German Wehrmacht - A Polical Army ?

Macoy

Active member
Novadays there are exibitions in germany with photos and other documents, that want to mark the "Wehrmacht" as a army of war criminals.

I dont think so. The majority of the soldiers of the german army where normal people like me and you. They had to serve two years before the war and in the war all men must go into the army.

Yes, we lost the war. But this is not a reason to say, that all soldiers of the german "Wehrmacht" are war criminals. Most of them are people, that never want to go to army. They where labourers or farmers with families.

And this defamation continues:

The actual example: Soldiers of the east-germany army are convicted because they shoot at people that tried to leave east germany.

But they just followed their orders: Dont let someone run across the border. If they did not shoot, they would be sent to prison.

I was in KFOR.In this operation we had no UN Mandate. This was a attack on a sovereign state.

Maybee, if sometime a new goverment takes the rule over germany, they mark us soldiers of KFOR guilty for war crime...
 
well, at the nuremberg trials after WW2, they decided taht following orders wasnt a valid excuse for war crimes, such as killing civilians, but i agree, they didnt (for the most part) volunteer for the army, they had to join. the way i understood it was that the true bad guys were mostly in the Gestapo or SS, which i believe were volunteer assignments, but for the most part, no, the Wehrmacht wasnt an army of war criminals.
 
The Wehrmacht certainly was not a political army, nor an army of war criminals, although they did commit what we would call today war crimes.

Every army in WW2 did.

The savage nature of the fighting on the Eastern Front meant that both sides, German and Russian, routinely shot POWs, burned down villages/towns and sometimes brutalized or killed the local civilian population. These soliders had become de-sensitized to killing and acts of brutality that, pre-war, would have horrified them, now seemed normal. This process spilled over to other fronts to but it was on the Eastern Front that it probably reached its height.

Like any army in wartime the vast majority of the Wehrmacht consisted of men called to the ranks, ordinary men who were not professional soldiers. And the Waffen SS was, de-facto, part of the Wehrmacht even though it was officially a separate organization. So you can't make the distinction that those who volunteered were more likely to be responsible for the true nature of Nazi Germany's crimes. At the core of the Wehrmacht was the 100,000 strong, post WW1 Reichswehr, professional soldiers and volunteers. As already pointed out the true architects of Nazi Germany's crimes was the Nazi Party hierarchy, whose duties were mainly carried out by the Nazi Party Gauliters, the Allgemeine or General SS and the Gestapo.
 
Difficult question really. No, I don't think everyone were criminals. Political army? Probably. Most soldiers were ideologically motivated. A lot did believe in the idea of the NS party. Just as the Russians believed in the Communist idea. Criminals were on every side, Allied and Axis, however I think the German side commited more atrocities and crimes against humanity than any other nation. I suppose as a soldier you must obey all orders, but there should be at least a shred of morality left in you, something that differentiates you between a beast and a human, something that says 'wait, this is not right' when immoral orders are given. But war is known for desensitizing men. Hard to judge without being in a similar situation. My opinion is that no, they weren't criminals, they were soldiers following a highly flawed and inhuman political system, and soldiers must carry out orders. But some took a sick pride in doing it, that is criminal.

I'll go as far as to say that all SS were, in fact, war criminals.
 
vargsriket said:
I'll go as far as to say that all SS were, in fact, war criminals.

Then you'd be doing the men of the Waffen SS a GREAT injustice. They fought alongside the Wehrmacht and were there at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk to name the 3 major battles of the Eastern Front. They are no more war criminals than the Wehrmacht.
 
vargsriket said:
Difficult question really. No, I don't think everyone were criminals. Political army? Probably. Most soldiers were ideologically motivated. A lot did believe in the idea of the NS party. Just as the Russians believed in the Communist idea. Criminals were on every side, Allied and Axis, however I think the German side commited more atrocities and crimes against humanity than any other nation. I suppose as a soldier you must obey all orders, but there should be at least a shred of morality left in you, something that differentiates you between a beast and a human, something that says 'wait, this is not right' when immoral orders are given. But war is known for desensitizing men. Hard to judge without being in a similar situation. My opinion is that no, they weren't criminals, they were soldiers following a highly flawed and inhuman political system, and soldiers must carry out orders. But some took a sick pride in doing it, that is criminal.

I'll go as far as to say that all SS were, in fact, war criminals.

Have to take different opinion. I have great doubts that most of those people under Soviet flag nor German flag fought because of their parties. Especially in Soviet Union most people was forced into army against their own will. Under Stalin's iron grasp there were few who dared to question it and most or all of them were dead quite soon. Mainly same is right for Germany as well, even in beginning more soldiers believed into party because they believed that Hitler would unite Germany. And I think that Stalin's Soviet Union made much more evil things that Hitler's Germany. Still always have to remember that even Hitler's NSDAP never got even half of seats in Reichstag. At last, Hitler rose to power with false promises and because of backroom stabbing. For communists they were never elected to lead Russia and had to fight for their existence in civil war. And that's why Soviet Union soldiers had much lower morale, many in Red Army wanted their own country free from Soviet Union, and were ready to surrender quickly. Still those politrucks were sent to force those people to fight against their will and do terrible things. For Germany there were Gestapo for that. Regular troops cannot be blamed for their actions if their other option was that they would've been shot.

And for SS, that's interesting question. For example, from Finland there were something like 1300 volunteers to fight against Soviets in WWII. What I've heard that they were noble elite squad who only wanted to end Soviet threat once and for all. Mainly same goes for Estonia's volunteers and other states that were under threat from Soviet Union. Could you blame them war criminals just because they fought against Communism on Hitler's side with truly no other option? After all, for some areas Hitler's rule was better than Stalin's rule. For rest of SS, there were some other elite troops who fought for example in Battle of Kursk and who were not doing war crimes all the time I think. Only Gestapo may have been full of war criminals, but even SS has its brighter side.
 
