Execution of civils in the East

World War II Russian Military
#81

No way mate.
The critical word “remain binding AS between the belligerents who are parties thereto.”
The Egorka and pdf are right.
The Geneva convention of 1929 rules toward enemy pows the has been shared all over the belligerents states independently on , whatever the enemy state signed it or not.

It might make more sense if one considers the doctrine of privity of contract in civil law in English speaking (common law) countries, which holds that only the parties to a contract are bound by it. So, for example, if you and I contract that I will buy Chevan a new Lada then you can sue me if I don’t perform the contract, but Chevan can’t. (Why he would want to force me to inflict a Lada on him is a different question. :wink: :D) Whatever happens, Chevan isn’t a party to our contract and can’t claim any legally enforceable benefit under it.

But no one "doctrine of privity in English speaking countries " can’t prevent me with Egorka to catch you in ,for instance, the Neitral non-english speaking territory and treat you just like the Germans, who signed the Geneva convention in 1929, was treating the Soviet pows,
Until you would have finaly bought my “new” Lada for …only $50 000.:):wink:

The same general idea applies to international treaties. For example, if countries A and B sign a treaty not to fish a certain area of ocean, that doesn’t impose any obligation on country C, which hasn’t signed it, not to fish there nor does it confer any right on C to stop A and B fishing there if either of them breaches the treaty between A and B.

Conversely, if the treaty requires A and B to bring any dispute between them about fishing there to arbitration, it doesn’t stop either of them sending a gunboat to eject C from the area, even if the treaty prevents them doing it to each other.

This case however did not share in situation when the A and B who signed the treaty not to fish in the neitral waters, start the warfare and blame each other in war crimes and sink each other without any limitation ( Unlimited warfare).
Doest it mean A and B can sink also and C ships just because the C has signed nothing and both A and B are obligated to folow the “rules” that C isn’t ?

#82

Exactly (ignoring the question of whether sinking is actually permissible to enforce access to fishing grounds).

A and B must observe the treaty as between themselves, but as between A and C and as between B and C neither A nor B has any treaty obligations towards C, and C cannot claim any rights under it, because C is not a party to the treaty.

#83

At the risk of being a bit brutal about it, if the USSR wanted the protection of the 1929 treaty, it should have signed it.

Not that it was likely to have made any difference to what happened, although the Germans did make the point that they treated American and British POWs properly (well, most of them, for most of the war) because of their treaty obligations. Nonetheless, I think the Nazi race hatred towards the Russians was so strong that they probably would have acted just as they did.

I thought you’d just steal my bicycle. :wink: :smiley:

#84

there is nothign wrong.
Nobody try to blind the obligation to the states who didn’t signed the Geneva Treaty.
For instance the USSR has a legal international righ not to folow the Conventions but Germany , that signed all of them in 1929, has not.
Becouse there were never told about “special condition to hold the pows of the states that didn’t signed the Treaty”
But in practice, the Geneva convention meant NOTHING for both sides, but especially for Axis.
The GErmans , who signed both the Huge and Geneva’s “rules or war” that limits the bombing of civils areas , started to bomb the Coventry and London first.
Also Japanese treated the Chinas pows with asian cruely , didn’t even wish to hear about Geneva conventions ( although both Japane and China signed it in 1929 too).

#85

This is tangential to your personal history, my dear Librarian, but it is relevant to the question of whether or not Germans could be tried for war crimes in Poland under the Hague and Geneva conventions after Poland surrendered. If the Allies had applied the same reasoning to that as they did to their conduct in running war crimes trials at Nuremberg, then the Germans should not have been tried for anything that breached the conventions in Poland after the surrender.

Conversely, as the USSR never surrendered and armies remained in the field trying to regain its territory, Germans could be tried for doing things on Soviet territory which would not be crimes on Polish territory.

Makes sense, doesn’t it? :confused:

Few Americans at home may be aware of it, but their representatives at Nuremberg have expressly stated that the victors are not bound by the same laws as the vanquished. When the German defense counsel argued that if it was a crime against international law for the Germans in occupied Poland and Russia to confiscate private property, use civilians and prisoners of war as forced laborers, and starve the people in the occupied territories, then why is it not also a crime for American, British, French or Russian Military Government to do the same thing, they were told:

        “The Allied Powers are not subject to the limitations of the Hague Convention and rules of land warfare.”

        Why?

