1945 Lost German girl

Discussions on the role played by and situation of women in the Third Reich not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Vikki.
User avatar
Brittstephan
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Apr 2018 10:50
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Brittstephan » 03 Apr 2019 23:44

please send me a prive message.
i have bin there 3 times on the road and the town.
travel every time 1000kms for this

Bertill622
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 18:07
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Bertill622 » 06 Apr 2019 16:52

Excuse me, i have been very busy.
I Have just send you a pm.

Best regards,
Bertill.

Bertill622
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 18:07
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Bertill622 » 09 Apr 2019 21:01

Brittstephan, I have send you 2 PM's.
Please send me a PM with your telephone number, so I can and will call you.

Best regards,
Bertill.

Bertill622
Member
Posts: 173
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 18:07
Location: Netherlands

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Bertill622 » 16 Apr 2019 20:35

Brittstephan, just send you a PM.

Best regards,
Bertill.

irishmain
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 10 Aug 2015 20:27
Location: ireland

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by irishmain » 27 May 2019 18:58

Never give up. Keep this thread alive and thank you for doing so all these years. The following link will give hope towards one day maybe discovering who Lost German Girl was.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5319641/find ... dGzaAp23r4

Stephan
Member
Posts: 693
Joined: 09 Feb 2003 20:34
Location: Sweden

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Stephan » 27 May 2019 19:47

To observe, the patting hand has a broad ring - that man was probably married, and could thus be possibel to identyfie him too...

Papadopulos
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 16 Sep 2019 13:58
Location: Tielt

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Papadopulos » 16 Sep 2019 14:35

ChristopherPerrien wrote:
25 May 2016 14:09
Regarding the death of "Kazimiera Kostewicz", as such off-topic baiting junk now seems permitted.
This has been discussed many times over the years in RELEVANT areas of the forum. Her story has popped up in several. Her family was in the area of a mixed column of vehicles of the Polish army and refugees. The column was strafed by the German Air Force as a military target given the presence of Polish military units and she was hit.
I don’t know where you are getting this information from but it simply is not true. You are twisting and mixing facts by suggesting that her family was in a column of refugees that was mixed with the military, therefore brushing off the responsibility of the German troops for the atrocities done to the civilians. While in reality the girl shot was Kazimiera’s older sister Andzia who went to a neighbour to pick up a few potatoes for dinner. There was scarcity of food in Warsaw thanks to the German occupiers. People had to go to the fields to dig potatoes by themselves to feed the family the city. She was neither a refugee nor part of any military column. The story is well documented by American war corespondent Julien Bryan who was there and interviewed the girl. All this was well researched by IPN and other researchers. Here is the Julien’s movie: https://historiajednejfotografii.blogsp ... y.html?m=1

and here the story in English: https://horrorhistory.net/2017/09/13/ka ... ers-death/

I also suggest to visit this museum: https://www.1944.pl/en
to learn what German troops did to the women and children in Wola district.

The facts speak for themselves, no sugarcoating is going to cover it up.

history1
Member
Posts: 3552
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 09:12
Location: Austria

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by history1 » 16 Sep 2019 15:31

Spare us your off topic PiS- nonsense here, Padadopulos. The only good link is the last one which shows even AK commanders hiding in plain clothes and thus violating the Geneve Conventions during the Warsaw Uprising. Someone should tell them that "Warsaw Rising Museum" is nonsense, obviously they´re not able to use simple online translators.
And this was my first and last post to your comment.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4675
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by wm » 17 Sep 2019 21:26

Only soldiers directly taking part in fighting were required to wear fixed distinctive emblems - that was confirmed during Dachau trials.

history1
Member
Posts: 3552
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 09:12
Location: Austria

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by history1 » 18 Sep 2019 04:58

" [...] An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 [...].

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[...]"
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_ ... war_status
Not a single word that they were only required to wear them only in a direct fight. And is a commander who co-ordinates his troops not taking part in the battle/fight?
And as this is also OT this was again my last comment to this topic. As you know there is a threat about this matter so no need to spam here.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 4675
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by wm » 18 Sep 2019 09:26

United States of America
Practice Relating to Rule 57. Ruses of War

The US Field Manual (1956) states: [...]
Among legitimate ruses may be counted [...] removing unit identifications from uniforms.

