First, I am NOT saying there should not be an investigation.

Key differences at first glance. The Camp guards had prisoners fully in hand at a camp, they had enough of an advantage that non-escaping/rioting/etc. inmates being killed is simply murder.

Resistance fighters were an underground organization that may not have been able to safely hold prisoners, not just their own safety, but also the safety of fellow country men. This can be a very real apples and oranges comparison. Now, if the prisoners could have been handed over to the Allies, that would make a significant difference.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 12:00 am: Edit

Under "the law of land warfare" course I took in the Army, there is never an excuse to murder a prisoner. You can shoot him for trying to escape, or for resisting orders, or for being violent, but just because it is "not safe to hold them" is unacceptable. It is in fact murder. We had all kinds of logic scenarios in LoLW, and it came down to "taking care of the prisoners" could require you to abort your mission, or even surrender.

Now, there is a minor quibble in that "partisans" are not soldiers but (under the law of land warfare) "other armed persons." In theory, capturing a partisan produces a prisoner of war who must be treated the same as any uniformed soldier. The Germans in WW2, however, declared that "partisans" were "criminals" not "resistance fighters" and routinely executed them (arguably in violation of the law of land warfare).

So you're a partisan and you take a prisoner. Now what? Murdering him is prohibited; killing him is not. (See the ten commandments for reference.) If by releasing him you would directly cause the occupying enemy to commit a murder (of you and your entire family) you could say it is justified to murder the prisoner (perhaps in retaliation for the SS murder of civilians in some village). That would probably just provoke the Germans to murder 30 more civilians at random.

Basically, pick any random judge and get whatever political outcome you want to get.

Let's say I'm a lieutenant leading a raid behind enemy lines. We come upon an enemy soldier walking to the latrine and he throws up his hands and surrenders. Now he's a POW and I'm responsible for his safety. If I release him, he'll go tell his sergeant and they'll send a patrol to hunt me down. If I take him along on the mission he'll do something to attract attention and ruin the mission. If I tie him to a tree (near enough to the latrine that he will be found before he dies of thirst) he is very likely to be found before I complete my mission (so my only option would be to cancel the mission and hope I get out of here before he gets found). If I cancel the mission and try to walk him out with us, I'm taking a risk he will expose us and we'll be trapped. None of that gives me the right to murder/kill him (although US, British, Canadian, French, German, and Russian soldiers all did it now and then). Let's say that while I'm trying to decide, an enemy patrol comes within 50 meters, and the prisoner starts screaming. At that point, I can fight it out (the mission is cancelled, this is survival) or I can surrender. Being a soldier, not a partisan, I'm not subject to being declared a criminal and executed on the spot, so surrender is an option for me (but not for a partisan). Technically, smacking him in the head and hoping he doesn't wake up before I get out of here isn't an option as I cannot "mistreat" the prisoner.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 02:22 am: Edit

Hence why I said an interesting article.

In brief, it follows the testimony of an ex-Resistance fighter who recently broke eight decades of silence to reveal how the Germans were shot in a wood near Meymac in central France.

"Edmond Réveil, 98, is the last surviving member from the local branch of the FTP (Francs-tireurs et partisans) Resistance group, and personally witnessed the mass execution at a place called Le Vert."

Waiting until the last other member of the unit to die to protect the 'guilty' springs to mind though.

SVC post raises some good points - Mission success wouldn't stack up in a court though I would have thought?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 02:38 pm: Edit

Mission success is secondary to obeying military regulations and the rule of law. You cannot shoot one of your own soldiers for being an idiot who is likely to screw up the mission (although you could leave him behind).

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 08:07 pm: Edit

To be fair, until the Western Allies won the Western Half of the European Theater in WWII, the Rules of Warfare, were more suggestions and guidelines. Even then, they largely applied to the losers. The USSR never faced trial for many of their atrocities, such as Katyn Forrest.

For a partizan in 1944 what you needed to do to win, let alone survive, was not always legal. Does that mean what was done here still went to far into not legal behavior is the question.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Also consider how the Germans treated captured resistance fighters- the rues get thrown out.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Wednesday, May 17, 2023 - 11:03 pm: Edit

More information about the prisoner shooting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/world/europe/french-resistance-execution-german-pow.html

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, May 18, 2023 - 11:28 am: Edit

My understanding may be bad, BUT...

After WWII, many in Allied High Command wanted to put the Admiral in charge of U-Boats on trial for war crimes.

BUT the US Admiral in charge of the submarine campaign against Japan (Lockwood?) said that, because he'd done the exact same thing, if the German admiral was put on trial, he would have to face the exact same charges.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, May 18, 2023 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Jeff, that's Karl Dönitz.

From Wikipedia:
Among the war-crimes charges, Dönitz was accused of waging unrestricted submarine warfare for issuing War Order No. 154 in 1939, and another similar order after the Laconia incident in 1942, not to rescue survivors from ships attacked by submarine. By issuing these two orders, he was found guilty of causing Germany to be in breach of the Second London Naval Treaty of 1936. However, as evidence of similar conduct by the Allies was presented at his trial, his sentence was not assessed on the grounds of this breach of international law.

So, he was put on trial, and was convicted, but they didn't sentence him for that because we'd done the same thing. He did serve 10 years in prison for other things. (I suspect that it was partly for being a dedicated Nazi and being the only Furher we actually captured. But he had used slave labor.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, May 18, 2023 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Otto (scarface) Skorzeny, if I recall correctly, was also let off the hook because the allies used similar methods against the Germans. Skorzeny, an unrepentant Nazi, fought against Israel and when the Arab cause lost back then retired to Spain where he died of old age. (Again my memory may not be accurate on the details).

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, May 18, 2023 - 08:54 pm: Edit

There were similar issues over charging Germany with the Blitz against London, British bombing raids were similarly widespread and indiscriminate in nature, as well as US bombing raids against Japan.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Friday, May 19, 2023 - 10:40 am: Edit

As far as trials, there were many low level Axis officers tried, both for Germany and Japan.

Certainly the rapid approach of the Cold War/Iron Curtain helped accelerate the avoidance of more trials.

The world was devastated by WW2 and like most crisis, people wanted to move on with their lives. How people reacted during the Axis occupation, by either resisting, collaborating, or just tolerating, was rapidly swept up and forgotten. It is now taking later generations to look back at that history and ask the survivor's stories.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, May 19, 2023 - 11:17 am: Edit

This shows that attempting to get nations to obey laws that are not in their own interest tends to fail if there is no power that can force them to do so.

I don't think that will change in any of our lifetimes, or in the lifetimes of anyone we currently know.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Monday, May 22, 2023 - 03:08 pm: Edit

Another good article on a topic very similar to what we are discussing (the good Nazi):

https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/05/fatherland-book-nazi-germany-review/674129/

By Jean Sexton Beddow (Jsexton) on Tuesday, June 20, 2023 - 04:17 pm: Edit

All posts prior to 2023 will be deleted June 27, 2023.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, July 01, 2023 - 12:07 pm: Edit

160 years ago today, the Battle of Gettysburg began.


Garth L. Getgen

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 14, 2023 - 01:07 pm: Edit

And so we pass from living history to history on historical event.

Lawrence Churcher - died recently (probably over the weekend)y aged 102 and he we probably the last survivor of the Royal Navy, who was present at Dunkirk.

Served in several places and end the War in the Far East.

So with the death of the last RAF pilot last year IIRC, there is no Allied survivers from major WW2 events in 1940?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, August 27, 2023 - 04:30 am: Edit

TEN DAYS TO DESTINY by John Costello

This book came out several years ago and (busy at the time) I missed a chance to grab a copy then couldn't find one. I recently stumbled onto one at a used book shop and grabbed it. Costello is famous for books that "reexamine" historical events.

This book is headlined about the RUDOLF HESS case, in which the #4 Nazi suddenly showed up in Scotland in an Me110 fighter asking to have a chat with the Duke of Hamilton. Hess was written off as a lunatic who had a nervous breakdown, but the case has more unanswered questions than the Kennedy Assassination. This book provides answers for many of them.

Using declassified documents from British, US, and German archives, and the suddenly available files from the Moscow archive of the KGB (it seems that arch-spy Kim Philby told all of the real secrets to Stalin). We now know that Hitler knew and approved Hess going to Scotland, that there were a LOT of Brits who wanted to negotiate their way out of WWII from fear that Britain would lose even if she ended up on the winning side, that British intelligence sent fake messages to the Germans (claiming to be from anti-Churchill British big shots), and that there really were dozens of plots and attempts by various British elites to remove Churchill from office and cut a deal with Germany.

This book details an endless sting of plots, feelers, trial balloons, and other attempts by various British, German, Italian, and American people to get some kind of a deal made to stop the fighting. Hitler really wanted a peace deal in 1940 and 1941 because he needed the troops occupying Norway and France (and other places) to beef up the force invading Russia (which turned out to be about a dozen divisions too small for what he tried to do).

