Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
After World War II, during the Hostages Trial,[9] the seventh of the Nuremberg Trials, the tribunal found that, on the question of partisans, according to the then-current laws of war, the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of the Hague Convention. [10] In relation to Wilhelm List, the tribunal stated:
We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty.Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans... [10]
The post-war Geneva Convention established new protocols; according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [Emphases added.]
I am not sure if you are trolling or genuinely struggling with the concept.
It is not me who is struggling. You claimed "Whatever they are called, under the Hague and Geneva international agreements (treaties) they are Illegal Combatants...." when I referenced civilians who fight back. That was wrong.
You have since moved the goalposts to irregular military and partisans. I accept that where a defeated and occupied country is able to organise those with military training, soldiers who avoided capture etc, those have been defined as illegal combatants.
In other words, you didn't know what you were talking about.
But--to give you the benefit of a doubt--since you had Germans or Nazis in mind, you thought that it was nothing just for civilians to open up on them with impunity.
“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”
~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse (Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)
SUPPORT RODOH! Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!
After World War II, during the Hostages Trial,[9] the seventh of the Nuremberg Trials, the tribunal found that, on the question of partisans, according to the then-current laws of war, the partisan fighters in southeast Europe could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of the Hague Convention. [10] In relation to Wilhelm List, the tribunal stated:
We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty.Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans... [10]
The post-war Geneva Convention established new protocols; according to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. [Emphases added.]
I am not sure if you are trolling or genuinely struggling with the concept.
It is not me who is struggling. You claimed "Whatever they are called, under the Hague and Geneva international agreements (treaties) they are Illegal Combatants...." when I referenced civilians who fight back. That was wrong.
You have since moved the goalposts to irregular military and partisans. I accept that where a defeated and occupied country is able to organise those with military training, soldiers who avoided capture etc, those have been defined as illegal combatants.
In other words, you didn't know what you were talking about.
In other words, you made a claim which was wrong and then you moved the goalposts.
But--to give you the benefit of a doubt--since you had Germans or Nazis in mind, you thought that it was nothing just for civilians to open up on them with impunity.
Lie. I am well aware if a French civilian shot a Nazi, they would be punished.
Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.
I even gave you a citation per request about the Wilhelm List judgement from Nuremberg, which cites international conventions--Hague and Geneva most common in this context.
Now, this judgement on behalf of the occupier might have gone differently if the victims were not Balkan and instead were maybe French or Polish, perhaps--let alone Jewish. The judgment might have also gone differently if the "evil occupiers" (aka "perpetrators") were not actually Nazis--but that does not nullify my point.
Field Marshall Wilhelm List also had a reputation of being afoul with the Nazi regime to some extent, which I am sure was an important Nuremberg journalistic nuance. He got the typical Life sentence but was also pardoned and released a few years later.
TIME 24 March 1941
“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”
~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse (Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)
Well Goody67, Eric Hunt clearly "lied" when he insisted that the Germans had been given orders in late 1944 to stop gassing Jews. There is no trace of any such order.
Is the expression "shame on You" so egregious? I think not.
When I call something someone says "nonsense," is that so egregious? I think not.
