Massacre at Leisenwald, Germany 1945

[Panzermahn]

It seems there is a forgotten American war crime against the men of the 6th SS Gebirgsdivision Nord according to Stephen M. Rusiecki's In Final Defense of the Reich: The Destruction of the 6th SS Mountain Division Nord (Naval Institute Press, 2010), page 354;

"Heuer, decorated with Knights' Cross of the Iron Cross on 22 April 1945 during the final battle of Berlin, had become a police investigator after the war. Wearing his police uniform, Heuer questioned the people of Leisenwald and Waldensberg and learned that his brother-in-law had been one of eighty or so men holed up inside a barn who refused to surrender to the Americans. Finally, the Nord men and other German troops from Heer and Luftwaffe had emerged with hands held high. The Americans, apparently in a fit of pique, ordered the men to form two lines and then shot the Germans dead - all at one time. The villagers claimed that many of the American perpetratords were Black Soldiers [72]

An incensed Heuer immediately filed charges against persons unknown, but nothing came of the matter. The fledgling German government that had emerged after the Third Reich did not want to antagonize the Americans authorities with such investigation. [73]

Nearly ten years passed before the issue of a massacre at Leisenwald and Waldensberg surfaced again. Without warning, the Volksbund Deutscher Kriegsgraeberfuersorge (German War Graves Commission) arrived in Leisenwald in 1961 with a team and began exhuming the dead Nord men from local cemeteries. The commission intended to move the graves to the war cemetery in Schluechtern.

The team exhumed thirty-four skeletons. Of these, twenty-three had clearly been shot in head. The average ages of the men between twenty-five and thirty-five years. The team labeled each unnamed corpse (only one body was identified) from U-223 to U-256, followed by a detailed description of the head wound. The revelation that a massacre had possibly occured based on eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence available prompted the commission to dig deeper into the mystery. The German officials were more likely to press the issue in 1961 than in 1952. Heinz Heuer even returned to the scene and attempted to invigorate the investigatory effort.

It would be interesting if anyone could access the West German police investigation files as well as the investigation efforts by the German War Graves Commission regarding the murdered SS men at Leisenwald. There is a book waiting to be written regarding Allied war crimes during the interregnum period of Germany based on the archives of West German police investigation files as well as German War Graves Commission own efforts on documenting the German war dead

Panzermahn

[David Thompson]

The villagers claimed that many of the American perpetratords were Black Soldiers

Since Afro-American units in the US Army were segregated during WWII, this may refer to the 761st Tank Battalion, commanded at the time by Lt. Col. Paul L. Bates, which participated in the battle for the town. See Come Out Fighting – The Epic Tale of the 761st Tank Battalion 1942-45 (1946), p. 80, online at:
http://www.761st.com/index.php/history/ ... t-fighting

The revelation that a massacre had possibly occured based on eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence available prompted the commission to dig deeper into the mystery. The German officials were more likely to press the issue in 1961 than in 1952. Heinz Heuer even returned to the scene and attempted to invigorate the investigatory effort.

So what was the rest of the story on the 1961 German police investigation?

[Ypenburg]

Most probably there was no German police investigation. On october 23th 1954 the Germans signed the "Überleitungsvertrag" in Paris of which Artikel 3, Absatz 2 and Absatz 3 make it specificly clear that Germany cannot prosecute Germans who betrayed their country during the war to help the Allied......... and Allied war-criminals.

And although this "Überleitungsvertrag" has been cancelled since october 3rd 1990, parts of it haven't, like that famous Artikel 3, Absatz 2 and Absatz 3.

Artikel 3:

»Niemand darf allein deswegen unter Anklage gestellt - oder durch Maßnahmen deutscher Gerichte oder Behörden in seinen Bürgerrechten oder seiner wirtschaftlichen Stellung nur deswegen beeinträchtigt werden, weil er vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrages mit der Sache der drei Mächte (USA, England, Frankreich) sympathisiert, sie oder ihre Politik oder Interessen unterstützt oder den Streitkräften, Behörden oder Dienststellen einer oder mehrerer der drei Mächte oder einem Beauftragten einer dieser Mächte Nachrichten geliefert oder Dienste geleistet hat. Das gleiche gilt zugunsten von Personen, die den Verbündeten der drei Mächte bei ihren gemeinsamen Bestrebungen vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrages Sympathien bezeigt, Unterstützung gewährt, Nachrichten geliefert oder Dienste geleistet haben. Die deutschen Behörden haben alle ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel anzuwenden, um sicherzustellen, daß der Zweck dieses Absatzes erreicht wird.«

