16-09-2004 00:45									#91
	Full PM-box? Change here!

No, this thread is why the Germans treated the Western Allies so fundamentally different from the people east of the Oder River. Meaning the German behavior towards the peoples on the eats was barbaric.

Oh, and per your claim- was Poland a signatory to the Geneva Convention? And if so, how do you explain the German's brutal treatment of the Polish people?

	16-09-2004 23:15									#92
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap No, this thread is why the Germans treated the Western Allies so fundamentally different from the people east of the Oder River. Meaning the German behavior towards the peoples on the eats was barbaric. Oh, and per your claim- was Poland a signatory to the Geneva Convention? And if so, how do you explain the German's brutal treatment of the Polish people?

Poles? Or Jews?

As to the uprising in '44, what did you expect the SS to do? Play nice?

	16-09-2004 23:17									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

GePap, I don't doubt that race had something to do with the disparate treatment. However, did the Nazi's mistreat American Jews or Blacks who were captured?

No.

Or at least, not that I know of.

And what about Indians? Were they treated different from Brits?

	16-09-2004 23:48									#94
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, I don't doubt that race had something to do with the disparate treatment. However, did the Nazi's mistreat American Jews or Blacks who were captured? No. Or at least, not that I know of. And what about Indians? Were they treated different from Brits?

http://www.axpow.org/markwilliam.htm

quote: I was slightly wounded from fragmentation bursts and the parachute harness nearly slipped off over my head during the descent but I managed to pull the rip cord and float down safely into a snowy farm field. Shortly after, the enemy home guard had surrounded me and eventually I became a POW for 15 months at Stalag Luft 1 in Barth, Germany. "The last days of my interment were especially terrifying", stated Mr. Mark. Hitler had ordered that Jewish American POWs be segregated and made part of his 'Final Solution'. It was a race between fate and the Russian advance. I am happy enough to be here to tell you of my story. A short time after the Russians freed us and fed us, General Eisenhower had B-17s fly us out from a captured air field and to Paris, France.

	16-09-2004 23:55									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Also, a mutual "buddy" would like to remind you Ned of how the Nazi's sometimes treated allied prisoners:



At Dunkirk:

http://www.wartours.com/blitz.html

Klissura/Distomo:

http://home.t-online.de/home/Dieter...nn/distoeng.htm


Oradour sur Glane:

http://www.aulton.demon.co.uk/html/...-sur-glane.html

Deliberate targetting of civilian refugees by German warplanes:

http://www.prole.demon.co.uk/middlesex/1_7.html

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/meyer.htm

	17-09-2004 00:00									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I understand the Jew issue with Hitler. Still, how did he treat Black and Indian POWs?

	17-09-2004 00:54									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: German high command issued orders that told soldiers that it was acceptable to murder Russian POWs and that Russian POWs were not "to be treated as a genuine soldier according to the Geneva Convention.

Find me proof of this, because the Nurembourg prosecutors couldn't. The only order they found to deliberatly kill POWs was the imfamous Commissar Order, which directed the on sight killing of Soviet Political Officers. This is actually the reason Keitel and Jodel (sp?) were hanged.

And while I do not condone the starving of Russian POWs, it is a fact that the Germans had not anticipated the needs of caring for several million Russian POWs accumulated in only a few months. I doubt even the modern nations of today could do so. Perhaps the Russians should have done a little more fighting and a little less surrendering.

There is a treaty that requires raiding vessels to stop, search, and rescue survivors. In WWI it was indeed the British that drove the Germans to unrestricted sub warfare because whenever they tried to abide by the treaty the brits used the already mentioned tricks.

Besides the point the technology advances of U-boats ere not available during the original treaty, as submarines in general do not have the capacity to rescue survivors. Not to mentiont he fact that if a merchant has escorts how the hell do you search it before sinking it?

Or should we level the same claims against aircraft that sink ships too?

As for auxillery merchant raiders, this was a WWI invention and for the most part, while disguised as civilians, they did identify, search, and take surviors off. The civilian look was just to get close. Alot of good books about that.

