LWD wrote:Pingpongtweet wrote: ... Ok so you are making a hypothetical argument that this was the reason for retaining the prisoners? Do you have any evidence to support that this could have been the reason?
Not really I'm just using it as an example of one possible reason that they were not repatriated sooner. There are a number of other possibilities as well. The point is unless you can eliminate them it's not clear that they were in violation of the conventions.
Well, I guess we can clarify that point then. The prisoners ha an economic value, they were simply being exploited as a labor resource.
Read through the following paper, some excerpts
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... e&page=621
Message sent to the missions in Belgium France, Luxembourg, Netherlands. Top Secret November 29, 1946
The President, the Secretary of War and I have decided to begin immediately repatriation of POWs in Am custody or transferred to by US liberated nations. I realize the problems both economic and political which this decision will cause.... touch on the following points:
...The Geneva POW convention, both in its letter and spirit, contemplates the repatriation of POWs as soon as possible after the cessation of active hostilities...
failure to repatriate POWs who are not charged with war crimes or who are not otherwise ineligible for repatriation is indefensible on moral as well as legal grounds...
....we are not, however unmindful of the economic problems in your country which the labor of these POWs serves in part to ameliorate.