The crimes of Kurt "Panzer" Meyer

[KalaVelka]

KalaVelka~

Rommel gained the respect of the British as a senior commander in North Africa. He has never, to my knowledge, been linked in any serious study to war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc.

Kurt "Panzer" Meyer's reputation was gained primarily on the Eastern Front, against Soviet forces. Such men- though brave and talented- did not get the publicity of a Rommel, who was- in 1941/42- the darling of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda. Also, Rommel was one of a kind- commander of one of the more unique formations- the DAK- in the Wehrmacht. He stood out largely because of the location of his exploits- forcing the British into pell-mell retreat in the Sahara.

Then there's the fact that Meyer, unlike Rommel, was accused of (and ultimately sentenced for) the murder of Canadian POW's in Normandy.

Regards,
~ Mike Miller

P.S.~ Please back up the following statement with some supporting evidence:

You dont have to be a true wacriminal if you are doomed about warcriminal actions at nurnberg.

Sorry that i havent answered sooner. I forget this thread.

Kurt Meyer was CO of 12th SS in Normandy after the former Co, Fritz Witt had died. Meyer and his division became famous for the famous resistance against allies (mostly Canadians and Brittish). Meyer and his grenadiers repulsed allied attacks time after time (dont know is this real saying). Meyer has been accused for shooting 40+ Canadian POWs in 12 June, but there is no ((water)proof) evidence that Meyer did order shooting.

P.S.~ Please back up the following statement with some supporting evidence:

You dont have to be a true wacriminal if you are doomed about warcriminal actions at nurnberg.

[/quote]
This is one of those things that turns up in this forum time after time. IMO Nurnberg wasnt real justice, why there wasnt allied warcriminals? Meyer is good example about Nurnberg justice. Canadians held him for many years and in the end they didnt even proof hes guilty.

ps. If i am wrong you can correct me and show proofs about Meyer's atrocities, but so far as i have read, i havent seen anything real.

Regards
Kasper

[David Thompson]

For readers who may not be familiar with this fellow, here's some background information:

Meyer, Kurt "Panzer" (1910-23.12.1961) [SS-Brigadefuehrer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS] -- service, "Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler" 1934-1943; commander, 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" Jun-Nov 1944 [Knights Cross 1941; Oakleaves 1943; Swords 1944] {captured by Belgian partisans near Amiens 17 Nov 1944; indicted for war crimes at Aurich, Austria 31 Oct 1945 (NYT 1 Nov 1945:8:1); put on trial 10 Dec 1945 by a Canadian military tribunal at Aurich for his part in the executions of 18 Canadian prisoners of war near Caen, France in Jun 1944 (LT 28 Dec 1945:3e); convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad 28 Dec 1945 (NYT 28 Dec 1945:8:2; NYT 29 Dec 1945:5:1; LT 29 Dec 1945:3d); sentence commuted to life imprisonment 14 Jan 1946 (NYT 15 Jan 1946:11:5; LT 15 Jan 1946:3d); transferred as a common criminal to Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick, Canada (NYT 17 Jan 1946:10:3); transferred 18 Oct 1951 to the British military prison at Werl, Germany (NYT 19 Oct 1951:5:6; NYT 20 Oct 1951:6:1; NYT 23 Oct 1951:4:4; NYT 29 Nov 1951:9:4; LT 19 Oct 1951:5d; LT 23 Oct 1951:3e); temporarily release announced 26 Nov 1951 (LT 27 Nov 1951:3c); released from British custody at Werl prison 7 Sept 1954 (NYT 8 Sept 1954:2:7); died of a heart attack at Hagen, Westphalia 23 Dec 1961. (Blood and Honor 192-194n; SS: Roll of Infamy pps. 117-8; Waffen-SS Commanders II, pps. 107-11; ABR-SS; History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War p. 527, United Nations War Crimes Commission, London: HMSO, 1948).}

[KalaVelka]

What kind of proof did judges have against Meyer?

Kasper

[David Thompson]

The UN War Crimes Commission Report of the trial is available on-line at:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/meyer.htm

[KalaVelka]

ouch..thats much of reading, gotta read it tomorrow but now i am going to sleep. Good night everybody

Kasper

[Juha Hujanen]

Kasper,you might want to check out Craig Luther book-Blood and Honour also.IMHO there's little room for error that Meyer should be hold as responsible for shootings of POW's by men under his command.

