Wehrkreis V
- Jeremy Dixon
- Member
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: 06 Oct 2002, 13:19
- Location: England
Wehrkreis V
Who was Commander of Wehrkreis V [Military District V] from 00.11.1944 - 14.04.1945 ???
Thanks
I have:
Hermann Geyer 16.05.1935 - 30.04.1939
Richard Ruoff 01.05.1939 - 25.08.1939
Erwin Oßwald 26.08.1939 - 31.08.1943
Rudolf Veiel 01.09.1943 - 20.07.1944
Hans Schmidt 21.07.1944 - 00.11.1944
?? 00.11.1944 - 14.04.1945
Maximilian Felzmann 15.04.1945 - 08.05.1945
Thanks
I have:
Hermann Geyer 16.05.1935 - 30.04.1939
Richard Ruoff 01.05.1939 - 25.08.1939
Erwin Oßwald 26.08.1939 - 31.08.1943
Rudolf Veiel 01.09.1943 - 20.07.1944
Hans Schmidt 21.07.1944 - 00.11.1944
?? 00.11.1944 - 14.04.1945
Maximilian Felzmann 15.04.1945 - 08.05.1945
Re: Wehrkreis V
It was Rudolf Veiel!
In FMS B-193 He writes:
"On 1 September 1943 I took over from my predecessor, General der Infanterie Osswald, command of the Deputy Army Area V and was therewith simultaneously commander in Wehrkreis V and in Alsace.
On 15 April 1945 I gave up the command over the Wehrkreis and Alsace to General der Artillerie Felzmann"
I have a copy of the appointments list dated 13.04.1945 that contains the transfer of Veiel from Wehrkreis V to the FR.
Regards
John
In FMS B-193 He writes:
"On 1 September 1943 I took over from my predecessor, General der Infanterie Osswald, command of the Deputy Army Area V and was therewith simultaneously commander in Wehrkreis V and in Alsace.
On 15 April 1945 I gave up the command over the Wehrkreis and Alsace to General der Artillerie Felzmann"
I have a copy of the appointments list dated 13.04.1945 that contains the transfer of Veiel from Wehrkreis V to the FR.
Regards
John
- Jeremy Dixon
- Member
- Posts: 3590
- Joined: 06 Oct 2002, 13:19
- Location: England
Re: Wehrkreis V
Thanks
Re: Wehrkreis V
And yet most searches on Google say that Veiel was relieved of command of Wehrkreis V because of his behaviour on 20 July and replaced by Hans Schmidt? Certainly he communicated with Hoepner by telephone on that day although their 'phone conversation was fairly innocuous. If as you say he remained in command until April 1945, that implies he wasn't a conspirator (or wasn't caught)?
Schmidt was later credited with command of the so-called 'AOK 24' in October 1944, which was in Wehrkreis V's area... maybe Veiel was under investigation but was found to be innocent and returned to command of the Wehrkreis at that time? All pure speculation of course.
Any observations welcome!
Hughiec
Schmidt was later credited with command of the so-called 'AOK 24' in October 1944, which was in Wehrkreis V's area... maybe Veiel was under investigation but was found to be innocent and returned to command of the Wehrkreis at that time? All pure speculation of course.
Any observations welcome!
Hughiec
Re: Wehrkreis V
Most of these sources are probably repeating his entry in Keilig.
The origin is possibly this, taken from his Personalakte
Sorry but this the quality of the original.
Regards
John
The origin is possibly this, taken from his Personalakte
Sorry but this the quality of the original.
Regards
John
Re: Wehrkreis V
Thank you, unfortunately neither my eyesight nor my German are good enough to decipher this..! What is the gist please... does it say at the bottom that Burgdorf recommends his dismissal (on 30 September)?
Re: Wehrkreis V
Here is a translation of the document:
------------------------------------
The Reichsführer-SS and Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Replacement Army [Chef der Heeresrüstung and Befehlshaber des Ersatzheeres] [i. e. Heinrich Himmler] informs that:
The commander of Military District V, General der Panzertruppe Veiel, exactly like many other deputy commanding generals, received the orders of the traitors von Witzleben and [von] Stauffenberg in the night of 20th to the 21st of July 1944. According to him [Veiel], he initially tried to clarify the situation in Berlin, however didn't attempt to do anything else. Especially, he omitted to inform the Gauleiter. Later – I do not know the exact time – he rightly reported his intended political advisor from Karlsruhe, the lawyer [and member of the] Centre Party Frank [Reinhold Frank, 1896–1945, one of the conspirators] to the Geheime Staatspolizei so that he could be arrested. I cannot assess if and to what degree the General's conduct was culpable. However, I feel obliged to report the aforementioned.
According to my experience, General Veiel is an unpolitical soldier, and although he is no opponent of National Socialism, he is no advocate either. General Veiel never neglected cooperation with the Party authorities and myself. I can even say the opposite, that the General was keen to be on the best possible terms with the Party.
Addition from Generalleutnant [Wilhelm] Burgdorf, 7.8.1944:
It is planned to place General der Panzertruppe Veiel in the Führerreserve of the OKH around 30.9.1944 and to dismiss him afterwards ([he is] 61 years old).
------------------------------------
So yes, it seems that Himmler didn't think Veiel should be held accountable for any wrongdoing and his retirement had more to do with his old age.
Jake
------------------------------------
The Reichsführer-SS and Chief of Army Equipment and Commander of the Replacement Army [Chef der Heeresrüstung and Befehlshaber des Ersatzheeres] [i. e. Heinrich Himmler] informs that:
The commander of Military District V, General der Panzertruppe Veiel, exactly like many other deputy commanding generals, received the orders of the traitors von Witzleben and [von] Stauffenberg in the night of 20th to the 21st of July 1944. According to him [Veiel], he initially tried to clarify the situation in Berlin, however didn't attempt to do anything else. Especially, he omitted to inform the Gauleiter. Later – I do not know the exact time – he rightly reported his intended political advisor from Karlsruhe, the lawyer [and member of the] Centre Party Frank [Reinhold Frank, 1896–1945, one of the conspirators] to the Geheime Staatspolizei so that he could be arrested. I cannot assess if and to what degree the General's conduct was culpable. However, I feel obliged to report the aforementioned.
According to my experience, General Veiel is an unpolitical soldier, and although he is no opponent of National Socialism, he is no advocate either. General Veiel never neglected cooperation with the Party authorities and myself. I can even say the opposite, that the General was keen to be on the best possible terms with the Party.
Addition from Generalleutnant [Wilhelm] Burgdorf, 7.8.1944:
It is planned to place General der Panzertruppe Veiel in the Führerreserve of the OKH around 30.9.1944 and to dismiss him afterwards ([he is] 61 years old).
------------------------------------
So yes, it seems that Himmler didn't think Veiel should be held accountable for any wrongdoing and his retirement had more to do with his old age.
Jake
Last edited by JakeV on 11 Sep 2016, 15:06, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Wehrkreis V
So, was Schmidt ever commanding Wehrkreis V? And why was Veiel NOT retired as planned by Burgdorf?
There are times in history when staying neutral means taking sides.
Re: Wehrkreis V
Thanks for the translation Jake.
Askropp's question is valid though if Veiel did remain in post until Felzmann took over in April 1945.
Hugh
Askropp's question is valid though if Veiel did remain in post until Felzmann took over in April 1945.
Hugh
Re: Wehrkreis V
NARA T-78 R-897 confirms that Veiel stayed on and Schmidt never commanded:
There are times in history when staying neutral means taking sides.
Re: Wehrkreis V
Hello
Wegmann reports in his book "Stellenbesetzung....." GdI B. Keitel in(or from) dic. 44, wrong data ???
Rossano
Wegmann reports in his book "Stellenbesetzung....." GdI B. Keitel in(or from) dic. 44, wrong data ???
Rossano