Prisoners (Rejection Note)
Max Kiermaier
Ron Bereznicki rber...@maildrop.srv.ualberta.ca wrote:
Eisenhower was so pissed off at the German Pows...and was convinced
that the Germans needed to be punished. Therefore he did not provide much in
terms of food and medical supplies. Also keep in mind that the Americans had
to feed and clothe a very large civilian population with very scanty and
limited resources. Thus it is quite possible that there just were not enough
suplies to go round. In other words it could have been accidental, not
deliberate.
With respect Ron, I would like to take up those points and speak
from experience: I was taken prisoner in the Harz mountains in April 1945
and herded into the camp of Rheinberg with another 100,000 or more, plus old
men, women and children, and the sick and amputees discharged from
hospitals. Eisenhower ordered "no shelter or other comforts" were to be
provided and the camp became one huge mud flat surrounded by barbed wire.
Medical supplies were non-existent and the only shelter from the rain and
sleet was the holes we dug with our bare hands. there was no water or food
for the first week, after that we got one raw potato and two hard biscuits a
day but we had nothing to cook them with so ate the tuber raw with
disastrous results.
Not enough food to go round?? Standing between the camp wire
enclosure and the railway line were huge stacks of 'K' ration boxes but they
were unavailable to us. "Contaminated by rain and have to be destroyed" was
the message we were told by the guards. We would have gladly eaten the
cardboard as well. Obviously the orders were not to feed us.
As early as March '45 Eisenhower cancelled our POW status and
replaced it with that of disarmed enemy forces (DEF) which had the effect of
America having no obligation to feed us. It also removed us from Red Cross
access, who, incidentally were attempting to send food into Germany but the
US Army was sending the trains back.
So Ron, I tend to believe Eisenhower decided on punishment,
disregarding Geneva Convention. Ah well, C'est la guerre, if you happen to
be on the losing side.
Regards,
Max Kiermaier, Canberra, Australia.
Thank you for your effort but it wasn't exactly what I have been looking for
Fred Smoler
The results of a scholarly conference invesigating the charges made in
Other Losses, and generally rejecting them, has recently been published
and is worth looking at.
Thomas A. Knapp
Fred Smoler (fsm...@mail.slc.edu) wrote:
: The results of a scholarly conference invesigating the charges made in
: Other Losses, and generally rejecting them, has recently been published
: and is worth looking at.
-------------------------
Also on this controversy: Guenter Bischof and Stephen Ambrose (eds.),
_Eisenhower and the German POWs_ (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1992) ---
against Bacque, not surprisingly --- and S.P. Mackenzie, "On the Other
Losses Debate," _International History Review_ 14, (1992), pp. 717-31.
There is a very sensible review of the Bischof/Ambrose work in the
_Journal of Modern History_ (Dec., 1995), pp. 976-78 in which the
reviewer (Joan Beaumont) concludes that "there will never be a definitive
resolution of this dispute." I tend to agree.
I don't know if any of the above is the work to which Fred refers.
Tom Knapp
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
quoting Fred Smoler <fsm...@mail.slc.edu> :
| The results of a scholarly conference investigating the charges made in
| and is worth looking at.
I missed whatever it was that was "Rejected" -- could someone
please send me a copy of what preceded the article by Max? Thanks.
that said, here is the reference to what Fred is trying to recall :
Eisenhower and the German POWs (Bischof & Ambrose)
1990 Conference results, to debunk Bacque's Other Losses
TITLE: Eisenhower and the German POWs : facts against falsehood /
edited by Gunter Bischof and Stephen E. Ambrose.
PUBLISHED: Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press, c1992.
DESCRIPTION: xvii, 258 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.
SERIES: Eisenhower Center studies on war and peace
NOTES: Papers presented at a symposium held Nov. 1990 at the
Eisenhower Center, University of New Orleans.
Includes bibliographical references (p. (245)-249) and index.
Contents: Eisenhower and the Germans / Stephen E. Ambrose --
The diplomatic and political context of the POW camps
tragedy / Brian Loring Villa -- A question of numbers /
Albert E. Cowdrey -- Food shortages in Germany and Europe,
1945-1948 / James F. Tent -- German historiography, the war
losses, and the prisoners of war / Rudiger Overmans -- Some
reflections on the Maschke Commission / Rolf Steininger -- A
British variety of pseudohistory / Thomas M. Barker --
Bacqaue and historical evidence / Gunter Bischof.
