Grave of executed Heydrich´s assassinators discovered

[2RHPZ]

Experts find wartime paratroopers' grave

By CTK / Published 4 October 2007


Prague, Oct 3 (CTK) - Jan Kubis and Jozef Gabcik, the wartime Czechoslovak heroes who murdered Nazi Reichsprotector Reinhard Heydrich, are buried in anonymous pits at Prague's Dablice cemetery, a year-long research has confirmed, the daily Mlada fronta Dnes (MfD) writes Wednesday.

Paradoxically, the two paratroopers, along with their colleagues within the anti-Nazi resistance, who all finally committed suicide in a cache before the Gestapo could catch them alive, are buried in Dablice along with Karel Curda, a traitor who reported their cache to the Nazis, the daily writes.

High-ranking German and Czech pro-Nazi officials who were executed as war criminals after the war are also buried in Dablice, as well as victims of the Czechoslovak communist coup of 1948, the paper says.

"We checked the testimonies of witnesses and past recordings of the Prague Cemeteries' Management, including the Institute of Forensic Medicine," says Ales Knizek, head of the Czech Military Historical Institute that organised the research.

The researchers also gained valuable help from a private explorer who in the 1980s recorded the testimonies of former doctors and police officers well acquainted with the Nazi "technology" of freedom fighter burying, who, however, have died in the meantime.

Emanuel Vlcek, leading Czech anthropologist, who worked in the Forensic Medicine Institute during the war and who died one year ago, confirmed to MfD shortly before his death that the remains of victims from among Czechoslovak freedom fighters had been buried in Dablice.

"If this [the paratroopers' undignified burying] is true, it is a huge shame and something must be done about it," Czech Senate deputy chairman Jiri Liska (Civic Democrats, ODS) told MfD previously still before the research confirmed the suspicion.

Liska says that in negotiations with the Dablice district hall he pushed through the plan to erect a monument to the late paratroopers and other freedom fighters. It is to be unveiled on October 28, the anniversary day of the establishment of Czechoslovakia in 1918, whcih is a public holiday, MfD writes.

Apart from Kubis and Gabcik, a duo known under the codename Anthropoid, Dablice is also a burial place of Alfred Bartos, Josef Valcik and Jiri Potucek (paratroopers from the Silver A operation), Adolf Opalka (commander of the Out Distance paratrooper group), freedom fighter Vaclav Moravek and Marie Moravcova, who hid the paratroopers from the raging Gestapo, MfD writes.

Those buried along with them include Karl Hermann Frank, a Nazi leader who decided that the central Bohemian village of Lidice be razed to the ground in June 1942 in retaliation for the death of Heydrich, the Reichsprotector who planned the Czech nation's liquidation.

Prague Daily Monitor (http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/183/czech_national_news/12882/)



Paradoxically, the two paratroopers, along with their colleagues within the anti-Nazi resistance, who all finally committed suicide in a cache before the Gestapo could catch them alive, are buried in Dablice along with Karel Curda, a traitor who reported their cache to the Nazis, the daily writes.

High-ranking German and Czech pro-Nazi officials who were executed as war criminals after the war are also buried in Dablice, as well as victims of the Czechoslovak communist coup of 1948, the paper says.

This fact makes me sick. Shame on Czechoslovakian communist goverment. They were all mouth and trousers ...

[nemowork]

Karl Frank is in there as well? Thats a strange mix of people!

I take it this cemetary was used asa dumping ground for anybody the current government of whatever political flavour thought was unsuitable?

Somehow i dont think Kubis and Gabcik will be there long, either the government will be embaressed (or knows a damn good publicity oppertunity) or somebodies going to get people organised and do it themselves!

They deserve better than being being forgoten like that!

As an aside, Kubis and Gabcik are the star names because they actually got Heydrich, what happened to the rest of the guys who were with them in the Cathedral, are they buried in the same place?
It would be a shame for them to be forgotten again!

[Mu-Meson]

Paradoxically, the two paratroopers, along with their colleagues within the anti-Nazi resistance, who all finally committed suicide in a cache before the Gestapo could catch them alive, are buried in Dablice along with Karel Curda, a traitor who reported their cache to the Nazis, the daily writes.
Jeez, they English write good. Paradoxically means something that seems contradictory but may nevertheless be true. Perhaps they mean ironically?

[Alpheus]

Cut them a break Mu, I doubt English is their first language.

[Eoin666]

Jeez, they English write good. Paradoxically means something that seems contradictory but may nevertheless be true. Perhaps they mean ironically?

ecellent[sic]

I'd read somewhere that to finally break one of the resistance members (Ata Moravec?) after days of torture, the Gestapo showed him his mother's severed head in a fish tank...he was then executed.....unbelievable

amazing wartime story and brave men
Remember Lidice and Lezaky

[Incoherent]

I read that Kubis' and Gabcik's heads were preserved in jars, and that they disappeared after the war. Have they pinpointed the remains in Dablice at this time? Also, were the 5 other men at the Church buried in the same cemetery as well as the priest?

[nemowork]

Oops, i should have read more carefully :oops:


two paratroopers, along with their colleagues within the anti-Nazi resistance, who all finally committed suicide in a cache before the Gestapo could catch them alive, are buried in Dablice along with Karel Curda,


for a little more detail

http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/183/czech_national_news/12882/


Liska says that in negotiations with the Dablice district hall he pushed through the plan to erect a monument to the late paratroopers and other freedom fighters. It is to be unveiled on October 28, the anniversary day of the establishment of Czechoslovakia in 1918, whcih is a public holiday, MfD writes.
Apart from Kubis and Gabcik, a duo known under the codename Anthropoid, Dablice is also a burial place of Alfred Bartos, Josef Valcik and Jiri Potucek (paratroopers from the Silver A operation), Adolf Opalka (commander of the Out Distance paratrooper group), freedom fighter Vaclav Moravek and Marie Moravcova, who hid the paratroopers from the raging Gestapo, MfD writes.

[2RHPZ]

Jeez, they English write good. Paradoxically means something that seems contradictory but may nevertheless be true. Perhaps they mean ironically?

That is a common mistake in CzechEnglish. Paradoxne on Czech means ironically.


I read that Kubis' and Gabcik's heads were preserved in jars, and that they disappeared after the war. Have they pinpointed the remains in Dablice at this time? Also, were the 5 other men at the Church buried in the same cemetery as well as the priest?

Good question. I´ve not seen anything on that in Czech media. I will make a call to the Czech Military Historical Institute.

[pisis]

Kickin' this thread back to life...

http://www.radio.cz/en/article/116694

[Connaught Ranger]

Prague, Oct 3 (CTK) - Jan Kubis and Jozef Gabcik, the wartime Czechoslovak heroes who murdered Nazi Reichsprotector Reinhard Heydrich, are buried in anonymous pits at Prague's Dablice cemetery, a year-long research has confirmed, the daily Mlada fronta Dnes (MfD) writes Wednesday.Oh so they committed a murder:roll:

[Narvaresearch]

Oh so they committed a murder:roll:

Yes, they certainly did.

