Guess who's Bacque?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

#16

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 28 Feb 2004, 19:58

A good compilation of material pertinent to our discussion is at
http://www.questia.com/popularSearches/ ... ermany.jsp


Thre is also some information at the Harry S. Truman Library & Museum
http://www.trumanlibrary.org

specifically regarding the Marshall Plan
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... rshall.htm

and the Berlin Airlift:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... irlift.htm

plus Student Research Files on the following subjects:
President Truman at the Potsdam Conference, July 17-August 2, 1945.
United States Policy in Occupied Germany After World War II.
The Plight of Displaced Persons in Europe Following World War II.


US National Archives:
Records of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany [USHCG]
(Record Group 466)
1944-55
2,425 cu. ft.
Link



There’s a good online document (here on the US Army’s "Center For Military History" site but also mirrored on "Global Security" site as well called
"THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY
1944-1946"
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Occ-GY/
check out this url below, Chapter 16, for a discussion of the Axis troops in postwar era

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/O ... h16.htm#b5
Food was the problem. Registered prisoners of war were entitled to 2,000 calories a day, and working prisoners, 2,900 calories. The disarmed enemy troops could be given the normal German consumer's ration; therefore, SHAEF had intended to transfer all German troops inside Germany to disarmed enemy status after the surrender, but the legality of this move was in doubt at least until after the Berlin Declaration was signed.62

According to the ECLIPSE plan, the disarmed enemy troops were to be fed, like the DPs, from German sources; but while the DPs were scattered in groups of thousands and could theoretically live off the local economies, the troops were concentrated, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands. On 16 May, Bradley cabled Eisenhower that the Wehrmacht stocks the Seventh Army had been using to feed its disarmed enemy troops would run out that day. In another four days

Seventh Army would have used up all it could get from civilian sources in its area. The other armies could not help because they were in much the same position. "These disarmed forces," he maintained, "will either have to be fed or released." He asked for immediate authority to discharge the disarmed enemy forces and for US Army or military government rations to feed them until the discharge could be completed.63

SHAEF could not authorize a "blanket release" of German forces, Eisenhower replied, because their discharge had to be "strictly controlled in order to prevent widespread disorder, or other conditions which military government agencies will be unable to cope with"; the release of the categories already approved (see below) would "tax the administrative machinery for a considerable time . . . . Until such time as indigenous resources can meet the needs," he concluded, 12th Army Group could use imported military government food for the disarmed forces. Preferably it should use the imported food for feeding the DPs, and the indigenous food could thus be saved for feeding the German troops.64 Imported food, however, was not a real solution either. Brig. Gen. Robert M. Littlejohn, Chief Quartermaster, Communications Zone, pointed out that there was a food shortage in the United States and in the theater. Including the prisoners of war, his ration strength was over 7 million, and he was having to reduce the rations of US officers and enlisted men by ten percent to meet it. Moreover, the War Department had made no provision for clothing and camp equipment for the prisoners. Littlejohn recommended "settling down to 500,000 in three months." 65

SHAEF issued three disbandment directives in May. Disbandment Directive No. 1 authorized the release of agricultural workers, coal miners, transportation workers, and others in key occupations. No. 2 authorized the discharge of women, and No. 3 of men over fifty years of age. Directive No. 4, put out in early June, released the Belgians, French, and Dutch who had served in the Wehrmacht to their governments.66

A G-1 inspection in early June revealed, however, that the attitude of the armies was "to discharge as many as possible as fast as possible without a great deal of attention to categoriesThe average rate for 12th Army Group was 30,000 a day; Third Army alone had released over a half million disarmed enemy troops by 8 June. The armies were working against time. Unless the British accepted the prisoners and troops due on their account or unless a large number were released, the rations, according to G-5 estimates, would run out within the month.67 ."

