Le Struthof or Camp du Struthof in Alsace has a particular significance for the French because it was the main Nazi concentration camp where French resistance fighters were sent after they were captured by the Germans during World War II. The camp, also known as Natzwiller-Struthof, has become a symbol of the French resistance against the evils of Fascism during the German occupation of France. Although there were around 40,000 French citizens who were convicted of collaborating with the Nazis, there were also thousands of brave men and women who did not accept the capitulation of France and continued to fight Fascism as civilian soldiers or partisans in defiance of both the Geneva Convention of 1929 and the Armistice signed by France and Germany after France surrendered.

The French resistance fighters blew up bridges, derailed trains, directed the British in the bombing of German troop trains, kidnapped and killed German army officers, and ambushed German troops. They took no prisoners, but rather killed any German soldiers who surrendered to them, sometimes mutilating their bodies for good measure. The Nazis referred to them as "terrorists."

The photo below shows a Nazi poster which depicts the heroes of the French resistance as members of a Army of Crime.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/OldPhotos/ResistancePoster.jpg

The French resistance was in direct violation of the Armistice signed by the French, which stipulated the following:

The French Government will forbid French citizens to fight against Germany in the service of States with which the German Reich is still at war. French citizens who violate this provision are to be treated by German troops as insurgents.

Since Great Britain was the only country still at war with the German Reich, the collaboration of the French resistance with the British was a violation of the Armistice, as was the later collaboration of the partisans with American troops after the Normandy invasion. According to the Geneva Convention of 1929, the French resistance fighters were non-combatants who did not have the rights of Prisoners of War if they were captured.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/natzweiler/History/FrenchResistance.html

you mean NAZIS or israelis? :rolleyes:

When someone invades your country, all law (and treaties) are moot. One does what needs to be done if he or she is patriotic. So Germany - by breaking the Treaty of Versailles no less than 7 times - did not have much of a moral high ground to accuse those folks of being terrorists.

The Nazis had the power, for a while, to condemn their actions. But perhaps you mean 'do you think the French resistance was acting morally?' Certainly sounds like I do from your description of their acts and what I already knew myself.

dont be naive, SAM cares for the french as she does for cockroaches. its another i hate israel thread.

The Nazis had the power, for a while, to condemn their actions. But perhaps you mean 'do you think the French resistance was acting morally?' Certainly sounds like I do from your description of their acts and what I already knew myself.

So if the Nazis had complained against the French resistance, by the Geneva Convention Act, the world would condemn them as terrorists?

A "right"?

what exactly does this mean? Rights don't exist in the objective world. If you're talking about the moral "right", most people will just say no unless they're some neonazi or something. If you're talking about legal right, probably not under the Nazi law :/

dont be naive, SAM cares for the french as she does for cockroaches. its another i hate israel thread.
I'm not naive. I see where she is going. When she goes there the discussion changes. What group do you think are like cockroaches? Or have I misunderstood your earlier posts in other threads?

you are so predictable SAM :p

good luck with your "i hate israel" thread.

I'm not naive. I see where she is going. When she goes there the discussion changes. What group do you think are like cockroaches? Or have I misunderstood your earlier posts in other threads?

jews are cockroaches of course. :eek: just ask kadark. no wait he said they are parasites, my bad.

Could we keep the discussion on the French resistance? I'm interested in their status at the time and what the perception about them was.

Could we keep the discussion on the French resistance? I'm interested in their status at the time and what the perception about them was.

well like all of us you have to realize you dont own other people opinions. maybe next time be less transparent.

so you have a guest list for the holocaust memorial day? time is short you know.

i heard genji and brian folly will happy to come to your party.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/hol/party3.gif

Spock:

Do you think Britain and the US broke international law by helping the resistance?

Were they supporting terrorists?

And what is your vote for the question?

So if the Nazis had complained against the French resistance, by the Geneva Convention Act, the world would condemn them as terrorists? They were violating that convention themselves so they were not in position to follow some international process and get support. They had the power to capture and punish what they called terrorists. And they used that power.

