I’m not saying it’s not a war crime, but i’m also saying slicing up defenseless, wounded soldiers is also a war crime. I’m not apportioning blame or trying to justify either action, all i’m saying is that in war the lines between right and wrong can be very wavey. Once again you need to be able to put yourself in each protagonists shoes to try and understand their actions. Yes the Parras were the invaders but I bet they never saw themselves as such. I bet the American troops in Iraq don’t feel like invaders. I bet if an American platoon was found horribly mutilated in Iraq - there would some revenge dished out.
Haha, saffer, you’re a bit late to the party, aren’t you? We’re long past this original argument, please don’t bring it back. 
war crime is a war crime and it need to be punished no matter of your allied view of point of heroes that defend their homes and another statements like that cause the soviets did many killings of the same time in the name of “liberation” including civilians with bare hands . And actually in this war expecially there were no rules expecially after Stalingrad , so it was common practice to do such brutal acts by any side no matter if fighting for high ideals ( such big ideals always serve as hiding place for the bad things hiding behind that for example the Crusaders with their high ideal of christianity and “liberation” of the Holy places ) or simply fighting for the great german reich .
I’m sure that before it officially ended, some areas would have already been “pacified”?
So a squad of well armed German paratroops carrying Schmeisser submachine guns, Mauser rifles, and probably an MG-34 --and possibly other weapons typically giving them higher organic firepower than the typical Heer unit-- were cut off and ambushed by townspeople? The day after the final organized Allied resistance is considered to have ended?
Maybe the soldiers should have massacred their own idiot officer(s) who gave the orders for a small unit to enter an unsecured town?
True, this does sound pretty dumb. But if enough people had been involved, an unsuspecting troop surely could have been killed quickly enough by Militia before they had any real chance to react? Maybe some were actually already wounded and looking for a field hospital/their unit?
Or more likely, they found the festering bodies of fallen Fallschirmjäger that were killed during the battle and made quite a few assumptions…
Possible, but don’t you think soldiers should be able to differ between rotting bodies and mutilated ones?
So soldiers that use means other than bullets and explosives to kill deserve to be massacred? What about the cliche of the soldier swinging his entrenching tool in brutal hand-to-hand combat? Or the relatively rare use of the bayonet? Stones, crude firearms, and farm implements are certainly not banned by the Geneva Convention…
I’m not saying that it was the weaponry used to kill them, that infuriated the soldiers, but rather what was (possibly) done to the soldiers after wards (the mutilations).
The soldiers they found could just have conceivably been laying on the battlefield for a week, decomposing in the Spring sun…
Again, shouldn’t experienced soldiers be able to tell the difference between decomposition and mutilation?
IIRC, but there were some heavier arms carried by the local Crete populace that were composed of militia. But then, it’s all hearsay. We have photos of German paratroops (who suffered heavy casualties and almost certainly would have been defeated had the Commonwealth defenders had had better communications and transport) and no said pics of Cretan atrocities - which almost certainly would have taken place during battle as it ended officially the day before.
Again, maybe it happened in a pacified area? And also, I think the Germans automatically assumed that it must have been partisans simply because of the mutilations. The British soldiers had fought the Germans, but they would have had absolutely no real incentive to do this to the German dead/wounded. Partisans and militia would be more likely to do something like that, because they would take the invasion of their home a lot more personal, obviously.
I think you’re reaching here. These were revenge killings for the locals uprising, not for what they used or did to German wounded…
Oh, I’m definitely making nothing but assumptions here, but so are you with your last sentence, aren’t you?
Um, my point is that this was a severe exaggeration on the part of the Germans. See this parallel thread at AxisHistory. Even their warning plaque indicates that it was a military “ambush” of 25 paratroops.
The famous ‘sign of Kandanos’,still preserved in Crete…“in retribution for the bestial murder of a paratroop platoon and half an engineer platoon by armed men and women in ambush.”
