Western Allies hostage-takings in West Germany 1945-1947

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Western Allies hostage-takings in West Germany 1945-1947

Post by Panzermahn » 21 Mar 2004 10:19

Hi,

I read somewhere that during the period of 1945-1947, the Western Allies, the Brits,Amis and Frenchies they themselves instituted hostage taking of German civillians to ensure the safety of occupation troops..

Is this true or what?

Can anyone provide more info on these?

It seems that the French & Americans also conducted disporportionate revenge shooting on German civillians or hostages when some of their soldiers and officers were killed in ambushed

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003 15:12
Location: Pennsylvania

Post by xcalibur » 21 Mar 2004 11:23

Off Topic: What are the chances of getting a "beating a dead horse" smiley?

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Re: Western Allies hostage-takings in West Germany 1945-1947

Post by Penn44 » 21 Mar 2004 11:34

panzermahn wrote:Hi,

I read somewhere that during the period of 1945-1947, the Western Allies, the Brits,Amis and Frenchies they themselves instituted hostage taking of German civillians to ensure the safety of occupation troops..

Is this true or what?

Can anyone provide more info on these?

It seems that the French & Americans also conducted disporportionate revenge shooting on German civillians or hostages when some of their soldiers and officers were killed in ambushed
Panzermahn:

You have two accusations regarding the Western Allies (France, UK, and US):

1) That they took hostages,

2) That they conducted revenge shootings of German civilians or hostages,

Before you accuse a nation(s) of wrong doing, I really wish you would post the source of your accusation.


Penn44

User avatar
Mostowka
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 10 Oct 2003 00:18
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden.

Post by Mostowka » 21 Mar 2004 13:05

the safety of occupation troops..
when some of their soldiers and officers were killed in ambushed
A wild guess from my side leads me to believe that you are reffering to the actions of "Werewolf commandos" - a postwar resistance movement instituted ny Himmler (?) during the last stages of the war.

From what I have heard this movement killed at most 20 Allied soldiers and so vengeful actions on German civilians would have been marginal at most, if any. Please supply us with any sources on these actions - would be interesting to see what you have found.

There is some introductionary information on the Werewolf movement here:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1 ... le.jhtml

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

Post by Panzermahn » 21 Mar 2004 13:45

Hi,

here is some of the sources..
After the capture of Bengasi, Montgomery stated that he believed that numerous mines and traps had been set in the city. For every British soldier that was killed, he would have 10 Italians shot.[63] A November 30, 1944, radio message from the Allied headquarters in Paris stated:[64]

"Regarding General Leclerq's proclamation in Strassbourg, according to which 5 hostages were to be shot for every French soldier killed in ambush, Headquarters has ordered that Allied expedition troops operate in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 1929 and especially its Article 2, which states that reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Under martial law, however, taking hostages in order to ensure that the inhabitants of the occupied territory obey the orders of the military government is permitted by the laws of warfare. Such hostages may be tried in court, and even sentenced to death.

Therefore, under certain circumstances - especially in cases where civilians have violated the orders of the Geneva Convention - the threat expressed by General Leclerq may be enforced, but not against prisoners of war."
On April 24, 1945, in Reutlingen, Württemberg, four reprisal prisoners were shot by the French for the murder of a French soldier.[65] On April 28, 1945, the following announcement was made in Leutkirchen:[66]

"[...] 4. If a German shoots at Frenchmen, or if any other incident whatsoever happens, 5 houses will be torched and 100 Germans executed.

[...] 6. I am responsible, on pain of my own death, to ensure that these orders are enforced [...] the Mayor [...]"

In Markdorf, 4 German civilians were executed per 1 French soldier shot.[67]

In Saulgau it was proclaimed on April 27, 1945, that if a French soldier were killed or even only wounded, 20 hostages would be shot and the corresponding city district would be burned to the ground.[68]
The Berlin Ordinance of July 1, 1945,[69] stated, inter alia:

"Anyone who commits an attack on a member of the occupation forces or on a bearer of official functions, or who commits arson for reasons of political enmity, seals not only his own fate but that of 50 former members of the Nazi Party as well. Their lives are forfeit together with that of the assassin or arsonist."

