German treatment of POW's

jonniebgood1

What was behind the German treatment of Russian prisoners of war in WW2? I understand that they did not see the Russian people as equals. However they seem to have been singled out for worse treatment than other slavic people were at the same time. Germany had been a signature on the 1929 Geneva convention on POW treatment (albeit prior to Nazi governance) although the USSR had not. I find both the overall figures and the personal stories staggering.

Some 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody out of 5.7 million. This figure represents a total of 57% of all Soviet POWs and may be contrasted with only 8,300 out of 231,000 British and American prisoners, or 3.6%. Some estimates range as high as 5 million dead, including those killed immediately after surrendering (an indeterminate, although certainly very large number).[6][7] Only 5% of the Soviet prisoners who died were of Jewish ethnicity.[8] Among those who died was Stalin's son, Yakov Dzhugashvili.

The most deaths took place between June 1941 and January 1942, when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through starvation,[9] exposure, and summary execution, in what has been called, along with the Rwandan Genocide, an instance of "the most concentrated mass killing in human history (...) eclipsing the most exterminatory months of the Jewish Holocaust".[10] By September 1941, the mortality rate among Soviet POWs was in the order of 1% per day

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes_against_Soviet_POWs

A source relating to Soviet crimes in relation to Gulags (thus IMO not overtly sympathetic to the Soviet POW's) is somewhat incredulous at the state in one German POW camp describing the scene as follows:

exert taken from pg 218 of part 1 of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns book on the Soviet Gulags - 'The Gulag Archipelago'


Given the amount of information relating to British and American POW's in comparison there is not nearly as much about Russian POW's. Is the reason for this the cold war or are there other reasons? I know the Soviet view of their own soldiers being captured was warped in that they were then considered with suspicion if they managed to escape or return. I think the fact that Germany was well able to treat prisoners humanely in western europe is a further indictment on what they did in the east.


I would be interested if anyone could give the % of German soldiers killed in Russian POW camps as a comparison to the 57% figure given above. Any other relevent information is appreciated about this subject.

I read recently that at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa that Stalin had requested through intermediaries that both sides (USSR & Germany) should abide by Geneva convention on POW's but that this was turned down by Germany. Was this an honest endeavour and why was it turned down?

Morlar

How would you compare German wartime treatment of Russian pows with ;

a) Russian treatment of German pows - bearing in mind survival rates.

b) Russian treatment of their own citizens who were released from German captivity into Russian hands at the end of the war ?

Zaph

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would be interested if anyone could give the % of German soldiers killed in Russian POW camps as a comparison to the 57% figure given above. Any other relevent information is appreciated about this subject.

Well it's only a small percentage of overall German POWs, but from the figures quoted by Laurence Rees in The Nazis: A Warning From History regarding the fate of the Germans captured at Stalingrad, it's probably safe to say they didn't fare too well. Just over 90,000 were captured. Of these, 95% of the ordinary troops and NCOs died, along with 55% of the junior officers and 5% of the senior officers.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

How would you compare German wartime treatment of Russian pows with ;

a) Russian treatment of German pows - bearing in mind survival rates.

b) Russian treatment of their own citizens who were released from German captivity into Russian hands at the end of the war ?

My post was not so much looking for a comparison between both (German/ Russian), rather looking at the reasons behind the massive difference in survival rates of British/ American POW's and Soviet POW's. However It may be interesting, if you wanted to discuss this in terms of how German POW's were treated (poorly I presume although this would be a natural response given the chronology of when they would have been captured).

In direct response to your point A, I would like to compare these to in terms of the actual percentage of survival. The Wiki article says that 57% of all Soviet prisoners died in German POW camps. As a simple comparison I would be interested if anyone could provide the % of German survivors from Soviet POW camps (I am aware that alot were not released until long after WW2 but a survival % should show if the treatment was similar).

In relation to point B I think this is one of the most sinister aspects of the war. It is however in line with the direction the Soviet state took in terms of their treatment of their own citizens. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whom I quoted was sentenced to time in a Gulag after his own role in WWII. His accounts of the POW's are thus all the more authentic considering this.

Morlar

I think factors around lower russian survival rates than british or American would include the general health and physical condition on entry to captivity, the VAST numbers in which they were taken and the fact that this took place often within a very short amount of time and the chaos this would have caused on the advancing and already stretched wartime German side.

There have been books written on how unreliable the statistics are as regards German survival rates in Allied hands. I had read 120,000 of the 6th army taken captive, and less than 6000 survived. I had also read of the SS in Russia having 97% mortality rates. Another factor to consider is that on the Eastern Front there were apparently 1.5 million 'missing' Germans, bearing in mind that the soviets did not fully co-operate with the red cross it is reasonable that many of those missing did actually make it to captivity so the post war statistics written by the victors become less convincing imo.

Re statistics on wikipedia this may be interesting :
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque_on_wikipedia.htm

Fuinseog

if you want to explore the issue fully then you should condsider British treatment of Japanese prisoners, whom they regarded as racially inferior.

British treatment of German prisoners and civilains in post war Germany was also not always correct.

heroes of the French Resistance bravely shot German prisoners

essentially becoming a prisoner and getting good treatment from the enemy relied on a lot of luck.

FiSe

And let's not forget that Soviet Russia or USSR didn't sign the Geneva convention /?, it's Friday, can't think straight, so please feel free to correct this/ about treatment of the POWs.
And their official approach to their own soldiers which became POWs was similar to that of Japanese, ie. Soviet soldier fights to the last drop of blood and never surrender...

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

if you want to explore the issue fully then you should condsider British treatment of Japanese prisoners, whom they regarded as racially inferior.

British treatment of German prisoners and civilains in post war Germany was also not always correct.

heroes of the French Resistance bravely shot German prisoners

essentially becoming a prisoner and getting good treatment from the enemy relied on a lot of luck.

