just don't talk about it publicly, because, well, it's somewhat of a taboo.

You can usually always trust into some proud-less ******* to show up and accuse you of being a Nazi if you speak Pro-Germany, and not everybody has the character or the will to oppose them and explain them that you can be a proud German without being a Nazi - something I usually try to do whenever possible/necessary - I love showing these kinds of people what assholes they are.

In my opinion, the Nazis took from the Germans one of the most precious things that any people owns: Our history and national pride.

The Nazis took from us one of the medals most strongly associated with the creation of Germany, the Iron Cross, and made it their own in public conception.
They took from us the pride in our past military victories, and made it their own.
They took from us the pride in being a unified, strong German nation, and made it their own.

And now, it's the younger Generations that have to make these things their own again, by stopping to associate all this with the Nazi regime. I, for one, hope that we can achieve that rather sooner than later.

Self-pity is no good sentiment for a nation, and it cannot lead to any good, just think of the numbers of people migrating away (My parents included). Not until we finally manage to get this dark period of our history behind us, can Germany once again become a real nation.

Hör auf zu heulen, there are other things to proud of, than pure national pride and strength. I think the way post war Germany has always been able to apply self censorship to herself in term of militarism is one of it's greatest achievements as a nation. And that has never been a problem, at least among my friends to talk about, or express German pride when it comes to pre ww2 historical events for that sake.

What is it you want more?, I can assure you it is not mutch different in other European countries when someone want to express super flu nationalist feelings.

Schuultz
03-10-2009, 01:05 PM
Hör auf zu heulen, there are other things to proud of, than pure national pride and strength.

Who's crying? I'm simply making a point. Of course there are other things to be proud of. But I think it is actually important to be proud of the nation of which one is a part of. If you are not, I feel sorry for you, but it is obviously your choice. I imagine living in a country which I don't like to be pretty depressing, though.


I think the way post war Germany has always been able to apply self censorship to herself in term of militarism is one of it's greatest achievements as a nation.

I agree that militarism isn't desirable, but a healthy medium should be present, and Modern Germany does not have that. I don't want militarism as it was in the German Empire, but at the same time, I think a people should be proud of its soldiers, who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation.

And censorship is never something to be proud of, be it regarding militarism or communism. When you allow them to censor one thing, how are you going to stop them from censoring something else that they (the Government) don't like, Genosse?

A great example of our 'prestigious' self-censorship:

CryTek is a German PC-Game developer, located in Hamburg, that has become famous for its High-Quality video games, mainly First Person Shooters. Now there's just one problem.
Our dear government is making life a living hell for them, because, other than other countries, that support their developers, the German government does not support the developers which develop 'Killerspiele' (Killer-Games), as the Government likes to describe Shooters.
So now, they have to include partially ridiculous codes in the game, to prevent the battles from seeming too realistic. A nightmare for a Game-Studio in a time when everything moves towards being more realistic.
Result: The Turkish-Born Owners have decided not to put up with this anymore, and first opened a studio in Istanbul, now one in California, and slowly start to outsource their development, in order to close the Studio in Germany, and cost almost 300 people their jobs.

Way to go Germany, your self-censorship really worked.


And that has never been a problem, at least among my friends to talk about, or express German pride when it comes to pre ww2 historical events for that sake.

Just wondering: How old were they, and where were they from (East/West suffices)

The first question is relevant regarding my point made earlier, the second one is out of anthropological interest. I'm working on a University paper dealing with the different attitudes towards history regarding (formerly) Eastern and Western Germans.


What is it you want more?, I can assure you it is not mutch different in other European countries when someone want to express super flu nationalist feelings.

