# Talk:German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

The former has two references (24, 25) - quotations would be welcome since this may be controversial (for example, Almost all of the German high commanders tried during that trial were found to be guilty of crimes against POWs - see https://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=O1mqEAAAQBAJ , p. 150-153)
which sentence in the body supports the latter? The body states "The OKW said that the Geneva Convention did not apply to Soviet prisoners of war, but suggested that it be the basis of planning." which implies the opposite
"Soviet Jews, political commissars, and some officers, communists, intellectuals, Asians, and female combatants were systematically targeted for execution"
Can we define "communists" in this context? Does it mean party members? The body states "sometimes communists, intellectuals" citing two references (124, 125).
In the same part of the body, Turkic prisoners are mentioned - but they are not mentioned in the lead. Why isn't Turkic linked?
"Over a million were deported to Germany for forced labor, where many died in sight of the local population"
Why isn't forced labor linked?
Is the part about "in sight of the local population" really that relevant to the lead? And which part of the body supports this generic statement?
"More than 100,000 were transferred to Nazi concentration camps, where they were treated worse than other prisoners."
Worse than the Jews?
"Although the Soviet Union announced the death penalty for surrender early in the war"
Which part of the body supports this?
"Most defectors and collaborators escaped prosecution. Former prisoners of war were not recognized as veterans, and did not receive any reparations until 2015; they often faced discrimination due to the perception that they were traitors or deserters."
How come Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war are not mentioned in the lead, while we discuss details like the ones mentioned above? That link should be in the lead.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead  covers the typical treatment of returning prisoners of war, rather than overemphasize the much smaller number who faced specific punitive treatment that you want to highlight. I believe most of these other points are wrong or misguided, but I really don't have time to address it right now because of my work schedule. If you want a response from me, please fix the numbering so I can reply to each point individually. (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Numbering fixed. I am really not convinced the "Gulag" treatment is as undue as you are insisting (but I hope at least you now agree to not remove the mention of this topic and link to Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war  from the body (discussion above at #Soviet repressions). It would be good to see what other editors knowledgeable about this would say, but I am not sure who would know more about this topic. Pinging User:Altenmann, User:My very best wishes for now (as editors I recall being somewhat knowledgeable about related topics). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree that some parts of the lead are problematic. Speaking on #1,
Germany largely upheld its obligations under the Geneva Convention with prisoners of war of other nationalities. This is rather questionable at best. Actually, a lot of "prisoners of war of other nationalities" have died in German camps (one should look at proper statistical data).
[German] military planners decided to breach it with the Soviet prisoners. Yes, perhaps they breached it more that with other POWs, but not because they just "decided". There were various reasons, one of which was Soviet government refusing to recognize Soviet POWs and declaring all of them traitors.
Overall, everyone is welcome to fix the page. Please do. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
All the information in the article is correctly cited. You are welcome to look up the information if you have questions. For example, deaths among pows does not directly correlate to violation of the Geneva Convention. There were various reasons, one of which was Soviet government refusing to recognize Soviet POWs and declaring all of them traitors. that's an eyebrow raising assertion, got any citations that claim this is a reason for the Germans treating prisoners badly? (t · c) buidhe 02:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, we all know that Nazi have committed a lot of atrocities against the POWs from many countries. Saying that Germany largely upheld its obligations under the Geneva Convention with prisoners of war of other nationalities is not true. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the statement. Violations did occur, but they were the exception, not the rule. The statement is supported by the cited sources and should not be modified just because you disagree. (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
First, you still have to provide quotations for these I asked; second, this claim seems like a WP:REDFLAG, considering the extent of German crimes against POWs (not just the Soviets), and the mentioned fact that during High Command Trial nearly all generals and like were found guilty of facilitating crimes against the POWs. Anyway, here are some sources that state otherwise (text translated from Polish language):
[1]: "The Germans manipulated the Geneva principles, often breaking them, especially during their military superiority. They claimed that they did not apply to "former soldiers of the former Polish state"... This violation of international law by the Germans towards prisoners of war from the Polish army was more frequent and more severe than towards Allied prisoners of war in their hands. ... Polish non-commissioned officers of Jewish origin were "released" from captivity in the spring of 1940, directly into the hands of the Gestapo police and transferred to ghettos in the General Government, from where almost all were later deported to extermination camps. This was a particularly significant violation of the Geneva Convention."
