The Scourge of the Swastika Read online

  The second example given was this; that during the first month of the U-boat campaign against the United States shipping a very considerable tonnage had been sunk in shallow waters off the American coast and the majority of the crews were rescued because of the proximity of land. The view at Dönitz’s headquarters was that this was most regrettable.

  The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held that the ‘Laconia Order’ as it was called, did not deliberately order the killing of survivors of vessels sunk by U-boat attack, but they said in their judgment that its terms were undoubtedly ambiguous and deserved the highest censure.

  When it was passed on by Möhle, however, while briefing U-boat commanders prior to their proceeding on a mission, he read them the order without comment and amplified it by giving the two examples just mentioned. The commanders could then have only been under the impression that the policy of the Naval High Command was to kill ship’s crews. Perhaps to salve his conscience a little Möhle then used to say, ‘U-boat command cannot give you such an order officially: everybody must handle this matter according to his own conscience.’

  The Germans have always contended that the sole object of the ‘Laconia Order’ was to prevent submarine commanders from hazarding their craft by standing by to rescue the survivors of their attacks. Had that been so, it could have been effected by inviting their attention to Standing Order 154.1 Furthermore, in that event the order would not have left the matter in doubt, for in drafting such instructions special attention is given to the possibility of their capture by the enemy.

  What were really the Grossadmiral’s views on the subject at the time appear from a speech which he made early in October 1942 when he inspected the 2nd U-boat Training Division.1 Addressing the officers then attending courses he told them that U-boat successes had declined. After promising the students that there would shortly be an improvement he said that the Allies were having great difficulty in manning their ships. Allied seamen considered the route across the Atlantic dangerous because German submarines were still sinking their ships in large numbers. Many of these sailors had been torpedoed more than once and were reluctant to go to sea again. Dönitz then said that he could not understand how German U-boats could still rescue the crews of merchant ships they had sunk thereby endangering their own ships. By so doing they were working for the enemy since the rescued crews would sail again in new ships. They had now reached a stage in the war, he continued, in which total war had to be waged also at sea. The crews of ships like the ships themselves were a target for U-boats.

  The students who listened to that speech gathered that total war had now to be waged against both the ships and their crews; and who shall blame them. The decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal upon the allegation of the prosecution that the Grossadmiral deliberately ordered the killing of survivors of torpedoed vessels certainly did him no injustice.

  Six months after the issue of the ‘Laconia Order’, SS Peleus, a Greek ship chartered by the British Ministry of War Transport, was sunk by U-852, commanded by Kapitänleutnant Heinz Eck, in the Atlantic Ocean.

  SS Peleus was bound in ballast for the Plate, having left Freetown on 8th March, and by the evening of 13th March 1943 she was steaming west just south of the Equator and about 300 miles from the nearest point on the African coast. She had a crew of thirty-five, most of whom were Greeks. There were only three survivors.

  About 5.50 p.m. two torpedoes were observed on the port bow, both of which struck the ship, and she sank in under three minutes. Most of the crew managed, nevertheless, to get clear and were clinging to wreckage and rafts that were floating about.

  The submarine then surfaced and closed up to one of the Peleus’s boats in which there were three survivors and one of the submarine’s officers who spoke English was ordered by his captain to find out the name of the ship they had torpedoed. One of the survivors was then brought aboard U-852 and supplied the required information; the name of the ship, the captain’s name, cargo, port of sailing and destination, and whether there were any other vessels in the vicinity.

  The officer detailed to get this information returned to the conning-tower to report to the commander who then informed him that they had decided to eliminate all traces of the sinking by killing the survivors.

  Meanwhile the Third Officer of SS Peleus who had been brought on board the submarine was deprived of his lifebelt and put back on the raft from which he had been taken.

  Eck then opened fire on the rafts with machine-guns, and the crew threw hand grenades among the survivors. As far as is known all but three were killed. These men remained on their rafts in the open for twenty-five days until picked up by a Portuguese vessel. They have all sworn affidavits giving their experiences on this occasion.

  One of them, a Greek named Liossis, stated that he was on watch when he saw the track of two torpedoes approaching the port beam and at once ordered the helmsmen to comb1 their tracks.

  Nevertheless both torpedoes struck the Peleus and Liossis found himself in the water and swam around until he found some wreckage to which he could cling. He was soon joined by another Greek member of the crew and together they made for a raft they could see ahead. After a short while the submarine surfaced, circled round the wreckage, and hailed the Third Officer’s raft. He was ordered aboard and questioned as described above.

  Meanwhile Liossis lashed his raft to another on which were more of the shipwrecked crew and the submarine then reappeared and hailed them to go nearer. Thinking that perhaps they were going to be picked up, Liossis and his companions approached the German U-boat which suddenly opened fire on them with a machine-gun. One of his friends was hit in several places and the rafts were riddled with bullet holes but did not sink. The Germans then threw hand grenades. The submarine kept on firing with machine-guns and throwing grenades at the wreckage for a long time, and just before dawn moved off.