The discharge procedure was simple and generally similar to that devised by CCA of 12th Armored Division under Brig. Gen. Riley F. Ennis, which got the job of disbanding the 82,000 troops sent by the British with the horses from Austria. The separation center was an old cavalry school. The men lined up in the stable compound. On entering the building, they removed their shirts and raised their arms to be inspected for the SS blood-type tattoo. (SS men were held either as prisoners of war or, if they had enough rank, under automatic arrest.) After they were inspected, German doctors gave them superficial physical examinations and separated any who were obviously sick. Next, the men filled out counterintelligence questionnaires and were interviewed briefly to determine whether they were subject to automatic arrest or had technical skills of intelligence interest. Those who fell into neither category were given slips stamped with a "B" and could be discharged. Those with an "A" slip were put under automatic arrest when they reached the end of the line. With a "C" they were held as prisoners of war. The next step was to fill out the so-called P-4 form, on which the soldier was required to give his name, the names of his close relatives, and his place of residence. After completing the form, he turned his Soldbuch (pay book) over to a German clerk and received a discharge form and instructions on how to act. If he was going to a place in the Seventh Army area, he was also given half a loaf of black bread and about a pound of lard, his rations for the trip, and could leave the stable to wait for a truck to take him home. CCA had five truck companies working day and night hauling those discharged. If his destination was outside the army area, the soldier went to one of several small temporary camps to await transportation. Outside the center, CCA set up sixty guard posts to block all roads and paths leading in, less to keep those inside in than to keep others out. Upon learning of the center's existence, German soldiers who had deserted late in the war or had been captured and turned loose by US troops tried to infiltrate the center to get themselves officially discharged.68

On 29 June, SHAEF G-1 sanctioned what the armies were already doing and in Disbandment Directive No.5 authorized a general discharge of German nationals held as prisoners of war and disarmed enemy troops, excepting those in automatic arrest categories, SS men, war criminals, or residents of the Russian zone. The last group would have to be held until the Soviet authorities agreed to receive them.69

From then on, the separation centers ran at full tilt until the middle of August when the glut of prisoners seemed about to become a shortage. SHAEF had contracted in July to provide 1.3 million prisoners for labor in France and smaller numbers for Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg; and the US forces were using over half a million in Military Labor Service Units. For the next several months, the numbers on hand plus the contingents to be returned from the United States (370,000) and from Norway and Italy were just about enough to meet the commitments.70

After the summer's rush was over, the presence of prisoners of war threatened to become a permanent feature of the occupation. For the US forces, they were a useful source of labor as well as a willing one, since they were better fed than they would be on the outside;furthermore, no matter how many disbandment directives were published (the last, No. 26, was issued on 29 November 1945) , there seemed always to be thousands of ineligibles: the sick and disabled, war crimes suspects, SS men, who might be charged as members of a criminal organization, and members of the General Staff.
I also wanted to add the following excerpt to counter the notion common on this thread that the "victors wrote the history books"
The future of the General Staff officers and generals was going to be substantially different from the one G-2 proposed for them, which in fact never went beyond the talking stage. In Washington, the War Department G-2 Historical Branch, later the Historical Division, War Department, and eventually the Office of the Chief of Military History, needed information on German operations for the war histories it was going to write.

Col. S. L. A. Marshall, chief of the Historical Division, ETOUSA, needed the same kind of information for his division's history of the European theater. In the spring and summer of 1945, however, German military records were only just being uncovered and war crimes and intelligence investigators would have first call on them for a long time. Interviews seemed to offer a useful substitute, and in July 1945, the Historical Branch, G-2, sent Dr. George W. Shuster, President of Hunter College, to Europe at the head of a mission charged with interviewing high-ranking Germans.

The transcripts of eighty interviews that Maj. Kenneth Hechler, a member of the mission, conducted with German officers held at ASHCAN SO impressed Colonel Marshall that he authorized Major Hechler to transfer some key German officers to a prisoner of war enclosure at Versailles, where the theater historians would have a better opportunity to interrogate them. After the theater historical activities were moved to Frankfurt in early 1946, the Historical Division, USFET, took over Disarmed Enemy Forces Enclosure 20 at Allendorf, Hesse.

