Eisenhowers guilt?

[Roberto]

Food was very short after the war and the Allies did the best they could under very difficult conditions.

But if the Germans had made such a "choice" then it would be a warcrime, as even Roberto agrees (if I understand him correctly).

Of course Smith does not understand me correctly, and he knows it very well.

He also knows that the Nazis were never faced with a situation like the Allied High Command after the end of the war, but pursued a policy of ruthless exploitation of the occupied territories of the Soviet Union in order to

i) allow the armed forces to live off the land and

ii) allow the German civilian population to enjoy food consumption as in peacetime, thus bolstering the morale of the homefront,

that they expected this to lead to the starvation death of "umpteen million" people, and that those parts of this "hunger plan" that could be implemented in practice did in fact kill several million people, mainly Soviet prisoners of war and inhabitants of the besieged city of Leningrad.

He is furthermore aware of the repeatedly quoted documentary evidence to these policies and the effects of their application.

The fact that he nevertheless misrepresents my statements thus shows the intellectual dishonesty of an ideologically motivated, Nazi-apologetic true believer.

I would argue that sovereign nations can make or break their treaties, and treaties are what International Law is--although that is another subject.

That's about as silly as arguing that individuals can make or break agreements or laws at will, and Smith has accordingly had that nonsense slapped around his ears before.

But he is welcome to try again.

[Caldric]

Caldric what is then your conclusion based on this two statements:

The worse and most damning evidence against Ike is the fact that the British and Canadians were still capable of keeping their prisoners in fair conditions. However, they did not have nearly as many POW's as the Americans, or so it seems.

but after all POW held were:

British: 3,7 mio
US: 3,8 mio

You have to disagree with the first poster to have a different conclusion, which I never did. It seems most people do not read post anymore, they read the first sentence and just assume from there on.

[Caldric]

Ambrose says the following in regards to reclassifing POW's:

What happened is simple enough: the Allies could not afford to feed the millions of German prisoners at the same level at which they were feeding their own troops, as required by the Geneva Convention. Even had the food been available, the Allies were not going to feed German prisoners at a higher level than they were able to feed German civilians, not to mention the civilians of the liberated countries of Western Europe, and not to mention as well the displaced persons. But the United States and other Allied nations had signed the Geneva Convention, which had the force of a treaty. They did not wish to violate it, so they used the new designation of "Disarmed Enemy Forces." The orders to the field commanders were straightforward: do not feed the D.E.F.'s at a higher scale than German civilians.

An incredibly lame excuse that would not have held water at Nuremberg had the tables been reversed.

And as Eisenhower's biographer, Ambrose's "apple-pie" apologia and even outright hypocrisy is hardly surprising.

Yes Scott you need a big bite of that pie. Hardly an apologia comment, if you read more then what you chose to pick out you will see Ambrose did not apologize about anything. You are just twisting it to make it look bad, as you do anything regarding your own country. Contrary to your shallow belief most Americans much prefer the truth over your so-called "apple-pie" apologia.

I will quote Ambrose again so that you do not miss it this time.

Our first conclusion was that Mr. Bacque had made a major historical discovery. There was widespread mistreatment of German prisoners in the spring and summer of 1945. Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

Made it bold for you so you absolutely do not miss it.

[POW]

You have to disagree with the first poster to have a different conclusion, which I never did. It seems most people do not read post anymore, they read the first sentence and just assume from there on.

Was this the answer to Variato's question? Wow, impressing! 8)

[POW]

[Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

And what said Ambrose regarding why there was a widespread mistreatment of German prisoners?

[Caldric]

[Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

And what said Ambrose regarding why there was a widespread mistreatment of German prisoners?

Perhaps I should make it bold for you also since you obviously do not read the post either.

Nevertheless, Mr. Bacque makes a point that is irrefutable: some American G.I.'s and their officers were capable of acting in almost as brutal a manner as the Nazis. We did not have a monopoly on virtue. He has challenged us to reopen the question, to do the research required, to get at the full truth.

[Caldric]

You have to disagree with the first poster to have a different conclusion, which I never did. It seems most people do not read post anymore, they read the first sentence and just assume from there on.

Was this the answer to Variato's question? Wow, impressing! 8)

You people are really becoming pathetic, the word is "impressive" for future reference.

As I said most of you do not read the post, so since you do not have the common courtesy to do that then to hell with you. Assume what you will and continue to hold your childish grudges because you were wrong in past discussion's and when you were corrected you seem to have taken on this stupidity of making childish remarks. I honestly thought I might learn something from your understanding of German POW's but that is not going to happen. Good day to you.

[POW]

Perhaps I should make it bold for you also since you obviously do not read the post either.

Nevertheless, Mr. Bacque makes a point that is irrefutable: some American G.I.'s and their officers were capable of acting in almost as brutal a manner as the Nazis. We did not have a monopoly on virtue. He has challenged us to reopen the question, to do the research required, to get at the full truth.

