Talk:Albert Kesselring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Birthdates

there are two differtent dates of birth in the article 195.158.119.176 20:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When he was born?!
August 8 - bgwiki, cswiki, dawiki, eswiki, kowiki, iowiki, itwiki, jawiki, slwiki, fiwiki
November 13 - dewiki, frwiki, hewiki, huwiki, kawiki, nlwiki
November 20 - ruwiki
November 30 - enwiki, nowiki, plwiki, svwiki
~ Aleksandrit 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

30 November 1885. So enwiki is correct. The others will follow in due course. Hawkeye7 13:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you specify at authoritative reference? For example, November 20 (per ruwiki) confirmed by Great Soviet Encyclopedia... ~ Aleksandrit 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no definitive answer- many legitimate sources list his birthdate as 20 November or 30 November, so we should follow suit by using one source per date and leave it notated as most sources list his birthdate as either November 20th(source) or November 30th(source). Monsieurdl 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] but....

i dont thinks this is a relevant problem, this article is soo important but lack of information. please help me expanding it

[edit] Working on World War II service

Kesselring's war service is pretty bare bones before Italy, and I have to go through my library and add a lot more that is not here. He was heavily involved in both the Battle of Britain and the African campaign, and yet little is really here. Any help is appreciated! Monsieurdl 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The best source on Kesselring is his memoirs. This is particularly good for his Great War record. It also details his part in the reconstruction of the Luftwaffe between the wars. So start there. Apart from the bits that you mention that need expanding, a section on his role in Russia in 1941 would not go astray. The campaign against Malta deserves a mention. Kesselring's part in the North African Campaign is often overlooked in the lauding of Rommel and should be greatly expanded. In Italy, Rommel would have withdrawn to the northern Apennines; it was Kesselring who decided to fight the Allies as far south as possible, and who was responsible for the long and costly delaying action that saw the Allies take another year to reach this point. The comment about the loss of an army group in Tunisia requires explanation, and it should be pointed out that Monte Cassino Abbey was destroyed by Allied bombers. The bit about the final surrender in Italy should go, as Kesselring was not present. However, his role in the final campaign on the Western Front also needs expansion. Expand everything! The article on Kesselring should be no shorter and no less detailed than the one on Rommel. Kesselring would have wanted it that way. Hawkeye7 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have always wanted a copy of his book, but never got around to buying it. I HAD a book entitled "The German Army: 1933-1945", but I cannot find it. All sources that I have looked through so far (Shirer, A.J.P. Taylor, etc.) have been very brief when it came to Poland and the Battle of Britain with regards to Kesselring- it is mostly Goering, which is frustrating. I agree that this article should deservedly be the same as Rommel's- no problem there! Thanks a lot for your help! Monsieurdl 01:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My doing this is wasteful. Have a look at the article now and see if it rates B-class status. alas, it is still shorter that Rommel's entry. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I found my book, by the way, and also bought a 2007 reprint of Kesselring's autobiography. I think it would be very helpful if his words were compared to other generals (Guderian, Rommel, Goering, etc.) on various subjects so we can get an idea as to how he thought and how it compared to other viewpoints. This comparison would most certainly broaden the article, don't you think? Monsieurdl 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality issues

Parts of the article are, I'd say, simply astonishing, especially because they are taken by the Encyclopedia face value, and not referenced as the POV of their author (actually, most of the ones I am going to describe below are not referenced at all).

For example, in the War Crimes section it is stated that "Kesselring strove tirelessly to avoid the physical destruction of many artistically important Italian cities", which coincidentally is Albert Kesselring's own POV, as stated in a sort of "Address to the Italians" he gave at the time he was under trial accused for the innumerable massacres perpetrated by the Germans at the expenses of the life and property of innocent civilians.

The very same POV, resounds along the whole section, as it was sort of a teaser of his own book, Soldat bis zum letzten Tag: "Most notably, Kesselring tried to preserve the monastery of Monte Cassino, but was unsuccessful.", yet it sounds like it was an uninterested humanitarian endeavor as a whole and not, as it actually was, both a coup of propaganda and a tactical accident.

Furthermore, another clearly apologetic phrase left me speechless: "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications", as if Kesselring was Mr. Schindler in Field Marshall uniform.

Moreover, the article cites the "massacres" perpetrated under Kesselring command and offers his POV on the issue, but fails entirely in offering the victims' POV and in describing their horrific magnitude.

