USSR and Geneva Convention

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Wulpe
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: 06 Jul 2003, 12:50
Location: Austria

#31

Post by Wulpe » 02 Sep 2003, 22:43

David Thompson wrote:The only remaining question is whether the 1930 USSR declaration of adherence was sent to the Swiss Federal Council, as required by Article 94 of the convention.
Yes, this seems to be the crucial point.
This appears to be an open question. There is a scholarly treatise, "Even One Is Too Many: An Examination of the Soviet Refusal to Repatriate Liberated American World War II Prisoners of War," by Patricia Louise Wadley, available on-line at:

http://www.aiipowmia.com/research/wadley.html

which recites the following Aug-Nov 1941 exchanges between the US and USSR on the subject: [...]
Great link. I found the sentence Steinhardt observed that "the point of view was also expressed that the Soviet Government is unwilling to adhere to this convention because of its attitude toward Switzerland, whose failure to recognize the Soviet regime has long been resented." very troubling. Well that´s politics I guess.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#32

Post by michael mills » 03 Sep 2003, 01:07

The material posted by David Thompson (who once again has brought a voice of reason based on hard data into the debate) appears prima facie to bear out the supposition that I had made in my initial contribution to this post, namely that Litvinov, the Foreign Affairs Narkom, had prepared a declaration of adherence to the Geneva Convention of 1929, but that the Soviet Government had decided not to go ahead with it.

The material posted gives the ostensible reason why the Soviet Government did not go ahead with ratification of the Convention, but I suspect that that reason is just a cover. It is more likely that the Soviet Government wanted to be free to treat POWs in a way consistent with its ideology rather than according to law, ie it wished to be able to propagandise amongst them, to recruit spies and agents for future revolutionary work in their home countries, and on the other side to root out "class enemies" and eliminate them, as for example it did with the captured Polish officers.

The Soviet Government may have had in mind the situation in 1918, where the large numbers of German and Austrian POWs held by the Russian Government proved to be a fertile recruiting ground for revolutionary activists and Red Army soldiers. For example, the Red Army contained a large unit of German POWs, which paraded past the German Ambassador, Von Mirbach, on May Day 1918, wearing German uniforms and carrying banners calling for the overthrow and assassination of the Kaiser. Even more ominously, the firing squad that executed the Tsar' and his family consisted largely of Austrian and Hungarian POWs, including Imre Nagy, the later Hungarian premier.

The above sort of activity would not have been permitted under the Geneva Convention.

On a different matter, I think David Thompson was correct in his inference that the Soviet non-adherence to the Geneva Convention was not the main formal justification used by the German Government for its own non-observation of the Convention in its treatment of Soviet POWs. The justification seems to have been that the Soviet Union ceased to be a legitimate sovereign entity under international law as soon as the German invasion tool place, and that therefore the soldiers of the Red Army were illegal combatants, ie they were not members of the legal armed forces of a state, but rather gunmen employed by an illegal, terrorist organisation.

In other words, the German justification for treating captured Red Army men according to the Geneva Convention was essentially the same as that used today by the Government of the United States for not treating members of the armed forces of the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan according to the Conventions that apply now.


David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#33

Post by David Thompson » 03 Sep 2003, 03:14

Thanks, Michael, for the kind words.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
Location: Russia

