Allied Attrocities against Germany

For those of you following our discussion in WWII today by JC I have moved the thread to this site as to not take over JC's thread. Please read the disscusion over there and you will have a better understanding of this site. We were discussing the treatment of Wehrmacht prisoners of war. No not the soviets alone but working towards the American war crimes.

Now back to it. I would doubt that most of the members or readers from here are familiar with a place called "Rhienburg Camp." If you are not then please read up on it and lets discuss it. Unlike others, my sources are the Swiss Red Cross, The Britiah Army to start not private authors with an axe to grind.

Theodor

 

http://www.ww2f.com/information-requests/28508-allied-pow-camps.html

 

It all depends on what it is you want to discuss my friend.

My own view is that some wrongs were done in this area where German prisoners were concerned after the war. But I also am a human being and realise that the to the victors the spoils. At the end of the day, ww2 was a nasty sort of war. Barbarous in the extreme. I understand the cry of some that if you start this thing then you will indeed reap the victors whirlwind.

I do know something happened. But being British I am not really likely to have investigated too much in the past on German soldiers being maltreated. Perhaps it is because we had too many of our own retrurning prisoners of war to think of at wars end.

You can hardly blame some if they acted out of order if indeed they did, lets face it, the German plans to expell all working age males from Britian if they had succeeded in their own plans is hardly going to make me worry about it either.

If Germany had won the war and had its way, I and most Brits would not be around to discuss the matter peacefully with you on this forum.

The Americans who inhabit this forum are generally clued up on all aspects of ww2. But like most things, one cannot know everything. If they are even unaware of these camps existence then it is because it is not highlighted that much. I only found out myself thru blundering into one site whilst canoeing down the Rhine.

But this forum is for discussion of all matters ww2 related. As long as you come to the discussion with the mindset that many will not have a clue what your on about, and you are not here to accuse America of horrendous war crimes, knowing full well that each nationality on here will defend their own corner as they see fit. No one want to see a flame war.

Im not the thread police, but can see how easily this one can degenerate.

I feel sorry for any pow. my own countries above all others however...thats a normal response in my view. And I would hate to think what the outcome of a victory in ww2 would mean to me if it had gone the wrong way, which is why I'm afraid, in all honesty I can not but realise the consequences of all this.

A war crime is a war crime however. Proving it is another matter.

I have seen many forums and sites discussing the camps you talk of. Some are in my own opinion not worth the words written on them. But at the same time I have seen and heared tales from locals in Remagan area. I sympathise but am aware America as an allied power in ww2 has much to be thanked for by more than those that think othewise.

 

On looking at this today, I have come to my own conclusion, not backed by any evidential scources, but as a result of looking around at the available ones I can see. And even then using my own judgement to cut the wheat from the chaff...very liberal words for cutting out the new versions of history some would have us believe..

If any crime was commited it was one of neglect. Prove it was wilfull neglect and its a different matter.

Neglect comes under war crimes too I suppose, but only if its aim was purposely intended.

I would say at the end of ww2. Everyone had their own amount of problems to see through. If anything slipped during those momentous times then I would find it difficult to say it was thru willfull neglect.

To compare that with neglect as a policy or extermination or maltreetment as a policy and the difference is wholescale, massive and planned, then America if that is who you accuse is in my own view Not Guilty.

 

One comment you made was that the British had prisoners coming home. If you check the fatalities at time of release you will find a 3.6 average versus release from american hands at 80% higher regarding German prisoners. Below is a quote from the British army after taking over Rheinberg camp. Another point is that "neglect" is a crime when you have tons of food wasting away and within reach.

Mid - June, 1945: British "Tommies" took over the huge Rheinberg camp from the Americans, saving many thousands of German lives. The final act of the ''Yanks" before the British took charge, was to bulldoze one section flat while the men were still living in their holes in the ground. Meanwhile, a team of doctors from the U.S. Army Medical Corps completed a survey of some of the smaller Rhineland camps, holding some 80,000 POWs (not DEFs). They found a death rate 80 times higher than anything they have known in their professional career.

July, 1945: Eisenhower becomes military governor of the U.S. Zone in Germany. He continued to turn back all relief teams from Switzerland, the U.S. and elsewhere.

July 10, 1945: A French Army unit under Gen. Rousseau, took over the Dietersheim camp (near Mainz) from the Americans. He found 32,000 men and women of all ages in a moribund (dying) State. Another French officer Capt .Julien, was taking command 17 days later and found a vast mire ''peopled with living skeletons, male and female, huddling under scraps of wet card board ." Horrified, Julien wrote: 'This is just like the photographs of Buchenwald and Dachau.

I can quote these facts all day and they are not my point of view they are the written works of the British Army, French Army and the Red Cross.

I cannot see this going anywhere other than a discussion of the facts.

Theodor

 

I agree. I don't see this thread or subject going anywhere. You appear to have a chip on your shoulder and an agenda. Niether of which to me bodes well for what you consider a "discussion". It seems that the "discussion" will be onesided as you are the one with the "facts". And on that note I wish you luck on your "discussion". This subject will end up as the many others I have seen on other forums.

:feedtrolls-sign:

 

You have tried to blow me off twice now and I am totally confused as to why. When I was on your thread you didn't like me refering to your quotes from authors whom by the way you cited and now you say I have an agenda. Myself and URQH moved from your thread so as not to hijack it as urqh put it and now you are over here telling me again about where this is going and my agenda. I will print the following slowly for you. I do not have ANY agenda except bringing forth some previously known or unknown facts about the after math of the war. All learning is knowledge is it not? Why will the discussion be one sided others have already put their ideas forth when we were on your thread includung yourself and noone told you about your bias, we just moved and surprise here you are again. With all the sites you could be on why are you bothering me. If you have information or a point of view lets hear it and then you can stop your accusations. We are having a conversation and exchange of information you can take part or bugger off , the choice is yours. I welcome your input you seem to not like mine, and thats a shame it shows me your open mind.

Theodor

 

I myself simply disagree with your conclusions, if you have the documents, post them. If not then it appears you are basing your conclusions on the discredited book by the Canadian James Baque.

"Historian Jim Tent, a specialist on World War II, writes: I simply cannot sit back and read a WAIS column that even inadvertently lends credence to the nonsense written by James Bacque and passed off (by him) as "legitimate" history. His first book, Other Losses deliberately misconstrued statistics and materials from U.S. Military Government (for Germany) reports, among others, to claim that "Ike" deliberately starved German POWs and caused the death of a million of them. Bacque, a novelist, is a slick writer and a slippery operator."

Late he writes; the West German Maschke Commission with its massive seventeen-volume compendium of the fates of all German POWs in WWII puts the number of German POWs who died in Western Allied custody for all reasons combined at about 55,000."

See:

RE: World War II: Prisoners of War; discredited Bacque thesis (Jim Tent) | World Association of International Studies, Stanford University, CA -- PAX et LUX

He (Barque) also claimed to have documents and support from other historians, turned out he didn't took stats out of context, and exaggerated to the extent of; "this cannot stretch that far". All to make it appear that Eisenhower did this to punish the surrendered German soldiers.

The time they surrendered made a difference as to whether or not they were POWs or DEPs. The area in which they surrendered also altered how they would be treated in comparison to the local populace of the area in which they were held. POWs would be in effect fed and sheltered to the extent they would be in effect given preference over the civilian population. More food, more shelter, more clothing, more "luxuries". That certainly couldn't seem correct at the time in the area.

The lable of (DEP) Displaced Enemy Personnel put them into the same category of food and such as the civilians in their area. The same caloric intake, the same or equivilent shelter, the same clothing rations as their contemporary civilians. All NOT GOOD supply, but not directed at them personally because they were ex-soldiers, just no better than the civilians in the area.

 

Well Well well Look what I found about papaeiche . Figures. A Troll.
View the profile of papaeiche

 

Well at least we were civil and open minded....most forums wouldnt be so nice...

Im off to hang me washing on the Siegfried line if any one wants to join me.

 

Mind the clothespins, urgh!

 

I just spent a while reading this on the net: US War Crimes in World War II-Part 1

I have a hard time lending credence to someone who can not spell correctly and contradicts themselves. A quick look at the math, that was used in the article, leads me to believe that there is a misplaced decimal or two. At one point the "author" references: in excess of 5,000 persons died in one week. That is hardly a number that would go un noticed.

Someone is full of crap.

Brad

 

I suggest you check the link and you will see why he has an agenda.

:feedtrolls-sign:

 

Thank you very much, Robert. As a matter of fact when I want to see a clown I buy myself a ticket to the circus.



"Bleiben Wir Doch Treu" my ass :lol:

 

My Pleasure. I thought I would Google his name to see where else he posts. And Viola!!! There it was. I think he has also posted this tripe over on the THC discussion boards awhile back. brndrt1 and I have already dealt with this before.

 

There's a penguin around here somewhere, I know there is!

Nice find JCF!

 

Don't take that tone with me; I realize he has an agenda, even before I checked the link. His argument has no merit and only a slim base of facts. He is correct in as much that the United States was at war with Germany and Germany lost, everything else is crap.

 

Tone?? A little touchy aren't you? Dont jump to conclusions bud. I was merely pointing out why he posted his drivel.In fact I was agreeing with your point.

 

Well "bud" I know why he posted his drivel; I checked the link before I posted. I reacted to the context you had used "suggest" previously and assumed you were using it similarly with me.

I am going to write this off to a misunderstanding and let it go, before it turns really stupid, obviously we share the same view on the subject.

Brad

 

For information only James Bacque is a discredited hack as most of you stated and I totally agree. I stated that I was quoting from the British Army records and the Red Cross which I now believe you think are hacks alo. I posted a nominal question and was discussing it with urqh when JC seems to have felt attacked for some reason. I think that its great that you had to be James Bond JC when I posted my information for anyone to look up. First I will state that you dodged all my questions ineffectively JC by throwing up an assault on me. Please answer the questions I asked you earlier. I must be talking with americans to get such an uproar over a thread. I have posted no drivel that I am aware of, I merely asked questions, but I guess on this site you should come prepared for a fight rather than a discussion. Heaven forbid also thank one of you ever made a typo it would just blow your credibility (how pathetic) he spelled some words wrong. Formerjughead, you were correct bout his tone you should look at your hands he just cracked your knuckles, but I appreciate what you said. First off I offered no argument as you stated only some slim facts. I believe I asked those on board to check them out so that we could discuss them, I had no idea that all this was going to come about. Wonder who is touchy JC, you seem to be getting right upset about all this. My personal info is posted for the public I like taking the German side and am prepared to defend any information I bring forth but first don't we have to talk about the facts. Why did "Ike" change the laws regarding POW;s and call them "DEF's." The following is a Wikipedia definition or do they post drivel and have an ajenda?

To be entitled to prisoner-of-war status, captured service members must be lawful combatants entitled to combatant's privilege—which gives them immunity from punishment for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Third Geneva Convention, a combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war, be part of a chain of command, wear a "fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance" and bear arms openly. Thus, uniforms and/or badges are important in determining prisoner-of-war status; and francs-tireurs, "terrorists", saboteurs, mercenaries and spies may not qualify. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, do not necessarily wear an issued uniform nor carry arms openly, yet captured combatants of this type have sometimes been granted POW status. The criteria are generally applicable to international armed conflicts. In civil wars, insurgents are often treated as traitors or criminals by government forces, and are sometimes executed. However, in the American Civil War, both sides treated captured troops as POWs, presumably out of reciprocity, though the Union regarded Confederacy personnel as separatist rebels. However, guerrillas and other irregular combatants generally cannot expect to simultaneously benefit from both civilian and military status.

DEF's are to be treated as civilian prisoners and are not allowed the rights or privilege of a POW.

Theodor