Apologetic is not enough to describe this article, which seems more inclined - not only in the section mentioned above, but also elsewhere - to celebrate, rather than describe, its object: the whole article curiously fails to mention the fact that Kesselring was a staunch Nazi (which was not obvious as it could seem, as many German Generals during WWII were not) and that it was one of the most loyal to Hitler, to the point that he tried to prevent Generals Karl Wolff (SS) and Heinrich von Vietinghoff (Army) from signing an armistice whit Harold Alexander till the morning of May 2nd 1945, that is even after Hitler had killed himself, and while the German Armies on the Southern Front were facing total destruction by the rapid Allied advance. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to forget that Kesselring was a man who believed in a soldiers honor, and to do anything to compromise that would go totally against that. Goering and Kesselring were good friends, and the affiliation with the Nazi Party could easily be explained by such influences- I cannot figure out why you could say he was a staunch Nazi like Skorzeny or Himmler- a soldier is a soldier.
As for the partisans issue, he was following orders as an officer in charge and as the evidence states, followed the order by not drawing from any civilians, but civilians that were prisoners or who warranted such action. Partisans engaged in the systematic killing of others and did not deserve preferential treatment- in other words, they had blood on their hands as well. Look at this:
In presenting the Prosecution’s case on the first charge the Prosecutor conceded that the German authorities were justified in imposing reprisals after the bombing attack in Rosella Street. After quoting some authorities on the subject (They are fully set out on pp. 3-7 of this volume.), he pointed out that whereas there was authority for destruction of property and incarceration of nationals of occupied territory as reprisals, there was no authority for the taking of human life. The defence argued that in extreme circumstances the taking of human life in the course of reprisals was permissible.
[1]
In the end, Kesselring's sentence was commuted, and rightly so. He was no monster, no cold and calculated murderer- he was a soldier, and the facts bear it as such. If you would like to make it balanced by adding the "victims", then their actions as partisans should be duly noted as well. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, your personal views, which seem to me - so to speak - quite apologetic about Kesserling and somehow inclined to condone Nazi crimes of war and against Humanity, while showing an attitude nearing contempt about the Partisans and the civilians victims, clearly have no interest here.
Therefore, let's get back to the goals we must meet here: an article such as this cannot advocate - as you seem to wish - a single point of view, so we can surely describe Kesselring as he described himself (which in fact is what the article presently does), but we must, as well, represent the other relevant points of view accurately and with at least same dignity, and provide context. There's not a single point of view - and certainly not in this case and on such matter - that can be sold here as "the truth" or "the best view".
There are many Generals and soldiers who, while serving their Country with both honor and devotion, did not compromise themselves with the Nazi regime as Kesselring did. Some notable Generals and officers risked - or even lost - their lives plotting against Hitler (like Kluge and Rommel) and others, who fought during the whole war - bravely and effectively till the very last day - while hoping in the secret of their hearts to be defeated for the sake of Humanity, like General Frido von Senger und Etterlin.
"Goering and Kesselring were good friends", no doubt, and this shall be mentioned, but sorry, it's kinda childish to pretend to explain as such his affiliation with the Nazi Party, like Kesselring was a little boy taken away from the right way - without his consent and almost against his will - by his "bad" friend. Kesselring may have been not Himmler, but, among German top Generals, he surely was one of the most faithful to Hitler's Nazi regime, and this - being without any doubt a fact and a very relevant one - should be noted starting from the incipit of the article.
About the wanton massacres - not always "simple" reprisals, we are talking about literally thousands of innocent hostages assassinated, including children, women and elder people, not fighters who "had blood on their hands" - your vision about their "legality" can be easily challenged - and will be - with hard facts and sources, but for now let's say that a soldier who is a soldier doesn't make a butcher of himself (looking for excuses afterwards), even when facing true "monsters".
By the way, Kesselring's sentence was commuted, as well as has happened in (too) many other cases like his, once the western Allies resolved that they needed a strong Western Germany in order to face the Soviet threat in the European theater during the Cold War; They realized that such goal could be best achieved by enlisting all Germans in the effort, even those who could be rallied by a Nazi like Kesselring, while others, like the nazi criminal Theo Saeveke, were given full cover and impunity and were put in key places in the German Government. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no personal vendetta against those who fought Germans, believe me- let's get that straight first off. You spoke of being fair and presenting more that one POV, and that is what I am doing- to counter the very idea that Kesselring and the German Army at that time were all BAD and the partisans were all GOOD. That to me ignores the realities of the war.
Kesselring did not face the choice of gassing innocent civilians as butchers of the east who gleefully did it, or herding them around and shipping them in horrific ways like those who were in charge of "labor", i.e. slavery, or even those who took civilians and burned them alive in a locked building. He was responding to a threat by a hostile population, and did not just scoop up a large amount of civilians and order them to be executed (i.e. the Heydrich reprisal), no matter what you might say. That is not defending crimes against humanity- that is showing that as far as standards go, Kesselring by no means stooped to the level of others in the regime.
Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army. There was no "lawful order" clause as there is today, no loophole or "out" that enabled Kesselring to do anything but do what he did. To say that he could have ignores as I said before the honor in being a soldier and the duty involved. It is far too easy to come down on Kesselring if the understanding of what being a military man was then is lacking. Only the victors in this case decided who was guilty of war crimes- there was no such trial for those who committed them on the winning side. Where is the balance there? Where is the outrage and the calling for facts to be presented? Until you present to me absolute facts that Kesselring ordered women and children to be shot (not it happened, or his juniors did), then the very mention of them is irrelevant with respect to Kesselring himself.
I commented about this because revisionist history of the 20th century is getting very much out of hand, and moments in time are incorrectly being judged by a different time's standard. That is my whole problem here.Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs

00:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree total with Monsieurdl: Montesacro's points of view are ridiculous and nonsense!!!! A lot of Italian communist partisans were criminals more dangerous than nazis!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you the same user Pio with this wonderful curriculum on it.wiki? --KS«...» 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanna, tu e Montesacro fate notevoli danni a questo progetto!!!! Siete politicamente militanti nelle vostre elugubrazioni quindi meritate la messa al bando!!!! Il mio curriculum lo vedi dove stanno i miei contributi non dove stanno le decisioni di amministratori ignoranti che infestano questo sito bandendo chi non è della loro schifosissima fazione politica comunista o comunistoide!!!!--PIO (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myths and Facts

To Monsieurdl: AFAIK this article is about Albert Kesserling's article, not a forum to discuss whether "Kesselring and the German Army at that time were all BAD and the partisans were all GOOD".

(Partisans were not all good, of course, and so? Does, under any circumstances, a criminal behaviour justify in itself another, taken apart the immediate self-defense? Is a soldier called to transform himself in a cold-blooded butcher in order to face a butcher? And, in such case, where is the difference between the two? And how to establish a standard about who's a butcher? The clothing?)

BTW, I have already shown you several examples of top German Generals that are quite unanimously considered (including their colleagues and opponents among the Allies) as good soldiers and good Generals and yet were definitely not Nazi and opposed the Nazi regime, like Frido von Senger und Etterlin and Ernst-Günther Baade, and even till the sacrifice of their own lives, like Erwin Rommel and Günther von Kluge, just to name a few.

If your entirely inaccurate and unilateral take about being a "good and honorable soldier" - according to which being such consisted only in blindly following orders and showing loyality to the Commander in Chief (Hitler in this case) till the very end - then we shall conclude that Rommel, Kluge, Senger, Baade and innumerable other Generals and soldiers faithfully serving their Country - rather the bunch of Nazi criminals who dominated Germany and inflicted monumental damage to the whole world and their own Nation - were dishonoured men and soldiers - if not traitors - who deserved both a shameful death and historic record, which is obviously not accepted by any serious historical text.

  • Myth: Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army.
  • Fact: The records of the trials celebrated in Italy about the Ardeatine Massacre show without any doubt that - even in a case such as this - several German officers and soldiers could refuse to perform orders without facing any consequence. Both the SS major Herbert Kappler and the General Kurt Maltzer (city commander) were present when the commander of the German unit that had been hit at via Rasella by a deadly partisan attack refused to command the firing squad for the reprisal and, after the refusal opposed also by a Wehrmacht colonel, it was Kappler who offered himself to do the job, during which several German refused to fire, and none of them - including the two aforementioned commanders faced any consequence (about this see for example Robert Katz, The Battle for Rome : The Germans, the Allies, the Partisans, and the Pope, September 1943-June 1944, Simon & Schuster, NY, 2003, ISBN 0-7432-1642-3, as reported on page 406 in the Italian edition.). Furthermore, there are innumerable other cases in which orders were refused or worked around, without any serious consequences or no consequences at all. As for the "Kesselring followed orders" excuse, the Nuremberg Verdict addressed it specifically:

Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits their defense they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes . . . they say the disobeyed. The truth is that they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent, witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to know. This must be said.

—Nuremberg Verdict
Kesselring makes no difference. When it suits to his defense, he claims that he had to obey; meanwhile, he says (or implies) he has disobeyed when he deems convenient posing as the savior of the jews or the cultural and artistic heritage.
  • Myth: Kesselring did not face the choice of gassing innocent civilians as butchers of the east who gleefully did it, or herding them around and shipping them in horrific ways like those who were in charge of "labor", i.e. slavery, or even those who took civilians and burned them alive in a locked building.
  • Fact: the article is currently claiming that "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications". In fact, tens of thousands of Italians - not only Italian Jews - were forced into slavery both in Italy (for building fortifications and restoring infrastructure useful to the German war effort) and in Germany (to support the war production), where they were shipped and kept often in horrific ways (and in some cases exterminated for futile reasons). Furthermore, there were several cases in which entire Italian villages were encircled by the Kesselring men and their civilian residents were burned alive in the locked buildings, to the point that even Mussolini issued a protest to the German Ambassador Rahn on September, 15th 1944 in which he denounced the "blind reprisals" based on the orders of Kesselring, and naming him specifically asking why the orders by the very same Field Marshal issued on August 22nd 1944 (to use restraint in the perming reprisals) were being not implemented. These were issued under pressure by the fascist government in response to the intolerable level of the massacres performed by the Germans based on the orders Kesselring had issued on June 17th, 1944 and July ,1st of the same year, and was also based on them that Kesselring was later sentenced to death by a British Tribunal.
  • Myth: Rome "Open City". Successive, unilateral declarations of Rome as an "open city", made at first by the Italian government on August, 14th 1943, and then by the Germans after they had occupied the Italian capital on September, 10th of the same year - not talking about the often inaccurate use and re-use of the concept in movies and literature - popularized the misconception that these declarations had a real value and legal force and that had been observed and respected by the parties.
  • Additional Myth: Kesselring played a key-role in protecting the city from destruction, and obtained "open city" status for Rome to this end.
  • Fact: There was never an agreement between the parties about Rome as an "open city", despite the intense diplomatic efforts by the Vatican - also as a mediator between the opponents - in order to bring the parties to such an effective agreement.
  • Additional Fact: Kesselring declared the whole city "war zone" starting from January, 22nd, 1944: thus it remained, till the arrival of the Allies, so much for the "open city".
In fact, the Allies bombed Rome 51 times between September, 8th 1943 and June, 4th 1944, when the city was liberated by Clark's Fifth U.S. Army.
The bombings continued till the the city evacuation by the Germans, causing widespread destruction and the death of more than 7,000 civilians. The numerous, repeated and deadly air raids - justified by the Allies with the fact that the Germans, despite their rhetorical declarations of Rome as an open city, still used the city infrastructure and facilities as part of their logistic effort aimed at supporting their front line - are the best and sound proof that, in Rome, the "open city" status was actually never implemented.
About the same can be said regarding Florence, where the Germans under Kesselring destroyed all the city bridges - including some of artistic value - but Ponte Vecchio, demolishing a large amount of historical buildings at its two ends instead, in order to prevent the Allies to use the bridge to cross the river Arno. And, a battle was fought within Florence: so much for the pretended "protection" of Italian cities of relevant artistic importance.
In conclusion, the open city status was never in effect in Rome (and Florence) and the one thing the "open city" concept was for sure is that it was a very useful tool of propaganda (and, to this end, a quite effective one) and political tool that the Germans and Kesselring cynically used (and rightfully so, from their point of view) to their advantage, in order to put under decisional stress the Allies, aiming to relieve the pressure imposed on their logistical infrastructure by the Allied Air Force.
Note: Just in case, among several relevant documents available at the National Archives of the United Kingdom, all of which clarify beyond any doubt that the "open city" status was never operative in Rome, it is of most interest the folder 8/439, which contains a number of filed documents about the Allied policy towards Rome. The file n. 400 is a message sent to the Foreign Office by D'Arcy Osborne, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Holy See, in which he transmits the latest German proposal for declaring Rome "open city", relayed to him by the German Ambassador in Rome, via the Vatican Undersecretary of State; the message was then urgently retransmitted to Washington, and it's dated June, 4th 1944, the very same day Clark's tanks entered Rome. Till the very last minute, the Germans had used Rome and the diplomatic delusion of the never ending talks about the "open city" in order to take any possible advantage out of it, including using the Italian Capital to cover their ordered retreat behind a safer defense line. A large collection of the files in the folder 8/439 is available in Italian translation in Umberto Gentiloni Silveri, Maddalena Carli, "Bombardare Roma - Gli Alleati e la «città aperta» (1940-1944) - Il Mulino - Biblioteca storica, Bologna, 2007, ISBN 978-88-15-11546-1.

As for your call for facts to be presented, it does not belong here: we are not a Tribunal. We are called - at most - to cite Tribunals, and Kesselring was convicted as a war criminal by a Tribunal, as much as his associate Göring was. It is not our duty to develop here a debate about concepts such as the "victor law", or the like.

As for the most current historical assessment about Kesselring, I am going to add to the article a rough translation from the German Wikipedia, which is very interesting in pointing out how political contingency (the Cold War) - not Justice - was at the base of Kesselring "rehabilitation" and liberation under pretext of an illness that apparently did not kill him. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Kesselring followed orders- in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders in the professional army.
  • This is wrong. The article is correct: "Kesselring did not invoke the "Nuremburg defence". Rather, he maintained that his actions were legal. The court was forced to concede Kesselring's actions were legal". This included the taking of hostages and executions in reprisals, which were legal under the international law of the day. The article clearly states that Kesselring was not convicted on the grounds of following illegal orders, nor of the illegality of the orders that he issued but on the grounds that these were exceeded by some of his subordinates, who may have been encouraged to do so by the tone of his orders. The article also contains a link to the trial transcript.
  • The article is currently claiming that "Kesselring attempted to save the Jews of Rome - as he had earlier saved those of Tunis - by employing them on the construction of fortifications". In fact, tens of thousands of Italians - not only Italian Jews - were forced into slavery both in Italy (for building fortifications and restoring infrastructure useful to the German war effort) and in Germany (to support the war production), where they were shipped and kept often in horrific ways.
  • The article is correct. This point is referenced in the article. Some 7,400 Italian Jews are believed to have been killed by the Nazis.
  • Rome "Open City". Successive, unilateral declarations of Rome as an "open city", made at first by the Italian government on August, 14th 1943, and then by the Germans after they had occupied the Italian capital on September, 10th of the same year. Kesselring declared the whole city "war zone" starting from January, 22nd, 1944: thus it remained, till the arrival of the Allies, so much for the "open city".
  • The article is correct. Perhaps the concept of an "open city" is not widely understood. It simply means that it will not be defended. The city remains occupied and can be used by the occupier. The Allies did not wish to accept this, because Rome was a major transportation hub, and they did not wish to forego the option of bombing it - which is fair enough. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with declaring a city open unilaterally - as General MacArthur did in Manilla in 1942.
  • Political contingency (the Cold War) - not Justice - was at the base of Kesselring "rehabilitation" and liberation under pretext of an illness that apparently did not kill him
  • The article is correct. Ill health was the stated reason for his release.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kesselring, the savior of Roman Jews: an unmodest proposal...

To Hawkeye7:

  • "Kesselring did not invoke the "Nuremburg defence". Rather, he maintained that his actions were legal. The court was forced to concede Kesselring's actions were legal". This included the taking of hostages and executions in reprisals, which were legal under the international law of the day. The article clearly states that Kesselring was not convicted on the grounds of following illegal orders, nor of the illegality of the orders that he issued but on the grounds that these were exceeded by some of his subordinates, who may have been encouraged to do so by the tone of his orders. The article also contains a link to the trial transcript.
Sorry but, at the moment, I was unable to find the link to the trial transcript: could you please be so kind to include a copy of the URL here? TIA.
Anyway, this document clearly states that Kesselring was found guilty on both charges and sentenced to death.
The legality of the orders he followed is far from being widely accepted and, for sure, is at least disputable, even in historical perspective, as for example shown here. In any event, we must provide not only accurate data, but also context, which the article lacks to this respect, at least.
The article clearly states the reasons why the court found him guilty, and that he was sentenced to death. Perhaps a few more words are in order. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Again, as I asked above, could you please be so kind to include a copy of the URL to the transcript trial transcript here? I haven't found it in the article. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is correct. This point is referenced in the article. Some 7,400 Italian Jews are believed to have been killed by the Nazis.
The article references may be correct, but some parts are bizarre: based on the reference from the Emory Univ. you provided (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/judgement/05.018.2), one can argue that, according to David Irving, Hitler was willing to save the Roman Jews by holding them as hostages, according to the article, Kesselring was willing to save the Roman Jews by way of forcing them into slavery (sic!), and that Heinrich Himmler was willing to save them by liquidating them quickly in order to spare them the agony either Hitler or Kesselring wanted to impose upon them!
Seriously speaking, I find outrageous - and I suspect that I am not alone - accepting face value the idea that Kesselring actual intention was to protect the Jews (which, without context, amounts to naively suggest that he was some sort of Mr. Schindler in Field Marshal uniform), where it is more than obvious that Kesselring - as the good planner he was (and no one is disputing this) - quickly realized the political situation in Italy and in particular in Rome, also due to the presence of the Vatican (which was an active - maybe the most active at the time - hub of diplomacy in Europe), and concluded that taking hold of the Jews gave him a political asset he couldn't spend were they given away, besides the obvious fact that the Jews were the slave labor force more readily available in the area, and he needed as much as possible slave labor force, given the magnitude of the logistical challenges he was facing.
Kesselring was no politician and rarely grasped the political situation. He remained confident that Italy would remain in the war on the German side long after Hitler and OKW were convinced that it would not. His belief that the Italian people would laud him is remains the most ludicrous example. His need for labour was obvious but not so great as he claimed; nor was the transportation situation as quite as critical as he protested. (And why was the rest of the local Italian civilian population not available as a slave labour force?) I kind of like your wording here. I will add a few more words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that saying that Kesselring always claimed to be not a politician would be more fair and accurate. In fact, he was a very close associate of the politician nr. 2 of the Nazi regime, Hermann Göring, as well as one of the very few top Generals who had direct access to nr. 1, the Führer; furthermore he was de facto the top commander in Italy, having even the SS head for the sector, Karl Wolff, under him.
Kesselring constant claim as a witness and as a defendant before the Courts after the war that he constantly was "only after his own business" may be understandable under his point of view, but are far from being the universally accepted historical version, and with reason, since he not only issued orders with force of Law and administered Justice in Italy, but also had to adjust the German position in relation to the Vatican and Mussolini's puppet government almost daily, by way of the German diplomacy, of course, but having the final word on almost any matter.
Therefore, he was for sure in strict contact with the top politicians of his Country (inspiring even in his own Germany clearly political decisions such as the catastrophic and inhumane evacuation of the civilian population of the Saar region), and was called to act politically in essence at least since he replaced Rommel.
That said, we might evaluate - or not - if he was or not a good politician as much as he was a good military planner and General, but cannot exclude he acted politically simply because he said so. And he assumed a clearly political role, even if not a parliamentary one, as soon as he was freed: besides, in his own memories he affirms it was his intention to help his Country out the rut, which given the circumstances had to refer to some sort of political engagement.
Back to your question: Rome citizens were more hostile to the German occupation than in other parts of Italy. Recently released records by the Allies counterintelligence show that no other city in Italy like Rome was so resilient to both the calls to enlist in the newly formed Fascist Republican armed forces or with the Todt and the like to go working in the German war industry. The two calls were in competition, and new puppet Fascist Regime opposed almost constantly - albeit with scarce success - forcing the Italians as a labor force, calling for the creation of Fascist Republican Army instead. The puppet fascist regime, of course, did not care as well of the fate of Italian Jews, so their usage as a labor force would be the less inconvenient choice for Kesselring, also given that Rome's Jew community happened to be bigger one in Italy, thus it was the "more readily available" as I had stated above. And what I said shows how Kesselring was called to choices which were political in essence (even taking apart the relationship with the Vatican just for a moment, and it should be added that the salvaging of Montecassino Library and removable Art pieces was another coup of propaganda which clearly shows how a good politician he was). --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is correct. Perhaps the concept of an "open city" is not widely understood. It simply means that it will not be defended. The city remains occupied and can be used by the occupier. The Allies did not wish to accept this, because Rome was a major transportation hub, and they did not wish to forego the option of bombing it - which is fair enough. Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with declaring a city open unilaterally - as General MacArthur did in Manilla in 1942.
Context, again, context. I understand the concept of "open city" and you too, I'm sure. But we are here talking to the rest of the world here, thus we got to get rid of any misconception connected to such concept, including demystify the idea that unilateral declarations of "open city" had more effect and significance than they actually had, and clarify their importance as propaganda tools.
Anyway, the Allies always held that the concept of "open city" included the effective demilitarization of the city - i.e. it could be not used as logistical hub for the army - and not only that there should be not armed opposition towards the entry of the enemy army in the city.
The relevant fact, i.e. what has actually happened, and what come into effect, is that Kesselring declared Rome "war zone" since January, 22nd, 1944, and so it remained till the arrive of Clark's Army. Why—oh, Why? the article makes no mention of this? Sounds too bad for an apology?
The Allies wanted much more than that. They felt that the city remained a valid military target so long as government and industry remained in the city.
Kesselring's declaration of a war zone followed the Allied landing at Anzio, when he expected that the Allies would be entering the city momentarily. This did not alter the city's "undefended" status. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As above: the "open city" declarations were - at most - tools of propaganda. Formally, the city's "undefended" status was never recognized by any party - except the proponent - and, substantially, was never implemented - except on June 4th, 1944, the day Clark's Army entered the city at its southern end, while strong parties of German snipers sent south that morning across the Tiber bridges (for the first time in daylight) were holding back several Allied motorized columns in order to protect the German retreat under course from the northern end of the city.
Fact is that the city was never actually "undefended" till the very moment the Germans decided to abandon it - yes - (almost) without fighting. Besides, as you correctly pointed out, the city was proclaimed to be "war zone" - which blatantly exposes the concurrent "open city" legend for what it was - in consequence of the Anzio landing, just a couple dozen miles south of Rome. Every night and for the entire period of the occupation Rome was crossed by German columns replenishing both the front at Anzio and Cassino (in order to avoid daylight precision bombardments). These columns were attacked almost every night by partisans, as testified, among others, even by Erich Priebke, and reported by several sources, including the well known Robert Katz's monography about the Nazi occupation of Rome. Furthermore, the vehicles were usually parked in the most central squares of the historical parts of the city during the day, in the hope that the Allied fighters would not strafe them to avoid the accuse of destroying important monuments. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is correct. Ill health was the stated reason for his release.
And yes, WWI was started just because of Gavrilo Princip!
So much for context and historiography!
I understand that you can appreciate - and even admire - Kesselring's military skills, and it wouldn't hurt me if you privately shared the same views Joseph McCarthy had about pardoning and rehabilitating Nazi war criminals for the sake of anti-communism at the height of the Cold War, but it's a fact that Kesselring was not so ill to need quick release if he survived another eight years, as well as it's a fact that he was released precisely in the middle of a massive political and press campaign aimed at pardoning and rehabilitating Nazi war criminals in general, in Germany and elsewhere. And it's a hard fact as well that he rallied many Nazi around him and never repented, bringing his loyalty to Adolf Hitler's and the Nazi regime till his last day, 1960. Again, something too much inconvenient - although perfectly true - to be written in an articleapology, isn't? --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The extra text you added resolves this. NB: I have never advocated the pardoning of war criminals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OT

