Violations of international law by the Western Allies in WW2

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

#16

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 28 Jan 2004, 17:01

The "gangster war" charges against the Allies were a common theme of Nazi propaganda during WWII - dum dum bullets, the famous photo of Churchill with a Tommy gun etc.

The lurid tales of American gangsters like Al Capone had been part of German pop culture since the 1920's and were used by the Nazis as examples of the "decadence" of America. (Berlin of course had its own large and violent underground, but it lacked the jazz n' gin sexiness of the Chicago version)

In this particular accusation, Panzermahn hasn't written anything that has already been written before by Third Reich media outlets like the Volkischer Beobachter.

I did like the "illegal occupation" of "soverign" Iceland allegation. However lacking in historical facts, it at least was original, or at least more unusual! ;)

User avatar
Kal_El
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 05 May 2003, 19:59
Location: Denmark

#17

Post by Kal_El » 28 Jan 2004, 17:23

This site goes into greath depth about the result of operation freshman.

http://www.webtek.no/freshman/side1e.html

I dont know how valid its information is, but at least it gives enough information about people and locations that it can be verified.
He states several times that english soldiers where wearing uniform.

Genraloberst Nickolaus Von Falkenhorst was at the British military court at Brunswick (29th july to 2nd Aug 1946) charged with among other things the excution of the allied soldiers involved in operation freshman stats that the soldiers was uniformed.

More interesting is that the transcripts have a copy of the "commando order" Hitler issued at 18th December, 1942. ( found at

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/falkenhorst.htm)
Paragraph 1

" For some time our enemies have been using in their warfare, methods which are outside the international Geneva Conventions. Especially brutal and treacherous is the behaviour of the so-called Commandos who, as is established, are partially recruited even from freed criminals in enemy countries. Their capture orders divulge that they are directed not only to shackle prisoners but also to kill defenceless prisoners on the spot at the moment in which they believe that the latter, as prisoners, represent a burden in the further pursuance of their purpose or can otherwise be a hindrance. Finally, orders have been found in which the killing of prisoners has been demanded in principle.
Panzermahn wrote that:
A war which is fought on the level of gangsters and mobsters which had no rules or regulations to "limit" it [the war] to a civillized level.
For example, when Al Capone or Lucky Luciano attacked rival gang members, they accomplished it with tactics like kidnapping, garrotting, shackling, machete, axes, backstabbing [literally] wearing no distinctive uniforms, concealing weapons and so on..Military gangsterism (usually by the Western Allies) are no different that ordinary Mobsterism and gangsterism..Only thing is they wear uniforms on the outside but inside they behaved just the same
The mafia didnt wear uniforms..im chocked! :D So special forces operating behind enemy lines is "gangsterism"?
Summary:
A military form of gangster war is morally repugnant and unethical despite the prohibitions of the Geneva and Hague Conventions. But some would argue that the gangster war indeed harassed the Germans and this placed "military gangsterism" a strategic value and an essential action in the operational art of war. But the German also engage in their own type gangster war against the Allies because to fight illegal combatants, the best way is insituting illegal warfare against the illegal combatants.

But the term military gangster are more "popularly" associated with the Americans and Brits because of German propaganda and also due to the actions of famous criminals in the 20s and 30s in the United States
Your argumention are very close to the argumentation behind the "commando order". I still need to see proof that the commandoes where war criminals. Just stating it isnt enough.
Your comparison with criminals from the mafia in the states is farfetched and irrelevant. Except for I can understand why the german leadership, with Adolf in the lead, had that oppionion. Wich dosnt make it better or true.

Again in the case of operation Freshman we have proof that the allied troops was uniformed, wasnt carrying concealed weapons. Through witness acounts its made properly that they didnt recist capture.
The first site i linked to tell, their mission was a failure from the start. Crashed planes and gliders. They didnt even see combat.

They where combatants and thus the warcrime in this episodes lies with the germans.


Regards

Morten


James Patrick
Member
Posts: 456
Joined: 05 May 2002, 17:14
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

#18

Post by James Patrick » 28 Jan 2004, 17:24

Image
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. Fuggetaboutit"

User avatar
Wm. Harris
Member
Posts: 424
Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
Location: Festung Kanada

#19

Post by Wm. Harris » 29 Jan 2004, 19:51

Military form of gangster war Definition: A war which is fought on the level of gangsters and mobsters which had no rules or regulations to "limit" it [the war] to a civillized level.
:roll:

Yeah, the Allies really should have lived up to the example of civility set by Nazi Germany... :lol:

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003, 11:45
Location: Australia

#20

Post by alf » 30 Jan 2004, 03:53

Just a little more on the murder of the British POW's from Operation Freshman, a summary of the trial of the Germans who tortured and murdered the British prisoners.

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/the_others.htm
Introduction
Just before Christmas 1945, a military court was held in Oslo. This court was convened by order of Major-General D.A.H. Graham, CB, CBE, DSO, MC, commanding British Land Forces Norway (BLFN) on 7 December 1945. This court was established to try five people in connection with the murder of four soldiers who where part of Operation Freshman.

