wildboar wrote:Soviet union was not signatory to Geneva Conventions and treated POWS badly .
Infact during initial stage of operation barbossa it was soviet union which commited atrocities on axis pows which was answered tit for tat basis by nazis.
You're a nice chap, wildboar, but statements like the above make me feel like slapping you left and right a few times, see if you wake up to reality.
How can you possibly state that German atrocities against Soviet POWs were "tit for tat" if the Führer himself clearly stated what things would be like when briefing his commanders on 30 March 1941, almost three months before the beginning of the attack on the Soviet Union
My translation from Christian Streit, Keine Kameraden. Die Wehrmacht und die sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941-1945
, page 34:
The preparedness of the military leadership to take part in the ideologically motivated war of annihilation was scanned by Hitler on March 30, 1941, in a speech of two and a half hours he held before about 250 high officers – the commanders and chiefs of staff of the army groups, armies, army corps and divisions that were to carry out the war in the East – in the Reichskanzlei. Hitler had already attempted to convey the attitude desired by him to high troop commanders before previous campaigns, but never in front of so large an audience. Prior to the Polish campaign he had already announced that the war would be “conducted until the total destruction of Poland with the greatest brutality and without considerations”. At that time, however, the commanders had remained uncertain about the tasks attributed to the SS Einsatzgruppen. On this 30th of March 1941 however, he made clear to the assembled generals with an unprecedented openness what methods he wanted to be employed in the war against the Soviet Union. Chief of the General Staff Halder took the following notes:
Two world-views fighting each other. Demolishing verdict about Bolshevism, which is equal to asocial criminality. Communism is an enormous danger for the future. We must depart from the standpoint of soldierly comradeship. The Communist is no comrade before and no comrade afterwards. This is a fight to annihilation. If we don’t see it as this, we will defeat the enemy, but in 30 years we will again be faced with the communist enemy. We don’t make war to conserve the enemy.
Fight against Russia:
Annihilation of the Bolshevik commissars and the communist intelligence. The new states must be Socialist states, but without an intelligence of their own. It must be prevented that a new intelligence comes into being. A primitive Socialist intelligence is sufficient.
The fight must be conduced against the poison of disintegration. This is not a matter for military tribunals. The leader of the troops must know what this is about. The must lead in the fight. The troops must defend themselves with the means by which they are attacked. Commissars and GPU-people are criminals and must be treated as such.
For this the troops need not come out of the hands of their leaders. The leader must issue his directives in consonance with the feelings of the troops. [Marginal note by Halder: This fight is very much differentiated from the fight in the West. In the East harshness means mildness in the future.]
The leader must require themselves to do the sacrifice of overcoming their considerations.
[Marginal note: Order of the Commander in Chief of the Army]
Emphases are mine.
Also consider the following excerpt I translated from pages 774 and following of Christian Gerlach's Kalkulierte Morde
[...]The outbreak of violence in the very first days of the war and the simultaneous Wehrmacht crimes against civilians at that time was basically not related to the confrontation with the allegedly cruel enemy – contrary to the still reigning opinion of historians, which in this respect constitutes a rather strange mixture between criticism of the “criminal orders” and posterior solidarity with the perpetrators against the “Bolshevik beasts”. This view frequently fails to take into account that the Germans had attacked the Soviet Union and not the other way round. After the sequence of events including the breaches of law it would be more appropriate to grant the Soviets that were enraged by the German crimes, although this can be no excuse for violations of the laws of war and international law by the Soviet side.
However, from Belorussia no Soviet excesses against members of the Wehrmacht or against their own prison inmates on a larger scale (like at Lvov or Dubno in Ukraine) have become known. What seems characteristic is the report of the counterintelligence of Panzer Group 3 that of both types of such crimes there had been none other so far beside the killing of two tank crews after capture. While the subordinate units had reported many Soviet excesses, these had generally proved to be unsubstantiated upon closer examination. Rumors and propaganda reports far exceeded the actual crimes by the Soviet side. This had been prepared by an intensive propaganda of the military leadership at Hitler’s orders in the previous months about the treacherous fighting practices of the Soviets. Individual cases already served German troop leaders as a welcome pretext to order murders on a large scale, as in the case of the 23rd Infantry Division. Panzer Group 3, which according to its own statements did not have such pretexts, made do without a justification and ordered to kill Soviet soldiers who had put up resistance in the fighting.[...]
Here i am quoting a interview of soviet medical personnel Natalia Peshkova regarding method of treatment of axis captives-
What did you do with the captives?
Having cleared Fastovo, we went further and found a big group of Italian soldiers. In general, Italians weren't good warriors. In addition, these didn't have weapons. But we were in a hard situation ourselves, nearly surrounded, so our officers decided to shoot them. I didn't watch it, of course. It was a hard experience for everybody, we were just getting back to normal, when the Germans hit us again. Those boys who performed the execution told that the captives offered watches and other expensive things not to kill them. It was terrible, but it was impossible to leave them alive...
Considering the statement of soviet medical personnel regarding murder of pows by soviet forces it is crystal clear that all that occured was not an accident or work of few individuals but clear cut soviet policy.
Policy, my dear boy, is something decided upon by the decision-making bodies of a government.
What our dear Natalia is telling us is that Soviet officers in the field decided to shoot their prisoners because they were in dire straits themselves and didn't know what to do with them.
It doesn't become apparent from the quote whether she considers those measures to have been in accordance with superior orders or directives.
In fact, the tone of her statement suggests rather the opposite.