Modern Germany and WW2
- Thread starter andrewg
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I'm at a point in this discussion where I'd really like to clarify why I brought up the topic of DEF's.
Growing up, I'd always had a keen interest in history, especially that surrounding WW2. I had read a lot of the mainstream publications on the topic and thought I had a pretty good grasp on the subject.
I'd known this friend of mine for about 10 years now, he's somewhere in his 80's now and was a boy during the war. He was in the Nazi equivalent of the air cadets and emigrated to Canada with his family shortly after the war. He was always one for a story, and I've yet to have him tell me one that wasn't based on fact, though sometimes I feel he exaggerates to make a point. But the general message always seems straight.
He was not a fan of the Nazi movement or what happened. But he also has a "German side" (perhaps bias is a better word..) to the topic that you don't get from the regular sources and he's quite well read on WW2 as well. It is fun to get him going by telling him he's exaggerating, as he'll then pull out the books, papers...etc that he's been studying to try and prove he isn't
So one day I'm at his house and he starts telling me about these "POW's that weren't". Telling me that at the end of the war, there were German POW's that weren't treated as POW's due to a change in their classification and many of them starved. He then cites this huge number and I was like OK, I'm willing to entertain the idea of this happening but was curious as to why I'd never read about it. He had a large folder of newspaper articles and other sources on the subject, enough to peak my interest.
So I did some of my own reading on the topic and discovered that he was right: That there were German POW's held by both the Americans and the Brits, given slightly different names, but they amounted to much the same thing: POW's that weren't and subsequently were allowed to be treated differently than regular POW's. And due to this, many of them starved to death, died of disease, exposure...etc. I still felt his numbers were exaggerated, but what surprised me was why I hadn't read about it before. I mean there were 19 camps holding millions of people and his mention of it was the first I'd heard.
So when this thread got going in that direction, it reminded me of that discussion and I mentioned what he said. I didn't quite expect the reaction I got to it (and am continuing to get to it) and it seems many want to focus on the number I cited from the story he told me, but that's not the important part, at least it wasn't in my mind. I've clearly stated a few times now that depending on what you read, that number varies wildly.
No, the important part to me is why I'd never heard of it. And why nobody else in this thread save for one or two people had heard of it either. And I thought this played right into what the OP was speaking of in regards to changing and hiding history. I had hoped I made that clear in my other post that a few people seemed to really like.
I'm not trying to upset anybody by bringing up this topic. I thought it fit well with the spirit of the thread. If those discussing it with me can at least consider that and my intent in that context, I think we can at least come to some sort of understanding regarding it.
One does not have to be a sympathizer with the opposition to question their own viewpoint on a topic. I try to be as objective as possible and that often involves looking at many different shades of grey in what is supposed to be a black and white world. The problem with a topic like this one is that there are so many sides, so many shades of grey and so many stories and accounts that even if you get the gist of an event, you will never have the FACTS. "Facts" of war are just the result of what we eventually feel we are comfortable with. They do not represent an absolute truth. There are far too many people involved and far to many people who died, taking their story to the grave for us to have what we would consider in a conventional context "the facts" so to speak. Sure we have numbers and figures, but those don't represent the human element. And the only account of that we have is from those who lived and shared it. A good portion of that story was buried or burned.
But enough people's stories coincide that we get a pretty good gist.
So on the topic of DEF's, I think there is enough information out there, aside from the bias and hyperbole that is the works of Bacque and the like that we can get a pretty good idea about what actually did happen and why. Yet in my efforts of trying to establish a discussion on this topic I've been called a troll and what amounts to a Nazi sympathizer. Amazing.
Growing up, I'd always had a keen interest in history, especially that surrounding WW2. I had read a lot of the mainstream publications on the topic and thought I had a pretty good grasp on the subject.
I'd known this friend of mine for about 10 years now, he's somewhere in his 80's now and was a boy during the war. He was in the Nazi equivalent of the air cadets and emigrated to Canada with his family shortly after the war. He was always one for a story, and I've yet to have him tell me one that wasn't based on fact, though sometimes I feel he exaggerates to make a point. But the general message always seems straight.
He was not a fan of the Nazi movement or what happened. But he also has a "German side" (perhaps bias is a better word..) to the topic that you don't get from the regular sources and he's quite well read on WW2 as well. It is fun to get him going by telling him he's exaggerating, as he'll then pull out the books, papers...etc that he's been studying to try and prove he isn't
So one day I'm at his house and he starts telling me about these "POW's that weren't". Telling me that at the end of the war, there were German POW's that weren't treated as POW's due to a change in their classification and many of them starved. He then cites this huge number and I was like OK, I'm willing to entertain the idea of this happening but was curious as to why I'd never read about it. He had a large folder of newspaper articles and other sources on the subject, enough to peak my interest.
So I did some of my own reading on the topic and discovered that he was right: That there were German POW's held by both the Americans and the Brits, given slightly different names, but they amounted to much the same thing: POW's that weren't and subsequently were allowed to be treated differently than regular POW's. And due to this, many of them starved to death, died of disease, exposure...etc. I still felt his numbers were exaggerated, but what surprised me was why I hadn't read about it before. I mean there were 19 camps holding millions of people and his mention of it was the first I'd heard.
So when this thread got going in that direction, it reminded me of that discussion and I mentioned what he said. I didn't quite expect the reaction I got to it (and am continuing to get to it) and it seems many want to focus on the number I cited from the story he told me, but that's not the important part, at least it wasn't in my mind. I've clearly stated a few times now that depending on what you read, that number varies wildly.
No, the important part to me is why I'd never heard of it. And why nobody else in this thread save for one or two people had heard of it either. And I thought this played right into what the OP was speaking of in regards to changing and hiding history. I had hoped I made that clear in my other post that a few people seemed to really like.
I'm not trying to upset anybody by bringing up this topic. I thought it fit well with the spirit of the thread. If those discussing it with me can at least consider that and my intent in that context, I think we can at least come to some sort of understanding regarding it.
One does not have to be a sympathizer with the opposition to question their own viewpoint on a topic. I try to be as objective as possible and that often involves looking at many different shades of grey in what is supposed to be a black and white world. The problem with a topic like this one is that there are so many sides, so many shades of grey and so many stories and accounts that even if you get the gist of an event, you will never have the FACTS. "Facts" of war are just the result of what we eventually feel we are comfortable with. They do not represent an absolute truth. There are far too many people involved and far to many people who died, taking their story to the grave for us to have what we would consider in a conventional context "the facts" so to speak. Sure we have numbers and figures, but those don't represent the human element. And the only account of that we have is from those who lived and shared it. A good portion of that story was buried or burned.
But enough people's stories coincide that we get a pretty good gist.
So on the topic of DEF's, I think there is enough information out there, aside from the bias and hyperbole that is the works of Bacque and the like that we can get a pretty good idea about what actually did happen and why. Yet in my efforts of trying to establish a discussion on this topic I've been called a troll and what amounts to a Nazi sympathizer. Amazing.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chastn
Yes, a vehemently anti-semitic OPINION. Toward the end of the article, I couldn't believe what I was reading. All propaganda uses sources, and this one was no exception. After I read the anti-jewish nonsense and realized what their angle was, all credibility of the article to include sources was lost. I believe most rational minded people would think this way.
Many years ago, over 30 I think, I took an upper level college course callled 'History of Europe since 1945'. I took it as an elective. I do remember studying about the immediate aftermath of WWII and the incredibile challenges the allies had in dealing with disiplaced persons, to include pow's and unarmed former combatants. The western allies were overwhelmed. This is not news. It is taught in the schools. You mentioned in your first post about millions of pow's intentionally starved by the United States. After reading some of your later posts, you have evidently backed off of this number. Good for you.
You should examine your motives in this topic. I don't think it has anything to do with getting to the truth. After reading the article you linked and it's nasty anti-jewish content, I think I know what what your motives are.
My only motive was to continue and add to a discussion that was already in progress by mentioning the topic of DEF's.
While I had also read of the problems faced by the allies regarding the incredible number of displaced people after the war, the topic of DEF's was never brought up.
I only read the first half of the article I linked, and that was apparently a mistake, one I'm going to apologize for, based on the tripe and agenda spewn at the end (and which you are referencing).
