Discussion:
German POW's in the west from May 1945
(too old to reply)
Chris Allen
2015-07-15 14:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Starting in May 1945, the western allies found themselves responsible
for over a million German POW's. They were encamped in open fields with
little food or shelter. Their conditions were better than the Nazi
concentration camps, never the less a lot of them died during the first
months of peace.

I first learned of this watching a video tape in the 1980's. The
program claimed:
1) The Allies did not expect so many prisoners & had no plans for them.
2) Supplies for everything was so short ....
3) The world had just learned of the Nazi prison camps. Consequently
there was little sympathy for these prisoners.

Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.

Was Eisenhower a real villain in this unhappy episode?
Did prisoners in other sectors suffer as much?
Michele
2015-07-15 16:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Allen
Starting in May 1945, the western allies found themselves responsible
for over a million German POW's. They were encamped in open fields with
little food or shelter. Their conditions were better than the Nazi
concentration camps,
Yes, as in, they were not directly sent to gas chambers or to shallow
graves to be shot over them, nor were they worked to death.

There's plenty of old threads about this old red herring. I'm sure you
can look them up.

never the less a lot of them died during the first
Post by Chris Allen
months of peace.
I first learned of this watching a video tape in the 1980's.
Wow. Assuming a time in the mid of that decade, that would be 30 years
ago. But you still have pretty detailed recollections. My compliments
for your memory.

The
Post by Chris Allen
1) The Allies did not expect so many prisoners & had no plans for them.
False.
Post by Chris Allen
2) Supplies for everything was so short ....
True.
Post by Chris Allen
3) The world had just learned of the Nazi prison camps. Consequently
there was little sympathy for these prisoners.
True, but "little sympathy" does not amount to "deliberate murder".
Post by Chris Allen
Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.
And where did you hear those claims?
Post by Chris Allen
Was Eisenhower a real villain in this unhappy episode?
No.
Post by Chris Allen
Did prisoners in other sectors suffer as much?
Considering that one of the sectors was the Soviet one, what would your
hypothesis be?

The overall death rate of German POWs in British or US captivity
throughout the war was under 0.2%. In French captivity, it was around
2%. In Soviet captivity, it was around 31%.
In turn, British and US POWs in German captivity had a death rate of 4%,
20 times the German death rate when German POWs were held by those
countries. Soviet POWs in German captivity had a 57% death rate.
The Horny Goat
2015-07-17 14:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele
Post by Chris Allen
I first learned of this watching a video tape in the 1980's.
Wow. Assuming a time in the mid of that decade, that would be 30 years
ago. But you still have pretty detailed recollections. My compliments
for your memory.
In fairness, I read 200-300 pages of the Nuremberg Trial transcripts
(mostly dealing with the cross-examination of Herman Goering and
thinking 'this isn't the guy who told Hitler he could supply
Stalingrad by air - he's smarter than that) during my undergraduate
days. That was the mid-1970s and my main memory (which I'm pretty sure
holds true) was 'that American prosecutor was making darned sure he
had ever i dotted and every t crossed! There are going to be no
technicalities here!'
Post by Michele
The
Post by Chris Allen
1) The Allies did not expect so many prisoners & had no plans for them.
False.
Post by Chris Allen
2) Supplies for everything was so short ....
True.
Post by Chris Allen
3) The world had just learned of the Nazi prison camps. Consequently
there was little sympathy for these prisoners.
True, but "little sympathy" does not amount to "deliberate murder".
Sounds like he's making the "Other Losses" argument of James Bacque.
Thought it was bullsh** then and still do. If there was a deliberate
intention to kill POWs why were both the USA and Canada so keen to
import German and Italian immigrants (plus about 100-200,000 Poles) in
the 1945-48 period? Given the impact of many of these people in the
construction and steel making industries around Toronto in that era,
Toronto today would be a very different place had they been murdered
instead of welcomed as immigrants!
Post by Michele
Post by Chris Allen
Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.
Harsh treatment is not a war crime. There is a line between them which
Bacque argued was crossed. I think he's wrong.
Post by Michele
Considering that one of the sectors was the Soviet one, what would your
hypothesis be?
The overall death rate of German POWs in British or US captivity
throughout the war was under 0.2%. In French captivity, it was around
2%. In Soviet captivity, it was around 31%.
In turn, British and US POWs in German captivity had a death rate of 4%,
20 times the German death rate when German POWs were held by those
countries. Soviet POWs in German captivity had a 57% death rate.
I don't think there's any doubt the death rate among German POWs in
Soviet hands was far higher than those in US/UK hands.

