Disarmed Enemy Forces
Disarmed Enemy Forces (DEF, less commonly,
Because of the logistical difficulties of feeding all of the nearly two million of surrendered German soldiers at the levels required by the Geneva Convention during the
Germany at the end of the war
The destroyed German transportation infrastructure created additional logistical difficulties, with railroad lines, bridges, canals and terminals left in ruins.[8] The turnaround time for railroad wagons was five times higher than the prewar average.[8][9] Of the 15,600 German locomotives, 38.6% were no longer operating and 31% were damaged.[8] Only 1,000 of the 13,000 kilometers of track in the British zone were operable.[8] Urban centers often had to be supplied with horse-drawn carriages and wheeled carts.[5]
By May 8, 1945, the Allies had become responsible for the health and wellbeing of 7 million displaced persons in Germany and 1.6 million
The worst dislocation of agriculture was caused by the German zonal partitions, which cut off Western Germany from its "breadbasket" of farm lands east of the
These problems combined to create severe shortages across Germany. One summary report estimated that just prior to
In the spring of 1946 the
Number of surrenders in World War II
Approximately 35 million POWs were taken in World War II, 11 million of them Germans.[10][18] In addition to 20 million dislocated citizens, the U.S. Army had to cope with most of the surrendered German military forces.[19] While the Allies had anticipated 3 million surrendering Germans, the actual total was as many as 5 million in American hands by June 1945 out of 7.6 million in northwestern Europe alone, not counting the 1.4 million in Allied hands in Italy.[19] Approximately 1 million were Wehrmacht soldiers fleeing west to avoid capture by the Red Army.[19]
The number of Germans surrendering to U.S. forces shot up from 313,000 by the end of the first quarter of 1945, to 2.6 million by April 1945, and more than 5 million in May.[4][20][21] By April 1945, entire German Army groups were surrendering, which overwhelmed Allied shipping such that German prisoners could no longer be sent to POW camps in America after March 1945.[22] According to a June 22, 1945, announcement by the Allies, a total of 7,614,914 prisoners (of all designations) were held in British and American camps.[23]
Although the British and Americans agreed to split the western Germans who surrendered,[23] the British recanted arguing that they "did not have places to keep them or men to guard them on the continent, and that moving them to England would arouse public resentment and adversely affect British morale."[24] By June 1, 1945, Eisenhower reported to the War Office that this refusal produced shortages in the 25 million prisoner-day rations which were growing at the rate of 900,000 prisoner-day rations.[24][25] Feeding this number of people became a logistical nightmare for SHAEF, which frequently had to resort to improvisation.[24]
Early considerations of DEF designations
Regarding the adherence to the Geneva Convention for vanquished Germans, Churchill at the Casablanca Conference in 1943 summed up the Allies’ "unconditional surrender" policy with "If we are bound, we are bound by our consciences to civilization."
The original discussion of the Allies treating post-
DEF and SEP designations
With regard to food requirements, regardless of the reasoning or GC legal requirements, SHAEF was simply not capable of feeding all of the millions of German prisoners at the level of Allied base soldiers because of the high numbers and lack of resources. This was not deliberate policy, but the result of wartime damage to the infrastructure, which created the difficult problem of feeding the defeated peoples without it.
The CCS then cabled British Field Marshal Sir
By June 22, 1945, of the 7,614,914 prisoners (of all designations) held in British and American camps, 4,209,000 were soldiers captured before the German capitulation and considered "POWs".[23] This leaves approximately 3.4 million DEFs and SEPs, who according to Allied agreements, were supposed to be split between Britain and the United States.[23] As of June 16, 1945, the U.S., France, and the U.K. held a combined total of 7,500,000 German POWs and DEFs. By June 18, the U.S. had discharged 1,200,000 of these.[35]
Aftermath
After the DEF designations were made in the early summer of 1945, the International Red Cross was not permitted to fully involve itself in the situation in camps containing German prisoners (POWs, DEFs or SEPs), some of which initially were Rheinwiesenlager transit camps, and even though conditions in them gradually improved, "even the most conservative estimates put the death toll in French camps alone at over 16,500 in 1945".[36]
The Geneva Convention was amended. Articles 6 and 7 of the
Most captives of the Americans and the British were released by the end of 1948, and most of those in French and Soviet captivity were released by the end of 1949, although the last big release occurred in 1956. According to the section of the German Red Cross dealing with tracing the captives, the ultimate fate of 1,300,000 German POWs in Allied custody (mostly American) is still unknown; they are still officially listed as missing.[39]
Historical precedents
After defeating Poland in 1939, and also after the defeat of Yugoslavia two years later, many troops from those nations were "released" from POW status and turned into a "virtual conscript labor force".[36]
Germany had either broken up or absorbed the countries in question, and the German argument was that neither country remained as a recognized state to which the POWs could still claim to belong, and that since belonging to a recognized nation was a formal prerequisite for POW status, "former Polish and Yugoslav military personnel were not legally prisoners of war".[36][40]
The Allied argument for retracting Geneva convention protection from the German soldiers was similar to that of Nazi Germany vis à vis Polish and Yugoslav soldiers; using the "disappearance of the Third Reich to argue that the convention no longer operated-that POW status did not apply to the vast majority who had passed into captivity on and after May 5".[36] The motive was twofold: both an unwillingness to follow the Geneva convention now that the threat of German reprisals against Allied POWs was gone, and also they were "to an extent unable to meet the high standards of the Geneva code" for the large number of captured Germans.[36]
Following the
See also
- Debellatio (destruction of a sovereign state after war)
- Surrendered Enemy Personnel (the UK equivalent)
- Surrendered Italian personnel (Italian military personnel treated as forced labourers by Nazi Germany)[44]
- Japanese Surrendered Personnel
- Foreign forced labor in the Soviet Union
- Forced labour under German rule during World War II
- Food and agriculture in Nazi Germany
- Prisoner of war
- Enemy combatant (designation used in early 21st century to similarly circumvent Geneva Convention protections)
Notes
- ^ Note: it is said for German troops in Northern Italy, not to be confused with its British equivalent, "Surrendered Enemy Personnel".