The division assembled there all of the German generals and General Staff officers in US custody whose personnel records indicated that they would be able to provide information pertinent to the history of US campaigns in western Europe. Later, prisoners with knowledge of the Mediterranean theater and the German campaigns against the Soviet Union were also included. Under the former chief of the General Staff, Generaloberst a. D. Franz Halder, the officers were put to work writing studies for use in the Army historical program and in the training courses at service schools. After nearly all were released from prisoner of war status in July 1947,

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

#17

Post by michael mills » 29 Feb 2004, 04:19

Rob-WSSOB wrote:
I also wanted to add the following excerpt to counter the notion common on this thread that the "victors wrote the history books" .
The material posted does not in fact counter the above adage. The victors are in a position of power to determine what will go into the history books; they may choose to exclude any input from the defeated enemy, or they may choose to allow the defeated enemy to ahve his say. That does alter the fact that the decision is made by the victor.

Furthermore, the defeated German generals were used as a source of information for the military histories to be written by the victors. The actual political line to be taken by those histories was determined by the victors, not the defeated German generals who provided historical data.

Thus, although a German general was in a position to write an account of campaigns fought by him that was to be incorporated into a history written by the victors, he was not in a position to put a political spin on it. That is to say, he did not have the power to ensure that the histroy book said "The war fought by Germany was a defensive one forced on it by those dastardly British and Americans".


walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#18

Post by walterkaschner » 02 Mar 2004, 02:07

In one sense, I must agree with Mr. Mill's post immediately above.

My father-in-law was one of the German generals imprisoned after the war to provide information as to his military experiences. He had commanded an infantry division during the Ardennes Offensive, which was of particular interest to the U.S. military. He subsequently was wounded and captured by the British near the war's end (ironically, the same thing happened to him as a Lieutenant in WWI) and when he had sufficiently recovered from his wounds he was turned over to the US military and placed in a special POW camp in the American Zone with many other general officers. He was finally released in mid 1947, having been - as he put it - squeezed dry of every drop of recollection.

His regret was not that he had been kept in prison for almost two years - indeed, strange as it may seem, he was thankful for it. He was well treated and, more important, well fed, during a time when most German civilians, including his family, were going hungry. He held a PhD in agricultural economics, and was permitted on the many days when he was not being interviewed to leave the camp and assist the local farmers, which he greatly enjoyed.

Moreover, although he didn't smoke, he was granted a cigarette allowance of two packs a week, and when his family finally were able to locate and visit him, he had accumulated a significant hoard, much of which his 13 year old daughter - my late wife - was able from time to time to smuggle out of the POW camp under her long skirts. These probably kept the family from starvation during that first terrible winter, when most German civilians had to become, as my wife put it , "Hunger Künstlern" ("hunger artists") in order to survive.

I have copies of the histories he wrote for the US military, and Mr. Mills is quite correct, they are devoid of any political spin whatsoever. They are simply a detailed recollection of what transpired from his limited perspective on a day to day - sometimes hour to hour - basis in the battles he had been engaged in. His regret was that that he had to rely solely on his memory, as his field notes had been lost. But the Americans were very helpful in furnishing him information they had collected from his opposing forces. And the resulting military histories, published by US sources, at least the ones I have read, had little if any political spin themselves. They were written for an entirely different purpose.

But in another sense, the notion that "the victors write the history books" is obviously errant nonsense. It was not the case with Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, probably the greatest history ever written, nor is it the case with WWI or WWII. Certainly the bulk of history written by members of the victorious nations reflect the victors point of view. But there have been scores, if not hundreds, of history books covering each of those later wars written by Germans, of all manner of political persuasion across the entire spectrum. And there have been dozens - if not scores - written by US, British and French authors which are sympathetic to the German point of view. Recourse to sweeping and unfounded shibboleths such as this reflect such an obviously impoverished, thoughtless and indeed utterly sterile cast of mind as to be scarcely worth the effort to attempt a rebuttal.