This is all true, I would be interested in your information regarding British treatment of Japanese prisoners. Particularly evidence of racial traits in the British attitudes. My original point was really aimed at exploring the reasons for the Germans differentiating to such a degree between Prisoners from different countries- I think that if there is evidence that Britain did the same it would also be interesting.

jonniebgood1

FiSe wrote: »

And let's not forget that Soviet Russia or USSR didn't sign the Geneva convention /?, it's Friday, can't think straight, so please feel free to correct this/ about treatment of the POWs.
And their official approach to their own soldiers which became POWs was similar to that of Japanese, ie. Soviet soldier fights to the last drop of blood and never surrender...

You are correct that the USSR did not sign the 1929 convention which detailed treatment of POW's. However Germany did sign it and generally speaking upheld it with treatment of British/ American prisoners. Having signed it Germany was duty bound to abide by its contents, even when dealing with nations that had not signed it. This was dealt with under article 82 of the treaty. Their treatment of their own soldiers who were captured was reprehensible and reflected the general lack of value placed on human life by the USSR at the time (Ukraine famine, purges, etc).

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

There have been books written on how unreliable the statistics are as regards German survival rates in Allied hands. I had read 120,000 of the 6th army taken captive, and less than 6000 survived. I had also read of the SS in Russia having 97% mortality rates. Another factor to consider is that on the Eastern Front there were apparently 1.5 million 'missing' Germans, bearing in mind that the soviets did not fully co-operate with the red cross it is reasonable that many of those missing did actually make it to captivity so the post war statistics written by the victors become less convincing imo.

Re statistics on wikipedia this may be interesting :
http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque_on_wikipedia.htm

I agree that wiki is not always reliable. The 57% figure of soviet POW's who died in German custody is not just from wiki. It is widely referenced including http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007183 . If you think that figure is incorrect I could look for alternative sources.

Morlar wrote: »

I think factors around lower russian survival rates than british or American would include the general health and physical condition on entry to captivity, the VAST numbers in which they were taken and the fact that this took place often within a very short amount of time and the chaos this would have caused on the advancing and already stretched wartime German side.

Are you saying that the health and condition of the prisoners on capture was significant. I don't argue with the premise that they may not have been in the same condition but it is very hard to believe that this is why many millions of POW's died. Do you have any source to back up this point?

The number of POW's taken in a short time is a valid point and accepted. I have read that as winter approached prisoners who were 'stored' in open camps tried to dig holes in the ground to try and gain some semblence of cover from the conditions. My original point is why this total neglect for the prisoners occured. Considering that they built camps for Jewish prisoners who they considered to be worthless I don't understand why they as such a highly organised force could allow this to happen in late 1941 when they were having their greatest success.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The number of POW's taken in a short time is a valid point and accepted. I have read that as winter approached prisoners who were 'stored' in open camps tried to dig holes in the ground to try and gain some semblence of cover from the conditions. My original point is why this total neglect for the prisoners occured. Considering that they built camps for Jewish prisoners who they considered to be worthless I don't understand why they as such a highly organised force could allow this to happen in late 1941 when they were having their greatest success.

The thing is that it wasn't actually that highly organized. I know the image of the Germans is of a highly mobile force etc but iirc less than 20% of the axis forces in 1941 was made up of Panzer or Motorized Infantry divisions. The rest was made up of infantry who primarily used horse-drawn transport. Approximately a million horses were used in Barbarossa and fodder had to be transported for these as they didn't live off the land like cossack horses.

The Heer was barely capable of supplying itself by the time of the huge kessels, by september many artillery units had to ration how many shells they could use because of the problems with long supply lines.

After they were captured prisoners would be guarded by rear area troops but neither the nazi party, OKW or OKH made much preparation for large numbers of prisoners and most of the prisoner deaths in heer administration occurred in 1941-42 in massive camps. After that prisoners were in large part shipped back to germany as slave labour by Todt, Sauckel, Speer et al.

A combination of insufficient preperation, overstretched supply lines and the callous nature of nazi ideology was responsible for the enormous amount of prisoner deaths imo.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are you saying that the healthand condition of the prisoners on capture was significant. I don't argue with the premise that they may not have been in the same condition but it is very hard to believe that this is why many millions of POW's died. Do you have any source to back up this point?

I believe it's a contributory factor, I did not put it forward as being anything more than that.

I think the comparative starting point of the physical health of a soviet conscriptee thrown to the front by a sometimes chaotic army vs a professional american or british soldier could be a factor.

xflyer

First off the treatment of western prisoners by the Germans wasn't nearly as good as we are led to believe by movies like 'The Great Escape' which made it look like a holiday camp. There was plenty of poor treatment and brutality. For the average enlisted man prisoner conditions were tough and they were expected to work. But they were treated better than Soviet prisoners quite simply because the Nazis considered them untermenschen and as the intention was eliminate them anyway after the war was won. Keeping them comfortable as prisoners wouldn't a high priority to say the least.

Suggestions that they were in poorer physical condition ignores the reality that many Russian and other nationalities were hardy men used to harsh conditions. The fact is that Soviet prisoners were systematically worked to death by the Nazis quite intentionally.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I believe it's a contributory factor, I did not put it forward as being anything more than that.

I think the comparative starting point of the physical health of a soviet conscriptee thrown to the front by a sometimes chaotic army vs a professional american or british soldier could be a factor.

Do you have any source for this opinion (that poorer health contributed to the high rate of death for Soviet POW's)?

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you have any source for this opinion (that poorer health contributed to the high rate of death for Soviet POW's)?

No.

BlaasForRafa

Regarding the German supply situation I scanned through Panzer Leader by Col-General Guderian and on October 10 1941 he made the following comment (p.237) "The supplying of hundreds of vehicles and their crews had now to be done by the air force, and that for weeks on end. Preparations made for the winter were utterly inadequate. For weeks we had been requesting anti-freeze for the radiators of our engines; we saw as little of this as we did of winter clothing for the troops. This lack of warm clothes was, in the difficult months ahead to provide the greatest problem and cause the greatest suffering to our soldiers"

So, if the Heer couldn't supply its own frontline soldiers how was it going to supply prisoners. So what about the OKW and Nazi hierarchy?

