'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

[j keenan]

If you look at photos of a round that time Mohnke wears a close fitting camo jacket,H.Meyer wears the leather coat in question !
Here is the fighting on the 8.6.44 according too Mohnke Ritterkreuze recommendation
Am 8.6.44 16:00 Uhr erfolgte der Durchbruch feindlicher Panzer in Richtung Le Mesnil-Patry. Er wurde jedoch durch das II./SS-Pz.Gren.Rgt.26 aufgefangen und abgewehrt. Am 9.6.44 brach ein starker Panzerverband aus Richtung Touzy in Richtung Tilly vor. Gegen 17:00 Uhr wurde der linke Flügel des verstärkten SS-Pz.Gren.Rgt. 26 laufend durch Panzer angegriffen. Aufgrund der eigenen starken Abwehr war der feindliche Panzerangriff ohne Erfolg. 3 Panzer wurden vernichtet. Am 10.6.44 versuchte der Gegner wieder, mit einem Panzerverband aus der Gegend Brohaz in Richtung Le Mesnil-Patry durchzubrechen. Dieser Angriff wurde durch SS-Pz.Gren.Rgt.26

[j keenan]

'' I showed that Siebken and Schnabel both claimed that they had not wanted to execute the prisoners but were forced to by Mohnke - I showed that there was evidence that he turned up at the II Btln HQ on the night of the 8th of June expressly to convey this order. I stated that 8 witnesses agreed with this assertion.

So he showed up with everything that was going on expressly to convey an order to kill prisoners ? So all the other battalions were carrying out this order then ?

'' In the round up post I actually stated: "The identity of this Officer was never positively uncovered as no one was ever found by the prosecution team who could identify him." But I did go on to show that H Meyer and the Investigators heavily suspected it was him - that is not the same as my stating that it was him.

You imply it all the way through !

''Not sure 'looking like one of the lads' would persuade anyone that he hadn't got a temper. I agree that many testimonies given by POWs were done for a variety of reasons, some no doubt under duress, some given to cut themselves a deal. There is one type of document that rules this out and that's the overheard conversation one - As posted above, Kurt Meyer was taped talking about Mohnke - so no suggestion of duress etc. He stated "At least twice I found him in such a state that he had to be carried out, one in defence and once in attack - he was a wreck" - I think that's pretty insightful from the division head . Is it true that K Meyer had persuaded Mohnke to take up his position in the first place with the 12th - I've not seen that cited but heard the rumour. ?

We don’t know the full conversation Meyer may have been bad mouthing or making his self look good ?



''100% agree on the testimonies - they were terrible and with justification of course - but I did state my belief that what was noticed was far more important than what was missed - when asked about the Shoulder Boards there was no indication that the investigation team were trying to catch anyone in particular and actually that piece of evidence was never hi lighted by them as crucial either. But when Mc Lean was asked (remember he was at the head of the column), he said it outright without signifying that he knew its significance. But its not a trump card in this, it just adds to the evidence.

In your opinion




''Not sure what you mean here - these prisoners were being sent to the rear - my understanding is that they went first to a Kp HQ, then to a Btln HQ and after that it would have been to a Regimental HQ, that was the direction they were walking. Obviously they never got there. Do you mean these prisoners or the prisoners of the 26th Reg in general and what is the significance of where they would have gone ? I do have the evidence of what happened the survivors after they were picked up a second time and sent to the rear. Do you think that posting that might send us in a different direction ? I will post if you think so.

As far I know prisoners are sent back to Div. HQ then on up to Korps and so on.But in the initial stages of the fighting would you have bothered with prisoners ? On either side ?

''I do not think you have to interview a man to build a picture of him - I do believe you yourself have posted many times about members of the WSS, I would assume you have made judgements by reading what comrades, authors and evidence has produced and then made up your mind. Is there any chance that you yourself Interviewed or met with Mohnke ?

No I don't make judgements I just post their assessments, Mohnke didn’t do interviews apart from the Fischer one as far as I know.

''I didn't get the insinuation that Mohnke was ostracised because of Wormhoudt, I would suspect that Siebken and Schnabel's hanging might have had something to do with it, also from Kurt Meyer's description above, it would seem that his comrades had reservations about him during the fighting in Normandy.

