23-09-2004 11:30									#121
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Are you saying the Germans would have acted all nice under the Geneva Convention if not for the graves at Katyn?

So are you arguing that since the Soviets committed atrocities against the Poles, while ALLIED to the Germans, in a later war, the Germans were allowed to use that against the Soviets? In a conflict, the signatory has to remain bound until the non-signatory doesn't act under the mandates of the convention. Seeing as how Germany invaded the Soviet Union, I'd say that Germany started the atrocities in that war. And no, you can't use old conflicts and get out of your treaty obligations that way.

	23-09-2004 11:39									#122
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

No. I'm saying the USSR was not a signatory, that they did not observe the conventions, and that they did not deserve the protections thereof.

	23-09-2004 11:40									#123
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither 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.

Katyn was discover in 1943. The Germans were killing Russian POWs from the very beginning of the 1941 invasion of Russia. The orders to kill the POWs were issued before 1941.

Besides, by this logic, the Allies would have been justified in killing all German POWs.

	23-09-2004 11:41									#124
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither No. I'm saying the USSR was not a signatory, that they did not observe the conventions, and that they did not deserve the protections thereof.

That ignores the fact that the Russians offered to follow the convention rules, but were turned down by the Germans.

	23-09-2004 11:46									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The orders to kill POWs dated from 1940?

	23-09-2004 11:47									#126
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai That ignores the fact that the Russians offered to follow the convention rules, but were turned down by the Germans.

I would like to read about that.

	23-09-2004 11:48									#127
	Remove this text

But no one knew about it until 1943. So the idea that German atrocities were a response to Russian atrocities is wrong.

	23-09-2004 12:06									#128
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't think Nazis and Communists needed many reasons to hate each other.

We're discussing the applicability of the Geneva Conventions.

I could be wrong. Imran could be right. I'm not accepting Imran's position on it. I might look further. I might not. I'm drunk, so I might do anything.

	23-09-2004 17:48									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai 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.

That is not what you post says. It says, IIRC, that while the treaties did not apply, customary law did.

	23-09-2004 17:49									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui 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.

Imran, when you adopt a position that is clearly wrong, you never give up, do you?

	23-09-2004 18:36									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned That is not what you post says. It says, IIRC, that while the treaties did not apply, customary law did.

I read the previous quotes as saying that it doesn't matter whether the Geneva Convention applies to the Germany-Soviet. Even if the convention does not apply, Germany was still bound by customary law.

It goes back to what I said in the beginning and what I believe Imran is saying.
a) Countries that sign the convention must abide by the convention rules when dealing with non-signatory countries (unless the non-signatory countries break the rules); or
b) Even if the Conventions did not apply to the Soviet Union, this did not give German the legal right to inflict atrocities. Customary law apply, in which case, Germany was legally obliged to meet the spirit of the Geneva Conventions

Starving, murdering and enslaving POWs was certainly illegal by international laws at that time.

To argue that Germany acted lawfully is simply wrong and not supported by the facts.

	23-09-2004 18:46									#132
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai I read the previous quotes as saying that it doesn't matter whether the Geneva Convention applies to the Germany-Soviet. Even if the convention does not apply, Germany was still bound by customary law. It goes back to what I said in the beginning and what I believe Imran is saying. a) Countries that sign the convention must abide by the convention rules when dealing with non-signatory countries (unless the non-signatory countries break the rules); or b) Even if the Conventions did not apply to the Soviet Union, this did not give German the legal right to inflict atrocities. Customary law apply, in which case, Germany was legally obliged to meet the spirit of the Geneva Conventions Starving, murdering and enslaving POWs was certainly illegal by international laws at that time. To argue that Germany acted lawfully is simply wrong and not supported by the facts.

Tingkai, I think I agreed with you after reading that post where the German lawyers had argued that even though the Geneva convention did not apply, that customary law prevented the summary killing of surrendered enemy soldiers, etc.

But, if the Geneva convention applied, the Soviet POWs were entitled to Red Cross visits, mail and other privileges far beyond customary law. I don't anyone seriously believed that Germany owed the Soviet Union's POWs any such privileges.

