SS Totenkopf northern France May 1940 -actions against BEF

[Le Paradis]

If anyone is able to shed further light on the battle that occurred between the Totenkopf Division and the BEF 4th Infantry Brigade near the La Bassee Canal, 25th to 27th May 1940; the 1st battalion Royal Scots surrendered with 30 remaining soldiers and narrowly avoided summary execution, the 2nd battalion Royal Norfolks surrendered with approx 90 remaining and two survived the massacre at Le Paradis. The 3rd battalion Lancashire Fusiliers does not tend to rate a mention in any of the descriptions I've thus found, so their fate is a mystery to me.

Jason has indicated in his history pages that :
"It was during this period that elements of the Division were envolved in actions that led to the execution of a group of Allied prisoners. The commander of the 4th Kompanie, I Abteilung, (The unit "found" as being responsible) was Fritz Knochlein. He was hung after the war for his part in the actions, but his actual guilt has been said to be suspect, and the trial against him seems to be have been biased." .....I'm unable to verify his doubts on Knochlein's guilt, or the fairness of the trial or otherwise....any comments??

Other sources have intimated that those responsible for the execution of the Norfolks were not those primarily fighting the Norfolks, but elements that had been mauled by the Royal Scots.

Any comments/ clarifications/ discussion welcome

[Jason Pipes]

I'll admit right now from the start that my comments were written many years ago and they were based on information that may be somewhat suspect. In retrospect I will now gladly revise the information provided for that unit as the debate on the event in question unfolds.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Le Paridis and Jason,

An open question: Regardless of the guilt or otherwise of any individual, is there any doubt that the incident took place and that the Waffen-SS were involved?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Marc Rikmenspoel]

I can already predict that few will believe this, but private (unpublished) information I have received from British and German veterans indicates that the British forces in Flanders in May 1940 were guilty of many atrocities involving the shooting of German prisoners and Flemish nationalists, men they didn't want to take with them during their retreat to Dunkirk. The final straw for one element of SS-Totenkopf came when the British unit defending Le Paradis set out white flags to pretend to surrender, only to open fire on the Germans who came forward to accept this surrender. This led to the shooting of the prisoners, after the hamlet was taken. A British guard at Knöchlein's trial related to me a few years ago that his sergeant major asked Albert Pooley whether it was true his unit put out the white flags. "Of course we f-----g did!" was the response.

Veterans on both sides admit that British soldiers were using hollow point bullets at this time, and if anyone thinks that the Germans made the "dum-dum bullets" allegation, check out the book Dunkirk : The Patriotic Myth, widely available in American libraries, and probably in the UK too.

With this said, it doesn't mean that Fritz Knöchlein was a saint. His subordinate officers four years later, when he commanded SS-PGR 23 "Norge" held a very poor opinion of his personal qualities. IMHO the shootings at Le Paradis received extra attention on the German side because Hoepner hoped to use it as a reason to have Eicke removed from command of SS-Totenkopf, since the two did not get along well at all. This didn't happen because the crimes of British soldiers in Flanders could be verified by courts of inquiry (as is shown in Alfred de Zayas' book The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945).

[Achilles]

Actually, I do believe that British troops committed war crimes in Flanders as did German Heer troops as well as the SS...there were no massacres of tens of German troops as far as I know despite revisionsit claims.

Please stop trying to justify the unjustifiable as I have seen you do a couple of times in the past.

As for Albert Pooley claiming he did put white flags out...what is your point exactly? That some people put white flags out and other continued to fire? Have you ever been in combat...obviously not with that sort of clean viewpoint. Two Britis paras were killed at Goose Green after white flags had been put up by the Argentines. Either those that fired did not want to surrender or more likely did not see the white flags put out by their own side. Follwoing your warped logic the British paras would have been justified in shooting the entire Argentine garrison. There are still serving Brits who are still bitter over this incident but they had something your Totenkopf heros did not...discipline and professionalism.

The 'final straw came'...do you see how weak your justifications are? Are we to believe a catalogue of continuing incidents (perpetrated by the dastardly Brits) slowly built up until the SS warriors could take no more?

the crimes of British soldiers in Flanders could be verified by courts of inquiry'

So these very soldiers that were murdered in cold blood were the very same responsible for these incidents? Again using your warped reasoning...would not the Allies have been justified in executing every SS man after the war because some of their colleagues were responsible for Oradour, Tulle, Le Paradis, Ascq, Wormhoudt, San Terenzo, Bagneuz, Marzabotto to name but a few. Or were all those 'justified' as well?

[Le Paradis]

An open question: Regardless of the guilt or otherwise of any individual, is there any doubt that the incident took place and that the Waffen-SS were involved?

Thanks to Sid and all contributors thus far - controversial or otherwise...hopefully some of the original questions raised in this post will be considered rather than the tangential ones.

