Assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#16

Post by David Thompson » 17 Jan 2006, 07:05

robota -- Your claim was:
As I seem to remember the deliberate targetting of a civilian market in Sarajevo by persons unknown was not considered a war crime by the moderators of this forum, despite it being accepted as a war crime by the Hague and indeed forming part of an indictment. So the standard of war crimes is very high here.
I can see now why I didn't share your recollection. Your citation was to a question from me to the poster who started the thread:
batu -- What is supposed to be the war crime?
My question to batu doesn't support your claim ("the deliberate targetting of a civilian market in Sarajevo by persons unknown was not considered a war crime by the moderators of this forum"). In the first place, it's a question, not a statement. In the second place, the post leaves the question open as to whether the shelling was deliberate or not, as well as the question of whether the incidents of shelling involved the same military units and commanders. In the third place, the Hague indictment isn't mentioned in batu's post ("despite it being accepted as a war crime by the Hague and indeed forming part of an indictment"). In the fourth place, while the indictment sets forth those elements which make the shelling a war crime -- it charges one individual (Galic) with carrying on a deliberate campaign involving multiple incidents, over a 44 month period of time -- none of those underlying facts or allegations appear in batu's post.

I refer specifically to these allegations in the indictment:
4. (a) For forty-four months, the Sarajevo Romanija Corps implemented a military strategy which used shelling and sniping to kill, maim, wound and terrorise the civilian inhabitants of Sarajevo. The shelling and sniping killed and wounded thousands of civilians of both sexes and all ages, including children and the elderly.
10. STANISLAV GALIC bears individual criminal responsibility for planning, instigating, ordering, committing, or otherwise aiding and abetting, in the planning, preparation or execution of the campaign of shelling and sniping against the civilian population of Sarajevo and the acts set forth below by the forces and persons under his command, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute of the Tribunal.
The indictment of General Galic
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/engli ... 90326e.htm

You also said:
The moderators made the decision that the Markale massacre was not a war crime or at least not unambigously a war crime and moved it.
As described by batu at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 794#813794 , it wasn't clearly a war crime. Neither the pattern of deliberate shelling and sniping detailed in the indictment, nor the specific command responsibility, nor the indictment itself, were mentioned. That's why I moved the thread. Furthermore, the call of the question raised by batu didn't involve war crimes either, but NATO intervention in Bosnia:
In my view the Western poicy in this war was clearly biased. Their mediation and peackeeping was onesided and ineffective. It didn't stop any massacres and it was biased and the final Dayton accords only froze the conflict, but not solved it.
I would appreciate constructive remarks and I am not interested in putting all blame on any side.
I don't think that an impartial reader would draw any conclusions at all about war crimes from batu's post, my question about it or my having moved the thread, much less that "the standard of war crimes is very high here. [in the H&WC section of the forum]"

nny
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 19 May 2005, 18:11
Location: Mass, US

#17

Post by nny » 18 Jan 2006, 08:18

A few observations:

(1) There's nothing legal about a murder, but that doesn't turn a murder into a war crime.

(2) To show that the 1949 Geneva Treaty applies to the murder, it is necessary to find the specific provision which the assassination violated.

(3) It is also necessary to show that the 1949 Geneva Treaty applies to the acts of a criminal band like the Stern gang.

(4) Assuming for the sake of argument that its definitions and obligations apply to this situation, the 1949 Geneva Convention was enacted after the 1948 assassination of Count Bernadotte.

See the discussions at:

The Laws of War: To whom do they apply?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69194
Ordinary Crimes/War Crimes
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=80590
What was the point of the previous three points to (4)? No matter what I say to 1-3, (4) would annul them all! Please just redirect my inquiry in the right direction. I don't think you're stupid, I know you understand these laws :
CHAPTER III Neutral Persons
Art. 16.
The nationals of a State which is not taking part in the war are considered as neutrals.

Art. 17.
A neutral cannot avail himself of his neutrality

(a) If he commits hostile acts against a belligerent;

(b) If he commits acts in favor of a belligerent, particularly if he voluntarily enlists in the ranks of the armed force of one of the parties. In such a case, the neutral shall not be more severely treated by the belligerent as against whom he has abandoned his neutrality than a national of the other belligerent State could be for the same act.

