Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Was Nuremberg a Kangaroo Court?
Options
Comments
-
@popescu, you said that the Allies should have used German law as a basis on which to try the Nuremberg defendants??!! Why on earth would they do that, when they'd spent billions of dollars, expended many thousands of lives and so on, to defeat the people who used such laws to justify their actions in the first place?.German law couldn't be relied upon as it had been mutilated By Hitler in the first place...I recall reading how German soldiers shot completely blameless Polish citizens in the first hours of the invasion of Poland, using German laws that those citizens couldn't possibly have known about. The soldiers moulded law to suit their ends.......as for Russian participation in Nuremberg, of course they had to be there. They were the victims of Germany's deliberate, criminal, aggressive invasion of their country and had 20 million dead citizens to show for it. As for your condemnation of Russia's stripping of German material assets, well, I suggest you research the legalised looting of all the countries occupied by the Germans, particularly such things as the appropriation of crops, foodstocks, industrial assets such as factories being forcibly sequestered into Nazi ownership, the appropriation of entire transport networks such as rail systems, vehicle production, canals, shipyards, merchant fleets, fishing fleets, electrical and electronic production, oil production and a million other things and the most odious of all, the forced labour of hundreds of thousands of people and the murder of those who had the misfortune to have the wrong religion. Everything that happened to the Germans after the war came as a direct consequence of their own actions and compared to the misery they inflicted on utter innocents, they got off lightly, in many cases.
regards
Stovepipe0 -
Yes, some written law had to be used. As it was, the Allied Tribunal was making up laws and applying them ex post facto. This violated the concept of fair jurisprudence.@popescu, you said that the Allies should have used German law as a basis on which to try the Nuremberg defendants??!!
They were also violators of the very crimes they were accusing the Germans of committing. Also, the Soviet Union was not a signatory of the Geneva Convention....as for Russian participation in Nuremberg, of course they had to be there. They were the victims of Germany's deliberate, criminal, aggressive invasion of their country and had 20 million dead citizens to show for it.
Two wrongs don't make a right.As for your condemnation of Russia's stripping of German material assets, well, I suggest you research the legalised looting of all the countries occupied by the Germans ...0 -
They were also violators of the very crimes they were accusing the Germans of committing. Also, the Soviet Union was not a signatory of the Geneva Convention.
Your own answer is applied to the above point.Two wrongs don't make a right.
That they were not Geneva signatories is also irrelevant. Germany were and it was they who were on trial in reality.
Your repeated stating that USSR should not have been administrating justice after losing so many millions of its people in WWII is simply absurd. I see no proper argument for this. That they fought fire with fire is not reason to exclude them, particularly when they were the main component of the victory of the Allies.0 -
I don't follow you.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Your own answer is applied to the above point.
The Germans were not tried for violating the Geneva Convention. New laws were made-up on the spot.jonniebgood1 wrote: »That they were not Geneva signatories is also irrelevant. Germany were and it was they who were on trial in reality.
Losing great numbers does not qualify a ruthless autocracy to judge others.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Your repeated stating that USSR should not have been administrating justice after losing so many millions of its people in WWII is simply absurd.
Being a victor does not qualify a country to meet-out vengeance in the guise of justice.jonniebgood1 wrote: »I see no proper argument for this. That they fought fire with fire is not reason to exclude them, particularly when they were the main component of the victory of the Allies.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Your own answer is applied to the above point.
That they were not Geneva signatories is also irrelevant. Germany were and it was they who were on trial in reality.
Your repeated stating that USSR should not have been administrating justice after losing so many millions of its people in WWII is simply absurd. I see no proper argument for this. That they fought fire with fire is not reason to exclude them, particularly when they were the main component of the victory of the Allies.
Why is it absurd? They helped start WWII by agreeing with Germany to invade and partition Poland.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why is it absurd? They helped start WWII by agreeing with Germany to invade and partition Poland.
The Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact was not a joint agreement to co-ordinate invasion. That seems to be what you are suggesting.
If you look in more detail at the run up to this period you will understand why the pact came into existence. Both sides had differing reasons.0 -
The Russians invaded Poland just as they have no invaded their former Ukrainian colony.jonniebgood1 wrote: »The Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact was not a joint agreement to co-ordinate invasion. That seems to be what you are suggesting.
