W-SS war crimes in Slovenia

[David Thompson]

Octavianus -- You're right about List's brief stint as commander of the Balkan area. He was commander-in-chief Southeast (OB Südost) in the Balkan theater of operations 1 Jul-15 Oct 1941.

[K.Kocjancic]

Huh? Although I usually don't discuss with children this will be my final attempt to prove that usually the Yugoslavian fighters were not considered as a regular army.

1.) Which "Yugoslavian fighters" do you mean? There were partisans, Četniki (Blue gard), Bela garda,....

2.) Why are you refering me as child? If you know your's sociology and or psychology, you would know that I'm younger adult!

3.) If I may ask you, how are you connected with Slovenia or former Jugoslavia? You don't have veteran status, so I pressume, that you didn't fought here. Your relatives?

4.) In Caserta (Tito-Churchill) was a meeting for planing Allied invasion on Balkans (never happend). On this meeting Churchill recognized Partisans as a Allied forces, because he was meeting with a Commander of Partisan forces in Jugoslavia.

5.) On island of Vis on 14.8.1944 was a meeting of Tito-Subasic. They signed a document in which they were calling to all Slovenes, Croats, Srebs to join partisans. They aslo agreed to recognized Partisans as a regular Army. On 29.8. Jugoslav king Peter II. dismissed general Mihailovic as a Chef-of-Staff of Jugoslav army in Homeland (Cetniki) and on 12.9. apointed Tito on his place (partisans).

6.) Octavianus, what is a English word for "odred" and "prva nacionalna ilegala"?

7.)

Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans in Yugoslavia and Greece during the time he was Armed Forces Commander Southeast.” List was also found not guilty of “ any crime in connection with the Commissar Order.“

Soo, are you saying, that what German army did in SLovenia and Jugoslavia was OK???????????????

8.) But if German army didn't recognize Partisans as a regular army, how can you explain the facts, that German army was negotiated with Partisans for forming so called free zone (no Germans there) for no attacks on railways and other communications? What about peace talks after the war?

Kocjo

[POW]

I believe it was during Caserta Meeting between Tito and Churchill when Yugoslav Partisan Army was fully recognized as a part of the Allied coalition, thus giving them a legal coverage. Yet, at least in the hinterland, the soldiers of both sides were still daily breaking the paragraphs from the conduct of war.

For this see the examination of the historian Dr. Rudolf Ibbeken. Entire battalions with their commanders of the "regular" army joined the partizans. Further the "regular" army took care for supply of the partizans.

This leaves me somewhow skeptical, because if we took this for granted, than what legal protection did have those unfortunate German soldiers who found themselves in the hands of the partisans?

The German soldiers had no protection. It was common practice they were killed in a cruel way. Especially by the Yugoslav ethnic groups which were under Turkish occupation fore some time.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Feldmarshal List commanded the German armed forces in the Balkan only for a brief time before being transferred to Russland?

I understand. Therefore here some general statements of the situation in Yugoslavia:
“ It is the contention of the defendants that after the respective capitulations a lawful belligerency never did exist in Yugoslavia or Greece during the period here involved. The Prosecution contends just as emphatically that it did. The evidence on the subject is fragmentary and consists primarily of admissions contained in the reports, orders, and diaries of the German Army units involved. There is convincing evidence in the record that certain band units in both Yugoslavia and Greece complied with the requirements of International Law entitling them to the status of a lawful belligerent. But the greater portion of the partisan bands failed to comply with the rules of war entitling them to be accorded the rights of a lawful belligerent. The evidence fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the incidents involved in the present case concern partisan troops having the status of lawful belligerents.

“ The evidence shows that the bands were sometimes designated as units common to military organization. They, however, had no common uniform. They generally wore civilian clothes although parts of German, Italian and Serbian uniforms were used to the extent they could be obtained. The Soviet Star was generally worn as insignia. The evidence will not sustain a finding that it was such that it could be seen at a distance. Neither did they carry their arms openly except when it was to their advantage to do so. There is some evidence that various groups of the resistance forces were commanded by a centralised command, such as the partisans of Marshal Tito, the Chetniks of Draja Mihailovitch and the Edes of General Zervas. It is evidence also that a few partisan bands met the requirements of lawful belligerency. The bands, however, with which we are dealing in this case were not shown by satisfactory evidence to have met the requirements. This means, of course, that captured members of these unlawful groups were not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. No crime can be properly charged against the defendants for the killing of such captured members of the resistance forces, they being franc-tireurs.

