Charlemagne soldiers executed at Bad Reichenhall

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Sep 2003 20:19

Whether or not those executed men were traitors to France or not, if LeClerc was even thinking about shooting them they should have gotten a trial. Worse for General LeClerc, the circumstances of the story ("Aren't you wearing an American uniform?") gives the distinct impression that LeClerc had them executed in a fit of pique. Assuming that the stories are true, General LeClerc's summary execution looks like a war crime to me. Neither the Hague Convention of 1907 nor the Geneva Convention of 1929 authorize executions of POWs for impudent remarks, let alone a group of POWs for one man's impudent remark.

Witch-King of Angmar
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: 28 Feb 2003 20:40
Location: Europe

Post by Witch-King of Angmar » 21 Sep 2003 21:00

David Thompson wrote:Neither the Hague Convention of 1907 nor the Geneva Convention of 1929 authorize executions of POWs for impudent remarks, let alone a group of POWs for one man's impudent remark.
Impudent, but unfortunately for LeClerc's face, pretty much true.. :)

~The Witch King of Angmar

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Sep 2003 22:29

Witch-King -- That's why I used the expression "pique" (a perceived insult to pride or vanity) in describing LeClerc's reaction.

mars
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 19:50
Location: Shanghai

Post by mars » 22 Sep 2003 01:31

Dan wrote:
Would you say the same thing about a German who joined an Allied army?
Or the thousands of Germans who stayed loyal to the French Foreign Legion during both wars?
Yes, Dan, I will say same thing to these Germans

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 22 Sep 2003 01:41

My dear Mars,for your knowledge,the European theater ,unlike the Pacific one,was an european CIVIL WAR !

For instance the Czarist russians who where slaughtered by the bolsheviks in 1917... it makes sense that survivors ,or their sons,enlisted the Wlassow army....

If i follow you the german jews were traitors not to join the wehrmacht ?
That makes Einstein a traitor,too......

And all the baltic jews who supported the Red Army in the 1940 invasion of the baltic countries,traidors too....so the baltic Scuma were more right than ever to shoot them....

And what about your city of Shangai who was ounder international foreign direction in the 30's...with british ,french and american policemen imparting law and order..... so all the city inhabitants were traitors for not oppose them...that makes technically the japanese as liberators ! Don't jump !!! I know very well the atrocities commited by japanese forces against the civilians of Shangai,and most particularly against the women !
I'm just following your idea to the uttermost end to demostrate the absurdity of such simplist ,naive thought...comeback with fact WW2 WAS A CIVIL WAR ,at last for the europeans,where two conceptions of life were at stake,like it have been fews years ago in Spain,were you would find russian,french,italians,belgians,rumanians and british volunteers within BOTH SIDES !

mars
Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 19:50
Location: Shanghai

Post by mars » 22 Sep 2003 02:33

Did these German Jews were revoked the German citizenship BEFORE the war ? Did Einstein get American citizenship BEFORE the war ? I would not call treason for those did not rise to oppose invade army, only those, in war time, rose his arm to against his own people, to against his own county or his country's allies were traitors

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Post by Panzermahn » 22 Sep 2003 02:36

Ostuf Charlemagne
The commander of the division ,general Leclerc,came to see the prisonners.His first decision was to secretly remove one the SS men who was the son of a free french high officer friend of him...This young SS trooper was put later in a plane and clandestinely sent back to his father
Who was this guy? is he Paul Briffaut? Jean Mabire in his book Berlin Im Todekampf stated that Paul Briffaut was not executed Furthermore LVF was disbanded in 1943 and all orders are to combine them with the Sturmbrigade so it isn't possible that the French Gaullist forces who captured them knew the difference between LVF and Charlemagne

Do you had any information regarding this unknown who was spared? How does the French gaullist forces secretly removed the unknown man? Is he removed during the assembly of the Charlemagne men like in the picture or during their escape?

Furthermore how could the gaullist forces recognised the SS man who was the son of a French officer the friend of Leclerc

Ostuf Charlemagne
Member
Posts: 1014
Joined: 18 Dec 2002 12:33
Location: Honduras

Post by Ostuf Charlemagne » 22 Sep 2003 03:10

Hi Panzermahn.....Mabire is mistaken,Briffaut WAS executed.
The unknown one remains ... unknown . The son of the friend of Leclerc was removed when captured,either Leclerc knows him,either he recognized him from his name.The gaullist made no difference between Charlemagne and LVF,in fact it was no one ,only the badges.....

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003 03:44
Location: Chicago

Post by R.M. Schultz » 22 Sep 2003 04:26

Scott Smith wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:
Ostuf Charlemagne wrote:The Charlemagne volunteers were uniformed soldiers (like the foreigners of the french foreign legion) fighting communism at the Eastern Front with the authorization of the legal french government (at this time,the Vichy one )
Isn't this just an old lawer's trick? When the facts aren't on your side, argue the law.
Exactly. It was "International Law" because the Allies said-so.
Once again a Holocaust Denier has feigned to misunderstand a clear statement in order to twist my meaning.

What we have here is a moral question: is is moral to fight for a genocidal regime? The answer is plain: genocide is never okay and it is never justifiable to fight for a genocidal regime. [And yes — genocide is worse than democide, go and argue that on the genocide/democide thread, not here. And no, scattered cases of individual excesses don't count as genocide. And no, bona fide war-winning measures don't count as genocide either. ] The volunteers of the Charlemagne SS division
can try to hide behind the legalisms of being "uniformed soldiers" or "fighting communism" or having the "authorization of the legal French government," but this is all just legal clap-trap. They were in fact the pawns/dupes/willing executioners of a genocidal regime and they belonged to a demonstrably criminal organization. Further, they had not the extenuating factor of being draftees, they volunteered for this despicable business.

Do not bother to nit-pick this post with trivialities — the Devil is not in the details he is in the over-all pattern. Do not bother to reply with calumnies against the Allies — these are usually false and do nothing to mitigate the guilt of the SS anyway. If you wish to reply, please address the moral issue involved and do it like a philosopher or a Christian or a man of good will — not like a lawyer.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 22 Sep 2003 06:09

R M Schultz wrote:
If you wish to reply, please address the moral issue involved and do it like a philosopher or a Christian or a man of good will — not like a lawyer.
Perhaps Mr Schultz should step back from his own "moral" position and look at the historical realities.

The Frenchmen who joined the Waffen-SS did not do so for the purpose of assisting a genocidal regime to carry out its genocidal purpose. No, they joined for the purpose of fighting against Bolshevism, which they saw as a mortal danger to their own country, France, far more dangerous than Germany, which had given the French Government the opportunity to crush all Communist and pro-Communist elements within the country.

If the German authorities had posted placards all over France with the message "Frenchmen! Join the SS and help us to exterminate Jewish men, women and children", then it would be reasonable to accuse any Frenchmen who responded to that call of complicity in genocide.

But that was not the case. The German authorities promulgated the message "Frenchmen! Join the SS and help save Europe from Bolshevism", and that is the message that the men who joined the LVF and then the Charlemagne Division responded to. They should be judged in terms of their honest conviction that they were fighting on behalf of their country, and not in terms of the genocidal activities of the regime whose forces they joined, since those activities were not the reason for their joining.

An analogy that may help to eliucidate this point. The regime governing the Soviet Union was by any measure "genocidal"; it had caused the deaths of millions of people who were subjected to lethal measures due to their class (eg so-called Kulaks) or their national identity (eg Cossacks). Would Mr Schultz therefore accuse all Red Army soldiers of being servants of a genocidal regime? Or all persons who voluntarily joined Soviet partisan detachments of having allied themselves with a genocidal regime?

Furthermore, the act of joining the SS was not treason against France. The French Government had signed an armistice with Germany, thereby ending the hostilities between the countries. After that act, Germany was no longer in law an enemy of France, and therefore it was not an act of treason for a French citizen to join the armed forces of Germany. A Frenchman enlisting in the armed forces of Germany in the absence of a state of war between France and Germany was in the same position as a German national enlisting in the French Foreign Legion.

Of course, de Gaulle had proclaimed himself and his "Free French Committee" to be the legal Government of France, and the Government of Marshal Petain to be an illegal usurper that had committed treason. However, his proclamation had no validity under international law. Petain had assumed the presidency of the French Republic quite legally at the call of the French Parliament, and had later been given dictatorial powers by that Paliament. The Petain Government was recognised as the legal government of France by the United States until the end of 1942.

Given that the Petain Government was the legal government of France under international law, and it had not prohibited French nationals from joining the armed forces of Germany for the purpose of fighting against the Soviet Union, then the men who joined the Charlemagne Division were in no sense traitors.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Post by Panzermahn » 22 Sep 2003 08:18

Mr Mills,

well said in response to Mr Schultz. I disagree with certain books proclaiming the foreign volunteers of the wehrmacht and waffen ss as nazis, national socialist and fascists.Yes there are but the majority volunteered for wehrmacht and waffen ss share something in common..

Visceral hatred of the bolshevism

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 22 Sep 2003 08:23

michael mills wrote:R M Schultz wrote:
If you wish to reply, please address the moral issue involved and do it like a philosopher or a Christian or a man of good will — not like a lawyer.
Perhaps Mr Schultz should step back from his own "moral" position and look at the historical realities.

The Frenchmen who joined the Waffen-SS did not do so for the purpose of assisting a genocidal regime to carry out its genocidal purpose. No, they joined for the purpose of fighting against Bolshevism, which they saw as a mortal danger to their own country, France, far more dangerous than Germany, which had given the French Government the opportunity to crush all Communist and pro-Communist elements within the country.

If the German authorities had posted placards all over France with the message "Frenchmen! Join the SS and help us to exterminate Jewish men, women and children", then it would be reasonable to accuse any Frenchmen who responded to that call of complicity in genocide.

