| |
May 31st, 2008
| Post 11 | |
| Tribunus Laticlavius  | Quote:
And during the battles of Sicily two further incidents are mentioned: 1) 1943 Canicatti slaughter 12, Sicily - Allied Troops kill unarmed civilians at a soap factory. 2) 1943 Biscari massacre 76, Sicily - Allied Troops massacre German & Italian POWs. So while I think that the Allies were more prone to respecting the Geneva Convention than their German counter parts it was not always adhered to.
__________________ To mistrust science and deny the validity of the scientific method is to resign your job as a human. You'd better go look for work as a plant or wild animal. P. J. O'Rourke | |
|
|
May 31st, 2008
| Post 12 |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | MontyB - ref. your last post 11. I presume that is the book by Samuel w Mitcham and Friedreich von Stauffenberg. The below figures have been recorded elsewhere for the Battle of Sicily and its aftermath. Not quite comparable with the Dunkirk aftermath, I suggest. Andindeed you can see that the Geneva Convention was adhered to by the trial of the perpetrators. Indeed it was not ignored. U.S.: 2,237 killed 6,544 wounded British: 2,721 killed 10,122 wounded Canada: 562 killed 1,848 wounded Australia  South Africa France: ? Total: +24,034 casualties Germany: 4,300 killed ? wounded Italy: 4,700 killed ? wounded - - - Total:29,000 Casualties 140,000 POWs (mostly Italian)[2] American soldiers killed 74 Italian and two German prisoners of war during two separate massacres at Biscari airfield. Two soldiers were charged for this war crime; one was convicted and sentenced to life in prison (later commuted) and another was acquitted. I understand that for the American troops at this battle it was their first time in action. ** Please note that 140,000 mostly Italian prisoners of war were collected here.
__________________ . 'Always remember - you don't know nothin' about nothin'. - Edison. Last edited by Del Boy; May 31st, 2008 at 02:18. |
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
| Post 13 | |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | Quote:
The question I was responding to was Fox's " I think my question would be stupid but I'm curious. Does the Allies really ignored the Geneva Convention at that time?" The answer to his question is yes the allies did ignore the Geneva Convention as seen by the instances quoted so far however there were no where near the number of recorded violations as the Germans. As far as shooting civilians and POW's goes it really doesn't matter how many you chose to keep or how much experience you have it's still illegal. Also in terms of the trial and punishment of those involved goes the only person to be convicted was demoted and returned to service as a private, this case in particular is often compared to the Malmedy massacre where:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And finally I have the figures I was looking for with regards to a previous post. (The one thing I love about this forum is that I get to scour through old books to find data and in the process re-read large chunks of long forgotten information), its just a shame it is wasted in a forum on book reports and not the WW2 forum (Screw it I may try and transplant it there). These figures are taken from the book Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg: by Rüdiger Overmans, First of all an overview of the number of deaths in captivity: Table 65: Deaths in captivity (by custodian state) Total number of prisoners of war France 940,000 Great Britain 3,640,000 USA 3,100,000 Yugoslavia 190,000 Other States 170,000 USSR 3,060,000 Sum 11,100,000 Deaths in captivity according to present study France 34,000 Great Britain 21,000 USA 22,000 Yugoslavia 11,000 Other States 8.000 USSR 363,000 Sum 459,000 Deaths in captivity according to Maschke Commission France 25,000 Great Britain 1,300 USA 5,000 Yugoslavia 80,000 Other States 13.000 USSR 1,090,000 Sum 1,214,300 When comparing the data about deaths related to the various custodian states, hardly a case of coincidence can be observed. The figures do, however, show a similar trend – custodian states with high death rates according to the data of the Maschke Commission also show an above average death rate in the present study. The same goes for states with low death rates. The question how the nevertheless existing differences in the absolute values can be explained will be examined in the following. First it should be pointed out that – except in case of the Soviet Union – the losses in captivity in all custodian states are but fractions of percentages of the total losses and are thus in an order of magnitude that cannot be evaluated accurately even with the present, relatively large sample. Furthermore the methods of establishing the figures vary. The data of the Maschke Kommission are based on files of the custodian state and numerous testimonials of German prisoners of war. In matters of content they refer, in what concerns to the Western Allies, to those who died in Allied custody in a narrower sense. The compilation techniques of the present study, however, mandate the inclusion in the category “captivity” also of such cases that formally fall under that category but for which the respective custodian state was not responsible in material terms. This applies especially to the differences in the data related to Great Britain, the USA and the “other countries”. Things are different in the case of France, where the numbers of the Maschke Commission are based on the official French data and there are substantial indications for the assumption that, of the ca. 180,000 missing in the West, a great number died indeed in French custody – or as mercenaries in Indochina. Even more difficult is the situation regarding deaths in Yugoslavian custody – apart from rather contradictory German testimonials on the one hand and the documented cases underlying