Forced Repatriation,Operation KeelHaul and Bleiburg Tragedy

[Hrvat]

Hey everyone, im looking for some help/insight here

As part of a history paper (4th year thesis) I am writing on forced repatriation, operation keelhaul and the Bleiburg massacres. I would appreciate some reccomendations about some aspect s of my essay.

It is quite evident to many that the Yalta conference became synonymous with Great power politics and colonialism as 3 kings divided the world without regard to the wishes of the people, essentially disposing the Atlantic charter. This resulted in legalized massacres such as those at Bleiburg which began when the legal killing of warfare ceased all with the mute acceptance of the British and American governments. This was a breach of international law (Geneva convention in regard to pow’s). There are many resources and eyewitness accounts to show the extent and horrific nature of the repatriations, the British involvement and subsequent 50 + year cover up which still exists to this day as many war cabinet office documents are sealed as its obvious something its trying to be hidden. For this reason I may be in over my heels.

The premise of my paper however is not to desrbice the massacre or to show immoral western allied involvement such as that in operation keelhaul because it is undoubtable, but rather to show WHY! Show the links from the top of the British government (Churchill) and how those on the ground (General Rose/Alexander in southern Austria) carried it out. WHY did they turn back such swaths of people knowing what would happen to them at the hands of Tito and his communists. Any help such as recommended resources would be appreciated.

Thus reference's to "WHY" as opposed to "HOW" the Brits forced back the Croats in Bleiberg (apart from the obvious that titos partizans were considered allies and they surely knew the fate awating them if they returned but its hard to believe such ppl could simply be labeled as ' nazis ' and forgoten by those british commanders in the field) . I have found resource such as beljo's yugoslavia genocide , gudulescus operation slaughterhouse, omrcanin's end of cro army at bleiburg, tolstoy minister and massacres among other books on yalta, forced repatraition etc. they all give great info and even first hand british war diaries of those in the field eg. general rose, alexander, welsh troops but my paper is to show WHY they were turned back and show the connection to the top of the British decision makers, thurs Churchill and those in London and how it was passed to those in southern Austria.

So hopefully some of you have some ideas and information as to WHY (motives) as opposed to HOW the british deceit at bleiburg resulted in catastrophic death.

[Larry D.]

Heavy stuff, Hrvat, and digging for an answer to your principal question has defeated a number of others who have gone before you. I always thought the answer might lie in Churchill's private correspondence or in the Cabinet papers at the PRO, but Tolstoy and others have been through all of those. "Keelhaul" was obviously a concession to "Uncle Joe", probably insisted upon by Roosevelt, who seemed to think Stalin should get most of what he wanted. You may be looking for a conspiracy in all of this, a quid pro quo, and there may indeed be one, but no one seems to have been able to uncover it yet. I know that the Brits and Americans did NOT want to house and feed all of those Croatian military and refugees that had fled into southern Austria, and I personally do not believe that they carried one hoot whether Tito's Montenegrin executioners killed them or not. They belonged in Yugoslavia, period. What happened to them after they were forced back over the border (Drava) was of no concern to them. The law is imposed by the victors, not by the losers.

You cannot judge the events of May 1945 with the rules of 2005. As an American who lived during the World War II years, although as a child, I can factually state that the majority of British and American civilians were exhausted after 4+ years of bloodshed, rationing and sacrifice, and if Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt wanted to indirectly kill off the fascists and their supporters then that was O.K. with them. Take your mind and your emotions back to those years and try to put yourself in the shoes of those who experienced the events of World War II, either on the battlefield or on the home front. If you can do that, while also considering the laws and social attitudes that applied then, it will give you more balance in the issues you are weighing.

--Larry

[Allen Milcic]

Hello Hrvat:

May I recommend the excellent book "Povlacenje 1945 - krivci i zrtve" (Retreat of 1945 - the Guilty and the Victims), a collection of memoirs from high-ranking survivors of the NDH military and political structure (including Vjekoslav Vrancic who lead the Croatian delegation that met with the British 8th Army in an attempt to save the NDH). It may provide some insight into how and why Bleiburg was allowed to occur.

Allen/

[redcoat]

Why did the British send them back?

Partly because it was their legal duty to do so, according to the international laws reguarding POW's.

In the Hague Convention of 1907 which covered the rules of war regarding POW's, Article 20 states,
"After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible".

