Hi Sid:
I agree that most of the leadership of the NDH jumped ship and made their own way into hiding - they obviously knew that, as the guilty parties to the excesses of the Ustasa regime, they would be prosecuted regardless of whom they surrendered to. This should not have applied to the great majority of the Croatian armed forces that retreated to the west, though, as they were honourable soldiers that fought for their state and nothing more - they had expectations of humane treatment from nations that supposedly espouse the causes of humanitarianism, fair-play, law and honour. Upon reaching the British lines, the Croatian negotiators should have been told that their surrender was unacceptable, and that they would be repatriated - instead, through subterfuge, the Croatians were disarmed and sent to their death.
I accept your argument that the British may not have known what the Croat destiny would be in Tito's hands, though it really shouldn't have been a great mystery. The years of bloody, merciless combat in Yugoslavia was pretty compelling evidence that there would be no quarter given to the defeated. But once the handover started, there were almost instantaneous acts of barbarism committed against the prisoners before the British troops very eyes - at the very least, once this occurred, the handover should have been halted.
It is my supposition that the Croats were handed over to Tito at the behest of Churchill himself, in order to gain a bargaining chip (perhaps regarding the Yugoslav occupation of Trieste?). I most certainly do not lay blame on the British people.
Best regards.
why pepole join invaders side?
Moderator: George Lepre
-
Schachbrett
- Member
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Zagreb,Croatia
hi sid
again i could quote g.b. shaw again :)
you seem to interpret international law your way and all i can say i disagree. which one of us i right, may others say.
so call me a persistant bastard but where does it say that just representatives of recognised states have the protection under hague convention? it`s not logicall at all becouse you can be in war with someone even if that other side is unrecognised, they don`t have to be an army, for example militias etc. so it`s absolutelly wrong to say that the white banner must not be respected. also the hague convention never says anything about recognized states when talking about . . .
CHAPTER III
Flags of Truce
Art. 32.
A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability
on the other hand it`s interesting that you dont`t mention the coverup of those archives that should have been made public in 1995, as if i have never wrote it. i must really commend your debating skils. you play your tune and live out the parts that don`t fit. you also don`t want to comment on churchill, don`t want to comment on an obvious lie of the foreign office concerning the number of "repatriated" croats. don`t get me wrong , i`m not complainig, but i want to remind you of those little facts.
you also say (in other posts) that the british army didn`t know about the killings of croats. you forget that the british army, like all armies had intellligence and really could not oversee what was happening. they could firmly shut they eyes and ears like you do it now, but could not avoid it. and one other thing, the british army had liaison officers in the partisans - how could they not see what was happening?
and last thing, if tolstoy is bias, another neutral wrote a book on bleiburg: giuseppe massucci - The mission in croatia.
best regards
again i could quote g.b. shaw again :)
you seem to interpret international law your way and all i can say i disagree. which one of us i right, may others say.
so call me a persistant bastard but where does it say that just representatives of recognised states have the protection under hague convention? it`s not logicall at all becouse you can be in war with someone even if that other side is unrecognised, they don`t have to be an army, for example militias etc. so it`s absolutelly wrong to say that the white banner must not be respected. also the hague convention never says anything about recognized states when talking about . . .
CHAPTER III
Flags of Truce
Art. 32.
A person is regarded as a parlementaire who has been authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into communication with the other, and who advances bearing a white flag. He has a right to inviolability
on the other hand it`s interesting that you dont`t mention the coverup of those archives that should have been made public in 1995, as if i have never wrote it. i must really commend your debating skils. you play your tune and live out the parts that don`t fit. you also don`t want to comment on churchill, don`t want to comment on an obvious lie of the foreign office concerning the number of "repatriated" croats. don`t get me wrong , i`m not complainig, but i want to remind you of those little facts.
you also say (in other posts) that the british army didn`t know about the killings of croats. you forget that the british army, like all armies had intellligence and really could not oversee what was happening. they could firmly shut they eyes and ears like you do it now, but could not avoid it. and one other thing, the british army had liaison officers in the partisans - how could they not see what was happening?
and last thing, if tolstoy is bias, another neutral wrote a book on bleiburg: giuseppe massucci - The mission in croatia.
best regards
One who dies like a man, lives forever
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Schachbrett,
Please do not invent my posts. I have not proposed that just representatives of recognised states have protection under the Hague Convention.
