"Black myth" about Soviet prisoners of war: Stalin and the Geneva Convention. Why were Soviet prisoners of war treated the worst in World War II? Why did Stalin not sign the convention of prisoners of war
Treatment of Soviet prisoners of war during the Great Patriotic War, was terrible. The Third Reich treated Russian prisoners like cattle. It's a proven fact:
Of course, when the Third Reich "smelled of fried", the attitude changed, photos from 1943 carry a different semantic load:
But why is that? Why did the Germans treat prisoners on the eastern front “like animals”?
The leadership of the USSR and Stalin personally are accused of this everywhere, allegedly the Soviets did not sign the Geneva Convention of 1929, and that is why the Germans, not burdened with legal responsibility, did not give the prisoners proper treatment.
The logic itself is flawed. How so, the German war criminals, who set up a huge number of concentration camps with terrible conditions of detention, and created them - to kill people. And these gentlemen were worried about the legal component. Funny.
Well, okay, let's try to understand this story from the very beginning.
The Geneva Convention of 1929 - the common name "Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War", is a consistent continuation of the Hague Convention of 1907, and indeed the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention in full. It consisted of two parts:
- Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.
- Convention on Prisoners of War.
Reason: on March 19, 1931, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted a provision on prisoners of war, which, in general, repeats the convention in Geneva, but also has a number of differences, but they did not sign Geneva due to the fact that more Russian empire, signed the convention in The Hague in 1907, where, by the way, Russia also chaired, and the USSR, in turn, recognized this signature. The Soviet leadership did not consider it necessary to do this again. Moreover, in the opinion of the USSR, the Geneva Convention was worse, for example, there was a clause on the mandatory involvement of prisoners of war in work, which categorically did not suit the Soviets.
Already on July 17, 1941, i.e. less than a month after the start of the war, the NKID of the USSR sent a note to Sweden with a request to bring to the attention of Germany that:
But Germany did not give an answer, and to all subsequent statements, too, but the Nazis went to a meeting in this matter, only in 1943, a rhetorical question: “What do you think - why?”.
The thesis that the USSR and its leadership did not care about their compatriots who were captured is a lie. The People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the USSR tried all the time to resolve this issue.
So, the statements that Soviet prisoners of war were in the position of excuse me "animals" in captivity from the Germans, and this is entirely the fault of the USSR and Joseph Stalin personally, gross falsification and complete ignorance of history, yes, what is history, even laziness wikipedia "applicants" look.
And here is a concrete answer to the question: Who is to blame for how the Germans treated our grandfathers? And Adolf Hitler answered him:
“This is a fight for destruction. If we do not look like this, then, although we will defeat the enemy, in 30 years the communist danger will arise again ... This war will be very different from the war in the West. In the East, cruelty itself is a boon for the future. Commanders must sacrifice a lot to overcome their hesitation."
This is the beginning, and here is the continuation, after the start of the war:
“The common people had to pay”
The USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention, so Soviet prisoners of war were outlawed. They had to endure the most unimaginable atrocities on the part of the Germans.
We will not get out of this accursed turmoil until we honestly and clearly separate the truth from lies and begin to staunchly and courageously pronounce the truth (Ivan Ilyin).
June 22, 1941 First days of the war. The terrible defeat of the Red Army. In the frames of the chronicle of that time, there are often two columns in parallel, but in different directions. In one column - the haughty faces of the Aryans and the German army leaving for the East, and in the other - crowds of Soviet prisoners of war - Russian people who were destined to die in German camps - leaving beyond the horizon. How painful it is to look at the faces of our soldiers. Only the Stalinist regime was not hurt - the Soviet Commissar of Defense issued Order No. 270 of 08/16/1941, declaring Soviet prisoners of war as traitors. Families of prisoners were deprived of state assistance ( Dugas I. A., Cheron F. Ya. Voided from memory. Soviet prisoners of war between Hitler and Stalin. Paris, 1994. pp. 119-120). What happened to the families then is not hard to guess.
Back in 1907, all major countries signed the Hague Agreements, and then the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The main idea of these documents is medical assistance from the International Red Cross, the delivery of food and mail to the prison camps, the compilation of lists of prisoners for their subsequent exchange between the warring countries and sending them to their homeland. Signed the 1907 Hague Accords and Royal Russia and strictly observed it. Remember the book "Quiet Flows the Don", the scene of Stepan's return home from Germany from captivity and Mikhail's conversation with him:
"- Where are you from?
- From Germany, from captivity. Lived nothing. I even thought about staying, but I was drawn home.
The USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention, so the German authorities believed that Soviet prisoners of war were outside the law and committed anything, any atrocities against them (see note on this issue).
During the war years, 5,734,538 Soviet people were captured (Dugas I. A., Cheron F. Ya. Voided from memory. Soviet prisoners of war between Hitler and Stalin. Paris, 1994. S. 409). More than half of this number of prisoners died. Mortality among Soviet prisoners of war was 57%. For comparison, during the First World War, the mortality rate among Russian prisoners of war was 5.4%. (Dugas and Cheron, ibid.).
In the first months of the war, the near and far rear of the German troops turned out to be about 3.9 million people. Soviet prisoners (Rudenko R. Not subject to oblivion. True, March 24, 1969)."At the beginning of the war, the Red Army numbered 5.7 million soldiers and commanders" ( Red Star, June 20, 2000). If we compare the number of captured soldiers of the Red Army in the first months of the war with the strength of the Red Army at the beginning of the war, then the percentage of captivity will be 68.4%. Thus, almost the entire personnel of the Red Army was captured or destroyed. It was the most terrible defeat in the history of mankind. The USSR remained practically defenseless.
The common people had to pay. The entire subsequent Red Army were conscripts and newly hastily trained officers. "In the first eight months of the war, more than 10 million people were called up." ( Army General M. Moiseev, Chief of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces. True, June 19, 1991). E If we compare the size of the Red Army before the war (5.7 million people) and the number of conscripts in the first months of the war (10 million people), we will see that the Red Army was re-equipped with completely new untrained conscripts, and even 1.75 times more more than before the war. These conscripts and militia squads often died in whole regiments in a few days, they learned to fight already during the war, gained experience at the cost of blood. Those who died for their friends are in the Kingdom of Heaven. “You know their names, O Lord…”
What are the reasons for the aforementioned mass capture of Red Army soldiers? Let us leave aside the reasons for the military deployment of the Red Army. This is not our issue. Let's pay attention to something else. During the interrogations of the Red Army soldiers by the Germans, the majority of those interrogated expressed their unwillingness to fight for Soviet power. What are the reasons for this sentiment?
