Scrapbookpages Blog

July 3, 2014

What’s the difference between the words “avenge” and “reprisal”?

Filed under: Germany, World War II — furtherglory @ 10:41 am
Inside the ruined church at Oradour-sur-Glane where women and children were allegedly burned alive

Inside the ruined church at Oradour-sur-Glane where women and children were allegedly burned alive

(Click on the photo to enlarge) Note the baby pram on the floor of the church where women and children were burned alive, but strangely their clothing didn’t burn.

Read my previous post about a former German soldier, named Werner C, whom the present day Germans are trying to put on trial as a war criminal:   https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/todays-germany-no-country-for-old-men/

This is the headline of a news article in the Mail Online today, which you can read in full here:

On June 10, in 1944, SS Panzer Division member entered the village to avenge a German soldier kidnapped by the French Resistance

“avenge” means to get even for something.  It is not a legal term. A reprisal was legal, under the Geneva Convention in 1944. The laws have since changed and a reprisal is no longer legal.  The Germans are now changing the laws so that actions that were legal during World War II are now illegal under the ex-post-facto laws of the Allies.

This quote is from the Mail Online article:

 An 88-year-old former member of an SS armored division has been charged with murder and accessory to murder for allegedly taking part in the massacre of 642 French villagers by Nazi soldiers during World War Two.

The man, named only as Werner C, from Cologne, has been charged with 25 counts of murder and hundreds of counts of accessory to murder in connection with the slaughter in Oradour-sur-Glane.

The investigation into the massacre where almost the entire population of the village, including more than 400 women and children, was gunned down or burned alive on June 10, 1944, was re-opened by German prosecutors last year.

I previously blogged about Oradour-sur-Glane at https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/what-does-the-evidence-show-about-the-real-story-of-oradour-sur-glane/

My photo of the ruined church at Oradour-sur-Glane church

My photo of the ruins of the church at Oradour-sur-Glane which was burned in 1944

The Germans are at it again:  another old German soldier will be hauled into a German court, on a stretcher, to be put on trial in connection with the legal reprisal carried out by German soldiers at Oradour-sur-glane in June 1944, in an effort to stop the murder of German soldiers by illegal combatants in the French Resistance.

The French surrendered after 5 weeks of fighting in World War II, but they never stopped fighting. They continued to fight as illegal combatants, ambushing and killing German soldiers by burning them alive.

You can read about it on my website at http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/Story/Synopsis02.html

The bakery in Oradour-sur-Glane where a burned body was found

The bakery in Oradour-sur-Glane where a burned body was found

I have studied the reprisal at Oradour-sur-Glane and I have written extensively about it on my website at http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/index.html

28 Comments »

  1. “You are more than welcome to Mr. Real Name’s take concerning the deliberate targeting of civilians by Bomber Command. It is evident from the question, ( if such it be ), that you are another here whose nom de plume, ( or should that be nom de guerre in your case ), is longer than your dick, and certainly a sight bigger than your ability to comprehend. I have ALREADY stated my thoughts regarding the actions of those of ALL races, ALL nationalities, who order the murder of innocent civilians. I have already offered to explain further where more detailed explanation is required, but I suspect that, in your case, the effort would be wasted, and that any attempt would be futile. All I can say is; re-read what I already said. My words are as applicable to murderous bastards in Britain as they are to those in Germany and elsewhere. RAF, Luftwaffe, USAF … they all dropped bombs from 25,000 feet onto civilians. As for bringing people to justice for crimes committed in WW2 … there are some trifling problems regarding that course of action, Mr. Shortdick … but may I suggest that you probably have money, and you certainly have a mouth ..,., so get cracking and lead us by your example.

    As for the local pub …. I don’t drink; but even if I did, I suspect that I would find precious few nanogenarian ex-Bomber Command crewmen propped up against the bar. I bet we’d find you there, though.”

    why the vulgar insults for such a simple question? and what trifling problems prevent you form acting on your keyboard boasts?

    I dont need to lead by example–it was you doing the boasting from behind your keyboard about how you’d re dig up Adolf Diekmann, etc etc. That being said, I m not averse to meeting you in person when I’ll be in England this fall and we can compare dick sizes and see how tough you talk when speaking in person. Feel free to put your address on here to make it easy.

    Comment by Schlageter — July 6, 2014 @ 12:52 pm

  2. This isn’t the first time you have covered the issue of ‘lawful reprisal’. The facts surrounding the murders of French men, women and children at Oradour-sur-Glane, as a reprisal for the kidnapping of a German soldier, may be a little hazy. Maybe the true numbers murdered cannot be accurately determined. For the sake of the argument here, let’s posit, then, that one man, one woman and one child were killed by the Germans in reprisal for the kidnapping. The number is probably greater than three people murdered, but let’s settle for that for the moment, simply to ascertain the point that the number murdered is not at all important to this argument, although there may be some lily-livered, weak and excessively liberal individuals who might suggest that murdering the entire population of a village could be seen as a trifle excessive following the kidnapping of one soldier.