	24-09-2004 12:29									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Tingkai, thank you for some excellent references. I also think I now understand the arguments I have read about the conflict in German circles (and their context), and realize that I must have parsed them. The argument is reference the NAZIS and the regular German army.

Many of the Wehrmacht generals were not Nazis, and in fact considered Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel not a real general at all but a lap dog for Hitler. Note, by that point he was the head of the Wehrmacht, and many of the generals had either stood by and done nothing as Hitler seized the various power bases in the state, or secretly applauded him until they realized what kind of monster they had let loose. They had also watched any with the guts to oppose Hitler directly be blackmailed, forced into retirement, dead-end staff jobs, etc.

So its largely splitting hairs and trying to claim that this really wasn't the Wehrmachts fault, it's the Nazis fault. However, and to give this context (I was trying to get the name of the General listed below) here is a quote. Even though the context is western prisoners, it's this kind of quote that had caused me to discount atrocities committed by the regular Wehrmacht UNITS.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-07-46.htm

quote: members of the German Armed Forces, where, for example, prisoners of war were handed over to and mistreated by the SS or SD, we will show that in those cases members of this group were well aware that they were assisting in the commission of War Crimes. We will show that many crimes committed by the SS and SD were committed with the knowledge and necessary support of the General Staff and High Command group.

Your posts give me a context for various arguments over the years, and of course shows how the Nazification of the Wehrmacht was largely complete by 1941. Not totally, you do have people like Guderian and Rommel. They are slowly removed as Hitler replaces them with lapdogs, resulting for example in the disaster of Army Group Center during Operation Bagration, commanded by von Busch, a man held in contempt (like Keitel) by the pre-Nazi Wehrmacht commanders. Very few of the truly Nazi generals were competent field commanders (Jodel is probably the most famous exception) which thankfully led to a gradual deterioration in Wehrmacht generalship.

One example of that is Guderian, who in the winter of 1941, realizing his a** was hanging out and that his army could be destroyed by a competent offensive, ignored Hitler's "no retreat" order for Army Group South. He was relieved of command, and was not rehabilitated until 1943 when he was put in charge of reorganizing the Panzer arm of the Wehrmacht after the reversals in the East, and the various shortages plaguing the Wehrmact by that point. He never was given a field command after violating Hitler's no-retreat order.

My point (and I'm thinking out load, as it were) is that it becomes very murky and largely indiscernable as to Wehrmacht versus Nazi, or whether that distinction is so easily made. Now I begin to understand why there are thousands of pages of Nuremberg testimony and why it took so long - and how for a Russian POW who is starving to death he's not going to care paticularly, either. I had never focused on the finer points of the "who's to blame" issue, and now I can see why it is an entire subset of WW2 historical study.

	24-09-2004 16:52									#134
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I agree that there were German generals/admirals who were disgusted by the orders that allowed German troops to commit atrocities. Guderian refused to issue the Commissar Order to his troops. Canaris advocated fair treatment of the prisoners. There were other officers who tried to prevent atrocities. (Many of those who spoke up, such as Guderain, were never punished. He was sacked for arguing with Hitler about whether to conduct a strategic withdrawal, as you mentioned, not for refusing to issue the commissar order.)

What has always struck me is that the majority of the Wehrmacht officers would have been trained as professional soldiers and would have believed in things like honour and rules for conducting war. Yet, the German officers and soldiers routinely committed atrocities. They did that not because "all Germans are evil" or the opposite "it was just the Nazis". When rules are erased, people can easily turn into vicious animals, particularly soldiers in a war zone. The scary thing is maybe they were just being human.

	24-09-2004 18:34									#135
	Support Apolyton

I have actually met a Russian POW. He was the father of the girlfriend of one of my law school friends. He had a lot of stories about his capture, I recall, and that two-thirds of the prisoners in his camp did not survive the war. I don't recall him making any distinction between Nazi's and Germans.

The important point is that he survived and moved to America after liberation. He did not want to live under communism.

	27-09-2004 13:10									#136
	Got spare money?

Tingkai, my point about Guderian was not that he was sacked by Hitler, but he had not bought into the personality cult. When Das Fueher vs. Mein Fueher issued an order, if Guderian felt it was disastrous or wrong, he would disobey. I suspect you will find almost total congruency between generals who would disobey Hitler's military orders (due to incompoetency) and generals who would disobey his extermination orders (moral bankruptcy). One of the best analysis (translated from German) I have seen of WW2 Germany calls it the "Hitler state" and examines it as a cult. It's not that they were a "right-wing" state, but that they were involved in a cult that took control of the mechanisms of the state. You can argue it may not have started that way, but it difinitively ended up that way.

As a point to Ned, I read in one biography of a German who survived who estimated over 80% of his unit died (captured in 1944). While searching for it, I came up with this interesting site.
http://www.dpcamps.org/dpcamps/russianpow.html

For a fascinating discussion on it at a hitorical site like us, except They require documentation and the moderators intervene for posts without it look here.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=518471

Nice argument over the Hitler vs. Stalin atrocities. It strikes as an argument of "how many corpses can you bury on the head of a pin."

	27-09-2004 17:41									#137
	Remove this text

Shawn, reading that link you gave me made me realized just what a horror Stalin was. Had the Germans simply treated Russians and Ukrainians with decency, they would have joined the war against Stalin rather than try to disrupt German supply lines. History records how bad the Nazis were. But in many respects the Communists were far worse. It seems that any ideology that rules by murder becomes just like Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.

	29-09-2004 21:42									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The problem is that the Germans could have, but the NAZIS couldn't. Their racial (and industrial - they didn't break up the collective farms because connected German industrial types found them easier to exploit) policies made them unable to occupy any country, especially one made of "mud people", without alienating a substantial plurality, if not a downright majority. As we are sadly discovering in Irag, it doesn't take that many people to make an occupation prohibitively expensive, and our policies are not comparable to either Stalin or Hitler (and you KNOW how I feel about Bush and Rumsfeld).

Ned - something very sad. I caught most of a three hour documentary on Rwanda. Couldn't sit through it all at once, too horrific. They inviewed the peacekeepers that tried to get their governments to act (a Belgium Commander quoted fear of mission creep and the example of Somalia as why the involved governments refused intervention), who had to abandon refugees to the genocide (and as they left go by rows of corpses along the road - knowing that was going to or already happening to the people they had abandoned). They showed pictures of the remains afterwards, they are as chilling as the once at the death camps. They also traced how the FRENCH continued to ship arms to the Hutu goverment even after it was obvious that government was quite possibly considering some kind of action against the Tutsi minority. My opinion of the US press and coverage of the real causes, well, Ming would have to edit me.

The point is that the Hutu government there either developed the same ideas, or stole directly from the Nazi playbook. Things like telling Hutu's to dump there Tutsi mistresses/wifes/girlfriends for reasons that could have come out of 1934 Nazi Germany, with changes from German and Jew to Hutu and Tutsi. It played exactly the same, except in accelerated fashion. Looking at the Sudan and Darfour, it looks like "Never Again" is just window dressing, and the world has learned nothing. At least Colin Powell made things inconvenient for the UN (don't get me started), the Chinese and Indians (they took over financing the oil development after the Germans and French lost their stomach for it given what was happening in the South) and the Bush administration (for waffling on it).

	30-09-2004 04:26									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Shawn, since the Bush admin has taken the lead on ending the Darfour genocide, I hardly understand your parting slam at Bush. Shouldn't you say thank you or something like that?

Shawn, the Nazi's could have been brought into line by Hitler by declaring the Russian and Ukrainian people Aryans, which, in truth, they were.

	01-10-2004 16:47									#140
	Got spare money?

Ned - Hitler couldn't. Read Mein Kampf, and the various Nazi position on Slavs and "mud people", which is why I referenced those. The Nazis could no more go with genuine science (on ethnicity) or get out of bed with the industrialists than a PETA member could understand why I would vote to let someone have male chicken-fights (the right word got auto-edited) in the privacy of their property. You would understand my point even if you disagreed (most people do - I find it barbaric, but chickens are, well, chickens). I won't comprehend the PETA type equating animals as having the same rights as my little girl.

The same applies to the Nazis. They simply could not change their policies like that. The Germans could, but they wouldn't have been in the Ukraine except for the Nazis. Circular loop. There were Wehrmacht generals who specifically sent back requests asking for a change in occupation policy due to increasing insurgent operations. If they could get no where, nobody could unless there had been a wholesale change in the leadership. You might have convinced Goering, the man was a simple sociopath (he saw nothing wrong with wholesale killing to increase his power base, read accounts of his executions on the Night of the Long Knifes) and could have been made to understand how it was counterproductive. The rest of the top-level Nazi heirarchy were part of what was essentially a cult, and the cult leader had declared the Ukrainians and all Slavs were subhumans. It wasn't going to change.

Reference Darfour, let me restate. I hold the UN leadership in total contempt, starting with Kofi Annan. If it's so damn important to label the US attack on Iraq illegal, then what the hell does he consider Darfour. I listened to him waffle on that one. China and India are there without any possible doubts that the leaders in this government are monsters, both engaging in genocide and the slave trade. The Germans and French are only marginally better, they continued to exploit the oil reserves in the south until public pressure at home caused them to withdraw - their governments have been mostly silent, and made token protests.

The Bush administration has been better than this group. They've produced about the exact same concrete results as the Clinton administration (to spread the blame fairly). That is not something I am proud of as an American. Colin Powell forced the issue on the Bush adminstration by labeling it genocide, and while I have some disagreements with Powell (his policy statements against gays in the military were almost word-for-word the same excuses used in the 1940's to justify segregating blacks in the US military - those who do not learn from history...) here he has shown leadership. Stopping short of labeling Darfour genocide is craven, and I include most of the world's governments. Anything that does not produce concrete results, which if necessary should have included shooting down the Sudanese military military aircraft that helped the Janjaweed annihilate any sign of organized resistance. People are sending aid now. It doesn't help the 30,000 dying PER MONTH, which puts the regime on par (if not exceeding, I haven't looked up the numbers) with Saddam on being a "bad person". If you recognize the quote, you'll understand my contempt for the Bush administration. I suspect that the only candidate who might have done something different would have been Ralph Nader. That's sad, and an indictment of the system that gave us these two candidates.

	01-10-2004 17:25									#141
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Shawn, you are still being unfair to Bush. He is the only world leader of a major power who is doing something in Darfour. Bush in the debate tonight showed just how much he has been focused on the Sudan for a good while. He has just escallated the situation to genocide because prior diplomatic efforts failed. You cannot give credit to Powell while denying it to Bush. That is unreasonable.

	01-10-2004 17:44									#142
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ned - from all indications the Bush administration had no intention to escalate it to genocide until Powell jumped the gun. Note I cannot see Kerry (and Clinton stood by, also) doing anything. Words don't work against dictators. Read my sig. Sanctions don't work (they only work against partially democratic countries where there are enough voters that they will actually be hurt). Force is all dictators understand, and the situation in the Sudan has been going on since the REAGAN administration. If Bush registers simple condemnation, without any threat of military action, he's simply better than the French, and at this point they may actually be getting more aid there. The US inaction over this is NOT something I am proud of.

	01-10-2004 17:48									#143
	Support Apolyton

Shawn, I just scanned my copy of Mein Kampf for any mention that the Slavs were untermenschen. I couldn't find a single reference although Hitler was very much against the "slavization" of the Austrian Empire. I also recall reading dispatches from the Eastern front generals concerning rounding up Jews. They called them "untermenschen." I find it strange that they would called Jews of the Ukraine untermenschen while not calling the Slavs the same.

I think that Hitler had the same attitude about Slavs as did Tacitus. Compared to the Germans, they where, let us say, slovenly. But still, Hitler most of known of language studies that would have told them that the Slavs were Aryans. As well, Czechoslovakia itself was part of Germany at the time and a great number of Slavs undoubtedly were part of the German Armed Forces.

But be that as it may, Hitler certainly had a problem with Slavs. The other Nazis were probably afraid to raise the topic with Dur Fuhrer.

	01-10-2004 17:55									#144
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Ned - from all indications the Bush administration had no intention to escalate it to genocide until Powell jumped the gun. Note I cannot see Kerry (and Clinton stood by, also) doing anything. Words don't work against dictators. Read my sig. Sanctions don't work (they only work against partially democratic countries where there are enough voters that they will actually be hurt). Force is all dictators understand, and the situation in the Sudan has been going on since the REAGAN administration. If Bush registers simple condemnation, without any threat of military action, he's simply better than the French, and at this point they may actually be getting more aid there. The US inaction over this is NOT something I am proud of.