Spock:

Do you think Britain and the US broke international law by helping the resistance?

Were they supporting terrorists?

And what is your vote for the question?

is that an invitation? :eek:

im busy at the holocaust memorial day sorry.

http://www.kidstv.co.il/magazine/images/katavot/yeled-shoa.jpg

They were violating that convention themselves so they were not in position to follow some international process and get support. They had the power to capture and punish what they called terrorists. And they used that power.

Not after France surrendered and signed the Armistice. After that the resistance was illegal by both domestic and international law.

Like Iraqi insurgency for example.

Not after France surrendered and signed the Armistice. After that the resistance was illegal by both domestic and international law.

Like Iraqi insurgency for example.

But, as I said, Germany was not in a good position to start appealing to international courts. I doubt that Germany's invasion was sanctioned by international law. In fact that they even created such a strong military went against international agreements. I assume these were overlooked in part because it was so damn profitable for powerful people in the very countries who placed restrictions on Germany after WWI. I am quite sure that Germany was also breaking international laws in a variety of ways already in their treatment of civilians.

Not after France surrendered and signed the Armistice. After that the resistance was illegal by both domestic and international law.

Like Iraqi insurgency for example.

:roflmao:

It depends. If you like love Nazi's and secretly wear SS uniform to pose in front of mirror, put Hitler mustache on self with marker etc. Then you would see French as terrorists. Did the Nazis actually use the term terrorist?

But, as I said, Germany was not in a good position to start appealing to international courts. I doubt that Germany's invasion was sanctioned by international law. In fact that they even created such a strong military went against international agreements. I assume these were overlooked in part because it was so damn profitable for powerful people in the very countries who placed restrictions on Germany after WWI. I am quite sure that Germany was also breaking international laws in a variety of ways already in their treatment of civilians.

So you're saying that the French resistance was not considered as terrorists except by the Germans?

That Britain and US were not seen as terrorist supporters for funding an insurgency in an occupied country?

Becuase Germany had a

- a large military

- the invasion was not sanctioned by international law

-German treatment of civilians (I assume captured civilians) was less than exemplary?

Those reasons seem inadequate.

Did the French government condemn the British and Americans for their acts?

It depends. If you like love Nazi's and secretly wear SS uniform to pose in front of mirror, put Hitler mustache on self with marker etc. Then you would see French as terrorists. Did the Nazis actually use the term terrorist?

SAM secretly admire the palestinians for throwing rockets at jews.

It's too bad Mr. Spock lacks the intellectual skills to actually argue his position because I think one can be critical of the analogy. I wanted to wait a bit before we got to the issue SAM, but if you look at the acts committed by the French resistance do you feel that the Iraqi resistance is restricting itself to the same tactics?

It's too bad Mr. Spock lacks the intellectual skills to actually argue his position because I think one can be critical of the analogy. I wanted to wait a bit before we got to the issue SAM, but if you look at the acts committed by the French resistance do you feel that the Iraqi resistance is restricting itself to the same tactics?


i just like to point out the obvious. if you agree with SAM and think israelis are NAZIS be my guest.

It's too bad Mr. Spock lacks the intellectual skills to actually argue his position because I think one can be critical of the analogy. I wanted to wait a bit before we got to the issue SAM, but if you look at the acts committed by the French resistance do you feel that the Iraqi resistance is restricting itself to the same tactics?

How do you know which tactics are carried out by whom?:)

Some background:

The Vichy government persecuted Jews, Freemasons, and Communists. But French Jews were more likely to survive the Holocaust than Jews in other occupied countries. The Vichy government collaborated with Germany. But France had a long history of diplomatic cooperation with Germany. The Vichy government was installed after the Republic was displaced by Germany. But the Republic was already faltering before Hitler's armies marched into Paris, and the Vichy government had roots extending back for decades. The French surrendered. But their military was in bad shape after World War I and their economy wasn't much bette and they're not the only ones who signed the Munich Agreement in 1938.