    If a vote had been taken amongst French voters, ( or any other voters for that matter), before the war began, asking them if they agreed that they could be legally murdered by an enemy army by way of reprisal under certain circumstances, I would imagine that the answer would have been ‘no’. That any group of people, believing themselves to have a God-given right to make such edicts, would in fact agree to such an astonishingly outrageous, immoral ‘law’,
    is itself so outrageous that most would find it difficult to believe that they would do such a thing.

    That any soldier, of any rank, and of any nationality, could bring themselves to shoot, burn or otherwise kill ordinary, innocent people, and pretend that this was a moral thing to do, is utterly beyond the pale. The soldiers who killed those people were cowards; from the highest-ranking officer, to the lowest, cowards all.

    There are times when something deemed to be ‘lawful’ can be shown to be so outrageous that it would be an offence to carry out the act. “Just following orders” carried little weight at Nuremberg, for instance. I see plenty of howling on these pages regarding people who had been convicted of being war criminals for simply ‘being there’. Patent nonsense, of course; I agree wholeheartedly … but, even if the enabling legislation was introduced after the war, and simply to enable the convictions of people who didn’t actually engage in any actual crimes themselves, their conviction was still lawful, even though morally reprehensible.

    Would YOU have been able to pick up a child, look into his or her eyes, and put a bullet into the child’s body? Would you think it reasonable had one of YOUR children, or your mother, or your father, sister or brother, been murdered in an act of ‘lawful reprisal’? Let me tell you; NO fucker on this planet has the ‘lawful right’ to murder me, or any of my family. I give no-one permission to pass laws enabling such acts of extreme savagery, for any purpose whatever.

    For the sake of completeness, God rot the person who kidnapped the soldier.

    David B. Neale.

    ( And yes, that IS my real name. I am not afraid, or ashamed, to append it here ).

    Comment by David Neale — July 3, 2014 @ 11:14 am

    • Somewhere between “a moral thing to do” and a morally reprehensible act that no grounded person would entertain, is an entire spectrum of circumstances under which one faces punishments and/or rewards for obeying a command (or a suggestion, or an invitation, or an opportunity). War encompasses virtually this entire spectrum of circumstances, especially including the most-compelling ones involving the life or death of the actor.

      In many of these circumstances, considerations of morality disappear entirely, at least in the reckonings of a person in immediate fear for his life, or that of his homeland. This may or may not constitute an excuse, but appreciation of this fact might at least assist in understanding how an instantaneous calculus might lead a person to do things that he might later even wonder at himself, that he could do such things. Appreciation of the pressures of the immediate circumstances fades even, sometimes, in the memories of the persons who were themselves subject to them.

      I AM afraid to use my real name. Call me a coward; I USED to use my real name, and I’ve been punished for it. At least I haven’t fallen silent.

      Comment by Jett Rucker — July 3, 2014 @ 11:29 am

    • All this is highly selective. Only German crimes count. Just, as one particularly grotesque example, see what the Brits did in Kenya and ask who went to prison for any of it:

      http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n05/bernard-porter/how-did-they-get-away-with-it

      …It was a culture of routine beatings, starvation, killings (the hanged represent only a small fraction of those who died in British custody during the Emergency) and torture of the most grotesque kinds. Alsatian dogs were used to terrify prisoners and then ‘maul’ them. There are other similarities with Abu Ghraib: various indignities were devised using human faeces; men were forced to sodomise one another. They also had sand, pepper and water stuffed in their anuses. One apparently had his testicles cut off, and was then made to eat them. ‘Things got a little out of hand,’ one (macho European) witness told Elkins, referring to another incident. ‘By the time we cut his balls off he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket. Too bad, he died before we got much out of him.’ Women were gang-raped, had their nipples squeezed with pliers, and vermin and hot eggs thrust into their vaginas. Children were butchered and their body parts paraded around on spears. Then there were the pettier deprivations: women forbidden to sing hymns in Komiti camp, for example, because they were putting ‘subversive’ words to them. All this while anti-Mau Mau and pro-British propaganda blared out at detainees from loudspeakers.

      Comment by fnn — July 3, 2014 @ 12:03 pm

      • If you are suggesting that I have been selective in my post, might I suggest that you re-read it. If you don’t understand the meaning of any or all of ” …….That any soldier, of any rank, and of any nationality …….”, I will be delighted to assist you. Maybe you will attempt to understand the final line in my post, also, above my signature.

        Phrases like ” ….one apparently ……” …… apparently!! ….. do not impart and great evidential weight. As for attempting to determine who went to prison for these alleged crimes, it might be asked just where the evidence is lodged that all of these more gross violations ever happened. I am sure you will disabuse us of the notion that there are no names to hand of the offenders, and can provide evidence that would have enabled those offenders to be brought to justice.

        As for the stuff the British were supposed to have done; I will be the first to admit, as a British citizen, that we have nothing to be proud about. Neither do the Australians, Zambians, or any other nationalities whose countries begin with a letter that falls between A and Z. No-one country, race or nationality has the monopoly on hatefulness, horror and wickedness. And, yes, that includes Germans, believe it or not, who apparently did machine-gun and burn innocent men, women and children.

        I repeat for the avoidance of doubt; there is no-one that can lawfully or morally determine that their own citizens may be lawfully machine-gunned, burned, poisoned, gassed, spiked, garrotted, electrocuted, squashed, or otherwise murdered, by way of some bullshit ‘lawful reprisal’. Presumably, not one person responsible for enacting such drivel of a ‘law’ was ever him or herself lawfully murdered.

        And no, Jet Rucker, you are no coward … it’s just that, in a previous post of mine, several people were suggesting that I was lying, and that I was not using my real name.

        Comment by David Neale — July 3, 2014 @ 12:54 pm

    • You wrote: “…even if the enabling legislation was introduced after the war, and simply to enable the convictions of people who didn’t actually engage in any actual crimes themselves, their conviction was still lawful, even though morally reprehensible.”

      Do you hear yourself? You are saying that it is LAWFUL to introduce new laws AFTER the fact, in order to “enable convictions of people who didn’t actually engage in any actual crimes themselves….”

      Hopefully, there will not be any laws introduced, under which someone else could be put on trial for writing what you wrote.

      I don’t think that you understand the “French Resistance.” This quote is from this page of my website: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Natzweiler/History/FrenchResistance.html

      Begin quote:
      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.”
      End quote

      There was a legal way to stop the crimes committed by the French Resistance, and the Germans used the legal way of stopping it, which was called a reprisal.

      I urge you to read about the trial of the men who did the reprisal on this page of my website: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/Story/BordeauxTrial.html

      This quote is from the page, cited above:

      Begin quote:
      By the time the war ended in May 1945, most of the perpetrators had been killed in action while fighting against the Allies. Adolf Diekmann, the German officer who had led the attack, was lying in his grave in a military cemetery at Normandy. Captain Otto Kahn, the commanding officer of the 3rd company, had allegedly escaped to Sweden, a neutral country.

      Brigadier General Heinz Lammerding, the commander of Das Reich division, was living in the British zone of occupied Germany. He had previously been tried and convicted in absentia for his part in the hanging of 99 hostages in Tulle in reprisal for the murder and mutilation of 73 German soldiers who had surrendered to the Maquis, a French resistance group. Lammerding sent a sworn affidavit to the tribunal in which he claimed that he had known nothing about the massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane until it was over; he excused the actions of the SS soldiers on the grounds that they were only obeying orders. As a result of this letter, his address in Düsseldorf became known and, fearing that the court would request his extradition by the British, he moved to West Germany. The West German government then refused to extradite him.
      End quote

      Comment by furtherglory — July 3, 2014 @ 12:41 pm

      • If you read my post in that way, ( as per your opening comment), then you are being either pedantic or mischievous. I stated very clearly that to enable laws after the fact, for the sole purpose of convicting those who had taken no direct part in the commission of a crime, was a patent nonsense. In other words, and for the avoidance of doubt ….. I think it is wrong and patently ridiculous to enable such legislation. I hope that makes my point clear.

        I don’t give a flying fuck concerning the supposed legality, or otherwise, of murdering innocent men, women and children to bring about the cessation of “crimes” such as “illegal combatants engaging in …. combat”. We are talking here, for instance, about a soldier taking hold of, ( say) a ten year old boy or girl, dragging them off and shooting them. I don’;t give a pig’s burp about the alleged ‘crime’ such as people, deemed ‘illegal’, fighting against a foreign invader. Ten year old boys and girls …. any boys and girls, of any age … innocent men, women and children, being dragged off and murdered is wicked, inhumane, and the people responsible for doing it are the shit of the earth.

        Forgive me; I have no interest whatever in the trials of the men …. men!!!!!!! ….. who carried out the murders of those innocent people. The action was so gross, so wicked, so horrific, that I would have very happily executed every soldier who took any direct part in the murders.

        And, surely to Christ, any able-bodied person who was able to put up any resistance again a foreign, invading army had a moral right and duty to do so. Especially one which posited that they could take lawful reprisals against anyone they considered to be illegal combatants. Illegal combatants? Don’t make me laugh.

        In any Government, and any Army, there will be some appalling bastards who will issue orders to commit the unmentionable. Beneath them will be any number of persons who are so weak and morally reprehensible that they will accede, and carry out the orders given them. People who will drag off innocent men, women and children and machine gun them, or whatever, have no right whatever to call themselves men, or, arguably, soldiers. I would dig up Adolf Diekmann, and re-bury him in non-consecrated land. What a bloody monster. I wonder of he had a little son or daughter waiting for him at home? I wonder what his reaction would have been if his wife or children had been taken off and lawfully shot through with machine-gun bullets.