Shortly before the war, collectivization swept through the Soviet country like a terrible wave. Collectivization finally destroyed the peasant economy and caused an unprecedented famine. “Artificially induced hunger led to cannibalism. About three million children died alone in the hunger strike of 1933" ( Russian thought. 2004. No. 4). The famine sparked massive uprisings against communist rule . « The peasantry responded to collectivization with mass uprisings in the winter and spring of 1930. On the Don, Kuban, Terek, in Western Siberia and even in certain areas of the Central Black Earth region, open armed clashes took place between the rebels and paramilitary formations of the Soviet party activists, reinforced by the OGPU troops and consolidated units of the Red Army. According to the OGPU for January-April 1930, more than 6 thousand peasant uprisings took place throughout the country, in which almost 1.8 million people participated.
Military operations against almost 2 million Soviet people are the scale of a real war. Wars against your own people. The uprisings were dealt with in the Bolshevik manner, and the unfortunate dispossessed were sent to the North in special settlements. This grandiose operation was carried out on the orders of Stalin. Molotov was directly in charge. Many years later, he was asked the question: how many people were then taken to wild, uninhabited areas? Molotov replied: “Stalin said that we evicted ten million. In fact, we evicted twenty million.” (Chuev F. Molotov. M., 2002. P. 458).
What happened to the unfortunate settlers? “According to the now published data of the FSB of the Russian Federation, from 1.8 to 2.1 million dispossessed kulaks died in Soviet special settlements from 1930 to 1940” (Aleksandrov K. Hunger as a weapon).
Could this have been imagined quite recently, when an Orthodox sovereign was at the head of the state?
Let's go back to the newsreel. Here are the scenes of the greeting of the German army by the locals: bread and salt, joint dances, the smashing of the statue of Stalin by the locals with a sledgehammer... To what degree of fear did you have to bring your own people so that the troops of the invaders met as liberators? But such phenomena were massive. Especially in the new territories of the USSR, to which "bread and work, a happy life was brought by the Red Army to the inhabitants of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus." These are the words of a Soviet video filmed after the "liberation campaign" in these territories. Similar meetings of the Germans took place in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldavia, and in many Russian villages that survived the terrible years of collectivization. In the film "Pop", which was released several years ago, there are also such footage of the chronicle. Such footage is documentary evidence that the new government of the Germans Soviet people was perceived with the hope that it would be better than the Soviet one. Bye german army victoriously rolled forward, in some places these hopes were really realized, but, of course, not everywhere. After all, behind the Wehrmacht, SS troops entered these territories - an analogue Soviet troops NKVD. And the Aryans showed that they were by no means going to stand on ceremony with the Slavs ...
However, there are a lot of examples of establishing a normal life under the Germans. The most indicative is the experience of Lokot self-government (the territory of the modern Bryansk region with the center in the city of Lokot):
“In terms of its size, the Lokotsky district exceeded the territory of Belgium. The population of the district was 581 thousand people. On the territory of the district, despite the fact that this was an occupied territory, there was its own Criminal Procedure and Criminal Code.
With minimal control from the German administration, the Lokot self-government achieved major successes in the socio-economic life of the district. The collective farm form of management was abolished and an easy tax system was introduced. Confiscated during dispossession Soviet power the property was returned free of charge to the former owners; in case of loss, appropriate compensation was provided. The size of the capitation area for each inhabitant of the municipality was about 10 hectares.
During the existence of the self-government, many industrial enterprises engaged in the processing of agricultural products were restored and put into operation, churches were restored, 9 hospitals and 37 medical centers were opened, 345 secondary schools and 3 orphanages were operating” (“Wikipedia”).
Note
In certain circles of the historical environment, the issue of Germany's obligation to comply with Article 82 of the Geneva Convention of 1929, which regulated the rules for the treatment of prisoners of war (Germany was a party to the convention), is being discussed.
Some opponents argue that Germany was obliged to comply with Article 82 on the basis of its following interpretation: “in war time even if one of the belligerents is not a party to the convention, the requirements of the latter must be observed with the same strictness as if both belligerents were parties to the convention.
The author of this article has the opinion of one very respected historian, candidate of historical sciences, in which a convincing argument is expressed, refuting the point of view that Germany is unconditionally obliged to comply with article 82 of the convention of 1929. This opinion was expressed by an opponent who holds the opposite opinion and believes that Germany was bound by Article 82 of the Convention.
At the time of writing this article, the opinion of the candidate of historical sciences was sent to the opponent, but was not published. Therefore, the author of this article believes that he has no right to disclose the names of opponents. However, I believe that the opinion of the candidate of historical sciences is very convincing and important for readers to understand the truth in the above issue.
"Dear …..!
I got acquainted with your response to an old interview.
Text Art. 82 of Section I of Section VIII “On the Implementation of the Convention” was quoted by me from the publication: Appendix No. 1. Convention on the maintenance of prisoners of war. Geneva, July 27, 1929 // Prisoners of war in the USSR. 1939-1956. Documents and materials / Ed. prof. M. M. Zagorulko. M., "Logos", 2000. S. 1024-1025. Article eighty-two: “The provisions of this convention shall be observed by the high contracting parties in all circumstances. If, in case of war, one of the belligerents turns out to be not participating in the convention, nevertheless, the provisions of such remain binding on all the belligerents who have signed the convention.
How, from the content of the 82nd Art. it follows that participation in the convention automatically obliges to comply with its provisions in relation to the belligerent non-participant? .. I have no grounds for such conclusions. Neither are in your review. It is only a question of the fact that all high contracting parties will comply with the provisions of the convention in the event of participation in the war by a non-participating party. But where does it say that the provisions of the convention will also apply to the non-party? ..
