Why so long ,,??
 

I noted that Boremski , hv been handed over to russian nd returned in 1955, but also those who stayed in anglo-americano-franco ++ hands hv to wait sometimes quite a long before returning , when they are still alive, home, is some basic rights rather unobserved there ???

Rémi

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

That's Stalinism for you.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Certainly at least some prisoners held in the UK were kept for more than a couple of years. There are stories of French-held prisoners being "persuaded" to join the Foreign Legion but this was certainly a route taken by members of the SS who otherwise could have faced a very uncomfortable time.

As far as the UK was concerned, I suspect the main reason was the general post-war problems of readjustment, not least in Germany as well as in the UK.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

We were good friends with Stalin at one moment no ??? So between close friends why not to exchange the good tips ??

Rémi

The better is to close that thread before...

For sure not right place , but who hv some hints on litterature covering the return of central allies prisoneers returning from Russia in 1918 ?? exepted the book " The forgoten village" of course

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Did not the Soviets state the German invasion was a criminal act so any captured Germans or allies were criminals rather than Prisoners of War, as such they lost all rights. If figures of Soviet citizens dying in their own camps are true then then as Nick says thats Stalinism, little regard for prisoner care. Did not Eisenhower also change the staus of captured Germans from Pows to something like captured enemy forces to avoid the Geneva Convention in the Rhinefield camps. Its always the victors who decide the rules and how to apply them.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Sorry Graham, I overlooked your message, probably you are right the bad habits used, to be used during war , became the usual behaviour, nd it took a couple of years to left it, to note that jap. soldiers were not interned in so large extend ..oder.. , probably the relation with uncle Joe IN Sept. 45 already soured


Brian, that change of status is true !, american realism against Roman Right maybe.

Rémi

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

One captured Rumanian airman was sentenced in the USSR to 11 years for "illegally crossing the Soviet Union's borders and armed". Upon returning home, he was thrown in jail for 10 more years by the Rumanian Communist regime, for nothing else but serving his country...

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

I do not think that Germans can complain about the observation of basic rights, as Remi puts it. Germany was a signatory of the Geneva Convention, which stipulates (article 82) that all prisoners of war must be treated in accordance to it, regardless of the fact that the captured (Russian, in this case) soldiers belong to a state adhering to the convention or not. Nonetheless, nazi Germany managed to exterminate through mass executions and starvation almost 60% of the 6 millions Russian prisoners of war it took. The Russians in turn are probably responsible for the death of 1 million German POWs out of three taken. By 1955/6 - two years after Stalin's death - the last German prisoners were repatriated. I think that all considered, German POWs were luckier than their Russian counterparts. They started the war, choosing to invade a totalitarian country with a very bad record in the treatment of prisoners (nationals and not). Still, their rate of survival was twice as high as in German concentration camps. Reap what you sow...


Best,


Andrea

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

In the case of German prisoners taken by the British and Americans, several books (and German autobiographies) refer to the captors establishing whether their prisoners were just soldiers doing their duty or hard-line Nazis. Those who were considered 'just' soldiers got released quite quickly, while those who were hard-line were held longer, presumably so the authorities could 'rehabilitate' them.

We should not forget the chaos at the end of the war with tens of thousands of displaced civilians and soldiers. A lot of bad things happened at that time on all sides.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

I have a copy of a letter from a Luftwaffe airman taken Pow after baling out over the UK in 1943. He said in the UK he was well treated but then following the Allied invasion was taken to the USA where he said again he was well treated. He then said in 1946 newspapers in the US said all pows would be sent home, in reality though he claims " we were sold to the French" and were treated "not as humans but as animals ". I read most countries with German pows used them in re-construction following VE day with varying degrees of treatment. In the UK many were used on farms until 1948/49 and some settled here. There was a fact based film, I believe about Polish airmen who flew with the RAF, and on return to Poland were badly treated by the Communist Government, similar to Denes' post. I think that the Geneva Convention states on cessation of hostilities pows should be returned home, however as Tim says the state of Europe following the end of the war should be considered before being judgemental, and consider German action in some occupied countries as pelagonia points out.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

It is very hard to understand the situation back then viewed through modern eyes and the perspective of the history we were all taught. My mother's family had a German governess before the war and the services of a German POW to do their gardening during the war. My mother's cousin was engaged to a Luftwaffe pilot before the war and he was killed in action later. My father was a youth in Birmingham (UK) and remembered the incendiaries falling in his garden and onto his roof; also a parachute mine swinging on the power cables. Dad always hated the Germans and Mum always liked them, despite her being in London nursing during the Blitz. Things were not as clear cut as the histories suggest!

Best wishes
Tim O.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

To put things in proper perspective from the UK/USA viewpoint, the following is what actually happened.

1. It is a 'given' that at the end of the war, Germany was in a state of chaos. It did not make sense to simply ship all German PoWs straight back into Germany, thereby compounding the already chaotic situation there.

