Did the Nazis have a right to condemn the tactics of the French Resistance?

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you mean NAZIS or israelis?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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 :/

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

good luck with your "i hate israel" thread.

 

jews are cockroaches of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

 

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.

 

is that an invitation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

im busy at the holocaust memorial day sorry.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

: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?

 

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?