If you look in more detail at the run up to this period you will understand why the pact came into existence. Both sides had differing reasons.0 -
Out of curiosity, where do you think laws come from?New laws were made-up on the spot
The reality is that the Allies faced an unprecedented (that is, without legal precedent) scenario in which Nazi aggression had consumed a continent and millions of lives. The old way of doing things would have been to ignore individual Nazis and limit any consequences to the realm of diplomatic treaty. When viewed from the smoking ruins of the concentration camps that would have been quite obviously absolutely unacceptable, from both a political and moral viewpoint.
The post-war order, or administering of justice, was hardly perfect but it was unquestionably the best option. The others being to let Nazis walk free on the weakness/absence of relevant pre-war legislation or put them all up against a wall and be done with it. Both would have made a mockery of the millions who had died.
Hence the commitment to put in place a new international framework in which those responsible for genocide and other mass atrocities could be brought to justice. Novel situations require novel laws and bodies. To fault this for simply being new is unwarranted.0 -
The actual laws might have been new, but from my reading of a Jurisprudence text, the underlying theories behind them stretched back to Roman times and so had an excellent pedigree especially in light of the relationship with Continental Civil law.0
-
Laws are passed by legislatures.Out of curiosity, where do you think laws come from?
There was nothing unprecedented about Germany invading its neighbors.The reality is that the Allies faced an unprecedented (that is, without legal precedent) scenario in which Nazi aggression had consumed a continent and millions of lives.
I proposed a different remedy.The old way of doing things would have been to ignore individual Nazis and limit any consequences to the realm of diplomatic treaty. When viewed from the smoking ruins of the concentration camps that would have been quite obviously absolutely unacceptable, from both a political and moral viewpoint.
The Nürnberg Military Tribunal was victors' justice masquerading as a proper court.The post-war order, or administering of justice, was hardly perfect but it was unquestionably the best option.
I proposed different remedy.The others being to let Nazis walk free on the weakness/absence of relevant pre-war legislation or put them all up against a wall and be done with it. Both would have made a mockery of the millions who had died.
Ex post facto and, therefore, inherently unjust.Hence the commitment to put in place a new international framework in which those responsible for genocide and other mass atrocities could be brought to justice. Novel situations require novel laws and bodies. To fault this for simply being new is unwarranted.
The Romans outlawed invading other lands, the slaughter of civilians, slavery??? LOLThe actual laws might have been new, but from my reading of a Jurisprudence text, the underlying theories behind them stretched back to Roman times and so had an excellent pedigree especially in light of the relationship with Continental Civil law.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Oh, I see how this is going to go. This is unlikely to be productive. But hey, let it never be said that I'm not a trier.There was nothing unprecedented about Germany invading its neighbors.
The point was not that Germany had invaded its neighbours (that at least was depressingly common behaviour) but that in the process it had shattered itself, absolutely devastated vast swathes of Europe, caused the deaths of tens of millions and instituted a system of industrialised genocide. That amounts to an unprecedented scenario.
If the Nazis sparked an innovation in international law then it was because the crimes of the Nazis were vast enough in scope to necessitate it.
Not really. The Geneva Convention wasn't used because it had been rendered woefully out of date by the war (hence the 1949 update). Under this it would have been impossible to charge anyone with, oh I don't know, the Holocaust or other crimes against civilian populations. That is, tens of millions of deaths would have gone unanswered. And because the Soviets weren't a party to the Convention then there could be no case for the millions of Soviet POWs that died in captivity.I proposed a different remedy.
(And I do find it strange that you're more insistent on seeing 'justice' for Western or Soviet crimes then the mass slaughter and genocidal campaigns of the Nazis. But I digress slightly.)
Even then, the Conventions were never designed to be part of an international system of sentencing, being treaties between states. How they could have been applied to individuals is open to question. Particularly when one of the key principles established by Nuremberg (again, a new precedent) was that soldiers could be held responsible for crimes committed while carrying out superior orders.
That was the whole point of Nuremberg: moving past indictments against states and actually holding individuals to account for their actions. That's been one of the cornerstones of international law since.
Your "remedy" would be nothing more than a return to the settlement of the Great War: a peace between states but no real effort to prosecute those individuals responsible for war crimes.
Yeah, bollox. The Nazis knew that what they were doing was fundamentally criminal and morally unjustifiable. Hence the efforts to keep the Holocaust a secret and Hitler's refusal to refer to it without euphemisms. Ditto with their other war crimes; even in Russia, for all the talk of an anti-Bolshevik crusade, the scale of the slaughter and genocide was carefully shielded from the German population at home. It was known that these were crimes against humanity, against civilisation. That the legal formulation followed after the fact doesn't allow anyone to claim ignorance of the illegality of their actions.Ex post facto and, therefore, inherently unjust.
And it's absolutely ripe to complain that this is "unjust" when your own solution would leave genocidal murderers walk free unpunished... until they ever massacred anyone again :rolleyes:0 -
Argumentum ad veracundiam.Not according to St. Thomas Aquinas......
In democracies, only legislatures can make laws.Some law are made by legislatures, some by judges, some arise through custom and some are considered 'natural'......
There is nothing complicated about what the Allied Countries did in their Military Tribunal.jonniebgood1 wrote: »... History is not as simple as you are trying to let on.
But pretending that persons broke laws which were not even written at the time is quite rare and unconstitutional in any democracy.jonniebgood1 wrote: »There was nothing unprecedented about a victor getting to chose how the defeated country was punished.
There is nothing unusual about total war.... The point was not that Germany had invaded its neighbours (that at least was depressingly common behaviour) but that in the process it had shattered itself, absolutely devastated vast swathes of Europe, caused the deaths of tens of millions and instituted a system of industrialised genocide. That amounts to an unprecedented scenario.
It was Communist Russia as well as the Americans, French, and English who made the innovation of allowing ex post facto laws appear respectable.If the Nazis sparked an innovation in international law then it was because the crimes of the Nazis were vast enough in scope to necessitate it.
That the Geneva Conventions were updated in 1949 is proof that protection for civilians was not part of international law and should not have had any part of a legitimate court proceeding. Civilians were brutally treated through the ages during wars and twentieth century excesses should not have been a necessary prerequisite for international law to get up to speed.... The Geneva Convention wasn't used because it had been rendered woefully out of date by the war (hence the 1949 update). Under this it would have been impossible to charge anyone with, oh I don't know, the Holocaust or other crimes against civilian populations.
It is estimated that 804,000 German civilians were killed by the Allies in WWII and only 1 in 10 German POWs who surrendered to the Russians survived. Conveniently, no Russian was charged with the murder of the Poles at Katyn and Winston Churchill and Harry Truman got away with the civilian deaths in the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden as well as the summary murders of SS POWs. No consistency, only hypocrisy or a double standard.That is, tens of millions of deaths would have gone unanswered. And because the Soviets weren't a party to the Convention then there could be no case for the millions of Soviet POWs that died in captivity.
Treaties are international law.Even then, the Conventions were never designed to be part of an international system of sentencing, being treaties between states.
Those in authority who take it upon themselves to break international law or order others to do so can be prosecuted. Those who follow orders of superiors cannot be held culpable because of the command responsibility. You are incorrect to claim that refusal to excuse the accused who were ordered to perform actions was a precedent at Nürnberg. Victors have been doing this since the fifteenth century and since Nürnberg there is inconsistency in the application of this principle.How they could have been applied to individuals is open to question. Particularly when one of the key principles established by Nuremberg (again, a new precedent) was that soldiers could be held responsible for crimes committed while carrying out superior orders.
This is neither a cornerstone of international law nor the whole point of the Nürnberg Military Tribunal. The cornerstone of international law are treaties and resolutions signed and passed by states. The whole point of the Nürnberg trials was to make vengeance appear legal and respectable.That was the whole point of Nuremberg: moving past indictments against states and actually holding individuals to account for their actions. That's been one of the cornerstones of international law since.
It is foolish for the winners to blame all wrongdoing on the vanquished. Presenting a better example, educating people to be aware of human rights, enshrining protections for minorities, and shining the moral light of day would have achieved more that a handful of hangings.Your "remedy" would be nothing more than a return to the settlement of the Great War: a peace between states but no real effort to prosecute those individuals responsible for war crimes.0 -
Argumentum ad veracundiam.
In democracies, only legislatures can make laws.
......
Sorry, but you're wrong. For a start you have judge made law (including decisions made in equity). In fact, many statutes (which legislatures do enact) are often codifications of judicial decisions or precedent (which are both forms of law).
You also have administrative or tribunal law - the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies.
Then there are regulations, often simply signed off by ministers.
Most of our law in Ireland derives now from Europe, a lot of which originates with the European Commission.
And all this is allowed for under the most important law of all, the Constitution of Ireland. It may be written by someone else, but it's the people who voted it into existence and only the people can change it.
As for Nuremberg, it was as someone described it - 'victor's justice' - but administratively and procedurally it was not a kangaroo court. Kangaroo courts are generally defined as courts that lack procedures or principles.0 -
Judges appointed by victors in war have no moral nor legal right to make-up new laws as they please in order to hang leaders of the vanquished enemy.Sorry, but you're wrong. For a start you have judge made law (including decisions made in equity). In fact, many statutes (which legislatures do enact) are often codifications of judicial decisions or precedent (which are both forms of law).