But where did the British break the Convention? They accepted the surrender of the Croats, as you rightly pointed out they were obliged to do, and promptly repatriated them, as they were also obliged to do. I think we can all agree with hindsight, that there was indecent haste and tragic consequences, but is there evidence of British abuse in the intervening brief period? If so, it has not been brought up here.
If you have evidence that there were British liaison officers with the Partisan forces engaged in the massacres you must bring it forward. Who were they, what Partisan units were they with, where and when?
Personally I think this charge is so vague as to be meaningless. Just because at some stages in the war a few tightly controlled and highly restricted British liaison officers had served with the Partisans is no indication that there were any on site at the time of the massacres, or would have been allowed advance warning of them, or would have been allowed to communicate this damaging information to the British authorities. Have you any facts at all to back this up?
Give me details of the supposed "cover-up of those archives that should have been made public in 1995?"? I will personally check any archive numbers you give me with the Public Record Office next time I am there. I have done this for others before.
According to the quote in your earlier post: "not more than 600 of "Yugoslav collaborationists" was sent back to their country in late 1945". What is to comment upon? Were more than 600 Yugoslav collaborationists sent back to their country in LATE 1945? Facts please.
Must break off now as the library terminal is for somebody else.
Cheers,
Sid.
Please do not invent my posts. I have not proposed that just representatives of recognised states have protection under the Hague Convention.
But where did the British break the Convention? They accepted the surrender of the Croats, as you rightly pointed out they were obliged to do, and promptly repatriated them, as they were also obliged to do. I think we can all agree with hindsight, that there was indecent haste and tragic consequences, but is there evidence of British abuse in the intervening brief period? If so, it has not been brought up here.
If you have evidence that there were British liaison officers with the Partisan forces engaged in the massacres you must bring it forward. Who were they, what Partisan units were they with, where and when?
Personally I think this charge is so vague as to be meaningless. Just because at some stages in the war a few tightly controlled and highly restricted British liaison officers had served with the Partisans is no indication that there were any on site at the time of the massacres, or would have been allowed advance warning of them, or would have been allowed to communicate this damaging information to the British authorities. Have you any facts at all to back this up?
Give me details of the supposed "cover-up of those archives that should have been made public in 1995?"? I will personally check any archive numbers you give me with the Public Record Office next time I am there. I have done this for others before.
According to the quote in your earlier post: "not more than 600 of "Yugoslav collaborationists" was sent back to their country in late 1945". What is to comment upon? Were more than 600 Yugoslav collaborationists sent back to their country in LATE 1945? Facts please.
Must break off now as the library terminal is for somebody else.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Schachbrett
- Member
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:35 am
- Location: Zagreb,Croatia
i appologize for my inventions :sid guttridge wrote:Hi Schachbrett,
Please do not invent my posts. I have not proposed that just representatives of recognised states have protection under the Hague Convention.
But where did the British break the Convention? They accepted the surrender of the Croats, as you rightly pointed out they were obliged to do, and promptly repatriated them, as they were also obliged to do. I think we can all agree with hindsight, that there was indecent haste and tragic consequences, but is there evidence of British abuse in the intervening brief period? If so, it has not been brought up here.
If you have evidence that there were British liaison officers with the Partisan forces engaged in the massacres you must bring it forward. Who were they, what Partisan units were they with, where and when?
Personally I think this charge is so vague as to be meaningless. Just because at some stages in the war a few tightly controlled and highly restricted British liaison officers had served with the Partisans is no indication that there were any on site at the time of the massacres, or would have been allowed advance warning of them, or would have been allowed to communicate this damaging information to the British authorities. Have you any facts at all to back this up?
Give me details of the supposed "cover-up of those archives that should have been made public in 1995?"? I will personally check any archive numbers you give me with the Public Record Office next time I am there. I have done this for others before.
According to the quote in your earlier post: "not more than 600 of "Yugoslav collaborationists" was sent back to their country in late 1945". What is to comment upon? Were more than 600 Yugoslav collaborationists sent back to their country in LATE 1945? Facts please.
Must break off now as the library terminal is for somebody else.
Cheers,
Sid.