        Comment by David Neale — July 3, 2014 @ 1:14 pm

        • You are basing your opinions on the French version of the story. I have given both versions on my website, the German side as well as the French version.

          This quote is from this page of my website:http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Oradour-sur-Glane/Story/Synopsis02.html

          Begin quote:
          Also on the day before, in the nearby town of Tulle, 73 SS soldiers had been murdered by the Maquisards after they had surrendered, and their bodies had been horribly mutilated beyond recognition. Genitals had been cut off and stuffed into their mouths. Some of the soldiers had been run over by trucks while they were still alive. An SS soldier had been dragged by his heels, face down, behind a vehicle until he was dead. Female resistance fighters had thrown excrement on the bodies of the SS soldiers. These were German soldiers who had surrendered in good faith to the Maquis, but had not been treated according to the rules of warfare under the 1929 Geneva Convention.

          After the Allied invasion at Normandy, General Dwight D. Eisenhower had unilaterally informed the German army that the French resistance fighters were to be regarded as legal combatants under the protection of the Geneva Convention, but the partisans in Tulle were not honoring the Convention.

          Just outside the southern entrance to Oradour-sur-Glane in the tiny hamlet of La Ferme de l’Etang, the SS soldiers came upon the horrible scene of a recent ambush of a German Army ambulance. Four wounded German soldiers had been burned alive inside the ambulance; the driver and another soldier in the passenger seat had been chained to the steering wheel and burned alive.

          The women and children were separated from the men and taken to the local church for their own safety while the town was searched for weapons and ammunition. The bodies of a number of German soldiers were discovered during the search, along with weapons and ammunition in almost every house. The SS later learned that the village had been the weapons and ammunition supply point for the whole Dordogne area, which was the center of the Communist resistance movement.

          […]

          Then a bomb exploded in the tower of the church, causing the bronze bells to melt. A woman who was hiding in a house near the church said that she had heard “detonation after detonation” in the church. What she heard was grenades and ammunition, that had been stored in the church, going off after a fire started in the church, wounding the women in the legs and killing the children and babies. SS soldiers risked their lives to enter the smoke-filled church in an attempt to rescue the women, but only a few could be saved. Years later, several women from the village told a visiting German army officer, Eberhard Matthes, that they had been rescued by SS men that day.
          End quote

          Comment by furtherglory — July 3, 2014 @ 1:53 pm

          • I beg to differ. I am not basing my comments upon anyone’s version of this specific incident. I am basing my comments upon one simple point, ergo; that it is a travesty of humanity, of decency and legitimacy that any person, acting in any capacity whatever, can determine that it will ever be lawful to take men, women and children who are ENTIRELY unconnected with the perpetrators of an act, ( save by race ), and murder them in reprisal for that act … and call it lawful. Jesus Christ … the very concept is so appallingly awful that it barely stands thinking about.

            I have no doubt whatever that there were a great many good and decent German Army, Navy and Air Force personnel, of all ranks and positions; undoubtedly, the great majority were good, decent and brave. Believe it or not, my Grandmother, God bless her, arrested a German pilot, who parachuted into tall trees in the rear garden of her house on the outskirts of London, on one of the evenings of the London Blitz, and then fell more than twenty-five feet to the ground when he released his harness. Both his legs were appallingly injured, bones protruding through skin; she helped him into the house, made him coffee, and gave him fruitcake, whilst they awaited the arrival of police. He spoke perfect English; had been at university in England, reading dentistry; had volunteered for the Luftwaffe when the 39-45 World Cup kicked off. She said he was a lovely 22 year old; she would have been proud to have him as a son. She said they both sat there weeping at the utter nonsense of taking coffee and fruitcake together, shortly after he had been bombing London. She even kissed him when he handed her his automatic pistol. She said he never once complained of his injuries, which must have been excruciatingly painful.

            I have no hatred or dislike of Germans. I have a true hatred of wicked people, and detest the politicians who drag us into wars that none of us want.

            Thank-you.

            David B. Neale.

            Comment by David Neale — July 3, 2014 @ 5:02 pm

            • You wrote “it is a travesty of humanity, of decency and legitimacy that any person, acting in any capacity whatever, can determine that it will ever be lawful to take men, women and children who are ENTIRELY unconnected with the perpetrators of an act, ( save by race ), and murder them in reprisal for that act … and call it lawful.”

              The idea behind a reprisal is that it is such a horrible event that it causes the people who have suffered a reprisal to stop their horrible crimes, such as burning people alive in an ambulance, and planning to burn a popular Germany officer alive. A reprisal is a horrible crime, which cause the people who have suffered the reprisal to stop dragging German soldiers behind a vehicle, face down, until dead.

              When people, who are non-combatants in a war, commit horrible crimes against enemy soldiers, such as blowing up troop trains, the enemy has to take extreme measures to stop the non-combatants. This was the origin of reprisals, which were made legal, in order to stop horrible crimes committed by civilians in a war.

              Fortunately, the reprisal against the French at Oradour-sur-Glane stopped their illegal fighting and their habit of burning German soldiers alive. None of the soldiers, who were put on trial, were convicted and the court testimony was sealed for a hundred years. Finally, when everyone connected with this story is dead and gone, future generations will learn the truth.

              Comment by furtherglory — July 3, 2014 @ 5:43 pm

    • David Neale wrote: “let’s settle for that for the moment, simply to ascertain the point that the number murdered is not at all important to this argument, although there may be some lily-livered, weak and excessively liberal individuals who might suggest that murdering the entire population of a village could be seen as a trifle excessive following the kidnapping of one soldier.”

      You have patently not understood what furtherglory implied when he wrote “the church where women and children were burned alive, but strangely their clothing didn’t burn”. The women and children of Oradour were not burned alive in the Church, nor murdered by the Germans. The official version is total bullshit. The women and children of Oradour died because the Church – where the ammunitions and explosives of the local resistants were stored – exploded. When they heard the noise of the massive explosion, some German soldiers panicked and started to shoot the men grouped in barns. A tragedy indeed. But not the cold-blooded cruel massacre depicted by today’s cartoonish historiography.

      A few days earlier, in the French village of Tulle, 40 dead bodies of German soldiers, often mutilated, had been found. The Germans didn’t massacre the population of Tulle in spite of that. They first grouped the women and children in the Church (as they did at Oradour) and then executed 99 men. 2.5 local men executed for 1 German soldier found murdered there. That was a very “generous” and moderate reprisal.

      Moreover, many German soldiers involved in the Oradour alleged “massacre” were Alsacians, i.e. young men who were French citizens a few years earlier and had been so for their entire life. Hard to believe that French young men would agree to murder French women and children like that.

      Comment by hermie — July 3, 2014 @ 5:34 pm

      • Well, Hermie, it seems that some here can be accused of being selective in what we choose to believe, whilst others, ( you amongst them), are somewhat above this failing.

        You state that the official version of whatever happened there was “total bullshit”. No doubt you have very hard and irrefutable evidence to support that. Patently, you choose to disbelieve the official version of what happened. You would presumably choose to believe, instead, that it was all a tragic accident, and that the Germans acted in the finest examples of humanitarian endeavour in attempting to save the poor souls trapped in the church.

        Maybe you are right. Maybe you are not.

        As for, “That was a very ‘generous’ and moderate reprisal”, you have evidently failed to appreciate the thrust of my argument regarding the legality and morality of ‘legal reprisals’. Generous? Are you utterly mad? Moderate? I bet you wouldn’t have thought that if you had been selected to be murdered, or if it had been your father or mother that was being ‘legally’ and ‘generously’ murdered. Or maybe … just maybe …. you are sufficiently warped as to be able to justify even such an occurrence.

        I understand furtherglory very well indeed, thank-you very much. Several attempts have been made in various postings by furtherglory to explain and justify the concept and usage of ‘legal reprisal’ as a tool or weapon. It is very well known that use was indeed made of ‘legal reprisal’ during WW2. Was it used at this church? Damned if I know, and damned if you know, too. But it was available, and it was used … if not at that church, then elsewhere.

        You can wrap all of your thoughts and biases in as much anodyne commentary as you wish, and throw in terms like ”generous” and “modest” when describing acts of extreme brutality and horror.. It does not take away from the fact that you are determined to try and uphold the un-upholdable.

        Comment by David Neale — July 4, 2014 @ 2:06 am

        • Here is a video made by the brave and courageous Frenchman Vincent Reynouard which explains what actually happened that day. The women and children were killed by the detonation of explosives left in the church tower by the resistance. The events of that day are used to mask the thousands of civilian deaths caused by the bombers of the RAF and USAF. I assume you can understand French.

          Comment by peter — July 4, 2014 @ 4:37 am

          • I do understand French, Peter, thank-you.

            It would be helpful of you understood English. Try re-reading what I have written in preceding posts in this thread. If your comprehension still fails you, please be assured that I am tremendously anxious to explain myself more clearly.

            Comment by David Neale — July 4, 2014 @ 6:07 am

          • I believe that Vincent Reynouard is correct. I wrote a blog post in which I showed the evidence of the explosives in the church: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/madame-rouffanche-the-only-survivor-of-the-massacre-in-the-oradour-sur-glane-church-tells-her-story/

            I don’t believe that the only witness, Madame Rouffanche was inside the church and that she jumped out the window.

            Comment by furtherglory — July 4, 2014 @ 6:12 am

            • Furtherglory, this is becoming tedious by dint of straying from the basic premise of my original post in this thread.