Falkenhausen Document 74 tells of the execution of 8-12 Germans for one officer killed during the American march-in in Treseburg.

source
http://www.codoh.com/found/fndSiegert.html

wow, this is very interesting..i didn't knew that the Western Allies, after all this years claimed to be so different from the Russians, actually instituted hostage-takings and disproportionate reprisal shootings that they themselves condemned the Germans who did exactly the same

good material prospects for our book but i lack sources on this.. :?

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

Post by Panzermahn » 21 Mar 2004 13:56

However, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, for example, reported that the French had threatened reprisal executions at a ratio of 1:25 even in the event that shots would be taken at their soldiers at all, regardless of the actual outcome.[147] On April 4, 1992, the Paderborner Zeitung reported an incident where the Americans had taken harsh revenge for the death of their General Maurice Rose, who had been shot in regular combat: 110 German men not involved in the event were killed.[148]

the same source again.....

Unlike the French and Americans, the British remain true to their chilvary and courage towards a vanquished opponent...

the events above shows that among Western Allies, at least the British did not institute disproportionate reprisal shootings for any British soldier killed by ambush

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

Post by Panzermahn » 21 Mar 2004 13:59

Hi Mostowka,

the article posted by you is very interesting but there is a factual error,
The Werewolves specialised in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumoured to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945.
General Berzarin was killed by a Russian drunkard in an automobile accident

Antony Beevor, Berlin: The Downfall 1945

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 21 Mar 2004 15:12

Panzermahn:

Thank you for publishing the source of your allegations:

http://www.codoh.com/found/fndSiegert.html


Penn44

Jure
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 23 Feb 2004 14:03
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Post by Jure » 21 Mar 2004 15:23

Hmm...is that site really a good source?
Holocaust revsionism by CODOH

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23572
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 21 Mar 2004 18:17

Panzermahn -- You wrote:
It seems that the French & Americans also conducted disporportionate revenge shooting on German civillians or hostages when some of their soldiers and officers were killed in ambushed
Of the examples you listed from the CODOH article, six are warnings against future conduct which do not show that the allies took hostages, nor do they show that anyone was shot:

Example No 1
After the capture of Bengasi, Montgomery stated that he believed that numerous mines and traps had been set in the city. For every British soldier that was killed, he would have 10 Italians shot.[63]
Example No. 2
A November 30, 1944, radio message from the Allied headquarters in Paris stated:[64] "Regarding General Leclerq's proclamation in Strassbourg, according to which 5 hostages were to be shot for every French soldier killed in ambush, Headquarters has ordered that Allied expedition troops operate in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 1929 and especially its Article 2, which states that reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited. Under martial law, however, taking hostages in order to ensure that the inhabitants of the occupied territory obey the orders of the military government is permitted by the laws of warfare. Such hostages may be tried in court, and even sentenced to death.
Therefore, under certain circumstances - especially in cases where civilians have violated the orders of the Geneva Convention - the threat expressed by General Leclerq may be enforced, but not against prisoners of war."
Example No. 3
On April 28, 1945, the following announcement was made in Leutkirchen:[66] "[...] 4. If a German shoots at Frenchmen, or if any other incident whatsoever happens, 5 houses will be torched and 100 Germans executed. [...] 6. I am responsible, on pain of my own death, to ensure that these orders are enforced [...] the Mayor [...]"
Example No. 4
In Saulgau it was proclaimed on April 27, 1945, that if a French soldier were killed or even only wounded, 20 hostages would be shot and the corresponding city district would be burned to the ground.[68]
Example No. 5
The Berlin Ordinance of July 1, 1945,[69] stated, inter alia:
"Anyone who commits an attack on a member of the occupation forces or on a bearer of official functions, or who commits arson for reasons of political enmity, seals not only his own fate but that of 50 former members of the Nazi Party as well. Their lives are forfeit together with that of the assassin or arsonist."
Example No. 6
However, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, for example, reported that the French had threatened reprisal executions at a ratio of 1:25 even in the event that shots would be taken at their soldiers at all, regardless of the actual outcome.[147]


Of the remaining examples you gave and assuming that they actually happened, this one has neither the date nor the nationality of the supposed criminals:
According to Falkenhausen Document 58a, 6 officers and 34 soldiers were executed at Annecy (Haute Savoie), and another 40 Germans at Habère, as reprisal for atrocities allegedly committed by a Russian battalion.
For your claim that "the French" conducted such killings, there are two examples involving 8 deaths:
On April 24, 1945, in Reutlingen, Württemberg, four reprisal prisoners were shot by the French for the murder of a French soldier.[65]

In Markdorf, 4 German civilians were executed per 1 French soldier shot.[67]
For your claim that "the Americans" conducted such killings, there are two examples involving an unknown number of deaths:
Falkenhausen Document 74 tells of the execution of 8-12 Germans for one officer killed during the American march-in in Treseburg.
On April 4, 1992, the Paderborner Zeitung reported an incident where the Americans had taken harsh revenge for the death of their General Maurice Rose, who had been shot in regular combat: 110 German men not involved in the event were killed.[148]
Panzermahn, please explain to our readers how you are able to generalize from two alleged incidents involving French troops to "the French," and from two alleged incidents involving American troops to "the Americans"? How do you prove that two incidents form a pattern, rather than a coincidence when you claim:
Unlike the French and Americans, the British remain true to their chilvary and courage towards a vanquished opponent...
A google search gave several accounts of General Rose's death, none of which mentioned any "harsh revenge":

http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/rose_mau ... e_home.htm
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriang ... pear10.htm
http://www.33darmor.com/

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 21 Mar 2004 19:01

Nicely done, David :D Excellent job of debunking this nonsense.

Once again, our Nazi apologist friend Panzermahn has been caught misquoting and abusing facts in order to further his obvious agenda of elevating the Nazis to victim status, then to decriminalize their actions in an effort to rationalize National Socialism.

User avatar
Mostowka
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 10 Oct 2003 00:18
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden.

Post by Mostowka » 21 Mar 2004 19:22

Panzermahn:

What purpose do you think David Bradleys of "CODOH" (Commite for open Debate on the holocaust) has when he tries to find some far-flung reason for accusing the allied for post-war warcrimes ?

Do you (honestly, please) think that:

1 - He as a "renown" holocaust denier is interested in a non-political and unbiased historical study of allied warcrimes ?

2 - That his purpose is in fact to "equalise" warcrimes commited so that the German warcrimes appear to "blend" in ? This would also mean that he has some other motives with his studies in connection with CODOH.

Would be very grateful for a response on this.

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

Post by Panzermahn » 22 Mar 2004 11:31

Hi David Thompson,

Thanks again for pointing out the warnings and the killings..Maybe i was kind excited to find this sort of things and didn't read properly..

Okay regarding to your point that the 6 examples that were shown to be warning, no doubt it is warning, but would this be counted as a

motive or conspiracy or objective or intentions to violate the Geneva Convention by threatening disproportionate reprisal shooting when the threateners (French, Brits and Amis) knew it was illegal under Geneva Convention
Panzermahn, please explain to our readers how you are able to generalize from two alleged incidents involving French troops to "the French," and from two alleged incidents involving American troops to "the Americans"? How do you prove that two incidents form a pattern, rather than a coincidence when you claim:
Okay, maybe i was wrong in the wording..but i'm sure it is not a coincidence by the Western Allies, why?

