Finns / Jews

[redcoat]

you claim it was within the law, i as a man who has legal education ( i`m not trying to brag, don`t get me wrong) claim otherwise.

Could you please give us the benifit of your legal education and point out to us the international treaty which made it illegal to send these people back to the country of their orgin

[Landser]

About the POW subject.I thought according to the Geneva Convention all the POW's have to be released and send home or where ever they desire to,at the end of a war conflict.
In the case of the USSR this will not apply because they had not signed on to it.But all the other Allies supposed to follow it.Or is there another "mitigating circumstances" excuse for this dastardly behavior?

PS after WW1 there was shown some old time chivalry as far as this matter goes.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Landser,

The 1929 Geneva Convention only talked of "Direct Repatriation". I could find no reference to POWs having the right to pick and choose between possible destinations. (If they could, they would have more migratory rights than anyone else, which seems unlikely).

The fact that the USSR had not signed the 1929 Geneva Convention does not make much difference in this case. Article 75 of the 1929 Geneva Convention states "In any case, repatriation of prisoners of war shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace." However, the 1907 Hague Convention, to which both Nazi Germany and the USSR were still subject, states similarly in Article 20, "After conclusion of peace, the repatriatiion of prisoners of war shall take place as speedily as possible."

It is often suggested that as neither Nazi Germany nor the USSR had signed the 1929 Geneva Convention, their treatment of each other's prisoners was not covered by international law. This is not so. Both were subject to the earlier Hague Conventions but often chose to ignore them.

WWI ended differently not through chivalry but because circumstances were different. WWI was concluded by treaty between the belligerent powers. The Hague Conventions, to which they were all subject, stated in Article 75, "When belligerents conclude a convention of armistice they must, in principle, have agreed therein stipulation regarding the repatriation of prisoners."

However, the unconditional surrender demand at the end of WWII left no German Government with which to conclude any armistice, thereby giving the Allies a loophole to evade this stipulation for an extended period.

Nevertheless, the majority of 7,000,000 German POWs in Anglo-American hands were released within a year and the last in 1948. An updated Geneva Convention was adopted in 1949 in order to close some of the loopholes revealed in the 1929 version after WWII.

Our judgement of the technical rights and wrongs of various powers in WWII is sometimes coloured by our understanding of the 1949 Geneva Convention. However, at the time the powers were subject to the 1929 Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Convention and it is against these that they should measured.

Cheers,

Sid.

[FinCav]

Is it not true that "Finnish Jews" fought side by side with their non-Jewish brothers in arms (with the Germans) against the Russians?

Is it not also true that the Germans wanted the Finns to "address" their Jewish situation but did not, sparing the lives of many Jews residing in Finland?

If I remember correctly, although the Finnish Jewish polulation was small, the number surviving the war was near 100%.

You are right! Jews living in Finland were/are Finnish citizens and have defended their home and country like anyone else. This small Jewish population (maybe 1500 - 2000 total) had several casualties during the wars 1939-1944. The Finnish government and Marshal Mannerheim defended the Jews against the Himmler's demand to send them into the German custody. No Finnish jews were sent. A few, mostly German citizen's, were given into the German authoritaries. The number of Finnish Jews surviving the war was nearly 100 & as you mentioned. Minus the casualties in the front against the Russians of course....

[John Kilmartin]

Hi Sid,
Does releasing prisoners into the hands of one of your allies count as speedy release? I knew an Afrika Korps veteran who was released by the US into British custody and they in turn released him into Belgian custody from whence he escaped in late 1947. Now this may be atypical but, he didn't seem to think that his fellow prisoners had been all captured by Belgian forces.

[sid guttridge]

Hi John,

I think a good million German POWs were passed around between the Western Allies at the end of WWII.

My impression from a previous discussion on Feldgrau (over the legality of the Greeks handing over their Italian officer prisoners to the British for transfer to Egypt during the Battle of Crete) was that the practice of handing POWs to third powers was illegal.

