Charlemagne soldiers executed at Bad Reichenhall

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 23 Sep 2003 03:54

Well,Well,Well,.................. i see we have the pleasure to discuss with our old friends Schultz (who ''morally'' flashes an SA badge ounder his name...'cause Rhoem and his mignions were really MORAL....) and our tovaritsch Oleg,comme de bien entendu.....(of course- in french).

SA- kamerad Schultz,who are the holocausts deniers you referrs to ?
This topic is about the executions of Charlemagne volunteers,not the ''holocaust'',alpha and omega of the world History ,as everybody knows....
Oleg ,who have a long standing querrell with Panzermahn (i don't know why ?), our malaysian friend is talking about the million (+) of vlassovian volunteers,Ostlegionen,Cossacks,hiwis,Sipo-SD auxilliaries,and the like from your own country. By the way i think your compatriot Soljenitsyn(who was there) have another view of the situation....

Alsaco : Tu pars en couilles !!!............ and if you have the right to profess your opinion (as anybody of us ) ,your message is full of historical mistakes,the Betzen Perrot ,also called the Perrot Militia had NOTHING to do with the vichyst militia of Darnand ! They were a Sipo-SD formation (ounder Ostubaf Pulmer orders) and no one of them was ever versed to the Charlemagne !!! So far since the beginning of this formation,Celestin Laine make it clear that they had nothing to do with the LVF and the french SS because they (the Betzen) were Britons and ENNEMIES of France..... by the end of the war,the Betzen was scheduled to be sent to Skorzeny 's special forces but this was never done.
So the crimes of the Betzen -overexagerated by the ''resistantialists'' can not be launched on the shoulders of the Militia,the LVF or the Charlemagne. Relis tes livres !

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 23 Sep 2003 07:21

Alsaco wrote:
In the Milice you had the Baghad Perrot, who had in Britanny committed lots of atrocities in farms and villages. There were also people who had helped germans to hang inhabitants of Guéret. And groups who had looted, and rapped, in the company of Osttruppen in the Indre and Cher department.
I have no problem with executing rappers.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 23 Sep 2003 07:42

Oleg wrote:
a)how many millions of Kulaks did Soviet regime kill?
b) Cossack is not a nationality
Quote:
"Frenchmen! Join the SS and help save Europe from Bolshevism"
Bolshevism and Judaism were kind of packed tougher back then in Germany and Co –were not they?
Re (a):

I have seen widely varying figures for the numbers of peasants who died as a result of the "raskulachivanie", whether shot, starved or frozen. At the top end there are the very high estimates of people like Rummel and Conquest, which I consider to be exaggerated. At the lower end of the scale there are the estimates of the "revisionists" like J. Arch Getty and Wheatcroft.

A book I recently read, "Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives", edited by J. Arch Getty and Roberta T. Manning, included two chapters dealing with estimates of the number of unnatural deaths, one by Getty and one by Alec Nove. Nove's figures were a bit higher than Getty's, and I tend to favour Nove's since, although higher than Getty's, they are still a lot more soundly based than the wild exaggerations of Conquest and co.

Nove makes the point that the existing Soviet documents do not give an exhaustive list of numbers executed. He considers that the large number of bodies in the mass-graves discovered near Minsk (I can never remember the name of the place) were of persons executed arbitrarily, ie whose deaths were not recorded in the documents.

All in all, I consider that there must have at least five million unnatural deaths in the late 20s and early 30s, including dekulakised peasants, victims of famine etc. Those deaths were a direct result of the policies of the Soviet Government for the dissolution of the peasantry and the reorganisation of agriculture (although implemented by Stalin, they were actually policies devised by the peasant-hating Jew Trotsky; Stalin had at first opposed them, then adopted them in 1928). The scale of the dying definitely has genocidal proportions.

