Military Review

How Britain tortured fascist prisoners

96
How Britain tortured fascist prisoners

An SS officer could say anything to avoid hanging the gallows for his monstrous war crimes. However, Fritz Knokhlein did not lie when he declared in 1946 that he had been tortured in London when British soldiers tried to extract confessions from him.

Britain has a reputation as a country that prides itself on its commitment to justice and respect for the law. She declares her high moral principles when it comes to human rights. She was one of the first to sign the Geneva Convention 1929 on the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

However, in 2005, as a result of a journalistic investigation, information appeared about the center for the detention of prisoners of war, called the "London cell". After several applications, in accordance with the law on free access to information, journalists managed to gain access to government documents relating to this place.

They opened terrible details about the functioning of the secret center of torture in one of the prestigious areas of the British capital.

Several thousand Germans passed through the London cell, who were beaten, prevented from sleeping, and forced to take unnatural poses for several days.

One said that they would be killed and secretly buried, others who did not have medical education carried out unnecessary surgical operations. The guards boasted calling themselves the "English Gestapo."

The London cell was part of a network of nine interrogation centers that operated throughout Britain and were managed by the Directorate of Military Intelligence.


Lt. Col. Alexander Scotland spoke about the methods of interrogation of German officers in his book "The London Cell".


But the prisoners, who could have especially valuable information, were brought to one of the secret Victorian villas located on Kensington Palace Garden - in one of the most fashionable corners of London.

Today these houses belong to ambassadors, billionaires, sultans and princes. Each of them is worth no less than 50 million pounds.

However, seven decades ago, in houses six, seven and eight on Kensington Palace Garden Street, there were interrogation rooms, cells for prisoners, and guards' premises. Here, nine officers and a large number of non-commissioned officers used any methods to squeeze information from suspects.

The head of this prison was Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Scotland - a recognized master of interrogation. After the war he wrote memoirs in which he described in detail the methods used in the "London Cage".

"If any of the Germans had the information we needed, we always received it."

Before being published in 1954, Scotland, as it was supposed to, handed over the manuscript to the War Office. After that, all four copies were seized, and all those who knew about them were persuaded to remain silent on pain of prosecution.

The biggest horror was the admission that torture continued after the end of the war.

Of the 3 573 prisoners who passed through Kensington Palace Garden, one thousand signed a confession or testified about war crimes.

The former SS officer Fritz Knokhlein was one of them. He was suspected of shooting 124 by British soldiers in France, who surrendered to German prisoners in 1940. Knohlein claimed that at that time was in a different place.

At trial, he said that after the war he was tortured in the "London Cage". He was not allowed to sleep for four days, he was forced to walk in a circle for four hours and was beaten.

He had to wash the stairs and latrines with a tiny rag for several days in a row, and buckets of water were tilted on him from time to time. If he dared to rest, he was beaten with sticks. He was forced to run in a circle, loaded with heavy logs and barrels. If he complained, then they began to treat him worse.

His cellmate pleaded for death because he could no longer bear the torture.

Knokhlein's accusations were ignored. He was convicted and hanged. It happened to many others who have passed through the "London cell".

Scotland, of course, denied the charges of torture and called them lies. Therefore, when after a few years he decided to “relieve the soul” and wrote a book detailing the interrogation methods used in the “Cell”, this caused a real shock.

He said that he forced prisoners to incriminate themselves. The general, sentenced to death in 1946, signed a confession because, according to Scotland, "was in deep depression after a series of trials."


Among the defendants in the dock are Nazi leaders Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess


One naval officer was convicted on the basis of a confession, which, according to Scotland, was signed only after "certain degrading procedures". The other was hanged after a confession resulting from a "psychological treatment". The third signed everything that was required of him after he was threatened that another prisoner without medical education would give him an operation to remove appendicitis ...

The War Ministry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the manuscript should never see the light.

However, two years later, officials were forced to make concessions after the threat arose that the manuscript would be published abroad. Scotland was forbidden to restore the original version of the book, but it was allowed to write a new abbreviated version, in which the most revealing moments would be deleted.

This relaxed version of the book appeared in bookstores in 1957.

After many years, in September 1979, the Scotland publishers wrote to the Department of Defense and asked for the first version of the manuscript. Officials came up with pretexts to reject the request, and, in the end, quietly transferred a copy to the national archive, where it lay untouched, until journalists got to it in another quarter of a century.

Is there any other evidence of torture in the "London Cage"? For sure. Even now, many Ministry of Defense documents are still inaccessible.
Originator:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html
96 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. FunkschNNX
    FunkschNNX 7 November 2012 15: 39
    +26
    Well kakbe: if you already went to serve in the SS, then in the case of captivity it would be naive to count on indulgence. And all the more, the executioners and monsters themselves do not cause pity.
    1. Jaros81
      Jaros81 7 November 2012 15: 41
      +15
      yes, they were lucky ... Our people tried not to take the SS prisoners .. And if they did, the captured SS member quickly became a dead SS member. Not all, of course, but many.
      1. terp 50
        terp 50 8 November 2012 05: 20
        +2
        ... mostly - blacks, these were not taken away, even as "languages", the green for the most part - elite troops, although the same did not stand on ceremony with anyone. (kill the German and that's it)
    2. Civil
      Civil 7 November 2012 15: 58
      +16
      How Britain tortured fascist prisoners


      so our tortured, but I myself would have tortured in their place)
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 7 November 2012 17: 04
        +6
        Quote: Civil
        so our tortured, but I myself would


        Grandfather said tankers near Stalingrad sometimes turned the prisoners in a column, they did not even twitch .....
        1. Alexander Petrovich
          Alexander Petrovich 7 November 2012 21: 17
          +1
          horrible, I understand the feelings of our fathers. but anyway, I would be sorry for ordinary guys ...
          1. Gansische 1
            Gansische 1 7 November 2012 21: 57
            +5
            Figase, simple guys! These simple guys are inhuman, and with them they were still almonds, they soldered milk in the camps with milk ....
            1. Lavr75
              Lavr75 30 November 2012 10: 03
              +1
              But there were SS tank companies that simply fought, one might say were the elite, they did not take part in the repression. And there were even legionnaires from among Indian citizens, a company of the SS, so these were only put at the guard of the warehouses.
          2. Alf
            Alf 7 November 2012 22: 03
            +5
            What kind of "simple guys"? These are the ones who wore the fieldgrau? They were probably driven to us with sticks and they suffered a lot, worried, killing, raping, torturing the Russian people.