[2]: quotes Polish POW general Juliusz Rómmel who said that ""The Geneva Convention was regularly and brutally violated by the [German — H. T.] camp authorities."
[3]: "The starting point for the considerations were the provisions of the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929 on the possibility of using prisoner of war labour.. From the first days of World War II, Germany systematically failed to comply with the provisions of the above-mentioned conventions."
[4]: "the way in which the Nazi state treated prisoners of war was inconsistent with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions" (this in the context of forced labor, again)
[5] "Even though the authorities of the Third Reich officially recognized the Geneva Convention, they were not eager to respect it."
[6] "Nazi Germany violated the binding law of nations — the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1929 — by mass murdering civilians in extermination camps and prisoners of war."
I will ping @Dreamcatcher25 who may have some additional sources and comments here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, of course. These sources are mostly related to Polish POWs, but neither Nazi Germany nor Stalinist USSR respected any international agreements, including these ones.My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
1) I click on the links, but am unable to access some of them and others (such as the papers from 1971, 1975, and 1985) are obviously unusable. 2) I'm not sure what the source refers to in terms of "mass murder" (if that's what the source is claiming), but per existing mortality figures the vast majority were not murdered. I'm not sure if any of these sources explicitly dispute the assertion that most non-Soviet POWs, including polish nationals, were largely treated according to the Geneva Convention.
It's interesting you bring up the High Command trial, as it was focused on the German-Soviet war: "The majority of the defendants, meanwhile, had held field commissions during the war, serving in various functions on several fronts but nearly all in the war against the Soviet Union. Insofar as war crimes and crimes against humanity were concerned, Case 12 would be very much an Operation Barbarossa trial" Priemel
In contrast, we have highly credible sources that support the statement in the article. Gerlach states, in World War II the German military again treated prisoners, except those from the USSR, largely according to the international laws of war. Quinkert et al write, In World War II the German Armed Forces adhere to [the 1929 Geneva Convention] for most enemy soldiers, with the exception of soviet pows.  If your assertions about Polish Pows were widely accepted in the international scholarly community, I would expect to find it reflected in sources such as these. If the interpretation can only be found in obscure journals, perhaps it has not reached mainstream acceptance.
It seems from my research that Rüdiger Overmans, " Die Kriegsgefangenenpolitik des Deutschen Reiches 1939 bis 1945" (2005), another overview of all nationalities of pows held by Germany, also supports this claim, but I have not accessed this source to confirm. (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I've cited Polish historiography on this, old and new. It is not "fringe". And we have obvious evidence that Germany violated Geneva Conventions, with tens of thousands of non-Soviet POWs, Polish, Western Allies, etc. murdered from 1939 to 1945: German atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II. You cannot deny the facts. This sentence could be rewritten to stay that Germany violated those conventions much more when it came to the Soviet POWs, but to say it did 'mostly good job' regarding others is plainly wrong. Here is an English review of an English language relevant work. Some quotes: "This methodology allows Vourkoutiotis to show, for example, that the OKW ordered the reduction of food rations to British and American POWs as early as December 1941, relying on Red Cross parcels to supplement the diet of POWs. Consequently, the High Command consciously decided not to abide by article 11 of the Geneva Convention which mandated that food rations be equivalent "to what the Detaining Power would provide for its own depot soldiers."  or "...it OKW policy that facilitated "satisfactory" material conditions in most of the camps, and was it the very same policy that resulted in a number of flagrant violations of the Geneva Convention." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@Piotrus. I like your new page German atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II. Good work! Unfortunately, I can not be of much help here, being busy in real life. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what facts I'm denying. I'm not convinced that the sources you've provided actually contradict the statement in multiple RS that the treatment of most non-Soviet POWs was largely adherent to the Geneva Convention, not that there were no violations (something I never argued). I don't agree that papers published decades ago in a country without free expression should be cited for politically controversial topics or are indicative of current, mainstream scholarly thinking. That said, I  think that your versions overemphasize the comparison with other nationalities so perhaps there is no need to make that comparison in the article lead. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The lead, in particular, should be free from controversial generalizations. And once again you seem to have skipped over other sources - some of those I presented have been published in Poland after 1989, and the last one I mentioned is an English language book published in a country that has no major issues with free expression (hint: Palgrave Macmillan is the publisher). It is obvious that there is disagreement among scholars on this topic. Their contradictory views could be presented in the body of a relevant article, with attributions; certainly a view of one of them, unattributed and not representing universal academic consensus, does not belong to the lead of this article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As I am getting deeper into the literature on Prisoners of war in World War II, this article increasingly strikes me as poorly researched and not neutral. We had a discussion above about the relevance of German crimes against Polish POWs - and here I am reading Moore (2022), used in this article extensively, and he writes that "Although much attention has been paid to Hitler’s ‘war of annihilation’ against the Soviet Union as marking the break with the norms of warfare associated with the Geneva Convention there is evidence that elements of the ‘criminal’ behaviour associated with that war had developed incrementally during and after the Polish campaign of 1939". This is obviously relevant, yet it has not been included and it is being edit warred away, again, with spurious edit summaries. Well, Moore thinks it is relevant, sigh. If we have room to mention (in the preceeding sentence to which I appended my new text) that "During the invasion of France in 1940, 1.9 million prisoners of war were housed and fed; historian Alex J. Kay cites this as evidence that supply and logistics cannot explain the mass death of Soviet prisoners of war", we can mention this too.