- ^ In April, the War Department approved treating all members of the German armed forces captured after the declaration of ECLIPSE conditions or the cessation of hostilities, and all prisoners of war not evacuated from Germany immediately after the conclusion of hostilities, as "disarmed enemy forces", and specified that such captives would be responsible for feeding and maintaining themselves. The ruling did not apply to war criminals, wanted individuals, and security suspects, who were to be imprisoned, fed, and controlled by Allied forces. The War Department further directed that no public declaration was to be made on the status of the German armed forces. (Smith p. 93)
- ^ ICRC Commentaries on the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 5 "One category of military personnel which was refused the advantages of the Convention in the course of the Second World War comprised German and Japanese troops who fell into enemy hands on the capitulation of their countries in 1945 (6). The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military. Moreover, the situation was different since Germany was a party to the 1929 Convention and Japan was not. Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Allied authorities took the view that unconditional surrender amounted to giving a free hand to the Detaining Powers as to the treatment they might give to military personnel who fell into their hands following the capitulation. In fact, these men were frequently in a very different situation from that of their comrades who had been taken prisoner during the hostilities, since very often they had not even gone into [p.76] action against the enemy. Although on the whole the treatment given to surrendered enemy personnel was fairly favourable, it presented certain disadvantages: prisoners in this category had their personal property impounded without any receipt being given; they had no spokesman to represent them before the Detaining Power; officers received no pay and other ranks, although compelled to work, got no wages; in any penal proceedings they had the benefit of none of the guarantees provided by the Convention. Most important of all, these men had no legal status and were at the entire mercy of the victor. Fortunately, they were well treated but this is no reason to overlook the fact that they were deprived of any status and all guarantees."
- ^ a b c d e Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 9
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 11
- ^ a b Farquharson 1985, pp. 16, 28–29, 252
- ^ a b c d Farquharson 1985, pp. 1–29, 44–60, 252
- ^ a b c d Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 7
- ^ Farquharson 1985, p. 25
- ^ a b Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 2
- ^ Marrus 1985, pp. 283–313
- ^ a b Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 4
- ^ a b c Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 12
- ^ a b Tent 1992, p. 199
- ^ Tent 1992, p. 100
- International Red Cross2 February 2005
- ISBN 978-0-8135-0449-0.
- ^ Overmans 1992, p. 144
- ^ a b c Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 5
- ^ Ratza 1973, pp. 54, 173–185
- ^ Overmans 1992, p. 146
- ^ Bischoff 1992, p. 217
- ^ a b c d Overmans 1992, p. 147
- ^ a b c Bischoff & Ambrose 1992, p. 6
- ^ Ziemke 1990, p. 291
- ^ a b c Villa 1992, p. 58
- ^ a b c Villa 1992, p. 57
- ^ Department of State 1966, pp. 172, 191–192, 210
- ^ Villa 1992, p. 59
- ^ a b c Villa 1992, p. 60
- ^ a b c d Villa 1992, p. 62
- ^ a b Villa 1992, p. 63
- ^ a b Villa 1992, p. 61
- ^ Villa 1992, p. 64
- ^ United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers : the Conference of Berlin (the Potsdam Conference), 1945 Volume II (1945) p. 765
- ^ a b c d e S. P. MacKenzie "The Treatment of Prisoners of War in World War II", The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 66, No. 3. (Sep., 1994), pp. 487-520.
- ^ ICRC Commentaries on the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 5 "One category of military personnel which was refused the advantages of the Convention in the course of the Second World War comprised German and Japanese troops who fell into enemy hands on the capitulation of their countries in 1945 (6). The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military, whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military. Moreover, the situation was different since Germany was a party to the 1929 Convention and Japan was not. Nevertheless, the German and Japanese troops were considered as surrendered enemy personnel and were deprived of the protection provided by the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War."