The fact the British were sending them back to a nation of which the ruling power considered them to be traitors, is not addressed by any international law.

[Lt.-Colonel]

A true story.

My friend's father was one of those who managed to surrender to the Allies. His group was guarded by some Irish or Scottish (one of those 2 nationalities, but I forgot exactly which one) soldiers. A night or two before they were to be sent back to the Partisans one LT told them:"Guys, tonight will our guards be a little sleepy."

My friend's father ran away that night, and that saved his life.

Not connected to the topic, but a nice story.

[Allen Milcic]

Why did the British send them back?

Partly because it was their legal duty to do so, according to the international laws reguarding POW's.

In the Hague Convention of 1907 which covered the rules of war regarding POW's, Article 20 states,
"After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners of war shall be carried out as quickly as possible".

The fact the British were sending them back to a nation of which the ruling power considered them to be traitors, is not addressed by any international law.

Hi redcoat:

My question would be - were the Yugoslav Partizans (People's Liberation Front) actually the ruling power in May of 1945? True, they were de facto in control of the Yugoslav territory, but de iure is another matter altogether. Remember, the Royal government in exile was at the time part of the provisional Yugoslav government, and the People's Liberation Front did not become the government of Yugoslavia until November of 1945. It can be argued that Article 20 did not apply to the NDH troops, especially since there were strong indications that they would face cruel and unusual punishment if repatriated.

Best regards,
Allen/

[Hrvat]

Since im new to the forum and not aware of all the rules i apologize for producing the same post/subject in 3 separete parts of the forum but i did so in order to get more exposure to help me out with my paper

anyways. this is my response in another forum as to the why........... and additional insight would be helpfull



....................Ye David im quite aware that ' yugoslav s ' were not to be sent back but they were. Initially Croats in bleiburg were told they were being sent to Italy until they saw the colums of titos partizan troops along the rail line many commited suicide as they knew where their fate and trust in british diplomacy would lead them, they were deceived and it sure was a war crime.

As for the british knowing what would happen, it was no secret the war time atrocities of titos reds but the fact is at the end of the war it seems britian was on its last legs and in no mood to fight the ussr-communist encroachment on central europe (although Croats vainly though they could be used in the insuing battle vs the communsits) so they released the Croats back in compensation to their yugo allies. It appeared london would not encurr the displeasure of her allies to save the lives of Croats

eg. May 12, 1945 Truman sent an angry telegram to CHurchill denouncing hitler-type tactics that were employed by partizans under protection of british army (operation slaughterhouse p. 9Cool

eg. Churchill himself knew about the crimes and declared "Their (the partizan) behaviour both in austria and venezia giulia made a bad impression on the allied troops, both US and british. Our men were obliged to look on, without power to intervene, at actions which offended their sense of justice, and felt they were condoning wrong doing " (Guldescu, operation slaughterhouse p. 101)

eg. general scott " i got assurance tha they would all be repatriated and looked after, but whetheer it was observed or not i just dont know . ive got no idea wether they were all murdered. i wouldnt be surpriesed if they were "(bethell, the last secret p. 87)

not to mention the war diaries of welsh guards which show they were the verge of mutiny at seeing the massacres after repatriation

as for the why they were sent back? iv come accross this, perhaps anyone else has other ideas/ or knowledge.......


- compensation to please their yugo allies (Croats as enemy of Tito, Tito as ally)
- where would they go? who would feed them? therefore a burden
-hatred of Germany and its collaborators was a burning passion among the British politicians in the course of the war. Croats were thus unrightously stigmatized as war criminals as being caught on the loosing side of an ideological war automatically makes one a war criminal. Croats were disposable, In situations like this, it was no skin off their back to release Croats.
-The allies didn't owe Croats anything as they were technically on the other side (even though most rank and file Ustase/domobrans had no beef with the west)
- Tito's partisans, on the other hand, were seen as heroic fighters and
allies against the common enemy. For Alexander - who probably held little
understanding of south-eastern European politics and just wanted to wash his
hands of this problem - it seemed natural to hand what he saw as a bunch of
fleeing 'fascists' to the Partisans

Due to the continued ' cover up' getting a definitive 'why' and motives/actions of british decision makers is still under lock and key but the broader geopolitics of it, like the Yalta conference and the psychology of the players and their biases and prejudices reveal valuable info.