Also, from Moore: "Although it is possible to highlight a whole range of factors that contributed to the unprecedented mortality rates among the Soviet prisoners, there is no consensus among scholars as to where the responsibility lies. At one end of the spectrum is the thesis put forward by Christian Gerlach that this was part of a wider scheme of calculated murder against Soviet soldiers and civilians, and at the other end are the explanations that try to deflect criticism away from the Wehrmacht and its leadership altogether."
The above is quite relevant as the article seems to be written from Gerlach's POV, treating his thesis as representing consensus. This needs addressing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"that this was part of a wider scheme of calculated murder against Soviet soldiers and civilians" What is the opposing view, that the Germans were resorting to ad hoc decision-making on what to do with the prisoners? Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
See Moore (2022), page 237 and subsequent, for his argument. I do not have a strong opinion here, except to note that scholars seem to have no consensus on some key issues discussed here, and we should make sure to present their differing views instead of those of one side in a debate. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
PS. From the book - note I have no side here, just trying to answer your question: "Gerlach’s case for a deliberate policy of killing ordinary Soviet prisoners (as opposed to just targeted groups such as commissars and Jews) can point to large-scale massacres in White Russia, many of which seem to have had no a rationale at all, and to plenty of examples of torture and sadism, including the use of prisoners for target practice.'4* While the empirical evidence of mistreatment is overwhelming, actual policy statements are rare and often contradictory. For example, Gerlach cites a statement made by Wagner on 13 November 1941 at meeting in Orscha that non-working Soviet prisoners would be starved to death. However, opponents of his thesis have pointed out that a more recently discovered longer version of the document in question does not contain the same phrases. The mere fact that policies towards the Soviet prisoners were not altogether consistent and that there were changes of heart about their usefulness and their fate at the highest levels in the autumn of 1941 suggest a more complex explanation. Prisoners were often left in wholly unsuitable camps simply because there was neither the will to provide resources to supply them nor the wherewithal to move them. At the very bottom of the list of German priorities, they were then at the mercy of the worsening weather and the attitudes of their guards, who had been conditioned to see them as dangerous Bolshevik Untermenschen and who were, at the very best, indifferent to their fate.  " (that's from p. 239). Also, earlier in the book (p. 8-9) he writes: "The specific debate on the fate of the Soviet prisoners of war and the reasons for the horrendous death rates they suffered was then addressed by several leading historians, most notably Rolf Keller, Christian Hartmann, Riidiger Overmans.” All three looked at how specific military polices, the attitudes of responsible agencies, and individuals as well as localized circumstances conspired to bring about the deaths through cold, ill-treatment, or starvation of more than two million men in the early stages of the conflict. They also addressed, either directly or indirectly, the thesis proposed by Christian Gerlach that this was a policy of calculated murder.*  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
That said, I noticed the article actually says "There is still disagreement between historians to what extent the mass deaths of prisoners in 1941 can be attributed to ideological reasons as part of the planned racial restructuring of Germany's empire versus a logistical failure that interrupted German planners' intent to use the prisoners as a labor reserve". Which is fine - we should just add a cite to Moore and perhaps expand a bit based on his analysis. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
"interrupted German planners' intent to use the prisoners as a labor reserve" No surprise there. Nazi Germany kept using forced labour policies for its prisoners and detainees, but was also killing its own labor force at a fast pace. Even as a teenager studying books on the topic, I could not figure what the heck were they thinking. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dimadick Extermination through labour was a part of this. More at Forced labour under German rule during World War II (which I started way back in 2008...). We need an article on forced labor of prisoners of war too; maybe I'll get around to writing it up one day. Moore (2022) has a lot on that, but for now I want to finish Prisoners of war in World War II (still can't believe it was missing), together with a bunch of related overviews (like, we don't have an article about German POWs, Italian POWs, heck, most of allied POWs are missing too...). And it's not an easy topic, I am burning out again writing about darker sides of WW2... if you have the time, check out some other stuff we were discussing above few weeks ago.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the full quote. As Moore suggests, the emphasis he is putting on violations in the German–Polish war is not common among other scholarly works in general. It raises issues of whether Piotrus' edits present this as having more weight than it should really be due, given the sources that exists. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
