Eisenhowers guilt?

[Charles Bunch]

However, despite that, any treaty can be unilaterally dissolved by ANY sovereign power short of military force or some other coercion.

Back to one of Smith's good old articles of faith, which he can't help repeating no matter how much it is at odds with general legal opinion - unless of course Smith means "can" only in a physical/factual and not in a legal sense.

Well, that is the whole point of this discussion--and how a thread developed (or got hijacked) initially on Eisenhower's interpretations/actions on American treaty obligations to German POWs.

And you prove Roberto's point about your mindless repetition of nonsense. The decision about the POWs classification was not made by Eisenhower. This was pointed out in the beginning of the thread, but it seems you are incapable of learning anything that upsets the prepared regurgitations you pass off as thought.

It is okay for the Allies to break treaties but not the Germans, who are Evil War-Criminals

Now Smith is going to pretend that ignoring a treaty provison that would have resulted in millions of people perhaps starving by feeding one group more than all the rest is equivalent to a nation invading a dozen other nations with the intent of territorial conquest and ethnic cleansing, an endeavor resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

I've never seen a more pathetic argument!

[POW]

Martin, Bunch,
don't jabber but use the copy and paste function for proving he did the best.

No reasonable argument has been made that he didn't do the best he could under the circumstances.

Is your real name Steevie Wonder or why you did not read the messages in this thread?

Then the question begs after a war is over is there a person who would be called a POW as the war is over. Reclassifying is not a crime in its self. Thats is another can of wroms and a good debate subject.

In a different thread I condemned the unconditional surrender formula. Thru this the POWs had no protection of their Gvt. anymore. The ICRC felt responsible for the German POWs but that wasn't the same. The POWs called themself POPs - you can find out what that means.

On the contrary, it was precisely complying with the spirit of the agreement, which was to ensure that POWs did not receive unfair treatment with respect to food. Had the POWs been feed at the caloric level stipulated by the agreement, millions of others under the care and protection of the US would have been penalized during a food shortage since there was not enough food to feed everyone at that level. Refusing to treat everyone else unfairly is not treating POWs unfairly.

Seems one has to write sloooowly. Outside of caaaamp you can get foood yourself. Inside caaaaaamp you are at meeeeercy of someone else. Outside of camp was not much food - inside was nearly no food.

On contrary Wehrmacht supply like food, tents etc. was burned and in the camps people starved and had to live in shelters. Where is the logic?

. Evidence has been presented of the massive increase in both POWs and DP's which streamed into the western sector, far more than had been planned for.

Oh, what was planned? When the Ruhkessel capitulated, GI's drove around searching for a place where to build a camp. The Allies were not prepared. And now you can tell me that end 1944 nobody knew they'll get a huge number of prisoners.

Evidence has been presented of the warnings Eisenhower

Nice warnings. And what happend? I'm also send nice letters the tax office but never pay.

[Homer martin]

POW there is no reason to cut and paste when a subject has aready been covered by other post, if everyone that post here cuts and paste; this thread and almost all others would become to long to read.

Sorry for the off topic post.

/HGM

[POW]

POW there is no reason to cut and paste when a subject has aready been covered by other post, if everyone that post here cuts and paste; this thread and almost all others would become to long to read.

Sorry for the off topic post.

/HGM

You claimed:

...far from it there has been a number of items showing given the circumstances he did the best he could.

I ask you again: use copy and paste to prove that.

Every further off topic post is only evidence that you can't.

[Homer martin]

POW I have a better idea, why don't you post an item that shows he is guilty or go back and read the hole thread. There has been nothing posted so far to show any guilt on his part, and far from it a number of post show just the opposite.

[POW]

And again only hot air leaves Homer Martins mouth. So I have to consider there is no evidence Eisenhower did the best.

[Roberto]

It is okay for the Allies to break treaties but not the Germans, who are Evil War-Criminals

Now Smith is going to pretend that ignoring a treaty provison that would have resulted in millions of people perhaps starving by feeding one group more than all the rest is equivalent to a nation invading a dozen other nations with the intent of territorial conquest and ethnic cleansing, an endeavor resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

I've never seen a more pathetic argument!

Well, my position in regard to Eisenhower's re-classification of the POWs remains the same:

1.) It was a breach of the Geneva Convention;

2.) It was a justifiable breach, however, because it was aimed at saving lives rather than destroying them.

That being so, I consider it highly improbable that Eisenhower would have been accused of war crimes "if the shoe had been on the other foot", as I already stated at least once.