-----------------

The Munich agreement, signed by Germany, France, Britain, and Italy permitted German annexation of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland



So in a way, Germany and France were allies and the resistance was illegal.

So you're saying that the French resistance was not considered as terrorists except by the Germans? I don't know what the official positions of the various countries were. It is your analogy so you need to do the legwork. I am sure Franco's Spain was open to the idea of calling the French resistance terrorists.


Becuase Germany had a

- a large military This was illegal and went against an international agreement: Versaille. This is different from the analogy you are trying to draw.

- the invasion was not sanctioned by international law This works to some degree in the analogy.

-German treatment of civilians (I assume captured civilians) was less than exemplary? to put it in offensive understatement. The concentration camps were up an running before Vichy, their focus on Jews and non-Germans and other non-aryans begins about the same time as the Vichy government started. As horrible as the prisons made by the US are in relation to Iraq they do not compare with the German camps. Camps that were also used against significant numbers of German citizens.

Did the French government condemn the British and Americans for their acts? You tell me.

I would criticize the French resistance myself, it was for the most part, ineffective, and their tactics were cruel, sometimes amounting to war crimes. However it was legitimate. The French government had already collapsed before the Germans found someone to prop up and create Vichy France. The Free French forces were acting under the leadership of General Charles de Gaulle.

How do you know which tactics are carried out by whom?:)

Some background:

The Vichy government persecuted Jews, Freemasons, and Communists. But French Jews were more likely to survive the Holocaust than Jews in other occupied countries.

yes very sad. we share your sympathy with the NAZIS who were unable to exterminate those jews.

perhaps you are sorry they did finish the job so israel wouldnt be created yes?

yes indeed.

i just like to point out the obvious. if you agree with SAM and think israelis are NAZIS be my guest. Why don't you read my posts and learn how to make an argument instead of being an asshole. I've seen your opinions and it seems pretty clear you think Muslims are Nazis. If all you can do is come and fart, maybe your skills are better suited for some other kind of online forum.

I would criticize the French resistance myself, it was for the most part, ineffective, and their tactics were cruel, sometimes amounting to war crimes. However it was legitimate. The French government had already collapsed before the Germans found someone to prop up and create Vichy France. The Free French forces were acting under the leadership of General Charles de Gaulle.

What makes the French resistance legitimate?

They were against the standing government, commited crimes against German troops with whom the French government had signed an Armistice and killed French people whom they considered as collaborators. They bombed railway tracks and German deployments, mutilated corpses, etc.

And legally they were classified as noncombatant insurgents who were not covered by the Geneva convention.

One last point that I think makes the analogy weak:
if the Americans were taking ALL members of one Iraqi ethnic or religious groups and transporting them to death camps then it would be stronger.

Are there ethnic groups in France? :)

Of course one could divide the groups as communists and right wingers, with the right wingers supporting the German occupation and the British/Americans supporting the communists. :eek:

Why don't you read my posts and learn how to make an argument instead of being an asshole. I've seen your opinions and it seems pretty clear you think Muslims are Nazis. If all you can do is come and fart, maybe your skills are better suited for some other kind of online forum.

so i should learn from you how to compare someone to NAZIS. a very intelligent argument. and i dont think muslims are NAZIS. i have yet to establish my opinion on muslims.

Of course one could divide the groups as communists and right wingers, with the right wingers supporting the German occupation and the British/Americans supporting the communists. :eek:

Its very complicated and every situation is different.

What makes the French resistance legitimate?

They were against the standing government, commited crimes against German troops with whom the French government had signed an Armistice and killed French people whom they considered as collaborators. They bombed railway tracks and German deployments, mutilated corpses, etc.

And legally they were classified as noncombatant insurgents who were not covered by the Geneva convention.

The Vichi government was created by an illegitimate process of invasion. I do think the resistance committed war crimes, but they do pale in comparison to German war crimes. In a situation of total war, all pretense of lawful combat becomes irrelevant.