From The Storm of War by Andrew Roberts (p.227) "The Wehrmacht's Central Economic Agency stated that on 2 May 1941 that all German forces involved in Barbarossa would have to 'be fed at the expense of Russia....thereby tens of millions will undoubtedly starve to death if we take away all we need from the country'. This was underlined by the Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg, who on 20 June 1941, told the bureuacrats who would soon staff the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories: 'The southern territories and Northern Caucasus will have to make up the deficit in food supplies for the German population. We do not accept that we have any responsibility for feeding the Russian population...from these surplus producing regions'"

Roberts also acknowledges that the germans had trouble feeding their own troops from the land since the Soviets campaign of scorched earth which destroyed much of the harvest in the ukraine....karma I guess.

Stovepipe

Hi there,
Don't forget Stalin's statement "there are no Soviet citizens in German POW camps", which effectively sentenced every Soviet PoW to death. Those that survived to be liberated by the Red Army were often immediately shipped to the Gulag, which was a slow death. Also, survivors' families were often exiled with them, which effectively meant death for an entire family.
regards
Stovepipe

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

essentially becoming a prisoner and getting good treatment from the enemy relied on a lot of luck.

+1

jonniebgood1

I found the figure comparisons in a table by Niall Ferguson quoted here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses#Other_evidence_for_German_POW_deaths


This confirms that the death rate in German camps for Russian POW's was approximately twice that of the much reported harsh treatment of Allied POW's in Japanese camps. The treatment of the Russians still seems unexplained, particuarly after listening to Dan Carlins 'Ghosts of the Ostfront' podcast. I dont agree that luck had a lot to do with survival- Where you were from would seem to be more relevent than luck.

gigino

There were more than 140,000 white prisoners in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Of these, one in three died from starvation, work, punishments or from diseases for which there were no medicines to treat.


http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/pow_camps_japan.htm

xflyer

Jonniebgood1, the answer is simple, Soviet POWs were systematically starved, shot or worked to death in a way that even the Japanese failed match or indeed Stalin. There is no mystery even though some here would like you believe otherwise. It was deliberate and premeditated, nothing to do with physical condition or luck. In fact the scale of killing was scaled back later as the war dragged on because of their usefullness as slave labourers.

FiSe

Statistics could be a very obscure thing. It's hard to believe that the Nazis were worse than Stalin's communists or Imperial Japanese military.

I would suggest that everyone shoud click on the wiki link under the table and read the whole article.

Fuinseog

FiSe wrote: »

Statistics could be a very obscure thing. It's hard to believe that the Nazis were worse than Stalin's communists or Imperial Japanese military.

I would suggest that everyone shoud click on the wiki link under the table and read the whole article.

wasn't it churchill who said 'I only believe the statistics I have falsified myself (paraphrase).

it suits some politcial agendas to have rthe nazis as the ultiamte baddies.

even in recent times Americam treatment of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq has been largely forgotten about. tehy tortured inmates, yet we do not have a problem with it.

inmates in German concentration camps were totured throughout the thirties and it did not bother anyone.

xflyer

Fuinseog wrote: »

it suits some politcial agendas to have rthe nazis as the ultiamte baddies.

It suit some political agendas to have the Nazis actions minimised or even dismissed. In the end you have to judge them by their actions. Conquest and occupation of much of Europe and the attempted genocide of multiple peoples and races. They managed a lot in a very short period. They may not be the ultimate bad guys but they are up there in the top three.

Comparing them to Gitmo doesn't even come close in comparision.

FiSe

Who said something along the lines...death of one is tragedy, death of thousands is statistic.

Anyway, I didn't want to stand up for any of the involved parties. The article on the wiki is, actually very good, for a change. And it shows that it is impossible to put down any close percentage on the death of POW of any camp.

For example - and I know that these are only tiny numbers in overall context - would the GIs shot in Malmedy incident be treated as POW or combat deaths, what about Totenkopf troops shot in Dachau -POWs or combat? Cossacks handed over to the Soviets at the end of WWII, Russian Liberation Army soldiers, POWs, combat or none at all? And if, which POWs they would be? What about their families, civilians...
Some of the SS volunteers from France, Holland, Belgium, Norway...

I can imagine that nobody really had a proper account of how many of them really entered the POW camps and how many of them perished in there. Just too many people to care, for their captors.

jonniebgood1

FiSe wrote: »

Statistics could be a very obscure thing. It's hard to believe that the Nazis were worse than Stalin's communists or Imperial Japanese military.

I would suggest that everyone shoud click on the wiki link under the table and read the whole article.

It is hard to believe that, but the statistics I quoted from should not be taken lightly. The author of the book they are taken from is a respected source (Niall Ferguson- Professor of history and business administration at Harvard) so while the way they are calculated can be queried, I would presume it was done consistently for each side. When we consider the information about Japanese treatment of British POW's that is widely acknowledged to have been horrendous, the facts (as per figures) show that over twice as many deaths of Russian prisoners occured. I will try and source evidence of how this happened. All relevent links to information on this is welcomed as it seems to be hard to come by.

FiSe

That's what I'm saying when I said that everyone should click on that link. It is in that article:

'....In 1941 alone, two million of the 3.3 million German-held Soviet POWs — about 60% — died or were executed by the special SS "Action Groups" (Ensatzgruppen).[101][103] By 1944, only 1.05 million of 5 million Soviet prisoners in German hands had survived.[104][105] Of some 2–3 million German POWs in Russian hands, more than 1 million died.[104][106][107] Of the 132,000 British and American POWs taken by the Japanese army, 27.6% died in captivity — the Bataan death march being the most notorious incident, producing a POw death rate of between 40 and 60%.[108]....'

but also another point I was trying to make, about imposibility to see the whole picture from missing and incomplete records, for example:

'...The book Other Losses alleged 1.5 million prisoners were missing and estimated that up to 500,000 of these were in Soviet camps. When the KGB opened its archives in the 1990s, 356,687 German soldiers and 93,900 civilians previously recorded as missing were found to be listed in the Bulanov report as dying in the Soviet camps.[93] Similarly, the Japanese government had long held that 62,000 of their soldiers had died in Soviet camps with Russia admitting to only 35,000. The archives contained the death certificates for just under 62,000 Japanese POWs....'

