Questions about Allied troops in German captivity

While the Soviets never signed the 1929 convention, Tsarist Russia did sign the 1907 convention and seeing the Soviets never officially repudiated the treaty they were still bound/covered by the 1907 treaty.

In WW2 the German's fought two different types of war. In the west while ruthless to their enemies they fought in a manner no different to the other wars the Germanic states had fought over the last hundred years, staying mainly within the international legal framework for military activities, with the exception of the Nazi policies towards anyone of the Jewish faith.
In the east they fought in a completely different manner, even before the invasion, the German forces were under instructions to ignore the Hague and Geneva conventions and to give no pity to either the enemies military forces and the civilian population, they were also given instructions to carry out the murder of certain members of the Soviet military forces, and civilian political infrastructure.

Its true that German POW's were held for a number of years after the war by Britain and France and used for forced labout, but the conditions they were held in were in Britain at least, humane. In fact German POW's held by Britain had the highest survival rates of any German POW's in WW2 with only 0.03% dying while in captivity

 

Did not the German signing of the convention imply the convention to all its enemies whether the uniformed enemy signed or not. I was unaware they were allowed to cherry pick as to who they thought worthy of its rules?

 

In reply to urgh --About the signing of the treaty I was only making a point that the Soviets didn't sign the treaty and therefore in no way were any assurances made as to their treatment of POW's , which in any case matched those of the Nazis towards the Soviets and in many circumstances far outweighed them. I wasn't making any assumptions about the rights and wrongs or the cherry picking attitude of the Nazis in relation to the convention (and as a convention doesn't it need approval of both parties to be actionable?)

In reply to redcoat Thanks for your reply and yes I agree with you totally on the aspects of the Nazis eastern campagnes but the original posters question related to treatment of allied POW's and it must be said that a 99% survival rate (for US POWs)in bombed out Germany was nothing short of a miracle. Just another small note though the allied POW's were not traded as commodities or fed anything other than the correct rations why did we keep the POW's long after the end of the war as under the Geneva Conventions, PoWs are to be sent home within months of the end of the war. Including the approximate 460 000 worked slaves (as the IRC called them) another 130,000 former German officers and men were held during the winter of 1945-46 in British camps in Belgium under conditions which at the time British officers described as: "Not much better than Belsen." Even the photographer who first entered Auschwitz stated that the only difference between those he had seen on that day and the German POW's in allied hands was that they were breathing. The treatment of allied POW's by the Germans fell within the Geneva Conventions whereas our treatment of them reflected the most inhumane aspects of Nazi treatment of political prisoners.

 

Dogstar i dont know i have never taken it to pieces. However since you have raised the point, perhaps you can show me the clause where it exists? And also the section explaining it doesnt apply to none signers you fight against. A scource is requested please.

 

For anyone interested.. A search of past threads will bring up a few threads regarding brit and usa troops who were held at various concentration camps including auswitz complex.

 

In answer to your question dogstar. No it does not.

 

What about the breach of the convention by the allied forces? Could they just cherry pick who they wished to punish for the war, Merchant seaman cpatured In American waters before the US entered the War; South Americans of German origin deported back to Germany, all non combatants by the treaty. The truth is the Germans, on the whole treated the British, American and French Pow's within the Geneva convention , and we didn't. We used civilians and non combatants as slaves, traded their labour with private companies for profit, more than $25 000 000 dollars was made by the French government in 1945 alone, refused visits by the IRC , fed starvation rations whilst in our care. Even Soldiers held as POW are exempt from this sort of treatment two wrongs don't make a right and It's about time the glossing over of the aftermath of war is stopped. We turned over German civilians to tortue and death again covered by the Geneva Convention.

 

Could you expand upon this please, and with some sources as back up? I am not sure whom you mean when you say "We used civilians and non-combatants as slaves, traded...."? Your spelling of labor with the "u" indicated a British origin, but not necessarily as Commonwealth and Dominions of the Empire also use the spelling. And which nations refused IRC visits? I was unaware of any except the Nazis doing that for "certain" camps, while escorting them on guided tours of "model" camps. Those from South America were generally transfered to the US, and while a few of them were sent back to the very nation they had fled, it wasn't a foregone conclusion that they would be sent back. Many more weren't, the sad stories involve German Jews who were returned to Germany, and I don't mean that St. Louis cruise ship either.

That was deplorable, but our (American) area of origin quota/medical laws on immigration were law at the time, and while some who wish to show it was a "pick and choose" admission rate that isn't necessarily true. Those scientists and educators who were allowed into the US were from the larger population quota areas, western and northern Europe, or had relatives living in the US when they applied. Those from the south and east had a smaller "pool" of immigrants upon whom to draw their quota. When that number was used up, people from those areas simply weren't allowed to immigrate.

The one medical problem that could remove you from the immigration pool was trachoma, an infectious eye disease that was ironically most often found in eastern Europe and the Levant. The fact that many Jews lived in that area was more a coincidence than a "plan". That medical condition had also lowered the number of immigrants already in the US from which the quota was figured. Seems odd now, but not so at the time. America had been "overrun" with immigrants directly after WW1 (my Grandparents included) and the mid-twenties quota system was seen as a way to regulate the numbers at the point of origin, not at the debarkation centers.

The 1789 "enemy aliens" act was and still is law in America, and a great number of all Axis powers were interred here, not just the Japanese. There were Italians, and Italin-Americans, Germans, and German-Americans. Hungarians, Romanians, and Austrians for a while as well. FDR and J.Edgar were taking no chances, and millions of people had their travel restricted, were incarcerated for inquests, and all were required to re-report their place of residence and allow search and seizure of their possessions. It would have "civil rights" people in vapor lock today, but in time of real "war" (not the phony "war on terror" of the Bush era), it was both legal and more or less expected.

 

You implied in your post dogstar that both must be party. Hiding salient points in elongated posts wont wash here dogstar. The answer is still no they dont. Attend to your points raised with sources please before going to other areas.

 

I made no implication that both must be party to have protection under the convention but the convention is just that an agreement between the signed nations to treat POWs in a certain way; The Soviets didn't sign it.

In dealing with the reply from brndirt1 The United States had made its own direct contribution by ousting more than 16,000 people of German extraction from Latin American countries, obtaining permission to do so by pressure of various kinds applied from Washington, extraditing them without trial to this country, holding them here in concentration camps incommunicado and still without trial, and finally deporting them out of this hemisphere where many of them have been impressed into slavery by England and France. from the Chicago Daily Tribune, March 14, 1946

As for calling the treatment of German civilians Slaves aspect that comes from the IRC (international red cross). The official International Red Cross report in August 1946 showed that our own government(meaning The US), through its military branch in the German zone, was exacting forced labor from 284,000 captives, 140,000 of them in the occupation zone, 100,000 in France, 30,000 in Italy, and 14,000 in Belgium. quote from John Thompson, Geneva, Switzerland, Aug. 24, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service for The IRC.
There were other slaves not operated directly by the US military but these had already been handed over to other parties (the soviets, the Czechs,The Poles Hungarians, and more still in France)

The IRC was refused access to the camps as the allied forces first classified these as holding camps , as there wasn't a german government and no surrender or aplication had been made by the now non existante government to IRC for intervention the argument went along the lines of it being outside of IRC domain .
The Allies...... also argue that repatriation of the prisoners cannot take place, as called for by the Geneva Convention as soon as hostilities are over, because there has been no armistice or peace treaty signed with Germany, and that none can be signed at present, because there is no German Government. By similar double-talk they justify feeding the prisoners rations well below army standards on the pretext that the Geneva Convention which requires standard army rations has expired with World War II; yet, when press representatives ask to examine the prison camps, the British loudly refuse, with the excuse that the Geneva Convention bars such visits to prisoner-of-war camps. source from Arthur Veysey, London, May 28, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service.

I will try to locate some more information about the rights of the convention and its application to non affliated countries but It doesn't mean I condone the actions of either party but It was an argument both the Soviets and Nazis presented for their treatment of their respective POW's.

 

thusfar, your posts on this forum have been an intent to discredit the Western allies for their inhumane treatment of the German people and here of their POWs. Accusing the Western allies of breaching the conventions, Just what is your goal?

 

I want to see solid sources supporting this post. All of your "quotes" are not sufficient. You are threading a fine line between here and fantasy. Be aware of your future posts.

 

With regard to the Latin American Axis nationals, it is generally acknowledged by those who have completely checked the records that only approximately 8,500 Axis nationals (Germans, Italians, and Japanese) were arrested and interned by 15 Latin American countries during WWII. In accordance with treaty obligations, the U.S. was obligated to accept Axis nationals for internment in the U.S. from those Latin American countries which were unable to establish costly internment programs of their own. We (America) converted a great number of CCC camps to holding, or internment camps for these persons. They were good enough for our youth but not good enough for "enemy aliens"?

Not all of the 8,500 were deported to the US however. But at least twelve Latin American countries actually deported a total of about 3,000 Axis nationals consisting of just under 2,300 Japanese (500 of whom who had already applied for repatriation to Japan at the Spanish Embassy in Peru) and just over 700 Germans and Italians.

Consequently, the U.S. was only involved in the internment of about 3,000, not 8,500, and definetly not 16,000 Latin American Axis nationals, in ex-CCC camps. The others were repatriated to their home nations, some willingly, some not. One of the tragedies here was that even German Jews who had found refuge in Latin America were returned to Nazi Germany where they certainly were put in camps, and much less pleasant than the American versions.

 

Thanks for your reply Clint (But it does tend to support the now used policy of extraordiniary rendition where Countries can by pass extradition treaties) Whereas the Figures from the Chicago tribune may be a little out from yours It did happen that Latin American countries that hadn't declared war with the Axis were surrendering Axis nationals to US care (either in The US/Canada ) directly or as repatiarations at the End of hostilies to the Axis countries.

On re viewing this post perhap it is digressing somewhat and doesn't concern Allied POW's treatment. So I'll keep it up as a reply to the last post anyway and i'll restrict my posts on this thread to answer the treatment of allied POW's and not about the treatment of AXIS Pow's or civilians.

 

Please let's try to stay on topic...

I have been doing some online research and here are a few links I found...

I did find an old video taken right after the liberation of Mauthousen concentration camp.

It shows a short clip of a detained American navy officer who was interviewed in the camp.

YouTube - Nazi Concentration Camps Part 4: Mauthausen

* warning the video shows graphic content of the camp..


Here is a link with statistics of America POW's throughout the wars including ww2 .. lists of captured and killed, and liberated soldiers.

Statistics

Here is an excellent interactive website about American POW's singled out for being suspected jews and sent to Berga camp - a satellite camp of the notorious Buchanwald death camp.

Berga: Soldiers of Another War | PBS - PBS aired this story some time ago.

War crimes were committed at this camp on american POW's. There are interviews of the surviving victiims and witnesses.

More info..
Jewish POWs In A Nazi Concentration Camp

A little know story of ww2.

this dispells wikipedia's version that jews were treated equally as other POW's.


It's amazing what can be dug up in the internet.



Suzie.

 

Exactly. There have been more and more stories of Allied POWs being sent to the concentration camps to work. This came as a surprise to me. I did know that the Russian prisoners were treated harshly and were better off dead. Plenty of documentation on the treatment of those prisoners. I am surprised, and have made a post of it, of the recent accounts from western allied POWs