Whether breaching a treaty or convention is a war crime depends on the intentions underlying such breach and the consequences thereof, in my opinion.

A breach that is aimed at saving rather than destroying lives can be seen as equivalent to a breach of criminal law in self-defense or in defense of someone else under attack, provided that one of the guiding principles of international law - proportionality of purpose and means - is adhered to.

There is no indication that Eisenhower's re-classification measures violated this principle of proportionality, independently of whether or not the situation that made them necessary could have been avoided at an earlier stage.

This does not, however, acquit Eisenhower of responsibility for the horrendous conditions which initially prevailed at the Rheinwiesenlager. These conditions had nothing to do with the need to level food rations in order to sufficiently feed the civilian population.

[POW]

It was a justifiable breach, however, because it was aimed at saving lives rather than destroying them.

The British argument to deny the POW-status was, that they feared retaliation. Reciprocity was one of the basics of the Geneva Convention. They feared reprisals on their own prisoners of war in the future and therefore they re-classified the German POWs. However, they should be treated accordingly. Great Britain emphasized, the German prisoners are not outside the law but could not refer to the Geneva Convention. So the prisoners were not registered and their names forwarded to the ICRC. The ICRC was worried about the situation and tried to change it.

Maybe someone is interested in this numbers:
4 million German prisoners did not get the POW-status. About 1,6 million DEFs of the US and 2,4 million SEPs of GB were in large camps in Italy, France, Belgium, Germany, and Austria. In addition GB used internment-zones in Northern Germany, Norway and Denmark.

When talk about a breach of international law, Thuringia comes to my mind. But that would going too far all in one thread...

[Charles Bunch]

Martin, Bunch,
don't jabber but use the copy and paste function for proving he did the best.

Try reading the thread, since this has been covered.

If you wish to pretend you're just forgetful, that's your problem.

If you wish to offer evidence he did less than his best, do so.

[POW]

This does not, however, acquit Eisenhower of responsibility for the horrendous conditions which initially prevailed at the Rheinwiesenlager. These conditions had nothing to do with the need to level food rations in order to sufficiently feed the civilian population.

Roberto,
you're in good company . The Maschke Commission stated, it wasn't policy to kill German POWs but

...Maßnahmen wie etwa die "Sühnemärsche" in Jugoslawien, die völlig unzureichende Versorgung bei of wochenlangen Eisenbahntransporten in der Sowjetunion, die Unterbringung der in US-amerikanische Hand gefallenen Kapitulationsgefangenen in den sog. "Rheinwiesenlagern", der Einsatz völlig Unerfahrener bei der Minenräumung in Frankreich und Jugoslawien hat eine hohe Zahl von Opfern gefordert.

[POW]

Try reading the thread, since this has been covered.

If you wish to pretend you're just forgetful, that's your problem.

If you wish to offer evidence he did less than his best, do so.

Yawn.

[Marcus]

There is no need for the unfriendly tone used by several members in this thread, so cool it.

/Marcus

[Homer martin]

Thanks Marcus.


I wish you would delete a number of post as they are off topic and have no bases for being here. It may be time to close this thread as there has been NO ITEM posted to show any quilt and now there is a person using this thread to attack other members.

/HGM

[Scott Smith]

Yeah, Eisenhower was not guilty. He was just following orders. He would have let the POWs keep their Red Cross packages.

[Roberto]

Yeah, Eisenhower was not guilty. He was just following orders. He would have let the POWs keep their Red Cross packages.

Did he deprive them of such packages, or is that just another of Bacque's herrings ?

[...]Christof Strauß (University of Heidelberg) examined Bacque's thesis that approximately one million German POWs perished in American and French camps by taking a close look at two Prisoner of War Temporary Enclosures (PWTEs) in Heilbronn. Strauß found that conditions in these camps indeed did not meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention of 1929. However, to interpret this as evidence of a centrally planned and implemented policy of starvation neglects overall conditions in Germany and Europe in the wake of the war and overestimates to a considerable extent the occupation authorities' scope of action. Strauß proved that, contrary to Bacque's assertion, the Americans did allow aid to be delivered to the inmates by representatives of the German churches, and the International Red Cross also was allowed to visit the camps. Moreover, between May and December 1945 some 300,000 POWs passed through the Heilbronn PWTEs, and death lists show that only 283 of them died. This seems to indicate not only that Bacque's research was poor but also that his overall estimates of deaths are way too high.[...]

Source of quote:

http://www.ghi-dc.org/bulletinF98/bulletin_f98#Fact

Emphasis is mine.