Murder is murder whether the party was 'deserving' of such a crime or not. For the same reason a thief is still a thief even if he is trying to get food to feed his family.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be treated differently, but they are still guilty of the crime.

And I would have done the same thing had I been a Czech freedom fighter, but fighting without a uniform makes you subject to death upon capture in my opinion. Reprisal killings after the culprits are found is not "correct", however.

[Eztyga]

I'd read somewhere that to finally break one of the resistance members (Ata Moravec?) after days of torture, the Gestapo showed him his mother's severed head in a fish tank...he was then executed.....unbelievable

His mother commited suicide before she was captured, using a cyanide capsule. The Gestapo severed the head from the body and showed it to him. They threatened to do the same to his father if he didn't talk.

[tyovan]

@Narvaresearch
All murders are killings but not all killings are murders.

[Narvaresearch]

@Narvaresearch
All murders are killings but not all killings are murders.

True. Self-defense (in my opinion) wouldn't be considered a murder.

Being dropped into a country after training to specifically assassinate a political figure (no matter how ruthless or horrible) IS a murder, and that is what they committed.

[Connaught Ranger]

True. Self-defense (in my opinion) wouldn't be considered a murder.

Being dropped into a country after training to specifically assassinate a political figure (no matter how ruthless or horrible) IS a murder, and that is what they committed.

B o l l o x, they were taking out an enemy s.s. commander quilty of being part of the nazi invasion and occupation of their country, not to say the mass murder of many of its occupants.

You really need to read up on acts of war.

Heydrich was a psychopathic dog and deserved his very painful death caused by peritonitis from shards of horse hair stuffing from the seat he was sitting on at the time the grenade went off.

What are you another history revisionist:roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[Kilgor]

whats wrong with assassinated ?

[Connaught Ranger]

whats wrong with assassinated ?

Narvaresearch is saying that the scum Heydrich was murdered, as opposed to being killed by an act of war, if that's the case every soldier who has taken part in an ambush is guilty of murder!:roll:

[LineDoggie]

True. Self-defense (in my opinion) wouldn't be considered a murder.

Being dropped into a country after training to specifically assassinate a political figure (no matter how ruthless or horrible) IS a murder, and that is what they committed. "Political Figure"?

Heydrich was an SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Polizei, a Reserve Major in the Luftwaffe who flew sorties, and had been a Kriegesmarine Officer (Oberleutnant zur See) before being cashiered

http://www.geocities.com/~orion47/SS-POLIZEI/SS-Ogruf_H-L.html

He was a Legitimate Target, Much as Douglas MacArthur would have been In Japan (if there had been a resistance movement)......

[saturnin]

if i am not mistaken term murder is historicaly connected to law (mordre - compensation for causing an unjust death). Today it can be see as unlawful killing - against current law.

Well, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia has law, and this assassination was for sure against this law - BUT- this law was against will of czech people. It was not made by them or by authority they respected. So I would never say that they murdered him. Technically they did that to bring law and order back

[Connaught Ranger]

if i am not mistaken term murder is historicaly connected to law (mordre - compensation for causing an unjust death). Today it can be see as unlawful killing - against current law.

Well, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia has law, and this assassination was for sure against this law - BUT- this law was against will of czech people. It was not made by them or by authority they respected. So I would never say that they murdered him. Technically they did that to bring law and order back

But, this was never an unjust death, he was an Nazi enemy combatant killed by Allied combatants, representatives of the Czech government in exile so to speak, so under the Rules of war Heydrich WAS a legitimate target, trying to bend the circumstances of what happened to fit somebody's opinion with regards "the law" as one person posting here is trying to do is plain revisionism.

If we were to follow their "criteria" / way of thinking, then every partisan / Resistance member in WW2 was a murderer as well. :roll:
Connaught Ranger

[saturnin]

Connaught Ranger - I absutely agree with you, this can´t by called murder, thats why I wrote: So I would never say that they murdered him,

there is no difference between czech paratroopers and lets say Rex T. Barber who shutdown plain with Jamamoto on board - it was planned to kill certain representative of enemy. If we would call this murder it would mean that anytime somebody kill at war enemy whose name he know - it would be called murder - which is stupid.

czech paratroopers did that more "personally" way then somebody who use planes or laser guided bomb, but it just same.
From psychollogical point of view it is even more less acceptable to call it murder as they did that to PROTECT their family in czechoslovakia. Becouse there was no direct link between suffer of their family and Heydrich (beffore attack) it dosn´t meen that word protection cannot be used in this case - it can.

[Kilgor]

Narvaresearch is saying that the scum Heydrich was murdered, as opposed to being killed by an act of war, if that's the case every soldier who has taken part in an ambush is guilty of murder!:roll:

exactly.

Murder has the implication of unlawful killing, which is hardly the case when your offing a nazi POS.

[Narvaresearch]

You guys are obviously not catching my drift here. I don't disagree it was a just killing or that Heydrich didn't deserve what was coming to him. All I am saying is it is technically murder for a band of people WITHOUT uniform to target and kill a political figure (he was a political figure despite him being in the SS ranks. Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia...) is murder.

In all honestly if such an oppressive ruler led my country than sure I would commit murder. Just because it's 'just' doesn't change what it is. Especially because being 'just' is only relative in this world.


exactly.

Murder has the implication of unlawful killing, which is hardly the case when your offing a nazi POS.

That is the worst argument I've ever seen. Go into any courtroom and tell them "It can't be murder, this guy was a POS". See what they do. They'll throw your ass in jail no matter what (maybe with a lesser sentence though).


If we were to follow their "criteria" / way of thinking, then every partisan / Resistance member in WW2 was a murderer as well.

You're damn right they were. Fighting for their families, land, and survival are all legitimate reasons for fighting as partisans. They're still murderers until they put on a uniform.

And for the German troops who took reprisals on civilian populations after they found partisans, they are murderers too.

Do you consider insurgent fighters who do not wear a uniform to be murderers?

[saturnin]

That is the worst argument I've ever seen. Go into any courtroom and tell them "It can't be murder, this guy was a POS". See what they do. They'll throw your ass in jail no matter what (maybe with a lesser sentence though).

well, this is one of the worst argument I have ever seen.

You're damn right they were. Fighting for their families, land, and survival are all legitimate reasons for fighting as partisans. They're still murderers until they put on a uniform.

And for the German troops who took reprisals on civilian populations after they found partisans, they are murderers too.

Do you consider insurgent fighters who do not wear a uniform to be murderers?

no comment

[Narvaresearch]

Is it? Why so?

Example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/vigilante-mother-cleared-of-murder-child-molesters-killer-still-faces-jail-1460792.html

Women murdered a man who was convicted of raping her son. Most people would say child-molestors should be worthy of death in this instance, but she was still sentenced (though like I said to a lesser jail-time).

[LRPV]

Is it? Why so?

Example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/vigilante-mother-cleared-of-murder-child-molesters-killer-still-faces-jail-1460792.html

Women murdered a man who was convicted of raping her son. Most people would say child-molestors should be worthy of death in this instance, but she was still sentenced (though like I said to a lesser jail-time).