Britain had never recognised the NDH and was therefore under no obligation to treat with its representatives.
posted by you the other day (page 4 of this toppic)
secondly i never said that any british soldiers were engaged in massacres but that they had knowlige of it. i mentioned some books but they are unreliable to you, so my hands are tied..
thirdly i can`t give you any archive numbers becouse when the time came ( after 50 years ) to unclassify the documents this was postponed. if only i had the means to get to these documents.
i made an error regarding the time date. it was not the late 1945 as you ponted out, it was the question of late may 1945, sorry. so the question in the parilament was how many croats were repatriated in the late may 1945? the foreign office repiled "not more than 600 yugoslav collaborators were sent back". if you want proof come to bleiburg and you will see the names of those 600 people sent back, or maybe even a little more.
finally, this is my final post on this toppic, i got tired of inventing
best regards to all of you
One who dies like a man, lives forever
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Shachbrett,
If you can turn up some document numbers I will look them out for you in the National Archives.
There are two sorts of withheld files in the National Archives.
For some there are not even contents details available to the public, so there is no way of knowing if they relate to the Croats and Bleiberg or not.
The others have a description of their contents available to the public. If they relate to Bleiberg or the Croats this will be known and I can check whether there are, indeed, documents on this subject known to have been withheld. If you discover details of any of their document numbers I will check them out for you.
Cheers,
Sid.
If you can turn up some document numbers I will look them out for you in the National Archives.
There are two sorts of withheld files in the National Archives.
For some there are not even contents details available to the public, so there is no way of knowing if they relate to the Croats and Bleiberg or not.
The others have a description of their contents available to the public. If they relate to Bleiberg or the Croats this will be known and I can check whether there are, indeed, documents on this subject known to have been withheld. If you discover details of any of their document numbers I will check them out for you.
Cheers,
Sid.
Sorry for the time it took me to dig up some support for my previous claims that anti-british sentiments might have caused people from occupied nations to join the SS.
Have just finished reading a biography on Per Imerslund (Norwegian author and adventurer who was instrumental in forming some of the most radical groups of national socialists in Norway in the 1930s. He fought for Franco in Spain, with the Finns against the russians and with the SS in Ukraine.)
The biography is as much a story about the most radical national socialist groups. These groups detested the imperialism that they saw Britain standing for. They were interested in a "pan-germanic brotherhood of states, were the individual nations would take care of themselves, but at the same time look out for their brother nations". They viewed imperialism as crushing the individual state, only allowing one nations views to be expressed.
In all fairness, Per fell out of love with Franco when he realised that he was just installing a patriarcic, priest dominated system. Per was equally disgusted by Hitlers invasion of his neighbouring nations, seeing it as a form of imperialism. He was willing to accept it for the time being as a necessity of fighting the communists.
These extremely radical national socialistic groups had a (unrealistic) view that imperialism, communism and religion had to be fought to establish a new peace and fair rule. What motivated them the most is hard to say. It is also difficult to establish exactely how many they were. But at least for some people, anti-imperialsim, channeled towards the British, was a motivating force in taking up arms for Hitler.
OMK
Have just finished reading a biography on Per Imerslund (Norwegian author and adventurer who was instrumental in forming some of the most radical groups of national socialists in Norway in the 1930s. He fought for Franco in Spain, with the Finns against the russians and with the SS in Ukraine.)
The biography is as much a story about the most radical national socialist groups. These groups detested the imperialism that they saw Britain standing for. They were interested in a "pan-germanic brotherhood of states, were the individual nations would take care of themselves, but at the same time look out for their brother nations". They viewed imperialism as crushing the individual state, only allowing one nations views to be expressed.
In all fairness, Per fell out of love with Franco when he realised that he was just installing a patriarcic, priest dominated system. Per was equally disgusted by Hitlers invasion of his neighbouring nations, seeing it as a form of imperialism. He was willing to accept it for the time being as a necessity of fighting the communists.
These extremely radical national socialistic groups had a (unrealistic) view that imperialism, communism and religion had to be fought to establish a new peace and fair rule. What motivated them the most is hard to say. It is also difficult to establish exactely how many they were. But at least for some people, anti-imperialsim, channeled towards the British, was a motivating force in taking up arms for Hitler.
OMK
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi OMK,
Per Imerslund appears to have been primarily an anti-Communist. All three campaigns he appears to have served in were against Communist regimes and none against the British. If his primary target was the British Empire, he was spectacularly unsuccessful.
Imerslund seems to have been rather a confused individual to have joined the Waffen-SS, an organisation devoted to an Adolf Hitler, who so greatly admired the British Empire that he wanted to create what he believed to be its German equivalent in Eastern Europe.
On your brief description, Imerslund appears to have been something of a free thinker on the right who had the independence of mind to realise that his brand of idealism was not shared by other figures on the right, especially those like Franco and Hitler who had real power in their hands.
You don't mention whether Imerslund had any racial politics?
Cheers,
Sid.
