5 ms·
That's because civilian protections where only added in 1949 to the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention as-of WW2 would only be applicable to PoWs, not ci
by blattimwind 8y ago
That's because civilian protections where only added in 1949 to the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention as-of WW2 would only be applicable to PoWs, not civilians.
- Bayart 8y agoTo be fair I don't think anybody saw systemic violence upon civilians during a war between states (as opposed to a civil one) as a realistic possibility during the inter-war period. It was well outside the customs of war in our corner of the world at that point. The national-social cocktail completely tore apart common decency.
- durnygbur 8y agoI was not only about the land anymore, the massive industry [1] and agriculture [2] needed a lot of free stuff. Mistreatment of civilians was an implication, and we overestimate the destructiveness of hate - until the unification of Germany their fragmented principalities had been trembling from hate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_concentration_camp#Buna_Werke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_concentration_camp#Bu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostarbeiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostarbeiter
- blattimwind 8y ago> To be fair I don't think anybody saw systemic violence upon civilians during a war between states (as opposed to a civil one) as a realistic possibility during the inter-war period. It was well outside the customs of war in our corner of the world at that point. Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies.
- ekianjo 8y ago> Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies. I think the point was that scale of it was quite different in WW2. In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts.
- markbnj 8y ago> In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts I'd have to see data on that, not that I definitely disbelieve it. But it does seem to me that this was more often the case than not.
- blattimwind 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio is of relevance here. WW1 already had an almost 1:1 ratio, though this ratio isn't really indicative of atrocities per se. E.g. previously you might have rather seen pillaging. Going a bit back, the people's crusade of 1096 mostly pillaged European cities and landscape.
- Haga 8y agoRussian pows where murdered by neglect in large numbers
- ekianjo 8y agoIt's true both ways: for the German POWs who were sent to Russia, almost none of them made it back alive.
- ethelward 8y agoThat's just plain wrong. German PoWs in the USSR had a death rate of 15% to 30% depending on the sources, while Soviet PoWs in Germany had a death rate of 57% to 65% depending on the sources.
- Tsubasachan 8y agoWell I don't want to make this into an argument about who was worse but the Russians didn't honor the Geneva convention. The last German POWs weren't released until the mid 50s.
- ethelward 8y agoThe Soviets did not honor the Geneva convention, as they had not even signed it at the time. The Germans explicitely suspended its use in their armed forces for the Eastern Front – which is why millions of Soviet PoWs were left to die of starvation in what was basically large cattle pens while Jews or card-carrying Communists were to be shot on the spot after capture.
- patrickg_zill 8y agoWhat are the sources you are quoting?
- ethelward 8y agoZemskov, Krivosheev, Overmans, Glantz, Goldhagen.