I think I get your drift...but you need to pitch to your audience. This is not a left-wing ultra liberal site. When I read your first post I was going to do what the 'ranger did and pull you up on the use of the word murder. Murder is an unjustified homicide. Be careful.p-)

[Narvaresearch]

I think I get your drift...but you need to pitch to your audience. This is not a left-wing ultra liberal site. When I read your first post I was going to do what the 'ranger did and pull you up on the use of the word murder. Murder is an unjustified homicide. Be careful.p-)

I'm not a left-wing ultra liberal at all, but I do realize this for these forums. I've gotten into trouble before...

Definition: "Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)"

As someone mentioned earlier the NSDAP controlled country had laws that were not 'accepted' by Czech citizens. I would think whether one believes in a government being 'accepted' or not, the law still stands.

[little icebear]

I guess in that case we should call everybody who did not collaborate with the Nazis a criminal from now on?

[LRPV]

I'm not a left-wing ultra liberal at all, but I do realize this for these forums. I've gotten into trouble before...

Definition: "Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought)"

As someone mentioned earlier the NSDAP controlled country had laws that were not 'accepted' by Czech citizens. I would think whether one believes in a government being 'accepted' or not, the law still stands.


So you agree that the racial laws were fine as they were government laws? ie ship Jews and other undesirables off for extermination? Because according to your posts to date this is what you support...

[Narvaresearch]

So you agree that the racial laws were fine as they were government laws? ie ship Jews and other undesirables off for extermination? Because according to your posts to date this is what you support...

My point from all my posts to date is that despite my moral standards (that shipping Jews and undesirables off for extermination, general oppression of the NSDAP regime) it is still murder.

An example (seperate continent and precedent): Native Americans may not hold laws to be 'valid' because they do not support the now-mostly led western United States government. They would still be subject to US laws, would they not?

Can anyone answer my question from before? Are insurgents fighting with no uniform against U.S soldiers murderers?

LRPV: You've already expressed you are understanding where I'm coming from. I hope you do because I'm already catching a lot of flak for being a 'revisionist', which is obviously not my intention. My entire argument here is based more off the universal meaning of "murder" vs. "murder" when it's convenient.

[Connaught Ranger]

You guys are obviously not catching my drift here. I don't disagree it was a just killing or that Heydrich didn't deserve what was coming to him. All I am saying is it is technically murder for a band of people WITHOUT uniform to target and kill a political figure (he was a political figure despite him being in the SS ranks. Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia...) is murder.

He was a psychopathic ss thug, wearing a uniform and carrying a gun, therefore a legitimate target under the Rules of War, why you insist on being so revisionist about the fact is farcical.

In all honestly if such an oppressive ruler led my country than sure I would commit murder. Just because it's 'just' doesn't change what it is. Especially because being 'just' is only relative in this world.
Irrelevant comment in light of the known facts, and is particularly insulting to the memory of the brave men and women who died fighting a "Just Cause".

That is the worst argument I've ever seen. Go into any courtroom and tell them "It can't be murder, this guy was a POS". See what they do. They'll throw your ass in jail no matter what (maybe with a lesser sentence though). Not to sure are you? with your "maybe", the Rules of Warfare were followed to the letter.

You're damn right they were. Fighting for their families, land, and survival are all legitimate reasons for fighting as partisans. They're still murderers until they put on a uniform.

And for the German troops who took reprisals on civilian populations after they found partisans, they are murderers too.

Do you consider insurgent fighters who do not wear a uniform to be murderers? Nice try at changing the subject but No, personally I do not because they can be identified as to who and what they are, by carrying arms. The only time murder comes into it is when they kill captured defenceless civilians or military which is against the accepted Rules of War and against the Geneva convention

You can try back peddling away from your earlier statements, you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

FACT 1:- He was a member of a military organisation first and foremost and not a political figure.
He was an SS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel)-Obergruppenführer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergruppenf%C3%BChrer) und General der Polizei, chief of the Reich Main Security Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSHA) (including the Gestapo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo), SD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitsdienst) and Kripo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripo) Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police) agencies) and Stellvertretender Reichsprotektor (Deputy Protector (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_%28title%29)) of Bohemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemia) and Moravia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia). Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler) considered him a possible successor. When the Nazis moved the headquarters of Interpol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol) to Berlin, he served as the President of that international law enforcement agency. Heydrich chaired the 1942 Wannsee Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference), which discussed plans for the deportation and extermination of all Jews in German-occupied territory.FACT 2:- He was armed at the time of the attack (not very political you will have to agree).

FACT 3: His attackers were members of the military.


1. Jan Kubiš (June 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_24), 1913 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913) – June 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_18), 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942)) was a Czech soldier, one of a team of Czechoslovak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak) British-trained agents sent to assassinate one of the most important Nazis, Reinhard Heydrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich), in 1942 as part of Operation Anthropoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid). He fled Czechoslovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia) during World War II for Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain). He was trained there as a parachutist. The Free Czechs, as he and other self-exiled Czechs were called, were stationed at Cholmondeley Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholmondeley_Castle) near Malpas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malpas,_Cheshire) in Cheshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire).

2. Jozef Gabčík (8 April (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_8) 1912 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1912) – 18 June (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_18) 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942)) was a Slovak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks) soldier involved in Operation Anthropoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid), Gabčík was born in Palosnya in the Kingdom of Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary), Austria-Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria-Hungary) (today Poluvsie, part of Rajecké Teplice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajeck%C3%A9_Teplice), Slovakia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia). He became a paratrooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratrooper) of rotmistr (approx. UK Staff Sergeant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staff_Sergeant)) rank.Your argument, especially trying to bring in an example of a civil case, is essentially flawed as its based on civil law, the heroes who took out Heydrich were members of a military unit engaged in an act of war against a uniformed, armed enemy, all of which is covered in the Rules of War.

All a partisan or a Resistance member is required to do is carry identification such as a badge, sign an armband or pieces of military kit that identifies them clearly as other than civilians, this is even covered under the Geneva Convention.

Connaught Ranger.

[saturnin]

I guess in that case we should call everybody who did not collaborate with the Nazis a criminal from now on?

x2

now I declare all narvaresearch assets to be mine, wait you don´t want ti give me that? you are thiev, aren´t you :)


serriously, calling all partisan who do not wear uniform during firefight - murderers - it is too much for me

but back to topic, imagine your country were invaded (it is not case of czechoslovakia or better to say czech lands) and your current legal government escape to letś say London (this is czechoslovakia case), now both "government" clame their law over Czechoslovakia. I see you can get schizophrenic whether to call similar attack murdere or not.

[saturnin]

nice post Connaght Ranger, I was about to post very similar

[Narvaresearch]

He was a psychopathic ss thug, wearing a uniform and carrying a gun, therefore a legitimate target under the Rules of War, why you insist on being so revisionist about the fact is farcical.

I don't disagree he was an SS thug. You seem to love to throw around the title revisionist around. Seems to be a buzz word with people who don't like opposite views. Goes with "holocaust denier!"


