The guillotine in Nazi Germany
brandon
http://www.theguillotine.info/articles/outside.php
"The Nazis employed it extensively: twenty guillotines were in use in
Germany which, from 1938, included Austria. In Nazi Germany beheading
by guillotine was the usual method of executing convicted criminals as
opposed to political enemies, who were usually either hanged or shot.
An exception would be the six members of the White Rose anti-Nazi
resistance organization, who were beheaded on February 22, 1943. The
Nazis have been estimated to have guillotined some 40,000 people in
Germany and Austria; possibly more than were beheaded during the
French Revolution"
Michael Emrys
brandon at brando...@yahoo.com wrote on 7/3/08 8:14 AM:
> The Nazis have been estimated to have guillotined some 40,000 people in
> Germany and Austria;
Everything you could have possibly wanted to know and much, much, much more:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35191
Michael
Mike Piacente
people face up so the last thing they saw was the blade coming down.
"brandon" <brando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eaaa7fd7-c2f8-486f...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
brandon
40,000 people were executed with guillotine by the Nazis. Each
guillotine execution requires some formality and the need for expert
executioner, rather than being shot or gassed.
Dave Wilma
> The
> Nazis have been estimated to have guillotined some 40,000 people in
> Germany and Austria; possibly more than were beheaded during the
> French Revolution"
The figure for the Reign of Terror was something like 2,800 to the
"National Razor."
Don Phillipson
> Each guillotine execution requires some formality and the need for expert
> executioner, rather than being shot or gassed.
I do not see the basis of these points. The point of the
guillotine is that it "routinizes" death, because (so long
as the machine works OK, viz. severs head from body)
every individual dies in exactly the same way.
1. No "expertise" is required beyond placing the victim's
head into the fitment that secures it (done extra fast in
the French guillotine by fastening the victim first to a
tilt booard.)
2. No physician's opinion is required to certify death.
3. No skill at arms is required by contrast with the
firing squad (which must aim at a small target and hit it.)
4. Death is practically instantantaneous (unlike the gas
chamber.)
We probably agree "formality" is an imprecise word.
The main point of the guillotine is that it works fast
and always kills fast (without sensible pain and
without non-lethal wounding) as was Dr. Guillotine's
humane intention.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
eyeball
> I read in a book (title forgotten) long ago that the Gestapo used to behead
> people face up so the last thing they saw was the blade coming down.
>
What I had heard was they threw you on in either direction, as they
really didn't care what your last sight was as long as you were dead.
Sounds about right for them...
Michael Emrys
mpia...@comcast.net wrote on 7/4/08 9:52 AM:
> ...the Gestapo used to behead people face up so the last thing they saw was
> the blade coming down.
IIRC, this was discussed in that page I linked to, though you may have to do
a lot of reading to find the exact mention. ISTR that there were bright
lights used to blind the victim from seeing the blade. I also STR that the
face-up position was done for some reason other than to terrorize the victim
but I forget what that was just now. It's been 8 or 9 months since I read
that discussion and it was not in any case something that I desired to dwell
on.
Michael
Beachcomber
wrote:
Here is a good link from the Plötzensee Memorial Center (Plotzensee
Prison) outside of Berlin that attempts to describe what these victims
went through. Apparently, volunteer executioners were easy to obtain
as the Nazis paid "by the head", so-to-speak.
http://www.gedenkstaette-ploetzensee.de/index_e.html
Along with the accounts of the German atrocities in WWI and WW2, its
just about the most depressing thing I've ever read. It really makes
you wonder what kind of people would cut off the head of a 17 year old
teenage boy or young woman for the "crime" of distributing anti-Nazi
leaflets.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> I do not see the basis of these points. The point of the
> guillotine is that it "routinizes" death, because (so long
> as the machine works OK, viz. severs head from body)
> every individual dies in exactly the same way.
> 1. No "expertise" is required beyond placing the victim's
> head into the fitment that secures it (done extra fast in
> the French guillotine by fastening the victim first to a
> tilt booard.)
> 2. No physician's opinion is required to certify death.
> 3. No skill at arms is required by contrast with the
> firing squad (which must aim at a small target and hit it.)
> 4. Death is practically instantantaneous (unlike the gas
> chamber.)
> We probably agree "formality" is an imprecise word.
> The main point of the guillotine is that it works fast
> and always kills fast (without sensible pain and
> without non-lethal wounding) as was Dr. Guillotine's
> humane intention.
The one huge drawback of the guillotine is that it is
incredibly messy.
Rich Rostrom
>It really makes you wonder what kind of people would cut off the head
>of a 17 year old teenage boy or young woman for the "crime" of
>distributing anti-Nazi leaflets.
Well, if one is a loyal German, who has a
son serving in the Army, defending Germany
against the terror-bombers and the Red Army,
then these people, who are working to undermine
morale and subvert the leadership of the armed
struggle, are traitors who are trying to get
your son killed and the country destroyed.