The Raid
Operation Freshman was launched to destroy the heavy water plant at Vermok, Norway. Two gliders towed by Halifax bombers took off from an airfield near Wick, Scotland on the evening of 19 November 1942. Due to the weather and the failure of their direction-finding apparatus, both gliders and one of the bombers crashed. Both pilots in each of the gliders, the bomber crew and 14 of the 34 soldiers were killed in the crash. The surviving 20 soldiers (11 from one glider and 9 from the other) were killed by the Germans following the issuing of the Commando Order by Hitler in October 1942. All the soldiers were members of British 1st Airborne, Royal Engineers.

Of these 20 survivors, 11 were taken to a German army camp at Slettbo and shot, 5 were taken to a German concentration camp at Grini, near Oslo. These five were kept at the concentration camp until their execution by firing squad on 18 January 1943. The other 4 were taken to Stavanger, and were brutally killed by the Germans. It was the death of these four solders which was the subject of this military court.

The Court
The military court was held in the Law Courts, Oslo. The trial lasted four days: 10, 11, 12 and 13 December 1945. Before the court stood the three accused: Stabsarzt Werner Fritz Seeling, Hauptscarfueher Erich Hoffman and Unterscharfuehrer Fritz Feuerlein. They were all charged with committing a war crime in that they at Stavanger, on day unknown in or about November 1942, in violation of the laws and usage’s of war, were concerned in the killing of four unidentified British prisoners-of-war.

Two other people were charged with these three: Sachse and Kuhn. Although these two people were not in custody, it was decided to proceed with he trial of the three accused present before the court.

President:
Major-General C.H. Miller, CB, CBE, DSO

Members:
Lieutenant-Colonel J.M. Ripley, MC, RA.

Lieutenant-Colonel H.J. Wright, RASC.

Major Hon. R.J. Palmer, MC

Major H.J. Jennings, RA.

Advocate:
Major E. Steel (Barrister at Law)

Waiting:
Major E.D. Wiltshire, RAOC.

Prosecutor:
Major A. Burnett, RA

Defence:
Captain L. Irving, RA (Law Student)
Defended Seeling

Captain F.R. Miller, RA (Solicitor)
Defended Hoffman & Feuerlein

Shorthand:
Staff-Sergeant C.R. Stanton

Sergeant E.W. Gallagher

Lance-Corporal C.R. Martin


The court also had the services of four interpreters.

All three accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The Accused's Statements
Whilst the three accused had been held in prison awaiting their trial, they had all provided statements to the authorities.

Werner Fritz Seeling (a Luftwaffe doctor) provided a statement at Trandum Camp, Norway, dated 6 November 1945. He admitted that he injected the four prisoners with morphia to help relieve the pain caused by their injuries sustain in the crash. He stated that the measures were not lethal, and that he had better poisons available should he have wished to kill the prisoners. He also stated that he saw Hoffman repeatedly stamp on the throat of one of the prisoners, totally destroying the Adam’s Apple. Seeling and Hoffman then collected the prisoner who had recovered from the morphia, and was not greatly injured. They then drove him to Gestapo Headquarters. The prisoner was then told to walk down the stairs towards the cellar. He was followed by Hoffman. Seeling then said that he heard a shot. He entered the corridor, and saw the prisoner had been shot in the head, just behind his right ear. He stated that the other two soldiers had been strangled with a rope and a leather strap. One was killed by Hoffman, the other, Seeling thought, had been killed by Sachse. Each of the four prisoners had received three equal doses of morphia. Seeling also stated that he was told by Kuhn that all four corpses were to be dumped in the sea. Seeling ended his statement by saying that he regretted most deeply being unable to save the four wounded men.

Feuerlein, in his statement dated 28 September 1945 at Akershus Prison, stated that he saw Seeling and Sachse strangle one of the prisoners by hanging him from a radiator in the office. They then lifted the upper part of the prisoner’s body off the floor. Petersen then asked Seeling to kill the other wounded prisoner, which he did by injecting air into a blood vessel. Feuerlein also stated that three of the party of four were carried into the office and killed, the fourth being one which was taken away and later shot by Hoffman.

Hoffman made a statement on 12 September 1945, which he amended on 23 October 1945. In this statement, he stated that he drove Seeling to the Gestapo Headquarters, that Seeling gave all four men injections of morphia. He went on to state that it was Seeling, not himself, that had stood on the neck of one of the prisoners. Hoffman admitted helping to load the corpses on to a lorry, ready for their "... dumping at sea.". Hoffman went on to state that he neither "... saw or heard that one of the victims had been throttled with a rope or leather strap.".

The Prosecution
The prosecutor started the trial by outlining the law regarding the definition of a war crime. He then explained what had happened on Operation Freshman. On 19 November 1942, a glider was towed over the south west coast of Norway. This glider contained a British Officer and 16 British other ranks. On approaching the coast the target finding apparatus became faulty. On the 2nd attempt to find the target, the two rope broke and the glider crashed at Fylgjesdalen, near Lysefjord on the south west coast. Of the glider’s occupants, 8 were killed in the crash leaving 9 survivors. Some of the 9 survivors were severely wounded.

On 21 November 1942, five of the survivors were taken, at Gestapo request, to Stavanger, the other 4 were looked after by the Gestapo in a Norwegian farmhouse until 23 November 1942, when they were also taken to Stavanger. All 9 were then taken to Prison "A" at Stavanger. 5 of these prisoners were then taken from Prison "A" to Grini concentration camp. The other 4 remained in Prison "A". It is the fate of these 4 men which concerned the court.

A day or two after the arrival of the men at Prison "A", Stavanger, Wilkens told a party of his men that the prisoners would be shot under Hitler’s Commando Order. One of this party, Scheulen, testified at the trial that he and his friends objected to carrying out this order, as the prisoners were wounded, and that they suffered no reprisals for refusing to carry out Wilkens’ order.

After this rebuff, Wilkens went to see Dr. Seeling. Seeling was then taken by Wilkens to Prison "A". When he arrived that the prison, Seeling recommend that all 4 prisoners should go to hospital for treatment of their injuries. Seeling then returned home.

The next day, Wilkens sent for Seeling again, and told him that the wounded men would have to be shot. Seeling objected to this, but that evening Seeling was driven by Hoffman (one of the accused), who was NCO in charge of the Gestapo’s Motor Transport, to Prison "A", where they were admitted by Feuerlein let them in.

The three prisoners who had been injected, and then strangled, were then stripped of all their clothes, and placed in a lorry. Hoffman then drove this lorry to the quay so they could be loaded aboard a ship ready for their dumping at sea. As the sea was so rough, the ship was unable to leave the harbour. So Hoffman drove the lorry back to the prison. On the following day, Seeling and Hoffman collected the fourth, less injured man, who had been shot by Hoffman. Hoffman then drove the lorry containing the four dead prisoners to the quay. They were then loaded on to a ship, and were later dumped at sea.

The Defence
On the trial’s 2nd day, Seeling took the stand in his defence. His testimony followed his statement. When asked by his counsel, Seeling replied that he did not do anything to bring about the deaths of the men "... because the morphia was too small a quantity and I did not strangle anybody.". Seeling denied the accounts provided by Feuerlein that he had given the prisoners any injections of air.

On the 3rd day, Hoffman took the stand in his defence. He reiterated his statement that it was Seeling, not himself, who had stood on the prisoner’s neck. Hoffman went on to state that he had not strangled any of the prisoners, and that he only helped to load the 3 corpses on to the lorry. He stated that Petersen had told him to shoot the fourth prisoner, but as he was so excited his shot missed. Petersen then went forward and shot the prisoner in the head.

On the afternoon of the 3rd day, Feuerlein gave evidence on his behalf. He admitted that he was a jailer at Prison "A". He stated that he remained in the prison office. He saw Seeling take syringes and bottles upstairs to where the prisoners were lying. He stated that he entered the office, where the prisoners were killed, at infrequent intervals as part of his prison rounds. He did admit to placing his foot on the chest of one of the prisoners, when he was ordered by Petersen. He stated that this was instinctive, and he withdrew his foot immediately. When he made one of his visits to the office, he stated that he saw Seeling and Sachse lift one of the prisoners and hang him with some cord around his neck and one of the office radiators. Feuerlein also demonstrate to the court, using one of the court interpreters, how he had seen Seeling inject air into the a vein on the inner aspect of the elbow. He went on to state that Sachse was the head jailer at Prison "A". He stated that he found the whole business revolting, but he could not leave the jail as he was on duty at the prison to open the gate.

The court then heard the closing speeches from the prosecutor and the two defending officers. The president then adjourned the court until 09.45am tomorrow (13 December 1945).

The 4th day opened with the Judge Advocate summing up the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence. He outlined the legal aspects of the case concerning the Freshman mission, the dress worn when they were captured and mission instructions regarding the clothes to be worn once the mission had been completed. He also explained the relevant legal points of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929, regarding the treatment of prisoners-of-war.

Verdicts and Sentences
The court then closed at 11.28am to consider their verdict. At 12.35pm the president then announced that all three accused had been found guilty.

Seeling then stated, in mitigation, that he did what he thought was best for the prisoners. He then again repeated that he neither gave lethal injections to, nor strangle any of the prisoners.

Hoffman and Feuerlein left their pleas for mitigation to their defending officer. Captain Miller stated that these two defendants were junior soldiers who formed part of a wider plan. They should receive relatively minor sentences, considering the well-known reputation of the Gestapo organisation.

The court closed for consideration of sentences at 1pm. Ten minutes later, the president announced that Seeling was sentenced to death by shooting, Hoffman was sentenced to death by hanging and Feuerlein was sentenced to life imprisonment.

All three prisoners appealed against their sentences, with Feuerlein additionally appealing against the court’s finding.

All the verdicts and sentences were confirmed on 26 December 1945. This decision was promulgated to the prisoners on 31 December 1945.

