It is too easy to make judgements on others.

We dont know the whole story.

You will see what I mean If we paint a slightly different scenario, what if this man was a resistance fighter forced to watch his colleagues executed in such a manner. Maybe the peaceful life he seeks is from the haunting memories of ambushing and killing the enemy when they were least suspecting it....I would imagine sneaking up on a sentry and slitting his throat would haunt you....however justified it may heave felt at the time...being so close and personal to a living breathing person who may be standing thinking of his family and then ending that persons life....

We would be saying this man was a hero and rightly so

We dont know this mans full story and so we shouldnt judge him....

All i can say on this subject,is that the sound of a live round going over your Head is a sound or sensation that you will never forget,as for Damage to the Human Body..check out www.thenausea.com The kinetic energy released when a high velocity round impacts on flesh and bone is pretty Horrific as i am sure that most Medics will testify to,the basic 600 rounds a minute ww1 M.G. would have acted as a cutting instrument.

Chris.

All I can say to this is that in this case the "victims" had done enough themselves to demean their own memories.

As Gunboat says in the post after yours, it is all to easy to make judgements on others especially when you don't know the full story - which you don't know any, and I know only a (large) percentage.

Sympathy is certainly not wasted on this man. He was as much a victim of war (if not more so) as anyone else. (OK, he didn't die like so many millions - but that wasn't for lack of trying!!!(especially in the 2 decades following the war)

As you said, that's the matter closed for me too. I don't wish to divulge any further information on this man. He reserves his story only for the most deserving and I have no wish to discuss further on this forum. Blinkered views on history are something I cannot abide.


Dave.

I had not intended to answer this post but as you referred to "stereotypes" - strange as you don't know me or anything about me - I will make this LAST post.

I assume you mean Albert Pierrepoint, the judicial executioner and by the ""murderers" of Nuremberg" you refer to either:
1. Those who executed the sentences of the Military Tribunal or
2. Those who were executed

If 1 is the case it confirms for me your apparent political sympathies
If 2 is the case, do you doubt they were murderers? If so refer to the choice for 1. If not, please express yourself more clearly.

For your information Albert Pierrepoint was not involved in the Nuremberg Trials, but executed sentence of death on Josef Kramer and the other Bergen - Belsen criminals. I believe the charge was murder.

Chris C

PS Gunboat - Let's not be naive. I think we can all surmise the type of activities Dave 's contact was involved in - however peripherily - and it sure wasn't resistance.

First of all - many many apologies for missing the "i" out of Pierrepoint - i didn't realise i was sitting a spelling test! (Whoops! - I haven't done capital "I"s on that last sentence - sorry!)

Secondly - you'll notice that my (edited at the same time as your posting) comment on the "murderers of Nuremberg" was tongue in cheek by the "smiley" at the end of the comment. It was a (supposedly) jocular reference to your comment that if someone kills an unarmed man it must be murder.

Thirdly - I don't believe that your accusation (thinly veiled by the use of the word "apparent") upon my political sympathies is really worthy of a response, but I will anyway - I have no political sympathies whatsoever. I am neither pro nor am I anti Nazi, Communist, Royalist, Democrat, Anarchist or whatever. Politics have no interest for me nor have they ever. However, I am extremely broad minded with regards to events of warfare and history and prefer to look at both sides of the coin with all (ok, to tell the truth, I should say "most" rather than "all") events that I study or have an interest in. My total non-alliegence (spelling?), I believe, helps me to see the fuller picture and lets me make my own judgements without prejudice.

Dave

Well, surmising isn't really a precise science is it?

Seeing as you seem to have already condemned the old guy, I'm a little curious - seeing as your judgement is based on next to no evidence whatsoever (and I'm guessing that you've worked out his nationality), what branch of service do you think he served in and what do you think he actually did?

Dave

Nathan...

...My apologies for your thread going off on a tangent . My original post was supposed to provide an example to aid an answer your question - it was not intended as a discussion point in it's own right

Nathan - my apologies too.

I do not consider further discussion useful.

Chris C

Because it was classified as fully jacketed (though like all FMJ of the time there's lead exposed at the tail end where the jacket folds over), nothing was ever raised about it (and believe you me, the Germans would have, if only to claim the moral high ground for themselves) AFAIK.

Yes, the force is drag, but I didn't want to get technical.

The 'fuzzie wuzzie' bullet was the MkIII to MkV, basically a Mk II or Mk VI (215 grains, or about 13.9 grams, moving at around 2000fps) with a hollow point of the sort that hunting bullets have today. When the Hague convention of 1898 made their use morally dubious, they were withdrawn for use in target practice, because targets can't complain.

(It might be added that the addition to any war of a power which is NOT a signatory to these conventions releases ALL the combatants from the legal obligations of the conventions, lest the non-signatory power gain an advantage. The United States is not a signatory power, although it has generally played by the rules. But if it were to decide to use dum-dum bullets and such against enemy/terrorist troops today, for example, anyone who wanted to prosecute it for war crimes on that basis would not have a leg to stand on.)

Pals:

No need to apologize to me. My question was answered early on.
I have been following the tangent but have decided not to join in. The question is vexed, especially when the information comes from what are now generally old and courtly gentlemen.

When I was writing my book The Battle of the St. Lawrence: The Second World War in Canada, which tells the story of the U-boats that entered Canada's largest river killing 367 men, women and children, I interviewed several U-boat veterans. All were very helpful on technical matters. There were a few, however, who late in our discussions suddenly -- and without any prompting on my part -- began asserting not just that the U-boat force was "apolitical" (a debatable point given the Donitz and his seconds were all good Nazi party members) but that the problem was really caused by the Jews who just did not understand that "we just did not want them around." In one case this occured over drinks in one of Toronto's finest bars; I could only respond by reminding the 85 + year old man across the table from me that I am Jewish and that the events to which he was referring were such that he had to find a way to live with himself in the decades since.

Thus, let me bring this thread to an end by again thanking the Pals for the information about how far bullets can travel through various substances.

Interesting , Nathan. I have not seen this book. Is it available in the UK?
Chris C

An excellent little website posted on another forum:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot7.htm
American gent fires at a wide variety of materials. Water, sand, books etc. A non-scientific but interesting investigation of penetration without having to do hard sums. The weapons are not WW1 vintage, (some are older, some similar) but instructive nonetheless.
Cheers,