	21-09-2004 21:50									#98
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Patroklos, I think we are getting into the issue that has so many Americans confused (i.e. when Reagan as US President went to the cemetary with Waffen SS troops buried there). The German Army had no such orders. However, the remainder of the SS did engage in war crimes (and mistreatment of civilian population in conquered areas that were signatories of the Geneva accords), and their administration of conquered areas very often was totally in disregard of those Geneva Accords. Look at the Special Units, whose name I cannot spell without looking it up (I have enough problem with English, let alone German ) and what they did across the Eastern portions of the Nazi Empire - were none of those countries signatories to the 3rd Geneva convention? Please note the Waffen SS is a hybrid case, with neither the overall good record of the German army nor the blatant disregard that characterized the remainder of the SS (all reference the Geneva Accords). Of course they were elite units picked for a certain level of loyalty that could easily be argued as fanaticism, and given the ideology they were fanatic about, war crimes were inevitable in those units. The question is whether they were systemtic about it in the Waffen SS?

	22-09-2004 06:21									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The Germany army issued orders to murder specific types of POWs and to treat POWs ruthlessly. The orders amounted to the German High Command telling ALL German soldiers that it was acceptable to murder POWs. It is no surprise that the German soldiers did exactly that.

"The directives issued by the High Command of the German Armed Forces (Oberkommando der deutschen Wehrmacht, OKW) for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war intentionally violated international laws, including the Geneva and Hague Conventions regarding war on land."

"Among Hitler's orders in this vein was one dated May 13, 1941, stipulating that war crimes committed by German soldiers in the Soviet Union were not to be prosecuted. According to the "commissar order" of June 6, 1941, political commissars of the Red Army were to be "immediately dispatched using weapons". " [murdered]

" The "Instructions for Guarding Soviet Prisoners of War" (“Merkblatt für die Bewachung sowjetischer Kriegsgefangener") of September 8, 1941, called for "ruthless enforcement at the least sign of resistance and disobedience! Weapons are to be used mercilessly in breaking resistance. Escaping POWs must be fired upon immediately (without) warning, with intent to kill. Nor is softness called for against the industrious and obedient POW. He interprets it as weakness and draws his own conclusions….” Such orders often paved the way for the arbitrary and excessive use of force that characterized the guards' treatment of the prisoners."

http://www.stsg.de/main/zeithain/ge...ow/index_en.php

	22-09-2004 06:43									#100
	Tired of ads?

Tingkai, as we have already seen, the Geneva conventions did not protect powers who did not sign. Thus, the Germans could be guilty of no violations of the Geneva conventions concerning the USSR.

The Japanese were also not parties to the Geneva conventions, and yet several of their leaders were prosecuted for violations thereof by US military tribunals. While what the Japanese did was harsh, it was not "illegal" and convicting them of violation of the Geneva conventions was, IMO, unlawful.

Ditto what the Germans did to the Soviets. It may have been barbaric, but not illegal.

The net result of the war crimes trials after WWII is to make the Geneva conventions "law" even if a nation was not a party.

	22-09-2004 07:11									#101
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ditto what the Germans did to the Soviets. It may have been barbaric, but not illegal.

Do you think that the Geneva Conventions were the only laws that applied?

What the Germans did, on a routine basis, was illegal. It was murder, plain and simple. It violated existing German laws. That's why the German High Command specifically said that German soldiers would not be prosecuted for committing crimes in Russia.

	22-09-2004 07:21									#102
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Russia did sign the 2nd Geneva convention (1906), but this was not USSR

All other discussions aside, that does not matter. Under international law of state succession, the USSR was bound by all the treaties that Russia signed.

quote: The way to read above sentence is IMO: Although one of the Powers [USSR] in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers [Germany and USA] who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

Under the rules of statutory construction that reading is incorrect. There would be no reason to speak of powers in a conflict that may not be party to the convention if it was not binding upon those who are parties to the convention no matter who the other parties are.

quote: Clearly, part of Hitler's treatment of the Soviet POWs was to punish the Soviets for not signing the Geneva convention. The Germans thought of themselves as a higher people in part due to their respect for law.

OMG, that must be stupidest thing I've ever read!

	22-09-2004 13:21									#103
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Tingkai, you make one of Ned's point for him. The only explicit order for murder to regular German troops is that for soviet commissars. You then follow up with my point, prisoners were rapidly transferred into the internal SS system which was guilty of the worst atrocities. The regular German troops were not involved, on a systematic basis, with the horrendous war crimes we associate the Nazi regime yet. Those were perpetrated primarily by the SS. Please note I am talking systematic, as in organized. Many German commanders were horrified by the activities of the SS special units in the Soviet Union, and complained that their treatment of civilians made created partisan problems where none had existed. Maybe not a noble reason to oppose them, but the motivation does not change the fact that the opposition was documented. Don't tar the regular German trooper with the same broad brush as the SS special units. Not to say that there were no atrocities perpetrated by regular German army units, but it's the sanctioned systematic ones that produce mass graves.

