""

Zuidfront Holland, Friday 15 February 2008

The actual source of myths and hoaxes is often difficult to determine, but it is certainly true that all too often historians and writers fail to carry out thorough research into such sources, and are too quick to copy (almost) uncritically what someone else has already ‘researched’ for them. This is how persistent myths arise.

There are a number of persistent myths and implausible stories surrounding the May Days. Some of these are fairly generic[zoals ‘zand in munitiekisten’ en ‘gesaboteerde munitie’], whilst others are attributed to a specific individual. The latter category is much more difficult to debunk than the former, not least because those involved and the main figures in question are rarely still alive. And by ‘debunking’, we do not mean that there must necessarily be an outright falsehood involved. Rather, the term ‘debunk’ refers – as far as the author is concerned – to establishing the truth, or at least approaching it, through genuine research.

Two striking examples of mythical events surrounding a person within the scope of this study into the events on the southern front in May 1940 are those recorded concerning the Garrison Commander in Dordrecht – Colonel Mussert – and the German Oberleutnant Fritz Lamm, who is said to have landed at Moerdijk. The latter is discussed below.

Lamm is a ‘ghost lieutenant’ who appears in the story about Moerdijk. The author – supported by various individuals – is conducting research into Fritz Lamm. That research is now virtually complete. A conscious decision has been made in the article below to retain part of the gradual progression to help paint a picture.

A ‘ghost lieutenant’
Even during the war, rumours were rife that a German officer had landed in Moerdijk on 10 May, having lived and worked in the immediate vicinity for many years until shortly before that. The man had been the leader of a group of Germans tasked with capturing the village of Moerdijk. The story could be brought to a near-satisfactory conclusion with the final detail that he had been killed by Dutch fire on the Steenweg in the village. There is, at least, a sense of ‘what goes round comes round’ in the way the story has been passed down.

The *Militaire Spectator* published[editie 1956] the story as an integral part of the events at the Moerdijk bridgehead. Countless other media outlets eagerly picked up the story. Stories of treachery sold like hot cakes in the post-war period, as they helped to ease the pain of those less-than-glorious days in May 1940. Even a magazine as prominent at the time as *Elsevier* reprinted it without question. Before anyone realised it, it had become common knowledge that the affair at Moerdijk was a case of ‘betrayal’. ‘Fritz Lamm from Zwartenberg – Leader of the Moerdijk paratroopers’. In 1948, former Group Kil Chief of Staff Calmeijer had already testified before the commission that the operation at Moerdijk had been facilitated by ‘Oberleutnant Lam’ and, moreover, that the local population had recognised the battalion commander as an acquaintance. He had cycled past there many times in the past …

This Fritz Lamm had lived in the village of Langeweg – so reported the MS. It soon became clear that this was incorrect, as it was in fact the nearby hamlet of Zwartenberg, just outside Zevenbergen. Lamm had lived in the area since 1924, having fled the hopeless situation in Germany following the Treaty of Versailles. This was not news in itself, as many thousands of German men did the same, and thousands more were deliberately recruited abroad to keep the relocated German industry running. Lamm was reportedly also in the thick of the fighting for his homeland during the First World War. When he arrived in the Netherlands in 1924, he blended into the anonymous working class and held a menial job at a sawmill, from which he resigned in 1938. He saw opportunities in Germany once more and set off for Düsseldorf with his Dutch wife and five children.

It is said that the man was not particularly likeable and, moreover, had occasionally expressed National Socialist ideas in the years leading up to his departure. Contact was maintained with the neighbours for some time, and they claimed they had even been invited to Düsseldorf. His old acquaintances described the man as eminently suited to being an officer. After all, he had been a ‘bossy sort’. He had also been nicknamed ‘the Prussian’ because of his bossy, domineering nature. There were also said to have been local schoolmates of Lamm’s eldest son who confirmed Lamm’s presence in Zwartenberg, and even reported that this eldest son had later paid a visit as a regular ‘angehörige’ of the German army. It was then reported that his late father had been killed in Moerdijk during the May days. Could that be the source of it all?

According to the stories, this Lamm returned on 10 May 1940 as an Oberleutnant der Reserve. He is said to have landed near Moerdijk and to have been the commander of a combat group tasked with capturing the village of Moerdijk. The village of which he knew every little road and every house. The story concludes dramatically that he betrayed the country that provided him with his livelihood and his wife, and that, whilst being killed by a Dutch bullet, he took several of our soldiers with him to their deaths.

The ghost unmasked?
At first glance, the story sounds quite plausible and would certainly have been eagerly received at the time. But the reader with expertise in the matter – who does not wish to be taken for a fool – will soon spot a number of details that do not stand up to scrutiny.

Lamm is said to have been an Oberleutnant in the Reserve. If that were the case, it is curious that he did not return to Germany sooner. From 1936 onwards, reservists were in great demand to build up the new Wehrmacht, particularly non-commissioned officers and officers with combat experience from the previous war. However, Lamm apparently never received a request to repatriate. This could well be explained if he was not registered as a Reich German, but as a Dutchman. In that case, he would have been neutralised and thus officially stripped of his reservist status. Perhaps, however, he was readmitted – who can say?

What is far more remarkable is that Lamm must certainly have been around forty years old by 1940, given that he would have served in the First World War. And someone of that age would no longer have been given a combat role in the Fallschirmjäger. That unit was made up of young, fit soldiers, non-commissioned officers and junior officers. That does not rule out the possibility that Lamm was attached as a specialist to the staff of the 1st Regiment or the 2nd Battalion of that regiment and was thus able to act in an advisory capacity. However, the account attributes to him the role of combat group commander. That seems rather implausible, but is not in itself impossible.

The notes of the 7th Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Parachute Regiment are, however, quite specific in their description of the events in and around Moerdijk. For the record, it should be noted that the 7th and 8th Companies landed south of the bridge. Both were instructed to draw up a report for the Kriegstagebuch. The author is familiar with the notes from 7./FJR1 contained therein. These list all platoon commanders by rank and name, as well as their deployment. What is striking about that report is that Leutnant Lemm – Kampfgruppeführer within 7./FJR1 – was in command of a small assault group tasked with capturing the village of Moerdijk. The report states the following verbatim:

‘A Kampfgruppe, consisting of the company squad, the platoon and mortar units of the 1st and 2nd platoons under the command of Lt. Lemm, was tasked, together with a platoon from the 8th Company under First Lieutenant Schwarzmann, to penetrate the village of Moerdijk, break through the resistance and occupy the village. (…) Lt. Lemm’s combat group was severely depleted due to poor drop-off. A reconnaissance patrol sent out by Lt. Lemm to the houses south of Moerdijk detected an enemy force of 60–80 men in fortified positions there. Lieutenant Lemm’s combat group entered Moerdijk in small detachments, overcame a weaker enemy force on the eastern outskirts, and captured 3 officers and 20 men in the houses, some of whom had not yet fully evacuated. (…) Lt. Lemm was killed by a pistol shot from ambush by a Gendarmerie sentry. (…)’

Not a word about a First Lieutenant Fritz Lamm, but there is mention of Lieutenant Dietrich Lemm. Coincidentally, the roles of both Germans coincide entirely, with the exception of their rank, first name and surname, although the surnames bear a striking resemblance. Even more remarkable is that the roles of Lamm and Lemm are entirely congruent. Both were indeed the commanders of the Moerdijk assault group, and both were the only German officers to have been killed on the Steenweg. The only ones, that is, according to the official grave register.

But the matter goes further. The German association ‘Weltkriegsopfer’, which records the locations of German war graves, and the Volksbund have no record of Oberleutnant Fritz Lamm. Nor is the man listed on the roll of the missing. However, the name – along with all personal details – of Leutnant Dietrich Lemm is listed and therefore registered. Killed in action at Moerdijk on 10 May 1940. Incidentally, a search for Oberleutnant Lamm does yield a ‘hit’ in the Kriegsgräber registers. However, upon verification, it transpires that the details in that record originated solely from the Netherlands, from a military historian who based his account on … the story in MS.

In itself, it is not unusual for a name to be missing. Obergefreiter Fischer is also absent from the list of Moerdijk casualties. He, too, has been listed as a casualty on the basis of Dutch data. Identified in and by the municipality of Lage Zwaluwe. The absence of an officer in May 1940 is, however, more exceptional, although this too occurs more frequently. At the same time, it should be noted that the fallen from the Moerdijk bridgehead – on both sides – were almost all laid to rest in the Kloostertuin in the village of Moerdijk. The German dead in the village of Moerdijk had, as it were, fallen on the very edge of that cemetery of honour. It would be highly unusual if something had gone wrong with their registration. However, it cannot be ruled out.

Ghost stories corroborated
After the war, further stories emerged which elevated the ‘ghost lieutenant’ Lamm to the status of a real person.

As mentioned, the former Chief of Staff Calmeijer had already provided the Commission with a detailed account in 1948 regarding the role of a certain Oberleutnant Lam and the German battalion commander. It will be immediately clear to the reader that Calmeijer was not speaking as an eyewitness. The account must have reached him during the war years.

In the public sphere, J.J.C.P. Wilson – Chief of Operations at the AHK during the May days – was the trendsetter with his publication ‘Five Days of War and Their Twenty-Year Prehistory’, which appeared in 1960. He had been preceded by the *Militaire Spectator*, which had already made Lamm’s story known to the military community as early as 1956.

Local writer Jan Buitkamp recorded an anecdotal account of Oberleutnant Lamm’s experiences in ‘Moerdijk May 1940’. It describes how he and Oberleutnant Pagels [C-7./FJR1]got together before the war, followed by a detailed account of the events in May 1940 in and around Moerdijk, with Lamm as one of the key figures. Although the story covers certain verifiable (true) key points, it is also full of factual errors and inaccuracies. Dutch soldiers reported as killed in action who did not die at all, incorrect rank designations, misspelt names, and so on. Buitkamp also puts forward an alternative theory regarding the events in the streets of Moerdijk. Lamm had suddenly become a company commander, and on this basis Buitkamp is certain that the Dutch prisoners of war were driven out ahead of them by the Germans to act as a human shield. This claim is not supported as such by the war reports of those same Dutch soldiers, although these reports are themselves rather inconsistent. In response, Buitkamp argues that the Dutch soldiers were ordered to instruct the pontooners to lay down their arms, which the Dutch are said to have refused to do. This (latter claim) is once again inconsistent, as the Dutch officers do in fact confirm that at least two of them – one after the other – tried to persuade the pontooners whilst shouting loudly. During the skirmish with the pontoon soldiers, in which several Dutch prisoners of war had by then been struck, the Military Police are said to have suddenly appeared. It was not until late in the skirmish that Lamm reappeared. Only then was he killed by the Dutch defenders. So says Buitkamp …

The latter is completely inconsistent with all reports, including the German one. The German report mentioned Lamm’s death before the pontooners entered the fray, which corresponds with the Dutch reports. The Dutch reports actually stated that it was precisely the death of the German commander on the spot that infuriated the Germans and prompted them to act in breach of regulations towards the prisoners of war. Buitkamp, however, carries on, and goes on to state that it was only after the pontoon troops had surrendered that the two military police officers ceased fighting. This is inconsistent with all the Dutch reports. Both military police officers were subsequently executed by the Germans with a hand grenade. They were forced to run away and had a hand grenade thrown at them. This killed Van der Werken, one of the two. A story that is not supported by a single Dutch report. Surely such an act would have aroused revulsion in everyone? It was reported, however, that German hand grenades were thrown back by the pontooners, but according to Buitkamp, they had already surrendered by the time Van der Werken was killed. Captain Adriaansen was, however, wounded by one such grenade. It is curious that none of the Dutch witnesses present support Buitkamp’s account. Can the rest of the report therefore be considered reliable? As far as the author is concerned, not particularly so at this stage. Buitkamp’s account is riddled with careless errors[namen, rangen, functies, gesneuvelden], which points to a lack of diligence. However, the account concerning the ‘ghost officer’ Oberleutnant Lamm is written with remarkable persistence … What was Buitkamp’s source???

An even more fantastical story about this Lamm comes from a corporal who served with 13.Bt.LuA and ended up with 19.Bt.LuA just before May Day: B.C. Dresens. This story was passed on to the author by Pim Monné. He – Dresens – was due to train a new altimeter operator. Consequently, he arrived at the battery on 12 April 1940. In his memoirs, Dresens writes that on 7 May 1940 he was standing outside First Lieutenant van Teeckelenburg’s office when, through the window, he saw a man taking notes near the barracks camp. He immediately brought this to the attention of the lieutenant sitting opposite him, who rang the Royal Military Police (KMAR) station a short distance away on the Steenweg. They arrested the man in question, and the KMAR sergeant informed them that the man in question was a German who had lived near Moerdijk for a long time, in the village of Langeweg. In his book, Dresens explicitly links this to Oberleutnant Lamm. A story he had learnt from … the *Militaire Spectator*.

Now, this latter story – according to the author of this piece – can safely be consigned to the realm of myth. If Oberleutnant Lamm had indeed been arrested on 7 May[er heerste toen de hoogste graad van gevechtsgereedheid tot aan de 9e mei], he would never have landed by parachute near Moerdijk on 10 May. For it is highly unlikely that the man would have been released during a period when the highest level of combat readiness was in force. Moreover, and this is perhaps even more remarkable, this arrest – which surely would have made major news within the Bridgehead – is not mentioned by a single officer, not even First Lieutenant van Teeckelenburg himself. It appears to be a typical case of ‘hearsay’ and ‘eager belief’ that prompted this – undoubtedly dedicated – corporal to include it in his biography. It is also quite possible that he simply made it up.

The renowned author, retired Lieutenant-Colonel E.H. Brongers, also gave Lamm a prominent place in his work, as a direct result of Wilson’s 1960 publication. But even Herman Amersfoort and Piet Kamphuis included Lamm in their second, revised edition of the government publication ‘May 1940 – Fighting on Dutch Soil’, which appeared in 2005.

In Franz Kurowski’s ‘Deutsche Fallschirmjäger 1939–1945’ – still available – Lamm is given yet another name. Now it is Hamm:

‘Lieutenant Fritz Hamm, who was deployed in this group, had lived near Moerdijk for 15 years and knew the area like the back of his hand; he was to lead the paratroopers; however, he was killed immediately after landing by a rifle shot fired from the nearby barracks in the village of Moerdijk.’

It would appear that this slightly different version originated from the same Dutch source as the well-known Fritz Lamm story here in this country, namely the 1956 MS edition. How Kurowski then came to mention Hamm remains a mystery. Incidentally, Lieutenant Fritz Hamm is not recorded anywhere either, as research by Richard Schoutissen of the Weltkriegsopfer has shown. And Hamm / Lamm / Lemm was not killed by a carbine shot, but by a pistol shot fired from within the barracks … Furthermore, the popular Franz Kurowski is a somewhat controversial writer. He is best known for his limited reliability when it comes to facts and details, certainly in his earlier work.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing
In many writings since 1940, the German Oberleutnant Lamm has become a frequently featured character. This German officer – whether a fictional character or not – soon came to symbolise the hopelessness of our army, and epitomised not only our naivety but also the rational superiority the Germans held on all fronts. Every author mindlessly copies the ‘knowledge’ about Oberleutnant Lamm that first emerged.

The wolf in sheep’s clothing – for that is how the man was characterised – is a spectre that still haunts the military history circles of the Netherlands. It is the author’s firm belief that this will not last much longer.

The German War Graves Commission has no record of the man. Not as a registered buried serviceman, nor as a missing person. Nor are there any names or graves with comparable or potentially similar details. The Volksbund has no record of Lamm either. Enquiries among veterans of the FJR have so far yielded no results.

Various avenues are currently being explored to shed light on the matter. Richard Schoutissen – who works as a Dutch liaison officer for the German War Graves Commission – is working hard to trace any leads. Hugo van Dijk – an FJR specialist from Dordrecht – is reaching out to his contacts within the FJR community. Finally, the author has submitted a request to the WASt, the ‘Deutsche Dienststelle Gefallenen der ehemaligen Wehrmacht’. We do not yet know what this will yield, and experience suggests that the results may take some time to materialise.

Ultimately, the author hopes to be able to tell you whether the wolf was actually wearing sheep’s clothing, or whether that sheep’s clothing never existed – and perhaps the wolf itself didn’t either …

The investigation continues …
A request has been submitted to the WASt regarding Fritz Lamm’s background. Enquiries [BDF]have also been made with the Bund Deutsche Fallschirmjäger. To date, there has been no indication whatsoever from that quarter that Lamm has been found. As is customary, we will have to wait some time for the WASt report.

In the meantime, however, following a tip-off from Pim Monné, a search was conducted in the marriage register of the municipality of Zevenbergen. There, the author did indeed find the marriage certificate of Friedrich Wilhelm Lamm – signed as Fritz Lamm – who married Anna Margaretha Domen on 4 April 1924[geb. Roosendaal-Nispen 1904]. Lamm was born on 28 June 1900, a German national in Rendsburg[Schleswig Holstein, op 30 km van Kiel in Duitsland]. Among those present at the wedding was his father, August Lamm, who himself lived in the Netherlands in 1935 and 1936. It is also striking that a large Lamm family appears in the Zevenbergen registers. Lamm had five children: August[voorhuwelijks, 1923], Franz[1925], Fritz[1926], Else [1929]and Johanna[1933]. August also served in the Wehrmacht. The curious residential address in Zwartenberg was H.8.

It is clear, however, that Friedrich Lamm went by the name Fritz Lamm – Friedrich Lamm versus Dietrich Lemm. There are bizarre similarities in this context. Lemm, however, was born in 1912, and was therefore 28 years old in 1940[op zich ook al oud voor een luitenant bij de Fallschirmjäger], whilst Lamm must have been 39 or 40 around that time. Incidentally, Friedrich Lamm is also a complete unknown in the German burial records …

Another striking detail is that his father, August Lamm – who was living in the Netherlands near his son in ’35 and ’36 – was, according to the marriage register, resident[sic: dit moet Wangen an der Aare zijn] in Wangen am Aare. That was in Switzerland, just round the corner from Solothurn. The Solothurn company, as the reader may know, officially became a wholly-owned subsidiary of the German firm Rheinmetall in 1929. This arms manufacturer relocated to (among other places) Switzerland after 1919 because arms production and the heavy metal industry were banned in Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. Immediately afterwards, many German workers fled to neighbouring countries. Switzerland became a haven for many a German arms manufacturer. It is highly likely that Lamm Sr. settled in Switzerland shortly after 1919 to put his skills at the service of the high-quality metal and arms industry there.

Zuidfront Holland[Post Scriptum]

On 8 April 2008, the WASt enquiry was answered. The result was that no Fritz or Friedrich Lamm was killed in action on 10 May 1940. That came as no surprise. However, it was confirmed that his son Fritz Lamm – born on 29 May 1926 in the municipality of Zevenbergen – was reported missing on 18 August whilst serving as a soldier in the 4th Company of GR986 near Trune/Orne in[Falaise] France. As far as is known, his body has not yet been identified.

The debunking
Nothing can delight a historian more than debunking a persistent myth – one presented as reality. And we can say that this has been achieved with regard to the myth surrounding Friedrich Lamm’s involvement, as an Oberleutnant, at the head of the German paratroopers who captured the village of Moerdijk on the morning of 10 May.

After the author had published the content on the battle in Moerdijk, in which he had already announced his intention to investigate the authenticity of Oberleutnant Lamm, a variety of responses emerged. The most important and striking of these was from Pim Monné from Breda. Pim is deeply passionate about history and even runs a small museum of his own. He informed the author, via his contacts, that Lamm had apparently been traced in the local register of residents. Following this, the author searched the digital register of Zevenbergen and indeed found several ‘Lamm entries’, including Friedrich Lamm’s original marriage certificate. This contained all the details regarding his Place of birth and full baptismal names. This is essential information for further investigations in Germany.

