Das Reich division and the massacre of Marsoulas (France)

[DavidFrankenberg]

[...] When they saw a german truck coming, they decided to shoot at it and grenade it. 8 SS fell. It was their duty [...]

It was their duty to be partisans = unlawful fighters and to murder lawful fighters = ss men?
I assume murder was prohibited by law already at that time.

As résistant, they had to shoot and grenade in order to slow down the germans and to warn the other résistants in Bétchat.
It was their duty. They had orders to apply. They just did what they had to do.

No SS was ever charged or trialed for the horrible massacre. Such a shame.

No partisan either. It´s laughable to join illegal/unlawful forces and to complain about the outcome later. Neither was it legal to support such illegal fighters.

I assume that you judge the german occupation as legal ?
What about the massacre of civilians, babies, children, women, unarmed men ? Was it legal too in your opinion ?

[history1]

It´s hard to distinguish civilians from partisans when the latter doesn´t wear any signs/armbands to "mark" them as enemy. Even the highest commanders of the Armia Krajowa in the Warsaw Uprising did NOT wear such signs visible on a distance. So they were not recognisable as partisans/commanders but did endanger real civilians with their actions. And this example was followed by many! When such unmarked partisans were KIA they were considered "innocent civilians" by their countrymen as weapons got quickly collected (when possible) before their retreat.
Are this innocent civilans or partisans of the french resistance?
[urlhttps://spectator.imgix.net/content/uploads/2015/08/booksfeat6.jpg?auto=compress,enhance,format&crop=faces,entropy,edges&fit=crop&w=620&h=413[/url]
Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/the ... dern-myth/
Another unlawful fighter is sneaking up:
https://youtu.be/jaM_kFkZiDU?t=427
How many of them are marked as members of the resistance?
Humilation and violation of human rights by unmarked civilians (most likely French resistance) under the eye of a cop or French soldier:
https://youtu.be/ePK86BwUBoI?t=28
Further "though" guys of the French resistance humilating UNLAWFUL defenseless women:
https://youtu.be/eW1CzHe2KaY

What about the massacre of civilians, babies, children, women, unarmed men ? Was it legal too in your opinion ?

The question is of they were real civilians or unmarked partisans.
The babies and children?
As legal as the bombings of Dresden and other cities with civilian cassualties.

[David Thompson]

Let's stay on topic -- the Das Reich division and the massacre of Marsoulas.

[DavidFrankenberg]

It´s hard to distinguish civilians from partisans when the latter doesn´t wear any signs/armbands to "mark" them as enemy. Even the highest commanders of the Armia Krajowa in the Warsaw Uprising did NOT wear such signs visible on a distance. So they were not recognisable as partisans/commanders but did endanger real civilians with their actions. And this example was followed by many! When such unmarked partisans were KIA they were considered "innocent civilians" by their countrymen as weapons got quickly collected (when possible) before their retreat.
Are this innocent civilans or partisans of the french resistance?
[urlhttps://spectator.imgix.net/content/uploads/2015/08/booksfeat6.jpg?auto=compress,enhance,format&crop=faces,entropy,edges&fit=crop&w=620&h=413[/url]
Source: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/the ... dern-myth/
Another unlawful fighter is sneaking up:
https://youtu.be/jaM_kFkZiDU?t=427
How many of them are marked as members of the resistance?
Humilation and violation of human rights by unmarked civilians (most likely French resistance) under the eye of a cop or French soldier:
https://youtu.be/ePK86BwUBoI?t=28
Further "though" guys of the French resistance humilating UNLAWFUL defenseless women:
https://youtu.be/eW1CzHe2KaY

I fear you are not speaking anymore about Marsoulas.
In Marsoulas only 2 fighters were there : the first was killed, the other wounded. The firefight was rather short. There was no need to kill all this innocent people : furthermore women and children and even sleeping babies...

What about the massacre of civilians, babies, children, women, unarmed men ? Was it legal too in your opinion ?

The question is of they were real civilians or unmarked partisans.
The babies and children?
As legal as the bombings of Dresden and other cities with civilian cassualties.