Art. 18.
The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one belligerent in the sense of Article 17, letter (b):

(a) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories;

(b) Services rendered in matters of police or civil administration.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague05.htm


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

#18

Post by David Thompson » 18 Jan 2006, 10:12

nny -- You wrote, of my post:
What was the point of the previous three points to (4)? No matter what I say to 1-3, (4) would annul them all! Please just redirect my inquiry in the right direction. I don't think you're stupid, I know you understand these laws
You're not thinking analytically. If the assassination was never a war crime, a discussion of it belongs in another section. If the assassination would be a war crime today, we can discuss it here. The fact that an act wasn't a war crime at the time it was committed is something that the readers should be aware of during the discussion. You can see similar analyses in threads on the Dresden bombings, strafing parachuting pilots, strafing civilians, etc. in this section of the forum.

In this case, we don't know yet whether the assassination was a war crime. That means the discussion turns on the laws and customs of war -- an interesting subject -- and whether they were violated in this particular instance. It gives the posters and the readers the opportunity to think and learn about what makes a war crime, and who can be a war criminal.

You cited to the Hague IV Convention of 1907 on the status of neutrals as protected persons. The obligation of the host country is to protect them on request and refrain from harming them. The murder of a neutral in time of war by the authorities of the host country, in violation of its duties, is a war crime. If, however, the neutral is killed through no fault, design or connivance of the host country, it isn't a war crime, any more than the robbery and murder of a Swiss citizen by bandits in 1939 Warsaw, 1940 London, or 1941 Berlin would be a war crime. The same would be true if the Swiss citizen was inadvertently killed in a bombing by a hostile belligerent.

robota
Banned
Posts: 169
Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 11:20
Location: Switzerland

#19

Post by robota » 19 Jan 2006, 05:46

Much as I admire David Thompson's ability to dance on the head of a pin an a note of realism has to be injected here.

Whether a Hague convention exists or not the shooting of an ambassador of a neutral power or multi-national organisation is and has always been a war crime. It has never been acceptable to shot a negotiator.
Nor does an action have to the clear imprimatur of the Government to be a war crime. For example whether or not the Holocaust was a war crime does not depend on whether or not Hitler and the Nazi top echelon knew about it or not. Breaker Morant shooting POWs was a war crime whether or not his actions were prosecuted by the military authorities (it was). A Boer irregular farmer shooting wounded British soldiers would also be a war crime

In this case an irregular fighting force killed an emissary, not because they wanted his wallet but because they wanted to stymie his efforts to broker a peace deal. That is unambigously a war crime. It was a murder that was directly related to the armed conflict, not bandits robbing a Swiss tourist.

I am still a little perplexed as to David Thompson's attitude to the Markale Massacre.

Does he still believe it was not a war crime or not?

Does he hold that the Markale Massacre was not contained in the Galic indictment specifically as a war crime? I have only briefly skimmed the judgement but I believe that the Judges were of the opinion that this was indeed a war crime. You might like to consider this finding.

[quote]The Majority is convinced that the mortar shell which struck Markale was fired deliberately at the market. That market drew large numbers of people. There was no reason to consider the market area as a military objective. Evidence was presented in relation to the status of the “December 22â€

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

#20

Post by David Thompson » 19 Jan 2006, 05:52

robota -- You said:
Whether a Hague convention exists or not the shooting of an ambassador of a neutral power or multi-national organisation is and has always been a war crime.
and
In this case an irregular fighting force killed an emissary, not because they wanted his wallet but because they wanted to stymie his efforts to broker a peace deal. That is unambigously a war crime. It was a murder that was directly related to the armed conflict, not bandits robbing a Swiss tourist.
You are simply repeating your conclusion, as though it were an argument. This is a well-known rhetorical fallacy, generally called "begging the question."

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/ar ... estion.htm
http://www.ramdac.org/fallacies.php?fal ... 20Question

I will put to you the same question I put to Michael Mills:
If you think the murder of Count Bernadotte was a war crime, specify the violation by treaty and section, or by reference to the specific laws and customs of war. That way, the readers can compare the legal requirements with the known facts, and judge for themselves.
If you can answer it, we might have something for the readers to discuss.

You also asked:
I am still a little perplexed as to David Thompson's attitude to the Markale Massacre.

