Why did Nazi Germany honour the Generva Convention?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you saying the Germans would have acted all nice under the Geneva Convention if not for the graves at Katyn?

So are you arguing that since the Soviets committed atrocities against the Poles, while ALLIED to the Germans, in a later war, the Germans were allowed to use that against the Soviets? In a conflict, the signatory has to remain bound until the non-signatory doesn't act under the mandates of the convention. Seeing as how Germany invaded the Soviet Union, I'd say that Germany started the atrocities in that war. And no, you can't use old conflicts and get out of your treaty obligations that way.

[notyoueither]

No. I'm saying the USSR was not a signatory, that they did not observe the conventions, and that they did not deserve the protections thereof.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by 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.

Katyn was discover in 1943. The Germans were killing Russian POWs from the very beginning of the 1941 invasion of Russia. The orders to kill the POWs were issued before 1941.

Besides, by this logic, the Allies would have been justified in killing all German POWs.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No. I'm saying the USSR was not a signatory, that they did not observe the conventions, and that they did not deserve the protections thereof.

That ignores the fact that the Russians offered to follow the convention rules, but were turned down by the Germans.

[notyoueither]

The orders to kill POWs dated from 1940?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


That ignores the fact that the Russians offered to follow the convention rules, but were turned down by the Germans.

I would like to read about that.

[Tingkai]

But no one knew about it until 1943. So the idea that German atrocities were a response to Russian atrocities is wrong.

[notyoueither]

I don't think Nazis and Communists needed many reasons to hate each other.

We're discussing the applicability of the Geneva Conventions.

I could be wrong. Imran could be right. I'm not accepting Imran's position on it. I might look further. I might not. I'm drunk, so I might do anything.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

That is not what you post says. It says, IIRC, that while the treaties did not apply, customary law did.

[Ned]

Originally posted by 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.

Imran, when you adopt a position that is clearly wrong, you never give up, do you?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
That is not what you post says. It says, IIRC, that while the treaties did not apply, customary law did.

I read the previous quotes as saying that it doesn't matter whether the Geneva Convention applies to the Germany-Soviet. Even if the convention does not apply, Germany was still bound by customary law.

It goes back to what I said in the beginning and what I believe Imran is saying.
a) Countries that sign the convention must abide by the convention rules when dealing with non-signatory countries (unless the non-signatory countries break the rules); or
b) Even if the Conventions did not apply to the Soviet Union, this did not give German the legal right to inflict atrocities. Customary law apply, in which case, Germany was legally obliged to meet the spirit of the Geneva Conventions

Starving, murdering and enslaving POWs was certainly illegal by international laws at that time.

To argue that Germany acted lawfully is simply wrong and not supported by the facts.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


I read the previous quotes as saying that it doesn't matter whether the Geneva Convention applies to the Germany-Soviet. Even if the convention does not apply, Germany was still bound by customary law.

It goes back to what I said in the beginning and what I believe Imran is saying.
a) Countries that sign the convention must abide by the convention rules when dealing with non-signatory countries (unless the non-signatory countries break the rules); or
b) Even if the Conventions did not apply to the Soviet Union, this did not give German the legal right to inflict atrocities. Customary law apply, in which case, Germany was legally obliged to meet the spirit of the Geneva Conventions

Starving, murdering and enslaving POWs was certainly illegal by international laws at that time.

To argue that Germany acted lawfully is simply wrong and not supported by the facts.

Tingkai, I think I agreed with you after reading that post where the German lawyers had argued that even though the Geneva convention did not apply, that customary law prevented the summary killing of surrendered enemy soldiers, etc.

But, if the Geneva convention applied, the Soviet POWs were entitled to Red Cross visits, mail and other privileges far beyond customary law. I don't anyone seriously believed that Germany owed the Soviet Union's POWs any such privileges.

[Mr. Harley]

Tingkai, thank you for some excellent references. I also think I now understand the arguments I have read about the conflict in German circles (and their context), and realize that I must have parsed them. The argument is reference the NAZIS and the regular German army.

Many of the Wehrmacht generals were not Nazis, and in fact considered Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel not a real general at all but a lap dog for Hitler. Note, by that point he was the head of the Wehrmacht, and many of the generals had either stood by and done nothing as Hitler seized the various power bases in the state, or secretly applauded him until they realized what kind of monster they had let loose. They had also watched any with the guts to oppose Hitler directly be blackmailed, forced into retirement, dead-end staff jobs, etc.

So its largely splitting hairs and trying to claim that this really wasn't the Wehrmachts fault, it's the Nazis fault. However, and to give this context (I was trying to get the name of the General listed below) here is a quote. Even though the context is western prisoners, it's this kind of quote that had caused me to discount atrocities committed by the regular Wehrmacht UNITS.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-07-46.htm

members of the German Armed Forces, where, for example, prisoners of war were handed over to and mistreated by the SS or SD, we will show that in those cases members of this group were well aware that they were assisting in the commission of War Crimes. We will show that many crimes committed by the SS and SD were committed with the knowledge and necessary support of the General Staff and High Command group.

Your posts give me a context for various arguments over the years, and of course shows how the Nazification of the Wehrmacht was largely complete by 1941. Not totally, you do have people like Guderian and Rommel. They are slowly removed as Hitler replaces them with lapdogs, resulting for example in the disaster of Army Group Center during Operation Bagration, commanded by von Busch, a man held in contempt (like Keitel) by the pre-Nazi Wehrmacht commanders. Very few of the truly Nazi generals were competent field commanders (Jodel is probably the most famous exception) which thankfully led to a gradual deterioration in Wehrmacht generalship.

One example of that is Guderian, who in the winter of 1941, realizing his a** was hanging out and that his army could be destroyed by a competent offensive, ignored Hitler's "no retreat" order for Army Group South. He was relieved of command, and was not rehabilitated until 1943 when he was put in charge of reorganizing the Panzer arm of the Wehrmacht after the reversals in the East, and the various shortages plaguing the Wehrmact by that point. He never was given a field command after violating Hitler's no-retreat order.

My point (and I'm thinking out load, as it were) is that it becomes very murky and largely indiscernable as to Wehrmacht versus Nazi, or whether that distinction is so easily made. Now I begin to understand why there are thousands of pages of Nuremberg testimony and why it took so long - and how for a Russian POW who is starving to death he's not going to care paticularly, either. I had never focused on the finer points of the "who's to blame" issue, and now I can see why it is an entire subset of WW2 historical study.

[Tingkai]

I agree that there were German generals/admirals who were disgusted by the orders that allowed German troops to commit atrocities. Guderian refused to issue the Commissar Order to his troops. Canaris advocated fair treatment of the prisoners. There were other officers who tried to prevent atrocities. (Many of those who spoke up, such as Guderain, were never punished. He was sacked for arguing with Hitler about whether to conduct a strategic withdrawal, as you mentioned, not for refusing to issue the commissar order.)

What has always struck me is that the majority of the Wehrmacht officers would have been trained as professional soldiers and would have believed in things like honour and rules for conducting war. Yet, the German officers and soldiers routinely committed atrocities. They did that not because "all Germans are evil" or the opposite "it was just the Nazis". When rules are erased, people can easily turn into vicious animals, particularly soldiers in a war zone. The scary thing is maybe they were just being human.

[Ned]

I have actually met a Russian POW. He was the father of the girlfriend of one of my law school friends. He had a lot of stories about his capture, I recall, and that two-thirds of the prisoners in his camp did not survive the war. I don't recall him making any distinction between Nazi's and Germans.

The important point is that he survived and moved to America after liberation. He did not want to live under communism.