In ex-USSR WW2 is called the Great Patriotic War. As in any country there were people pro and against the ruling political system. Sure there were traitors that joined the other side, etc etc. But overall, 99% of the people were fighitng for their survival, their land, their heritage, their families, their culture. The people knew what awaited them if Hitler would win, in Mein Kampf Hitler clearly states what he wants to do with the Slavic people. There was a blind, tremendous, indescribable hatred towards the germans, which aroused a kind of Patriotic feelings that was overwhelming, it kept the flame of the resistance and then the offensive alive. Everyone was fighting for a future without nazi rule, slavery, and/or extermination. I'm sure not everyone was fighting for Communism, but the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Stalin had an iron grip, but he was defending and building his nation, and to win a war like WW2 you cannot think about the individual. My great-grandfather fought and lived through WW2 on the Russian side of course, and he told me many stories about it in my childhood. Stories that inspired and made you wonder just what those men and women felt and what kind of patriotism made them do the feats that they did. Most did believe in the Communist ideal. It just came with the territory.
 
On May 13, 1941, the Wehrmacht High Command issued an order that became known as the Barbarossa Jurisdictional Decree. It was virtually a license to kill Russians of any age or gender and the Whermacht were a part of it, a war of extermination.

The commissar-order provided for the immediate execution of political commissars of the Red Army, by the Wehrmacht, a definite war crime. The order was formulated on Hitler's behalf by the Wehrmacht command and distributed to units among usual command channels.

Apart from shooting thousands of Soviet commissars and other political officals out of hand,
in a mere eight months of 1941-42, the invading German armies killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet prisoners-of-war through starvation, exposure, and summary execution. This gendercide is one of the most concentrated mass killings in human history.

Although many POWs from the eastern fronts ended up in death camps run by the SS, the P.O.W. camps were run by the Wehrmacht.

The Whermacht not knowing or being involved in the exterminations in Russia is one of the many myths that has come out of the second world war.

Hitler's high command carefully planned the extermination campaign on the eastern front, drawing up directives for mass killings, and distributing them to Wehrmacht and SS commanders. They established special SS teams devoted exclusively to mass murder, the Einsatzgruppen and their subgroups, the Sonderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos, and set up liaison between the killing teams and the army commanders at the front to ensure that the killing teams received the necessary intelligence and logistical support.

Many Wehrmacht commanders willingly helped the Einsatzgruppen find the best sites, and transported and guarded the prisoners, at times even helping with the exterminations.

Over seven million Russian civilians were killed, how many of those were murdered, nobody knows.
The Wehrmacht didn't just fight to defeat Russias armies, they were a part of a war of extermination, in which many were more then willing to participate.

Below are just some of the Wehrmacht officers convicted of war crimes................

Field Marshal Albert KESSELRING:

Tried by a British court at Venice for being concerned in the massacre of 335 Italians in the Ardeatine caves and other war crimes; sentenced to death on 7.5.47. Sentence commuted to life imprisonment 4.7.47.

Field Marshal Erich von MANSTEIN:
He was convicted by a British tribunal and sentenced to eighteen years in prison.


General Hermann HOTH: After the war, he was put on trial at the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, found guilty of war crimes in the High Command Trial, and on 27 October 1948 sentenced to 15 years in prison.


General VON KLEIST: was captured by United States forces in 1945. He was sent to communist Yugoslavia to face alleged war crimes charges in 1946. In 1948 he was then extradited to Soviet Russia where he was condemned to a 10-years sentence in 1952 for war crimes and he died in captivity in Vladimir prison in 1954.


General Eberhard von MACKENSEN:

Tried by British war crimes court in Rome, as responsible for the massacre, by way of reprisals, of over 300 Italian civilians in the Ardeatine Caves, near Rome. Sentenced to death by shooting on 30.11.46. (Sentence commuted to life imprisonment 4.7.47.)

Major-General Karl von OBERKAMP:

Former Commander of Prinz Eugene Division. Tried by a Yugoslav military court at Belgrade on 27.3.47 for massacres of civilians. Sentenced to death and executed 1.4.47.

General Wilhelm LIST: . . . . . . . Life imprisonment
General Lothar RENDULIC: . . . . . .20 years imprisonment
Lt.-General Walter KUNTZE: . . . . .Life imprisonment
Lt.-General Helmuth FELMY: . . . . .15 years imprisonment
Lt.-General Hubert LANZ: . . . . . .7 years imprisonment . . . .
Lt.-General Ernst von LEYSER: . . . 10 years imprisonment
Lt.-General Wilhelm SPEIDEL: . . . .20 years imprisonment

Field Marshal von WICHES, a defendant, was withdrawn from the trial on account of illness. Lt.-General Franz BOEHME, another defendant, committed suicide.


As for the Waffen S.S., where do you start, suffice to say only the Einsatzgruppen were worse when it came to committing atrocities.

Apart from the imfamous atrocities of the Normandy massacre by the ‘Hitler Jugend’, the Le Parades massacre by the SA 'Totenkopf', the Wormhoudt atrocity by the 'SA Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler'', of British, Canadian and American P.O.W's, there is a huge list of other atrocities on record on the western front.


Below is just a few samples of a list of repeated atrocities by virtually all major Waffen S.S. units, and this is just on the western front, the war in the east was probably 10 times worse...........................

ORATOR-SER-GLANE
(Central France, June 10, 1944)

In the town of St. Junien the 'Dar Führer Regiment' of the 2nd SA Panzer Division, 'Das Reich', was regrouping. Following many encounters with the local maquis in which two German soldiers were killed, a unit of the regiment arrived at Oradour, in a convoy of trucks and half-tracks. The 120 man SS unit surrounded the village, ordering all inhabitants to parade in the market square for an identity check. Women and children were separated from the menfolk and herded into the local church. The men were herded in groups into six local garages and barns and shot. Their bodies were then covered with straw and set on fire. The 452 women and children in the church were then suffocated by smoke grenades lobbed in through the windows and shrapnel grenades that were thrown down the nave while machine-guns raked the interior. The church was then set on fire.


SANT' ANNA MASSACRE
(August 12, 1944)

On August 12, the 6the Panzergrenadieren 'Reichsführer-SS' Division reached the outskirts of SAINT' Anna, their orders to shoot on sight all partisans found in the area. Believing that the inhabitants of the Sant'Anna were all partisans, or partisan sympathizers, the SA herded the entire village together into the village square, where all of them, men, women and children, were shot. In all, 560 people were massacred, including 110 children. The houses in the village were then burned to the ground. Many of the corpses were doused with petrol and then set alight before the SS unit departed.