Does he still believe it was not a war crime or not?
I have not expressed an opinion on it, so your formulation "still believe it was not a war crime" is mistaken, as I pointed out to you in my post at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 788#834788

robota
Banned
Posts: 169
Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 11:20
Location: Switzerland

#21

Post by robota » 19 Jan 2006, 06:24

If you think the murder of Count Bernadotte was a war crime, specify the violation by treaty and section, or by reference to the specific laws and customs of war. That way, the readers can compare the legal requirements with the known facts, and judge for themselves.
May I direct you to Article 32 of the 1907 convention.
Art. 32.
A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him.
I think that should cover it. There is no doubt that the Stern Gang was one of the belligerents and that Bernadotte had been authorised by Arab governments and the UN to provide channels of communication.

Would you care to provide an opinion of whether you believe the Markale Massacre was a war crime?

Do you dispute that the Markale Massacre was recognised as a war crime in both the Galic indictment and judgement?

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

#22

Post by David Thompson » 19 Jan 2006, 08:23

robota -- You remarked, in answer to my question posted at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 028#836028 :
If you think the murder of Count Bernadotte was a war crime, specify the violation by treaty and section, or by reference to the specific laws and customs of war. That way, the readers can compare the legal requirements with the known facts, and judge for themselves.

May I direct you to Article 32 of the 1907 convention.
Art. 32.
A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter, bugler or drummer, the flag-bearer and interpreter who may accompany him.
I think that should cover it. There is no doubt that the Stern Gang was one of the belligerents and that Bernadotte had been authorised by Arab governments and the UN to provide channels of communication.
(1) What makes you think the 1907 Hague IV Convention is applicable to the assassination of Count Bernadotte?

Helpful Hint: If you start reading at the beginning of the Hague IV Convention, you will see Articles 1 and 2, which state who is bound by the Convention and when it is applicable. You can find Articles 1 and 2 at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... .htm#iart1
and
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... .htm#iart2
Article 1.
The Contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention.

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.
Israel, of course, was not in existence in 1907 when the Hague IV Convention was negotiated. If you look at the names of the contracting powers at the Hague IV Convention, and those countries which subsequently signed and ratified that treaty, you won't find Israel, or any of the Arab belligerents in the 1948 war on the list. See:

Signatories to the Hague IV Convention of 1907
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 802#625802

(2) Assuming for the sake of argument that the 1907 Hague IV Convention was applicable to the assassination of Count Bernadotte, what makes you think the Convention applies to the Stern gang ("There is no doubt that the Stern Gang was one of the belligerents")?

Helpful hint: See Article 1 of the Annex to the Convention. You can find it under the heading "The Qualifications of Belligerents" at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... 4.htm#art1
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."

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

#23

Post by David Thompson » 20 Jan 2006, 08:14

A post from nny, raising a number of questions about matters other than the assassination of Count Bernadotte, was given a thread of its own and recaptioned by this moderator. It can be seen at:

Many questions about the Hague IV Convention
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=93963

nny
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 19 May 2005, 18:11
Location: Mass, US

#24

Post by nny » 20 Jan 2006, 10:58

David Thompson wrote:A post from nny, raising a number of questions about matters other than the assassination of Count Bernadotte, was given a thread of its own and recaptioned by this moderator. It can be seen at:

Many questions about the Hague IV Convention
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=93963
I think it was appropriate, but I would like to object on the grounds that you let other obviously divergent threads exist in the Bernadotte thread for a long time without splitting. As far as I can see this is the first thread dedicated to Bernadotte specifically. You are the one that was objecting to the murder of Bernadotte (A Swedish diplomat who risked his life to save concentration camp victims) as a war crime, IMO this should be kept alive in honor of this brave man since AFAIK he was not awarded 'Righteous Non-Jew' status, and that should not consign him to obscurity.

robota
Banned
Posts: 169
Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 11:20
Location: Switzerland

#25

Post by robota » 21 Jan 2006, 01:09

Interesting.

By the same "logic" the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto would not be a warcrime as the partisans were did not display insignia.

And the Markale Massacre (or Srebrenica) would not be a war crime as Republika Serbska was not then a signatory of any of the Hague Conventions.

Pedantry is never a pleasant sight, but a pedantry that is woefully incorrect on simply facts and blatently misinterpretes clear documents is simply vaguely amusing.