Irrelevant comment in light of the known facts, and is particularly insulting to the memory of the brave men and women who died fighting a "Just Cause".

How is it irrelevant? I'm trying to show you that I sympathize with what the freedom fighters did. I would do the same. That doesn't change the act of murder, though. My other comment was just a simple bit about point of view.


FACT 1:- He was a member of a military organisation first and foremost and not a political figure.

You even note later that he was a possible successor to Adolf Hitler. I'd consider that political power whether he has a side-arm or not. I'll go with your argument though. The military organisation in the Nazi state was a political organization as well, but I'll call him a military target, sure.


FACT 2:- He was armed at the time of the attack (not very political you will have to agree).

Whether he is armed or there are dozens of special service agents around him, what makes that any different? Every political figure has an armed entourage, but sure - by today's standards he wasn't a political figure.


No, personally I do not because they can be identified as to who and what they are, by carrying arms. The only time murder comes into it is when they kill captured defenceless civilians or military which is against the accepted Rules of War and against the Geneva convention

So just carrying a gun, even if concealed, is enough? I don't think that is right. If you'd be so kind to show me the geneva convention clause that states this.


FACT 3: His attackers were members of the military.

a) I don't believe that an enemy combatant can have a badge tucked away out of sight from an enemy and be considered "safe" under the geneva convention. If this is the case, please show me - I'm not saying I have an air-tight argument. I'm just as willing to learn as anyone else.

b) Were they wearing identification at the time?

[Narvaresearch]

x2

now I declare all narvaresearch assets to be mine, wait you don´t want ti give me that? you are thiev, aren´t you :)


serriously, calling all partisan who do not wear uniform during firefight - murderers - it is too much for me

but back to topic, imagine your country were invaded (it is not case of czechoslovakia or better to say czech lands) and your current legal government escape to letś say London (this is czechoslovakia case), now both "government" clame their law over Czechoslovakia. I see you can get schizophrenic whether to call similar attack murdere or not.

I completely sympathize with the Czechoslovakian cause here. I'm not saying anything different! "Hangman Heydrich" was a murderer and he got what was coming to him. I don't know how many times I have to say I don't disagree with this, but I guess I'd mention it again.

My only argument is about the use of the word "murder", which is based more on relative point of view it would seem. It's hard to put a word like "murder" with such a stigma and attach it to heroes, I understand that.

[Connaught Ranger]

[/COLOR][/B]

I don't disagree he was an SS thug. You seem to love to throw around the title revisionist around. Seems to be a buzz word with people who don't like opposite views. Goes with "holocaust denier!"

As my old Irish grandad would say, "If the cap fits wear it".p-)

How is it irrelevant? I'm trying to show you that I sympathize with what the freedom fighters did. I would do the same. That doesn't change the act of murder, though. My other comment was just a simple bit about point of view.

Again, for the slow of understanding there was no act of murder, it was a combat opperation involving military personnel on military personnel, therefore an act of warfare.

You even note later that he was a possible successor to Adolf Hitler. I'd consider that political power whether he has a side-arm or not. I'll go with your argument though. The military organisation in the Nazi state was a political organization as well, but I'll call him a military target, sure.

Try to make up your mind. :roll: You cant have jam on both sides of the bread.

Whether he is armed or there are dozens of special service agents around him, what makes that any different? Every political figure has an armed entourage, but sure - by today's standards he wasn't a political figure.


Well seeing as this happened back in WW2 in a country under occupation dont base your opinion on what happens around the Head of State in a country, who was democratically elected as opposed to Heydrich who was the Nazi military dictator over Czechoslovakia,:roll:

So just carrying a gun, even if concealed, is enough? I don't think that is right. If you'd be so kind to show me the geneva convention clause that states this.

The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:

Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
a) I don't believe that an enemy combatant can have a badge tucked away out of sight from an enemy and be considered "safe" under the geneva convention. If this is the case, please show me - I'm not saying I have an air-tight argument. I'm just as willing to learn as anyone else.


The following categories of combatants qualify for prisoner-of-war status on capture:


Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:

that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

b) Were they wearing identification at the time?

Lets see Carrying British military weapons, so not a bunch of innocent civvies out for a stroll, same applies to the battle at the church afterward's.


Connaught Ranger.

[saturnin]

I am just currious how would you define murder? (to narvasearch)

I already posted that even from perspective of law it is doubtfull to call this action murder
Another aproach is personal view of meaning of this word. From this point of veiw I can´t call murderer somobody who is member of military organizastion (as Kubiš and Gabčík was). and I can call murderer even partisan when they do not wear proper designation.

For example my grandad was about 17 years old when his village was burned (in Slovakia), he went to mountains but didn´t get organised immediately into any partisan group. Lately he get into group which sabotaged german communication ect. but this group was not at the beginning "military" organised. They haven´t any acces to badge, uniforms. They didn´t get orders from any offical military comander. They were not able to get into contact with to any such person (not until about SNP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_National_Uprising)

Am now reacting to your post: "You're damn right they were. Fighting for their families, land, and survival are all legitimate reasons for fighting as partisans. They're still murderers until they put on a uniform."

So when my grandfather was not able to wear badge, uniform (for objective reason, not to have better change getting into good fire positon or such) and he detonate track just under german military transport - is he murder to you?

don´t worry I do not take this personally, I am just curious how did you mean sentence I quote.

[saturnin]

damm, Connaught Ranger You alway post while I am typing :), my post get then useless :)

[saturnin]

"that of carrying arms openly; " so even my granfather and his fellow fighters qualify as combatants for prison-of-war status on capture. Always sad that their german oponents didn´t go by rule back than. :|

[Connaught Ranger]

damm, Connaught Ranger You alway post while I am typing :), my post get then useless :)

OK I am off for tea the thread is all yours :hug:

[saturnin]

I have already achieved three post in a row - too many :)

[Narvaresearch]

Am now reacting to your post: "You're damn right they were. Fighting for their families, land, and survival are all legitimate reasons for fighting as partisans. They're still murderers until they put on a uniform."

So when my grandfather was not able to wear badge, uniform (for objective reason, not to have better change getting into good fire positon or such) and he detonate track just under german military transport - is he murder to you?

don´t worry I do not take this personally, I am just curious how did you mean sentence I quote.

First of all, much respect to your grandfather. Second of all, no, he is obviously not a murderer considering he didn't kill anyone. Had he, then his classification would be (in my mind). He is simply considered a criminal in this case (this is taking the subject into a completely objective view. Take into consideration what happend to his homeland, he's a hero, not a criminal. Hope you understand this).


Lets see Carrying British military weapons, so not a bunch of innocent civvies out for a stroll

For how long were they concealed before the attack?

If what you are saying is true I have now started a revelation regarding the Geneva Convention. :| My faith in the documents has been rocked...

Can I have the source, please?

