Also the most important point ignored by most of leftist leaning historians is that soviet union was not signatory to Geneva Convention and mistreatment of pow's was started by soviet union which was repaid by nazis
With all due respect, my dear friend, that’s plain nonsense. The Nazis’ atrocities against Soviet prisoners of war derived from plans they made long before the outbreak of hostilities, which contemplated the starvation death of thirty million people in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union. The attitude towards Soviet prisoners of war becomes clear e.g. from Hitler’s briefing of his commanders on 30 March 1941:
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]”
Again Hitler avoided – judging by Halder’s notes – to address the racial dogma all too clearly. Instead he dressed his unprecedented requirements into arguments that had been cut to the mentality of the troop commanders. In emphasizing the need to annihilate Bolshevism he addressed a goal that was shared by the generals. If he further set the accent on this having to be done to remove an “enormous danger” to Germany, that sacrifices had to be made and “considerations” overcome for that purpose [Translator’s note: the German term “Bedenken” was translated as “considerations”. It may also be understood as “scruples” in the context], he thus addressed a specific preparedness to make sacrifices that was one of the most important conditions to make National Socialist crimes possible at all. The required extermination actions were thus given the character of exceptional measures, of a “dirt track” that had to be overcome in the interest of the future of the German Reich. Hitler further appealed to the troop leaders’ responsibility for their troops when he required that the troops defend themselves with the means by which they were attacked. Herewith he addressed the unclear fears that existed anyway in the fight against an enemy rather unknown in comparison to those before and thus open to any projections.
In the war crimes trials after the war some of those present, including the Commander in Chief of the Army, von Brauchitsch, stated that in the sequence of Hitler’s speech there had been heated protests to the Commander in Chief of the Army due to the kind of warfare required of the army as soon as Hitler had left the room. Brauchitsch maintained that he promised not to issue any orders corresponding to Hitler’s requirements, and that he instead had ordered the issue of the so called “Disciplinary Directive” to counteract the kind of warfare required by Hitler. The analysis of the coming into being of the Barbarossa Directive and the Commissar Order, however, shows that this account does not correspond to the sequence of events.
Immediately after Hitler’s speech the staffs of the OKW (Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht) and the OKH (Supreme Command of the Army) proceeded to translate Hitler’s requirements into orders, insofar as they had not already reached decisions at least closely approaching Hitler’s requirements by themselves. The preparation of these orders after the protest that was not constituted another decisive step in the direction of involving the Wehrmacht in the extermination policy.
About a week after Hitler’s speech, on 8 April, Ulrich von Hassel and the Chief of Staff of Admiral Canaris, Colonel Oster, were with Colonel General Ludwig Beck. Hassel noted the following:
“[…] my hair stood on end in the face of what was made evident in documents about the orders issued to the troops and signed by Halder regarding the procedures in Russia and the systematic transformation of military justice towards the population into a caricature that mocked any law [….]. With this submission to Hitler’s orders Brauchitsch is sacrificing the honor of the German army.”
I translated the above from book Christian Streit’s Keine Kameraden: Die Wehrmacht und die sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941 –1945
, first written in 1980 and still considered the standard reference work about the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war by the Wehrmacht. Emphases are mine.
As to conventions on the treatment of POWs, you may read in Antony Beevor’s Stalingrad
that Stalin, scared shitless by the ferocity of the Nazi attack, proposed to Hitler a bilateral adherence to the Hague Convention shortly after the outbreak of the war. As Adolf wasn’t interested in losing a handy pretext for the mass murder of Soviet prisoners of war that was a part of his plans, this proposal never received an answer.
How about doing some reading before writing and sticking to the facts rather than trying to sell the version of events you are so keen to believe in, Mr. Wildboar?