SUBJECTS: Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969.--Congresses.
World War, 1939-1945--Prisoners and prisons,
American--Congresses.
Prisoners of war--Germany--History--20th century--Congresses.
OTHER AUTHORS: Bischof, Gunter, 1953-
Ambrose, Stephen E.
Eisenhower Center (University of New Orleans)
ISBN: 0807117587 (cloth alk. paper)
OCLC NUMBER: 25282523
(see also http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/misc/bacque_letter.html
and http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/b/bacque.james)
Bacque's book has been a topic of discussions on USEnet over and
over again since the book was published in the late 80s. I got
hold of a copy of the book fairly quickly, and described my
reaction/opinion about it back then (years before I even became
aware of the Ambrose/Bishof book), I forget in what newsgroup(s)..
Like Fred I concluded that Ambrose and Bischof succeeded in
refutiating all of the damning deductions and conjectures made by
Bacque regarding Eisenhower and "political decisions" in general.
However, what Max describes as his personal experience appears to
be a rather disconcerting truth also: the treatment of Germans as
DEFs was often attroceous and a violation of the Geneva convention,
most likely. A lot of suffering, cruelty, illness and death was
inflicted on those Germans rounded up in camps in the winter and
spring of 1945. This was shortly after the attrocities committed
during the December Ardennes offensive were discovered and a period
during which concentration camps and POW camps were liberated, and
it surely didn't take any orders from the theatre commander or
politicians to encourage mistreatment of any German in uniform
or caught in the general round up.
There is also the aspect that no infrastructure existed or was
set up to deal with the sudden and overwhelming numbers of DEFs,
displaced persons, refugees, etc, and that the winter of 1944/5
was the coldest and longest in decades and countries like Holland
and Poland were practically starving and Germany and Germans were
last to be considered to receive food and other assistance.
My sources? My father, who at the time of the arrival of American
troops was recovering from surgery and wounds in a German hospital
(and was chased out into the wet cold of a DEF-camp, without shelter,
food or medical attention, and who died an early death in the 1950s
in consequence of the lack of treatment and resulting pneumonia);
my GI-uncle (who married my father's twice-widowed sister);
furthermore, the published and unpublished memoirs of the father
of a friend of mine, who was working for the OSS in London during
the last war years, evaluating spy and other reports out of occupied
Europe and Germany -- and making prognostications on such things as
the probability of German Werwolf resistance -- who was the "first
civilian" (if you can call an OSS employee that) into Germany right
behind the army, gathering information and observing the situation.
And, yes, he observed and commented on the mistreatment of Germans,
individually and in DEF-camps (which Bacque "discovers," reports,
and overstates, to base his damning speculations and "revelations"
on).
In my opinion, Bacque made the wrong conjectures and speculations,
and instead of doing a service to history by simply reporting the
otherwise un(der)reported sad facts he claims to have discovered,
he did a disservice with his unfounded and unproven (ridiculous?!!)
speculations about Eisenhower.
My conclusions? My father was a victim of the Nazis also, not
of Eisenhower.
--
Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available
"Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot."
I welcome emailed courtesy copies of non-abusive follow-up articles
Ron Bereznicki
In article <Dv3JIs.4Ez.4...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, Max Kiermaier
<m...@canberra.starway.net.au> wrote:
>
> Not enough food to go round?? Standing between the camp wire
> enclosure and the railway line were huge stacks of 'K' ration boxes but they
> were unavailable to us. "Contaminated by rain and have to be destroyed" was
> the message we were told by the guards. We would have gladly eaten the
> cardboard as well. Obviously the orders were not to feed us.
Well, I guess that I cannot argue with a firsthand eyewitness account.
Your POW experiences sound awful. I can understand why you are not an
"Eisenhower fan."
> So Ron, I tend to believe Eisenhower decided on punishment,
> disregarding Geneva Convention. Ah well, C'est la guerre, if you happen to
> be on the losing side.
You hit the nail right on the head. Germany lost the war. This is why the
Americans did not feed German POWs after the war ended. The winners always
dictate the terms to the losers.
