Western Allies hostage-takings in West Germany 1945-1947
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Panzermahn -- You said:
Serious researchers do not assume that because someone said it, it must be true. A fact is something that can be independently verified. Merely wishing something was true doesn't make it true, and sometimes writers just make mistakes. Others like to start fights. In the supermarket line, you can see tabloids with headlines like "3-Year Old Gives Birth to Headless ET Baby!!!" or "I Caught My Best Friend With My Dead Wife's Ghost!!!" The fact that you see stories like that doesn't mean that they're true. In any event, you should check up on these "facts" to see if they really happened before you start to draw conclusions.
A good way to do this is to see where the writer said he got his information. If he doesn't say, it isn't reliable without further confirmation. If he cites to a secondary source, you don't know whether it can be trusted or not without checking it out. If there is a citation to a primary (original document or record) source, it is instructive to see if anyone else has noticed the author's point. If no one has, but the point is important, you need to look at the claim skeptically and see if there is any other evidence or information that tends to either back it up or refute it. This is the critical difference between rational thought and mere belief.
You also said:
And how could you possibly know that "these proclamation and actual reprisal shootings are only done with the orders of superior officers?" Haven't you ever heard of soldiers being disobedient, or officers having to be relieved of command due to poor judgment or ineffectiveness? That's why armies of every country have provisions for courts-martial. Not everybody follows orders.
You are assuming that the anti-allied propaganda pieces you cite to are accurate.If the French, british and Americans are not guilty of direct violation of Geneva Convention, then they are already guilty of having such intentions...
Serious researchers do not assume that because someone said it, it must be true. A fact is something that can be independently verified. Merely wishing something was true doesn't make it true, and sometimes writers just make mistakes. Others like to start fights. In the supermarket line, you can see tabloids with headlines like "3-Year Old Gives Birth to Headless ET Baby!!!" or "I Caught My Best Friend With My Dead Wife's Ghost!!!" The fact that you see stories like that doesn't mean that they're true. In any event, you should check up on these "facts" to see if they really happened before you start to draw conclusions.
A good way to do this is to see where the writer said he got his information. If he doesn't say, it isn't reliable without further confirmation. If he cites to a secondary source, you don't know whether it can be trusted or not without checking it out. If there is a citation to a primary (original document or record) source, it is instructive to see if anyone else has noticed the author's point. If no one has, but the point is important, you need to look at the claim skeptically and see if there is any other evidence or information that tends to either back it up or refute it. This is the critical difference between rational thought and mere belief.
You also said:
Think about this, Panzermahn. How can a threat by an occupying military force to carry out reprisal shootings against the civilian population be effective unless the civilian population hears about it? Isn't the whole point to convince the civilian population not to resist and not to help would-be resisters? What would be the point of making such a threat "classified due to the atmosphere of political correctness that last until today's modern day Germany?" How many allied proclamations threatening reprisal shootings have you seen? How many recordings have you heard, or seen transcribed, of radio broadcasts threating to execute civilians? Such threats obviously didn't work very well when the Germans used them in countries they occupied, so why would the allies think similar threats would work for them?And bear in mind, that these proclamation and actual reprisal shootings are only done with the orders of superior officers which shows that the possibility of such pattern that existed during the period of 1945-1947 in West Germany but was classified due to the atmosphere of political correctness that last until today's modern day Germany
And how could you possibly know that "these proclamation and actual reprisal shootings are only done with the orders of superior officers?" Haven't you ever heard of soldiers being disobedient, or officers having to be relieved of command due to poor judgment or ineffectiveness? That's why armies of every country have provisions for courts-martial. Not everybody follows orders.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
"Intend"? Panzermahn! Do you know the difference between threatening and actually doing???
The french DID NOT shoot fifty people in that place.
Believe me. If such things had happened on a relevant level, there would be a lot of literature in german about it and the "common memory" would know about it (like about the "russian rape cases")
BTW: A 1:4 ratio of hostage killing seem very "human"-compared to german retaliations. And if I remember it right such a ratio would even be accepted by the Geneva convention....
The french DID NOT shoot fifty people in that place.
Believe me. If such things had happened on a relevant level, there would be a lot of literature in german about it and the "common memory" would know about it (like about the "russian rape cases")
BTW: A 1:4 ratio of hostage killing seem very "human"-compared to german retaliations. And if I remember it right such a ratio would even be accepted by the Geneva convention....
-
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
I asked this question previously to the moderator..maxxx wrote:"Intend"? Panzermahn! Do you know the difference between threatening and actually doing???
The french DID NOT shoot fifty people in that place.
Believe me. If such things had happened on a relevant level, there would be a lot of literature in german about it and the "common memory" would know about it (like about the "russian rape cases")
BTW: A 1:4 ratio of hostage killing seem very "human"-compared to german retaliations. And if I remember it right such a ratio would even be accepted by the Geneva convention....
If you proclaimed publicly and officially you wanted to kill somebody for whatever reasons but have not done it, please tell me if you would not get arrested by the police...
The problem in West Germany at that time, was atrocities by Russians and Bolsheviks were allowed to profilerate by the Western Allies (Cold War was just beginning) but atrocities by the Western Allies were considered politically incorrect and not much about it was in the media (at that time)...
Tell me at that time, would the American Army published a public inquiry about the court martial and execution of 400+ of their men convicted of rapings in Europe from 1944 just like they do today of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal?
Excuse me, a ratio of 1:4 is kinda humane and acceptable by the Geneva Convention standards? Have you ever heard about disproportionate reprisals..Reprisals in WW2 is not illegal..What is illegal is the disproportionate numbers of reprisals and the lacked of procedure conducting reprisals (etc, informating the enemy why this and that)
I'm sorry, but i don't know where you get the ratio of 1:4. I don't speak German fluently, but it is enough to make me understand that it was a 1:50 ratio...
