Frankolovo

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
frcoplan
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 26 Jul 2005, 18:54
Location: Slovenia

Re: Frankolovo

#31

Post by frcoplan » 01 Sep 2009, 14:06

As long as you were slovene and at the wrong place at the wrong time (somewhere they could grab you, guilty or not), you could get shot or hanged etc. People from prison were normaly "at hand", although as TISO said, partisans sometimes used this and fired on germans in antipartisan villages becouse they knew germans would take it out on the people from village, guilty or not.

I remember my grandmother telling me about a man (or several of them?) from her village, who got killed in the same way. He was in prison i think italians actually placed him there, there was an attack on germas and they took people out of prison and killed them.

Interesting thou, they were affraid to do that towards the end of war. In village where my grandmother used to live, 2 german soldiers went missing (they were killed). They made investigation, found out where the bodies were, but there was no action taken. It was close to the end of the war and even the most hardcore nazis knew, the war was lost and soon a bill for such things will have to be paid. If it happened sooner in war...

Germans were also robbing and they were definetly no knights in shinning armor as some people would sometimes like to picture them.

frcoplan

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Frankolovo

#32

Post by bf109 emil » 01 Sep 2009, 17:02

WTF???? WHAT NATIVE COUNTRY????????
Tiso i think we have a misunderstanding...if you read the full text, and if some of these citizens where indeed German folk

or Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) is a historical term which arose in the early 20th century to describe ethnic Germans living outside of the Reich.

Before and during WWII, some Volksdeutsche in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland or Yugoslavia, actively supported the Nazis by espionage, sabotage and other means in their countries of origin.

but if their where German members or citizens also shot could they have not been placed their or moved...and i think the term was Lebensraum around this location...and this is what i was refering to if indeed some of the people shot where German they where shot by their "Native Country" meaning German...I can see the mix up or play on words but German whom might have been shot where done so by their native country where they not?


User avatar
TISO
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 23 Dec 2004, 02:25
Location: Slovenia - vojvodina Å tajerska

Re: Frankolovo

#33

Post by TISO » 01 Sep 2009, 18:28

Regarding citizenship in Lover Styria:
As per book: Vigred se povrne - druga svetovna vojna na Celjskem - dr. Tone Kregar (Muzej novejše zgodovine Celje - Museum of contemporary history Celje - published in 2009):
Citizenships were given by germans as following:
5,2% - permanent german citizens (red ID)
79,2% - citzenship auf wideruff (green ID)
15,5% - shutzlinge des reiches or under protection of the reich (white ID) not given citizenship

Today my ssister went to the monument and made a few pic's. At the monument is a small museum. There are pic's of all of the men that were hanged with some of the backround on each of them, but photos didn't go well as the technic involved in the presentation is that pic's are only visible from directly on and are not visible from the side so flash ruined everything. As she found out the museum of contemporary history in celje has all those pic's in original with summary of every victim. The book i mentioned abouve is available there as quite a few brochures.
Some of the pic's from today:
Victims in slovene language:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z39/ ... vo1005.jpg

there are two graves:
Image
Image

The perpetrators:
Image
Image
Image

Anton Dorfmaister:
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Frankolovo

#34

Post by bf109 emil » 02 Sep 2009, 18:11

Tiso thank you for posting this and it is nice to see something and pics/monuments, etc. in place and to read and hear about these and see in person (or for real) something that has been done or placed to show, talk, honor those whom fell as opposed to reading about such events and ending there when indeed some further info and tributes have been laid out but without your posting these I'd have to assume they would have never been known to myself

Thank You
Jim Snowden (bf109 emil)

User avatar
TISO
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 23 Dec 2004, 02:25
Location: Slovenia - vojvodina Å tajerska

Re: Frankolovo

#35

Post by TISO » 02 Sep 2009, 21:39

For detailed information you can contact museum on:
Muzej novejše zgodovine Celje
Prešernova ulica 17,
3000 Celje
Slovenija,
Or trough Email posted on lower right corner of their internet site:
http://www.muzej-nz-ce.si/

Since the book was written by Tone Kregar i think if you will contact them he will be the right adress.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Frankolovo

#36

Post by michael mills » 03 Sep 2009, 02:34

It should also be noted that the assassination of Dorfmeister was a criminal act under the laws of war then in force, perpetrated by illegal combatants. Accordingly, under the laws of war it was justifiable for the german administration of Slovenia to exert a reprisal action.