In 1941, the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) and the US government repeatedly made efforts to persuade the government of the USSR to accede to the Geneva Convention, among other things, because the non-participation of the USSR in the convention had critical consequences for the situation of prisoners of war in the Red Army. Christian Streit explained the intransigence of the Soviet government on this issue as follows: “It was also important that the Soviet Union, by that time, having lost more than two million people prisoners, wanted to avoid further losses, fearing that many would surrender if it became known about good treatment of prisoners. Therefore, based on Streit's thesis, participation in the convention - from the point of view of the USSR government - increased the likelihood of "good treatment of prisoners."
The behavior of the ICRC and the US government looks completely illogical - if you stick to your interpretation of the content of Art. 82nd, the ICRC and the Americans had to besiege Berlin with their proposals. Germany participated in the convention, therefore, it had to be persuaded. But instead, for some reason, they persuaded Moscow. On the contrary, the attempts of the ICRC and the USA to convince the government of the USSR to recognize the convention look quite logical, if we assume that Art. 82nd was interpreted in the sense of the obligations of the participating parties in relation to each other.
It is possible that Art. 82 of the Geneva Convention is formulated in such a way that the military-political leadership of the Reich began to interpret it differently than you would like - but Stalin obviously contributed to this by refusing to participate in the convention not only in 1929, but also in 1941, which Streit eloquently described .
Then you quote the interview: “And it turns out at ... .. ( the name of one of the opponents is indicated - Approx. O. I.) that the Nazis were able to exterminate Soviet prisoners, "taking advantage of the refusal of the USSR government to protect the rights of its citizens in captivity." That is, the blame is shifted again, part of their responsibility is removed from the Nazis.
According to the text of the interview, it is stated: "Hitler considered that this state of affairs unties the hands of the National Socialists."
And didn’t it untie? ..
I see no reason to revise the stated point of view. The thesis that not only Hitler's, but also the Stalinist regime was to blame for the tragedy of Soviet prisoners of war was substantiated by Professor, Dr. I. n. M. I. Semiryaga, Dr. i. n. V. B. Konasov and other scientists, therefore, no “sensations” were expressed in the interview. I believe that the Nazis planned a racial-colonial war in the East and crimes against Soviet prisoners of war were predetermined. However, if the government of the USSR protected the rights of its own citizens in captivity and the participation of the USSR in the Geneva Convention, this would not worsen the situation of the prisoners and, possibly, reduce their mortality. But this was not done for the reasons Streit stated.
So, what's left?
1. Art. 82 of the Geneva Convention - from your point of view, in case of war, it obliges the participating states to comply with the provisions of the convention in relation to non-participating states. Or it does not oblige, but obliges only the participating parties in relation to each other, as evidenced by the persistent attempts of the ICRC and the United States in 1941 to convince the government of the USSR to join the convention.
2. Of course, the non-participation of the USSR in the Geneva Convention untied the hands of the Nazis in relation to Soviet prisoners of war, in the tragedy of which both Hitler and Stalin are to blame - this thesis has long been voiced in historiography and argued. What kind of protection of the rights of its own citizens in captivity by the government of the USSR can we talk about, if in the period from 1930 to 1940 the victims of the Stalinist social policy more than 8.5 million people in the USSR became? .. If in the winter of 1933 Stalin issued a directive banning peasants from leaving famine-stricken areas, then why should he be worried about the fate of his prisoners of war? .. If Stalin and other leaders of the CPSU (b) organized in peacetime execution of 725 thousand Soviet citizens, why should they worry about their prisoners of war? ..
Declaration.The undersigned People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics hereby declares that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics accedes to the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, concluded at Geneva on July 27, 1929.
In witness whereof the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, duly authorized for that purpose, has signed this declaration of accession.
According to the resolution of the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics dated May 12, 1930, this accession is final and does not require further ratification.
Committed in Moscow on August 25, 1931.
(signature) Litvinov
TsGAOR USSR fund 9501, inventory 5, items 7 sheet of case 22.
The Nazis determined their attitude towards Soviet military personnel in captivity by the fact that the USSR did not recognize the Hague Convention and the 1907 Declaration on the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare and did not sign the Geneva Convention of 1929, which determined legal status prisoners of war, although this convention was signed by 47 countries. True, on August 25, 1931, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs M.M. Litvinov announced that the USSR was joining one of the conventions of the International Red Cross adopted in Geneva on July 27, 1929, and in particular: “On improving the lot of the wounded and sick” ( see above) .
One of the reasons why the Soviet Union did not sign the Geneva Convention as a whole was its disagreement with the division of prisoners according to nationality and other points that were contrary to Soviet law. This provision was contrary to the principles of internationalism. The refusal of the USSR to sign the convention as a whole allowed the Nazis to use this fact and leave Soviet prisoners without any protection and control from the International Red Cross and other organizations that helped the prisoners of Western countries.
CONCLUSION OF THE CONSULTANT MALITSKY ON THE DRAFT DECISION OF THE CEC AND SNK OF THE USSR "REGULATION ON PRISONERS OF WAR"
Moscow March 27, 1931
On July 27, 1929, the Geneva Conference worked out a convention on the maintenance of prisoners of war. The government of the USSR did not take part either in drawing up this convention or in its ratification. Instead of this convention, this Regulation has been developed, the draft of which was adopted by the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on March 19 of this year.
This draft provision is based on three ideas:
1) create a regime for our prisoners of war that would not be worse than the regime of the Geneva Convention;
2) issue, if possible, a brief law that does not reproduce the details of all those guarantees that the Geneva Convention gives, so that these details form the subject of instructions executing the law;
3) to formulate the issue of prisoners of war in accordance with Soviet principles of law (the inadmissibility of benefits for officers, the optional involvement of prisoners of war in work, etc.).
Thus, this Regulation is based in general on the same principles as the Geneva Convention, such as: the prohibition of ill-treatment of prisoners of war, insults and threats, the prohibition of using coercive measures to obtain information of a military nature from them, granting them civil legal capacity and disseminating on them the general laws of the country, the prohibition to use them in a war zone, etc.