Absatz 2
»Soweit nicht in Absatz (3) dieses Artikels oder durch besondere Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesregierung und den Regierungen der Drei Mächte oder der betreffenden Macht etwas anderes bestimmt ist, sind deutsche Gerichte und Behörden nicht zuständig in strafrechtlichen oder nichtstrafrechtlichen Verfahren, die sich auf eine vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrages begangene Handlung oder Unterlassung beziehen, wenn unmittelbar vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrags die deutschen Gerichte und Behörden hinsichtlich solcher Handlungen oder Unterlassungen nicht zuständig waren, ohne Rücksicht darauf, ob sich diese Zuständigkeit aus der Sache oder aus der Person ergibt.«

Absatz 3

(ii)b) in Strafverfahren gegen natürliche Personen, es sei denn, daß die Untersuchung wegen der angeblichen Straftat von den Strafverfolgungsbehörden der betreffenden Macht oder Mächte endgültig abgeschlossen war oder diese Straftat in Erfüllung von Pflichten oder Leistung von Diensten für die Besatzungsbehörden begangen wurde.

Source: http://www.hackemesser.de/ueberleitungsvertrag.html

[Panzermahn]

The villagers claimed that many of the American perpetratords were Black Soldiers

Since Afro-American units in the US Army were segregated during WWII, this may refer to the 761st Tank Battalion, commanded at the time by Lt. Col. Paul L. Bates, which participated in the battle for the town. See Come Out Fighting – The Epic Tale of the 761st Tank Battalion 1942-45 (1946), p. 80, online at:
http://www.761st.com/index.php/history/ ... t-fighting

The revelation that a massacre had possibly occured based on eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence available prompted the commission to dig deeper into the mystery. The German officials were more likely to press the issue in 1961 than in 1952. Heinz Heuer even returned to the scene and attempted to invigorate the investigatory effort.

So what was the rest of the story on the 1961 German police investigation?

Hi David

Unfortunately, the author did not mentioned what is the outcome of the 1961 German police investigation. The investigation files should be in the police archives.

If you're interested, the same book also mentioned about an order from an American Major General, verbatimly ordered that if any German soldier were found to be hiding in any house or building, it would be burned down to the ground which is actually a violation of the Hague Convention of the Rules of Land Warfare 1899.

Biddiscombe in his excellent book, Werewolf! (University of Toronto 1998) also mentioned that Canadian forces destroyed or burned down German houses or buildings if any German soldier were to be found in it and Major General Vokes were astute to realised that if such orders were given in writting, it would have constitute a war crime on the part of Canadian armed forces, hence such orders would never be put into writting.

Panzermahn

[Panzermahn]

Most probably there was no German police investigation. On october 23th 1954 the Germans signed the "Überleitungsvertrag" in Paris of which Artikel 3, Absatz 2 and Absatz 3 make it specificly clear that Germany cannot prosecute Germans who betrayed their country during the war to help the Allied......... and Allied war-criminals.

And although this "Überleitungsvertrag" has been cancelled since october 3rd 1990, parts of it haven't, like that famous Artikel 3, Absatz 2 and Absatz 3.

Artikel 3:

»Niemand darf allein deswegen unter Anklage gestellt - oder durch Maßnahmen deutscher Gerichte oder Behörden in seinen Bürgerrechten oder seiner wirtschaftlichen Stellung nur deswegen beeinträchtigt werden, weil er vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrages mit der Sache der drei Mächte (USA, England, Frankreich) sympathisiert, sie oder ihre Politik oder Interessen unterstützt oder den Streitkräften, Behörden oder Dienststellen einer oder mehrerer der drei Mächte oder einem Beauftragten einer dieser Mächte Nachrichten geliefert oder Dienste geleistet hat. Das gleiche gilt zugunsten von Personen, die den Verbündeten der drei Mächte bei ihren gemeinsamen Bestrebungen vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrages Sympathien bezeigt, Unterstützung gewährt, Nachrichten geliefert oder Dienste geleistet haben. Die deutschen Behörden haben alle ihnen zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel anzuwenden, um sicherzustellen, daß der Zweck dieses Absatzes erreicht wird.«

