"Finland shot 1000 POWs"

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#91

Post by Penn44 » 23 Sep 2008, 09:22

While I take time to locate other references that the Soviet Union accepted in fact or essence the 1929 Geneva POW Convention minus some provisions of it related to the inspection of camps, allow me to add that even if Finland or the Soviet Union had rejected it, they were still bound to the proper care of POWs:
The Nazi regime claimed that it was under no obligation for the humane care of prisoners of war from the Red Army because the Soviet Union had not ratified the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, nor had it specifically declared its commitment to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Rules of War. Technically both nations, therefore, were bound only by the general international law of war as it had developed in modern times. Yet even under that law, prisoners of war were to be protected.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?la ... d=10007183

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#92

Post by LWD » 23 Sep 2008, 14:50

But to what standards does that law hold them? And did the Finn's violate those standards?


ThomasG
Member
Posts: 812
Joined: 25 May 2007, 00:41
Location: Europe

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#93

Post by ThomasG » 23 Sep 2008, 15:37

Eljas Erkko was the head of the bureau of war prisoners and responsible for their handling. He was indicted ultimately in the Supreme Court in 1946 for giving orders which violated Finland's international obligations and the law. He was declared "not guilty".

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#94

Post by Juha Tompuri » 23 Sep 2008, 21:50

Penn44 wrote:even if
What if?
Soviet Union had not ratified the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, nor had it specifically declared its commitment to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Rules of War.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?la ... d=10007183

ThomasG wrote:Eljas Erkko was the head of the bureau of war prisoners and responsible for their handling. He was indicted ultimately in the Supreme Court in 1946 for giving orders which violated Finland's international obligations and the law. He was declared "not guilty".
Yes.
Some people at this thread do perhaps not remember, or not know, the first sentence of the first answer at this thread.
Allied Control Comission found no Finns responsible to the POW command quilty to crimes and no Finns were forced to have been sentenced.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#95

Post by Penn44 » 23 Sep 2008, 22:43

Juha Tompuri wrote:Some people at this thread do perhaps not remember, or not know, the first sentence of the first answer at this thread. Allied Control Comission found no Finns responsible to the POW command quilty to crimes and no Finns were forced to have been sentenced.

Regards, Juha
Without the presentation of additional information behind this claim I can draw no definitive conclusions. However, it is well known the Allies turned their back on some guilty persons for political reasons.

My previous argument regarding customs of war and unusually high Soviet POW rate still stands.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#96

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Sep 2008, 00:02

Penn44 wrote:Without the presentation of additional information behind this claim I can draw no definitive conclusions.
USSR (as well as other allied) has known the death rate of (and the reason(s) of it) the Soviet POWs. After the war the POWs were released back home (not all wanted to go) and also the Allied side was free to check the all the Finnish archives and documents they wanted.
For instance the POW food rationing (that took place by USSR, USA and UK as well) seemed not to have raised any big emotions at that time.

Penn44 wrote:However, it is well known the Allies turned their back on some guilty persons for political reasons.
Is there any evidence that this has anything to do with this thread?


Penn44 wrote:My previous argument regarding customs of war and unusually high Soviet POW rate still stands.
The death rate of Soviet POWs in Finland was ~30%
The death rate of Finnish POWs in USSR was ~40%


Regards, Juha

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

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#97

Post by David Thompson » 24 Sep 2008, 00:06

Juha -- Do you have some sources for our readers?

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#98

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Sep 2008, 00:31

David Thompson wrote:Juha -- Do you have some sources for our readers?

