War Crimes, involving New Zealand Troops against German Troops, in Greece, Crete, North Africa, and Italy. Primarily 28th Battalion, anyone have any information.
My GodFather was serving as an Anglican Padre with a NZ infrantry company equipped with Kangaroo armoured personnel carriers (Sherman and Ram tanks without turrents) and they stumbled across some members of the 28th NZ batt, about to execute German POW's, who included a Lutheran Padre, a Major if my memory serves me correctly, and a group of Medics, needless to say the situation became some-what messy. Sometime was spent with each other due to their common vocation. Since my Godfather told me this I have tried to find out what I can. Unfortunately the NZ Army war histories don't exactly cover the topic! (Does any allied war history cover their own war-crimes)??
My Godfather passed away im 1982, but Ill never forget his comments regarding this and other exploits whilst in Italy.
Any Info would be appreciated.
2nd New Zealand Division warcrimes
Moderator: John W. Howard
-
Roger Griffiths
- Associate
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:24 am
- Location: UK
I can't help you with your specific question, but this is not the first time I have heard of possible 'Allied' war crimes. My mother's brother was a sergeant tank commander in 6RTR. He was in 7th Armoured Division before it was called that. He went all the way to Berlin with the Division. He volunteered the information to me that if a battle in N. Africa was not going well, prisoners were shot. This was to avoid detaching men to guard prisoners.
Roger Griffiths
Roger Griffiths
This is no big news, POW being shot unfortunately happens in every wars, even "politicaly correct" movies like Ryan or Band of Brothers show that. I havent heard about Western Allies ground units commiting war crimes against civilians populations though, unlike the germans and russians did, although its debatable if all the civilian losses due to allied bombings can be considered war crimes or not (Dresden and Nagasaki come to mind here)
Stéphane Moutin-Luyat
I've never heard that particular tale, but there are several accounts of British troops executing French civilians during the retreat in May 1940. Apparently they were suspected in one case of placing markers for German artillery or Stukas - as if the Germans needed any help! No doubt this sort of thing is symptomatic of the panic of defeat and retreat but inexcusable nevertheless. It is, of course, also risky for troops to kill civilians or helpless enemy troops in a criminal manner and I doubt if any good officer would put up with it. It's bad for discipline for a start! On a slightly diversionary note I wonder how many German troops made a concious decision to ignore Hitler's Commando Order? I believe that one SAS officer in Italy was actually 'encouraged' to escape in order to avoid being handed over the SS.
Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!! Mel Brooks, The Producers
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Guys,
All the above reports have one thing in common - they lack specifics. There are no specific dates, no specific places and in most cases no specific units.
Can anyone at least provide some hard facts, as Tim originally requested? Otherwise we are just rumour mongering.
I think it highly likely that, given the enormous numbers of men under arms and the general suspension of peace-time values, some Western Allies committed war crimes, but we will have to better than this if it is to become established fact.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. In Rhodesia in the late 1970s I was myself instructed that it was permissable to kill prisoners if the circumstances made it impossible to bring them out alive without putting my own men at undue risk. I was never in such circumstances, but I do know that it was not unknown for small Rhodesian units in Terr-dominated areas inside and outside the country to kill their prisoners for this reason.
All the above reports have one thing in common - they lack specifics. There are no specific dates, no specific places and in most cases no specific units.
Can anyone at least provide some hard facts, as Tim originally requested? Otherwise we are just rumour mongering.
I think it highly likely that, given the enormous numbers of men under arms and the general suspension of peace-time values, some Western Allies committed war crimes, but we will have to better than this if it is to become established fact.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. In Rhodesia in the late 1970s I was myself instructed that it was permissable to kill prisoners if the circumstances made it impossible to bring them out alive without putting my own men at undue risk. I was never in such circumstances, but I do know that it was not unknown for small Rhodesian units in Terr-dominated areas inside and outside the country to kill their prisoners for this reason.
allied war crimes
Hi,
On reading Stephen Amroses citizen soldier book he mentions an American Officer who told of some Polish troops brining him some prisoners. I forget the exact numbers but they were expecting 1500 and the Polish turned up with 300. On asking what happened to the others they replied that they had shot them. The US officer could not handle any prisoners so asked them why not shoot the rest ... to which they replied that they would but they had run out of ammo !!??
I am not shocked at heat of the moment shooting of prisoners but 1200 ??
