this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
166 points (100.0% liked)

History Memes

1946 readers
633 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Piefed.social rules.

  5. History referenced must be 20+ years old.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 76 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Explanation: After WW2, Norway, using a very dubious interpretation of international law, forced German PoWs to disarm the minefields that the Nazis themselves had laid down in Norway - a very dangerous task. This was pretty well illegal, but none of the Allies after WW2 had the motivation left in them to quarrel over international law with a member of the coalition who had spent years under Nazi occupation. Hundreds of German PoWs died, and thousands were injured.

Denmark would also use German PoWs to clear minefields, but by a negotiated surrender agreement, and using German PoWs with pre-existing demining experience, which is a bit less objectionable, but still illegal under international law.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This was done by all the allies, not just Norway and Denmark. In 1945 none of the allies had motivation to stop Norway, since they themselves had decided to do it this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Even mine sweeping at sea was done by German sailor POWs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Mine_Sweeping_Administration

As legal justification as to why they could do this, the allied command claimed that these prisoners of war weren't POWs anymore after Germany surrendered, instead they were "Disarmed Enemy Forces" and thus according to them the Geneva convention no longer applied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces

There's also a Danish film about these POWs: Land of Mine. Good movie imo. And after seeing it a few years ago, I looked up the historical background, which is how I knew that your comment was incorrect.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

The movie is also partially incorrect, as Danish military wasn't involved in the clearing, it was overseen by British officers.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago

I just assume that every historical movie contains inaccuracies. Narrative reasons, budget constraints, dramatization, ... I don't always agree with the creative choices, but I understand why they do it and I'm not going to let it ruin my viewing experience. I can always jump into a wikipedia rabbit hole after the movie.

I can only think of one movie where they went too far for my tastes: the Hollywood movie where it's USA soldiers who capture an intact enigma machine from a u boat.

That said, the danish military was involved in the mine clearing, only not in the way how it was depicted in the movie. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol22/iss1/4/ The actual pdf contains a better description of who did what than the abstract.

[–] danekrae@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I never knew this.

I don't feel any shame about that part of history.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 3 points 18 hours ago

You should know that it isn't very close to what actually went down. It was the British forces who had negotiated this as part of the surrender deal with the German forces. It was British forces who oversaw the mineclearing process (in Denmark).

[–] frog@feddit.uk 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You know what? I am okay with this!

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 42 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Mm. A lot of them were young conscripts. Just kids. And violating international law with dubious arguments doesn't sit right. With me, at least.

I don't know that I have any strong condemnation for the occupied countries who used German PoWs in that way, considering that the question becomes who is going to die rather than if someone is going to die with the post-war situation being what it was. But it's still something that sits uneasy.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The even larger issue, one that underpins a lot of laws of warfare, is that you want people to have every good reason to surrender. If POWs have to be treated according to specific laws, then everyone knows approximately how bad it can be, and they all know that at the worst, they can surrender. If you can set POWs to work clearing minefields or commit any other given atrocities against them, then armies have every reason to fight to the death rather than surrender when backed into a corner, and that doesn't do anyone any good.

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

it's a fair point. but the reality of many wars reaching a point of "total war" ware both sides abandon any rules agreed to or even within their own cultural norms, it has a limit to how effective it will be.

surrendering in a losing war very early and quickly is wise, but few people who are running a country at war are wise or motivated by any form of loss reduction.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

I knew a professor from Austria who was 15 near the end of the war. His school gave the class a choice of enlistments: Army, Navy (u boat), or airforce. He said none and was mocked and shunned by his classmates. When the tanks rolled into town he was handed a rifle and promptly ran up to the first tank to surrender.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 10 points 1 day ago

It’s not near the hundred worst things that happened due to WW2, though it’s not alright either.

[–] Pacers31Colts18@piefed.social 3 points 22 hours ago

They liked following orders so much.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 1 points 18 hours ago

That is an incredibly wrong summation of events. It was the allied forces who literally wanted this, and it was them who carried out the main part of this process.