The Vichi government was created by an illegitimate process of invasion. I do think the resistance committed war crimes, but they do pale in comparison to German war crimes. In a situation of total war, all pretense of lawful combat becomes irrelevant.

The Vichy government was French and the republic was breaking up before the Germans got there.

One could argue that since the German government supported the Vichy government and vice versa, the Nazis had no option but to incarcerate those who were against the standing government (most of the anti-regime were communists).

In which case the French resistance by seeking and obtaining help from the British and US, which was against the Vichy regime and the Nazis, were committing illegal acts against the state and were rightly classified as terrorists by the Nazis.

The Vichy government was French and the republic was breaking up before the Germans got there.

One could argue that since the German government supported the Vichy government and vice versa, the Nazis had no option but to incarcerate those who were against the standing government.

In which case the French resistance by seeking and obtaining help from the British and US, which was against the Vichy regime and the Nazis, were committing illegal acts against the state and were rightly classified as terrorists by the Nazis.

so are you sad the NAZIS didnt kill all the jews? :rolleyes:

S.A.M, does it really matter what the Nazi's called them?

S.A.M, does it really matter what the Nazi's called them?

Well if they called them fluffy bunnies would it be the same? ;)

So what we have basically is like the situation with a student and a bully where the student has previously agreed not to resist the bully and peacefully give the bully his lunch.
But when the bully came to demand the student's lunch, the student refused to give it.
Is the bully entitled to the student's lunch?

Well if they called them fluffy bunnies would it be the same? ;)

fluffy bunnies. like the palestinians?

Well if they called them fluffy bunnies would it be the same? ;)

The probably called them lots of things. Like froggy, or Frenchie. But they said it in German.

yes, of course they had a right to condemn the resistance as terrorists.
if they would have won the war then thats all the resistance would have been remembered as.

The Vichy government was French and the republic was breaking up before the Germans got there.
That doesn't mean there would have been a Vichy government anyway, without an invasion. It might have been replaced with something else. It might not have collapsed after all. Didn't part of it's collapse have to do with the depression affecting all of Europe? ...And the fact that the Germans were allowed to repay their WWI debt in worthless marks? You could argue that the Germans caused it's instability in the first place.

One could argue that since the German government supported the Vichy government and vice versa, the Nazis had no option but to incarcerate those who were against the standing government (most of the anti-regime were communists).
The Nazis had lots of options, they chose the ones most likely to benefit themselves. The United States was founded by resistance against the ostensibly legitimate government of the British. Therefore the American Revolutionaries could be considered terrorists.

In which case the French resistance by seeking and obtaining help from the British and US, which was against the Vichy regime and the Nazis, were committing illegal acts against the state and were rightly classified as terrorists by the Nazis.
Illegal according to the Vichy regime, and the Nazis, so what? Was it legal for the Germans to invade most of Europe? No. The Nazis made up any laws they wanted, because they were fascists. Basically, anything Hitler objected to could be called illegal. It's not legal to conquer established nations and create an empire.

if they would have won the war then thats all the resistance would have been remembered as.

I wonder how we would look at nazi germany's war if this would be the case. As some kind of liberation or something?

I wonder how we would look at nazi germany's war if this would be the case. As some kind of liberation or something?

i guess the same way the colonies looked at england until the 2nd world war

Was the Vichy government recognized as legitimate by the international community?

The legitimacy of Vichy France and Pétain's leadership was challenged by General Charles de Gaulle, who claimed to instead incarnate the legitimacy and continuity of France. Following the Allies' invasion of France in Operation Overlord, de Gaulle proclaimed the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF) in June, 1944. After the Liberation of Paris in August, the GPRF installed itself in Paris on August 31. The GPRF was recognized as the legitimate government of France by the Allies on October 23, 1944.
[wikipedia]

The Vichy government was French and the republic was breaking up before the Germans got there.

One could argue that since the German government supported the Vichy government and vice versa, the Nazis had no option but to incarcerate those who were against the standing government (most of the anti-regime were communists).