Again one mans opinion

''That was what the prosecution contended at Siebken and Schnabel's trial, it seems that they were not using that defence initially, possibly until they knew Mohnke was not going to stand trial himself - That initial loyalty (if it was the case) cost them dear. H Meyer contended in the 1980s that the evidence given 40 years earlier from them was correct but of course you are suspicious of H Meyer so that won't wash. Strangely which the prosecution were dismissing that line of defence, in the background the investigation team were using that evidence to prove Mohnke's guilt. So it was never going to exonerate them but it seemed to be believed by the British off the record. Its a defence that is open to interpretation, perhaps there is partial truth in there.

But if you look at other incidents its a ploy of blaming an officer that is already dead.



''Is it your contention that Witt was sanctioning these killings' from the off and that he let his Regimental Commanders have free rein in that department ?

Yes

[seaburn]

If you look at photos of a round that time Mohnke wears a close fitting camo jacket,H.Meyer wears the leather coat in question !

We have gone over the evidence on the coat in some detail earlier in the thread, it wasn’t described as a leather coat – McLean (who was the only POW who got a proper look at the ‘Angry Officer’ as he was at the head of the column) described it as such:

First Interview: He was wearing a grey top coat, like an Officers rain coat. The coat was long and came past his knees.

Re-Interview: He wore a German Officers coat. It looked like a rain coat. A long coat, it was below his knees and on that coat was twisted rope braid – a pip or number of brass was on that.

While it is true that Mohnke was photographed many times in Camo in Normandy and there is a picture of Hubert Meyer in an overcoat, this is not enough to prove that the Angry Officer was H Meyer and could not have been Mohnke. This shooting happened at night, the weather at that time was mixed. There is already a picture on the thread of K Meyer wearing a long coat during the day, there is every possibility that Mohnke could have put on a coat over his uniform at night, but we don’t know for sure and probably never will.

Here is the fighting on the 8.6.44 according too Mohnke Ritterkreuze recommendation
Am 8.6.44 16:00 Uhr erfolgte der Durchbruch feindlicher Panzer in Richtung Le Mesnil-Patry. Er wurde jedoch durch das II./SS-Pz.Gren.Rgt.26 aufgefangen und abgewehrt.

Not too sure what the recommendation for Mohnke’s RK proves here? The time of this incident was between approx. 8.30 and 10.30 at night on the 8th. What is your point in posting this?

[seaburn]

''But if you look at other incidents its a ploy of blaming an officer that is already dead.

I do agree that there appears to be a thread running through a lot of post war trials that a dead comrade was blamed for something that a ‘live’ culprit was put on trial for. How much this was a policy adhered to by all witnesses is unknown, obviously it leaves a question mark over all the accused in those trials – but there could very well be truth in what the defendants claimed also of course.

As an aside it does make a mockery of the boast that ‘Meine Ehre heißt Treue’ – perhaps loyalty to a dead comrade is not included. In the case of Siebken and Schnabel, multiple witnesses testified to their version of events. I’m also not sure if Mohnke was still considered to be ‘dead’ in 1948. Someone may have evidence to post on that point.

''As far I know prisoners are sent back to Div. HQ then on up to Korps and so on.But in the initial stages of the fighting would you have bothered with prisoners ? On either side ?

There is evidence that there were a lot of prisoners processed quite correctly, even by the 12th div. When the survivors of the Fontenay case were picked up a day or so later, they were all processed correctly and got sent back where they met up with a multitude of others who had also been processed correctly.

Not sure if you are alluding here to the notion that the executing of POWs in the first few days by either side should be excused as part of war, that would be a controversial opinion in light of the multitude of threads on the forum.

'' (A) So he showed up with everything that was going on expressly to convey an order to kill prisoners ? (B)So all the other battalions were carrying out this order then ?

(A) This was the evidence of Schnabel as posted earlier in the thread – he reported that Mohnke ‘raged’ ‘‘Where will I put all those prisoners of war you sent back’– It’s not recorded if Mohnke’s presence there at the HQ was ‘expressly’ to convey an order to execute POWs, he may have turned up for a variety of reasons and took the opportunity to convey that order.