	22-09-2004 13:49									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The POW camps were run by the Wehrmacht, not the SS. And the Wehrmacht was involved in the systematic and sanctioned atrocities.

Yes, some generals controlled their troops. Guderian refused to issue the Commissar Order, however, the majority of the generals did not object, until after the war.

The crimes committed by the Wehrmacht were covered in the West up after the war. Nato needed to rehabilitate the German army to defend Western Europe. So the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht were attributed to the SS and Russian stories about ordinary German soldiers committing atrocities were labelled propaganda.

	22-09-2004 13:59									#105
	Inflate your Upload Space

Tingkai, I'll admit I have not researched this. I had always assumed the camps were run by the SS, because of the indiscriminate descriptions of labor camps and their high lethality in many works (some of which don't even differentiate between death camps and work camps). Do you have any links on that, or references, that seperate out the Wehrmacht versus SS atrocities? Note I'm looking for balanced, neither German bashing nor apologist. Your rehabilitation statement unfortunately makes some sense, look at the German scientists and the US rocket program. There was more than just a "little" rehab going on there. I also know about that happening with the reconstituted Air Forces, so it makes sense that it happened with the army, also.

	22-09-2004 14:58									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Russia did sign the 2nd Geneva convention (1906), but this was not USSR All other discussions aside, that does not matter. Under international law of state succession, the USSR was bound by all the treaties that Russia signed. quote: The way to read above sentence is IMO: Although one of the Powers [USSR] in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers [Germany and USA] who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. Under the rules of statutory construction that reading is incorrect. There would be no reason to speak of powers in a conflict that may not be party to the convention if it was not binding upon those who are parties to the convention no matter who the other parties are.

Your first point about successor states is well taken. Your second ignores critical language in the treaty, which makes your reading untenable. If the USSR was not bound by the Geneva convention towards Germany, Germany was not bound towards the USSR. Nothing could be simpler.

As to German law of murder applying outside their borders, I doubt it. There might have been some other German law or regulation applied to German troops that prevented the murder of civilians outside their borders. Perhaps that law was suspended in the case of the USSR.

	22-09-2004 15:02									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Whether something is balanced is a subjective judgement.

Here's a review of two books about why so many Russian POWs died.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resourc...al5/chap11.html

You can also look at the orders given by Von Richeneau, commander of the Sixth Army in 1941. He ordered his troops not to feed POWs or Russian civillians.

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~german/gt...au-english.html

"The feeding of the natives and of prisoners-of-war who are not working for the Armed forces from Army kitchens is an equally misunderstood humanitarian act as is the giving of cigarettes and bread. Things which the people at home can spare under great sacrifices and things which are being bought by the command to the front under great difficulties, should not be given to the enemy by the soldier even if they originate from booty."

Notice the excuses Richenau uses to justify starving the POWs and then says even food taken as booty should not be given to them.

	22-09-2004 15:15									#108
	Increase Your PM Length

From the review of the two books mentioned above:

"As a [German] jurist and Senior State Attorney, Streim discusses in greater detail the rules of international law that applied to the treatment of their respective POWs by Germany and the Soviet Union, and his study throughout emphasizes the legal dimensions of his subject. The legal situation was complicated by the fact that pre-Nazi Germany had ratified the 1907 Hague Regulations (and also the 1929 Geneva Convention) that contain basic rules, inter alia, for the treatment of POWs and provide, inter alia, for visits by the International Red Cross to investigate compliance. In contrast, the Soviet Union, which had not signed the 1929 Geneva Convention, considered itself not bound by the Tsarist regime's ratification of the 1907 Hague Regulations because, Streirn argues, it opposed the interference of the Red Cross, and not because it intended to mistreat German POWs. However, at the start of the German invasion, Moscow sent a diplomatic note to Berlin through four neutral states, offering to be bound by those agreements under conditions of reciprocity. The German Foreign Office rejected the offer by not answering it.