            I will not let my homeland be taken out
            Over the expanse of foreign seas.
            I shoot and there is no justice
            Fairer than my bullet!
            K. Simonov
            1. Alexander Petrovich
              Alexander Petrovich 8 November 2012 00: 11
              +2
              I agree, but I would not be able to turn the lever of the tank and crush them, even if they are x..ev, s..ki, etc., although who knows, war changes people greatly.
    3. Homo
      Homo 7 November 2012 17: 56
      +11
      The article does not seem to be talking about SS. And the fact that England looked down on all and taught. Like, look at how intelligent, respectable, humane, etc. we are, unlike the rest. But in reality they are the same as everyone else, if not worse. Here for this article +++.
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 7 November 2012 18: 30
        +4
        Probably, this article only says that even these "respectable" and "humane" can get it when their cities are bombed.
        1. Homo
          Homo 7 November 2012 18: 48
          +5
          Evgan,
          And who got these "respectable" and "humane" in India during the suppression of the Sepoy uprising of 1857-1859?
          1. merkel1961
            merkel1961 7 November 2012 19: 43
            +5
            The Anglo-Saxons are the most fascist of all the Nazis, all of them are in trouble. All national movements drowned in blood, and sepoys, and Boers, and about pirates, raids, inciting wars and banditry towards civilians, only the Yankees can compete with them. But, I heard, the real butchers were Salashi's henchmen.
          2. Lavr75
            Lavr75 30 November 2012 10: 07
            +1
            And you know what these sepoys in India did with the Europeans, especially children and women !!! Atrocities SS-tsev children's fairy tales compared to Hindu.
        2. oops
          oops 7 November 2012 21: 31
          +3
          In World War II, England FIRST launched a total war against the civilian population. The British began to burn out residential areas of German cities in May 1940. The Germans began to answer a few months later! Coventry bombing is a trifle compared to tens of thousands of Germans burnt alive in Dresden! The British tactics of burning residential areas, along with the entire population, were then picked up by the Americans. They burned over 100 Japanese cities. Several hundred thousand Japanese were burned alive!
          Actually, the National Socialist arrogance is a revised cast from the Boyan arrogance ...
          1. cyberdamn
            cyberdamn 7 November 2012 21: 59
            +1
            Quote: Oops
            In World War II, England FIRST launched a total war against the civilian population. The British began to burn out residential areas of German cities in May 1940. The Germans began to answer a few months later

            and Russia (USSR), they also began to respond? or how? or was it Stalin himself, setting fire to his pipe?
            1. oops
              oops 7 November 2012 22: 19
              0
              I am not making excuses for the Germans. I want people to know not the propaganda mythology, but the REAL history, so that the role of the "respectable" and "civilized" Anglo-Saxons in the unleashing of human slaughter becomes visible.
              By the way, the Germans did not want to destroy the West European Jews. They just wanted to evict them, but "civilized" Europe agreed to accept only very rich and very qualified Jews. The resettlement to the Palestine (present-day Israel) of England was blocked by ENGLAND !!! ... They began to exterminate the West European Jews only in 1942, when the blitzkrieg failed!
              1. Evgan
                Evgan 8 November 2012 09: 50
                +3
                Oh yo yo! The Germans did not want to destroy the Jews ... Mosht, they did not want to destroy the Slavs? And all the accursed Angles ... They took and went to war on poor Germany in 1939, unleashed a massacre, you panim ...
                By the way, in Palestine for 1939 from about 250 thousand Jews, 60 thousand were refugees from Germany. Why would they have fled if before 1942 they lived freely in the Reich?
                Pindyk, guys, I understand everything, there really is nothing to love the English for, but putting them and the Third Reich on the same line is about the same for me as putting Hitler and Stalin on the same line.
                1. oops
                  oops 9 November 2012 06: 51
                  0
                  Mr. EvA, no cheating distortions! Learn to understand the opponent’s thought and think correctly!
                  Of course, the slaughter of the Slavs is larger than the massacre of the Jews.
                  The British did EVERYTHING so that the massacre began precisely in the east of Europe and the British pens put a LOT of efforts to the development of inhumanity !!!
                  The Nazis, until 1942, in every possible way restricted the rights of Western European Jews and drove them to the ghetto, but did not want to DESTROY.
                  . Compare the number of Jews who left for neutral European countries and the United States with the number who moved to Palestine. Neither the British nor the Jews themselves wanted to resettle them in Palestine ... Looking at your figures about Jews in Palestine, you can see that there are less than a quarter of the Germans! So in other countries, Jews were still worse off than in Nazi Germany !!! In the USA, for example ...
                  1. Evgan
                    Evgan 10 November 2012 13: 56
                    0
                    Oops, if I jerked somewhere, I'm sorry. My question is: and on the basis of what, in fact, did you conclude that Jews lived worse in the United States and in Western European countries before 1942 than in Germany? 60 thousand is a quarter not from those who fled, but from the total Jewish population of Palestine at that time. The remaining 190 thousand are not necessarily refugees from other countries.
            2. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 8 November 2012 00: 03
              0
              the question is extremely complicated, the Germans led ideology
              if you still imagine that Alizovich would not have succumbed to provocations and wouldn’t have fallen on the Union, extremely interesting situations would have been possible, including the absence of death camps, Churchill would have been judged in Nuremberg
              1. oops
                oops 8 November 2012 03: 28
                0
                Nazi ideology appeared after the Treaty of Versailles, when the French and the British very simply and "civilized" threw the Germans at ALL grandmas: first they agreed to disarm the German army, and, only then, they made them pay wild reparations with a ban on any serious military construction. It seems that only THIS YEAR Germany finished paying reparations for the FIRST World War !!!
                . Incidentally, the British, French, Americans, Poles ... in German prison camps felt very satisfying and at ease ... Nobody remembered any torture!
          2. ronin
            ronin 7 November 2012 22: 08
            +2
            sorry, but Coventry happened earlier than Dresden.
            1. oops
              oops 7 November 2012 22: 35
              +2
              I repeat.
              Mass bombing of residential areas in order to destroy the CIVIL population began in the UK in May 1940. Coventry happened much later. Prior to this, the English burned many more Germans alive than they died in Coventry !!!
              And Dresden is an example of an indicative massacre of civilians with the goal of intimidating and suppressing any thoughts of any resistance even after the war!
          3. Evgan
            Evgan 8 November 2012 09: 34
            +1
            Oops, and here you are not quite right. Indeed, the British began the bombing of civilian targets after May 1940, but until the beginning of 1942 these bombings were not carpeted. In addition, the initial targets were mainly industrial facilities. Who did not bomb them in that war?
            And the reason (or reason, if you want, it doesn’t matter) was the German bombing of Rotterdam. So not the first British.
            And then - yes, then it started. It was terrible ...
            But do not forget that as a result of the bombing of London, about 40 thousand people died - of course, less than in Dresden, the figures, let's say, are comparable.
            1. oops
              oops 8 November 2012 18: 10
              0
              I am wrong?!
              . Just at the beginning of the war there were fewer bombers than at the end. Incendiary bombs, which were massively used by the British, were invented to create extensive fires in RESIDENTIAL quarters. Other bombs are dropped on industrial facilities ... There, basically, the Americans worked.
              . Do you want to talk about the death toll? Then ask how many people died in Hamburg. BEFORE Rotterdam! ..
              1. Evgan
                Evgan 10 November 2012 13: 48
                0
                Quote: Oops
                Do you want to talk about the death toll? Then ask how many people died in Hamburg. BEFORE Rotterdam! ..