I was looking for a (quick and easy) way to provide some sources for some of the information I had read (in print) on DEF's and saw a few of them mentioned in the 30 some odd references at the end of the article and thought "excellent!" and linked it, not reading the whole thing. Learning experience for me, and an unfortunate one.
Yes, a vehemently anti-semitic OPINION. Toward the end of the article, I couldn't believe what I was reading. All propaganda uses sources, and this one was no exception. After I read the anti-jewish nonsense and realized what their angle was, all credibility of the article to include sources was lost. I believe most rational minded people would think this way.
Many years ago, over 30 I think, I took an upper level college course callled 'History of Europe since 1945'. I took it as an elective. I do remember studying about the immediate aftermath of WWII and the incredibile challenges the allies had in dealing with disiplaced persons, to include pow's and unarmed former combatants. The western allies were overwhelmed. This is not news. It is taught in the schools. You mentioned in your first post about millions of pow's intentionally starved by the United States. After reading some of your later posts, you have evidently backed off of this number. Good for you.
You should examine your motives in this topic. I don't think it has anything to do with getting to the truth. After reading the article you linked and it's nasty anti-jewish content, I think I know what what your motives are.
My only motive was to continue and add to a discussion that was already in progress by mentioning the topic of DEF's.
While I had also read of the problems faced by the allies regarding the incredible number of displaced people after the war, the topic of DEF's was never brought up.
I only read the first half of the article I linked, and that was apparently a mistake, one I'm going to apologize for, based on the tripe and agenda spewn at the end (and which you are referencing).
I was looking for a (quick and easy) way to provide some sources for some of the information I had read (in print) on DEF's and saw a few of them mentioned in the 30 some odd references at the end of the article and thought "excellent!" and linked it, not reading the whole thing. Learning experience for me, and an unfortunate one.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OVERKILL, I appreciate your post and the heat that you've copped.
To those that say it "couldn't" have happened, it still is....
Thank you Shannow.
The Red Cross has a small blurb about it on their website:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnwx.htm
Originally Posted By: ICRC
During the first few years of the Second World War, the German army was victorious and there were consequently few German prisoners of war in Allied hands.
Following the landing in Normandy of the Allies, and their subsequent advance into Germany, the number of German soldiers taken prisoner grew considerably.
The surrender of Germany on 8 May 1945 led to the capture of millions of German soldiers who could no longer count on the assistance of their government nor on th at of their families, themselves in a situation of dire poverty. On the victorious side, public opinion held that the Germans were only getting what they deserved, and the ICRC found itself virtually alone in interceding on their behalf.
The ICRC made approaches to the authorities of the four occupation zones and, in the autumn of 1945, it received authorization to send both relief and delegates into the French and British zones. On 4 February 1946, the ICRC was allowed to send relief into the American zone, and on 13 April 1946 it obtained permission to extend this activity to the Soviet zone.
The quantities received by the ICRC for these captives remained very small, however. During their visits, the delegates observed that German prisoners of war were often detained in appalling conditions. They drew the attention of the authorities to this fact, and gradually succeeded in getting some improvements made.
There is a full publication, "Report of the
International Committee of the Red Cross on its activities
during the Second World War" on the topic as well.
OVERKILL, I appreciate your post and the heat that you've copped.
To those that say it "couldn't" have happened, it still is....
Thank you Shannow.
The Red Cross has a small blurb about it on their website:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnwx.htm
Originally Posted By: ICRC
During the first few years of the Second World War, the German army was victorious and there were consequently few German prisoners of war in Allied hands.
Following the landing in Normandy of the Allies, and their subsequent advance into Germany, the number of German soldiers taken prisoner grew considerably.
The surrender of Germany on 8 May 1945 led to the capture of millions of German soldiers who could no longer count on the assistance of their government nor on th at of their families, themselves in a situation of dire poverty. On the victorious side, public opinion held that the Germans were only getting what they deserved, and the ICRC found itself virtually alone in interceding on their behalf.
The ICRC made approaches to the authorities of the four occupation zones and, in the autumn of 1945, it received authorization to send both relief and delegates into the French and British zones. On 4 February 1946, the ICRC was allowed to send relief into the American zone, and on 13 April 1946 it obtained permission to extend this activity to the Soviet zone.
The quantities received by the ICRC for these captives remained very small, however. During their visits, the delegates observed that German prisoners of war were often detained in appalling conditions. They drew the attention of the authorities to this fact, and gradually succeeded in getting some improvements made.
There is a full publication, "Report of the
International Committee of the Red Cross on its activities
during the Second World War" on the topic as well.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OVERKILL, I appreciate your post and the heat that you've copped.
To those that say it "couldn't" have happened, it still is....
Thank you Shannow.
The Red Cross has a small blurb about it on their website:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnwx.htm
Originally Posted By: ICRC
During the first few years of the Second World War, the German army was victorious and there were consequently few German prisoners of war in Allied hands.
Following the landing in Normandy of the Allies, and their subsequent advance into Germany, the number of German soldiers taken prisoner grew considerably.
The surrender of Germany on 8 May 1945 led to the capture of millions of German soldiers who could no longer count on the assistance of their government nor on th at of their families, themselves in a situation of dire poverty. On the victorious side, public opinion held that the Germans were only getting what they deserved, and the ICRC found itself virtually alone in interceding on their behalf.
The ICRC made approaches to the authorities of the four occupation zones and, in the autumn of 1945, it received authorization to send both relief and delegates into the French and British zones. On 4 February 1946, the ICRC was allowed to send relief into the American zone, and on 13 April 1946 it obtained permission to extend this activity to the Soviet zone.
The quantities received by the ICRC for these captives remained very small, however. During their visits, the delegates observed that German prisoners of war were often detained in appalling conditions. They drew the attention of the authorities to this fact, and gradually succeeded in getting some improvements made.
There is a full publication, "Report of the
International Committee of the Red Cross on its activities
during the Second World War" on the topic as well.
Now you have finally quoted something worth reading. Yes there were massive problems with caring for and getting provisions to prisioners and civilians alike. THIS IS KNOWN AND IT IS NOT NEWS!!!. Russian pow's held by the Germans received little to no provisions from the Red Cross since the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention and the Germans wouldn't let provision thru to them. This is also known.
I am also glad you cleared up your previous link citing sources. I, like probably most people on this thread, have no use for blatant racism, anti-semitism and the sort.
There is no use in being amazed at conclusions drawn from that link. After all, you linked to it citing it and its sources. We all have to be careful what we take for gospel online. I am very skeptical of any out of the ordinary claim backed up only by Wikipedia and off the wall websites.
I think we can all agree that many Europeans suffered in the aftermath of WWII and that there was no planned systematic starvation of German pow's by the western allies. Did some die from malnutrition and disease in the conditions they were in. I'm sure many did, but it was a product of the time and circumstances. Such is war.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
OVERKILL, I appreciate your post and the heat that you've copped.
To those that say it "couldn't" have happened, it still is....
Thank you Shannow.
The Red Cross has a small blurb about it on their website:
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnwx.htm
Originally Posted By: ICRC
During the first few years of the Second World War, the German army was victorious and there were consequently few German prisoners of war in Allied hands.
Following the landing in Normandy of the Allies, and their subsequent advance into Germany, the number of German soldiers taken prisoner grew considerably.
The surrender of Germany on 8 May 1945 led to the capture of millions of German soldiers who could no longer count on the assistance of their government nor on th at of their families, themselves in a situation of dire poverty. On the victorious side, public opinion held that the Germans were only getting what they deserved, and the ICRC found itself virtually alone in interceding on their behalf.
The ICRC made approaches to the authorities of the four occupation zones and, in the autumn of 1945, it received authorization to send both relief and delegates into the French and British zones. On 4 February 1946, the ICRC was allowed to send relief into the American zone, and on 13 April 1946 it obtained permission to extend this activity to the Soviet zone.
The quantities received by the ICRC for these captives remained very small, however. During their visits, the delegates observed that German prisoners of war were often detained in appalling conditions. They drew the attention of the authorities to this fact, and gradually succeeded in getting some improvements made.
There is a full publication, "Report of the
International Committee of the Red Cross on its activities
during the Second World War" on the topic as well.
Now you have finally quoted something worth reading. Yes there were massive problems with caring for and getting provisions to prisioners and civilians alike. THIS IS KNOWN AND IT IS NOT NEWS!!!. Russian pow's held by the Germans received little to no provisions from the Red Cross since the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention and the Germans wouldn't let provision thru to them. This is also known.
I am also glad you cleared up your previous link citing sources. I, like probably most people on this thread, have no use for blatant racism, anti-semitism and the sort.
There is no use in being amazed at conclusions drawn from that link. After all, you linked to it citing it and its sources. We all have to be careful what we take for gospel online. I am very skeptical of any out of the ordinary claim backed up only by Wikipedia and off the wall websites.
I think we can all agree that many Europeans suffered in the aftermath of WWII and that there was no planned systematic starvation of German pow's by the western allies. Did some die from malnutrition and disease in the conditions they were in. I'm sure many did, but it was a product of the time and circumstances. Such is war.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Yet in my efforts of trying to establish a discussion on this topic I've been called a troll and what amounts to a Nazi sympathizer. Amazing.
Guess I'll be in the same boat with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World_War_II (the POW section is what I'm looking at.)
Found this too:
Yes, our white hats at times got a little dingy.
Yet in my efforts of trying to establish a discussion on this topic I've been called a troll and what amounts to a Nazi sympathizer. Amazing.
Guess I'll be in the same boat with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World_War_II (the POW section is what I'm looking at.)
Found this too:
Yes, our white hats at times got a little dingy.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ICRC
During the first few years of the Second World War, the German army was victorious and there were consequently few German prisoners of war in Allied hands.
Following the landing in Normandy of the Allies, and their subsequent advance into Germany, the number of German soldiers taken prisoner grew considerably....
The North African campaign had over 100,000 German prisoners of war a year before the Normandy landings.
During the first few years of the Second World War, the German army was victorious and there were consequently few German prisoners of war in Allied hands.
Following the landing in Normandy of the Allies, and their subsequent advance into Germany, the number of German soldiers taken prisoner grew considerably....
The North African campaign had over 100,000 German prisoners of war a year before the Normandy landings.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chastn
Now you have finally quoted something worth reading. Yes there were massive problems with caring for and getting provisions to prisioners and civilians alike. THIS IS KNOWN AND IT IS NOT NEWS!!!. Russian pow's held by the Germans received little to no provisions from the Red Cross since the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention and the Germans wouldn't let provision thru to them. This is also known.
I am also glad you cleared up your previous link citing sources. I, like probably most people on this thread, have no use for blatant racism, anti-semitism and the sort.
There is no use in being amazed at conclusions drawn from that link. After all, you linked to it citing it and its sources. We all have to be careful what we take for gospel online. I am very skeptical of any out of the ordinary claim backed up only by Wikipedia and off the wall websites.
I think we can all agree that many Europeans suffered in the aftermath of WWII and that there was no planned systematic starvation of German pow's by the western allies. Did some die from malnutrition and disease in the conditions they were in. I'm sure many did, but it was a product of the time and circumstances. Such is war.
OK, for whatever reason you still don't seem to be following me. The Red Cross also touches on DEF's in this article:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590008?OpenDocument
Quote:
One category of military personnel which was refused the advantages of the Convention in the course of the Second World War comprised German and Japanese troops who fell into enemy hands on the capitulation of their countries in 1945 (6). The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military, whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military. Moreover, the situation was different since Germany was a party to the 1929 Convention and Japan was not. Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Allied authorities took the view that unconditional surrender amounted to giving a free hand to the Detaining Powers as to the treatment they might give to military personnel who fell into their hands following the capitulation. In fact, these men were frequently in a very different situation from that of their comrades who had been taken prisoner during
the hostilities, since very often they had not even gone into [p.76] action against the enemy. Although on the whole the treatment given to surrendered enemy personnel was fairly favourable, it presented certain disadvantages: prisoners in this category had their personal property impounded without any receipt being given; they had no spokesman to represent them before the Detaining Power; officers received no pay and other ranks, although compelled to work, got no wages; in any penal proceedings they had the benefit of none of the guarantees provided by the Convention. Most important of all, these men had no legal status and were at the entire mercy of the victor. Fortunately, they were well treated but this is no reason to overlook the fact that they were deprived of any status and all guarantees.
The group that the Red Cross is referring to are the same one I am referring to. These are not your regular POW's and were treated differently from POW's including severely reduced rations. The American version was the DEF, the British had their own designation (IIRC, SEF or SEP).
While starving the DEF's to death was certainly NOT the motive for the designation (as I've said many times in this thread) it is ultimately what happened for many of them. They were NOT given the same level of care, rations or shelter that a civilian was given or a traditional POW.
The generally accepted reason that this designation was created was to provide flexibility outside the bounds set by the Geneva convention. This was a necessary step in helping to deal with the overwhelming number of people the allies were dealing with. But it meant that a certain group of people would be treated differently, would be given lesser care, less food and in general, treated in a manner which would have been deemed unfit under the Geneva convention. If this was not the case, then the designation would have never been necessary.
You keep talking about the general issues in Europe and scoff, stating "everybody knows that", whilst completely ignoring this specific group I am speaking of. I'm not talking about Europe's general logistical nightmare. I'm not speaking of the massive problematic undertaking the allies were faced with after the war. Yes, the situation in general is VERY well known and the general opinion on what happened was that it was well handled, considering. As best as it could be given the circumstances.
If you want to talk about the Russians and how awful they were (and you appear to) then we can talk about the Russians. But at least acknowledge the point I'm making about the DEF's and their distinction of being what they were: an exception (and perhaps a necessary one) to the humanity demanded by the Geneva convention.
And your last line rings true with my previous post: "such is war" indeed. And I will echo my earlier sentiment that sometimes good men must do evil in order to preserve the greater good. If groups of soldiers had to do without and potentially starve so that civilians could be adequately cared for, and that is generally the argument put forth for the creation of the designation, then so be it. But there will always be that controversy surrounding the topic, why the Red Cross was denied access and the ability to provide care and the like.
Context.
War is not a fair mistress.
Now you have finally quoted something worth reading. Yes there were massive problems with caring for and getting provisions to prisioners and civilians alike. THIS IS KNOWN AND IT IS NOT NEWS!!!. Russian pow's held by the Germans received little to no provisions from the Red Cross since the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention and the Germans wouldn't let provision thru to them. This is also known.
I am also glad you cleared up your previous link citing sources. I, like probably most people on this thread, have no use for blatant racism, anti-semitism and the sort.
There is no use in being amazed at conclusions drawn from that link. After all, you linked to it citing it and its sources. We all have to be careful what we take for gospel online. I am very skeptical of any out of the ordinary claim backed up only by Wikipedia and off the wall websites.
I think we can all agree that many Europeans suffered in the aftermath of WWII and that there was no planned systematic starvation of German pow's by the western allies. Did some die from malnutrition and disease in the conditions they were in. I'm sure many did, but it was a product of the time and circumstances. Such is war.
OK, for whatever reason you still don't seem to be following me. The Red Cross also touches on DEF's in this article:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590008?OpenDocument
Quote:
One category of military personnel which was refused the advantages of the Convention in the course of the Second World War comprised German and Japanese troops who fell into enemy hands on the capitulation of their countries in 1945 (6). The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military, whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military. Moreover, the situation was different since Germany was a party to the 1929 Convention and Japan was not. Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Allied authorities took the view that unconditional surrender amounted to giving a free hand to the Detaining Powers as to the treatment they might give to military personnel who fell into their hands following the capitulation. In fact, these men were frequently in a very different situation from that of their comrades who had been taken prisoner during
the hostilities, since very often they had not even gone into [p.76] action against the enemy. Although on the whole the treatment given to surrendered enemy personnel was fairly favourable, it presented certain disadvantages: prisoners in this category had their personal property impounded without any receipt being given; they had no spokesman to represent them before the Detaining Power; officers received no pay and other ranks, although compelled to work, got no wages; in any penal proceedings they had the benefit of none of the guarantees provided by the Convention. Most important of all, these men had no legal status and were at the entire mercy of the victor. Fortunately, they were well treated but this is no reason to overlook the fact that they were deprived of any status and all guarantees.
The group that the Red Cross is referring to are the same one I am referring to. These are not your regular POW's and were treated differently from POW's including severely reduced rations. The American version was the DEF, the British had their own designation (IIRC, SEF or SEP).