Who's talking about super flu nationalist feelings? I'm talking about normal, healthy national pride.
(Nationalism is another word stigmatized by the Nazis, and I hope that was not part of your implication)
I go to the US and I see US Flags in the yards. I go to France, I see French flags in the yards. I go to England, and I see Union Jacks... well, everywhere.
I go to Germany, I see the Flags during soccer events, but not much else.
I've had a neighbor once, who had a German flag hanging in the garden, and after several acts of vandalism, involving 'Nazi' written all over the door and the flag ripped down, he decided to get rid of it.

freyir_33
03-10-2009, 02:47 PM
Hallo Genosse,


Who's crying?

I agree that militarism isn't desirable, but a healthy medium should be present, and Modern Germany does not have that. I don't want militarism as it was in the German Empire, but at the same time, I think a people should be proud of its soldiers, who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their nation.

And censorship is never something to be proud of, be it regarding militarism or communism. When you allow them to censor one thing, how are you going to stop them from censoring something else that they (the Government) don't like, Genosse?

A great example of our 'prestigious' self-censorship:

CryTek is a German PC-Game developer, located in Hamburg, that has become famous for its High-Quality video games, mainly First Person Shooters. Now there's just one problem.
Our dear government is making life a living hell for them, because, other than other countries, that support their developers, the German government does not support the developers which develop 'Killerspiele' (Killer-Games), as the Government likes to describe Shooters.
So now, they have to include partially ridiculous codes in the game, to prevent the battles from seeming too realistic. A nightmare for a Game-Studio in a time when everything moves towards being more realistic.
Result: The Turkish-Born Owners have decided not to put up with this anymore, and first opened a studio in Istanbul, now one in California, and slowly start to outsource their development, in order to close the Studio in Germany, and cost almost 300 people their jobs.

Way to go Germany, your self-censorship really worked.

I rather meant the self censorship on behalf of the post War German mentality, not so much the censorship imposed by the authorities. The strict German laws on electronic media, is strictly to protect minors, and has nothing to do with past, but I understand can be felt like that. Countries like Norway and Sweden has many laws who is limiting the personall freedom of it's citizens, laws that would be unthinkable in Germany.



Just wondering: How old were they, and where were they from (East/West suffices)

The first question is relevant regarding my point made earlier, the second one is out of anthropological interest. I'm working on a University paper dealing with the different attitudes towards history regarding (formerly) Eastern and Western Germans.

Mosly male

Hamburg,Freiburg

Age: 26-40





Who's talking about super flu nationalist feelings? I'm talking about normal, healthy national pride.
(Nationalism is another word stigmatized by the Nazis, and I hope that was not part of your implication)
I go to the US and I see US Flags in the yards. I go to France, I see French flags in the yards. I go to England, and I see Union Jacks... well, everywhere.
I go to Germany, I see the Flags during soccer events, but not much else.
I've had a neighbor once, who had a German flag hanging in the garden, and after several acts of vandalism, involving 'Nazi' written all over the door and the flag ripped down, he decided to get rid of it.

Hmmm the flag matter again :), a flag in Germany(due to history) is associated with the military, but again flags are used in Germany when it's needed,, on ships etc, and puplic buildings. In Denmark the flag is a national symbol, mostly associated with birthdays or the queen. But off course some trauma is still there, but I guess all things take time. After all WW2 was
hell of a thing, especially for Russia and Germany.

Chevan
03-11-2009, 02:38 AM
That's easily said. Are you sure people in Russia have closed the topic USSR in their minds completely?

You shall not care about Russian inner prejudices/problems.
You have an ability to influence at Russian gov( who in fact doesn't consider themself as SOviet heir)
Otherwise they would not to critic the Communism and destroy the USSR.
This is just matter of principle, and ...Justice


We'll see. Personally I got the impression that Moscow isn't too anxious about sending some of their vets to their doom. Just remember how long it took them to admit the responsibility for Katyn...

Again , you have not to care about Moscow's "anxious", just like Poles do not:)
What are you being afraid for.
The Moscow will enter tanks in Berlin?Or to drop the nuclear bomb?
Or (can't imagine that terrible atrocity) cut off the gas pupeline?:mrgreen:

Chevan
03-11-2009, 02:53 AM
Flamethrowerguy put it exactly to the point: Germans fear that if they speak out for Germans against their enemies in WW2, they both feed the Right Wing and might get associated with them. It's turned into a Paranoia, though this Paranoia is slowly (literally) dying away together with the older Generations.

