Incidents involving Canadian and German units in Normandy...

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 19:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

#16

Post by Despot » 22 Nov 2005, 06:36

A Hitler youth division had shot about 150 Canadian soldiers, a Highlander unit I believe. Kurt Meyer, the Hitlerjugend divisions commander was put on trial after the war and was subsequently sentenced to death. However, the death sentence was later commuted and only had to serve 9 years. Many Canadians didn't agree with him being put on trial, first because he wasn't there at the time nor did he give orders, plus Canadians had orders too "take no prisoners" on d-day, so holding Germans accountable for something they were also guilty of seemed hypocritical.
Howard Margolian must have done very one-sided research in his writing Conduct Unbecoming (March 14). Otherwise he would have been aware that Canadian soldiers were guilty of the same atrocities they were accusing the Germans of.

Many Canadian military men believed back in 1945 that SS Major-General Kurt Meyer should never have been charged in the killings of Canadian PoWs shortly after the D-Day landings.

The matter is dealt with in the book Meeting of Generals, by Tony Foster, son of Canadian Major-General Harry Foster, who presided over Meyer's trial. Foster quotes his father as saying: "What struck me as I sat in my comfortable chair looking down at this hardnosed Nazi was that not one of us sitting on the bench ... could claim clean hands in the matter of war crimes or atrocities or whatever you want to call them. It hadn't all been one-sided. Our troops did some pretty dreadful things to the Germans. Didn't that make all of us who were commanding officers just as guilty as Meyer?"

Some members of Meyer's division went berserk and killed the Canadians after they learned that German soldiers who had surrendered had been shot in cold blood. A Canadian officer captured by the Germans also carried written orders that no Germans be taken prisoner.

After Meyer's conviction, the Canadian government was not particularly keen in pursuing the matter any further lest atrocities committed by its own troops be revealed. Meyer's death sentence was commuted because he never gave the order to massacre the Canadians and was unaware of what had occurred until later.

Reviewer John Harbron should have pointed out these flaws in Margolian's book, which sounds like propaganda posing as solid war history.

Harry Foell, Dundas, Ont.
Hi all,

Interesting topic. We know and we have sources regarding the atrocities commited by the Hitler Jujend in Normandy but is somebody can provides sources regarding the atrocities commited by the Canadians? I will be very interested. I didn't find it on the link that you provide Lawrence.

Regards
It's highly unlikely you'd be able to get anything more than anecdotal evidence from Canadian and German soldiers. If indeed the documents even exist, it's a long shot that they'd just give them up to any nosy author who asked.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#17

Post by Andreas » 22 Nov 2005, 12:08

Despot wrote:A Hitler youth division had shot about 150 Canadian soldiers, a Highlander unit I believe. Kurt Meyer, the Hitlerjugend divisions commander was put on trial after the war and was subsequently sentenced to death. However, the death sentence was later commuted and only had to serve 9 years. Many Canadians didn't agree with him being put on trial, first because he wasn't there at the time nor did he give orders, plus Canadians had orders too "take no prisoners" on d-day, so holding Germans accountable for something they were also guilty of seemed hypocritical.
Do you have proof for the claim that take no POW orders existed on D-Day? Also, I believe that the Canadians did take POWs on D-Day, so even if the orders existed, they seem not to have been implemented.

Also, not taking POWs is a rather different matter from what has been alleged regarding the 12.SS treatment of its POWs (shooting them well after they have had their surrender accepted), wouldn't you agree?

Finally, I believe that under the laws as they existed at the time, an enemy's surrender could be rejected under certain circumstances without this being a war-crime.

All the best

Andreas


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

#18

Post by David Thompson » 22 Nov 2005, 17:38

Despot -- Please source your quotes.
When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)
H&WC Section Rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962

For interested readers -- The UN War Crimes Commission report on the trial of SS-Brigadefuehrer Kurt Meyer is available online at: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/meyer.htm

Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 19:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

#19

Post by Despot » 22 Nov 2005, 23:26

Despot -- Please source your quotes.


Quote:
When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)


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

For interested readers -- The UN War Crimes Commission report on the trial of SS-Brigadefuehrer Kurt Meyer is available online at: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/meyer.htm
Sorry. It was a blurb in a letter sent from Dr. Lubomyr Prytulak to Canadian Justice-minister Anne McLellan, regarding issues of war crimes, in which the Kurt Meyer case was addressed. The original source was a book called "Meeting the Generals", authored by the son of the judge that presided over Meyers trial, in which he had quoted his father as saying candidly that he didn't agree with the charges being laid since the so-called war crimes weren't "one-sided".

http://www.ukar.org/mclell16.html
Do you have proof for the claim that take no POW orders existed on D-Day? Also, I believe that the Canadians did take POWs on D-Day, so even if the orders existed, they seem not to have been implemented.
No, not really. However it was claimed by Meyer in his trial, that a "take no prisoners" order was found in the coat of a dead Canadian officer, and that if the SS did kill the POW's it was in retaliation.