The evidence is clear that during the period of occupation in Yugoslavia and Greece, guerrilla warfare was carried on against the occupying power.Such forces are technically not lawful belligerents and are not entitled to protection as prisoners of war when captured. The rule is based on the theory that the forces of two states are no longer in the field and that a contention between organised. armed forces no longer exists. This implies that a resistance not supported by an organised government is criminal and deprives participants of belligerent status, an implication not justified since the adoption of Chapter I, Article 1, of the Hague Regulations of 1907.

We think the rule is established that a civilian who aids, abets or participates in the fighting is liable to punishment as a war criminal under the laws of war. Fighting is legitimate only for the combatant personnel of a country. It is only this group that is entitled to treatment as prisoners of war and incurs no liability beyond detention after capture or surrender.

The Prosecution advances the contention that since Germany’s wars against Yugoslavia and Greece were aggressive wars, the German occupation troops were there unlawfully and gained no rights whatever as an occupant. It is further asserted as a corollary, that the duties owed by the populace to an occupying power which are normally imposed under the rules of International Law, never became effective in the present case because of the criminal character of the invasion and occupation.
For the purposes of this discussion, we accept the statement as true that the wars against Yugoslavia and Greece were in direct violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and were therefore criminal in character. But it does not follow that every act by the German occupation forces against person or property is a crime or that any and every act undertaken by the population of the occupied country against the German occupation forces thereby became legitimate defence: The Prosecution attempts to simplify the issue by posing it in the following words : ‘ The sole issue here is whether German forces can with impunity violate law by initiating and waging wars of aggression and at the same time demand meticulous observance by the victims of these crimes of duties and obligations owed only to a lawful occupant.’

[K.Kocjancic]

Further the "regular" army took care for supply of the partizans.

May I remind you, that Četniki and Partisans were enemies? At first, there were 3 meetings in 1941 to join Partisans and Četniki, but there were no results.

The German soldiers had no protection. It was common practice they were killed in a cruel way. Especially by the Yugoslav ethnic groups which were under Turkish occupation fore some time.

What about protection of Yugoslav people? For every German CO, who was killed, Germans executed 100 hostages, for every German NCO or soldier, they executed 50 of hostages.

The evidence shows that the bands were sometimes designated as units common to military organization. They, however, had no common uniform. They generally wore civilian clothes although parts of German, Italian and Serbian uniforms were used to the extent they could be obtained. The Soviet Star was generally worn as insignia. The evidence will not sustain a finding that it was such that it could be seen at a distance. Neither did they carry their arms openly except when it was to their advantage to do so. There is some evidence that various groups of the resistance forces were commanded by a centralised command, such as the partisans of Marshal Tito, the Chetniks of Draja Mihailovitch and the Edes of General Zervas. It is evidence also that a few partisan bands met the requirements of lawful belligerency. The bands, however, with which we are dealing in this case were not shown by satisfactory evidence to have met the requirements. This means, of course, that captured members of these unlawful groups were not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. No crime can be properly charged against the defendants for the killing of such captured members of the resistance forces, they being franc-tireurs.

At first they didn't have any uniforms; they used ex-Jugoslav's army uniforms, uniforms of civilian organizations (Sokol, Orli,...), civilian moutain clothes, ... At first, they didn't have any common insignia also; they wore Slovene emblems, emblems of jugoslav army. But then in winter 1941/42 came first changes. The first thing, which was to commonized all of Partisans forces, were so called TITOVKE (a kind of head-gear), first name was TRIGLAVKE (after the highest moutain in Slovenia – Triglav). In 1942 weren't allowed any civil clothes in Partisans; every Partisan got his uniform (captured from Italians or Germans or old army uniforms).

OK, let say, that today Slovenia invaded Germany. Soo you would not fight against Slovene invadors, because the law says, that this is not legal?

Neither did they carry their arms openly except when it was to their advantage to do so.

Are you refering to VOS (Varnostno-obvescevalna sluzba – Security and intelligence »office«; like Slovene SD)? They weren't wearing any uniforms, because they were working under-cover and they were spies/assasins.

Kocjo

[POW]

Kocjo, I doubt you have more knowledge than the experts, witnesses and all the others of the military tribunal. Therefore I consider a discussion with you, if they wore uniforms, hided weapons or whatever, absolutely senseless.

[POW]

...an excuse to the Germans for their massive executions, by which you need to know that those 7,000 poor fellows that were shot at Kragujevac in a single day...

Reports made to the defendant Kuntze, which were shown in the evidence, revealed that on 29th October, 1941,76 persons were shot in reprisal in Serbia ; on 2nd November, 1941, 125 persons were shot to death at Valjevo ; and on 27th November, 1941, 265 Communists were shot as a reprisal measure at Valjevo. Under date of 31st October, 1941, the Commanding General in Serbia, General Boehme, recapitulated the shootings in Serbia in a report to Kuntze as follows : “ Shootings : 405 hostages in Belgrade (total up to now in Belgrade, 4,750). 90 Communists in Camp Sebac. 2,300 hostages in Kragujevac. 1,700 hostages in Kraljevo.” In a similar report under date of 30th November, 1941, General Boehme reported to Kuntze as follows : “ Shot as hostages (total) 534 (500 of these by Serbian Auxiliary Police).” Many other similar shootings were shown to have taken place.

[Kokampf]

This leaves me somewhow skeptical, because if we took this for granted, than what legal protection did have those unfortunate German soldiers who found themselves in the hands of the partisans?

None whatsoever. The inability and unwillingness of partisans to fulfil the responsibilities of a real, official army with regard to treatment of POWs is one important reason for their illegality and their incomplete recognition as soldiers entitled to the rights of soldiers in captivity. German crimes against the civilian population are quite despicable, but summary executions of partisans are quite reasonable within the framework of international law and understandable given that partisans habitually murdered prisoners (being a guerilla 'army' without such legal necessities as a proper framework for the processing of POWs or formal military discipline). If a civilian shoots at occupying troops he can reasonably be shot under martial law as a spy or franc-tireur. The purpose of these rules is to keep wars as controllable, formal engagements between properly organised and disciplined armies with a clear dividing line between civilians and combatants. Without this, anyone can claim to be a combatant and there is ultimately no regulation or restraint whatsoever on the military business of organised violence. The type of war that developed in the Balkans ultimately brutalises and barbarises all involved and creates a climate in which atrocity flourishes. When murderously criminal ideologies such as National Socialism and Marxist-Leninism are added to the mix you get a war of continual, reciprocal and officially sanctioned atrocities, an awful lot of murdered civilians and deep, lasting hatred.

[K.Kocjancic]

The inability and unwillingness of partisans to fulfil the responsibilities of a real, official army with regard to treatment of POWs is one important reason for their illegality and their incomplete recognition as soldiers entitled to the rights of soldiers in captivity.

We can't say, that that Partisans executed all of German and other POW. A lot, but not all. They first offered them to join their ranks, if not were transfered to labor btl. (delavski bataljoni), executed (specially members of W-SS) or were exchanged for Partisans POW.

[Krasnaya Zvezda]

Thanks to POW for the usefull information. Facts based. The key for the whole discussion is in the last paragraph that he posted:


"he Prosecution advances the contention that since Germany?s wars against Yugoslavia and Greece were aggressive wars, the German occupation troops were there unlawfully and gained no rights whatever as an occupant. It is further asserted as a corollary, that the duties owed by the populace to an occupying power which are normally imposed under the rules of International Law, never became effective in the present case because of the criminal character of the invasion and occupation.
For the purposes of this discussion, we accept the statement as true that the wars against Yugoslavia and Greece were in direct violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and were therefore criminal in character. But it does not follow that every act by the German occupation forces against person or property is a crime or that any and every act undertaken by the population of the occupied country against the German occupation forces thereby became legitimate defence: The Prosecution attempts to simplify the issue by posing it in the following words : ? The sole issue here is whether German forces can with impunity violate law by initiating and waging wars of aggression and at the same time demand meticulous observance by the victims of these crimes of duties and obligations owed only to a lawful occupant.?"


And from this last paragraph, the last line is the conclusion of the whole discussion. You can not demand legality from somebody else if you yourself do not respect the same, and also, the occupation was done in such a way that fulfilling some of the criteria to be met for a regular belligerent force were made extremely difficult. All the best.

[POW]

And from this last paragraph, the last line is the conclusion of the whole discussion. You can not demand legality from somebody else if you yourself do not respect the same, and also, the occupation was done in such a way that fulfilling some of the criteria to be met for a regular belligerent force were made extremely difficult. All the best.

I don't think you can pick one sentence out of a whole composition and declare it as key for an conclusion.

What does the 29. November meant for former Yugoslavia?

[K.Kocjancic]

POW wrote:

What does the 29. November meant for former Yugoslavia?

On 29.11.1943 was a second meeting of AVNOJ. On this meeting was determined the democratic principles of federal regulation of Jugoslavia after the war.

Regards,
Kocjo

[Krasnaya Zvezda]

I don't think you can pick one sentence out of a whole composition and declare it as key for an conclusion.

Why not? This is the key of the whole problem. Even if we accept the fact that partisans were illegal, German occupation was illegal also as said in court whose decisions you quote, Germans can not expect the law to be respected by the partisans when they are breaking it itself. Those systems in human history (commmunism is one of them) were always proven to be unsustainable. Double standards are always short lived. And the key is that Germans started it first with disobeying the law. What did Yugoslavia do to Germany to be dismanteled and occupied against peoples will, the civillians being mistreated the way they were? So again, why can I not take the last paragraph as a conclusion, let us say I also accept the fact that partisans were illegal force for the Germans?

What does the 29. November meant for former Yugoslavia?

I do not understand the question? 29 November was celebrated as I know as a stathood of former Yugoslavia. What does that has to do with the legality of partisans and German occupation? That was that meeting of communist from all over former Yu in Bosnia, Jajce if I am not mistaken?

[K.Kocjancic]

Even if we accept the fact that partisans were illegal, German occupation was illegal also as said in court whose decisions you quote, Germans can not expect the law to be respected by the partisans when they are breaking it itself.

Totally agree!

And the key is that Germans started it first with disobeying the law.

Right!

That was that meeting of communist from all over former Yu in Bosnia, Jajce if I am not mistaken?

You know "your" history!

Regards,
Kocjo

[POW]

I don't think you can pick one sentence out of a whole composition and declare it as key for an conclusion.

Why not?

Wow, I'm impressed of this answer. You can't pick just one sentence you like but you have to see the whole story.

Even if we accept the fact that partisans were illegal, German occupation was illegal also as said in court whose decisions you quote

The court also said that after the rules the shooting of partizans and hostages can be OK. Do you agree to this also? Or do you just pick the sentences you like?

And the key is that Germans started it first with disobeying the law. What did Yugoslavia do to Germany to be dismanteled and occupied against peoples will, the civillians being mistreated the way they were?

Yogoslavia signed a treaty with Germany at 25 March 1941 in Vienna. The government under Cvetovic was overthrown by some jung officers of the air force and replaced with Simovic under King Peter II. Yugoslavia was apparently against the Axis and Hitler thought it was neccesary to lead a preventive war. Seems in modern times preventive wars are still not legal but accepted. However in 1948 the court came to the conclusion Germany led an agressive war.

I do not understand the question? 29 November was celebrated as I know as a stathood of former Yugoslavia. What does that has to do with the legality of partisans and German occupation?

At 29. November 1944 the AVNOJ (Antifasistcko vece narodnog aslobodjenja Jogoslavije) made agreements for the new Yugoslavia. Early 1945 tha Yugoslavian Army was founded. So my question had to do if you know since when Germany was fighting against a regular Yugoslavian army.
Hitler was hesitant to order the withdrawal to the German border. So German troops stood at the day of the capitulation only 72 hours from the German border away. Only 72 hours to reach the British forces in Kärnten. But it was too late and so about 150.000 German sodiers came into Yugoslavian captivity - a death penalty for most of them. More than 50 precent died there. So the regular Yugoslavian army killed more German soldiers after the capitulation than bevore. Seems some Yugoslavien officers and soldiers had to be sentenced also?

[K.Kocjancic]

POW wrote:

Yogoslavia signed a treaty with Germany at 25 March 1941 in Vienna. The government under Cvetovic was overthrown by some jung officers of the air force and replaced with Simovic under King Peter II. Yugoslavia was apparently against the Axis and Hitler thought it was neccesary to lead a preventive war.

Do you know, how many times before was Jugoslavija asked to join the Axis. 4-times! But they signed it, when Jugoslavia was surrounded with all Axis forces (Bulgaria 28.2.1941).

Prime-minister was CVETKOVIC, not Cvetovic (under knez Pavle, the goverment of king's regent). The overthrown on 27.3.1941 was made by brig. gen Mirkovic (CO of air staff; like Chef-Of-Staff of air force) and air-gen. Simovic (Commander-in-Chef of air force) and with a help of British secret service. Jugoslavija never resigned off the Pact, they even orally confirmed it, but before they could made a offical confirmation, Germany and other Axis forces attack Jugoslavia.

POW also wrote:

So my question had to do if you know since when Germany was fighting against a regular Yugoslavian army.

I wrote:

On island of Vis on 14.8.1944 was a meeting of Tito-Subasic. They signed a document in which they were calling to all Slovenes, Croats, Srebs to join partisans. They aslo agreed to recognized Partisans as a regular Army. On 29.8. Jugoslav king Peter II. dismissed general Mihailovic as a Chef-of-Staff of Jugoslav army in Homeland (Cetniki) and on 12.9. apointed Tito on his place (partisans).

At first Cetniki were fighting against Germans, but then they realised, that the greater enemy is communism and from then on, they were fighting against Partisans.

DURING all of WWII, was in Jugoslavia, REGULAR army, RECOGNIZED by ALLIED's (USA and UK). On 14.8.'44 they just proclame another army to be regular and another to be illegal. (at first Partisans were illegal and after the treaty they were legal).