I will make a rather controversial analogy here.
One may see, here and there nowadays, the slogan
Rope. Tree. Journalist. Some assembly required.
This comes of the belief that a lot of "mainstream"
journalists are unhealthily eager and uncritical
about reporting stories that make American troops
look bad (such as atrocity claims) - even outright
frauds concocted by terrorist associates, thereby
helping incite attacks on American troops. I'm not
saying this is true (though I think there is a basis
to it) - but if it was true, the reaction encompassed
by the slogan is understandable.
--
| People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a |
| million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong |
| with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman |
Beachcomber
Examples of atrocities may be found in all wars if you look hard
enough and on all sides.
I know a lot of Germans who feel otherwise, but you just might get
some argument over whether the British and American bomber campaigns
over Germany were considered to be "war crimes" with the crews being
labeled as "terror bombers". In America, the men who flew bombers
over Germany are honored as heroes.
Of course, the victors get to decide who are the war criminals. There
is nothing wrong with that, unless the wrong side wins.
Throughout the war and after, the British hung many of their captured
Nazi spies if they could not be turned, did not repent, or were no
longer useful. The Americans burned to death six captured Nazi U-boat
spies in the electric chair, one after another, in 1942, in Washington
DC, no less.
Horrible incidents... to be sure... But Nazi Germany was worse... a whole
lot worse!
The Nazis took horror to a whole new level even before the war, and
before the mass death of the concentration camps, The mechanisms for
extermination of those found to be undesirables were ramped up.
Examples include the notorious Peoples Courts, the executions of
minors, the meat hooks hanging from the ceiling and often same-day
service (those convicted were often killed within hours of their
"sentence".)
Rich Rostrom
>I know a lot of Germans who feel otherwise, but you just might get
>some argument over whether the British and American bomber campaigns
>over Germany were considered to be "war crimes" with the crews being
>labeled as "terror bombers".
Not in Germany in 1943.
The question is not whether Allied
air attacks were in fact "terror
bombing", but the motivation of
Germans who in 1943 were willing to
participate in the execution of
German dissidents.
To that question, the actual depravity
of the Nazi regime is completely
irrelevant - but the criminality of
Allied forces, _as_ _perceived_ _by_
_Germans_ _at_ _that_ _time_, is very
relevant.
Beachcomber
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
>inv...@notreal.none (Beachcomber) wrote:
>
>>I know a lot of Germans who feel otherwise, but you just might get
>>some argument over whether the British and American bomber campaigns
>>over Germany were considered to be "war crimes" with the crews being
>>labeled as "terror bombers".
>
>Not in Germany in 1943.
>
>The question is not whether Allied
>air attacks were in fact "terror
>bombing", but the motivation of
>Germans who in 1943 were willing to
>participate in the execution of
>German dissidents.
>
>To that question, the actual depravity
>of the Nazi regime is completely
>irrelevant - but the criminality of
>Allied forces, _as_ _perceived_ _by_
>_Germans_ _at_ _that_ _time_, is very
>relevant.
>--
It depends on what Germans you are talking about...
There were isolated incidents of enraged German civilians killing or
attacking captured RAF & US airmen that had bailed out on operations
over Germany.
However, in most cases, once they were in the hands of the authorities
(Police or Military), the captured POWs were allowed to live...given
rations... receive medical treatment, etc. An attempt was made to
treat the prisoners not as terrorists, but as captured POWs under the
laws of the Geneva Convention.
Not that I can say very many good things about Herman Goering, but he
did at least recognize the value of an attempt at fair at humane
treatment of Allied POWs, if only perhaps in an attempt to save his
own arse at the end of the war.
I have met many Germans who are still outraged that they were bombed
in Hamburg, Dresden, Pforzheim, Regensberg, etc. and perhaps lost
family members and suffered terribly. It is regrettable that there
was so much loss-of-life.
Looking at what was done earlier and concurrently in the name of the
German people, the rest of the world apparently has few tears to shed
on these events.
pbrom...@aol.com
> I have met many Germans who are still outraged that they were bombed
> in Hamburg, Dresden, Pforzheim, Regensberg, etc. and perhaps lost
> family members and suffered terribly. It is regrettable that there
> was so much loss-of-life.
>
> Looking at what was done earlier and concurrently in the name of the
> German people, the rest of the world apparently has few tears to shed
> on these events.
I am one of those people.
If the people of Hamburg, Dresden, Pforsheim, Regensberg, etc had
thought of that before they went and started a war whose stated
purpose was to steal land and homes (for living space) from it's
rightful owners they would have been a lot better off.
I personally am outraged that my parents, peaceful and peace loving
farmer and school teacher, and their entire generation had to put
their lives on hold, and a lot of them had to die, just to disabuse
the Japanese and the Germans of their dillusions.