While starving the DEF's to death was certainly NOT the motive for the designation (as I've said many times in this thread) it is ultimately what happened for many of them. They were NOT given the same level of care, rations or shelter that a civilian was given or a traditional POW.
The generally accepted reason that this designation was created was to provide flexibility outside the bounds set by the Geneva convention. This was a necessary step in helping to deal with the overwhelming number of people the allies were dealing with. But it meant that a certain group of people would be treated differently, would be given lesser care, less food and in general, treated in a manner which would have been deemed unfit under the Geneva convention. If this was not the case, then the designation would have never been necessary.
You keep talking about the general issues in Europe and scoff, stating "everybody knows that", whilst completely ignoring this specific group I am speaking of. I'm not talking about Europe's general logistical nightmare. I'm not speaking of the massive problematic undertaking the allies were faced with after the war. Yes, the situation in general is VERY well known and the general opinion on what happened was that it was well handled, considering. As best as it could be given the circumstances.
If you want to talk about the Russians and how awful they were (and you appear to) then we can talk about the Russians. But at least acknowledge the point I'm making about the DEF's and their distinction of being what they were: an exception (and perhaps a necessary one) to the humanity demanded by the Geneva convention.
And your last line rings true with my previous post: "such is war" indeed. And I will echo my earlier sentiment that sometimes good men must do evil in order to preserve the greater good. If groups of soldiers had to do without and potentially starve so that civilians could be adequately cared for, and that is generally the argument put forth for the creation of the designation, then so be it. But there will always be that controversy surrounding the topic, why the Red Cross was denied access and the ability to provide care and the like.
Context.
War is not a fair mistress.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chastn
Now you have finally quoted something worth reading. Yes there were massive problems with caring for and getting provisions to prisioners and civilians alike. THIS IS KNOWN AND IT IS NOT NEWS!!!. Russian pow's held by the Germans received little to no provisions from the Red Cross since the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention and the Germans wouldn't let provision thru to them. This is also known.
I am also glad you cleared up your previous link citing sources. I, like probably most people on this thread, have no use for blatant racism, anti-semitism and the sort.
There is no use in being amazed at conclusions drawn from that link. After all, you linked to it citing it and its sources. We all have to be careful what we take for gospel online. I am very skeptical of any out of the ordinary claim backed up only by Wikipedia and off the wall websites.
I think we can all agree that many Europeans suffered in the aftermath of WWII and that there was no planned systematic starvation of German pow's by the western allies. Did some die from malnutrition and disease in the conditions they were in. I'm sure many did, but it was a product of the time and circumstances. Such is war.
OK, for whatever reason you still don't seem to be following me. The Red Cross also touches on DEF's in this article:
I do understand and do not disput the designation.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590008?OpenDocument
Quote:
One category of military personnel which was refused the advantages of the Convention in the course of the Second World War comprised German and Japanese troops who fell into enemy hands on the capitulation of their countries in 1945 (6). The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military, whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military. Moreover, the situation was different since Germany was a party to the 1929 Convention and Japan was not. Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Allied authorities took the view that unconditional surrender amounted to giving a free hand to the Detaining Powers as to the treatment they might give to military personnel who fell into their hands following the capitulation. In fact, these men were frequently in a very different situation from that of their comrades who had been taken prisoner during
the hostilities, since very often they had not even gone into [p.76] action against the enemy. Although on the whole the treatment given to surrendered enemy personnel was fairly favourable, it presented certain disadvantages: prisoners in this category had their personal property impounded without any receipt being given; they had no spokesman to represent them before the Detaining Power; officers received no pay and other ranks, although compelled to work, got no wages; in any penal proceedings they had the benefit of none of the guarantees provided by the Convention. Most important of all, these men had no legal status and were at the entire mercy of the victor. Fortunately, they were well treated but this is no reason to overlook the fact that they were deprived of any status and all guarantees.
The group that the Red Cross is referring to are the same one I am referring to. These are not your regular POW's and were treated differently from POW's including severely reduced rations. The American version was the DEF, the British had their own designation (IIRC, SEF or SEP).
While starving the DEF's to death was certainly NOT the motive for the designation (as I've said many times in this thread) it is ultimately what happened for many of them. They were NOT given the same level of care, rations or shelter that a civilian was given or a traditional POW.
I'm sure some did starve, but overall, as stated in your own Red Cross source, they were treated well given the circumstances.
The generally accepted reason that this designation was created was to provide flexibility outside the bounds set by the Geneva convention. This was a necessary step in helping to deal with the overwhelming number of people the allies were dealing with. But it meant that a certain group of people would be treated differently, would be given lesser care, less food and in general, treated in a manner which would have been deemed unfit under the Geneva convention. If this was not the case, then the designation would have never been necessary.
You keep talking about the general issues in Europe and scoff, stating "everybody knows that", whilst completely ignoring this specific group I am speaking of. I'm not talking about Europe's general logistical nightmare. I'm not speaking of the massive problematic undertaking the allies were faced with after the war. Yes, the situation in general is VERY well known and the general opinion on what happened was that it was well handled, considering. As best as it could be given the circumstances.
I don't scoff at anything. You cannot discuss the logistical problems the allies had and separate pow's from the mix.
If you want to talk about the Russians and how awful they were (and you appear to) then we can talk about the Russians. But at least acknowledge the point I'm making about the DEF's and their distinction of being what they were: an exception (and perhaps a necessary one) to the humanity demanded by the Geneva convention.
Plenty is published about the Russians and their treatment of Germans toward the end of the war. I mentioned it only to give perspective.
And your last line rings true with my previous post: "such is war" indeed. And I will echo my earlier sentiment that sometimes good men must do evil in order to preserve the greater good. If groups of soldiers had to do without and potentially starve so that civilians could be adequately cared for, and that is generally the argument put forth for the creation of the designation, then so be it. But there will always be that controversy surrounding the topic, why the Red Cross was denied access and the ability to provide care and the like.
Context.
War is not a fair mistress.
You seem to have a problem with sticking by your quotes, sources, etc... You make an inflamatory remark about the United States starving to death millions of German pow's after the war and attribute it to an elderly German friend. You back down from the numbers citing he may be fluffing the numbers or something. You cite numerous Wikipedia sources to me to 'back up' your claims, but acknowledge Wikipedia is not always a reliable source. You give a link to an anti-semitic website in order to cite sources and then give a limp apology stating that you didn't really read the article thru in the first place. Your only reasonable source from the Red Cross even states the the detained prisioners were well treated in spite of their legal status.
My issue with you is from your original remark and how poorly you handled it. You couldn't back it up and were called out on it at every turn.
Originally Posted By: chastn
Now you have finally quoted something worth reading. Yes there were massive problems with caring for and getting provisions to prisioners and civilians alike. THIS IS KNOWN AND IT IS NOT NEWS!!!. Russian pow's held by the Germans received little to no provisions from the Red Cross since the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention and the Germans wouldn't let provision thru to them. This is also known.
I am also glad you cleared up your previous link citing sources. I, like probably most people on this thread, have no use for blatant racism, anti-semitism and the sort.
There is no use in being amazed at conclusions drawn from that link. After all, you linked to it citing it and its sources. We all have to be careful what we take for gospel online. I am very skeptical of any out of the ordinary claim backed up only by Wikipedia and off the wall websites.
I think we can all agree that many Europeans suffered in the aftermath of WWII and that there was no planned systematic starvation of German pow's by the western allies. Did some die from malnutrition and disease in the conditions they were in. I'm sure many did, but it was a product of the time and circumstances. Such is war.
OK, for whatever reason you still don't seem to be following me. The Red Cross also touches on DEF's in this article:
I do understand and do not disput the designation.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590008?OpenDocument
Quote:
One category of military personnel which was refused the advantages of the Convention in the course of the Second World War comprised German and Japanese troops who fell into enemy hands on the capitulation of their countries in 1945 (6). The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military, whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military. Moreover, the situation was different since Germany was a party to the 1929 Convention and Japan was not. Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Allied authorities took the view that unconditional surrender amounted to giving a free hand to the Detaining Powers as to the treatment they might give to military personnel who fell into their hands following the capitulation. In fact, these men were frequently in a very different situation from that of their comrades who had been taken prisoner during
the hostilities, since very often they had not even gone into [p.76] action against the enemy. Although on the whole the treatment given to surrendered enemy personnel was fairly favourable, it presented certain disadvantages: prisoners in this category had their personal property impounded without any receipt being given; they had no spokesman to represent them before the Detaining Power; officers received no pay and other ranks, although compelled to work, got no wages; in any penal proceedings they had the benefit of none of the guarantees provided by the Convention. Most important of all, these men had no legal status and were at the entire mercy of the victor. Fortunately, they were well treated but this is no reason to overlook the fact that they were deprived of any status and all guarantees.
The group that the Red Cross is referring to are the same one I am referring to. These are not your regular POW's and were treated differently from POW's including severely reduced rations. The American version was the DEF, the British had their own designation (IIRC, SEF or SEP).
While starving the DEF's to death was certainly NOT the motive for the designation (as I've said many times in this thread) it is ultimately what happened for many of them. They were NOT given the same level of care, rations or shelter that a civilian was given or a traditional POW.
I'm sure some did starve, but overall, as stated in your own Red Cross source, they were treated well given the circumstances.
The generally accepted reason that this designation was created was to provide flexibility outside the bounds set by the Geneva convention. This was a necessary step in helping to deal with the overwhelming number of people the allies were dealing with. But it meant that a certain group of people would be treated differently, would be given lesser care, less food and in general, treated in a manner which would have been deemed unfit under the Geneva convention. If this was not the case, then the designation would have never been necessary.
You keep talking about the general issues in Europe and scoff, stating "everybody knows that", whilst completely ignoring this specific group I am speaking of. I'm not talking about Europe's general logistical nightmare. I'm not speaking of the massive problematic undertaking the allies were faced with after the war. Yes, the situation in general is VERY well known and the general opinion on what happened was that it was well handled, considering. As best as it could be given the circumstances.
I don't scoff at anything. You cannot discuss the logistical problems the allies had and separate pow's from the mix.
If you want to talk about the Russians and how awful they were (and you appear to) then we can talk about the Russians. But at least acknowledge the point I'm making about the DEF's and their distinction of being what they were: an exception (and perhaps a necessary one) to the humanity demanded by the Geneva convention.
Plenty is published about the Russians and their treatment of Germans toward the end of the war. I mentioned it only to give perspective.
And your last line rings true with my previous post: "such is war" indeed. And I will echo my earlier sentiment that sometimes good men must do evil in order to preserve the greater good. If groups of soldiers had to do without and potentially starve so that civilians could be adequately cared for, and that is generally the argument put forth for the creation of the designation, then so be it. But there will always be that controversy surrounding the topic, why the Red Cross was denied access and the ability to provide care and the like.
Context.
War is not a fair mistress.
You seem to have a problem with sticking by your quotes, sources, etc... You make an inflamatory remark about the United States starving to death millions of German pow's after the war and attribute it to an elderly German friend. You back down from the numbers citing he may be fluffing the numbers or something. You cite numerous Wikipedia sources to me to 'back up' your claims, but acknowledge Wikipedia is not always a reliable source. You give a link to an anti-semitic website in order to cite sources and then give a limp apology stating that you didn't really read the article thru in the first place. Your only reasonable source from the Red Cross even states the the detained prisioners were well treated in spite of their legal status.
My issue with you is from your original remark and how poorly you handled it. You couldn't back it up and were called out on it at every turn.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chastn
You seem to have a problem with sticking by your quotes, sources, etc... You make an inflamatory remark about the United States starving to death millions of German pow's after the war and attribute it to an elderly German friend.
No, I made a reference to a STORY (and I used the term STORY in the quote) that I heard from an elderly German friend in reference to DEF's being starved to death and cited the number he stated. This was in-line with the direction of the thread at that point. You've gotten far too worked up over the words of an old man who was attempting to illustrate a point. I've tried to make that clear numerous times now.
Quote:
You back down from the numbers citing he may be fluffing the numbers or something.
Yes, I stated that he probably exaggerated the numbers for effect. And this was WELL before your involvement in this thread. Had you read past my first post, you would have known that.
Quote:
You cite numerous Wikipedia sources to me to 'back up' your claims, but acknowledge Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.
Yes, because, as I already stated, Wikipedia is easy to quote and link to. It is common practice on here as long as one acknowledges the limitations of the source, which I did and you are confirming with your statement above.
That being said, Wikipedia doesn't tend to house massive lies on a subject and the general information is usually pretty good. I felt that their DEF article was indeed pretty good.
Quote:
You give a link to an anti-semitic website in order to cite sources and then give a limp apology stating that you didn't really read the article thru in the first place.
Yes, I linked it because it had some of the paper references I had read on the topic linked at the end of it and I only read the first part of the article. We've been through that. I didn't know it was an anti-Semitic site and I apologized for it, "limp" or not.
Quote:
Your only reasonable source from the Red Cross even states the the detained prisioners were well treated in spite of their legal status.
Yet they also state that they weren't allowed access to many of the facilities/camps and even gave dates in the first quote I gave from them as to when they were finally allowed access and made note of appalling conditions at that point. So how do they know they were well treated if they had no access to them?
Quote:
My issue with you is from your original remark and how poorly you handled it. You couldn't back it up and were called out on it at every turn.
The only person who has taken serious issue with my citing of the Wikipedia source, which is my main source in this thread is YOU. I'm not going to go to the bloody library and scan the paper sources listed at the end of the Wikipedia page just to prove you wrong, it is a waste of my time in what was a casual conversation on a bloody message board about WW2 and unspoken of/hidden topics, of which DEF's are one! You have twisted and contorted the discussion on this topic, giving it a life of its own.
This is not a peer review panel or a history course. I'm not required to provide paper copies of every piece of information I reference on this message board. But that is exactly what you've demanded of me here. I made an in-conversation reference to a STORY told by an old man, which caused me to look into a topic I had never heard about before. When told by a subsequent poster that it never happened, I quoted Wikipedia out of convenience and he didn't seem to have the same issue with that that you are. There aren't too many on-line copies of full text history books that can be quoted.... But then you already know that. So either tell me the Wikipedia article is a lie, [censored], no, scratch that, if you feel the Wikipedia article is wrong, FIX IT! That's what it is there for.
Or cite your own sources to prove the Wiki incorrect on the topic.
But then that would require you to acknowledge that the topic exists, something you've continued to skirt through this entire discourse......
This has reached a level that is bloody ridiculous.
You seem to have a problem with sticking by your quotes, sources, etc... You make an inflamatory remark about the United States starving to death millions of German pow's after the war and attribute it to an elderly German friend.
No, I made a reference to a STORY (and I used the term STORY in the quote) that I heard from an elderly German friend in reference to DEF's being starved to death and cited the number he stated. This was in-line with the direction of the thread at that point. You've gotten far too worked up over the words of an old man who was attempting to illustrate a point. I've tried to make that clear numerous times now.
Quote:
You back down from the numbers citing he may be fluffing the numbers or something.
Yes, I stated that he probably exaggerated the numbers for effect. And this was WELL before your involvement in this thread. Had you read past my first post, you would have known that.
Quote:
You cite numerous Wikipedia sources to me to 'back up' your claims, but acknowledge Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.
Yes, because, as I already stated, Wikipedia is easy to quote and link to. It is common practice on here as long as one acknowledges the limitations of the source, which I did and you are confirming with your statement above.
That being said, Wikipedia doesn't tend to house massive lies on a subject and the general information is usually pretty good. I felt that their DEF article was indeed pretty good.
Quote:
You give a link to an anti-semitic website in order to cite sources and then give a limp apology stating that you didn't really read the article thru in the first place.
Yes, I linked it because it had some of the paper references I had read on the topic linked at the end of it and I only read the first part of the article. We've been through that. I didn't know it was an anti-Semitic site and I apologized for it, "limp" or not.
Quote:
Your only reasonable source from the Red Cross even states the the detained prisioners were well treated in spite of their legal status.
Yet they also state that they weren't allowed access to many of the facilities/camps and even gave dates in the first quote I gave from them as to when they were finally allowed access and made note of appalling conditions at that point. So how do they know they were well treated if they had no access to them?
Quote:
My issue with you is from your original remark and how poorly you handled it. You couldn't back it up and were called out on it at every turn.
The only person who has taken serious issue with my citing of the Wikipedia source, which is my main source in this thread is YOU. I'm not going to go to the bloody library and scan the paper sources listed at the end of the Wikipedia page just to prove you wrong, it is a waste of my time in what was a casual conversation on a bloody message board about WW2 and unspoken of/hidden topics, of which DEF's are one! You have twisted and contorted the discussion on this topic, giving it a life of its own.
