Koruck records re handling of partisans
Koruck records re handling of partisans
Quite some time ago I came across a an order in Koruck records regarding the handling of captured "bandits" - it's basically a menu of what to do: if not in uniform interrogate then release; if armed, interrogate then shoot; if in uniform shoot. That type of thing. I just can't remember where I saw it and I can't find it. The location and time frame would be Ukraine (Koruck 580 and 585), and perhaps June to October 1943. At least that's probably where I saw it. I can imagine such a directive appeared elsewhere as well.
Has anyone come across such a record and can provide an image of it?
That'll teach me to keep better notes when I search for something!
Has anyone come across such a record and can provide an image of it?
That'll teach me to keep better notes when I search for something!
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Found it! However it wasn't quite what I thought I remembered
Directive regarding treatment of Bandits issued by A.O.K.2 dated October 23 1943; referencing a directive previously issued on July 20, 1943.
It reads:
To clarify any doubts, the following is ordered:
1. Bandits in civil or enemy uniforms who surrender or are caught in combat, and gang helpers, are to be treated as prisoners of war.
2. Bandits who show themselves outside of combat operations are to be treated as defectors.
3. Bandits - not defectors - who are caught in German uniforms or in the uniforms of an allied armed forces are to be shot.
4. Bandits who fight particularly insidiously can be shot on the orders of the local leaders if captured.
Directive regarding treatment of Bandits issued by A.O.K.2 dated October 23 1943; referencing a directive previously issued on July 20, 1943.
It reads:
To clarify any doubts, the following is ordered:
1. Bandits in civil or enemy uniforms who surrender or are caught in combat, and gang helpers, are to be treated as prisoners of war.
2. Bandits who show themselves outside of combat operations are to be treated as defectors.
3. Bandits - not defectors - who are caught in German uniforms or in the uniforms of an allied armed forces are to be shot.
4. Bandits who fight particularly insidiously can be shot on the orders of the local leaders if captured.
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
That's quite reasonable and to the letter compatible with the laws of war.
- G. Trifkovic
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 20:26
- Location: The South-East
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Hi Biber and wm,
Best,
Gaius
To clarify any doubts, the following is ordered:
1. Bandits in civil or enemy uniforms who surrender or are caught in combat, and gang helpers, are to be treated as prisoners of war.
2. Bandits who show themselves outside of combat operations are to be treated as defectors.
3. Bandits - not defectors - who are caught in German uniforms or in the uniforms of an allied armed forces are to be shot.
4. Bandits who fight particularly insidiously can be shot on the orders of the local leaders if captured.
In the Balkans, at least, points 3 and 4 proved problematic, as they basically allowed the troops in the field to continue with their old ways. Many Partisans had at least one piece of captured German, Italian, NDH, etc., clothing on them, and the manner in which they fought was considered "insidious" whenever they inflicted casualties. As a result, the above-cited regulations, in words of one divisional commander, "satisfied the troops' security needs", but meant few prisoners, defectors, and forced laborers. Therefore, in early December 1943, the 2nd Panzer Army granted the POW status to all members of the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia caught on the field of battle (sabotage, espionage, etc, were still punishable by death).That's quite reasonable
Best,
Gaius
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
One could argue that the only reasonable point was #1, with 2, 3, and 4 being the loopholes. While it isn't clear what "defector" was defining- whether out going or in coming (ie, to the enemy vs from the enemy) - I would assume the former, which would put the person in a pretty unforgiving situation. Of course #4 trumps everything.G. Trifkovic wrote: ↑03 Mar 2021, 12:28Hi Biber and wm,
To clarify any doubts, the following is ordered:
1. Bandits in civil or enemy uniforms who surrender or are caught in combat, and gang helpers, are to be treated as prisoners of war.
2. Bandits who show themselves outside of combat operations are to be treated as defectors.
3. Bandits - not defectors - who are caught in German uniforms or in the uniforms of an allied armed forces are to be shot.