In which case the French resistance by seeking and obtaining help from the British and US, which was against the Vichy regime and the Nazis, were committing illegal acts against the state and were rightly classified as terrorists by the Nazis.

One could argue that this is possibly the stupidest argument in the history of everything, and one would be correct.

Was the Vichy government recognized as legitimate by the international community?

The legitimacy of Vichy France and Pétain's leadership was challenged by General Charles de Gaulle, who claimed to instead incarnate the legitimacy and continuity of France. Following the Allies' invasion of France in Operation Overlord, de Gaulle proclaimed the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF) in June, 1944. After the Liberation of Paris in August, the GPRF installed itself in Paris on August 31. The GPRF was recognized as the legitimate government of France by the Allies on October 23, 1944.
[wikipedia]

It was challenged by de Gaulle, but then the Allies were supporting the terrorists so they could be said to be biased, don't you think?

That doesn't mean there would have been a Vichy government anyway, without an invasion. It might have been replaced with something else. It might not have collapsed after all. Didn't part of it's collapse have to do with the depression affecting all of Europe? ...And the fact that the Germans were allowed to repay their WWI debt in worthless marks? You could argue that the Germans caused it's instability in the first place.

Still, it was a French government, which signed an Armistice with Germany.


The Nazis had lots of options, they chose the ones most likely to benefit themselves. The United States was founded by resistance against the ostensibly legitimate government of the British. Therefore the American Revolutionaries could be considered terrorists.

Why should Germany not choose options that most likely benefit themselves?:confused:


Illegal according to the Vichy regime, and the Nazis, so what? Was it legal for the Germans to invade most of Europe? No. The Nazis made up any laws they wanted, because they were fascists. Basically, anything Hitler objected to could be called illegal. It's not legal to conquer established nations and create an empire.

The Germans were only defending themselves from the oppression post WWI

It was challenged by de Gaulle, but then the Allies were supporting the terrorists so they could be said to be biased, don't you think?
The allies were biased against Germany, as would be expected given the circumstances.

Still, it was a French government, which signed an Armistice with Germany.
You could also argue that the Vichy government was not instituted under the regulations of French law, and thus was not legitimate.

Why should Germany not choose options that most likely benefit themselves?:confused:
I would not expect otherwise, but the overall trend was towards ruling the western world. This might have been fine under German law, but I'm sure you can understand the western world had a problem with it.

The Germans were only defending themselves from the oppression post WWI
Please explain how invading France is a defense against anything.

The Germans had no right to condemn resistance tactics, since they used the same tactics themselves.

this thread is still alive?

http://www.masterpiecepumpkins.com/Graphics/gho-RIP-lt_tombstone%20(1)_____.jpg

The allies were biased against Germany, as would be expected given the circumstances.

Exactly


You could also argue that the Vichy government was not instituted under the regulations of French law, and thus was not legitimate.

Laws change during wartime. Presidents can decide to change any law to suit the circumstances.


I would not expect otherwise, but the overall trend was towards ruling the western world. This might have been fine under German law, but I'm sure you can understand the western world had a problem with it.
And yet, this western world was supporting guerilla terrorist groups in another country that had surrendered and was in fact allied, except for the terrorists.


Please explain how invading France is a defense against anything.

They were preemptively liberating them from the communists, of course.

The Germans had no right to condemn resistance tactics, since they used the same tactics themselves.

Since when has that stopped anyone?:confused:

http://www.retrospectgalleries.com/artist_photos/jorghe/jorghe/detail/homer_simpson_scream.jpg

Laws change during wartime. Presidents can decide to change any law to suit the circumstances.
Are you just guessing, or do you know that French law specifically allowed these changes?

wikipedia says this:
On July 10, 1940, the Parliament, composed of the Senate and the National Assembly, voted ..., to grant full and extraordinary powers to Marshal Pétain. By the same vote, they also granted him the power to write a new Constitution.