Problem is this: war criminals were among Russian, Yugoslav, German, Italian and all others chiefs of armies but only criminals of defeated armies were punished, when non murdered in mass killing by criminals of winner armies. Joseph Stalin, Josip Broz and a lot of European communist partisans were more criminals than nazis but they were unpunished because winner criminals!--PIO (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the Talk page about Albert Kesselring. General discussions and rants about other subjects, as well as personal opinions about the "winner justice" concept, do not belong here, sorry. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Montesacro, my comment is pertinent Kesselring and punishers who were non neutral persons but figures of winner nations after WW2. A personal opinion total out of point by Italian user KS is readable above: you can advice him non me!!!!--PIO (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any of us you should go to the users' talks in order to discuss it properly. Again, your opinions about the "winner justice" concept should be posted elsewhere, and certainly not in this particular talk. Please stop ranting here, otherwise I shall report you to an admin. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in error: stop it!!!! I shall report you to an admin too if you insist.--PIO (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed quote

Hawkeye7, could you please be so kind to explain why you removed the quote about Göring and Htiler having clean hands, according to Kesselring? It has a quite authoritative source. Thank you in advance. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. I hope you can help as well with the section about the Battle of England. It needs quite a Help, IMHO. P.P.S. Thanks for fixing my English, which, as you might have noticed, is not my mother tongue. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote comes from the part of his book dealing with the "Night of the Long Knives". Kesselring makes it clear in this passage that he believed Göring at the time, but soon found out otherwise. I didn't want people to read it literally and think that Kesselring was one of those Germans who wilfully refused to acknowledge what was going on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
OK about this particular quote. But he actually was one of those Germans who wilfully refused to acknowledge what was going on, and did not change his mind even after the war. I shall provide you some more evidence about. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Crasemann

Piero, could you chase up the case of Edward Crasemann for me ? Where the incident with the 26th Panzer Division took place? I think it is important as an example of a war crime committed by the Wehrmacht, rather than the SS and Luftwaffe. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. He was sentenced to 10 years related to the "Padule di Fucecchio" (Marsch of Fucecchio) atrocity, perpetrated on August 23, 1944: 175 civilians, 1 (one) of whom proved to be a partisan, were exterminated. 62 of the victims were women, the younger was 5 months old, the elder was 93. 14 victims were toddler younger than 14. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The entirely baseless Myth of the "I was following orders" defence

Even though Kesselring did not entirely invoke the "I was following order" aka "Nuremberg" defence, it might be worth to mention why such kind of excuse has no base whatsoever, and how it does not stand accurate scrutiny also in the case of Second World War German officers.

  • Myth: "Kesselring followed orders - in the ranks of the German Army, there was no room for rejecting orders".
  • Fact: "Without an unquestioning attitude towards obeying orders, the successful conduct of military operations, the success of a military campaign, and even the survival of a nation would be seriously threatened. Yet, the soldier, and especially the officer, also has a legal obligation to disobey orders that violate the constitution or the law, and has a moral and ethical obligation to disobey orders that are contrary to societal norms. Thus, the soldier's requirement to obey orders is not open-ended,and the oath of loyalty is not an excuse for blind patriotism or blind obedience to orders, the infamous "I was following orders" defense. Even within the German Military tradition, such a defense is not legally permissable, despite its use by the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes tralis (as well as at other war crimes trials). Article 47 of the 1872 German Military Penal Code, still legally in force, if not unenforced, down to 1945, stated:
If execution of an order given in line of duty violates a statute of the penal code, the superior giving the order is alone responsible. However, the subordinate, obeying the order is liable to punishment as an accomplice if ... he knew that the order involved an act the commission of which constituted a civil or military crime or offense.
Ironically, even Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, reiterated the essence of Article 47 and refuted the "I was only following orders" defense ina May 28, 1944 article in the Germa newspaper Deutsche Allgemeine. As we shall see later, there is precedence within the Prusso-German military tradition for disobedience to orders.
The oath is not an excuse which the soldier can use to justify immoral acts after the fact, as we saw it used by numerous former German military officers during the various war crime trials that followed World War II or by the defendants in the My Lai massacre trial in 1971."

Note: emphasized text is from the original.

Source: Robert B. Kane, Disobedience and Conspiracy in the German Army, 1918-1945, McFarland, 2001, ISBN 0-7864-1104-X, p. 15.

--Piero Montesacro (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unreferenced text

I have provisionally removed the following snippets from the article, after they had been unlinked from their previous stated source - which apparently was Kesselring's memories - and passed to be unreferenced, and assumed as the Encyclopedia version of the matter. They can be added again if given due, accurate and punctual reference, of course.

  • The court conceded that the taking of hostages and even the execution of innocent people in reprisals - sanctioned by the US Army's Rules of Land Warfare - could be permissible under the international law of the day. Nonetheless, the court felt that Kesselring had created a climate in which some of his subordinates felt entitled to exceed their orders.
  • International law was subsequently strengthened in this regard.

It may be interesting to note that the trial against Kesselring was held based on the Royal Warrant of June 18 1945, thus is essentially under British Common Military Law, and not under the Charter proposed for Nuremberg Trials. It is - so to speak - unlikely that British Common Military Law in itself relied upon US Army's Rules, and that the International law was strengthened expressly based on Kesselring' trial. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is common in English speaking countries for laws of one country to be cited in court cases in another. In any case, the British Army also permitted the taking of hostages.
The second statement is an error on my part. The taking of hostages was expressly prohibited by Article 3 the Geneva Convention of 1949. All I meant to say was that international law was subsequently changed in this regard. I didn't mean to imply that it was as specifically a result of the Kesselring case or that Kesselring claimed otherwise. Perhaps words to this effect could be added after "The court left open the theoretical and abstract question on the legality of killing of innocent persons as a reprisal." But the article seems to read fine as it is.

In turn removed this snippet:

"A close friend and associate to Hermann Göring (and, like him, a onetime drug addict), Kesselring never denied or disowned his ruthless conduction of the war, proud as he was, even after the war, for the bombings of the almost undefended Warsaw, the airborne destruction of Rotterdam after the city had surrendered already and the most infamous carpet-bombing on Coventry, and excused himself for any excess routinely calling for the "military necessity."