Re (b):

I agree that the Cossacks do not constitute a nationality in the strict sense of the word. However, they certainly constituted a separate, easily definable group with quasi-ethnic characteristics. Accordingly, the raskazachivanie of 1921 would be considered a genocide under today's definition, even if not all the Cossacks died as a result of it.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 23 Sep 2003 08:20

Good evening Mr. Mills.
You generally valid summary does suffer from one minor seatback –that is it considers so- called “Ukrainian famine” a deliberate act of genocide . While indeed, certain soviet polices could have facilitated that, their primary goal was not Starvation of kulaks or anybody else for that matter. I’d like to recommend to your attention yet another revisionist - M.B.Tauger . here is the link to the one of the articles http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... c&start=15
Also I belive that you find the discussion on this board http://www.artukraine.com/famineart/hrussia1.htm
Between mr.Tauger and his opponents most informative.
. However, they certainly constituted a separate, easily definable group with quasi-ethnic characteristics.
no more so than cowboys - or do you consider Wyatt Earp to be Kaminskiy of the Wild West?

In regard to Cossacks –they happened to be divided by civil war –just as the rest of Russian/Soviet/society – some supported Soviets (Budenniy, Gorodovikov, for instance) and some opposed it. There is no reason to address this question wholesale. Had the other side won – it would treat the Reds in exactly the same manner.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 23 Sep 2003 10:37

michael mills wrote:The Frenchmen who joined the Waffen-SS did not do so for the purpose of assisting a genocidal regime …
I’m sorry, I did not realize that this division was recruited exclusively from fools who had been so unaware of current events, newsreels, and spare copies of Mein Kampf not to know that the Nazis were bent on genocide. Indeed, as they are exclusively cretins, morons, imbeciles and the like then they are certainly not to be held morally culpable!
michael mills wrote:… they joined for the purpose of fighting against Bolshevism, which they saw as a mortal danger to their own country, France …
I am unfamiliar with any Franco-Bolshevik War and none of my reference books list such a thing. If we are going to be legalistic, then I believe we need a legally declared war for these men to enlist in.
michael mills wrote:An analogy that may help to eliucidate this point. The regime governing the Soviet Union was by any measure "genocidal" …
Sorry, no! Democidal perhaps, but Genocidal no!
michael mills wrote:… it had caused the deaths of millions of people who were subjected to lethal measures due to their class (eg so-called Kulaks) or their national identity (eg Cossacks). …
The killing of social/political/religious classes is Democide, not Genocide, a very different matter. If you wish to debate this, then try the Genocide/Democide thread.
michael mills wrote:Would Mr Schultz therefore accuse all Red Army soldiers of being servants of a genocidal regime? Or all persons who voluntarily joined Soviet partisan detachments of having allied themselves with a genocidal regime?
These soldiers were engaged in the defence of their homeland and persons against a genocidal regime that regarded them as less than human. These actions are purely defensive and thus need less justification than the war of aggression the Nazis were engaged in.

In self-defence any and all measures are permissible.
michael mills wrote:Furthermore, the act of joining the SS was not treason against France …
This argument is no more than a legalism and thus has no moral currency.
michael mills wrote:I have no problem with executing rappers.
Bravo! Human decency raises its beatific head!
Ostuf Charlemagne wrote:Well,Well,Well,.................. i see we have the pleasure to discuss with our old friends Schultz (who ''morally'' flashes an SA badge ounder his name...'cause Rhoem and his mignions were really MORAL....
Walter Stennes said that Röhm would have stopped Hitler from going to war in 1939. No war, no genocide.
Ostuf Charlemagne wrote:SA- kamerad Schultz,who are the holocausts deniers you referrs to ? This topic is about the executions of Charlemagne volunteers,not the ''holocaust'',alpha and omega of the world History ,as everybody knows....
Who but a Holocaust Denier (or a Genocide Supporter!) would defend a pack of war criminals like the Charlemagne volunteers?