Yes , i think you right, this is Paranoia.
But that PAranoia NEVER will die, even after two-three generations( that inf fact already passed)
You shall look at what you to teach your nowaday generation right now .
You show them such a bright example that it's a "Right Wing extremist matter" - to judge the criminals who executed Germans civils.
And they will repeat it for their children.While the real Right extremist will feed themself by such situation and PRs themself as the ONLY patriots of GErman nation.
Paranoia never die.Until you will have killed it in your mind.
My oppinion is that we shall judge all the criminals- both the GErmans and the SOviets/russians.
Doesn't care even if their ralatives are in power now.
Otherwise out peoples will feel the hostility and lack of trust.
this is much more danger than to judge or imprison the few old soviet "vets" ( indeed likely the old NKVD Staff Rats , who were responsible for order of mass execution of civils)
You sponsor the Right Wings indeed by such a realtion to your own past.

freyir_33
03-13-2009, 12:30 PM
I agree, the problem in Germany is that the right wings has allways been covering up the old monster, and combined national pride with the support of old values. But Germany's history is unique, therefore a new national pride has developed, a much better one.

I have worked 10 years in the German aerospatial industry, both on the Eurofighter and later the on the A400M, and I can tell you that most Germans are proud of their achievements there.

Schuultz
03-13-2009, 12:39 PM
Could that have something to do with you working in the Army/Arms Industry, if I understand your statement correctly?

freyir_33
03-13-2009, 07:57 PM
Could that have something to do with you working in the Army/Arms Industry, if I understand your statement correctly?

I just mean that most of my German friends are proud of the county's individual achievements rather than the nation itself. A more healthy Nationalism than the one you will find in countries with a more homogeneous past.

Chevan
03-19-2009, 02:33 AM
I just mean that most of my German friends are proud of the county's individual achievements rather than the nation itself. A more healthy Nationalism than the one you will find in countries with a more homogeneous past.
Well i can't agree ,the NAtional spirit is pretty importian for individual success, freyir
I would be very proud of GErman NATIONAL industry , cultural and scientific achievements.
In fact they have contributed much to a technical progress during the ww2, i don't mean the machines of mass killing kinda Giant gas chambers ans ets :rolleyes: but their Rockets and submarine was superior for it's time.
But again the way they have applied it wasn't superior.

Rising Sun*
03-19-2009, 08:04 AM
I just mean that most of my German friends are proud of the county's individual achievements rather than the nation itself. A more healthy Nationalism than the one you will find in countries with a more homogeneous past.

I don't understand that distinction.

How can one be proud of one's country's individual national achievements yet be unable to be proud of the nation?

Any country with a population which has no pride in their country is on the road to national oblivion. Germans don't strike me as that sort of people.

Rising Sun*
03-19-2009, 08:28 AM
But Germany's history is unique...

Isn't every nation's?


therefore a new national pride has developed, a much better one.

So why did you claim that modern Germans have no national pride, to which I responded in my last post?

herman2
03-19-2009, 08:35 AM
I don't understand that distinction.

How can one be proud of one's country's individual national achievements yet be unable to be proud of the nation?

Any country with a population which has no pride in their country is on the road to national oblivion. Germans don't strike me as that sort of people.

YA!
Although I am Canadian born, I am PROUD to have German roots and proud to hear about German achievements and I like it when I see other members posting on this site who are from Germany like Flame thrower guy.! I listen to Heintge and Heino because there German and I eat Crout and Haka Pate and gruen cole because I am proud and I am german!...(actually thats from a beer commericial, and it's suppose to be "I am Canadian"...but I like my version too!
Deutschland über alles!
...and Canada too!:army:

Schuultz
03-19-2009, 09:28 AM
YA!
I listen to Heintge and Heino because there German

Pride in your German roots is just fine, but you don't have to torture your ears because of it!


and I eat Crout and Haka Pate and gruen cole because I am proud and I am german!...(actually thats from a beer commericial, and it's suppose to be "I am Canadian"...but I like my version too!

Again, being German is no valid cause to torture your senses...

Rising Sun*
03-19-2009, 09:35 AM
What are these exotic Teutonic delights with which Herman tortures himself?

Chevan
03-19-2009, 09:46 AM
YA!
Although I am Canadian born, I am PROUD to have German roots and proud to hear about German achievements
Mr Herman is a GErman fifth column in Canada:D

BTW which side would you choose if lived during ww2 - Allied or Axis?

Schuultz
03-19-2009, 09:57 AM
What are these exotic Teutonic delights with which Herman tortures himself?

For the most part, he wrote them completely false, so its somewhat hard to decipher. But believe me, none of those are especially good...

With Crout he means Kraut (Cabbage) with Gruen Cole he means Gruener Kohl (Green Cabbage) and I don't have the slightest clue what he means with Haka Pate...

Nickdfresh
03-19-2009, 10:06 AM
We used to have a great, authentic German butcher in the town I grew up in, and he had some of the best sausage and kraut! But he's long gone and we just have supermarkets, albeit above average ones here. :(

My great grandmother was German-Swede, and my mother still occasionally makes authentic potato pancakes when I'm over for dinner - which I love more than life itself...

Rising Sun*
03-19-2009, 10:26 AM
BTW which side would you choose if lived during ww2 - Allied or Axis?

That is a very good question in light of freyir's distinctions between pride in individual national achievements and national pride.

Here in Australia, as in other countries with signficant migrant populations which have no cultural, economic or other connection with the host country, there is a continuing question about whether some of the migrants we have admitted would fight for or be neutral or be against our nation in our current small wars or our next major war.

For my part, if they're not prepared to fight for the country which they're using for economic or refugee or asylum or any other benefit, protection or advantage, then they can **** off. And the the sooner the better.

But back to Chevan's question, I'd fight for the Allies. Not that there is necessarily any overwhelming reason for doing so, given that I'd just be supporting the profits of anti-Semites like Henry Ford who wanted the European war to go on forever as he was making profits from selling to both sides and that I'd be opposing the Japanese who had been magnificently screwed by America and Britain among other major nations as those latter nations exploited China and resented Japanese challenges there.

Actually, upon reflection, none of the nations involved in WWII were worth fighting for, because every one of them was trying to preserve or acquire some sort of colonial territory or advantage.

herman2
03-19-2009, 12:44 PM
For the most part, he wrote them completely false, so its somewhat hard to decipher. But believe me, none of those are especially good...

With Crout he means Kraut (Cabbage) with Gruen Cole he means Gruener Kohl (Green Cabbage) and I don't have the slightest clue what he means with Haka Pate...

I will clarify what Hake Pate is...I may be spelling it wrong, but EVRY Good ol German knows and loves it!..it is what you non-Germans call Beef Tar Tar...but a real German knows it by the name of HUCK,,,or Haka Paeta....The way you eat Huck , is smeared raw on a buttered bun with lots of chopped onions and sprinkled with salt and pepper..it is to die for...it is the Bomb!...They use to say, once youve tried Huck, there’s no going back!...Huck is raw beef from a special side of the cow so you don't need to cook it. I’ve read that some people put an egg on it and it like that, but that’s gross...the next time your in a German deli, ask for half a pound of Huck, (aka beef tar tar) (aka haka pate), and try it!..they also make pork, but Ive never tried it. I only know one deli in Toronto that sells Huck. I travel 1 hr just to buy it. It’s called Ruppelts deli. They also sell Fleish Salad which is yummy and Lax Schinken which is a very hard to find smoked deli meat and tastes super great!...When you make Gruener Kohl you put these sausages in the pot with Kale and add an onion and a litlle porridge to thicken it up. (It is not a cabbage....maybe your thiking of Rotecole which is made with red cabbage)
This is a dish you can’t find in any restaurant. It is something my mom would make on special occasions…And I find it very hard to believe that you don’t know what Haka Paeta is!....Every true German knows it and Loves it!...and if they don’t, then its probably because they have some polish blood in them and they’re not true German!..hahaha:mrgreen:

flamethrowerguy
03-19-2009, 03:21 PM
I will clarify what Hake Pate is...I may be spelling it wrong, but EVRY Good ol German knows and loves it!..it is what you non-Germans call Beef Tar Tar...but a real German knows it by the name of HUCK,,,or Haka Paeta....The way you eat Huck , is smeared raw on a buttered bun with lots of chopped onions and sprinkled with salt and pepper..it is to die for...it is the Bomb!...They use to say, once youve tried Huck, there’s no going back!...Huck is raw beef from a special side of the cow so you don't need to cook it. I’ve read that some people put an egg on it and it like that, but that’s gross...the next time your in a German deli, ask for half a pound of Huck, (aka beef tar tar) (aka haka pate), and try it!..they also make pork, but Ive never tried it. I only know one deli in Toronto that sells Huck. I travel 1 hr just to buy it. It’s called Ruppelts deli. They also sell Fleish Salad which is yummy and Lax Schinken which is a very hard to find smoked deli meat and tastes super great!...When you make Gruener Kohl you put these sausages in the pot with Kale and add an onion and a litlle porridge to thicken it up. (It is not a cabbage....maybe your thiking of Rotecole which is made with red cabbage)
This is a dish you can’t find in any restaurant. It is something my mom would make on special occasions…And I find it very hard to believe that you don’t know what Haka Paeta is!....Every true German knows it and Loves it!...and if they don’t, then its probably because they have some polish blood in them and they’re not true German!..hahaha:mrgreen:

Hack- oder Hackepeter-Brötchen mit Zwiebeln (with onions). Tasty, just had it today. Problem is, you won't get rid of the onion odour for the rest of the day.

BTW, could a thread possibly go further off-topic than this?

jcompton
03-19-2009, 03:59 PM
FTG your are definately right about that... not to add much to it but my grandmother was German and she made the best potatoe pancakes! I wish i could find the recipe for those. (with a nostalgic sigh)...

herman2
03-19-2009, 04:21 PM
Hack- oder Hackepeter-Brötchen mit Zwiebeln (with onions). Tasty, just had it today. Problem is, you won't get rid of the onion odour for the rest of the day.

BTW, could a thread possibly go further off-topic than this?

NO! I don't think it's off topic when a topic of more interest is introduced such as the topic of my Favourite Hackepeter sandwich.!!Long Live Hackepeter!!...One day they will call us Hackepeter's , instead of Crouts! LOL!!!...I also forgot to mention Hearing Salad!..it's pieces of hering in a mayo sauce with lots of onions. You eat it on a bun and it is also, the bomb!
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention Lopscow!..its mashed potato with corned beef and lots of chopped up pickle..It puts hair on your chest if you eat it!.yum yum!. Then there;s mustard eggs, but thats a whole new topic altogether!
...tonight, I will put on my Heintge record, pour a cool glass of malt beer and make a few Hackepeter sandwich's.....This is Living!:D

Schuultz
03-19-2009, 04:27 PM
BTW, could a thread possibly go further off-topic than this?

Yes, yes it could.

As for Hack-broetchen (or Weck as it would be called down where I come from):

Of course I know it. But I've never heard of it referred as Hake Pate?

herman2
03-19-2009, 04:32 PM
Yes, yes it could.

As for Hack-broetchen (or Weck as it would be called down where I come from):

Of course I know it. But I've never heard of it referred as Hake Pate?

..Never heard of Hake Pate...PLEASE.....come on...come on...

You sure your not Polish;)?

