Le Paradis

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wm. Harris
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
Location: Festung Kanada

#16

Post by Wm. Harris » 01 Feb 2005, 23:12

Rob - WSSOB wrote:The allegation is unproven because it is a lie. Unless you want to explain away how the 100 men of the 2nd Royal Norfolk guarding the farmhouse at Le Paradis somehow became the only formation of the 300,000+ men of the British Expeditionary Force in 1940 France armed with dum-dum bullets.
They wouldn't have. If I may interject, the term "dum dum" is widely misunderstood -- it refers only to steel jacketed bullets with the tip cut away to reveal the soft lead core. This would cause the bullet to expand on hitting the target and cause severe wounds. They were originally developed by the British at the Dum Dum Arsenal in India, after they found fully-jacketed bullets did not expand and caused only slight, non-debilitating wounds (they were fighting the Afridis at the time).

Dum dum bullets were banned at the Hague Conference in 1899 (see: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm). In response, the British Army adopted the elongated German Spitzgeshoss bullet, but incorporated an aluminium tip underneath the steel jacket. This made the bullet unstable, causing it to "tumble" through its target, and proved just as lethal as the dum dum bullets had been. This bullet, the MkVII, was adopted in 1910.

The British soldiers in question therefore probably did not have dum dum bullets, simply because the bullets they had were just as debilitating. I think Rob's assertion that the perpetrators were "pissed off and wanted revenge" is the most likely explanation -- it wouldn't have been the first time such killings ever took place, and it certainly wouldn't be the last.

Bill H.

User avatar
Miha Grcar
Member
Posts: 1474
Joined: 20 Aug 2004, 10:19
Location: Europe

#17

Post by Miha Grcar » 01 Feb 2005, 23:22

Sorry for a off-topic:
Are these bullets the MkVII's still in use or were they banned later? Is the concept still in use & legal?

best,
Nibelung


User avatar
Wm. Harris
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
Location: Festung Kanada

#18

Post by Wm. Harris » 02 Feb 2005, 16:22

Hi Nibelung,

I am unaware of any law prohibiting bullets that "tumble". I believe most military bullets in use today are designed to do so.

I could be mistaken, however. If anyone knows otherwise, please let us know.

Bill H.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#19

Post by Panzermahn » 12 Feb 2005, 06:50

The whole “dum dum” bullet allegation was made up by SSTK senior commander “Papa” Eicke when he had to explain the situation to RFSS Himmler. The incident had caused Himmler some embarrassment since the German Army was asking for an investigation into the crime. Eicke was trying to protect SS-Obersturmführer Fritz Knöchlein from prosecution for the shooting of the unarmed British prisoners. Knöchlein’s real motivation for murdering the prisoners was probably the fact that his 14th company/III Bat./TIR 2 had suffered severe casualties that day. He was pissed off, and wanted payback.
It is also possible that maybe Knoechlin was pissed off and wanted payback for his company's high casualties but please refer to this quote
On the 12th day of the trial, 25 Oct 1948, the Judge-Advocate summed up the trial. He stated that the question of whether British troops had been using illegal ammunition, or mis-using a flag of truce, was irrelevant. If they had, then the British troops had committed an offence under the laws and usages of war. The enemy should then have conducted a proper legal trial
.

