Belgrade 6 Apr 1941: Tactics or war crime?

[tonyh]

If the Yugoslav Government (ie the regime which had illegally seized power in the coup of 27 March, supported by both Britain and the Soviet Union, for the purpose of outflanking the German build-up against the Soviet Union) was still directing its participation in the war from various places within Belgrade, then the locality was not really an "open city", but was a military target.

Actually Michael brings up a good point. Because the coup seized power and later declared the city "open", does this also make the declaration void, because the government was illegal and therefore not entitled to make such a declaration?

Tony

[David Thompson]

tonyh -- You asked:

Because the coup seized power and later declared the city "open", does this also make the declaration void, because the government was illegal and therefore not entitled to make such a declaration?

This is an interesting question, but I think the answer is "no." The point in controversy is whether a city should be subjected to bombardment after it has been declared "undefended" or "open." The question of whether the authority making the declaration is legitimate or not is distinctly secondary to the issue of whether the bombardment still takes place after the declaration was made. The civilian population of the city suffers the punishment of bombardment, not the arguably illegitimate faction which withdrew from the city. Also, the 1907 Hague IV prohibition on bombardment of undefended places does not, by its terms, provide for exceptions.

During the US civil war, the federal government did not recognize the confederate government as a lawful authority, yet respected declarations of "open cities" made by confederate forces in the field. In other posts I cited to some examples of this (during the US civil war) and gave links. If you're interested I'll try to find them again and post them to this thread.

[tonyh]

In the reality of the situation perhaps, but we are dealing with a point of law and sometimes the twains don't meet. The fact that the government making the declaration was illigitimate may be "secondary" in your opinion, but in law it would be a considerable point, would it not?

Also, it may be "secondary" if in fact the city still used its barracks and war ministry. Thus making the "open City" declaration a nonsense.

Tony

[David Thompson]

tonyh -- You asked:

The fact that the government making the declaration was illigitimate may be "secondary" in your opinion, but in law it would be a considerable point, would it not?

I don't think so, for the reasons set forth above. It certainly would not be a valid defense to a prosecution under the 1907 Hague IV Convention, which prohibits bombardment of an undefended place regardless of who had previously occupied or claimed it.

You also said:

Also, it may be "secondary" if in fact the city still used its barracks and war ministry. Thus making the "open City" declaration a nonsense.

This is a more weighty point, and "primary" in my opinion. The 1907 Hague !V Convention requires bombardment of an "undefended" city or place for there to be a crime. This turns on the meaning of "undefended." I'll see if I can find anything on this issue, and I invite the help of the readers.

[Larry D.]

Tonyh wrote:
Very Interesting Larry, cheers. However, if the city contained a functioning barracks and war ministry, doesn't that render the "open city" declaration on the 3rd of April void?

Probably, although school is still out. See the michael mills posting of Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:10 pm, above, and my reply.

--Larry

[vathra]

I have recently done research on civilian casualties of Belgrade during german and allied bombing, which is relevant to this topic.

Will post them tomorrow, for now just to bookmark.

[vathra]

Here are some data on German bombing:

I have found reports from Belgrade cemeteries (two biggest cemeteries in the city).
They reported to city council daily how many persons were killed in the bombing.
I went through reports until October (6 months after the bombing), when 1 person was buried (not clear whether he died of wounds, or was removed from the rubble). They give total of 1970 persons buried in Belgrade cemeteries until date.

There are also reports of LuftSchutz, German organization which cleared ruins, repaired infrastructure and removed bodies and UXO. There are reports several weeks after the bombing. They estimate there were total of some 65 men still buried under the rubble across the city. (most of them were later transferred to cemeteries and are included in above report).

Some of the local historians estimate that there were 2270 total men killed during bombing. There were some victims who were buried in small cemeteries or even parks and were not included in above reports, so this figure is plausible. Estimates that give more than this are not reliable.
Also, residents of Zemun are not in those reports.