THE MARZABOTTO MASSACRE
[September 29th, 1944]

The Marzabotto massacre was a massacre that took place in the small Italian town of Marzabotto. Between September 29 and October 5, 1944, soldiers of SS-Panzergrenadier-Division Reichsf?SS, led by Sturmbannf? Walter Reader, killed 955 people in the territory of Marzabotto, Monzuno and Grizzana, in the largest civilian massacre perpetrated by Nazis in Western Europe.

Among the victims, 45 were less than 2 years old, 110 less than 10 years old, 95 less than 16 years old, 142 were more than 60 years old, 316 were females, 5 were priests.


And the list goes on and on.

It wasn't just the odd isolated shooting of prisoners now and then , it was systematic repeated war crimes on a gigantic scale.

There was the holocaust by extermination in the death camps, and another holocaust by extermination in the attack on Russia.
 
Ashes. There's no doubt that both the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS both committed war crimes, especially on the Eastern Front. There's also no doubt that the pattern of viciousness that prevailed on the Eastern Front was established by the ruthlessness and contempt that Hitler and the Nazi Party had for the Slavic peoples in general. Finally senior Wehrmacht commanders must have been aware, as you pointed out, of the Nazi Party policy towards the elimination or displacement of millions of Soviet peoples to assist in the infamous directive for Lebensraum, or 'living space' for eventual German settlement.

There are a few things I must point out though, as your post makes it seem that the entire Wehrmacht was constantly committing atrocities, which simply wasn't true.

1 - You cannot compare 'The Holocaust' and the invasion of a nation, however brutal.

2 - The vast majority of the Wehrmacht probably had little choice when it came to their orders.

3 - The nature of the Eastern Front meant that actions considered war crimes by the West were committed routinely and by both sides.

4 - By and large the Waffen SS were no more brutal than the regular Heer. You make it sound like they were committing acts of atrocities daily which is very misleading and certainly not true,

5 - All sides committed war crimes in WW2. The victors are given the luxury of somewhat writing the 'history'.

6 - The Soviet Union, although provoked, were just as brutal in kind to the German Armies in their country.

In short your post is very unbalanced. Although some of your points are valid, nowhere do you acknowledge that every army in WW2 committed war crimes which must be the start for any objective and unbiased debate.
 
To hell with that. As hard as I try to think "soldiers have to follow orders", it just is not enough to justify what was done to my motherland. Germans were the most brutal and vicious of all no matter how hard you try to implicate the Russians, or any other allied forces into it. There's only so much that you can get get hit, hit, hit, until you hit back, and HARD. Unprovoked violence is far worse than provoked one. It's easy to judge another country's tragedy when you're sitting in a air conditioned room having a cold drink in a comfortable chair. The germans HATED the "Ivans" with a passion, and routinely with no mercy killed PoWs, civilians, children, women, elder folk, etc. There was no code you could follow that would guarantee your and your family's survival. I may now know this first hand, I was born a good 35 years after WW2, but I have members of my family who lived through or fought in it. So at best I have first hand accounts. I'm not saying ALL the Germans were Satan's spawns, of course not. A high percentage were not willing to be there, I know that, a lot did realize that what they were doing was wrong. I know that not everyone had a choice, and that humanity and compassion still shined through the gritty realities and horrors of war. My grandmother told me about this German guy, she forgot his name, when she was little, he would bring them bread and canned food every week or so during the German occupation of my native city of Kharkov, Ukraine. But on the grand scale, I'm sorry, I cannot forgive the Wehrmacht, SS, Gestapo, whoever else stood on and desacrated my motherland. It's not only me, far from it. WW2 ended a long time ago, but the Russian people still are uneasy about the German language, for example, it's a very stark reminder of the War. I have nothing against the German people of today, I'd be a fool to, it's all history, however terrible, but on a very subconscious level a part of me diststrusts them.
 
Hi Doppleganger.

Well, we seem to agree that the Wehrmacht commanders were aware of, and implicated in, the massive extermination and displacement of millions of Soviet people, and that should be the end of the debate, but i'll attempt to answer a few other minor points where I think you've being slightly misleading.

By pointing out that i'm making it seem that the 'entire' Wehrmacht was 'constantly' committing atrocities, is wrong, thats just your imagination at work there I think, the Wehrmacht had their hands full in trying [unsuccesfully] to defeat the Red army, but aiding and abetting in the murder of millions of innocent people over 4 years is pretty constant to me.

1. My understanding of the term "Holocaust" is "great or wholesale destruction of life."
If the murder of several million people isn't a Holocaust, what is?
Anyway, thats just splitting hairs.


2.As far as I know, following orders is no defense in war crimes.


3. "The nature of the Eastern Front", as you put it, was brought about by Germany trying to exterminate or displace the Russian people, and ending up by them killing about 25 - 30 million in total, by any means possible.


4. Once again I think you're putting words in my mouth by saying that I said, ''that they were doing it on a daily basis,'' did you notice that the few samples I posted of crimes of the Waffen S.S. was in the west, and I could have posted dozens more, just as horrific, can you honestly compare those crimes against women and children, with anything done by western armies?
As for the Eastern front, just read Alan Clarke's ''Barbarossa'' to get a good idea what the Waffen S.S. did as a matter of routine in Russia, not just against P.O.W's but civilians, men, women and children, it makes chilling reading.


5. Of course all sides committed war crimes, but you're trying make it sound as if the extermination of millions of innocent people on a scale unknown in human history is on the same level as what the Allies did.
You'd have to admit that's a little misleading.

You mention the victors ''writing history''
Actually i'd say that it was the losers that had the luxury of ''rewriting'' history, in the many memoirs of the German Generals, that made it appear they were merely honorable people fighting for their country, and totally unaware of the atrocities that were being committed on such a massive scale, when we both know that it isn't true.

Ulrich von Hassell, the German ambassador in Italy, said of the German Generals.............. ''The majority are out to make careers in the lowest sense.
Gifts and Field Marshall batons are more important to them then the great historical issues and moral values at stake.''

German historians were the same as the Generals, getting in first, with to say at best, were a pretty lop sided view of the war.David Glantz says that the dominant role of German source materials in shaping American [and British] perceptions of the war on the Eastern Front and the negative perception of Soviet source materials have had an indelible impact on the American image of war on the Eastern Front. What has resulted in a series of gross judgments treated as truths regarding operations in the East and Soviet (Red) Army combat performance. The gross judgments appear repeatedly in textbooks and all types of historical works, and they are persistent in the extreme. Each lies someplace between the realm of myth and reality.

