Why did Nazi Germany honour the Generva Convention?

[Mr. Harley]

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."

[Ned]

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.

[Mr. Harley]

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).

[Ned]

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.

[Mr. Harley]

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.

[Ned]

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.

[Mr. Harley]

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.

[Ned]

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.

[Ned]

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.

[Heresson]

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.

[Ned]

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?

[Heresson]

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

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.

[Mr. Harley]

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.

[Tingkai]

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?

[Heresson]

Ekhem, STalin invaded Poland too