2nd New Zealand Division warcrimes

[Stefan]

By coincidence, the same Freyberg later ordered the unneccessary bombing of the ancient monastery at Monte Cassino, killing dozens of allied soldiers by misguided bomb carpets and transforming the previously unoccupied monastery into a formidable rubble fortress for the Fallschirmjäger.

[David Lenk]

sDF[SDVMASDM, WEF WEFL
WF
KLQ
R=EOGF
QO ER
GQWERFGW34-0134 E#SDC
returned to Canada and New f]w
we [wrer
g
er eergqearg qeland, stated that the date on which the hospital was bombed was 25t h May.

[sid guttridge]

Hi David,

Thanks for that.

It does keep closely to original sources and the question asked (often a rarity on Feldgrau) and is on much firmer ground because of it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[101stDoc]

Freyberg is only partially responsible for the Cassino debacle, and he was not the origin of the idea/request.

MjrGen Francis Tuker (UK), CO of the Indian Division, made the initial request for the bombardment, which was then sent up to Freyberg. Freyberg then sent his own request up to Clark, who deffered to General Harold Alexander (UK), his Chief, to make the decision (this was partially due to the politics of the decision, and the ongoing US/UK politicial dimension within the Allied forces).

Technically, Alexander gave the order, but all four men share a degree of responsibility over the air ops fiasco.

Had it been anyone but Clark (or maybe a handful of others), they woulda possibly been canned for it. But...

There's a thread on Monte Cassino on here somewhere...

Doc

[David Lenk]

dfv.; efvkegl]
erog]e[vkelbvle[gq égfp
werfw
[wfpvefvwerg


erg
468o94567 w6

[sid guttridge]

Hi David,

I would like to point out that I mentioned that you altered a small amount of quoted text in your previous post on this thread in a Private Message to you. I did not do so on the main thread precisely to give you time to reply and explain the discrepancy. I think this is reasonable evidence that I am not pursuing a particular vendetta against you.

I am unclear why you use quotation marks around "It states that paratroops were dropped armed firing MP's indiscriminately and tossing grenades" when you state in the previous paragraph that "I do not have the precise wording to hand...." Please be careful not to give spurious authority in this way. The information stands perfectly adequately on its own.

Why the surprise that you have never seen some things published? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of 60-year conspiracy to cover them up? If so, what is your evidence?

Whist it is true that "every "nation" on this planet breeds and creates its own monsters", the degree to which they flourish in time of war is dependent on the degree of tolerance their national political culture displays towards their deviancy. Nazi Gemany had high tolerance towards such monsters in it own ranks. Fortunately, the German Army, Navy and Air Force (including paratroops) as insititutions seem to have generally retained higher standards than the regime they were serving.

Cheer,

Sid.

[David Lenk]

. ë 3À€eü ;ljF4u

[sid guttridge]

Hi David,

Thanks for the quote.

So, what do we know?

1) We know that some German paratroops certainly carried their personal weapons on them when they jumped.

2) We know that the British claimed some of the German paratroops used weapons during their descents - an entirely legal activity as I understand it, although apparently not one a paratrooper following standard weapons stowing instructions would be able to undertake.

3) We know that some German paratroops were shot in the air by the British (again an entirely legal activity) and that some were "disposed of on landing" due to their actions "hardly inviting leniency".

4) We know the Germans claim that some paratroops were executed on landing.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I would be very interested to know whether descending by parachute was covered by international rules of war at this time. Is it possible that, before paratroops were introduced, anyone descending by parachute (i.e. a downed air crew member) behind enemy lines was presumed to be hors de combat and therefore immune from being shot at or shooting themselves?

Cheers,

Sid.

[nigelfe]

A few pints:

1. No Chaplain was ever a major, because no chaplain held the King's Commission. However, chaplains were given officer status and wore officer's rank insignia. A chaplain wearing a major's crown was Chaplain Second Class.

2. Killing unarmed soldiers is not and never has been a 'war crime'. How does artillery know whether men 10km behind the front line are armed or unarmed when the engage in unobserved harassing fire, etc? Makes the point that the concept of killing unarmed men is a war crime is plain stupid.

3. Note that in the first half of WW2 many British soldiers were unarmed, for example untill 1942 only about 30% of men in an artillery regiment had a personal weapon. This was IAW the Establishment, nothing to do with shortages. In fact there were unarmed companies of the Pioneer Corps throughout the war.

4. In Crete in 1941 there are well documented accounts of German paras killing unarmed Brit gunners. The Brits never considered this a crime, although they weren't impressed.

5. An 'unarmed German para' is an interesting concept. All were issued with personal weapons as I understand it. However, my understanding is that while they actually jumping they did not have it in their hands. Shooting paras in the air or as they unpacked their weapons containers seems very sensible to me. Even better if can shoot down the transports before they jump, bulk killing is more efficient, and lots were shot down.

6. Deciding when enemy is surrendering and accepting him and thus has to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention is not always clear cut. Troops who have suffered losses from false surrenders are invariably not going to be caught out a second time.