Irregardless of the “slicing up of soldiers” which is hearsay, there was an official, sanctioned policy to punish the Cretan populace for supporting the British Commonwealth forces irregardless of particular outrages:
“When Crete was taken in late May [1941], similar policies [reprisal actions] were introduced. Outraged by the part the islanders had played in resisting the invasion and attacking German paratroopers, General Kurt Student, commander of the XI Air Corps, ordered ‘Revenge Operations’, and explained to his troops what these were in terms that left no room for ambiguity: ‘1) Shootings; 2) Forced Levies; 3) Burning down villages; 4) Estermination (Ausrottung) of the male population of the entire region’. What these instructions led to was captured on film by Franz-Peter Weixler, who photographed an ad hoc firing party shooting the men of Kondomari in cold blood in the olive groves outside their village on 2 June. In Student’s words: ‘All operations are to be carried out with great speed, leaving aside all formalities and certainly dispensing with special courts… These are not meant for beasts and murderers.’ Greek sources estimate that 2,000 civilians were shot on Crete at this time. This figure is probably exaggerated; but we do know that the village of Kandanos was razed to the ground as a warning, and that large numbers of villagers were summarily shot not only in Kondomari but also in in Alikianos and elsewhere.” (Mark Mazower Inside Hitler’s Greece , 1993).
From: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/student.htm
I’m not apportioning blame or trying to justify either action, all i’m saying is that in war the lines between right and wrong can be very wavey. Once again you need to be able to put yourself in each protagonists shoes to try and understand their actions. Yes the Parras were the invaders but I bet they never saw themselves as such. I bet the American troops in Iraq don’t feel like invaders.
Um, the massacre of 300 unarmed civilians in response to a legitimate act of resistance and a “military ambush” is far more gauling…
Do we massacre soldiers now for ambushes? And where is the actual “proof” of widespread mutilation? If 25 Germans were hit in an ambush, then most of them probably died fairly quickly and the only way this could have taken place was if the Germans were tied down in heavy fighting which indicates a legitimate battle…
This was revenge, but not for “mutilations.” It was revenge for resistance plain and simple…
I bet if an American platoon was found horribly mutilated in Iraq - there would some revenge dished out.
This has happened. And they were tried for War Crimes…
Apparently not the one we’re discussing…
True, this does sound pretty dumb. But if enough people had been involved, an unsuspecting troop surely could have been killed quickly enough by Militia before they had any real chance to react? Maybe some were actually already wounded and looking for a field hospital/their unit?
I think it was stated to have been a recce in force…
Possible, but don’t you think soldiers should be able to differ between rotting bodies and mutilated ones?
Or maybe the allegations were largely inventions or exaggerations in order to increase the bile of the German paratroops to not question their directives?
I’m not saying that it was the weaponry used to kill them, that infuriated the soldiers, but rather what was (possibly) done to the soldiers after wards (the mutilations).
The majority were probably dead even if they were mutilated, and even so, it was 25 soldiers in battle to 300 or so afterward…
Again, shouldn’t experienced soldiers be able to tell the difference between decomposition and mutilation?
I’m not sure what always constitutes mutilation. What I’m saying that even if the Germans had been killed “honorably” by Greek militia, the town would have largely had the same fate. It was the fact they resisted fiercely, not HOW they chose to resist…
This would be indicated in all the cases where the Heer, Luftwaffe ground forces, and SS committed reprisal killings for even guerrilla ambushes and actions deemed legitimate by any standard…
Again, maybe it happened in a pacified area? And also, I think the Germans automatically assumed that it must have been partisans simply because of the mutilations. The British soldiers had fought the Germans, but they would have had absolutely no real incentive to do this to the German dead/wounded. Partisans and militia would be more likely to do something like that, because they would take the invasion of their home a lot more personal, obviously.
I think that’s the point. The Germans expected it to be pacified and it wasn’t to their chagrin. And again, since when was the mutilation of German troops a prerequisite for their reprisal killings from France to the inner areas of the Soviet Union?
Oh, I’m definitely making nothing but assumptions here, but so are you with your last sentence, aren’t you?
Maybe, but mine are far more supported by evidence and precedent. Aren’t they?
There are numerous accounts of Fallschirmjäger allegedly killing US Ranger wounded at Cisterna in order to force a surrender. Or what about the massacre of Belgian civilians (by the SS) simply in order to spite US engineers blowing bridges during the Battle of the Bulge?