The events definitely took place, and the involvement of the Totenkopf division is not in dispute.
The history of the Royal Scots indicates their remnants almost suffered the same fate as that of the Royal Norfolks - but for the intervention of a senior Wehrmacht officer, the 30 POWs wouldn't have been POWs for very long.
The info I have to date is that the Royal Scots inflicted severe casualties on their opposition; the opposing units were those who later captured the Norfolks (who had been engaged in battle with other units for most of the time). Having missed the first opportunity to wreak vengeance for their losses, the second opportunity to do so was taken on the Norfolks. It may also be -based on the memorial - that remnants of other units were with the Norfolks at the time of their demise (?eg, Lancashire Fusiliers who wer part of the same infantry brigade?)

A few of the sites I have found useful in regards to this issue are

http://www.norfolkbc.fsnet.co.uk/archiv ... aradis.htm

http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Overseas/leparadis.html

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/pooleys_revenge.htm

http://www.norfolkbc.fsnet.co.uk/archiv ... _index.htm

http://home.nordnet.fr/~ma.delannoy/his ... aradis.htm


However, I am fully aware that:
a) not everything will be available on the Internet
b) not all relevant texts will be available everywhere to everyone
c) there are a number of threads leading in from various directions that will add to the overall picture.


I look forward to reading further contributions.

[tomalbright]

Both Marc and Achilles make some salient points about La Paradis...However. it is interesting to note, that, based on one of the links provided, another Totenkopf unit in the immediate vicinity treated its prisoners well. This lead me to the conclusion that the atrocity was "personality driven", i.e., it was Knochlein's intitiative pure and simple - his reaction to a searing and frustrating combat situation. Perhaps a white flag, followed by further gunshots, did occur, but the previous incident with the Royal Scots indicates that Knochlein's company was "out for blood..." and looking for any excuse. Marc is absolutely right that an atmophere of recrimination pervaded Totenkopf and other German units in the vicinity regarding the possible, or at least perceived, use of Dum-Dum bullets by the BEF; also other isolated war crimes by the British may have been in the mix. However, other Totenkopf and Heer units did not shoot their prisoners en masse in this atmosphere, and unlike Baugnez, there was no alterior tactical justification for such a crime. Knochlein's harsh and truculent personality (he was not well-liked in the division) only adds to my conclusion. Knochlein was similar to our own William Calley, every army has these types of personalities. As I have mentioned in another thread, whether the Waffen SS was especially attractive to this "type" is pure speculation and perhaps best left to socialogists or pyschologists. One further note: Knochlein was a company commander in SS-Totenkopfstandarte "Oberbayern" during its "police and security duties" in the Polish campaign -- he had just been transferred from the SS-VT in September 1939. We don't know the specifics of his service in Poland, but "Oberbayern" was involved in mass executions of Polish Army stragglers, clergy and intelligentsia as part of these operations. This may add to our understanding of him a bit, but other officers of Totenkopf who had similar experiences did not shoot thier British prisoners in a fit of rage. The confluence of background, experiences, personality and events added up to a witches's brew, it seems, in one man's pysche.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Tomalbright,

You may well be right that this particular event was "personality driven". However, the Waffen-SS as an institution cannot entirely escape responsibility as it seemed to recruit an unusually high proportion of individuals prone to commit such "personality driven" actions.


Hi Marc,

If you have important historical evidence, is there any particular reason why you cannot reveal it?

You will, I hope, understand why reasonable people may not feel obliged to accept what you report until you are in a position do so.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Thomas V.]

What’s the long list of mostly coughed up ‘war crimes’ have to do with this? Can’t we go one thread without someone having to venture into the boring realm of endless sly shouting war crimes again?

> (…) because some of their colleagues were responsible for Oradour,

Oradour, we’ll have to wait until the French court releases the documents regarding the trials. I couldn’t name the year off hand, but they won’t be released until the year 2020 or something. Obviously they want to hide anything that isn’t in their interest. You might also try to read ‘Tulle und Oradour : Die Wahrheit über zwei “Vergeltungsaktionen” der Waffen-SS’, by WEIDINGER Otto. Reveals some highly interesting information.

> Tulle,

Tulle, interesting. Do you know what happened there? I wonder where this crazy love for partisans come from. I expected recent events in contemporary history would have made people realize something.

> Bagneuz,

Interesting, there’s no town called ‘Bagneuz’. How about using correct spelling? I know, you were blindly copying from wssob.com, it is the only site which manages to spell the name wrongly.

> Marzabotto

Ah, even more interesting. Tell me, what happened in the peaceful village of Marzabotto? Tell me, what makes you think yet another German war crime took place there? The fact that this lie has been revealed for almost half a century doesn’t seem to bother you?

> to name but a few.

‘A few’? What dozens more are there? Perhaps you can mention the 2.000 saved English lives at Arnhem? How many times did British troops allow hundreds of German prisoners being transported right into their own rear with their own vehicles, under their own cease-fire?