There was also a plot by the US ambassador to the UK to wreck FDR's re-election by revealing the secret FDR-Churchill deals trying to maneuver the US into the war. The ambassador (who wanted to be President) was warned that his dirty insider trading in the British stock market using secret info given to him by the Brits would land him in prison. He was also threatened with other things he did that should have landed him in prison. A US code clerk was giving every British secret to Germany and was quietly jailed by the Brits (with US permission) to cover up the embarrassing mess.

Most Americans get only a superficial overview of world military history from school courses. If Britain declares war then all British people agree to fight to the death, right? Churchill said so! Well, not actually. Lots of British people didn't want to be in the war in the first place, lots thought that they would lose, many thought that even if they won they would lose the Empire (which they did) and end up bankrupt (which they did). More than a few Brits were willing to leave Europe under the heel of Hitler's tyranny to save their own country. Quite a few Brits were pro-German and wanted to fight communism not Hitler.

Churchill just refused any offers of a deal unless it met ridiculous standards (e.g., Hitler had to give up Poland and Czechoslovakia, places he regarded as his by right of conquest. You can hear Hitler saying "Give up Poland? But Why? I won!") Churchill was just really big on saving the Europeans from tyranny (from which they had failed to save themselves).

Lots of Brits just didn't like Churchill and wanted him gone or never wanted him to be PM anyway. King George VI seriously wanted Halifax to be PM and threatened to appoint him even if Chamberlain picked Churchill as his successor. Halifax was leader of the "make a deal and get out of the war" faction.

The basis of Hitler's peace plan was:
Britain keeps her fleet and empire.
Germany gets back some Pre-1914 colonies.
Italy gets something (maybe Malta).
Britain to stop meddling in continental-European affairs and acknowledge Hitler as master of Europe.
Maybe a refund of some of the 1919 reparations, mostly by France, which was already being looted anyway.
A vaguely defined strategic alliance against the USSR which would have amounted to British ships blockading Russian ports and maybe British bombers hitting Russian targets. There might also be a division or three of British volunteers on the Russian front. There were lots British soldiers and officers and generals who thought Britain should be fighting communism, not Hitler, and a lot more who thought that WWII wasn't worth what Britain was paying and saw nothing Britain could gain.

Hitler might have gotten a deal that just stopped the fighting with the UK and left him master of Europe (and freed up 30-50 divisions for war in Russia), but he wanted too many more things. That, and the British "make a deal and get out of this war" faction was just never as strong as it thought it was.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 04:55 am: Edit

Ten Days to Destiny - sounds like a book I need to read.

One of those really wierd - "they did what" moments in history?!!?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 02:54 pm: Edit

I forgot to mention what was news at the time the book was released, that ex-King Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor) had made a deal with Hitler under which Edward would regain the throne in pro-Hitler Britain.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, August 29, 2023 - 09:46 am: Edit

Yup. One of the reasons that George VI moved very quickly to fit Edward out as a "royal duke" was to make sure he could neither run for a seat in the House of Commons nor comment on political matters in the House of Lords. Once the war started, after a quick stint attached to the British Military Mission in France, she was shunted off to the Bahamas as governor, where it was thought he could do the least damage. The man was thoroughly and vocally antisemitic, and decidedly keen on the Nazi Reich.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Monday, September 11, 2023 - 12:56 pm: Edit

An excellent article in the Atlantic:

Beware the False Prophets of War
Why have the experts been so persistently wrong?

By Eliot A. Cohen

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/false-prophets-iraq-afghanistan-ukraine-war/675279/

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 12, 2023 - 09:17 am: Edit

Vincent:

1. That's paywalled. Here's a non-paywalled version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230911204109/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/false-prophets-iraq-afghanistan-ukraine-war/675279/

2. Cohen was, as the co-founder of PNAC, one of the loudest voices in favor of invading Afghanistan; later, as Counselor at State, he was part of the system that engaged in the problematic approaches to Afghanistan. Anything he write is going to go through that filter, with an emphasis on laying blame on Defense.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Tuesday, September 12, 2023 - 02:55 pm: Edit

Jessica- sorry about the paywall (I am a subscriber). Sometimes you get a few free articles per month.

Basically what the article states is that people should read proper military history, to study the mistakes of the past (and he admits his mistakes about Afghanistan and Iraq).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 11, 2023 - 09:43 am: Edit

Land Based 'Airplane Catapult' found!

Bit of a wierd one - but just down the road to me (Harwell), they have found a buried expertimental Catapult system - which was found following some building work.

Had a turntable and two 82m 'Rails' designed to get overloaded planes in the air!!!

Was never used, but the idea might well have formed the basis for the Catapult Armed Merchant (CAM) ships used as a stop gap before Escort Carriers arrived in numbers.