Now you need to mix the bombing of Dresden with the massacre of Marsoulas.

[michael mills]

"I assume that you judge the german occupation as legal ?"

Of course it was legal, the French Government had agreed to it under the terms of the armistice.

Once the French Government had surrendered, any French citizen who committed a hostile act against the German forces was committing a crime and could be legally punished by those forces, in the same way as the Allied forces punished German citizens who committed hostile acts against them after the surrender of the Wehrmacht in May 1945.

The right of civilians to take up arms against a hostile invader, subject to certain conditions, only applies when an active state of war exists. Once the Government to which the civilians are subject has surrendered, that right no longer exists. Thus, all hostile acts committed by the French Resistance against the German occupiers were illegal, and the German forces were acting legally when they punished captured members of the Resistance.

By contrast, the actions of the Polish Underground against the German occupiers were legal, since the Polish Government had never surrendered.

Of course it is not legal for an occupying force to execute civilians who have not committed hostile acts against it or have not aided and abetted such acts.

[David Thompson]

Michael -- You wrote, in answer to DavidFrankenberg's question, above:

"I assume that you judge the german occupation as legal ?"

Of course it was legal, the French Government had agreed to it under the terms of the armistice.

Did they? The Marsoulas area (in the department of Haute-Garonne) appears to be outside the occupation zone sanctioned by the armistice of 1940. Could you provide some more information on that for our readers? It looks to me like the town is in the region illegally occupied by the Germans in November 1942, in violation of the armistice.

[DavidFrankenberg]

"I assume that you judge the german occupation as legal ?"

Of course it was legal, the French Government had agreed to it under the terms of the armistice.

Once the French Government had surrendered, any French citizen who committed a hostile act against the German forces was committing a crime and could be legally punished by those forces, in the same way as the Allied forces punished German citizens who committed hostile acts against them after the surrender of the Wehrmacht in May 1945.

The right of civilians to take up arms against a hostile invader, subject to certain conditions, only applies when an active state of war exists. Once the Government to which the civilians are subject has surrendered, that right no longer exists. Thus, all hostile acts committed by the French Resistance against the German occupiers were illegal, and the German forces were acting legally when they punished captured members of the Resistance.

By contrast, the actions of the Polish Underground against the German occupiers were legal, since the Polish Government had never surrendered.

Of course it is not legal for an occupying force to execute civilians who have not committed hostile acts against it or have not aided and abetted such acts.

So, you assume that the french people should have acted as if the country was in "peace". But you permit german army to act as if they were in war.

Is it a fair position ?

So the german army could legally hang, kill, shoot anybody, even sleeping babies in their pram, without any form of trial ? Meanwhile french men could not shoot at the german army (especially SS) in the name of legalty ?

[history1]

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_ ... war_status
Replace spy with partisan.

A bit moderner

Practice Relating to Rule 106. Conditions for Prisoner-of-War Status

[...] A fundamental premise of the Geneva Conventions has been that to earn the right to protection as military fighters, soldiers must distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying their weapons openly … Fighters who attempt to take advantage of civilians by hiding among them in civilian dress, with their weapons out of view, lose their claim to be treated as soldiers.[...]

Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customar ... us_rule106

[DavidFrankenberg]

By universal agreement and practice, the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_ ... war_status
Replace spy with partisan.

Now, tell us about the famous military tribunal who sentenced to death those peacul civilians ? What tribunal sentenced to death the Barbe twins ?

There was no military tirbunal... but just a savage butchery.

A bit moderner

Practice Relating to Rule 106. Conditions for Prisoner-of-War Status

[...] A fundamental premise of the Geneva Conventions has been that to earn the right to protection as military fighters, soldiers must distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying their weapons openly … Fighters who attempt to take advantage of civilians by hiding among them in civilian dress, with their weapons out of view, lose their claim to be treated as soldiers.[...]

Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customar ... us_rule106

Did you consider the Barbe twins as active fighters hiding themselves in civilian dress in their pram ?

Did all these innocent people even shoot at the Germans ? No.

There were just 2 résistanst, ne was killed during the skirmish and the other was wounded and escaped.