[JJHH]

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/1373/jankubisandjosefgabcika.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jankubisandjosefgabcika.jpg)

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/8956/soe.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/my.php?image=soe.jpg)

[saturnin]

:) sorry to say, but I do not understand much, maybe becouse of my pure english

first, I don´t know if this attack on transport (or any others he took participation in) casued death, Even my grandfather didn´t know - they get intel from local railway dispatcher about when enemy transport pass some location so they prepared charge and get out of there. But less suppose this lead to death. Still I would not call him criminal. At late 1944 it would be very doubfull to say that there was any "german occupation law". Central Slovakia started to be more like battlefiled (even before SNP), so when there is no low, there is no "lawfull criminial". And where some towns and villages were occuped by german administration and german law take order there - still this law was approved by slovakia government who colaborated with germany and this government was not seen as rightfull representation by slovakia people (at least by late 1944).

SO I am still interessted why you use term murderer in this topic. In both cases (Heydrich and potencial death by my grandfather sabotage) you can´t use much law to define murderer - Kubič and Gabčík was millitary personal ie act of war. My grandfather was in middle of starting uprising - you can´t find much law there.

from your (potencial?) point of view anybody who kill MILITARY ENEMY person is murder? At least when he do not wear uniform at the moment?

[mwe]

Murder is murder whether the party was 'deserving' of such a crime or not. For the same reason a thief is still a thief even if he is trying to get food to feed his family.

Murder is a legal term for unjustified killings, this killing was justified.

[Narvaresearch]

Murder is a legal term for unjustified killings, this killing was justified.

Murder is not defined as unjustified killings. Did you read the news article I posted or the definition I posted?

Facts decide what is considered a murder, not opinionated statements like "this killing was justified". A neo-Nazi thug would not consider this killing to be justified! Do you understand now what I'm trying to say?

[saturnin]

from movie: The Assasination, 1964
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwKQ6MZoZlM

[mwe]

Murder is not defined as unjustified killings. Did you read the news article I posted or the definition I posted?

Lawful killing of a Genocidal thug, issue settled.

[Connaught Ranger]

First of all, much respect to your grandfather. Second of all, no, he is obviously not a murderer considering he didn't kill anyone. Had he, then his classification would be (in my mind). He is simply considered a criminal in this case (this is taking the subject into a completely objective view. Take into consideration what happend to his homeland, he's a hero, not a criminal. Hope you understand this).

WoW!! saturnin, he called your Grandfather a criminal :| I would be highly insulted to have this comic opera lawyer say /write that in connection to any member of my family.

For how long were they concealed before the attack?

Irrelevant to the action carried out there is no time limit on the concealment of weapons before, during and after the event.

If what you are saying is true I have now started a revelation regarding the Geneva Convention. :| My faith in the documents has been rocked...

Can I have the source, please?

Yes, type Geneva Convention into a search engine.

Connaught Ranger.

[JJHH]

Come on guys, we all know that this wasn't murder, even Narvaresearch knows that. He's just playing Mr. Headstrong.

Murder is unlawful. I consider not killing such a beast as Heydrich as unlawful.

[Narvaresearch]

:) sorry to say, but I do not understand much, maybe becouse of my pure english

first, I don´t know if this attack on transport (or any others he took participation in) casued death, Even my grandfather didn´t know - they get intel from local railway dispatcher about when enemy transport pass some location so they prepared charge and get out of there. But less suppose this lead to death. Still I would not call him criminal. At late 1944 it would be very doubfull to say that there was any "german occupation law". Central Slovakia started to be more like battlefiled (even before SNP), so when there is no low, there is no "lawfull criminial". And where some towns and villages were occuped by german administration and german law take order there - still this law was approved by slovakia government who colaborated with germany and this government was not seen as rightfull representation by slovakia people (at least by late 1944).

SO I am still interessted why you use term murderer in this topic. In both cases (Heydrich and potencial death by my grandfather sabotage) you can´t use much law to define murderer - Kubič and Gabčík was millitary personal ie act of war. My grandfather was in middle of starting uprising - you can´t find much law there.

from your (potencial?) point of view anybody who kill MILITARY ENEMY person is murder? At least when he do not wear uniform at the moment?

Not a problem at all. I do not know Czech, so I have no room to judge p-)

Yes from my point of view anybody who is not in a uniform at the moment and kills a military enemy is guilty of murder. According to the Geneva Convention this is a rule a lot more loosely guarded than I thought, so my point of view, is simply that - nothing more.

[saturnin]

Murder is not defined as unjustified killings. Did you read the news article I posted or the definition I posted?

Facts decide what is considered a murder, not opinionated statements like "this killing was justified". A neo-Nazi thug would not consider this killing to be justified! Do you understand now what I'm trying to say?

OK than, and what are those FACTS? how you distinguish between act of war and "murder"?

[Connaught Ranger]

Murder is not defined as unjustified killings. Did you read the news article I posted or the definition I posted?

Facts decide what is considered a murder, not opinionated statements like "this killing was justified". A neo-Nazi thug would not consider this killing to be justified! Do you understand now what I'm trying to say?

Again your news article example = MAJOR FAIL as there is NO comparison between a civil case and an Act of Warfare.

[saturnin]

once again somebody posted something before I finnished my post:)

EDIT: I am reffering to narvasearch this time

[Connaught Ranger]

Not a problem at all. I do not know Czech, so I have no room to judge p-)

Yes from my point of view anybody who is not in a uniform at the moment and kills a military enemy is guilty of murder. According to the Geneva Convention this is a rule a lot more loosely guarded than I thought, so my point of view, is simply that - nothing more.

Oh! its a "point of view" now a few posts back you were calling anybody who carried out such an act, a murderer.

[Narvaresearch]

Come on guys, we all know that this wasn't murder, even Narvaresearch knows that. He's just playing Mr. Headstrong.

Murder is unlawful. I consider not killing such a beast as Heydrich as unlawful.

We're just going around in circles and we're only fighting about the term "murder". I'm not playing anything, I'm just trying to get others (there was one person earlier who understood what I was saying) to understand my point of view. I understand yours, but I guess it's too hard to think outside of the box here.


Irrelevant to the action carried out there is no time limit on the concealment of weapons before, during and after the event.

So one could walk up in a normal attire with a concealed pistol, take it out and fire it before anyone could react, and this is considered an enemy combatant? I think not.

[Connaught Ranger]

once again somebody posted something before I finnished my post:)

Opps!Tea break is over :oops:

[Narvaresearch]

Oh! its a "point of view" now a few posts back you were calling anybody who carried out such an act, a murderer.

Yes I posted it, making it my point of view. Is it that hard to understand?


Again your news article example = MAJOR FAIL as there is NO comparison between a civil case and an Act of Warfare.

There is a comparison. Because someone thinks (even if a large majority of the population thinks) an act is justified, it is still NOT according to written law!


OK than, and what are those FACTS? how you distinguish between act of war and "murder"?

My statement was made because of seemingly everyone's use of "justified" in talking about "murder". Being "justified" or not is a matter of opinion or point-of-view, which cannot be used in a court of law.

[saturnin]

well, reason i continue to this discussion is not becouse I would not able to "accept" you call Gablčik, Kubiš murderer. (it´s life what I can do about what other people think :)) But what it imply (quilty of murderer) - should they be according to you treated like murders (I mean death sentence, 20 years or what civil law suggest in case or murder) or like combatanst (according to Geneva...)?