In a news article, Chris Madsen, a historian discounted Meyers defense, saying:

"That shouldn't enter into it, what Meyer did," he said. "It's not an excuse if Canadians committed war crimes."

I really don't understand what the historian means by that. It certainly isn't an excuse, but is at least a reason. Which should "enter into it", if they hope to have anything close to justice. Which the judge himself scoffed at.

And regarding the "take no prisoners" orders, he said: "There's no proof there was ever an order like that."

along with a History professor saying: "There is absolutely not one, single shred of evidence that such an order ever existed."

However at the trial they used evidence of a teenage German whom thought he had heard Meyer order that no prisoners be taken henceforth. So what makes that any more tangible than the defendants saying they found orders in the coat of an officer?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005 ... 32-cp.html
Also, not taking POWs is a rather different matter from what has been alleged regarding the 12.SS treatment of its POWs (shooting them well after they have had their surrender accepted), wouldn't you agree?
No I don't. If say there is a soldier with his hands up wishing to surrender and he is executed, I see no difference between he and another prisoner executed after being matriculated into a camp. If you would argue that it could be attributed to passion or the heat of the moment, it could likewise be said regarding the 12th, for they claimed it had come in wake of finding out about Germans that the Canadians had killed.

Finally, I believe that under the laws as they existed at the time, an enemy's surrender could be rejected under certain circumstances without this being a war-crime.
I am unaware of those clauses, so I don't understand what circumstances they regard. I can imagine situations in which taking prisoners might not be possible, however, in the context of the d-day invasion, orders to "take no prisoners" seems like implicit sanctioning of what would be considered war-crimes.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#20

Post by Andreas » 23 Nov 2005, 10:53

Despot wrote: No, not really. However it was claimed by Meyer in his trial, that a "take no prisoners" order was found in the coat of a dead Canadian officer, and that if the SS did kill the POW's it was in retaliation.

In a news article, Chris Madsen, a historian discounted Meyers defense, saying:

"That shouldn't enter into it, what Meyer did," he said. "It's not an excuse if Canadians committed war crimes."

I really don't understand what the historian means by that. It certainly isn't an excuse, but is at least a reason. Which should "enter into it", if they hope to have anything close to justice. Which the judge himself scoffed at.

And regarding the "take no prisoners" orders, he said: "There's no proof there was ever an order like that."

along with a History professor saying: "There is absolutely not one, single shred of evidence that such an order ever existed."

However at the trial they used evidence of a teenage German whom thought he had heard Meyer order that no prisoners be taken henceforth. So what makes that any more tangible than the defendants saying they found orders in the coat of an officer?.
I think Meyer's claim in self-defense should not stand higher than the absence of any proof, and it certainly should not stand higher than a life witness testifying. The court will have been able to make up their mind about the reliability of the witness then. It would be up to you now to proof that such an order existed - if it did, I am sure some veteran of the landings would remember, and they have not been shy in the past to speak out about such things. Or you should be able to find documentary evidence. Since none of these things has happened I think we can conclude that there was no such order by the Canadians, despite your earlier claim.
No I don't. If say there is a soldier with his hands up wishing to surrender and he is executed, I see no difference between he and another prisoner executed after being matriculated into a camp. If you would argue that it could be attributed to passion or the heat of the moment, it could likewise be said regarding the 12th, for they claimed it had come in wake of finding out about Germans that the Canadians had killed.
We'll have to agree to disagree here then. I see a very significant difference between someone shooting an enemy who surrendered in the heat of battle, vs. an officer ordering the execution of POWs away from the battlefield, be it as tit-for-tat, or just because he is annoyed with them not surrendering information.
I am unaware of those clauses, so I don't understand what circumstances they regard. I can imagine situations in which taking prisoners might not be possible, however, in the context of the d-day invasion, orders to "take no prisoners" seems like implicit sanctioning of what would be considered war-crimes.
I am no legal expert, so I won't pursue this further. I would like to point out however that:

a) You have not been able to show that such a 'take no prisoners' order existed at all; and/or
b) that POWs were indeed executed, or surrendering German soldiers shot during battle on D-Day.

Since that is the case, your whole argument collapses. Maybe next time before making assured statements such as "Canadians had orders too "take no prisoners" on d-day", you should qualify them by saying 'Kurt Meyer claimed that... but there is zero evidence for it.'

All the best

Andreas

Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005, 19:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

#21

Post by Despot » 23 Nov 2005, 12:36


I think Meyer's claim in self-defense should not stand higher than the absence of any proof, and it certainly should not stand higher than a life witness testifying. The court will have been able to make up their mind about the reliability of the witness then. It would be up to you now to proof that such an order existed - if it did, I am sure some veteran of the landings would remember, and they have not been shy in the past to speak out about such things. Or you should be able to find documentary evidence. Since none of these things has happened I think we can conclude that there was no such order by the Canadians, despite your earlier claim.

Meyer never claimed self-defense. Meyer had maintained that he wasn't there at the time of the killings and he also claimed that he had never given any orders to kill prisoners, this was then substantiated by two SS officers at his trial. He suggested perhaps the motivation of the killing was because of the supposed word of Germans being executed by Canadians that made it's way to the 25th Panzer Grenadiers. Though he never admitted to having given direct orders himself. The witness who testified he heard Meyer give the orders, was a Teenage German from the regiment, which was the key evidence against Meyer, yet Meyer had numerous others testify that he never gave any such order. My point was, why choose to believe this young German and not the other witnesses whom gave testimony contrary to it.

We'll have to agree to disagree here then. I see a very significant difference between someone shooting an enemy who surrendered in the heat of battle, vs. an officer ordering the execution of POWs away from the battlefield, be it as tit-for-tat, or just because he is annoyed with them not surrendering information.
An accidental killing in the heat of battle is one thing, however, willingly killing an unarmed soldier who is surrendering I would consider murder, and to me, murder is murder.

I am no legal expert, so I won't pursue this further. I would like to point out however that:

a) You have not been able to show that such a 'take no prisoners' order existed at all; and/or
b) that POWs were indeed executed, or surrendering German soldiers shot during battle on D-Day.

Since that is the case, your whole argument collapses. Maybe next time before making assured statements such as "Canadians had orders too "take no prisoners" on d-day", you should qualify them by saying 'Kurt Meyer claimed that... but there is zero evidence for it.'

All the best

Andreas
I know. It was my mistake to refer to alleged "take no prisoners" order on d-day.
Those specific orders even if false aren't relevant to Major General H.W. Foster comments about his belief that Meyer shouldn't have been indited in the first place, because of his own admission of war crimes on both sides. Being that he was a High ranking officer and the commander of the 7th Canadian Army, he must have known what was going on, and if he shows distaste for the indictment because of mutual guilt, I will take his word for it.
Regardless if the war crimes that were committed by Canadian troops, came from a "take no prisoners" order or not.

I felt that the the trial was unfair, not out of Fosters comment, but that there wasn't any real evidence to implicate Meyer either, no more than there was evidence of him implicating the allied troops.

In the end though the verdict was thrown out by Major General Chris Vokes, who reviewed and dismissed it because of what he said was a mangle tangle of circumstantial evidence with nothing concrete.

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

#22

Post by David Thompson » 23 Nov 2005, 15:04

Despot -- You said:
(1)
I felt that the the trial was unfair, not out of Fosters comment, but that there wasn't any real evidence to implicate Meyer either, no more than there was evidence of him implicating the allied troops.
The evidence against Meyer is reviewed in the UNWCC report at http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/meyer.htm Your characterization of the trial doesn't deal with it.

(2)
In the end though the verdict was thrown out by Major General Chris Vokes, who reviewed and dismissed it because of what he said was a mangle tangle of circumstantial evidence with nothing concrete.
Please give your source or sources for "the verdict was thrown out."

User avatar
sallyg
Member
Posts: 615
Joined: 11 Jan 2006, 20:27
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Incidents involving Canadian and German units in Normand

#23

Post by sallyg » 11 Jan 2006, 20:41

Gwynn Compton wrote:I remember hearing a while ago about the SS Hitler Jugand Division, and the Canadians at Normandy killing each others prisoners, does anyone have any information on this?

Regards

Gwynn
This can be regarded as no more than oral history,,,, but.

I had 2 unrelated-to-each-other uncles. One landed on D-Day at Juno. The other landed several days later and was killed several days after that when an American bombing mission dropped short.

Uncle #1 related that on D-Day he saw several Canadian "commando types" take 3 German prisoners behind a dune. They returned several minutes later, wiping their knives. He said he was afraif to go and see what hap happened.

As I say, oral history, undocumented.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”