The sole issue is whether the execution of 100 hostages was a reasonable and commensurate reprisal for the crime committed by the illegal combatants.

One criterion to be applied in an analysis of that issue is the relationship between the hostages and the illegal combatants who committed the crime of assassination. Were the hostages themselves illegal combatants? It appears that they were not all from the Celje area, even though they were all being held in the Celje prison. Obviously they were all in prison for some offence committed by them which suggests a priori that there was a connection between them and the assassins, eg belonging to the same organisation of illegal combatants, or aiding and abetting such an organisation, which would justify their being held as hostages.

The other criterion is that of commensurateness, ie whether the execution of 100 hostages was excessive as retribution for the assassination of one german official, albeit a very important one. But that is a separaet issue which should be evaluated separately.

In order to arrive at a proper and measured historical judgement on this act, we need to eschew the political propaganda of the Titoist era.

User avatar
TISO
Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 23 Dec 2004, 02:25
Location: Slovenia - vojvodina Å tajerska

Re: Frankolovo

#37

Post by TISO » 03 Sep 2009, 09:56

Obviously they were all in prison for some offence committed by them which suggests a priori that there was a connection between them and the assassins, eg belonging to the same organisation of illegal combatants, or aiding and abetting such an organisation, which would justify their being held as hostages.
OMG. You obviously look at the germans trough (very) rosy glases.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Frankolovo

#38

Post by bf109 emil » 05 Sep 2009, 20:53

It should also be noted that the assassination of Dorfmeister was a criminal act under the laws of war then in force, perpetrated by illegal combatants. Accordingly, under the laws of war it was justifiable for the german administration of Slovenia to exert a reprisal action.
But for a reprisal killing to be legal doesn't the occupying force have to take hostages prior and decree a reprisal should illegal activities commence...

unsure if this is relavant in this case but In Kesselrings defense of reprisal killings his defense for justification and using a German war manual claims for this to be done legally hostages must be taken first before reprisals killings can be justified
"" Hostages are held in a kind of safe custody. They vouch with their lives for the lawful conduct of the opponent. According to the usages of war it must be announced that hostages are being taken and for what purpose. Above all, the taking of hostages has to be brought to the notice of those for whose lawful conduct the hostages are a guarantee. If the event which was to be prevented by the taking of hostages occurs, e.g. if the opponent continues his unlawful conduct, the hostages can be killed."(Waltzog, Recht der Landkriegführung (Laws of War on Land), 1941, p. 83.) Defence Counsel argued that the first step towards the inflicting of reprisals is the taking of hostages. He said that " any military commander in the course of reprisals is authorised to arrest civilians in case partisans should attack his troops or military establishments. If at a later stage outrages against the troops of the occupying power are committed, prisoners belonging to the group detained as hostages may be killed in the course of reprisals." In support of this proposition Defence Counsel quoted section 358(d) of the American Rules of Land Warfare. (FM. 27/10, Rules of Land Warfare, 1940.) " Hostages taken and held for the declared purpose of ensuring against unlawful acts by the enemy forces or people may be punished or put to death if unlawful acts are nevertheless committed."

the above defense was used as a justifiable reprisal killing by Kesselring in Italy...and to be justifiable he followed these rules

W. E. Hall (Treatise on International Law, 8th Edition, 1924, by Higgins) points out the principle underlying the law of reprisals : when the actual offender cannot be reached or identified reprisals are sometimes resorted to by which persons guilty of no offence suffer for the acts of others, " a measure in itself repugnant of justice," and therefore to be resorted to only in cases of absolute necessity and subject to certain restrictions.