4. Bandits who fight particularly insidiously can be shot on the orders of the local leaders if captured.In the Balkans, at least, points 3 and 4 proved problematic, as they basically allowed the troops in the field to continue with their old ways. Many Partisans had at least one piece of captured German, Italian, NDH, etc., clothing on them, and the manner in which they fought was considered "insidious" whenever they inflicted casualties. As a result, the above-cited regulations, in words of one divisional commander, "satisfied the troops' security needs", but meant few prisoners, defectors, and forced laborers. Therefore, in early December 1943, the 2nd Panzer Army granted the POW status to all members of the People's Liberation Army of Yugoslavia caught on the field of battle (sabotage, espionage, etc, were still punishable by death).That's quite reasonable
Best,
Gaius
Please see next post, as I'd appreciate any insight you could offer.
Last edited by Biber on 03 Mar 2021, 17:22, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
I find the 23 October directive very interesting and wonder what may have prompted the clarification (interesting label- "Zur Klärung von Zweifeln wird befehlen:"). At that point, the Dnieper had been crossed about ten days earlier and the front lines were about 3 weeks away from the immediate Zhitomir region. Soviet partisans in that area were engaged as before, with some having been absorbed into the Red Army and others relocated further west. I almost wonder if it was merely perfunctory so as to have something on the books to counter after-the-fact claims of war crimes. (But that's the cynic in me.) Soviet partisans, of course, operated in uniform and had a strong presence in the area. I'm not sure how extensive independent partisan groups (not in uniform) were in the area at the time.
I also find interesting that the directive references another directive issued on 20 July '43. (I just realized that I have the NARA reel that covers Korück 580 for that time period but can't get to it until tomorrow. Hopefully there's something in there). I'm assuming that directive is the same or very similar, which raises the same question as to why it was issued at that time. The July directive was issued by A.O.K 2, at that time there were extensive anti-partisan sweeps in progress in the area - operations Wechsel (May), Zeithen (June), and Seidlitz (July), conducted by 3 SS police regiments (8th, 10th, 11th), Einsatzgruppe D, elements of the 454th Security Division, and the 8th SS Cavalry Division Florian Geyer among others. In that environment, why would the Army find it necessary to issue such guidelines? To put a buffer between them and the practices of the SS and Police during their anti-partisan operations (which were pretty destructive by the way)? Am I confused and mashing everything up?
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
I suppose the officers responsible were aware they had a choice between being "compatible with the laws of war" or be executed as war criminals later.
So the question is were such directives common or that one was just an exception.
I think 3 and 4 were ok. The laws of war weren't that precise either. I suppose insidiously meant disregarding the laws of war.
You actually could fight in an enemy uniform as long as you wore a distinct sign visible from distance. A sign that unambiguously identified your affiliation.
An example was Warsaw Uprising fighters wearing German uniforms and a distinct sign.
So the question is were such directives common or that one was just an exception.
I think 3 and 4 were ok. The laws of war weren't that precise either. I suppose insidiously meant disregarding the laws of war.
You actually could fight in an enemy uniform as long as you wore a distinct sign visible from distance. A sign that unambiguously identified your affiliation.
An example was Warsaw Uprising fighters wearing German uniforms and a distinct sign.
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Never realized that about fighting in enemy uniform. Makes sense I suppose as partisans equipped themselves however they could.
What I'm trying to get an understanding of, is that 1943 was kind of late in the game for issuing such guidelines. I wonder what prompted issuing them then? Especially with the clarification of October given above. Surely how to handle captured partisans would have been worked out by late '41. At least I would have thought so.
What I'm trying to get an understanding of, is that 1943 was kind of late in the game for issuing such guidelines. I wonder what prompted issuing them then? Especially with the clarification of October given above. Surely how to handle captured partisans would have been worked out by late '41. At least I would have thought so.
- G. Trifkovic
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 20:26
- Location: The South-East
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Hi Biber,
As far as Yugoslavia was concerned, the change in policy was also meant to weaken the Partisans' resolve to fight until the last man, increase the number of defectors (by "defectors", the Germans meant those guerrillas who wanted to come over to their side), but it also represented a silent acknowledgement of the conclusions of the Tehran Conference, which recognized the Partisans as the member of the Allied coalition.