The Soviet POW mortality rate in Finland has beed mentioned here before.
About the Finnish POW mortality rate.
Finnish researcer Timo Malmi has studied the case:
http://www.uta.fi/~titima/sota.html
http://www.uta.fi/~titima/prisoners.html (in english)
( http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1159629 )

About the (Western) allied POW food rationing:
EXTRACT FROM



MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES ARMY

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE IN WORLD WAR II


Volume IX

SPECIAL FIELDS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nutrition


The maintenance of an adequate state of nutrition is an important element of a military preventive medicine program, whether it is to be applied to a belligerent's own troops or to a belligerent's captives. This fact was appreciated by the Offices of The Surgeon General and The Quartermaster General in Washington, and by the staffs of the Medical Department and the Quartermaster Corps in the European theater during the campaigns of 1944-45. It was well understood also that, in accordance with the terms of the Geneva Convention, the food rations for enemy prisoners of war should be equal in quantity and quality to those furnished U.S. troops at base camps.



Although these requirements were recognized, their fulfillment varied from adequate in 1944 to marginal and deficient in 1945 with a gradual improvement after July of that year. The deficiencies arose from a number of causes which have been mentioned in preceding parts of this chapter. In the period from March to the end of July 1945, the decrements were caused by (1) lack of planning for feeding the unexpectedly large numbers of rapidly captured prisoners of war, (2) the continuance of issue based upon troop strength, although there were many extra thousands to be fed prisoners of war, recovered Allied military personnel, and displaced persons, (3) food shortages in the United States and in the United Kingdom in 1945, which required reduction of food supplies for prisoners of war, (4) lack of mess gear and cooking equipment for prisoners of war— a secondary but important deficiency, since ability to serve food is second only to ability to supply food, and (5) inter-Allied dissatisfactions over

______



70 Operations History of the Advance Section, Communications Zone, ETOUSA, covering the period from initial organization, October 1943, to inactivation, 10 July 1945, p. 238. [Official record.]


390

food allowances for prisoners of war as compared to the more austere diets for civilians forced to live under conditions of scarcity of food.71



Information about rations for prisoners of war was summarized by Col. Wendell H. Griffith, SnC, Chief of the Nutritional Branch, Division of Preventive Medicine, Office of the Chief Surgeon, European theater, as follows:72

* * * Prisoners captured in Normandy in 1944 [and held in the United Kingdom] * * * were issued a ration which did not differ greatly from that supplied American troops [balanced; 3612 calories]. No distinction was made in the rations for working and nonworking prisoners.

POW on the continent were issued a similar ration until 7 December 1944, except that nonworkers received 20% less than workers. At this time the worker's ration was reduced from 3860 to 3258 calories; nonworkers received 10% less. Another reduction was made in April 1945. For the first time separate rations were authorized nonworkers because it was not feasible to make an overall percentage deduction in the worker's ration to bring the caloric level down to the 2000 calorie level ordered by the Theater Commander for nonworkers. These ration decreases were the result of the disparity between tremendous numbers of captured prisoners and the relatively small stocks of available foodstuffs. Furthermore, the 2000 calorie ration was authorized as the theater ration for displaced persons and others whose subsistence was the responsibility of G-5 [Assistant Chief of Staff for Civil Affairs-Military Government, G-5, SHAEF]. The earlier rations supplied nonworkers were in accordance with the Geneva Convention and were in excess of the actual requirements of the prisoners. This original policy was bitterly criticized by allied civilians because nonworking prisoners had more to eat than allied workers. Following the German surrender in May 1945, practically all the prisoners held by the Armies inside of Germany were classified as “disarmed forces” and their subsistence became the responsibility of the civilian food administration. POW in the Communications Zone remained on the POW ration.

The components of POW rations were mostly Quartermaster supplies originally intended for use in the troop ration. The quality, therefore, was good. The method of preparation preferred by the Germans was the concoction of a stew containing nearly all of the ration components. This was fortunate because it was possible to issue dehydrated potatoes and vegetables, which served the purpose admirably and which were less acceptable in the troop ration. Captured enemy flour was used as long as it lasted.

