Souveniers taken from the dead in time of war

[salesie]

That makes more sense, Des, I thought it seemed rather draconian.

Cheers - salesie.

[Pete1052]

Let's not take this thread into a morbid direction, most professional soldiers are a force for good in the world, not firing squads for the execution of malfactors. Yeah, we blow criminals away, but only if they really, really, really deserve it.

[Beau Geste]

Let's not take this thread into a morbid direction, most professional soldiers are a force for good in the world, not firing squads for the execution of malfactors. Yeah, we blow criminals away, but only if they really, really, really deserve it.

You're right of course Pete, most professional soldiers are a 'force for good'. However, the thrust of this thread is taking from the dead in time of war. Most of the postings have focused on taking from those who have been killed in battle and the consensus of opinion, has been that this has always been a feature of war and is "understandable and acceptable" for a variety of reasons that have been spelt out very clearly indeed.

Very little has emerged though on the really "morbid" (if I can use your term) aspects of the subject: the actual killing of a wounded adversary for the purpose of robbing him or the stealing from the injured by people in a position of trust (for example a stretcher bearer employed in carrying a wounded colleague to an aid station).

My "feeling" Pete is that this was a relatively rare phenomenon and for the reason you mention ("soldiers are a force for good"). By all accounts though it did happen. Has anyone who is involved or interested in this thread come across any 'evidence' of this activity ?

Kind regards,

Harry

[PBI]

A very Good Friend of Mine who was Captured at Arnhem in 1944 has told me on Numerous Occasions that as He and other POWs were being Searched by German and Dutch Volunteers,that these Troops started taking Watches,Rings,Wallets,etc from The POWS..anyone who refused to part with their possessions,was simply Shot on the Spot and Their Possessions taken anyway.The Final Indignity was that the Germans and their Helpers removed the Dead mens Identity Discs and Destroyed them,and informed The Surviving POWs that they had done this to ensure that these Dead men would remain Unknown for ever !

[Beau Geste]

A very Good Friend of Mine who was Captured at Arnhem in 1944 has told me on Numerous Occasions that as He and other POWs were being Searched by German and Dutch Volunteers,that these Troops started taking Watches,Rings,Wallets,etc from The POWS..anyone who refused to part with their possessions,was simply Shot on the Spot and Their Possessions taken anyway.The Final Indignity was that the Germans and their Helpers removed the Dead mens Identity Discs and Destroyed them,and informed The Surviving POWs that they had done this to ensure that these Dead men would remain Unknown for ever !

Good God !

Harry

[Desdichado]

Let's not take this thread into a morbid direction, most professional soldiers are a force for good in the world, not firing squads for the execution of malfactors. Yeah, we blow criminals away, but only if they really, really, really deserve it.

I shan't disagree with you there Pete but I was trying to broach the topic of taking property from dead civilians or those who had fled the fighting leaving their personal effects behind. To my way of thinking, it is closely related to the original topic of looting the corpses of both friend and foe and of murdering comrades or prisoners for their possessions. As for executing malefactors, many of those men who were executed for civil offences after being covicted by courts-martial, would not have received the death sentence in a civil criminal court.

[Beau Geste]

I shan't disagree with you there Pete but I was trying to broach the topic of taking property from dead civilians or those who had fled the fighting leaving their personal effects behind. To my way of thinking, it is closely related to the original topic of looting the corpses of both friend and foe and of murdering comrades or prisoners for their possessions.

Hello Des,

I agree. What you have suggested is an area that hasn't yet been explored on this thread. It is, as you say, as relevant as anything we've discussed so far and for that reason I would welcome postings that provide evidence on this sort of behaviour.

Thank you for suggesting it.

Kind regards,

Harry

[Desdichado]

PBI, I hadn't heard that before about the prisoners at Arnhem although they were captured by the SS. I've read a few books on that battle, notably A Bridge Too Far by Cornelius Ryan and he doesn't mention anything like what you have described. In fact, one source told him that the German commanding officer - Von Bittrich, gave chocolate (English) and cigarettes (also English) to the captured British. Is your friend Polish because I believe the SS meted out rough treatment to the Polish paras that were captured at Arnhem?

I think I may have mentioned this previously but it was common for German civilians to steal from the bodies of dead aircrew who had been shot down. RAF rollneck sweaters and thick socks were prized items as were the rations carried. Airmen were fair game too for the Gestapo who executed them without compunction.