The essentials which emerged from these definitions as well as from the opinion of all other writers dealing with the subject are :

1. That reprisals by one belligerent to be justified must be preceded by some violation of the laws and usages of war committed by the other belligerent.

2. That their purpose is coercion, i.e. they must be taken for the purpose of forcing the other belligerent to adhere to the laws and usages of war in future.

3. They are to be used only as a last resort and then only subject to certain restrictions.


In this case if troops safety was threatened, reprisal killings are or IMHO appear legal, (albeit as to the number being 100 IMHO might be ecessive) as shown below in last rule noting troops safety
"(iii) When Reprisals are Admissible

" Reprisals are admissible for any and every act of illegitimate warfare " (Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. II, para. 248). Such reprisals are legitimate against the acts of governments or the acts of individuals. " The illegitimate acts may be committed by a government, by its military commanders, or by some person or persons whom it is

p.5

obviously impossible to apprehend, try, and punish." (Para. 453, British Manual of Military Law.)

If an act of illegitimate warfare has been committed it is up to the injured belligerent to consider whether reprisals should be resorted to at once or only after a complaint to the enemy.

" In practice, however, a.belligerent will rarely resort at once to reprisals, if the violation of the rules of legitimate warfare is not very grave, and the safety of his troops does not require prompt and drastic measures." (Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, Vol. II, para. 248,. note 2.)

The British Manual of Military Law adopts the same view. Para. 456 says : " . . . As a rule the injured party would not at once resort to reprisals, but would first lodge a complaint with the enemy in the hope of stopping any repetition of the offence or of securing the punishment of the guilty. This course should always be pursued unless the safety of the troops requires immediate drastic action, and the persons who actually committed the offences cannot be secured."

safety of the troops requires immediate drastic action, and the persons who actually committed the offences cannot be secured. is what appears to be in question here and whether it deemed reprisals legal IMHO


the source for these rules where found while reading and quoted from both Kesselrings defense for reprisal killings in Italy and that of TRIAL OF GENERAL VON MACKENSEN AND GENERAL MAELZER--BRITISH MILITARY COURT, ROME
18TH-30TH NOVEMBER, 1945 http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/mackensen.htm andhttp://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/kesselring.htm
and indeed if i am wrong on war crimes to determine reprisal killings as justified or illegal within Italy as being the same legality as those during the occupation of Slovakia to be the same...If i am wrong I apologize

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Frankolovo

#39

Post by michael mills » 06 Sep 2009, 07:35

But for a reprisal killing to be legal doesn't the occupying force have to take hostages prior and decree a reprisal should illegal activities commence...
This is precisely the point I was making. The 100 hostages executed as a reprisal for the assassination of Dorfmeister were already in prison, they were not innocent civilians rounded up at random after the assassination.

Since the persons executed were already in prison, maybe they were being held as hostages. Or perhaps the German occupiers had proclaimed that persons arrested for anti-German activity and held in prison would be used as hostages subject to reprisal execution in the case of any further anti-German activity.

That is the question that I have been continually asking, and which Tiso keeps avoiding.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Frankolovo

#40

Post by bf109 emil » 05 Oct 2009, 08:48

Michael, the only thing that bothers me if these 100 where shot as a reprisal killing, is these 100 that where in jail would have had to been placed their by Germany, a decree announced as to why they are being held and the consequence should illegal activities arise, the killing of these men would result. The only point which I might question is in order for Germany to do so legally they would have had to issue a decree, and make it public knowledge that for illegal activities the killing of these men would be the reprisal. IMHO and here I admit lacking the knowledge, but to me the Germans seemed a stickler for paper work, and such that would exonerate them of a crime should the killing of these hostages which where placed there by Germany and decreed as such in order to justify their being shoot seems to be missing.
Someone with better access to war records or legal papers maybe find this, but as this defense was used by Kesselring in Italy as being legal, and a decree issued, i would have to assume if these men where held for the same reason or circumstance, likewise some where this decree or knowledge if indeed they where placed their as hostages should arise somehow or place?