In February and March 1945 the Nutrition Branch was directed to investigate the nutritional status of POW in American custody. The survey team * * * examined 800 prisoners in representative work camps and enclosures. The results showed that the nutrition of prisoners who had been in American hands for 50 days or more was satisfactory and considerably superior to that of newly captured Germans. This indicated
______



71 There are voluminous records and reports on these matters in the historical files of the Medical Department and the Quartermaster Corps. Two main groups of Quartermaster Corps materials in archival, manuscript, and published forms are listed here. The Medical Department reports will be cited separately. (1) Ross, William F., and Romanus, Charles F.: The Quartermaster Corps: Operations in the War Against Germany. United States Army in World War II. The Technical Services. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. (2) Littlejohn, Robert M., editor and compiler, Passing in Review. This highly important collection of documents and commentaries, assembled and written in part by the former Chief Quartermaster, European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, is in manuscript form in the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.

72 Griffith, Wendell H.: The Nutrition of Prisoners of War, Allied Nationals, and Others. In Gordon, John E.: A History of Preventive Medicine in the European Theater of Operations, U.S. Army, 1941-45, vol. II, pt. IV, pp. 41-45. [Official record.]



391

that the POW ration in use during the early part of 1945 was superior to the ration of the German Army.

In August 1945 the Nutrition Branch was directed to make a second theater survey of the adequacy of the feeding of POW and of German disarmed forces. The 2000 calorie ration was found to be insufficient for German prisoners under 21 years of age and for others who were classed as nonworkers but whose caloric needs were significantly increased by fatigue duties, calisthenics or marching. The 2000 calorie ration was adequate for individuals who were inactive in fact. The German civilian ration issued to disarmed forces varied from 1200 to 1500 calories at that time and was inadequate. This was especially true because there was no opportunity for the men in the enclosures to supplement their rations as German civilians were able to do from gardens, household supplies, etc.

The two surveys referred to by Colonel Griffith were conducted in prisoner-of-war camps and enclosures in France, Germany, and Austria by Lt. Col. Herbert Pollack, MC, and his assistants, during April, May, and August 1945. The conditions found during April and May were essentially satisfactory. The survey made in August, however, disclosed evidence of very extensive malnutrition among prisoners of war and disarmed enemy elements in the large enclosures maintained by the Third and Seventh U.S. Armies and by the Communications Zone. There was a lack of uniformity in the ration scales in various areas, and the caloric scales averaged below 2,000. There was consistent evidence of insufficient amounts of riboflavin and nicotinic acid in the prisoner-of-war diet.



There were several factors responsible for the vitamin deficiency of the German prisoner-of-war ration. Colonel Pollack reported as follows:

Previous survey, * * * 15 May 1945, has shown that the standard German Army ration had been deficient in riboflavin and nicotinic acid for some time. Superimposed upon this deficiency intake of fairly long standing was the variable period of severe deprivation of all nutrients during the final weeks of active campaign and [of unavoidably inadequate rations] in the forward POW enclosures. At best, the POW ration could only be expected to maintain an existing state; it was never designed as a therapeutic diet.

Florid deficiency syndromes related to the B complex vitamins were evident in the non-workers subsisting on American rations. While there was evidence, of these deficiency syndromes in those prisoners subsisting on locally procured German food, it was not as marked as in the group subsisting on the American ration. It is believed that this difference is due to the usage of some highly milled unenriched flour in the American ration, which furnishes a large proportion of the energy value of the ration. The German ration included a 95% extraction [of] flour [which supplied many of the B vitamins].

On the other hand, rations were good in the overrun German-operated hospitals caring for sick and wounded German prisoners of war.
______

78 (1) Letter, Lt. Col. Herbert Pollack, MC, Headquarters, Theater Service Forces, European Theater, Office of the Theater Chief Surgeon, to Chief, Preventive Medicine Division, Office of the Chief Surgeon, European Theater, 31 Aug. 1945, subject: Report of Nutritional Survey of German Prisoners of War and Disarmed Enemy Elements Under Control of the United States Army on the European Continent. (2) Pollack, Herbert: Nutritional Disorders. In Medical Department, United States Army. Internal Medicine in World War II. Volume III. Infectious Diseases and General Medicine. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.