                Yes, definitely, more Germans died under British and Amer bombs than English women, no doubt here. But Hamburg happened in July-August 1943 - after both Rotterdam and Coventry, that is, this argument is not an argument. Or am I confusing something?

                And to make my position clear: I do not justify these bombings, it really was barbarism, although, perhaps, a part was justified militarily in a total war. But it was not the English who started the first, but then they simply surpassed everyone ...
        3. Vasilenko Vladimir
          Vasilenko Vladimir 7 November 2012 23: 59
          -2
          Limes are talking to everyone through their lips, they are not nearly better than the Nazis, they even spoke openly about their beliefs, and they will smile sweetly, and think over yet another vileness in their minds.
          1. Evgan
            Evgan 8 November 2012 09: 43
            +1
            That is, do you think that "talking to everyone through the lip, inventing another vileness" and doing what the Nazis did is the same thing and even worse ???
            1. Vasilenko Vladimir
              Vasilenko Vladimir 8 November 2012 12: 49
              -1
              if limes were limited only to coming up with another vile thing.
              and how many abominations they saddled for Russia, the Germans nervously smoke aside
              1. Evgan
                Evgan 8 November 2012 16: 05
                +1
                Vladimir, in your opinion, have the limes destroyed over 20-25 million of our compatriots? Yes, I do not argue, they repeatedly stuck sticks in our wheels, yes, they often acted not with their own hands, yes, often because of their incitement, someone beat the Russians (the same Japanese in 1905), but such damage as the Kaiser and Hitler’s Germany, no one inflicted on us. Or do you believe in such tales as someone recently told about the half of the Russian Far East killed by the Anglo-Saxons in 1918-19?
                I have a feeling that your words are almost an exaltation of Hitlerism - they say that they did nothing very bad, but English women ...
                1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                  Vasilenko Vladimir 8 November 2012 16: 30
                  -1
                  Quote: EvgAn
                  I have a feeling that your words are almost an exaltation of Hitlerism - they say that they did nothing very bad, but English women.