Military tribunals cannot make brand new laws.You also have administrative or tribunal law - the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies.
Those prosecuted at the Nürnberg were not charged with failing to uphold military regulations.Then there are regulations, often simply signed off by ministers.
These regulations are underpinned by international treaties.Most of our law in Ireland derives now from Europe, a lot of which originates with the European Commission.
The Nürnberg Military Tribunal was indeed a kangaroo court insofar as it was an ad hoc "court" made up of the victors for the purpose of administering laws which did not exist on any statute book.As for Nuremberg, it was as someone described it - 'victor's justice' - but administratively and procedurally it was not a kangaroo court. Kangaroo courts are generally defined as courts that lack procedures or principles.0 -
Judges appointed by victors in war have no moral nor legal right to make-up new laws as they please in order to hang leaders of the vanquished enemy.
Military tribunals cannot make brand new laws.
Those prosecuted at the Nürnberg were not charged with failing to uphold military regulations.
These regulations are underpinned by international treaties.
The Nürnberg Military Tribunal was indeed a kangaroo court insofar as it was an ad hoc "court" made up of the victors for the purpose of administering laws which did not exist on any statute book.
Well, now your changing your tune.
Your original assertions thatIn democracies, only legislatures can make laws.
andLaws are passed by legislatures.
....have been disproven and so you move on.
But, you overlook one extremely important fact - Germany did not agree an armistice - it unconditionally surrendered. Given your earlier latin quote, you'll no doubt be familiar with the concept of Debellatio - and the discussion on how it applied to Germany (no functioning government at the time of surrender) and didn't apply to Japan (functioning government at the time of surrender).
Because debellatio applied to Germany, the Law of Occupation as defined in the Hague Regulations were not considered to apply, and the victorious powers were entitled to assume sovereignty over the territory -which they did, although they were careful to make it clear there would be no annexation.
Having signed the instrument of surrender, and with the Allies assuming sovereignty - a more wide ranging agreement - the Berlin Declaration - otherwise known as the "Declaration regarding the defeat of Germany and the assumption of supreme authority with respect to Germany by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the Provisional Government of the French Republic" was published in June 1945.
The German signatories to the instrument of surrender agreed with such a declaration being made when they signed the Instrument of Surrender, Art 5 of which states....This instrument of surrender is independent of, without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by or on behalf of the Allied Powers and applicable to Germany and the German armed forces as a whole.
The Berlin Declaration, the imposition of which let's not forget the Germans agreed to, includes the following in the preambleThe Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority
....and Article 11...The principal Nazi leaders as specified by the Allied Representatives, and all persons from time to time named or designated by rank, office or employment by the Allied Representatives as being suspected of having committed, ordered or abetted war crimes or analogous offences, will be apprehended and surrendered to the Allied Representatives.
(b) The same will apply in the case of any national or any of the United Nations who is alleged to have committed an offense against his national law, and who may at any time be named or designated by rank, office or employment by the Allied Representatives
The procedures, principles etc for the Nuremberg Trials were set out in various charters, agreements and rules of procedure. Also, scanning the legal journals for the period there are any amount of articles, letters etc discussing how matters should proceed, the basis of authority, procedures and any amount of things that apply to the administration of the yet-to-be-established court.
Which would suggest you are wrong in your assertion thatThe Nürnberg Military Tribunal was indeed a kangaroo court insofar as it was an ad hoc "court" made up of the victors for the purpose of administering laws which did not exist on any statute book.0 -
No, I stand by my original statement that only legislatures can make laws in democracies. Your subsequent implication that Germany, having been forced to sign an unconditional surrender to avoid further killing and rape by Russian troops, somehow allowed the occupying countries to prosecute whomever they liked on trumped-up ex post facto laws is groundless.Well, now your changing your tune.0 -
Fair enough. So perhaps you can name the previous occasion in modern European history in which tens of millions of civilians were slaughtered in a campaign of genocide, many in concentration camps?There is nothing unusual about total war.
What? I'm tempted to let this lie here just to let it sink in. Really, what jumps out is that:That the Geneva Conventions were updated in 1949 is proof that protection for civilians was not part of international law and should not have had any part of a legitimate court proceeding. Civilians were brutally treated through the ages during wars and twentieth century excesses should not have been a necessary prerequisite for international law to get up to speed.
1) You accept that pre-war law did not suffice to judge the Nazis on. By your legalistic (to the point of apologistic) logic, no one should have been persecuted for the mass murder of civilians in WWII. Eichmann and co should have been allowed to retire in peace, with no ramifications for their role in genocide.
2) As if that wasn't abhorrent enough, you seem to be proposing some sort of return to a state of nature: civilians have always been ill-treated in war, this is the natural state of affairs, ergo there is no need for a law to prevent people being ill-treated in war. I wonder if you're also up in arms over the updating of laws on theft to account for credit card theft/scams :rolleyes:
Oddly enough, both the above strains stand in sharp contrast to each other. Funny that. Is your objection to a system of international courts itself or the application of this to Nazi Germany?
Well, duh. I'm not sure what else needs to be said here. No one has argued that the post-war system was perfect or that the application of justice was universal. So I'm not really sure what you get by restating it...It is estimated that 804,000 German civilians were killed by the Allies in WWII and only 1 in 10 German POWs who surrendered to the Russians survived. Conveniently, no Russian was charged with the murder of the Poles at Katyn and Winston Churchill and Harry Truman got away with the civilian deaths in the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden as well as the summary murders of SS POWs. No consistency, only hypocrisy or a double standard.
...aside from a more insidious purpose. The idea that the Allies, for all their crimes, were morally as bankrupt as the Germans (and thus in no position to judge) is nonsense. It was not the Allies that launched a global war of aggression (unless you're also questioning Nazi 'war guilt') and it was not the Allies that murdered tens of millions in a campaign of genocide. No one believes that the Allies had entirely clean hands but only a fool would suggest that theirs' was on a scale quantifiably or qualitatively worse than those of the Nazis.
(As an aside, it is entirely false to assert that 90% of German POWs in Soviet captivity died. The actual figures, while hardly pretty, veer between 10-33%)
So what's the sentence for, say, a warship bombarding a hospital (in contravention of the Second Geneva Convention)? Who is the judge in this case? To which court does it go to for arbitration? How can you try individuals for the failings of institutions? (And doesn't law only come from legislatures?)Treaties are international law.
None of those questions were answered prior to WWII because the international instruments of justice didn't exist. It is only with the creation of the post-war courts that it has become possible to try individuals for breaches of international law. Which is not a surprise: the Conventions were understandings between state parties and never intended as a comprehensive system of international law.
In the pre-UN world, to enforce a breach of the Geneva Conventions would have required using military to force the offender to submit to a judgement. That is, it was the very absence of international courts that made a victors' peace inevitable.
Right. So the Allies should have ignored all the millions who died (because of the inadequacies of existing law) while preaching that no one should do bad things again. All while much of the continent was little more than a smoking ruin.It is foolish for the winners to blame all wrongdoing on the vanquished. Presenting a better example, educating people to be aware of human rights, enshrining protections for minorities, and shining the moral light of day would have achieved more that a handful of hangings.
Or, or, the Allies could try those most responsible for the deaths of millions, put in place a system on international courts designed to deter such activity in the future and "educate people to be aware of human rights, etc, etc". The latter doesn't preclude taking meaningful action to deliver justice.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I stand by my original statement that only legislatures can make laws in democracies. Your subsequent implication that Germany, having been forced to sign an unconditional surrender to avoid further killing and rape by Russian troops, somehow allowed the occupying countries to prosecute whomever they liked on trumped-up ex post facto laws is groundless.
Not really.
It can be found at pages 159 to 161 in The International Law of Occupation By Eyal Benvenisti0 -
The death of any civilian is abhorrent. Scale is irrelevant.Fair enough. So perhaps you can name the previous occasion in modern European history in which tens of millions of civilians were slaughtered in a campaign of genocide, many in concentration camps?
Most Nazis did go on to enjoy lucrative careers in West Germany.... 1) You accept that pre-war law did not suffice to judge the Nazis on. By your legalistic (to the point of apologistic) logic, no one should have been persecuted for the mass murder of civilians in WWII. Eichmann and co should have been allowed to retire in peace, with no ramifications for their role in genocide.
There was not such laws at the time but there are now.2) As if that wasn't abhorrent enough, you seem to be proposing some sort of return to a state of nature: civilians have always been ill-treated in war, this is the natural state of affairs, ergo there is no need for a law to prevent people being ill-treated in war.
On the contrary, international courts established to administer codified law are all we have to bring criminal government leaders to account.Oddly enough, both the above strains stand in sharp contrast to each other. Funny that. Is your objection to a system of international courts itself or the application of this to Nazi Germany?