        “Because,” said the American judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg, “the rules of land warfare apply to the conduct of a belligerent in occupied territory so long as there is an army in the field attempting to restore the country to its true owner, but these rules do not apply when belligerency is ended, there is no longer any army in the field, and, as in the case of Germany, subjugation has occurred by virtue of Military conquest.”(2) (Italics added.)

        In other words, if Germany had won the war, she would have ceased to be bound by international law, and none of her nationals could be held guilty of having committed war crimes or “crimes against humanity.”  Since we won it we are not limited in any way by provisions of the Hague or Geneva conventions, or by any international or recognized law. 

        The argument that what is a crime during war ceases to be one as soon as the fighting stops, is surely the choicest bit of legal sophistry thought up by Mr. Justice Jackson, or Brigadier General Telford Taylor who succeeded him as chief United States Prosecutor at Nuremberg.  It is tantamount to saying that you must not hit a man below the belt while you are fighting him, but you can kick him in the most sensitive spot once he is down and out.

        The argument that the Hague and Geneva conventions ceased to be binding on us the moment the Germans surrendered unconditionally was continually repeated by the American judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg: “A distinction is clearly warranted,” it was stated in the Judges case, “between the measures taken by the Allies prior to destruction of the German Government, and those taken thereafter.  Only the former need to be tested by the Hague Regulations, which are inapplicable in the situation now prevailing in Germany.”

http://www.fredautley.com/nuremberg.htm

#86

Don’t have time to look for a source, but around 1941-42 Japan actually responded to American (and perhaps British, Dutch and Australian - can’t remember details) requests for assurances about its wartime conduct that it would observe the Hague and Geneva conventions.

We all know how that worked out.

#87

That’s the right your point mate.
If even USSR was hurring to sign it first in 1929 - this din’t nessesary protect their civils from Nacis race hate terror in the East.Whatever did wish the USSR protect their civils or not.
Becase the Treaty didn’t really help the China who signed it.

I thought you’d just steal my bicycle. :wink: :smiley:

Why? The mush better steal you to make you “happy owner of lada” :slight_smile:

#88

USSR sent an official note to Germany on 17 of July 1941 stating that it will follow the Geneva convention. Germany declined to accept the note.
On November 25th 1941 USSR declared again that they follow Geneva 1929.
On April 27th 1942 USSR declared that they join Geneva 1929 de facto.

No more time right now…

#89

Inflicting a Lada on an innocent civilian, even if they don’t have to pay for it, is definitely a crime against humanity. :smiley:

#90

As the USSR chose not to sign or ratify the POW convention until its soldiers became POWs, why should Germany accept its sudden desire to observe the terms of a treaty it had had a dozen years to accept?

Any fault in that area is not Germany’s in declining the USSR’s desire to obtain the protection of a POW treaty after war began, but the USSR’s in not signing and ratifying the treaty like other major nations during the dozen years the USSR chose to reject its protection for its soldiers.

#91

I suppose the reason why Germans did not accept the Soviet note was esentially the same why USSR did not sign the convention in the first place.
You see, accordign to the Soviet military doctrine a war would be very quick and soon after the start moved to the enemy’s territory. Hense it did not even assume that sizeable number of RKKA soldiers would end up as POW. Therefor Soviet govegment did not volunteraly take obligations without benefiting in return.
Though USSR did sign “Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929.” on 29 of September 1931. See here: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/155DF8B1DFE2C477C1256402003F7BA6?OpenDocument

As for Germany, early in the war they did not expect that USSR would capture any German POW in noticeable numbers. IIRC there were just about 8.000 German POW in Soviet captivity by the September 1942. Before Stalingrad there were very few German POW.

So I guess the inner intentions were rather similar.

#92

In the interests of a clarity which is usually lacking in these sorts of discussions, and bearing in mind the title of this thread, it should be remembered that there were no laws which prohibited many of the forms of the abuses of civilians which occurred in eastern Europe by agents of various nations during WWII.

The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories. The International Conferences of the Red Cross of the 1920’s took the first steps towards laying down supplementary rules for the protection of civilians in time of war. The 1929 Diplomatic Conference, which revised the Geneva Convention on wounded and sick and drew up the Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, limited itself to recommending that “studies should be made with a view to concluding a convention on the protection of civilians in enemy territory and in enemy occupied territory.” A draft convention containing forty articles prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross was approved by the International Conference of the Red Cross in Tokyo in 1934 and is generally referred to as the “Tokyo Draft”. It was to be submitted to a diplomatic conference planned for 1940, but this was postponed on account of the war.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380?OpenDocument

It should also be noted that, contrary to popular belief that international law is somehow equivalent to or even superior to municipal (or domestic or national) law, it is far weaker because it relies upon the submission of states to its jurisdiction and upon those states to incorporate international law into municipal law; it lacks a sovereign legislature; it lacks an effective police force; it lacks an effective prosecution office; and it lacks a court of competent jurisdiction. Apart from those slight deficiencies, it’s a great system. :rolleyes:

#93

Would that have applied in 1929 and the early to mid 1930s?

Or would there then have been a greater focus on defending the USSR rather than plunging west?

Maybe.

Stalin must have had a reason for not signing it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t want Soviet soldiers knowing that they would (or, at least, should) be treated well if they surrendered. The standards of treatment for POWs under the conventions were rather better than some Soviets experienced in the 1930s. But maybe that’s just my cynical view of Stalin, the utter bastard that he was.

Maybe you can find something in Russian documents to explain why Stalin didn’t want to sign?

#94

You see, M.Tuhachevsky’s military doctrine was based on a strong counter attack with quick relocation of the hostilities to the enemy territory.
So it is essentially a Blitzkreig conducted in response to agression. This has to implications: 1) it’s the enemy’s infrastracture that get damaged during war; and 2) few Soviet POW will be taken.
This doctrine was in force, AFAIK, untill June 1941. That is why the public was so shoked as the war progressed because the front line kept going the wrong way.

Maybe.

I do not think it is maybe. Whole world (Axis and Allies) was sure that fall of USSR is a matter of weeks.
So from practical point of view Hitler had no use accepting the USSR’s note.

Stalin must have had a reason for not signing it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t want Soviet soldiers knowing that they would (or, at least, should) be treated well if they surrendered. The standards of treatment for POWs under the conventions were rather better than some Soviets experienced in the 1930s. But maybe that’s just my cynical view of Stalin, the utter bastard that he was.

I guess partly.
It is obvioulsy a challenge of every army to prevent soldier to surrender and just spend the rest of the war in calmness of captivity.
The enemy has an opposite goal - to seduce opponents to surrender.
Hense German leaflets with texts like: “Soldiers! Hurry to come to our side! The soup is ready!”

Maybe you can find something in Russian documents to explain why Stalin didn’t want to sign?

I have something… I have to translate it first…

#95

Did the doctrine survive Tukhachevsky’s execution in 1937?

I would have thought that Stalin’s suspicion about the Marshal and his mates would have encouraged Stalin to review Tukhachevsky’s military doctrine.

I have no idea what the stirring song over it is, but I like this video about him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV0LWktASTY

What is the basis of that opinion? For the rest of the world’s opinion about the Soviet fall?

I suspect that Nazi rejection of the note was related less to any belief about how long it would take to defeat the USSR and more about clearing the decks in international law for Einzatzgruppen operations against Russian civilians to give the Nazis the lebensraum they were pursuing by the war and to cleanse the world of Slavic untermensch which infected Nazi thinking. The Nazis were crooked thugs but, like Stalin with his show trials, they liked to give the appearance of complying with something approximating law.

I look forward to it.

#96

On March 19, 1931 USSR signed a “Regulation regarding treatment of POW”. Here it is in Russian: http://www.hrono.info/dokum/193_dok/19310319plen.html
And here is internal document describing it’s relation to the Geneva convention of 1929.
Mind my lousy translation…

source in Russian: http://www.hrono.info/dokum/193_dok/19310327mal.html

Conclusion of the consultant Mr.Malitsky
on the project decision the Central Executive Committee (TsIK) and Council of People’s Commissars USSR (SNK)
“Regulation about the Prisoners of War”
Moscow. On March 27, 1931.

On July 27, 1929. Geneva conference adopted the convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The government of the USSR participated neither in the composition of this convention nor in its ratification. Instead of this convention USSR adopted the regulation, which is accepted by SNK of the union of SSR dated March 19 of this year.
Three thoughts are assumed as the basis of the project of this position:
[ol]
[li]to create for the prisoners of war we have the regime, which would not be worse than the regime of the Geneva convention,[/li]> [li]to issue, if possible, a brief law, which would not reproduce in it in details all those guarantees, which gives the Geneva convention, so that the details would be described in instructions to the law;[/li]> [li]to create regulations that, which corresponds to the Soviet principles of rights system (inadmissibility of privileges for the officers, unforced labor of prisoners and so forth).[/li]> [/ol]