- ^ ICRC Commentaries on the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 5 "Under the present provision, the Convention applies to persons who "fall into the power" of the enemy. This term is also used in the opening sentence of Article 4, replacing the expression "captured" which was used in the 1929 Convention (Article 1). It indicates clearly that the treatment laid down by the Convention is applicable not only to military personnel taken prisoner in the course of fighting, but also to those who fall into the hands of the adversary following surrender or mass capitulation."
- ^ stern-Serie: Besiegt, befreit, besetzt – Deutschland 1945–48
- ^ Further referenced in footnote to: J. Wilhelm, Can the Status of Prisoners of War Be Altered? (Geneva, 1953) p.10
- ISBN 0739101951.
- ISBN 978-1845459901.
- ISBN 978-1134891078.
- ^ Note: Captive Italian nationals who were not designated as prisoner of war were alternatively also designated as "personnel in custody of the Government of the United States of America and its agencies". An alternative name given was also Italian surrendered enemy personnel.
References
- Ambrose, Stephen (1992), "Eisenhower and the Germans", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Ambrose, Stephen (February 24, 1991), "Ike and the Disappearing Atrocities", The New York Times
- Bacque, James (1989), Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners of War at the Hands of the French and Americans After World War II
- Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (1992), "Introduction", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Bischoff, Gunter (1992), "Bacque and Historical Evidence", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Bischof, Gunter; Villa, Brian Loring (2003), Was Ike Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Thousands of German POWs? Pro and Con, History News Network
- Bohme, Kurt W. (1973), Die detschen Kriegsgefangemen in In amerikanischer Hand: Europa
- Cowdrey, Albert E. (1992), "A Question of Numbers", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Department of State, United States (1966), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1944
- Farquharson, John E. (1985). The Western Allies and the Politics of Food: Agrarian Management in Postwar Germany. Berg Publishers. ISBN 978-0-907582-24-3.
- Ferguson, Niall (2004), "Prisoner Taking and Prisoner Killing in the Age of Total War: Towards a Political Economy of Military Defeat", War in History, 11 (2): 148–192, S2CID 159610355
- Marrus, Michael Robert (1985). The Unwanted: European Refugees in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-503615-2.
- Overmans, Rudiger (1992), "German Histiography, the War Losses, and the Prisoners of War", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Peterson, Edward N. (1977), The American Occupation of Germany: Retreat to Victory
- Peterson, Edward N. (1990), The Many Faces of Defeat: The German People's Experience in 1945
- Ratza, Werner (1973), "Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in der Sowjetunion", in Maschke, Erich (ed.), Zur Geschichtte der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen des Zweiten Weltkrieges
- Steininger, Rolf (1992), "Some Reflections on the Maschke Commission", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Streit, Charles (1986), "The German Army and the Policies of Genocide", in Hirschfeld, Gerhard (ed.), Jew and Soviet Prisoners of War in Nazy Germany
- Tent, James F. (1992), "Food Shortages in Germany and Europe 1945–1948", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Villa, Brian Loring (1992), "The diplomatic and Political Context of the POW Camps Tragedy", in Bischoff, Gunter; Ambrose, Stephen (eds.), Eisenhower and the German POWs, New York: Louisiana State University Press, ISBN 0-8071-1758-7
- Ziemke, Earl F. (1990). "Chapter XVI: Germany in Defeat". The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany 1944–1946. Washington, D. C.: Center of Military History, United States Army. LCCN 75-619027.
Further reading
- Colonel Harold E. Potter. First year of the Occupation, Occupation Forces in Europe Series, 1945–46, Office of the Chief Historian, European Command
- ICRC Commentaries on the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 5
- Lee Smith, Arthur. Die"vermisste Million" Zum Schicksal deutscher Kriegsgefangener nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg, Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 1992, ISBN 3-486-64565-X
External links
- France's Deadly Mine-Clearing Missions Surviving German POWs Seek Compensation. Georg Bönisch, Der Spiegel Online, international edition August 25, 2008.
- Germans forced to run across minefields ("Tvang tyskere til å løpe over minefelt") Video Extract from Norwegian documentary on Germans forced to clear minefields in Norway. Note: German protests that forcing POWs to clear mines was against international law, article 32 of the Geneva conventions, were rejected with the assertion that the Germans were not POWs; they were disarmed forces who had surrendered unconditionally ("avvæpnede styrker som hadde overgitt seg betingelsesløst"). Mine clearance reports received by the Allied Forces Headquarters state: June 21, 1945; 199 dead and 163 wounded Germans; 3 Norwegians and 4 British wounded. The last registration, from August 29, 1945, lists 392 wounded and 275 dead Germans. Mine-clearance was then for unknown reasons halted for close to a year before recommencing under better conditions during June–September 1946. This time many volunteered thanks to good pay, and death rates were much lower, possibly in part thanks to a deal permitting them medical treatment at Norwegian hospitals. Jonas Tjersland, Tyske soldater brukt som mineryddere VG, 08-04-2006.