They were guilty of similar actions as the Germans but they got off scott-free.... The idea that the Allies, for all their crimes, were morally as bankrupt as the Germans (and thus in no position to judge) is nonsense.
Scale is irrelevant; the life of a child in a Dresden basement is no less valuable that a million other innocent victims.... No one believes that the Allies had entirely clean hands but only a fool would suggest that theirs' was on a scale quantifiably or qualitatively worse than those of the Nazis.
The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate the fate of German POW in the war, in its report of 1974 they found that about 1.2 million German military personnel reported as missing more than likely died as POW, including 1.1 million in the USSR. ( Erich Maschke, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges Bielefeld, E. und W. Gieseking, 1962-1974 Vol 15 P 185-230) The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research, Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 POWs in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody. (Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Ullstein., 2000 Page 246 ISBN 3-549-07121-3 and Rüdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 Page 286-289) the conditions that German POWs, many just kids, endured on the Eastern Front were beyond grim and did not follow any accepted protocol for treatment of captured soldiers. Under the provisions of the Yalta Agreement, the U.S. and U.K. had agreed to the use of German POWs in the Soviet Gulag as "reparations-in-kind," but comparatively few Germans were taken alive before Stalingrad. Most were shot and many were mutilated alive. Out of the 90,000 Germans who marched into Soviet captivity at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned. (The Journal of History, Fall 2010)(As an aside, it is entirely false to assert that 90% of German POWs in Soviet captivity died. The actual figures, while hardly pretty, veer between 10-33%)0 -
... except when you're trying establish that the conditions post-WWII were unprecedented. Then scale becomes very much relevant. Or would you suggest that the carnage and political shock of that conflict was in effect indistinguishable from someone being knocked down by a bus?The death of any civilian is abhorrent. Scale is irrelevant.
All I'm getting from you is evasion, obfuscation and apologism. Either you can't or are unwilling to hold/follow a line of reasoning. Waste of time.
I like how you put the reference in there, as if to disguise the fact that you ripped that paragraph, word for word, from Wikipedia. Subtle.The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate the fate of German POW in the war, in its report of 1974 they found that about 1.2 million German military personnel reported as missing more than likely died as POW, including 1.1 million in the USSR. ( Erich Maschke, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges Bielefeld, E. und W. Gieseking, 1962-1974 Vol 15 P 185-230). The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research, Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 POWs in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody. (Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Ullstein., 2000 Page 246 ISBN 3-549-07121-3 and Rüdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 Page 286-289)
I also like the fact that the paragraph, and indeed the article, contradicts your point: the highest estimate for German POWs who died in the USSR is around the one million mark, yet this is out of a prisoner population of almost three million. I'll leave you to do the maths but it's safe to say that your 90% death rate is about as plausible as your arguments on international law. That is, unfounded and skewed towards the Nazis.0 -
The wholesale slaughter of innocents by both the Allies and and Germans in WWII was not unrepresented throughout history. People have only become more efficient t killing over time.... except when you're trying establish that the conditions post-WWII were unprecedented. Then scale becomes very much relevant. Or would you suggest that the carnage and political shock of that conflict was in effect indistinguishable from someone being knocked down by a bus?
I cannot be persuaded that victors' justice is an any sense honorable.All I'm getting from you is evasion, obfuscation and apologism. Either you can't or are unwilling to hold/follow a line of reasoning. Waste of time.
What have I written that is incorrect?I like how you put the reference in there, as if to disguise the fact that you ripped that paragraph, word for word, from Wikipedia. Subtle.
Out of the 90,000 Germans who marched into Soviet captivity at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned which is a 94.5% death rate.I also like the fact that the paragraph, and indeed the article, contradicts your point: the highest estimate for German POWs who died in the USSR is around the one million mark, yet this is out of a prisoner population of almost three million. I'll leave you to do the maths but it's safe to say that your 90% death rate is about as plausible as your arguments on international law. That is, unfounded and skewed towards the Nazis.0 -
The wholesale slaughter of innocents by both the Allies and and Germans in WWII was not unrepresented throughout history. People have only become more efficient t killing over time.
I cannot be persuaded that victors' justice is an any sense honorable.
What have I written that is incorrect?