The legality of this vote has been contested by the majority of French historians and by all French governments after the war. Three main arguments are put forward:

-abrogation of legal procedure

-the impossibility for the Parliament to delegate its constitutional powers without controlling its use a posteriori

-the 1884 constitutional amendment making it impossible to put into question the "republican form" of the regime

And yet, this western world was supporting guerrilla terrorist groups in another country that had surrendered and was in fact allied, except for the terrorists.
We knew that most French people would have wanted to keep fighting if it were possible (and many did), the invasion being an extreme threat to French sovereignty. Contracts made under duress are not valid. It would be as if a criminal invaded my house and forced me at gunpoint to sell it to him. The sale would seem legitimate on paper, but ultimately unenforceable.


Since when has that stopped anyone?:confused:
If you use the same tactics as your enemy, you cannot complain about them for doing the same thing. I recognize that lately leaders like Bush do so anyway, but I have always explicitly condemned it's hypocrisy.

HO HO HO MARRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!


http://www.clipartof.com/images/clipart/xsmall2/6086_santa_claus_carrying_toy_bag_to_town.jpg

Are you just guessing, or do you know that French law specifically allowed these changes?

wikipedia says this:
On July 10, 1940, the Parliament, composed of the Senate and the National Assembly, voted ..., to grant full and extraordinary powers to Marshal Pétain. By the same vote, they also granted him the power to write a new Constitution.

The legality of this vote has been contested by the majority of French historians and by all French governments after the war. Three main arguments are put forward:

-abrogation of legal procedure

-the impossibility for the Parliament to delegate its constitutional powers without controlling its use a posteriori

-the 1884 constitutional amendment making it impossible to put into question the "republican form" of the regime


We knew that most French people would have wanted to keep fighting if it were possible (and many did), the invasion being an extreme threat to French sovereignty. Contracts made under duress are not valid. It would be as if a criminal invaded my house and forced me at gunpoint to sell it to him. The sale would seem legitimate on paper, but ultimately unenforceable.

Like the US occupation of Hawaii (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_monarchy)?:rolley es:

It doesn't really matter what the people want (see Palestine); governments make unpopular decisions all the time. Besides as the legitimate government of France the Vichy regime had a right to do as it pleased. OTOH, the British and US were supporting marginal and violent insurgents.



If you use the same tactics as your enemy, you cannot complain about them for doing the same thing. I recognize that lately leaders like Bush do so anyway, but I have always explicitly condemned it's hypocrisy.

Be pretty hard to find any government that is invading another and has a clean record, don't you think?

"see Palestine"

palestine? :eek: NO, im surprised you pushed this to the thread!!!!

Perhaps like Hawaii.

You keep saying the Vichi government was legitimate. That is disputed (at best).

We also bombed cities full of civilians, and detained our own citizens with no evidence or charges.

The French resistance fighters blew up bridges, derailed trains, directed the British in the bombing of German troop trains, kidnapped and killed German army officers, and ambushed German troops.
Violent indeed, but not terrorism.

Perhaps like Hawaii.

You keep saying the Vichi government was legitimate. That is disputed (at best).

We also bombed cities full of civilians, and detained our own citizens with no evidence or charges.


Violent indeed, but not terrorism.

They killed French collaborators, German soldiers and blew up trains etc.

If the Germans had won the Vichy regime would have been the government (with German troops to "help them" stay that way)

Good, but that's not terrorism.

i didnt know islam was so popular those days.

Good, but that's not terrorism.

Depends on who's asking. The Germans called them terrorists.

Proof?

i consider ants as terrorists. those that count?

Proof?

Link (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9099)

In 1940 the French armed forces collapsed in the face of the German invasion. The Nazi occupiers set up a puppet government. The occupiers immediately froze wages and made strikes illegal. The new regime stressed 'family values' - in at least one case an abortionist was guillotined.

Party of the executed

Resistance began almost immediately. The first acts came from isolated individuals. Within weeks of the defeat an agricultural labourer cut the telephone wires at a German-occupied airport. He was shot - the first of many.