A majority of Americans and Britons probably accept these judgments as realities . In doing so they display a warped impression of the war which belittles the role played by the Red Army.


6. Saying that the Russians were "provoked" is one of the largest understatements i've ever seen.

Yes, I think you could safely say that the destruction of thousands of towns and villages, of extermination of millions of Russian men, women and children by the Einsatzgruppen, Waffen S.S. and Werhmacht, plus millions more transported to Germany to be worked to death as slave labour or sent to the death camps, and thousands of women between the age of 15 and 25 sent to Werhmacht and Waffen SA.S. brothels or back to Reich ''rest camps'' was indeed provocation.


You mention that my post is very unbalanced.
Is it unbalanced? this thread is titled "German Wehrmacht - A Polical Army ?" and asks the question whether the Whermacht was a political army and did they commit crimes, which has nothing to do with what other armies did or didn't do.
There's another thread on these boards about Allied war crimes, which perhaps we could debate further.

And you keep saying again and again ''what about the other side'' committing crimes, does saying that repeatedly in some way excuse the millions of innocent people murdered by the Germans?

All sides committed war crimes, as has happened over the centuries, but nothing in human history even remotely comperes with what the Germans did in virtually every country they invaded, starting in Poland and culminating in the vast holocaust in Russia.

Anyway, as I said, these are only minor points at best.
 
Hi Ashes.

I'm detecting that you seem to have a particular hatred of what the Germans did in WW2. They did some terrible things no doubt but I wouldn't go as far to say that what they did was incomparable in human history. There are plenty of examples of horrifying things done on a mass scale. The Mongols would put to the sword any city that refused to surrender and I mean utterly destroy the city and any human being living inside. So human atrocities have sadly been with us since the beginning of time - the Nazi's did not invent this although they provided us with some of the most chilling examples.

As a keen amateur historian of the Eastern Front in WW2, few realise more than myself the influence and impact of what the Soviet peoples had on the outcome of WW2. And yes the German view has shaped the post-war viewpoint of the Eastern Front but only because we have been denied truthful accounts from the Soviet side until the fall of Communism. Up until then, the official Soviet accounts were so inaccurate as to be completely useless for any academic study. In fact, the facts relating to the German side in the memoirs of German generals are pretty accurate - it's the Soviet side facts from these works that have tended to be wholly inaccurate.

Like you say this is getting a little off-topic. My answer still is that the Wehrmacht, meaning the armed services in general and not just the Army, was not a political army, no matter that at times it did some terrible things. And when I said that senior Wehrmacht commanders must have known about the Holocaust (and they must have) that does not mean to say they had any hand in it (because I don't believe that any Army or Waffen SS commander did). I suppose the most chilling thing is that the Nazi's could have occurred in any Western nation. There is nothing unique about Germans that makes them prone to adopting such a regime and had say the UK been in Germany's position with Germany's problems it's possible that the Nazi's would have risen to power in the UK.
 
vargsriket said:
To h**l with that. As hard as I try to think "soldiers have to follow orders", it just is not enough to justify what was done to my motherland. Germans were the most brutal and vicious of all no matter how hard you try to implicate the Russians, or any other allied forces into it. There's only so much that you can get get hit, hit, hit, until you hit back, and HARD. Unprovoked violence is far worse than provoked one. It's easy to judge another country's tragedy when you're sitting in a air conditioned room having a cold drink in a comfortable chair. The germans HATED the "Ivans" with a passion, and routinely with no mercy killed PoWs, civilians, children, women, elder folk, etc. There was no code you could follow that would guarantee your and your family's survival. I may now know this first hand, I was born a good 35 years after WW2, but I have members of my family who lived through or fought in it. So at best I have first hand accounts. I'm not saying ALL the Germans were Satan's spawns, of course not. A high percentage were not willing to be there, I know that, a lot did realize that what they were doing was wrong. I know that not everyone had a choice, and that humanity and compassion still shined through the gritty realities and horrors of war. My grandmother told me about this German guy, she forgot his name, when she was little, he would bring them bread and canned food every week or so during the German occupation of my native city of Kharkov, Ukraine. But on the grand scale, I'm sorry, I cannot forgive the Wehrmacht, SS, Gestapo, whoever else stood on and desacrated my motherland. It's not only me, far from it. WW2 ended a long time ago, but the Russian people still are uneasy about the German language, for example, it's a very stark reminder of the War. I have nothing against the German people of today, I'd be a fool to, it's all history, however terrible, but on a very subconscious level a part of me diststrusts them.

Well, I just have to say that probably most of people in Baltic States and Finland (and another countries forcefully annexed by Stalin) have as much hatred towards Russians and Red Army as you have against Germans. After all, in my homeland especially our older people can never forgive Russians after Winter War (and Continous War and partly because Stalin forced us to fight war against Germany (Lapland War)). I still think that all participants did major war crimes during WWII, and I think that most horrible crimes were made by Soviet Union, Germany and Japan. Still, war has been over for 60 years now so it is mainly useless to start argue about who was most "bad guy". It is just easy for us all remember those crimes which ones were thrown against either ourselves, our relatives or our nation. And well, I have some Russian friends who are studying here in Finland. Maybe that cursed WWII with its cursed ideologies help to create better world, even now after even London's bombings it seems to be that humanity hopes have sunk low.
 
Farseer said:
Well, I just have to say that probably most of people in Baltic States and Finland (and another countries forcefully annexed by Stalin) have as much hatred towards Russians and Red Army as you have against Germans. After all, in my homeland especially our older people can never forgive Russians after Winter War (and Continous War and partly because Stalin forced us to fight war against Germany (Lapland War)). I still think that all participants did major war crimes during WWII, and I think that most horrible crimes were made by Soviet Union, Germany and Japan. Still, war has been over for 60 years now so it is mainly useless to start argue about who was most "bad guy". It is just easy for us all remember those crimes which ones were thrown against either ourselves, our relatives or our nation. And well, I have some Russian friends who are studying here in Finland. Maybe that cursed WWII with its cursed ideologies help to create better world, even now after even London's bombings it seems to be that humanity hopes have sunk low.

No, I don't hate the Germans, don't put words in my mouth, I said I have nothing against them. At all. There may be some reservations in my, on a subconscious level, but overall the Germans I've met were nice guys and girls, I'd be a fool to "hate" them or the entire Nation because of What happened 60+odd years ago. I do however hate what the Third Reich did to my Motherland. But today, generations have gone by, and I know that WW2 is a very shameful and, least to say, embarassing period of German history, and thankfully most people do realize that there's no way you can justify that inhuman regime and War.
Now, as far as this topic is concerned, we were talking about the Werhmacht, not about the Soviet-Finnish war, or anything that the Finns or Estonians, Latvians, etc didn't like about USSR. I know that nowadays it's considered "fashionable" to come out with these rightist and pro-NS ideas in the Baltic nations, erecting monuments and taking pride in praising the people that fought with the Nazis against the USSR. Stalin had done some terrible things to his own people, no one in their right mind would deny that or defend him. But to compare Russian crimes of WW2 to the German war crimes is a highly unbalanced equation. Russians did not massacre tens of millions of civilians. They did not round up a single ethnicity and murder them in the millions in most horrible ways. There are countless differences between the two regimes. Both nations were led by murderous tyrants, yes. But the Nazis had done much more harm to the world and global population than USSR.
 
Hi again Doppleganger.

When you say......
''I'm detecting that you seem to have a particular hatred of what the Germans did in WW2.''


Well, for Gods sake Doppleganger, wouldn't any sane person hate what they did, dont you?


And.....
''They did some terrible things no doubt but I wouldn't go as far to say that what they did was incomparable in human history. There are plenty of examples of horrifying things done on a mass scale. The Mongols would put to the sword any city that refused to surrender and I mean utterly destroy the city and any human being living inside. So human atrocities have sadly been with us since the beginning of time - the Nazi's did not invent this although they provided us with some of the most chilling examples.''



I'd like to think that in almost a thousand years of civilisation, we would have improved slightly on extreme Mongol ways of thinking, especially in a so called highly civilised European country like Germany, in the middle of the 20th centry.

The slight differance with medievil slaughter and attrocities of people like the Mongols [apart from the vast differance in the total slaughted] is that Germany, didn't just set out to conquer countries, they set out to commit genocide on a monumental scale, and the only way they could do it was with the knowedge, and co-operation of the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht [and their commanders] were a participant in the war of extermination, a conflict that they were the only group with the power to halt. Millions of people were killed by the Wehrmacht outside of combat, in mass executions, murders of P.O.W's and thousands of village burnings.

You say......
''My answer still is that the Wehrmacht, meaning the armed services in general and not just the Army, was not a political army, no matter that at times it did some terrible things. And when I said that senior Wehrmacht commanders must have known about the Holocaust (and they must have) that does not mean to say they had any hand in it (because I don't believe that any Army or Waffen SS commander did).''


You're obviously refering to the Holocaust of the Jews, and natually they could'nt be operating the exterminations in the death camps, but dont you think even knowing about it and doing nothing is a huge indictment of the Generals? And don't mix that Holocaust with the the vast genocide in Russia which the Wehrmacht commanders not only knew about but actively encouraged. Some, like Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau, commander of the German Sixth Army, issued a directive on October 10,1941 emphasizing the need for harsh treatment of "Jewish subhumanity."
And Manstein issued an order on November 20, 1941: his version of the infamous "Reichenau Order" which equated "partisans" and "Jews" and called for draconic measures against them. Hitler and Field Marshal von Rundstedt recommended the "Reichenau Order" as being exemplary and encouraged other generals to issue similar orders. Not all did, but Von Manstein was among those who voluntarily issued such an order.
He then looked the other way and let the death squads murder hundreds of thousands of civilions in areas under his control.


As for the writings of German Generals and historians, all I can do is repeat what i've posted before from the British Cambridge History of warfare in a review of post war German Generals writings.............

"The new wave of historical research has underlined what most historians have generally suspected, the complete unreliability and intellectual dishonesty, even by the standards of the genre, of post war memoirs by German generals."

As to whether the Nazi's could have occurred in any Western nation.
That's an intersting question,, but I suppose it comes down to do you think that enough Britons, Scots, Americans or Aussies etc would fall to the depths of what the Germans did, who knows?

Be an interesting topic.
 
Ashes said:
Hi again Doppleganger.

When you say......
''I'm detecting that you seem to have a particular hatred of what the Germans did in WW2.''


Well, for Gods sake Doppleganger, wouldn't any sane person hate what they did, dont you?


And.....
''They did some terrible things no doubt but I wouldn't go as far to say that what they did was incomparable in human history. There are plenty of examples of horrifying things done on a mass scale. The Mongols would put to the sword any city that refused to surrender and I mean utterly destroy the city and any human being living inside. So human atrocities have sadly been with us since the beginning of time - the Nazi's did not invent this although they provided us with some of the most chilling examples.''



I'd like to think that in almost a thousand years of civilisation, we would have improved slightly on extreme Mongol ways of thinking, especially in a so called highly civilised European country like Germany, in the middle of the 20th centry.

Well, deep down inside we are still exactly the same creatures we were 1,000, even 10,000 years ago. We have the veneers of 'civilization' and 'technology' but we're basically driven by the same instincts that sometimes get the better of us sadly.

Look at what's happening in some African states today and you'll see we are still capable of immense savagery.

I thought much of what Nazi Germany did was disgusting, incomprehensible and deeply sad. But that said, I don't harbour a particular hatred towards Germans. What happened in Germany could have happened anywhere.

Ashes said:
The slight differance with medievil slaughter and attrocities of people like the Mongols [apart from the vast differance in the total slaughted] is that Germany, didn't just set out to conquer countries, they set out to commit genocide on a monumental scale, and the only way they could do it was with the knowedge, and co-operation of the Wehrmacht. The Wehrmacht [and their commanders] were a participant in the war of extermination, a conflict that they were the only group with the power to halt. Millions of people were killed by the Wehrmacht outside of combat, in mass executions, murders of P.O.W's and thousands of village burnings.

You say......
''My answer still is that the Wehrmacht, meaning the armed services in general and not just the Army, was not a political army, no matter that at times it did some terrible things. And when I said that senior Wehrmacht commanders must have known about the Holocaust (and they must have) that does not mean to say they had any hand in it (because I don't believe that any Army or Waffen SS commander did).''