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 23 Sep 2003 12:53

Who but a Holocaust Denier (or a Genocide Supporter!) would defend a pack of war criminals like the Charlemagne volunteers?
Who but a person living in his own private universe would write something like
In self-defence any and all measures are permissible.
What is it with you about huge, cosmic scale, sweeping moral statements? All Charlemange volunteers, every one of the 30,000 Dutch volunteers, etc... were war criminals. Yawn.

Oh, and if we get attacked by China and capture a few Chinese nurses, can we rape and then dismember them to make the invading army scared? I mean if ALL measures are permissible... What about suicide bombers?

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 23 Sep 2003 13:02

Dan wrote:
Schultz wrote:In self-defence any and all measures are permissible.
… Oh, and if we get attacked by China and capture a few Chinese nurses, can we rape and then dismember them to make the invading army scared? I mean if ALL measures are permissible... What about suicide bombers?
All right, as if this needs clarification, let me refine the statement:

In self-defence any and all effective measures are permissible.


As atrocity and excess has never proved to be effective, I think we can now discount that. Happy, ya prick?

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 23 Sep 2003 13:05

All right, as if this needs clarification, let me refine the statement:

In self-defence any and all effective measures are permissible.


As atrocity and excess has never proved to be effective, I think we can now discount that. Happy, ya prick?
Very, as you now have commited yourself to supporting the "ends justify the means" school of thought.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23721
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 23 Sep 2003 17:39

Personal insults are not permitted here. Avoid them.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 23 Sep 2003 18:23

That was out of line, sorry.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 23 Sep 2003 19:22

Dan wrote: … you now have commited yourself to supporting the "ends justify the means" school of thought.
The opposition of ends/means is a false dichotomy as the means used determine the ends accomplished. Self defense as an "end" cannot justify genocide as a "means" because atrocities do not accomplish defense. Thus it is that moral ends dictate moral means.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 23 Sep 2003 20:35

Thus it is that moral ends dictate moral means.
You need to spend some more time learning about these things. Both the ends and the means must be good for the action to be good. We could cure AIDS overnight by killing everyone who has it. We could donate to charity by stealing, etc..

Now, but I suspect you will still dig your feet in when it comes to those 900,000 SS members being war criminals in the moral sense.

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 23 Sep 2003 20:54

Dan wrote:
Thus it is that moral ends dictate moral means.
You need to spend some more time learning about these things. Both the ends and the means must be good for the action to be good.
I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to. I have said that ends and means are inseprable, that is that good ends cannot be accomplished through bad means, where do you differ on this point?

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 24 Sep 2003 00:22

I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to. I have said that ends and means are inseprable, that is that good ends cannot be accomplished through bad means, where do you differ on this point?
What you said. The ends and means are separate. Your statement that anything is legal in a case of self defence, as long as it works. I say no, it isn't. It can be wrong even if it works.

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 24 Sep 2003 01:32

Hi Schultz.......
i find your arguments more than doubteous and thanks to give me a so easy way to dismiss them ( Or are you with us ?? and you are throwing non sense arguments just to give me the point to dismiss them ?? Now i think i ounderstand the SA shield !!! in this case my apologies and keep up the good work!)

But if you really think what you write,here we goes :

1. Charlemagne soldiers war criminals ? well,they fougt like soldiers,never executed civilians or prisonners,not even the allied or the russians accused them to be war criminals....

2. No war ,no crimes ???? Why don't tell you that to the french and british govts who declared war on Germany (like Roosevelt who provocated Pearl Harbour just to have a pretext against Nazi Germany ; he sent 60 divisions against Germany who never threatened the USA and only 5 or 6 against the japaneses who attacked the US Navy ...)
Also,I thought that the USSR attacked Poland on September 17th ,1939 ??

3. Comebacking with french vichy govt,legalities and the like,don't you know that the british attacked theit french allies as soon as July 1940 at Mers-els-Kebir ???? (1200 french sailors deads) that explains why some of survivors sailors joined the Kriegsmarine ,later,and were versed in sept.44 into the Charlemagne...... Who started ???

As a ''christian'' i see you are pretty badmouthed and prompt to the insults,as a personal remark....

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”