              I will state again, ( look above ), that I am not anti German. I do not believe that there was or is any difference whatever between Germans, British or Americans insofar as goodness, wickedness, lying or morality … I could of course go on! … are concerned.

              My post initially concerned the basic premise upon which so-called ‘legal reprisal’ is, or was, based. My argument is that no-one, no matter how arrogant or utterly disgusting, ( such as, for instance, politicians ), ever had any God-given right to sign away innocent citizens lives by way of making them liable to be arbitrarily chosen by murderous thugs to be taken away and murdered. No-one can assume that much power. That there are people with massive egos and correspondingly small appendages who would, indeed, enact such ‘legislation’, or ‘rules’, is of course a given.

              I am appalled that politicians will prattle on about terrorists who take innocent lives, and nonetheless be prepared to use, under come circumstances, hydrogen weapons capable of destroying entire cities. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
              Who in the name of Christ do these arrogant bastards think they are? This is why we should shudder when terms such as “very generous” and “moderate” when we are talking about the murder of innocents by others whose only warrant in the instance is the possession of rifles, handguns and other weapons of killing, coupled to a warped belief in their own moral legitimacy. In what way are politicians any different than terrorists? In many cases, the former have created the latter out of thin air … such as Bin Laden, for instance. Handy to have until they turn on you.

              My rail is against the principle of so-called ‘legal reprisal’, against the very horrific concept. Again, what ‘man’ would hold a child up and, looking that child in the eyes, put a bullet through his or her head? For that is what we are talking about here. The selection of complete innocents for arbitrary slaughter; an inverse lottery in life.

              You may very well, furtherglory, be correct concerning the events at the church. Of course, it might be that the official account is more valid. We don’t know with absolute certainty, do we …. but my argument has nothing whatever to do with what actually happened there. I apologise for labouring the point, but my horror and disgust is with the precept and principle of ‘legal reprisal’.

              Comment by David Neale — July 4, 2014 @ 6:41 am

              • I’d be interested to know Mr Real Name’s take on the deliberate targeting of German civilians as stated policy by Her Majesty’s Government in the form of Bomber Command’s destruction of Hamburg, Pfortzheim, Wuppertal, Konigsberg, Essen, Dortmund, Duren, Berlin, Dresden, et al…perhaps he would consider not only “digging up and re burying” dead men like Bomber Harris but also terminating a few nanogenarian Lancaster crewmen he might still encounter at the local pub? After all, they don’t even have to live with the vision of looking some little 10 year old French girl in the eyes as they pull the trigger. They woke up from their warm beds, had a nice shave, got into their shiny machines and dropped HE/WP and incendiaries from 25,000 feet and returned to a nice warm dinner. Put your money where your mouth is. Its not too late to bring “those bastards” to justice.

                Comment by schlageter — July 4, 2014 @ 7:34 am

                • You are more than welcome to Mr. Real Name’s take concerning the deliberate targeting of civilians by Bomber Command. It is evident from the question, ( if such it be ), that you are another here whose nom de plume, ( or should that be nom de guerre in your case ), is longer than your dick, and certainly a sight bigger than your ability to comprehend. I have ALREADY stated my thoughts regarding the actions of those of ALL races, ALL nationalities, who order the murder of innocent civilians. I have already offered to explain further where more detailed explanation is required, but I suspect that, in your case, the effort would be wasted, and that any attempt would be futile. All I can say is; re-read what I already said. My words are as applicable to murderous bastards in Britain as they are to those in Germany and elsewhere. RAF, Luftwaffe, USAF … they all dropped bombs from 25,000 feet onto civilians. As for bringing people to justice for crimes committed in WW2 … there are some trifling problems regarding that course of action, Mr. Shortdick … but may I suggest that you probably have money, and you certainly have a mouth ..,., so get cracking and lead us by your example.

                  As for the local pub …. I don’t drink; but even if I did, I suspect that I would find precious few nanogenarian ex-Bomber Command crewmen propped up against the bar. I bet we’d find you there, though.

                  Comment by David Neale — July 4, 2014 @ 9:05 am

        • David Neale wrote: “You state that the official version of whatever happened there was “total bullshit”. No doubt you have very hard and irrefutable evidence to support that.”

          Indeed.

          David Neale wrote: “Patently, you choose to disbelieve the official version of what happened.”

          I didn’t choose to disbelieve the official version of what happened. I based my point on the laws of physics in the real world (see the 4th picture here – http://www.phdnm.org/uploads/3/0/0/1/3001973/oradour_cadavres_explosion.jpg – for instance). Unless you can show me that flames can burn body parts entirely and leave clothes unburned, my point is logical and the official version is a pack of ridiculous lies. Not a matter of what I choose to believe or disbelieve.

          David Neale wrote: “You would presumably choose to believe, instead, that it was all a tragic accident, and that the Germans acted in the finest examples of humanitarian endeavour in attempting to save the poor souls trapped in the church.”

          There was nobody to save, as nearly everybody was immediately killed when the Church exploded.