However, in order to harmonize this Regulation with the general principles of Soviet law, the following differences from the Geneva Convention are introduced into the Regulation:
a) there are no benefits for officers, indicating the possibility of keeping them separately from other prisoners of war (Article 3);
b) the extension of civil rather than military regime to prisoners of war (Articles 8 and 9);
c) granting political rights to prisoners of war who belong to the working class or who do not exploit the labor of the peasantry, on a common basis with other "foreigners" who are on the territory of the USSR (Article 10);
d) providing [opportunities] for prisoners of war of the same nationality, if they wish, to be placed together;
e) the so-called camp committees acquire broader camp competence, having the right to freely communicate with all authorities to represent all the interests of prisoners of war in general, and not only limit themselves to receiving and distributing parcels, the functions of a mutual benefit fund, etc. (Art. 14);
f) prohibition to wear insignia and non-indication of the rules on saluting honor (Article 18);
g) prohibition of branching (art. 34);
h) the appointment of salaries not only for officers, but for all prisoners of war (Article 32);
i) the involvement of prisoners of war in work only with their consent (Article 34) and with the application to them of the general legislation on labor protection and working conditions (Article 36), as well as the distribution of wages to them in an amount not lower than that existing in the given locality for the relevant category of workers, etc.
Taking into account that this bill establishes a regime for the maintenance of prisoners of war no worse than the Geneva Convention, that therefore the principle of reciprocity can be extended without prejudice to both the USSR and individual prisoners of war, that the number of articles of the provision is reduced to 45 instead of 97 in the Geneva Convention that the principles of Soviet law are carried out in the Regulation, there are no objections to the adoption of this bill.
GA RF. F. 3316, op. 64, d. 1049, l. 1-1 a.
With all this, the Geneva Convention regulated relations with prisoners of war, regardless of whether their countries signed the convention or not. Germany signed the Geneva Convention.
Reference:
According to German wartime documents, by May 1, 1944, 1,981,000 prisoners of war had died in the camps.
There was one more year left before the end of the war.
Every year, on the eve of the Great Holiday of our country - Victory Day, liberals and historians of all stripes become more active in search of historical "truth" and exposing the inhumanity of the Stalinist regime. Any myths and statements are used, usually created by grandfather Goebbels, the political progenitor of all our liberals. One such myth is the following statement:
Germany was NOT obliged to comply with the convention, in relation to a state that did not sign it
A typical example of this and other liberal myths related to the fate of Soviet prisoners of war can be found, for example, in the article "On the Geneva Convention of July 27, 1929". This is simply the quintessence of all liberal myth-making in one bottle - here it is about the Geneva Convention, and about the doctrine of armed actions of the USSR on enemy territory without prisoners of war, and about the execution of anyone who wants to surrender, etc. Even more interesting is written by academician Alexander Yakovlev in the article “War with your own army” (most likely it is this work that inspires many liberals).
On the Geneva Convention and the fate of Soviet prisoners of war
So, the defenders of historical “truth” sincerely believe that Hitler would sacredly observe all international treaties, including the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, and would treat Soviet soldiers with care if the USSR signed it. Apparently, historical experience teaches them that Adolf Hitler did not violate any international treaty and was generally a crystal-clearly honest and decent person. Well, since the USSR did not sign the convention - you can not feed the prisoners, why transfer food to them! Good man there was a Fuhrer, apparently he had every right to destroy the Jews, in the end, he did not sign any international conventions tying his hands in this matter. It is not clear why the advocates of historical “truth” sympathize so much with the tortured Jews, and at the same time understand Hitler’s position regarding the destruction of Soviet soldiers and officers in prisoner of war camps?! However, this is not the first time with them.
It should be noted that in this matter, the liberals, as always, are not original, but simply repeat the words of the fascist bastards, sensitively led by Joseph Goebbels. For example, here are the words of Field Marshal Keitel:
The Soviet Union did not join the agreement of July 27, 1929. concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. As a result, we are not obliged to provide Soviet prisoners of war with supplies that would correspond to this agreement both in quantity and quality.
If this were really the case, that is, if the signing of the Geneva Convention by the USSR would help save Soviet prisoners of war, then in fact the liberals mean the strict observance by the fascist regime of all conventions, treaties, pacts and other signed by Germany. Was it really like that? Germany has not violated more than one international convention? Not a single international treaty? How about the Geneva Convention for the Treatment of the Wounded and Sick, which was signed by the USSR? Was it strictly observed by Germany?
How about a non-aggression pact with the USSR? Was it strictly observed by fascist Germany? What about other international legal norms – were they not violated by Germany? Let's take, for example, the same Jews whom our human rights activists love so much. Isn't the extermination of Jews in gas chambers a violation of international law? Maybe even a little bit, but did the Germans violate something here? Or, according to international legal norms, the burning of people on racial grounds was allowed? So is it or not? If the Germans did nothing wrong by burning Jews in gas chambers, then why the hell is Germany paying compensation?! If the Germans nevertheless violated some international scribble, then with what fright did they have to comply with the same scribble called the Geneva Convention?
By the way, the state of Israel (non-existent at that time) also did not sign any international conventions with Germany, which means that its future citizens (for whom compensation is regularly paid now) could also, according to the logic of the liberals, be destroyed in German concentration camps. Those. there are two options, either German citizens died in German concentration camps, which means Israel cannot participate in any way in the distribution of money in the German budget, or it’s like citizens of non-existent Israel that has not signed the Geneva Convention and other conventions, which means they can, according to our human rights defenders, burn in gas chambers. However, in the case of future Israelis, for some reason, liberals apply the principles of universal humanity, the principles of protecting human rights, and so on. But this method, according to the fighters for historical "truth", is not suitable for Soviet prisoners of war, apparently for the reason that, as the Nazis wrote about it, they were infected with the virus of Bolshevism?
In general, the logic of our humanist liberals is simply amazing - the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention, which means it is ALLOWABLE to starve people to death! But what about the protection of human rights? How about humanism? Human values? Morality? In this issue, for some reason, liberal "historians" about all these beautiful words do not remember.
However, knowing full well that even the non-signing of the Geneva Convention by the USSR does not exempt the Germans from complying with it, the fascist tricksters came up with new reasons, here is an excerpt from the order of the Wehrmacht high command on the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war with the attached "Memo on the protection of Soviet prisoners of war" dated 08.09.1941. :
Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of National Socialist Germany. For the first time, a German soldier faces an enemy trained not only in the military sense, but also in the political sense in the spirit of Bolshevism. The struggle against National Socialism became his flesh and blood. He leads it by any means: sabotage, subversive propaganda, arson, murder. Therefore, the Bolshevik soldier lost the right to be treated like a true soldier under the Geneva Agreement.
By the way, there is another "reason" for the hunger of Soviet soldiers, which is consistently defended by the Nazis and liberals - this is an unexpectedly large number of Soviet soldiers who were captured by the Germans. In principle, the first reason (non-signing of the Geneva Convention) seems to make the second one unnecessary. Actually, it is not clear why at all justify the actions of the Germans by the fact that, they say, they did not expect such a number of prisoners? After all, Stalin did not sign the Geneva Convention, which means that the Germans had the right not to feed prisoners of war. Is not it? According to the logic of the liberals, this is so, but just in case, other excuses are invented. In general, in the matter of justifying the Nazi regime, no one apparently did more work than our liberals, even the defenders of the Nuremberg Trials, during which they also made an attempt to justify the German executioners:
At the Nuremberg trials, the defense made a statement that the Geneva Convention allegedly does not apply to Soviet prisoners of war on the grounds that the USSR is not a party to this Convention. However, the International Military Tribunal rejected the argument of the defense as untenable. At the same time, he pointed out that always and in all cases, when treating prisoners of war, the general principles of international law should be applied: detention should pursue only one goal - to prevent a prisoner of war from taking part in hostilities. Killing defenseless people or even harming them out of revenge is contrary to military tradition.
As you can see, from the point of view of international law, the issue of non-signing the Geneva Convention has long been resolved, however, in this case, our liberal does not have an order from the international court: we read here, we don’t read here - we wrap the herring there.
However, there are still some differences between Soviet prisoners of war and captured allies, except for the notorious unsigned Geneva Convention:
1) According to the racial doctrine of Germany, Europeans (French, British) are the Aryan race (or close to it), unlike the Slavs;
2) Hitler never hid his desire to have the most warm relationship with the British, this is clearly written in Mein Kampf;
3) The Europeans quickly lost the war, resisted, and rather sluggishly, only the British, and then in Africa. While the Soviet soldiers were fighting at this particular moment, i.e. killed German soldiers. Those. the inhuman treatment of Russian prisoners of war was something of a revenge;
4) Again, according to the racial doctrine in the post-war Third Reich, the number of Slavs (as well as Jews and Gypsies) should have been significantly reduced, while there were no such plans for Europeans;
Let's continue reading the article "About the Geneva Convention", here is another interesting quote:
With the outbreak of the war, it became clear that the extermination of not only prisoners, but also civilians, was taking on ever more horrifying proportions. Trying to rectify the situation, on June 27, 1941, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Molotov telegraphed the chairman of the ICRC about readiness Soviet Union to carry out an exchange of lists of prisoners of war and the possibility of revising the attitude to the Hague Convention "On the Laws and Customs of War on Land". The issue of accession to the Geneva Convention of 1929 was put out of the question by the Soviet government, at the same time it was approved by the Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of July 1, 1941 "Regulations on Prisoners of War", based precisely on this convention and containing documentary confirmation of the statement on compliance with international legal norms of warfare . In addition to it, the orders of the NKVD of the USSR "On the procedure for keeping and registering prisoners of war in NKVD camps" dated August 7, 1941 and "On the state of prisoner of war camps" dated August 15, 1941 were issued.
Thus, from the liberal’s article itself, one can make an unambiguous conclusion that the Soviet government for some reason took care of its prisoners of war, and for some reason it did not give a damn about the fact that Soviet soldiers were dying in captivity from starvation. Isn't that strange? After all, according to liberal logic, Stalin did not consider prisoners of war to be people, he ordered them to be shot on the spot as traitors to the Motherland? Actually, in the next paragraph of the same article, this idea is disclosed in sufficient detail:
But at the same time - within the Soviet Union - the thesis was put forward that a soldier of the Red Army who was captured - a traitor. It was officially proclaimed that the Soviet soldier did not surrender. The Charter of the Internal Service directly stated: The Warrior is obliged to fulfill his military duty to the Motherland in battle to the end. Nothing, including the threat of death, should force a soldier to surrender.
In confirmation of this thesis, somewhat truncated excerpts from the order of the Stavka No. 270 are given. How exactly they were cut, we will examine in detail below, but now I would like to try to understand the logic of liberal historians. So, Stalin, a monster and a stomacher, signs a monstrous order No. 270 according to which, any soldier who surrenders is a traitor and must be destroyed on the spot, and his relatives must be tortured in the Gulag. And at the same time, the government of the USSR is doing everything possible to improve the situation of Soviet prisoners of war! Where is the logic? What is the point in the actions of a cynical monster? After all, the worse the conditions of captivity for the soldiers, the less they have the desire to get into it! It is enough just to bring to the attention of the soldiers how those who are captured die of hunger, what humiliation and torture they are subjected to, and any desire to be captured will disappear by itself (or at least greatly decrease). Instead, Stalin is trying to improve the lot of the prisoners, which requires both diplomatic efforts and money (for example, to improve the situation of German prisoners of war). Strange logic for a monster, isn't it?
In fact, already on July 17, 1941, the USSR, in a government note transmitted to Germany through Sweden, announced that it was joining the Hague Convention on the condition of reciprocity. Further, the USSR twice in the notes of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs dated November 25, 1941 and April 27, 1942 declared its accession to the Hague Convention de facto and the implementation of all its norms and demanded the same from the German side (http://tr.rkrp-rpk.ru /get.php?3034). Thus, despite the fact that the government of the USSR settled all the legal problems associated with international treaties regulating the treatment of prisoners of war, the fascist government continued to mock Soviet soldiers. Strange - isn't it? It would seem that now Hitler had no reason not to comply, at least, with the provisions of the Hague Conference, but for some reason he is somewhat unconcerned about this. Thus, the story about the fact that it was the failure to sign the Geneva Convention of 1929 that was the reason for the poor treatment of prisoners of war becomes untenable on the example of the gross violation by the Germans of the provisions of the Hague Conference. The fascist government wanted to spit on any international treaties! What prevented the Germans from complying with the provisions of the Hague Conference? In fact, the Geneva Convention itself added little in relation to the rights of prisoners of war compared with the Hague Conference. For example, the fulfillment of these two points would save hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners of war who died of starvation and overwork:
The state may engage prisoners of war in accordance with their rank and ability, with the exception of officers. These works should not be too burdensome and should not have anything to do with military operations.