Werner Fritz Seeling was executed by firing squad at 9.05am on 10 January 1946 at Akershus Prison, Oslo.

Hoffman had also been sentenced to death for his part in the illegal execution of seven Norwegian patriots. He also appealed for clemency in this case, but this was rejected. Hoffman was taken to Germany, where, at 3.30pm on 15 May 1946 at Hamelin Jailhouse he was hanged. In the next two years, Hoffman’s wife contacted the British regarding evidence of her husband’s death, so she could claim a war widows pension from the new West German authorities. She was under the impression that her husband had been executed for espionage activities. She was referred to the British Occupation authorities. It has not been established whether she was informed that her husband was executed for war crimes, not espionage activities. Her success at claiming a war widows pension is also unknown.

Feuerlein, facing a sentence of life imprisonment, was handed over to Russians to answer charges about atrocities perpetrated on Russian prisoners-of-war. His ultimate fate is not known.

The four British soldiers whose murder this court investigated are shown below. After their murder, the bodies of the 4 Royal Engineers were disposed in the sea in the area between Usken/Kvits Island. As their remains have never been located, they are commemorated on the Brookwood Memorial.

Rank
Name
Age
Residence

Corporal
James Dobson Cairncross
22
Hawick, Scotland

Lance-Corporal
Trevor Louis Masters
25
Cobh, Eire

Driver
Peter Paul Farrell
26
Marylebone, London

Sapper
Eric John Smith
24
Paddington, London

bonzen
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Nov 2003, 06:17
Location: chicago

#21

Post by bonzen » 30 Jan 2004, 04:28

This gangsterism came up at Nuremburg. The Germans discovered a copy of the British "Handbook of Irregular Warfare". This instructed commandos "never to give the enemy a chance; the days when we could practice the rules of sportsmanship are over. For the time being every soldier must be a potential gangster...The vulnerable parts of the enemy are the heart, spine, and privates. Kick him or knee him as hard as you can in the fork....Remember you are out to kill"

Goebbels seized on the gangster part and ran with it

In retaliation Hitler ordered 1000 Canadian prisoners placed in chains...the British did the same to 1000 German prisoners. Took a year to straighten it out

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003, 11:45
Location: Australia

#22

Post by alf » 30 Jan 2004, 04:49

This gangsterism came up at Nuremburg. The Germans discovered a copy of the British "Handbook of Irregular Warfare". This instructed commandos "never to give the enemy a chance; the days when we could practice the rules of sportsmanship are over. For the time being every soldier must be a potential gangster...The vulnerable parts of the enemy are the heart, spine, and privates. Kick him or knee him as hard as you can in the fork....Remember you are out to kill"
Is that the reason??

I can't stop laughing now, there are no rules in killing except dont be killed yourself, to try and attribute THAT as a potential warcrime is mind boggling.

User avatar
Kal_El
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 05 May 2003, 19:59
Location: Denmark

Re: Violations of international law by the Western Allies in

#23

Post by Kal_El » 30 Jan 2004, 16:20

panzermahn wrote:
4) Violations of Norway's neutrality in 1940 (Actually Britain and France planned to invade Norway, Hitler beat them to it)
The only reference to allied actions towards Norway at that period, that i can find is "plan CATHERINE", propesed by Churchill.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_02.htm

The link is about the german invasion of Norway and Denmark. A wee bit down the author writes the following:
While the situation was by no means as dangerous as Raeder and Quisling painted it, German concern for Allied action in Scandinavia was not without substance. Since the beginning of the war Allied expectations with respect to Norway had developed almost exactly along the lines predicted by Raeder; however, the devising of practical means for realizing these expectations had been quite another matter. In mid-September Winston Churchill had presented his Plan CATHERINE, which involved sending naval forces through the straits leading into the Baltic Sea to gain control of those waters and to stop the Swedish ore traffic. Although CATHERINE was rejected as too dangerous and no other plan was devised, the Allies, influenced by the widely held thesis that Germany did not have the resources to sustain a long war, continued to regard Norway, and Narvik in particular, as their most promising strategic objective. With the Soviet invasion of Finland, the moment of opportunity seemed to have come, especially when the early successes of the Finns made it appear that the Red Army was weak. The French Government, eager to draw the main action of the war away from the Franco-German frontier went so far as to think of establishing a major theater of war in Scandinavia and of challenging both the Soviet Union and Germany there. The British, on the other hand, wanted to avoid offering excessive provocation to the Russians, with the result that while Allied hopes ran high it was not until the end of January 1940 that agreement came on the method of attaining them.
So yes the allied at the time was debating what actions to take in general and also concerning Norway.

Is planning in it self a warcrime? Im sure that all armyes has plans for every scenario they can concieve. Mostly because in a crisis you dont have the time to research in depth. Beside in the planning process the leaders of the army must get an idea of other countries situation and their potential. Evaluation and planning, with out action.

At http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/juddenma.htm we find the jugdement after the trial against german military commanders regarding the invasion of Norway and Denmark.

I quote from the above link:
When the final orders for the German invasion of Norway were given the diary of the Naval Operations Staff for 23rd March, 1940, records:

"A mass encroachment by the English into Norwegian territorial waters . . . is not to be expected at the present time."

And Admiral Assmann's entry for 26th Match says:

"British landing in Norway not considered serious."

A quote from the end of that jugdement:
The memoranda added that Germany had no intention of infringing the territorial integrity and political independence of the Kingdom of Norway then or in the future. Nevertheless, on the 3rd June, 1940, a German Naval memorandum discussed the use to be made of Norway and Denmark, and put forward one solution for consideration, that the territories of Denmark and Norway acquired during ,the course of the war should continue to be occupied and organised so that they could in the future be considered as German possessions.

In the light of all the available evidence it is impossible to accept the contention that the invasions of Denmark and Norway were defensive, and in the opinion of the Tribunal they were acts of aggressive war.
The judgement is about "aggressive war" and please correct me if im wrong, not war crimes as such.

On a seconday note the jugdement confirms my earlier statements in this thread about the germans, not planing to leave Denmark volentary.


Regards

Morten

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#24

Post by Panzermahn » 31 Jan 2004, 03:07

Okay, i admit i got some errors in Operation Freshman..I got the source from David Irving's Hitler's War....Maybe i read wrongly...have to recheck it again

Panzermahn wrote that:

Quote:

A war which is fought on the level of gangsters and mobsters which had no rules or regulations to "limit" it [the war] to a civillized level.
For example, when Al Capone or Lucky Luciano attacked rival gang members, they accomplished it with tactics like kidnapping, garrotting, shackling, machete, axes, backstabbing [literally] wearing no distinctive uniforms, concealing weapons and so on..Military gangsterism (usually by the Western Allies) are no different that ordinary Mobsterism and gangsterism..Only thing is they wear uniforms on the outside but inside they behaved just the same


The mafia didnt wear uniforms..im chocked! So special forces operating behind enemy lines is "gangsterism
So when does 3-piece suit wore by the Mobs became military uniforms?

Special forces that operate behind enemy lines while wearing uniforms and insignia, carrying weapons openly and adhering to Geneva convention is not military gangsterism but when you wore the enemy's uniforms or civillian uniforms, then if you get caught, it will be death for you


Also, another interesting violation of international law by the western allies is this at pacific theater

The assassination of Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto at Rabaul, 1943..The Americans knew earlier from "Magic" which flight was Yamamoto was in but decided to launch an ambush against the prohibition of Hague Convention and Geneva Convention.

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003, 16:12
Location: Pennsylvania

#25

Post by xcalibur » 31 Jan 2004, 07:01

panzermahn wrote:Okay, i admit i got some errors in Operation Freshman..I got the source from David Irving's Hitler's War....Maybe i read wrongly...have to recheck it again

Panzermahn wrote that:

Quote:

A war which is fought on the level of gangsters and mobsters which had no rules or regulations to "limit" it [the war] to a civillized level.
For example, when Al Capone or Lucky Luciano attacked rival gang members, they accomplished it with tactics like kidnapping, garrotting, shackling, machete, axes, backstabbing [literally] wearing no distinctive uniforms, concealing weapons and so on..Military gangsterism (usually by the Western Allies) are no different that ordinary Mobsterism and gangsterism..Only thing is they wear uniforms on the outside but inside they behaved just the same


The mafia didnt wear uniforms..im chocked! So special forces operating behind enemy lines is "gangsterism


Also, another interesting violation of international law by the western allies is this at pacific theater

The assassination of Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto at Rabaul, 1943..The Americans knew earlier from "Magic" which flight was Yamamoto was in but decided to launch an ambush against the prohibition of Hague Convention and Geneva Convention.
I'm devastated by this revelation. You mean to tell me that the mafia didn't wear proper uniforms??? The American mafia? Damn, they're always so well dressed... How is a crime like this possible? What kind of barbarians would allow this? I would have thought that if the mafia was to assassinate a foreign military leader they'd at least be properly dressed: Indeed, a warcrime for which they shoud've got a maximum sentence.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#26

Post by Panzermahn » 01 Feb 2004, 03:53

Another example of international violation of war by the western allies,

The kidnapping of Luftwaffe General Kriepe from Crete by British commandos who wore German military police uniforms..

Undercover tales of WW2, William Breuer, Wiley & Sons

As far as i recall, the so-called civillized soldiers from the Western Allies do not resort to such a low level of gangster kidnapping as practised by the Russians

By the way, i couldn't find any examples or any statements of the German Wehrmacht planning kidnapping operations of Allied generals and political leaders...

The only instance i know is the SD under Walter Schellenberg try to kidnap the Duke of Windsor in Lisbon, but that is the arm of the SS, not Wehrmacht

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#27

Post by David Thompson » 01 Feb 2004, 04:04

Panzermahn -- As for Luftwaffe General Kriepe's capture on Crete, in 1944 the SS commando leader Otto Skorzeny imprisoned and then abducted Admiral Miklas Horthy, regent of Hungary, in 1944. Also, on several occasions the German armed forces planned to airdrop and infiltrate troops to capture or kill Josef Tito.

To capture an enemy general in wartime, without a pitched battle, has been the apex of achievement for the world's recon, cavalry and police units for well over 200 years.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 04:51
Location: Malaysia

#28

Post by Panzermahn » 01 Feb 2004, 04:27

David
Panzermahn -- As for Luftwaffe General Kriepe's capture on Crete, in 1944 the SS commando leader Otto Skorzeny imprisoned and then abducted Admiral Miklas Horthy, regent of Hungary, in 1944. Also, on several occasions the German armed forces planned to airdrop and infiltrate troops to capture or kill Josef Tito.

To capture an enemy general in wartime, without a pitched battle, has been the apex of achievement for the world's recon, cavalry and police units for well over 200 years.
Sturmbahnfuhrer Skorzeny kidnapped Admiral Miklas Horthy's son, Miki and rolled him under the carpet. He didnt kidnapped Horthy during Operation Margarethe

Josef Brozip Tito is a partisan leader which is not recognised by the Germans and therefore are not included under the protection of Geneva and Hague convention

There is a difference between capturing enemy generals in battle and kidnapping enemy generals...

Planning operations just to kidnap enemy generals may be considered as necessity just like military gangsterism as it had strategic values in the operational art of war but it is definitely military unethical as well as morally repugnant

bonzen
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: 17 Nov 2003, 06:17
Location: chicago

#29

Post by bonzen » 01 Feb 2004, 04:45

panzermahn wrote:Another example of international violation of war by the western allies,

By the way, i couldn't find any examples or any statements of the German Wehrmacht planning kidnapping operations of Allied generals and political leaders...

The only instance i know is the SD under Walter Schellenberg try to kidnap the Duke of Windsor in Lisbon, but that is the arm of the SS, not Wehrmacht
Try the Venlo incident or the radio station at Gleiwitz. Not Wehrmacht but Commandos

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#30

Post by David Thompson » 01 Feb 2004, 07:33

Here's how Admiral Horthy described his abduction in his memoirs, and it doesn't seem remarkably different from what happened to General Kriepe (except that Germany and Hungary were allies, while Germany and Great Britain were not):
The Palace was in a state of siege. The approaches had been mined, incidentally isolating the German Embassy on the Palace Hill. As we learned during the night, the German attack on the Palace had been timed for the early hours of the morning of October 16th (17).

We had just lain down, fully dressed, when Lieutenant Field Marshal Vattay, Chief of the Military Chancellery, and Ambrózy, head of the Cabinet Chancellery, were announced. They had come to deliver the message that the Fuehrer 'offered' me asylum, provided I abdicated, relinquished all powers, and surrendered the Palace. I refused this 'offer' and emphatically told the messengers that I was not to be approached again concerning this matter.

Shortly afterwards, the two men returned with my aide-de-camp, Lieutenant-Colonel Tost, to urge my daughter-in-law to persuade me to accept the 'offer'. My daughter-in-law, who, like my son Nicholas, gave me unceasing help and had, in these last days especially, proved to be an indefatigable collaborator, knew me too well to lend herself to such a project. All their entreaties were of no avail, not even the threat that an attack on the Palace was imminent.

Lieutenant-Colonel Tost pleaded with her to change her mind, saying: "Think of
the safety of your family, and especially of your son. It is to your advantage."
She terminated the conversation by telling them that she would be the last
person to attempt to influence me.

In expectation of the attack, I sent my wife, daughter-in-law and grandson at
four o'clock in the morning under guard to the residence of the Nuncio, who had
in the past offered us sanctuary.

Yet, what was the sense of allowing the situation to develop into a fight? In view of the enemy's superior strength in men and artillery, we had nothing to oppose to their armoured vehicles, a fight could lead only to the decimation of our faithful Guards. Though I had been unable to achieve my aim of bringing peace to Hungary, my radio proclamation had nevertheless proved to the world that Hungary was not willingly submitting to occupation. But I intended to ask no one to lay down his life for me. I therefore ordered that no resistance should be made. This order failed to reach only one unit in the Palace park, a unit that was commanded by the son of the former Premier, Kállay. Shots were fired, and four German soldiers were killed (18). Andreas Kállay (19) was taken prisoner and sent to Dachau.

Shortly before 6 a.m., Dr. Veesenmayer appeared and asked me to go to the Hatvany Palace, "to spare me the pain of seeing the occupation of the Royal Palace". That, I thought, was a definite, if courteous, form of arrest. On our arrival at the Hatvany Palace, the headquarters of the SS, Dr. Veesenmayer said, "Here Your Highness is under the Fuehrer's protection."