          David Neale wrote: “As for, “That was a very ‘generous’ and moderate reprisal”, you have evidently failed to appreciate the thrust of my argument regarding the legality and morality of ‘legal reprisals’.”

          More a matter of philosophy than of history. But as you ask, no, I’m not shocked by the concept of reprisals during wars. That’s how wars were fought at that time anyway. Everybody fought that way, not only the Germans. Can’t the Allied mass bombings targetting German civilians during WW2 be regarded as reprisals against the Germans for electing Hitler a few years earlier? Of course, the Allied aerial mass murders were operated on a much larger scale than the small reprisal actions perpetrated at some places by the Germans during WW2…

          Whatever. Choosing Oradour to deal with the morality or immorality of wartime reprisals is the worst possible choice, as most of the people who died on that way died by accident.

          David Neale wrote: “Generous? Are you utterly mad?”

          No,I’m not mad. The usual ratio at that time was 10 civilians executed for 1 soldier killed by illegal guerilla fighters (partisans and resistants).

          David Neale wrote: “Moderate? I bet you wouldn’t have thought that if you had been selected to be murdered, or if it had been your father or mother that was being ‘legally’ and ‘generously’ murdered. Or maybe … just maybe …. you are sufficiently warped as to be able to justify even such an occurrence.”

          Maybe…just maybe… I would have thought more carefully before helping illegal terrorist groups fighting in the area where I was. And if I had chosen to help those fighters in spite of the danger (for myself and my neighbours), I wouldn’t certainly have complained or cried like a sissy fag for getting a fair punishment for my choices. I would probably feel sorry for neighbours executed because of me…

          Comment by hermie — July 5, 2014 @ 8:49 am

          • You can choose to believe whatever you wish. There is as much ‘evidence’ to show that the massacre did indeed occur as there is that would tend to disprove it. It is almost the case that victory here will come down to whoever can shout the loudest.

            Insofar as the practical effects of explosives, there is nothing at all simple regarding the damage caused in the vicinity of an explosion. The layout, for instance, of a church, will result in very different effects upon people inside than if they were in a simple square structure, or, indeed, in the open air. An explosion can tear one person apart, whilst leaving someone only a few feet away almost untouched, or may with just their clothes literally blown off, but hardly any injuries.
            This would, for entirely different reasons, be the case in, let’;s say, a motor car collision or an aeroplane crash. Two people sitting alongside each other can be subject to wildly different forces, and concomitant injuries.

            To suggest, in you closing statement, that you might have thought more carefully regarding assistance given to ‘illegal terror groups’, this is anodyne nonsense. One did not have to be a contributor to the activities of a local ‘illegal terror group’ to have one’s Father, mother … etcetera …. taken away and murdered. That is the whole point, isn’t it. The vast majority of those taken away by the thugs, and murdered, were wholly innocent of anything whatever. They just happened to be alive, and living there. Legal reprisals, indeed. Just listen to yourself. If the usage of such banal and asinine phraseology salves one’s feelings of horror, then maybe one should look into a mirror and contemplate the purpose of one’s time here on earth. It certainly should not include being arbitrarily seized by some piece of shit and then being shot for absolutely nothing that I have done to anyone.

            Quote; “No,I’m not mad. The usual ratio at that time was 10 civilians executed for 1 soldier killed by illegal guerilla fighters (partisans and resistants).” End of quote. Maybe not mad; just absolutely heartless, inhuman, inhumane, wicked, immoral and without any decency whatever, if you can maintain that this would be a correct way to behave.
            The usual ratio, indeed. One which piece of shit’s say-so was this determined? Get a life, for Christ’s sake.

            Comment by David Neale — July 5, 2014 @ 9:05 am

            • David Neale wrote: “You can choose to believe whatever you wish. There is as much ‘evidence’ to show that the massacre did indeed occur as there is that would tend to disprove it. It is almost the case that victory here will come down to whoever can shout the loudest.”

              As much evidence…. As for the Holo-myth, there are ‘testimonies’ from biased persons (spreading allegations on a foreign army which was occupying their country) vs. physical evidence disproving the official version. You would have been a perfect judge for the Nuremberg kangaroo courts.

              David Neale wrote: “Insofar as the practical effects of explosives…”

              Nice blabla, but I’m still waiting to see an example of flames burning the upper part of human body to ashes and leaving the pants of the same person intact.

              David Neale wrote: “To suggest, in you closing statement, that you might have thought more carefully regarding assistance given to ‘illegal terror groups’, this is anodyne nonsense. One did not have to be a contributor to the activities of a local ‘illegal terror group’ to have one’s Father, mother … etcetera …. taken away and murdered. That is the whole point, isn’t it. The vast majority of those taken away by the thugs, and murdered, were wholly innocent of anything whatever.”

              If there hadn’t been terrorist activities in that area, there woudln’t have been reprisals there, bright lad. Use your brain. But maybe you only have a heart, sweet pussy.