----

There is also very interesting report of German military attache Toussaint who was in Belgrade German embassy during bombing.
Oberst Toussaint, Den 16. april 1941, An das Oberkommando des Heeres. Atascheabteilung, Erfahrungsbericht iiber den Luftangriff auf Belgrad.
It was published in book "Njemacka okupaciona uprava u Beogradu 1941-44", Muharem Kreso, p241 (in Serbian, PDF is available).

In his opinion, attack was less aimed on military installations, but it had aim to paralyze capitol and to put citizens under strongest moral pressure. Most important part of the attack was total surprise, in which it succeeded. Civilians thought that this is some exercise, not actual bombing.
He explains effects of various bombs on civilian buildings. Small incendiaries could penetrate roof, and set a fire to wooden structure, which could consume entire building (modern concrete buildings were almost immune to them). Then there were naval mines which could demolish entire building and damage beyond repair nearby buildings.
Damage and water and sewage was so extensive that after a week population started to leave to city en masse.

----

Overall, Germans dropped some 440 tons of bomb on Belgrade.
In attack on Belgrade alone, they lost some 40-50 aircraft against AA and fighters (not so light losses).
So city was as well defended, as neutral small country could do.

-----

Regarding declaration of Open city, there is something strange with it.
First, Yugoslavia was not in the war, nor it expected that Germany could attack.
It was strange that they would declare Belgrade open city as the attack was imminent, and not do some other important preparations, like mining communications etc.
Therefore it would be good to see if this declaration was actually real. I doubt it could be misinformation.

[vathra]

Now, some on the Allied bombing.

From April 16/17 until September 18, Allies dropped some 2.500 tons of bomb.
Most of the victims were in the 16/17 September. There were some 800 killed in Belgrade, 60 prisoners in concentration camp Sajmiste, and more than 100 in Zemun. Overall, almost thousand. With additional German troops and PoW in Semlin lager.
In later bombings there were additional casualties. Overall, reports give total of 1500 killed in Belgrade, Zemun and Sajmiste, but number is probably closer to 1600 because I could not find later reports on all bombings.

Despite AA defences, Americans lost less than 10 planes on those missions (not all in Belgrade)

After the war US and Yugoslav commission found that damage to civilian objects was some 50% higher during Allied bombings.

-----

Regarding ammunition, Allies used standard bomb load for the task. Ie 500lb GP bombs against Railroad, 1000lb against steel bridges and 2000 against masonry bridges. Flame bombs were not used (while against Germany they were used in large numbers).

[vathra]

If we compare those two bombing, we can see following difference:

- German bombing:
440 tons, 2270 killed, damage to civilian buildings

- Allied (US) bombing:
2500 tons, 1600 killed, 150% damage to civilian buildings

Lower number of killed civilians compared to damage to building in Allied bombing can be explained by following:
- Belgrade lost some of the population,
- after initial bombings, protection and warning got better, resulting in less killed

Even with those factors, there is great difference in number of killed and damage, comparing to tonnage of bombs.
Per tonnage dropped, in German bombing there were 8x more killed than in Allied. Even if we assume that Belgrade lost 1/3 of population from 41-44 (which is probably too much), it is still 5x more.
In case of material damage to civilian buildings, German bombing per tonnage caused 4x more damage.

It should be taken into account that Germans used a lot a Stuka dive bombers, which were more precise. Even with such bombing, there was much more civilian casualties than in Allied bombing.

======

Due to all factors, usage of ammunition, casualties, it is obvious that German bombing was way more devastating to civilians. Even German military Attache claims that main attack was against them. Usage of incendiary bombs and mines is not so effective against military installations, but it is very effective against civilian buildings.
Based on all of this, I consider that German bombing of Belgrade was a War crime, due to large usage of bombs against civilian population and buildings, used to spread panic against them, which can hardly be justified by bombing of military targets only.

[vathra]

And few points on the some elements of the previous discussions:

- Book "Rape of Serbia" by Michael Lees is propaganda, and it should not be taken seriosly.
Not only in case of bombing of Belgrade, which we discussed here, but also in other segments.
IE, I ordered from TNA reports of British military missions from Serbia in 1944. Almost every spoke of chetnik collaboration.
Michael Lees quoted several of those reports, but failed to mention any of the point of collaboration, which is pretty amazing when you see content of these documents. I can write more details on request.