7. Prisoners can be a nuisance because they should be guarded and escorted, in WW2 it was usual if men weren't available for this task to disarm prisoners, point them in the right direction, tell them to keep walking.

8. Allegations about war crimes are par for the course, remember the case involving the paras in the Falklands? Big investigation, nothing found. It's unfortunate that people sometimes bragg about things that didn't take place. Often they just want to shock civvies or the rellies, often they succeed.

9. In WW2 miltary law was iaw the Army Act 1940 or 44 (not sure what year the pre '40 one was). Condoning an offence is itself an offence. Condonation can be passive.

[nigelfe]

A few points:

1. No Chaplain was ever a major, because no chaplain held the King's Commission. However, chaplains were given officer status and wore officer's rank insignia. A chaplain wearing a major's crown was Chaplain Second Class.

2. Killing unarmed soldiers is not and never has been a 'war crime'. How does artillery know whether men 10km behind the front line are armed or unarmed when the engage in unobserved harassing fire, etc? Makes the point that the concept of killing unarmed men is a war crime is plain stupid.

3. Note that in the first half of WW2 many British soldiers were unarmed, for example untill 1942 only about 30% of men in an artillery regiment had a personal weapon. This was IAW the Establishment, nothing to do with shortages. In fact there were unarmed companies of the Pioneer Corps throughout the war.

4. In Crete in 1941 there are well documented accounts of German paras killing unarmed Brit gunners. The Brits never considered this a crime, although they weren't impressed.

5. An 'unarmed German para' is an interesting concept. All were issued with personal weapons as I understand it. However, my understanding is that while they actually jumping they did not have it in their hands. Shooting paras in the air or as they unpacked their weapons containers seems very sensible to me. Even better if can shoot down the transports before they jump, bulk killing is more efficient, and lots were shot down.

6. Deciding when enemy is surrendering and accepting him and thus has to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention is not always clear cut. Troops who have suffered losses from false surrenders are invariably not going to be caught out a second time.

7. Prisoners can be a nuisance because they should be guarded and escorted, in WW2 it was usual if men weren't available for this task to disarm prisoners, point them in the right direction, tell them to keep walking.

8. Allegations about war crimes are par for the course, remember the case involving the paras in the Falklands? Big investigation, nothing found. It's unfortunate that people sometimes bragg about things that didn't take place. Often they just want to shock civvies or the rellies, often they succeed.

9. In WW2 miltary law was iaw the Army Act 1940 or 44 (not sure what year the pre '40 one was). Condoning an offence is itself an offence. Condonation can be passive.

[Lt Edel]

Just newly arrived as a member, perhaps I can add something here.

I have read several autobiographies by US soldiers fighting on the west front, were they report being withnesses to wanton killings of German POWs, while at the same time underlining the fair treatment (including medical) American POWs got from the Germans (experienced through recapture etc of enemy held lines). I do not exactly recollect the proper author and respective book, since I have not prepared for a technical trial case here, but I think such statements can be found in e.g. If You Survive, by George Wilson, and Foot Soldier, by Roscoe C. Blunt Jr.

I have also read the book by Mr DeZayas, as quoted above, and to question the huge number of German witnesses to single isolated allied war crimes seems ridiculous, without adding something to the contrary, based by sources. Other authors who have approached this anathema are for example James Bacque and Franz Seidler.

I am also interested in anyone who could help me find information on this topic, I think it is interesting.

To add some heresay to it, I have on some occasions spoken to (unknown) elderly people in southern Germany who in disgust called the Americans in the late war/occupation worse than the Russians. Anyone want to comment on this, I repeat it is heresay and I just met these people en passant. It could be crap of course.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Lt. Edel,

I don't think there is much argument that Allied individuals committed war crimes.

However, I would urge extreme caution as regards the propositions of authors such as Bacque, who contend that there was some sort of command conspiracy for the mass murder of German POWs. Indeed, I would go so far as to call Bacque's main charges against the Americans as ill researched and unsupportable nonsense.

This is the point where the Western Allied and German situations part. I doubt that the average German was inherently much different in character from the average Briton or American. However, their respective regimes were very different in character and imposed on their citizens different moralities and instructions. The culpable mass deaths of civilian and military prisoners in the regime's custody were a public tool of the Nazis. The numbers involved are probably approaching 10 million if one adds Jewish and Soviet POW deaths together. No direct equivalent exists amongst the Western Allies.

Cheers,

Sid.

[behblc]

A BBC Time Watch programme about Crete did produce some vervbal acounts of Allied soldiers who saw german soldiers shot having surrendered and been sent to "the rear" and men shot who got ensnared in trees before they could reach their weapons cannisters.

There can be little doubt that soldiers from all sides did kill unarmed enemy troops and that not all who surrendered surived...but there was no policy to do this that I am aware other than Hitlers "commando order".
Widespread in the east yes but not so between Brit / Yank /Germans.