You're obviously refering to the Holocaust of the Jews, and natually they could'nt be operating the exterminations in the death camps, but dont you think even knowing about it and doing nothing is a huge indictment of the Generals? And don't mix that Holocaust with the the vast genocide in Russia which the Wehrmacht commanders not only knew about but actively encouraged. Some, like Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau, commander of the German Sixth Army, issued a directive on October 10,1941 emphasizing the need for harsh treatment of "Jewish subhumanity."
And Manstein issued an order on November 20, 1941: his version of the infamous "Reichenau Order" which equated "partisans" and "Jews" and called for draconic measures against them. Hitler and Field Marshal von Rundstedt recommended the "Reichenau Order" as being exemplary and encouraged other generals to issue similar orders. Not all did, but Von Manstein was among those who voluntarily issued such an order.
He then looked the other way and let the death squads murder hundreds of thousands of civilions in areas under his control.

Well the Reichenau Order, deeply rooted in Nazi Party ideology as it was, is a giant stain on the reputation of Senior Commanders of the Wehrmacht without a doubt. How seemingly intelligent and reasonably decent men (they can't all have been psychopaths) agreed to such despicable acts is beyond the understanding of most people. Commanders like Manstein and von Rundstedt could have refused to carry it out, but I'm guessing that such refusals would have lead to dismissal or even civil war inside the Wehrmacht.

Manstein and others like him made a choice that was ultimately selfish but how many of us in a similar situation would have made a different and the right choice? It's easy to sit here now and say 'of course, there's no way I would have agreed to that!' but when the Reichenau Order was issued Germany was engaged in a war of survival with the Soviet Union. Of course they started it but IMO the Soviet Union fully intended to war with Germany but just that the Germans beat them to it. Any split or dissent within the German ranks at that time would have been disastrous for Germany.

Anyway. All national armies are a tool of the state and to some extent are political. However, the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was made up of draftees who had absolutely no choice over strategic orders. This makes the Wehrmacht, IMO, no more political than the armies of other nations. The Waffen SS was more political, but in reality was basically an extended branch of the Heer. Waffen SS formations were commanded by Heer commanders at Corps and Army level until June 1944 and even afterwards they were still commanded by the Heer at Army Group level. So even they were not much more political than the Heer in actual operation.

Ashes said:
As for the writings of German Generals and historians, all I can do is repeat what i've posted before from the British Cambridge History of warfare in a review of post war German Generals writings.............

"The new wave of historical research has underlined what most historians have generally suspected, the complete unreliability and intellectual dishonesty, even by the standards of the genre, of post war memoirs by German generals."

As to whether the Nazi's could have occurred in any Western nation.
That's an intersting question,, but I suppose it comes down to do you think that enough Britons, Scots, Americans or Aussies etc would fall to the depths of what the Germans did, who knows?

Be an interesting topic.

I'd appreciate a link to this historical research, or book names, ISBN numbers etc so I can read these revelations for myself. I can accept that a general writing his memoirs must be tempted and indeed will be biased on occasion - I can't accept that every German General who wrote memoirs was a dishonest coward trying to make himself look more important and upstanding than he actually was. This was not my impression upon reading the memoirs of Guderian or von Manstein but I am prepared to have an open mind about this.

And yes, it is an interesting topic. It has to be said though. Unless you can demonstrate to me in any way how humans born in Germany are physically and psychologically different to humans born elsewhere I can confidently state that Nazism could have and may still happen anywhere. Look at the Right-Wing organistions in every Western nation for the evidence. They may be extremist minorities but then so was the Nazi Party in Germany to begin with. All it takes is the right set of conditions..
 
Hi Doppleganger.

Just a short reply.....


You say...
''I thought much of what Nazi Germany did was disgusting, incomprehensible and deeply sad. But that said, I don't harbour a particular hatred towards Germans. What happened in Germany could have happened anywhere.''



I think you may believe that I harbour a hatred for all Germans, which is not the case, not even for all who served in the Werhmacht, my loathing is strictly reserved for those who participated, either directly or indirectly, in the appaling atrocities that were committed.




You say....
''Manstein and others like him made a choice that was ultimately selfish but how many of us in a similar situation would have made a different and the right choice? It's easy to sit here now and say 'of course, there's no way I would have agreed to that!' but when the Reichenau Order was issued Germany was engaged in a war of survival with the Soviet Union.''


yes, the Germans were engaged in another non provoked war of aggression, and at the time of the orders I think it was the Soviet Union that was fighting for survival.
But does that excuse those orders?
Many of the Generals baulked at the idea of invading Russia, but in the end none had the moral fibre or intestonal fortitude to face up to him or refuse and retire, but followed orders and went on to carry out or assist in crimes and wars of aggression.


You say....
''Of course they started it [The Germans] but IMO the Soviet Union fully intended to war with Germany but just that the Germans beat them to it.''


Cripes Doppleganger, that sounds like something from one of Viktor Suvorov's books, have you read any?
He certainly does'nt let truth or facts get in the way of his revisionist theories.

Stalin about to invade Germany?

This is the Soviet army that made a monumental pigs ear of invading Finland, a country of 4 million people.

David Glantz claims that in 1941 the Red Army was poorly trained, inadequately equipped, ineptly organized, and consequently incapable of engaging in large-scale military campaigns--and both Hitler and Stalin knew it. He provides a complete and convincing study of why the Soviets almost lost the war that summer, dispelling many of the myths about the Red Army that have persisted since the war.
It effectively refutes the charge--recently rehabilitated by Viktor Suvorov in Icebreaker--that Stalin was secretly planning an offensive war against Hitler during 1941.

If Stalin was about to invade Germany, he had the perfect opportunity, when about 90% of the Werhmacht was occupied with fighting the French and British.

There was virtually nothing to stop him over running German occupied Poland and capturing Berlin, the war might have been finished then and there.
But he didn't move an inch, more's the pity.


You say....
''I can't accept that every German General who wrote memoirs was a dishonest coward trying to make himself look more important and upstanding than he actually was. This was not my impression upon reading the memoirs of Guderian or von Manstein but I am prepared to have an open mind about this.''


I cant pass personal judgement, as I haven't read them, and I'm not suggesting that they were cowards, i'm just going by what Glantz, Clarke and others have said.
I've read that Guderian and Manstein make no referance to the the death camps, or the atrocities that occured in Russia, is that true?

