'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
eindhoven
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 18:54

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#31

Post by eindhoven » 05 Nov 2014, 08:54

Here is where I have a serious rub -- as an Army veteran myself I am having to put myself into the mindset of WW2 War Crime Investigator under the War Crimes Branch. I am being told essentially by higher headquarters that we aren't after Company or even the platoon commanders rather we want the big fish, Battalion and Regimental Commanders.

So we are basically looking at areas of movement for these Battalions excluding any of the small unit actions going on and the men essentially fighting those.

In modern times that means you would be looking to arrest Lt. Col. Birch, my Battalion Commander or any of his Regimental Commanders for crimes possibly committed by Company Commanders or their Executive Officers in A, B,C and HQ Companies or by any of their Platoon Commanders, 4 platoons per company=16 junior officers.

Bernard Siebken had the following short list of Company Officers under his overall command of II/.26 and likely all the officers our PW saw at the farmhouse of George Moulin:
Adjutant Ostuf. Andersen
Ord. Offz. Ustuf. Schnabel
Versorg.Kp. Ustaf. B. Kaiser
5. Kompanie, Chef Ostuf. Gotthard
6. Kompanie, Chef Ostuf. Schmolke
7. Kompanie, Chef Lt. Henne (Regular Army officer attached to 12th SS-HJ)
8. Kompanie, Chef Hstuf. Fasching
11. Kompanie, Chef Ostuf. Hauser

Fire support from II./AR 12 under Stubaf. Schöps
Control of Remnants of Inf Regt 736 officer disposition unknown
Control of Remnants of 716 Inf Div officer disposition unknown

Who was the angry officer in the car or Halftrack or whatever vehicle the PWs cannot come to conclusion on? It only makes a superficial difference because Siebken was allocated his staff car and a number of Kubelwagen in HQs Co. whereas 11. Kompanie under Ostuf. Hauser had Sdkfz 251/9 75mm Halftracks as well as SdKfz 251/1 halftracks.

The likely suspect would then be Ostuf. Hauser but Siebken is nevertheless the one we assign guilt of war crimes to because War Crimes Branch wants big fish not Company Commanders. We hang Siebken but use Hauser to gather evidence.

rossmcpharter
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 16:44

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#32

Post by rossmcpharter » 05 Nov 2014, 10:54

Would a company commander or lower, have the clems to countermand his battalion commanders orders to send the prisoners to the rear for intelligence? Not many I'd wager in any army. :)


User avatar
seaburn
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Apr 2013, 12:03
Location: Europe

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#33

Post by seaburn » 05 Nov 2014, 16:11

Eindhoven. Thank you for your contributions to the thread. It’s great to see that map of Meyer's. You can see better on this map that the track the POWs travelled down was considered a 'secondary' road - you will note that the road to the right of this, was the 'proper' road. It’s not clear why the POW's wouldn't have gone down this one, perhaps using that main roads was considered too dangerous or there was too much heavy traffic on this one going to the front. There was evidence from the POWs of heavy traffic movements on the Fontenay - Caen road and that a lot of heavy armour turned off the main road and came up the track they were on.

I'm not so sure that Wunsche could be in the frame - although his rank was the same. I don't go by the height guess necessarily of McLean for our ‘mystery man’ but Wunsche's physical description was regularly noted by the Allies in more glowing terms. Plus he was never without his 'RK' on full display, which I presume would have been noted.

I deduce that you don’t rate at all the testimony of the POW’s. I can see why to a certain extent, but I still feel that there is an item of truth in there somewhere that could Identify him. The problem is, trying to decide which piece is relevant and which is a ‘red herring’.
rossmcpharter wrote:Would a company commander or lower, have the clems to countermand his battalion commanders orders to send the prisoners to the rear for intelligence? Not many I'd wager in any army. :)
'RMP' I think that point is quite crucial - the 'Angry Officer' would have had to be of Siebken's rank or higher in this case. Also, would a 'stray' Officer from another Btln pull rank on Siebken in this manner - one that was of equal rank, like Bremer? Furthermore, as these POWs were the ‘property’ of the 26th Reg. would it be normal for someone from outside the Regiment to interfere like that, unless you were the Division head?

rossmcpharter
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 16:44

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#34

Post by rossmcpharter » 05 Nov 2014, 16:52

Quote from Seaburn, hopefully I've copied the right bit.

2) In 1948 Dietrich Schnabel (II Btln, 26th Regiment) recalled seeing 40-50 Canadian prisoners at his Btln HQ in Le Mesnil Patry, these men were subsequently sent off to the Regimental HQ in the rear. He then recalled that Mohnke arrived later that night at the HQ to berate his Officers for sending these men back. He reported that Mohnke had said ‘Where will I put all those prisoners of war you sent back’. Schnabel further reported that this was between the night and early morning of the 8th/9th of June and that Mohnke was ‘raging’. (‘Hitler’s Last General’ pages 187/188).

This clearly shows that Mohnke knew about the prisoners being sent back before he arrived at the Btln HQ. How had he known this? As these POWs never reached anywhere near the Regimental HQ, the inference taken has to be that Mohnke was indeed the Officer who intercepted them and had angrily ordered their execution.

Margolian in 'Conduct Unbecoming' differs from 'Hitler's Last General'.

On p91 Margolian says 'Late in the afternoon on 8 June, Siebken received a call from his regimental commander, SS Lieutenant Colonel Wilhelm Mohnke. Reporting that he had taken custody of the large batch of POW's dispatched by Siebken earlier in the day, Mohnke, who was obviously annoyed, told him not to send back so many prisoners.2 The battalion commander took this to mean that prisoners should not be taken in the first place, and, if they were, that they should be shot immediately after capture. Surprised and repulsed by Mohnke's barbarous and patently illegal order, Siebken quickly regained his composure and replied that he was going to send prisoners to the rear all the same.3 Later in the evening, he did just that. Upon learning of the return of the Feldgendarmerie escort, Siebken ordered the forty Canadians brought from the barn in which they had been held to the front of the Moulin farmhouse. After looking over the prisoners, whose ranks included at least two stretcher cases,4 Siebken had them form up in a column under the guard of seven or eight men. the escort consisted both of Feldgendarmerie and regular SS troops. Sometime after 8:00PM, Dietrich Schnabel, Siebken's special missions officer, sent the prisoners on their way.5


On p94 Margolian says it was ' Mohnke's anger at Siebken for having earlier burdened him with a contingent of more than a hundred POW's, as well as his order, which was overheard by the telephone operator who patched through the call, admonishing his subordinate not to send so many prisoners back in the future.'

I'll quote Note 2 from the p91 quote above.

Thus, I am disagreeing with the chronology postulated in Ian Sayer and Douglas Botting, 'Hitler's Last General: The Case against Wilhelm Mohnke'(London and New York, 1989), 231-2. In their otherwise excellent analysis of the events of 8 June, Sayer and Botting contend that Mohnke called Siebken to complain about having received a shipment of forty prisoners. This ignores the evidence, adduced in chapter 7, that more than a hundred Canadian prisoners had arrived at Mohnke's HQ earlier in the afternoon.

Sorry for the long quotes, all errors are mine.

User avatar
seaburn
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Apr 2013, 12:03
Location: Europe

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#35

Post by seaburn » 05 Nov 2014, 17:39

rossmcpharter wrote: Note 2 from the p91: 'Conduct Unbecomming' (Margolian states)

Thus, I am disagreeing with the chronology postulated in Ian Sayer and Douglas Botting, 'Hitler's Last General: The Case against Wilhelm Mohnke'(London and New York, 1989), 231-2. In their otherwise excellent analysis of the events of 8 June, Sayer and Botting contend that Mohnke called Siebken to complain about having received a shipment of forty prisoners. This ignores the evidence, adduced in chapter 7, that more than a hundred Canadian prisoners had arrived at Mohnke's HQ earlier in the afternoon.
Well, this appears to put a different slant on things - in 'Hitler's last General' it was stated that Schnabel had linked Mohnke's arrival at the HQ that night with 'our' 40 prisoners being sent back . But Margolian talks about a phone call regarding 100 prisoners sent earlier and he goes further to dispute Sayer and Bottings chronology - From a quick read of the pages quoted by Margolian for 'Hitler's last General', there is no mention of 100 prisoners being sent back, they contended that the batch of 40 was the largest one sent that day.

But could both versions be true ? - 100 prisoners sent and an angry Mohnke phoning to complain, then another 40 sent and Mohnke arrives to berate Siebken about sending any prisoners back? Its telling that Margolian felt the need to point out this discrepancy, he obviously felt uncomfortable with the notion that Mohnke's arrival at the HQ was specifically because of the 40 prisoners returned earlier that night. :?

As such, this evidence is now in some doubt - but as Mohnke's appearance that night was not disputed - it's still relevant to this case that he was out and about in this area at that time and that he was in a foul mood to boot. Thanks for posting 'RMP' great catch !

User avatar
eindhoven
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 18:54

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#36

Post by eindhoven » 05 Nov 2014, 23:02

rossmcpharter wrote:Would a company commander or lower, have the clems to countermand his battalion commanders orders to send the prisoners to the rear for intelligence? Not many I'd wager in any army. :)
In the Army I served in yes. Countering orders, contrary to mythos of German blind obedience, occurred during WW2 with documented occurrences of it in the Waffen-SS. Even within FJ Korps. Von Der Heydte for example actually 'disappeared' for 24 hours in Normandy with men of his command to give them a rest. He did not respond to radio calls or let his location be known.

Siebken challenged Mohnke. Siebken directly refused an order from a superior officer. Recorded and documented. Siebken had the stones to counter his commanders orders.

1. The bigger question in my mind is where were these men going when they were being marched from Mohnke's HQ? What 'rear' were they sending them to? They are moving away from the direction of both Siebken's command as well as Mohnke's per Hubert Meyers map of unit locations. Meyers subsequent map of battles from 10 Juni 1944 onward show Rauray as now established as the Panzer-Regiment HQ. If that is the direction of travel they were moving in it is of interest from an investigators standpoint. What is the significance in that direction of travel? Did Siebken believe sending them to Wünsche's HQ at Chateau de Rauray would save them? Outside of the Artillery Battery South of le Haut de Bosq the only other unit location in the direction of travel is Panzer-Regiment 12 HQ which was still being established.

2. Isecke noted in his interrogation that the Panzer-Regiment had orders not to take prisoners but to leave those for the Infantry(grenadiers). Seaburn, did the interrogators follow with the natural line of questioning being where did that specific order, not to take prisoners but leave them, originate from? Did Wünsche issue that command? Was it Kurt Meyer? Was it Mohnke whose HQ was situated just to Wünsche's Northeast?

Bear in mind --- for those with no military experience --the command conference, the large gathering of officers reported by the PW would have been taking place as Mohnke, Wünsche, Siebken, Schöps, etc would have been coordinating their battle area/sectors. I'm here, you are there type stuff I have personally been a part of myself. It was the basis for coordinated attacks by the Germans.

Is it therefore possible that someone from Panzer-Regiment 12 intercepted the PWs being marched to their HQs which was still being established at this point? Is it not possible that Mohnke's orders, likely conferred during the commanders conference at the farm, were not being followed regarding prisoners? These kinds of commands would have been told to Company commanders so they could then tell their platoon leaders who tell the sargeants who tell the corporals who tell the troops.

3. Seaburn, the depositions of these PWs show they cannot even recall minute details. This really frustrates me. How can you reliably clarify the officers height or age when one minute the interviewee states he had a skull on his soft cap and the next does not recall a skull or having said a skull was present? Was it a staff car or a Halftrack? One has four wheels, the other two wheels and tracks with armor. Then there is the obvious question. How can they not have known whether they were facing Waffen-SS soldiers or Fallschirmjäger? The two are distinctly uniformed. SS runes are hard to miss or to mistake. One is a black field with Silver/White runes. The other yellow background with gulls. They were being marched by W-SS soldiers but cannot recall the standard uniforms SS soldiers would wear on whole? Yet suddenly we have a positive ID on officer rank.

I wish I had these files myself to peruse so my information is complete. I also do not own a copy of either book references.

Back some more study of recorded unit war diaries for more answers.

User avatar
seaburn
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Apr 2013, 12:03
Location: Europe

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#37

Post by seaburn » 05 Nov 2014, 23:25

Just off the bat 'Eindhoven', Mohnke's HQ was at 'Haut de Bosq' which was in the general direction the POWs were going. If you follow the line they were travelling down it intersects with the road towards Mohnke's HQ (blue dot) - the direct road to Cheux which also led out of Siebken's HQ was not taken - but as mentioned there could have been good operational reasons for that. Isecke was not asked any more than I have posted about the taking of prisoners - what should be kept in mind though, is that Isecke insisted that Soviet prisoners were always sent to the rear !! He talked at length about the taking of prisoners and the reasons for doing so on the EF.
maplocations.JPG
maplocations.JPG (110.46 KiB) Viewed 1449 times

Certainly the POWs testimony is confused, we have to keep in mind how tired they were, how dehydrated they were - they were so dehydrated that when one of them escaped from the killing field, he immediately went into the next field to dig up potatoes and try to get water from them.... they had also been witness to this stressful situation and as previously stated, they were only asked about all this 12 months after it happened, I'm sure if they had known how important it was to remember what this Officer looked like, they would have been more observant - but Ferris was preoccupied with looking after an already injured comrade - not noticing something is less vital here than what they actually saw. But it is confusing, there's no doubt about it, but I think we have to cut them some slack for leaving us with so little insightful evidence.

Eindhoven - in your map you don't show Siebken's HQ as being in Le Mesnil Patry ... he was def there on the 8th and 9th of June, why is that not marked ?

User avatar
eindhoven
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 18:54

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#38

Post by eindhoven » 06 Nov 2014, 02:12

I am currently translating a French text on these incidents.

Hubert Meyer's map shows Siebken's HQ as being just Northeast of Cheux which he covers unit disposition from 6 to 10 June 1944. This cannot be wholly accurate as on the 11th of June we know that Siebken was already headquartered in Le Mesnil Patry along with the Pioneer Bn under Maj Muller. Per Luther in "Blood and Honor: The History of the 12th SS Panzer Division 'Hitler Youth', 1943-1945" we know Siebken wasn't actively engaged until 8th June 1945.

Translating so far I have:

Shortly after this incident, around noon, the ll. / 26 Battalion commanded by Bernhard Siebken whose HQ was at the Chateau Mesnil-Patry, broke the lines of RWR to Putot. 64 Canadian prisoners were held by the ll / .26. 6th Kompanie commanded by Ostuf. Schmolke captured twenty Canadians of Able Company Royal Winnipeg Rifles near the Brouay Bridge. 7 Kompanie commanded by Lt. Henne extends deep into Putot and captures forty Canadians of B and C companies. These prisoners are sent to Siebken's HQ, on the farm of Mr. Moulin in Le Mesnil-Patry. As the investigation establish these prisoners are treated well. Then they headed south in the direction of Fontenay-le-Pesnel.

There are now three locations given for Siebken's location
1. Chateau du Mesnil-Patry
2. Mr. Moulin's farm at Le Mesnil-Patry
3. Northeast of Cheux per the Divisional Adjutant and unit historian for 12th SS-HJ

12 months seem plenty of time to report on the incident and compile enough battlefield experience fighting 12th SS to know what an SS uniform looks like whether it's Enlisted men or Officers. Sorry. Slack is something I'm not going to cut when men's necks are on the line. Massacre or not. I'm not being indifferent just being a thorough going bastard some might say.

Thank you for the additional details from Isecke. I'm not trying to connect Wünsche as he had suffered a head wound in Meyers failed night attack on the 8th of June. On 9 June he was in Rots with Unterscharführer Wilhelm Boigks grenadiers and left with a wounded 3./Kompanie Panzer-Regiment 12 commander von Ribbentrop in the motorcycle side car combo. It is on this day that the wounded Wünsche is photographed with Bernhard Krause in Italian camo and Meyer in the Regenmantel and later with Witt over the map.

User avatar
eindhoven
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 18:54

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#39

Post by eindhoven » 06 Nov 2014, 04:12

I've annotated the commands on the map you provided.
maplocations copy.jpg
maplocations copy.jpg (39.79 KiB) Viewed 1437 times

User avatar
eindhoven
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 18:54

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#40

Post by eindhoven » 06 Nov 2014, 05:13

Seaburn, I'm going to blow your socks off. Give me some time to compile and present my case.

User avatar
seaburn
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Apr 2013, 12:03
Location: Europe

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#41

Post by seaburn » 06 Nov 2014, 17:02

eindhoven wrote: 7 Kompanie commanded by Lt. Henne extends deep into Putot and captures forty Canadians of B and C companies. These prisoners are sent to Siebken's HQ, on the farm of Mr. Moulin in Le Mesnil-Patry. As the investigation establish these prisoners are treated well. Then they headed south in the direction of Fontenay-le-Pesnel.
This has already been established in post 19.
eindhoven wrote: There are now three locations given for Siebken's location
1. Chateau du Mesnil-Patry
2. Mr. Moulin's farm at Le Mesnil-Patry
3. Northeast of Cheux per the Divisional Adjutant and unit historian for 12th SS-HJ
It is quite possible that he was at all these locations around this time, the HQ's moved all the time. We have established the location for the relevant dates which are the 8th and 9th of June at Mr Moulin's farm (see post 18, 19, 23)
eindhoven wrote:12 months seem plenty of time to report on the incident and compile enough battlefield experience fighting 12th SS to know what an SS uniform looks like whether it's Enlisted men or Officers
These witnesses were taken back into captivity within days and transferred to hospitals and then to various prison camps until they were finally liberated. There is no evidence that they came across any WSS units after they left this region.
eindhoven wrote: I'm not trying to connect Wünsche

This thread is in danger of becoming confused. I think it would be best to stick to who it could be, rather than who it wasn't as that list is considerably longer.
eindhoven wrote:Seaburn, I'm going to blow your socks off. Give me some time to compile and present my case.
I await your progress with baited breath !

rossmcpharter
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 16:44

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#42

Post by rossmcpharter » 06 Nov 2014, 18:56

eindhoven wrote:
rossmcpharter wrote:Would a company commander or lower, have the clems to countermand his battalion commanders orders to send the prisoners to the rear for intelligence? Not many I'd wager in any army. :)
In the Army I served in yes. Countering orders, contrary to mythos of German blind obedience, occurred during WW2 with documented occurrences of it in the Waffen-SS. Even within FJ Korps. Von Der Heydte for example actually 'disappeared' for 24 hours in Normandy with men of his command to give them a rest. He did not respond to radio calls or let his location be known.

Siebken challenged Mohnke. Siebken directly refused an order from a superior officer. Recorded and documented. Siebken had the stones to counter his commanders orders.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer, Siebken disobeyed the order, because it was illegal. Von Heydte, for the wellbeing of his men.

Would a company commander or lower, in this situation, have the clems to countermand orders to send the prisoners to the rear for intelligence and carry out a clearly illegal and morally reprehensible act? Not many I'd wager in any army. :)

User avatar
eindhoven
Member
Posts: 593
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 18:54

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#43

Post by eindhoven » 07 Nov 2014, 11:18

I am not sure what actual military experience you have but maintaining three separate HQs is not how it's done in anyone's army. And yes, officers disobey as much as enlisted. Hence the reason for a judicial branch of the military and penal battalions in the German Army of the time.

I reiterated prisoner counts for a reason and did not use your two references for those details however rather than squabble I will get to my point and avoid this line by line pick apart mentality.

There are only two people in my mind who it can be:

1. Kurt Meyer--> He was operationally in the area both on 8th and 9th June and who himself had prisoners shot at his command HQ under the pretext that they were a burden. He also better fits the height and build description as well as the older appearance. Meyers height, Special Interrogation Report: Brigadefuhrer Kurt Meyer Command, 12th SS Panzer Division (6
June-25 August 1944). Mohnke's height, NARA, RG 242 BDC A 3433, SS Officer Dossier, roll 323A, Frame 76

2. Mohnke. Obviously.

You are quick to dismiss Rauray's importance on the line of March considering the prisoners were moved off the road to clear the way for Wünsches panzers. If Isecke reported his panzer regiment had orders to not take prisoners but leave them for the infantry why then did Panzer-Regiment 12 then proceed to take these 3 survivors prisoner?
Killing field per PTE Arthur Desjarlais.jpg
Adieu

User avatar
seaburn
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Apr 2013, 12:03
Location: Europe

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#44

Post by seaburn » 07 Nov 2014, 12:23

'Eindhoven'. Any posts made are done in good faith to try and find the correct culprit for this atrocity . Thank you for posting the drawing from prisoner 'Desjarlais'. The road that runs from A to B would be the main Fontenay to Caen road, in the aerial photo posted previously, that is the road running East to West, therefore this view is from a different angle. Do you have access to his testimony ? If so can you post it.

With regard to Kurt Meyer being a suspect, I would never rule him out as he was known to relish being at the front from his Recon days. However, his position then as you are aware was as Regimental Commander of the 25th and as such, he would or should have been totally taken up with that duty and not be wandering into the 26th's area of operation. He was not the acting head of the Division until the following week. Here is what he had to say regarding his area of operation for that date in his interrogation (TS26/856-pages 101/102):
TS_26_856_0101.jpg
TS_26_856_0101.jpg (97.94 KiB) Viewed 1337 times
TS_26_856_0102.jpg
TS_26_856_0102.jpg (126.3 KiB) Viewed 1337 times

This map shows the demarcation line clearly.
btln map 8.6.44.jpg
I would assert (albeit with no personal military experience), that KM would have had no business going so far into the 26th's zone of operation. But I leave that to people who are more expert than myself.

User avatar
seaburn
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Apr 2013, 12:03
Location: Europe

Re: 'Fontenay le Pesnel' 8.6.44/Canadian 'Malmedy'

#45

Post by seaburn » 09 Nov 2014, 18:44

In light of no other name being put forward so far, I would like to focus again on the person who has long being suspected as the ‘Angry Officer’. In terms of Opportunity and Motive we have seen evidence posted here that Wilhelm Mohnke had both. The previously unpublished testimony of the witnesses (post 24) has also added to the circumstantial evidence against him.

Opportunity: - The area where the POWs were captured, held and were travelling through was the segment covered by the 26th Regiment. Mohnke was seen to be travelling from his Regimental HQ to the front along the same road that the prisoners were being led along on the evening of the 8th June. Mohnke is also recorded as being at Siebken's Btln HQ that night, this HQ being also situated on this same road. That places him in this area at this time. (Post 24)

Motive: Mohnke was furious at the amount of POWs being sent to the rear. He telephoned Siebken with instructions not to send any more back on the 8th and then later that night, he turned up at the II Btln HQ to further vent his anger on the subject. Schnabel recalled that he was 'raging' when he discussed the subject on his arrival. With this being the case, his reaction to meeting more POWs heading back to HQ would have fit the attitude of the 'Angry Officer's' that night. (Post 34)

Witness testimony: From reading the three witness accounts (post 24) it’s natural to feel that the confusion of testimony makes them all null and void, but as I have tried to point out, these men were at different distances away from this Officer when they encountered him and their capacity for analysing and retaining information was not uniform. Ferris’s ability to relate detailed information was questioned by the investigators. From reading his testimony, you can understand their concerns. Therefore the difficulty of separating what parts are fact and which are doubtful negates his entire testimony unfortunately.

Clark admitted that he was at the back of the column and exhausted from carrying the stretcher of a wounded comrade. He frankly asserted that he 'did not get a good look at him'. Although his testimony should not be dismissed out of hand, it has to be viewed with these points in mind.

This leaves the testimony of McLean who stated that he was only '10 yards away'. Mc Lean’s testimony taken by itself appears quite lucid and assured in the major points, the investigating team were happy that he was a conscientious and truthful witness. The only area of doubt in his account in relation to Mohnke was about his height estimation for the mysterious Officer. But I assert that this cannot exempt Mohnke from suspicion. There was also confusion on his part about the detail on the cap the Officer was wearing, but again, this is not a major issue, he just couldn’t really remember the details. What McLean saw and appears to be sure of was the description of the Shoulder Boards of this Officer. He stated:

The braid on his shoulder lapels signified him as an Officer.

The colour of the braid was cream.

It was not flat braid, it was rough/curled/twisted.

There was a ‘pip’ which was gold in colour on the shoulder strap too.

sb.png
sb.png (67.81 KiB) Viewed 1302 times
This description is crucial IMO as the details given only fit one rank, that of an ‘Obersturmbannführer’. From the picture shown above it is clear that this rank’s SB’s are not flat, but intertwined (twisted) and it has one gold ‘pip’ on it. This of course was Mohnke’s rank at that time.

McLean also said something else which is significant IMO. He stated that the Officer ‘was issuing orders around the guns’ and also that ‘The location of meeting the Officer was immediately behind the German Artillery lines, this Officer was possibly checking and inspecting these lines‘. This would signify that this Officer was there specifically to carry out his duty in this area – not someone who was encroaching into another’s territory of operation.

The description of this Officer as ‘angry, swearing at the guards, letting out a yell ’ also ties into what is known about Mohnke’s personality. We also have Schnabel’s testimony that Mohnke was ‘raging’ when he arrived at the HQ that night as discussed above. This signifies the Mohnke was in a foul mood that night and was letting those around him know it.


Taking all these factors into account, it adds further to the weight of circumstantial evidence that points to no other than Mohnke as this unknown ‘Angry Officer’.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”