  The commander of U-852 at his trial1 said that he decided to sink the rafts by machine-gun fire and did so, but he swore that at that time there were no members of the Peleus’s crew to be seen and that he never gave the order to fire at the survivors. He agreed that his Chief Engineer remonstrated about the decision to destroy all traces and that because of it ‘the possibility of saving lives disappeared’ as it was against his orders to take survivors on board. He said that he had received the ‘Laconia Order’.

  There is little doubt that unlike the commander of U-156, Korvettenkapitän Hartenstein, who six months earlier had sunk SS Laconia, Kapitänleutnant Eck would have received the congratulations of the Grossadmiral on his return to base for his realistic ruthlessness. But it was not to be. The patrol on which he sunk the Peleus was his first and last as a U-boat commander and instead of returning to Kiel at its termination to receive the thanks of his admiral and his Führer he beached his vessel on the coast of Somaliland after an air attack on 2nd May 1944 and was made a prisoner of war.

  The commander who had sunk the Laconia, however, rescued a number of survivors and received, for his consideration, a mild reprimand for having risked the loss of his vessel. As the Grossadmiral wrote in his report on Hartenstein’s operation, ‘the incident is proof again of what a handicap humane feelings towards an enemy may prove to be.’

  On 5th July 1944 a steam trawler, the Moreen Mary, was sunk by U-247 eighteen miles west of Cape Wrath. She was at the time engaged in fishing on the west coast of Scotland and had on board a catch of 325 boxes of fish. She had left Ayr four days earlier and steamed to the fishing grounds off the Butt of Lewis.

  At about 8 p.m. a deckhand named James MacAlister saw two torpedoes pass down on their port side, about eight feet apart and ten feet from the ship’s side. At the same moment he saw a conning tower about 150 yards away and dead astern.

  MacAlister called all hands on deck but by the time they arrived the submarine had submerged and the mate refused to believe MacAlister’s story.

  About an hour later, however, the U-boat surfaced on their starboard beam
and at once opened fire on the Moreen Mary with a machine-gun. The trawler was making three knots and the weather was fine with good visibility and the sea smooth. She immediately increased speed to ten knots but the submarine gave chase and continued firing. The first few rounds killed three of the crew including the skipper.

  The U-boat then opened fire with a heavier gun which was mounted on the conning tower; the first shell hit the boiler, stopping the ship and enveloping her in steam.

  The remainder of the crew, seven in number, had now taken cover, but three others were soon killed and the submarine circled round ahead of the trawler and passed down her port side firing both guns.

  MacAlister and the mate tried to launch the boat, but the latter was killed during the attempt and the former then went below to shelter in the pantry which was under the water line. The trawler now had a big list to port and at io.io p.m. capsized and sank. The four survivors were thrown into the sea. MacAlister swam around until he came across the upturned bow of the lifeboat on to which he was able to climb.

  The submarine had still not submerged and steamed in the direction of the upturned lifeboat firing a short burst at it. When she was about seventy yards away MacAlister slipped off into the water and remained there until the U-boat ceased firing and submerged.

  About 5 a.m. the next day HMT Lady Madeleine picked up the only two survivors, MacAlister and the trawler’s second engineer. Of the other eight members of the Moreen Mary’s crew, six had been killed and two were missing, believed drowned.1

  U-247 was one of the latest German submarines and was on her first operational patrol. She carried two big guns, one on her after-deck, the other on the fore part of her conning tower, and a smaller gun which looked like an Oerlikon was mounted on the fore-deck. The Moreen Mary was an ordinary fishing trawler going about her lawful occasions, but like all other small ships during the war she carried a Lewis Gun on an anti-aircraft mounting to protect her from the attentions of German planes who were prepared to attack all and everything.

  This unlawful attack was reported in the ‘Commander’s War Diary’ as follows:

  1943

  Fishing vessel. Two-fan from tubes I and IV. Vessel turns away to starboard shortly after the shot and takes up a position of 180°. The sea being as smooth as a millpond she probably saw the tracks.

  2055

  Surfaced. Fishing vessels. Engaged the nearest. She stops after three minutes. T3a sinking shot fired from tube III at the Noreen Mary as she lay stopped. A miss, misfired, did not clear.

  2151

  Sunk by flak with shots into her side. Sunk by the stern.

  The Chief of the Operational Division BDU seems to have been well pleased with this gallant action, for he made the following comment on the entry in the War Diary: ‘The sinking by flak of the fishing vessel in this area testifies to great offensive spirit and verve…. Operation well carried out in difficult conditions.’ In fact, it was murder most foul.

  From the first day of the war until the last, this murder on the High Seas went on night and day. As in the First World War, Germany carried on unrestricted submarine warfare against both belligerents and neutrals in disregard of the Protocol of 1936 and the usage and custom of the civilized world.