As for the ''Cambridge History of warfare'' I posted this some time ago .......

It's a very good overview of the war on the Eastern front [ ISBN 0 521 44073 4 ] Published by the Cambridge University Press.


I dont know about Germans being physically different but psychologically, i'm not so sure.
Do you think that Germans are more regimented, ready to follow orders, no matter what those orders are, or not?
The more larconic Aussies on the other hand for example, were notorious in both wars for being obstinate to officers, especially the British, not saluting, and and at times being a pain in the neck [mainly to the Brits]

I think if a typical Aussie was given some of those shocking commands they might just tell the officers to get stuffed.

But people like Ludendorf, Rommel and Montgomery all rated them as the elite forces they faced or commanded.

Anyhow as you stated, a differant time, differant circumstaces, who knows?
 
Ashes said:
You say....
''Manstein and others like him made a choice that was ultimately selfish but how many of us in a similar situation would have made a different and the right choice? It's easy to sit here now and say 'of course, there's no way I would have agreed to that!' but when the Reichenau Order was issued Germany was engaged in a war of survival with the Soviet Union.''


yes, the Germans were engaged in another non provoked war of aggression, and at the time of the orders I think it was the Soviet Union that was fighting for survival.
But does that excuse those orders?
Many of the Generals baulked at the idea of invading Russia, but in the end none had the moral fibre or intestonal fortitude to face up to him or refuse and retire, but followed orders and went on to carry out or assist in crimes and wars of aggression.

They only baulked at invading Russia because most of them thought it would lead to ruin, not for any moralistic reasons, well the vast majority of them anyway. By the time the Reichenau Order was issued it was a battle of survival, for both nations. Or do you think the Germans could simply have pulled out without any repercussions? Of course not.

Hitler definitely saw himself as a conquering Caesar and swept up the whole German nation in his fervour. Undoubtedly, the average German thought that Hitler was good for Germany and that what he was doing was necessary for Germany's survival, at least before 1944. We know now that Hitler's war with Russia was a war of extermination, but how many of the rank and file soldier knew that. And how many of the senior Wehrmacht generals really knew the full extent of Hitler's plans?

Not that many.

Ashes said:
You say....
''Of course they started it [The Germans] but IMO the Soviet Union fully intended to war with Germany but just that the Germans beat them to it.''


Cripes Doppleganger, that sounds like something from one of Viktor Suvorov's books, have you read any?
He certainly does'nt let truth or facts get in the way of his revisionist theories.

Stalin about to invade Germany?

This is the Soviet army that made a monumental pigs ear of invading Finland, a country of 4 million people.

David Glantz claims that in 1941 the Red Army was poorly trained, inadequately equipped, ineptly organized, and consequently incapable of engaging in large-scale military campaigns--and both Hitler and Stalin knew it. He provides a complete and convincing study of why the Soviets almost lost the war that summer, dispelling many of the myths about the Red Army that have persisted since the war.
It effectively refutes the charge--recently rehabilitated by Viktor Suvorov in Icebreaker--that Stalin was secretly planning an offensive war against Hitler during 1941.

If Stalin was about to invade Germany, he had the perfect opportunity, when about 90% of the Werhmacht was occupied with fighting the French and British.

There was virtually nothing to stop him over running German occupied Poland and capturing Berlin, the war might have been finished then and there.
But he didn't move an inch, more's the pity.

I've heard of Viktor Suvorov's theories but haven't read them in any great detail and nor do I subscribe to them. The USSR did not necessarily have to attack Germany in 1941 but they would have at some point, had they not been attacked first. Do you honestly think that 2 such divergent ideologies could have lived peacefully side by side, especially when both had designs on territory that would bring about an inevitable conflict. Do you think the egos or fragilities of either Hitler or Stalin would have allowed an armed superpower to exist on their doorstep for ever. Not a chance mate.

Ashes said:
You say....
''I can't accept that every German General who wrote memoirs was a dishonest coward trying to make himself look more important and upstanding than he actually was. This was not my impression upon reading the memoirs of Guderian or von Manstein but I am prepared to have an open mind about this.''


I cant pass personal judgement, as I haven't read them, and I'm not suggesting that they were cowards, i'm just going by what Glantz, Clarke and others have said.
I've read that Guderian and Manstein make no referance to the the death camps, or the atrocities that occured in Russia, is that true?

As for the ''Cambridge History of warfare'' I posted this some time ago .......

It's a very good overview of the war on the Eastern front [ ISBN 0 521 44073 4 ] Published by the Cambridge University Press.

It's been a while since I've read 'Lost Victories', Manstein's memoirs and I don't currently own a copy. I do, however, own 'Panzer Leader' by Guderian and he makes passing references to the death camps but without going into detail. Of course, Guderian was retired from active service on 25th December, 1941 and never saw front line service again. Guderian's book is very much an operational account of his war and you get the impression he was in the fringes of the Nazi Party hierarchy but nothing more. I'm not going to excuse Guderian because he undoubtedly knew more than he was letting on and he was someone who saw his men as superior to 'the enemy'. But he was first and foremost a professional soldier and cannot be compared in any way to say someone like Heinrich Himmler.

I'll see if I can find that book and have a read of it.

Ashes said:
I dont know about Germans being physically different but psychologically, i'm not so sure.
Do you think that Germans are more regimented, ready to follow orders, no matter what those orders are, or not?
The more larconic Aussies on the other hand for example, were notorious in both wars for being obstinate to officers, especially the British, not saluting, and and at times being a pain in the neck [mainly to the Brits]

I think if a typical Aussie was given some of those shocking commands they might just tell the officers to get stuffed.

I don't know Ashes. It seems like you are reinforcing so-called nationalistic stereotypes there. What I am saying is that there is nothing fundamentally different between any human being. Put laconic Aussies under a dictatorship and they will act like human beings from any other nation.
 
Hi, Doppleganger

You say.....
''I've heard of Viktor Suvorov's theories but haven't read them in any great detail and nor do I subscribe to them. The USSR did not necessarily have to attack Germany in 1941 but they would have at some point, had they not been attacked first. Do you honestly think that 2 such divergent ideologies could have lived peacefully side by side, especially when both had designs on territory that would bring about an inevitable conflict. Do you think the egos or fragilities of either Hitler or Stalin would have allowed an armed superpower to exist on their doorstep for ever. Not a chance mate.''



