Alderney Concentration Camp: Official Government Inquiry

And if by chance John's direct download link above does not work for all the report can be downloaded from the government website page here:

Lord Pickles Alderney expert review

Jim.

 

Re USSR and the UNWCC: see minutes 74 of UNWCC dated 8th August 1945:

"COLLABORATION WITH THE USSR.

M. de BAER referred to a proposal he had made a few weeks ago that the USSR should be approached with a view to obtaining their co-operation with the Commission. He feared that, unless a link were established, the Commission's lists of war criminals would have no effect in the zone occupied by the USSR. If an assurance to the contrary could be obtained, there might be no need to raise the delicate question of co-operation.

Mr. WOLD fully agreed. An opening might be found for raising the question in connection with the Four-Power Agreement which had just been signed. He stressed the urgency of the matter.

Dr. ZIVKOVIC referred to the attitude of the Yugoslav delegation at the Conference of the National Offices which proposed that the USSR should be called on to join the Commission, and whose proposal was adopted by the Conference. He therefore, fully approved General de Baer’s suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN recalled previous efforts which had not succeeded, but thought that further efforts might now prove more effective.

He proposed that M. de Baer should draft a circular letter to the member Governments, to be signed by the Secretary-General.

Mr. WOLD suggested that the letter might recommend that the Soviet Union be asked to appoint a representative on the Commission, and if that were not accepted, that an observer should be sent.

Mr. BEAUMONT asked if that had been the meaning of M. de Baer's proposal. M. de Baer assented.

- 9 -

The CHAIRMAN considered that a letter should first be addressed to the member Governments and, if that were unsuccessful, an approach might be made to the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission. He felt that the need for collaboration was becoming more acute.

It was decided that the draft letter would be circulated to the members in time for consideration at the next meeting of the Commission.

/sgd./ Wright"

See download from the "legal tools" or ICC website: ( very hard to read some pages.)

ICC Legal Tools

The subject was brought up at the UNWCC on further occasions, without resolution.

Re meaning of "Britain's failure" in Pickles report:

"My chief concern as the advisor to Lord Pickles has been to research the reasons for what is, on the face of it, an egregious injustice, namely Britain's failure to mount a War Crimes trial in Alderney, following the liberation of the Channel Islands." : Professor Glees.

The legal system of Alderney must have evolved at common law and in statute according the status of the island ( ancient Crown from 1066 and all that ) but there were detectives from Scotland Yard in Alderney in May 1945, according to newspaper reports from "Trove".

The law on offences against the person had been consolidated in 1861 in the UK - i.e., both common law crimes and statutes. The important thing is that there is no time limit on bringing a prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. ( I do not know what criminal code applied in Alderney in 1940 to 1945, and see my previous post about rules of occupation taken from Chapter XIV of the Manual of Military Law, which might possibly have a bearing on the issue.)

In May 1945 there was no route for the Judge Advocate General to bring a prosecution: a war crimes bill had been drafted, but not passed as an act of parliament, but a Royal Warrant was issued in June 1945. This was based on the Army Act 1881, which does impose a time limit of 3 years to bring proceedings. A former head of DALS wrote about this: I seem to remember that he said that no war crimes accused's defence counsel ever referred to it ! The Army Order 81 of 1945 did not exclude the section of the Army Act imposing this limit, but did exclude other sections.

According to the Pickles report late 1942 was a very bad time in Alderney - so a JAG prosecution had little time - depends whether defence counsel reads the Army Act 1881.

Up to May 1945 a number of inquiries had been held as "SHAEF Courts of Inquiry", which were very useful in preserving evidence. These were not prosecutions. For example, inquiries in to war crimes in Normandy. This was a possible route in May 1945, but the JAG had an excellent investigator to look into matters. It was unusual to go to such lengths in the context of all the other matters the JAG had to deal with.

Professor Glees refers to the Foreign Office as the "senior partner" in discussions between the JAG and Treasury Solicitor, which omits references to AG3(V/W), the Adjutant General's department there to chivvy along the JAG, ( not the most enthusiastic body regarding prosecution of war crimes ). The true "senior" authority, the Lord Chancellor, is not mentioned, and that post is higher ranking than a Foreign Secretary

Up until the general election in 1945 - Thursday, 5th July - Anthony Eden was the Foreign Secretary, and he was against including offences against German nationals by Axis forces as "war crimes", which is well known. Professor Glees is right to describe the FO as the UK Government Department as "senior ": the FO's man was a Mr. Beaumont: as regards the UNWCC, a body which had diplomatic status, but I don't know if the FO is senior partner there. The Treasury Solicitor is there to provide advice, and was the UK national office for the UNWCC.

As for the USSR, they were party to the "Four-Power Agreement", which was the essential prelude to Nuremberg. This was being thrashed out about the same time - see minutes above.

"Cover-up" ? Amazingly, WO 311 has files, and others in different series, so no "cover-up" in that sense. ( Try and find the 95% of files which should be in WO 311 dealing with war crimes investigations in the Far East: they are not in WO 311. That's a cover-up. I know, I keep going on about it.)

It is a mess, but the JAG did follow someone's instructions. Try AG3(V/W).

( By the way, the Holocaust Memorial Bill had its third reading yesterday:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3421

We don't do politics here, but that is the impetus for this "Pickles Report. )

 

Very interesting thread.
There was also a post by Andreas incl. a link to the Bundesarchiv Germany.
Unfortunately I had to answer a telephone call and now the post is gone.
Stefan.

 

Stefan, Andreas' link is at Post 3 above. John

 

PWIS - Prisoner of war interrogation section.
H - Home
KP - Kempton Park race course which was a hub camp for processing prisoners of war taken during Overlord.

The CSDIC interrogation reports are in WO 208 series at Kew.

 

PWIS/H/KP/702 - 704 can be found in WO 208/4295. I would post the documents here but they amount to several dozens of pages.

 

Thanks. one of the bunkers in Guernsey we visited last month: now a museum, but very impressive and frightening.
Actually we visited St. Peter Port for the pre-reading of my book "We are trough!"
Stefan.

 

Since I mentioned the Bill: ( but it is an argument in a political setting, so probably best just to mention it in passing ), except that the Advisory Council at The National Archives was once chaired by the chair of this Lords select committee ( Lord Etherton ) ( very softly spoken and hard to hear on the Parliament TV proceedings ):

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/735/holocaust-memorial-bill-select-committee-lords/

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL BILL SELECT COMMITTEE
13 November 2024
ANNOUNCEMENT OF RIGHT TO BE HEARD DECISIONS

The Chair of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, Lord Etherton, announced on
behalf of the Select Committee, that the following petitioners have the right to be heard on
their petitions:

- Lord Carlile of Berriew (HMB-001)
- Lord Hamilton of Epsom ((HMB-002)
- Lord Sassoon (HMB-006)
- Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (HMB-008)
- Viscount Eccles (HMB-010)
- Lord Strathclyde and those of his co-petitioners who have specified in their petition
a place of residence that they use near to the gardens (HMB-014)
- Baroness Deech et al (HMB-011)
- Sir Peter Bottomley and the Rt Hon. Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (HMB-017)
- Lord Blencathra (HMB-018)

Lord Etherton also announced, on behalf of the Select Committee, that the following
petitioners do not have the Right to be Heard on their petitions:

- Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (HMB-004)
- Lord Russell of Liverpool (HMB-005)
- Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (HMB-007)
- Lord Inglewood (HMB-009)
- Jardentome Ltd (HMB-016)

Lord Etherton confirmed that the Select Committee would allow the following petitioners
to be heard on their petitions:

- London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust (HMB-012)
- The Buxton Family and the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society (HMB-013)
- The Thorney Island Society (HMB-015)
The following petitioner withdrew his petition:
- Lord Strathcarron (HMB-003)

 

Very, very long thread, but extremely interesting.
And to call one of the camps: Lager Sylt is terrible.

Sylt, a German island (south of Denmark) with expensive villas hotels and bars,
In these days visited by right wing youth showing and shouting Nazi symbols and songs.
Stefan.

 

For folks who've followed and contributed to this thread, you may like to have a listen to the latest podcast here:

Latest Islands at War Podcast is out - a book special

From around the 24 minute mark two books about Alderney, and the happenings in Alderney, are discussed. Interesting stuff from two Channel Islanders of today.

And for me, the whole of the podcast is worth a listen.

Kind regards, always,

Jim.

 

First of all, it is a question of constitutional principles: There is no statute of limitations for murder. Especially not if it was organised by the state.

And it is an ethical principle not to let these dead simply disappear as further anonymous victims in equally anonymous statistics.
Because there are far too many of them anyway.
They were people like you and me, with hopes, dreams and ideals. Such inquiries are symbolic acts to give them back posthumously some of the dignity that was taken from them in life - and in their deaths.

And that, at least from my point of view, is a good thing.

 

"'maybe' more something for historians than legislatures"

Unfortunately in Alderney's case the historians were very much obstructed by the legislature until the "scandal" of such un-coperativeness prompted the inquiry.

Kind regards, always,

Jim.