Your choice as a Company leader...

German Major Alfred Commichau, Commander of the 1st Battalion of the 691st Infantry Regiment in early October 1941 in Russia issued a verbal order to his three company leaders to shoot the entire Jewish populations of the localities in which the companies were quartered.

1.) The leader of the first company, Oberleutnant Josef Sibille, did not carry out the order. He explained to the battalion commander that he could not recognize a link between Jews and partisans. In any case, said Sibille, the only Jewish inhabitants remaining in his area were the aged, women, and children, none of whom posed a threat to the safety of the troops. A day or two later, Commichau inquired by telephone whether the order had been carried out in the meantime. Sibille expressly rejected the order. In response to Commchau's question, when he, Sibille, intended to at last get tough, Sibille reported that he answered: »Never.«

2.) Oberleutnant Hermann Kuhls, leader of the 2nd Company apparently carried out the order directly and without hesitation.

3.) The third company chief, Hauptmann Friedrich Nöll, hesitated. He and his Hauptfeldwebel Emil Zimber were unsure of themselves, since they were clearly aware of the fact that the order involved shooting women and children, even though there was no indication that the Jewish inhabitants of Krutsha, a village with about 1000 residents, had anything to do with partisans. They requested a written confirmation of the order. Shortly thereafter, they received the order of their battalion commander: All Jews in Krutsha were to be shot. Nöll and Zimber were consternated, this could not be a misunderstanding. At first, Nöll rejected the idea, but finally fear of the possible consequences of refusing an order won the upper hand. Nöll charged Zimber with shooting all the Jewish residents of the village. According to his own testimony, Zimber reacted to the resulting disquiet among the soldiers of his company by asserting that the whole matter had been decided by higher-ups. An order is an order.

On October 10, 1941, the soldiers of the 3rd Company of the 691st Infantry Regiment and local auxiliary police drove the Jews inhabitants of Krutsha out of their homes, led them to a ditch outside of the village and shot them there.

(from www.verbrechen-der-wehrmacht.de)

I'm curious: if you where put in the shoes of Kuhls, Sibille or Noell, what would you do?

I spent some time thinking about it, I hope I would be a Hauptmann Nöll (requesting an explicit order to kill all civilians), but most probably I would have been a Oberleutnant Kuhls (executing them as ordered at first hand). If I would have known of Sibille's sucess in not carrying out the order at all ("Never"), I would have gone Nöll's way.

Your thoughts on that "daily business" decission?

Cheers,

 

Written order to justify my actions-but if I felt moral boundaries existed-I wouldv'e acted like Oberleutnant Sibille...

 

I think I´d take the Nöll´s way. And I would not go ahead with the executions unless threatened by court martial.

 

Just a question - were any of these men tried as war criminals at the end of WW2 and shot or hung?

 

Today my reply would be simple. Illegal order, cannot obey and in fact am required to disobey it.

Back then, I would have certainly taken the same stance as Sibille. As a German officer it is not my duty to murder civilians, be they men, women or children. Partisans are another matter, they do not obey the rules of war and may be shot according to those rules of war. But the line is very well marked.

But I suppose I may have thought differently had I been indoctrinated with Nazi ideology for a decade.

 

Well said Andreas, and thats the way I believe I would have acted--the way you put it.

If there are innocents--there is no way to justify shooting them. If they are Partisans--hell yes--I would have them shot on the spot. Partisans arent Soldiers--just murdering trash in "On the game" for the spoils of war.

Reminds me of the scene in the movie: "Cross of Iron"
Maximilian Schell as Captain Stransky: (Just after meeting the then Corporal Steiner)
(Stransky) "Who is that?"
(Steiner) "That is Corporal Schnurrbart"
(Stransky) "And the other one?"
(Steiner) "That is a Russian prisoner sir"
(Stransky) "You know there are orders for no prisoners, get rid of him"
(Steiner) "How sir?"
(Stransky) "Shoot him"
(Steiner) "YOU shoot him sir"
(Stransky) "I will..on the spot"
(Schnurrbart) "No need to do it..ill see to it that its taken care of sir"

In other words--I believe I would do as Oberleutnant Sibille did.

 

Carl and Andreas, I'm with you.

There is never any justification in murdering civilians just for the hell of it.

If they're partisans, yes, definitely I would shoot them. Most partisans are cowards, picking on individual soldiers or stragglers unable to defend themselves.

I would have refused to carry out the order. As a German officer I would still have this right even under the Nazi's. As in todays world, if an German officer was given an order that he thought was incorrect, he had the right to challenge it and if necessary refuse to carry it out. Some did, many didn't, due to fear of repercussions.

It would be interesting to know if those officers who did carry out the extermination order were caught and charged as war criminals.

____________________________

'There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell" General Sherman August 1880

 

Every German soldier was told that Jews are the main carrier of Bolshevism, so measures against them had to be taken to fight Bolshevism and Partisans sucessfully.

Just some few examples:

"The soldier in the eastern territories is not merely a fighter according to the rules of the art of war but also a bearer of ruthless national ideology and the avenger of bestialities which have been inflicted upon German and racially related nations.

Therefore the soldier must have full understanding for the necessity of a severe but just revenge on subhuman Jewry. The Army has to aim at another purpose, i. e., the annihilation of revolts in hinterland which, as experience proves, have always been caused by Jews.

(...)

The fear of the German counter-measures must be stronger than the threats of the wandering bolshevistic remnants. Being far from all political considerations of the future the soldier has to fulfill two tasks:

1. Complete annihilation of the false bolshevistic doctrine of the Soviet State and its armed forces.

2. The pitiless extermination of foreign treachery and cruelty and thus the protection of the lives of military personnel in Russia.

This is the only way to fulfil our historic task to liberate the German people once forever from the Asiatic-Jewish danger."

Order by Field Marshall Reichenau, CiC of 6th Army, Oct. 10, 1941

"The jewry is the connective link between the enemy in our rear area and the Red ARmy. (...) The German soldier has to understand the necessity of a harsh punishment of the Jewry, which is the intellectual carrier of the bolshevist terror."

Order by General von Manstein, CiC of 11th Army Nov. 20, 1941

"The neccesity of tough measurements against elements of other racial origin has to be understood especially by the soldier. Those people are the intellectual backbone of Bolshevism, the helpers of her murder organisations, the helpers of the Partisans. It is the same jewish class of peple who did harm to our father land..."
Order by Generaloberst Hoth, CiC of 17th Army, on Nov. 17, 1941

"The jewish population are bolshevists and capable of any anti-german stance. It does not need any regulations regarding their treatment."
From a report from the Wehrmacht Commander of White Russia, vVon Bechtolsheim, Sept. 9, 1941.

Basically the common rule was: The Jew is a Partisan, a Partisan is a Jew"

As a Company commander it wouldn't be up to me to decide if the "decision from above" that a certain group of people are partisans or innocent civilians is right. In general, whether an individual or a groups of civilians were considered to be a partisan or not, depended on thier sex, age, religion and the situation. In general, civilians were "declared" to be partisans not caought in the act. Looking suspicious was most time enough to qualify you for being a "partisan".

As a German soldier, you even might have to be ordered to execute completely innocent people: in case of a reprisal or hostage shooting,(the ratio was 100 for every german soldier killed by partisans) for instance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging on any of this persons, I'm rather playing the devils advocate here. I thought much about the dilemma in which the three company leaders were, but me in their shoes, in their time, I'm sure I wouldn't be a "hero", "puppy" or "traitor" (depends on how you see it) like Sibille. I would try to get rid of the responsibility as far as i can.

As fore post war trails:
The ordering battalion leader Commichau and Company leader Kuhls didn't survive the war.
In 1954, Noell was sentenced to four years of prison, Zimber to three years. Both sentences had been later reduced to two years.

Cheers,

[ 07 October 2002, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

Difficult question. Currently having been raised in a democracy with a volunteer army, I would have gone with the route Andreas stated, "As a German officer it is not my duty to murder civilians, be they men, women or children." But, if I had lived in Nazi Germany I would have requested the written order, delay the execution of said order till the very last minute. I would like to think that I would have some of the same morals I currently have.

 

I would have to take the path chosen by Sibille. Orders or not, there is no justification to shoot unarmed innocent civilians. Regardless of the consequences I would disobey the order. Kuhls had no heart and Noll, after demanding written orders before proceeding, buckled and gave the order to Zimber to carry out the executions. I think that if the CO refuses to comply with these orders he would most likely find his soldiers to stand up behind him. After all, there is no honor in executing innocent civilians, orders or not.

[ 07 October 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Steve ]

 

Well said.

AndyW, where do those order bits come from and in what context where they given?

 

I'm a litte bit surprised to see that many forum members opting that they would have be a "descent hero" / "coward sissy" (depends on which POV you have on that issue) like Sibille.

The "order from above" which Sibille refused to obey was, as pointed out earlier with examples of orders by Manstein, Hoth and Reichenau, fully in sync with many other similar orders given from top military and political leaders to their soldiers. The Jews were enemies, period. So Sibille's humanitarian disobience made him definately an "outsider" to the majority of soldiers and to the system he represented.

Interestingly, only Steve mentioned that he would have acted like Sibilkly, no matter of the CONSEQUENCES of disobeying an order in the field would have meant to him personally or for his soldiers he had to take care of. Ehether this is heroism, descency, treason or stupity is left unclear; today to us it's heroism, but also to his men or superiors or his country at his time, too? Note that I did not mention Sibille's fate, nor what happend to the Jews "he" was ordered to execute and refused to do so. I'm sure that all three Company leaders thought about the consequences of obeying or disobeying that order and made their different decissions.

But basically this kind of decision had to be made time and again by many german soldiers all over the eastern front: Being ordered to a execution of "Partisans" (are they really partisans or just Jews or randomly choosen?). Being ordered to take 15 hostages (who? Rather some Jews or pro-german family fathers?), Being involved in reprisal shootings (Yes, shooting innocent is bad, but what if that deterrence works and will save the lifes of your men now or in the future?), collective punishment (four of your men had been stabbed to death while sleeping in an occupied village, interrogation of the villagers get's nothing, what next?) etc. pp. I say it's impossible to stay "morally clean" facing that kind of decisions. The high moral horse of many Wehrmacht soldiers had been slaughtered on day one of their war of annilihation...

As for Andreas' question about the orders, the full english translation of Field Marshall Reichenau's order can be found at http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/USSR2.htm; the complete orders issued by General von Manstein and Generaloberst Hoth might be surely found somewhere on the web, too (in German). I just translated the relevant parts with my clumpsy english skills. The order and hundreds of other original documents and pictures can be examined at the excellent exhibition "Verbrechen der Wehrmacht. Dimensionen des Vernichtungskrieges 1941-1944" (Crimes of the Wehrmacht. Dimensions of the War of Annilihation), also a english version on http://www.verbrechen-der-wehrmacht.de/

Cheers,

[ 08 October 2002, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

I´m not sure whether the same happened during the beginning of Barbarossa, but during the phase when jews were murdered in the Polish forests 1942-43, the men were ordered to do the execution, but as well nothing happened to those that refused to shoot the jews. It was seen though as a matter of pride to shoot at least once or twice, after which some 50-60% refused to make any more shootings.

Don´t know if anything else would have happened except the responsibility turned to someone else if you were totally unflexible about this with these company leaders? But the jews would have been shot in the end anyway.

--------

Some things that has stayed on my mind about these "putsches" of villages:

When very young children or very old were met they were ordered to be shot at once. They could not be transferred to the actual execution place without needless waste of time.

Especially in the Baltics when the jews were taken to the execution local people were cheering and also took part in the excution by watching it happen.They must have really thought they were the ones to blame as well as communists.

 

My understanding is that there was a lot of shootings and mass executions until the Army made some grumblings about it. Then, it was left for the Einsatzgruppen to do the dirty work and only in areas where there were no army units.

 

Pzjgr

If only that was true. There was a postwar effort in memoirs and so forth to exculpate the Wehrmacht and shove all the blame onto the SS, Eisatzgruppen, Ordnungs-Polizei and Local Ukrainian/Baltic etc units. Trouble is more and more evidence has emerged, particularly from the former USSR contradicting this. Letters and documents from captured German soldiers for example, illustrate the brutalisation of the troops and their willingness to undertake attacks on civilians for "sheltering" Partizans, amongst other things.

Read Andy's quotes, although the originators are exceptional the sentiments certainly were not exceptional amongst officers in the Wehrmacht.

Jumbo

 

HI Andy;

I dont think that the majority of the Wehemacht thought that killing Jews was the right thing to do. Why are you surprised that so many of the forum members have morals regarding human life? Its interesting to see you use the terms coward and sissy in reference to an officer just because he has morals and some regard for human life. I dont think that refusing to follow those orders makes you a coward any more than it makes you a hero. Plain and simple, you do not shoot innocent civilians just because some higher up says it will help win the war. I dont think Sibille was a coward or trying to be a hero, he was just doing the right thing.

 

I'm not surprised about that most people here are fully approving Sibille's moral decision to disobey a criminal order (Don't get me wrong, I do it too!), or that the acting of Kuhns or Noell are more or less "coward" or even criminal - seen from today. I don't think anyone here doubt that Sibille was "right" and Kuhn was "wrong" - today and with the comfortability of hindsight and the total absence of having to face the consequences on his own.

It's very easy to say: I would done the same as Sibille with the comfort of here and now, but if I think about it honestly and REALLY put myself into the shoes of these three men at her time, in their situation: I have to admit that I would have shot those Jews. Not happily, with opposition, with disregard, but I would have obeyed in the end just like Noell and did that "dirty job". There was not too much space for fighting "honourably" in the Russo-German conflict. After all I would be a soldier, having to care about my men and obey orders my nation is giving me.

Additionally, if EVERYBODY, my superiors up to the Army leaders, my political leaders, many men in my unit, even cold logic or the simple will to survive would have tellin' me that I have to obey and I have the "right" to kill this people, it's pretty more easy to do it compared to, f.ex. participating in the My Lai massacre.

In the eyes of Sibille's superiors (and his men?), in the eyes of all those Commichaus, Mansteins, Reichenaus etc., Sibille was "weak", a "puppy" not worth being responsible to lead a Company, that's the point. Today we know that it takes more courage to say 'Never!' in a world where everybody expects you to do exactely the wrong, because they say and think it's the right.

My point isd not to judge on any of these people, but understanding the terrible dilemma they were facing at their time. These young men were generally younger than I'm today and had to deal with decisions like that, not knowing the possible consequences of both: obeying or disobeying those orders.

Cheers,

 

Not true. The Wehrmacht is knee-deep involved in the extermination of the Russian and Serbian Jews. In many times it was Army units who initiated and asked for the executions of the Jews/Communists/suspected Partisans (which was pretty much summed up as being all "enemies").

For example the execution of 33,000 Jews at Babi Jar was not only approved by the local Wehrmacht commanders in charge: "Wehrmacht welcomes the measurements [=planned execution of 'at least 50,000 Jews' by the SS-Sonderkommando 4a] and pleases for most radical action."
(from the Situational report No. 97, Sept. 28,1941)

Let's see what a German Division Commander thought about the Jews:

"Jews as the intellectual carriers of Bolsheviosm and the Communist idea are our deadly enemies. They need to be exterminated. Always and everywhere, where acts of sabotage, propaganda, resistance etc. was reported, Jews were found to be the originators of those acts, in most times they were even the perpetrators. Up to now, there seems no more german soldier left who doubts that the Jews would have completely destroyed everything german in case of a suceeded invasion.

So it's completely beyond me why a certain unit who shot 7 Jews is asked _why_ they shot them. If a village had carried out acts of sabotage earlier and you exterminate all Jews in that village, one can be sure that you killed the perpetrators or at least the originators."

Excerpt from the situational report dated of the Commander in "Weissruthenien" (White Russia) and CiC of Army Infantry Division No. 707, Gustav Freiherr von Bechtoltsheim

This Division alone killed approx. 19,000 civilians (most of them Jews) during Sept. and Dec. 1941, gaining her possible one of the best "kill-loss-ratio" in the entire Wehrmacht.

Cheers,

[ 08 October 2002, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

You cant include the killing of 19,000 Jews in a kill-loss-ratio. The ratio demands that you have to be taking loses also. Executing unarmed civilians doesnt count. Also, you dont need hindsight to know that killing civilians is not tolerated. There is a fine line between executions and a massacre, in fact some would say there is no difference.

 

I know that the Army did some of the 'organized' mass executions initially because it was witnessed by my grandfather of which I posted under another topic. The time frame you present falls under this. But the generals did complain about this and I remember reading about some documentation found in the archives where the Army did submit a request 'officially' to be removed from such tasks. What the army troops felt and did on an individual basis is obviously not all recorded but I would agree that the Army was not off the hook totally. I just meant to say that the generals did not want any official part in it. At least initially.