Also, I believe that Eisenhower acted the way he did because of two
reasons: (1) he was pissed off about the treatment of concentration camp
inmates, and (2) he wanted to avoid the old "Germany lost because we were
stabbed in the back" argument that existed at the end of WW I. Eisenhower
wanted to make sure that every German understood very clearly that they
had lost the war. No excuses. No "we were stabbed in the back " excuses
were allowed. Unfortunately, Eisenhower's decision meant pain and
suffering for many German citizens and military personnel, such as
yourself. I regret that this happened and I do not condone such actions,
but, at the same time, I do realize that such actions did occur.
I did not mean to insult anyone and if any insult was taken, then I hereby
apologize.
PS. I think that I know why your posting was rejected. Your quoted
material is not set off with the square bracket sign ">" along the left
side margins. It is standard internet convention to use such markings to
distinguish quoted material from original material. I think that if you
were to resubmit your posting with these brackets inserted, then it will
probably be accepted.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Come visit my web site, "My Dad's War:A Veteran's Experiences." Learn
about the invasion of Poland in 1939, deportation to Siberia, formation of
the Second Polish Corps, and the fighting in Italy:all from a person who
was ACTUALLY there.Come one, come all!
URL is http://www.ualberta.ca/~rberezni/home.html
Yours truly,
Ron Bereznicki
--
Come visit my web site, "My Dad's War:A Veteran's Experiences." Learn about the invasion of Poland in 1939, deportation to Siberia, formation of the Second Polish Corps, and the fighting in Italy:all from a person who was ACTUALLY there.Come one, come all!
URL is http://www.ualberta.ca/~rberezni/home.html
Yours truly,
Ron Bereznicki
E.F.Schelby
Max Kiermaier <m...@canberra.starway.net.au> wrote:
>Ron Bereznicki rber...@maildrop.srv.ualberta.ca wrote:
>
> Eisenhower was so pissed off at the German Pows...and was convinced
>that the Germans needed to be punished. Therefore he did not provide much in
>terms of food and medical supplies. Also keep in mind that the Americans had
>to feed and clothe a very large civilian population with very scanty and
>limited resources. Thus it is quite possible that there just were not enough
>suplies to go round. In other words it could have been accidental, not
>deliberate.
>
> With respect Ron, I would like to take up those points and speak
>from experience:
The following is also a personal account translated
directly from a letter my uncle wrote to me in 1989. My father was
no longer alive. So I asked the only surviving relative who had
fought in the war to tell me about his years as a POW in the Soviet
Union before that experience was lost:
"I became a prisoner of war on May 11, 1945 in Deutschbrod,
Ostmaehren, which is part of the former Sudetenland. Approximately
600,000 German POW's were kept in the fields without shelter, and
without food or water. We ate what grass we could find.
There was a POW camp at that location with a capacity for 10,000
men. It was filled, and the lucky ones in it received some rations.
We went without.
Every little possession individuals still had was taken from them
by the Soviet soldiers. They took my still-good leather boots, plus
my uniform jacket, my watch, and the few pieces of warm clothing I
had left. But for my watch one of the SU soldier's gave me 1/2
Komissbrot (dark bread). I ate it secretly at night, because
all the others had the same great hunger I had, and if I had shared
it would have been nothing more than a drop on a hot rock.
After being on that field for days on end, we were herded to
the railway station while the Czech people used the occasion to vent
their spite. We were then ordered into cattle cars and traveled to
the Bulgarian Black Sea port of Varna.
The next means of transportation was an open boat (like a barge)
without any protection from the strong sun. We crossed the Black
Sea, came to Odessa, and from there the ordeal continued by cattle
car to Krasnisolin in the steppes of Kirghizia.
This is where those of us that made it that far were put into
several camps. We worked seven days a week: 6 days in the mines, and
on Sunday we pulled thistles out of the wheat fields: without tools.
We used our bare hands. Those that were exhausted, sick, and not
fast enough were beaten with the butt of the gun by the youthful
Soviet guards.
In addition to all these hardships and the hunger, we also
suffered from the climate. Temperatures reached 60 degrees Celsius
in the summer, and up to minus 50 degrees Celsius in winter. I think
the only explanation I have for being able to endure this was the
tough training I had as a first line infantry (this is partly in
German. I don't know how to translate) Grabenkaempfer, and then as a
Schiessfuehrer and Beobachter der Artillery SFH 18= schwere
Feldhorbitze 18, Kaliber 18, with a range of 8 km.
The work in the mines was brutal, and conditions were incredibly
primitive. I slaved as a miner, lorry pusher, and wood carrier. Our
food was miserable: one bowl of thin gray (mostly barley) soup and a
thick slice (Kanten) of bread was our daily ration. I became ill
with anemia. My legs gave out. My left leg was as swollen as an
elephant's foot. The Soviet female physician wanted to amputate the
foot. I resisted. I prayed to God to give me the faith, inner
strength, and courage to hope for better days, and to keep dreaming
about a return home.
I should tell you that within the camps friedships between the
prisoners were not tolerated. We were constantly shuffled about and
moved with the purpose of suffocating any emerging bonds immediately
(Im Keim ersticken). One time I was beaten 50 times because a buddy
from the kitchen gave me a piece of bread to say thank you. I had
played the comedian/jester to cheer up my comrades during a soldiers
evening. The Soviets wanted to know who gave me the bread. I
wouldn't say. They beat me.
Also, in the mine we worked like a chain gang - 12 men wide, chained
together, and only those on the outside had lamps. Soviet soldiers
were posted every 3 meters to guard us.
In our camp of 3500 men, 1500 died from typhus, dysentery, hunger,
and other conditions before I left. I was one of the lucky ones, and
was sent home unexpectedly. Of those who were with me, many died
from malnutrition, sickness, and exhaustion during the trip. They
were so overjoyed, thinking that they were going home. But it was
not to be."
Regards,
ES
Eric-Jan Noomen
sch...@swcp.com (E.F.Schelby) writes:
>in the summer, and up to minus 50 degrees Celsius in winter. I think
>the only explanation I have for being able to endure this was the
>tough training I had as a first line infantry (this is partly in
>German. I don't know how to translate) Grabenkaempfer, and then as a
Although I'm not German, I think this translates as "trench fighter".
Maybe something like a sapper?
>Schiessfuehrer and Beobachter der Artillery SFH 18= schwere
"firing commander" "observer"
>Feldhorbitze 18, Kaliber 18, with a range of 8 km.
Fieldhowitzer
Thanks for posting this. I haven't read many accounts of former POWs in
the USSR, though there should still be thousands left who have had similar
experiences.
Eric-Jan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric-Jan Noomen Visit the 2nd Page of the Dead
ejno...@xs4all.nl http://www.xs4all.nl/~ejnoomen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4tovnb$q...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
Ron Bereznicki <rber...@maildrop.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>You hit the nail right on the head. Germany lost the war. This is why the
>Americans did not feed German POWs after the war ended. The winners always
>dictate the terms to the losers.
Then you have no problems with what Soviets did at Katyn? After all,
they were winners.
>I regret that this happened and I do not condone such actions,
>but, at the same time, I do realize that such actions did occur.
To condone means to disregard, that is not to condemn. IMO you have done
more than just condoning, you seem to have approving the actions of
Eisenhower. The debate here is clearly of the moral aspects of
maltreatment of POWs, just stating that such things happen can be
nothing but an approval or excuse.
Osmo
funkraum
>ejno...@xs4all.nl (Eric-Jan Noomen) wrote:
[...]
>Thanks for posting this. I haven't read many accounts of former POWs in
>the USSR, though there should still be thousands left who have had similar
>experiences.
>
The final chapters of both
"Panzer Commander - The Memoirs of Hans von Luck" Hans von Luck, DELL
0-440-20802-5
and
"Soldat - Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949" Seigfried Knappe
& Ted Brusaw, DELL 0-440-21826-9
deal with life in the Russian camps.
Ron Bereznicki
In article <DvIsnx.HMK.4...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>,
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>
> Then you have no problems with what Soviets did at Katyn? After all,
> they were winners.
Okay, Osmo, let's look more closely at your argument. The Polish officers
killed at Katyn Forest were not in a POW situation. They were brought
there strictly to be killed off. This was a massacre, and in a massacre,
the key objective was to bump off those under your control. The German
POWs in Europe after WWII were NOT massacred. Some may have starved, but
many did survive their ordeal and were eventually released from captivity.
The same thing cannot be said for the Polish officers in the Katyn Forest.
You are confusing a massacre (Katyn) with a normal POW situation (Germans
after WWII ended). In otherwords, you are comparing apples to oranges.
>
> To condone means to disregard, that is not to condemn. IMO you have done
> more than just condoning, you seem to have approving the actions of
> Eisenhower. The debate here is clearly of the moral aspects of
> maltreatment of POWs, just stating that such things happen can be
> nothing but an approval or excuse.
Osmo, my friend, you are putting words into my mouth. Read my posting more
carefully. You will note that I stated very clearly that "I do NOT
condone..."
You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I do not approve, nor condone
the actions of General Eisenhower at the end of WWII. However, I realize
that he was faced with a very difficult task: ensuring that the Germans
never try to start a war again. At the start of WWII, Hitler used the
excuse that Germany could have won WWI, but they were "stabbed in the
back." If there was no definitive proof, once and for all, that Germany
was defeated fair and square (i.e. no stab in the back), then they (the
Germans) might have been tempted to start another war in about twenty
years time. Eisenhower had the good sense to look into the future and to
prevent another calamity.
In conclusion, I am sorry that people were hurt by Ike's actions, but He
did do the world a BIG favour by squashing Germany's territorial ambitions
once and for all.
Erik Jessen
funkraum wrote:
While living in Germany, I knew a guy who was a doctor in the Wehrmacht.
He was first in USSR in 1939-1940, as part of engineer batallion helping
build bridges/building in the USSR, and later as part of the invasion
force in 1941. He was captured in 1944, and got out in '53, as I recall.
He spent his years in a salt mine, and an asbestos mine. The asbestos
part was the most interesting. It was in Siberia, and they kicked
everyone out of camp with a bucket. Come back with it full of asbestos,
and you get back in (and get fed/sheltered). If you didn't come back,
the wolves/swamp/cold would get you (depending on the time of year).
The guards took good care of him, because he was the only doctor THEY
had.
Moral of the story: If someone's starting a war, be a doctor. they're
not likely to shoot you, and if they capture you, more likely to need
you.
Ron Bereznicki
In article <DvIsnx.HMK.4...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>,
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>
> Then you have no problems with what Soviets did at Katyn? After all,
> they were winners.
Well, Osmo, let's look at the situation more closely. Katyn was a massacre
and not a POW situation. If I remember correctly, not one Polish officer
survived the shootings in the Katyn Forest. The situation in Germany at
the end of WWII was not a massacre. Some prisoners may have died, but the
vast majority did survive. This was clearly a POW situation. Please do not
confuse massacres (Katyn) with legitimate POW situations. You are
comparing apples to oranges.
>
> To condone means to disregard, that is not to condemn. IMO you have done
> more than just condoning, you seem to have approving the actions of
> Eisenhower.
Read my posting closely. I said that I do NOT condone such practices. You
are putting words into my mouth. I never said that I approved Eisenhower's
actions, instead I commented on the reasons (I thought) that motivated him
to act in the way he did. I was not looking at morality and ethics,
instead I was looking at causal factors.
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
quoting rber...@maildrop.srv.ualberta.ca (Ron Bereznicki) :
| ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
|> Ron Bereznicki <rber...@maildrop.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
|>> You hit the nail right on the head. Germany lost the war.
|>> This is why the Americans did not feed German POWs after the war ended.
|>> The winners always dictate the terms to the losers.
a cliche and simplification which explains nothing and does not
do any justice to known historic facts.
|> Then you have no problems with what Soviets did at Katyn?
|> After all, they were winners.
not a comment that helps shed any light on anything, but one which
nearly ends the conversation by its irrelevance (and suggestion)
| You are confusing a massacre (Katyn) with a normal POW situation (Germans
| after WWII ended). In other words, you are comparing apples to oranges.
well, yes, it was indeed a (worse than) irrelevant remark that Osmo
threw in; however, there was no "normal POW situation" for Germans
in 1945, long before the war ended even (see references below).
DEF (Disarmed Enemy Forces) and DP (Displaced Persons) were not
considered POWs (and did not receive, nor have a legal right to
treatment 'guaranteed' <cough> to POWs).
So it's not that (simple) either.
|> To condone means to disregard, that is not to condemn. IMO you have
|> done more than just condoning, you seem to have approving the actions
|> of Eisenhower. The debate here is clearly of the moral aspects of
|> maltreatment of POWs, just stating that such things happen can be
|> nothing but an approval or excuse.
that's ridiculous at the face of it. And I won't even waste
words to argue with that.
Furthermore, you (Osmo) are refering to that vague, unproven
concept of "actions of Eisenhower" -- please provide references
to DOCUMENTED facts (ignore Bacque's suggestive babblings, please)
about the actions by Eisenhower you are refering to here.
| You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I do not approve, nor
| condone the actions of General Eisenhower at the end of WWII.
which are you refering to (that you disprove of, etc.)?
I just pulled several books off my shelf and spent a couple of
hours browsing two of them, looking for relevant information to
gain additional insights. What I found leaves me with the distinct
feeling and belief that there is no sign that Eisenhower did any-
thing that deserves this kind of "disapproval"...
So please be specific -- and when you do refer to something, please
be sure to inform yourself about the general circumstances and other
issues important (and on Ike's plate) at the time: for example,
preventing Patton and Churchill from destroying the alliance and
starting WW3 even before WW2 had ended; which in the fall-out of
FDR's death and the new President Truman (whom Churchill had never
even met, and was trying to run circles around), who did not even
known about the Manhatten Project, but who only a few months later
decided to drop the big ones on Japan...
...AGAINST Ike's strenuous opposition, btw. Ike knew about the
Japanese attempts to make surrender arrangements via their embassy
in Moscow, and knew they were defeated already... and he knew that
they were capable of much more fanatical resistance (no surrenders)
and their cruelty and atrocities were known to be 'in the league'
(if not identical) to what Ike had just seen in the concentration
camps in Germany (which he made a point to visit, personally!)
| However, I realize that he was faced with a very difficult task:
| ensuring that the Germans never try to start a war again.
no, that was not Ike's task. His task as Supreme Commander in
Europe was to militarily defeat Germany and to end all hostilities
(and, arguably, prevent new ones from flaring back up).
That "other stuff," while he no doubt was giving much thought to
it also, that was actually "not in hiw job description" in 1945,
but lay in the diplomats' ball-park.
| If there was no definitive proof, once and for all, that Germany was
| defeated fair and square (i.e. no stab in the back), then they (the
| Germans) might have been tempted to start another war in about twenty
| years time. Eisenhower had the good sense to look into the future and
| to prevent another calamity.
you are making this up as you go (is my guess)....
just as there was no way of knowing at the end of WW1 that
there were planted the seeds for a WW2, there was no way of
anticipating (other than in the wildest speculations) the
next 50 years (as we know them) to follow, not to think of
100 or more years...
| In conclusion, I am sorry that people were hurt by Ike's actions...
again, which actions?!? I do not accept the premise that any
actions by Ike have been presented and proven here that this
could justifiably refer to.
| but He did do the world a BIG favour by squashing Germany's territorial
| ambitions once and for all.
did he? and how did he do that? (in other words, what did HE do,
what were his personally initiated policies and actions that achieved
this?)
| Come visit my web site, "My Dad's War:A Veteran's Experiences.
| " Learn about the invasion of Poland in 1939, deportation to Siberia,
| formation of the Second Polish Corps, and the fighting in Italy:
| all from a person who was ACTUALLY there. Come one, come all!
| URL is http://www.ualberta.ca/~rberezni/home.html
|
| Yours truly, Ron Bereznicki
thanks for making that available, Ron. an interesting site.
your dad's story reminds me of a book I read last summer and
which you may well be familiar with already :
AUTHOR: Dowling, Alick.
TITLE: Janek : a story of survival / Alick Dowling.
PUBLISHED: Letchworth : Ringpress, 1989.
DESCRIPTION: 220 p. : ill., maps, ports. ; 25 cm.
NOTES: Includes index.
Bibliography: p. 213-214.
SUBJECTS: Leja, Jan.
Prisoners of war--Soviet Union--Biography.
Concentration camps--Soviet Union.
SUBJECT KEYWDS: Soviet Union Polish political prisoners: Leja, Jan
ISBN: 0948955457
OCLC NUMBER: 22862138
the story of Janek, a Pole born 1918, prisoner in the USSR 1939-41,
volunteer Polish corps 1941-45, immigrant to Canada after the war
and studies in Mining in London.
btw, there is a problem with your home page:
You can see the last 20 visitors to this site
causes the following error :
Geo-counter called incorrectly
You can't use Geo-counter without specifiying your counter name.
Consult http://www.ualberta.ca/GEO/Counter.html for details.
Cheers, ---Werner
R Weems Jr
Max Kiermaier (m...@canberra.starway.net.au) wrote:
: As early as March '45 Eisenhower cancelled our POW status and
: replaced it with that of disarmed enemy forces (DEF) which had the effect of
: America having no obligation to feed us. It also removed us from Red Cross
: access, who, incidentally were attempting to send food into Germany but the
: US Army was sending the trains back.
: So Ron, I tend to believe Eisenhower decided on punishment,
: disregarding Geneva Convention. Ah well, C'est la guerre, if you happen to
: be on the losing side.
Good that you have such a positive attitude about it. :) Anyway,
I don't condone what happened to you, but if I had just toured
Ohrdruf and Bergen-Belsen then I would probably be in a punitive
mindset towards the German people as well.
Les
Max Kiermaier (m...@canberra.starway.net.au) wrote:
: As early as March '45 Eisenhower cancelled our POW status and
: replaced it with that of disarmed enemy forces (DEF) which had the effect of
: America having no obligation to feed us.
Eisenhower did that on orders from his superiors. The Allies came
to an agreement to change the designation, mainly because of the
food shortage. Eisenhower only enforced the policy; he didn't
design it.
: It also removed us from Red Cross
: access, who, incidentally were attempting to send food into Germany but the
: US Army was sending the trains back.
Do you have a source for this? James Bacque's "Other Losses" has
been pretty much discredited in its attempt to find a conspiracy
to starve the Germans.
: So Ron, I tend to believe Eisenhower decided on punishment,
: disregarding Geneva Convention. Ah well, C'est la guerre, if you happen to
: be on the losing side.
If Eisenhower wanted to punish the Germans, why did he repeatedly
send pleas for more food during the early times of the occupation?
If there was a surplus of food, France and England (not to mention
Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and the rest of Europe) would have
really liked to know where, since they did not discontinue rationing
until the 1950's.
--
"A typical Parlimentary compromise was reached...The admiralty wanted
six battleships, the economists offered four, and we finally agreed
on eight." -- Winston Churchill, "The World Crisis"
-Mayo,H.H.
> Like Fred I concluded that Ambrose and Bischof succeeded in
> refutiating all of the damning deductions and conjectures made by
> Bacque regarding Eisenhower and "political decisions" in general.
>
> However, what Max describes as his personal experience appears to
> be a rather disconcerting truth also: the treatment of Germans as
Having interviewed numerous German veterans here in the Chicago area, I
can state that Max is not the only one with a story that supports the
existance of conditions described in Other Losses. I heard a few of these
stories before the book was published, and was somewhat skeptical about
what I was hearing, but after reading the book, I was shocked by how
closely their descriptions matched the book.
Larry Mayo
DvdThomas
Ambrose and Bischof have not discredited Bacque's work. They certainly
attacked it but I've read their main "put downs" regarding how the numbers
were arrived at, and the debunking doesn't fly. I have also heard
accounts from former German POWs, told without particular rancor, of the
terrible conditions in the unsheltered encampments through the hard winter
of 1945-1946. Those held by the French and the Russians fared even more
poorly.
David Thomas
_________________________________________________________
"Just think of the tragedy of teaching children not to doubt."
- Clarence Darrow
David Thomas
CODOH (http://www.codoh.com/)
AnkerStein
> I have also heard accounts from former German POWs, told without
> particular rancor, of the terrible conditions in the unsheltered encampments
> through the hard winter of 1945-1946. Those held by the French and the
> Russians fared even more poorly.
There is no doubt that the "order" of poor treatment was, from worst to
best, Russian, French, American, British. But one must also consider
the resources available to each occupying power. There is no doubt that
the USA mistreatment was deliberate, policy from higher up, and in the
face of adequate supplies of food and shelter.
There is much less evidence that the same level of "official" mistreatment
occurred in the other Zones. The Russians simply didn't 'give a damn',
which is 'evil' than the USA (Ike) position.
GFH
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
quoting anker...@aol.com (AnkerStein) :
|
|> I have also heard accounts from former German POWs, told without
|> particular rancor, of the terrible conditions in the unsheltered
|> encampments through the hard winter of 1945-1946. Those held by
|> the French and the Russians fared even more poorly.
hmm, well, the story goes that when the French demanded their
share of prisoners (the allies had agreed on shares, and the
French were supposed to get some to help them reconstruct),
the Americans assigned them the weak and sick from the camps,
and the French protested later, but fed and nursed them to
health. At least that is the eye-witness story I know about,
from my father, who was there....
he later went to work for the Americans at the Army hospital
in Heidelberg, without any rancor that I ever became aware of.
| There is no doubt that the "order" of poor treatment was,
| from worst to best, Russian, French, American, British.
well, let me register my "doubts" then against such sweeping
statements, presented without the support of ANY evidence or
references.
Let me see how you support this, WITH supporting evidence and
references, and I will counterargue, if necessary.
You may win the argument, or not, but, at least, you will have
presented your opinion credibly.
| But one must also consider the resources available to each occupying power.
Not to judge the policies, no. All that matters there is motive
and intent -- not capabilities.
On the other hand, to get the bigger picture, yes, one should be
aware of what the situation and capabilities were, in fact, as
well as what each side "assumed" them to be....
For example, the policy Americans were told to adhere to (made at
the highest levels), was that Germans were to be supplied and fed
"from German stores". In the field, that meant that the American
bureaucrats were prevented, by policy, to use and provide supplies
from American stores -- not that there were enough (as sources I
can cite clearly indicate, as the size of the problem was, in fact,
not foreseen, nor foreseeable), but even those that were available
were, by policy, not to be made available to Germans. It took a
while for reports that accurately described the situation (and
the consequences of policy) to bubble up, where "the problem" had
to wait in line and compete for attention by policy-makers, and
there were a lot of "other, more important" problems....
| There is no doubt that the USA mistreatment was deliberate, policy from
| higher up, and in the face of adequate supplies of food and shelter.
There is every doubt that this "treatment" was an intentional
"mistreatment" -- the facts rather might be that those who made
the decision were simply ignorant of the situation on the ground
and the infeasability of the policy, and what it meant for those
it was applied to...
| There is much less evidence that the same level of "official"
| mistreatment occurred in the other Zones.
well, let's see ALL your evidence then, which makes you say that.
| The Russians simply didn't 'give a damn', which is 'evil' than the USA
| (Ike) position.
which (Ike) position? and what's "evil" here?
"It would be wrong to attribute to Evil or Malice, what is
perfectly well explained by Ignorance or Ineptitude"
DvdThomas
GFH wrote:
>There is no doubt that the "order" of poor treatment was, from worst to
>best, Russian, French, American, British. But one must also consider
>the resources available to each occupying power. There is no doubt that
>the USA mistreatment was deliberate, policy from higher up, and in the
>face of adequate supplies of food and shelter.
I would agree with your order of poor treatment. The French used a
combination of starvation and hard labor, at least through 1947 and
perhaps longer, to kill a great many of their German prisoners. The
involvement of several sympathetic French priests caused something of a
scandal which alleviated the maltreatment locally and for a time, but it
resumed.
DT
_________________________________________________________
"....development of public policy can become directed to genocidal ends
when dissent and debate are silenced" - USHMM
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
[ posted and courtesy emailed ]
quoting dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) :
|
|> There is no doubt that the "order" of poor treatment was, from worst to
|> best, Russian, French, American, British. There is no doubt that
|> the USA mistreatment was deliberate, policy from higher up, and in the
|> face of adequate supplies of food and shelter.
I am not doubtless at all. In fact, I think you are mostly wrong.
Please support such "doubtless" claims with sources, figures,
names of other people who "have no doubts," arguments... <sigh>
| The French used a combination of starvation and hard labor, at least
| through 1947 and perhaps longer, to kill a great many of their German
| prisoners.
this is an outrageous statement.
where are the sources, references, names and places ?!?
It's not as if all these things had been firmly established in the
years of discussions in this newsgroup (to the best of my knowledge).
Far from it!