Schuultz
03-19-2009, 04:53 PM
Well, believe it or not, Germany has a huge variety of different Accents, etc. It is possible that someone from Hamburg, for example, might have a hard time understanding someone from Munich.

Accordingly, the local names for some things, especially things like food, are very different.

And no I'm not POLISH
:lol:

nkkie123
05-28-2009, 11:54 PM
this is brutal..im sorry for the work but i just cant believe this has happened http://storeyourpicture.com/images/signature_imageHost.jpg

Rising Sun*
05-29-2009, 07:51 AM
this is brutal..im sorry for the work but i just cant believe this has happened

You have PM.

Read it and understand.

Rising Sun*
06-07-2009, 10:49 AM
Himm'er's order to execute jews was in direct relation to executing partisan's. The excuse was that every jew should be considered a partisan and therefore to be executed. This made it easier for the men to kill.

Really?

I guess that the Einsatzgruppen must have misunderstood the order and just decided to kill Russians who weren't Jews.

Possibly because the Einsatzgruppen were carrying out the Nazi policy of exterminating eastern Untermensch.


Soldat39, you look like a troll to me. Don't confirm my view by posting more idiotic shit justifying race hate crimes by the Nazis, or I'll exterminate you.

Nickdfresh
06-08-2009, 09:42 PM
Obviously, the einsatzgruppen were carrying out the nazi policy of exterminating eastern jews. Himmler was in charge of it all. Therefore, it's nazi policy. RisingSun, you look like a troll to me. Don't confirm my view by posting more idiotic shit justifying race hate crimes by the Nazis, or I'll exterminate you. Get a life. I don't remember justifying hate crimes by the Nazi's. You look putting words in people's mouth's, huh. I hope this forum isn't your only hobby. You really should get out more.


Goodbye, GAR...

Rising Sun*
06-09-2009, 05:28 AM
Goodbye, GAR...

I got beaten to the punch. ;) :D

Meanwhile, WTF is GAR?

Nickdfresh
06-09-2009, 07:35 AM
I got beaten to the punch. ;) :D

Meanwhile, WTF is GAR?

A boring, unfunny troll **** that likes to post from California libraries and stalk mostly Van Halen and music message boards. Mainly, so he can pretend to be an expert via Google and Wiki.

He is to guitars what Ironman was to weapons...

Rising Sun*
06-09-2009, 08:28 AM
A boring, unfunny troll **** that likes to post from California libraries and stalk mostly Van Halen and music message boards. Mainly, so he can pretend to be an expert via Google and Wiki.

He is to guitars what Ironman was to weapons...

Ah Ha!

Understood.

navyson
06-09-2009, 08:30 AM
Goodbye, GAR...

Y'all exterminated soldat39 so completely I don't even see him in the members list!:mrgreen:

Rising Sun*
06-09-2009, 08:37 AM
A boring, unfunny troll **** that likes to post from California libraries ...

Either Californian libraries are rather scant on WWII material, which I doubt, or Numb Nuts failed to avail himself of the resources therein before posting his idiotic opinions on matters military.

PA.Dutchman
06-09-2009, 09:39 AM
I am only responding to the remark about California History Classes or education. There is NONE.

I am volunteering at one of our local Elementary Schools in Pennsylvania.

They are getting next to NOTHING about the World Wars or any wars and very little of our own US History.

American youth will soon be the least educated and least knowledgeable people on earth.

Rising Sun*
06-09-2009, 10:31 AM
I am only responding to the remark about California History Classes or education. There is NONE.

I am volunteering at one of our local Elementary Schools in Pennsylvania.

They are getting next to NOTHING about the World Wars or any wars and very little of our own US History.

American youth will soon be the least educated and least knowledgeable people on earth.

The same sort of complaint is often made here in Australia, but I'm not sure whether it's the case that history isn't taught or that students don't remember it and or don't see it as important.

We've had 'history wars' and 'culture wars' here for the past few decades as the right and left / conservatives and liberals (the latter not to be confused with the Liberals, who are one of our two major political parties and very conservative) argue for their versions of history and what should be taught, so they can impose their version of our past on future generations.