392

Increase in caloric value of prisoner-of-war rations.—The findings, and recommendations for increased caloric value of prisoner-of-war rations, as set forth in Colonel Pollack's report (August 1945), had an immediate and beneficial effect. On 15 September 1945, Maj. Gen. Robert M. Littlejohn, Chief Quartermaster of the European theater, forwarded the report to the Deputy Chief of Staff, European theater,74 with this comment, among others: “From the attached report you will see that certain corrective action is immediately needed.” Thereafter, the caloric value of the prisoner-of-war ration for nonworkers was increased to 2,200 calories, and was held at 2,900 calories for workers.



Food shortages.—Authorities of U.S. occupying forces were well aware of the food shortages in Germany and Austria and also in U.S. supply after V-E Day. The nutritional state of civilians, displaced persons, prisoners of war, and disarmed enemy forces was, therefore, a matter of constant concern, as many reports attest. Nutritional surveys were made by teams of experts. One of these, undertaken upon instructions from the Surgeon, Headquarters, 12th Army Group, with the concurrences of the Surgeon, Third U.S. Army, and the Surgeon, 65th Infantry Division,75 was carried out from 8 to 23 July 1945 under the direction of Dr. Charles S. Davidson, Consultant, Surgeon General's Office, with two assistants. Among their investigations was a study of starvation in a group of men, disarmed forces (formerly prisoners of war), who had been held in an SS (Schutzstaffel (Elite Guard)) lager at Linz, Upper Austria, from 2 to 3 months, and used as laborers. The energy value of their diet varied from 650 to 850 calories—a starvation diet. These findings were reported to the Surgeon, 12th Army Group, and were published.76



Feeding prisoners of war.—Experience with messing problems and nutritionally inadequate diets among prisoners of war because of lack of mess gear and cooking facilities pointed out the need for forethought and action regarding supplies, disciplining capturing troops in obedience to the Geneva Convention, and maintaining the interests of preventive medicine. Mess gear and water canteens are among the “effects and objects of personal use” which Article 6 of the convention specifies “shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war” (fig. 40) Through violations of this requirement, and through both thoughtlessness and misjudgment, mess gear and canteens were often taken from prisoners of war to their detriment and to the increase of the burden upon the detaining forces.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... OPERATIONS


Regards, Juha

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

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#99

Post by David Thompson » 24 Sep 2008, 02:07

Thanks, Juha.

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

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#100

Post by michael mills » 24 Sep 2008, 04:20

The actual situation of Finland needs to be taken into account, in particular the fact that it was dependent on food imports.

If Finland had sufficient food supplies to provide an adequate diet to its troops, its civilian population, the Soviet POWs and internees it was holding, and inmates of prisons and mental hospitals, but agencies of the Finnish Government arbitrarily chose to withhold food from the Soviet POws and internees and the inmates of prisons and mental hospitals, with the result that many of those groups died from malnutrition, then the relevant agencies of the Finnish Government would have committed a crime.

On the other hand, if Finland did not have sufficent food supplies to provide an adequate diet to all the above-mentioned groups, and had to choose which groups would be adequately supplied and which would not, that would constitute a mitigating circumstance, and the situation would not be so clear-cut.

From the time Finland became once again involved in war with the Soviet Union, (and it needs to be birne in mind that the Soviet Union was planning to occupy Finland and had asked for German acquiescence during Molotov's visit to Berlin in November 1940), it had become subject to the British blockade which had cut off its normal overseas food supply, apart from the little it could import from German-dominated Europe. That is to say, Finland's food imports had been largely cut off even before Britain declared war on it in December 1941.

On 4 November 1941, Churchill wrote to Stalin as follows:
We told you........that we were willing to declare war on Finland. Will you however consider whether it is really good business that Britain should declare war.......at the moment. It is only a formality because our extreme blockade is already in force against them.......Finland has many friends in the United States and it is more prudent to take account of this fact.