Apart from the reasons I gave before, that it was all smoke and mirrors, and that Stalin had no intention of attacking Germany, there's another reason.

Both men were dictators, but there was a big differance in their make up.
As you've said, ''Hitler definitely saw himself as a conquering Caesar'' who was willing to take monumental risks to conquer as much of Europe, or the world as quickly as possible, Stalin, on the other hand was'nt willing to take even the slightest risk in putting his hold on power in jeopardy.

That [his hold on power] was pararmount to him, he would'nt be willing to take any chance of invading, unless Germany was virtually postrate. He'd be satisfied with taking territory from countries like Finland, the Baltic states and Poland.

You can see it in the way each man treated their army.

Hitler needed the army for his well planned wars of conquest, culminating in the extermination of the Russians, and the genocide of the Jews, so although hating the Prussion officer class he did'nt rock the boat to much, even when it was officers, like Stauffenberg who tried to assassinate him, Stalin on the other hand gutted the entire officer corps of the army on the slightest hint of a coup, hardly the action of a man bent on invading Germany, do you think?

Hitler had the ego, Stalin had cowardly cunning.

I'd bet my house on it, what do you think?
Anyway, one things certain, we'll never know for sure, will we?


You say....
''We know now that Hitler's war with Russia was a war of extermination, but how many of the rank and file soldier knew that. And how many of the senior Wehrmacht generals really knew the full extent of Hitler's plans?

Not that many.''


But some?
And who?
Guderian said after the war, when the full account of the holicoust and attrocities were known, that Hitler was a basicly a good man for Germany that made a ''few mistakes''and that the "fundamental principles of National Socialism" were fine.

It say's in his bio, is a man who agrees to the "fundamental principles of National Socialism" a nazi? What does it need to make a nazi? What are the "fundamental principles"? The fundamental principles of Hitler were to wage war and to expel or to kill the Jews. He never made a secret of that since 1923.
Guderian was back in Germany as Inspector General of Panzer production after being sacked as a field commander in '41, rubbing shoulders with the Nazi heirarchy and then Chief of staff, are you saying that a man in his position had no idea of what was happening?


You say.....
''I don't know Ashes. It seems like you are reinforcing so-called nationalistic stereotypes there. What I am saying is that there is nothing fundamentally different between any human being. Put laconic Aussies under a dictatorship and they will act like human beings from any other nation.''


Well, Doppleganger, seeing that your willing to keep an open mind to the fact that ''some'' German Generals who wrote memoirs were dishonest cowards trying to make himself look more important and upstanding than they actually were, I guess I can keep an open mind to the Hyperthetical argument that Scots, Aussies or Americans etc could stoop to something like the Holicaust and horrific attrocities of the Germans.

Although, i'd like to think not.
 
Ashes said:
Both men were dictators, but there was a big differance in their make up. As you've said, ''Hitler definitely saw himself as a conquering Caesar'' who was willing to take monumental risks to conquer as much of Europe, or the world as quickly as possible, Stalin, on the other hand was'nt willing to take even the slightest risk in putting his hold on power in jeopardy.

That [his hold on power] was pararmount to him, he would'nt be willing to take any chance of invading, unless Germany was virtually postrate. He'd be satisfied with taking territory from countries like Finland, the Baltic states and Poland.

You can see it in the way each man treated their army.

Hitler needed the army for his well planned wars of conquest, culminating in the extermination of the Russians, and the genocide of the Jews, so although hating the Prussion officer class he did'nt rock the boat to much, even when it was officers, like Stauffenberg who tried to assassinate him, Stalin on the other hand gutted the entire officer corps of the army on the slightest hint of a coup, hardly the action of a man bent on invading Germany, do you think?

He did that in the 1930's Ashes, before the full extent of the ambitions of his near neighbour were fully known. And without meaning to sound pedantic he didn't gut ALL of his officer corps, only most of them. ;)

How do you know Stalin wouldn't have been willing to take the slightest risk?

Ashes said:
You say....
''We know now that Hitler's war with Russia was a war of extermination, but how many of the rank and file soldier knew that. And how many of the senior Wehrmacht generals really knew the full extent of Hitler's plans?

Not that many.''


But some?
And who?
Guderian said after the war, when the full account of the holicoust and attrocities were known, that Hitler was a basicly a good man for Germany that made a ''few mistakes''and that the "fundamental principles of National Socialism" were fine.

It say's in his bio, is a man who agrees to the "fundamental principles of National Socialism" a nazi? What does it need to make a nazi? What are the "fundamental principles"? The fundamental principles of Hitler were to wage war and to expel or to kill the Jews. He never made a secret of that since 1923.
Guderian was back in Germany as Inspector General of Panzer production after being sacked as a field commander in '41, rubbing shoulders with the Nazi heirarchy and then Chief of staff, are you saying that a man in his position had no idea of what was happening?

I don't think the principles of National Socialism are in principle any worse than those of Communism. The fundamental principles of Hitler, personal principles, was to exterminate the Jewish race, who he saw as responsible for poisoning and betraying Germany. Secondary to that was to unite the German speaking peoples and create 'Lebensraum'. I don't think Hitler really saw waging war as a fundamental principle, just a means to an end.

Guderian mixed more with the top brass of the Nazi Party when he was Chief of the General Staff to OKH. I'm not saying, and never did say, that he had no idea about what was happening. I'm sure he had some idea because he was mixing in those circles but whether he knew the full extent it's impossible to say. He definitely was not in the inner circle of the Nazi Party with the likes of Boorman, Himmler, Goering and so on.

Ashes said:
You say.....
''I don't know Ashes. It seems like you are reinforcing so-called nationalistic stereotypes there. What I am saying is that there is nothing fundamentally different between any human being. Put laconic Aussies under a dictatorship and they will act like human beings from any other nation.''


Well, Doppleganger, seeing that your willing to keep an open mind to the fact that ''some'' German Generals who wrote memoirs were dishonest cowards trying to make himself look more important and upstanding than they actually were, I guess I can keep an open mind to the Hyperthetical argument that Scots, Aussies or Americans etc could stoop to something like the Holicaust and horrific attrocities of the Germans.

Although, i'd like to think not.

Unfortunately Ashes, most people are capable of almost anything, given the right conditioning and the right sets of circumstances.
 
Back
Top