the present study on the other there is no examination that could contribute to the clarification of the question. Given this unsatisfactory state of research the question arises how reliable data about the deaths in captivity could be obtained. Not by means of an empiric compilation analogous to the present one, given that the information deficits pointed out are not caused by methodological deficiencies of the study – the study only demonstrates the fact that the information available to the German authorities is insufficient. Only the evaluation of reports presently coming in from the former Soviet Union, the recovery of unburied dead presently under way both in the former USSR and in Eastern Germany as well as the registration of graves in the Soviet Union by the VDK [Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge, a German organization will lead to an improvement of the state of information in the next years or decades. But independently of what the number of deaths in captivity actually is, the differences – at least in what concerns the Western Allies – are so small that they cannot significantly affect the results of this study so far. This does not apply in regard to Yugoslavia let alone for the Soviet Union –here the difference between 300,000 or a million deaths is so huge that it influences the distribution of the variables. It will thus be attempted in the following to localize the differences more closely. Table 66: Deaths in Soviet custody by years Deaths in Soviet captivity according to present study 1941/42 5,000 1943 21,000 1944 41,000 1945 178,000 1946 and after 118,000 Sum 363,000 Missing according to present study 1941/42 134,000 1943 283,000 1944 719,000 1945 ca. 400,000 1946 and after - Sum 1,536,000 The number of missing in 1945 was estimated for the present study on the basis of the established fact that about two thirds of deaths during the Final Battles occurred in the East of Germany. Deaths in Soviet captivity according to Maschke Commission 1941/42 166,000 1945 154,000 1946 224,000 1945 550,000 1946 and after included in 1945 Sum 1,094,000 Table 66, which differentiates the number of deaths by years, shows first the number of prisoners of war in Soviet custody and the missing on the Eastern Front, followed by the data of the Maschke Commission. According to the present study a total of ca. 363,000 German soldiers died in Soviet captivity – the sum of individually documented deaths. The approach of the Maschke Commission was another: they established, on the basis of various sources, the number of soldiers taken prisoner as well as the percentage of those who died every year. Although it is an estimate, it can be considered as well founded. When comparing the number of the missing established in the present study, ca. 1.5 million, with the difference in deaths considered by the present study on the one hand and the Maschke Commission on the other, it becomes visible that the difference, ca. 700,000 deaths, corresponds to about half of the number of missing. And it seems altogether plausible, although it cannot be proven, that half of those missing were killed in battle and the other half actually died in Soviet custody. Parting from this consideration the question arises how these ca. 700,000 cases are distributed temporarily. For this it is necessary to recall the conduction of military operations. In the first year, i.e. until ca. the middle of 1943, when the German armies were attacking, they were usually in conditions to recover their own dead in the conquered areas. This means that, at the beginning, the overwhelming majority of missing were taken prisoner and died in Soviet custody – out of the Germans taken prisoner at Stalingrad alone ca. 90,000 died rather soon in captivity. The more the initiative went over to the Soviet side and the more often large units were destroyed and taken prisoner, the greater the number of men killed in battle among those missing is likely to have been. In relation to the above data this plausible if not provable consideration has the consequence that the results of the present study should be modified. Presumably the number of missing in the years 1941/42 must be almost wholly added to the deaths in captivity, whereas in the following years an ever growing part must be added to those killed on the German side. If the numbers of the present study are nevertheless used for the further assessment, this is only because the above considerations, while plausible, are not based on documented individual fates like the remaining results of the present study. As already mentioned, it must be left to a complementary study to evaluate the information arriving from the former Soviet Union at present and in the future, in order to obtain more accurate results in what concerns captivity. Last edited by MontyB; May 31st, 2008 at 07:10. | |
|
|
|
May 31st, 2008
| Post 14 |
| Tribunus Laticlavius | No,no - I did not miss the point. I was just passing comment on the examples you mentioned, and pointing out that, as the perpetrators were put on trial , their authorities were not, in fact, ignoring the Geneva Convention, in those cases. I also made the point that in that particular case, 140,000 appear to have been taken as prisoners of war in acceptable fashion. The record shows that the person convicted in the Sicily case was sentenced to life imprisonment, late commuted. I now suggest that in the other cases you have put forward, as charges were brought, once again the allies were not ignoring the Geneva Convention. I was not suggesting that the crimes were not committed, but that they were considered unacceptable under the Geneva Convention by the Allied authorities who brought the charges. Anyhow - back on topic :- The Book - 'The untold horrors of Dunkirk' http://www.express.co.uk/features/vi...ors-of-Dunkirk __________________ . Last edited by Del Boy; June 5th, 2008 at 16:57. |
|
|