Regards/Juha

[David Thompson]

Here is the reference Juha Hujanen mentioned, by Craig W.H. Luther, Blood and Honor: The History of the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitler Youth" 1943-1945, another first-rate book from R. James Bender Publishing, San Jose (CA): 1987, pp. 181-193 (I have no financial interest whatsoever in the R. James Bender Publishing Company, but for twenty or more years they have been publishing excellent and indispensable texts in English on WWII Germany, and deserve credit for it):

[David Thompson]

Part 2:

[David Thompson]

Part 3:

[David Thompson]

Part 4:

[David Thompson]

Part 5:

[Kurt_Steiner]

Let me ask you soemthing I don't understand. In Blood and Honor 181.jpg and in Blood and Honor 182.jpg I read:

The two men walked over to the chapel where Meyer was standing. The guard approached to his commander and reported the arrival of the captured Canadians. Visibily angered, Meyer replied, "Why do you bring prisoners to the rear? They only eat up our rations". Meyer spoke briefly with a nearby officer, but in a low tone of voice that could not be hear by Jesionek [who was standing near of his commander, Meyer - my comment], and then, so all present could hear, said, "In the future no more prisoners are to be taken".

My question is: did he make two different comments, one to the officer and then the comment about the prisoners? Did the text suggest that Jesionek didn't hear the last comment? If it so, how it could be possible? Was Jesionek plagued by some ear problem?

It's not my intention to create any kind of deabte over those words, nor diminish the guilt of "Panzer" Meyer in the execution of the Canadians soldiers. It's just the fact that I don't understand this paragrapgh.

Best regards

[David Thompson]

Kurt_Steiner -- You asked:

(1)

My question is: did he make two different comments, one to the officer and then the comment about the prisoners?

That's the way I read the passage.

(2)

Did the text suggest that Jesionek didn't hear the last comment? If it so, how it could be possible? Was Jesionek plagued by some ear problem?

No. The suggestion is that Meyer got angry, said something under his breath or in a low voice to the other officer with him, and then made the second comment loudly enough for everyone to hear, including Jesionek. The exchange may have gone like this:

GUARD: General, I wish to report the arrival of these Canadian prisoners.

MEYER: Why do you bring prisoners to the rear? They only eat up our rations.

MEYER (under his breath to the officer next to him): Prisoners -- can you (expletive deleted) believe it! If these (expletive deleted) idiots had fought on the eastern front, they'd know better than to be taking (expletive deleted) prisoners. These new men have about as much common sense as (expletive deleted) geese.

MEYER (louder, so that all can hear): In the future no more prisoners are to be taken!

[Kurt_Steiner]

Thanks David! I thought something like that, but I wasn't sure about it.

Best regards

[H.Schubert]

In regards to the myth of Übermenschen, reckless, emotionless killingmachines these specific SS troops must have been, I like to ad some observations:
Any soldier during this Normandy battle time had been put in to a huge state of stress and fear. Both sides were enjoying cosy times before dday, most soldiers that would battle in Normandy had never killed, nor experienced war attrocities.
The fear factor on both sides was the main thrieving emotion all the way and instead of giving the SS to much credit to their powerfull evil, their acts of mutilation were mere expressions of fear, fear of death and the frustration attached to it.

Mutilation, like putting heads on spikes have allways been an act of fear in the hope to weaken the enemy and not an act of strengh or fearless motivation. The rolling over of bodies by tanks and the consequent mess attached to this act, is a result of fear. The bigger the mutilations and the resulting shocking scene, the bigger the SS hoped to supress their own fears. Like killing the enemy once more by crushing his dead body, its a symbolic act of wishfull thinking, as reality was probably that allied soldiers would come en masse and kill them once for all.

The SS doctrine and fanatism had a big flaw, they were so convinced of their superiority that they thought to be able to control the course of a battle according to their visions of pride and combat. When artilerie ripped them in to pieces or single small caliber bullets killed them instantly, they were quick reminded that no one is a superhero and everyone bleeds the same in war. This shock of facing the truth that their entire pathos was bullox must have driven them crazy, hence massive retaliation on POWs was the consequence.