Is Stalin guilty in the horrors of fascist captivity?
With the report of Nikita Sergeevich at the historic twentieth party congress, the era of the desecration of the cult of Joseph Vissarionovich, which was created during the entire period of his stay at the state helm, began. Much has been said about the crimes and atrocities committed at the direction of this person. And it is still not clear where lies, and where the truth is. However, the Russian people tend to get involved in each of their even useful undertakings and, over time, they began to accuse Stalin even of what he was not to blame.
One of these allegations was the allegation that the ill-treatment in fascist concentration camps of Soviet prisoners of war was connected with the refusal of the USSR to sign the Geneva Convention. In this article, the author does not try to justify the policy of Joseph Vissarionovich in relation to Soviet citizens, as well as his activities in general. Below we will talk about exactly what documents were signed, and how this affected the attitude towards the captured soldiers of the Soviet army from Germany. We will also try to understand whether there was at least some guilt of Stalin in the attitude of the fascists towards our prisoners of war.
The well-known opinion that the Geneva Convention of the USSR on Prisoners of War was not signed is true. This fact was conveyed to the general public in Solzhenitsyn’s novel, and the Third Reich cited arguments and references to this fact back in the war period. The opinion of the writer was mistaken from a legal point of view, but quickly became popular among reading people.
When discussing the draft in government circles, it was suggested that some provisions of the Convention on Prisoners of War contradict the Soviet principles of law, therefore, its own version of the document was developed and approved. In the conclusion of Malitsky, all the differences of the Soviet view on this question are disclosed in detail. If we talk about the Soviet version, the position of prisoners of war was much more democratic. For example, the maintenance was to be paid not only to the officers, but also to the rank and file; the document provided for the possibility of refusal of labor and other norms that only improved the situation of this category of persons. It should be noted, however, that the Regulations on prisoners of war adopted in peacetime conditions were tightened in the 1941 year, but still remained relevant to the Geneva Convention.
The authors of some articles refute the very fact of refusing to sign the Geneva Convention 1929 of the year, referring to the documents submitted to the public by Mr. Litvinov. However, all this evidence is nothing but a fake. The USSR did not join the Geneva POW Convention. In fact, another convention ratified at the same conference in 1929 was ratified, referring to the wounded and sick. It is this document that supplemented the indicated comrades with the word “prisoners of war”.
The next question to consider is the question of whether fascist Germany had the right to refuse Soviet prisoners of war in relation to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. In order not to be unfounded, we turn to the 82 article of this international act. The essence of the regulation is that the party to the convention is obliged to comply with its conditions with regard to any prisoners of war, regardless of whether their country is a party to the above act. Only this requirement alone is enough to assert that the actions of the German leadership were in the nature of an international crime and contradicted the obligations it assumed.
In addition, at the time of the start of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union was already a party to the 1907 Hague Conventions, as it recognized their action after the revolution. The essence of these documents also did not allow Germany to contain Soviet prisoners of war in the conditions that were in reality. The fact is that although the Geneva Convention on the situation of prisoners of war did not replace the Hague Agreements, it nevertheless united the norms they established and supplemented them. Thus, the statement of the German officials that Stalin’s refusal to sign the international act adopted in Geneva 1929 gives them the right not to comply with it in relation to captured Soviet soldiers is no more than an attempt to justify their atrocities. It should be said that in respect of British soldiers violations of this act also occurred repeatedly, despite the fact that the United Kingdom signed the convention. In addition, a flagrant violation of international obligations was the involvement in hostilities on the side of the fascists of Indian prisoners of war in 1944.
On the true causes of discrimination against Soviet prisoners of war, Hitler’s statement that the Bolsheviks, by virtue of their ideological convictions, are especially dangerous for the political system of the Great German Nation, and therefore have no right to claim action against them of the Geneva Convention, speaks for them. The words of the fascist leader clearly indicate a disregard for all international legal principles, and not only the norms of the Geneva Convention. The fascists did not consider the Slavs to be full-fledged people at all, therefore, all rights violations were, in terms of their ideology, quite natural. Especially during the period of its highest power, the Third Reich allowed himself to neglect not only the norms of international law, but also to ignore the basic human laws. Hitler did not recognize any right other than the right of force.
Today, attempts to justify the inhuman conditions in fascist concentration camps by the absence of one or another signature or regulatory document are especially dangerous. The European Community, as well as the USA, are interested in reducing not only the role of the Soviet Union in victory, but also Germany’s guilt towards our compatriots. People learning history according to documents and confirmed facts, they are outraged by the assumption that discrimination of prisoners of war is only a subjective opinion of the Bolsheviks. We will cite nutrition standards for Soviet prisoners of war, approved at the time of 1941, as evidence of discrimination to such “specialists”. This document sets the number of products as a percentage of the norms of prisoners of war in other countries, and their size in almost all cases does not exceed fifty percent.
It should also not be forgotten that the death rate of Soviet prisoners of war in German concentration camps was more than fifty percent only according to official German figures, while German prisoners of war lost only fifteen percent of the total. It cannot be said that official statistics reliably reflect the number of prisoners of war who died in this tragic period of history. Today it is known that the fascist leaders kept double statistics, and a huge number of names of tortured Soviet guys were lost forever in the documents of this ruthless system. The statistics of the Soviet Union are also not objective, since many German prisoners of war lost this status in the very first weeks and months. Nevertheless, even taking into account these facts, we cannot ignore the enormous difference in mortality rates. The grindstones of a terrible and inhuman fascist system crushed over three million Soviet lives.