Not even Giwer would attempt to deny it.
Malcom Mal Reynolds
2015-07-17 20:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Michele
True, but "little sympathy" does not amount to "deliberate murder".
Sounds like he's making the "Other Losses" argument of James Bacque.
Thought it was bullsh** then and still do. If there was a deliberate
intention to kill POWs why were both the USA and Canada so keen to
import German and Italian immigrants (plus about 100-200,000 Poles) in
the 1945-48 period? Given the impact of many of these people in the
construction and steel making industries around Toronto in that era,
Toronto today would be a very different place had they been murdered
instead of welcomed as immigrants!
whenever this comes up in alt.revisionism I always ask just one
question: where are the bodies? it would challenge reality to believe
that you could hide 1 million bodies in western europe
The Horny Goat
2015-07-18 16:30:14 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 16:11:10 -0400, Malcom Mal Reynolds
Post by Malcom Mal Reynolds
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Michele
True, but "little sympathy" does not amount to "deliberate murder".
Sounds like he's making the "Other Losses" argument of James Bacque.
Thought it was bullsh** then and still do. If there was a deliberate
intention to kill POWs why were both the USA and Canada so keen to
import German and Italian immigrants (plus about 100-200,000 Poles) in
the 1945-48 period? Given the impact of many of these people in the
construction and steel making industries around Toronto in that era,
Toronto today would be a very different place had they been murdered
instead of welcomed as immigrants!
whenever this comes up in alt.revisionism I always ask just one
question: where are the bodies? it would challenge reality to believe
that you could hide 1 million bodies in western europe
Of course - since if you assume the average human being is 5.25 '
tall, stringing 1m corpses end to end would create a 1000 mile long
row of bodies which in my opinion would be rather hard to miss.

What I >DO< believe is that there were several hundred thousand old
men and 12-14 year old boys conscripted into the Volkssturm in March /
April 1945 with minimal training. For many of these their entire
military career involved raising their hands when the first Ami or
Brit arrived. Most of these were quickly recognized as not really
being soldiers and were disarmed and sent home. There seems to have
been little documentation of these by the Allies since they weren't
really considered soldiers in the first place.

Bacque was alleging something 100x the size of Katyn and that's
ludicrous. An Allied "Dachau" simply could not have been concealed.
Andrew Chaplin
2015-07-18 18:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Bacque was alleging something 100x the size of Katyn and that's
ludicrous. An Allied "Dachau" simply could not have been concealed.
More than that, few of the Western Allies' soldiers would have tolerated
such an endeavour and many would have reported it to authorities in their
legislatures.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Geoffrey Sinclair
2015-07-15 17:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Starting in May 1945, the western allies found themselves responsible for
over a million German POW's.
Start with the number of prisoners.

The western allies ended up with around 9 million prisoners in 1945, there
were as many again "displaced persons" and many people who had fled
or had been forced west.
They were encamped in open fields with little food or shelter.
Some were.
Their conditions were better than the Nazi concentration camps,
You could also say as good as conditions for allied troops who
were prisoners of the Germans, as they were on forced marches.
never the less a lot of them died during the first months of peace.
There is a fictional work claiming this.

Simply the Germans did a summary
of missing by front and found there were 100,000 men
missing from the western front, in 1970 the German
Red Cross found out of 1,743,000 German MIAs some
41,000 were last reported in Western Germany.

To establish the German PoWs in the east the sources
used were Wehrmacht records, Pravda after 1943 when
it had little reason to exaggerate, and interviews with
150,000 returned men. Estimated 3.1 to 3.5 million
PoWs of which over 1 million died in captivity.

The Soviet figure is 2,400,000 Germans taken prisoner by 8th
May 1945 of which 450,000 died.