Does nayone know if this has any veracity ?
Dan
On reading Stephen Amroses citizen soldier book he mentions an American Officer who told of some Polish troops brining him some prisoners. I forget the exact numbers but they were expecting 1500 and the Polish turned up with 300. On asking what happened to the others they replied that they had shot them. The US officer could not handle any prisoners so asked them why not shoot the rest ... to which they replied that they would but they had run out of ammo !!??
I am not shocked at heat of the moment shooting of prisoners but 1200 ??
Does nayone know if this has any veracity ?
Dan
-
LukeMiguez
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:58 pm
Poles weren't exactly all that "friendly" to their german prisoners due to german treatment of poles in occupied poland. I've read a section of Antony Beevor's "The Fall of Berlin" which stated that the 1st Polish Army captured 80 german prisoners of war, when they reached Russian HQ only 2 remained from this group, after that they were transfered to interrogators and were shot en route. These sort of events weren't uncommon on the eastern front as both sides routinely shot Prisoners
Re: 2nd New Zealand Division warcrimes
Unless you can post specific info I would suggest your late Godfather was confused. I won't call him a liar as he is unable to defend himself and you don't have any info (asking on the internet won't give you leads).Tim wrote:War Crimes, involving New Zealand Troops against German Troops, in Greece, Crete, North Africa, and Italy. Primarily 28th Battalion, anyone have any information.
My GodFather was serving as an Anglican Padre with a NZ infrantry company equipped with Kangaroo armoured personnel carriers (Sherman and Ram tanks without turrents) and they stumbled across some members of the 28th NZ batt, about to execute German POW's, who included a Lutheran Padre, a Major if my memory serves me correctly, and a group of Medics, needless to say the situation became some-what messy. Sometime was spent with each other due to their common vocation. Since my Godfather told me this I have tried to find out what I can. Unfortunately the NZ Army war histories don't exactly cover the topic! (Does any allied war history cover their own war-crimes)??
My Godfather passed away im 1982, but Ill never forget his comments regarding this and other exploits whilst in Italy.
Any Info would be appreciated.
If he did see such an atrocity he would have been bound by Kings Regulations to see that all were charged othewise he would be an accomplace. As a chaplain he would have been doubly concerned that the prisoners were ill treated. It would be on his unit and 28th BTN records.
Despite 30 years of study I am unable to unearth many substantiated accusations, including those above. Keep looking if you feel the need too but I doubt you will find anything.
-
David Lenk
- New Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:52 am
30 yrs of study? Must have been looking in the wrong place
glfmdfn
saas
askfaslaf,.aw[pr;rv%^*%^(%W£$%TDFGHW$KKWEFAW$£%"&%JHFSJUE^&*(FYUE%&*%JDTYJUEtu
saas
askfaslaf,.aw[pr;rv%^*%^(%W£$%TDFGHW$KKWEFAW$£%"&%JHFSJUE^&*(FYUE%&*%JDTYJUEtu
Last edited by David Lenk on Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi David,
So, Churchill thought before the Battle of Crete that, "this should be an ideal time for killing paratroops."
Is this in some way controversial? Can you suggest a better time for killing paratroops than during a paratroop attack? Should they perhaps have been given a good talking to and sent to bed early instead?
Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the accused (in this case you name Freyburg) to defend himself? Does the right of an accused to defend himself not exist?
(As a matter of interest the British did not use A4 paper at this time. This was a post-war introduction. A larger paper size known as Foolscap was used. That is why photocopying British WWII documents can be a pain. Please do not embroider unnecessarily as it undermines your wider credibility.)
What material regarding these events was destroyed? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Besides, it seems likely, given the scale of the British defeat, that very little documentary evidence would have been retrieved anyway. Indeed, it is not impossible that more British documents were captured by the Germans on Crete than retrieved by the British.
The killing of unarmed German paratroops on Crete may well have occurred. Indeed, it is likely. As you say, atrocities were committed by all sides during the war and this was usually restricted to a few individuals. However, you are implying that there was some sort of premeditated, high-level decision taken by Churchill and conveyed through Freyburg to troops on the ground to massacre German paratroops. Have you any actual evidence of this supposed command conspiracy?
Cheers.
Sid
So, Churchill thought before the Battle of Crete that, "this should be an ideal time for killing paratroops."