Regards, Kaschner

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

#19

Post by David Thompson » 02 Mar 2004, 02:31

walterkaschner -- You said:
But in another sense, the notion that "the victors write the history books" is obviously errant nonsense. It was not the case with Thucydides' Peloponnesian War, probably the greatest history ever written, nor is it the case with WWI or WWII. Certainly the bulk of history written by members of the victorious nations reflect the victors point of view. But there have been scores, if not hundreds, of history books covering each of those later wars written by Germans, of all manner of political persuasion across the entire spectrum. And there have been dozens - if not scores - written by US, British and French authors which are sympathetic to the German point of view. Recourse to sweeping and unfounded shibboleths such as this reflect such an obviously impoverished, thoughtless and indeed utterly sterile cast of mind as to be scarcely worth the effort to attempt a rebuttal.
I heartily agree. There was never any shortage of Confederate memoirs in the county libraries where I grew up in the South, nor did the victors write every history of the Napoleonic wars. The Greek general Xenophon, writing in classic times, was another "loser" whose account lives on. The are a number of accounts of the Spanish conquest of Mexico produced by indigenous artists and authors. Certainly there's no shortage of French and American accounts of the Vietnam war, either. The saying that "The victors write the histories," especially as applied to the last 200 years, is only believable to people who don't read.

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

#20

Post by michael mills » 02 Mar 2004, 05:15

Let us say that there is an "Establishment" history, and that it is written by the victors.

In free societies, the vanquished have the right to write their own versions of history, but they are marginalised, not supported by the ruling elite, not taught in schools etc.

To take the example of histories of the American Civil War written from the Confederate point of view. Of course there are many such accounts, but the "dominant paradigm" in the United States in regard to that war, ie the popularly accepted view, the view propagated in society generally, is the victory of the North was a "good thing" because it was "fighting for freedom" whereas the South was "fighting for slavery".

Because of that dominant paradigm, President Lincoln is regarded as a great hero, despite his manifest faults as a person and a politician, while Jefferson Davis and any other political leader of the Confederacy is, if not a villain, a nobody.

A recent expression of the "dominant paradigm" in regard to the Civil War is represented by the moves to remove Confederate insignia from the flags of Southern states which still included them. The motivation is that those insignia represent an ideology based on slavery and the oppression of Americans of African descent and therefore have no place in modern American political life. Particular historians may write tomes showing that most Southerners were fighting to preserve the independence of their states rather than for slavery per se, but in vain; their writings do not change the Establishment view of history.

A better example of history being written by the victors is the generally accepted account of the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the suppression of all the indigenous religions. Can anybody think of an historical work produced in Europe before modern times that takes the point of view of the "pagans" (ie not the "pagans" who eventually converted to Christianity and were therefore "good", but those who resisted and were suppressed, and are therefore "bad").

Another example would be the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, written after the triumph of the Yahvists. No voice is given to the adherents of other gods; only the point of view of the Yahvists is presented. That is a clear case of history being written by the victors in a conflict, in this case a cultural conflict rather than a purely military one.

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003, 16:12
Location: Pennsylvania

#21

Post by xcalibur » 02 Mar 2004, 06:03

michael mills wrote:Rob-WSSOB wrote:
I also wanted to add the following excerpt to counter the notion common on this thread that the "victors wrote the history books" .
The material posted does not in fact counter the above adage. The victors are in a position of power to determine what will go into the history books; they may choose to exclude any input from the defeated enemy, or they may choose to allow the defeated enemy to ahve his say. That does alter the fact that the decision is made by the victor.

Furthermore, the defeated German generals were used as a source of information for the military histories to be written by the victors. The actual political line to be taken by those histories was determined by the victors, not the defeated German generals who provided historical data.

Thus, although a German general was in a position to write an account of campaigns fought by him that was to be incorporated into a history written by the victors, he was not in a position to put a political spin on it. That is to say, he did not have the power to ensure that the histroy book said "The war fought by Germany was a defensive one forced on it by those dastardly British and Americans".

I'm not sure that's quite right. Indeed it does deserve more than casual attention, but to what degree? We find ourselves sixty years hence and still struggling about many facts. I take the opposite view, that the history was written by the perps or perceived perps. Rightly or wrongly it's theirs to explain. They've tried. They were given an opportunity to express themselves at Nuremburg. Yes, a very flawed legal forum, for as many reasons as we've spoken of, but , nonetheless, forum which would not have been accorded their foes by any means.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#22

Post by walterkaschner » 02 Mar 2004, 08:22

Michael Mills wrote
Let us say that there is an "Establishment" history, and that it is written by the victors.

In free societies, the vanquished have the right to write their own versions of history, but they are marginalised, not supported by the ruling elite, not taught in schools etc.

To take the example of histories of the American Civil War written from the Confederate point of view. Of course there are many such accounts, but the "dominant paradigm" in the United States in regard to that war, ie the popularly accepted view, the view propagated in society generally, is the victory of the North was a "good thing" because it was "fighting for freedom" whereas the South was "fighting for slavery".

Because of that dominant paradigm, President Lincoln is regarded as a great hero, despite his manifest faults as a person and a politician, while Jefferson Davis and any other political leader of the Confederacy is, if not a villain, a nobody.
To the extent Mr. Mills deals in what is generally taught in our public schools - at least in the Middle West where and when I grew up - I believe he is quite right. I was taught that the victory for the North was a "good thing", although not only because it was fighting for the freedom of the slaves, but also because it was for the preservation of the Union. I was also taught that Lincoln was a great man and that, to the extent Jefferson Davis featured in our texts at all, he was clearly wrong headed and difficult. And yet, many decades later, and after pouring over many, many volumes dealing with the Civil War from an abundance of perspectives, I believe that what I was taught, although completely one-sided and horribly over simplified, was at its very heart essentially correct. In my opinion, President Lincoln was indeed a great man, warts and all, and the North, on balance, had by far the better cause.

I was also taught that the Third Reich under Hitler was an evil, corrupt and bestial regime, and that its end was a blessing for mankind. And again, after weighing all the evidence I have as an amateur been able to amass over many decades of reading - and against a background of German heritage and a great love for one German in particular - I believe that what I was taught was essentially correct, albeit, from the perspective of an adult with a taste for history, regretably devoid of nuance and balance.

But consider what one can reasonably expect a public school educational system to offer by way of an introduction to history - and it obviously can not aspire to anything beyond a bare introduction. There are many other things to teach and to learn, and there is simply not enough time to delve into all the historical nuances. At 15 I spent 4 hours a week being introduced to the basics of US history, and at 17 it was 5 hours a week trying to get a grasp of world history, from the Babylonians to the then present days. Of course the material I was taught was oversimplified and biased, but I still believe its message on the major points was basically correct. Of course, this was all some 60 years ago, and times may, and probably have, changed.

But be that as it may, I don't believe that the victors in WWII have dictated or controlled what the defeated nations now teach their children in the class room. We in the US are obviously not writing the history textbooks for the German public schools. And from what I understand, those textbooks tread very lightly over the frailities of the Third Reich, as I think one might expect.

I have no knowledge whatsoever of any pre-modern historical writings treating of the pagan's point of view of the rise of Christianity, nor of any such providing a contrary view to the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, and am perfectly prepared to accept Mr. Mills' representations on those accounts. He is obviously well read and learned in such matters. But we are dealing here with the present, the here-and-now, where a variety of avenues of communication and disputation are easy and available to all, and under present circumstances, with all respect, I just can't see that his analogy holds water.

I do agree with Mr. Mill's view that there tends initially to be something akin to an "Establishment view" of things, but in this day and age I think it is highly fragile and can be swiftly bio-degradable. Witness the fate of the notion of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Who thinks that the US, clearly the victors in the Iraqi War, will be free to write the history to its own satisfaction?