My reply to that was that I had sought no one's protection and did not consider that I needed it in my own country. Dr. Veesenmayer stared at me in amazement. My words were as incomprehensible to him as his behaviour was to me. Not until considerably later, the autumn of 1947, in fact, did I obtain the explanation of this mutual misunderstanding. I received my information from a man whose name I cannot give but to whose reliability and veracity I can testify. According to his account, which tallies with the testimonies of witnesses made during the Budapest trial of Szálasi in February, 1946, these were the events of that October night from the 15th to the 16th:

"On October 15th, at 11 p.m., Ambrózy, the head of the Cabinet Chancellery, and Vattay, the Chief of the Military Chancellery, went to the Prime Minister's office, where they found Premier Lakatos in conference with the Ministers, Ivan Rakovszky, Gustav Hennyey, Louis Csatay, Baron Peter Schell (20) and Parliamentary Secretary Stephen Fáy (21). Vattay declared that he feared that the life of the Regent of the Realm was in danger. The only way by which he and his family could be saved was to place them under the protection of the German Reich. The Premier rejoined that if that was indeed his opinion, it was Vattay's duty to propose that course to the Regent. Vattay declared himself willing to do so, left with Ambrózy, and returned alone at midnight while the Ministers were still in session. He claimed to have brought the Regent's answer: 'His Serene Highness has agreed to the proposed solution. He makes only one condition, that he may take with him his close collaborators, so that these shall not fall victims to Arrow-Cross revenge.' Vattay then gave the names of Ambrózy, Lehár, and himself. Premier Lakatos, who had no reason for doubting that this was indeed the Regent's answer, undertook to inform the German Embassy. This then was the basis for later developments. The Germans, going by what the Premier had told them, thought that the Regent had completely capitulated before midnight, both politically and militarily. Premier Lakatos undertook the part of intermediary in arranging for the abdication to take place on the afternoon of the 16th. As he saw it, and was bound to see it, capitulation demanded a formal abdication."

This statement clarified what had been to me an inexplicable change of attitude. It showed that Premier Lakatos had based his actions on the false statements made by Vattay in his second interview with the Premier at midnight. What could have been Vattay's motive in bringing an 'answer' which in reality had never been given, an answer, moreover, that was in utter conflict with my clearly expressed views? I can explain his behaviour only if I postulate that Vattay, who had never failed in loyalty to me, took this otherwise inexplicable course of action in order to save my life and the lives of my family.

This account agrees also with the German statements. According to them, at one o'clock in the morning Lakatos telephoned the German Embassy, which was being evacuated before fighting took place. He spoke to Counsellor Feine (22), who informed Dr. Veesenmayer at once. During the night, a number of express telephone calls were made to the Fuhrer to obtain Hitler's acceptance of the conditions of my supposed capitulation. According to the Germans, Hitler did agree, and Lakatos was informed of this by Counsellor Feine personally at half-past two in the morning. He was asked to come to the German Embassy as quickly as possible and to go to the Palace with Dr. Veesenmayer; I was to leave the Palace before 6 a.m., as it was not certain that the attack on the Palace timed for that hour could be countermanded. A peaceful solution had been regarded as no longer possible at the Fuehrer's headquarters.

Two rooms were assigned to me at the SS headquarters. Guards swarmed in the corridors and an SS man was stationed on guard in my room. As I was about to take an aspirin, he snatched it with the glass of water from my hand in the belief that I was attempting suicide.

Lakatos, Vattay and Tost were with me. After a while, a German officer came in and announced that "the Premier wished to speak with me". Very surprised, I went into the next room and found Ferenc Szálasi. Giving me a Nazi salute, he made the request that I should appoint him Premier. In the whole of my long career, I had never before had a man asking me to appoint him to office. I advised Szálasi to have himself appointed by the Germans if they had not already done so. "As I am a prisoner here," I added, "I cannot perform my official duties, and in any case you are the last person I should choose to appoint to that function." That snub did not discourage this Arrow-Cross man from making another attempt that same afternoon, receiving, of course, the same reply.

The melancholy hours dragged by. Each one of us had his own sad thoughts. Not one of us could eat the food that was put before us. I soon withdrew to my own room, while the others went to another. Suddenly I heard a shot:

Lieutenant-Colonel Tost had risen to his feet and, before anyone had realized what he was about to do, he had shot himself and collapsed by the window, streaming with blood. By his death, I lost one of my most faithful officers; no doubt he preferred to escape by suicide from prolonged imprisonment and Gestapo interrogations which he knew might force him to betray others(23).

As I had brought no personal belongings with me, I asked to be taken to the Palace to pack necessary articles. At 6 p.m., Counsellor Feine came to accompany me. I had been prepared to find that a search had been made, but the disorder of the scene mocked my wildest imaginings. Skorzeny's men had made themselves comfortable on the damask-upholstered furniture. Cupboards and drawers had been broken open. My apartments had already been pillaged and these barbarians had helped themselves to everything that seemed to them of value, from my wife's jewellery to the servants' savings. A touch of comedy lightened even this macabre experience. As I approached the bathroom to fetch my toilet articles, the door opened and a man came out wearing my dressing-gown. He had just finished taking his bath. The apartments of my dead son Stephen and of my abducted son Nicholas had also been looted.