Absatz 2
»Soweit nicht in Absatz (3) dieses Artikels oder durch besondere Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesregierung und den Regierungen der Drei Mächte oder der betreffenden Macht etwas anderes bestimmt ist, sind deutsche Gerichte und Behörden nicht zuständig in strafrechtlichen oder nichtstrafrechtlichen Verfahren, die sich auf eine vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrages begangene Handlung oder Unterlassung beziehen, wenn unmittelbar vor Inkrafttreten dieses Vertrags die deutschen Gerichte und Behörden hinsichtlich solcher Handlungen oder Unterlassungen nicht zuständig waren, ohne Rücksicht darauf, ob sich diese Zuständigkeit aus der Sache oder aus der Person ergibt.«

Absatz 3

(ii)b) in Strafverfahren gegen natürliche Personen, es sei denn, daß die Untersuchung wegen der angeblichen Straftat von den Strafverfolgungsbehörden der betreffenden Macht oder Mächte endgültig abgeschlossen war oder diese Straftat in Erfüllung von Pflichten oder Leistung von Diensten für die Besatzungsbehörden begangen wurde.

Source: http://www.hackemesser.de/ueberleitungsvertrag.html

Hi Ypenburg

The author specifically mentioned that there were investigation by West German police as well as the German War Graves Comission as the bodies were dug-out and efforts to identify the bodies were conducted. I am pretty sure there are some reports hidden away in the archives of the German police. Whether or not the results of investigations were followed-up or not we won't know but most likely it wasn't based on the German treaty you mentioned above.

And thanks for highlighting the Überleitungsvertrag treaty in Paris as I wasn't aware that Germany couldn't punish German citizens who committed treason and betrayal against their Fatherland in WW2 (and probably the only country in the history of the world to do so! )

Panzermahn

[JamesL]

For reference, the USA never ratified Protocol I or Protocol II of the 1899 Hague Convention. The convention MAY apply to Canadian forces but it does not apply to US forces.

Flame weapons were commonly used to force enemy soldiers out of houses, bunkers, and dugouts. The Germanys used such tactics during the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944. The USA uses flame weapons to this day.

[Panzermahn]

For reference, the USA never ratified Protocol I or Protocol II of the 1899 Hague Convention. The convention MAY apply to Canadian forces but it does not apply to US forces.

Flame weapons were commonly used to force enemy soldiers out of houses, bunkers, and dugouts. The Germanys used such tactics during the Warsaw Uprising of August 1944. The USA uses flame weapons to this day.

Protocol I and II are post-war (1977) additional protocol to the Hague Conventions and nothing to do with what United States did during the war where she is a signatory to the Hague and Geneva Conventions

By verbatim ordering the burning of a house to the ground where a German soldier is found hiding (hiding does not necessarily mean it is defending) is a violation of Article 46 (and possibly Article 25) of the Hague Convention of 1899 (which were ratified by US Senate in 1902)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp


P.S This is out of topic but for the benefit of JamesL, eventhough United States did not ratify Protocol I and II, some of the provisions from Protocol I had been accepted formally by United States;

Source: Page 16, The US and the Laws of War (2011)
http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/defau ... ummary.pdf

[Panzermahn]

Page 320-321

As darkness fell on Buedingen forest, Major General Irwin, the 5th Infantry Division commander, called Major General Eddy, the XII Corps Commander, from the 5th Division's command post in Frakfurt to discuss the very thing that was nagging Major General Wyman -- the location of the elusive 6th SS Gebirgs Division's commanding general and the rest of the SS troops that may have melted away into the forest and surrounding towns, When Irvin phoned Eddy at 1940, he began by explaining Colonel Roffe's 2nd Infantry Regiment had reached the day's objectives and bagged a total of 174 prisoners that day. Eddy then explained the next day's plans [68]:

"We are giving Wyman a goose egg which some of your troops are in [and] directing him to make a house-to-house check up and bring in all men between 18 to 45 years of age and asking you to do the same thing in the towns you are located in. Does that sound ok?"
"Yes, we are working on that now," replied Irwin.
"Keep a close lookout for a man 40 years old with a plastic [cover] over his eye," continued Eddy. "[T]hat's the General. Every house that harbors a soldier, where you can give proof that it is a soldier, burn the house down. Just drop a couple of thermite grenades in them".
"Okay," answered Irwin.
"I'm also sending back an officer of mine who was a prisoner who saw a soldier coming out of those towns vicinity Stockheim and had been harbored for a few days and whereever he saw soldiers come out I'm going to burn those houses down.
Irwin responded,"We got close to 1,000 PWs [prisoners of war] from everybody".
"I think we broke it up," remarked Eddy."I'm interested in those SS PWs."
"Yes," replied Irwin.
"I'm an easygoing guy," continued Eddy, "but I think we'll have to give the population here a lesson. I'll assume all responsibility. I'll tell you a good way to tell these fellows: Most of them have their pay cards in their shoes or underneath their underwear. Now is the time to be very harsh. Thanks for all you've done. I appreciate it,Red"
"Oh the boys had a fine time," quipped Irwin.
"We're going fine up ahead," said Eddy."[T]he armor has taken Gotha."
"Good," answered Irwin as he hung up the phone.[69]

Note 68: 5th Infantry Division G-3 Journal, 3 April 1945, 3, National Archives RG407, Entry 427, Box 6810; The transcribed text for the conversation between Eddy and Irwin appears verbatim in the entry for the time 1940; Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Regiment, After Action Report, 2 May 1945, 4, National Archives RG407, Entry 427, Box 6664; 2nd Infantry Regiment Regimental Unit Journal, 1 January 1945-31December 1945,Entry for 3 April 1945, National Archives RG407, Entry 427, Box 6866

Note 69: AAR March 1945, 3.

[David Thompson]

Panzermahn -- (1) What does burning houses somewhere else have to do with the alleged massacre at Leisenwald which is the topic of this thread? Your comments involve different actions, different units, in different places and at different times. You're welcome to start a different thread on the subject, but I don't see how or why it should be discussed here.

(2) It's not clear from your last quote whether the houses were torched before or after the concealed troops surrendered. If the houses were torched in an effort to flush out concealed troops who hadn't surrendered yet, I don't think it's clear that's a war crime. While you wrote:

By verbatim ordering the burning of a house to the ground where a German soldier is found hiding (hiding does not necessarily mean it is defending) is a violation of Article 46 (and possibly Article 25) of the Hague Convention of 1899 (which were ratified by US Senate in 1902)

I don't agree with this proposition, particularly if he was armed and still hiding in the house. A soldier is a combatant until he surrenders or the war ends, and in WWII, opposing forces could use whatever means were reasonably necessary to kill or capture him.

[Terry Duncan]

If you're interested, the same book also mentioned about an order from an American Major General, verbatimly ordered that if any German soldier were found to be hiding in any house or building, it would be burned down to the ground which is actually a violation of the Hague Convention of the Rules of Land Warfare 1899.

Panzermahn,

Do you mean that the house will be burnt even if the soldier surrenders, effectively a reprisal where the soldier is either killed or captured/surrenders and then the house is set on fire as a punishment? That would be a very different case to burning a house where a suspected armed enemy may pose a risk to the life of your own troops. To me it reads that the former is what is meant but others seem to interpret it as the latter. Could you clarify if possible please?

[Panzermahn]

(2) It's not clear from your last quote whether the houses were torched before or after the concealed troops surrendered. If the houses were torched in an effort to flush out concealed troops who hadn't surrendered yet, I don't think it's clear that's a war crime. While you wrote: By verbatim ordering the burning of a house to the ground where a German soldier is found hiding (hiding does not necessarily mean it is defending) is a violation of Article 46 (and possibly Article 25) of the Hague Convention of 1899 (which were ratified by US Senate in 1902)

I don't agree with this proposition, particularly if he was armed and still hiding in the house. A soldier is a combatant until he surrenders or the war ends, and in WWII, opposing forces could use whatever means were reasonably necessary to kill or capture him.

