Dutch Film - "Black Book"
Charlie Siegrist
theater. The subject was the Dutch resistance and the liberation of
Amsterdam in 1945. The hero is a Jewish woman who becomes a spy for the
resistance. The visuals are good, acting good, plot spotty, etc. However,
one scene intrigues me, and I wonder about its accuracy.
After the Canadian forces have occupied Amsterdam, one of the captured SS
officers is apparently still in charge of surrendered German troops. He
insists that he has orders from some Allied command that state he retains
the right to discipline German soldiers who have been convicted under
German military law prior to capitulation. In this manner, he carries out
the execution of a fellow SS officer by a Canadian firing squad, and gives
the order to fire himself.
Can anyone vouch for the veracity of this plot device? Thanks.
Louis C
wanted to ask this and/or other groups after watching the movie some
months ago.
One additional detail is that the plot has one SS officer overawing
one Canadian officer with what I thought was an excellent rendition of
the Nazi German practice of quoting bits of authentic-sounding
legislation even when irrelevant or simply invented (somewhat like
what some people do here).
So the movie doesn't pretend that it was a general policy as opposed
to an isolated case. My question would be wider: were there similar
instances of Nazis/Fascists talking their way into executing some of
their traitors, even if none involved a SS colonel and a Canadian one?
LC
narrl...@hotmail.com
> So the movie doesn't pretend that it was a general policy as opposed
> to an isolated case. My question would be wider: were there similar
> instances of Nazis/Fascists talking their way into executing some of
Very good question, and like you I have no specific knowledge of such
an instance. But once, twenty years ago or more, I saw a movie on TV
(a British production IIRC, and supposedly "based on fact"), that
featured a similar incident: a German officer is allowed by his
British counterpart to execute a German deserter in the immediate
aftermath of the May 1945 surrender. I have wondered ever since how
much truth--if any--there could be to such a tale.
Thoughts on the issue, or the title of the movie, appreciated.
Narr
Andrew Clark
> Can anyone vouch for the veracity of this plot device? Thanks.
It's not accurate. Under the 1909 treaty for the Laws and Customs of War on
Land (Hague III), Annex to the Convention, Chapter II, Article 8: "Prisoners
of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the
army of the State into whose hands they have fallen".
In other words, Canadian military law, not German, was applicable to the
German prisoners of war, and the SS prisoner could only be executed after
being convicted and sentenced by an Canadian courts martial.
martinc...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
I thought it was an excellent, enthralling film. What was realistic
was the way the "goodies" and "baddies" were able to change or
maintain their positions to differeing degrees after the liberation -
the treacherous doctor being hailed as a hero, the Jewish heroine
fearing for her life, and her friend becoming a Canadian officer's
mistress instead of an SS officer's mistress.
I take Andrew's point that the military rules of the victorious nation
held sway over those of the vanquished nation. However, I seem to
remember that, under the terms of the surrender document, the
conquered army was still responsible for managing its own troops.
Whether this was intended to just ensure the defeated troops kept to
the terms of the surrender or went beyond this, I can't remember.
Certainly it was necesarry because allied officers may not have been
understood (due to language problems), been on the ground (in areas
which had not yet been occupied), or may not have been obeyed by
defeated troops. I'm not at home, so can't check the facts just now.
There were also many local agreements - some POW camps were taken over
by allied prisoners (or habded over to them) before their liberators
arrived. I sem to reeber some POW columns were protected by German
troops aaginst other German troops, even adter teh surrender.
Whilst probably not official policy to allow Germans to execute their
own troops after the surrender, I believe it would be quite easy to
convince an over-burdened allied commander (with many better things to
do and in a chaotic situation) tha t this was legal.
Regards,
Martin Clements
Alan Meyer
news:84KdnVqFH55...@giganews.com...
That seems to establish that, if this event occurred, it was
illegal, but it still could have happened. After all,how many
officers would be acquainted with the arcana of annexes to
1909 international laws? A Canadian officer might conceivably
have been convinced by a persuasive German officer that
this was the right thing to do.
Alan
Louis C
> "Charlie Siegrist" wrote
>
> > Can anyone vouch for the veracity of this plot device? Thanks.
>
> It's not accurate. Under the 1909 treaty for the Laws and Customs of War on
> Land (Hague III), Annex to the Convention, Chapter II, Article 8: "Prisoners
> of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the
> army of the State into whose hands they have fallen".
While the original poster's question may have been about whether the
SS had a case, and your answer to that specific point is quite
welcome, I feel bound to add that the movie did *not* indicate that
the SS officer had a valid claim.
Indeed, later in the movie it is being made fairly clear to the
Canadian colonel that he had made a mistake, though obviously it was
too late to correct it.
I thought it was a very good movie, and wouldn't want people to decide
it's not worth seeing as just too inaccurate.
WWII was a big war, there were many individual instances, and I'm
quite sure that German "lawyers" managed to prevail over their Allied
captors on some specific points, at least for a while. On the other
hand, that usually went for relatively unimportant matters, or matters
perceived as unimportant. Letting German POWs carry arms and execute
one of their desertors would seem extreme and, if it occurred, must
have been very rare. On the other hand, as I wrote initially it was a
big war and I wonder if something like that did in fact happen - or
even a close call.
LC
Andrew Clark
> That seems to establish that, if this event occurred, it was
> illegal, but it still could have happened. After all,how many
> officers would be acquainted with the arcana of annexes to
> 1909 international laws?
That's a very fair point, although it's inaccurate to refer to the Laws of
War as arcane. They were fundamental to armed combat; had been around for
decades and were well known in all armed forces. Every British officer got
some instruction in international law, partly because it was seen as
important, partly because officers had to know the standards to which they
and their men were entitled if captured and partly to avoid cause celebre
for the German propaganda. Which POW film has the British officer constantly
referring to his dog-eared copy of Hague to exasperate the German
commandant? The Colditz Story?
I know that officers in 21 AG who were more likely to end up looking after
POWs (staff officers in admin branches, officers commanding LOC troops and
so on) got an additional two-week course which covered Hague and its
consequences in some detail, but I've no idea whether this fictional officer
was one of those that might have attended.
> A Canadian officer might conceivably
> have been convinced by a persuasive German officer that
> this was the right thing to do.
He might, although to reach the rank of Colonel without even grasping one of
the fundamentals of POW law is difficult to believe. My guess is that the
film used this device to introduce moral ambiguity (I note Louis C's point
that the film did not say that the officer's action was lawful).
Michele
news:IfKdnU1f5r2xH_Hb...@comcast.com...
> "Andrew Clark" <acl...@nospamstarcott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:84KdnVqFH55...@giganews.com...
>> "Charlie Siegrist" <chamars...@spam.cableone.net> wrote
>>
>>> Can anyone vouch for the veracity of this plot device? Thanks.
>>
>> It's not accurate. Under the 1909 treaty for the Laws and Customs of War
>> on Land (Hague III), Annex to the Convention, Chapter II, Article 8:
>> "Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders
>> in force in the army of the State into whose hands they have fallen".
>>
>> In other words, Canadian military law, not German, was applicable to the
>> German prisoners of war, and the SS prisoner could only be executed after
>> being convicted and sentenced by an Canadian courts martial.
>
> That seems to establish that, if this event occurred, it was
> illegal, but it still could have happened. After all,how many
> officers would be acquainted with the arcana of annexes to
> 1909 international laws?
For starters, it's not an arcane 1909 international law. This also replies
to Mr. Clark's post: let's be accurate, otherwise others might think
somebody is presenting realistic-sounding but actually irrelevant,
inaccurate, or made-up snippets of laws.
Mr. Clark correctly quotes an article, which is actually part of the body of
the Hague Conventions, but it's the IV, not the III, and the Hague
Conventions' date is 1907, not 1909 (though that may be the year of entry
into force and/or ratification for some powers).
And the article is indeed applicable to this situation.
But additionally, there is the Geneva Convention of 1929, relating to the
prisoners of war. That Convention quotes the quote text verbatim in Article
45. Therefore, international law had been consistent on this.
The 1929 Geneva Convention was a well known international document, and it
was more recent than 1907; additionally, I don't know how things went for
Canada and its armed forces, but other armies reworked their own internal
military codes and regulations so that they would comply with the
international Conventions their countries were signatories of. So I'd expect
this issue to be addressed not just in that applicable international
document but also in the internal regulations of the armed service that
officer was part of.
Please note that the same Convention provides that the worst disciplinary
measures, the kind of measures a POW commander could issue without too much
ado, were restricted to imprisonment. In order to mete out a death penalty,
full Judicial Proceedings (Art. 60 ff.) would be needed, and I'm under the
impression that such a penalty would be carried out for a crime committed
after the accused man had become a POW (such as murdering a comrade in the
camp).
A Canadian officer might conceivably
> have been convinced by a persuasive German officer that
> this was the right thing to do.
>
If the Canadian officer was very ignorant and rather stupid. And even such a
man might probably say, "There's no hurry; he can be shot tomorrow or next
week. Let me ask my HQ about this".
Dr. Barry Worthington
The incident in the film was probably based on the following,
involving two German naval deserters, Bruno Dorfer and Rainer Beck.
They were, I believe, aprehended by the Dutch resistance, who were on
the look out for isolated German military.
(The German military authorities were ordered to hold their positions
or bases, and continue to administer and ration themselves until
further orders. They were not, of course, to permit men to wander
about.)
They were handed over to the allies, who placed them in the custody of
the Germans, who treated them according to their military law.
Consequently, on the morning of 13 May 1945, five days after the
formal capitulation of Hitler's Wehrmacht, a German military court
delivered the death sentence. The trial occurred in an abandoned Ford
assembly plant on the outskirts of Amsterdam, a site used by the
Canadian army for the concentration of German naval personnel. L A
German firing squad, supplied with captured German rifles and a three-
ton truck from the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and escorted by
Canadian Captain Robert K. Swinton, executed the two German prisoners
of war a short distance outside the enclosure.
Questions were asked about this affair in the Canadian Parliament as
recently as the 1960s or 70s, and the whole episode is now regarded as
a terrible mistake. I think that the two victims appeared on a postage
stamp issued by the former DDR, where they were regarded as 'anti-
fascists'. It was argued that they deserted before the surrender, and
it was suggested that allied propaganda had encouraged such actions.
Dr. Barry Worthington
narrl...@hotmail.com
wrote:
[spacesnips--Narr]
> Questions were asked about this affair in the Canadian Parliament as
> recently as the 1960s or 70s, and the whole episode is now regarded as
> a terrible mistake. I think that the two victims appeared on a postage
> stamp issued by the former DDR, where they were regarded as 'anti-
> fascists'. It was argued that they deserted before the surrender, and
> it was suggested that allied propaganda had encouraged such actions.
The details you gave sound very much like those in the badly-recalled
movie I saw decades ago. The fact that it was a Canadian officer
rather than a British officer obviously escaped my notice, but the
rest of it jibes very well with what I remember.
Narr
Andrew Clark
> For starters, it's not an arcane 1909 international law. This also replies
> to Mr. Clark's post: let's be accurate, otherwise others might think
> somebody is presenting realistic-sounding but actually irrelevant,
> inaccurate, or made-up snippets of laws.
I'm all for accuracy, but the last bit is puzzling. Who's doing this?
> Mr. Clark correctly quotes an article, which is actually part of the body
> of the Hague Conventions, but it's the IV, not the III, and the Hague
> Conventions' date is 1907, not 1909 (though that may be the year of entry
> into force and/or ratification for some powers).
You are quite right. Hague III is the Convention Relative to the Opening of
Hostilities and all the Hagues are 1907, not 1909 (except the 1899 ones). I
knew this: only carelessness explains why I got it wrong.
> But additionally, there is the Geneva Convention of 1929, relating to the
> prisoners of war. That Convention quotes the quote text verbatim in
> Article 45. Therefore, international law had been consistent on this.
I did consider quoting Geneva 1929, but as it only develops the principles
established by Hague, I thought Hague more apposite to the OP's query.
(snip)
Michele
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.07...@jmayson-wxp.cisco.com...
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Louis C wrote:
>> "Andrew Clark" wrote:
>>
>> WWII was a big war, there were many individual instances, and I'm
>> quite sure that German "lawyers" managed to prevail over their Allied
>> captors on some specific points, at least for a while. On the other
>> hand, that usually went for relatively unimportant matters, or matters
>> perceived as unimportant. Letting German POWs carry arms and execute
>> one of their desertors would seem extreme and, if it occurred, must
>> have been very rare. On the other hand, as I wrote initially it was a
>> big war and I wonder if something like that did in fact happen - or
>> even a close call.
>
>
> In Herman Wouk's novel "War and Remembrance" there's a scene were an
> American sub lead by "Lady" Aster sinks a Japanese troop transport then
> opens fire on the unarmed Japanese sailors who have abandoned ship.
>
> I realize "War and Remembrance" is a work of fiction. But did a similar
> event occur? Something that was documented, not just rumors?
Similar, as in a surfaced sub firing at helpless sailors in the water and
lifeboats, who by the way had surrendered to the sub? Sure, it goes back to
WWI, it's the Llandovery Castle case.
Similar, as in something like that happening in WWII? There's the Peleus
case.
Similar, as in, a surfaced _US_ sub doing something like that? Well yes,
it's the Wahoo case, only the Japanese in the water and small boats were
mostly infantrymen and, if left unmolested, they would have reached land
(which was close), where they would have been actively fighting again in a
short time.
Since you are re-opening an old can of worms, you might start by having a
little search with those two names, for starters, so that the basics don't
need to be rehashed.
Rich Rostrom
>In Herman Wouk's novel "War and Remembrance" there's a scene were an
>American sub lead by "Lady" Aster sinks a Japanese troop transport then
>opens fire on the unarmed Japanese sailors who have abandoned ship.
>
>I realize "War and Remembrance" is a work of fiction. But did a similar
>event occur? Something that was documented, not just rumors?
On Jan 26 1943, USS WAHOO, commanded by Commander
Dudley "Mush" Morton, sank the Japanese transport
BUYO MARU near Palau. WAHOO then surfaced and
destroyed some 20 lifeboats, and may have have also
fired on survivors in the water. This was excused on the
grounds that the survivors could be rescued by the
Japanese and would thus remain combatants - and
could not be rescued and taken prisoner, because
Japanese survivors usually attacked Americans who
tried to rescue them. Morton himself bragged
afterward that WAHOO had killed thousands of
Japanese in this action.
WAHOO was lost with all hands (including Morton)
on her seventh patrol in October 1943. WAHOO was
among the most successful US submarines, with a
tremendous record of ships sunk: 20 ships totalling
over 60,000 tons, despite frequent torpedo failures.
Morton was a very effective and aggressive commander.
On WAHOO's sixth patrol she penetrated the Sea of
Japan, but had 10 torpedo failures, spoiling every
submerged attack. On the seventh patrol (for which
Morton volunteered himself and his boat), WAHOO
went back to the Sea of Japan. After WAHOO's loss,
US subs did not attempt this again till 1945.
Since he was dead, and a hero, there was never any
great pressure to resolve what happened with BUYO
MARU.
However, the incident has been researched anyway.
See http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html
for a full discussion. High points: WAHOO was
fired on from the lifeboats; there were several
hundred Japanese troops on board, but also about
500 PoWs from the Indian army; Japanese vessels
from Palau later rescued all but about 100 of the
Japanese and 200 of the PoWs.
(BTW, WTF were Indian PoWs doing way out in the
Pacific? Were the Japs shipping them somewhere
to be used as slave labor? Were any such ever
encountered by U.S. forces?)
Morton is described as viscerally hating Japanese,
which was partly due to Pearl Harbor and may also
have been racial. However, on at least one occasion,
WAHOO picked up Japanese survivors - six fishermen
from a sampan sunk by gunfire during the sixth
patrol.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
John Anderton
>Very good question, and like you I have no specific knowledge of such
>an instance. But once, twenty years ago or more, I saw a movie on TV
>(a British production IIRC, and supposedly "based on fact"), that
>featured a similar incident: a German officer is allowed by his
>British counterpart to execute a German deserter in the immediate
>aftermath of the May 1945 surrender. I have wondered ever since how
>much truth--if any--there could be to such a tale.
>
>Thoughts on the issue, or the title of the movie, appreciated.
Not sure if this was the "movie" you meant but that plot device was
used either in the UK TV series "Secret Army(1977-79)" or it's
spin-off "Kessler(1981)", I can't remember which,
Cheers,
John
Bill Shatzer
> In Herman Wouk's novel "War and Remembrance" there's a scene were an
> American sub lead by "Lady" Aster sinks a Japanese troop transport then
> opens fire on the unarmed Japanese sailors who have abandoned ship.
> I realize "War and Remembrance" is a work of fiction. But did a similar
> event occur? Something that was documented, not just rumors?
Based on an occurance January, 1943 during the USS Wahoo's third patrol.
http://www.mackinnon.org/wahoo-3rdmission-controversy.html
http://www.warfish.com/patrol3con.html
The actual facts remain somewhat controversial.
Cheers,
Andrew Clark
> b) it [Geneva 1929] shows the consistency of international law on this
> matter over the years leading up to the two world wars
> and between them; the principle was, therefore, neither a new-fangled
> novelty nor an obsolete outdated idea;
The continuity goes back beyond Hague IV 1907 to Hague II 1899 (Article 8)
and before that to the Brussels Declaration 1874, and probably before that
too.
By 1944, I'd guess that the principle that POWs were subject to the laws of
the army which captured them was almost 100 years old.
narrl...@hotmail.com
<John1_andertonNOSPAMTHA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I recall it as a stand-alone feature film broadcast on TV, but as
everyone knows my recall is less than perfect. Thanks for the
suggestions.
Narr
Mike Muth
> (BTW, WTF were Indian PoWs doing way out in the
> Pacific? Were the Japs shipping them somewhere
> to be used as slave labor? Were any such ever
> encountered by U.S. forces?)
|
The Japanese routinely shipped work parties of POWs around their
bases. The Australian and British POWs at Sandakan had been shipped
from Changi. Some POWs went from Java to Changi to the Death railway
to Kanchanaburi to Sumatra, Changi, or Japan (sometimes via Saigon).
A number of US POWs went from Cabanatuan to Davao back to Manila and
then to Japan or mainland Asia.
The Japanese had several POW camps on New Guinea. ISTR that most of
those POWs had been shipped in from the NEI or Malaya. There was a US
raid which rescued some of the POWs, but most died in captivity. In
one camp, the Japanese assigned numbers to the POWs (there were only
100 remaining at that point). When your number came up, you were
lunch. One or two POWs from that camp somehow survived.
Mike