Westerplatte murder

Torquez · Post by **Torquez** » Mon May 08, 2006 6:03 am

Despite propanda pictures showing the supposed "chivalry" of German forces, Polish PoWs were treated in regular manner by Germany:
http://www.kriegsmarine.netlook.pl/bitw ... latte.html

Z pracowników cywilnych biorących udział w walkach, część zwolniono do domu, innych osadzono w obozie koncentracyjnym Stutthof, gdzie zginął między innymi Alojzy Januszewski. Z około 220 osobowej załogi w walkach zginęło 15 żołnierzy, jednego zamordowano po kapitulacji

From civilian workers taking part in defence, some were relased home, others were put into concentration camp Stutthof, where Alojzy Januszewski perished. From 220 soldiers, 15 died, one was murdered after capitulation.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Tue May 09, 2006 6:57 am

Hi Torquez,

I think you are missing a trick here. ALL the defenders of the Polish Post Office in Danzig itself were executed after their surrender.

Cheers,

Sid.

Helmut Von Moltke · Post by **Helmut Von Moltke** » Tue May 09, 2006 7:07 am

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Torquez,

I think you are missing a trick here. ALL the defenders of the Polish Post Office in Danzig itself were executed after their surrender.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sources Sid? Not many people know about this mentioned incident...

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 am

Hi HvM,

It is mentioned elsewhere on Feldgrau. The Germans shot them for wearing civilian clothing (Polish postal uniforms), ignoring the fact that many of the German attackers weren't in recognised military uniform either!

Start with Richard Landwehr's book on SS-Heimwehr Danzig.

There are earlier instances. Nobody, for instance, knows the fate of a number of Czech border guards kidnapped into Germany from near Asch (the old German name) in the Sudetenland in mid-September 1938.

Cheers,

Sid.

Torquez · Post by **Torquez** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:14 pm

I think you are missing a trick here. ALL the defenders of the Polish Post Office in Danzig itself were executed after their surrender.

Yes I know, I was talking about Westerplatte not the Post Office. Some Reich fanboys have found Nazi propaganda photos about German soldiers accepting surrender from Polish soldiers and went with the usual "oh the chivalry of German army" gibberish.

pzrmeyer2 · Post by **pzrmeyer2** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:40 pm

The Germans shot them for wearing civilian clothing (Polish postal uniforms

do you disagree with that, Sid? How does your opinion of this compare with your feelings on the executions by French forces of French SS men in German uniforms?

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Wed May 10, 2006 3:07 am

Hi pzrmeyer,

One cannot reasonably equate wearing your own national postal service uniform when attacked by surprise on the first day of war and wearing the enemy's uniform at the end of six years of war, can one? The former clearly isn't treachery, is it?

Secondly, the Poles in the Post Office were attacked on the outbreak of war while going about their normal civilian work. They thus have an arguable defence for what was, on the face of it, a breach of the laws of war.

Thirdly, they underwent no trial.

Fourthly, their attackers included many men in analagous positions. If you look at the photos of the incident, you will find many of the Germans in mixes of civilian and para military clothing.

Fifthly, amongst the attackers were members of the Danzig fire service, who like the Poles, were wearing their civilian service uniform. The firemen ended the siege by pumping domestic gas into the cellar where the Poles were defending themselves. As I am sure you are aware, the use of gas was illegal.

The last two points illustrate that the Germans, or at least Danzig forces which were part of the Wehrmacht from the moment war broke out, were operating double standards from second one, of minute one, of hour one, of day one of the war.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. My feelings are that neither the French W-SS nor Polish postmen should have been executed without fair trial.

Helmut · Post by **Helmut** » Fri May 12, 2006 9:10 am

Servus,
A little clarification here. The wearing of an ememy uniform or, for that matter,not wearing an identifiable uniform, is not illegal under the Law of Landwarfare. The sentence of death for doing this however, is imposed as a consequence of this act and not as a penalty. In other words, it is meant to discourage this practice. So, the difference is purely based on a legal turn of phrase and of no consequence to the guys being put up against the wall.
I wonder if the Germans captured wearing American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge were given a trial by Courts Martial?

Regards,

Helmut

Rajin Cajun · Post by **Rajin Cajun** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:04 am

You know very well the allies summarily executed Germans for doing the same thing.

phylo_roadking · Post by **phylo_roadking** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:20 am

All, the wearing of civilian clothes or uniforms has been covered elsewhere. And done to death, as the saying goes

its one of those REMARKABLY grey areas where the ONLY thing you can guarantee is that right or wrong noone would or will ever stand trial for it, then or now. Might makes right, as they say....and sadly there was far too much right-making in WWII.....

phylo

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Mon May 15, 2006 7:40 am

Hi Rajin,

What, specifically, are you referring to?

Cheers,

Sid.

Rajin Cajun · Post by **Rajin Cajun** » Mon May 15, 2006 2:03 pm

I was more specifically talking to those who deny that the Allies did anything wrong. Warfare brings out the worst in men and it doesn't effect only the Germans or the Japanese but effects all involved in the conflict. I guess I don't like the Ivory Tower dwellers who denounce everything that doesn't fit into their perspective.

Basically warcrimes are not something unique to one army or civilization but to one race the human race.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Mon May 15, 2006 3:15 pm

Hi Rajin,

I don't think anyone denies that the Allies did anything wrong. Indeed, I don't think anyone even maintains that the Western Allies never did anything wrong. Have you any examples of such denial?

The consensus seems to be prettty much what you suggest - that "warcrimes are not something unique to any one army or civilisation but to one race, the human race".

What differs is the degree to which each human institution provides a permissive environment for abuses at any given time. The totalitarian powers (such as Nazi Germany or the Stalinist USSR) and their subordinate security and paramilitary institutions appear to have a particularly bad record in this regard and the scale of their crimes dwarf those of their contemporary liberal democracies.

The German armed forces are a particularly useful laboratory for observing this, because they contain two parallel institutions performing much the same military function under much the same operatinal conditions, but with demonstrably different records of behaviour - the German Army, an institution predating and to some degree independent of the Nazi state, and the Waffen-SS, a creation of the Nazi state. Guess which had demonstrably the worse record for warcrimes in Western Europe and which seems to have maintained standards of conduct there not dissimilar to those of its opponents?

Cheers,

Sid.

DXTR · Post by **DXTR** » Tue May 16, 2006 12:47 am

In regards to the postal worker militia. It is true that the laws of war does recognize that a soldier forfeits his rights as a POW if he is not wearing a uniform. However as Sid pointed out there is a great difference between SS units putting on civilian clothes and postal workers taking up arms against an invading force.

The soldier is of course obliged to carry arms openly and wearing a uniform as is stipulated in article 1.

Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

However the Article 2 also recognises that a nation during the first initial fase of an invasion can be given the right of creating makeshift defense corps without wearing the uniform as long as these carry arms openly and respect the laws of war:

Art. 2.
The inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war.

So if the german forces apprehended polish fighters who had carried their arms openly they are to treat them as POW's as these makeshift units would fall into the category of article 2.

Scorzeny units during the battle of the bulge are illegal combatants and does not fall into the same category as the above mentioned poles.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Tue May 16, 2006 1:30 am

Hi DXTR,

Many thanks. That was competely new to me. It looks as though the Polish Post Office workers in Danzig may have been entitled to all the rights of full combatants.

Cheers,

Sid.