This is not a peer review panel or a history course. I'm not required to provide paper copies of every piece of information I reference on this message board. But that is exactly what you've demanded of me here. I made an in-conversation reference to a STORY told by an old man, which caused me to look into a topic I had never heard about before. When told by a subsequent poster that it never happened, I quoted Wikipedia out of convenience and he didn't seem to have the same issue with that that you are. There aren't too many on-line copies of full text history books that can be quoted.... But then you already know that. So either tell me the Wikipedia article is a lie, [censored], no, scratch that, if you feel the Wikipedia article is wrong, FIX IT! That's what it is there for.
Or cite your own sources to prove the Wiki incorrect on the topic.
But then that would require you to acknowledge that the topic exists, something you've continued to skirt through this entire discourse......
This has reached a level that is bloody ridiculous.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: chastn
You seem to have a problem with sticking by your quotes, sources, etc... You make an inflamatory remark about the United States starving to death millions of German pow's after the war and attribute it to an elderly German friend.
No, I made a reference to a STORY (and I used the term STORY in the quote) that I heard from an elderly German friend in reference to DEF's being starved to death and cited the number he stated. This was in-line with the direction of the thread at that point. You've gotten far too worked up over the words of an old man who was attempting to illustrate a point. I've tried to make that clear numerous times now.
Quote:
You back down from the numbers citing he may be fluffing the numbers or something.
Yes, I stated that he probably exaggerated the numbers for effect. And this was WELL before your involvement in this thread. Had you read past my first post, you would have known that.
Quote:
You cite numerous Wikipedia sources to me to 'back up' your claims, but acknowledge Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.
Yes, because, as I already stated, Wikipedia is easy to quote and link to. It is common practice on here as long as one acknowledges the limitations of the source, which I did and you are confirming with your statement above.
That being said, Wikipedia doesn't tend to house massive lies on a subject and the general information is usually pretty good. I felt that their DEF article was indeed pretty good.
Quote:
You give a link to an anti-semitic website in order to cite sources and then give a limp apology stating that you didn't really read the article thru in the first place.
Yes, I linked it because it had some of the paper references I had read on the topic linked at the end of it and I only read the first part of the article. We've been through that. I didn't know it was an anti-Semitic site and I apologized for it, "limp" or not.
Quote:
Your only reasonable source from the Red Cross even states the the detained prisioners were well treated in spite of their legal status.
Yet they also state that they weren't allowed access to many of the facilities/camps and even gave dates in the first quote I gave from them as to when they were finally allowed access and made note of appalling conditions at that point. So how do they know they were well treated if they had no access to them?
Quote:
My issue with you is from your original remark and how poorly you handled it. You couldn't back it up and were called out on it at every turn.
The only person who has taken serious issue with my citing of the Wikipedia source, which is my main source in this thread is YOU. I'm not going to go to the bloody library and scan the paper sources listed at the end of the Wikipedia page just to prove you wrong, it is a waste of my time in what was a casual conversation on a bloody message board about WW2 and unspoken of/hidden topics, of which DEF's are one! You have twisted and contorted the discussion on this topic, giving it a life of its own.
This is not a peer review panel or a history course. I'm not required to provide paper copies of every piece of information I reference on this message board. But that is exactly what you've demanded of me here. I made an in-conversation reference to a STORY told by an old man, which caused me to look into a topic I had never heard about before. When told by a subsequent poster that it never happened, I quoted Wikipedia out of convenience and he didn't seem to have the same issue with that that you are. There aren't too many on-line copies of full text history books that can be quoted.... But then you already know that. So either tell me the Wikipedia article is a lie, [censored], no, scratch that, if you feel the Wikipedia article is wrong, FIX IT! That's what it is there for.
Or cite your own sources to prove the Wiki incorrect on the topic.
But then that would require you to acknowledge that the topic exists, something you've continued to skirt through this entire discourse......
This has reached a level that is bloody ridiculous.
Hello again. First of all, let me say in my last post, I attempted to post in the body of your quote and I evidently botched it somehow and only my last few lines posted. In the lost post, I did acknowledge that there were DEF classified prisioners after the war. You cited a reliable source (Red Cross)and that is perfectly acceptible.
As for me getting worked up over a quote from your friend on an internet thread; not really. It is just an internet thread, nothing more. If I have gotten you worked up, I shouldn't have and hope you won't hold it against me.
As for Wikipedia, I like it and it can oftentimes point you in the right direction when looking up a topic. But given the fact that anyone on the planet with an internet connection can edit it, it cannot be considered reliable. Whether or not I edit it, seeing as anyone can edit out something they disagree with, is pointless.
As for your link to an anti-semitic site; you say it was a mistake, and I believe you. Nuff said on that. I have met a number of people that were anti-semitic, and they are in a class by themselves to say the least. Please understand that I have no tolerance for it in any capacity. That, I admit, was a lightning rod to me when I read that site. (and in case you were wondering, no, I am not Jewish)
As for the rest; oh well. Maybe we will have to agree on some things and disagree on others. I agree that there were different classes of pow's, and that many died in captivity. I do not believe that there was any sanctioned mistreatment of the prisioners. Were some mistreated; I'm sure. Mistreated as a matter of policy; No.
Well,that is about all I really have to say on it.
How about it... truce??? Again, no hard feelings my friend.
Originally Posted By: chastn
You seem to have a problem with sticking by your quotes, sources, etc... You make an inflamatory remark about the United States starving to death millions of German pow's after the war and attribute it to an elderly German friend.
No, I made a reference to a STORY (and I used the term STORY in the quote) that I heard from an elderly German friend in reference to DEF's being starved to death and cited the number he stated. This was in-line with the direction of the thread at that point. You've gotten far too worked up over the words of an old man who was attempting to illustrate a point. I've tried to make that clear numerous times now.
Quote:
You back down from the numbers citing he may be fluffing the numbers or something.
Yes, I stated that he probably exaggerated the numbers for effect. And this was WELL before your involvement in this thread. Had you read past my first post, you would have known that.
Quote:
You cite numerous Wikipedia sources to me to 'back up' your claims, but acknowledge Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.
Yes, because, as I already stated, Wikipedia is easy to quote and link to. It is common practice on here as long as one acknowledges the limitations of the source, which I did and you are confirming with your statement above.
That being said, Wikipedia doesn't tend to house massive lies on a subject and the general information is usually pretty good. I felt that their DEF article was indeed pretty good.
Quote:
You give a link to an anti-semitic website in order to cite sources and then give a limp apology stating that you didn't really read the article thru in the first place.
Yes, I linked it because it had some of the paper references I had read on the topic linked at the end of it and I only read the first part of the article. We've been through that. I didn't know it was an anti-Semitic site and I apologized for it, "limp" or not.
Quote:
Your only reasonable source from the Red Cross even states the the detained prisioners were well treated in spite of their legal status.
Yet they also state that they weren't allowed access to many of the facilities/camps and even gave dates in the first quote I gave from them as to when they were finally allowed access and made note of appalling conditions at that point. So how do they know they were well treated if they had no access to them?
Quote:
My issue with you is from your original remark and how poorly you handled it. You couldn't back it up and were called out on it at every turn.
The only person who has taken serious issue with my citing of the Wikipedia source, which is my main source in this thread is YOU. I'm not going to go to the bloody library and scan the paper sources listed at the end of the Wikipedia page just to prove you wrong, it is a waste of my time in what was a casual conversation on a bloody message board about WW2 and unspoken of/hidden topics, of which DEF's are one! You have twisted and contorted the discussion on this topic, giving it a life of its own.
This is not a peer review panel or a history course. I'm not required to provide paper copies of every piece of information I reference on this message board. But that is exactly what you've demanded of me here. I made an in-conversation reference to a STORY told by an old man, which caused me to look into a topic I had never heard about before. When told by a subsequent poster that it never happened, I quoted Wikipedia out of convenience and he didn't seem to have the same issue with that that you are. There aren't too many on-line copies of full text history books that can be quoted.... But then you already know that. So either tell me the Wikipedia article is a lie, [censored], no, scratch that, if you feel the Wikipedia article is wrong, FIX IT! That's what it is there for.
Or cite your own sources to prove the Wiki incorrect on the topic.