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

#26

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jan 2006, 04:35

nny -- You wrote in another thread ( http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 729#836729 ):
Again, since you seem to know when a non-signatory (civilian, partisan) is committing a warcrime, and when they are not, I would ask for your assistance in my original post, which you seem morally opposed to.
My questions about the characterization of Count Bernadotte's assassination as a war crime aren't based on morals. I admire Count Bernadotte. I think his assassination was a low, cowardly murder. An act can be atrocious, however, without being a war crime, just as a characterization can be a fact or it can be mere hyperbole.

I've thought about the assassination of Count Bernadotte, and the war crimes laws which existed in 1948, and cannot come up with a plausible theory of how it would be a war crime. In this thread, I think Michael Mills came closest to the mark with his theory based on the customs of war rather than the 1907 Hague IV Convention, but I don't think the theory is viable short of some showing of official Israeli connivance in the murder. We don't have that.

The Hague IV Convention of 1907 was drafted at a time before the two world wars, and meant to cover the laws of land warfare between "civilized" nation-states. At the time the convention was concluded, partisan warfare and civil wars were relatively rare in those "civilized" nation-states -- particularly in Europe. The drafters of the 1907 Hague Convention could not have foreseen the horrible variations on the theme of war, civil war, and genocidal outbreaks which occurred in the subsequent forty years.

For that reason, and with the experiences of mass murder in WWI and WWII, a new and stricter set of war crimes laws were enacted at Geneva in 1948, 1949 and afterwards in an effort to make warfare less horrible, and punish those whose crimes had been unthought of in 1907.

You also said:
That Bernadotte was murdered cannot be argued, the question is whether the Stern gang (which involved a future prime minister of Israel) was obliged by the laws of war at the time of the murder. You seem to suggest they were not, and were able to murder anyone they wished with the only reprecussions coming from the victorious government.
I am not familiar with Swedish law, so the possibility exists that Sweden could have asked that the murderers of Count Bernadotte be extradited and put on trial there.

The disparity between what was, what is and what should be is often a driving force for constructive change. Even as late as 1963, there was no statute making the assassination of the US President a federal crime, which would have required Lee Harvey Oswald be tried in Texas, under state law, for the common murder of John F. Kennedy.

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

#27

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jan 2006, 06:23

robota -- You wrote ( http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 190#837190 ) of my post at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 067#836067 :
By the same "logic" the liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto would not be a warcrime as the partisans were did not display insignia.
We could probably have a more productive discussion about the 1907 Hague IV Convention if you took the trouble to actually read the treaty.

I'll walk you through the basics step-by-step. If you look at the signatory powers to the treaty, you will see that both Germany and Poland are parties, http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 802#625802
so Germany was bound to comply with the provisions.

If you look at Section III of the Annex to the 1907 Hague IV Convention (Articles 42-56), you will see the rights, duties and obligations set forth for military authority over a hostile state, such as Germany exercised over Poland in 1939-1944. You can see them beginning at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... .htm#art42

Articles 43, 46 and 47 define the main war crimes involved in the suppression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising.
Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

* * * * *

Art. 46.
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 47.
Pillage is formally forbidden.

See also Article 50
Art. 50.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
You also wrote:
Pedantry is never a pleasant sight, but a pedantry that is woefully incorrect on simply facts and blatently misinterpretes clear documents is simply vaguely amusing.
Truly.

robota
Banned
Posts: 169
Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 11:20
Location: Switzerland

#28

Post by robota » 22 Jan 2006, 01:54

Yet again David Thompson shows himself impervious to irony - and impervious to all questions on whether he concedes that the Hague held the Markale massacre as a war crime. Which they self-evidently did and which he has tried to pedanticly deny.

According to the Hague Convention all military actions by unmarked militias were crimes of war, the fact that the Stern Gang perpetrated an assassination of a plenipotiary that is specifically condemned as a war crime does not mean that the absence of insignia is a mitigating factor.

The next quibble David Thompson raised was were the Laws of War actually binding on Israel given that it was not a signatory to them.

Actually the whole basis of this quibble is moot as people are often hauled before courts their country was not signatory to and which they do not recognise. Goring at Nuremberg and Milosevic at the Hague.

However there is good reason that believe that the international status of where Bernadotte was killed was still under the mandate of the UN as Israel was not admitted to the UN until May 1949. And further that the provisions of the former League of Nations mandate were still in force, particularly Article 19 and 26 which upheld the International Conventions and the jurisdiction of International Courts of Justice respectively. Certainly Israel was not yet recognised in the UN resolution 194 of December 1948 and had no boundaries . In fact that status of this self-proclaimed entity was something that Bernadotte was trying to place on a legal footing. The closest there was to a possible state boundaries was the 1947 partition plan that had Jerusalem (Bernadotte was assassinated in a former Arab quarter that had recently been ethnically cleansed) under international (ie UN) control and therefore subject to the international conventions of war.


Actually looking at the sections of the Hague convention that David Thompson quotes are can't help wondering if the continued refusal to allow the refugees to return home does not represent collective punishment and thus a war crime.

If I may quote from UN resolution 194
Resolves that refugees wishing to return their home and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practible date, and that compensation should be paid for those choosing not to return and for loss or damage to property, which under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Government or authorities responsible
Quite in line with Article 50 of the Hague Convention.

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

#29

Post by David Thompson » 22 Jan 2006, 02:36

robota -- You wrote:
According to the Hague Convention all military actions by unmarked militias were crimes of war, the fact that the Stern Gang perpetrated an assassination of a plenipotiary that is specifically condemned as a war crime does not mean that the absence of insignia is a mitigating factor.
You're wrong again. Article 1 of the Annex to the Hague IV Convention, which I have already brought to your attention above, does not provide for the application of the laws, rights, and duties of war to unmarked militias:
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."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawof ... 4.htm#art1

Groups falling outside the definition in this article are subject to the military or civil laws in place in the territory where they operate; in other words, their unlawful acts are treated as common crimes, punishable after trial by criminal courts or courts-martial.

While I can appreciate your embarrassment at being repeatedly wrong in your interpretation of the 1907 Hague IV Convention, that does not relieve you of the burden of complying with the section rules, posted for all to see at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962 . Please keep your subsequent posts on the topic of the assassination of Count Bernadotte, and avoid resorting to personal aspersions.

If you wish to discuss an unrelated topic, please start a new thread. If you can't or won't comply with the rules, go somewhere else. This will save me the trouble of deleting your further noncomplying posts.

robota
Banned
Posts: 169
Joined: 25 Sep 2005, 11:20
Location: Switzerland

#30

Post by robota » 22 Jan 2006, 04:44

So it appears that David Thompson now concedes that yes it was possible for Jewish troops in Palestine to commit war crimes despite the fact the proto-Israel state had not signed any international conventions.

Sadly having conceded one howler David Thompson then precedes to make another one in his claim that as the Stern gang was not an official israeli unit (so far as there can be seen to be any official israeli units), members of the Stern gang could not commit war crimes.

This naive and simplistic interpretation totally overlooks that fact that it is possible to be both a member of the Stern Gang and a member of the proto-israeli armed forces.

In fact that UN report on the incident noted that the assaliants wore Israeli uniforms
6) The omission of Bernadotte's end is surprising. Both of his recommendations were rejected by both sides, but before the UN could act on either of the recommendations, Bernadotte was assassinated by Lehi (Israel's official explanation, although they then claimed that Lehi existed only as a political group and had disbanded its military), sometimes referred to as the Stern Gang. A report to the UN on the assassination included information that the Count's killers were wearing Israeli army uniforms and also noted that "the Provisional Government of Israel must assume the full responsibility ... for these assassinations ..." The Security Council requested the Israeli Government to investigate the assassination and to submit a report to the Council, but no report was received. (see the UN document)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_ ... /Archive_1

The question of whether the assassination was a rogue act by influentially terrorists or one given covert approval by Israeli officials is an interesting question - the absence of any effective sanction on the killers suggests that the proclaimed responsibility of the Stern gang was simply to provide plausible deniability.

However simply because the My Lai massacre was not approved by the military authorities does not mean it was not a war crime. Like the Count Bernadotte assassination it was a breach of the laws of war committed by soldiers in uniform. It would be splitting the hair once to often to argue that at the time of the assassination, despite wearing israeli military uniform, the killers were in fact wearing their Stern Gang hat and not their Israeli soldier hat.

As it appears David Thompson no longer wishes to discuss an issue that he himself demanded I provide verification of (which I rather too successfully did), I shall not again seek his opinion of a matter which he so manifestly is unwilling to commit himself

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”