#34

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 03 Sep 2003, 06:46

The material posted by David Thompson (who once again has brought a voice of reason based on hard data into the debate) appears prima facie to bear out the supposition that I had made in my initial contribution to this post, namely that Litvinov, the Foreign Affairs Narkom, had prepared a declaration of adherence to the Geneva Convention of 1929, but that the Soviet Government had decided not to go ahead with it.[/quote too bad this version contradicts the last part of the document, even more so –had it been the case document would not bear Litvinov signature.
The material posted gives the ostensible reason why the Soviet Government did not go ahead with ratification of the Convention, but I suspect that that reason is just a cover. It is more likely that the Soviet Government wanted to be free to treat POWs in a way consistent with its ideology rather than according to law, ie it wished to be able to propagandise amongst them, to recruit spies and agents for future revolutionary work in their home countries, and on the other side to root out "class enemies" and eliminate them, as for example it did with the captured Polish officers.
Too bad that this interesting theory does not hold water, in the light of polices that were applied towards German and later Japanese POWs. As for executed Polish officers they fate was not decided in vacuum and it was affected by certain events that were currently occurring outside of the USSR borders- these events also played significant role in why the executions were stopped rather suddenly. The paragraph after that does not need responding.
The justification seems to have been that the Soviet Union ceased to be a legitimate sovereign entity under international law as soon as the German invasion tool place, and that therefore the soldiers of the Red Army were illegal combatants, ie they were not members of the legal armed forces of a state, but rather gunmen employed by an illegal, terrorist organisation.
Which is obviously no justification at all.
In other words, the German justification for treating captured Red Army men according to the Geneva Convention was essentially the same as that used today by the Government of the United States for not treating members of the armed forces of the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan according to the Conventions that apply now.
the difference being that nobody recognized Taliban ,while USSR was recognized by most of the world – Germany included.

j.north
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: 02 Sep 2002, 15:33
Location: England

pows, wounded and sick

#35

Post by j.north » 03 Sep 2003, 09:35

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding. The Soviet Union was a signatory to the convention regarding sick and wounded. Perhaps this note (prisoners of war, sick and wounded, referes to sick and wounded pows rather than to the pow conventions as such?

J

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#36

Post by Dan » 03 Sep 2003, 14:44

the difference being that nobody recognized Taliban ,while USSR was recognized by most of the world – Germany included.
oleg what is your reply concerning filing the relevant paperwork with the Swiss? Surely ratifying a treaty, and putting it in a safe somewhere without anyone ever seeing it is unconventional, to say the least?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#37

Post by David Thompson » 03 Sep 2003, 17:54

j. -- You raise an interesting point about the 1929 Geneva Convention. In the back of my mind is the thought that there were two Geneva Conventions in 1929, one dealing with the treatment of POWs and the other dealing with the amelioration of conditions for wounded and sick soldiers on the battlefield. If so, the first is by far the better-known. The language of the 1930 Soviet declaration ("accepting the convention about improving life of the prisoners of war, wounded, and sick in the acting armies") is somewhat ambiguous on this point. When I was researching the subject yesterday, I kept wondering if my memory was being tricky and if there were two 1929 Geneva conventions, but I could not find the amelioration treaty. I'll have a fresh "go" at it today.

(later)

j. -- My memory wasn't playing tricks on me, and you are right. There were two Geneva Conventions of 27 Jul 1929, as described above. The 1929 amelioration convention does not appear in the Avalon Project list of treaties or on many other sites, but the text of that treaty can be located on-line at:

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/09dfb7a98 ... enDocument

and

http://humanrights.indlaw.com/datastore ... Rep134.pdf

The better-known of the two Geneva Conventions of 27 Jul 1929 is captioned "Convention between the United States of America and other powers, relating to prisoners of war," and can be found on-line at:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva02.htm

Mention of the two treaties of 1929, and distinguishing between them, can be found at:

History of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.ns ... 6600599A60

Final Act of the diplomatic conference, Geneva July 27, 1929
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1929a.htm

I believe that I saw something listing the USSR as a signatory to the 1929 Geneva amelioration treaty. As the day progresses I'll try to find the reference and post it. That may have been the subject of the 1930 Soviet declaration, rather than the 1929 treatment of POWs convention, and the ambiguity of the language in the declaration, and the relative obscurity of the second 1929 amelioration treaty may have thrown us all off.

cybercat
Member
Posts: 2079
Joined: 11 Nov 2002, 22:26
Location: UK
Contact:

#38

Post by cybercat » 07 Sep 2003, 06:06

The USSR was a signatory of the Geneva Convention. However, the USSR had extra codices placed in their version of the convention that excluded "enemies of the Soviet state" from being protected by the convention.

As the Nazis were enemies of the Soviet state and attacked the USSR then they could not be protected by the convention. This would have also been the case for any NATO soldier captured by Soviet forces during a NATO/Warsaw Pact conflict if one had occurred.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#39

Post by David Thompson » 07 Sep 2003, 15:48

cybercat -- Which Geneva Convention are you talking about -- the 2 from 1929, the 1949 Convention, or something else?

Witch-King of Angmar
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 21:40
Location: Europe

#40

Post by Witch-King of Angmar » 07 Sep 2003, 18:38

oleg wrote:
The material posted gives the ostensible reason why the Soviet Government did not go ahead with ratification of the Convention, but I suspect that that reason is just a cover. It is more likely that the Soviet Government wanted to be free to treat POWs in a way consistent with its ideology rather than according to law, ie it wished to be able to propagandise amongst them, to recruit spies and agents for future revolutionary work in their home countries, and on the other side to root out "class enemies" and eliminate them, as for example it did with the captured Polish officers.
Too bad that this interesting theory does not hold water, in the light of polices that were applied towards German and later Japanese POWs.
Emphase is mine.

This happened in practice throughout the war, and afterwards.

~The Witch King of Angmar

Hurricane
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:39
Location: Finland

#41

Post by Hurricane » 07 Sep 2003, 20:30

Here is an interesting article about Soviet intimidation and propaganda against Finnish POW's in Soviet: Soviet captors tried to persuade Finnish POWs to change sides

User avatar
Rommel8
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 13 Jun 2003, 03:37
Location: Pennsylvania

#42

Post by Rommel8 » 08 Sep 2003, 06:30

this is way out of my league, and just by reading the 3 pages I have learned alot.

How ever, in reading Antony Beevors Stalingrad and The Fall of Berlin 1945 it said that Stalin didnt want to admit or sign the treaties because he thought it would make him look weak, or something along those lines

Also, Oleg, you said something about the Poles doing something wrong at Katyn which ended up in there execution...care to elaborate?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#43

Post by David Thompson » 08 Sep 2003, 08:04

Rommel8 -- Katyn has been exhaustively discussed in a number of threads previously posted in this section of the forum. (Check the forum search engine for keyword "Katyn" plus the Holocaust & Warcrimes option). If you'd like to revive one of the threads, please feel free, but the topic of this thread is the still-unanswered question of whether the USSR ratified the 1929 Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs.

User avatar
Rommel8
Member
Posts: 1192
Joined: 13 Jun 2003, 03:37
Location: Pennsylvania

#44

Post by Rommel8 » 08 Sep 2003, 17:09

sorry David, just that he had mentioned it and such

User avatar
Dmitry
Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 26 Nov 2002, 16:01
Location: Moscow

Re: USSR and Geneva Convention

#45

Post by Dmitry » 23 May 2008, 07:58

Oleg Grigoryev wrote:
Declaration.
Peoples Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, by this note declares, that Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is accepting the convention about improving life of the prisoners of war, wounded, and sick in the acting armies, signed in Geneva on June 27th 1929. In order to verify it Peoples Commissar of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who has all the necessary mandates and powers, signed this declaration of accepting. In accordance with a decision of Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from May 12th 1930, this acceptance is final and does not need any further ratifications.
Done in Moscow on August 25 1930.
Signed : Litvinov.
Location of the document CAGOR SSSR fond 9501 opis 5 ed hran 7 list 22.

Consequently the stories that USSR never signed the Geneva convention now can be safely disregarded as myth
This text is a falsification made by Veremeyev in his article: http://army.armor.kiev.ua/hist/zenev-konvencia.shtml

If you look in the official Documents on Foreign Policy of the USSR. Volume 14. Moscow, 1968, page 493, you will see that there is no " prisoners of war" in the line: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is accepting the convention about improving life of the prisoners of war, wounded, and sick in the acting armies, signed in Geneva on June 27th 1929"

It's clear from the text that Litvinov declaration means the Geneva Convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field. In Russian this convention is called "Конвенция об улучшении участи раненых и больных в действующих армиях". - exactly like in the original Litvinov declaration.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”