Best,
Gaius
I almost wonder if it was merely perfunctory so as to have something on the books to counter after-the-fact claims of war crimes. (But that's the cynic in me.)
The Germans were never particularly concerned about the paper trail they left behind (they sincerely believed the other side would have to hide their papers by the end of the war). The reason for this volt-face is actually much more mundane: Third Reich needed hands. Sauckel wanted to use captured guerrillas as laborers already in early 1943, but the idea was dismissed by Himmler. Finally, in early July of the same year, Hitler personally ordered the change in policy in order to find 200,000 laborers for the expanding coal-mining program. Corresponding instructions were issued to the troops by the month's end, but they were evidently slow in embracing the new policy. Therefore, Keitel issued a clarification on 18 August, which basically contained the four points mentioned earlier.In that environment, why would the Army find it necessary to issue such guidelines? To put a buffer between them and the practices of the SS and Police during their anti-partisan operations (which were pretty destructive by the way)?
As far as Yugoslavia was concerned, the change in policy was also meant to weaken the Partisans' resolve to fight until the last man, increase the number of defectors (by "defectors", the Germans meant those guerrillas who wanted to come over to their side), but it also represented a silent acknowledgement of the conclusions of the Tehran Conference, which recognized the Partisans as the member of the Allied coalition.
Best,
Gaius
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Do you have a reference for Keitel's 18 August clarification? I'd like to see it for myself. Perhaps it offers more clarification to what I'm working with.
- G. Trifkovic
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 20:26
- Location: The South-East
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Here you go.
G.
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Thanks, that's great. Still 1943 seems late for such guidelines. Though it is very telling that they needed to be reissued. I can only wonder how often that happened. Any Idea what the referenced memo from July 8 '43 said?
- G. Trifkovic
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 2293
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 20:26
- Location: The South-East
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
I am not quite sure what you're actually looking for/aiming at, but anyway: guidelines on treatment of guerrillas were issued periodically throughout the war (in case of Yugoslavia, even before the country was occupied). While the Germans were winning and while they thought the conflict would end quickly, they saw no reason to compromise, and killed most of their captives (this explicitly applied also to pregnant female enemies as of October 1942). In early 1943, when things started going downhill, they were forced to reconsider old policies and introduce new ones, such as the one we are discussing here. It is, more or less, as simple as that.
Best,
G.
P.S. The new policy was first introduced in the memo of 8 July.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Hi Guys,
Article 4 is so open ended and down to personal discretion that it effectively negates any prescriptions laid down in 1-3: " 4. Bandits who fight particularly insidiously can be shot on the orders of the local leaders if captured." It essentially says you can shoot anybody for anything if "local leaders" feel like it. It appears to give arbitrary power of life or death to anybody above the rank of private, and possibly even to some privates if they are the senior person present.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "to the letter compatible with the laws of war." Far from it.
Cheers,
Sid.
Article 4 is so open ended and down to personal discretion that it effectively negates any prescriptions laid down in 1-3: " 4. Bandits who fight particularly insidiously can be shot on the orders of the local leaders if captured." It essentially says you can shoot anybody for anything if "local leaders" feel like it. It appears to give arbitrary power of life or death to anybody above the rank of private, and possibly even to some privates if they are the senior person present.
This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "to the letter compatible with the laws of war." Far from it.
Cheers,
Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 05 Mar 2021, 01:07, edited 5 times in total.
Re: Koruck records re handling of partisans
Yes, number 4 is the loophole, as is to a degree #s 2 and 3 depending on how severely deserters are treated in the field.
An incredible quote that came out of my research into the Partisan sweeps of central Ukraine in the summer of '43 (mentioned above), was “one did not waste a lot of time on sorting out the innocent and just shot the ones who happened to be around.”
With regard to deserters, is there a distinction to be made between Überläufer and Fahnenflüchtige?
An incredible quote that came out of my research into the Partisan sweeps of central Ukraine in the summer of '43 (mentioned above), was “one did not waste a lot of time on sorting out the innocent and just shot the ones who happened to be around.”
With regard to deserters, is there a distinction to be made between Überläufer and Fahnenflüchtige?