But then that would require you to acknowledge that the topic exists, something you've continued to skirt through this entire discourse......
This has reached a level that is bloody ridiculous.
Hello again. First of all, let me say in my last post, I attempted to post in the body of your quote and I evidently botched it somehow and only my last few lines posted. In the lost post, I did acknowledge that there were DEF classified prisioners after the war. You cited a reliable source (Red Cross)and that is perfectly acceptible.
As for me getting worked up over a quote from your friend on an internet thread; not really. It is just an internet thread, nothing more. If I have gotten you worked up, I shouldn't have and hope you won't hold it against me.
As for Wikipedia, I like it and it can oftentimes point you in the right direction when looking up a topic. But given the fact that anyone on the planet with an internet connection can edit it, it cannot be considered reliable. Whether or not I edit it, seeing as anyone can edit out something they disagree with, is pointless.
As for your link to an anti-semitic site; you say it was a mistake, and I believe you. Nuff said on that. I have met a number of people that were anti-semitic, and they are in a class by themselves to say the least. Please understand that I have no tolerance for it in any capacity. That, I admit, was a lightning rod to me when I read that site. (and in case you were wondering, no, I am not Jewish)
As for the rest; oh well. Maybe we will have to agree on some things and disagree on others. I agree that there were different classes of pow's, and that many died in captivity. I do not believe that there was any sanctioned mistreatment of the prisioners. Were some mistreated; I'm sure. Mistreated as a matter of policy; No.
Well,that is about all I really have to say on it.
How about it... truce??? Again, no hard feelings my friend.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: chastn
Hello again. First of all, let me say in my last post, I attempted to post in the body of your quote and I evidently botched it somehow and only my last few lines posted. In the lost post, I did acknowledge that there were DEF classified prisioners after the war. You cited a reliable source (Red Cross)and that is perfectly acceptible.
As for me getting worked up over a quote from your friend on an internet thread; not really. It is just an internet thread, nothing more. If I have gotten you worked up, I shouldn't have and hope you won't hold it against me.
As for Wikipedia, I like it and it can oftentimes point you in the right direction when looking up a topic. But given the fact that anyone on the planet with an internet connection can edit it, it cannot be considered reliable. Whether or not I edit it, seeing as anyone can edit out something they disagree with, is pointless.
As for your link to an anti-semitic site; you say it was a mistake, and I believe you. Nuff said on that. I have met a number of people that were anti-semitic, and they are in a class by themselves to say the least. Please understand that I have no tolerance for it in any capacity. That, I admit, was a lightning rod to me when I read that site. (and in case you were wondering, no, I am not Jewish)
As for the rest; oh well. Maybe we will have to agree on some things and disagree on others. I agree that there were different classes of pow's, and that many died in captivity. I do not believe that there was any sanctioned mistreatment of the prisioners. Were some mistreated; I'm sure. Mistreated as a matter of policy; No.
Well,that is about all I really have to say on it.
How about it... truce??? Again, no hard feelings my friend.
I think we can agree to that
I did not mean to incite a riot, but I think we did at least have an entertaining discussion
Hello again. First of all, let me say in my last post, I attempted to post in the body of your quote and I evidently botched it somehow and only my last few lines posted. In the lost post, I did acknowledge that there were DEF classified prisioners after the war. You cited a reliable source (Red Cross)and that is perfectly acceptible.
As for me getting worked up over a quote from your friend on an internet thread; not really. It is just an internet thread, nothing more. If I have gotten you worked up, I shouldn't have and hope you won't hold it against me.
As for Wikipedia, I like it and it can oftentimes point you in the right direction when looking up a topic. But given the fact that anyone on the planet with an internet connection can edit it, it cannot be considered reliable. Whether or not I edit it, seeing as anyone can edit out something they disagree with, is pointless.
As for your link to an anti-semitic site; you say it was a mistake, and I believe you. Nuff said on that. I have met a number of people that were anti-semitic, and they are in a class by themselves to say the least. Please understand that I have no tolerance for it in any capacity. That, I admit, was a lightning rod to me when I read that site. (and in case you were wondering, no, I am not Jewish)
As for the rest; oh well. Maybe we will have to agree on some things and disagree on others. I agree that there were different classes of pow's, and that many died in captivity. I do not believe that there was any sanctioned mistreatment of the prisioners. Were some mistreated; I'm sure. Mistreated as a matter of policy; No.
Well,that is about all I really have to say on it.
How about it... truce??? Again, no hard feelings my friend.
I think we can agree to that
I did not mean to incite a riot, but I think we did at least have an entertaining discussion
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Also, although we were definitely not "in the right" concerning our supposed treatment of Nazi prisoners (let's remember here WHAT they were, and stop apologetically calling them "Germans"
), we did NOT go about it as a pre-meditated, purposeful, "final solution", executed with Teutonic efficiency and precision, as THEY did to the peoples they thought not fit to live.
You're ascribing a lot of monstrously evil characteristics to a bunch of soldiers. Was it a foot soldier on a beach in the South Pacific who dropped the bomb?
Somehow, despite the anti-Nippon, and anti-Nazi sentiment which abounded here in the states (and by absolute NECESSITY in our military) at the time, I don't think OUR "foot soldiers" (nor our; pilots, sailors, etc.) had the same level of inhumane GLEE which was observed in the Nippon and Nazi equivalents during their butchering of innocent, unarmed, civilians who had NOTHING to do with the war.
Maybe some (on here and otherwise) cannot fault our enemy combatants, claiming they were totally brainwashed, but I am NOT one of those who will excuse them from the above for that reason.
From what I have heard from speaking with OUR WW2 vets, and read in accounts from them, there was at least a twinge of guilt/conscience from having (had to have) killed innocent civilians.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Also, although we were definitely not "in the right" concerning our supposed treatment of Nazi prisoners (let's remember here WHAT they were, and stop apologetically calling them "Germans"
You're ascribing a lot of monstrously evil characteristics to a bunch of soldiers. Was it a foot soldier on a beach in the South Pacific who dropped the bomb?
Somehow, despite the anti-Nippon, and anti-Nazi sentiment which abounded here in the states (and by absolute NECESSITY in our military) at the time, I don't think OUR "foot soldiers" (nor our; pilots, sailors, etc.) had the same level of inhumane GLEE which was observed in the Nippon and Nazi equivalents during their butchering of innocent, unarmed, civilians who had NOTHING to do with the war.
Maybe some (on here and otherwise) cannot fault our enemy combatants, claiming they were totally brainwashed, but I am NOT one of those who will excuse them from the above for that reason.
From what I have heard from speaking with OUR WW2 vets, and read in accounts from them, there was at least a twinge of guilt/conscience from having (had to have) killed innocent civilians.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
He was not a fan of the Nazi movement or what happened. But he also has a "German side" (perhaps bias is a better word..)
So, does that mean he is only mildly anti-Semitic, and only blames the Jews 'a little bit'?
He was not a fan of the Nazi movement or what happened. But he also has a "German side" (perhaps bias is a better word..)
So, does that mean he is only mildly anti-Semitic, and only blames the Jews 'a little bit'?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
He was not a fan of the Nazi movement or what happened. But he also has a "German side" (perhaps bias is a better word..)
So, does that mean he is only mildly anti-Semitic, and only blames the Jews 'a little bit'?
He's not anti-semitic at all and doesn't blame the Jews for anything specific. He has his gripes about the current state of affairs here, Germany...etc but they have nothing to do with a particular ethnicity and everything to do with politics, so I don't think we need to get into that
His German bias I speak of is hard to explain, but basically he's just got a different perspective on things, since he was there and saw a lot of it first hand. He was also in the junior luftwaffe and said that a lot of the stuff that they were taught like the respect, discipline...etc and that the same approach was taken in school and in the household. He said that this was one of the reasons Germany was so successful. He applies criticisms to how his grandchildren and his own children were treated in schools here and how things here are run compared to what he experienced growing up. He thinks schools, teachers...etc are far too easy on pupils, there is no discipline, respect...etc And that same condemnation applies to many parents as well. He has an issue with what he feels is essentially cushy liberal hand-holding that stifles the drive to out-perform one's peers, the strive for absolute excellence and that nothing else is good enough. He is a perfectionist and it shows in everything he owns and makes. I say makes because he builds model railroads, including most of the electronics that control them by hand. He has bread boards that he makes his schematics on and then has them printed on PCB's once they are tested and verified to be working correctly. He machines his own miniature flywheels, does his own precision soldering....etc.
He also walks perfectly upright, still manages to be strong as an ox and is an extremely good driver, all of this despite his age.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
He was not a fan of the Nazi movement or what happened. But he also has a "German side" (perhaps bias is a better word..)
So, does that mean he is only mildly anti-Semitic, and only blames the Jews 'a little bit'?
He's not anti-semitic at all and doesn't blame the Jews for anything specific. He has his gripes about the current state of affairs here, Germany...etc but they have nothing to do with a particular ethnicity and everything to do with politics, so I don't think we need to get into that
His German bias I speak of is hard to explain, but basically he's just got a different perspective on things, since he was there and saw a lot of it first hand. He was also in the junior luftwaffe and said that a lot of the stuff that they were taught like the respect, discipline...etc and that the same approach was taken in school and in the household. He said that this was one of the reasons Germany was so successful. He applies criticisms to how his grandchildren and his own children were treated in schools here and how things here are run compared to what he experienced growing up. He thinks schools, teachers...etc are far too easy on pupils, there is no discipline, respect...etc And that same condemnation applies to many parents as well. He has an issue with what he feels is essentially cushy liberal hand-holding that stifles the drive to out-perform one's peers, the strive for absolute excellence and that nothing else is good enough. He is a perfectionist and it shows in everything he owns and makes. I say makes because he builds model railroads, including most of the electronics that control them by hand. He has bread boards that he makes his schematics on and then has them printed on PCB's once they are tested and verified to be working correctly. He machines his own miniature flywheels, does his own precision soldering....etc.
He also walks perfectly upright, still manages to be strong as an ox and is an extremely good driver, all of this despite his age.
Andrewg, looking at these posts, I have had a few thoughts. One, I have always been convinced that Western Europe is prone to warfare within itself. There have been many wars which can best be described as European civil wars, and WWII was just one of these. The wars of Napoleon and the Thirty Years War were others. All involved Germany, which by its central position in Europe naturally is one of the main battlefields.
The German Government is very sensitive about the past as it hopes to stretch out the peace interval for as long as possible. Also, WWII was the only such war in which a united Germany was the main cause of the conflict. The present German Government feels therefore that it needs to walk on eggshells due to the ghosts of the past. In all of the other European civil wars, Germans were divided by religion and politics, fought for just about all sides involved, and no German was the sole person who actually started them. WWII was different.
Also, whoever lives in Germany, whether ethnically German or not, will be in this same position due to economic and geographical factors. "France" will always oppose the "Central European" polity, which in turn will oppose the "Eastern polities", in peace or war. It is a natural state of human affairs.
There will be another great European war someday, but all of us on this board will be dead of old age before it occurs.
A lot of the old buildings and battle sites get bulldozed and covered up due to rampant modernization, which is going on worldwide. It happens as surely in Mecca as it does in Beijing or Berlin. Modernization is in and of itself not related to Western Europe's history.
The German Government is very sensitive about the past as it hopes to stretch out the peace interval for as long as possible. Also, WWII was the only such war in which a united Germany was the main cause of the conflict. The present German Government feels therefore that it needs to walk on eggshells due to the ghosts of the past. In all of the other European civil wars, Germans were divided by religion and politics, fought for just about all sides involved, and no German was the sole person who actually started them. WWII was different.
Also, whoever lives in Germany, whether ethnically German or not, will be in this same position due to economic and geographical factors. "France" will always oppose the "Central European" polity, which in turn will oppose the "Eastern polities", in peace or war. It is a natural state of human affairs.
There will be another great European war someday, but all of us on this board will be dead of old age before it occurs.
A lot of the old buildings and battle sites get bulldozed and covered up due to rampant modernization, which is going on worldwide. It happens as surely in Mecca as it does in Beijing or Berlin. Modernization is in and of itself not related to Western Europe's history.
Originally Posted By: Cristobal
Andrewg, looking at these posts, I have had a few thoughts. One, I have always been convinced that Western Europe is prone to warfare within itself. There have been many wars which can best be described as European civil wars, and WWII was just one of these. The wars of Napoleon and the Thirty Years War were others. All involved Germany, which by its central position in Europe naturally is one of the main battlefields.
The German Government is very sensitive about the past as it hopes to stretch out the peace interval for as long as possible. Also, WWII was the only such war in which a united Germany was the main cause of the conflict. The present German Government feels therefore that it needs to walk on eggshells due to the ghosts of the past. In all of the other European civil wars, Germans were divided by religion and politics, fought for just about all sides involved, and no German was the sole person who actually started them. WWII was different.
Also, whoever lives in Germany, whether ethnically German or not, will be in this same position due to economic and geographical factors. "France" will always oppose the "Central European" polity, which in turn will oppose the "Eastern polities", in peace or war. It is a natural state of human affairs.
There will be another great European war someday, but all of us on this board will be dead of old age before it occurs.
A lot of the old buildings and battle sites get bulldozed and covered up due to rampant modernization, which is going on worldwide. It happens as surely in Mecca as it does in Beijing or Berlin. Modernization is in and of itself not related to Western Europe's history.
Thank you for the insight Cristobal. After reading many posts on here (the ones relating to my ORIGINAL post question), It's become much more clear as to why the post-war and modern German feel little need nor desire to keep relics of the Third Reich period intact. It's still rather sad from an historical perspective, but it is their country and their history. They must move forward doing what they think is best. Being that they've done pretty darn well considering WW2 and the Soviets during post-war.....I give them much credit. They can be very proud and should feel no more guilt.
Andrewg, looking at these posts, I have had a few thoughts. One, I have always been convinced that Western Europe is prone to warfare within itself. There have been many wars which can best be described as European civil wars, and WWII was just one of these. The wars of Napoleon and the Thirty Years War were others. All involved Germany, which by its central position in Europe naturally is one of the main battlefields.
The German Government is very sensitive about the past as it hopes to stretch out the peace interval for as long as possible. Also, WWII was the only such war in which a united Germany was the main cause of the conflict. The present German Government feels therefore that it needs to walk on eggshells due to the ghosts of the past. In all of the other European civil wars, Germans were divided by religion and politics, fought for just about all sides involved, and no German was the sole person who actually started them. WWII was different.
Also, whoever lives in Germany, whether ethnically German or not, will be in this same position due to economic and geographical factors. "France" will always oppose the "Central European" polity, which in turn will oppose the "Eastern polities", in peace or war. It is a natural state of human affairs.
There will be another great European war someday, but all of us on this board will be dead of old age before it occurs.
A lot of the old buildings and battle sites get bulldozed and covered up due to rampant modernization, which is going on worldwide. It happens as surely in Mecca as it does in Beijing or Berlin. Modernization is in and of itself not related to Western Europe's history.
Thank you for the insight Cristobal. After reading many posts on here (the ones relating to my ORIGINAL post question), It's become much more clear as to why the post-war and modern German feel little need nor desire to keep relics of the Third Reich period intact. It's still rather sad from an historical perspective, but it is their country and their history. They must move forward doing what they think is best. Being that they've done pretty darn well considering WW2 and the Soviets during post-war.....I give them much credit. They can be very proud and should feel no more guilt.
I think you are characterizing all Germans during the war as "Nazis"....and that would be a mistake. And to say that they had a measure of "glee" in bombing innocent civilians is a bit of an overstatement. The German and Japanese people (innocent themselves) suffered HORRIBLY at the hand of the allied bombings....men, women, children, elderly, etc. It matters NOT if the allies felt guilt or glee....those people died. I'm not trying to say that it was wrong what happened....but I call it as I see it. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians died at the hands of the American and British. There is no way around that.
In hindsight, the war could have been won without such horrific bombings in my opinion. But I am speaking from a completely different perspective and time period to judge too harshly.
In hindsight, the war could have been won without such horrific bombings in my opinion. But I am speaking from a completely different perspective and time period to judge too harshly.
Quote:
In hindsight, the war could have been won without such horrific bombings in my opinion.
V1 and V2 rockets pretty much sealed the destinies of the civilian German populace.
In hindsight, the war could have been won without such horrific bombings in my opinion.
V1 and V2 rockets pretty much sealed the destinies of the civilian German populace.
- Status
Similar threads