http://www.norfolkbc.fsnet.co.uk/archiv ... aradis.htm

If it is truly that the allegation of British troops using dum-dum bullets was simply a concoted story by Theodor Papa Eicke, would the British Judge-Advocate have mentioned this statement in the trial of the Knoechlin? Wouldn't he could simply brushed off the allegation of Knoechlin that the British forces at Le Paradis was using dum-dum bullets? The fact that the British Judge-Advocate stated that it is irrelevant that whether the British forces using dum-dum bullets or misusing the flag of truce instead of saying "The accused(Knoechlin) allegations of British troops using dum-dum bullets is utterly nonsense..etc" implied that the British JA gave a benefit of doubt to Knoechlin's allegation instead of simply refuting it...and that's why i had said in my post that the allegation that the British troops using dum-dum bullets is unproven
Unless you want to explain away how the 100 men of the 2nd Royal Norfolk guarding the farmhouse at Le Paradis somehow became the only formation of the 300,000+ men of the British Expeditionary Force in 1940 France armed with dum-dum bullets.
If i'm not mistaken, the British army was fighting a retrogade action back to Dunkirk and the Royal Norfolks was part of the rearguard force intended to hold the advancing Germans. Wouldn't it be possible that the Norfolks, as a rearguard protecting the rear of the BEF, knowing no hope to escape back to England, fought heroically, albeit desperately, came across ammo caches which they knowingly knew it was dum-dum ammo or not, simply used it to stop the Germans whatever they can...

Let me ask, if you're group of soldiers tasked as a rearguard (another point is that when soldiers were tasked as a rearguard group, it would somehow lower their morale because it known that they could not escape but there is another contention), and you were ordered to hold the Germans as long as possible and ammunition is running low when you came across ammo caches would you think that "oh no, those ammo caches are dum-dum bullets, it would be violating geneva Convention if we used it..."?

Oh course at that moment, you simply take any ammo or weapons to hold Germans as you were ordered too, right? Maybe perhaps you would also think that "if these bastards are going to get us, let's take most of them with us!!"
Good for Knöchlein. The SSTK was involved in at least 2 other incident of shooting unarmed, surrendered prisoners during the 1940 French campaign - on June 19 (when elements of II Bat/TIR 2 killed 30 French Moroccan attempting to surrender at L’Arbresele) and June 21 (III Bat, TIR 1 takes no “Negro” prisoners at Lentilly).
Perhaps i didn't word properly or specifically in my earlier post..I was referring to Knoechlin's company....not the entire SSTK or the entire regiment from which Kneochlin's company were part of it

PM, your opinion has no legal standing, so it’s still a war crime. BTW did you know that German XVII Panzer Corps Commander Gen. Erich Höpner had heard that the SSTK was mistreating prisoners during the campaign and on May 24 - BEFORE to the Le Paradis massacre - issued a memo to all his troops that killing prisoners as a reprisal or punishment would be considered murder by an army courts-martial
(See Charles W. Sydnor Jr’s Soldier’s of Destruction p 109)
I did not state anywhere in my post that Le Paradis was not a war crime..Le Paradis, even for me, was a war crime and that is undisputable..What i am talking about is the situation that leads to the war crime, the circumstances that lead to such atrocity. Now you understand when i told Oleg Grigoryev (before he left) that coming out with official orders are not necessarily being obeyed by the soldiers..(I pointed out to this to Oleg when he came out with Red Army's official orders to treat German POWs and civillians humanly but apparently orders are not being obeyed)
BTW - Knöchlein neither had the authority nor the authorization to act as judge, jury and executioner against 100 unarmed British POWs. And the only “investigation” he conducted was the time it took to march the 100 POWs across the lane to the barn wall, set up 2 machineguns and fire them, then order the troops under his command to bayonet the survivors.

That’s justice?
It is not..but you consider that the situation of circumstances that made him into behaving in such a brutal way..For example, a group of men tried to kill your family and then you managed to kill all of them eventhough when they surrendered to you....would you consider the situation or circumstances that lead you into killing all of them without any mercy?
You’re wrong. The SS commandos captured wearing US uniforms and later executed were given court martials on Dec 21 and December 26, 1944. See Michael Schadewitz’s The Meuse First and Then Antwerp
Thanks for your correction...Do you know where can i accessed their trial transcripts? I'm interested to look at these trials of SS commandos?

By the way, sorry for the late reply...Yours truly Panzermahn got an accident two weeks ago and was recuperating

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#20

Post by David Thompson » 12 Feb 2005, 07:23

Panzermahn -- You said:
If i'm not mistaken, the British army was fighting a retrogade action back to Dunkirk and the Royal Norfolks was part of the rearguard force intended to hold the advancing Germans. Wouldn't it be possible that the Norfolks, as a rearguard protecting the rear of the BEF, knowing no hope to escape back to England, fought heroically, albeit desperately, came across ammo caches which they knowingly knew it was dum-dum ammo or not, simply used it to stop the Germans whatever they can...

Let me ask, if you're group of soldiers tasked as a rearguard (another point is that when soldiers were tasked as a rearguard group, it would somehow lower their morale because it known that they could not escape but there is another contention), and you were ordered to hold the Germans as long as possible and ammunition is running low when you came across ammo caches would you think that "oh no, those ammo caches are dum-dum bullets, it would be violating geneva Convention if we used it..."?

Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention banned the use of "dum-dum" projectiles. Do you think the British were using ammunition over 40 years old in this engagement?

Hague Declaration III - on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm

Welcome back.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#21

Post by Panzermahn » 12 Feb 2005, 07:28

David Thompson wrote:Panzermahn -- You said:
If i'm not mistaken, the British army was fighting a retrogade action back to Dunkirk and the Royal Norfolks was part of the rearguard force intended to hold the advancing Germans. Wouldn't it be possible that the Norfolks, as a rearguard protecting the rear of the BEF, knowing no hope to escape back to England, fought heroically, albeit desperately, came across ammo caches which they knowingly knew it was dum-dum ammo or not, simply used it to stop the Germans whatever they can...

Let me ask, if you're group of soldiers tasked as a rearguard (another point is that when soldiers were tasked as a rearguard group, it would somehow lower their morale because it known that they could not escape but there is another contention), and you were ordered to hold the Germans as long as possible and ammunition is running low when you came across ammo caches would you think that "oh no, those ammo caches are dum-dum bullets, it would be violating geneva Convention if we used it..."?

Declaration III of the 1899 Hague Convention banned the use of "dum-dum" projectiles. Do you think the British were using ammunition over 40 years old in this engagement?

Hague Declaration III - on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm

Welcome back.
It might be possible that some dum-dum bullets were found by the British and because as i said, the British rearguard forces that were tasked to hold the Germans, in the case, the Royal Norfolks, were desperately short of ammunition, used it with or without knowing it was a dum-dum ammunition...(i think the most probably and likely scenario that the Royal Norfolks surrendered because of lack of ammunition..that why they surrendered..If they had abundance of ammunition, would you think they would have surrendered to the Germans?)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#22

Post by David Thompson » 12 Feb 2005, 08:04

Panzermahn -- I'd like to see any evidence indicating that 40 year-old illegal ammunition manufactured in an arsenal many thousands of miles away in India was ever even issued to British troops in Europe in 1939-40. You may find these articles informative:
DUM-DUM BULLETS

The use of the Dum-dum bullet by the English in their warfare against the Indian and African border tribes is causing most unfavorable comment in military circles. The Dum-dum bullet is the name given by Indian soldiers to the new projectile for the Lee-Metford rifle, specially prepared for use in India. As experience in Chitral has shown, the original nickeled Lee-Metford bullet made a clean-cut hole in the human target. The person hit, when no bones were touched, did not notice that he was wounded and could remain in the fight for some time. A few offices of the Dum-dum factory were called upon to supply a remedy, which they have done. The nickel jacket of the Lee-Metford bullet is ripped up along its length, leaving the head whole. On the impact of the new bullet, the nickel stripe and the lead spread out like a round fan and naturally cause a dreadful wound, and the person hit is immediately knocked down.

November 20, 1897

[UK] Army Navy Journal 1897
http://www.afji.com/AFJI/history/Mags/2 ... march.html
Britain adopted a turn-bolt, magazine fed action invented by one James Paris Lee, mated to a barrel with segmental rifling invented by William Metford, the whole being known as the Lee-Metford rifle. There were two distinct peculiarities with regard to this new cartridge, however. One was that it was rimmed. Admittedly, all the previous black powder rounds had also been rimmed, but the 8mm Mauser round, also of 1888, was of rimless design, which was far more suited to repeating rifles. The second curiosity was that the .303 was originally loaded with black powder. All other major powers were changing to the new nitro smokeless propellant, invented by the French chemist Vielle and adopted by France (a major rival) in 1886. However, Britain, although adopting a smallbore round which was modern by contemporary standards, only went the smokeless route in the early 1890’s. It appears that they were having problems with the development of a suitable smokeless propellant, and as a stop-gap measure used a compressed charge of 70 grains of black powder behind a 215 grain round nosed bullet. How they achieved this I don’t know, as it is a physical impossibility to stuff 70 grains of black powder into a .303 case by any conventional method! This gave the aforementioned bullet a velocity of 1850 fps, which was still pretty respectable for its day.

Eventually the propellant was changed from black powder to the famous Cordite in 1891 or 1892 (references differ as to the exact date of changeover) by means of the “Mark 1 C” cartridge, “C” denoting Cordite smokeless nitro propellant. A few minor changes necessitated by the new propellant resulted in the “Mark II C” cartridge. The same 215 grain bullet now achieved a velocity of 1970 fps, and everyone seemed satisfied.

Everyone that is, aside from those who actually had cause to shoot anyone with this new round and rifle. Good accuracy, yes. Flat trajectory, no doubt about it. Amazing firepower too, from this new magazine fed repeater. This was just as well, as those hit by it frequently failed to acknowledge the fact, and regularly took multiple hits before actually ceasing in the attempt to rearrange one’s internal anatomy with various sharp and unpleasant edged ethnic implements. In the 1890’s the British Army was engaged in a number of operations in the Indian and Afghan theatre, and this lack of effectiveness of the new ammunition was a cause of major concern. The previous Martini-Henry rifle with its 480 grain soft lead bullet had been proven time and time again, but this new rifle just wasn’t up to snuff. When small British detachments found themselves outnumbered ten to one against fanatically courageous opponents who took and gave no quarter, the problem was a serious one. Wound ballistics was a poorly understood science in those days, but even 1970 fps was insufficient for such a smallbore, relatively heavy, round nosed projectile to be effective as a military round. Penetration was fantastic - even up to and including an elephant’s skull - but it was too good on human targets, and energy transmission was virtually nil. Sub - 2000 fps speeds were too low for effective hydrostatic shock and temporary cavitation, all of which the British trooper was finding out the hard way on the field of battle.

As most of this unpleasantness was going on in the Indian theatre, the problem was tackled in situ and was solved at a place whose name must rank as one of the most over-used, misquoted and poorly understood terms in the history of firearms in general and projectiles in particular. The place was Dum-Dum arsenal in India. It was here that the full metal jacketed .303 bullet was changed to one having a small amount of lead core exposed at the tip, creating in effect a soft-nosed bullet which would expand in flesh - as did the previously used Martini-Henry lead bullets - and thus greatly increase its effectiveness. Any hunter having observed the differing terminal effects of solid bullets as compared to soft noses on lighter, thin skinned game will readily appreciate the difference. The .303 and the .450 Martini- Henry rounds were almost identical in their actual muzzle energies, but now the .303 could more effectively deliver that energy to the target. The infamous Dum-Dum bullet was born, and real-life fighting showed it to be far more effective than the old Mark 2 bullet. Troops engaged in savage warfare, but still equipped with the older Mark 2 ammunition, would sometimes file down the tips of the nully jacketed bullets to make them like the “Dum-Dum” projectiles. In those days the Indian contingent of the British army had considerable autonomy in equipment and procurement of same, so while the Indian theatre was equipped with the soft nosed Dum-Dum bullet the same was never adopted by the rest of the British army. The same problem was appreciated, but dealt with in a different way by the adoption of a hollow-nosed bullet called the Mark 3, soon improved and widely manufactured as the Mark 4 in 1897, and the very similar Mark 5 of 1899. (It is emphasised at this point that “Mark 2”, “Mark 3”, etc, refers solely to ammunition development and bullet types. This nomenclature has an entirely different meaning when applied to the rifle itself).