Well, at least you and I agree that sanctions do not work against dictators; but still we have to go down that path at times because our European "allies" demand it.

	01-10-2004 18:54									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned Poles? Or Jews? As to the uprising in '44, what did you expect the SS to do? Play nice?

Your post is inappropriate, to say the least.
As many Poles (3 mln) died in Poland during the war, as Jews (and Poles of Jewish origin are included in the second number).
I assure You not only after uprising in Warsaw.
And even the uprising isn't an excuse.

	01-10-2004 18:58									#146
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Heresson Your post is inappropriate, to say the least. As many Poles (3 mln) died in Poland during the war, as Jews (and Poles of Jewish origin are included in the second number). I assure You not only after uprising in Warsaw. And even the uprising isn't an excuse.

I don't know the whole context of the post, but let me ask you this: Did Hitler attempt to liquidate the Polish people as he did the Jewish?

	01-10-2004 19:18									#147
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

It's irrelevant to this post...
GePap asked why did the Germans disobey Geneva treaty agreements when it comes to Poland, and your posts sounds as if You doubted they uh mistreated Poles before 1944 uprising, and after it they were right to do it.
Perhaps You didn't mean it, but that's exactly how does it sound

quote: was Poland a signatory to the Geneva Convention? And if so, how do you explain the German's brutal treatment of the Polish people?

This is the post your one referred to, exactly




And the answer to your question is not simple.

Some say He was, some say that Poles were just supposed to be slaves.

Of all the bigger regions Poles were a majority in, only Wilno (Vilnius) region didn't belong to the "Greater Germany", which was supposed to be future German motherland. Poles were supposed to be thrown out first to the General Gubern, and later outside of it as well.
Germans were supposed to live here in the long run.
(as desettlement from Zamosc region in General Gubern may prove)
I remember a quote (may mix it up a bit, though), that Vistula river region (Poland) will be once as German as Rheinland is
Of course, perhaps they would think of new place for Poles to live - just like originally, Jews were supposed to just be moved on Madagascar.
I don't know how it'd end, no-one can actually tell, but I think Czechs and Poles and Luzyczans were supposed to cease to exist.
Of course, they would continue to exist in USA, Brazil etc - but the same can be said when it comes to Jews.
Perhaps Poles would survive in Vilnius region. Lithuanian colaborators started moving them out, but eventually got into arguement with German forces. That ment nothing better, though.
In Ukraine, Ukrainians started clearing the region of Poles, so I doubt they'd survive there.

	01-10-2004 20:32									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ned, now I'm going to have to unearth my copy of Mein Kampf, or check some of the diaries (I've been wading through Goebels for years, I just cannot stomach his diaries as straight reading for too long). I wonder if I am mixing later policy with Mein Kampf, as I mentioned before, I haven't studied the fine detail of the atroicities except to know that the Nazis, Germans, and Japanese did alot on a face-to-face basis, and our fire-bombing campaigns don't leave the allies totally clean (as per your point to me on the a-bombs, though I will still argue they are not at the same level as the other three, and I think you agree). I just checked in before going to bed.

	01-10-2004 23:07									#149
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think that Hitler had the same attitude about Slavs as did Tacitus. Compared to the Germans, they where, let us say, slovenly. But still, Hitler most of known of language studies that would have told them that the Slavs were Aryans. As well, Czechoslovakia itself was part of Germany at the time and a great number of Slavs undoubtedly were part of the German Armed Forces. But be that as it may, Hitler certainly had a problem with Slavs. The other Nazis were probably afraid to raise the topic with Dur Fuhrer.

Look at the orders issued by German generals. They clearly believed that the Slavs should be wiped out.

And the idea that Soviets were on par with the Russians is insane. How many wars did the Soviets start? One (against Finland). Compare that to what the Germans did.

Stalin was evil, murderous bastard, but if Hitler had been in power for 30 years, Germany would have murdered a lot more than Stalin.

Why do you try to minimalise the crimes committed by Germany?

	01-10-2004 23:13									#150
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ekhem, STalin invaded Poland too