1)
After the capture of Bengasi, Montgomery stated that he believed that numerous mines and traps had been set in the city. For every British soldier that was killed, he would have 10 Italians shot.[63]
For a General ranked status like Monty to state that he WOULD have 10 italians shot would be a proclamation to have intention to violate Geneva Convention for a disproportionate reprisal shooting..so if this is not wronng in the sense of illegality, then why the Germans were charged during the Dachau Malmedy Trial of having the intention or motive or conspiracy to killed US POWs

2)
A November 30, 1944, radio message from the Allied headquarters in Paris stated:[64] "Regarding General Leclerq's proclamation in Strassbourg, according to which 5 hostages were to be shot for every French soldier killed in ambush
A proclamation in Strasbourg by a french general to intentionally violate Geneva Convention for disproportionate reprisal shooting...This is very strange when you think its not wrong..Let's put an analogy to this..Let's say you proclaimed to the public that you wanted to kill or shoot a specific person for certain disadvantage that you might get (for example, losing money, your men died), what do you think the police would do to you? Let you go scot free without even care about what you intended to do..I'm not an expert in the law, but would it be sufficiently legal to convict a person of wrongdoing if it were proven that he has intentions to commit wrongdoings?

3)
On April 28, 1945, the following announcement was made in Leutkirchen:[66] "[...] 4. If a German shoots at Frenchmen, or if any other incident whatsoever happens, 5 houses will be torched and 100 Germans executed. [...] 6. I am responsible, on pain of my own death, to ensure that these orders are enforced [...] the Mayor [...]"
This is even worse, a proclamation of disproportionate reprisal shooting of the ratio of 1:100 (something the Allies accused the Germans of doing in the Eastern Front) and inclusive of torching and burning down 5 houses...
So what makes you think that if the French can loudly proclaim such brutality, they won't do it if one of the Frenchmen were killed? What's is the point of making such proclamation so flagrantly to have intention to violate Geneva Convention just to protect the safety of the French occupation troops when the French could have easily kidnapped several hundred Germans and killed them without making the fuss of any proclamation?

The rest, i would not have to said it anymore...

If the French, british and Americans are not guilty of direct violation of Geneva Convention, then they are already guilty of having such intentions...

And bear in mind, that these proclamation and actual reprisal shootings are only done with the orders of superior officers which shows that the possibility of such pattern that existed during the period of 1945-1947 in West Germany but was classified due to the atmosphere of political correctness that last until today's modern day Germany

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

Post by Panzermahn » 22 Mar 2004 11:41

What purpose do you think David Bradleys of "CODOH" (Commite for open Debate on the holocaust) has when he tries to find some far-flung reason for accusing the allied for post-war warcrimes ?

Do you (honestly, please) think that:

1 - He as a "renown" holocaust denier is interested in a non-political and unbiased historical study of allied warcrimes ?

2 - That his purpose is in fact to "equalise" warcrimes commited so that the German warcrimes appear to "blend" in ? This would also mean that he has some other motives with his studies in connection with CODOH.

Would be very grateful for a response on this.
Hi Mostowka, in most of my post, i seldom discuss about the Holocaust and i never take any sources from the IHR or CODOH site regarding the Jewish Holocaust issue

It is only coincidence that i came across this webpage when i was searching for some material and i found out this facts...Merely, i'm looking for facts that was stated and i never bothered about the holocaust revisionism practiced by the deniers...

By the way i believe David Thompson can vouch for me when i said i had never taken any sources from the IHR or CODOH regarding Jewish holocaust or any deny anything about Jewish holocaust not happening.

Despite some of you who thinks that i'm a bias and only likes to discuss on crimes committed against Germany, the fact that the 800+ posts i had, never once did i said that the revisionists or deniers are correct in saying that the Jewish holocaust are hoax...

I believe David again can vouch for me on this 8)

Sometimes i go to revisionists website because they actaully had some interesting questions which the establishment would not want to answer... that's all

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Post by Penn44 » 22 Mar 2004 12:31

panzermahn wrote: Despite some of you who thinks that i'm a bias and only likes to discuss on crimes committed against Germany, the fact that the 800+ posts i had, never once did i said that the revisionists or deniers are correct in saying that the Jewish holocaust are hoax...
The Revisionists/Deniers do more than directly deny the Holocaust. They also attempt indirect assaults by to asserting the the moral equivalency (the Allies committed war crimes, too,) argument that you so openly pursue.
panzermahn wrote: Sometimes i go to revisionists website because they actaully had some interesting questions which the establishment would not want to answer... that's all
What "establishment" are you referring to?

What questions?

And why wouldn't they want to answer?


Penn44

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”