Source: Premier Papers, Public Record Office, 3/170/1 fo. 78, quoted in Roy Douglas, "New Alliances 1940-41"(London, Macmillan, 1982)
By the winter of 1941-42, Finland was suffering a food crisis due to the "extreme blockade" boasted of by Churchill, and the only way it could provide an adequate diet to its troops and its civilian population was to cut the rations being supplied to enemies it was holding (the Soviet POWs and civilian internees) and to less deserving or useful Finnish elements (inmates of prisons and mental hospitals).

There is no evidence of any Finnish Government policy to deliberately kill off designated groups of people through withholding of adequate food supplies. The government of Finland was democratic, and in no sense "fascist".

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

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#101

Post by michael mills » 24 Sep 2008, 04:39

The following extract from the material posted by Juha is very interesting:
Although these requirements were recognized, their fulfillment varied from adequate in 1944 to marginal and deficient in 1945 with a gradual improvement after July of that year. The deficiencies arose from a number of causes which have been mentioned in preceding parts of this chapter. In the period from March to the end of July 1945, the decrements were caused by (1) lack of planning for feeding the unexpectedly large numbers of rapidly captured prisoners of war, (2) the continuance of issue based upon troop strength, although there were many extra thousands to be fed prisoners of war, recovered Allied military personnel, and displaced persons, (3) food shortages in the United States and in the United Kingdom in 1945, which required reduction of food supplies for prisoners of war, (4) lack of mess gear and cooking equipment for prisoners of war— a secondary but important deficiency, since ability to serve food is second only to ability to supply food, and (5) inter-Allied dissatisfactions over food allowances for prisoners of war as compared to the more austere diets for civilians forced to live under conditions of scarcity of food.
No doubt similar considerations applied in Finland in the winter of 1941-42. The difference was that the food shortages experienced in early 1945 in areas under Allied control could quickly be rectified through food imports from outside Europe, whereas such rectification was not available to the Finnish authorities, due to the ongoing British blockade which prevented food imports.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#102

Post by Penn44 » 24 Sep 2008, 10:21

Juha Tompuri wrote:About the (Western) allied POW food rationing:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs ... OPERATIONS

Regards, Juha
The purpose of posting this is?

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#103

Post by Penn44 » 24 Sep 2008, 10:25

michael mills wrote:By the winter of 1941-42, Finland was suffering a food crisis due to the "extreme blockade" boasted of by Churchill, and the only way it could provide an adequate diet to its troops and its civilian population was to cut the rations being supplied to enemies it was holding (the Soviet POWs and civilian internees) and to less deserving or useful Finnish elements (inmates of prisons and mental hospitals).

There is no evidence of any Finnish Government policy to deliberately kill off designated groups of people through withholding of adequate food supplies. The government of Finland was democratic, and in no sense "fascist".
Within this thread another Finnish member has claimed it was harsh, icy winter conditions that caused the food shortages. Will the real reason for the alleged Finnish food shortage please stand up.

Again, as previously reported and analyzed, the food shortages resulted in the deaths of Soviet POWs, Finnish mental patients, and Finnish prisoners. Whether it was intentional or not, the deaths did occur as the result of the actions of the Finnish government. The failure to adequately feed the Soviet POWs was a violation of the customs of war, and therefore, a war crime.

Mills, your attempt at rationalization of German genocidal actions by proxy is transparent.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#104

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Sep 2008, 11:26

Penn44 wrote:The purpose of posting this is?


I was asked, and to shed some light to the issue.
Juha Tompuri earlier wrote:For instance the POW food rationing (that took place by USSR, USA and UK as well) seemed not to have raised any big emotions at that time.
David Thompson earlier wrote:Juha -- Do you have some sources for our readers?
Regards, Juha

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: "Finland shot 1000 POWs"

#105

Post by Penn44 » 24 Sep 2008, 12:45

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Juha Tompuri earlier wrote:For instance the POW food rationing (that took place by USSR, USA and UK as well) seemed not to have raised any big emotions at that time.
Regards, Juha
The actions of the USA and UK do not constitute a defense of Finnish actions. Again, this appears to be tu quoque argumentation on your part.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”