Partisan activity in Europe a violation of International law

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004, 09:49
Location: Europe

#61

Post by Samuel » 30 Mar 2004, 14:50

Laurent wrote:On the other hand, in 1940, there were several examples of civilians defending their village with shotguns against the advancing German Army. They were either killed or taken and shot. This was not a war crime.
Why not?

Laurent
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 16 Apr 2002, 12:04
Location: Lyon, France

#62

Post by Laurent » 30 Mar 2004, 15:19

Samuel wrote:
Laurent wrote:On the other hand, in 1940, there were several examples of civilians defending their village with shotguns against the advancing German Army. They were either killed or taken and shot. This was not a war crime.
Why not?
Because that was exactly the case excluded by the Geneva convention or any international military convention, a civilian grabbing a gun and shooting at soldiers without any organisation.

To be more precise, in every case I know (half a dozen), there were only one "franc-tireur", contrary to what happened for example in Poland in 1939 where scouts and political parties fought in groups.

The main reason why I wrote "This was not a war crime" is that the French didn't consider them like that AFAIK and there was no attempt to try the responsibles about those executions.

It's still murder anyway but not the kind of murder prohibited by the Geneva convention. War laws are simply telling what an authorized murder should be.

At least in two cases, the French franc-tireur was tried and not executed immediatly by the soldiers who caught him, but some time later.


Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004, 09:49
Location: Europe

#63

Post by Samuel » 31 Mar 2004, 09:01

Laurent wrote:Because that was exactly the case excluded by the Geneva convention or any international military convention, a civilian grabbing a gun and shooting at soldiers without any organisation.
This is not completely correct.
Civilians from unoccupied regions who spontaneously take arms against the invading army are protected by the 1929 Geneva Convention on prisoners of war (article 1) and the 1907 Hague Convention on war on land (article 2 of the annexe) even if they are not part of an organization and even if they don't wear any distinctive emblem.

Laurent
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 16 Apr 2002, 12:04
Location: Lyon, France

You're right, Samuel

#64

Post by Laurent » 31 Mar 2004, 12:49

Article 1 of the Geneva Convention
Article 1. The present Convention shall apply without prejudice to the stipulations of Part VII:
(1) To all persons referred to in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907, concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, who are captured by the enemy.
(2) To all persons belonging to the armed forces of belligerents who are captured by the enemy in the course of operations of maritime or aerial war, subject to such exceptions (derogations) as the conditions of such capture render inevitable. Nevertheless these exceptions shall not infringe the fundamental principles of the present Convention; they shall cease from the moment when the captured persons shall have reached a prisoners of war camp.
Article 1, 2 and 3 of the Annex of the Hague Convention
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:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Art. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
The main world here is "if they respect the laws and customs of war", that may say anything.

I guess that French civilians snipers in 1940 didn't respect those laws.

The article 2 probably applies to civilians defending their village in group (like Volksturm in 1945).

Anyway, the 1907 convention prohibits the bombing of undefended towns and villages. So nobody was respecting it in WWII.

Samuel
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Jan 2004, 09:49
Location: Europe

Re: You're right, Samuel

#65

Post by Samuel » 31 Mar 2004, 13:53

Laurent wrote:Article 1 of the Geneva Convention
Article 1. The present Convention shall apply without prejudice to the stipulations of Part VII:
(1) To all persons referred to in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention (IV) of 18 October 1907, concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, who are captured by the enemy.
(2) To all persons belonging to the armed forces of belligerents who are captured by the enemy in the course of operations of maritime or aerial war, subject to such exceptions (derogations) as the conditions of such capture render inevitable. Nevertheless these exceptions shall not infringe the fundamental principles of the present Convention; they shall cease from the moment when the captured persons shall have reached a prisoners of war camp.
Article 1, 2 and 3 of the Annex of the Hague Convention
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:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Art. 2. The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Art. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
The main world here is "if they respect the laws and customs of war", that may say anything.

I guess that French civilians snipers in 1940 didn't respect those laws.
Which laws of war did they not respect?
Laurent wrote:The article 2 probably applies to civilians defending their village in group (like Volksturm in 1945).
Article 2 doesn't apply to Vollksturm. Volkssturm are covered by the article 1. Vollkssturm were organized and they wore a fixed distinctive emblem i.e. an armband.
There is no mention of group in the article 2.

Laurent
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 16 Apr 2002, 12:04
Location: Lyon, France

#66

Post by Laurent » 31 Mar 2004, 14:40

Sorry I was not clear.

The German considered that French civilians snipers in 1940 didn't respect the war laws.

And AFAIK French officials thought the same as they did nothing to put to trial the responsibles.
Which laws of war did they not respect?
As I said, laws (and customs, to be precise) of war may mean anything or everything. I haven't been able to find a precise definition.

In a less tragic subject, the expression would be a joke anyway. War gives soldiers a licence to kill and laws and regulations are always forgotten by a part of them.

I read both conventions this morning and doubt strongly that they were applied by all soldiers of any army in any war.

My point was saying that the French civilians snipers in 1940 were considered as criminals by Germans and not supported at all by the French autorities, so Germans may do anything they want to them.

Given the killings done by the Germans in 1914 and 1940 in France and Belgium, the German Army probably forgot the article 2 of the 1907 convention.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”