- Postwar trials in Yugoslavia
Larry mentioned they were more revolutionary justice than fair trials.
After examining several cases, I can see that prosecutors had very bad evidence material. Some of it was withheld in US. By modern standards, those men would probably be set free today after years of trial. But back then it was pretty obvious that crimes they committed were horrendous, trials lasted for month-month and a half (not only in Yugoslavia), and other outcome was basically not an option.

But, on the other hand, I also examined some of the trials and testimonies that were conducted by US, and I was very surprised to see that in some cases very strong evidence against accused were not brought.
IE in hostage case, German policy of shooting 100 hostages for every killed German soldier was defended by the fact that rebels in Serbia uprising of 1941. were not fighting according to Geneva convention, mainly because they hid among civilians. That is pretty strange, because in case of Kraljevo, at the time of shootings of some 2000 civilians by Germans in the city, rebels held city in blockade, attacked local airfield by artillery and even used tanks to attack center of city.
In second case, testimonies on behalf of Draza Mihailovic, by Committee for his fair trial, I examined testimonies against Escape statements of downed Allied airmen who were helped by chetniks. In some cases I noticed that witnesses did not tell entire story or even possibly lied, but even more interesting, on several places were mentioned cases where collaboration was described in report, but without further investigation. In one case airmen were dressed as chetniks and had German and Chetnik IDs. This fact was carefully avoided in testimony.

[MarkN]

Oooooooh!!

This is an interesting thread that has resurfaced from the depths. Why? Because it seems to me to highlight some of the very worst points of AHF. Points that - given it was 2005 when they appeared - seem to have set the tone for the subsequent 13 years. I may upset some with these comments. But I feel that it is constructive criticism that site management may wish to give some thought to.

What is the point of AHF? The writing on the wrapping says it is all about historical research and serious historical discussion. To 'ensure' that occurs, site rules go into great detail as to how posters are to present their information: has to be referenced, no "unsolicited opinions without supporting facts" are allowed etc etc.

The point of this thread was discuss whether the bombing of Belgrade on 6 April 1941 was a war crime or not. Very quickly the discussion focussed upon the contents of this post and in particular the claim that Belgrade had been declared an "open city".

What was the reason given for the bombing attack on this city?
After all it had been declared an 'open city' ie undefended, so what was it that needed* to be attacked ?

* or at least the excuse given.

Notice that there is no reference given as to who proclaimed it an open city, when they proclaimed it, nor where the poster has acquired this information.

Nevertheless, this very point becomes the focal point for much of the next 3 pages. A focus deliberate pushed by one poster to counter the claims of others.

You seem to be missing the point about bombing an open city. It's a war crime. Your efforts to "poison the well," by referring to the subsequent Yugoslav trial of Loehr and Feibig being "scarcely the sort of episode that any honest person would want to put forward as a model," are telling. They bespeak an almost total misconception of the meaning of the word "honest," as that term is ordinarily used by English-speaking people.

This is followed by..

Belgrade was publicly proclaimed an open city several days before the German aerial bombardment on 8 Apr 1941. That means that the Yugoslav armed forces had withdrawn their troops, and renounced any intention to defend the city. If you have any evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

And yet we still have no evidence who proclaimed it an open city, when they proclaimed it other than the vague "several days before", nor where the poster has acquired this information. There is no evidence put forward to support the claim that a withrawal of troops had occured. It is just boldly stated as fact. And then a demand comes that the other poster has to prove this didn't happen!!!! I thought it was an AHF rule that the onus of proof was on the claimant. [MarkNote: My apologies, poster tonyh had previously stated it was proclaimed on 3 April - without evidencing this.]

The discussion goes around a few circles before it dawns upon some to question whether it really was an "open city". For example,

DrG -- You said:

. . . the mere fact that Yugoslav commands were still in Belgrade and that it had a flak, although uneffective, show well that the definition of "open city" was completely baseless.