[michael kenny]

We do not have to wait until 2020 to know what happened at Ordour because at the trial the murderers gave specific instances of individual killings. Read and believe Weidingers pathetic attempt to justify it if you want and can we take it you approve of the hanging of 99 hostages from lamposts as happened at Tulle?. Lammerding even tried to shift the blame for the executions onto a junior officer, so much for honour and loyalty!. (I hope my spelling does not need correcting by you Thomas V )

[Achilles]

Mr Van HaSSel, the SS vets most fawning friend,

The war crimes were brought up because Mr Rikmenspoel claimed the actions of Totenkopf personnel were in some way brought on by crimes committed by British troops. What I was trying to point out was that if that justified the massacre of these troops would the execution of SS personnel after the war been justified due to the actions of a few of their number? I don't think it would.

But Mr Van HaSSel, you then decide to rant on about the very same artocities you did not wish to mention. I've read the viws of Weindinger...as Mr Kenny says, its just a poor attempt to shift the blame.

As for Marzabotto please tell me why it has been creditied as a lie? The testimonies that lie in the archives, including interviews with Reichsfuhrer SS personnel from the Auflkarungs-Abteilung, (WO 235/580, WO235/375 in the PRO if you aren't banned from entering this country), seem to suggest mass shooting on that units march through the area. But hold on! I know what you're going to say...those are lies, the testimonies are lies. They may well be. So why are your veterans stories of how they saved Western Europe from the Bolshevik, Asiatic hordes not lies?

Yes, there are dozens more...and thats just in Italy. I won't be responding to any more of Mr Van HaSSel's posts as he is without doubt the most closed minded, blinkered, SS fantasist I have ever come across.

Mr Albright and Mr Gutteridge are right when they say events such have been discussed are personality driven. More to the point driven by the personality of the commanders. Under a good commander (i.e. one who has the respect and discipline of his men) most soldiers can be kept in check after combat. Yet put the very same men under an officer who condones or encourages such behaviour and you will see what cruelty men are capable of.

And Mr Gutteridge hits the nail on the head...the Waffen SS had more of the latter than most armed forces. That is due to political, cultural, enviromental or historical factors and no-one can quantify what marks one man different from the rest.

I'm sure anyone who has served in any armed force around the world has come across soldiers who would behave in the latter way given the chance in war. I have met more than a few...and you know what military force they admire, sorry idolise,... the Waffen SS. And no, Mr Van HaSSel they were not virtuous or honourable men.

[Timo]

Typical (Lammerding I mean). Their LAH comrades blamed Poetschke (who was KIA in March 1945) for Baugnez and Dröge (KIA in the Ardennes) for Parfondruy. In Dröges case plausible, but both convenient scapegoats and many LAH men who were tried were very keen on pointing their finger at them. Very nice. Very loyal.

Remember our discussions about Parfondruy, Thomas? Are you still putting the blame for that attrocity with the Belgians because they were "all partisans" (thus including 5 year old and 70 year old partisans)?

Just my 2 cents,
Timo

[Marc Rikmenspoel]

I'm addressing this specifically to Sid (and indirectly to Tom), because all of the other responses, whatever their viewpoint, fall victim to name calling and insults. I usually try to stay out of these attempts to out shout each other, but I want people to understand that there is more than one version out there for most events.

In the case of Le Paradis, the Waffen-SS veterans who prepared the history of the various units understood full well that most readers would assume the worst in all cases. So even as participants could explain that Knöchlein and his men "snapped" and reacted badly to what they perceived as mistreatment, Vopersal and Ullrich (in, respectively, Soldaten Kämpfer Kameraden band 1 and Wie ein Fels im Meer band 2) wrote Knöchlein off as a "lone nut" (ie, a crazy man). They essentially stated, "it was all his fault, he did wrong, we do not condone this, and we wash our hands of all of it." This was the best public front they could take at that time (circa 1989) as Waffen-SS veterans.

But this doesn't mean that veterans didn't share their private views and stories with others, and some of these accounts have been passed along to me over the years. After one debate on this topic on the old Feldgrau forum, the British guard, now in retirement in the Bahamas, contacted me with his account of Knöchlein's trial. He chooses to remain anonymous, so I'll refer to him as "M.P." but I'm referring to an e-mail (printed out) that I received from him on January 29, 1999.

As with everything, we all have to believe what we choose to believe, and name calling, whether pro- or anti-Waffen-SS still accomplishes nothing.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Marc,

You are right that there is more than one version out there of most events. However, not all have equal weight.

As I understand it you, an effectively unverfiable source yourself, are putting before us the story of someone on the other side of the ocean who is deliberately anonymous even to you? Have you taken steps to verify the bona fides of your anonymous sourc?

Forgive me, but without anything more substantive, I would have to classify this as very slim evidence indeed.

This is not my subject area, so I am not familiar with the full range of detail apparently available to other posters. However, the evidential value of nothing yet contributed has led me to seriously question the received version of events.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Achilles]

I did not once question your version of events or reasons why this happened, evn though I may not agree with them.

The point is you believe the cold bloodied murders of unarmed men were justifed? As long as we know your position on such matters.