2. The Allies had to set about sorting out the infrastructure of the country. One German pilot shot down during the Battle of Britain and a PoW in Canada during the war, Georg Jakstadt of 9./ZG 26, told me that upon return to Germany a couple of years after the war, he was given his discharge papers in Hamburg, and then walked the 250 kilometres home. He said it was a common sight to see PoWs on the roads heading home for quite some time.

3. Staying with Georg Jakstadt, once returned to England, but prior to being shipped back to Germany, he, and all the others, were given the option of either sitting on their arses until they went back to Germany, or doing work. Most chose work, so Georg and others went off to work each day on a farm. He had fond memories of his time working on a farm in England, and when he visited here once Germany was re-unified (he had lived in the old East), I and another researcher were able to take him back to the farm where he had worked in the 1940s - a very moving occasion. Also, the German PoWs were offered work while in Canada (since technically, once the war ceased, they were no longer 'prisoners' in the true sense of the word, but simply awaiting repatriation). So Otto Hintze, Staka of 3./Erpr. Gr. 210 during the BoB spent just over a year as a lumberjack in Canada, something he told me that he thoroughly enjoyed.

4. Another thing that happened at war's end was that the Allies graded their prisoners into three categories: White, grey and black. White were considered to be those who had no Nazi party ties or affiliation whatsoever, and they were repatriated first. greys were those whom the Allies thought needed a certain level of work done on them to remove their possible indoctrinated views re the Third Reich, and they were held back until the 'Whites' had been returned. The 'Black' category were those the Allies believed were fully indoctrinated with the Nazi ideology, and need thorough work to show them that they had fought for was thoroughly rotten. They went through a very carefully prepared programme of de-indoctrination before they were finally returned to German society, the last batch of the three.

So what Remi says here: "...also those who stayed in anglo-americano-franco ++ hands hv to wait sometimes quite a long before returning , when they are still alive, home, is some basic rights rather unobserved there ???..." is a load of crap. No basic rights were infringed whatsoever. It was a case of the Allies having to get Germany on its feet and up and running again on social and economic levels (not least because of the 'Cold War' scenario) and having to reintegrate many, many, thousands of Germans back into a society that was totally different to what they had left. THAT is the reality the Allies faced...

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

"...also those who stayed in anglo-americano-franco ++ hands hv to wait sometimes quite a long before returning , when they are still alive, home, is some basic rights rather unobserved there ???..." is a load of crap.

I could understand that every people could defend fiercely their side, but if after the fights still 2 or 3 millions germans died, probably one hv to kill them , its a bit to easy to call after car crashes , or ... indigestion . after quite a century possibly it hv to be possible to look at the facts

Rémi

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

If this is just going to be about the respective merits and motivations of different belligerents' postwar repatriation policies, it's better moved to the "Second World War In General" part of the forum.

Or should I just close it down now?

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Nick you are right , that type of thread is a bit like trench-fight !!! Nothing good pop-up !

Rémi

Brian is right at least , concerning the french , they lacked a bit of courtesy

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Hummm .. But they like self-lashing it seems; don't they?

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Some words from a German. Please don´t forget.

Approx. 3.24 Million Germans and Austrians were killed after the War !!
approx. 2 Million in russian camps
approx. 1 Million in american camps
approx. 120 000 in french camps
approx. 100 00 in yugoslavian camps
approx. 22 000 in Poland and CSSR

Additional to this approx. 120 000 in russian concentration camps (NO POW´s !).
Approx. 500 000 killed civilians after the red army occupation of Middle and Eastern Germany and approx. 60 000 killed civilians after the occupation in Austria.

Was this the justice of the winners ?

The Germans have learned from your history. I cannot say the same from other countries in the world.

Rgds,
Kaczmarek

PS: Nick Beale, please forgive me. I had to write this. I could not leave this thread without comment.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

I'd find it easier to forgive if you had linked to some actual sources for the figures you put forward, so that anyone interested could evaluate the evidence for themselves.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Who is interested can obtain corresponding information for himself from the Volksbund Deutsche Krieggräberfürsorge e.V. Kassel.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

You have made the assertion, so come up with the facts. Don't just pass the buck to others to research - provide the concrete information to support you point.

And I think, with English not being your first language I believe, that the word 'kill' is not as appropriate as 'died'. 'Kill' implies a deliberate act of murder. I find it hard to take in the the Americans 'killed' 1 million Germans, post-war. I can well understand the mess Germany was in at the end of the war, given the road the Thirds Reich had taken the country down, and the ultimate consequences of that, but I find it difficult to comprehend that fact the America deliberately killed 1 million Germans. Perhaps you could explain this in great detail...?

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

A few comments:

1. The Soviet ideology viewed all wars from the revolutionary point of view, hence all wars fought by the Bolsheviks to spread the revolution were just by default and any act committed in its name was justified while anyone trying to hinder the revolution was by default a criminal.

2. The Geneva and Hague conventions were legally binding regardless of who started what.

3. War as a means of policy was not illegal according to those protocols. Someone may raise the issue of the Kellogg pact, but post-WW2 history proves amply that war in itself is not illegal. Quite recently we have witnessed e.g. two wars of aggression launched by a certain state and as far as I know, no leader of that nation has been prosecuted for the act.

