Whold this be a warcrime??

[FriendlyFire]

Ah, well, you see, the Japanese and Germans were not too observant of the Geneva Conventions.....

hehehe Once rommels defeat in Africa, the German POWs outnumbered allied POWs and Germany discovered the geneva conventions.

Of course the War on the Eastern front and pacific front were another matter

 

[CaptainF]

Just googled for this, and though the information seems a bit limited, it does sound awful.

Hard to know what else the crew of the USS Bowfin could practically have done though - there was extensive precedent for attacking non-military shipping by 1944, and it's inconceivable that they could have known that the Tsushima Maru was carrying principally children. I guess I'd say that this was a tragedy, but not a war crime. What do you reckon, Dawg ?

I reckon it is a tragedy. I realize that we might not have known about the fact that it was full of children and what not, but still, the fact is, we sunk that ship, we must atone for it.

Had we explicitly known about the fact that it was full of child refugees and STILL proceeded to sink it, that would be a crime of disgusting proportion.

 

[nonconformist]

Ah, well, you see, the Japanese and Germans were not too observant of the Geneva Conventions.....

Actually, the Germans were fairly adherent to it on the Western Front.
Most of the atrocities were commited by the Waffen SS, in terms of large atrocities, and not what ahppened all the time.
The Japanese and Russians were never signatories to Geneva.

 

[nonconformist]

And I might throw in a bit about the Laconia Incident.

Werner Hartenstein, Commander of a German U-boat in the opening stages of the war, sunk the ship Laconia, which, unaware to him, was carryign civilians. He was left with thousands floudering around.

He picked almost all tof them up, in the U-boats strage, on deck, and towing the lifeboats.
He flew the Red Cross, and got of the coast of Africa.
He radiod a non-encrypted message to allied forces, promising not to attack if they picked the prisoners up.

However , an allied (American, possibly?) aircraft attacked the sub, causing it to jettison the lifeboats, and crash dive.

This actually prompted Karl Doenitz's "Laconia Order" which stipulated no prisoners should be taken from sinking ships, and U-boat menshould not assist drifters, which had been common until then.

 

[Lotus49]

More accurate/detailed description: Wiki

Those silly trigger-happy Americans. You give them some bombs, and they can't help themselves.

"Sink sub!"

 

[oagersnap]

I agree, have people sleeping in the hallways or even on deck if you have to.

But the ship could be getting so heavy that it wouldn't be able to move (or maybe even sink) if you continued to take people on board.

 

[7ronin]

hehehe Once rommels defeat in Africa, the German POWs outnumbered allied POWs and Germany discovered the geneva conventions.

Actually, the Germans with a few exception scrupulously observed the Geneva Conventions when dealing with U.S. and British troops.

Don't forget though, that we tend to view mistreatment of prisoners through the lens of victory. There are numerous documented cases of U.S. troops shooting captured German and Japanese soldiers out of hand. France and Britain used involuntary German P.O.W. labor to diffuse bombs and minefields in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Actually, the Germans with a few exception scrupulously observed the Geneva Conventions when dealing with U.S. and British troops.

True. They were consistently (and almost inhumanly) barbaric with Russian prisoners, though.

 

[7ronin]

True. They were consistently (and almost inhumanly) barbaric with Russian prisoners, though.

And vice versa. And with the civilians. Also as you pointed out earlier, Japan and the U.S.S.R. did not sign the Geneva Conventions of 1929 although Japan, however, gave a qualified promise (1942) to abide by the Geneva rules, and the USSR announced (1941) that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907. So much for promises.

I think though, that in terms of the original question, it does not make any difference whether or not a nation signs or doesn't sign the Geneva Conventions when it comes to war crimes. If you commit atrocities and lose the war, you can expect to pay.

Interesting aside: The United States has yet to ratify Protocols I and II to the 1949 Conventions.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Actually, the Germans with a few exception scrupulously observed the Geneva Conventions when dealing with U.S. and British troops.