In the last paragraph might sum up what the difference between reprisal killings which are deemed illegal, as opposed to hostage killings which can be comprised of ordinary civilians, but if hostages are taken and decreed to be held for said purpose of disallowing partisan activity, etc. then this is legal...

what i found which helps to differ between a reprisal killing and a hostages killing is this...

For the purpose of this opinion the term ‘ hostages ’ will be considered as those persons of the civilian population who are taken into custody for the purpose of guaranteeing with their lives the future good conduct of the population of the community from which they were taken. The term ‘ reprisal prisoners ’ will be considered as those individuals who are taken from the civilian population to be killed in retaliation for any offence committed by unknown persons within the occupied area . . . where innocent individuals are seized and punished for a violation of the laws of war which has already occurred, no question of hostages is involved. It is nothing more than an infliction of a reprisal. . .

Professor Lauterpacht (Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. II, p. 460.) points out that the taking of hostages " must not be confused with the still existing practice of seizing enemy individuals for the purpose of making them the object of reprisals."

It is usual to speak of " hostages " in occupied territories when the occupying forces imprison members of the community of the occupied territory announcing at the same time that they will be treated as hostages if the community does not refrain from certain activities against the occupying forces. The term " reprisal " is used in this connection for measures taken by the occupying forces in retaliation for the unlawful conduct of unidentified members of the community of the occupied territory. Thus hostages are taken before the act of illegitimate warfare committed by the enemy whereas reprisals are inflicted after such an act.


so IMHO if and had the Germans prior had taken these 100 men as Hostages and decreed as such and made known, then their is no crime, on the opposite side IMHO had Germany done this, it would have had to be made known and a record or listing of this action of holding these hostages for this purpose, in order to be made legal or allegations of a crime removed...now I am not a legal expert, but if killing people or hostages is a crime, then the burden of making it legal and just now falls on the shoulders of Germany to allow or justify these killings not on another nation to try and prove what would otherwise be a crime, to now be made legal

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Frankolovo

#41

Post by David Thompson » 05 Oct 2009, 12:15

bf108 emil -- Even where there is a right to take and execute hostages, killing them at the rate of 100:1 is disproportionate, and therefore illegal.

Laki
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 21:48

Re: Frankolovo

#42

Post by Laki » 16 Nov 2009, 01:31

michael mills wrote:
But for a reprisal killing to be legal doesn't the occupying force have to take hostages prior and decree a reprisal should illegal activities commence...
This is precisely the point I was making. The 100 hostages executed as a reprisal for the assassination of Dorfmeister were already in prison, they were not innocent civilians rounded up at random after the assassination.

Since the persons executed were already in prison, maybe they were being held as hostages. Or perhaps the German occupiers had proclaimed that persons arrested for anti-German activity and held in prison would be used as hostages subject to reprisal execution in the case of any further anti-German activity.