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states:
Ruses of war which have customarily been accepted as lawful [...]
Article 24 of the 1907 Hague Regulations confirms the general rule that ruses of war not constituting perfidy are lawful. Among the permissible ruses are [...] removal of unit identifications from uniforms.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5571
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Terry Duncan » 18 Sep 2019 10:00

history1 wrote:
16 Sep 2019 15:31
The only good link is the last one which shows even AK commanders hiding in plain clothes and thus violating the Geneve Conventions during the Warsaw Uprising.
History1, Maybe you could point me to which of the Geneva Conventions required civilians to wear uniforms or unit IDs in wartime? Civilians usually do not come with either, nor are they expected to wear such things when functioning in the form of 'resistance' forces against an occupying force according to The Hague Conventions, so it would be really useful if you could link me to the GC and Section for reference please.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5571
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Terry Duncan » 18 Sep 2019 10:21

wm wrote:
18 Sep 2019 09:26
United States of America
Practice Relating to Rule 57. Ruses of War

The US Field Manual (1956) states: [...]
Among legitimate ruses may be counted [...] removing unit identifications from uniforms.

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states:
Ruses of war which have customarily been accepted as lawful [...]
Article 24 of the 1907 Hague Regulations confirms the general rule that ruses of war not constituting perfidy are lawful. Among the permissible ruses are [...] removal of unit identifications from uniforms.
WM,

You might find it more useful to quote Article 24 of The Hague Convention 1907 as the background to the 1929 Geneva Convention, but even then, Articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva Convention do contain enough useful information to show what is and is not required;
Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilised peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organised resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognised by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

The only requirement I can find suggests that whilst it might be advisable to wear some form of insignia to prevent being shot out of hand, there is no actual requirement to do so.

history1
Member
Posts: 3552
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 09:12
Location: Austria

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by history1 » 18 Sep 2019 13:54

Terry Duncan wrote:
18 Sep 2019 10:00
history1 wrote:
16 Sep 2019 15:31
The only good link is the last one which shows even AK commanders hiding in plain clothes and thus violating the Geneve Conventions during the Warsaw Uprising.
History1, Maybe you could point me to which of the Geneva Conventions required civilians to wear uniforms or unit IDs in wartime? Civilians usually do not come with either, nor are they expected to wear such things when functioning in the form of 'resistance' forces against an occupying force according to The Hague Conventions, so it would be really useful if you could link me to the GC and Section for reference please.
Terry, the commanders of the Armia Krajowa = Home Army were not civilians but members of an organised resistance unit. And the sign visible from the dictance is requested to differ innocent civilians from lawful combatants. If all four requirements are not fullfilled they can be considered unlawful combatants and can´t request being treated as POW.
And AFAIK I did insert the source in my post.
Further information, easier for you to read as my mother tongue isn´t English. Please inform me when I did understand something wrong. Thanks in advance.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/file ... dorman.pdf
https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/unlawful-combatants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_ ... l_conflict

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5571
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: 1945 Lost German girl

Post by Terry Duncan » 18 Sep 2019 15:27

history1 wrote:
18 Sep 2019 13:54
Terry Duncan wrote:
18 Sep 2019 10:00
history1 wrote:
16 Sep 2019 15:31
The only good link is the last one which shows even AK commanders hiding in plain clothes and thus violating the Geneve Conventions during the Warsaw Uprising.
History1, Maybe you could point me to which of the Geneva Conventions required civilians to wear uniforms or unit IDs in wartime? Civilians usually do not come with either, nor are they expected to wear such things when functioning in the form of 'resistance' forces against an occupying force according to The Hague Conventions, so it would be really useful if you could link me to the GC and Section for reference please.
Terry, the commanders of the Armia Krajowa = Home Army were not civilians but members of an organised resistance unit. And the sign visible from the dictance is requested to differ innocent civilians from lawful combatants. If all four requirements are not fullfilled they can be considered unlawful combatants and can´t request being treated as POW.
And AFAIK I did insert the source in my post.
Further information, easier for you to read as my mother tongue isn´t English. Please inform me when I did understand something wrong. Thanks in advance.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/file ... dorman.pdf
https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/unlawful-combatants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_ ... l_conflict
My point is that there was nothing to force people to wear any identification, it is not a requirement, it is an advisory precaution but far from universally followed - such as the 1871 and 1914 'Franc Tireur' incidents where many were just standard peasants using hunting rifles. The Germans tended to treat all resistance/partizans on the Eastern Front as unlawful combatants, although by the time of the Warsaw Uprising many senior Germans were considering the peace and not wanting to appear on a list of war criminals if possible.

You seem to be quoting from GC IV, which did not get written until 1949, it is GC III and the various Hague conventions that applied during WWII.

Return to “Women in the Reich”