…
The earnings of prisoners are assigned to improve their situation, and the remainder is given to them upon release, minus the cost of their maintenance.
Obviously, if these provisions of the Hague Conference were observed by the German side, the mortality among Soviet prisoners of war would not have been so high. The exact number of those who died in German captivity is still not exactly known, different numbers are called from 1,783,000 (Krivosheev G.F.) to 2,500,000 or more from German sources, this figure is made up of 1,981,000 (died in camps) + 473 000 (executed) + 768,000 (died in transit camps or not registered). Here is how the situation of prisoners of war is described in the book of German authors "The War of Germany against the Soviet Union 1941-1945":
During the Second World War german wehrmacht captured approximately 5.7 million Soviet troops. Of these, more than three million died before 1945, i.e. more than a half.
The political and military leadership of the "Third Reich" considered Soviet prisoners of war not only as people of an "inferior race", but also as potential enemies of National Socialist Germany in the territory it occupied. Many Soviet soldiers, among them the wounded, died already on the way to assembly and transit camps, and some died during transportation to stationary camps. The relevant services of the Wehrmacht, responsible for the supply, did too little to give the prisoners of war the opportunity to survive. Insufficient number of premises and terrible conditions in them, extremely poor nutrition, bad medical care caused the fall and winter of 1941-1942. epidemic of typhus, which led to an exorbitant death rate among prisoners of war.
The high mortality of Soviet prisoners of war was caused not only by the irresponsible actions of the relevant German services, but also by mass executions. Seriously wounded soldiers, from whom the Wehrmacht wanted to get rid of in the first place, were destroyed, as well as prisoners of war, whose political convictions or racial affiliation distinguished them from the general mass. "Special treatment" of prisoners of war was assigned by the Wehrmacht to the Oberkommandos of the Security Police and the SD.
Until February 1942, of the approximately 3.3 million Soviet soldiers who fell into German captivity, about two million died of hunger, cold, epidemics or were shot
About the "war" against his army
And now let's return to our favorite article "On the Geneva Convention", in it, as you remember, we stopped at the moment in which the monstrous essence of Stalin is described, brutally classifying any Soviet soldier who surrendered as a traitor to the Motherland. Here is how colorfully it is described in the article:
“In addition to the existing legislative documents, on August 16, 1941, Order No. 270 of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command was issued, according to which commanders and political workers who surrendered were outlawed and subject to execution on the spot. Adult family members of military personnel sentenced to capital punishment (to be shot) for treason were subject to arrest and exile for a period of five years. The families of Red Army soldiers who surrendered were deprived of state benefits and assistance. Thus, in the first months of the war, the attitude towards prisoners of war received a final legislative completion.
And here is how this statement is “proved”, for this, quotes from order No. 270 are given in a slightly truncated form:
ORDER OF THE SUPREME HIGH COMMAND OF THE RED ARMY No. 270 / August 16, 1941
1. ... those who surrender to the enemy, to be considered malicious deserters, whose families are subject to arrest as families of deserters who violated the oath and betrayed their homeland.
2. if ... the head or part of the Red Army, instead of organizing a rebuff to the enemy, prefer to surrender - destroy them by all means, both ground and air, and deprive the families of Red Army soldiers who have surrendered of state benefits and assistance.
3. .... and if necessary, shoot them on the spot
And now we read in full the above paragraphs of order No. 270, here's how it sounded in the original:
1 Commanders and political workers who, during a battle, tear off their insignia and (!) Desert to the rear or surrender to the enemy, are considered malicious deserters, whose families are subject to arrest as the families of deserters who violated the oath and betrayed their homeland.
To oblige all higher commanders and commissars to shoot such deserters from the command staff on the spot.
So, what fell under the knife of a liberal historian? Here is that part:
Commanders and political workers, during the battle, tearing off their insignia
And
deserting to the rear or
I specifically singled out the union And and also this phrase "during the battle, tearing off their insignia" so that you can clearly see what "insignificant" details sometimes fall out in the form of ellipsis. So, the original order clearly states that not all commanders and political workers are punished, but only those who tore off during the battle (!) insignia and (I hope everyone understands what it means) then deserted to the rear or surrendered. Those. not all those who surrendered were considered malicious deserters, but only those who, even during the battle, in advance, tore off their insignia, in fact, thereby, even during the battle, stopped resistance and surrendered. Obviously, in relation to those soldiers who continued stubborn battles with the Nazis, THESE were malicious traitors. What is actually written in the order.
Let's move on to the next point:
2. The units and subunits that are surrounded by the enemy selflessly fight to the last opportunity, take care of the materiel, like the apple of their eye, make their way to their rear of the enemy troops, defeating the fascist dogs.
To oblige each serviceman, regardless of his official position, to demand from a higher commander, if part of him is surrounded, to fight to the last opportunity in order to break through to his own, and if such a commander or part of the Red Army men, instead of organizing a rebuff to the enemy, prefer to surrender, - destroy them by all means, both ground and air, and deprive the families of Red Army soldiers who have surrendered of state benefits and assistance.
So, in this paragraph of the order we are talking about individual renegades who, instead of organizing a rebuff to the enemy or trying to break out of the encirclement, call for surrender, all the more so use their powers of authority. For example, this is what the now well-known traitor Vlasov did, it is known how it ended for him and for his subordinates. In addition, given how fate awaited Soviet prisoners of war in German captivity, in which at least half of total number surrendered - the only chance for salvation for them was to resist the enemy and try to break out of the encirclement. In this case, the chances of surviving would be even greater than in a fascist concentration camp. Naturally, one must also take into account the factor of the combat ability of our army: if all the commanders surrender in case of any danger, then the war would end very quickly. What would happen next with all these soldiers and their families is well known from the Ost plan. At a minimum, those who would have survived after the war would be people of the third (or tenth) grade, without the right to receive even a secondary education (they would not even dream of a higher education), without the right to hold any serious positions, and also, most likely, the entire document flow would be conducted in human (i.e. German) language, and not in the canine languages of Slavic subhumans. Not to mention the fact that the number of Slavs and other non-humans would have been stylishly reduced so as not to interfere with the living space of people (ie Germans).