This article has plenty of cherry picked details and POVs. Who else discusses French POWs for example in this context? Almost nobody. Moore's monograph is the best work we have on WW2 POW and his points are very due. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
And this is hardly a point that Moore just invented (which, by the way, he makes twice in his book, at least - also in conclusion, p 483: "In many respects, the war against Poland set the tone for both German and Soviet behaviour towards enemy soldiers captured on the battlefield. Although some reported atrocities carried out against Polish prisoners occurred in this grey zone immediately after surrender, many others did not and represented a departure from the norms of war.". There is other scholarship that makes the same points. Ex. the view of Alexander B. Rossino, discussed here: [7] under a telling subheading "GERMAN "CRIMINAL" POLICIES IN POLAND FROM 1939: Just a Transitional Phase to the "War of Destruction" in the USSR?"". Or ust one of many examples from other works I recently saw, ex. Chinney ([8], in the context of prisoners death during transport: "It was a scene repeated on many occasions with Polish and later Soviet prisoners of war and was part of a plan to reduce the prisoner-of war population by means other than a bullet in the back of the neck"...). There are others, this is a point made by many scholars and hardly controversial. Nazis treated prisoners from the Slavic groups worse than those in the West, and among the Slavs, Soviets were treated worse than most other groups. But Moore is one of the best sources (reliable, recent) - no need to refbomb this.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
PS. From Rossino: "The treatment of Polish prisoners of war is also worth examining in this context for what it reveals about indiscipline and brutality during the German campaign in Poland. Scholars agree that unlike the war in the Soviet Union, when the deliberate maltreatment and execution of Red Army POWs caused millions of deaths, the German army in 1939 did not intend a similar fate for captured Polish soldiers. The lack of an institutional impulse for mass murder notwithstanding, there were in fact hundreds of incidents during which Polish POWs were beaten, tortured, murdered, or otherwise mistreated by German troops" (p.179), followed by few pages discussing specific incidents, including comments on Germany's common violation of Geneva's Convention (which you denied a while ago, which spurred me to create a lengthy paragraph in a relevant article, now with 8 RS or so, about how many scholars do indeed say that Germany violated Geneva, and Gerlach's passing claim which you used is an exception to the consensus...) and concluded on p. 185: "The intensity of combat and the insecurity of German soldiers on foreign soil arc likely reasons why such violence erupted, hut another explanation can be found in the brutalizing influence of National Socialism, which valorized barbaric behavior against Germany's racial enemies as worthy and correct. [...] This reality did not bode well for future campaigns that the German army would fight in Eastern Europe what Slavs and particularly Jews would be subjected to violence that was terrific in scale and genocidal in intensity." Drawing an escalating line from what begun in Poland in '39 to what happened in USSR a few years later is hardly a fringe theory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The word "women" only appear 4 times as of now (one being about "relationships with German women", so let's make it  actually 3), and "female" only 2 times. This doesn't seem fair, as even fewer of them (5-10% at most, it seems) survived, if they happened to not be shot on the spot without even making it to POW status. They recieved a special (bad) treatment, and deserve a section, I think. Even though I am aware of a slippery slope of having a section for different categories of POW, which could result in a huge number of new section for different categories, but I think we can manage 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:6D90:77EE:C9A0:EA6D (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to find evidence for the claim that female combatants were specifically or more targeted than men whether for execution or otherwise or even just treated worse than men and found no evidence for this what so ever. Unless someone finds sensible source for this claim, it should be removed. 2001:14BA:CB:C500:3A2C:4AFF:FEB9:EAA (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It's cited to 3 sources at the end of the summary execution section. No citations in the lead is standard practice if the information is cited elsewhere in the article. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)