Eisenhowers guilt?

[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.

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

I don't consider him a hero, no. Just another petty bureaucrat, a politician in uniform hypocritically "making the world safe for democracy."

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

I VASS ONLY FOLLOVINK ORDERZZ!

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.

Of course it was. And it was politically unpopular to "feed the Natzsees." But all Eisenhower had to do was ask/demand more food "to comply with the Geneva convention."

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.

Maybe not and maintain the high American peacetime standard-of-living with a Congressional election coming soon, no.

Eisenhower took the proper course - the scarce food would be distributed evenly.

Horseshit. Prisoners are vulnerable and cannot forage. They need more nutrition than normal to survive. They are also more susceptible to communicable disease because they are in close quarters--where there are quarters, that is.

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!

Chuck never supports anything. It is just Is-Too/Is-Not according to his Believer canon. Ain't that right, Chuck?

[POW]

Acrimonious is a good word for it, I am done with it also.

That is wonderful. Cause your postings in this thread weren't of value we won't miss you.

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

Excellent argument.

The record contains documentary evidence of Eisenhower reporting the food shortage to his superiors.

And what measures were taken?

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.

Absolutley right. But, when the US knew there isn't enough food to feed the prisoners, was it the right decision to send anyone moves, under the aspect of collective guilt, into a camp?

Eisenhower took the proper course .

Well, thats the question of this thread. Great Britain was faced with the same problem than the US. They created internment-zones instead of cages where the people were be completely and utterly at someone's mercy.

[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.

I don't consider him a hero, no. Just another petty bureaucrat, a politician in uniform hypocritically "making the world safe for democracy."

No one is talking about him being a hero. We're talking about you ignoring evidence once again and attempting to make him the villian in a policy decision he did not make.

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

I VASS ONLY FOLLOVINK ORDERZZ!

Following orders is not ipso facto wrong. But of course Smith now changes his complaint, showing his opinions aren't based on the facts of the matter, but on a rather transparent agenda.

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.

Of course it was. And it was politically unpopular to "feed the Natzsees." But all Eisenhower had to do was ask/demand more food "to comply with the Geneva convention."

No, that is not all that had to be done. The European Advisory Commission was concerned about feeding all people under their care. German POWs deserved no special treatment at the expense of others.

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.

Maybe not and maintain the high American peacetime standard-of-living with a Congressional election coming soon, no.

But the fact of the matter is Smith, you don't have the foggiest idea whether what you blithely uttered was possible at all. It just sounded good.

Eisenhower took the proper course - the scarce food would be distributed evenly.

Horseshit. Prisoners are vulnerable and cannot forage.

There was little or nothing to forage. The allies tightly controlled the food supply as they should have.

They need more nutrition than normal to survive.

There requirements were no different than anyone elses.

They are also more susceptible to communicable disease because they are in close quarters--where there are quarters, that is.

No more susceptible and no more in close quarters than a massive number of displaced persons also under the care of the Allies.

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!

Chuck never supports anything.

A lie. It is Smith who never supports anything, as can be readily seen by the post I responded to, in which he uttered3 or 4 factual innacurracies without a single reference. All of his points have been covered by historical references in this very thread.

Smith is Mr. Ipse Dixit because he would prefer to utter propaganda than knowledgeable history.

[Charles Bunch]

Acrimonious is a good word for it, I am done with it also.

That is wonderful. Cause your postings in this thread weren't of value we won't miss you.

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

Excellent argument.

The record contains documentary evidence of Eisenhower reporting the food shortage to his superiors.

And what measures were taken?

Available food was distributed fairly to those under the Allies care.

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.

Absolutley right. But, when the US knew there isn't enough food to feed the prisoners, was it the right decision to send anyone moves, under the aspect of collective guilt, into a camp?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Eisenhower took the proper course .

Well, thats the question of this thread. Great Britain was faced with the same problem than the US. They created internment-zones instead of cages where the people were be completely and utterly at someone's mercy.

Your characterization of "cages" is rather loaded. The British were part of the decision making process which is the topic of this thread.

[POW]

I have no idea what you're talking about

Instead of having millions of prisoners behind barbed wire, which cannot be feeded, would it be smart to send them to the coal mines, farms etc. to produce food and to make the economy running?

Available food was distributed fairly to those under the Allies care.

Like I said: I a camp you are completely and utterly at someone's mercy. It is well known that POWs, who were allowed to work at farms, were far better off than their comrades.

The British were part of the decision making process which is the topic of this thread.

Also the British reclassified the POWs, thats true. But the extents of mistreatment in British camps were not as high than in US camps. And the question is why?

[viriato]

Charles Bunch wrote:

The British were part of the decision making process which is the topic of this thread.

Not only that but they themselves were being feed to a certain extent by the USA too. In spite of that they seemed to have been more careful on their treatment of (ex-)POW. So the question remains. Why have the US occupation authorities didn't have a similar behaviour of the British ones?

[Roberto]

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).

Smith keeps trying to sell his cattle manure.

