Six dead in Quebec City mosque shooting

[Karl]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-mosque-shooting-idUSKBN15E04S

Canada - which isn't bothering anybody. All terrorists, no matter what their cause, are idiots. Their activities only serve to increase sympathy for their enemies. The only times terrorism actually works is in cases such as WWII, where specific attacks would be made in coordination with the Allies. But even in WWII, most partisan/resistance attacks were completely counterproductive, causing retaliation against the civilian population with no net gain.

[Mayerling]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ca...-idUSKBN15E04S

Canada - which isn't bothering anybody. All terrorists, no matter what their cause, are idiots. Their activities only serve to increase sympathy for their enemies. The only times terrorism actually works is in cases such as WWII, where specific attacks would be made in coordination with the Allies. But even in WWII, most partisan/resistance attacks were completely counterproductive, causing retaliation against the civilian population with no net gain.

You are right Karl, although with the Nazi regime (and the Japanese militarist one) you could look cross-eyed and there would be retaliation against the civilian population. The best recalled partisan attack was the killing of Reinhard Heydritch in Prague in 1942, and it led to the leveling of Lidice and other towns, and the killing of the males (including children) in them. Interesting thing is I still think the killing was justified, given what a "wonderful" person was the target. But the experiment (given full cooperation by Churchill) was never repeated.

Jeff

[Karl]

You are right Karl, although with the Nazi regime (and the Japanese militarist one) you could look cross-eyed and there would be retaliation against the civilian population. The best recalled partisan attack was the killing of Reinhard Heydritch in Prague in 1942, and it led to the leveling of Lidice and other towns, and the killing of the males (including children) in them. Interesting thing is I still think the killing was justified, given what a "wonderful" person was the target. But the experiment (given full cooperation by Churchill) was never repeated.

Jeff

Interestingly enough, collective punishment was not covered by the Geneva Convention until 1949, thereby making reprisals against the civilian population legal in principle up until that point.

It should also be noted that itchiness of German trigger fingers varied greatly depending on just who the local population was. We had it fairly easy in Norway, as did Denmark, the Low Countries and France - certainly when compared with Poland or Russia. The reasons were two-fold, and each reinforced the other: Slavs were considered inferior, untrustworthy, and so were treated more harshly from the get-go. This motivated a more bitter resistance - which in turn made the Germans even more wary of them. The Slavs had more reason to hate the Germans, and did not mind giving the Germans good cause to hate them back. Hate begets hate.

The soldiers of the Wehrmacht were issued pamphlets for how to conduct themselves with the civilian population in the various countries they occupied - a different pamphlet for each country. This is how the Norwegian one started:

"Each belonging to the Wehrmacht must be conscious that he is not in enemy territory, but that our troops are moving into Norway to protect the country and its population."

I imagine the Russian pamphlet to have quite a different introduction.

[Mayerling]

Interestingly enough, collective punishment was not covered by the Geneva Convention until 1949, thereby making reprisals against the civilian population legal in principle up until that point.

It should also be noted that itchiness of German trigger fingers varied greatly depending on just who the local population was. We had it fairly easy in Norway, as did Denmark, the Low Countries and France - certainly when compared with Poland or Russia. The reasons were two-fold, and each reinforced the other: Slavs were considered inferior, untrustworthy, and so were treated more harshly from the get-go. This motivated a more bitter resistance - which in turn made the Germans even more wary of them. The Slavs had more reason to hate the Germans, and did not mind giving the Germans good cause to hate them back. Hate begets hate.

The soldiers of the Wehrmacht were issued pamphlets for how to conduct themselves with the civilian population in the various countries they occupied - a different pamphlet for each country. This is how the Norwegian one started:

"Each belonging to the Wehrmacht must be conscious that he is not in enemy territory, but that our troops are moving into Norway to protect the country and its population."

I imagine the Russian pamphlet to have quite a different introduction.

Churchill was still talking about such support actions and "quick response" justice in 1945. He did not think the Nuremburg Trials were so hot (presumably for the same reason Senator Robert Taft didn't in the U.S.)- not out of any love for the Nazis on trial (or the Japanese at the corresponding Tokyo War Crime Trials), but it set a precedent that in the future could be turned on the leaders of any government that lost a war. Churchill wondered why people like Goering and Von Ribbentrop were not shot on sight (seriously), as it would serve a quick purpose. Of course the issue becomes, doesn't such action make one see them as murder victims? The trials had to occur to show what these characters had done.

Those pamphlets sound interesting. The key to such relatively "nicer" treatment was the level of cooperation in the occupied country. With the regime of Vichy France or of Quisling led Norway the government involved was bound to be friendlier towards Nazi goals. As I mention Quisling, I should mention that while he did cooperate, he was soon by-passed by the Nazis when they realized how small his political base really was. He really did become a figure-head type. Another example would be the Rexists in Belgium.

Jeff