Thus, this regulation is based on essentially the same principles as the Geneva convention, namely: the prohibition of brutal treatment of POW, insults and threats, prohibition of measures for obtaining information of military nature by force, provision of civil rights and the propagation on them of the general laws of the country, prohibition to use them in the zone of military operations and so forth.
However, for purposes of the agreement of this regulations with the general principles of Soviet right system, the following differences from the Geneva convention are introduced:
[INDENT]a) there are no privileges for the officers, with the indication of the possibility of allocating them separately from other prisoners of war (st. 3);
b) propagation on the prisoners of war of civil, but not military regime (st. 8 and 9);
c) the assignment of political rights to prisoners of war, who belong to the working class or peasantry, on the general bases with other foreigners located on the territory of the USSR (st. 10);
d) allowing for possibility to the prisoners of war of identical nationality be placed together according to their desire;
e) the so-called camp POW committees obtain wider function, having the right without hindrance to address the government bodies for purposes of representation of all as such interests of prisoners of war, and they are not being limited to tasks like obtaining and distributing the aid and parcels or administration of mutual aid found. (st. 14):
f) prohibition to bear insignia and cancellation of rules about saluting (st. 18);
g) the prohibition of batmans(st. 34).
h) allowing of salary not only for the officers, but for all prisoners of war (T 32);
i) employing of prisoners of war used or labor only with their consent (T 34) and with the application to them of common legislation about the protection and the working conditions (T 36), as well as provision of equal pay in the size not lower than existing in this locality for the corresponding category of works and so forth.

Taking into account, that
[ul]
[li]this bill establishes regime for the treatment of prisoners of war not worse than the Geneva Convention, [/li]> [li]that the principle of reciprocity can be established to the mutual advantage of USSR and the POW[/li]> [li]that the total number of articles is 45 instead of 97 in Geneva Convention[/li]> [li]that the regulation takes into account the principles of Soviet right system[/li]> [/ul]
we find no points hindering acceptance of the aforementioned regulation.

Consultant Malitsky on March 27, 1931
[RIGHT]Type-writing original document.
Location: GARF, Storage Fund 3316. op64. d1049 p.1-1 o[/RIGHT]

[/INDENT]

#97

P.S. Tukhachevsky actually escaped to Australia; was cryogencally frozen for a few years; and re-emerged as Flacco. :smiley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfkXVg_7KY

#98

ARTICLE 82.
Les dispositions de la présente Convention devront être respectées par les Hautes Parties Contractantes en toutes circonstances.
Au cas où, en temps de guerre, un des belligérants ne serait pas partie à la Convention, ses dispositions demeureront néanmoins obligatoires entre les belligérants qui y participent.

Rising_Sun*, you are right. Geneva 1929 does not imply that the signatories have to respect it when at war wit hnon-signatory.
My fault.

#99

Your lousy translation seems pretty clear. In English, anyway. :smiley:
Thanks for doing it.

My impression from the document you have translated is that there were aspects of the Convention which offended Soviet thinking, and some of it rather curious.

(a) there are no privileges for the officers, with the indication of the possibility of allocating them separately from other prisoners of war (st. 3);

A bit odd in a classless society. :wink:

(b) propagation on the prisoners of war of civil, but not military regime (st. 8 and 9);

Is there here a fear of the POWs coming under foreign civil control rather than continuing their Soviet military control?

(c) the assignment of political rights to prisoners of war, who belong to the working class or peasantry, on the general bases with other foreigners located on the territory of the USSR (st. 10);

Seems like another fear by the upper classes in the classless society of the lower classes getting ideas above their station by being treated too well as POWs by a foreign power which fails to recognise their inferiority.

(d) allowing for possibility to the prisoners of war of identical nationality be placed together according to their desire;

What fear of national unity of attitude and action is implicit in this?

(e)the so-called camp POW committees obtain wider function, having the right without hindrance to address the government bodies for purposes of representation of all as such interests of prisoners of war, and they are not being limited to tasks like obtaining and distributing the aid and parcels or administration of mutual aid found. (st. 14):

There appears here to be a fear of POWs addressing foreign governments on matters beyond their immediate needs, such as raising issues of concern about the treatment of people in the USSR.

#100

Well, if I’d known that you’d agree with my incisively brilliant :wink: interpretation when it’s in French, I would have got some Froggie to put it in French. :smiley:

Do you have any idea how much of General Sandworm’s valuable bandwidth we’ve wasted on this, just because we’ve been debating it in English. :smiley:

Anyway, for the time being: Merde! :wink: :smiley: