Stalingrad - Germans that never surrendered

Wise thought , I too believe this tread is going nowhere.

 

Unless you include a few efforts at comic relief.... Certainly doesn't seem to be inhancing anyones understanding of history at this point.

 

That is true...

 

I have re-considered the subject and you're right: they were harsh, but not harsh enough, I'd like to add. The medicine they've tasted at Stalingrad and later on was much more than deserved.

 

So you're willing to desend to their level? Or in some cases perhaps even lower? Not something I would feel comfortable with, that's for sure.

 

Sorry for the delayed response lwd. I won't comment on the crimes committed by the Red Army against Germans civilians because this is not the right place for such a discussion. I will state that they did occur and denying them would be a mistake.

As for the Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad is another matter. While not singling you out, I have noticed that several rogues here seem to use the casualty rate for the 6th army as a stepping stone for the overall treatment of German POWs at the hands of the Soviet Union. IMO such a generalization
would be a mistake. By the time of the surrender, the 6th army could hardly be considered a fighting
force. Virtually every man was either wounded, sick, starving, freezing, frostbitten, shellshocked etc. and
the march to the camps was long and harsh. Many men fell before ever reaching them, countless more
within the first weeks/months upon arrival. Using these lads as an example for the overall treatment would seem skewed. Why not use the German troops who were captured during Bagration as a reference for example?

The difference in treatment and overall survival of POWs directly resulted from the policies implemented
by the two sides. One side systematically starved and tortured her prisoners, while the other did not. It is precisely for this reason why more Red Army troops perished in the hands of the Germans then Germans at the hands of the Russians.

IMO, putting POWs to work rebuilding the country they helped destroy is not torture....

 

If someone is argueing that the Soviets were merciful in dealing with the Germans then it is indeed the right place to bring this up because it is a very important point in refuting that position.

It's good that you aren't singling me out as I have never made that arguement. As you state there were a number of reasons for the survival rate of those who surrendered at Stalingrad being lower than what one might expect. But not all can be layed at the feet of their existing condition and survival rate of German POWs in general held by the Soviets was lower than it should have been if they lived up to their treaty obligations, was it not?

Why not use those who surrendered in Africa as a reference? If the survival rate of German POWs in Soviet hands was not what it should have been comparing the worst case to a better one doesn't really prove much does it?

Clearly the Germans treated Soviet prisoners worse than the Soviets treated German prisoners. That is rather irrelevant to the topic under discussion though isn't it. If one treats POWs poorly it's the excuse that "they did worse" doesn't carry a lot of weight.

It may not be torture (depending on how they are treated). In some cases it might even be considered justice. However it cannot be considered "mercy" and it was against the Conventions.

 

The Soviet Union, as a non-signatory to the "conventions" (I assume you refer specifically to the Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929), was under no obligation to treat the German prisoners accordingly.

The Germans, however, ratified the convention on 21st February, 1934, and were under obligation to treat all Prisoners of War accordingly.

 

As the sucsessor to the Russain Empire which had signed the conventions the USSR was subject to them, furthermore at various points they agreed to abide by at least part of them. Then there's the bit about some of them being considered binding even if a party involved hadn't signed them. Of course there's still the point that even if they weren't obligated by to abide by the conventions it still isn't evidence that their actions were "merciful".

There is no question that the German's violated the conventions in multiple areas and on multiple occasions.

 

Imperial Russia had not signed the 1929 conventions either, as it no longer existed. You can't hold non-signatory powers to updated treaties they had not signed. You can only hold them to the content of that to which they have agreed (as was the case with South Korea, until it ratified the updated 1949 Geneva Convention.)

The 1929 convention come into being precisely because many felt that the earlier conventions from 1899 and 1907 were "inadequate".

The Hague Convention from 1899 allows:

Article 6
The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude. Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with the military operations.
Prisoners may be authorized to work for the Public Service, for private persons, or on their own account.
Work done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar tasks.
When the work is for other branches of the Public Service or for private persons, the conditions shall be settled in agreement with the military authorities.
The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

Article 7
The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen is bound to maintain them.
Failing a special agreement between the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the troops of the Government which has captured them.