Regards, Kaschner

robert knott
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 09:30
Location: palatka

#23

Post by robert knott » 02 Mar 2004, 15:53

michael mills wrote:
A better example of history being written by the victors is the generally accepted account of the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the suppression of all the indigenous religions. Can anybody think of an historical work produced in Europe before modern times that takes the point of view of the "pagans" (ie not the "pagans" who eventually converted to Christianity and were therefore "good", but those who resisted and were suppressed, and are therefore "bad").
There are plenty of them, although sometimes these works are mixtures of history, religious "mythology" and philosophy. Many of these "pagan" cultures did not use writing for centuries, passing the stories down through word of mouth, but once they developed a system of writing, practically all put their versions of history and views of life into written form. I'll admit I'm not extremely familiar with these, but some would include the Greek and Norse mythology we were all forced to study back in high school. (We certainly didn't study the Bible) Would the "Icelandic Sagas" you referred to in the "Wake Island" thread be included in these, since they are from the time before Europe was as you put it "contaminated by Judaism in its Christian form"? What about everything that has been handed down from the Greeks - from Homer to the historians to the ideas of such phiosophers as Plato - ideas that have so corrupted the true Christianity as founded by Christ so as to render its modern version a farce? Indeed, many of the pagan customs and ideas were adopted by the apostate church.

Another example would be the historical books of the Hebrew Bible, written after the triumph of the Yahvists. No voice is given to the adherents of other gods; only the point of view of the Yahvists is presented. That is a clear case of history being written by the victors in a conflict, in this case a cultural conflict rather than a purely military one.
Again, all those nations who worshipped the other gods left writings documenting their versions of history and theology. People make entire careers of translating Egyptian,Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and other cultures' writings. Why should the Bible devote space to the false (not just in my opinion, but also in God's) point of view? The Bible gives historical facts concerning these opposing nations; many times these accounts do not reflect favorably upon the Israelites. Time and again they are defeated and enslaved by the nations mentioned above, and the prophets always told them it would be because of their unfaithfulness to Yahweh. The Bible does not contain every detail of the pagan nations' history, just as it does not Israel's. But it does present facts which are necessary to the overall theme, and these facts (despite what some misinformed individuals have claimed) have never been proven wrong. Nothing even close can be said for the writings of the "pagan" cultures.

Rob - wssob2
Member
Posts: 2387
Joined: 15 Apr 2002, 21:29
Location: MA, USA

#24

Post by Rob - wssob2 » 02 Mar 2004, 17:21

Gentlemen - this is quite a fascinating, if off-topic, discussion.
To take the example of histories of the American Civil War written from the Confederate point of view. Of course there are many such accounts, but the "dominant paradigm" in the United States in regard to that war, ie the popularly accepted view, the view propagated in society generally, is the victory of the North was a "good thing" because it was "fighting for freedom" whereas the South was "fighting for slavery".
Not necessarily. Ever been to the US South? Read Confederates in the Attic for a fascinating glimpse into how the Civil War still resonates in American, and specifically Southern, culture.

Thanks everyone for making this topic so interesting to read. - rob

robert knott
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 09:30
Location: palatka

#25

Post by robert knott » 02 Mar 2004, 19:35

Rob - WSSOB wrote:
Not necessarily. Ever been to the US South? Read Confederates in the Attic for a fascinating glimpse into how the Civil War still resonates in American, and specifically Southern, culture.
How true. I was raised in the Northern U.S. in an area with a colorful history in the Civil War. Yet, very few people talked about or, as far as I could tell, even thought about that conflict. But now I have lived in the South for over 20 years, and the Southern Obsession continues, possibly growing even stronger. I guarantee that if I took a half-hour ride through this town right now I would see at least 30 representations of the Confederate Battle Flag - on pickup trucks, T-shirts (if you ever get a chance, check out the selection available at any southern flea market) and of course, tattoos. My wife's brother has a Confederate obsession that would do any Neo-Nazi proud. At the various CW reenactments, they usually have to "draft" some Johnny Rebs into being Yankees, since everybody wants to be a Confederate, whereupon they usually get mad and leave! How can all this be explained? I think that, whether it's Confederates, Nazis, or the team that lost the World Series, it's always the loser that's itching for a rematch. ... Sorry about continuing the off-topic thread, but yes, it is kind of fascinating...

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”