Count Helmuth von Moltke was the most outspoken high-ranking officer to oppose the systematic killing of Soviet POWs. He served in the legal department of the Abwehr, the military counterintelligence service attached to the OKW (Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht).46 On 15 September 1941, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the Abwehr chief, sent a memorandum drafted by Moltke to Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the chief of OKW. The memorandum stipulated that regardless of whether or not the 1907 Hague Regulations applied between Germany and the Soviet Union, the principles of universally binding customary law, which had developed since the eighteenth century, prohibited killing or injuring defenseless enemies. Attached to the memorandum was the Soviet Government's decree of I July 1941 to its own troops concerning the treatment of German POWs, which had fallen into German hands; that decree, the Canaris-Moltke memorandum pointed out, "follows the principles of universally binding customary international law and largely also the 1929 Geneva Convention." Keitel [A Wehrmarcht Field Marshall] wrote on the margin of the memorandum: "These reservations correspond to the soldierly concepts of chivalrous war! Here we deal with the destruction of an ideology. Therefore, I approve the measures [to kill POWS] and authorize them."

	22-09-2004 16:04									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Tinkai, Well then, that clears that up. Good post.

	22-09-2004 19:33									#110
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: If the USSR was not bound by the Geneva convention towards Germany, Germany was not bound towards the USSR. Nothing could be simpler.

Not so. The treaty seems to say that those under the treaty are bound to uphold those provisions in their mutual relations with a non-signatory. Otherwise, there is no reason to mention the non-signatory. You have to account for what that language dealing with non-signatories really means, and what it does mean is even if you are in conflict with a non-signatory that does not mean you can ignore your obligations.

Every human rights treaty has had the same prohibition against signatories from asserting that they were dealing with a non-signatory and thus did not have to follow the treaty with them.

	22-09-2004 22:14									#111
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Imran, give it a rest. It is clear that the Germans did not consider themselves bound by these treaties with respect to the Soviets, but they did with respect to the UK and the US.

	23-09-2004 09:58									#112
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Ned, the Germans deliberately decided to ignore the treaties, even though they were bound by international law to treat POWs decently.

Keital's comments clearly show that the Germans did not give a damn about any laws. Even if the Soviet Union had signed the Geneva Conventions, the Germans would still have murdered the Russian POWs.

	23-09-2004 10:02									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: It is clear that the Germans did not consider themselves bound by these treaties with respect to the Soviets

And it is clear that they were wrong. Under the terms of the treaty they WERE bound no matter who their opponents were.

	23-09-2004 10:19									#114
	Got spare money?

You're wrong.

What does 'mutual' mean?

	23-09-2004 10:48									#115
	Inflate your Upload Space

Mutual relations means common relations with the other, whether they be signatory or non-signatory (ie, diplomatic relations). Seeing as non-signatories are noted in the beginning of the clause, it applies to them. Otherwise the non-signatory clause is utterly superfluous and that would violate the rules of statutory interpretation.

The main question to ask is if the clause meant what you says it means, why was a clause required to say that two signatories had to follow the rules of the convention against each other? So without this clause two signatories could violate the convention if they fought each other as long as there was a non-signatory somwhere in the conflict? Wasn't the entire convention about protecting rights and thus all the signatories proclaimed to do so? So then this clause would basically be repetition without anything new and once again, be rendered superfluous.

	23-09-2004 10:52									#116
	Increase Your PM Length

Nice try.

It says that signatories have an obligation in 'mutual relations'.

It says nothing about non signatories.

I hope.

	23-09-2004 11:01									#117
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Under the Convention itself, Article 1 is:

quote: The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Yep, that says ALL circumstances. So they are bound, no matter who the opponents are.

	23-09-2004 11:03									#118
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Can you quote beyond that point?

	23-09-2004 11:06									#119
	Remove this text

You want the entire Convention? There are a lot of parts .

Article 2:

quote: In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

It seems that mutual relations may refer to signatories in that context, but frankly I'm confused as to why the Convention says that signatories are bound in conflicts against each other 3 times in the first two articles.

Wikipedia's analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

quote: In the case of a conflict between a signatory and a non-signatory the signatory shall remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.

Which seems somewhat at odds with that last sentance. So who knows at this point... EXCEPT for the provision that Germany was bound to follow the Convention as a signatory against the USSR.

	23-09-2004 11:14									#120
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Bullshit. How do you expect soldiers to react to the graves of Katyn?

The truth is the Sovs under Stalin observed no such niceties, and so deserved none.

I'm sorry to call a spade a spade, but there it is.