BlaasForRafa

For example - and I know that these are only tiny numbers in overall context - would the GIs shot in Malmedy incident be treated as POW or combat deaths,

Definitely POW executions. This was actually tried as a war crime in 1946.

what about Totenkopf troops shot in Dachau -POWs or combat?

POW executions but I think this was seen as being partly justified because they were concentration camp guards. There is some element of "victors justice" in it as if the germans had done the same they would have been tried as war criminals.

Cossacks handed over to the Soviets at the end of WWII, Russian Liberation Army soldiers, POWs, combat or none at all? And if, which POWs they would be? What about their families, civilians...

Again, victors justice. I think from a modern sensibility they would be seen as POW's but the Soviet view was that they were traitors and deserved to die.

Some of the SS volunteers from France, Holland, Belgium, Norway...

POW's in my opinion but views differed from country to country

I can imagine that nobody really had a proper account of how many of them really entered the POW camps and how many of them perished in there. Just too many people to care, for their captors.

Who you surrendered to in large part determined what your fate would be. It seems that if you surrendered to the British that you were safe enough but if you surrendered to the americans there was a good chance that you would be sent to the soviets if you had fought on the russian front.

Contrast the fate of JG52 who surrendered to the americans but who were soon handed over the the russians and spent many years in the gulags. Its laughable but part of the charges against Erich Hartmann was the "willful destruction of soviet property, namely 352 aircraft" (actually it was 345)

whereas JG54 flew from Latvia on May 8th escaping the soviet grasp and most surrendered to the british in denmark.

The remaining serviceable FW-190's were ordered fly to Flensburg on the Danish border, with the German Navy evacuating as many of the ground personnel as possible by ship. The JG 54 pilots, led by Oberst Dietrich Hrabak, ripped out all unnecessary equipment from the fighters, allowing room to take two men, one man crouching behind the seat and the other fitting into the fuselage. In this way at least 90 JG 54 personnel escaped Russian capture. The faces of those who watched one FW190 land and saw five people emerge were by all accounts something to behold!
(From FW190 Aces on the Eastern Front by Osprey Publishing)

The british handed the planes over to the russians but not the luftwaffe personnel.

jonniebgood1

Some accounts of treatment of prisoners and general population by the German forces in 1941:

On December 2, in the village of Krasnaia Polyana, near Moscow, the German fascist scoundrels gathered all the working population from 15 to 60 years old and locked them in the building of the district executive committee, unheated and with broken windows, and kept them without bread or water for eight days. Women workers Zaitseva, Gudkina, Naletkina and Mikhailova, of the Krasnaia Polyana factory, who were subjected to this torture, saw their babies die in their arms.

Cases are not infrequent of Hitlerites using Soviet children as targets for shooting practice. In the village of Bely Rast, in the Krasnaia Polyana District, a group of drunken German soldiers put the 12-year-old boy Volodya Tkachev on the porch of a house as a target and opened fire with automatic rifles. The boy's whole body was riddled with bullets. After that the bandits opened disorderly fire at the windows of houses. They halted collective farmer Mossolova, who was passing down the street with her three children, and shot her on the spot, together with the children.

In the village of Voskresenskaye, in the Dubinin District, the Hitlerites used a three-year-old boy as a target for machine-gun practice. In the district center of Volovo, in the Kursk Region, where the Germans stayed four hours, a German officer dashed the head of the two-year-old son of a woman named Boikova against a wall and killed him because he was crying. In the Zhlobino rural Soviet, in the Orel Region, the fascists killed the two-year-old child of collective farmer Kratov because its crying disturbed their sleep.

In the village of Semenovka, in the Kalinin Region, the Germans raped 25-year-old Tikhonova, wife of a Red Army man and mother of three children, who was in the last stage of pregnancy. They tied her hands with a piece of string. After raping her the Germans cut her throat, stabbed both her breasts, and drilled them in a sadistic manner. In the same village the occupants shot a 13-year-old boy and carved a five-cornered star on his forehead.

In November, telegraph operator Ivanova went with her 13-year-old son Leonid to visit relatives in the village of Burashovo, near Kalinin. As they left the town they were noticed by Hitlerites, who opened fire at them from a distance of 60 yards and killed the boy. The mother made several attempts to lift and carry away her boy's body, but at each attempt the Germans fired at her, and she was forced to abandon the body. For eight days the German soldiers did not allow her to remove the body. It was taken away and buried by Ivanova only after this locality was occupied by our troops.

In Rostov-on-Don, Vitya Cherevichny, 15,-year-old pupil of a vocational school, was playing in a courtyard with his pigeons. German soldiers passing by began to take away the pigeons. The boy protested. The Germans took him out and shot him at the corner of 28th Avenue and First of May Street because he did not give them the pigeons. The Hitlerites stamped on the boy's face with their boots and deformed it beyond recognition.

The village of Basmanovo, of the Glinka District of the Smolensk Region, liberated by our troops early in September, was only a heap of ashes after the German occupation. On the first day, the fascist fiends chased into a field over 200 schoolboys and girls who had come to the village to take part in the harvesting and there surrounded and brutally shot them. They carried away a large group of schoolgirls to the rear for the "gentlemen officers."

The German invaders erased hundreds of villages in the Ukraine and Byelorussia, and in the Moscow, Leningrad, Tula and other regions of our country. In the village of Dedilovo, of the Tula Region, the occupants burned down 960 houses out of 998. In the village of Pozhidayevka, of the Kursk Region, they burned 554 houses out of 602. In the village of Ozeretskoye, in the Krasnaia Polyana District of the Moscow Region, 225 houses were burned out of 232. The village of Kobneshki, of the same district, which numbered 123 houses, was completely burned out. In the Vyssokovo District of the Moscow Region, 85 houses out of 99 were burned in the village of Nekrassino, and 66 out of 69 in the village of Baklanovo.

When they evacuated the villages of Krasnaia Polyana, Myshetskoye, Ozherelye and Vyssokovo in the Moscow Region, the Germans detailed automatic riflemen to pour gasoline over houses and set them on fire. When residents tried to put out the fires, the Germans shot at them with automatic rifles. Of 80 houses in the village of Myshetskoye, only five remain. Of 200 in Ozherelye, eight remain. Of 76 in Vyssokovo, three remain.

This is just a small section of the diplomatic transcript from Soviet minister Molotov to all foreign ambassadors on Jan 6 1942. Full text at
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420106b.html

Morlar

Do you consider the WW2 soviet communist state to be a neutral source ?

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Do you consider the WW2 soviet communist state to be a neutral source ?

No. I stated clearly that it was a

diplomatic transcript from Soviet minister Molotov to all foreign ambassadors on Jan 6 1942.

It is interesting though as a large collection of examples of treatment of the populace and POW's. I would prefer some first hand accounts of the German treatment of the POW's in camps to try and get a grasp on just what the conditions they left these soldiers in. From research it seems that the Germans thought they were superior to the Russian people but I still find it hard to comprehend the massive casualties of Russian POW's. Up to this operation most armies had respect for each other, i.e. Christmas truce in WWI, I know this was one off but the soldiers on each side realised they were similar people.

marcsignal

Posted this in the Documentaries section. It's a vivid account of what it was like on the ground for German soldiers in Russia, told by the soldiers themselves, using their amatuer footage.

Mein Krieg

The issue of Russian POW's is discussed @ 1:04:25 and from the point of view of the soldier on the ground, the logistical nightmare is evident.

Edit: Just on the issue of adherence to the Geneva Convention etc....

Anthony Beevor suggested that soon after the German invasion in 1941 an offer was made by the USSR for a reciprocal adherence to the Hague conventions, but that this offer was left unanswered by the Germans. Beevor, Stalingrad. p60.

However, Tolstoy suggests that the Germans, as well as the International Red Cross made several efforts to regulate reciprocal treatment of prisoners until early 1942, but received no answers from the Soviet side. Nikolai Tolstoy. The Secret Betrayal. 1977

...more shades of grey, as it seems is always the case in war.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you have a problem with the Author's (Ferguson)survival figures quoted, then surely you should put forward more of an argument against him. In fact the only counter argument you make is that his figures appear on wikipedia. In simple terms try to back up your point. If you have alternative figures, please post them.



Thats not my view. In future if you wish to attribute a view to me I would prefer you to quote what I have said.

I agree that this would be more appropriate on the thread dealing with Soviet/ German POW's. Perhaps you might notice that I was responding to a question- Perhaps I should have got permission from you to respond to it!

I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context. Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context.

No problem with figures being questioned. My problem is you do not propose an alternative view. Perhaps you will???

Morlar wrote: »

Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).

Again I put it that you are questioning these figures without proposing an alternative.
Also you are questioning the authors capabilities. I believe he is professor of History at Harvard University? Are you saying that only people who focus solely on Barbarossa can comment on the Russian campaign? If not you need to either substantiate your critisism of this author with proper evidence or alternatively drop your argument- the choice is yours...

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

No problem with figures being questioned. My problem is you do not propose an alternative view. Perhaps you will???

That is not the way it works.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Again I put it that you are questioning these figures without proposing an alternative.

Nor am I obliged to - that is not the way it works.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Also you are questioning the authors capabilities. I believe he is professor of History at Harvard University? Are you saying that only people who focus solely on Barbarossa can comment on the Russian campaign? If not you need to either substantiate your critisism of this author with proper evidence or alternatively drop your argument- the choice is yours...

That is not what I am saying at all. Here is part of what I said in case you missed it :

I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context. Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

That is not the way it works.



Nor am I obliged to - that is not the way it works.



That is not what I am saying at all. Here is part of what I said in case you missed it :

I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context. Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).

If you are unable to back up your posts with source material to substantiate your opinion, it renders your opinion to be close to meaningless.
Firstly you have asserted that the figures I posted (and sourced to a reliable author) are incorrect. Then you are unable to back up your opinion.

I am sure there is probably a forum on boards for fiction or conspiracy theories or similar that would be more suitable for your type of unsubstatiated opinion rather than here. Please try not to destroy this thread as there were several interesting posts of proper source material prior to your unsubstatiated irrelevent contribution.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If you are unable to back up your posts with source material to substantiate your opinion, it renders your opinion to be close to meaningless.

In order to not believe something which has not established credibility to begin with - this does not require source material.

I am not putting forward an alternate set of figures - I simply do not accept these ones. There is a difference.

For the reasons already provided these are not credible at this point. You provide no source material for those figures, nor apparently does their creator Ferguson.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Firstly you have asserted that the figures I posted (and sourced to a reliable author) are incorrect. Then you are unable to back up your opinion.

Define reliable author ? I believe he is a reliable author on the subject of Henry Kissinger, and also the subject of the rothschilds. You will find no argument from me that he is a reliable author of a book on either of those 2 subjects. That is different to what is presented here however. On what basis is this man a reliable source for the worlds first definitive WW2 Global POW mortality levels ? On the basis of what has been presented here that is a foolish assumption to make. You present a Jpeg and a link to wikipedia. That is not source material.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am sure there is probably a forum on boards for fiction or conspiracy theories or similar that would be more suitable for your type of unsubstatiated opinion rather than here. Please try not to destroy this thread as there were several interesting posts of proper source material prior to your unsubstatiated irrelevent contribution.

That is absolute nonsense. You posted a jpeg from an author which purports to be the definitive WW2 POW mortality levels.