Per Imerslund appears to have been primarily an anti-Communist. All three campaigns he appears to have served in were against Communist regimes and none against the British. If his primary target was the British Empire, he was spectacularly unsuccessful.
Imerslund seems to have been rather a confused individual to have joined the Waffen-SS, an organisation devoted to an Adolf Hitler, who so greatly admired the British Empire that he wanted to create what he believed to be its German equivalent in Eastern Europe.
On your brief description, Imerslund appears to have been something of a free thinker on the right who had the independence of mind to realise that his brand of idealism was not shared by other figures on the right, especially those like Franco and Hitler who had real power in their hands.
You don't mention whether Imerslund had any racial politics?
Cheers,
Sid.
Hi Sid,
(First of all, I'm sorry, but i have not yet managed to get to the empire and commonwealth museum so I can't give a review of it)
As I mentioned the group of people (who called themselves Ragnarok after a publication by the same name that they were responsible for) had a mix of feelings/sentiments. They were anti imperialism, anti communism, anti religion and probably a few antis on top of that. It is true that they fought communism. After all that was one of their antis. However, despite beeing somewhat repelled by the aggression Germany showed towards her neighbours, they accepted it for the time being. When Britain declared war on Germany, that did not rock their belief. It was only when the US declared war on Germany that some of these people had their loyalty split down the middle.
I realise that you don't like to hear that some people acually harboured resentment towards Britain in these years. However, there were people out there who were certainly not impressed with her.
As for racial material. Imerslund thought that the jews (and the masons, and the communists) were a foreign element in Norway. They did not fit in. However, he never wrote anything about how to deal with it. It has been suggested that he wanted the jews to have their own nation where they could prove to the world that they were no good. However, being short on his own writing in the field that is speculation.
As a thought at the end of this message: I realise that I am not going to convince you (nor any other Brit) that this was a reason, if not entirely then partially, for supporting Germany.
OMK
(First of all, I'm sorry, but i have not yet managed to get to the empire and commonwealth museum so I can't give a review of it)
As I mentioned the group of people (who called themselves Ragnarok after a publication by the same name that they were responsible for) had a mix of feelings/sentiments. They were anti imperialism, anti communism, anti religion and probably a few antis on top of that. It is true that they fought communism. After all that was one of their antis. However, despite beeing somewhat repelled by the aggression Germany showed towards her neighbours, they accepted it for the time being. When Britain declared war on Germany, that did not rock their belief. It was only when the US declared war on Germany that some of these people had their loyalty split down the middle.
I realise that you don't like to hear that some people acually harboured resentment towards Britain in these years. However, there were people out there who were certainly not impressed with her.
As for racial material. Imerslund thought that the jews (and the masons, and the communists) were a foreign element in Norway. They did not fit in. However, he never wrote anything about how to deal with it. It has been suggested that he wanted the jews to have their own nation where they could prove to the world that they were no good. However, being short on his own writing in the field that is speculation.
As a thought at the end of this message: I realise that I am not going to convince you (nor any other Brit) that this was a reason, if not entirely then partially, for supporting Germany.
OMK
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi OMK,
It is an undoubted fact that numerous people harboured resentment towards Britain in those (and other) years and there were (and are) many people out there who were (and are) not impressed by her. Many had good reason, so it is easy to accept.
However, what is not so easy to accept due to lack of available evidence is that resentment of Britain was a significant factor in inducing Norwegians to join the Waffen-SS. Norwegians did not exactly rush to join the Waffen-SS anyway, and the few that did do so seem primarily to have been motivated by anti-Communism. If they believed in Nazism's Nordic myths, then the British would have been regarded as potential friends, not foes.
I am prepared to believe that there may have been a few Norwegians who put anti-Britishness first ahead of anti-Communism, but then one can find a few individuals in any society who will espouse any cause. What I am not yet conviced of is that anti-British feeling was a significant recruitng agent for the Germans in Norway.
Cheers,
Sid.
It is an undoubted fact that numerous people harboured resentment towards Britain in those (and other) years and there were (and are) many people out there who were (and are) not impressed by her. Many had good reason, so it is easy to accept.
However, what is not so easy to accept due to lack of available evidence is that resentment of Britain was a significant factor in inducing Norwegians to join the Waffen-SS. Norwegians did not exactly rush to join the Waffen-SS anyway, and the few that did do so seem primarily to have been motivated by anti-Communism. If they believed in Nazism's Nordic myths, then the British would have been regarded as potential friends, not foes.
