13th French SS man at Bad Reichenall massacre

[sid guttridge]

Hi Annelie,

Please read what I actually wrote and don't invent my posts.

I didn't say that "paying respect is just for the living". I suggested that all the public displays (not just this one) are essentially for the living.

Do you think that somebody grieving quietly at home is any less genuine in their respect than someone who decides to parade their grief in public?

If anything, private grief has the greater dignity because there is no display of ego involved.

Public displays are not essential to grieve for the fallen. That can be done anywhere at any time. They are more about solidarity amongst the survivors.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

Sid, the left wing guys, but Peiper who was murdered by them after his release in the 1970s? And how some left wing guys stopped a Waffen SS meeting a month or 2 ago? But of course, I agree with you, the neo skinheads are also equally big a threat to the veterans, they bring the veterans to more easy harm by the left. It's sad that so much youth are either stupid left wing, hating their own grandpas for being in the Wehrmacht, hating their history, hating their culture and hating thier country. The same goes for the neo skinheads, who are just similar, except in ideology. both extreme wings spew out hatred, it's better to be in the middle.

[sid guttridge]

Hi John,

I am in essential agreement with your point. If this was a private occasion on private property that breached no laws, then I can see no reason to stop the commemoration. Indeed, from what I understand from Arminius it wasn't stopped. Only public displays were restricted. As I point out above, such public displays are not an essential part of the process.

Arminius's complaint here is not that it was forbidden to grieve respectfuly for the dead.

His complaint here is that those attending were not allowed to make a mass public display of it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Paddy,

We don't seem to be in significant disagreement.

However, I would point out that if the Vichy government's writ ran out in "September 1944 or thereabouts", the status of Frenchmen caught in German uniform in May 1945 may be rather less questionable than you suggest.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi pzrmeyer,

Yes. Traitors. They were technically eligible to be shot as well.

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Daniel,

You mistake my position. I fully support the right of veterans and their families to pay respect to their fallen comrades or parents. You are not disagreeing with me there at all.

Indeed, if you read Arminius's post, the German police did not stop the veterans and their families paying respect to their fallen comrades or parents. They simply prohibited them from making a mass public display of it.

I would have a great deal of sympathy if Arminius and others had been forbidden from paying their respects to the fallen, but they weren't.

Arminius's real complaint is that they weren't allowed to make a massed public display of it.

As I wrote above to Annelie, "Public displays are not essential to grieve for the fallen. That can be done anywhere at any time. They are more about solidarity amongst the survivors...... If anything, private grief has greater dignity because there is no display of ego involved."

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi HvM,

Well, IS singing "Ich Hatt einen Kameraden" necessary?

Is every such commemoration where it is not sung somehow invalid?

For reasons that escape me, you ask, "Is singing a political statement then?". Doesn't it rather depend on the song?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. If it is "better to be in the middle", why not give up your self-proclaimed national socialism and move there?

[sid guttridge]

Hi Panzermahn,

This is a joke, right?

Who, exactly, are you proposing that the Italians on Cephalonia betrayed? Their oath was to the King, not Mussolini, who had been constitutionally dismissed over a month before, and certainly not to the Germans, who were foreigners. The Italians on Cephalonia did not betray their constitutional loyalty to the King. Indeed, they were executed because of it.

You do not seem to understand the difference between transient operational subordination and enduring national loyalty. If a US soldier is temporarily attached to a British unit, British tactical orders cannot over ride his oath of alleigance to the USA. He doesn't become a Brit.

Go on, admit it, this is a wind up, right?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Paddy Keating]

Hi Paddy,

We don't seem to be in significant disagreement.

However, I would point out that if the Vichy government's writ ran out in "September 1944 or thereabouts", the status of Frenchmen caught in German uniform in May 1945 may be rather less questionable than you suggest.

Cheers,

Sid.

Interesting point. There again, although the Pétain government left Vichy late in 1944, the Germans took Pétain and some others to Germany and I think, although I am relying on hazy memory, that the Vichy regime continued to exist until the very end of the war, albeit in exile and effective suspension. Frenchmen serving the New Europe in German uniform with the blessing of the legitimate French government were not traitors to the Gaullist camp and nor were they traitors to France. They fought for France in their way. While many of the Miliciens and Police allemandes who were shot doubtlessly deserved it, I don't think those young men murdered by Leclerc and his subordinates deserved such a fate.

You know, Colonel de Gaulle, who made himself a General in London, was sentenced to death in absentia for desertion in the face of the enemy after he did a runner to England. The Gaullists were probably also responsible for the betrayal of Jean Moulin, whose fame and charisma represented a threat to Charles de Gaulle as the annointed leader of a postwar France.

The Gaullists were out to remove any obstacle to their aspirations to political power as soon as they hit the beaches in Normandy and they were also out to erase the National Shame, as they saw it. So...short shrift for the FTP and for any Frenchman who had answered the call to fight the Stalinists from whom the FTP took their cues.

Mind you, I think General Leclerc just lost his temper when the young man pointed out that he was in American uniform and under American control. The French ruling élite and officer class have never been noted for their charm or decency and Leclerc behaved true to type. For the author to suggest that "Get rid of this dross!" - which is how the sense of what Leclerc said in French translates into English - did not amount to an order to kill them is really clutching at straws. It's the Thomas à Beckett defence! Leclerc intended that they die and die they did, without a trial or even a hearing.