That is the question that I have been continually asking, and which Tiso keeps avoiding.
8O 8O 8O
Sorry my dear aussie, but this is too much!
You are talking about 100 civilians and you are sitting couple of 1000 miles away and looking for excuse for their death.
I m from Celje and most of this people were from my town too and who are you to judge us!?
You got all the answers from Tiso(RESPECT TO HIM to took the time for you!)
Yes they were in the prison because were Slovenians: some of them had relatives in the partisans, some spoke Slovene in the public, some listened BBC radio at home, some hid slovenian books at home, some helped partisans with food, clothes, some just had bad luck, etc. All of them finished in the jail in Celje. The Nazis sent most of this kind slovenian prisoners from local jails in Celje, Maribor, Kranj, Klagenfurt to Dachau and other camps; on the other hand captured partisans sent to execute and then their bodies burried in Graz(the uncle of my grandmother was send their and they cut the head by axe) or just simple shot in the prison yard.
The brother of my grandfather was in the Dachau.Reason?! He was just slovenian intellectual person and he was smart and this was enough, on the other hand the grandfather had to be in German army and captured in may 1945 in the some last skirmish in south Germany by " brave" French units and then spent 1 year after the end of the war in the prison camp for German soldiers in France.
About Frankolovo:So the nazist just picked 100 hundred slovenian men who had to transport to Dachau and killed them for revange in the place of the ambush.
You wrote that this is Tito era propaganda, bullshit. We know stories about this from our relatives, friends, neighbours. I have 86 years old grandmother who can tell you how she was afraid 5 to 6 hours in the morning because Gestapo always knocked at doors and picked people in this hours.

About German surnames. Germans germanized all the slovenians surnames like the Italians in their zone. +a lot of Slovenians have the Germans surnames(me too).
Sorry but some things never had been forgotten and forgiven in my town!

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Frankolovo

#43

Post by David Thompson » 16 Nov 2009, 02:16

Laki -- Please avoid personal remarks in posts. We're not fond of low forms of speech either. The rest of your post is fine and to the point.

H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Frankolovo

#44

Post by michael mills » 16 Nov 2009, 03:33

The bottom line, as I have previously stated, is that the 100 persons executed were not just innocent civilians rounded up at random and killed.

They were persons who had committed some offence against the German occupiers and were being held in prison for further processing, for example to be sent to a concentration camp. When partisans committed an illegal act, ie the assassination of Dorfmeister (who was a civilian offical, not a member of the German armed forces and hence not a legitimate military target), 100 of the imprisoned persons were selected for execution as a reprisal action, which was permissible under the laws of war at the time.

Since the 100 persons selected for execution had committed offences against the German occupation forces, including providing assistance to insurgents considered illegal combatants by the German occupiers, they had a common purpose with the persons who carried out the assassination of Dorfmeister, and hence they could reasonably be considered legitimate subjects for a reprisal action.

Laki has given examples of what he claims were the offences for which the executed persons had been imprisoned. Some of them were clearly illegal acts by civilians under the laws of war at the time, eg providing assistance to persons carrying out acts of violence against an occupying army. Action taken by such persons by the German armed forces was comparable to action taken by Allied armed forces against German civilians who had engaged in illegal acts against Allied personnel.

Laki has said that the executed persons were in prison because they were Slovenians. That seems less than credible, since if it were true one would expect the entire Slovenian population to have been in prison. Perhaps Laki and/or Tiso could provide a list of the specific offences for which the 100 executed persons had been imprisoned, so that we can judge whether their acts could reasonably have been considered offences under the laws of war applicable at the time in regard to the legal rights of an army of occupation.

The moderator has stated that a reprisal in the ratio of 100:1 is illegal due to its disproportionate nature. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the execution of hostages in reprisal for the assassination of Dorfmeister was in itself illegal.

Laki
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 21:48

Re: Frankolovo

#45

Post by Laki » 16 Nov 2009, 12:02

michael mills wrote:The bottom line, as I have previously stated, is that the 100 persons executed were not just innocent civilians rounded up at random and killed.

They were persons who had committed some offence against the German occupiers and were being held in prison for further processing, for example to be sent to a concentration camp. When partisans committed an illegal act, ie the assassination of Dorfmeister (who was a civilian offical, not a member of the German armed forces and hence not a legitimate military target), 100 of the imprisoned persons were selected for execution as a reprisal action, which was permissible under the laws of war at the time.

Since the 100 persons selected for execution had committed offences against the German occupation forces, including providing assistance to insurgents considered illegal combatants by the German occupiers, they had a common purpose with the persons who carried out the assassination of Dorfmeister, and hence they could reasonably be considered legitimate subjects for a reprisal action.