Is this in some way controversial? Can you suggest a better time for killing paratroops than during a paratroop attack? Should they perhaps have been given a good talking to and sent to bed early instead?
Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the accused (in this case you name Freyburg) to defend himself? Does the right of an accused to defend himself not exist?
(As a matter of interest the British did not use A4 paper at this time. This was a post-war introduction. A larger paper size known as Foolscap was used. That is why photocopying British WWII documents can be a pain. Please do not embroider unnecessarily as it undermines your wider credibility.)
What material regarding these events was destroyed? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Besides, it seems likely, given the scale of the British defeat, that very little documentary evidence would have been retrieved anyway. Indeed, it is not impossible that more British documents were captured by the Germans on Crete than retrieved by the British.
The killing of unarmed German paratroops on Crete may well have occurred. Indeed, it is likely. As you say, atrocities were committed by all sides during the war and this was usually restricted to a few individuals. However, you are implying that there was some sort of premeditated, high-level decision taken by Churchill and conveyed through Freyburg to troops on the ground to massacre German paratroops. Have you any actual evidence of this supposed command conspiracy?
Cheers.
Sid
-
David Lenk
- New Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:52 am
kfk fwfawerf]ladf'gl'ds,fbvg,sdfgloaergterg$%&^"£$%&£$&%^YUFGNDTYJUFGNSR^&£%^*$%&IJGHJDGJLHILFHYAEW^£$&%^&RH
Last edited by David Lenk on Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi David,
No, I have no love for Churchill.
However, I do have a love of rational, well-sourced history.
What is wrong with a leader telling it like it is during the war? War is primarily about killing people. Would you prefer Montgomery's euphemism of "Hitting the enemy for Six" or perhaps the Nazis' "Final Solution"?
The use of specific terms such as "A4" implies a knowledge of specific hard facts that were clearly lacking in this particular case. If you want to say "On a single piece of paper", just say "On a single piece of paper." Whether it was A4 or Foolscap doesn't matter unless you make an issue of it by being not only specific, but innaccurate. People will get the picture just as well without such spurious corroborating detail.
I do regularly use the "Public office files" (actually until recently Public Records Office files and now part of the National Archives at Kew). And 99%+ of all official documentation is, indeed, destroyed for perfectly sound and obvious reasons before it ever gets there. Perhaps you would care to give me details of the file numbers I should look at next time I am at Kew? Or, failing that, explain what these files say about the destruction of documentation?
Perhaps you could also supply details of the exact terms under which Freyburg was approached? Where does this "investigator, judge and jury" accusation come from? What were Freyburg's actual terms of reference? Was he approached as an accused, a witness, a judge, a jury or what?
Er, no, you haven't provided "Specific information regarding NZ warcrimes". You have provided some generalisations without any specific information whatsoever. If you can answer the who, what, when, where and how questions, then you may reasonably claim to provide specific information.
As for your proposition that I "find the truth difficult to swallow", I would only repeat what I wrote last time with regard to this particular "truth", but which you have apparently overlooked; "The killing of unarmed German paratroops on Crete may well have occurred. Indeed, it is likely."
I find the proven truth very easy to accept. What alternative is there?What I find difficult to accept is unsubstantiated allegations.
Establishing the truth requires certain minimal standards of evidence, which I don't think you are yet providing regarding your implication that there was encouragement down the chain of command from Churchill to troops on the ground for the maasacre of German paratroops.
If you can satisfactorily answer some of the questions posed above I am open to persuasion.
Cheers,
Sid.
No, I have no love for Churchill.
However, I do have a love of rational, well-sourced history.
What is wrong with a leader telling it like it is during the war? War is primarily about killing people. Would you prefer Montgomery's euphemism of "Hitting the enemy for Six" or perhaps the Nazis' "Final Solution"?
The use of specific terms such as "A4" implies a knowledge of specific hard facts that were clearly lacking in this particular case. If you want to say "On a single piece of paper", just say "On a single piece of paper." Whether it was A4 or Foolscap doesn't matter unless you make an issue of it by being not only specific, but innaccurate. People will get the picture just as well without such spurious corroborating detail.
I do regularly use the "Public office files" (actually until recently Public Records Office files and now part of the National Archives at Kew). And 99%+ of all official documentation is, indeed, destroyed for perfectly sound and obvious reasons before it ever gets there. Perhaps you would care to give me details of the file numbers I should look at next time I am at Kew? Or, failing that, explain what these files say about the destruction of documentation?