Of course, the French murdered - and raped - a great many people, soldiers and civilians alike, when they were in Germany in 1945. One of my cousins was with the 2° DB and another with De Lattre's army and neither man can bring themselves to talk at any length about what they saw their comrades doing. I have also spoken with Maître Jacques Vergès, who was so appalled by the excesses of the Gaullist army, of which he was a member, in Italy, Germany and North Africa after the war that he devoted his life to fighting the French establishment, which he saw as having dishonoured the France he was raised to love.

By the way, Sid, I think you miss the point about old comrades' rallies and gatherings. Yes, of course one can remember one's mates anywhere, anytime, without attending a rally or memorial gathering, by standing or sitting still for a moment or two. However, it is comforting to gather with old comrades sometimes and remember together.

Of course, it requires compassion to understand that some old soldiers need their get-togethers and should be allowed to have them without harassment from morally bankrupt politicians grandstanding for their voters by dispatching policemen who would be better employed tackling criminals to intimidate a group of elderly men visiting a memorial to fallen comrades.

PK

[Laurent Daniel]

Hi Sid,

Hi Daniel,
Arminius's real complaint is that they weren't allowed to make a massed public display of it

I know, that's why I posted about the reasons behind it, i.e. XXIst century neo-nazis attempts to abuse of those people for their own political reasons.
Note: I am NOT trying here to say that Arminius is a part of those attempts, but that he may be a part of those who are or can be abused by those attempts, please, no misunderstanding.

[Annelie]

Arminius wrote

I think that the government has nothing to do with this memorial because it was build with the money of the owners on private ground.
For 40 years nobody cared, just in the last and in this year. In the last year there were only some policemen and some members from the so called Verfassungsschutz there. Thgey didn't feel so good and one of them said, that they wouldn't be there if they wouldn't be ordered.

Since these Veterans having been doing this for forty years why should
they be stopped because of "maybe" some interest group wanting
to use them.

The memorial was it seems was built with private money and on private
grounds?

[Laurent Daniel]

Paddy,
You are looking for a fight, right?
Ready

But I will post very politely by respect not for your rant but for the Moderators of this forum.

1 - GENERAL CHARLES DE GAULLE:

You know, Colonel de Gaulle, who made himself a General in London, was sentenced to death in absentia for desertion in the face of the enemy after he did a runner to England

After the German breakthrough at Sedan on May 10, 1940, Colonel Charles de Gaulle was finally given command of the 4th Armored Division, the 4eme DCR, by the way the sole French armored division in 1940, created from an assembly of armored regiments and units, that went to combat with few days of training. Except De Gaulle, none of the officers had a clear idea about an armored division tactical management.
On May 17, 1940 de Gaulle attacked the German 10th Panzer Division (Guderian Panzer army group) at Montcornet. They first overcame German anti-tank positions. But with only 200 French tanks and no air support, the offensive had little impact on stopping the German advance and the 4eme DCR had to retreat under severe air attacks from Ju-87 bombers.
There was more success on May 28, when de Gaulle's tanks forced the German Panzers to retreat at Caumont. He became the first and only French commanding officer to force the German Panzers to retreat during the invasion of France. Prime Minister Paul Reynaud promoted him provisional brigadier general (thus his title Général de Gaulle) and on June 6 appointed him as War Secretary of State. He is the sole member of the French legal government to have decided to keep on the fight. The others, including Paul Raynaud, gave up, surrendered power to Petain and you know what happened.
2 - JEAN MOULIN

The Gaullists were probably also responsible for the betrayal of Jean Moulin, whose fame and charisma represented a threat to Charles de Gaulle as the annointed leader of a postwar France

Jean Moulin had strictly no "fame and charisma" during the war, as all underground combattants. Jean Moulin managed to unify the Resistance and placedall the underground groups under the CNR (National Resistance Council), headed originally by Jean Moulin himself on behalf and written approval of General Charles de Gaulle. He was probably betrayed, but, till date, nothing is clear about WHO betrayed him. To write that the "Gaullists" were directly involved is showing ignorance about the situation at that date. The arrestation of Jean Moulin, coming shortly after the arrestation orf General Delestraint, the military deputy of Jean Moulin was a big blow for the Resistance and for General Charles de Gaulle. It was also a painfull personnal loss for him, Jean Moulin being definitely, with Leclerc, one of the few men with whom General Charles de Gaulle had personnal ties, great friendship, total trust and enormous respect. Jean Moulin was a man of honor, a man of word and straightfulness. He immediately positioned himself as what he was: A representative of General Charles de Gaulle. He would never have had more ambitions than to Serve under the command of the Leader he freely choosed: General Charles de Gaulle.

Feew! I managed to reach the end without blowing up.
I expect a thanks message from the Moderators on that one

[Laurent Daniel]

Hi Annelie,

Since these Veterans having been doing this for forty years why should they be stopped because of "maybe" some interest group wanting to use them

Not maybe, Annelie, not maybe.
Facts are there.
An interesting French forum and website about the Volunteers has been recently closed.
Reasons?
The Webmaster has not been tough and strong enough to kick the neo-Nazis out of his forum.
Then, few police inquiries came.
He tried to clean up his Forum.
Then few threats from the neo-Nazis came.
He gave up and closed everything.
You wanna more?
I have.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

Then, few police inquiries came.
He tried to clean up his Forum.
Then few threats from the neo-Nazis came.

. What were the Police inquiries and the threats from the neos then? I remember you said that the neos were using volunteers as propaganda in their modern political arguments?

[Annelie]

Laurent Daniel

So, I take it that the whole issue is not that the Veterans are being
denied paying respect to their comrades but the so called
neo nazis goals?

Somehow I find this incredible that the Veterans are caught
in the middle of political misdeeds. Never the less the Veterans
still should be allowed to pay their respects in the manner
that is comfortable to them.