So, on the basis of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the fact of refusal to sign the Geneva Convention could not become a legal argument that gave Germany the right to refuse to apply it to Soviet prisoners of war.
One of these allegations was the allegation that the ill-treatment in fascist concentration camps of Soviet prisoners of war was connected with the refusal of the USSR to sign the Geneva Convention. In this article, the author does not try to justify the policy of Joseph Vissarionovich in relation to Soviet citizens, as well as his activities in general. Below we will talk about exactly what documents were signed, and how this affected the attitude towards the captured soldiers of the Soviet army from Germany. We will also try to understand whether there was at least some guilt of Stalin in the attitude of the fascists towards our prisoners of war.
The well-known opinion that the Geneva Convention of the USSR on Prisoners of War was not signed is true. This fact was conveyed to the general public in Solzhenitsyn’s novel, and the Third Reich cited arguments and references to this fact back in the war period. The opinion of the writer was mistaken from a legal point of view, but quickly became popular among reading people.
When discussing the draft in government circles, it was suggested that some provisions of the Convention on Prisoners of War contradict the Soviet principles of law, therefore, its own version of the document was developed and approved. In the conclusion of Malitsky, all the differences of the Soviet view on this question are disclosed in detail. If we talk about the Soviet version, the position of prisoners of war was much more democratic. For example, the maintenance was to be paid not only to the officers, but also to the rank and file; the document provided for the possibility of refusal of labor and other norms that only improved the situation of this category of persons. It should be noted, however, that the Regulations on prisoners of war adopted in peacetime conditions were tightened in the 1941 year, but still remained relevant to the Geneva Convention.
The authors of some articles refute the very fact of refusing to sign the Geneva Convention 1929 of the year, referring to the documents submitted to the public by Mr. Litvinov. However, all this evidence is nothing but a fake. The USSR did not join the Geneva POW Convention. In fact, another convention ratified at the same conference in 1929 was ratified, referring to the wounded and sick. It is this document that supplemented the indicated comrades with the word “prisoners of war”.
The next question to consider is the question of whether fascist Germany had the right to refuse Soviet prisoners of war in relation to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. In order not to be unfounded, we turn to the 82 article of this international act. The essence of the regulation is that the party to the convention is obliged to comply with its conditions with regard to any prisoners of war, regardless of whether their country is a party to the above act. Only this requirement alone is enough to assert that the actions of the German leadership were in the nature of an international crime and contradicted the obligations it assumed.
In addition, at the time of the start of the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union was already a party to the 1907 Hague Conventions, as it recognized their action after the revolution. The essence of these documents also did not allow Germany to contain Soviet prisoners of war in the conditions that were in reality. The fact is that although the Geneva Convention on the situation of prisoners of war did not replace the Hague Agreements, it nevertheless united the norms they established and supplemented them. Thus, the statement of the German officials that Stalin’s refusal to sign the international act adopted in Geneva 1929 gives them the right not to comply with it in relation to captured Soviet soldiers is no more than an attempt to justify their atrocities. It should be said that in respect of British soldiers violations of this act also occurred repeatedly, despite the fact that the United Kingdom signed the convention. In addition, a flagrant violation of international obligations was the involvement in hostilities on the side of the fascists of Indian prisoners of war in 1944.
On the true causes of discrimination against Soviet prisoners of war, Hitler’s statement that the Bolsheviks, by virtue of their ideological convictions, are especially dangerous for the political system of the Great German Nation, and therefore have no right to claim action against them of the Geneva Convention, speaks for them. The words of the fascist leader clearly indicate a disregard for all international legal principles, and not only the norms of the Geneva Convention. The fascists did not consider the Slavs to be full-fledged people at all, therefore, all rights violations were, in terms of their ideology, quite natural. Especially during the period of its highest power, the Third Reich allowed himself to neglect not only the norms of international law, but also to ignore the basic human laws. Hitler did not recognize any right other than the right of force.
Today, attempts to justify the inhuman conditions in fascist concentration camps by the absence of one or another signature or regulatory document are especially dangerous. The European Community, as well as the USA, are interested in reducing not only the role of the Soviet Union in victory, but also Germany’s guilt towards our compatriots. People learning history according to documents and confirmed facts, they are outraged by the assumption that discrimination of prisoners of war is only a subjective opinion of the Bolsheviks. We will cite nutrition standards for Soviet prisoners of war, approved at the time of 1941, as evidence of discrimination to such “specialists”. This document sets the number of products as a percentage of the norms of prisoners of war in other countries, and their size in almost all cases does not exceed fifty percent.
It should also not be forgotten that the death rate of Soviet prisoners of war in German concentration camps was more than fifty percent only according to official German figures, while German prisoners of war lost only fifteen percent of the total. It cannot be said that official statistics reliably reflect the number of prisoners of war who died in this tragic period of history. Today it is known that the fascist leaders kept double statistics, and a huge number of names of tortured Soviet guys were lost forever in the documents of this ruthless system. The statistics of the Soviet Union are also not objective, since many German prisoners of war lost this status in the very first weeks and months. Nevertheless, even taking into account these facts, we cannot ignore the enormous difference in mortality rates. The grindstones of a terrible and inhuman fascist system crushed over three million Soviet lives.
So, on the basis of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the fact of refusal to sign the Geneva Convention could not become a legal argument that gave Germany the right to refuse to apply it to Soviet prisoners of war.
Information