I am especially interested what would you say in my grandfater case. (he has old rifle with him during action (better to say during all day back than). But when he installed charge on bridge - he leave it in front of bridge to have better balance performance ect.) SO, if he would be captured at the moment with no weapon and even charge - he is not combatant when wearing no uniform EDIT: and no weapon...?

[Narvaresearch]

well, reason i continue to this discussion is not becouse I would not able to "accept" you call Gablčik, Kubiš murderer. (it´s life what I can do about what other people think :)) But what it imply (quilty of murderer) - should they be according to you treated like murders (I mean death sentence, 20 years or what civil law suggest in case or murder) or like combatanst (according to Geneva...)?

I am especially interested what would you say in my grandfater case. (he has old rifle with him during action (better to say during all day back than). But when he installed charge on bridge - he leave it in front of bridge to have better balance performance ect.) SO, if he would be captured at the moment with no weapon and even charge - he is not combatant when wearing no uniform...?

Thank you for understanding it's simply another opinion. I understand what you are saying and the punishment depends on region, government and judicial institutions and many other factors. The biggest factor in this case is the factor of war, which touched everyone's life in Europe at the time, no matter what small village away from fighting you may have lived in.

Under the circumstances of war, who is to say "punishment" and not. As we have already seen the Geneva Convention means next to nothing...

Because Connaught Ranger wants to try to incriminate me by saying you should feel insulted, while not discussing my entire message, I will say this again. I have a deep respect for your grandfather and wish him well.

And you call other people a troll Connaught Ranger?

[Connaught Ranger]

We're just going around in circles and we're only fighting about the term "murder". I'm not playing anything, I'm just trying to get others (there was one person earlier who understood what I was saying) to understand my point of view. I understand yours, but I guess it's too hard to think outside of the box here.

No, the problem is, you cannot see the difference between a legally committed act of warfare, by a soldier doing his duty under a strict military code and that of common murder as defined by a civil code of law, and believe me there is a big difference.

You have as much said that all the men and women of the Resistance, Partisan regardless of being in a recognised military unit in open or clandestine warfare against an invader and aggressor are guilty of murder, this is the same excuse the Nazi's used to murder many innocents and does not stand up in any Court of Law.

You would try and condem the acts of Allied Forces including those of Allied non-conventunal forces, as the world condemded Nazi Germany for their acts of aggression and atrocities against the country they invaded and enslaved.

So one could walk up in a normal attire with a concealed pistol, take it out and fire it before anyone could react, and this is considered an enemy combatant? I think not.

Thats exactly how the Resistance and Partisans opperated in many countries from Russia, Yugoslavia, Albania, Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, the Greek Agean, Crete etc..etc..:roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[CMNot]

Under the circumstances of war, who is to say "punishment" and not. As we have already seen the Geneva Convention means next to nothing...

The victor.

If an actor of a legitimate state carries out an action sanctioned by said state it will never be murder to that state or its partners/allies. German opinion on such matters (and I imagine the Nazis took a far different view) became moot some time around the Hammer & Sickle flying over Berlin.

Very brave men, I commend them.

[saturnin]

by google translator:

"The bodies of seven paratroopers were after the end of fighting in the area of the Orthodox Church of St.. Cyril and Methodius in Resslova street (see) hand on the pavement, where it was identified. Jan Kubiš and Josef Bublík still signs of life appeared and were therefore taken to military hospital military - have died Bublík way Kubiš shortly after the transfer. The identification of the dead was involved and traitor Karel Čurda.

All the bodies were then transported to the German Institute of Forensic Medicine at Charles University, whose director was prof. G. Weyrich, assistant MUDr. W. Steffel. These 23-28 June 1942 conducted an autopsy on all parachutists. After the autopsy has been removed from all carcasses Title - Title Kubiš and Gabčíka be retained is the face, therefore, have been specially preserved, placed in a glass cylinder with a preservative solution and locked in a closet in a large autopsy Institute. Heads of the other five parachutists were deprived tissues and prepared. Five skulls were placed in the glass display case in a small autopsy Institute.

The Czech Institute of Forensic Medicine staff plan to end the war heads and skulls authorize. In February 1943 they managed to do a few photos of five skulls (not heads Kubiš and Gabčíka). At the end of the 80th years of well-known anthropologist E. Vlček on the basis of these photos confirmed that include five parašutistům. Save the skull and the head of the solution is not the end of the war - 20 April 1945 the Gestapo were removed and their subsequent fate is still unknown.

Residues bodies were autopsied in 1942 moved to Ďáblická cemetery where they were stored in a special mass grave. On Ďáblická cemetery was excavated in 1938 "shaft for special purposes", where pohřbívali various suicides, utonulí, unidentified, etc. During the war I will be burying people died in výsleších, executed, etc. After 1945 they were here in new shafts buried executed war criminals (eg K. Daluege, KH Frank, etc.).

Detail with this issue deals with the researcher Jaroslav Čvančara, on the basis of the information out on this issue fairly detailed article by M. Šišky "eternal heroes of the story Resslova street" in the newspaper law 1 April 2006.

Čvančarovy information are also a few weeks ago, became the subject of some media interest regarding the fact that the body of paratroopers is reportedly in the same mass grave as executed Nazi war criminals.

See Articles newspapers MF Dnes and Right:"

to narvasearch: from your last post I still don´t get when freedom fighter starts to be more combatant than murders (according to you) but I ques we started to run in circle, so it letś let it go

I don´t feel insulted and I see C.R as person who is much closer to my view of of "world". I value his tribute to this and others forum so be nice to him :)

and Geneva convention means a lot, if both side (or even one) play according to it.

and I am sorry to say, but my grandfather passed years ago. I remeber he learned me to play chess, which I used to get as much information about his participation in war as possible. He didn´t like to talk much about it. Most information I get was from my grandmather who is excellent retailer.

[Narvaresearch]

You would try and condem the acts of Allied Forces including those of Allied non-conventunal forces, as the world condemded Nazi Germany for their acts of aggression and atrocities against the country they invaded and enslaved.


Yes because things are not black and white as you may believe. Simply because they fight the oppression of the Nazi regime does not exempt them from crimes...

...well it does in many cases, but it shouldn't.


and I am sorry to say, but my grandfather passed years ago. I remeber he learned me to play chess, which I used to get as much information about his participation in war as possible. He didn´t like to talk much about it. Most information I get was from my grandmather who is excellent retailer.

Sorry to hear this. That man saw a lot of history and participated in it. Nothing but admiration in my mind.

[LineDoggie]

I never thought I would see the day that someone not from a Stormfront type organization would be defending Heydrich by calling his death Murder.


Man was an SS General, In Uniform Carrying a Weapon in the performance of his duties in a WAR.

Give the Ambush team members posthumous medals and give them Proper Burial places of Honor.