[Larry D.]

Hrvat -

"....as for the why they were sent back? iv come accross this...."

It looks to me like you just about have all of the bases covered in your list, Hrvat, and the correct answer would be, "all of the above." The only thing I might add would be the perception on the part of both the Brits and the Americans that the Croatians, due to their numerical inferiority as a people and their relative lack of influence in the world forum, didn't matter. Had this been a group of 350,000 French or Dutch or Swedes or such, then I think the situation would definitely have been different. I might also add that these events (Bleiburg) happened very, very fast and Alexander's command at Caserta was caught with its drawers down, so to speak. I have read all of the classified AFHQ messages of that roughly two week period and I got the impression that the events were happening far faster than Alexander and his people could react to them. There was a virtual barrage of signals going back and forth between AFHQ and the various field commands in southern Austria and northeastern Italy, as well as with some of the SOE/OSS liaison teams with various Partisan units. Confusion was the order of the day. These signals - many hundreds of them - are available at NARA WashDC, PRO London and at AFHRA Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama. The latter is where I read them.

I won't say any more because there are others here who are far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, especially our very astute moderator who has an outstanding grasp of the political nuances of that time and place.

--Larry

[David Thompson]

I would like to see some convincing and specific proof that, at the time the repatriations took place, the allied commanders knew or had reason to know that a large number of the repatriated people would be executed by the Yugoslav authorities.

[Allen Milcic]

I would like to see some convincing and specific proof that, at the time the repatriations took place, the allied commanders knew or had reason to know that a large number of the repatriated people would be executed by the Yugoslav authorities.

Hi David:

There is no proof that British commanders had specific knowledge prior to May 15, 1945 that Tito's forces would commit massacres of captured Croat or other anti-Communist forces; there were, however, some strong indications at least to the British commanders at Bleiburg Castle and at the British 5 Corps command of the impending slaughter. According, for example, to Danijel Crljen's memoirs (Crljen served as an interpreter for Croatian General Herencic during his negotiations with British Brigadier Patrick Scott), Herencic pleaded with Scott not to have surrendering Croat soldiers returned to Yugoslav custody for fear of drastic retaliation for sins "real or imagined". His pleas fell on deaf ears, and Herencic received only a verbal assurance of humane treatment. Crljen, for one, was thoroughly unconvinced by the Yugoslav pledge, and the moment he left the castle he grabbed a bag of food and set out into the hills with a small group of followers to avoid repatriation (see "Retreat of 1945 - the Guilty and the Victims").

Here is also an excerpt from an essay by Count Tolstoj on the topic:

Prior to the Bleiburg crisis, British forces had made no attempt to halt these lesser incursions, and accepted their surrender without recorded reservation. For the present the internees settled down as best they could in the British zone, safe (so they thought) from the clutches of Tito’s executioners. Marauding bands of Partisans who sought to open fire on the refugees in their camps were deterred by patrolling British guards. Explicitly on occasion, and implicitly throughout, the British command accepted that their 25,000 uninvited "guests" lay under the protection of international law. The British Government was responsible for the protection and humane treatment of prisoners-of-war under the terms of the 1929 Geneva Convention. 2 Initially 5 Corps Headquarters does not appear to have contemplated any other course. Had they chosen otherwise, the refugees’ arrival in the British zone of occupation could readily have been prevented, since across was confined to bridges across the Drava.

Such was the situation up to the middle of May. Yet from the 15th onwards 5 Corps policy towards the captive Croats changed drastically, from one in accord with the laws of war and dictates of humanity to one of ruthless co-operation with the greatest mass purge of the Yugoslav Communist regime. During the third week of May arrangements were made for all Croats in Corps custody to be transported into the hands of Tito, so that he might extend his genocidal policy to those Croats who believed themselves safe from return to Yugoslavia. Given the general awareness of Tito’s attitude towards the wartime state of Croatia, the notoriously brutal nature of his regime, and the atrocious behaviour of his troops within the British zone of Austria, there can be little doubt that those who arranged their repatriation nurtured no illusions about the fate to which their charges were being consigned.

As early as 13 may 1 Guards Brigade War Diary had reported : ‘Slovenes and Serbs mostly concentrated [in] Viktring cage. None of these can be repatriated except to almost certain death at hands of Tito’.