All of it. The author himself - as quoted by you - admitted the figures and the calculations were speculative.......The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate the fate of German POW in the war, in its report of 1974 they found that about 1.2 million German military personnel reported as missing more than likely died as POW, including 1.1 million in the USSR. ( Erich Maschke, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges Bielefeld, E. und W. Gieseking, 1962-1974 Vol 15 P 185-230). The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research, Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 POWs in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody. (Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriege. Ullstein., 2000 Page 246 ISBN 3-549-07121-3 and Rüdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1 Page 286-289)
He offers an opinion, but it is just that an opinion. And as expert and all as it might be, earlier in the thread you seemed to have problems with ad verecundiam arguments - not so much in this case though?
So-called 'victors' justice' is what the Germans signed up for when they unconditionally surrendered - if they didn't want it then they could have opted to negotiate an armistice earlier. It's not like they offered one and were rebuffed by the Allies - it was their decision to fight to the death.0 -
There are two possibilities here.Out of the 90,000 Germans who marched into Soviet captivity at Stalingrad, only 5,000 ever returned which is a 94.5% death rate.
1) You are genuinely incapable of telling the difference between a subset and the whole. The Stalingrad figures do not make the statement that "only 1 in 10 German POWs who surrendered to the Russians survived" any less false.
To illustrate: 'Arsenal were beaten 6-0 at the weekend' is a fundamentally different statement from 'Arsenal have been beaten 6-0 in every game this season'. The first statement is correct but the second is entirely false.
But, really, I shouldn't have to explain anything this simple to anyone over the age of six. Which leads us to...
2) You are so desperate to draw moral equivalence between the warring powers that you're happy to gloss over realities such as this. Hence your references to "wholesale slaughter" and the bizarre assertion that scale is irrelevant. As if the party that didn't commit genocide has no right to pass judgement on the party that did.
Which makes me wonder why someone would try so hard to deny the unprecedented nature of the Nazi genocide, blindly equate the crimes of the Allies and Germans (playing up the former and down the latter) and argue that Nazi war criminals should have simply been set free without punishment.0 -
Because the Russians could not be believed, the figures must be speculative, in particular, before Stalingrad, the Russians tended to take no prisoners but shot, tortured, and mutilated captured Germans who were subsequently classified as "missing in action".All of it. The author himself - as quoted by you - admitted the figures and the calculations were speculative.......
The authority of modern historians is based on research, unlike canonized medieval philosophers.He offers an opinion, but it is just that an opinion. And as expert and all as it might be, earlier in the thread you seemed to have problems with ad verecundiam arguments - not so much in this case though?
Unconditional surrender was demanded by the victors at the threat of further death of civilians and refugees. This did not give the Allies the authority to murder selected prisoners on trumped-up charges.So-called 'victors' justice' is what the Germans signed up for when they unconditionally surrendered - if they didn't want it then they could have opted to negotiate an armistice earlier. It's not like they offered one and were rebuffed by the Allies - it was their decision to fight to the death.
I refer you to my comment about Russian conduct toward prisoners as stated aboveThere are two possibilities here.
1) You are genuinely incapable of telling the difference between a subset and the whole. The Stalingrad figures do not make the statement that "only 1 in 10 German POWs who surrendered to the Russians survived" any less false.
You are mistaken in your belief that the Allies, including the Russians, were morally superior to the Germans.2) You are so desperate to draw moral equivalence between the warring powers that you're happy to gloss over realities such as this.
There was nothing unprecedented in the German genocidal actions throughout history into modern times.Which makes me wonder why someone would try so hard to deny the unprecedented nature of the Nazi genocide, blindly equate the crimes of the Allies and Germans (playing up the former and down the latter) and argue that Nazi war criminals should have simply been set free without punishment.0 -
Because the Russians could not be believed, the figures must be speculative, in particular, before Stalingrad, the Russians tended to take no prisoners but shot, tortured, and mutilated captured Germans who were subsequently classified as "missing in action".
Ah, I think we're getting to the nub of your beliefs now....
Why couldn't or shouldn't the Soviets be believed? And the figures are always going to speculativeThe authority of modern historians is based on research, unlike canonized medieval philosophers.
Comparing philosophers, medieval or otherwise, to historians is not even comparing apples and oranges - it's comparing apples and seagulls. The two are wildly different disciplines and from what I understand of philosophy you can't 'research' it. You research what others have said, but concepts such as 'truth,' 'knowledge' and even 'history' are subject to never ending debate and discussion.Unconditional surrender was demanded by the victors at the threat of further death of civilians and refugees. This did not give the Allies the authority to murder selected prisoners on trumped-up charges.