End of

[saturnin]

I also do absolutely do not like to call them murderers, but what can I do other then to discuss it and maybe change their mind :)

I read now some sources about original topic: grave of Gabčík and Kubiš, and it doesn´t seems to go well, their have just general information where could they be bured. They were thousands of dead buried and there is no cemetary book on it. They have also cut off head but it will not help much as it go same fot other people buried here during occupation. They are trying to do more historical reasearch before any DNA analysis would be hold.

[Narvaresearch]

I never thought I would see the day that someone not from a Stormfront type organization would be defending Heydrich by calling his death Murder.


Man was an SS General, In Uniform Carrying a Weapon in the performance of his duties in a WAR.

Give the Ambush team members posthumous medals and give them Proper Burial places of Honor.

End of

I'll ignore the offensive comment and mention that the ambush team should be placed in proper burial places. Some people don't get it, but no problem. :hug:

[V.I.D.]

I'll ignore the offensive comment and mention that the ambush team should be placed in proper burial places. Some people don't get it, but no problem. :hug:

No, you don't get it or do not want to get it. Arguing the semantics here about the SS pig who engaged in murdering Czechoslovak and Jewish population make you either:
- An idiot, or
- Revisionist

Nazis established their own racial laws against Jews, Slavs, Roma people and because the two brave local soldiers killed the arrogant Nazi scum, you insist on calling it a murder? Against what law? The law of occupied country or the racial Nazi laws? I'd call their act a job well done. I hope they get a proper burial, all with the highest military honors.

[Narvaresearch]

No, you don't get it or do not want to get it. Arguing the semantics here about the SS pig who engaged in murdering Czechoslovak and Jewish population make you either:
- An idiot, or
- Revisionist

Nazis established their own racial laws against Jews, Slavs, Roma people and because the two brave local soldiers killed the arrogant Nazi scum, you insist on calling it a murder? Against what law? The law of occupied country or the racial Nazi laws? I'd call their act a job well done. I hope they get a proper burial, all with the highest military honors.

It can be a job well done and still be murder. :roll:

[Connaught Ranger]

Dont feed the revisionist troll!!

[Connaught Ranger]

Yes because things are not black and white as you may believe. Simply because they fight the oppression of the Nazi regime does not exempt them from crimes...

...well it does in many cases, but it shouldn't.


You really are are a troll. Trying to make a case against Allied soldiers doing there job as under the Rules of War, what next Allied Bomber crews are murders because their bombs killed enemy civilians working in enemy factorys etc..etc..:roll:

[Narvaresearch]

You really are are a troll. Trying to make a case against Allied soldiers doing there job as under the Rules of War, what next Allied Bomber crews are murders because their bombs killed enemy civilians working in enemy factorys etc..etc..:roll:

No, but those who ordered and promoted bombings like the fire bombing of Dresden are. I'll save that for another thread though.

Isn't a troll someone who is trying to cause trouble? I've done nothing of the sort, while YOU have insulted me and others in multiple threads! :cantbeli:

[johanness]

"Annex to the Convention

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

SECTION I

ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I

The Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army." "

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

So, as I see it, from moral way of thinking it was ok to kill Heydrich, but from law or justice
it was not.


That was what Narvaresearch wanted to say, as I understand it.

[Connaught Ranger]

"Annex to the Convention

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

SECTION I

ON BELLIGERENTS

CHAPTER I

The Qualifications of Belligerents

Article 1.

The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army." "

So, as I see it, from moral way of thinking it was ok to kill Heydrich, but from law or justice
it was not.


That was what Narvaresearch wanted to say, as I understand it.

The highlighted part of your post above covers the military men who took part in a military operation, as long as even one of the above was complied with, the claim it was a "murder" cannot be factual in any way shape or colour, no matter how Narvaresearch wants to dress it up.

Connaught Ranger.

[SoSo]

It's my understanding that the Nazis often summarily executed captured resistance fighters as "franc-tireurs" not entitled to POW status. But in other cases they did treat captured fighters as POWs, such as the members of the Polish Home Army after the Warsaw Uprising. Was this because they wore some kind of armband or identifying symbol? I know the French Forces of the Interior also wore special armbands, to signify their status as combatants, and this satisfies the requirement of the laws of war. However, Adolf Hitler, infuriated at Allied infiltration operations in occupied Europe, ordered that all captured commandos be summarily executed, even if taken in uniform. I don't know if the Czech commandos who killed Heydrich were captured in uniform or not, but in any case it wouldn't have saved them. I too hope they receive posthumous military honors and reburial, as their heroism merits.
This is slightly off topic, but I've heard that Heydrich lingered for a few days before dying of his injuries, suffering terrible pain, and they say he renounced all the evil that he had done, and expressed remorse, before he finally slipped away, and that this was hushed up by the Nazi leadership. Does anyone know if this is true?

[johanness]

If killing is be done outside of the law, it's called murder.

Anyway, the goal of killing Heydrich was not to bring jusice.

Czechia at this time was a big supplier for weapons for the Nazi-Regime, and as it was difficult for the English to bomb them, they decided to send this commando to kill Heydrich.

The English were sure that the Nazi answer would be harsh, and this would end in an Czechian uproar.

[Narvaresearch]

So, as I see it, from moral way of thinking it was ok to kill Heydrich, but from law or justice it was not. That was what Narvaresearch wanted to say, as I understand it.

Dear god almighty, someone gets it.


It's my understanding that the Nazis often summarily executed captured resistance fighters as "franc-tireurs" not entitled to POW status. But in other cases they did treat captured fighters as POWs, such as the members of the Polish Home Army after the Warsaw Uprising. Was this because they wore some kind of armband or identifying symbol? I know the French Forces of the Interior also wore special armbands, to signify their status as combatants, and this satisfies the requirement of the laws of war. However, Adolf Hitler, infuriated at Allied infiltration operations in occupied Europe, ordered that all captured commandos be summarily executed, even if taken in uniform. I don't know if the Czech commandos who killed Heydrich were captured in uniform or not, but in any case it wouldn't have saved them. I too hope they receive posthumous military honors and reburial, as their heroism merits.
This is slightly off topic, but I've heard that Heydrich lingered for a few days before dying of his injuries, suffering terrible pain, and they say he renounced all the evil that he had done, and expressed remorse, before he finally slipped away, and that this was hushed up by the Nazi leadership. Does anyone know if this is true?

Even if they were wearing some sort of identification (even if they were Brits in British uniform) I would assume they would still have been killed. Reprisals in the area were hundreds dead for the killing of Heydrich. There is no evidence that would suggest the killers would be safe in any way shape or form.

He did linger before dying of his injuries, suffering terrible pain, but I have not heard of him renouncing evil or expressing remorse. That's not to say it didn't happen, but show us the source and we will see.

[johanness]

"Annex to the Convention

REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND

SECTION I

ON BELLIGERENTS

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;



You didn't saw this this part, Connaught Ranger?

I really don't like your hysterical and unqualified kind of postings.