It was at about this time, when Britain started to feel the heat politically over these expanding bullets. While such bullets were generally felt to be okay in outer corners of the globe where one’s opponents wouldn’t know acceptable codes of conduct in warfare if such codes ran up and bit them, the general consensus was that it would be a sorry thing if such bullets appeared in so-called “civilised” warfare. In view of what the First World War was to usher in in the not-too-distant future, one wonders what “civilised” warfare actually is. My view is that it is an oxymoron. Be that as it may, much political hay was made by Britain’s rivals over these allegedly “inhumane” bullets. All this culminated in the signing of the Hague Convention of 1899 (not the Geneva Convention, which is so often erroneously supposed, which deals with other matters). It was the Hague Convention which, among other things, specifically bound nations at war to refrain from using bullets which would “expand or flatten easily in the human body...” and which was specifically aimed at soft or hollow nosed bullets.

Britain could have argued the point, but was walking a bit of a political tightrope at the time in the form of the Boer War. The Boers did not wage war in any form of barbarous or inhumane fashion, and the use of expanding bullets on such an opponent was not justified by any means. What to do now? Britain responded by withdrawing all hollowpoint ammunition from the South African theatre, and went back to the drawing board. What was needed was a bullet which would abide by the letter of the Hague Convention for use in Europe, should the necessity ever arise, but which would still retain adequate effectiveness in other theatres of conflict should one desire one’s hit foe to realise this and stay hit. The Mark 6 bullet was briefly flirted with in 1904, having a thinner jacket, but this was far from satisfactory and did not solve the problem at all. However, in 1905 the Germans startled the military world with the adoption of their revolutionary new bullet for the 8mm Mauser. This was the sharply pointed lightweight 154 grain bullet at nearly 2900 fps, which by virtue of its greater speed and superior ballistic coefficient bestowed by its streamlined shape gave ever greater advantages of range and trajectory. This once again shook the military world, and the new German “Spitzgeshoss” (or “pointed bullet”) lives on in modern bullet designation in the “spitzer” term, meaning the same thing. The exterior ballistic advantages of this new bullet were certainly not lost on the British, and the terminal effects of the enhanced velocities were beginning to be appreciated as well.

At these greatly increased velocities not only was there another quantum leap in even flatter trajectories, but now there was a greater effect evident on those hit by such bullets. Not only were the lighter, pointed bullets more unstable, tending to deform in flesh, but the velocity of the bullet was causing damage to tissue even some distance away from the actual bullet track, and exit wounds were now large, gaping, unpleasant affairs. Although not fully understood at the time, these were manifestations of hydrostatic shock. “Hydro” is, of course, anything to do with water. Among its other properties, one of the physical characteristics of water is that it is incompressible. This means that shock waves radiate through water very efficiently (just watch ripples on a pond when you throw in a stone, a half brick, the dog or whatever). Guess what the human body is largely made up of. That’s right - water. This is the same phenomenon that causes the familiar blood-shot, bruised meat in an animal when hit with a high velocity hunting bullet. All in all, anyone hit by one of these new bullets stayed hit! You can be sure that this was not lost on the British Army.

There were one or two problems, however. For one, the .303 round did not have the capacity of the 8mm Mauser case, and for another the Lee action was not as strong as the Model 98 Mauser when it came to handling high pressures. Furthermore, the British were unwilling to go to a pointed bullet of less than 174 grains. This bullet could only be safely driven to a velocity of 2440 fps in the Lee, and while this velocity produced hydrostatic shock effects it was not as spectacular as the Mauser. The British army, sensitive to the earlier failures of the Mark 2 bullet, felt that a little bit extra was needed. This little bit extra was provided by the Mark 7 spitzer bullet, adopted in 1910.