I gave the reasons why I do not share your blind faith and optimism in those figures, the figures do not have a shred of context or qualification. What information, what sources of information are they based on ? Which documents from which archives were consulted ? What was the authors approach to conflictive sources of information ? Which data set were chosen ? Do they include the 1.5 million missing Germans ? What other factors are and are not considered in arriving at them ? Have they been substantially peer reviewed ? What is the margin of error ? It's ludicrous to attach a jpeg screenshot of a chart which originates from wikipedia - which claims to be based on an authors work, when there is no other information to back that up whatsoever.

jonniebgood1

Back to the thread subject matter- I came across images of soviet POW's

jonniebgood1

Also I came across from same page this video. Some unpleasant footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpYoEwSLCUg&feature=player_detailpage

All from http://pictureshistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-did-germans-treat-pow-in-russia.htm

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Also I came across from same page this video. Some unpleasant footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpYoEwSLCUg&feature=player_detailpage

All from http://pictureshistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-did-germans-treat-pow-in-russia.htm

That is an odd clip in my opinion. It's a mixture of Deutsche Wochenschau at the beginning then switching to soviet propaganda company footage after a certain point. Then at a later point the original soviet audio track is replaced with some kind of religious type of music.

The bulk of this appers to be benign, standard ww2 footage of lines of pows marching, german troops, a tank in a field, more troops lines of pow's then it loops back on itself. Towards the end there is footage of what appears to be soviet pow camp graveyard exhumation and christian re-burial. The amount of christian imagery is unusual given the communist attitude to christianity.

It's value in the context of this thread is unclear in my view, it does illustrate the incredible volumes of prisoners that fell into German hands during their advance (the german narrator refers to 665,000 prisoners). Beyond that it shows a grave exhumation. I am also not sure of the value of putting random internet photos into a thread like this. I have a private photograph collection which contains a lot of pictures of Russian civilians, ukranian civilians and german troops getting along fine, soldiers playing with the children and so on. No single picture tells the whole story of the war and you can find random uncaptioned pictures to illustrate just about any point you want to make whatsoever. So the value in picking ones at random for a thread like this is unclear in my view. Yes those people should not have died, but there were a lot of people who died in russian gulags (including russian pows freed from german captivity) which the russians did not make propaganda movies about, and so my point is that the information here should be balanced with that knowledge in my opinion. Otherwise it's just wartime propaganda with a modern soundtrack. Personally I would have preferred to see the original soviet footage with subtitles.

jonniebgood1

I am trying to find out why these prisoners were herded into open camps and allowed to die. The purpose of the photos & video is to try and explore the conditions in the camps. Anyone who can add to this is welcomed. I have read the standard Nazi excuses as expressed at Nurembourg and suggested in this thread but I think there is more to it than this

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I am trying to find out why these prisoners were herded into open camps and allowed to die. The purpose of the photos & video is to try and explore the conditions in the camps. Anyone who can add to this is welcomed. I have read the standard Nazi excuses as expressed at Nurembourg and suggested in this thread but I think there is more to it than this

You seem to be intent on repeatedly pointing out the obvious, ie the nazis were bad guys.

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You seem to be intent on repeatedly pointing out the obvious, ie the nazis were bad guys.

What relevence has this to the thread?

The thread is about world war II so I think it is naturally possible that it is going to contain information about the Nazi's being 'bad guys'. If some people think that the Nazi's are not as bad as they are portrayed, as is evident from this thread, they are welcome to post their opinions (so long as they can back up their views with justifiable source material which has'nt been the case in this thread). To simply post pro-Nazi viewpoint comments (not accusing quoted post) without backing them up is not helpful unless the poster is a renowned historian!

I would prefer to keep this on topic so as per post no. 01 the point of this thread is WHY the Germans treated the Soviet POW's worse (according to figures posted) than any other POW's in this conflict?
It would seem to me from research and also from some helpful posts that it was almost a pyschological disposition that was embedded in the German mindset at the time. In simple terms if the soldiers believed the Soviets were a lesser race of people it made it easier to disregard the killing of their POW's.

BlaasForRafa

What relevence has this to the thread?

I mention it because it seems to be a theme of yours carrying over from the Police Battalion 102 and Double Standard threads.

The thread is about world war II so I think it is naturally possible that it is going to contain information about the Nazi's being 'bad guys'. If some people think that the Nazi's are not as bad as they are portrayed, as is evident from this thread

Care to quote which posts your talking about and justifying your comment?

they are welcome to post their opinions (so long as they can back up their views with justifiable source material which has'nt been the case in this thread). To simply post pro-Nazi viewpoint comments (not accusing quoted post) without backing them up is not helpful unless the poster is a renowned historian!

What posts give "pro-nazi" comments?

I would prefer to keep this on topic so as per post no. 01 the point of this thread is WHY the Germans treated the Soviet POW's worse (according to figures posted) than any other POW's in this conflict?
It would seem to me from research and also from some helpful posts that it was almost a pyschological disposition that was embedded in the German mindset at the time. In simple terms if the soldiers believed the Soviets were a lesser race of people it made it easier to disregard the killing of their POW's.

I was pretty clear in http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70390329&postcount=16 as to plausible reasons why so many soviet prisoners died. The nazi ideology from Hitler right through the hierarchy did not care whether these soldiers lived or died...until they needed them as slave labour of course. The attitudes in the Heer were more complex, probably due to being less idealogically motivated. Some commanders like Von Reichenau looked down on the Soviet soldiers whereas some like Ewald Von Kleist had a lot of respect for the russian soldiers, indeed one of the soviet charges against Kleist was "alienating, through friendship & generosity, the peoples of the Soviet Union" and individual soldiers would have had as complex and wide a range of views also.

The secondary and lesser point is that even if the Nazis had the willingness to feed and clothe 5 million plus prisoners, the Heers logistical setup was completely inadequate to take care of its own soldiers needs let alone take care of pows. There were hundreds of thousands of frostbite casualties in the winter of 1941/42, in many areas the transport system ground to a halt and german soldiers had to sometimes eat the frozen corpses of their horses. I posted sources, those books are easily available.

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I mention it because it seems to be a theme of yours carrying over from the Police Battalion 102 and Double Standard threads.
.

If I have made a point on these threads that you feel is unfair to Nazi Germany, you should question it directly on those threads. I would welcome any informative input in those discussions.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Care to quote which posts your talking about and justifying your comment?

What posts give "pro-nazi" comments?

I was pretty clear in http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70390329&postcount=16 as to plausible reasons why so many soviet prisoners died. The nazi ideology from Hitler right through the hierarchy did not care whether these soldiers lived or died...until they needed them as slave labour of course. The attitudes in the Heer were more complex, probably due to being less idealogically motivated. Some commanders like Von Reichenau looked down on the Soviet soldiers whereas some like Ewald Von Kleist had a lot of respect for the russian soldiers, indeed one of the soviet charges against Kleist was "alienating, through friendship & generosity, the peoples of the Soviet Union" and individual soldiers would have had as complex and wide a range of views also.

The secondary and lesser point is that even if the Nazis had the willingness to feed and clothe 5 million plus prisoners, the Heers logistical setup was completely inadequate to take care of its own soldiers needs let alone take care of pows. There were hundreds of thousands of frostbite casualties in the winter of 1941/42, in many areas the transport system ground to a halt and german soldiers had to sometimes eat the frozen corpses of their horses. I posted sources, those books are easily available.

Your post 16 which you link/ refer to was welcome. However it is basically the response that leading German officers gave in their defence at Nurembourg. I don't accept that it is an all-encompassing answer to my questioning of the high death rate of Soviet POW's in German care. If this was the case then surely the same rate of attrition would have applied to German prisoners in Soviet care in 1944/45?

Surely you find it acceptable to question the version of events given by the main proponents of these events.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

]Your post 16 which you link/ refer to was welcome. However it is basically the response that leading German officers gave in their defence at Nurembourg. I don't accept that it is an all-encompassing answer to my questioning of the high death rate of Soviet POW's in German care. If this was the case then surely the same rate of attrition would have applied to German prisoners in Soviet care in 1944/45?

These are well respected authors that you are discounting, not just an ordinary joe like me. I had a leaf through my old dog-eared copy of Alan Clarks "Barbarossa" which broadly confirmed the same assertions.

The circumstances in 1941/42 and 1944/45 were quite different. In 1941/42 the battlefield was in large part the barren tractless steppes of russia with its poor roads and rail system whereas the battlefield in 1944/45 was in Poland/East Prussia/Czechoslovakia/Hungary etc with much better transport links. As already stated the German transportation situation in 41/42 was pretty dire whereas in 44/45 the Soviet forces were almost fully mechanized due in no small part to plentiful american trucks supplied under the lend-lease agreements so the soviets were in a much better position to supply POWs than the germans were in 41/42

Also, you seem to just discount the russian winter of 1941/42 which even by the russians was reckoned to be the most severe in decades. The wehrmacht didn't do much to help the captured soviet troops but even if the willingness was there, what could they do given their parlous logistical situation?

Surely you find it acceptable to question the version of events given by the main proponents of these events.

Of course. The war on the eastern front was so massive that we are still learning new things about it every year. However I think the thread would be helped if you put forward your own theory on events seeing as you find mine and other responses to be insufficient.

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

These are well respected authors that you are discounting, not just an ordinary joe like me. I had a leaf through my old dog-eared copy of Alan Clarks "Barbarossa" which broadly confirmed the same assertions.

The circumstances in 1941/42 and 1944/45 were quite different. In 1941/42 the battlefield was in large part the barren tractless steppes of russia with its poor roads and rail system whereas the battlefield in 1944/45 was in Poland/East Prussia/Czechoslovakia/Hungary etc with much better transport links. As already stated the German transportation situation in 41/42 was pretty dire whereas in 44/45 the Soviet forces were almost fully mechanized due in no small part to plentiful american trucks supplied under the lend-lease agreements so the soviets were in a much better position to supply POWs than the germans were in 41/42

Also, you seem to just discount the russian winter of 1941/42 which even by the russians was reckoned to be the most severe in decades. The wehrmacht didn't do much to help the captured soviet troops but even if the willingness was there, what could they do given their parlous logistical situation?

I don't doubt in any way the authors you quoted as being a valid basis for your opinion. My point was that it was not an all encompassing answer to the question of the mortality rate of Soviet POW. The points of logistical difficulties and harsh winter are accepted as contributary factors. I would make the point that in a logistical sense the Wehrmacht managed successfully to move their own troops and equipment until late 1941 so if there had been a will to provide for the POW's, it would have been achievable. It was also after all the winter which had stopped them in late november 1941 outside Moscow (at the end of the period which saw the heaviest death tolls of Soviet POW's). Thus I believe there must have been more to it than these 2 reasons.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The war on the eastern front was so massive that we are still learning new things about it every year. However I think the thread would be helped if you put forward your own theory on events seeing as you find mine and other responses to be insufficient.

I agree about the eastern front lack of information. The scale of warfare on the eastern front dwarfs that of the whole battle for western europe, Italy, Africa and indeed the Pacific yet the information availiable is in direct contrast to these arenas. For example there is a wealth of first hand accounts availiable about western allies experiences as POW's but not of Soviet or German POW's experiences in the eastern conflict. This should not be mistaken as one sided as in post 42- I would welcome any information also on German prisoners who were held in Soviet Gulags as punishment after the war ended as this is another under explored area.

My own theory is not important as I am still trying to get more information to base it upon. If it helps though it is as I said here

It would seem to me from research and also from some helpful posts that it was almost a pyschological disposition that was embedded in the German mindset at the time. In simple terms if the soldiers believed the Soviets were a lesser race of people it made it easier to disregard the killing of their POW's.

This view would put alot of the blame on the wehrmacht officer classes who were the people who knowingly pushed on under orders with expansionary plans with the full knowledge of what was happening to both POW's and civilians.

jonniebgood1

There was a query relating to repatriation of Soviet POW's on their return to Russia at the end of the war, particularly regarding the nature of the camps they went through on the way towards repatriation. The popular misconceptions in relation to this are dealt with here:

According to popular belief, almost all of them went straight to the Gulag. Varlam Shalamov in “The Final Battle of Major Pugachoff” wrote: “... ship after ship were repatriated – from Italy, France and Germany – along a direct road to the extreme northeast.” It is hardly necessary to explain that there was no direct communication between Europe and the far northeast (i.e., Kolyma) – not after the war, nor at any other time. It is appropriate, however, to recall the popular expression at the time “we simply don’t just get arrested.” Returnees should have understood this literally.

In general, before the end of the war, about 8% of former prisoners were subjected to various types of repression, including those who by March 1944 had not yet been verified and remained in the camps. Taking into account the prisoners who were released after the war, the proportion who were repressed increased to 14.69% (226,127 people). This can be explained by the fact that many collaborators who were among the prisoners sought as long as possible to delay their encounter with Soviet troops and evacuated toward the west with the retreating Germans. The remaining 85% of former war prisoners, or 1,313,348 people, were sent to their place of residence, enlisted in the army, joined the labor battalions, or temporarily remained at the assembly transit points and worked there.

With respect to the civilian returnees, the percentage of those who were repressed or transferred to the NKVD, as written in official documents, was considerably smaller – 1.76% (46,740). Of those remaining, 2,146,126 were sent to their places of residence, 141,962 were drafted into the army, 263,647 were enrolled in work battalions, and 61,538 remained at the assembly points.

Full publication at:
http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/publications/articles/article0015.html

Tony EH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You are correct that the USSR did not sign the 1929 convention which detailed treatment of POW's. However Germany did sign it and generally speaking upheld it with treatment of British/ American prisoners. Having signed it Germany was duty bound to abide by its contents, even when dealing with nations that had not signed it. This was dealt with under article 82 of the treaty. Their treatment of their own soldiers who were captured was reprehensible and reflected the general lack of value placed on human life by the USSR at the time (Ukraine famine, purges, etc).

Of course, sticking to the letter of the treaty was what EVERY side should have done in the war, but the fact is that none did.

One must also be aware of the obvious, in that why would a nation put in place the care that the conventions stipulate, when the enemy nation isn’t going to bother taking care of your men? Regardless of whether they were a signatory or not. It really wouldn't make any kind of logic, despite what the conventions stated.

Plus, one also has to take into account the fact that Germany just didn't have the resources to actually take care of the millions of Soviet POW's they found at their disposal. I dare say that ANY Nation would have had very serious problems accommodating the sort of numbers that the Germans had to deal with during the war, in such a short space of time to and with the shooting still going on.

Most of the deaths of POWs happened in the first 6 months of Barbarossa. The incredibly harsh winter, which started in September (a mere 3 months after the beginning of the invasion) being a huge factor in their demise. The Wehrmacht hadn't even the winter equipment that they needed themselves, so it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that the High Command also failed to implement measures to protect the huge numbers of POWs from the ravages of the Russian winter too. It's just one more element of shambolic nature of some of the planning for Barbarossa that went on.

They simply didn't expect the war with Russia to go on into 1942 and that's really the bottom line.

Hitler was supposed to have said on the eve of the invasion that "All one has to do is kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down." He was expecting a short war with a favourable conclusion. There was little, if any, thought given to what was to be done if Russia didn't fall apart and managed to actually make a fight of it. It's incredible to think, but Hitler didn't think beyond the conclusion of the war with the Soviets at all.

Tony EH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is hard to believe that, but the statistics I quoted from should not be taken lightly.

That depends. Are those figures JUST for the war, or do they include POW deaths after the war ended?

I personally know a man who was in the RAD, who was captured in 1943 and spent 10 years in a Soviet labour camp. He said the death toll among prisoners was staggering. Even the Soviet citizens were outraged at their treatment.

jonniebgood1

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course, sticking to the letter of the treaty was what EVERY side should have done in the war, but the fact is that none did.

One must also be aware of the obvious, in that why would a nation put in place the care that the conventions stipulate, when the enemy nation isn’t going to bother taking care of your men? Regardless of whether they were a signatory or not. It really wouldn't make any kind of logic, despite what the conventions stated.
.

I am inclined to agree with this. However, Finland for example was in a similar position to the Germans but they actually abided by the terms of the 1929 treaty despite the USSR not recipricating this. They did this as they had signed the treaty.

Tony EH wrote: »

Plus, one also has to take into account the fact that Germany just didn't have the resources to actually take care of the millions of Soviet POW's they found at their disposal. I dare say that ANY Nation would have had very serious problems accommodating the sort of numbers that the Germans had to deal with during the war, in such a short space of time to and with the shooting still going on.

Most of the deaths of POWs happened in the first 6 months of Barbarossa. The incredibly harsh winter, which started in September (a mere 3 months after the beginning of the invasion) being a huge factor in their demise. The Wehrmacht hadn't even the winter equipment that they needed themselves, so it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that the High Command also failed to implement measures to protect the huge numbers of POWs from the ravages of the Russian winter too. It's just one more element of shambolic nature of some of the planning for Barbarossa that went on.
.

These are the reasons given at Nurembourg and are taken on board. The timing of the events does'nt fit in 100% with this though. The main casualties in POW camps were from August 1941 to Jan/ Feb 1942 but the German offensive did not falter until late november. The point being they were able to manage the logistics of moving troops and heavy armoury long after the POW's were dying by the thousand.

Tony EH wrote: »

That depends. Are those figures JUST for the war, or do they include POW deaths after the war ended?

I personally know a man who was in the RAD, who was captured in 1943 and spent 10 years in a Soviet labour camp. He said the death toll among prisoners was staggering. Even the Soviet citizens were outraged at their treatment. .
.

They remained POW's after the war I presume. I don't dispute that the Germans retained in Labour camps were treated appalingly. I would be interested in more information about the RAD man if you have more- sounds very interesting.