Perhaps you could also supply details of the exact terms under which Freyburg was approached? Where does this "investigator, judge and jury" accusation come from? What were Freyburg's actual terms of reference? Was he approached as an accused, a witness, a judge, a jury or what?
Er, no, you haven't provided "Specific information regarding NZ warcrimes". You have provided some generalisations without any specific information whatsoever. If you can answer the who, what, when, where and how questions, then you may reasonably claim to provide specific information.
As for your proposition that I "find the truth difficult to swallow", I would only repeat what I wrote last time with regard to this particular "truth", but which you have apparently overlooked; "The killing of unarmed German paratroops on Crete may well have occurred. Indeed, it is likely."
I find the proven truth very easy to accept. What alternative is there?What I find difficult to accept is unsubstantiated allegations.
Establishing the truth requires certain minimal standards of evidence, which I don't think you are yet providing regarding your implication that there was encouragement down the chain of command from Churchill to troops on the ground for the maasacre of German paratroops.
If you can satisfactorily answer some of the questions posed above I am open to persuasion.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Guys,
For anyone interested in following up sources I would recommend "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945" by Alfred M. de Zayas, University of Nebraska Press, 1989. (There is an earlier German language edition.) All that follows is from this book.
Crete is covered on pages 154-161.
Freyburg's contribution was as follows. German propaganda accusations led to Freyburg, as former British commander on Crete, being asked to undertake an investigation. Its surviving records are in the Public Records Office Files FO 371/28885, Docs. W8791, W9613. In July 1941 Freyburg rejected all German accusations as unfounded.
It is important to note that Freyburg's investigation was not conducted at German request. It was generated entirely within the British establishment as a result of German propaganda accusations.
The Germans only made a formal protest on 24 November 1942. Because there had already been an investigation, because so much time had passed, and because so few of the Commonwealth and no Greek witnesses were still available no second investigation was conducted.
The Germans raised the issue again on 5 September 1944. An internal British memo dated 10 November 1944 states "..... as far as I can remember, a number of instances appeared to be fairly well established." (This memo is in the PRO File FO371/43002, which undermines the proposition that all records damaging to British reputation were deleted from their files.)
The war ended and no other action appears to have been taken.
Thus there is good reason to believe that there were some atrocities by British troops on Crete. However, there is no reason to believe that this was the result of policy decisions made by Churchill or conveyed via Freyburg.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau seems to have been a reputable organisation, but it brief did not extend to investigating accusations of alleged German war crimes.
The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau's credibility was unfairly damaged because, on occasion, its findings regarding war crimes against Germans were exaggerated by Goebbels for propaganda effect.
For anyone interested in following up sources I would recommend "The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945" by Alfred M. de Zayas, University of Nebraska Press, 1989. (There is an earlier German language edition.) All that follows is from this book.
Crete is covered on pages 154-161.
Freyburg's contribution was as follows. German propaganda accusations led to Freyburg, as former British commander on Crete, being asked to undertake an investigation. Its surviving records are in the Public Records Office Files FO 371/28885, Docs. W8791, W9613. In July 1941 Freyburg rejected all German accusations as unfounded.
It is important to note that Freyburg's investigation was not conducted at German request. It was generated entirely within the British establishment as a result of German propaganda accusations.
The Germans only made a formal protest on 24 November 1942. Because there had already been an investigation, because so much time had passed, and because so few of the Commonwealth and no Greek witnesses were still available no second investigation was conducted.
The Germans raised the issue again on 5 September 1944. An internal British memo dated 10 November 1944 states "..... as far as I can remember, a number of instances appeared to be fairly well established." (This memo is in the PRO File FO371/43002, which undermines the proposition that all records damaging to British reputation were deleted from their files.)
The war ended and no other action appears to have been taken.
Thus there is good reason to believe that there were some atrocities by British troops on Crete. However, there is no reason to believe that this was the result of policy decisions made by Churchill or conveyed via Freyburg.
Cheers,
Sid.
P.S. The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau seems to have been a reputable organisation, but it brief did not extend to investigating accusations of alleged German war crimes.
The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau's credibility was unfairly damaged because, on occasion, its findings regarding war crimes against Germans were exaggerated by Goebbels for propaganda effect.