4. Some people tend to argue that war itself generates unlimited violence. Untrue. There is substantial historical evidence that wars can be fought while honouring certain customs of chivalry. In the European historical tradition intentional targeting of civilian population has been a rarity and in fact, the first large-scale act of such policy was initiated by Britain in WWI through its maritime blockade of Central powers. And by the way, that blockade was illegal by the international legislation then in effect.

5. The pet culprit by many propagandists of Anglo-American heritage is "militarism" and "militarists". A highly faulty claim. One just have to examine WW2. Who were the main culprits behind the Holocaust? Civilians, from Hitler down. None of them hailed from traditional military families. Who were the main supporters of Allied area bombing? Civilians, from Churchill and Roosevelt down. Who were the main proponents of using atomic bombs? Civilians. Many of whom even claimed to be diehard pacifists. And who voiced the loudest dissonance against atomic bombs? The generals.

The question is why? The answer is simple. First, it is the military who does the fighting and henceforth knows what it is and in likelihood can understand also what it is on the other side. Second, to militarists war is the goal in itself, so why would they want to kill it out of existence. On the other hand, for idealistic civilians war is a means to an end, so the end defines the means. For pacifists the end is the abolition of war and thus anything goes in pursuit of that supposedly holy goal.

If one studies history of a longer period of time, one can easily see that not a single genocide or ethnic cleansing of major proportions has been initiated by the military, even a military dictatorship. Good example: if the generals had had their way, significant areas between Canada and Mexico might still be Indian country.

6. In the previous post it is questioned that whether or not the post-war deaths of Germans in Allied hands was deliberate. If one studies this from criminal law point of view, there is the idea of "should have known", i.e. if someone does something that he should have known to likely cause bodily harm, he is criminally responsible even if his intention was other.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

"In the European historical tradition intentional targeting of civilian population has been a rarity."

The history of siege warfare suggests otherwise. It appears to have been an accepted convention during the Hundred Years War for example that after a certain point (a declared number of days, say) everyone within the walls was fair game and could expect to die. I've read that under the Roman Empire a besieged city had the option of surrendering until the first battering ram touched the wall, after that it was understood that everyone was going to die.

Whole populations were massacred in mediaeval Italy, as at Cesena in 1377. The same happened in Southern France (Béziers, 1209) and thousands of civilians died in the crusader sack of Constantinople (1204). The list goes on.

If history teaches us nothing else, it is that wars quickly get very ugly indeed.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Jukka,

I will respond to a couple of points raised in your post #21.

1. "...In the European historical tradition intentional targeting of civilian population has been a rarity and in fact, the first large-scale act of such policy was initiated by Britain in WWI through its maritime blockade of Central powers..." Go read up on the inital advance of German forces into Belgium in the First World War. I would venture to suggest that the slaughter of civilians by German soldiers was the first large-scale targeting of civilian population. And it was a quite deliberate act. Go read up on it.

2. I asked Kaczmarek to provide evidence that 1 million were 'killed', as opposed to 'died'. There is a difference, and your good command of English should enable you to understand the difference. Your criminal law point does nothing to prove what Kaczmarek said was correct, but I would suggest he needs to follow the legal tenet of 'He who asserts must prove', otherwise he is making a statement without providing any proof of it whatsoever (not the first time such a thing has happened on here, or elsewhere, recently...)

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

Mr. Vasco,

Excuse for the false choice of words. English is not my favorite language. I hope your German is much better as my English.

Many of the people in the Russian Zone were picked up and never appeared again. These did not simply die so. The revenge of the Red Army was terrible. This is forgotten with pleasure.

I must prove nothing. I do not know the exact source any more. I have announced the details from a book about crimes against Germans over 30 years ago. You can believe it or not. You can explore the www. You will find much proof. You only must want. I am sure the VDK will also answer your questions.

It is always the same everybody of the world knows the crimes of the Germans during the 2nd World War, but nobody will know the crimes against the Germans during and after the 2nd World War.

Only few examples of many. Google in the www for US Major Merrit P. Drucker. Look for Rhine meadow camps, or for James Bacque or look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_...g_World_War_II

So you can delete my threads and banishing me from this forum. No problem.

Re: Why so long ,,??
 

"I hope your German is much better as my English"

It is the difference between "gestorben" (died) and "ermordet" (murdered) or "getötet" (killed).

"The revenge of the Red Army was terrible. This is forgotten with pleasure."

The actions of the Red Army and NKVD been made very clear in a number of bestselling history books in Britain (e.g. those by Max Hastings and Anthony Beevor).

"I must prove nothing. I do not know the exact source any more ... You can believe it or not. You can explore the www. You will find much proof. You only must want."

You made the claim, you provide the proof. That's how historical debate works if you hope to be taken seriously and I would encourage everyone on this forum would approach discussions in that spirit.

And with that, I'm closing this thread.