Laki has given examples of what he claims were the offences for which the executed persons had been imprisoned. Some of them were clearly illegal acts by civilians under the laws of war at the time, eg providing assistance to persons carrying out acts of violence against an occupying army. Action taken by such persons by the German armed forces was comparable to action taken by Allied armed forces against German civilians who had engaged in illegal acts against Allied personnel.

Laki has said that the executed persons were in prison because they were Slovenians. That seems less than credible, since if it were true one would expect the entire Slovenian population to have been in prison. Perhaps Laki and/or Tiso could provide a list of the specific offences for which the 100 executed persons had been imprisoned, so that we can judge whether their acts could reasonably have been considered offences under the laws of war applicable at the time in regard to the legal rights of an army of occupation.

The moderator has stated that a reprisal in the ratio of 100:1 is illegal due to its disproportionate nature. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the execution of hostages in reprisal for the assassination of Dorfmeister was in itself illegal.
First! Yesterday I answered with hard emotains and with hot head, because I was personally touch and hurt with this topic.I just looked for some informations about Spanis civil war submarines in the net and I found topic about my town and people. So mea culpa :wink:
Second! History of Slovenia in this period is very difficult question and you must know the story between Germans and native Slovenians who supported Germans and Slovenians in Steiermarkt and Karnten and also Krain and Slovenians and Italians in Triest, Gorizia and Istria didnt start 1941 or 1945 but in 1848 with the spring of the nations. The Germans had plan to make a bridge to warm sea and had to germanize Slovenian nation who was the barrier between Triest and German nation, on the other hand Slovenians woke up with romantic poets, new middle class, slovenian priests , etc. and started battle to defence. You can compare situation between Germans and Slovenians in my town Celje/Cilli about 1900 with Belfast. The Slovenians had own pubs, gyms, concerts halls, schools, sports clubs etc. and Germans had theirs too. Young men of both sides first drunk in the pubs then went to fight each others with knives in the streets every weekend. Simple citizens of Celje (Slovene Celjani, singular Celjan, Celjanka, adjective celjski, celjska) split into German and Slovene sides. Each citizen was forced to define himself. With 1st World War underway, each person needed to take sides. All the way to the fall of the Austrian monarchy in 1918, two mottos were present in the political and social scene: in German "Hie Deusche - hie Slowenen"; in Slovene "Svoji k svojim" ("Every man to his own"). Because of Celje and Celje citizens and Slovene parallel classes at Celje gymnasium 1895 even fell Austrian government of Alfred Windischgraetz. That was those days a real precedent.

During the 2nd World War Nazis committed a lot of war crimes to the civilians at a war prison called the Stari pisker ("Old pot") and in the surroundings such as Frankolovo, where they had hung many Slovene patriots on trees. A book of a prisoner's last letters from Stari pisker was published after the war. On April 19 1941 Nazi politician and SS chief leader Heinrich Himmler visited Celje and among other he inspected the Stari pisker. Three days before infamous Gestapo men came to Celje.

The balance of a war was terrible. The city had 20,000 citizens (with nearby towns) and lost 575 people, mostly young ones between 20 and 30 years old. More than 1500 people were ejected to Serbia or into the interior of the German Third reich. Around 300 people were interned and around 1000 people prisoned in Celje prisons. An unknown number of the citizens of Celje were forcibly mobilized in the German army. Many were children. Around 600 "stolen children" were taken to Germany for Germanization. A monument in Celje entitled "Vojna in mir" ("The war and the peace") exists to commemorate these times.


So people who were in Frankolovo were Slovenians and this is the first reason why were hang, If they were Germans they were´t be pick up in the prison for hanging.
Maybe you are right about law in the III Raich and so you can see partizans and resistance like the bandits out of law, like Jewess or British and American pilots and Soviet war prisoners etc. But this is question about law in third raich. You can open similar questions about law of Iran, North Korea, Soviet Union, Cambodia etc. in the same way.
Cheers! :wink:

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”