It's referenced to a TIME magazine article but almost every part is factually incorrect: Kesselring was not a close friend of Göring (the two were not of the same social class); he was not a drug addict (although Göring was); Warsaw was not undefended; the raid on Rotterdam did not occur after the city surrendered; and Kesselring's Luftflotte was not involved in the raid on Coventry. The only part that is accurate is the last phrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the basics of Common law and, in general, I agree about your opinion above. However, what you say can be common but is not granted. Therefore, once a the reference supporting the text had gone, I went here to check the situation and ask for a clarification and a new reference, and this was my actual point here. Which seems to be unnecessary, after all, as I am glad to see that you agreed that the article seems to read fine as it is. Hence, sounds like no further action is needed about the issue.
About the info based on TIME magazine. I suspend judgment about the drug issue: I have checked and the source seems to be pretty isolated. Same for Warsaw. As per the other issues, however, it might be your turn in be willing to check again. The Rotterdam Blitz occurred, at most, while the city was in the process of surrendering and, for sure, when it was quite clear that it was hopeless anyway: it might suffice to clarify well that Student was on the ground, and called for the bombing anyway, but failed in calling it off - which is true - while Kesselring was merely at the command of the bombing; the readers will be served with all they need to take their own conclusions, which is our actual aim here. And yes, Kesselring was fully involved in Coventry bombing, by his own frank admission (the same link also includes Kesselring statements about Rotterdam, and Warsaw). No problem on the last phrase, once you agree as you do. Therefore, I think parts of the text you have removed can be saved. I am quite confident that an agreement between us about putting back some parts of the text referenced by TIME and removed. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow Declaration

I can understand why Italy would be specifically mentioned so as to remove doubt about its status. But none of the atrocities cited in the article occurred before October 1943. Is there something missing? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. Please give me some time to provide it. Thank you. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that, by now, I have already added enough information and context within the article to show why it is relevant. It might be added that it was mainly based on such Declaration, drafted by Churchill, that the British planned their trials against the war criminals - being Kesselring the most prominent one - and that it was the same Churchill who forced the commuting of the death sentences to prison and, eventually, the pardon of the culprits, thus dismantling the very policy he had initially promoted, and based on which Kesselring had been dragged before a Court. A similar policy was adopted by Italy: Kesserling was wanted by an Italian Military Tribunal for the Massacre of Roccaraso perpetrated on November 12, 1943, in which 173 civilians (including 53 women, 34 toddlers less than 10 years old and 22 elderly people) were killed. The findings were "provisionally archived" (an unlawful procedure) and hidden along with the ones related to 695 enquiries regarding over 2,000 German and Italian criminals, to be rediscovered only in 1994, due to a search related to the Erich Priebke trial. The British War Crime Group in Padua had concluded an inquiry on November 9, 1947 on the same Roccaraso massacre, but took no action. References: Donald Bloxham, Genocide on Trial - War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 47 ISBN 0-19-925904-6.(Italian) Franco Giustolisi, L'Armadio della Vergogna, Nutrimenti Srl, Roma, 2004, ISBN 88-88389-18-0 and (Italian) Mimmo Franzinelli, Le Stragi Nascoste - L'armadio della vergogna: impunità e rimozione dei crimini di guerra nazifascisti 1943-2001, Mondadori, Milano, 2002, ISBN 88-04-51974-6. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill reassuring Stalin

To Hawkeye7: it would be nice if you could add a reference to support the text according which Churchill "had made it clear to Stalin at the time that executions were not what he had in mind" (which I am sure you can do), and give your opinion, on second thought, about its opportunity. In fact, the Russians did not hesitate to put to death several war criminals in their hands, and the US, until they joined the Churchill stance about liquidating the war criminal issue, did not refrain from executing, for example, General Anton Dostler. But what makes me think twice is also the fact that the British had at least one General tried and executed as a war criminal: it was not a German one though, but the Italian General Nicola Bellomo, who has been rehabilitated since 1966 by Peter Tompkins in his Italy Betrayed. Bellomo had successfully fought against the Germans, beating them and preventing the capture of Bari and was an anti-fascist; Stalin must have been not too amused. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly, I will provide a citation. You are quite right that attitudes towards the death penalty differed between the UK and its American and Soviet allies. I wanted to avoid giving the impression that Churchill had done a back flip.
Can you provide the citation for the additional persons at his funeral?
I like the bit about Harold Alexander. I must query the bit about "knowing none of the details of the crimes in question". He was, after all, in command at the time the charges were drafted. It seems that German field marshals were not the only ones with memory problems.
I was also wondering if "Critical assessment of Kesselring's pardon in Germany" should be merged with "Death penalty commutation, early pardon, and liberation"?

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided the needed citation about the personalities that were at the funeral.
Yes, I seem to share your view: as the quite cynical and (thus) very good politician he was, Churchill probably had in mind to use the Moscow Declaration (mainly) as a lever in order to put pressure over the Nazi's more than he was prepared to put all of them to death indeed. Nevertheless, he actually back flipped, and it's certainly not me to state this, but the sources I cited. Much of course, I also share what you say about amnesia being not only a German illness. As you can see in the previous section of this discussion, I have provided an Italian example, and it might be added to the article.
I am not sure about the merging you propose, as it seems to me both relevant and interesting the take the Germans themselves have in particular on the issue. --Piero Montesacro (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)