Why did Nazi Germany honour the Generva Convention?

[snoopy369]

Although i can't say i agree with Ned on his general argument, two things I have to agree with:
a) The geneva convention only applied to conflict between signatories. "Mutual Relations" was intended to mean exactly what germanos indicated.

b) Sub warfare - the British were being very sneaky, but in a way that clearly violates the spirit of the "no sub warfare on merchantmen" agreements. Cloaking their warships as merchantmen isn't so different from dressing your soldiers up as civilians, or even bringing civilians along to battle to prevent your enemies from bombing you -- something Saddam did several times during the first gulf war.

[Mr. Harley]

Couple of historical points.

Berzerker, the prisoner exchanges with the Confederates were stopped because both the Confederate soldiers were not honoring pledges not to return to combat, and because (I cannot remember which General it was, it may have been Grant) realized that attrition favored the Union, so exchanges helped the Confederacy. The prisoners at Andersonville were per se not deliberately targeted, on the other hand the entire camp was administered on a level that could not even reach incompetent, and for example they would not let the prisoners cut surrounding timber for shelter while supervised by prison guards. Is starving to death better than being beaten to death? Remember also up until the point the Confederate civil government fell apart, most areas outside of Virginia had agricultural surpluses, moving the food was the problem. There was no excuse for the starvation at Andersonville, the surrounding area was not in famine status.

Patroklos, read about the wars in the United States with the Native Americans, and the correspondence of both the leaders and the common soldiers. They were dehumanized, and they were treated brutally. From a brief description of the Sand Creek massacre (eyewitness)

The colonel was as thourough as he was heartless. An interpreter living in the village testified, "THEY WERE SCALPED, THEIR BRAINS KNOCKED OUT; THE MEN USED THEIR KNIVES, RIPPED OPEN WOMEN, CLUBBED LITTLE CHILDREN, KNOCKED THEM IN THE HEAD WITH THEIR RIFLE BUTTS, BEAT THEIR BRAINS OUT, MUTILATED THEIR BODIES IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD." By the end of the one-sided battle as many as 200 Indians, more than half women and children, had been killed and mutilated.

This from a village that had always been at peace and refused to join in the revolt of 1864 in Colorado, and which the officer in charge was fully aware of - but he hated Indians, and saw this as a golden opportunity (also documented).

Ned gives a pretty germane description of the Geneva accords. The rules reference the U-Boat warfare permitted the Brits to cut off food shipments to Germany while the Germans had to search the merchant men, some of which (Q-ships) had concealed armament designed to destroy U-boats. Remember most of the so-called Laws governing naval warfare had been written by the Brits to favor their naval equipment. The original blockade laws required exactly that, at the port of entry. In WW1, when the Brits realized that U-boats would make a close-in blockade VERY expensive, the rules got "revised" so that searches, only practical by a large surface going navy, were now required. Woodrow Wilson signed off on them, letting himself get duped by British negotiators without realizing the implications of what he was signing (or he didn't care, I'm trying to give the man the benefit of the doubt). Oh, and some of the precedents concerning blockades that let the Brits screw the Germans had their precedents from the US Civil War, to justify certain blockade actions by the North. I'd have to get out some of my books to find that one, it's a fairly esoteric point on the history of Naval Law and blockades.

[Tingkai]

Regardless of how you interpret the Geneva conventions, nothing justifies Germany's decision to deliberately murder Russian POWs.

Remember that days before the Germans invaded the USSR, the German high command issued orders that told soldiers that it was acceptable to murder Russian POWs and that Russian POWs were not "to be treated as a genuine soldier according to the Geneva Convention."

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Like disquising warships as merchantmen?

They did that only in response to attacks by German disguised armed raiders and German U boats. The Germans equipped a number of merchantmen with hidden guns very early in the war. They were quite successful.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Tingkai


The Soviets did not put Mao into power.

In fact, the Soviets supported Chiang and the KMT from about 1937 until the end of the Chinese Civil War. Stalin perceived Mao as being a dangerous renegade.

When the Soviets invaded Manchuria, they initially allowed the CCP to step in as a temporary civilian government, mainly because the KMT was in no position to move in. But the Soviets delayed their withdrawal during 1946 so that the KMT could move troops to the north.

Chiang wanted his own troops in Manchuria and refused to allow other non-communist troops into the area. With the help of the US, Chiang's troops are airlifted and shipped to Manchuria where they eventually take control of the major cities. But its too late, the CCP is established itself in the countryside.

More importantly, local militias joined the CCP bring their equipment with them. The CCP was also able to take control some, but not all of the war supplies left by the Japanese.

In short, the idea that the Soviets gave the PLA equipment on a silver platter is false.

Strange, American observers sent to Mao's camp in order to try to coordinate his efforts with Chiang's reported the presence of Soviet officials. Furthermore, Soviet support for Chiang was so evident that Chiang was forced to supply his troops prior to the arrival of US-British aid with old German WW1 equipment bought used from various European sources. Finally, when the Soviets allowed the local CCP to set up governments in Manchuria they surely knew that those elements belonged to Mao's factions, not Chiang's. The Soviets made no effort to keep massive stockpiles of Japanese equipment out of their hands. If the Stalin really supported Chiang over Mao, do you believe that he would have allowed his troops to let millions of weapons escape into the hands of Chiang's enemy?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Tingkai
"Although one of the Powers in conflict [THE USSR] may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties [GERMANY] thereto shall remain bound by it [THE GENEVA CONVENTION] in their mutual relations."

I'm afraid Ned is right.
After a long google search, I found out that it's only the 4th Convention (1949) that bounds the parties unilaterally.
The way to read above sentence is IMO:

Although one of the Powers [USSR] in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers [Germany and USA] who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

But, IIRC, Russia did sign the 2nd Geneva convention (1906), but this was not USSR, and there was nothing about POWs. Only about wounded, ills and medical crews.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone know whether the USSR signed the Geneva conventions? If not, they were not under their protection.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/prisoner_The1929GenevaConvention.asp

In 1929 the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was signed by 47 governments. Chief among the nations that did not adhere to the Geneva Convention of 1929 were Japan and the USSR. Japan, however, gave a qualified promise (1942) to abide by the Geneva rules, and the USSR announced (1941) that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907, which did not provide (as does the Geneva Convention) for neutral inspection of prison camps, for the exchange of prisoners' names, and for correspondence with prisoners.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dry
After a long google search, I found out that it's only the 4th Convention (1949) that bounds the parties unilaterally.

Well if Ned is quoting from the 1949 convention than it is pointless to our discussion about WWII.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Strange, American observers sent to Mao's camp in order to try to coordinate his efforts with Chiang's reported the presence of Soviet officials. Furthermore, Soviet support for Chiang was so evident that Chiang was forced to supply his troops prior to the arrival of US-British aid with old German WW1 equipment bought used from various European sources. Finally, when the Soviets allowed the local CCP to set up governments in Manchuria they surely knew that those elements belonged to Mao's factions, not Chiang's. The Soviets made no effort to keep massive stockpiles of Japanese equipment out of their hands. If the Stalin really supported Chiang over Mao, do you believe that he would have allowed his troops to let millions of weapons escape into the hands of Chiang's enemy?

I know that during the Long March, the CCP decided to break off from the Comintern and Mao gained power. The Comintern agent, I think his name was Otto Braun, was blamed for the defeat that led to the Long March.

As for Chiang, he would not have had direct access to Russian supplies owing to his location in the south of China following the initial Japanese invasion in 37. He became even more isolated after Dec. 1941.

(Also remember that Chiang and his cronies were incredibly corrupt. Much of the foreign aid they received went into their own pockets).

at the end of 1945, there was a specific agreement between the CCP and the USSR about civilian governance of Northern China. Local government were needed and the CCP was the only choice. The KMT were based in the south and had no real organised groups in the north. So the CCP initially took control.

However, the KMT asked the Russians to delay their withdrawal in 1946 to get time to move troops north.

The result was a scramble for control and as I mentioned the KMT established itself in the cities while the CCP controlled the countryside.

As for the weapons, as far as I know, there was no deliberate effort to give all the weapons to the CCP or to the KMT.

To the Russians, the Japanese weapons would have been obsolete and undesirable. It is not suprising that they left the stuff behind for the local authorities. The Russians were more interested in taking the factories.

And while all of this is occurring, the KMT and the CCP are in a coalition government that was formed to fight the Japanese.

The Russians may well have underestimated Mao and instead believed that Chiang had control of the situation and that Mao was not a threat. That's what many Americans thought.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Well if Ned is quoting from the 1949 convention than it is pointless to our discussion about WWII.

I quoted from the Third Geneva Convention. I thought I said so at the time.

Clearly, part of Hitler's treatment of the Soviet POWs was to punish the Soviets for not signing the Geneva convention. The Germans thought of themselves as a higher people in part due to their respect for law.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
it's crazy how Spanish and Asians were integrated into the regular military (was there ever even a division to begin with?) while Blacks weren't.

"Spanish" people in the regular military? "SPANISH"??

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


I quoted from the Third Geneva Convention. I thought I said so at the time.

Clearly, part of Hitler's treatment of the Soviet POWs was to punish the Soviets for not signing the Geneva convention. The Germans thought of themselves as a higher people in part due to their respect for law.

Ah Ned, the consumate troll

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Ah Ned, the consumate troll

Obviously, GePap, you are so biased that you cannot accept that the Germans were proud of being law abiding people.

[GePap]

No, I am just amazed yoiu can with a straight face (I assume you have one at this point) say such dribble. The Nazi government was not much for law abiding at all. Germans may be proud of efficiency-but law abbiding?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
No, I am just amazed yoiu can with a straight face (I assume you have one at this point) say such dribble. The Nazi government was not much for law abiding at all. Germans may be proud of efficiency-but law abbiding?

GePap, you jest. This whole thread is about why the Germans were law abiding in the midst of a savage war.