Peacetime or not, it's not as if food could have been easily brought on in sufficient quantities to stave of a threatening famine in a devastated continent, is it?

The fact is that in 1945 there was a worldwide shortage of food and that the transportation system in Europe was largely destroyed. Already on 14 February Eisenhower had called the attention of the Allied governments to the fact that he feared a severe shortage of food throughout Europe at the war's end. He even feared that there would be famine - and he had no food reserves to feed the Germans, the "displaced persons" and the Allied civilian population. He "urgently" requested immediate food supplies from Great Britain - this at a time when in Great Britain food was still rationed.

I translated the above from an article by German historian Rolf Steininger in: Wolfgang Benz et al, Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile, 12th edition 2002 by dtv Munich, page 128.

But the Allied High Command did what it could, with the means at its disposal, to prevent such a famine from coming about. Whether more means could have been placed at its disposal at an earlier stage, as POW contends, is another question.

Smith's beloved Nazis, on the other hand, planned to recklessly exploit the occupied territories of the Soviet Union to the point of causing a famine in order to allow their armed forces to live off the land and their home front to enjoy food consumption as in peacetime:

[...]There are four main reasons for the death of so many prisoners. The most obvious is hunger. The others are lack of shelter, the methods used in transport, and the general treatment meted out to the prisoners. Supplying provisions for the vast numbers of Soviet prisoners certainly posed immense problems for the German Army, but that was not the true cause of starvation.
Obtaining foodstuffs from the East was one of the principal objectives of the German Reich in the war against Soviet Russia. The breakdown of Germany in 1918 had been a traumatic experience for the German leaders, and it was still remembered by Hitler and his generals. The merciless exploitation of food resources in the East was designed to make it possible for the German people to enjoy food consumption as in peacetime and, thus, to stabilise wartime morale.
The bureaucrats involved in planning this exploitation were perfectly aware of the fact that this implied “without doubt the starvation of umpteen million people.” From the very beginning, the rations handed out to the Soviet prisoners of war were far below the minimum required for subsistence.[...]

Source of quote:

Christian Streit, "The Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War", in: A Mosaic of Victims. Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. Edited by Michael Berenbaum, New York University Press, 1990.

Emphases are mine.

I guess it takes a true believer like Smith to compare measures which may have been required or not to prevent a famine with such that were foreseen to cause one.

[viriato]

Roberto quoted:

He "urgently" requested immediate food supplies from Great Britain - this at a time when in Great Britain food was still rationed.

Which makes the different bahaviour towards the German (ex-)POW of the US and UK even more curious. Because we should have then expected the British having more problems, not the US.

[Caldric]

Charles Bunch wrote:

The British were part of the decision making process which is the topic of this thread.

Not only that but they themselves were being feed to a certain extent by the USA too. In spite of that they seemed to have been more careful on their treatment of (ex-)POW. So the question remains. Why have the US occupation authorities didn't have a similar behaviour of the British ones?

Well you still have the food supply issues, and as I have quoted in my post and now Roberto also posted the reports by Ike in 1944 and early 1945 show clearly that there was going to be a major shortage of food for Europe in 1945.

If the food had to be rationed then it is never an easy task to say who eats and who does not. Either way the one who does rationing is going to be blamed for starvation, forget the fact that perhaps he saved 10 million but lost 10,000.

I will repost from page three my posting on Ike's communication on the state of the food shortage.

Eisenhower wrote the Chief of Staff, Gen. George C. Marshall, in February 1945: "I am very much concerned about the food situation. . . . We now have no reserves on the Continent of supplies for the civil population."

is Eisenhower writing to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on April 25, 1945: "Unless immediate steps are taken to develop to the fullest extent possible the food resources in order to provide the minimum wants of the German population, widespread chaos, starvation and disease are inevitable during the coming winter."

Military Governor for Germany in July 1945: "The food situation throughout Western Germany is perhaps the most serious problem of the occupation. The average food consumption in the Western Zones is now about one- third below the generally accepted subsistence level." The September report declares, "Food from indigenous sources was not available to meet the present authorized ration level for the normal consumer, of 1,550 calories per day."

[Charles Bunch]

I have no idea what you're talking about

Instead of having millions of prisoners behind barbed wire, which cannot be feeded, would it be smart to send them to the coal mines, farms etc. to produce food and to make the economy running?

Available food was distributed fairly to those under the Allies care.

Like I said: I a camp you are completely and utterly at someone's mercy. It is well known that POWs, who were allowed to work at farms, were far better off than their comrades.

German POWs were not the only people totally dependent on the Allies. Decisions were properly made for the well being of all, not just the POWs.

The British were part of the decision making process which is the topic of this thread.

Also the British reclassified the POWs, thats true. But the extents of mistreatment in British camps were not as high than in US camps.

I've yet to see the evidence for mistreatment on the scale you seem to allege.

But the matter of food distribution is quite clear.

[Scott Smith]

German POWs deserved no special treatment at the expense of others.

It was Eisenhower's responsibility to comply with the treaty obligations to feed the German prisoners-of-war, and since this was peacetime there is no excuse for the hypocrisy. The Germans were held accountable by the Victors for not following their treaty obligations. If Ike had asked he would have gotten. Of course, this wouldn't have played well in the papers.

