soc.history.war.world-war-ii

Andrew Clark wrote:
> "brandon" wrote
>
> > With the exception if using poison gas (like Mussolini) the British
> > used every bit of "fascist" act to police the empire. Taking hostages,
> > public executions, public flogging, bombing rebel villages and
> > inflicting civilian casualities - all these were done.
>
> The British were entitled under international law to maintain order and
> suppress any unrest in British controlled territories and none of these
> measures were illegal.

Excellent. This is the exact defence proposed by Jodl at the Nuremberg
trials when confronted by question of taking hostages, reprisal
killings etc. He quoted the same international law. Poor Jodl, he
would have been made a good British colonial administrator!! You have
shown, with your own words, there is no difference between Nazi
occupation and British colonialsm (at least in the mentality).

You who will not tolerate the Nazis to do these things on British
people if they occupied that country (there is nothing illegal in that
occupation since Britain first declared war on Germany), come here and
glibly talk about "international law" when killing other country's
people. It is a good thing this empire went to the rubbish dump of
history with a whimper. Today it exists only in the mind of armchair
sympathizers who spout "international law" and turn a blind eye, and
then hang the Nazis for putting up the same defence.