Dönitz Baton

[Gordon Williamson]

I don't think you can be selective about right and wrong. Theft of private property from individuals is wrong-period. It was wrong when the Nazis looted occupied countries and it was wrong when allied troops looted Germany. Just because the theft is committed by the "good guys" doesn't make it acceptable. Of course there is a whole world of difference in the scale of the wrongs committed by each side, but looting is wrong whoever commits the crime.

Of course Kevin's point just illustrates the "might is right" attitude usually expressed by the victors. Nazis probably would have said the same thing about stuff they looted.

Gordon

[W. C. Stump]

Gordon:

Ever since recorded history, wars and talk of war has been man's destiny. "To the victor goes the spoils" also had been an accepted policy for as long as wars have been fought. This will repeat itself in the next wars man will fight. Right or wrong is decided in the end by the single warrior who picks up a fallen foe's sword or raids a home of the enemy and takes the first thing that doesn't belonged to him. Man is born with the knowledge of what is right and wrong as well as what is accepted even if it is right or wrong. He known from within if the items he takes can be justified unto himself.

Bill :o

[JaimeH]

The taking of an enemies weapons , flags, actually any military items has been accepted since Roman times.(the presentation of a sword is a sign of surrender). Looting of homes of jewelry, money, art, family heirlooms etc. is theft. Most armies have laws against this. The baton I believe would fall in the military item catagory.

[grnberet57]

After giving this a lot of thought, I think I know where to draw the line. If a soldier shoots his enemy, and walks over after the battle and takes his tunic full of medals, that's one thing. But if an occupying army comes to a town, and walks in and out of houses taking whatever they want, that's theft. It doesn't matter if it's military items or family heirlooms, it's theft! The case I mention got me so perturbed because the G.I.s who took the stuff, came into the house and basically looted it right in front of this guys wife and kids. Now I dare someone to tell me that's not theft. Spoils of war are one thing, but greed and selffishness are another thing. I may still petition the museum to give the items back, and if not, there could be a court case pending. But all and all, if it ain't takin on the field of battle, it ain't up for grabs!

Kevin

[Gordon Williamson]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Kevin.

If a soldier takes a trophy from an enemy he has killed or captured in battle there is a good case for considering the item a legitimate war trophy.

To go through a captured high ranking officers baggage weeks after the end of the war when all hostilities have ceased and steal his personal private property - well whoever does so is a common thief in my book and deserving of no respect whatsoever.

Gordon

[Kurt Doench]

I was involved in this sort of argument in a thread some months ago, and - please bear with me - I sure as hell don't want to open that particular pandora's box again, as I said what I feel about the subject then, but I feel I ought to repeat one argument: it is one thing for a victor, whether a General or a Private, to take (or accept) a symbol of military victory (a sword, pistol, or what have you) from your defeated enemy, it is quite another to got after "spoils of war" outside the actual theatre of operations, whether the souveniers lifted are priceless treasures of art or personal items like uniforms or decorations. Theft is theft, and a crime is not made right by that particular crime's victim belonging to a group or nation from which crimes - unspeakably more heinous - were perpetrated. As I read it, one of the basic tenets of our civilization is that an individual may not be held to account for what crimes others of his nation - or even particular organizations within that nation - may have committed, unless he were proven to having taken part - as an individual - in such crimes. The whole concept of "due process of law" relies on the assumption that victims of injustice may take not even themselves take revenge on the perpetrators of that injustice, much less may a whole populace (or, more abstractly or sociologcally speaking, a "group") be made the object of retribution for crimes other individuals belonging to that same "group" committed.

Schlepp

P.S.: the Schliemann finds were not returned to Germany, they are still in Russia, there was an exhibition of part of them touring Germany some time ago, though.

[Dave Danner]

I am hesitant to venture an opinion on this matter. My field is international commercial law, not public international law. For ethical reasons, I won't venture an opinion on the specifics of the baton issue, but I can note the general requirements of the law in this regard.

First, we need to distinguish cultural treasures such as the Elgin Marbles and Priam's Gold. These are usually public property and their misappropriation is governed by treaty law, such as the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 54.

As for personal property such as a soldier's uniforms and decorations, their theft is governed by the criminal law of various countries, such as US Uniform Code of Military Justice and the UK Army Act 1955.

Treaty law also applies here, however.
The two Hague Conventions, the Convention with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1899) and the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907) both have regulations, Art. 4 of which provides that all prisoners' "personal belongings, except arms, horses, and military papers, remain their property."

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (1949) is more specific, but of course was not yet in effect in World War II. Art. 18 provides that "badges of rank and nationality, decorations and articles having above all
a personal or sentimental value may not be taken from prisoners of war." Also, "the Detaining Power may withdraw articles of value from prisoners of war only for reasons of security" and "such objects... shall be returned in their initial shape to prisoners of war at the end of their captivity."

As for taking stuff off dead soldiers, that would be looting. Looting is a violation of the UCMJ and the UK Army Act 1955, as well as most military codes. The Army Act provides that "any person subject to military law who (a) steals from, or with intent to steal searches, the person of anyone killed, wounded or captured in the course of warlike operations,... or (b) steals any property which has been left exposed or unprotected in consequence of any such operations..., shall be guilty of looting and liable, on conviction by court-martial, to imprisonment or any less punishment provided by this Act."

Of course, there's the law, and there's reality, including a millenia-long tradition of taking spoils of war.

I hope this provides some food for thought.

Regards,
Dave

[Mike Dunn]

Was wondering if you had a complete picture of the baton? Great photos! As a side note, 60 years ago tonight the looting began in earnest.
Mike

[Gordon Williamson]

Dave,

Thanks for your educative and informative response. Puts it in a nutshell. Any way you look at it, under a number of statutes the taking of the Baton was theft and a criminal act and that fact it was stolen by the "good guys" does not make it any more legitimate.

Of course I agree that the reality of things is often so much different than the theory, but it would be interesting to speculate on what the status is of a Museum which knowingly retains stolen goods after the rightful owners have requested its return ?

I regret I do not have an overall picture of the Bton, but with the wonders of digital technology, it may be possible to "splice" some of the partial shots I have together to make an overall picture. I'll see what can be done.


Gordon

[Jmanuel]

Very nice pictures gordon, thanks for that look at the baton.

[baron_rojo]

Mr. Williamson , Can You Send Again The Pics ?

Because I Can´t See This Pics
Thanks Very Much
Hernan From Argentina

[Skylighter]

Mr. Williamson , Can You Send Again The Pics ?

Because I Can´t See This Pics
Thanks Very Much
Hernan From Argentina

Look at the date from the post before you -> 06-23-2001

[SwordFish]

For those of you who had followed this thread awhile back. Here is some communication between the museum that holds Dontz baton, and a story from the son of a vet. Interesting read.

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/Letters/KarlDonitzBaton.html

[Fred Green]

Baton

Greetings All,

I thought that Doenitz's baton was in a collectors hands in Savannah, Ga?

Fred Green

[SwordFish]

Greetings All,

I thought that Doenitz's baton was in a collectors hands in Savannah, Ga?

Fred Green

From the little reading I did on the subject matter, there is speculation that there is more than 1. The emails ellude to the possibility of another KM baton, liberated from the berghof.