So we have a good idea of the deaths.
I first learned of this watching a video tape in the 1980's. The program
1) The Allies did not expect so many prisoners & had no plans for them.
2) Supplies for everything was so short ....
3) The world had just learned of the Nazi prison camps. Consequently
there was little sympathy for these prisoners.
This is a standard history.
Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.
Incorrect. Basically the US ended up with the most prisoners
and had the most problems of the western allies.
Was Eisenhower a real villain in this unhappy episode?
No.
Did prisoners in other sectors suffer as much?
Prisoners, displaced persons, civilians. In the USSR sector it
was worse.

All my readings indicate there was a real food shortage and
major control problems in Germany and Italy in 1945. The
need to keep concentration camp victims in the camps, in
their prisoner garb, the need to replace much of the civilian
officials, people breaking into prisons to kill prisoners, the
need to deal with millions of displaced and homeless people,
the need to ensure enough shelter for winter, the need to
ensure the Nazis were caught.

As far as I am aware in the first few months after the war
lots of people, from displaced persons, civilians (not all
in Germany), ex Nazi prisoners, and German PoWs all
received less than the international agreement levels of
support from the western occupying powers. There was
simply not enough of what the people needed, in Germany's
case thanks to the Nazis running an economy that as the
war went on became more and more dependent on looted
food, foreign labour and then using food stocks for other
things. Then add the reality that since the Nazis had been
looting Europe in Germany's name for years there was
wide spread agreement to put Germany last if there were
shortages.

Allied civil relief supplies to The European Theatre of Operations, long
tons, by
quarter, excluding liquid fuels,

Q2/44 727 (In other words 6 to 30 June 1944)
Q3/44 157,639
Q4/44 588,968
Q1/45 1,359,657
Q2/45 2,336,556
Q3/45 2,211,080

Total 6,654,627 long tons, in addition a further 6,853,313 long tons was
sent to the Mediterranean in the same time period. Overall the mix was
roughly 50:50 food:coal, with England supplying more coal and the US
more food, all up the US supplied 6,788,765 tons, England 6,098,902 tons
and Canada 620,273 tons.

You might check out some of the correspondence between
the various allies in 1945 about who would take how many
prisoners, and the attempts at making it a someone else's
problem as the numbers far exceeded expectations. Since
the US had the majority of the combat troops in theatre guess
who ended up with most of the PoWs? In 1945 the US Army
had around 2/3 of the ground troops under Eisenhower.

Also remember the camps were under the joint SHAEF
HQ at the start. I think the chief medical officer at the
time was Canadian.

It would be interesting to see the accommodation arrangements
for the millions of allied troops in Germany in May 1945.

The death tolls for the US camps appears to have been
56,000, the French officially state around 24,000 deaths
amongst the prisoners they were holding. It is probable
some of these were due to neglect, others to natural
causes, others due to wounds received before capture.
The question is how much of each. I do not have a British
camps death toll.

Apparently 4% of British PoWs taken by Italy and Germany
died of natural causes during captivity. Say 5 years average
captivity, for the British would give 0.8% per year, but
given many British prisoners were captured well after 1940
you could use 1.6% as a probable upper limit. Times
around 5,000,000 PoWs taken by SHAEF gives around
40,000 deaths in the first year as probably the lower
estimate, perhaps as high as 80,000 deaths.

The US Army list of transit camps,

In late March and early April to cope with the number of PoWs being captured
The US army sets up 17 PoW transient camps, largely along the Rhine River,
from north to south,

Rheinburg for 100,000 men
Buederich for 55,000 men
Wickrathburg for 100,000 men
Remagen for 100,000 men
Sinzig for 100,000 men
Andermach for 45,000 men
Urmitz for 75,000 men
Koblenz for 50,000 men
Plaidt for 10,000 men
Zahibach for 10,000 men
Heidesheim for 30,000 men
Hechtsheim for 50,000 men
Dietersheim (or Bingen) for 100,000 men
Winzenheim for 100,000 men
Biebelsheim for 100,000 men
Planig for 25,000 men
Bad Kreuznach for 45,000 men

Many more men would be put in these camps than the nominal 1,095,000 man
capacity. With the combat troops stripping off equipment from captured
Germans
the PoWs arrived at the camps with no mess gear and spare clothing, the fact
many were malnourished before capture, the fact the camps were overcrowded
and lacked shelter all added up to a recipe for disease.

The following is mainly from the US histories and the dates are 1945
unless noted.

In April 1945, the US establishes
depots for PoW supplies at Rheinburg, Sinzig and Bingen under the 56th
Quartermaster Base Depot to supply the 16 PoW camps in the area. This is an
ADESC unit and as a result most supplies have to be procured locally or from
captured stocks. The local bakers were contracted to provide 400,000 pounds
of
bread/day for the 782,000 prisoners present in mid May. The armies followed
their usual procedure and did not initially turn over many captured
supplies. The
official ration scales, in calories, are civilian employees 3,000, Russian
repatriates
3,370, Italian service units 3,100, other liberated manpower 3,185, non
working
PoW 2,250, working PoW 2,900, US type ration 4,114. The civilian and
Italian
units could draw extra rations for "exceptionally hard work".
From the Medical history talking about the advance into Germany, "The true
test
of the system came rather in the care of non combatants of every type, and
it
was here that Army medics found their most poignant experiences, their worst
failures, and some of their finest hours during the memorable spring of
1945."
Medical supplies were given, in order, to Allies, Europeans, Germans. Also,
"Improvisation became the rule in Germany and resulted in the creation of
the
PoW transient enclosures - institutions that did no credit to the humanity
or the
competence of the victor". The camps had poor sanitary conditions and even
water shortages despite the Rhine being nearby. Also about DPs, "mingling
hunger, exultation and vengefulness that made them a danger to their one
time
rulers and a burden to their liberators." Farm workers were the best fed
but DPs
in good condition were rare.

The Rhine is set up as a Typhus barrier, you were dusted with DDT if you
moved
west across the river.

During March 1945 the strain of taking so many PoWs begins to tell, PoW
trains
could travel for days looking for a suitable camp, without adequate water,
sanitation, rest and ventilation. During the month some 124 PoWs suffocate
on
one train, leading to an investigation by the Inspector General and an
apology to
the Germans.

On 10th April the official US attitude to feeding PoWs can be summarised by
the
statement, "Definitely I do not intend to go along on a ration that will
cause
prisoners to starve to death, or throw them into our hospitals. Neither do I
intend
to be a party to a ration which will make the Germans fat".

On 14th April a second rail bridge across the Rhine is opened at Mainz.,
named
after President Roosevelt. Partial Eclipse conditions (German collapse) are
declared, Army medical staff now need to start looking after civilians.

On 20th April the Remagen PoW camp is noted to have had no food on the
previous 2 days.

During April 1st Army takes 389,000, 3rd Army 237,000 and 9th Army 324,000
prisoners. During 1944 the prisoner take had largely been handled without
major
problems but the practice of stripping the prisoners of mess equipment,
spare
clothing, tents and so forth was established, in order to cut down on
transport
requirements. This would create many problems with the mass surrenders in
1945. As with allied PoWs in Germany, the later you were captured the more
you tended to suffer. Some of the UK airborne troops captured at Arnhem
starved to death in captivity.

By the end of April there were 260,000 German PoWs used as labourers on the
continent. The ration for non working PoWs is cut to 2,000 calories due to
the
world food crisis and the number of PoWs. The German Army Group B chief
surgeon is given the job of controlling hospitals for German PoWs. First
army
medical section is running 216 German military hospitals, 4 PoW camps, 22
Displaced Persons centres and 3 Recovered Allied Military Personnel (RAMP)
hospitals, around 90,000 patients. Captured supplies become very important
for
non combatants, but the US lacked enough staff to sort out what had been
captured. Third army finds a large medical supply dump and sends it to the
concentration camp survivors in Bavaria and Austria. The rail East of the
Rhine
was too damaged to support the armies and therefore help with patient
evacuation.

German camps for allied PoWs are described as acceptable to indescribable,
most PoWs need medical help, many had been on forced marches to stay ahead
of allied armies, one experience was 600 miles in 87 days sleeping in fields
and
barns. Rations for allied PoWs had been declining steadily from the third
quarter
of 1944, post Ardennes US PoWs little better off than Russian prisoners.
The
first 12,000 PoWs evacuated to Rouen some 18% needed hospitalisation. Apart
from camps the allies find PoWs on the road, of some 14,000 found on an
airfield
in Austria some 10% would die.

After liberation Dachau had a death toll of 25% for the around 32,000 men
and
300 women in the camp, in early May there were 140 deaths a day, by the end
of May the situation was under control, using the 116th and 127th evacuation
hospitals supported by sanitary, quartermaster, engineer, fumigation and
bath
units. Burial parties were mainly German civilians under duress. At
Buchenwald
the 120th evacuation hospital was the main medical unit.

In April 1945 there was only a 10 day supply of food in the major German
cities,
Dusseldorf and Essen reported starving children, food stocks had been
looted.
However even In the middle of 1945 food stocks in small cities and towns
were
good.

On 3rd May the US War department warned all theatres that food reserves in
the US were becoming depleted, fresh and canned meat, canned fruits and
vegetables, dehydrated potatoes, rice, dried yeast and spice were the
critical
items. Meats were to be replaced by egg products, pasta, beans and stews.
Amongst the suggestions on how to cope the War Department urged a 50%
cut in the Red Cross doughnut and club mobile program.

On 4th May Germans in Holland, Denmark and North West Germany surrender.
The German forces in Holland are kept intact, they are not counted as PoWs
until after they leave the country. Commanders are authorized to treat
surrendered troops as Disarmed Enemy Forces, rather than Prisoners of War.

On 5th May SHAEF officers arrive in Denmark, there are some 334,000 German
soldiers and civilians and displaced persons in Denmark.

On 8th May 1945 SHAEF
officers arrive in Norway, where there are some 400,000 Germans, 90,000
Soviet PoWs and 30,000 displaced persons.

At the end of the campaign the British are feeding a total of 2,000,000
people
including their soldiers

Post VE day the US releases all PoWs over 50 years of age, the prisoner
numbers are now so high that in some areas, particularly Austria, soldiers
who laid down their arms were not taken into custody unless SS or Nazi
party.

On 12th May the Joint Chiefs of Staff approve Directive JCS 1067/8, defining
US policy for occupied Germany.

After the end of hostilities the US Army cuts rations to all men by 10%
because of the food situation. Over the course of the campaign the army
has issued 115% of the authorised rations, that is 15% more food than
the ration strength. It should be noted food did spoil, the Mediterranean
Theatre of Operations noted as of December 1943 it had a loss factor
of 8% for rations, 2% to theft, 0.5% to enemy action and the rest to
spoilage
or straight loss. It is estimated 60% of the general purpose vehicles are
worth salvaging, 18% could be shipped to the Pacific direct, 21% could be
shipped after overhaul and 21% returned to the US for overhaul.

On 17th May Doenitz government orders all German forces to comply with
the surrender and allied orders, the only action allowed is to register a
protest
if the allied actions are considered incorrect.

As of 20th May the US is holding 2,884,762 PoWs which is around 460,000
more than were receiving US rations.

On 23rd May Doenitz government arrested.

On 24th May the German high command is disbanded and the German
Government dissolved.

On 25th May the German forces in Holland begin to leave the country, this
will
be largely competed by 12 June.

The peak of people being directly supported by the US Army in May
is some 7,629,000 people including 2,835,000 PoWs. However
these official figures are probably underestimates thanks to the
chaotic situations. Over the next few months some 1,600,000 PoWs
will be transferred to Belgian and French custody.

Surveys show the 2,000 calorie diet was sufficient for sedentary PoWs,
however they also show that the 2,000 calorie diet packs are reduced
to 1,750 calories by losses during distribution, breakdown and food
preparation. The diet does not help fix the fact most PoWs are
suffering dietary deficiencies before capture, the German army diet had
been deficient in riboflavin and nicotinic acid, when it was available.
The official PoW ration is raised to 2,250 calories.

In the April/May/June period the British VIII corps found many miniature
Belsens, large numbers of uncontrollable but usually well fed DPs,
a Wehrmacht casualty system of 300 hospitals containing 120,000
wounded and by the end of June had 1,000,000 PoWs in 2 areas. The
British I corps found 750,000 DPs in camps and 20,000 in hospital, plus
210,000 PoWs and another 40,000 in hospital.

On 1st June Hamburg is opened for normal traffic. By now the 106th
Division is in charge of all 17 Rhine transient camps, 15 of which are for
PoWs and 2 for displaced persons.

On 5th June the allied joint authority over Germany begins to function,
the Berlin declaration, removing duties from SHAEF.

On 12th June the British take over the northern PoW transient camps,
containing 200,000 prisoners. The port of Bremerhaven is fully opened.

In the period 1st May to 15th June PoW hospital admission rates are
8 times that of US troops, disease death toll 20.5 times higher, death
rates were 35.6 per 1,000 men per year. Elements of the 9th, 50th,
61st, 62nd, 78th and 83rd field hospitals are being used to look
after PoWs, there are 10,000 beds largely staffed by Germans.
There are plenty of medical staff but not enough supplies, higher HQ
would not give any in April and May. The PoWs are crowded into
areas meant for 1/3 to 1/8 the numbers, the lack of shelter leads to
deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning when attempts to heat areas
go wrong.

In the third quarter of 1945 2nd Armoured division is running 2
RAMP, 10 DP and 53 German military hospitals.

In the first months of occupation some 65% of newborns in
Berlin die of disease, the ration is around 800 calories a day, 150
out of 240 hospitals are in service in July but there is a lack of
supplies. Across Germany VD has surged, rape has become
common, women not needing to be threatened or hurt to gain
compliance, an armed man in the uniform of the occupier
entering the house is enough.

On 4th July US troops occupy the US sector of Berlin and complete
withdrawal into the US zone of occupation.

By mid July all bar 50,000 of the Germans in Denmark at the end
of the war have left the country.

On 15th July the French 10th Division takes over the rest of the PoW
transient camps. The 106th Division recorded 1,817,393 sick cases
and 1,697 deaths, 1,404 in May, 214 in June, 79 in July. USFET
assumes command of all US forces in Europe. (US Forces,
European Theatre).

In August 1945 a survey of PoW
camps indicates extensive malnutrition, conditions varied widely
between camps, non workers 1,250 to 2,040 calories a day, workers
1,450 to 2,882 calories a day. Rations were revised, all PoWs under
21 were given working rations, dietary supplements allowed if needed.

In mid August the US Army is still feeding 732,000 PoWs and
588,000 Disarmed Enemy Forces.

At the end of August the US Army is still feeding around
1,500,000 displaced persons. Also "60% of the Germans lived on
a diet that would inevitably lead to diseases caused by malnutrition."
Normal consumers were receiving 800 to 1,150 calories a day.
It turned out 1945 was a mild enough year to get just enough food,
the official ration was 1,550 calories a day. Then at the end of the
year large numbers of refugees began moving into western Germany.

In March 1946 German food stocks were at 60 days, rations were
cut to 1,180 calories a day and by May and June Army foods were
being used. The final crisis would be in the second quarter of 1947.

Here are the civilian death tolls per thousand people for
east and west Germany, the eastern figures are from the
East German 1955 yearbook.

Year / West / East
1946 / 12.3 / 22.9
1947 / 11.6 / 19.0
1948 / 10.3 / 15.2
1949 / 10.2 / 13.4
1950 / 10.3 / 11.7

Note the elevated counts in 1946 and 1947 in the west, no doubt a
result of the overall conditions in the country, similar to the problems
elsewhere. Note East Germany lagged the west by about 3 years.
I do not doubt the death toll in 1945 would be higher, even after
removing the direct war deaths.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Dave Smith
2015-07-15 23:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Allen
I first learned of this watching a video tape in the 1980's. The
1) The Allies did not expect so many prisoners & had no plans for them.
2) Supplies for everything was so short ....
3) The world had just learned of the Nazi prison camps. Consequently
there was little sympathy for these prisoners.
Throughout history, armies have had to deal with the logistics of
supplying their own troops. It is a major challenge to keep one's own
troops armed, equipped and fed.
Post by Chris Allen
Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.
Was Eisenhower a real villain in this unhappy episode?
Did prisoners in other sectors suffer as much?
According to some sources, in some sectors they did not bother much with
prisoners. We have all heard about the tenacity of the Japanese soldiers
during the island hopping operations in the Pacific. It did not take
too many incidents of false surrenders for American troops to distrust
the Japanese attempts to surrender. They didn't take and chances and did
not take many prisoners.
Malcom Mal Reynolds
2015-07-16 05:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Smith
Post by Chris Allen
I first learned of this watching a video tape in the 1980's. The
1) The Allies did not expect so many prisoners & had no plans for them.
2) Supplies for everything was so short ....
3) The world had just learned of the Nazi prison camps. Consequently
there was little sympathy for these prisoners.
Throughout history, armies have had to deal with the logistics of
supplying their own troops. It is a major challenge to keep one's own
troops armed, equipped and fed.
Post by Chris Allen
Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.
Was Eisenhower a real villain in this unhappy episode?
Did prisoners in other sectors suffer as much?
According to some sources, in some sectors they did not bother much with
prisoners. We have all heard about the tenacity of the Japanese soldiers
during the island hopping operations in the Pacific. It did not take
too many incidents of false surrenders for American troops to distrust
the Japanese attempts to surrender. They didn't take and chances and did
not take many prisoners.
well if some sources are to be believed, there were something like 7000
japanese "survivors" after the Battle for Okinawa, not to mention that
not many japanese actually offered themselves up for surrender
Les
2015-07-16 14:41:32 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 11:40:47 AM UTC-3, Chris Allen wrote:

My apologies for the weird line formatting. I blame Google Groups.
Post by Chris Allen
Starting in May 1945, the western allies found themselves responsible
for over a million German POW's. They were encamped in open fields with
little food or shelter. Their conditions were better than the Nazi
concentration camps, never the less a lot of them died during the first
months of peace.
(stuff deleted)

I vaguely remember a program called "The Valor and the Horror."
The authors seemed to believe the Allies were moral equivalents
of the Axis, and disregarded a lot of truth in their quest to
back up their belief.
Post by Chris Allen
Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.
One book: "Other Losses" by James Bacques (sorry for any
misspelling), claimed this. However, the book's claims did not
stand up to scrutiny. The title, "Other Losses" referred to a
line in Allied records showing a breakdown of POWs/DEPs no longer
in the camps. The author deliberately misrepresented what the
entry meant, as well as inflating the number to assert that the
US made it a policy to "punish" the Germans.
Post by Chris Allen
Was Eisenhower a real villain in this unhappy episode?
(rest of post deleted)

No. Gen Eisenhower was demanding more supplies from Washington as
early as 1944, and the demands only got more frequent as the US
advanced. The Post-War shortages were not an artificial condition
imposed on Germany, but affected the entire continent for years
after the war ended.
Don Phillipson
2015-07-17 14:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Les
I vaguely remember a program called "The Valor and the Horror."
The authors seemed to believe the Allies were moral equivalents
of the Axis, and disregarded a lot of truth in their quest to
back up their belief.
Wikipedia reminds us this CBC TV series narrated (with a Canadian
emphasis) three campaigns:
Japanese capture of Hong Kong 1941
RAF Bomber Command 1941-45
Normandy invasion 1944.
Surviving participants could still be interviewed in 1992 and there
were varous narratives in print, some censorious (cf. books of David
Irving, James Bacque 1989 etc.)

RAF veterans reacted strongly to the second program's suggestion
that they were war criminals (although obeying secret directives
from Downing Street) and bitter arguments followed, involving the
CBC corporate ombudsman, the Canadian Senate and the
Ontario Court of Appeal. Several books followed. The chief
point of dispute was "intentionality:" when document AA leads
to action BB (at least indirectly, after sundry muddles and
improvisations) should we say that AA ordered BB to happen?
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson
2015-07-16 14:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Allen
Since then I have heard claims that prisoners in the US sector suffered
the most, due to Eisenhower's deliberate policy of harsh treatment.
Was Eisenhower a real villain in this unhappy episode?
Did prisoners in other sectors suffer as much?
This topic was opened in 1989 by a book, "Other Losses" by
James Bacque, which condemned Eisenhower as chiefly responsible for
maltreatment of PoWs in 1945. Replies and rebuttals followed.

The four occupying armies had in 1945 no agreed common
policy for (a) disarmament and control of German armed forces,
(b) material survival i.e. feeding and housing the whole German
population, (c) deNazification and prosecution of war criminals
(as promised, 1943), (d) German future politics. Each Allied
occupation force therefore improvised, and thus varied.

Not least, the war was not over (until the Japanese surrender.)
During the first critical months of the occupation, top military
authority was concerned chiefly with combing out those
units that could be rapidly deployed to the war with Japan.

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Loading...