              Anyway, that was still better than killing millions of Iraqis to punish the terrorist actions (or presumed actions) of Al Qaïda as in the U.S.-British wars in the middle east, wasn’t it? Iraq was a base for Al Qaïda terrorists, I can’t stop laughing at that one…

              All this, of course, assuming it is not stupid to judge past actions with the moral standards of another time (2014 vs. 1940’s) and totally different circumstances (wartime vs. peacetime), what is not the case.

              David Neale wrote: “The usual ratio, indeed. One which piece of shit’s say-so was this determined?”

              That’s just the ratio used in the wars of that time. Except for the Allied butchers and the micro-bombing on Coventry where the ratio was more like 10,000 German women and children incinerated alive for 1 British civilian killed by German bombs, accordingly to the plans of the genocide perpetrator Winston ‘the greatest Briton of all times’ Churchill when he inititated his aerial massacre of German civilians during WW2.

              David Neale wrote: ” Get a life, for Christ’s sake.”

              Already short on arguments, Genius?

              Get a brain, for Buddha’s sake…😉

              Comment by hermie — July 6, 2014 @ 7:51 am

          • It’s ALL about “sending a message.” Same thing as arresting the incarcerating John Demjanjuk, Johann Breyer, and a host of other octogenarians and nonagenarians.

            I wonder when the first CENTENARIAN will be hauled into court! About ten years, I guess. It bears comparison to reprisals.

            Comment by Jett Rucker — July 5, 2014 @ 9:45 am

            • Well, different people send messages to others by various means. One might be an invitation to a barbecue. Another might be a petrol bomb through a ground-floor window when the occupants are asleep. The vast majority of people will easily determine which is the more reasonable, moral and socially acceptable. You are quite correct, though …. taking wholly innocent people away and murdering them sends out a very powerful message. I receive it loud and clear.

              Insofar as bringing to justice true criminals, I honestly believe that it does not matter what age the offender is. For instance, we have just seen Rolf Harris sentenced to more than five years imprisonment for serious sexual offences against children. Even though he is in his eighties, it was quite correct to subject him to the process that eventually sent him to prison. What is an utter disgrace is to simply rope people in for punishment just because they had some position, no matter how lowly, at, say, a concentration camp.

              Comment by David Neale — July 5, 2014 @ 9:53 am

              • What do you call it when Jews burn a teenager to death in retaliation for the recent deaths of several Jews? Reprisals are no longer legal, so this must be a crime. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/07/05/israeli-police-palestinian-protesters-clash-after-teen-funeral/ A reprisal was not a crime in 1944.

                Comment by furtherglory — July 5, 2014 @ 10:46 am

              • Yes, I have more these men’s INNOCENCE in mind than either their ages or the length of time that has passed since their alleged offenses.

                On the other hand, SOME/many crimes DO have statutes of limitation, at least in some jurisdictions. Statutes of limitation have been barred for Germans and Germany’s allies, though (Jewish) war criminals who fled Poland for Israel HAVE received just this protection from their new country. I don’t know your take on statutes of limitation as to this class of crime, but I think I know where you stand on allowing some countries to assert them and others to forbear from doing so.

                Comment by Jett Rucker — July 5, 2014 @ 10:46 am

                • Quote; ” but I think I know where you stand on allowing some countries to assert them and others to forbear from doing so.” End of quote. Think what you damned well wish to think, genius. I suspect you know far less than you think you do. When I think something, I say it. If you can find any such pronouncements made by me, then by all means take me to task for them. Unlike you, i am no hypocrite. Nuts to you and your perceptions of my stance on this issue. You can have no idea what they are, other than your own prejudiced opinion. Just because you arrogantly state that you believe you know what I think does not make you correct. It merely makes you a bigot.The simple fact of the matter is that, insofar as statutes of limitations are concerned, I am fairly certain that, almost universally, there are no statutes of limitations fore the mores serious crimes, such as murder.

                  Maybe you haven’t read my previous posts in this thread, and determined my stance on these issues, or maybe you are not bright enough to understand them. If you find anywhere that I have any bias in favour of one nation over another insofar as culpability and morality, and any assertion that there should be some favour given one country over another insofar as piling blame here, but not there, then shout it out to the world. Until then, you may wish to keep your warped perceptions to yourself.

                  Comment by David Neale — July 5, 2014 @ 3:53 pm

                • Well, actually, I had thought you felt all countries should do/be treated the same, but maybe I was wrong. I’ll stop thinking about what you think.

                  Comment by Jett Rucker — July 5, 2014 @ 4:34 pm

                • Thank-you.

                  For the avoidance of any doubt, I believe that all people, of all races, and all nationalities, should be treated in precisely the same manner. I believe my previous posts have made that abundantly clear. If I have not, then I apologise.

                  Comment by David Neale — July 5, 2014 @ 5:44 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: