bwv Wrote:The point being of course that war crimes in the East were not limited to the SS and other special units - the rank and file German army was heavily involved.
There's a shock, atrocities happen in war. While not being an apologist for the Wehrmacht I would like to point out that every Army in WW2 had documented atrocities if we are going to define atrocity as these film clips do (the killing of a single POW). Heck, every Army that ever walked the face of the Earth would be so tainted as well.
the clips are mixed, and the debate among veterans is the most interesting aspect of them. I agree that spontaneous, heat of the moment, killings of POWs are not isolated to the Wehrmacht. If that was all that was involved, then the US Army would have been equally guilty. Similarly, they make a big deal of the commisar order, and I really could care less if Soviet commisars were executed. The meat of the videos are the recollections of murders of whole villages, deportations of jews, etc
A German solider couldn't be guilty of any crime regarding the execution of a Russian POW.
Said killing is legal, given that Russia never signed the Geneva convention.
Many people like to point the finger at the Germans in the East w/r/t the killing of Russian POWs, but the Communist government's unwillingness to sign the Geneva convention signed the death warrant millions of their own soliders.
Let's keep the blame right were it belongs, on the communist, not the anti-communist.
OK, so maybe you could show me where the 1929 Geneva convention states that signatories are not obliged to follow the conventions relative to POWs of non-signatory states:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/305?OpenDocument
The logic would also follow that Japan's treatment of Allied POWs was OK as it did not sign the convention
Polish POWs were shot, enslaved and starved more or less in equal proportion to Soviet POWs and of course, Poland did sign the convention
It may have been immoral to shoot POWs, but only those who signed the document could expect protection for their troops if taken prisoner.
That is why it is legal to shoot partisans and not extend Geneva convention protection to terrorists.
And no, the Poles, aside from the Death Camps, were not subjected to the same treatment that the Russians were.
I see you've swallowed the "party line" on German = bad, Russian = Good.
now you are just wasting my time with this stupidity, here is article 82 of the 1929 Geneva convention:
Art. 82. The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.
In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto.
Germany, of course, mistreated Soviet POWs because of their racial ideology & the Geneva convention had nothing to do with it. The USSR sent an offer to abide by the Hague conventions early in the invasion and it was ignored. I would encourage you to watch a few of the videos, all they are is Wehrmacht veterans discussing the their experiences
Right. The day I see the Russians brought up on charges for Katyn Forest or their crimes in the Ukraine even before Hitler came to power is the day I'll shed a tear for the poor commies which got the bullets to the head they deserved.
Now, about Art. 82, since the Russians didn't sign the Geneva convetion they can't be tried on war crimes for their murders, right? But since the Germans did they could?
Let me guess, you're a rules Lawyer when you play these games from HPS?
;->
Hiroo, you come up with some comments that are out there, but this one whole thread is really out there, purposely trying to put the poster in a very negative light. The others (all 2 anyway) that commented in this thread already said atrocities are common, nobody said anything about the Germans bad, Russians good except yourself.
You made the claim that the Soviets had no "legal" protection under the Geneva convention. bwv proved that, for what little it is worth, the Geneva convention does cover this situation, and your only real reply is you won't shed a tear for any murdered Russians until some of those responsible are charged with crimes. Noone asked you to shed a tear, but bwv has proven that your original point is wrong, and never asked for more, just brought to our attention some discussin of a subject that many find troubling - not you and that is fine - maybe because we feel we could end up in the same situation if thrown into that by war.
Anyway, bwv has avoided painting you with any brush and you have directly done it twice and hinted quite a bit more. Can't you keep it impersonal and argue something, rather than attacking him for the post?
Rick