Maybe you should find some other things of interest...

or read some books about history

[RIPTIDE]

This is slightly off topic, but I've heard that Heydrich lingered for a few days before dying of his injuries, suffering terrible pain, and they say he renounced all the evil that he had done, and expressed remorse, before he finally slipped away, and that this was hushed up by the Nazi leadership. Does anyone know if this is true?
Sounds to me like a desperate man trying to make some peace with some 'God' before he was judged. ****em' :-*$

[Narvaresearch]

Sounds to me like a desperate man trying to make some peace with some 'God' before he was judged. ****em' :-*$

But if he truly believed it and 'accepted' Jesus as his lord and savior he is going to "heaven"! rofl

Sorry, just a bit of the Christian faith I find amusing in this instance. I really doubt this is true that he repented though.

[HorrigEn]

nazis already considered Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia a german territory. therefore any retained czechoslovak serving in the foreign army would be executed as a traitor to the Third Reich.

Johanness, your point is (IMHO) irrelevant. nazis didnt waged 'regular' war, they waged exterminatory war. Calling those paratroopers murderers is ill minded to say at least. they ve left their families and escaped to Britain to fight the enemy, went on a suicide mission to assassinate high-ranked nazi pig in the middle of nazi-occupied Europe and they ve succeeded. for our freedom.

may they, and all who helped them Rest In Peace. čest jejich památce!

http://i44.tinypic.com/fjkl05.jpg

[RIPTIDE]

But if he truly believed it and 'accepted' Jesus as his lord and savior he is going to "heaven"! rofl

Sorry, just a bit of the Christian faith I find amusing in this instance. I really doubt this is true that he repented though.
What I find amusing is the ramblings on about whether or not he was "murdered" or not. As far as I'm concerned he was assassinated. Call it murder, call it whatever. I couldn't care less if they threw him into a wood chipper. Alive! He was a military target, and fair game.

[Connaught Ranger]

You didn't saw this this part, Connaught Ranger?

I really don't like your hysterical and unqualified kind of postings.

Maybe you should find some other things of interest...

or read some books about history

Hallo Yo Highness, do you presume to own MP.net not :roll:

If you go back and read the posts, you would understand that you were required to have at least one of the examples listed and not all.

As usual, Yo Highness you get the cart before the horse.rofl

Connaught Ranger

[Connaught Ranger]

If killing is be done outside of the law, it's called murder.

Anyway, the goal of killing Heydrich was not to bring jusice.

Czechia at this time was a big supplier for weapons for the Nazi-Regime, and as it was difficult for the English to bomb them, they decided to send this commando to kill Heydrich.

The English were sure that the Nazi answer would be harsh, and this would end in an Czechian uproar.

Utter revisionist Bull sh't, and by the way it was the British and in this case their Czech Allies (not the English.) who mounted an operation to remove this piece of Nazi scum from the face of the planet.

Connaught Ranger.

[Narvaresearch]

Utter revisionist Bull sh't, and by the way it was the British and in this case their Czech Allies (not the English.) who mounted an operation to remove this piece of Nazi scum from the face of the planet.

Connaught Ranger.

Why don't we get sources for both claims? Ranger, you can make your point about his assertion by asking for a source. You do not have to insult people and use this same buzz word on such a constant basis. I keep hearing it and cannot help but think there is a broken record somewhere.

[Connaught Ranger]

Why don't we get sources for both claims? Ranger, you can make your point about his assertion by asking for a source. You do not have to insult people and use this same buzz word on such a constant basis. I keep hearing it and cannot help but think there is a broken record somewhere.

Whatever :roll:

[johanness]

For the simple minded again :

1. Was Heydrich a military object and was it legit to kill him?

YES

2.Did the assault happen under the laws of war?

NO

There are laws, and they are for a reason.
You don't want your enemy to fight outside these laws, too.

[Connaught Ranger]

For the simple minded again :

1. Was Heydrich a military object and was it legit to kill him?

YES

2.Did the assault happen under the laws of war?

NO

There are laws, and they are for a reason.
You don't want your enemy to fight outside these laws, too.

Your statement is a contradiction in terms. :roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[johanness]

Would you like to enlighten me?

[Connaught Ranger]

Would you like to enlighten me?


Of course:-1. Was Heydrich a military object and was it legit to kill him?

YES

2.Did the assault happen under the laws of war?

NONo.2 is only your opinion and not a fact borne out under the Rules of Warfare.

And your countrymen were already well engaged in breaking the known "Rules of War" starting with the invasion of Poland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France so on and so forth.

OPERATION ANTHROPOID:-


The operation was given the codename (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codename) ANTHROPOID. With the British Special Operations Executive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Executive) (S.O.E), preparation began on 20 October 1941.

On May 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_27), 1942 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1942) at 10:30 AM, Heydrich proceeded on his daily commuting journey from his home in Panenské Břežany to Prague Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Castle). Gabčík and Kubiš waited at the tram stop in the curve near Bulovka hospital. Valčik was positioned about 100 metres north of Gabčík and Kubiš as lookout for the approaching car. As Heydrich’s open-topped Mercedes-Benz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz) neared the pair, Gabčík stepped in front of the vehicle, trying to open fire, but his Sten gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_gun) jammed.

Heydrich ordered his driver, SS-Oberscharführer Klein, to stop the car. When Heydrich stood up to try to shoot Gabčík, Kubiš threw a modified anti-tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank) grenade at the vehicle, and its fragments ripped through the car’s right fender, embedding shrapnel and fibres from the upholstery in Heydrich’s body, even though the grenade failed to enter the car. Kubiš was also injured by the shrapnel. Heydrich, apparently unaware of his shrapnel injuries, got out of the car, returned fire, and tried to chase Gabčík but soon collapsed. Klein returned from his abortive attempt to chase Kubiš, and Heydrich ordered him to chase Gabčík. Klein was shot twice by Gabčík (who was now using his revolver) and wounded in the pursuit. The assassins were initially convinced that the attack had failed.

Connaught Ranger.

[California Joe]

True. Self-defense (in my opinion) wouldn't be considered a murder.

Being dropped into a country after training to specifically assassinate a political figure (no matter how ruthless or horrible) IS a murder, and that is what they committed.

It is not murder, ethically or legally. He was a high value enemy combatant. Period. Get over it and move on. You and a couple of others are arguing semantics and you're wrong. All you've managed to do is derail this thread with your infantile language parsing.

[johanness]

No.2 is only your opinion

And your countrymen were already well engaged in breaking the known "Rules of War" starting with the invasion of Poland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France so on and so forth.
Connaught Ranger.

If you like the way the Nazis fought their wars, feel free to join them.
I myself would like to join the opposite site, even if it means to pay a higher price.

[California Joe]

Are you slow?

[johanness]

Slow on what?

[Narvaresearch]

And your countrymen were already well engaged in breaking the known "Rules of War" starting with the invasion of Poland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France so on and so forth.
Connaught Ranger.

So did the Brits and U.S.S.R (if you mean waging a war of aggression).

[Connaught Ranger]

Slow?, more like dense, it must be something in the air that brings them out in groups :roll:

[Narvaresearch]

Slow?, more like dense, it must be something in the air that brings them out in groups :roll:

Again with the insults? Let's please try to keep that to a minimum. :|