Treatment of PoW's

Treatment of PoW's (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918

Message

SMK-at-work -> Treatment of PoW's (2/4/2008 5:18:40 AM)
I found this article about the German PoW labour system - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-165193239.html It's not very pleasant reading - I hadn't given much thought to WW1 PoW's - I'd seen the famous photo of an Indian soldier after the siege of Kut el Amara, but not much else.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/4/2008 5:39:35 AM)
another account written by an American in Germany at het time - of general treatment of PoW's in camps, rather than those in labour units as in hte first link - http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/memoir/Gerard/4yrs3.htm This is also an interesting account of the status of American civilians in Germany ust prior to and after the US declaration of war, and gives some insight into the different nature of the world those days - many Americans had not travelled with passports - but could not leave Germany without them, and American Express was the major source of funds for US citizens due to a deal they did with a German bank to honour letters of credit....fascinating stuff

wargamer123 -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/4/2008 5:58:38 AM)
I think you have hit an age old vile quailty of humanity here. War has attempted in the last few centuries to become more civilized, however we all know that in war the rules often erode into subhuman acts. I can imagine the hatred toward the Russians and the Slavic people actually being in large part due to the feeling of blame there. Also in way how we view Mexicans in the Continental USA could be the equivelant to how they viewed Russian and Slavic Races in Germany. Not that it's changed, in fact it's probably the same today as then in many minds. As for ill treatment of POWs that is Universal, the Japanese for instance in WW2 believed that surrendering Americans were lacking in Courage and that they deserved the ill treatment they recieved because any real honorable soldier would've shot themselves rather than be captured. Misconceptions about culture there. I have never heard of the documented Treatment of POWs in WW1 till now though I find it most intrigueing that it is very reflective WW2 and it seems, though I may be wrong that the preferential for Western Powers carried over in WW2. None of this is new, I watched a History Channel Review on a US Civil War POW Camp, atrocious the way they were kept... on both sides, starvation, cruelty, men horded in like Livestock. Downright medieval. I think when a nation is in such a brutal war it brings out the brutality of the human spirit, the inner devil so to speak. The worse the war the worse the atrocities. The more you bend a man's will the worse I am watching a movie right now, "A very long engagement" the opener shows 5 men who by one means or another self mutilate their right hand to prevent from be in the field, all face court marshall and all are sent over the top to die even though one is completely insane..... This is a movie in French

SMK-at-work -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/4/2008 11:30:51 AM)
We're basically nasty creatures - just wild aniimals with a veneer or "civilisation".......

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/6/2008 10:26:17 PM)
Reprehensible yes, but still a handbag fight compared to the level of atrocities in WW2.

miral -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/16/2008 12:15:31 AM)
Sorry Wargamer123, I've read some of your other posts and find you to be knowledgeable about military history and surely better with computer wargames than I am but I have to call you on comparing CURRENT US perceptions of Mexicans with those held by Germans for Slavs in WWI and WWII. If we looked at Mexicans that way we would shoot them all at the border rather than just deporting them, knowing that they will return soon. Also, in American election materials and ballots are printed in English and Spanish and if you call almost any government office at any level you are given Spanish language options. Latinas are now the largest minority in the US and probably in 50 years or so we won't have white people and Latinos, we'll all be brown. American has done very bad things but, unlike most of the nations of the world, we usually eventually own up to them and try to make up for them. Interesting thread. I admit that I, too, never thought much about POW treatment in WWI. Probably because the Axis record was so horrible in WWII. The truly interesting one, though, was the example of the American Civil War that someone mentioned. Here was a war fought without almost any of the atrocities we think of as 'normal' in the 20th century (not things like Quantrel, I mean atrocities condoned or organized by the High Commands or governments of the warring nations themselves). For instance, I can't think of an instance of women and children being deliberately murdered, and POWs certainly were not killed after they surrendered. Not directly. So why were the prisons on both sides allowed to become kinds of slow killing fields? This is a harder question to answer than why the Nazis did what they did; after all, the Nazis said out loud that their Slav enemies were subhuman and were to be exterminated but neither the Union nor the Confederacy believed any such nonsense. The Japanese actions were hypocritical, even in their own culture's terms. If Allied POWs were to be abused and killed because they had surrendered then why, in Japan's own terms, would the Allies not have been justified in abusing and killing the millions of Japanese POWs at the end of the war? And I think that honorable treatment of one's captured enemies was the traditional samurai ethic; what happened in WWII was an aberation worked by the Warlords of Tokyo.

wargamer123 -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/16/2008 3:24:16 AM)
Miral, It's good to think for yourself. I am more of a wargamer than a historian, but I know a couple of things more than average. I really think that you have to be there to know. I know that the old hatreds churned in the fires of Europe, the Balkans are still flames today. Those hatreds have never died and there are all sorts of desires to rewrite borders there, perhaps no right side. This is NOT CNN, their right and the real right bares a fine line between one another. The Fires in Germany are more flamed out due to the overall end. The people decide for an end, and the economy is good then old hatreds go. Plus that much suffering and death, washes out I think much of those feelings. I think that 1 way or the other way people wash out their feelings........ In the Civil War same story, the South was beaten out of it's Beliefs. Though it is rising now, slowly but inevitably again. Germany is rising again. To escape repression and old hatreds I think both suffering and success must be embraced, in multitudes... The Balkans are still poor as is much of the MidEast where hatred still burns bright as it did centuries ago Like men Frozen in time in an icecap the Global Warming melts away the old Powers and the little regimes rise up like fleas in WW1 and the Civil War there many atrocities relative to the times. Relative to the People involved. Remember in WW1 Genocide found a home in Turkey. One can argue Genocide was performed on the Southern Aristocracy as well, although the same level of Murder is not seen with people of the same nationality... Ultimately the hate in WW2 is a culmination of the hate that never died, scape goats and evil Dictators Rule Dominion, and not like they weren't always there, Ivan the Terrible, Bloody Mary(maybe not so bloody) all are relative for the times and places..... I like to rant on and I enjoy to imagine the times and places, plus the people involved, exact history is not an exact science as it is regularly rewritten I notice with each advancement in the understanding of Human Nature and the evolution of the topic of History itself with everything Science and Intellect has to offer :) Good to see a thinker write on here

SMK-at-work -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/17/2008 7:19:30 AM)
Treatment of prisoners was always problematic - in hte 7 years war I believe large scale swaps were organised - which were very advantageous for hte Prussians with their limited manpower - but the opposition eventually stopped doing that. Prussia was fairly notorious for recruiting from prisoners - eg the whole Saxon army was taken into the Prussian army en masse and numered along with the Prussian regiments! Large numbers of prisoners were also press-ganged into "normal" Prussian regiments. Vast numbers deserted of course!! In Napoleonic times I dont' know what happened except that the british keeping prisoners in the various hulks we hear about meant the French had to keep British prisoners - I have no idea what happened to those of other nations, but there were "Foreign Legions" in some armies recruited from prisoners - eg the French had Spanish and Portuguese legions, the Russians had a Russo-German Legion recruited from Prussians captured in 1812. 150-200 years before, however, captured troops were often simply told they had a new employer & seem to have performed quite happily. Just keeping and feeding prisoners was probably considerably more humane than much treatmenth that had been meeted out in earlier times!!

wargamer123 -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/18/2008 8:12:03 PM)
SMK: In older Europe seems Booty often was a bigger incentive for the common soldier. I know Napoleon's Soldiers were well compensated and thus some of the best fighting men in Europe. As far as POWs joining the other side, that was much more common in older times. I wonder if it was somewhat due to the nature of Pre 20th century warfare. Or even Pre 19th century... The borders changed so often in Europe, and there were sooooo many States. One takes the Civil War, or Revolutionary War in to consideration I do not think there was as much of that. Certain types of wars. More those wars for profit and immediate territorial gain with no vengeful or otherwise nasty "cause" open the room up for POWs to serve in the liberating army In WW2 one could say the Ukrainians who served the Germans in the Waffen were a bit like this... Though Russians and the Ukrainians were not the closest two races.

miral -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/19/2008 1:32:25 AM)
As a southerner (and a distant relative of DS Freeman, Lee's principal biographer), partly raised by a confederate grandmother who still hated Yankees in the 1950's, I know all the arguments about Northern atrocities. But there are different levels of such things. For instance, Sherman's 'atrocities" were almost entirely the destruction of property. He never rounded up thousands of men, women, and children and slaughtered them because he thought they were racially inferior. The Nazis did this as policy in Russia. And it is possible to fight relatively 'clean' wars. The Wars of the Roses in England, for example, rarely touched the civilians at all and much of the wars in Europe in the 1700's, were fought without widespread looting and killing of the civilian population. The South was beaten out of its Beliefs and thank goodness for it, for those Beliefs included the 'right' to enslave other human beings. Im not sure you can call southern aristocrats killed in battle victims of genocide. I am aware, too, that there is a revisionist movement on among southerers today to claim victimhood for the south at the hands of the evil Lincoln; such arguments will never end. But isnt it interesting that this goes hand in hand with the South being one of, if not the, most patriotic parts of the United States of America. The South today, just like in the Civil War, is conflicted. Yes, there are terrible things done in all wars but if you could have brought Lee, Jefferson, Grant and Lincoln to Russia in, say 1943, they would not have believed they were on earth and among human beings. Indeed, they would probably think they had been transported to a hell somewhere beyond pity.

wargamer123 -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/19/2008 2:05:03 AM)
Miral, Good point.. The older wars still held some chivalry. Though looking back further I seem to remeber the Huns, Timurids?? or even later, USA's westward expansion... on and on and on and on. Many of these may have comparisons with the Nazi sort of expansionist Ideology. I think Chemicals, SMGs, LMGs, Tanks, etc... Just made what was already being done all along a whole lot easier. Even Hate was brought to us on a new level, Books-newspaper, Posters, Pamplets dropped from airplanes, even the invention of Propaganda and radio... "Jewish Vampires in the Transylvania Mountains are eating good Hungarians!" LOL The South was Brother to the North. Whatever the North might claim I do not think that the Slaves were freed for another century. When I travel around the ole South I can feel the bitterness. Though they've mostly forgotton, and the Ole Rebel Flag is a icon of Nascar more than it is an Icon of Independance. The South is nolonger seperate, but Patriotic and Religious and old fashion, more so, yes... And I lived there near 20 years and was born in the deep South so I do know what you're talking about when you mean a feeling of disdain toward the Yankee...

miral -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/19/2008 2:33:52 AM)
Wargamer123, you are absolutely right in that the CW did not end a form of slavery in the South. There was a deal of legal equality for about 20 years, while the radical Republicans were in control but then the Republican Party cut a cynical deal with the Democrats and Jim Crow bigotry was instated across the south AS LAW. Young people today are stunned when I tell them that I can remember in a small town in western North Carolina in the 1950's when black people had to step down off the sidewalk into the street if white people were coming towards them. If they did not they were looking for a beating and they would be arrested for 'disturbing the peace'. And there were worse things, lynchings worst of all. But all this came out of the slave society of the antebellum south and its teachings that blacks are inferior. Grant did not think so, he said that without the black soldiers in the Union army the South would never have been beaten. When Lee surrendered there were about 190,000 black men in the Union armies, more than all the Confederate troops still under arms. Actually, in the 20th century, Western Civilization, or large parts of it, relapsed into a kind of barbarism that had not been practiced for a long time. But there are degrees. When people speak of the US in Iraq today engaged in genocide - how ridiculous. Used in such a way words no longer have any meaning. The US has never practiced genocide, though it has done many reprehensible things. Also, we should distinguish between those Southerners who still cannot forget or forgive the CW and a whole lot of them who dont care. And one of the reasons the South lost the CW was its people were not united, many were lukewarm and many outright unionists. The mountains of NC, where I am from, were a hotbed of unionist loyalists and just across the state line in eastern Tennessee the Unionists there fought a guerrilla war of great ferocity against the Confederacy. Now there was a place where atrocities were committed. But the regular armies of both sides, almost universally, did not do such things.

miral -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/19/2008 2:40:54 AM)
Sorry I got off thread. Thanks to the OP for pointing out a little studied area of history. Some historians have opined that the harshness of much German activity in 1870-1945 lay in origin as far back as the 30 Years War, when Germany was the battlefield and Germans the main victims of atrocities. Perhaps, but it is interesting that the Germans had a reputation for being one of the most civilized of peoples Until they were united into one large powerful nation. I had not been aware that POW in WWI were treated badly, even though I've read a deal of WWI history. Why do the histories tend to overlook this. Most interesting.

wargamer123 -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/19/2008 2:45:42 AM)
Miral, Interesting... Eastern NC seemed very Pro-Confederate. Seems the Mountains do not have as much agriculture, perhaps the places where cheap labor was needed is where a majority of slavery thrived. Freedom should've been slowly implemented, lessening the shock and cultural prejudices, perhaps making the transition more like the North and Europe. I belief deeply the South had a very minimal chance at victory. It would've taken a Miracle beyond anything. Small Manpower, Small Industry. nearly a 3rd of the CSA was Black... Would've done them well to emancipate and use those soldiers as the North had, Unlikely... Rich Aristrocacy is beautiful from the South but paid the price of inflexability. the Poorer Southernerns should've never been for a seperation, 6 million vs 23 million.......that's all I can remember, bad figures, unless Lee drove right through PA and DC

Akmatov -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/21/2008 10:08:43 PM)
Just a quick thought about Southern treatment of prisoners. Being a prisoner of a society where the soldiers and civilians are on a starvation diet is not a good thing. Nor is being guarded by the dregs of the society that aren't even wanted in the fighting army. NOT to say that things shouldn't have been better! However, I seem to remember reading that the treatment of prisoners by the North, which had the resources to easily have done better, was by direct order of President Lincoln. Being a POW has rarely been a good thing.

Disintegration -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/23/2008 3:58:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Akmatov Just a quick thought about Southern treatment of prisoners.� Being a prisoner of a society where the soldiers and civilians are on a starvation diet is not a good thing.� Nor is being guarded by the dregs of the society that aren't even wanted in the fighting army.� NOT to say that things shouldn't have been better! However, I seem to remember reading that the treatment of prisoners by the North, which had the resources to easily have done better, was by direct order of President Lincoln. Being a POW has rarely been a good thing. A lot of the problem was that no one was prepared for the scale or duration of the war or the number of prisoners they'd have to keep. The economic breakdown and above all the breakdown of the railroads in the South didn't help either. They had been exchanging prisoners in order to avoid such problems until Grant was put in charge of all the Union armies and he decided that exchanging prisoners 1 for 1 when the Union had 5 or 6 times as many men of military age made no sense from a strategic POV. That's when some of the worst situations, most famously Andersonville, really started to get out of hand. The Northern policy was a response to what they saw as deliberate mistreatment of Union prisoners. But they weren't trying to kill anyone, just make them miserable. Two of my great-great-grandfathers had the misfortune to be guests of the federal government during the "War of Northern Aggression". One was part of a group later known as "the Immortal Six Hundred," in part because so few of them were willing to take a loyalty oath and be paroled while the war was still on. Their story is told here, among other places on the web: http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter24/in010204northcruel.html But it is interesting to note that even though they were held up as examples of mistreatment by Union authorities, 90% of them survived, which is not much worse than they would have expected living in normal army camps of the day, and much better odds than if they had been fighting. According to family lore, after returning home my great-great-grandfather never ate a single pickle for the rest of his life!

SMK-at-work -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/23/2008 10:52:50 AM)
Fascinating read - thanks

hjaco -> RE: Treatment of PoW's (2/25/2008 6:42:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work In Napoleonic times I dont' know what happened except that the british keeping prisoners in the various hulks we hear about meant the French had to keep British prisoners - I have no idea what happened to those of other nations, but there were "Foreign Legions" in some armies recruited from prisoners - eg the French had Spanish and Portuguese legions, the Russians had a Russo-German Legion recruited from Prussians captured in 1812. For the common soldier there was usually no escape from the prisons but officers was regularly exchanged on an even "importance" basis which was based just as much of ones social importance as military rank and capability. You have to remember that Napoleon stayed in power for a long time without being consistently at war with any power. When peace was resolved prisoners was exchanged. Even exchanges was made with the British at the peace of Amiens in late 1801. When the later coalition wars started and especially with the Russian campaign in 1812 that sort of exchange was stalled almost to a standstill as the coalition realized they could replace manpower faster than the French could provided they could keep their coalition together and avoid surrender of single nations which became a goal in itself. After the loss of the Grand Arm� in Russia (some 650.000 men including lackeys) Napoleon managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel one last time just as Hitler did in Autumn 44' after the forward fightings in the bocage in Normandy and rather fast accumulated some 400.000 troops in central Germany (plus some 250.000 highly unreliable German lackeys). But this army was lost rather fast by usual attrition and deliberate small scale combat with Napoleons Marshalls (not the man himself) culminating with the Battle of the Nations at Leipzig and was rather hard to replenish and quality dropped fast.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125