(B) The second part of you assertion is interesting – it should follow that Btln I and III should also have incurred Mohnke’s wrath if they were also sending back POWs. I don’t know of any direct allegation against them – there is a document which alludes to crimes committed by other Btlns, but does not specify the 26th. I know where the I btln were located on the night of the 8th of June , they were supposed to be involved in the fighting at Bretteville with K Meyer, but they never turned up as they could not make it due to being heavily engaged elsewhere themselves. It would be interesting to see the location of the I btln and see if what they were doing at this time also and to see if there were any allegations against them that were never pursued due to lack of evidence etc. It is also a matter of record that the majority of POWs were executed in the first week after the landing and no one is clear as to why it stopped. So a lot of inconsistencies in this policy of Witt’s as per your allegation against him.

(WO309/317-6)

Btlns26th.jpg (93.3 KiB) Viewed 1227 times

''We don’t know the full conversation Meyer may have been bad mouthing or making his self look good ?

I had a look again at that document of Meyer’s conversation to see if he was trying to make himself look good – It was a discussion with General Eberbach who was also a prisoner. Meyer was discussing that he heard that Kramer was division head, something he was very pleased to hear it seems – he went on to talk about Mohnke as posted already and then he discussed Kramer again and also your alleged culprit Hubert Meyer, this is what he thought of H Meyer:

(WO208/4364-488)

This I believe backs up Siebken’s assertion that Hubert Meyer was aghast when he rang him to get confirmation that he should kill the 3 POWs at his HQ per Mohnke’s order. I know of no allegation against Hubert Meyer for being bad tempered or for executing POWs – I believe its quite insightful that Kurt Meyer who was found guilty himself of killing POWs describes H Meyer as a man who ‘loves a good clean fight’.

''Again one man's opinion

You wrote this in relation to the allegation that Mohnke had a bad reputation in the division - But it looks like K Meyer was not the only Officer who had doubts about Mohnke. Thomas Fischer whom you rightly stated interviewed Mohnke – he wrote the following about Mohnke’s promotion to head of the division :

“ Peiper had intended to convince Himmler to name a new division Commander.......he was of the same opinion as SS-Standartenführer Albert Frey, that things were not working out with Mohnke.....”

Fischer then proceeds to give evidence of Mohnke’s foot injuries which led to his morphine ‘habit’ as discussed earlier, spoken by Kurt Meyer and disputed by you. So verification there also. (Soldiers of the Leibstandarte – page 40/41)

''You imply it all the way through !

This was your accusation that I thought Mohnke was the 'Angry Officer'. Well it appears that I’m guilty as charged. Having read the evidence and seen connections between Mohnke’s known temper, allegations made against him personally for ordering the execution of POWs as shown with primary documents above, for Siebken and Schnabel’s testimonies, for Hubert Meyer’s allegation and for the fact that the POWs description of the 'Angry Officer' does not rule him out, I think I am more than justified in ‘Implying’ his guilt – that’s done by authors and many posters on this forum all the time, it’s how this sort of thing works - You yourself have ‘implied’ the Angry Officer was Hubert Meyer...where is your proof for that ? A coat ? I have no problem with your opinion that it was him , that’s your right – but the weight of your evidence for that assertion is sadly lacking.

Anyone else who wishes to post any points that have been raised or new ones, please do.

[j keenan]

Again you twist the facts you use McLean as your trump card for the shoulder boards but not the coat ? Which H Meyer seems to wear all the time what ever the weather in numerous photos.Yet your happy to dismiss Meyer because he said it was Mohnke ?
I've read the posts thats why I asked what gives you the right to blame Mohnke ? from what I've read none what so ever !!
My last post is an assessment of Mohnke 10.40 by Dietrich
Mohnke is in relation to his age a fully matured man with impeccable character and unconditional obedience.
After seven years of experience as a Kp. Chef Mohnke was in Eastern Venture, in which he was wounded at the point of his company, and during the Western campaign, which he initially as a Kp. Chef and later as leader of the II Battalion. led with highest recognition for himself and his subordinates.
A fresh bravado, coupled with good focus and tactical prudence mark him from the rest.
For outstanding courage and exceptional leadership Mohnke was submitted for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. His services are by hand letter of O.K.W. been recognised, the award however, been postponed until the next application.
Mohnke has as battalion commander. a healthy ambition that drives him to great diligence and great energy. Mohnke fills his job as battalion commander. extremely good.

[j keenan]

This I believe backs up Siebken’s assertion that Hubert Meyer was aghast when he rang him to get confirmation that he should kill the 3 POWs at his HQ per Mohnke’s order. I know of no allegation against Hubert Meyer for being bad tempered or for executing POWs – I believe its quite insightful that Kurt Meyer who was found guilty himself of killing POWs describes H Meyer as a man who ‘loves a good clean fight’.
As they fought in Russia ?
How would he ring him ? Seriously did he have a hot line ? The U.K. could have cleared this up straight away with Ultra as they supposedly have all messages between units.But maybe thats in the file still to be released.

[j keenan]

You don't put a time line on the Meyer - Eberbach conversation ?
12 SS was a green division which would have had revenge lust in the first week or so which has been documented in other armies, and passes.

[seaburn]

You don't put a time line on the Meyer - Eberbach conversation ?
12 SS was a green division which would have had revenge lust in the first week or so which has been documented in other armies, and passes.

That conversation was recorded on the 16-18 Dec 1944 when he and Eberbach were in captivity obviously. There was no discussion about any 'revenge lust' the conversation was about who Meyer believed was the Divisional Head of his old unit - He discussed Kramer, Mohnke and Hubert Meyer - and you have seen that he opinion was that Mohnke would not be suitable due to his morphine addiction and that he called him a 'wreck' - he then praised the character of Hubert Meyer - I am simply laying it out for all to see with their own eyes.

[j keenan]

Revenge lust is in reply to point B

[seaburn]

How would he ring him ? Seriously did he have a hot line ? The U.K. could have cleared this up straight away with Ultra as they supposedly have all messages between units.But maybe that's in the file still to be released.

I suggest that before you post questions as above, you would be better familiarising yourself with what has been published concerning the trial of Siebken.


"The witness Steinmann, who was in charge of the telephone exchange of that sector, made the following statement concerning an earlier telephone conversation between Siebken and the Regimental Headquarters: 'When informed that the 26th Regiment did not wish to have prisoners, Herr Siebken replied that he was going to send back prisoners all the same'......

" On the witness stand Siebken then described how, immediately after the argument with Mohnke, he tried to get in touch with the Divisional Commander over the phone......'That this call was put through was confirmed by the witness Kloden',......'According to the statement made by Siebken, he failed to reach the Divisional Commander and he therefore asked the Divisional Chief of Staff (Hubert Meyer) whether an order had been issued by the Division to the effect that prisoners should be shot. The 'IA' officer replied in the negative and asked Siebken for further information, whereupon the latter explained that Mohnke had maintained that such an order had been issued....'
(HItler's last General - pages 206/207)

Has it occurred to you that if there are records still sealed in relation to phone calls made at that time, it was because this version is true..

[seaburn]

Yet your happy to dismiss Meyer because he said it was Mohnke ?

I am dismissing Hubert Meyer because there is no evidence that it was him !! Is that not completely obvious - you have shown no evidence what so ever.

"My last post is an assessment of Mohnke 10.40 by Dietrich
Mohnke is in relation to his age a fully matured man with impeccable character and unconditional obedience.
After seven years of experience as a Kp. Chef Mohnke was in Eastern Venture, in which he was wounded at the point of his company, and during the Western campaign, which he initially as a Kp. Chef and later as leader of the II Battalion. led with highest recognition for himself and his subordinates.
A fresh bravado, coupled with good focus and tactical prudence mark him from the rest.
For outstanding courage and exceptional leadership Mohnke was submitted for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. His services are by hand letter of O.K.W. been recognised, the award however, been postponed until the next application.
Mohnke has as battalion commander. a healthy ambition that drives him to great diligence and great energy. Mohnke fills his job as battalion commander. extremely good.

All this shows is that Dietrich rated Mohnke - q'uelle surprise - Show me the evidence to rebut that Peiper and Frey didn't want him and that Kurt Meyer did not say what he said in the document I posted. We have also seen that Hubert Meyer had his issues - so that's four senior officers evidence posted to back up that assertion, does that not tell us something? You need to concentrate your outrage on the people who said this, not the person reporting them. To ignore that evidence and all the rest that I have outlined is laughable, its as if you just don't want to believe it. Are you actually saying that it could not have been him?

[seaburn]

To recap and refute the allegation that I have twisted and cobbled together my own opinions to make a case against Mohnke and not against anyone else. I remind all that I have read, analysed and posted from the following sources -(all references are on the relevant posts)

1. Conduct Unbecoming - Howard Margolian
2. Scholara.wlu.ca
3. WO309/1172 - British National Archives
4. WO208/4364 British National Archives
5. Carentan Liberty Group
6. WO309/317 - British National Archives
7. TS26/856 - Briitish National Archives
8. Trois Jours en Enfer - George Bernage
9. Grenadiers - Kurt Meyer
10. Soldiers of the Leibstandarte - Thomas Fischer
11. Hitler's Last General - Sayer and Botting.


Your sources:

1. Mohnke's RK commendation. To show that Dietrich rated him.
2. Your own opinion that it was not Mohnke but Hubert Meyer. Proof= H Meyer wore a coat similar to the description of a witness who can be totally trusted on the coat but not on the shoulder boards detail.


I have grown weary of discussing and rebutting your opinions with primary sources. When you have actual evidence of H Meyers guilt and evidence that it could not possibly have been Mohnke - please share it. As stated before, new evidence uncovered can always sway me.

[Rob - wssob2]

WRT to Dietrich's Oct 1940 performance review of Mohnke, I'd mention

a) Between Oct 1940 - June 1944 it is entirely plausible that Mohnke's demeanor changed (although even at this early date he had an alleged war crime ascribed to him)

b) Dietrich wasn't rating Mohnke's treatment of POWs or ability to abide by the rules of war

c) Just as in the corporate sphere, performance reviews by a military superior can be a bit of "fluff" and have little relevance to actual abilities, performance and relationship to subordinates and peers.

J keenan's observations about Mohnke's coat seem to rest on the supposition that he had but one outergarment during the opening phase of the Normandy campaign.

This thread is the first allegation I have ever heard that Hubert Meyer is a suspect. As per the Steinmann/Seibken testimony, Chief of Staff Meyer is on the record stressing that prisoners are to be treated properly as per the rules of war, not shot.

I dunno - all the historical narratives I've ever read tend to describe Mohnke as a creepy and very angry guy, not particuarly well-liked by his SS peers. I don't know if one photo of him laughing at a drinking party dispells the accuracy of those descriptions.

[j keenan]

The description of the angry man in appearance fits H.Meyer along with a whole number of other SS-Officers
The whole defence for Siebken, Schnabel was we were following orders by Mohnke !
If Mohnke was in that Chair his defence I was only following orders by Witt
Witts defence I was only following orders Korps command and we would have ended up with HITLER !!
With the Siebken,Schnabel defence there is no documented evidence that any of the statements made are true.Its all word of mouth which is odd ?
There were no phone calls it was done by radio which in itself is open to question as the allies were very good at pinpointing your location and destroying you.So to me the whole defence strategy is suspect also no one knew Mohnke was alive till he came back in 55.Its a shame Meyer didn't write his book earlier he may have named Mohnke but he didn't, WHY ?
The whole time line doesn't make sense either ? Can you say with certainty that Mohnke was there that day ?

[seaburn]

Can you say with certainty that Mohnke was there that day ?

This is the last time I post a reply unless you produce more than your opinion - I have already stated that the identity of the 'Angry Officer' has not been proved with certainty - I have shown from numerous sources that it was the opinion of others and I quoted their words - I have also said that there is no credible evidence that it was not Mohnke unlike the allegation against Kurt Meyer earlier in the thread and your unsubstantiated light weight allegation against Hubert Meyer - This has all been posted on numerous occasions.

Now your turn, .... Do you say that it couldn't have been Mohnke ??

(Thanks to all who have posted so far - strangely or possibly not so strange JK, you are still standing alone in your opinion of Mohnke's innocence)