But that was not the case. The German authorities promulgated the message "Frenchmen! Join the SS and help save Europe from Bolshevism", and that is the message that the men who joined the LVF and then the Charlemagne Division responded to. They should be judged in terms of their honest conviction that they were fighting on behalf of their country, and not in terms of the genocidal activities of the regime whose forces they joined, since those activities were not the reason for their joining.

An analogy that may help to eliucidate this point. The regime governing the Soviet Union was by any measure "genocidal"; it had caused the deaths of millions of people who were subjected to lethal measures due to their class (eg so-called Kulaks) or their national identity (eg Cossacks). Would Mr Schultz therefore accuse all Red Army soldiers of being servants of a genocidal regime? Or all persons who voluntarily joined Soviet partisan detachments of having allied themselves with a genocidal regime?

Furthermore, the act of joining the SS was not treason against France. The French Government had signed an armistice with Germany, thereby ending the hostilities between the countries. After that act, Germany was no longer in law an enemy of France, and therefore it was not an act of treason for a French citizen to join the armed forces of Germany. A Frenchman enlisting in the armed forces of Germany in the absence of a state of war between France and Germany was in the same position as a German national enlisting in the French Foreign Legion.

Of course, de Gaulle had proclaimed himself and his "Free French Committee" to be the legal Government of France, and the Government of Marshal Petain to be an illegal usurper that had committed treason. However, his proclamation had no validity under international law. Petain had assumed the presidency of the French Republic quite legally at the call of the French Parliament, and had later been given dictatorial powers by that Paliament. The Petain Government was recognised as the legal government of France by the United States until the end of 1942.

Given that the Petain Government was the legal government of France under international law, and it had not prohibited French nationals from joining the armed forces of Germany for the purpose of fighting against the Soviet Union, then the men who joined the Charlemagne

Division were in no sense traitors.
The regime governing the Soviet Union was by any measure "genocidal"; it had caused the deaths of millions of people who were subjected to lethal measures due to their class (eg so-called Kulaks) or their national identity (eg Cossacks).

a)how many millions of Kulaks did Soviet regime kill?
b) Cossack is not a nationality
"Frenchmen! Join the SS and help save Europe from Bolshevism"
Bolshevism and Judaism were kind of packed tougher back then in Germany and Co –were not they?

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Post by Panzermahn » 22 Sep 2003 08:38

Oleg Vissarion,

Perhaps you could put a bit effort in thinking logically, if Bolshevism is so good and prosperous to the peoples of the world, then why millions of europeans if not hundreds of thousands of europeans volunteered to fight the bolshevik ideology?

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 22 Sep 2003 09:02

Lets see… a person who wrote this magnum opus
hen why millions of europeans if not hundreds of thousands of europeans volunteered to fight the bolshevik ideology?
asks me to be logical.. So was it hundred of thousands of was it millions and which one came first panzermahn? Which is bigger a million or a hundred thousand? When you answer this question – tell me if you rational is right , that is if many people support something it must be good, then Bolshevism must be good – since nations who thought alongside USSR far surpass those numerically of the Axis. Am I correct?

alsaco
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 15:50
Location: France, Paris

Post by alsaco » 22 Sep 2003 23:47

Sometimes ago, on the same subject, I have called your attention on the fact that this story had also a french dimension.

The two regiments named Charlemagne were destroyed on the winter 1944-1945 on the Pomeranien front.
The first, totally destroyed, was partly made up with LVF political volunteers. Political, because they came from specific collaborationists parties.
The second was build up mainly with Milice people, who had fled France in summer 1944 with the germans they had helped fighting the maquis.


The french troops having seized Berchtesgaden were largely former fighters coming from maquis

In the Milice you had the Baghad Perrot, who had in Britanny committed lots of atrocities in farms and villages. There were also people who had helped germans to hang inhabitants of Guéret. And groups who had looted, and rapped, in the company of Osttruppen in the Indre and Cher department.

Saying that these Charlemagne "volunteers" had not fought against french people on french soil is really exaggerated. In fact their duration of services against frenchmen was certainly superior to their services against bolchevism under german uniform.

Moreover, don't say they ignored their action was also aimed against the jews. Their oath by entry in the milice specifically mentioned the fight against the jews.

All these elements have to be considered.

If you consider that these people were soldiers, Leclerc did wrong, and committed a war crime against POW. But remember the soldiers behind him did know that these militia men were not soldiers, but specialists in civil war, they had had against them, practising the specifics of antiterrorism, killing the wounded, burning the houses, firing on women and children, gunning the Vercors hospital, executing prisonners each time they could.

The list of militians crimes is very long, and in fact has little to do with war. These crimes are nearer to assassination then to combat, and should probably be tried before a civilian penal judge. In this case, Leclerc has no role in this case. The members of a murderer's association have found in Bad Reichenhall the death they should have encountered in Rennes, Dijon, Poitiers, Lyon or Limoges. It's all.

Anyway, do not ask what would have happened if they had been taken back to the cages. Milles would be to happy to add another exemple of the savage treatments used by maquis people on poor angels in black uniforms.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”