And the third paragraph of the order, cut off at the very least, in the original looks like this:
3. To oblige the commanders and commissars of divisions to immediately remove from their posts the commanders of battalions and regiments who hide in crevices during the battle and are afraid to direct the course of the battle on the battlefield, reduce them from their positions as impostors, transfer them to the rank and file, and, if necessary, shoot them on the spot, putting forward in their place the brave and courageous people from the junior command staff or from the ranks of distinguished Red Army soldiers.
I think there is nothing to comment on here, if out of a paragraph of almost 60 words, only 8 words are left (!), then to say that this edition of the text at least somehow corresponds to the original in meaning and content is simply ridiculous. However, the reader is not always lazy and will read the text of this or that original document in the original, and similar methods of grandfather Goebbels can work.
Conclusion
So, to sum up: the liberals' assertion that fascist Germany treated Soviet prisoners of war inhumanely only because the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention is true only if the following statements are true:
1) Hitler always, and especially during the Second World War, faithfully observed all international legal norms, fearing apparently international sanctions (for example, the cancellation of the Olympics);
2) The country that signed the convention has the right not to comply with it under a far-fetched pretext (not specified in the convention itself);
3) Nazi Germany did not distinguish between the nations of the world, there was no racial theory, Slavs and Aryans were blood brothers according to Hitler's ideas, all races on Earth were equally loved by the Fuhrer.
I hope there is no need to separately prove that at least one of these statements is false? In principle, in the article I wrote in detail about the first point, and the rest are considered a little less. However, it seems to me that any sane person, at least a glimpse of history, will agree with me that all these statements are absurd and, in principle, do not need proof. However, this does not concern liberals - any, even absurd statement of their teacher Joseph Goebbels is sacred for them and is not subject to discussion. They just believe in it. They have this faith: the USSR is an evil empire, while England and the USA are empires of good. Therefore, even a fiend named Adolf Hitler, in their evidence of the worldwide eternal guilt of the USSR, sometimes turns out to be a holy man, who strictly observes all international legal agreements, equally loves all the nations of the world (well, except for the Jews, of course) and stands for world peace!
The Great Patriotic War was not conventional war, for disputed lands, any enmity - it was a war of annihilation. Some system of values, Soviet or Nazi, had to win.
Moreover, the Nazis solve the "Russian question" comprehensively, that is, in general, eliminate the Russian people, and other peoples of the Slavic race. On March 30, 1941, Hitler, at a meeting of the leaders of the armed forces, said: “We are talking about the struggle for destruction. If we do not look like this, then, although we will defeat the enemy, in 30 years the communist danger will again arise ... This war will be very different from the war in the West. In the East, cruelty itself is a boon for the future.”
The ideologists of the Third Reich considered this war to be part of the long-standing struggle of the Germans against the Slavs, a continuation of the "onslaught on the East", the "crusade" of the West against the East. According to the order of the commander of the 4th Panzer Group dated May 2, 1941, E. Goepner: "... it must be carried out with unheard of cruelty."
Therefore, the Nazis destroyed 57% of the captured Red Army soldiers. Of the French captured in 1940 (1547 thousand), 2.6% died in captivity. In our captivity, 12.4% of prisoners of war from the German armed forces died (3576.3 thousand people were captured), from prisoners of war of the allied countries of Berlin - 17.2% (captured 800 thousand), from Japanese prisoners of war 9.7% (captured 640 ,1000).
It should also be borne in mind that the Germans considered all party members, civil servants, men who retreated with retreating units, who were not military personnel, to be prisoners of war. So, for example: in 1941, the command of the Wehrmacht reported that they had captured, east of Kyiv, 665 thousand Red Army soldiers. But, the entire number of units of the South-Western Front was (at the beginning of the Kyiv defensive operation) - 627 thousand people. Of these, more than 150 thousand remained outside the encirclement, 10 thousand broke through from the encirclement, and tens of thousands more fell in fierce battles.
During the capture of settlements, the Germans often arrested all men from 15 to 65 years old, they were considered prisoners of war.
Some authors thought of accusing Stalin and the leadership of the USSR of the deliberate destruction of Soviet prisoners of war. He de declared that: “We have no prisoners of war, there are traitors” and outlawed millions of Soviet prisoners of war, also refused the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, the contribution of money to the Red Cross and this doomed Soviet citizens to mass destruction. This is the logic of some people.
But, according to the Geneva Convention: the cost of maintaining prisoners is borne by the state that captured them; a state that has acceded to the convention undertakes to comply with it even if its opponent has not signed it. And, the Third Reich signed the convention.
Were Soviet prisoners of war from German concentration camps immediately sent to the Stalinist Gulag?
Back in the days of the USSR, a “black myth” was launched that Soviet prisoners of war who managed to escape from German captivity, or after being released from German concentration camps, were sent to Stalin’s camps (or penal battalions) without exception. This plot often flashes in films "about the war."
Publicists and screenwriters probably don’t know that the prisoners went through the most severe pressure, someone went over to the side of the enemy, became an enemy agent, etc. The task of special units, such as SmerSha, was to identify them. Thousands of people were recruited by the Reich services: some were thrown to collect information, other groups were created to fight the partisans. Introduced and agents to the partisans.
Therefore, the creation at the end of 1941 (order of the People's Commissar of Defense No. 0521) of filtration camps to check those who were captured was a state necessity. The country's leadership proceeded from the principles of national security, and not from an irrational desire to "destroy" more Soviet citizens.