                  leave your impressions with you
                  Yes, and the Germans we clashed not without the help of limes and to iron the Union after after the end of World War II they wanted to, so do not, rise above emotions and analyze
                  1. Evgan
                    Evgan 8 November 2012 18: 04
                    0
                    I can express my impressions wherever I want - including here. And do not shut up my mouth, I do not seem to shut you up.
                    As for limes - how did they deal with us and Germany? Tell me please.
                    As for after the Second World War - they wanted, but did not iron. In your opinion, the intention (beyond plans has not yet matured) is worse than Hitler’s aggression ?? Veterans would listen to you ...
                    1. oops
                      oops 9 November 2012 05: 39
                      0
                      The British and French, perfectly understanding the abomination of the robbery of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, tried to pay off the Germans by allowing them to freely expand to the east. Therefore, they allowed to divide Czechoslovakia between Germany, Poland and Hungary. When it became clear that the Germans' appetites had grown with food and that Poland was on the line, the British threw the Poles without any regret! And how important it was for the Poles to cheek in the negotiations with the Nazis about the future joint division of the territory of the USSR. After all, Warsaw believed that allied England was behind them !!! On September 1939, XNUMX, the Poles found out what the English guarantees were worth !!! The most interesting thing is that the rulers of Poland, the British after that, didn’t stop loving anyway ... It seems that the money was stored in English banks ...
                      . England contributed to the war of Nazi Europe for the destruction of the peoples of the USSR by the fact that in every way contributed to the campaign to the east. England foiled ALL negotiations on an anti-Nazi military alliance with the USSR, and forced the Poles to abandon any anti-German military alliance with the USSR. Here, however, the wishes of London and Warsaw were completely in agreement: the Poles did not need an agreement with the USSR - they wanted the territory of the Union, like the territory of Czechoslovakia, to be shared with the Nazis in a friendly way !! The bummer happened because Warsaw imagined behind her a solid powerful ally - Great Britain and the USSR too large a piece demanded in negotiations with Berlin. But the Germans already knew that the Anglo-Saxons would lower the agreement with Poland into the toilet as soon as the war started! Well, why the heck was it to share the territory of the Union with the Poles? Moreover, there were plenty of applicants for Soviet lands - there are Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania (they have oil) ...
                      ... And so it happened that with the invaluable help of Britain, Nazi Europe found itself on the border with the USSR! And the appetite of the European "civilizers" was already just brutal !!!
                      1. Evgan
                        Evgan 9 November 2012 15: 57
                        0
                        Oops, I would say differently: the British by the Munich agreement provoked German aggression in general, and not just against the Slavs. Like, however, the USSR and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (do not just think that I somehow blame the USSR for this - the pact clearly answered the interests of the USSR at that time). As for the breakdown of the Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations in 1938, then ... Both the British and we were simultaneously negotiating with the Germans. Do not forget that the same Angles could not convince Poland to let Soviet troops through its territory in the event of a conflict with Germany - and this was one of the key points of the negotiations. That is, I am inclined to think that these negotiations were, firstly, profanity for all participants (more precisely, everyone sought their own profit), and secondly, they were doomed to failure in advance due to the position of the Poles. So I would not blame the British for disrupting these negotiations only because they had the goal of clashing the USSR and Germany together.
                        Now about the outbreak of World War II. Here, it seems that the Angles really flushed the agreement with the Poles down the toilet. But - somehow strange. It would have been much more profitable for them then not to declare war on Germany at all. Well, the contract was violated - what was the first time for the Britons, or what? Ok, they all announced - we will blame the fact that they could not crap in front of everyone. And they merged Poland in the Strange War - there is no other way to say. But, if the British wanted to "send" the Germans to Russia, they would have made peace with Germany in 1940 - like the Germans had a weak desire too. But no - they continued the war. And here in the summer of 1940, Hitler gave the order to prepare "Barbarossa". British wine? Yes!!! The fact that they did not submit too easily to the Germans (although the Germans could put the squeeze on them) - and Hitler decided to turn to the East. What do you order the British to do? Give up? Why would the English give up for the Russians?
                        Here I agree, it is that the British rejoiced when it came on June 22, 1941. But on the other hand, we fought with Germany one on one, didn’t we rejoice at the same British entering the war on our side? Would be happy, even like. Not without reason did they all ask for a second front ... Yes, and the Americans were happy to enter the war - some kind of help, and all the same. At least the Japs themselves were partially pulled back, and thanks for that.
                        Summing up: everything seems a little more complicated to me than just the fact that the British intentionally and calmly pushed Germany in the war with the USSR. Undoubtedly, they invested their five cents in this, and some had such a desire. But their contribution is nothing compared to Hitler's. And, again, Chamberlain / Churchill and Hitler on the same board I will never put. Chamberlain / Churchill are not angels, of course, but they are so far from the possessed corporal.
                    2. Vasilenko Vladimir
                      Vasilenko Vladimir 9 November 2012 16: 47
                      -1
                      Quote: EvgAn
                      As for after the Second World War - they wanted, but did not iron. In your opinion, the intention (beyond plans has not yet matured) is worse than Hitler’s aggression ?? Veterans would listen to you ..

                      not ironed simply because they did not have time
                      and it’s not necessary about veterans, the Germans were terrible enemies, but in the allies I would prefer them to Russia rather than the Anglo-Saxons.
                      1. Evgan
                        Evgan 9 November 2012 20: 50
                        +1
                        Yes, I agree, they didn’t have time, they didn’t gain the necessary strength, and thank God that they didn’t.
                        I do not argue, the Germans are excellent warriors, and having them as allies is worth a lot. But not in World War II. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that then it was the biggest evil - which they proved.
                        And everything is necessary about veterans. Of course, I do not know your age - but I doubt that the veterans would support you. No offense, just my opinion.
  2. Islam
    Islam 7 November 2012 15: 45
    +10
    they did the right thing - the fascists do not deserve another And why the British should make excuses you see the Nazis were treated too badly
    The fascist is deprived of human qualities and therefore it is necessary to deal with him not humanly, starting from an ordinary and ending with Hitler
    1. Kaa
      Kaa 7 November 2012 20: 27
      +7
      Quote: Islam
      it is not necessary to handle him humanly

      If you want to be "humane" - shoot the SS man, but if you start torturing - you yourself become the same. And what did you want from the British - theories of purity and superiority of the Naglo-Saxon race and other delusions arose much earlier than National Socialism, so they had an unhealthy interest in their competitors, envy, or something ... that they themselves did not think of Nazism ... or the spirit was not enough ...
      1. Islam
        Islam 8 November 2012 12: 04
        0
        Now it’s easy to say that, but then maybe the fascist killed the daughter of some soldier, so he takes revenge and does the right thing (dog death)
    2. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 8 November 2012 00: 05
      -2
      so you can justify ALL
      1. oops
        oops 8 November 2012 05: 09
        +1
        . So the European Nazis justified the destruction of the peoples of the USSR 70 years ago.
        ... This is how the current "civilizers" justify a new massacre for a new division of the world !!!
  3. kush62
    kush62 7 November 2012 15: 55
    +12
    Compared to concentration camps, this is still humanism! Good SS-dead SS!
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 7 November 2012 16: 10
      +11
      the captured Nazis would not find sympathy on this site ............... and many would have added to the heap angry after what they did in the occupied territories, should they complain .............. I would have shot Goering right in court at the place of protection and that would have been more humane towards him for the bombed Luftwaffe Russian cities and mutilated children
      1. strannik595
        strannik595 7 November 2012 16: 48
        +1
        tell uncle about the torture while he is sad waiting for the end
        1. SenyaYa
          SenyaYa 7 November 2012 20: 32
          -6
          Goering well done))) Said "Everyone will forget about you, and in exchange people will always remember" ... you have to keep so cheerfully))) ahaha
          1. Z.A.M.
            Z.A.M. 8 November 2012 12: 20
            0
            SenyaYa

            They threw minuses to you, and I +, tk. - ... whatever you say, but he was right ... a fat hog ... Although the GAD, he turned out to be right - they remember ...

