Atrocity at Kastelli 1941

[Ypenburg]

Or in the alternative, fell within the "spontaneous rising" exception created by Article 2 of the Annex, cited above. Note that the terms of Article 2 present an exception to the requirements of Article 1.

Art. 2 clearly states: ........ shall be regarded as belligerents if

= they carry arms openly and

= if they respect the laws and customs of war.

Unless I missed some postings i.m.o. cutting off body parts, or putting sticks into a special body part doesn't sound like "respecting the laws and customs of war".

Next: 05.23.1941 near Kastelli
After clearing Nopinia a Stosstrupp from 6./SturmRgt moves east of Kastelli towards a terrain with fabrique-buildings. It gets surrounded by a greek Btl. and many Cretan "Freischärlern". They lost 2 KIA and 5 WIA, before parts of GebPiBtl95 comes to the rescue. After they fight is over captured "Freischärlern" are shot at the spot.

In the evening 3./GebPiBtl95 sends out a spähtrupp concisting some GebPionieren and FJ's. They dont come back.
After taking Kastelli a Kampfgruppe consisting out of 3./GebPiBtl65, 6./SturmRgt and 1./KradSchtzBtl55 moves into the Kandanos-area. It has to fights its way being attacked by "Freischärlern" all the time. Reaching Floria, they find the place where the spähtrupp was ambushed. They find 3 badly WIA, al others (exc. 2 MIA) are dead and most of them badly mutilated.

According to the Germans the Greek 1. Rgt. lost 200 KIA at Kastelli due to the heavy fighting.

The number of Cretans killed as reprisal (Vergeltungsmassnahmen) wasn't higher then 200, according to Der Leiter der Zentralstelle im Lande NRW für die Bearbeitung von Kriegsverbrechen in Griechenland bei dem Oberstaatsanwalt in Bochum, Geschäfts.-Nr. 16/JS 30/57 vom 12.12.1963.

Source: Die deutsche Fallschirmtruppe 1936-1941, Karl-Heinz Golla

[phylo_roadking]

Next: 05.23.1941 near Kastelli
After clearing Nopinia a Stosstrupp from 6./SturmRgt moves east of Kastelli towards a terrain with fabrique-buildings. It gets surrounded by a greek Btl. and many Cretan "Freischärlern". They lost 2 KIA and 5 WIA, before parts of GebPiBtl95 comes to the rescue. After they fight is over captured "Freischärlern" are shot at the spot.

Note the date - AFTER Ringel's proclamation is issued

According to the Germans the Greek 1. Rgt. lost 200 KIA at Kastelli due to the heavy fighting.

That seems to be a minimum - for they ALSO took heavy casualties in the attack on the farmhouse leading up to Murbe's surviving men being taken prisoner, in addition to the 200 killed in the bayonet charges actually IN the town agains Schaette's men.

[bf109 emil]

Phylo, you wrote'

That was one of the major grey areas on the HRLW...exactly what position something like the British Home Guard would have had - in the early days of civilian clothes and an LDV armband? By the letter of the Convention - they were dead men walking.

and if the following citeria wasn't filled they could be shot

Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Now did this work both ways, and what i mean is, as allied armies advanced in Germany and individual towns, villages where came upon, didn't the Burgermeiser (and i know i spelled this wrong)or mayor have orders or in some cases refuted the advances by drawing upon the same style of defendants, such as the British had in the home guard or civilians encountered to not surrender and fight for the fatherland?
and if so, by definition they could have shot them outright for not having met prior conditions set out to deem them as military combatants or be allowed to kill a 10:1 ratio for being deemed partisans or civilians? and did any of these seemingly legal and now justifiable killing of German civilians take place?

[phylo_roadking]

Jim, you mean the Volksturm and other groups?

Take a look again at Article ONE -

"a militia and volunteer corps"

Unless they fulfilled those FOUR criteria listed in that Artcile - yes they could be shot....or, rather, didn't enjoy the protection of the Conventions as EITHER belligerents OR combatants - so there was nothing STOPPING them being shot!

As for DID similar massacres happen - I'm not an expert on events later in the war, can anyone else add?