In the summer of 1941, when Hitler invaded Russia, the French Communist Party threw its full weight behind the Resistance. It faced a situation where the Germans took hostages and executed them in retaliation for acts of violence. The Communist slogan 'Chacun son boche' ('Let everybody kill a German') invited the assassination of individual German soldiers.

The Communists deliberately provoked Nazi repression, because this made it easier to encourage supporters to engage in armed struggle. They needed martyrs. The party exploited them both during the war and at the Liberation, when it styled itself the 'party of the executed'. The parallels with the suicide bombers of a later age are striking.

The German authorities responded by denouncing Resistance fighters as terrorists and common law criminals who did not deserve to be treated as prisoners of war, rather as the US treated its prisoners some 60 years later.

As the Resistance grew the military struggle reached a higher level. Sabotage was directed against railways, power stations and German military depots. The Resistance forces made grenade attacks against cinemas, restaurants and buses reserved for German soldiers.

Workers brought their skills to the movement. Miners experienced in working with explosives stole dynamite from their own pits and used it. Engine drivers developed a method of derailing trains that did maximum damage while giving the driver and fireman a good chance of surviving.

Resisters showed enormous courage in the face of the atrocious torture used by the Nazis. The Paris engineering worker Jean-Pierre Timbaud faced the firing squad with a cry of 'Long live the German Communist Party!' - a magnificent use of his last breath.

Although until recently they have been written out of history, there were tens of thousands of foreigners in the French Resistance, just as Iraq has now become a focus for foreign fighters. There were many veterans of the Spanish Civil War who, having escaped from Spain after Franco's victory, had been interned in France - in particular many Germans, political refugees from Hitler. There were also a number of Vietnamese, who had been brought to France as cheap labour at the outbreak of war and had been interned in 1940. Many escaped and found their way to the Resistance.

Ah thanks, I didn't think they used that term back then.

They probably said it in French :D

(The Germans had the advantage of knowing French, apparently)

According to your link, they took great pains not to harm innocent people. It's possible that the Nazis could have been absolved of not providing POW status to the French resistance. However, since they would have been convicted and executed for all the other things they did, the point is rather academic.

According to your link, they took great pains not to harm innocent people.

They did not consider collaborators as innocent. And I wonder how they ensured that the cinemas and buses that they targeted were free of innocents.

Which echoes the sentiments of the French anarchist, Emile Henri:
“Asked at his trial in 1894 why he had killed so many innocent people…Henri explained to the court that anarchism ‘is born in the heart of a corrupt society which is falling to pieces; it is a violent reaction against the established order. It represents egalitarian and libertarian aspirations which are battering down existing authority; it is everywhere, which makes it impossible to capture.’ So, said Henri as he faced the guillotine, "il n'y a pas d'innocents". “There are no innocents,” at least among the privileged classes.”

According to your link, they took great pains not to harm innocent people. It's possible that the Nazis could have been absolved of not providing POW status to the French resistance. However, since they would have been convicted and executed for all the other things they did, the point is rather academic.

The Nuremberg trials were illegal. ;)

They did not consider collaborators as innocent. And I wonder how they ensured that the cinemas and buses that they targeted were free of innocents.

Which echoes the sentiments of the French anarchist, Emile Henri:
“Asked at his trial in 1894 why he had killed so many innocent people…Henri explained to the court that anarchism ‘is born in the heart of a corrupt society which is falling to pieces; it is a violent reaction against the established order. It represents egalitarian and libertarian aspirations which are battering down existing authority; it is everywhere, which makes it impossible to capture.’ So, said Henri as he faced the guillotine, "il n'y a pas d'innocents". “There are no innocents,” at least among the privileged classes.”

I don't consider collaborators innocent either. Note that the places they bombed were those frequented by German soldiers. French people that hated the Germans wouldn't go there.

Your quote by a violent anarchist is irrelevent.

The Nuremberg trials were illegal. ;)

I agree, but the Nazis could have been convicted in any court, they kept good records.

I don't consider collaborators innocent either. Note that the places they bombed were those frequented by German soldiers. French people that hated the Germans wouldn't go there.