 

Of course there's article 20 as well:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp
Then there are those provisions for paying them for their labor. But again it's not really all that important to my point. The conventions established what was the norm or the expected treatment of PoWs. Treating them more harshly can hardly be considered "mercy". Oh and by the way you can hold countries to at least some of the conventions even if they haven't signed on to them.

 

I've not spoken about "mercy", so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up when referencing my posts.

And you can't legally hold them to conventions they haven't agreed to. That is the point of agreeing to them, and having "reservations/declarations". You can try to claim they are morally obligated to follow them, on the basis of their being "commonly accepted" by humanity at large. But claiming you can hold them to things they haven't agreed to is dangerous; there are lots of treaties and conventions not ratified by the US, for instance...so let's not get too eager to poke sticks at other countries treatment of PoWs beyond what their obligations are / were.

Did the Soviet treatment of PoWs leave something to be desired? Yes, obviously. Especially in the earlier mass surrenderings of Germans. The Soviets seem to have been remarkably ill-prepared.
Was efforts made to improve the situation, once it became known within the leadership? Yes it was.
Could this have been foreseen and needless deaths prevented: Yes, too.

Article 20 is another point on which care should be taken. It does not stipulate conditions beyond the ceasation of hostilities. Is 48 months "As quickly as possible?"

At the Yalta conference in January 1945 the Allies agreed upon the use of German forced labor. The U.S. used over 500,000 German POWs in Germany in Military Labor Service Units. Great Britain used 225,000 Germans as "reparations labor". In addition to the 200,000 Germans held by French forces (and 70,000 held by France in Algeria), France demanded 1,700,000 POWs for use as "enforced labor". In July 1945 they were promised 1,300,000 POWs by the SHAEF.

German prisoners were for example forced to clear minefields in France and the Low Countries.
According to Simon MacKenzie, "callous self-interest and a desire for retribution played a role in the fate" of German prisoners, and he exemplifies by pointing out that sick or otherwise unfit prisoners were forcibly used for labour, and in France and the Low countries this also included work such as highly dangerous mine-clearing; "by September 1945 it was estimated by the French authorities that two thousand prisoners were being maimed and killed each month in accidents"
Some of the 740,000 German prisoners transferred in 1945 by the U.S. for forced labour in France came from the Rheinwiesenlager camps, these forced labourers were already very weak, many weighing barely 50 kilos.
On 13 March 1947 the U.S. made an agreement with the French to the effect that roughly 450,000 German prisoners would be released, at a rate of 20,000 a month. This number included in addition to the prisoners handed over to them by the U.S. also the roughly 200,000 prisoners the French had themselves captured. Most captives of the Americans and the British were released by the end of 1948, and most of those in French captivity were released by the end of 1949.

Most German POW survivors of the forced labor camps in the Soviet Union were released in 1953. The last major repatriation of Germans from the Soviet Union occurred in 1956.

Just as I'd not point the finger of blame on Finnish society for the large number of Soviet PoW deaths following the start of the Continuation War, I'm hesitant to scream "J'accuse!" at the Soviets, at a time when millions of their own citizens were starving, and lacking adequate medical care.

Wars are messy, nasty things. Injustices are done everywhere, by all sorts and types, for a variety of reasons.

 

Because that was the context in which I was making my posts. In that context the USSR was not living up to internationally accepted norms for the treatment of POWs and arguably was not living up to conventions that they were suppose to.

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect. Indeed the Nuremberg trials showed that people could be held accountable for actions that weren't even in conventions much less to which they were signatories. Furthermore if you look through the conventions of war I'm pretty sure you will find some that state that after a certain number of signatures acrue they will be considered the "norm" and everyone will pretty much be held accountable to them. Sort of like if the government passes a law that I don't like or don't agree to the courts aren't going to give much weight to my disagreement if I break it.

 

Given the constraints of the time and resources and the fact that everyone had problems in this area I think I'd be willing to give them a pass in this regard.

It may or may not be depending on conditions. 5 years though is obviously well beyond that.

Re[erations are at least in some cases outside the perview of the laws of war. At this point you are IMO getting into some murky areas in international law (and murky in several senses of the word). Technically I suspect that the positoin of those taken into custody after the war officially ended were in a significantly different legal position than POWs taken into custody during the war. Clearly there was abuse of the system though.

Certainly the conditions of the time need to be examined but just because the Soviets treated their own citizens poorly I'm not willing to give them a pass on poor treatment of POWs. It's pretty well documented that it went beyond what was necessary. How much is an open question. The fact that they were still releasing POWs a decade after the war ended is I think rather telling.

 

The Soviets also had substantially more PoWs than France. So it's not surprising they took longer to release. It shouldn't come as a big surprise, that no one wanted a sudden influx of 1 million former soldier/ PoWs wandering around jobless in post war Europe (East or West).

Additionally, with regards to the legality of the Nuremberg, there were a large number of questions raised regarding the behaviour of the Allies towards PoWs after the war, by the prosecutors themselves. Because the western allies had signed the later conventions and were definitely not supposed to be forcing PoWs to do labour, especially when they were sick. Killing and maiming 2000 a month just in France alone is hardly living up to the Conventions either.

 

Indeed and the border was a bit closer as well. However nothing I've seen indicates that the logistics of releasing them was the hold up. Both the French and the Soviets wanted them for labor at least for a while (although for the first several months and arguably up through at least the fall of 46 food shorages could also be listed. But there was little excuse for holding them after the end of the decade.

Indeed no one was perfect with regards to how they treated POWs in the war although some were much better than others. Forcing enlisted personel to work was quite legitmate though. Forcing them to remove mines was sepcifically prohibited though from what I recall. On the other hand at least in Norway I believe that many of those doing the demining were the ones that laid the mines so there was a certain justice in that. The Soviets were also clearly better than either the Germans or the Japanese in regards to how they treated POWS but again that doesn't make their treatment of them "correct" and referring back to the statement that got this line of the thread going it certainly doesn't support statements like:

 

FWIW, I recall both France and the Soviets were releasing prisoners around 20,000 per month. Although I have no evidence, I think many authorities were cautious about the numbers of returnees they wanted to absorb; it requires no only Food, but housing and jobs. Imagine what a sudden influx of 3 million unemployed former soldiers would do to the stability of Central Europe.

 

At the Civilized Western hemisphere, more precisely in Guantanamo facilities, there are detainees held since 2001 with no prospect of being released any time soon. Does modern society evolve or ...

 

But let's get back to the original theme of this tread.

Without a shade of doubt it is Paulus who is directly responsible for the fate these 11.000 who have not surrender at Stalingrad On 8th January 1943, the Russians offered to 6th Army food, medical support and POW status if they surrendered. The offer was repeated on 17th and on 25th Februarry. It was Paulus who sealed the fate of his soldiers by refusing to surrender even when he himself surrendered.
When paulus has surrendered and refused to surrender the 6th Atmy, it was just good will of the Red Army to allow the Germans to surrdender individually and to grant them a status of Pows. Isn't that a mercy, compared to Paulus' attitude.

On 29 January Paulus sent this message to his Führer:

‘may our struggle be an example to the present and future generations never to capitulate, even in the most hopeless situation. By such means Germany will be victorious’.

Paulus was prepared to 'fight' untill his last soldier and then surrender himself with excuse that he was a Cristian who respects life above all. Yes, just his own.

Here is a passage from a Geoffrey Roberts' book "Victory at Stalingrad - A Battle that Changed the History" dealing with treatment of POWs in Soviet captivity:

The fate of the Stalingrad POWs was an extreme case in
terms of their survival rate. Of the 3 million German POWs
about two million survived incarceration – a far higher
proportion than their Soviet counterparts. Unlike the
Germans, the Soviet authorities did not systematically
pursue policies that would result in a high death rate among
the prisoners it held captive. Indeed, official Soviet policy
was that German POWs would be treated in accordance
with international law, even though neither Germany nor
the USSR were signatories to the relevant treaties and
conventions.

Semanticaly, and linguistically this is an act mercy in its real meaning, whatever you want to say.

 

PoW's aren't due to be released until after the war/conflict/fighting has stopped. Further some of hte Guantanamo detainies maybe up for criminal charges and others have had their return refused by their native countries. Hardly comparable expet perhaps for the cases of Nazi party officials and those involved with the concentration camps.