If that was the fate anticipated for the Serbs and Slovenes, how much worse was it likely to be for the Croats! The Partisans made little attempt to disguise their appetite for a bloody retribution. Until forcibly prevented by British troops, they repeatedly attempted to murder inmates of Viktring camp, south of Klagenfurt. On 25 May Captain Nicolson’s logbook recorded:

‘100 further Croats ... are already on the way to Yugoslavia by train - en route for the slaughter-house ... Information came from Tito officer who was in charge of loading of dump at Maria Elend’.

The full essay can be found here: http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bleiburg_massacres.htm and is an interesting read (it includes a review of the status of the surrendered Croats under international law).

There is also some testimony from British officers in the field who witnessed immediate executions once the disarmed Croatian troops were given into Yugoslav custody, and upon advising their superiors were ordered to ignore these facts (Bernard O'Sullivan).

Best regards,
Allen/

[Larry D.]

Allen -

The classified AFHQ cables that I referred to are even more revealing than your Tolstoy passage. I would certainly suggest a visit to one of the three archives I mentioned for those having a further interest in this unfortunate affair. The sudden change in behavoir at British 5th Corps in South Austria was due to the arrival of urgent instructions from London cabled to the senior British political officer attached to AFHQ headquarters in Caserta. The instructions contained in that cable were then reissued to the British field commands in the form of an order. As I recall, I could not find a paper copy of that order and the evidence was that it was passed on by telephone. As you go through those cables, it's like a great mystery playing out before you and when you have finished the plot in unmistakeable clear but you are still short the much sought after "smoking gun."

--Larry

[G. Trifkovic]

Ahm,sorry to interupt,but I have a number of questions: what is "objective" estimate of numbers of retreating Axis forces (germans,ustasa,domobran,chetniks,cossacs) in May 1945. How many civilians with them? Did Löhr capitulate only with german units? Were germans treated better than the others? Any trace of written or verbal order by Tito on treatment of captured NDH soldiers and refugees? And finaly,the number of perished? Sorry for this torrent of questions,but I've been reading and hearing so many different stories fabricated by variuos regimes or individuals in various books and web-sites,that I simply don't know what to think. I have much more confidence in this forum and it's members,and I want to get it straight,at least for the time being...

Cheers,

Gaius

[redcoat]

[

Hi redcoat:

My question would be - were the Yugoslav Partizans (People's Liberation Front) actually the ruling power in May of 1945? True, they were de facto in control of the Yugoslav territory, but de iure is another matter altogether. Remember, the Royal government in exile was at the time part of the provisional Yugoslav government, and the People's Liberation Front did not become the government of Yugoslavia until November of 1945.

My understanding of the international law in this respect is, that the POW's had to be returned to the country of their origin, who was the ruling party in the country and any effect this might have had is not addressed.

It can be argued that Article 20 did not apply to the NDH troops, especially since there were strong indications that they would face cruel and unusual punishment if repatriated.

Best regards,
Allen/

Sadly the fact that they might face, like you said, 'cruel and unusual punishment if repatriated', is also something that appears not to have been considered in the laws governing POW's, and therefore is also not addressed.

It appears that these POW's fell through some rather large legal loop-holes in regards the fair treatment of POW's in international law after the end of hostilities.

[Hrvat]

Larry,

Being in Canada i cannot exactly access these files of the classified AFHQ cables in the places u mentioned (NARA WashDC, PRO London and at AFHRA Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama) . Is there any way u can send me or direct me to ppl wher i can get some of the crucial qoutes/signals which would would prove paramount for my essay and argument such as the instruction cabeled from London to field commanders in southern austria and caserta, links which my prof even stated would prove beneficial and of which i am having a really tough time finding the link fro orders in london to field commanders again due to the censored nature of most material

[Hrvat]

Rommel,

What we are talking about is essentially the exodus of the Croatian nation, after coming from al parts of Croatian and assembly in the Zagreb there were many waves of people going towards bleiburg

" On May 14, he( general scott) received reports that two groups of the croatian army, numbering 200,000 in all, were moving towards the british line at bleiburg on the austrian-yugoslav border. ' The Croats had aparently been fighting on the wrong side' Scott noted. They were escorting an estimated 500,000 civilians and wished to enter british territotory in order to surrender and place themselves under british protection " (Bethell, The last secret, . 85)