  1 This brief statement of the legal position in regard to the sinking of enemy merchant vessels in war is paraphrased from a Foreign Office memorandum of 8th October 1940.

  1 Oberkommando der Marine—Navy GHQ.

  2 When the London Naval Treaty was allowed to expire on 31st December 1936, Article 22 remained binding on the Parties by virtue of Article 23. Nevertheless, in London on 6th November 1936, the United States and Great Britain (including the Dominions and India) signed a Protocol which incorporated verbatim the provisions of Article 22. Provision was made for the accession of other States. Germany acceded in 1936 and Soviet Russia in 1937.

  1 This was found in his possession when he was later taken prisoner.

  1 But some German submarine commanders at first behaved very differently. In one case the crew of a British trawler had been ordered to take to their boats as their ship was to be sunk. When the commander saw its condition he said, ‘Thirteen men in that boat! Fancy sending a ship to sea with a boat like that. You English are no good!’ The skipper of the trawler was then told to re-embark his crew and make for a home port with all speed, and was presented with a bottle of German gin with the ‘commander’s compliments’.

  1 It will be remembered that the Naval Protocol of 1936 provided that ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety, unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.

  1 Korvettenkapitän Karl Heinz Möhle. This officer was tried by a British Military Court at Hamburg in October 1946 upon a charge alleging that he passed these orders on to his U-boat commanders. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

  1 See above, page 71.

  1 Evidence of this speech was given at the Nuremberg Trial of Major War Criminals by former midshipman Peter Josef Heisig.

  1 i.e., to turn the ship to a course as near as possible parallel to the after torpedo. See page 12 of The Peleus Trial by J. Cameron (William Hodge & Co).

  1 The commander and four members of his crew were tried by a British Military Court in Hamburg in October 1945 for being concerned in the killing of members of the crew of the Peleus by firing and throwing grenades at them. All were found guilty of the charge and the commander and three others sentenced to suffer death by shooting.

  1 This account of the action was taken from a Deposition sworn by James MacAlister before a Notary Public in Edinburgh on 21st December 1945.

  CHAPTER IV

  ILL-TREATMENT AND MURDER OF THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY

  IN former times belligerents had complete power over territory under their occupation. They could devastate it, kill the inhabitants or carry them away into captivity, and appropriate all poverty. Great changes took place, however, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, culminating in the ‘Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land’ which were adopted by the Hague Peace Conference of 1907.

  Article 46 of these Regulations provided that ‘family honour and rights, the lives of persons and private property, as well as religious convictions and practices must be respected’. Throughout the territories occupied by the Germans during the Second World War there were wholesale breaches of that Article.

  Millions were deported from their homes as slaves; thousands of hostages and reprisal prisoners were put to death; hundreds of unjustified reprisals were carried out; scores of towns and villages were razed to the ground; thousands of fertile acres were ruined by the scorched earth policy; millions of Jews were exterminated; hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were killed in mass executions; ghettos were destroyed and their occupants killed or carried off to concentration and annihilation camps. All raw materials, scrap, and machinery were taken away and used for the German economy; there was wholesale seizure of art treasures, furniture, and textiles from all the invaded territories.

  Addressing a conference of German occupation authorities in August 1942 Goring said: ‘God knows you are not sent there to work for the welfare of the people in your charge but to get the utmost out of them so that the German people can live. That is what I expect of your exertions. This everlasting concern about foreign people must cease now, once and for all. It makes no difference to me if your people starve.’

  The deliberate policy of the occupation authorities was to terrorize the inhabitants and ruthlessly exploit everything and everybody for the German war effort.

  Although in certain circumstances the taking of hostages was, before the Geneva Convention of 1949, permitted under International Law, their subsequent execution, except for capital offences of which they had been properly convicted, was
clearly forbidden by Article 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907 which reads: ‘No collective penalty, pecuniary or other, can be decreed against populations for individual acts for which they cannot be held jointly responsible.’

  Lord Wright, discussing this question in an article in The British Tear Book of International Law in 1948 wrote: ‘My own settled opinion, based both on principle and on authority, is that the killing of hostages (which includes reprisal prisoners) is contrary to the law of war, and that it is not permissible in any circumstances, and that it is murder.’

  Furthermore, this would appear to have been established as long ago as the seventeenth century by no less an authority than Grotius in his De Jure Belli ac Pads and Lord Wright in his article quoted this passage:

  Hostages should not be put to death unless they themselves have done wrong … in former times it was commonly believed that each person had over his own life the same right which he had over other things that came under ownership, and that this right by tacit or express consent passed from individuals to the State. It is then not to be wondered at if we read that hostages who were personally guiltless were put to death for a wrong done by their State. But now that a truer knowledge has taught us that lordship over life is reserved for God, it follows that no one by his individual consent can give to another a right over life, either his own life or that of a fellowcitizen.

  The practice of shooting hostages and reprisal prisoners1 was habitually carried out by the German authorities in every country under military occupation.