I think if you familiarise yourself with the discussion leading up to the Allied you'll see that the war aims were directed at the leaders. The Casablanca Conference, at which the policy was formally articulated, concluded.....To these panicky attempts to escape the consequences of their crimes we say-all the United Nations say-that the only terms on which we shall deal with an Axis government or any Axis factions are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: "Unconditional Surrender." In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders...
That was in 1943 - that mean prior to that they had 4 years to negotiate and armistice with the British / Commonwealth, 2 years to negotiate with the Soviets and about 18 months to negotiate with the US - they didn't and to quote Arthur Harris - the sowed the wind, and inherited the whirlwind.
Unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure the people knew they were beaten - to ensure there would be no 'stab-in-the-back' mythology, as developed in the wake of WW1. In the same way Slim made Japanese officers snap their swords over their knees in front of their men to demonstrate their utter defeat, the previous institutions and laws at the core at the Reich had to be obliterated and rebuilt on Allied terms.
That's what 'unconditional' means - and in that situation you place yourself at the mercy of the victors.
What was the alternative? Issue a general amnesty? Hold no one to account? Put them on trial using the courts, laws and system of the Nazi State?
Finally, I can't comment on all fronts - but in Italy and the West the Germans initiated the surrender negotiations - they were not imposed on threat of civilians being targeted - although it was self-evident that a failure to agree would have lead to continued fighting which have lead to further civilian deaths.0 -
Because they were liars.Why couldn't or shouldn't the Soviets be believed? And the figures are always going to speculative
I do not share your belief that historical truth cannot be known.Comparing philosophers, medieval or otherwise, to historians is not even comparing apples and oranges - it's comparing apples and seagulls. The two are wildly different disciplines and from what I understand of philosophy you can't 'research' it. You research what others have said, but concepts such as 'truth,' 'knowledge' and even 'history' are subject to never ending debate and discussion.
They must have been planning for their pound of flesh early.I think if you familiarise yourself with the discussion leading up to the Allied you'll see that the war aims were directed at the leaders. The Casablanca Conference, at which the policy was formally articulated, concluded.....
German offers to surrender to the Anglo-Americans were rebuffed.That was in 1943 - that mean prior to that they had 4 years to negotiate and armistice with the British / Commonwealth, 2 years to negotiate with the Soviets and about 18 months to negotiate with the US - they didn't and to quote Arthur Harris - the sowed the wind, and inherited the whirlwind.
I see it differently, as the same type of humiliation that the victors used at Versailles, and in no way did this give authority to the Russians and Anglo-Americans to make up laws and dress-up the Nürnberg Military Tribunal as a real court.Unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure the people knew they were beaten - to ensure there would be no 'stab-in-the-back' mythology, as developed in the wake of WW1.
Military occupation. Martial law. Education and nation-building.What was the alternative? Issue a general amnesty? Hold no one to account? Put them on trial using the courts, laws and system of the Nazi State?
Units also surrendered on the Eastern Front but only 1 in 10 Germans survived Russian captivity.Finally, I can't comment on all fronts - but in Italy and the West the Germans initiated the surrender negotiations - they were not imposed on threat of civilians being targeted - although it was self-evident that a failure to agree would have lead to continued fighting which have lead to further civilian deaths.0 -
Advertisement
-
So wait, now the figures that you presented above (eg Maschke) are incorrect? In fact, far from a ceiling of 1.1 million POW deaths the Soviets actually killed an additional 1.6 million. That is, the increase needed to reach a 90% death rate from 3 million POWs.I refer you to my comment about Russian conduct toward prisoners as stated above
This difference is flatly contradicted by the actual historians (whose estimates are far lower than your's) but you've continued with a blunt assumption. Moreover, it's an assumption that's undermined by the Wikipedia page that you've quoted from, which notes that "As the desperate economic situation in the Soviet Union eased in 1943, the mortality rate in the POW camps sank drastically". Funny how you didn't mention that.
I'm not actually particularly fussed by people making stupid assumptions and then blindly ignoring the evidence that contradicts them. That's the internet for you. What does baffle/amuse me is how you can be so inconsistent in your line of argument - presenting evidence that flatly contradicts your assertion and then defending it even while baldly stating the opposite. Very strange.
"Trumped-up charges"? You don't believe that the Nazi leadership was guilty of war crimes? Of genocide?Unconditional surrender was demanded by the victors at the threat of further death of civilians and refugees. This did not give the Allies the authority to murder selected prisoners on trumped-up charges.
The masks slips. You're moving from legalism to outright apologism. Careful, now0
Advertisement