[Scott Smith]

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.

Sovereign nations make the laws. Individuals do not. Sovereigns ARE the law. If there were a higher sovereignty then the nations would not be sovereign, would they? They would be provinces at best. International agreements/treaties are made among sovereigns; contracts, on the other hand, are agreements between individuals made in accordance with some higher legal code or sovereignty, usually with specified litigation procedures. Another aspect of sovereignty is that sovereigns can declare war. Individuals cannot. Only if a sovereign power is defeated in war or by mutual-agreement can another sovereignty impose its law/customs.

Again you have revealed a basic lack of understanding. For a lawyer this is shocking.

[Roberto]

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.

Sovereign nations make the laws. Individuals do not. Sovereigns ARE the law. If there were a higher sovereignty then the nations would not be sovereign, would they?

In fact there is a higher sovereignty than the individual nation: the community of individual nations. That's not only prevailing legal opinion, but a logical consequence of the primacy of sovereignty.

International agreements/treaties are made among sovereigns; contracts, on the other hand, are agreements between individuals made in accordance with some higher legal code or sovereignty, usually with specified litigation procedures.

International law indeed functions somewhat differently from civilian law. It constituent elements are agreements among and customs abided by nations, which are the legislative acts of the higher sovereignty that is the community of nations and create legal principles that override the legislation of the individual nation.

Another aspect of sovereignty is that sovereigns can declare war. Individuals cannot. Only if a sovereign power is defeated in war or by mutual-agreement can another sovereignty impose its law/customs.

The victor is supposed to enforce not its own laws/customs, but the principles of international law.

Again you have revealed a basic lack of understanding. For a lawyer this is shocking.

I'm comfortable to let the audience decide who is suffering from a lack of understanding, me or the frustrated fellow hurling silly insults at me.

[...]The objection that the unlawful treatment of Red Army soldiers in German captivity was justified by Führerbefehl (and was therefore legal) is just as irrelevant. We can find the same line of argumentation in the defense pleas during the Einsatzgruppe trials, as well as in other cases where the killing of Soviet civilians and POWs on political, race, or religious grounds was justified by Führerbefehl as a law based on unwritten Nazi constitutional law. The fact that Führerbefehl was law is not debated, since Hitler had legislative power due to so-called revolutionary law, which had replaced the Reich constitution following the Nazi takeover, and which had been universally recognized in a fairly short time. Hitler’s will was law, or was at least to be carried out as if it were law. Even laws passed by constitutional bodies were seen as expressions of the Führer’s will.
However, Hitler’s legislative power had its limits (as all such power does) arising in particular (according to general legal opinion) from the fundamental principles of human behavior that have crystallized in all civilized nations on the basis of ethical agreement. This means that the Führerbefehl depriving Soviet POWs of law of war protection was illegal. Even if we did not share this opinion, Hitler’s will, which was legally valid, that Red Army soldiers in German captivity should be excluded from the law of war would be irrelevant, since the prevailing opinion is that international law has precedence over national law if the latter conflicts with the former. It hardly needs saying that this was indeed the case.[...]

Source of quote:

Alfred Streim, International Law and Soviet Prisoners of War

Streim is a jurist who, as Senior State Attorney, was the head of the Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen zur Aufklärung nationalsozialistischer Verbrechen (Central Office for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes) in Ludwigsburg, Germany.

[Roberto]

If Ike had asked he would have gotten.

The fact is that in 1945 there was a worldwide shortage of food and that the transportation system in Europe was largely destroyed. Already on 14 February Eisenhower had called the attention of the Allied governments to the fact that he feared a severe shortage of food throughout Europe at the war's end. He even feared that there would be famine - and he had no food reserves to feed the Germans, the "displaced persons" and the Allied civilian population. He "urgently" requested immediate food supplies from Great Britain - this at a time when in Great Britain food was still rationed.

Emphasis is mine.

How did the Allied governments react to Eisenhower's above mentioned statement, Mr. Smith?

[Charles Bunch]

German POWs deserved no special treatment at the expense of others.

It was Eisenhower's responsibility to comply with the treaty obligations to feed the German prisoners-of-war, and since this was peacetime there is no excuse for the hypocrisy.

It was also his responsibility to feed all people under his control. Far from being hypocritical, it would have been inhumane negligence on the Allies part to feed POWs at levels which would have left little for millions of others. One would have to have a rather warped sense of morality to think otherwise.

The Germans were held accountable by the Victors for not following their treaty obligations.

They were not held responsible for technical violations. The Allies violated a treaty provision to fairly deliver scarce food supplies. The Nazis violated treaties to wage aggressive war, take land that didn't belong to them, commit genocide against Jews, and create a racially structured empire with themselves at the top, and everyone else allowed to survive at their service.

I can't think of a better sign of your pathology than your inability to see these disctinctions.

If Ike had asked he would have gotten. Of course, this wouldn't have played well in the papers.

Rubbish!