Through his own contacts in Germany, as well as a request for research submitted to the WASt, the author had already concluded that Friedrich Wilhelm Lamm was, in any case, not among the Wehrmacht’s registered war dead. That did not tell the whole story, however, as many records – including those from May 1940 – are incomplete or still missing.

Only the ‘Weltkriegsopfer’ digital database yielded a ‘hit’ for the name Fritz Lamm, but upon enquiry, the suspicion was confirmed that this entry had been made at the instigation of a Dutch military historian. The author’s statement that this entry was most likely inaccurate was immediate cause to lend our full support to the investigation.

So, after contacting ‘Weltkriegsopfer’, we got in touch with Richard Schoutissen, a Dutchman who does a tremendous job for this German organisation. Richard was extremely helpful and set to work on the information. He checked the population registers of Rendsburg and Düsseldorf and contacted veterans’ organisations, with which he has excellent connections by virtue of his position. The evidence soon pointed to the conclusion that Lamm had indeed had nothing to do with Moerdijk in May 1940.

Finally, in early February 2008, Richard announced that Friedrich Wilhelm Lamm had died in[24 september; Standesambt Düsseldorf nr. 5973/19] Düsseldorf in 1983. No clearer proof could be provided that Fritz Lamm did not die in action in Moerdijk as an Oberleutnant at the head of a German unit. Incidentally, it also transpired that Lamm had served as a sailor in both world wars and had in fact had no connection whatsoever with the army or the air force.

Lamm had five children, two of whom [August en Fritz]also joined the army. In 1944, according to the WASt, his son Fritz Lamm was killed in action on the Western Front. It is possible that news of his death eventually reached the community around Zevenbergen and, given his name, contributed to the emergence or preservation of the local legend.

Further personal details are known, and direct contact has now even been established with a son and a grandson of Friedrich Lamm. However, the findings are not relevant for publication, and the author has therefore chosen to continue respecting the privacy of the Lamm family. The reader will not hold this against the author.

The author views the hypothesis regarding the origin and persistent survival of the hoax surrounding Fritz Lamm as follows. After the fallen soldiers at Moerdijk had been registered by the German doctor Hartmann, they were buried for some time in the Kloostertuin. Undoubtedly, there were markers on the graves at the time, and one of these markers would have indicated – presumably in High German script – that a Lieutenant ‘Dietrich Lemm’ was buried there. This bore a striking resemblance to ‘Friedrich Lamm’, and so the hoax could all too easily have been concocted, claiming that a former German neighbour had committed ‘the betrayal of Moerdijk’. Just as we know of hundreds of local tales that have hardly any historical basis, but are nonetheless ‘a good story’. Such stories arise very quickly in times of crisis, and the buzz soon turned it into a widely accepted local legend. Debunking such hoaxes is far more difficult than their creation.

The true story of Leutnant Dietrich Lemm naturally bears striking parallels with that of the tradition which identifies Lamm as the commander of the German unit that invaded Moerdijk. These parallels have already been outlined above. It is now perfectly clear that the officer described in Dutch literature as Oberleutnant Fritz Lamm was in fact Leutnant Dietrich Lemm, who was killed in action as a regular officer in the Fallschirmjäger during the battle with the Dutch defenders, and who had never lived in the area. Without his alter ego Lamm, Lemm would presumably have been lost among the ranks of the fallen and would have attracted only marginal attention as the sole officer killed from II./FJR1 during the fighting around the Moerdijk bridges. Thanks to Lamm, however, Lemm has risen above anonymity, and let that be the positive moral of the story …

Without the extensive and enthusiastic help of Pim and Richard, the process of unmasking Lamm as a ‘ghost lieutenant’ would have been far, far more laborious. The author owes both gentlemen a great deal of thanks. It is a prime example of selfless collaboration aimed at promoting the pursuit of truth in military historical events. Wonderful!