Regards,

Des

[Desdichado]

Harry,

There is much evidence of German troops looting and killing Belgian civilians. After the war, a Belgian jurist, Professor Leon van der Eseen produced an official report on the sacking of Louvain in 1914. The Germans also lost control in the town of Huy which promped the German commander to issue the following Order of the Day:

August 25, 1914

Last night shooting took place. It has not been proved that the inhabitants of the town were still in possession of arms. Nor has it been proved that the civil population took part in the shooting; on the contrary, it would seem that the soldiers were under the influence of alcohol and opened fire under an incomprehensible fear of an enemy attack.

The conduct of the soldiers during the night produces a shameful impression, with a few exceptions.

When officers or non-commissioned officers set fire to houses, without permission or order from the commandant, or in the present case from the senior officer, and when they encourage the troops by their attitude to burn and loot, it is an act of the most regrettable kind.

I expect severe instructions to be given generally as to the attitude towards the life and property of the civil population. I forbid firing in the town without officers' orders.

The bad conduct of the troops has had as its result the serious wounding of a non-commissioned officer and a soldier by German shots.

VON BASSEWITZ, Major,

Commandant

I can post some more excerpts from the Professor's report on here if you like as it reaches some interesting conclusions.

Regards - Des

[Beau Geste]

Harry,

I can post some more excerpts from the Professor's report on here if you like as it reaches some interesting conclusions.

Regards - Des

Please do Des. You are a great help.

Harry

[Desdichado]

This is a fairly complex subject and so a bit of background is needed. The German army entered Louvain on August 19th, 1914. The civilian population were compelled to hand over provisions for the troops without payment. Belgian hostages were taken and were housed in the town hall, being made responsible for the actions of their fellow citizens. They were not ill-treated. The clergy was co-opted into issuing German proclamations asking the populace to take no action against the occupying troops.

"The troops which reached the town the following week, however, seemed to be animated by a violently anti-clerical spirit. They followed the priests who showed themselves in public with buffoonery, insults, and even threats. They were also very excitable. One day, when a municipal official was taken through the town, preceded by soldiers with drums, and forced to read a proclamation, the Germans hurried up at once from all sides in the hopes of seeing a civilian executed."

The trouble began later when the German spearhead moved on and other soldiers moved in, just in time to face a Belgian attack. The Germans formed up and marched out to meet the threat. The town felt silent although the guns could be heard in the distance. However, at about 8.00pm, the sound of gunfire was heard in the town itself.

"Those who had ventured to go up to their upper stories or attics soon saw the heavens reddened with a dreadful light. The Germans had set fire to several quarters of the town - the Chaussee and Boulevard de Tirlemont, the Place and Rue de la Station, and the Place du Peuple.

Soon, too, the Palais de justice, the University with the celebrated Library, and the Church of St.Pierre were ablaze, systematically set on fire with fagots and chemicals. Through the streets the German soldiers were running like madmen, firing in every direction.

Under the orders of their officers, they smashed in the doors of the houses, dragged the inmates from their hiding-places, with cries of "Man hat geschossen! Die Zivilisten haben geschossen!" (There has been firing! Civilians have fired!), and hurled hand-grenades and incendiary pastilles into the rooms.

Several of the inmates were haled out and instantly shot. Those who tried to escape from their burning houses were thrust back into the flames or butchered like dogs by the soldiers, who were watching along the pavements, with their fingers on the triggers of their rifles.

From several of the houses the officers had the objects of value taken out before giving the order to burn them. Every one who showed himself in the street was shot down. In the Rue de la Station an officer on horseback, bursting with rage, was directing the incendiaries.

In the morning certain of the inhabitants, who had passed the night in their cellars or their gardens, ventured to go out. They then learnt that the Germans pretended that a plot had been hatched amongst them, that there had been firing on the troops, and that the whole responsibility for what had happened was thrown on the civilians.

From dawn squadrons of soldiers entered the houses, searched them from top to bottom, and turned out the inhabitants, forcing them towards the station. The poor wretches were compelled to run with their hands uplifted. They were given blows with the fists and with rifle-butts.

Soon a large number of townspeople were collected in the Place de la Station, where dead bodies of civilians were lying on the ground. During the night a certain number of people had been shot, without serious inquiry. While they were being hustled along, the townspeople were searched by officers and soldiers, and their money was taken from them (some officers gave a receipt in return), as well as any objects of value."

This is a short excerpt from Professor van der Essen's report. After it was published, the Germans issued an official response (of which I have a copy) putting the blame on the Belgians for shooting at the Germans in the first place. In Louvain, women and young girls were raped and clergymen executed by being thrown alive down a well.

I'll post this for starters to see what the response is and I will be happy to expound on this subject although I think it deviates somewhat from the original topic.

Regards

Des

[Beau Geste]

I'll post this for starters to see what the response is and I will be happy to expound on this subject although I think it deviates somewhat from the original topic.

Regards

Des

Thank you Des. Horrific ! As you say though it has deviated from the purpose of the thread: to study the looting of the dead during war. This focuses on the bestial actions of an occupying power but doesn't really say why it occurred. Was there evidence of looting especially associated with the horrific murders described?

Bob Lembke appears to be the Forum's expert on Germany's involvement in the Great War. Hopefully he will read this and respond.

Have a great New Year's Eve Des and the same to all of you who have been following this thread. "See you" in the New Year.

God bless,

Harry

[Desdichado]

Harry,

The Germans thought that they were being shot at by Belgian civilians, although there was no hard evidence for this. Professor van der Essen's report seems to me to exonerate the Germans somewhat by stating that they reacted to what they thought was an armed insurrection. The official German reply takes the position that the Germans were justified.

Civilians were robbed by German soldiers before the alleged shootings. The report does not say whether the dead were robbed but the living certainly were and I must conclude that in the general atmosphere that prevailed in Louvain, corpses were not exempt.

Happy New Year Harry and to all pals on the forum.

Des

[salesie]

It would seem, from the professor's full report, that nervous German troops initiated the violence by firing on themselves in the dark, and gave the teutonic brain a "valid"reason to simply run amok to murder, rape, loot and pillage - full judicial report can be read here: http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/louvai...icialreport.htm

It would also seem, from reading the German Foreign Minister's response, that all of this was the Belgian civilians own fault and that German soldiers were acting well within the law and therefore their rights. I won't comment directly on this as I'm well known for my views on a certain member's attempts to put the vast majority of, if not all of, the atrocities commited by those soldiers who came from his ancestral homeland to be nothing more than allied propaganda, and I don't wish to elaborate on my complete and utter contempt for such actions by so-called professional and highly disciplined troops, except to say, if they lost control that easily then there's no wonder they eventually lost to our so-called "contemptible amateurs".

Louvain - Official Statement by the German Minister of State, Addressed to the United States Government

by Gottlieb von Jagow

Long ago the Belgian Government had organized an insurrection of the people against the invasion of the enemy. Some stores of arms had been established, and upon each gun was the name of the citizen who was to use it.

Since the Hague Conference it has been recognized, at the request of the little powers, that an insurrection of the people is in conformity with international law, if weapons are carried openly and the laws of war respected.

Such an insurrection, however, could be organized only to combat an enemy who invaded the country. At Louvain, on the other hand, the city had already surrendered and the population had then abandoned all resistance. The city was occupied by German troops.

Nevertheless the population attacked from all sides the German garrison and the troops who were in the act of entering the city, by opening upon them a murderous fire. Because the attitude of the population was obviously pacific these troops arrived at Louvain by railroad and autos.

In the present case, then, there is no question of a measure of defence in conformity with international law, nor an admissible ruse of war; but it was a traitorous attack on the part of the civilian population.

This attack is the more unjustifiable because it has been proved that it had been planned long before and was to have taken place at the same time as the sortie from Antwerp. The weapons were not carried openly. Some women and young girls took part in the combat, and gouged out the eyes of the wounded.

The barbarous acts of the Belgian people in almost all the territories occupied by the German troops have not only justified the most severe reprisals on the part of the German military authorities but have even compelled the latter to order them for safeguarding the troops.

The intensity of the resistance of the population is proved by the fact that it took our troops twenty-four hours to overcome the attacks by the inhabitants of Louvain.

In the course of these combats the city of Louvain has been destroyed in large part by a conflagration which broke out after the explosion of a convoy of benzine, and this explosion was occasioned by shots fired during the battle.

The Imperial Government is the first to deplore this unfortunate result, which was in no way intentional. Nevertheless, because of the acts of the francs-tireurs, it was impossible to avoid such an outcome.

Moreover, any one who knows the conciliatory character of the German soldier could not seriously assert that he has been led to act in such a manner without serious provocation.

Under these circumstances the Belgian people, who respect neither right nor law, bear all the responsibility, in conjunction with the Belgian Government, which, with a criminal nonchalance, has given to the people orders contrary to international law by inciting them to resistance, and which, in spite of reiterated warnings by the German authorities, did nothing, after the capture of Liege, to induce the people to take a pacific attitude.

Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. II, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

Cheers - salesie.

[bob lembke]

Thank you Des. Horrific ! As you say though it has deviated from the purpose of the thread: to study the looting of the dead during war. This focuses on the bestial actions of an occupying power but doesn't really say why it occurred. Was there evidence of looting especially associated with the horrific murders described?

Bob Lembke appears to be the Forum's expert on Germany's involvement in the Great War. Hopefully he will read this and respond.

Harry

Hi, Harry!

I will pick up the thankless task. In a coincidence, last night I discovered another postcard from my grandfather from Belgium, and was translating it this afternoon. (His German script is very hard to translate, for several reasons, including the fact that he largely wrote in an older type of script than the well-known Suetterlin). Last night I also found another postcard of his from Russia in 1915. Both PCs have great photos of him, with map-case, sword, automatic pistol, his Iron Crosses, Pickelhaube, etc.

I did a search in abebooks, among their perhaps 80 million books, for all books written by "van der Essen" (not "Eseen"), and I got 195 hits, all sorts of books, and most were by a Leon, published in English, French, Dutch, all sorts of books. however, many were on Belgium and most of those on WW I. There were books by a "Leon" from the 1940's, so perhaps a son, or reprints. There also was at least one war-time pamphlet.

These books included a "Short History of Belgium" published in English in Chicago in 1915 and 1916, and perhaps in 1920. There was a "Short History of the German Invasion and Occupation in Belgium" (trans.) published in 1917 in French in Paris. There was a short pamphlet entitled, I think (this was from a xeroxed collection of pamphlets for sale, n. d.) "The Destruction of the Louvain - The Culmination of German Militrism - August 25-27, 1914". Also, a book published in Paris in French in 1917 entitled, I believe (my notes are a bit sketchy) "The German Invasion of Belgium". Also a book or two on Belgium published in Dutch in the Nederlands during the war.

So all or most of his production on Belgium and WW I seems to be war-time production, 1915, 1916, 1917, in multiple languages. As I doubt that he was living in Holland, France, and Chicago and writing in multiple languages, I surmise that he was actively working on the production of the tidal wave of war-time propaganda being ground out by the Allies. Some of the above books were not published by reputable publishers; for example, the 1915-16 Chicago book was "privately printed".

Anyone have an actual proper citation for this "post-war judicial study"?

Leon van der Essen was described as a "Professor", but of the 185 books, mostly by our Leon, none seemed to be any sort of book on law. "Professor" in Europe can be all sorts of things; I have a friend who was a PT teacher in a Jugoslav police academy, he was a "Professor".

Now, it is possible that there is another book by him that is not found in the abebooks inventory. But I think that you guys are citing the 1923 book published in the US by the National Alumna, or whatever. Has anyone actually held that book? (I think that it is at least 2 volumes.) I have, in a fine used book store, and it is a US compellation of wildly biased war-time propaganda. Its publication after the war is a mystery, as almost all production of that material halted abruptly in 1918. I did a study of books on Belgium and the war, and hundreds were published from 1914 to 1918 (tapering off in 1917 and 1918; after all, the US was in the war), and almost nothing was published on the topic in the 85-90 years since 1918.

I am not a serious student on whatever happened in Belgium in 1914, aside from how it is related to my grand-father's activities there. However, I know enough that this is a difficult topic to study, especially due to the extensive Allied program of manufacturing propaganda, especially to strengthen Allied - US/Canadian bonds and eventually US entry into the war. I do know that a fair amount of the supposed events posted clearly are fabrications. For example, German infantry in 1914 did not have hand grenades. (Did the Tommies?) A limited number of Pionier units had a few, possibly only Pionier siege trains. Also, those "incinderary lozenges" often cited in the Allied atrocity stories seem to be a complete and elaborate fabrication; I could write pages proving this. (I am writing two books on German incenderary weapons of WW I, and have a collection of Pionier manuals from before and during WW I.)

I am 68 and am writing or plan to write about eight books before I croak. I cannot take 2-3 years to even half get to the bottom of this question. Almost all of the actual source materials are in French, Dutch, and German (I read all three, Dutch fairly poorly), almost no primary sources in English. If you sit about and simply read English-language war-time propaganda (which might be true, but probably is not) material, you have no idea about what actually went on. There is a big division on this question between the Walloon and Flemish Belgians. I watched a couple of years ago when a Belgian expert, who works well in six languages, is the author of several books on WW I (I have a 400 page book in Dutch of his in the next room), has many other qualifications and assets, including an amazing library, engagte in an arguement about what actually happened in Louvain with a Brit who gave no evidence of being able to read any of the sources, but clearly felt that he knew more than the Belgian, who, incidentally, is also an alumnis of the University of Louvain! But the belgian was so badly handled that he generally will not post on this forum any more.

I know that I am pompous and a know-it-all. I also am a Tutophile, but I still strive to be as objective as possible. We all have our nationalistic baggage. But let's try to look at this difficult topic as objectively as possible, and examine every source critically. This topic in particular needs careful methodology.

A few comments. The general tone on this Forum is very good, the vast majority of us are fair-minded. I deeply appreciate the many research kindnesses extended to me by many UK Pals. I in turn have helped Pals, for example, in tracking down their Hunnish ancestors and relatives, or helping with research questions on the Hunnish side of the coin.

Incidentally I will happily admit that my grand-father's letters from Belgium mention shooting good numbers of Belgians seemingly caught firing on German troops. His letters frequently detail being fired on in urban areas, with his brother officers in particular being sniped. He also detailed Belgian atrocities, such as raiding a German first-aid post in the next village to his location and murdering 43 wounded German soldiers in the aid post. The family oral history cites him having to dive under his staff car for shelter from urban sniper fire. I might also mention that I read a lot of French-language sources, and they often boast about francs-tireur activity, civilians firing on uniformed Germans, in 1870 as well as in 1914. You can't have it both ways. (I assume that these French passages do not pop up in the English-language material some of you must be reading.) There seems to have been a serious cultural question here. (Where are the sociologists when we need them?)

Should we go further here? Do we need more detailed explainations of the fabrications in the above posts? I don't especially want to, but will oblige if asked. We are OT here. But I am an OT crusader, a "soldier of story".

I also have material on the Nazi flying saucer bases in Antartica during WW II. Any interest? It is in writing and on the Internet, it must be true.

Incidentally, we have recently been discussing the excellent book by Dr. Dunn, the Brit MO; The War the Infantry Knew or close to that. Dunn (and many other British officers) repeatedly gave the opinion in their memoirs that they felt that the war-time "German Rape of Belgium" stories were propaganda rubbish.

Bob Lembke

[Desdichado]

Bob, Leon van der Essen, Ph.D, LL.D, was a professor of history at Louvain University.

[Jim_Grundy]

Apologies if the book I'm about to refer to has already been mentioned but what seems to me to be a definitive account of what took place in France & Belgium during the first months of the war is, "German Atrocities 1914. A History of Denial" by John Horne and Alan Kramer, Yale University Press, New Haven & London (2001).

This book sets out what took place chronologically by village/town, the units involved and the number, gender and age of civilian victims of the German invasion, including an assessement of whether what took place was 'action related' or not. The book does not seek to demonise the Germans and achieves balance by investigating just how exaggerated stories were played upon by Allied propogandists but what cannot be denied is that very many innocent Belgian and French civilians were killed by German troops, some of whom met their fates as part of a deliberate policy of terrorising the local population.

In any event, I hope no-one believes that 'their' troops were incapable of similar behaviour. Sadly, history and experience teaches us that no army is free from what are in today's euphemistic terms described as 'excesses'.

Jim

[salesie]

Bob, there is no doubt that allied propaganda exaggerated the "rape of Belgium" but this exaggeration was not, as you would have us believe, all encompassing. Even the German Minister of State, Gottlieb von Jagow, confirmed in his statement to the U.S. government that severe reprisals against Belgian civilians were carried out i.e. "The barbarous acts of the Belgian people in almost all the territories occupied by the German troops have not only justified the most severe reprisals on the part of the German military authorities but have even compelled the latter to order them for safeguarding the troops." Jagow, of course, justifies these "most severe reprisals" on the grounds of international law and self-defence - it is the Belgians themselves who are the law breakers! If a teutonic brain thought them "most severe", when trying to play down these acts. then how bad must they have been in reality?

Also, civilian shootings are confirmed by your grandfather's letters, I quote, "Incidentally I will happily admit that my grand-father's letters from Belgium mention shooting good numbers of Belgians seemingly caught firing on German troops....The family oral history cites him having to dive under his staff car for shelter from urban sniper fire." I'm desperately trying to avoid being churlish, Bob - ah what the hell; I'm a Yorkshireman, churlishness is in my blood - it's a pity they missed, Bob.

I will use an American expression to end with, before my temper gets the better of me - "Go tell it to the marines, Bob."

Cheers - salesie.

[salesie]

Jim, you're quite right to say that no troops, whatever their nationality, are immune to such behaviour - but shouldn't we also mention that the British army, since Wellington's time, have at least tried, convicted and punished some of their miscreants, sometimes going as far as to execute their own for such crimes?

Cheers - salesie.

[Jim_Grundy]

You're quite right, salesie, that the British army has punished wrong-doers. I'm always reminded of what took place in Badajoz and Harry Smith's experiences there but that doesn't mean that hanging a few individuals made everything ok.

I think it is worth bearing in mind that the Allied use of the 'Rape of Belgium' was so over the top (understandably so perhaps, given the circumstances) that many thought stories coming out of Germany and German-occupied lands about the treatment of the Jews was another piece of Allied propaganda. The problem, in the context of this debate, is that what took place in history is used to characterise nations and peoples today. You can see that in the difficulty some people today have in accepting what was done under their flag (and some Brits aren't good at that either - we didn't get a world empire through afternoon tea and cricket). An illustration of that is the Turkish attitude towards the Armenian genocide.

No-one wants to think of their antecedents doing nasty things but that was in different times and by different people, not the 'us' or 'them' of current generations. A friend of mine once told me how amazed he was that I didn't have a problem that his Dad, a Ukranian, had served with the Waffen-SS. Even if his Dad was the worst war criminal ever to come out of Kiev, it didn't make his son one!

Jim

[salesie]

Of course, Jim, the son is not responsible for his father's crimes - but I would ask this, did the son try to "excuse" his father's crimes on the grounds that his father was himself just a victim, a victim of allied propaganda?

Cheers - salesie.

[Jim_Grundy]

No, salsie, he didn't.

If anything, his imagination went into overdrive filling in what he did not know. He knew nothing about his father's time in WW2 other than the fact that he was in the Waffen SS, ergo he was a murderer, and he clearly felt guilty about that. Perhaps his reaction is not so different, albeit a mirror image, of those who struggle even to accept the possibility of a relative participating in war crimes. But I'm getting into dodgy Frasier Crane thinking and I don't want to go there!

Cheers,

Jim

[Beau Geste]

Also, civilian shootings are confirmed by your grandfather's letters, I quote, "Incidentally I will happily admit that my grand-father's letters from Belgium mention shooting good numbers of Belgians seemingly caught firing on German troops....The family oral history cites him having to dive under his staff car for shelter from urban sniper fire." I'm desperately trying to avoid being churlish, Bob - ah what the hell; I'm a Yorkshireman, churlishness is in my blood - it's a pity they missed, Bob.

I will use an American expression to end with, before my temper gets the better of me - "Go tell it to the marines, Bob."

Cheers - salesie.

Gentlemen please !

In a recent posting on a Skindles thread that I introduced about a week ago ("Qualifications to become a mod") Siege Gunner was kind enough to say "compliments incidentally to our thread starter for his attentive shepherding of his own threads."

That compliment came to mind this morning when I read, for the first time, the comments made by some Forum members on another Skindles thread that discussed the reasons why mruk had received a life ban for a PM he sent to a member of the moderating team. I have to say that some of the comments posted by former "pals" of mruk depressed me mainly because they targeted a person who was in no position to answer back and defend himself. I'm not concerned here with the rights and wrongs of that decision. On the contrary, I think that David Benjamin would be the first to admit that he gave Chris no option but to expel him from The Forum. For reasons best known to himself, the behaviour of others incensed mruk to the point where he felt he had no option but to let fly. I can understand that even while I regret Dave's "passing". He helped me greatly and was always friendly, courteous and knowledgeable when we conversed.

The point I'm making is that that situation might never have evolved had the threads in question been properly "shepherded."

The emotion that was evident in the incident described above has, to some extent, begun to manifest itself again here. I can empathise with both points of view and I agree, they are areas that need to be discussed, but please gentlemen, can we do this in a less emotive and aggressive manner.

Kind regards,

Harry

[SiegeGunner]

A friend of mine once told me how amazed he was that I didn't have a problem that his Dad, a Ukranian, had served with the Waffen-SS.

30th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, by any chance?

[Jim_Grundy]

[quote 30th Waffen SS Grenadier Division, by any chance?

Sorry, Siege Gunner, don't know. He referred to it as the 'Galician Division'. Not sure if they're one and the same unit.

Jim