Need I go into German reprisal policies that didn’t involve accusations of “bestial mutilations” of their wounded or dead?
Don’t need to answer for your countryman ,mr Schuultz , by such way.
I’ve read the flamethrowerguy’s post enough attentively.
But i did wish to verify some details.
The few phrases, mentioned in post , "terrifyingly mutilated, crucified, impaled, roasted alive… " is bit…vague, becouse such “occasions” were MORE them REGULAR for WHOLE Eastern/Balcan Front.
I know a dozen stories when Germans executed the Red Army wounded soldiers or treated them to death via famine,fire or simply leaved them alone to die without any medical help.And wise versa- the Red Army soldiers treated and executed the GErmans civils very often in 1945.
Sometimes there ( in the East) were occured the such terrible things that the “mutilation of 25 German soldiers in Crete” looks like the childish play on sand.You know what i’m talking about.
Sorry for cynical metaphor.
I do agre with Nick, actualy the occupants often justified their behaviour and “repressive actions” by the crimes , commited by the local population.
It was so familiar in Ukraine and Belorussia, where there were a special order to SS and Police to execute 50-100 “communists” ( mostly local peasants) for every one German soldier, killed by partisan.Some peoples might doubt that those German were really killed by “barbaric” way.But not me.
Sadly ,this just prove that the Huge’s “Rules of War” is nothing but cynical empty papers.
Both you and me might turn to be the real beasts if there would be the real war.
Yeah, why not?
Pursuing the last example, Allied artillery has just killed my wife and two children when they shelled my house, along with most other houses in the town even though none of the civilians were offering resistance. The Allies have just destroyed everything that matters to me. I am, as I really am, an unfit man nudging 60 with no chance of doing much damage by taking up arms against the advancing infantry before they kill me, but I am determined to kill and harm as many of the bastards as I can.
Even though the advancing infantry had nothing to do with shelling my home and might even treat me well once they occupy my town, as far as I’m concerned they’re all part of the same side who killed my family.
So as they come into the town I wave an American or British flag and I give them food and wine, laced with rat poison. By the time they start feeling sick, I’ve sent a company or two to their graves.
Sure, their mates are going to work out what happened and hunt me down and kill me if they can find me, but that was going to happen if I took up a rifle and killed only two or three of them before they killed me. At least this way I die having done more damage to them than they deserve, the same as they’ve done to me and my family, and the same way that Allied bombers have been doing to the major towns, industries, railways, and public utilities in my region for the past few years.
What’s wrong with me responding with a bit of indiscriminate death when the Allies come within my range?
You’ve portrayed the too ideal picture mate.
Indeed even if you would kill the couple of enemy soldiers or poisoned few of them by your unfair rat poison - the rest migh be pissed off , then round up all you family, your childrens and your old parents, then PUBLICALLY EXECUTE them ALL ( PLUS optionaly 50-70 mens from your street) right near the your sheling house.
Say, it wasn’t real?
It was REAL in ww2.It was everywhere on occuped territories.
It was called “anti-partisan tactic”.
(When I consider these situations, I am forced to conclude that, as a pacifist, I am not a very good one. :rolleyes: )
But you are very good michine-gunner:D
What happened in Kondomari is as old as armed conflicts self - the guilt and punishement is trown upon the local people in whose domain the ambush happened.
I do not know for sure if the Germans were really mutilated and tortured (possible), but what I do know is that neither death nor tortur was a necessary prerequisity for such broad repraisals.
My granddad mentiones in his memoirs and quotes an order that was made public in Odessa on the 7th of November 1941, 3 weeks after town of Odessa was occupied by German and Rumanian forces:
[i]paragraph 2
All inhabitants of this territory are to be responsible with their lifes and the lifes of their families for any damage caused by saboteurs to any military property or materials belonging to the Rumanian or allied forces.
paragraph 3
For any damage, cutting and theft of telephone, telegraph or electrical wires, all local inhabitants living around the point of damage will be executed.
paragraph 4
The house inhabitants and the yardmen are to be responsible with their lifes for incidents of disappearence, damage or destruction to the military materials, vehicles, equipment and other state property, which is placed on their property (in the building, storages, factories) as well as on adjacent areas: sidewalks, roads, squares and vacant lots.[/i]
I’m pretty sure these regulations were quite common in all areas occupied by Axis forces.