One thing I DO recall; after the end of the war, one American army corps commander DID take and shoot German civilian hostages due to ongoing "Werwolf" activity If you take a look at the link to The Hostages Trial....you'll see that both U.S. and British military regulations permitted this in the right circumstances in occupied territory.

such as the British had in the home guard

The Home Guard in Britain was a VERY different creature than some scratch group thrown together in a few hours by a mayor with tanks thundering towards the town; it was promugated at NATIONAL level by the government, from day one was under British Army command operationally if an invasion had occured, had a full command/responsibility structure...and uniforms and insignia ASAP....in many cases BEFORE they had effective weapons! Thus fulfilling ALL the criteria of Article One within a very few days from its creation.

One thing to remember is that this is EXACTLY what the Greek Government did NOT want to happen on Crete; they did NOT want Cretans organised and trained in the use of arms if possible....they managed to squash John Pendelbury's attempt at training an SOE "stay-behind" guerilla force BEFORE the invasion, and only gave in with bad grace to the British plans for mustering the "Greek Regiments"....for sooner or later those trained Cretans would be fighting against the Greek government!!!

Looking at what happened from the 20th to the 27th of May 1941 - a Cretan "home guard" training from November of the previous year would have been a VERY effective fighting force...as well as enjoying the protections of that Annex of the Conventions

[bf109 emil]

Yes Phylo and thank you

Jim, you mean the Volksturm and other groups?

Take a look again at Article ONE -

"a militia and volunteer corps"



Unless they fulfilled those FOUR criteria listed in that Artcile - yes they could be shot....or, rather, didn't enjoy the protection of the Conventions as EITHER belligerents OR combatants - so there was nothing STOPPING them being shot!

As for DID similar massacres happen - I'm not an expert on events later in the war, can anyone else add?

One thing I DO recall; after the end of the war, one American army corps commander DID take and shoot German civilian hostages due to ongoing "Werwolf" activity If you take a look at the link to The Hostages Trial....you'll see that both U.S. and British military regulations permitted this in the right circumstances in occupied territory.

Both Phylo and David i find this interesting and as you point out Phylo, likewise i have little information on this, but what does have me thinking is a number of posts referring to British/American, etc. acts of atrocities for shooting civilians, or deemed criminal might now be deemed justifiable had members of there unit killed prior by Civilians, Volkstrum, etc. according to the clarification in the Hague convention which deemed activities to be unjust and reprisals to be justified!!

and is there threads of allied troops killing German civilians which where deemed as crimes and now looked at and reviewed be termed as JUST?

[phylo_roadking]

JIM, IIRC someone already has a hread open on that topic...

[David Thompson]

phylo -- You wrote:

As far as the Germans were concerned - the laws and customs of war had ALREADY been broken....on the 20th...(there are after all anecdotal accounts of Murbe's men being hunted through the olive groves and mutilated/killed) - so the proclamation established a conditional - in effect the whole population was being held hostage to the behaviour of the few...and the local Cretans then continued to break the conditional and were then treated accordingly.

Generalmajor Ringel had no authority whatsoever to unilaterally modify any provision of the 1907 Hague IV convention, and a proclamation does not legalize an otherwise unlawful act.

Ypenburg – You wrote:

Unless I missed some postings i.m.o. cutting off body parts, or putting sticks into a special body part doesn't sound like "respecting the laws and customs of war".

I agree. However since the 1929 Geneva POW convention made it illegal to take reprisals on POWs, the issue here is whether the captured individuals were personally responsible for those acts, or whether the acts could somehow be collectively attributed to everyone in the unit.

I don't see much difference between this situation and the murders, by allied soldiers, of SS POWs because of crimes supposedly committed by members of their unit.

[bf109 emil]

JIM, IIRC someone already has a thread open on that topic...

oh great and it seems when i try and list a keyword either i enter one which garners little acknowledgment or one that reveals a extreme number of sources and i fail to find the one i am looking for, but TY and i will look

I don't see much difference between this situation and the murders, by allied soldiers, of SS POWs because of crimes supposedly committed by members of their unit.

Good point David as i was starting to think if killing of civilians was justified by simply laying a weapon by them and declaring they acted out of rules of warfare or claims of being mutilated post death, an even large number of instances would have somehow turned up during this god forsaken time and by all sides

[phylo_roadking]

Generalmajor Ringel had no authority whatsoever to unilaterally modify any provision of the 1907 Hague IV convention

He's NOT modifying it - his proclamation informed the Cretan population that acts in breach of the laws and customs of war had ALREADY occured....and that no more would be tolerated, and that Cretan civilians under arms had put themselves beyond legal protection - and that the measures he was permitted to take would be taken.

However since the 1929 Geneva POW convention made it illegal to take reprisals on POWs,

David - here's ANOTHER issue to think about... apparently the circumstances of some of the body finds made the Germans conclude they had been killed after surrender

Now - IF the Cretan civilians were protected by Article TWO....then as belligerents they were obliged NOT to kill German soldiers in the olive groves but to make them POWs. Hague obligations work both ways between belligerents Killing soldiers and not taking them prisoner is a breach of the laws and customs of war...Remember how hard Bedding had to work to stop the 17 in the farmhouse not being massacred too

But HERE'S the important bit -

the issue here is whether the captured persons were somehow responsible for the acts.

Actually - no The REAL issue is whether acts gainst the laws and customs of war like those the Cretan civilians had perpetrated are individually answerable-for, or as a group...take a look at Article 2 again -

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war

It's NOT talking about individuals, it's talking in the plural - "the inhabitants of a territory"....so there is NOTHING in Hague preventing Ringel issuing a proclamation applicable to a group I.E. the "inhabitants" of Crete. THAT'S why he's not "modifying" the Hague Conventions and Annexes He's merely applying it, in its visibly literal sense, to "the inhabitants of Crete". I don't see anything in the Conventions or Annexes saying he can't...especially given the wording of Article 2! And the "inhabitants of a territory" had as a group put themselves in default of Article 2...

After all - the invaders had encountered francs-tireurs in MANY places, as well as many places in just the west of the island as I illustrated previously. There was a lot of fighting in Prison Valley too, and a LOT of similar atrocities perpetrated by the silver-handled Cretan knife.

[bf109 emil]

The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war

was this territory not occupied by British troops prior to an enemy landing?
as the reference seems to mean if a territory, having no outside influence and at total peace was suddenly to hold arms to another, (and by doing so would provoke the other into reprisals or repercussions) having the British already occupying the land would mean Germany would come expecting arms against them or in defiance as opposed to no occupation and the sudden attack or struggle with citizens , who i can now understand would be combated or killed as a threat for doing so?

[David Thompson]

phylo -- You wrote:

It's NOT talking about individuals, it's talking in the plural - "the inhabitants of a territory"....so there is NOTHING in Hague preventing Ringel issuing a proclamation applicable to a group I.E. the "inhabitants" of Crete. THAT'S why he's not "modifying" the Hague Conventions and Annexes He's merely applying it, in its visibly literal sense, to "the inhabitants of Crete". I don't see anything in the Conventions or Annexes saying he can't...especially given the wording of Article 2! And the "inhabitants of a territory" had as a group put themselves in default of Article 2...

I don't read it that way. The fact that a territory has one or some franc-tireurs or illegal combatants doesn't mean the whole population gets to be treated as criminals, or that captured members of a unit can be used as stand-ins for crimes committed by different members of the unit. The contemporary customs and usages of war didn't authorize such a thing, and the general tenor of the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions on land warfare and the 1929 Geneva POW convention is to move away from, rather than towards, notions and concepts of collective responsibility.

Finally, since the Germans apparently did not make any inquiry into the mutilations, we don't even know if they were committed by the combatants -- the mutilations may have been the work of other persons looting the dead and tormenting the wounded.

[bf109 emil]

Phylo and David, i have been following this thread curiously, and from a neutral point it seems or l appears the whole article is open for interpretation. Is there maybe a definitive, more precious legal document where as ones interpretations might refrain from just that, and having to interpret so as to either justify actions and allow killings or refute killings and deem them illegal?

[phylo_roadking]

Jim - the simple answer is.....No. The Hague Conventions were SO flawed and patchy - the whole thing was amalgamated with the various pre-war Geneva Conventions in the all-singing all-dancing 1948 Geneva Convention, the one we operate under now

So there's no single document - just the Hague Conventions, the early Geneva Conventions and a canon of legal judgements and recedents. Like the Hostages trial, or the IMT judgements.

David -

or that captured members of a unit can be used as stand-ins for crimes committed by different members of the unit.

No - but NOT because of the interpretation of the Annex....but because as POWs captured members of a military unit COULDN'T be shot as hostages OR franc-tireurs!

The fact that a territory has one or some franc-tireurs or illegal combatants doesn't mean the whole population gets to be treated as criminals,

No, it's not about crime and punishment for the atrocities - it's about the group referred to in the Conventions as "the inhabitants of a territory" being able to set themselves aside from the protections of the Conventions by breaking some provision of them - in this case from the protection as "belligerents" of Article 2 by breaking the laws and customs of war they SHOULD follow AS belligerents.

EDIT: there's TWO sides to this....1/ the atrocities themselves - and what's important here - 2/ the fact of them (whoever/whatever notwithstanding) breaching Article 2.

It's exactly the same situation as ANYONE named in the Conventions breaking some part of it - a High Signatory not making a declaration of war before attacking another, or a Neutral not informing the protecting nation of its Neutrality...and thus not having its protection. There really doesn't seem to be anything more complicated about Article 2, David - the Cretans breached it, Ringel said any MORE breaches and the perpetrators would be dealt with....in the case of the Cretans anyone found with a weapon wiould be shot, given that as a group they'd breached the laws and customs of war.

And that's why

is to move away from, rather than towards, notions and concepts of collective responsibility

IS appropriate - Ringel didn't say that the whole population was guilty of the reported atrocities - he ONLY in effect said that THOSE who continued to bear arms in an Article 2-type situation wouldn't have it's protection any more, as it had been abrogated by the deed. He wasn't apportioning blame - just stating that a breach of Article 2 had occured, and the protections not longer applied.

There's no idea of group responsibility for the atrocities JUST that the atrocities had removed the Cretans from the cover of Article 2 if they continued to bear arms....and let's face it - there's a bloody simple if un-Cretan answer to that!!!

In other words, Ringel is saying - Don't resort to the knife or the gun. You've put yourself OUT of the protection of the Annex, now put yourself IN the protection of Hague by being non-combatants. If you CHOOSE not to do so and keep fighting....

[phylo_roadking]

Two more points.

was this territory not occupied by British troops prior to an enemy landing?

Not as Hague defined "occupation", no

the mutilations may have been the work of other persons looting the dead and tormenting the wounded

David - I'm not sure that matters in the simplistic terms of Hague - for no matter WHO they were, they were EITHER British/Greek soldiers of some status and thus covered under one whole aspect of Hague.....OR "inhabitants of the territory" that was Crete and using arms. The only OTHER group on the island was the Germans

[David Thompson]

phylo -- You wrote:

David - I'm not sure that matters in the simplistic terms of Hague - for no matter WHO they were, they were EITHER British/Greek soldiers of some status and thus covered under one whole aspect of Hague.....OR "inhabitants of the territory" that was Crete and using arms.

In this regard, I don't think that the Hague and Geneva conventions are simplistic. I do think that their provisions require more thought than they've been getting. So, here are some questions:

(a) What is the factual basis for your conclusion that the perpetrators of the atrocities "are EITHER British/Greek soldiers of some status and thus covered under one whole aspect of Hague.....OR "inhabitants of the territory" that was Crete and using arms"?

(b) Under what circumstances are the crimes of individuals, whether soldiers or civilians, collectively attributable to a unit or to an entire population?

(c) What is the basis for Generalmajor Ringel's proclamation that even civilians who bore arms openly and complied with the laws and customs of war would nevertheless be shot if captured, despite the provisions of Article 2 of the Hague convention annex?

(d) Can you distinguish the killings, by allied soldiers, of captured German SS men in 1944-1945 from the Kastelli killings we're discussing here? If so, how?