David, you had a point, but if you look at the context of the entire conversation between Major Generals Eddy and Irwin, you noticed that the former is ordering the latter to conduct house-to-house checks and to apply harshness while the former would assumed all responsibility. It implies that if the Americans knew for sure that the Germans were defending that town, village or house, an airstrike would have been called or more firepower would have been used to level out that area rather than to put the safety of American troops in jeopardy by conducting house-to-house checks. This itself implies that if there were any Germans soldier found in house, they were actually hiding from the American forces, rather than planning to set up an ambush to take the American forces out.

Panzermahn,

Do you mean that the house will be burnt even if the soldier surrenders, effectively a reprisal where the soldier is either killed or captured/surrenders and then the house is set on fire as a punishment? That would be a very different case to burning a house where a suspected armed enemy may pose a risk to the life of your own troops. To me it reads that the former is what is meant but others seem to interpret it as the latter. Could you clarify if possible please?

Hi Terry

To my understanding, the verbatim order by Major General Eddy indicates that any German soldier found hidden in a house of German civillians would result in that house being burned to the ground even after the German soldier has surrendered or been captured. This is because the book which I am using the source had a couple of anecdotes with regards to the German civillians handed the German troops hiding in their properties to the American forces, precisely because they fear the Americans would burn their properties down to the ground as a reprisal for harboring German troops. That was the overall context which I believed Major General Eddy's order were based on.

There is a similar pattern of harshness and mercilessness against German regular as well as unconventional forces and civilians as the Western Allies drive deeper to the west of Germany from 1945 and up to 1947 during the Allied occupation period, no doubt due to lessons learned by the Western Allies in suffering high attrition rates by German snipers and marksmen during the Normandy battles. In order to protect the safety of their troops, the Western Allies occassionally violated international law and as Major General Christopher Vokes of the Canadian forces knew astutely that such orders (burning houses to the ground etc.) could never been in writting else it would constitute war crimes of the part of the Allies.

Panzermahn

[David Thompson]

The subject, Panzermahn -- please stay on it. As I said earlier, there's no problem discussing house-burnings as a method of reprisal, but the discussion belongs in a separate thread from this one involving a claimed massacre.

If no one has any serious objections I'll split this thread and create a new one for the house-burning allegations.

[Panzermahn]

My apologies for the topic veering off.

[Penn44]

It seems there is a forgotten American war crime against the men of the 6th SS Gebirgsdivision Nord according to Stephen M. Rusiecki's In Final Defense of the Reich: The Destruction of the 6th SS Mountain Division Nord (Naval Institute Press, 2010), page 354;

[i]"Heuer, decorated with Knights' Cross of the Iron Cross on 22 April 1945 during the final battle of Berlin, had become a police investigator after the war. Wearing his police uniform, Heuer questioned the people of Leisenwald and Waldensberg and learned that his brother-in-law had been one of eighty or so men holed up inside a barn who refused to surrender to the Americans. Finally, the Nord men and other German troops from Heer and Luftwaffe had emerged with hands held high. The Americans, apparently in a fit of pique, ordered the men to form two lines and then shot the Germans dead - all at one time. The villagers claimed that many of the American perpetratords were Black Soldiers [72]

I have thumbed through Rusiecki's book, but not read it. I did speak to him several years ago about his book. He intended to report that elements of the 6th SS had engaged in real or imagined war crimes against American soldiers which had inflamed American passions against SS men. In one incident, in late March or early April 1945, elements of the 6th SS murdered several African-American soldiers whom they had captured. Around this same time the 6th SS Division had also over-ran an American field hospital, killed several US medical personnel and allegedly raped (false report) several American nurses, in all a combination of facts and rumors that spread like wildfire through American units in the area aroused them to commit crimes against SS prisoners. As a consequence of his research it was Rusiecki's opinion that military leaders should actively engage in efforts to control rumors in order to prevent war crimes against POWs.

Eighty or so German soldiers in a single barn? Possible, but the purported numbers sounds more like an exaggeration. For one, it does not make tactical sense to gather so many soldiers into one building. Two, the reported number of remains recovered at Leisenwald was 34 with 23 shot in the head and not 80. So, the number 80 seems again like an exaggeration unless the Americans had captured 80 Germans and then separated the SS from the non-SS and shot the SS only.

Penn44

.