#6
Post
by POW » 01 Nov 2002, 14:27
Roberto,
yesterday time didn't allow a long reply. So I like to explain today why I said: "I don't agree".
It must be said again, that he American forces didn't came to Germany to liberate the people but to conquer Nazi-Germany. Not just the Nazi organizations and Waffen-SS, but the whole German Army was considered as Nazi-Wehrmacht. That explains the bad feelings of the GI's toward the German prisoners of war. The bad feelings increased through propaganda, infringement against US soldiers (like Malmedy) and when the Concentration Camps were liberated. That caused these actions like in Remagen-Sinzig:
The former guard Captain Martin Elias B. stated:
"Major Cohen drove with his jeep on the main street through the camp. In his right hand he had a microphone and the speakers, which were mounted in the rear of the car, were switched on. "Are you hungry?", Major Cohen cried into the microphone. He paid no attention to the pitiful echo -"Yes"- out of some cages but cried immediately his answer: "You can be happy. Very soon you are not hungry anymore. Because you kick the bucket. And this is what I wish to you Nazi assholes." I was shocked."
Of course many good deeds of GI's are reported by former prisoners as well. The attitude of the single soldier caused actions of indifference and violence or humanity. This must be taken in consideration when we like to paint a picture about the Rheinwiesenlager. Just to sum up: The former prisoners were treated very bad by their US guards. Most sympathy they got from the black US soldiers.
The high command knew that they will get a lot of German prisoners. Why no preventive measures were taken? Indifference again? A victory over Nazi-Germany was important. The fate of the Nazi-Army wasn't important. General Dwight D. Eisenhower declared in Washington, that he will be hard on the Germans. But none knew what to do with the defeated Wehrmacht. This helplessness didn't count for Eisenhower only. The European Advisory Commission did nothing at all - much to the disappointment of Henry Morgenthau. He had very concrete ideas on how to treat the Germans. Roosevelt agreed: "We have to be hard on the Germans and I mean the German people and not just the Nazis. Either we have to castrate the German people or we have to treat them in some way that they will stop to give birth to people who act like in the past." Eisenhower didn't care. That were politics and he was a soldier. He was interested in how to defeat the German Army. The German prisoners? Well, when the remains of Germany will become a agrarian state in which maximal 60% of the Germans will survive, whether the prisoners die or survive is makes no difference. In February 1945, about 2 million soldiers of the western Allies were in German captivity. Eisenhower said to his friend General S. Hughes: "We have to look out. Our boys are hostages in Hitler's hands. After we liberated them we can treat the Krauts in a different way."
The problem of captivity was already known in 1943 after the capitulation of the Afrika-Korps. Eisenhower disliked the idea to take care for about 300.000 prisoners. The prisoners slow down his plans cause they needed guards and supply. He complained that he don't know what to do with the prisoners. They don't teach that at the academy. In a letter to George C. Marshall he wrote: "What a pity we didn't kill more."
A former German POW stated: "I think Eisenhower and his criminal stupidity is guilty on the death of thousands of prisoners. You will not hear much of the prisoners who survived his camps because they died some years later due to the hardship. Until today German Generals get accused because they were not in the position to think political. The same counts for Eisenhower. The other way was shown by Patton. Of my unit, the Heeress-Artillerie Abt. mot. 736 (21 cm Mörser), most were at home some weeks after the war ended thanks to General Patton."
Why didn't Eisenhower act like Patton? Patton solved the problem his own way. Germans without weapons were not interesting to him. He wanted to reach as fast as possible the heart of Germany and disliked to leave guards behind. So he destroyed the weapons and let the disarmed Germans go. With this he acted against official orders - not the first time in his career.
Eisenhower was very different. He liked to "reside" and for this the castles in France were just good enough. From Africa he ordered oranges for breakfast and Whisky from the States. From time to time he flew from his headquarter in Reims to Cannes. No relaxing-trip to the Cote d'Azur without his love Kate Summersby. While sharing his bed with Kate Summersby, it wasn't an obstacle to write love letters to his wife he called "Mammie".
Altogether we have judge Eisenhower different. He was not just the US-hero of the 2. World War. The son of a farmer was a democrat, convinced, due to his views of justice, that dictatorships must be destroyed. Same to Stalin, Bulganin and Chruschtschow. After J.F.Kennedy became President of the USA, Eisenhower said in his last speech to the Congress: "As the strongest, most influential and most productive country of the world we have to use our leadership always in the interest of world peace."
Conclusion: The reason why I don't agree to your statement: "He didn't have much of a choice" is, he had a choice. He was indifferent toward German POW's.
The reason why I disagree to the second part of your statement: "but his decision to deprive POWs of their status was still a violation of the Geneva Convention." is, he is not the only one to blame for it. The DEF and SEP status was introduced after it was too late to take care for the prisoners. The decision to deprive POWs of their status was the final act not to - I don't know a translation for this German phrase which matches perfect - "das Gesicht verlieren".