It took quite some bravery/ruthlessness for the partisans to oppose them anyway…
…and not only there! Mind No. 5 in particular.
It took quite some bravery/ruthlessness for the partisans to oppose them anyway…
Because it was part of the plan. The partisans knew that their action would cause german measures against the civil population. These measures again fueled hatred against the opressor and caused another increment to the partisan movement.
can you please translate the leaflet, please. I have an idea but not more than that.
Regarding the second point, that would be completely true If ALL of the partisans were not local people, like special forces and such. But many of them were indeed locals.
Especially in case of Creta.
Yeah we would like to see the english translation of that leaflet, if you please flamethrowerguy?
I think they’re very well-intentioned rather than cynical. The cynicism is in the disregard that some people and some nations have for them.
The problem isn’t with the laws of war (a somewhat absurd concept in its own right) any more than the problem in criminal law is that it doesn’t stop some people breaking it.
Better to have good laws which some people break than a lawless world where everybody can do whatever they want, with no consequences.
The difficulty with all forms of international law is that, unlike state laws, there is no police force and court system to enforce them.
You probably wouldn’t as your Lada wouldn’t get you to the recruiting depot before the war was over :D, but I expect that in certain circumstances I might be capable of things that, sitting here and not being in those circumstances, I condemn and which would be war crimes and utterly immoral. But it wouldn’t be anything that probably millions of otherwise decent men did during WWII in various armed forces.
It was certainly real.
The reasons my little fantasy didn’t happen too often were that, first, the Allied troops didn’t engage in the same sort of collective punishment and extermination that the Nazis and Japanese did so they didn’t engender the same response as typified by the partisans and, second, in the case of people subjected to Nazi and Japanese punishments there weren’t too many left to respond violently and even if they were they usually had no means to do so.
But, applying my fantasy to your comments, if I’ve just been enraged by the destruction of everything that matters to me, am I going to worry about the possible reprisals upon others later or just focus on hurting the people I hold responsible for it?
If I know that reprisals affecting a lot more people are likely I might decide not to do anything, but if I don’t know that or I just don’t care because I am so focused on my own revenge then I will probably try to kill as many of them as I can. Maybe there and then in a suicidal effort or, as many did as a result of similar experiences, by becoming a partisan.
Yes, I once killed a derelict car body, which was behaving suspiciously by just lying there in an obvious ambush position, on a tank range before it could fire back. 
This is what kept Australia safe in 1970.
Translation of the Leaflet posted by FTG:
[i]REGULATION!
The French occupying force instates the following regulations:
-
Between 5pm and 7am, nobody may be outside his home.
-
Until Friday, April 27th 1945, at noon, 12 o’clock, all stabbing, cutting, fire[arms] and blunt weapons - including Hunting Rifles - have to be brought alongside their ammunition to the Police Departments, as well as any Radios or Photo-cameras.
The above mentioned objects are to be marked with the Name and address of the Owner.
Every household is responsible for the weaponry and ammunition found in its home. -
Bicycling is banned, as well as private vehicular and motorbike traffic.
-
Telephone conversations are only allowed through the local network, long distance calls are banned. Any telephone conversations will be monitored for its content.
-
Any hostile actions against the occupying force will lead to harsh retaliation, for example:
-Death Penalty
-Shooting of Hostages
-Burning down of buildings out of which shots were fired
-Also the burning down of any buildings in the vicinity.
Konstanz, the 26th of April 1945
[b]The Colonel and City Commander[/b]
[/i]
I admit I was too lazy and hoped for Schuultz to do it.
I feel so used… 
:mrgreen:
Or in the case of the French Maquis, turned them from the conduct of usually ineffectual pinprick attacks to intelligence gathering, which greatly eased the Allied advance and reduced casualties…