Mal-treatment of German 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
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#166

Post by Pingpongtweet » 20 Jan 2010, 20:46

David Thompson wrote:
(7)
By the way, if you think the Nuremberg trials are so important as guidance for what is legal and what is not, have a look at what the chief US prossecutor wrote to his president in 1945.
I didn't mention the Nuernberg trials.

Straw Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I will deal with your other errors and mistakes of fact later, since they're starting to pile up.
Bull!,
It would be interesting to see whether any such cases were prosecuted by the allies (I don't recall having seen any examples).
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1421805

Straw Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#167

Post by Pingpongtweet » 20 Jan 2010, 20:50

Are we to continue seeing amateur lawyers refering to the 1949 Geneva text instead of the 1929 one (hint, the war ended in 1945) or can we quietly settle it with the U.S. supreme court judge?

The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nuremberg/ ... rimes.html


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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#168

Post by David Thompson » 20 Jan 2010, 20:52

Pingpongtweet -- You wrote, after quoting me:
Bull!,
If this is a demonstration of your grasp of the subject matter and ability to respond to reasoned argument, you've got a long way to go.

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#169

Post by Pingpongtweet » 20 Jan 2010, 20:59

David Thompson wrote: (6)
Surely you must be aware of many instances where clearly illegal things were ignored or quietly dropped simply because the Allies could be shown to have done exactly the same?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Skorz ... rld_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestrict ... ne_warfare
In these examples the "illegal things" were neither ignored nor quietly dropped. Skorzeny was acquitted of war crimes, and Dönitz was acquitted of the unrestricted submarine warfare charge.
.
Tweaking the interpretation of the Law:
On the final day of the trial, 9 September, Allied Wing Commander F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas, recipient of the Military Cross and the Croix de guerre, and a former Allied Special Operations Executive agent, testified that he had worn German uniforms behind enemy lines. Realising that to convict Skorzeny could expose their own agent to the same charges, the tribunal acquitted the ten defendants, the military tribunal drawing a distinction between using enemy uniforms during combat and for other purposes including deception.
It is indicative that despite the rules being used in the indictment of Admiral Karl Dönitz, and although he was found guilty of breaching the 1936 Naval Protocol, his sentence was not assessed (no penalty was issued) on the ground of his breaches of the international law of submarine warfare at the Nuremberg Trials because evidence was presented to the court that both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy had issued similar orders.[4]

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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#170

Post by LWD » 20 Jan 2010, 21:02

Pingpongtweet wrote:
LWD wrote: "As soon as possible" is a term that allows considerable leeway. Indeed repatriating in 45 to an area where food supplies were barely above starvation levels can be argued counter to the good health of the POWs.
How well fed do these prisoners look?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.ns ... endocument

As a prisoner you are completely at the mercy of your captor, if you are free you have the big advantage of at least having the opportunity to work, barter, steal or even grow your own food.

If you were moved back in time to then and turned into a German captive, and given the choice between captivity and repatriation so you could help your family survive, I wonder if you would really stand-by the position you seem to be taking here.
You are missing the pont and personalizing the issue at the same time. When and how to repatriate prisoners is a decision made by governments. They should be taking into accounts the welfaire of the prisoners as well as the rules and regulations that apply and the resources that they have to devote to it. If in this case the occupying powers told Norway for instance there is a severe food shortage don't send any POWs home until it's allieved or it will agrevate the problem they would be fully justified in complying with that order. How the individual prisoners felt is irrelevant.

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#171

Post by Pingpongtweet » 20 Jan 2010, 21:04

LWD wrote:
Pingpongtweet wrote:
LWD wrote: "As soon as possible" is a term that allows considerable leeway. Indeed repatriating in 45 to an area where food supplies were barely above starvation levels can be argued counter to the good health of the POWs.
How well fed do these prisoners look?
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.ns ... endocument

As a prisoner you are completely at the mercy of your captor, if you are free you have the big advantage of at least having the opportunity to work, barter, steal or even grow your own food.

If you were moved back in time to then and turned into a German captive, and given the choice between captivity and repatriation so you could help your family survive, I wonder if you would really stand-by the position you seem to be taking here.
You are missing the pont and personalizing the issue at the same time. When and how to repatriate prisoners is a decision made by governments. They should be taking into accounts the welfaire of the prisoners as well as the rules and regulations that apply and the resources that they have to devote to it. If in this case the occupying powers told Norway for instance there is a severe food shortage don't send any POWs home until it's allieved or it will agrevate the problem they would be fully justified in complying with that order. How the individual prisoners felt is irrelevant.
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?

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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#172

Post by LWD » 20 Jan 2010, 21:08

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.

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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#173

Post by David Thompson » 20 Jan 2010, 21:15

Pingpongtweet -- Please source your quotes used in your post at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1422388. The forum and section rules require it.
When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=5#5

H&WC section rules
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53962

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#174

Post by Pingpongtweet » 20 Jan 2010, 21:23

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.

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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#175

Post by LWD » 20 Jan 2010, 22:00

Pingpongtweet wrote:
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
However note that this was not talking about the POW's in Norway. The case in France is a bit clearer since they pretty much stated from the outset that they wanted POW's for labor as part of reperations. Didn't the Germans persue a similar course with the French POW's for 1940 by the way?
Last edited by LWD on 21 Jan 2010, 14:54, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Pingpongtweet
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 11:47

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#176

Post by Pingpongtweet » 20 Jan 2010, 22:15

LWD wrote: Didn't the Germans persue a similar course with the French POW's for 1940 by the way?
Please stay on topic, here it is "Mal-treatment of German POWs".

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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#177

Post by David Thompson » 21 Jan 2010, 01:43

Pingpongtweet -- You wrote:
Please stay on topic, here it is "Mal-treatment of German POWs".
Do not presume to play the moderator here. You brought up the specific issue of whether the retention of POWs after hostilities cease is a war crime, without providing any examples of a war crimes trial on that basis since the treaty took effect 80 years ago. That leaves the question open as to whether or not retention of POWs for one or another period of time after the end of hostilities is an actual war crime. For an answer, we have to look to the customs and usages of war, as evidenced by historical examples. Consequently, LWD's observation is both on-topic and relevant to the discussion.

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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#178

Post by michael mills » 21 Jan 2010, 08:40

May I suggest an alternative way of looking at this issue.

I presume that there were many occasions where Allied personnel had to clear minefieldsl using the nirmal techniques.

Presumably there accidents in the course of such work, resulting in casualties and maybe fatalities.

Would it be possible to find out the accident rate in such work, eg number of fatalities per number of mines lifted, and compare it with the rate incurred by German POWs performing that work by order of their Allied captors.

For example, in the case of German POWs doing mine-clearance under French command, the fatality rate was one per 5000 mines. If that rate was substantially more than the rate of fatal accidents for French personnel doing the same work, then it would appear that the French commanders had neglected to provide safe conditions of work for the POWs in their charge, and hence were culpable under the laws relating to the protection of POWs.

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

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#179

Post by LWD » 21 Jan 2010, 15:00

michael mills wrote:May I suggest an alternative way of looking at this issue.

I presume that there were many occasions where Allied personnel had to clear minefieldsl using the nirmal techniques.

Presumably there accidents in the course of such work, resulting in casualties and maybe fatalities.

Would it be possible to find out the accident rate in such work, eg number of fatalities per number of mines lifted, and compare it with the rate incurred by German POWs performing that work by order of their Allied captors.

For example, in the case of German POWs doing mine-clearance under French command, the fatality rate was one per 5000 mines. If that rate was substantially more than the rate of fatal accidents for French personnel doing the same work, then it would appear that the French commanders had neglected to provide safe conditions of work for the POWs in their charge, and hence were culpable under the laws relating to the protection of POWs.
It would be interesting to see such an analysis but one would have to be very careful with it. For instance if the French and German rates were the same but the Germans had maps of the mine fields it still might indicate lack of proper care. On the otherhand if in one case the mine fields were a few weeks or months old and the other years old different the data could be extremely difficult to compare. Worth doing certainly but likely not to be conclusive.

User avatar
bf109 emil
Member
Posts: 3627
Joined: 25 Mar 2008, 22:20
Location: Youngstown Alberta Canada

Re: Mal-treatment of German POWs

#180

Post by bf109 emil » 27 Jan 2010, 12:30

Pingpongtweet noted'
If you were moved back in time to then and turned into a German captive, and given the choice between captivity and repatriation so you could help your family survive, I wonder if you would really stand-by the position you seem to be taking here.
numerous Germans which where held as POW's in Lethbridge Alberta Canada, sought to remain in Canada after the war, was many had no families to, nor the prospect of returning to eastern Germany held by the Soviets as a viable option, regardless, as had to be returned before filing for immigration back to Canada. My father sponsored 3 former POW's at our farm...2 whom served with the DAK and another whom served with the Kriegsmarine in U-Boats

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”