No, you have to make it bold for yourself. You claimed the guilt is with the Germans. How does that fit to the statement above? Either you are an ignorant or an idiot. You can pick what you want.

[POW]

I honestly thought I might learn something from your understanding of German POW's but that is not going to happen.

Cause you are even too daft to piss a hole in the snow. Seems the cold in Alaska freese your brain. hahahhahahaha

[Caldric]

Perhaps I should make it bold for you also since you obviously do not read the post either.

Nevertheless, Mr. Bacque makes a point that is irrefutable: some American G.I.'s and their officers were capable of acting in almost as brutal a manner as the Nazis. We did not have a monopoly on virtue. He has challenged us to reopen the question, to do the research required, to get at the full truth.

No, you have to make it bold for yourself. You claimed the guilt is with the Germans. How does that fit to the statement above? Either you are an ignorant or an idiot. You can pick what you want.

No I will leave you to fill the title of local moron POW.

And once you learn to read when you grow up a bit you will notice I stated "SOME" of the guilt should also fall on the Germans. Mostly for using their own children as cannon fodder, and putting them in a position to become prisoners to begin with. Just like my statement that continuing the war to save their own cowardly hide and sending Germans to their deaths by the thousands for a lost war is the Nazi Leaderships legacy.

[POW]

No I will leave you to fill the title of local moron POW.

And once you learn to read when you grow up a bit you will notice I stated "SOME" of the guilt should also fall on the Germans. Mostly for using their own children as cannon fodder, and putting them in a position to become prisoners to begin with. Just like my statement that continuing the war to save their own cowardly hide and sending Germans to their deaths by the thousands for a lost war is the Nazi Leaderships legacy.

brrrrr.....cold!

[Scott Smith]

Caldric, my point was that Ambrose wants Eisenhower to be the hero. So nothing is HIS fault. But the basic problem is reclassifying the POWs, and that's Eisenhower's baby. He could have demanded more food from Washington in order to comply with the Geneva conventions. This was peacetime and very doable, unlike the situation with the Germans who were still fighting a war (although Roberto seems to think that the standard of living in wartime Germany was higher than in peacetime America).

Anyway, I'm going to back-out since the thread is turning acrimonious.

Best Regards,
Scott

[Caldric]

Caldric, my point was that Ambrose wants Eisenhower to be the hero. So nothing is HIS fault. But the basic problem is reclassifying the POWs, and that's Eisenhower's baby. He could have demanded more food from Washington in order to comply with the Geneva conventions. This was peacetime and very doable, unlike the situation with the Germans who were still fighting a war (although Roberto seems to think that the standard of living in wartime Germany was higher than in peacetime America).

Anyway, I'm going to back-out since the thread is turning acrimonious.

Best Regards,
Scott

Acrimonious is a good word for it, I am done with it also. I agree it seems that many things could have been done that were not, and that being said it was criminal in nature. A major black mark on the American war effort, considering the fair treatment that the vast majority of American POW's had at the hands of the Germans, with some exceptions.

[Charles Bunch]

Caldric, my point was that Ambrose wants Eisenhower to be the hero. So nothing is HIS fault. But the basic problem is reclassifying the POWs, and that's Eisenhower's baby.

It seems the problem is that Smith wants Eisenhower to be the villian.

The reclassification of German POWs was not Eisenhower's baby. The decision was made by the European Advisory Commission.

He could have demanded more food from Washington in order to comply with the Geneva conventions.

The record contains documentary evidence of Eisenhower reporting the food shortage to his superiors. The shortage was massive, and it was continent wide. It is wishful thinking to believe that the US could have simply loaded enough food onto ships to relieve a couple of hundred million people from the effects of this shortage. Eisenhower took the proper course - the scarce food would be distributed evenly.

This was peacetime and very doable, unlike the situation with the Germans who were still fighting a war (although Roberto seems to think that the standard of living in wartime Germany was higher than in peacetime America).

Ipse dixit from Smith!

[Charles Bunch]

Ambrose says the following in regards to reclassifing POW's:

What happened is simple enough: the Allies could not afford to feed the millions of German prisoners at the same level at which they were feeding their own troops, as required by the Geneva Convention. Even had the food been available, the Allies were not going to feed German prisoners at a higher level than they were able to feed German civilians, not to mention the civilians of the liberated countries of Western Europe, and not to mention as well the displaced persons. But the United States and other Allied nations had signed the Geneva Convention, which had the force of a treaty. They did not wish to violate it, so they used the new designation of "Disarmed Enemy Forces." The orders to the field commanders were straightforward: do not feed the D.E.F.'s at a higher scale than German civilians.

An incredibly lame excuse that would not have held water at Nuremberg had the tables been reversed.

Yeah, real lame to want to disperse scarce food on a fair basis!

Imagine comparing this to actual crimes against humanity that the Nazis perpetrated on nearly the entire continent of Europe!!!!