            And according to the article - is it really torture? .. It's just - it's funny ... the cloth for mopping the floor was small laughing

            All that is called torture in the article is light, psychological pressure ... no more ...

            Ah, aglichans, aglichans ... lol
  4. strannik595
    strannik595 7 November 2012 16: 02
    +1
    the captured Nazis would not find sympathy on this site ............... and many would have added to the heap angry after what they did in the occupied territories, should they complain .............. I would have shot Goering right in court and that would have been more humane towards him for the Russian cities bombed by the Luftwaffe and mutilated children
  5. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 16: 10
    +6
    So then it is not about sympathy that should be discussed, but about a completely different one - on compliance with the Geneva Convention!
    Provisions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war are contained in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During the First World War, these rules revealed a number of shortcomings and inaccuracies. These shortcomings and inaccuracies were partially overcome through special Agreements concluded between the warring parties in Bern in 1917 and 1918. In 1921, at the Geneva Conference of the International Red Cross, a desire was expressed to adopt a special convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. The International Red Cross prepared a draft convention, which was presented at the Diplomatic Conference in Geneva in 1929. The Convention did not replace, but completed and consolidated the provisions of the Hague Rules. The most important innovations were the prohibition of repression and collective punishment for prisoners of war, the rules for organizing the work of prisoners of war, the appointment of representatives and control ...
    No one is insured from captivity in the war ...
    1. Igor
      Igor 7 November 2012 16: 37
      +5
      When such a war goes on, everyone usually puts big and fat on all sorts of conventions, non-aggression pacts, etc. And the SS men had to be sent to concentration camps or burned alive in the stove.
      1. papas-57
        papas-57 7 November 2012 20: 12
        0
        Pro `` thick '' that's for sure. That's why she and the war
      2. havas0000f
        havas0000f 15 July 2013 09: 27
        -1
        Igoryok, stupid ignorant, here are the people with such thoughts: "burn alive" and created the legend about the Holocaust. Be healthy, do not poop.
    2. Denzel13
      Denzel13 7 November 2012 18: 06
      +5
      What are the stumps of the convention regarding those who fought on the side of the Nazis?
      Whatever they do with them is still not enough.
      1. oops
        oops 8 November 2012 04: 55
        +1
        This means that the definitions of the Nuremberg Tribunal must be applied to the current governments of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania! As well as to the Western Ukrainian party "Svoboda" !!!
  6. Kyki57
    Kyki57 7 November 2012 16: 14
    0
    Farewell to the civilian member the drill general drinks
    1. kush62
      kush62 7 November 2012 16: 28
      +7
      a prisoner of war is a soldier, and an SS man is a punisher. What the fuck is a convention for him.
  7. serjant4
    serjant4 7 November 2012 16: 15
    +6
    Poor SS lambs ... For their crimes and execution
  8. Kyki57
    Kyki57 7 November 2012 16: 20
    0
    Few of these Germans must be shot to tear them apart and say
    it was so! am
  9. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 16: 27
    +6
    Captivity - restriction of the freedom of a person who took part in military (combat) operations, in order to prevent him from further participation in them. Captured during the hostilities are called "prisoners of war".

    The right to take prisoner, according to modern international humanitarian law, belongs exclusively to the state in the person of its military bodies; private individuals cannot capture anyone in a war.

    The object of captivity can only be persons who actually took part in hostilities. Therefore, it is not subject to:

    peaceful enemy subjects;
    correspondents in the armed forces;
    according to the Geneva Conventions - the staff of hospitals and military hospitals, as well as clergy.

    On the other hand, only open and lawful participation in hostilities creates the right to captivity: spies, guides, traitors, etc., in case of capture, do not have the right to prisoner of war status. Also this status is deprived of mercenaries.

    The legal status of prisoners of war is determined by three signs:

    they are not criminals;
    enemies who maintain their citizenship;
    military.

    Therefore, they have the right to treatment and maintenance in accordance with the position that they occupied in their armed forces; forcing them to participate in hostilities against their homeland in any form is unacceptable. In the event of escape and subsequent subsequent capture, they cannot be punished. They are subject to military discipline and are subject to military court.

    Blame is determined only by the court - remember!
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 7 November 2012 16: 51
      +1
      The legal status of prisoners of war is determined by three signs:
      they are not criminals;
      enemies who maintain their citizenship;
      military.
      ..... and how many among the German soldiers were there such non-criminals?
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 17: 06
        +5
        Read the last line - until there was a court verdict, everyone is innocent ...
        This is a LAW, not a "Concept" ...
        1. strannik595
          strannik595 7 November 2012 17: 22
          +2
          and should a soldier fulfill any command order, even criminal? and who specifically should identify, in conditions of warfare, the degree of guilt of one or another representative of the aggressor, where to get this number of investigators and judges, what are you talking about? there is an emotional component ..... when a letter comes to you at the front in an envelope from a neighbor that there is a smoking pit left from your hut with your family, you entered the liberated city, from which the ruins and corpses of the tortured population remain in the ditches, we’ll look at scrupulous implementation of the Geneva Conventions specifically in your person
          1. Brother Sarych
            Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 17: 36
            +2
            Yes, I have to do it - but what?
            1. strannik595
              strannik595 7 November 2012 17: 52
              +4
              Wehrmacht Supreme Command
              Operations Leadership Headquarters, Country Division L IV / Qu
              No. 44822/41, for command only
              In the appendix to the Fuehrer's decree of 14.5 on the application of military jurisdiction in the Barbarossa area, "Instructions on the treatment of political commissars" are sent.
              Appendix to: OKV, headquarters of the operational leadership of the Wehrmacht, Division L IV, Qu No. 44822/41.
              Ow. top secret

              In the fight against Bolshevism, one should not count on the enemy adhering to the principles of humanity or international law. In particular, from political commissars of all ranks, as direct organizers of resistance, one should expect hateful, cruel and inhumane treatment of our prisoners.
              The troops must remember the following:
              1. To spare such elements in this struggle and to treat them in accordance with international law is wrong. These elements pose a threat to our own security and to the quick pacification of the conquered areas.
              2. Political commissioners are the inventors of barbaric Asian methods of struggle. Therefore, it is necessary to take measures against them with all severity immediately and without any talk. Therefore, if they are captured in battle or show resistance, they should usually be destroyed immediately.
              In other cases, the following provisions apply:
              .............. well then, get the full ....... near Leningrad, when breaking the blockade, there was an order not to take prisoners of war for our troops
              1. Brother Sarych
                Brother Sarych 7 November 2012 18: 16
                -1
                In fact, there were no such orders - neither there, nor in other places ...
              2. maxbrov74
                maxbrov74 7 November 2012 18: 26
                0
                Acting like them, you can become like them. Then what are you better than them? Only a court can establish a measure of guilt.
              3. Vasilenko Vladimir
                Vasilenko Vladimir 8 November 2012 00: 10
                -2
                Quote: strannik595
                there was an order for our troops not to take prisoners

                you yourself feel the difference between this phrase and what is described in the article.
          2. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 8 November 2012 00: 08
            -1
            Quote: strannik595
            and should a soldier fulfill any command order, even criminal?

            and now imagine, the soldier was ordered to mine the bridge, and he begins to rant supposedly civilians can go through it or something else like that.
        2. Denzel13
          Denzel13 7 November 2012 18: 16
          +3
          That is, all fascists honored the law?
          Although they did honor - for them Hitler's words were law - "the Slavs are subhuman, therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply to them."

          Did you mean this LAW Brother Sarych?
          1. Vasilenko Vladimir
            Vasilenko Vladimir 8 November 2012 00: 13
            -1
            Quote: Denzel13
            That is, all fascists honored the law?

            try to drop emotions and reason with a cold head

            the two strong powers pitted against each other (although if you thought about it they could be allies) as a result, both washed with blood and won limes as always
            1. Denzel13
              Denzel13 8 November 2012 10: 42
              +1
              And why did you suddenly decide that these are emotions?
              This is a firm conviction + historical facts.
              Maybe Hitler did not raise the question of the Slavs in this way?
              1. Vasilenko Vladimir
                Vasilenko Vladimir 9 November 2012 16: 50
                -1
                these are emotions
                1. Evgan
                  Evgan 9 November 2012 20: 52
                  0
                  And another question: if two strong powers pitted against each other - why did these two strong powers (since they are strong) not understand that they were pitted? Strength crazy is not the best characteristic ...
        3. Bumbarash59
          Bumbarash59 7 November 2012 18: 52
          +1
          As far as I remember, SS is recognized as a criminal organization
    2. Denzel13
      Denzel13 7 November 2012 18: 10
      +3
      Something beyond the Germans was not noticed unnecessary exercises in the legal proceedings, especially in the USSR.

      All who were with weapons at a expense.
    3. Kaa
      Kaa 7 November 2012 20: 30
      +2
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      Blame is determined only by the court - remember!

      Quote: Brother Sarich
      they are not criminals;

      Nuremberg Tribunal recognized SS criminal organizationtherefore, they are criminals, therefore, not prisoners of war.
      1. bask
        bask 7 November 2012 20: 40
        +1
        Greetings to Kaa. The Nuremberg tribunal recognized only the SS as a criminal organization. And the whole Wehrmacht had to be recognized. What these scumbags and sadyugs were doing in open spaces, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. But people don’t understand. Where did these, the soldiers, had such , bestial hatred of the Slavs ... I would not have considered them prisoners of war, but Hitler's mercenaries ...
        1. Brother Sarych
          Brother Sarych 8 November 2012 15: 30
          0
          Actually, he didn’t admit, if you look at NT materials ...
      2. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 8 November 2012 15: 30
        0
        Maybe he recognized, and not the organization, but after how many years? And who exactly, remember, not all members ...

        The prosecution called the guard units of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (commonly known as the SS) as an organization that should be recognized as criminal.

        And the decision of the tribunal:

        The Tribunal declares criminal, according to the definition of the Charter, a GROUP consisting of those persons who were officially accepted as members of the SS and listed in the previous paragraph who became members of this organization or remained its members, knowing that this organization is used to carry out actions determined by criminal in accordance with Article 6 of the Charter, or those persons who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the commission of such crimes, EXCLUDING, however, those persons who were called up to this organization by state bodies, and in such a way that they did not have the right to choose, ALSO those who have not committed such crimes.

        And here we are talking directly about the years of the war ...
  10. Gorchakov
    Gorchakov 7 November 2012 16: 28
    +5
    I wanted to spit on both those and others ... They stand each other ...
  11. FlyEngine
    FlyEngine 7 November 2012 16: 39
    +2
    It’s interesting, but if all the noble knights unsubscribing above suffered torture on a false charge, how would they sing then?
  12. Young man
    Young man 7 November 2012 16: 45
    +1
    In principle, they deserve both. How many people have the Germans themselves tried? True, the British are good too. I think if they accidentally came across ours (not during World War II, but in general), then they were treated less harshly. the British are Russophobes worse than the Germans; they don’t even perceive us as people. we are citizens of the fifth grade for them (Seriously, there is an official British classification of the Slavic peoples and Russian in particular). By the way, the first concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War, and during the Civil Anglo-Saxons, half of the Russian population of the Far East was massacred. so don't shout about humanism and shit democracy am
    1. dima1970
      dima1970 7 November 2012 18: 07
      0
      The first concentration camps were invented by the Americans during their civil war.
    2. Evgan
      Evgan 7 November 2012 18: 22
      +1
      Vyunosh, but about "half of the Russian population of the Far East" - where does it come from?
  13. MilaPhone
    MilaPhone 7 November 2012 16: 51
    +7
    I hope disiz information for a long time distract British human rights activists from a misunderstanding of Russian realities!

    Legendary British human rights activist and gay activist Peter Thatcell in Moscow
    .
    1. strannik595
      strannik595 7 November 2012 17: 31
      +3
      as an activist, a bunch of desirable charms awaits him in the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs system
      1. Denzel13
        Denzel13 7 November 2012 18: 18
        +2
        So he wanted to go there laughing - Sex tourism is visible.
        1. maxbrov74
          maxbrov74 7 November 2012 18: 29
          +1
          Then he is not at the address. Fortunately, there are not so many general people here.
      2. terp 50
        terp 50 8 November 2012 05: 32
        0
        ... yes, nothing awaits him. Apologize and let go. (... tea is not some ragged America or Europe)
    2. sergey32
      sergey32 7 November 2012 18: 03
      +2
      Maybe he is a gay passivist?
      1. ronin
        ronin 7 November 2012 22: 13
        +1
        he is actively passive laughing
  14. Dimych
    Dimych 7 November 2012 16: 55
    +4
    Is that what they call torture? We called it - to endure the hardships and deprivations of military service. But how can we now link up the constant desire of the Anglo-Saxons to accuse us of the horrors of the "bloody hebny", when their own snouts are in fluff?
  15. Kerch
    Kerch 7 November 2012 16: 58
    +4
    @ By the way, the first concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War @

    Although there is evidence that the concentration camps were first "invented" by the Americans during the American Civil War.
  16. Ghenxnumx
    Ghenxnumx 7 November 2012 17: 01
    +3
    The Britons were never distinguished by humanism in relation to prisoners - be they the Boers in Africa; our compatriots in the Arkhangelsk region during the occupation by the British, or the Germans / I doubt that they only tortured the SS.
    1. SSR
      SSR 7 November 2012 17: 23
      +3
      How they raged in India, and indeed how cleverly they reduced the population of Ireland.
      all the Ravens of the Tower need to be retrained .. according to legend, then a barn will come to Britain.
  17. pioneer
    pioneer 7 November 2012 17: 08
    +5
    To the author of the article. The Nazis were in Italy, Hungary, Romania and Spain. In Germany there were Nazis. If you undertake to write on this subject, then at least study the difference between fascism and National Socialism. Unfortunately this is not a trifle, but a fact of ignorance. And about the SS-Sovsev written correctly. At that time in the West, interrogations of 3 degrees were used for suspected criminals. This is precisely what needs to be reminded to all these universal people with double standards. Let them learn to pull logs from their eyes, and only then look for dust particles in the eyes of others.
    1. Blat
      Blat 7 November 2012 18: 34
      -6
      in principle, the roots are that the socialists, the Nazis and National Socialists, as well as the Communists, are the same. probably that's why almost all the adherents of these movements went down in history as regimes that committed crimes against humanity. at expense. other opinion is not accepted even if it is correct
  18. Fox
    Fox 7 November 2012 18: 20
    0
    quite a bit of history http://pandoraopen.ru/2012-11-07/bitva-za-istoriyu/
  19. Dark warrior
    Dark warrior 7 November 2012 19: 07
    +2
    For some reason, many have a complete negative attitude towards the Germans of World War 2 ... Grandma said that when she was a child under German occupation, the Germans living in their houses behaved quite normally, only asked. But the Finns, on the contrary, hosted as they wanted. I also read that for improper treatment of the civilian population remaining in the occupied territories, German soldiers were punished by officers. The Germans were also shocked when they found out what was going on in the concentration camps in their homeland, for they were told that they were liberating the Russians from communism ... I, of course, have no sympathy for Germany, but, nevertheless, people should be treated humanly, if they frankly do not deserve the opposite (as, for example, the command of the SS ...) I think so ...
    1. Black
      Black 7 November 2012 23: 21
      +2
      I completely agree with you. German was a German - discord. Mother-in-law as a teenager came under occupation. Bryansk. Luckily. Ours retreated, they hid in the houses, they kept the defense in the village, the inhabitants did not withdraw. When the Germans had to retreat, for two days the entire population was warned and taken to the forest, where it was recommended to sit out.
      And the peasant lives in the neighbors, Art. Kletskaya. He and his friend turned the spools out of a German car, the commandant caught them - in the Tsagaus. So the guests who stood by the mother went and repulsed them.
      However, the reverse examples were much more abundant. It was then that they were afraid to be captured by us, they knew why we would then tear the veins from them.
    2. oops
      oops 8 November 2012 05: 22
      +1
      Indeed, the German soldiers of the Wehrmacht (the regular army, where ordinary guys were taken "from the plow and the machine") were more or less normal people (as luck would have it). Romanians and Hungarians were much larger beasts. And all Western Ukrainians and Balts to burn alive the inhabitants of some Belarusian village was "like two fingers obasphalt" !!
      1. Evgan
        Evgan 10 January 2013 12: 10
        0
        Here it still depends not only on who was - the Wehrmacht or the SS, but also on whether the cat was the commander of one or another unit. General Rundstedt, commander of the 6th Field Army, was a supporter of the "harsh" treatment of the Russians. Paulus, who replaced him, seemed to, on the contrary, strive for a relatively more humane treatment of our compatriots.
  20. wolverine7778
    wolverine7778 7 November 2012 20: 26
    +2
    Do you see how everything turned? Those who considered themselves superhuman-turned out to be just pathetic killers, who no one will justify. And the despicable "lower races" showed real willpower - and at the same time did not become like these scum)
  21. Helizer
    Helizer 7 November 2012 23: 18
    +4
    It should not be forgotten that the theory of racial superiority and the "white man's burden" was invented by the Anglo-Saxons in the era of colonialism, and Hitler was only a follower.
    1. oops
      oops 8 November 2012 05: 43
      +2
      That's right!
      The superiority of the German Aryans was copied from the Anglo-Saxon arrogance !!!
  22. AAA
    AAA 8 November 2012 04: 38
    +2
    "Several thousand Germans passed through the London Cage, who were beaten, not allowed to sleep and forced to take unnatural positions for several days. "

    But no one burned them or buried them alive, as they did with Soviet prisoners of war and civilians. If there were any manifestations of decency on the part of the Germans, this can be attributed to exceptions. In principle, the Nazi tactics of "scorched earth" and their ideology did not leave a chance for the civilian population, hence the losses of the USSR only of the civilian population amounted to about 16 million people.
    1. oops
      oops 8 November 2012 06: 08
      0
      And there is no need to compare two absolutely immiscible concepts. The British considered the inhabitants of the USSR to be subhumans just like the Nazis! The "civilizers" transferred us to a higher level only during the war with Germany.
      ... To a greater extent, the "scorched earth" tactics were practiced by other countries of Nazi Europe: Romania, Hungary, Croatia, ... And the Balts and Western Ukrainians should burn something - fun from the army routine! The peaceful population of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia was destroyed, in the main, not by the Germans, but by the Balts, Ukrainians, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, ... The top commanders, however, were the Germans ...
      1. AAA
        AAA 8 November 2012 06: 46
        +1
        Dear Oops, I have no warm feelings for the Anglo-Saxons, but in this particular case, namely, that the British tortured the Germans, I say that the example given in the article is nothing compared to what the Germans did in the territory THE USSR. But you are trying to some extent to blame their crimes on the Romanians, etc., these, of course, have also distinguished themselves, but the Germans are to blame for the genocide.
  23. Evgan
    Evgan 8 November 2012 16: 17
    +1
    AAA, I completely agree with you, And I object to Oops: I doubt that then - and now - ordinary Englishmen consider Russians subhuman. Arrogance - arrogance, yes, it is, but I did not try to implement the theory of racial superiority that they had discovered, and even less so on our land. So they are different from the Nazis.
  24. Bosk
    Bosk 8 November 2012 22: 55
    +2
    Torture to love is bad ... torturing another person even if he is the last su .. and his .... then you are somewhat likened to him! .... at all times and among all nations was not welcomed, but on the subject of the British .... there first you need to sort it out, because for some it is a slap in the face already torture, but for others the iron is a thermal massage of the abdomen ....
  25. phantom359
    phantom359 9 November 2012 01: 31
    0
    Well, and how to handle them? I ask some to pay attention. how civilized Germans treated our prisoners of war. What the British did to them is the height of humanism and philanthropy.
  26. bart74
    bart74 20 November 2012 02: 52
    0
    Stsuki Britta
  27. abelardo1191
    abelardo1191 20 November 2012 22: 00
    0
    Well, the British, of course, are those stsuki. But the question is, were the fascist degenerates really so undeservedly punished? !!!! Remember the German war crimes!
  28. Lavr75
    Lavr75 30 November 2012 10: 21
    0
    I will start with a very interesting quote from the book “The Jewish Paradox” by Naum Goldman (Nahum Goldmann / Das judische Paradox, Europaeische Verlagsanstalt, 1978, p. 166-167), the long-term chairman of the World Jewish Congress. He wrote the following about the background of the Nuremberg trials:

    “During the war, the World Jewish Congress in New York created the Institute for Jewish Issues, which is now located in London. Its leaders were two remarkable Lithuanian Jews, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinsons. According to their plans, two absolutely revolutionary ideas were developed: the Nuremberg court and German compensation.

    The significance of the international court in Nuremberg today has not yet been correctly assessed, since, according to international law, it was then really impossible to punish the military who carried out the orders. This revolutionary idea was put forward by Jacob Robinson. When he expounded it to lawyers of the American Supreme Court, they mistook him for a madman. “What is so unusual about these Nazi officers? they asked. “You can imagine that Hitler and, perhaps, Goering will be brought to justice, but not ordinary soldiers who obeyed orders and behaved like loyal soldiers.” It took us a lot of work to convince the allies; the British were opposed, the French showed no interest, and although they later agreed, they did not play a big role. We ended up succeeding because Robinson managed to convince the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. ”

    The fact is that the court, in which the winners act as prosecutors and judges of the vanquished, contradicted all the rules of international law.

    According to Goldman, first of all, English lawyers rejected the proceedings against German officers, since the trial of soldiers who carried out orders under the charter contradicted military laws. Any army in the world is based on the principle of subordination, that is, the fulfillment of orders from a superior. But Article 8 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, adopted on August 8, 1945, on the basis of which the Nuremberg Trials were conducted, stated:

    “The fact that the accused acted on the orders of his government or superiors is not considered a reason for exemption from punishment, but can be considered as mitigating circumstance, if this is justified in the opinion of the court.”

    The stumbling block for the organizers of the process was the fact that both the English and the American military courts exempted all responsibility for their actions from soldiers who obeyed orders from their superiors.

    §43 of the British Military Code stated:

    "Participants in hostilities who violate the rules that govern the conduct of war, but at the same time comply with the order of their superiors, are not considered war criminals and cannot be convicted by the enemy."

    §347 of the American Military Land War Code states:

    "Participants in hostilities cannot be punished for crimes that they committed by order from above or by agreement with their government or with those who gave them the order."

    Opponent:

    “And how did lawyers in England and America solve this problem?”

    F. Bruckner:

    - They abolished these rules before the Nuremberg trials. An American lawyer, a Jew, Sheldon Gluck, justified this measure:

    “Since the application of the principle of absolute irresponsibility, which is enshrined in both American and British standards, would make it almost impossible to condemn many German war criminals ... there was a need for a new, more realistic norm that could be applied both by national courts and the International tribunal. This was the reason for the modification of both American and British military law. "

    In 1948, after the completion of the Nuremberg trials, the amendment of this paragraph in the British Military Code was repealed, and the old law entered into force again.
  29. busido4561
    busido4561 23 February 2013 13: 31
    0
    Cognitive information. Congratulations to all Happy Defender of the Fatherland Day! soldier (busido4561, Kazakhstan)