Your quote by a violent anarchist is irrelevent.

Are you certain? Did French people in France avoid all places frequented by the Germans?

I don't know for sure, but I am sure their intention was not to kill innocent people. Terrorists mean to kill innocent people.

I don't know for sure, but I am sure their intention was not to kill innocent people. Terrorists mean to kill innocent people.

There are no innocent people, only casualties of war.

Another story I recall vividly from those same high school days was that of the Norwegian resistance discovering a traitor amongst them, a man who had given over names of the resistance to the Nazis. He was confronted by the resistance in his home with his family. They tied him to a chair and then summarily executed his wife and three children in front of his eyes, and he was allowed to go free, to live whatever life was possible for him.

I've read once, some time ago that they never found a record ordering the Nazis to execute the prisoners of the camps? Has anyone else heard this?

-HI agree, but the Nazis could have been convicted in any court, they kept good records.

I agree, but the Nazis could have been convicted in any court, they kept good records.

No one should be convicted retroactively on freshly made laws.

First, the Trial was a gross travesty on justice and illegal as far as international law concerned, because, in the first place, `according to the principles of international law universally recognized up to 1945 and explicitly admitted by the Allied and Associated Powers after the First World War, the Allies had no jurisdiction over the citizens of anther sovereign state for acts done in the service of that state'. In the second place, the law on the Trial was based on ex post facto law. They argued that that the definition of the crime and its punishment were fixed only after commission of the acts imputed alone radically has contravened the ancient principle of jurisprudence: `Nulla poena sine lege, nullum crimen sine lege.'(`No punishment without a law, no crime without a law.'); that the Resolution On Human Rights of the League of Nations was founded on this basic principle, which Article 11 of this resolution states: `No one may be punished for an act if at the time of this act a punishment for it was not pre-established in international law or in the laws of the county concerned.' In the third place, the trial violated one of the basic principles of law that `he who judges in his own case is not only a suspect and therefore a challengeable judge; he is simply not a judge. If he sits as judge, the illegality of the process and the nullity of the sentence are absolute and incurable'. In the forth place, the Charter of the Tribunal abolished the rules of evidence which in every civilized country have been introduced for the protection of accused persons against prejudiced and unreliable assertions.

Second, the Trial was unfair in the sense of fairness, because if it was really for trial war criminals, it should put all the war criminals of both sides before justice not only Germans. They even argued that as for crimes against humanity, those governments which ordered the destruction of German cities, thereby destroying irreplaceable cultural values and making burning torches out of women and children should also have stood before the bar of justice. Some opinions are even so bold and so sharp as it is stated that there is no doubt that in ordering the destruction of large enemy cities, which represented an important part of the very basis of European culture and civilization, the Allied political leaders have incurred a dire responsibility before the bar of history.

Third, the Trial was dangerous in military sense, because putting military personals on trial and death just because of obedience destroyed the basic principles of discipline and made any national defense impossible and in chaos. They argued how in the name of common sense a military officer could wage any kind of war except an aggressive one without being a traitor to his country, that everyone took an oath when he entered the U.S. Navy to defend the United States against all enemies---and there was not anything said about doing it in a non-aggressive manner, that after Nuremberg Trial practice, maybe we should add a proviso to the oath saying, `Before carrying out the orders of my superior officers, I will check to insure that they are compatible with our international commitments, the Charter of the United Nations, etc.'

In short, according to their opinion, the Trial is illegal and unjust, the Trial is just a revenge, a lynch like ancient time, merely victors revenging their vanquished.
http://www.amazon.com/Doenitz-Nuremberg-Reappraisal-William-Hart/dp/0939484056

Probably not, they should be simply assassinated.

Probably not, they should be simply assassinated.

Only if all are equally assassinated. Some don't even do body counts. :shrug:

http://ch.indymedia.org/images/2004/05/22916.jpg

http://blackflag.files.wordpress.com/2006/04/allahuackbar2.jpg

Why are his underpants around his knees?

Should be Allah ho Akbar, not Ack!