I'd be happier if no rigid version of history was taught but if people were given the facts rather than interpretations and then equipped to research and analyse the past. Which I think is pretty much what our educators try to do, by presenting challenging versions of our past. That probably appeals to at most 10% of the student population, and nothing will change that.

Sometimes it gets absurd under the pressure of political dogma of one side or another, such as a leftish text several decades ago which referred to our soldiers as 'harm workers' against the pervasive and more recent conservative bullshit that no living generation of Australians ever did anything which warrants apologising to Aborigines for demolishing their pre-European existence by confiscating their country and pushing them to and even beyond the social, economic and political margins.

For what it's worth, my daughter has just done a WWI history unit in Year 10 (3rd last year of high school), so even that fairly ancient history is still being taught and, I think, is vaguely known by many of our young people. As this photo of those attending last year's dawn service at Gallipoli shows, some young people are well aware of that aspect of our history and attend the sevice to remember our fallen. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/10000-gather-at-gallipoli/2008/04/25/1208743220307.html

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0cEZ2Kw0p6dND/610x.jpg

Schuultz
06-09-2009, 11:17 AM
I wouldn't consider WW1 as ancient history... it's not even 100 years old, and is still easy to associate with, compared to the wars of the pre-20th century...

Rising Sun*
06-09-2009, 06:47 PM
I wouldn't consider WW1 as ancient history... it's not even 100 years old, and is still easy to associate with, compared to the wars of the pre-20th century...

Agreed, but I was talking from the perspective of a 15 year old whose perspective on time is rather different to ours. WWI is as remote to her as the Franco Prussian War was to me at her age.

Schuultz
06-09-2009, 07:18 PM
Dude... I'm nineteen - those 4 years shouldn't make too much difference.

Obviously the feeling of remoteness depends on how interested you are in history, though.
Also, the fact that you referred to 'a 15-year old' as 'her', makes me think you're referring to someone specific. I'll go out on a hike here, and claim that in general, men are more interested in history than women.

Nickdfresh
06-09-2009, 10:32 PM
Dude... I'm nineteen - those 4 years shouldn't make too much difference.
...

There's a world of difference between even a 15-year old and a 17-year old...

Schuultz
06-09-2009, 11:29 PM
There's a world of difference between even a 15-year old and a 17-year old...

True, but nothing you couldn't catch up in 2 years :D

jcompton
06-10-2009, 08:38 AM
Dude... I'm nineteen - those 4 years shouldn't make too much difference.

Obviously the feeling of remoteness depends on how interested you are in history, though.
Also, the fact that you referred to 'a 15-year old' as 'her', makes me think you're referring to someone specific. I'll go out on a hike here, and claim that in general, men are more interested in history than women.

I disagree with you on this one Shuultz... I've seen just as many female historians as I have male. I might admit that men are sometimes more interested in history of war fare... but that can be expected.
I was lucky enough to have a History teacher in high school who was very passionated about his profession. I credit him with my deep interest in history today.
I did want to tell you guys about a trip I just got back from. I have a cousin in the US Army who is stationed at Fort Sill in Oklahoma. He invited me down for a few days and of course I agreed. He took me on a tour of the post and got up close and personal with some of the army's newest artillery. It was awesome!!

Rising Sun*
06-10-2009, 10:35 AM
Dude... I'm nineteen - those 4 years shouldn't make too much difference.

I thought you were much older.

You are an unusually well informed 19 year old.

Schuultz
06-10-2009, 10:40 AM
I thought you were much older.

You are an unusually well informed 19 year old.

:mrgreen:

flamethrowerguy
06-10-2009, 10:43 AM
I thought you were much older.

You are an unusually well informed 19 year old.

That's why we deported him to Canada.;)

herman2
06-10-2009, 10:53 AM
Schuultz may be 19 but he articulates like he was in the War himself. :)