Why did Nazi Germany honour the Generva Convention?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Russia did sign the 2nd Geneva convention (1906), but this was not USSR

All other discussions aside, that does not matter. Under international law of state succession, the USSR was bound by all the treaties that Russia signed.

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.

Under the rules of statutory construction that reading is incorrect. There would be no reason to speak of powers in a conflict that may not be party to the convention if it was not binding upon those who are parties to the convention no matter who the other parties are.

Your first point about successor states is well taken. Your second ignores critical language in the treaty, which makes your reading untenable. If the USSR was not bound by the Geneva convention towards Germany, Germany was not bound towards the USSR. Nothing could be simpler.

As to German law of murder applying outside their borders, I doubt it. There might have been some other German law or regulation applied to German troops that prevented the murder of civilians outside their borders. Perhaps that law was suspended in the case of the USSR.

[Tingkai]

Whether something is balanced is a subjective judgement.

Here's a review of two books about why so many Russian POWs died.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual5/chap11.html

You can also look at the orders given by Von Richeneau, commander of the Sixth Army in 1941. He ordered his troops not to feed POWs or Russian civillians.

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~german/gtext/nazi/reichenau-english.html

"The feeding of the natives and of prisoners-of-war who are not working for the Armed forces from Army kitchens is an equally misunderstood humanitarian act as is the giving of cigarettes and bread. Things which the people at home can spare under great sacrifices and things which are being bought by the command to the front under great difficulties, should not be given to the enemy by the soldier even if they originate from booty."

Notice the excuses Richenau uses to justify starving the POWs and then says even food taken as booty should not be given to them.

[Tingkai]

From the review of the two books mentioned above:

"As a [German] jurist and Senior State Attorney, Streim discusses in greater detail the rules of international law that applied to the treatment of their respective POWs by Germany and the Soviet Union, and his study throughout emphasizes the legal dimensions of his subject. The legal situation was complicated by the fact that pre-Nazi Germany had ratified the 1907 Hague Regulations (and also the 1929 Geneva Convention) that contain basic rules, inter alia, for the treatment of POWs and provide, inter alia, for visits by the International Red Cross to investigate compliance. In contrast, the Soviet Union, which had not signed the 1929 Geneva Convention, considered itself not bound by the Tsarist regime's ratification of the 1907 Hague Regulations because, Streirn argues, it opposed the interference of the Red Cross, and not because it intended to mistreat German POWs. However, at the start of the German invasion, Moscow sent a diplomatic note to Berlin through four neutral states, offering to be bound by those agreements under conditions of reciprocity. The German Foreign Office rejected the offer by not answering it.

Count Helmuth von Moltke was the most outspoken high-ranking officer to oppose the systematic killing of Soviet POWs. He served in the legal department of the Abwehr, the military counterintelligence service attached to the OKW (Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht).46 On 15 September 1941, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the Abwehr chief, sent a memorandum drafted by Moltke to Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the chief of OKW. The memorandum stipulated that regardless of whether or not the 1907 Hague Regulations applied between Germany and the Soviet Union, the principles of universally binding customary law, which had developed since the eighteenth century, prohibited killing or injuring defenseless enemies. Attached to the memorandum was the Soviet Government's decree of I July 1941 to its own troops concerning the treatment of German POWs, which had fallen into German hands; that decree, the Canaris-Moltke memorandum pointed out, "follows the principles of universally binding customary international law and largely also the 1929 Geneva Convention." Keitel [A Wehrmarcht Field Marshall] wrote on the margin of the memorandum: "These reservations correspond to the soldierly concepts of chivalrous war! Here we deal with the destruction of an ideology. Therefore, I approve the measures [to kill POWS] and authorize them."

[Ned]

Tinkai, Well then, that clears that up. Good post.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the USSR was not bound by the Geneva convention towards Germany, Germany was not bound towards the USSR. Nothing could be simpler.

Not so. The treaty seems to say that those under the treaty are bound to uphold those provisions in their mutual relations with a non-signatory. Otherwise, there is no reason to mention the non-signatory. You have to account for what that language dealing with non-signatories really means, and what it does mean is even if you are in conflict with a non-signatory that does not mean you can ignore your obligations.

Every human rights treaty has had the same prohibition against signatories from asserting that they were dealing with a non-signatory and thus did not have to follow the treaty with them.

[Ned]

Imran, give it a rest. It is clear that the Germans did not consider themselves bound by these treaties with respect to the Soviets, but they did with respect to the UK and the US.

[Tingkai]

Ned, the Germans deliberately decided to ignore the treaties, even though they were bound by international law to treat POWs decently.

Keital's comments clearly show that the Germans did not give a damn about any laws. Even if the Soviet Union had signed the Geneva Conventions, the Germans would still have murdered the Russian POWs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is clear that the Germans did not consider themselves bound by these treaties with respect to the Soviets

And it is clear that they were wrong. Under the terms of the treaty they WERE bound no matter who their opponents were.

[notyoueither]

You're wrong.

What does 'mutual' mean?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mutual relations means common relations with the other, whether they be signatory or non-signatory (ie, diplomatic relations). Seeing as non-signatories are noted in the beginning of the clause, it applies to them. Otherwise the non-signatory clause is utterly superfluous and that would violate the rules of statutory interpretation.

The main question to ask is if the clause meant what you says it means, why was a clause required to say that two signatories had to follow the rules of the convention against each other? So without this clause two signatories could violate the convention if they fought each other as long as there was a non-signatory somwhere in the conflict? Wasn't the entire convention about protecting rights and thus all the signatories proclaimed to do so? So then this clause would basically be repetition without anything new and once again, be rendered superfluous.

[notyoueither]

Nice try.

It says that signatories have an obligation in 'mutual relations'.

It says nothing about non signatories.

I hope.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Under the Convention itself, Article 1 is:

The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

Yep, that says ALL circumstances. So they are bound, no matter who the opponents are.

[notyoueither]

Can you quote beyond that point?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You want the entire Convention? There are a lot of parts .

Article 2:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

It seems that mutual relations may refer to signatories in that context, but frankly I'm confused as to why the Convention says that signatories are bound in conflicts against each other 3 times in the first two articles.

Wikipedia's analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

In the case of a conflict between a signatory and a non-signatory the signatory shall remain bound until such time as the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention.

Which seems somewhat at odds with that last sentance. So who knows at this point... EXCEPT for the provision that Germany was bound to follow the Convention as a signatory against the USSR.

[notyoueither]

Bull****. How do you expect soldiers to react to the graves of Katyn?

The truth is the Sovs under Stalin observed no such niceties, and so deserved none.

I'm sorry to call a spade a spade, but there it is.