No, even if it was 10k, that's two orders of magnitude less than the Germans. And I was going off of the 3k-6k estimate.
Again the US army had zero lack of food and supplies, the German army invaded Russia to seize the necessary food to survive and keep fighting the war. US abuses of prisoners was specific policy, in the East the Germans had zero help from the Soviet government so couldn't feed theirs. Many more US and British PoWs survived because their governments sent food via the Red Cross.
Yeah, this also isn't true. The POWs in the same camps were treated different because the Slavs were Untermenchen. Hitler denied the Red Cross access to them, not the soviets. And there was deliberate starvation done despite available food as per the Hunger Plan.
No, that's just what you want to believe and was the immediate post-war explanation by the Allies because none of the Allied powers wanted to confront their own role in the situation; the British and American blockade starved Europe (which in peacetime had to import food to feed its people, in war those requirements increased due to lower food production), which was in famine since 1940. The Soviets refused to help feed or support their PoWs in any way unlike the WAllies despite being approached by the Germans to do just that. At the warcrimes trials none of the victors wanted to reveal their own crimes and how they contributed to the German ones.
Hitler denied the Red Cross because the Soviets refused to allow the Red Cross into prison camps for Axis prisoners. Why give the Soviets the benefit when they ignored all German offers for both sides to respect the Geneva Convention? Again see the posts I've already made about that subject with sources and the book "Stalin's War" by McMeekin. Why the fuck would the Germans approach the Soviets with the offer to let the Red Cross into their camps if the Soviets did the same if they had no intention of doing so? That Soviets never approached the Germans likewise. They just ignored them and were the ONLY nation in WW2 who refused to work with the Red Cross at all.
The Hunger Plan didn't call for deliberate starvation, it was a memo about the food situation if you actually read the original document, which is online by the way. What it said was Germany would lose the war if they didn't get food from the USSR and if they took enough to meet their needs fully then umpteen millions in the East could potentially starve. It was a warning about what would happen if they took enough food so policy makers could make decisions. Given that the British had categorically refused to negotiate to end the war Hitler decided that they were going to pull the trigger on the invasion of the USSR and seize the food, consequences be damned. Of course then there was little food to seize because the Soviets destroyed it all or took it with them meaning they left their own civilians in occupied territories to starve. So instead Germany had to take some of its seed corn and replant the East, because they had little choice. Ultimately the Germans had to bring food in to prevent food riots, so they didn't even live up to what the 'Hunger Plan' actually said.
Still despite that Ribbentrop approached the Soviets and asked for help feeding the POWs. He was ignored. So there was little they could do to solve the situation, because what food there was was used for civilians.
These are the brits, I'm talking about the US. Also, there were about 10k deaths, including of enemy soldiers in the Mau Mau rebellion. Which again, brings us to the scale thing, that you seem to be ignoring. Or maybe not ignoring, because quite simply, the US didn't commit crimes on such a scale at least since the end of slavery.
Which is why I quoted US war crimes in the Pacific, Korean, and Vietnam wars too. You obviously are just not even bothering to read any of the proof that I'm posting. No wonder you refuse to accept reality.
Speaking of scale the Mau Mau rebellion was vastly smaller in scale to the Eastern Front or the scale of organized resistance there.
And if you want to mention rapes, the German Army only bothered reporting it if a whole unit did it, because no one cared.
What's your source on that? The Soviets? The German army (again ARMY) was extremely tough against rape because of the consequences that would result with their relations with the civilian population. The Soviets claimed all sorts of things because they didn't want to confront the fact that their women often willingly formed relationships with German and other Axis soldiers or at least engaged in prostitution, soft or standard. In the West the Allies did much more raping than the Germans did. The Germans didn't need to rape, they had willing women in France and other occupied countries, which is why when the Allies liberated them the local men turned on the women and publicly attacked them. For the German army there was so much free sex going on that the STD problem forced them to institute the brothel system. Now there you do have a crime because women were often forced into working in those and were not treated well...probably is the Allies did the same thing:
Records shows American authorities permitted the "comfort women" system to continue in Japan after World War II.
www.seattletimes.com
"So pervasive was the crime, and so frightened were the people, that hundreds of Okinawa women committed suicide by swallowing poison or by leaping from the steep cliffs of the island."
www.veteranstodayarchives.com
Look, quite frankly, none of your excuses is standing up to basic scrutiny.
No, you just don't want to accept anything that does against your narrative.