The passage is vague about where the flak guns were located -- in the city or at the airfields outside Belgrade. Now I'd like to see some facts from the (former) Yugoslav point of view, since the study I quoted gave the German version. I think, until we get more information, that there is a question now as to whether Belgrade was an "open city" de facto.

Sorry if I give the idea of unfairly picking on you David Thompson, but your quotes provide an excellent sequencing of the problem which I wish to highlight.

You had harangued other posters repeatedly (and to the extent of accusing them of "poisoning the well") for not seeing your assertions as being more valid than theirs, despite those assertions being completely unevidenced (had the discussion actually confirmed that Belgrade was indeed an open city - or is it just a false assumption happily carried forward), but now there seems to be some doubt creeping in as to its true status. The nature of your concern here, was it defended or not, suggests a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the specific subject matter.

Page 3 goes around in circles trying to establish how defended a city can be without being defended - an yet still not a single person has presented any evidence that Belgrade had actually been declared and "open city". It is just assumed to be true and the discussion is a bit of a comic routine of posters discussing the scale and nature of defence without having any real knowledge or understanding of what defence was actually there!

And on it continues onto page 4 with now a discussion as to what part of internalional law takes precedence over another.

And still, nobody has even confirmed whether Belgrade had been declared as an "open city" or not.

Finally, today, 13 years later, somebody decides to address the ELEPHANT in the thread.

Regarding declaration of Open city, there is something strange with it.
First, Yugoslavia was not in the war, nor it expected that Germany could attack.
It was strange that they would declare Belgrade open city as the attack was imminent, and not do some other important preparations, like mining communications etc.
Therefore it would be good to see if this declaration was actually real. I doubt it could be misinformation.

3 and a half pages of posters strutting their stuff, preening their feathers, demands of others to evidence their opinions and pronouncing one's own opinion superior to others. And yet, nobody has even spotted, let alone bothered to deal with, the elephant in the thread. :roll:

Is the notion of Belgrade being an open city on 6 April 1941 simply poster redcoat's "unsolicited opinion without supporting facts"?

The problems I've highlighted in this thread are common theme throughout this forum. If AHF is to be fully accepted as being a forum of serious historical research and historical discussion, this has to be addressed. It doesn't matter how perfect one's civlity is if a post is a series of strong assertions being portrayed as historical facts - when in reality is is somewhat the opposite. How far away from reality can one post without reproach before "well poisoning" kicks in?

[vathra]

I consulted some literature on declaration of Open city.
In same book I mentioned earlier (by Muharem Kreso), there are following data:

Government of Yugoslavia declared Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana open city on April 3rd. It was announced on media, and telegram was sent to Germany by Yugoslav government and German military attache. Military attache Toussaint reported that there is no AA in Belgrade, and that there is clear intention and everything should be done to avoid bombing of Belgrade.

Also it should be noted that German troops entered undefended Belgrade a week later.

As for definition of Open city, they seem to be not updated for air warfare, and this was situation during ww2:

These are "Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); 18 October 1907"[2] and "Laws of War: Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX); 18 October 1907".[3] It is significant that there is a different treaty which should be invoked for bombardment of land by land (Hague IV) and of land by sea (Hague IX).[4] Hague IV, which reaffirmed and updated Hague II (1899),[5] contains the following clauses:
Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.[2]

Air defences, as Larry mentioned earlier, were outside the city.
At the time in Belgrade were some military commands.

But there is another problem - German attack started on small scale on evening April 5, without notice of Yugoslav command, and fully on April 6 - without declaration of war.
Yugoslav general Bodi after the war claimed that he heard Hitler's speech early in the morning in which he declared war on Yugoslavia. It seems that official note was prepared, but it was not delivered to Yugoslav authorities.
We can conclude that in case of war military commands would be certainly moved outside of the city.

-----

Imho, only reason that there were any military presence in Belgrade on April 6th was because Germany attacked without declaration of war.
German attack was not only without previous note to attack undefended city, but even without declaration of war.
That all leads to conclusion that German attack on Belgrade was illegal in international law. (with note that international law at the time did not catch up with air warfare)

-----

Last point are Yugoslav preparations for war. As general Bodi stated in his interview, full mobilization was not announced so they would not provoke. Some units were being moved to their parts of mobilization.

[MarkN]

Hello vathra,

Thank you for restarting an interesting topic.

I consulted some literature on declaration of Open city.
In same book I mentioned earlier (by Muharem Kreso), there are following data:

Government of Yugoslavia declared Belgrade, Zagreb and Ljubljana open city on April 3rd. It was announced on media, and telegram was sent to Germany by Yugoslav government and German military attache. Military attache Toussaint reported that there is no AA in Belgrade, and that there is clear intention and everything should be done to avoid bombing of Belgrade.

I cannot find any reference to such a declaration in Ferdo Culinovic, Slom Stare Jugoslavije, Skolska knjiga, Zagreb, 1958
I cannot find any reference to such a declaration in Terzic, Slom Kraljevine Jugoslavije 1941. volume 1&2, Partizanska Knjiga, Ljubljana, 1984
I cannot find any reference to such a declaration in Antun Miletic, Aprilski rat 1941. Zbornik dokumenata, Knjiga 2, Vojnoistorijski institut, Beograd, 1987
I cannot find any reference to such a declaration in primary documents covering YU discussions with the British Ambassador or any of the British in Belgrade at the time.

In Miletic, p.430 (which is a book chronicling the events through the reproduction of original documents such as telegrams) there is a transcript of the Cabinet meeting held on 3 April 1941. No mention is made of declaring Belgrade an open city. However, this was recorded:

Gen. Ilic predlaze da se zabrane masovno iselenje iz beograda, koje izaziva zabunu.

As regards defence.
As you point out, the airforce put maximum effort into defending Belgrade - and at great cost.

Terzic describes the deployment of troops.
Book 2, p.258 identifies the Dunavske Division mobilization places and movements. The 18.pp based in Belgrade (Banjica) relocating to Jajinci. Divisional units in Belgrade relocating to "the Belgrade area".
p.259 identifies the Sremska Division mobilization places and movements. 2.pp based in Belgrade (Zemun and Banjica) to defend the line of the Danube from Grocka to Bolec. 2.ppg based in Belgrade (Topcider) to defend the line of the Danube from Bolec to Topcider. 70.pp based in Ruma (and Zemun) to move complete to Zemun. And so on.

In otherwords, Belgrade was being defended by the Sremska Division with elements of the Dunavske Divsion in support.

[MarkN]

Part 2.

Again Terzic, book 2, p.227

Ministar vojske i mornarice armijski general Bogoljub Ilic je 5. aprila oko 18 casova naredio svima u Stabu Vrhovne komande da 6. aprila budu u svojim kancelarijama, s tim da se nikakva evakuacija ratnog materijala iz zgrada...

Minister of defence giving the order for supreme command NOT to leave the city!


And now, off the top of my head as I have no time to track down sources.

On 13th April 1941, a group of 6 or 7 SS recce troops from Das Reich paddled across the Danube and made their way to the German Embassy. They announced their arrival and asked the Ambassador what he thought they should do next. He suggest they drive round together in his diplomatic car to the Belgrade Mayor's office. Which they did. Having introduced themselves the Belgrade Mayor announced unilaterally and without any consultation with anybody else, that he was surrending the town to the SS Captain forthwith and decalring the city and open city!

I wonder whether somebody has, over time, managed to lose the 1 from 13 and change the historical timeline.

[MarkN]

Part 3.

As I was closing Culinovic to put it back on the bookshelf, the book fell open on page 278-9 and guess what it says...

Tesko je ipak u potpunosti vjerovati ovakvoj tvrdnji Beograd je Simoviceva vlada, kako smo to vec istakli, proglasila otvorenim gradom jos 3. aprila. U njemu dakle nije bilo nikakvih obrambenih vojnih jedinica, ni postrojenja.

Problem is, I haven't/can't found/find where he first mentions it to trackback the details.