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
-
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
Then i'm perplexed that the Americans at Iraq did not issued such proclamation in Iraq that any American soldier killed, 50 Iraqi hostages will be shot since you had said that the threat of reprisals is not considered a criminal act until it was to be carried out.David Thompson wrote:Traditionally, a threat of reprisal based on a future contingency is not considered a criminal act -- not at Anglo-Saxon common law, nor in international law, nor in the laws and customs of war. The threat has to be carried out before the question of disproportionate reprisal arises.
By the way, during the German occupation of Hungary & Slovakia (eastern front) 1944-1945, the reprisal order of 1:100 was issued by German authorities but it was not carried out. So is that a criminal act according to the laws of war? If it is not, then why did the Allies used the basis of the German reprisal order of 1:100 ratio to prosecute OKW since it was known that the Germans did not carried such reprisals at Hungary and Slovakia?
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Panzermahn -- You said:
This sentence makes no sense to me. Reprisals against civilians have been illegal since the 1949/1951 Geneva Convention. In any event, the forum is for discussions of 20th Century war crimes.
You also said:
Anti-partisan warfare and the "Hostage case"
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54441
Anti-partisan warfare and reprisals in WWII Yugoslavia
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=60988
Documents on German reprisals in WWII Greece
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61241
Then i'm perplexed that the Americans at Iraq did not issued such proclamation in Iraq that any American soldier killed, 50 Iraqi hostages will be shot since you had said that the threat of reprisals is not considered a criminal act until it was to be carried out.
This sentence makes no sense to me. Reprisals against civilians have been illegal since the 1949/1951 Geneva Convention. In any event, the forum is for discussions of 20th Century war crimes.
You also said:
The American trial of German Generals for disproportionate reprisals ("the Hostage Case") was based on 1:100 reprisals carried out in Yugoslavia and Greece. It had nothing to do with Hungary or Slovakia.By the way, during the German occupation of Hungary & Slovakia (eastern front) 1944-1945, the reprisal order of 1:100 was issued by German authorities but it was not carried out. So is that a criminal act according to the laws of war? If it is not, then why did the Allies used the basis of the German reprisal order of 1:100 ratio to prosecute OKW since it was known that the Germans did not carried such reprisals at Hungary and Slovakia?
Anti-partisan warfare and the "Hostage case"
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54441
Anti-partisan warfare and reprisals in WWII Yugoslavia
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=60988
Documents on German reprisals in WWII Greece
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61241
[quote="
Excuse me, a ratio of 1:4 is kinda humane and acceptable by the Geneva Convention standards? Have you ever heard about disproportionate reprisals..Reprisals in WW2 is not illegal..What is illegal is the disproportionate numbers of reprisals and the lacked of procedure conducting reprisals (etc, informating the enemy why this and that)
I'm sorry, but i don't know where you get the ratio of 1:4. I don't speak German fluently, but it is enough to make me understand that it was a 1:50 ratio...[/quote]
I got it from YOUR post.
The ratio of 1:4 is the one in the only incident you could make any proof. And this is not disproportionate according to laws of war.
And the 1:50 ratio was only a THREAT. (once again: do you know the difference)
And your comparision to civilian life :yes, the man running around telling everybody he is going to kill people will maybe be arrested, but not the guy who just says: "If you kill any of my family i will go berserk!". Once again: ONLY WORDS! NO DEEDS!
Excuse me, a ratio of 1:4 is kinda humane and acceptable by the Geneva Convention standards? Have you ever heard about disproportionate reprisals..Reprisals in WW2 is not illegal..What is illegal is the disproportionate numbers of reprisals and the lacked of procedure conducting reprisals (etc, informating the enemy why this and that)
I'm sorry, but i don't know where you get the ratio of 1:4. I don't speak German fluently, but it is enough to make me understand that it was a 1:50 ratio...[/quote]
I got it from YOUR post.
The ratio of 1:4 is the one in the only incident you could make any proof. And this is not disproportionate according to laws of war.
And the 1:50 ratio was only a THREAT. (once again: do you know the difference)
And your comparision to civilian life :yes, the man running around telling everybody he is going to kill people will maybe be arrested, but not the guy who just says: "If you kill any of my family i will go berserk!". Once again: ONLY WORDS! NO DEEDS!
-
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
I got it from YOUR post.maxxx wrote:[quote="
Excuse me, a ratio of 1:4 is kinda humane and acceptable by the Geneva Convention standards? Have you ever heard about disproportionate reprisals..Reprisals in WW2 is not illegal..What is illegal is the disproportionate numbers of reprisals and the lacked of procedure conducting reprisals (etc, informating the enemy why this and that)
I'm sorry, but i don't know where you get the ratio of 1:4. I don't speak German fluently, but it is enough to make me understand that it was a 1:50 ratio...
The ratio of 1:4 is the one in the only incident you could make any proof. And this is not disproportionate according to laws of war.
And the 1:50 ratio was only a THREAT. (once again: do you know the difference)
And your comparision to civilian life :yes, the man running around telling everybody he is going to kill people will maybe be arrested, but not the guy who just says: "If you kill any of my family i will go berserk!". Once again: ONLY WORDS! NO DEEDS![/quote]
Try telling that to President Bush and see whether or not you will get arrested from the FBI or Secret Service
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
-
- Member
- Posts: 3639
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
- Location: Malaysia
I'm troubled by the fact that in today's law, having a motive to commit crimes is enough to have you convicted but what David says that posting a proclamation about reprisals without acting on it in 1945 was not a war crimeDavid Thompson wrote:The point is that in 1945 posting a proclamation about reprisals, without acting on it, was not a war crime.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA