617 Sqd – Intriguing entry in BCL

Thanks David. I’ll order it up from the mobile library.

Moggy

Moggy,
returning to your original query, you will wish to read “Dambusters -The Definitive History of 617Sqd at war 1939-45” by Chris Ward and others published by Red Kite. The incident is described in some depth on page 212. It includes the details of the (sadly) unsuccessfull attempts post war to prosecute perpetrators of the crime by the French and the allied authorities in Germany.

Reposting something from the thread I linked earlier.

Reichsleiter Goebbels (from the ‘Voelkischer Beobachter’ of 29 May 1944):

“It seems to us hardly possible and tolerable to use German police and soldiers against the German people when it treats murderers of children as they deserve.”

Albert Hoffmann (Gauleiter and National Defence Commissioner of the Gau Westfalen-South):

“Fighter bomber pilots who are shot down are in principle not to be protected against the fury of the people. I expect from all police officers that they will refuse to lend their protection to these gangster types. Authorities acting in contradiction to the popular sentiment will have to account to me.”

So allowing the civilian population to harm baled-out aircrew was an officially endorsed policy.

But I have to say the thing that surprises me most after learning of the high-profile official position of protecting (or rather, not protecting) baled-out aircrew is that there seem to be relatively few cases where aircrew were harmed; and certainly there are far more numerous cases where aircrew were saved from harm by police or service personnel.

I think that this shows that in a case where an individual could make a difference most chose to do the ‘right thing’ (as opposed to, for example, the holocaust, where an individual really couldn’t affect the general outcome).

My own reading of some of the incidents described on the German boards is that German civilians, particularly the local “brown eminences” were far more dangerous than uniformed personnel.

Have also read quite a number of tales by captured aircrew who were protected from menacing mobs by members of the Luftwaffe or the Wehrmacht.

I think that the Ju 88 crew involved in 1940 in at least one of the cruelty cases had been bombing a legitimate military target, too. The fact is, and even if the Lancaster crew had been attacking a legitimate military target, it was certainly the case that other targets near there, certainly involving civilians, had been badly bombed.

I am not making excuses for any behaviour of this kind. Unfortunately, it sometimes happened on both sides, to varying degrees, and with the military and with civilian populations both implicated. Stating that this was how it was on both sides is not revisionism. Just fact. Pretending that we were always the good guys is denial of how it was.

I’m not suggesting, Creaking Door, that this is what you are suggesting although there are certainly some who prefer to pretend that there are no dark or shameful acts on our side. I have uncovered a good few, although thankfully there were quite probably more acts of compassion (on both sides) that of brutality to downed fliers.

Military personnel, particularly the ones not fighting on either of the major fronts at that stage of the war, were just civilians in different clothes. They had seen the same sights and suffered the same losses as the civilians they lived amongst.

Moggy

There is a bit of a difference don’t you think between the two? The 617 crew were on a bombing mission against a legitimate military target; they were captured and murdered by (presumably) military personnel and their bodies thrown into a river…

…and I don’t suppose those that murdered them had to face a court martial.

Not so, Creaking Door – there was certainly cruelty. There were a few cases that are verifiable, but not killings as far as I know.

However, there are cases documented at TNA Kew of cruelty to captured German airmen in 1940 that resulted in Courts Martial and the dismissal of at least one and I think two (certainly one) Army officers.

What Moggy said is spot on. Perhaps not excusable, but perhaps understandable.

Very few and apparently none by military personnel. It is touched upon in this thread:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=90685