Three groups of people were tested in these camps: prisoners of war and encircled; policemen, elders and persons suspected of treasonous activity; civilians of military age who lived in the territory occupied by the enemy. As of March 1, 1944, 321,000 former soldiers of the Red Army were tested and were still in the camps: 74.1% of them continued to serve in the Red Army, 1.8% went as workers to enterprises, 1.4% joined the ranks of the NKVD troops , half a percent was sent for treatment, 0.6% died (which is not surprising, given the conditions of Nazi captivity), 2.6% were sent to penal units and only 3.6% were arrested, 18.1% have not yet been tested. It is not clear where the Liberoids found millions of victims of repression during the war years.
This relationship continued for the remainder of the war. According to archival documents, more than 95% of the privates and sergeants of former prisoners of war successfully passed the check. The officers had more than 60%, about 36% were sent to the penalty box, but this is also understandable, they are officers, the demand is higher from them. In addition, you need to know that penal units, unlike the delusional inventions of liberals, are not necessarily death, many after them were restored in rank, went through the entire war, and rose. For example: the 1st and 2nd assault battalions, formed at the end of August 1943, after two months, having shown themselves from the best side, were disbanded, all the soldiers were restored to their rights.
Does not stand the test of facts and the assertion that treated in the filtration camps with former prisoners, as with Nazi prisoners, and even worse. So, according to data for July-December 1944, in the filtration camps, the mortality rate was from 0% (Feodosia camp, average number of 735 people), 0.32% (Kharkov camp, average number of 4493 people), to 1.89% (Bereznikovsky camp, average number - 10745 people). For example, the death rate of foamy Germans in 1945 ranged from 4.2% in January 1945 to 0.62% in December 1945. Mortality in the Gulag camps in 1944 was 8.84%: on January 1, 1944, there were 663,594 people in the Gulag (there are no millions, tens of millions are not in sight), on December 31, 1944 - 715,506, died during the year - 60,948. In the prison system in 1944, the mortality rate was 3.77%; in 1944, 218,993 people were in prison.
Repatriation
After the end of the war, the mass release of prisoners of war began, people driven away for forced labor. According to the directive of the Headquarters of May 11, 1945, 100 camps were organized for their reception, 46 collection points were in operation to receive citizens liberated by the Red Army. On May 22, at the suggestion of L.P. Beria, a resolution of the State Defense Committee was issued, which established a 10-day period for registration and verification of repatriates. Civilians, after verification, were sent to their place of residence, the military to spare parts. But, due to the massive influx of rescued, the 10-day period was not realistic and therefore it was increased to 1-2 months.
As for those released and tested during the war years, the percentage is approximately the same - from 88% to 98% successfully pass the test (depending on the camp and the contingent). Particularly striking are the numbers of inspections of servants of the Nazi regime (headmen, policemen, Vlasovites, legionnaires who served in the German and other enemy armies, in punitive, administrative bodies. According to the logic of the liberals, they should have been completely destroyed without trial or investigation. But, 12 of them were arrested -14% of the total number And this is the "soulless punitive machine of Stalin's bloody regime"!
By March 1, 1946, 4,199,488 citizens of the Union (2,660,013 civilians and 1,539,475 military) were repatriated. Of these, on March 1, 1946, the NKVD was transferred: from civilians 1.76% (46740), from the military 14.69% (226127). The rest were sent home, drafted into the army, assigned to work battalions. Most of those arrested are Vlasov, policemen, punishers and other accomplices of the Nazis.
According to the Criminal Code, they all deserved to be punished under the article “treason against the motherland” - the highest measure of social protection with confiscation of property. But in connection with the triumph of the Victory, which the authorities of the “bloody regime” did not want to overshadow, they were released from responsibility for treason and replaced it with exile for 6 years in a special settlement. Many of them received their freedom under Stalin, in 1952. Moreover, their documents did not include a criminal record, and 6 years went to work experience. They lived in their barracks, go freely outside the camp, without an escort. In total, in 1946-1947, 148,079 "Vlasovites" entered the special settlement. 93 thousand received freedom in 1951-1952. The most notorious accomplices of the Nazis, who stained themselves with specific crimes, were sent to the Gulag system (Main Directorate of Camps).
Enlisted in the work battalions, they were not repressed - these are analogues of the construction battalions, they also served there. The country had to be restored.
Let's summarize: less than 10% of the prisoners of war released during the war years were repressed, and less than 15% of those who received freedom after the end of the Great Patriotic War. Moreover, the vast majority of them deserved their fate, becoming accomplices of the Nazis. Innocent victims are the exception to the rule. Even in the modern penitentiary system, according to some sources, one in ten suffered for nothing, or has minor guilt that is not commensurate with the punishment.
About the "feat" of Major Pugachev
One of the characteristic examples of lies that are constantly brought down on the minds and hearts of Russian citizens is the film " Last Stand Major Pugachev. It outlines, which causes genuine anger, towards the totalitarian regime of Stalin - an escape from the camp in Kolyma and the heroic death of 12 former officers. Who were "innocently" condemned.
But in order to get to Kolyma, one had to actually do something bloody. The fact took place: 12 prisoners, having killed the guard, fled. Several more people were killed during the chase.
Of these 12 "heroes" there were 7 Vlasovites who escaped the death penalty only because it was abolished in the USSR after the war, the 2nd former policemen who voluntarily came to the service of the Nazis - the death penalty, for their deeds, escaped for the same reason , as the Vlasovites. The 10th former naval officer, he had two convictions before the war, one for the murder of a policeman, two more from the camp administration. Interestingly, out of 450 people who could “rush” after them, no one fled. During the chase, 9 bandits were killed, the 3rd were returned to the camp and, after serving time, were released.
Soviet justice of that time is simply amazing in its humanity and gentleness.
Sources:
Prisoners of war in the USSR. 1939-1956. Documents and materials. M., 2000.
Halder F. Military diary. M., 1969.
Eve and the beginning of the war: Documents and materials. Comp. L. A. Kirshner. L., 1991.
Mezhenko A.V. Prisoners of war returned to service ... / Military History Journal. 1997. No. 5.
The criminal goals of Nazi Germany in the war against the Soviet Union. Documents and materials. Ed. P. Zhilina. M., 1987.
Pykhalov I. The Great Slandered War. M., 2006.
Russia USSR in the wars of the XX century: Statistical study. M., 2001.