To all intents and appearances, the new Mark 7 bullet was a fully jacketed pointed bullet weighing 174 grains. However, things were not as they may have appeared. Beneath the full metal jacket lurked a radical bullet design, for anyone who sectioned one of the new bullets found an aluminium tip under the point, which extended fully one third of the bullet’s length. Beneath this aluminium tip was the conventional lead core. This design firstly ensured that the bullet was long for its weight, which is not a bad thing at all for enhanced long range performance. Mainly, however, the bullet’s centre of gravity was now further to the rear, which caused it to be unstable on impact and prone to tumbling. This of course greatly increased its wounding potential, but never mind - it had a full metal jacket to keep the politicians happy! Hypocritical, isn’t it? Here was a bullet far more devastating than the original “dum dum”, but which was now acceptable because it didn’t actually expand - it just tumbled through like a buzz-saw! That’s politics for you. Are you surprised? No, I didn’t think you would be.

The .303 British
http://www.african-hunter.com/303_british.htm
Furthermore, any SS sergeant or field grade officer who had served in WWI against the British would have known that the UK forces used the same rifle round in the Great War -- the Mark VII cartridge was introduced into service in 1911.

.303 Ball Cartridge Mark VII round
http://www.westernfront.co.uk/thegreatw ... tridge.htm

Note also the mention, in the second linked article, of the "spectacular" hydrostatic shock wounding effect of the German 8mm Mauser 98 cartridge which led to the British development of the Mark VII .303 round.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#23

Post by Panzermahn » 12 Feb 2005, 11:40

Panzermahn -- I'd like to see any evidence indicating that 40 year-old illegal ammunition manufactured in an arsenal many thousands of miles away in India was ever even issued to British troops in Europe in 1939-40. You may find these articles informative:
David, of course it's not issued at least officially..If they were issued officially, what is the point that Britain signed and ratified the Geneva Convention of 1929? Maybe those unfortunate Royal Norfolks found some ammo caches which they used it unknowingly it was dum-dum bullets...You know, even the Home Guard of Britain, in some places even used muskets dated back to the 19th century borrowed from the local musuem during the invasion threat of England back in 1941..

It might be also, the Royal Norfolks stumbled upon old ammo caches bought by the French for whatever reason, utilized unknowingly it was violating Geneva Convention to hold the German advance..It might be possible..And most likely, it is plausible as i mentioned earlier, even the British Judge-Advocate gave a benefit of doubt to Knoechlin's allegation during the latter's trial.

But again, thanks for the articles..

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#24

Post by David Thompson » 12 Feb 2005, 17:54

Panzermahn -- You said:
David, of course it's not issued at least officially..If they were issued officially, what is the point that Britain signed and ratified the Geneva Convention of 1929? Maybe those unfortunate Royal Norfolks found some ammo caches which they used it unknowingly it was dum-dum bullets...
and
It might be also, the Royal Norfolks stumbled upon old ammo caches bought by the French for whatever reason, utilized unknowingly it was violating Geneva Convention to hold the German advance..It might be possible..And most likely, it is plausible as i mentioned earlier, even the British Judge-Advocate gave a benefit of doubt to Knoechlin's allegation during the latter's trial.
(1) The Geneva Convention of 1929 deals with the treatment of POWs and has nothing to do with Dum-Dum bullets:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm
As I've already pointed out, the applicable treaty is Declaration III of the Hague Convention of 1899.

(2) You're imagining possibilities here, without any showing that those possibilities are likely.

(3) Knochlein's actions in shooting his prisoners without trial was a war crime whether or not the British used Dum-Dum bullets. Consequently, Knochlein's allegation was a non-issue at his trial. Passing over an irrelevant matter, after remarking on its irrelevance, does not concede anything.

Curioso
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 13:07
Location: Pagnà

#25

Post by Curioso » 26 Feb 2005, 12:26

Panzermahn wrote:
Panzermahn -- I'd like to see any evidence indicating that 40 year-old illegal ammunition manufactured in an arsenal many thousands of miles away in India was ever even issued to British troops in Europe in 1939-40. You may find these articles informative:
David, of course it's not issued at least officially..If they were issued officially, what is the point that Britain signed and ratified the Geneva Convention of 1929? Maybe those unfortunate Royal Norfolks found some ammo caches which they used it unknowingly it was dum-dum bullets...You know, even the Home Guard of Britain, in some places even used muskets dated back to the 19th century borrowed from the local musuem during the invasion threat of England back in 1941..

It might be also, the Royal Norfolks stumbled upon old ammo caches bought by the French for whatever reason, utilized unknowingly it was violating Geneva Convention to hold the German advance..It might be possible..
In other words, there is not any shred of evidence of this tale today, right? And what about at the time, did the Nazi propaganda provide anything in the way of factual evidence? I mean, beyond the excuse claims? Did they show a box of dum-dum ammo? Or nothing at all but verbal claims?

User avatar
Georg_S
Forum Staff
Posts: 5491
Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 13:37
Location: Sweden

#26

Post by Georg_S » 28 Feb 2005, 08:29

I noticed that no one mentioning the fact that SS-Staf Goetze was killed in La Paradise, and may have been
on eof the reason as well why the English POWs was killed after the fighting. In the memory book of the French Campaign
of the SS-Totenkopf Division, is a photo of Goetze laying on a carpet after being killed.

One other thing is that, the UK soldiers wasn´t without ammo and so one. I have photos of killed UK soldiers at La Paradise
and on that photo they have a lot of ammo arounf them, so any lack of ammo as one here claims, is unfortunately
a reproduction after the war. Maybe to make the killing of the UK soldiers look even worse.

What I have read and know about the fact is that the soldiers of La Paradise was a group of soldiers left behind to try slow down the Germans
and let others get away and to reorganize themself further away.

There is many stories why Knöchlein shoot the POWs some of them is:

1.The Dum Dum bullet story.
2.The Germans entered the village with a white flag, and tried the english to surrender, and the SS-Soldiers was shoot down.
3.The UK Soldiers had white flags on the houses and the men carried red cross brassards, and let the SS move in to the village
and a platoon of the SS-T was killed.
4. The UK was killed in revenge of their Rgt. KDr (Götze)


But when almost every one is dead who participated into this battle, we will never really know what happened, I once meet a SS-T soldier
who was in La Paradise, but he cliamed the lack of memory what really happened. He almost even didn´t know in which Rgt. he served
in, but finaly I get the info that earlier he served in SS-T Oberbayern, that because I got aware that he had served in Dachau
before the war.... Maybe that´s why he had so bad memory.. =)

Best reg.

Georg

User avatar
Exxley
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 08 Feb 2005, 02:17
Location: Lyon, France

#27

Post by Exxley » 28 Feb 2005, 12:52

Georg Wrote:
But when almost every one is dead who participated into this battle, we will never really know what happened
We do know what happened after the British soldiers surrendered. They were lined up against a wall and killed.

User avatar
Georg_S
Forum Staff
Posts: 5491
Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 13:37
Location: Sweden

#28

Post by Georg_S » 28 Feb 2005, 18:30

Exxley,

Yes we know that, but what I meant was WHY they was lined up and shoot.
But maybe you know why?

/Georg

Curioso
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 13:07
Location: Pagnà

#29

Post by Curioso » 28 Feb 2005, 19:03

Georg wrote:Exxley,

Yes we know that, but what I meant was WHY they was lined up and shoot.

/Georg
That is why I asked if there was any factual evidence of the alleged use of dum-dum rounds. Such as, a crate of unfired dum-dum rounds captured on the spot and immediately photographed. Is there anything like that?

Lacking that, the alternate reasons can be easily surmised, and they are what we have always thought of those war criminals.

And, of course, the very point of the part of the verdict that was quoted is that the reason may be of historical interest, but whatever it is, it doesn't change the nature of the deed: a war crime.

User avatar
Exxley
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 08 Feb 2005, 02:17
Location: Lyon, France

#30

Post by Exxley » 01 Mar 2005, 16:19

And, of course, the very point of the part of the verdict that was quoted is that the reason may be of historical interest, but whatever it is, it doesn't change the nature of the deed: a war crime.
thnx curioso, couldnt say it better.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”