However, in response to your question I had a quick glance at the 1929 Geneva Convention and couldn't find such a prohibition. Perhaps you can double check.

The answer to your question may rest on a technicality. The 1929 Convention says that POWs should be repatriated "with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace". Was peace ever formally concluded with Germany and, if so, when?

Cheers,

Sid.

[sid guttridge]

Hi John,

It seems that no peace treaty with Germany had been agreed as late as 1959. Apparently the US and UK would only sign a peace treaty with a re-united Germany and the USSR wanted separate peace treaties for East and West Germany. Thus, I suppose, it could technically be argued that not only the Western Allies, but even the Soviets, released their German POWs far earlier than they were legally obliged to.

(Indeed, ludicrous though it would appear, if there still hasn't been a formal peace treaty, the Allies might still technically be able to retain German POWs. I will leave that one up to the lawyers!).

Cheers,

Sid.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

hi Sid, you say Western Allies and Soviet Union cannot be compared. While that is true politically, during the war it could be, since they were Allies with one another. It is somewhat ironic that during the war democatic democracies would ally itself with the Soviet Union, where no one from Poland to Vladivastick has heard of such a thing. Also ironic is, mainly Christian democracies alllying themselves with the Soviet Union that had slaughtered in cold blood more than one million priests and closed down churches and set up anti religious exbitions in place. The fact that the Western Allies chose such an ally to fight Germany is a crime in it's own right. Also back to the subject of the Finnish Jews, one of the cases of Jewish Finn soldier who was offered Iron Cross is when one of them saved a Wehrmacht officer in battle, after the battles the Wehrmacht officer told the Finnish Jewish soldier he had nothing against him as a jew. From the Axis history forum. Also, on the Axis history forum there's much more intresting little stories aobut WWII!

helmut

[sid guttridge]

Hi HvM,

Wrong.

It was Germany that had a voluntary agreement with the USSR: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

The British only became allies with the USSR because Germany went to war with the USSR while Britain was still at war with the Germany. The USA became allied to the USSR because Germany declared war on it when it was already at war with the USSR.

German action decreed the alliances of WWII, not the preferences of Britain or the USA.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

It was Germany that had a voluntary agreement with the USSR: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

It was not voluntary, but forced by circumstances, as at that time Germany wanted to deal with France while having a peacrful time in the east. But, I think you are probably right, US and Uk made alliance with USSR out of circumstances.

[Tom Houlihan]

It was not voluntary, but forced by circumstances,...

Forced by circumstances? Only in that Hitler was trying to deceive Stalin into thinking he wasn't a threat, until such time as he was ready to launch what became known as Barbarossa!

When you are trying to hoodwink all and sundry, you cannot claim you were a victim of circumstance!

[Helmut Von Moltke]

sorry for the late reply Tom, but I would say that Stalin wasn't really fooled, considering the reports of Luftwaffe recconasince over Soviet territory, build up of German troops on the border, etc. Stalin just wanted to buy time off.

[sid guttridge]

Hi HvM,

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was entirely voluntary on Germany's part. It was Germany, not the USSR that proposed the pact.

The circumstances in which Germany sought the pact were of its own making. Hitler had decided several months before to attack Poland on 25 August 1939. The pact was agreed, I think, on 23 August 1939.

Of course Stalin was fooled at the time of Barbarossa. If he hadn't been the Red Army, Navy and Air Force would have been at least minimally prepared for a German attack, don't you think?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Helmut Von Moltke]

Many documentaries say that Stalin knew that Hitler would attack sooner or later, but he wanted to buy time, and was not expecting it at June 1941. Are we in agreement in that then?

cheers

kevin.

[sid guttridge]

Hi HvM,

In general terms, yes.

But please get more of your information from well researched books and less from unverifiable TV documentaries you cannot recall the details of or transient internet sources of dubious reliability. All you are doing most of the time is clogging up threads with idle conversation on subjects you know little of but are nevertheless prepared to express very definite opinions on. You are largely wasting our time.

Cheers,

Sid.