Don't forget though, that we tend to view mistreatment of prisoners through the lens of victory. There are numerous documented cases of U.S. troops shooting captured German and Japanese soldiers out of hand. France and Britain used involuntary German P.O.W. labor to diffuse bombs and minefields in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

Ah thats true but Germans would overlook certain provisions
Overall treatment prisoners were mostly humane

Withholding Red coss packages
Shackling
Other "abuse"
Use of prisioners for labour

 

[Lambert Simnel]

@7ronin: agreed. I sometimes wonder if the nature of the war in Western Europe was such that "playing by the rules" was still feasible, while the absolute life and death nature of the conflict on the Eastern front resulted in any rulebooks and conventions being thrown to the wind.

I suspect mine is just an uninformed view influenced by too many WW2 movies, but there does seem to have been something about the way prisoners were treated on the Eastern front compared to that on the Western front. Is it as simple as the Nazis viewing Russians and Slavs as sub-humans, and the Russians retaliating when they had the opportunity ?

Interested in your views.

 

[7ronin]

@7ronin: agreed. I sometimes wonder if the nature of the war in Western Europe was such that "playing by the rules" was still feasible, while the absolute life and death nature of the conflict on the Eastern front resulted in any rulebooks and conventions being thrown to the wind.

I suspect mine is just an uninformed view influenced by too many WW2 movies, but there does seem to have been something about the way prisoners were treated on the Eastern front compared to that on the Western front. Is it as simple as the Nazis viewing Russians and Slavs as sub-humans, and the Russians retaliating when they had the opportunity ?

Interested in your views.

I think, given the basic philosphy of the NDSAP as regards Russia, the Ost Front Krieg could not have been conducted any other way. Add the personality of Josef Stalin to the mix and you do indeed have a war without rules. Of course, at the lowest level ideology means nothing; it is all about the survival of you and your fellow soldiers.

Ah thats true but Germans would overlook certain provisions
Overall treatment prisoners were mostly humane

Withholding Red coss packages
Shackling
Other "abuse"
Use of prisioners for labour

Yes but labor is specifically allowed under the both the Laws of War and the Geneva Conventions. The United States and Britain put thousands of German and Italian POWs to work in the agricultural sector. I would be interested to hear your references for the other items.

If you examine the records of the war crimes trials you will find that very few (if any) Germans connected with operation of the camps holding U.S. or Commonwealth POWs were prosecuted. Gestapo treatment of escapees was another matter entirely.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes but labor is specifically allowed under the both the Laws of War and the Geneva Conventions. The United States and Britain put thousands of German and Italian POWs to work in the agricultural sector. I would be interested to hear your references for the other items.

The geneva convention prevents the use of POW labour for militray industrial labour, such as arms production. The Germans used POWs in there arms industry.

But albert spheer famously said. Even If allied prisoner were used to mkae lemoade they are assisting the war effect. (Concept of total war)

Shackling + Stress position (They didnt have that term back then) was used against repeated escapees and as retaliation for German defeats, Often specific groups were singled out for this "special" treatment.

After the Allied victory the in Africa Germans suddenly no longer enforced this. The prisoners kept there shackles in a nail on the wall. They would be collected at night. As defeat become more likely for the Axis, prisoners were no longer mistreated.

 

[Greek Stud]

Breach of international maritime law.
Breach of the Second Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
Breach of the Third Geneva Convention for the Treatment of Prisoners of War
If there were civilians in the water then it would breach the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

It would also breach the G+T convention on being a passible member of the human race.

Agreeably the best recognition of how to deal with this situation. Even if a nation is not a signatory state to the treaty, which Im not aware of what countries are not, these laws are international standards. Even the Nazi Germany administration feared straying from these laws when Hitler ordered for such POWs and guards to be executed at sea. Hitler was persuaded by his Nazi party to abide by these laws.

The sea and maritime trade and nations involved with it is actually more internationally evolved than the laws on land. Sailors and most captains are very aware that ships have a larger capacity than is normally stated. To carry the passenger load of one other ship might be suffocating but it is feasable.

 

[nonconformist]

Ah thats true but Germans would overlook certain provisions
Overall treatment prisoners were mostly humane

Withholding Red coss packages
Shackling
Other "abuse"
Use of prisioners for labour

This was mostly because of the war which stopped the supply of food and such.