I gave my old servant instructions to pack what clothes, linen and other necessities remained. As I was still standing in the bathroom, three guards with sub-machine-guns in attendance, Lakatos suddenly appeared, together with Veesenmayer. Lakatos handed me a sheet of paper on which was set out in German the announcement of my abdication and the appointment of Szálasi as Premier. I quickly ran my eye over the typewritten page; at the bottom of the German text I read the typewritten words, 'Signed, Horthy'. I returned the sheet to Lakatos saying: "What's this? Am I supposed to sign this?" Lakatos said that I was. I replied that he must know that Szálasi had twice asked me that day to appoint him, and that I had twice refused. That, I thought, closed the conversation, and I went on packing. Lakatos continued to hover about in an obvious state of uncertainty, and it occurred to me that he did not understand my behaviour; I asked him why he wished me to sign the document. Surely, in answer to a direct question, he could only advise me not to sign it. He then indicated that it was a question of my son's life.

I called Veesenmayer, who was standing outside the bathroom, and he confirmed Lakatos's statement that my son's life and eventual return did indeed depend on that signature. I realized that, with or without my signature, the sheet would be published as 'signed Horthy' and it would be proclaimed that I had abdicated after appointing Szálasi. This meant, I said to myself, that while I could change nothing by refusing my signature, I might save my only remaining sons life if I did sign.

I said to Veesenmayer: "I see that you seek to give your coup d'etat an air of legality. Will you give me your word of honour that my son will be liberated and will join us if I sign?" "Yes, Your Highness," Veesenmayer replied. "I give you my word of honour." I then told him that I neither resigned nor appointed Szálasi Premier, I merely exchanged my signature for my son's life. A signature wrung from a man at machine-gun point can have little legality.

Dr. Veesenmayer and Rahn were overjoyed at having blocked Hungary's attempt to conclude an armistice and at keeping Hungary in the war 'by peaceful means', as they had been instructed to achieve both these tasks 'if they valued their necks'. (Later I learned that Veesenmeyer had made repeated attempts to keep his word by obtaining my son's return, approaching Ribbentrop, Baron Dörnberg and others in the Foreign Ministry, and Himmler himself with Winkelmann, a high SS official in Budapest.)

The document that I had signed, a prisoner's forced signature, was obviously invalid, though this did not prevent a proclamation in Hungarian being issued. It was a translation of the German document that I had signed, and appended to it was a signed statement from Lakatos, attesting to the accuracy of the translation. I, of course, had never issued any such proclamation, and the signature to Lakatos's attestation had been obtained while he himself was a prisoner. Proof of this is the chit, 'Certificate of Release from Imprisonment', which Lakatos (24) was given on regaining his freedom.

On October 21st, Szálasi thanked Hitler by telegram for the 'true comradeship' that had been so 'inspiringly manifested' on October 15th and 16th in the 'mutuality of the German-Hungarian fate'. In his reply, Hitler referred to Szálasi as the 'responsible Premier' and assured him "that the German Reich will never fail Hungary". Not until after this interchange did Parliament meet again, on November 2nd. Since so many of the members had been arrested, considerably more than under the Sztójay Government, it could only be called a Rump Parliament. At the opening of the session, the Speaker, Tasnádi-Nagy (25), read out two declarations of mine which must have been the 'documents' referred to earlier. There is no evidence that they were ever submitted to the House. The election of a Regent of the Realm was deferred. Parliament 'took notice' of the fact that 'Premier' Szálasi would "provisionally perform the functions of Regent", and would henceforth assume the tide 'Leader of the Nation'. This Parliament could, of course, no longer claim to be a representative body. All attempts of the 'Nemzetvezetô', the Leader of the Nation, to have his 'Government' officially recognized in neutral countries failed dismally.

When my packing was finished as far as my circumstances permitted, I returned from the Palace to the SS headquarters, where I was visited that night by my wife and daughter-in-law. They had been brought from the Nuncio's(26) residence in a German Legation car, after armed SS men had intruded on this extraterritorial soil.

On October 17th, I left the capital and my country a prisoner. At half-past four in the afternoon, Counsellor Feine of the German Legation came to accompany me to the railway station. Under heavy military escort, our car drove to Kelenföld station. The special train, in which my wife and daughter-in-law with her small son were already seated, was waiting to leave the station. Dr. Veesenmayer had asked me, the day before, which members of my entourage I wished to take with me. I had named Ambrózy, Lázár (27), Vattay, and also my aide-de-camp Tost, who was then still alive. Veesenmayer had raised no objections to any of these names, but in the train I found only Vattay and Lieutenant Field Marshal Brunswick (28), whom I had not mentioned at all.

This was the saddest journey of my life. For almost a quarter of a century, I had stood at the head of my country, watching it grow steadily in strength until Hitler had plunged Europe into war and precipitated an unwilling Hungary into the maelstrom. Now I was perforce leaving Hungary; a usurper had thrust me aside with the aid of foreign arms and had set up a regime unworthy of Hungary.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”