I am prepared to believe that there may have been a few Norwegians who put anti-Britishness first ahead of anti-Communism, but then one can find a few individuals in any society who will espouse any cause. What I am not yet conviced of is that anti-British feeling was a significant recruitng agent for the Germans in Norway.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Sid,
I think I'm getting our difference. I will concur that anti-British sentiments did not drive thousands and thousands of people to join the SS. However, I'm interested in all the reasons people joined (as I'm sure you will agree, the number of reasons alone makes this a compelling and multifaceted question).
You are welcome on the info about Imerslund and Ragnarok. It certainly inspired me to look further into the spectre of parties and opinions on the extreme right in the 30s.
OMK
I think I'm getting our difference. I will concur that anti-British sentiments did not drive thousands and thousands of people to join the SS. However, I'm interested in all the reasons people joined (as I'm sure you will agree, the number of reasons alone makes this a compelling and multifaceted question).
You are welcome on the info about Imerslund and Ragnarok. It certainly inspired me to look further into the spectre of parties and opinions on the extreme right in the 30s.
OMK
-
Lagergeld
- New Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:27 am
- Location: Donauschwäbische im Exil, Denver, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: why pepole join invaders side?
Maybe its because those who did so believed that their home government was fighting for the wrong people.konig wrote:I really can not understand why citizen of invaded country join to invaders?
is it because of: historic background, fear, opportunism? or anything else?
Europe still faces this dilemma today. Countries like France are considering pushing laws to outlaw "neo-nazis" and all swastika insignia, because they have problems with French people saluting Hitler all over the place. Same with Russia, England.
60 years later and people Hitler invaded revere him. That has to be something pretty unique in human history.
:p
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Sid,
Just browsing and noticed your early statement that no one has the right to invade another land. With tongue in cheek: I'm one of 20 million invaders and their decendants in Australia. There are over 200 million (just a guess on the spur of the moment) invaders and their decendants in the USA. More millions in South & Central America. Do you suggest we all go back to where we came from? And what if Wales wanted England back, as Ireland wants Northern Ireland? And where would we find Tasmanian Aboriginals to repopulate THEIR country.
Live aint that simple.
Just browsing and noticed your early statement that no one has the right to invade another land. With tongue in cheek: I'm one of 20 million invaders and their decendants in Australia. There are over 200 million (just a guess on the spur of the moment) invaders and their decendants in the USA. More millions in South & Central America. Do you suggest we all go back to where we came from? And what if Wales wanted England back, as Ireland wants Northern Ireland? And where would we find Tasmanian Aboriginals to repopulate THEIR country.
Live aint that simple.
Was haben wir für dich gewollt
Du deutsches Vaterland?
- H Gehr IR 21./17.ID
Du deutsches Vaterland?
- H Gehr IR 21./17.ID
Out of curiosity, what was the ethnic orgin of Otto Skorzany? His last name sounds Hungarian.sid guttridge wrote:Hi JPS,
I think you have hit the nail on the head. It would have been lunatic for the Germans to be anti-Slavic.
Nazis were anti-Slavic. Some might argue they were also lunatics.
Germans weren't encouraged to adopt Slavic babies. They were encouraged to adopt babies from Slavic lands who had "Aryan" characteristics as defined by Nazi racial theorists. How far the Nazis were complicit in them becoming "orphans" in the first place is another can of worms that might also be worth investigation.
There were pragmatic Nazis like Gauleiter Forster of Danzig-West Prussia, who gave the majority of local Poles and Kashubians German racial papers, but he also did this on the assumption that they were Polonised ethnic Germans whose racial stock could be recovered for the German race. By contrast, the gauleiter of Warthegau was totally opposed to Forster's policy and preferred to expel Poles and bring in German immigrants to replace them.
You are very right about the surnames. Hindenberg used to refer to Hitler as "The Bohemian Corporal" as his surname was apparently of medieval Czech origin. Himmler apparently investigated Hitler's ancestry but thought the results were too embarrassing to present.
Cheers,
Sid.
True, Japanese hardly fit the German concept of a "Master Race" yet they were allies.sid guttridge wrote:Hi JPS,
Germany's attitude to Slavs was only modified by sheer force of circumstance late in the war. It was not an ideological conversion, but a pragmatic one.
I would also mention that a good many Indian troops served in Hitler's armed forces. Their reason was probibly to do with fighting an oppressive colonial regeim. I also heard of French Colonials fighting in North Africa against the Free French for similar reasons.