Your take on the German military during WWII

Yes but in your previous post you said the reforms/acts were as a result of what the "Germans did, not just Nazi".

To a certain extent yes, but even the Nazi's didn't go all the way with their legal system. One of the reasons why guards at Concentration Camps were able to transfer as easily as some did was as a result of the illegality of what was happening and the inability for legal action to be taken against such requests.

Of course not many were aware that such orders could be given.

The system may have affected many of the higher ups, but not so much the front soldier unless they took great pride in the freedoms they brought.

A certain legal system did exist though, the book Frontsoldaten mentions a case where a German general raped several Polish women in 1940 (one of whom was several months pregnant) and received a two year jail sentence. A slap on the wrist at the very least and it's something the quoted soldier even agreed with.

Another killed a Jewish civillian and was given a 6 month prison sentence. I'm researching these a bit further (the cited source linked to a book called Wehrmacht Justiz which I can find little info on) but it does show that basic legal system may have existed and if even enforced was usually light. This is on the Eastern Front of course, the other fronts were generally more "normal" with such things.

There was a saying on the Eastern Front to reflect the importance of discipline, "if you don't get a bullet from the Russians, you'll get one from the S.S." or something like that.

It depends where you look, I think some were against it but not all. There were other orders as well which made punishments against soldiers who committed crimes light or non existent.

Those who wanted to do something about the issues simply couldn't as a result of non caring up chain, red tape, lenient sentences, etc.

Blowing the track wouldn't just be about destroying the train but delaying shipments, injuring soldiers, etc. It serves dual purposes and I guess it depends how you interpret it. Certain memoirs will also refer to Partisan attacks as terror attacks.

Partisian groups may have had some unique clothing among them to communicate with each other but generally you are correct.

Yes but the actual enacting of the plan and later reactions seem to be Nazi related and not so much something the Wehrmacht had very much part in if at all.

I think there is a misunderstanding here, I'm not saying no other army held such feelings. I'm saying they didn't have such a policy enacted at a State wide level with the intent of what is essentially indoctrination and later justification for punishment.

Many Wehrmacht soldiers who were lynched as a result of what can be defined as a Kangaroo Court usually had signs strung around them which would signify they not only betrayed the fatherland but their fellow comrades.

 

That's like bighting into an apple and finding half a worm. You can't just pick and choose;the German Army was part of a corrupt machine- fruit of a poisoned tree- water from a tainted well. The Heer enabled the NAZI doctrine; they served up Poland like a pudding cup to the SS, there's nothing good about that.

In response to Mehar:
The Germans (civilians, leadership, politics, heer , kreigsmarine and SS) all did bad things regardless of their participation in the NAZI party. Poland was not soley invaded by the SS. The Heer enabled the persecution of the Jews, the Kriegsmarine prevented supplies from reaching England and Russia. The German civilians elected Hitler, The German Generals did what they were told. There is no argument that you can present that is going to change my mind or the opinion of History. The Nazi party, which as the ruling party of Germany from 1932 to 1945, was a corrupt organization bent on world domination and therefore anything that enabled the perpetuation of the NAZI ideal is henceforth bad.

Good Day

 

Mehar - is this the book you are looking for?

Wehrmachtjustiz Und Widerstandsbekampfung: Das Wirken Der Ordentlichen Deutschen Militarjustiz in Den Besetzten Westgebieten 1940-45 Unter Rechtshistorischen Aspekten by Jèurgen Thomas

if it is - sorry can't find any for sale yet

 

Consider this thought. The new Bundswehr does not claim any heritage or lineage from the Wehrmact, nor does it consider itself as a successor of that organization or any of the previous German military establishments. Instead, the Bundswehr's traditions are based on three major lines of thought:

*the defense reformers at the beginning of the 19th century such as Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Clausewitz

*the members of the military resistance against Hitler such as Claus von Stauffenberg and Henning von Tresckow

*its own tradition since 1955

One of the most visible traditions is the Großer Zapfenstreich, a form of military tattoo that goes back to the landsknecht era. Another expression of the traditions in the German armed forces is the ceremonial vow (Gelöbnis) of recruits, during basic training. Annually on July 20, the date of the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler by Wehrmacht officers in 1944, recruits of the Wachbataillon vow at the Bendlerblock, where the officers had their headquarters. The wording of the ceremonial vow of conscripts is:

"I pledge to loyally serve the Federal Republic of Germany and to bravely defend the law and the freedom of the German people.

So why do you think they did that?


Source: wiki

 

I will agree with you there, and I don't really have a statement to counter it.

 

To me the German soldier is worthy of my respect for fighting for his country, anyone who fights for their country and comrades during a war is worthy of my respect. The problem is Germany had a corrupt government at the time, but was that really what the German soldiers were fighting for? SS yes, and some others in every military branch were fighting for Hitler and the Nazis, but yet at the same time you had ordinary soldiers like you do today; joining up just to be in the military and make a career out of it. Once again, I don't want to get flamed for defending the German soldiers, but I strongly believe we should respect most soldiers who fight during war time. I am fine if you guys have a different opinion, we all have our own opinions. And if posts like this will get me banned, please tell me and I'll stop.

 

They certainly shouldn't get you banned. You started and contributed to a healthy and interesting discussion, that just happens to be on a subject many feel very strongly about. This sort of forum is so great because it allows people who have differing views to discuss them, having adequate time to think about their answers and to digest what other people say.

Nothing is ever black and white, even black and white.

 

As well they should be

Don't forget the Germany had "Compulsery Service" which is like the selective service in the US; but, without all the paper work. Compulsery Service just meant you had to join the military by your 17th birthday. I am sure there were a lot of young men in 1943 that were trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Wars are often a "siren's song" to young men; regardless of the politics involved.

Defending something is one thing; but, creating a discussion to argue your views is something different.

They shouldn't get you banned provided you make well thought and supported arguments. Most of all don't make a habit of them.

 

I don't recall saying the Wehrmacht didn't invade Poland or Russia, what I did say was the justifications that allowed them to do so (and what probably justified the event in the minds of many soldiers, civilians, etc) was set off by the S.S..

As I have previously mentioned, the election of the Nazi's into power is pretty suspect. No fair democracy would accept that as justified election, even now in 2010 where all these facts are before us I'm surprised people are still claiming nothing went wrong.

Cutting off a nation that you are in battle with, isn't that how wars are fought? Remember Scapa Flow? But I do agree that either to their knowledge or not, millions of members of the Wehrmacht were made instruments in the Nazi's grand plan. Do I blame them the same way I blame the S.S.? Not really but I do acknowledge some did indeed commit atrocities or crimes themselves.

And the Wehrmacht did not have its founding roots with Nazism like the S.S. and S.A. did. The Wehrmacht simply received a name change but everything else, include those in charge remained the same. So your fruit example doesn't work very well. Using this logic, war crimes can be given a pass as long as the tree the army sprang from isn't corrupt. You can't pick and choose after all?

I of course disagree but if you do not want to discuss this further I respect your wishes.

That's the book, I don't think it was translated to English either.

A-58: They may not publicly state the link but the fact that many of the soldiers who served in the Bundswehr were former Wehrmacht, as were many of the higher ups. The Bundswehr also honored many Wehrmacht era officials for their contributions to warfare, Germany, etc. I don't see an issue with this though since they really weren't criminals and with millions of jobless vets at that stage the two seemed like the perfect match.

I believe before Hitler received control of the Wehrmacht the oath was to the country and not to a person, it was essentially something he changed when no one stood in his way to say otherwise.

 

This is a cliché, but you have to judge men and soldiers one at a time.

There is time to reflect on the human element now that we have not been at war with Germany for sixty years plus years.

I'm doing an oil painting of the Bismarck right now with her crew lined up on her deck. As I paint these sailors, I think to myself that the majority of these men in real life were soon to die, some of them very horribly.

For the Bismarck's crew, that thought overweighs what evil regime they fought for in the context of the moment. Just like the sight of her sinking in 1941 was not cause for celebration on the British ships that sank her. At the end, the British saw Navy men dying, no different than they were.

Were they Navy men of the Third Reich? Yes. Does that mean they should be forever judged as being guilty and willing accomplices with the "slime of humanity"? I don't think so, they were just Navy men fighting for their ship and country. But that is just my opinion.

 

Well true enough, all armies and branches of said armies had their own morals and values, but this doesn't mean that they can represent themselves when there are those others that are able to make allot more noise then them.

Also on the Bismark, when they hit Hood hard and saw the smoke spewing the crew cheered from their success. But when they saw the explosion and Hood drop like a rock, the crew was visibly shaken and horrified as not one lifeboat was launched. Clearly there aren't the hell spawn we are supposed to think they are. While she may have had a Swastika on her, Bismark and her crew were a proud symbol of the professional soldiers that Germany has boasted throughout history.

What of Graf Spee? Was that a Jew killer of the waves? No. It was a ship of the new days with a Captain of the old days who believed in honor, something that seemed to have died after WW2. It should be remembered that Graf Spee always picked up the survivors of her kills, or let them call rescue for themselves before abandoning ship.

While it may be true in technicalities that they helped further the regime, what makes us human is far to complicated to insult these men by referring to them by the government they were under.

 

Slime of Humanity is a little harsh. My perspective is that you have to consider the context of Germany, and the Wehrmacht, in WW2. They weren't fighting to free the opressed, persecuted or exploited; they were trying to conquer Europe, there is nothing noble or praise worthy in that. 5.3 million German soldiers were killed for nothing. Where is the honor in dying to conquer nations?

It's sad that these young men were put in the position of being a mechanism for Hitler's grand scheme and I can empathize, to a degree, for the harships they experienced; but, I am not going to applaud their triumphs.

 

Couldn't have said it any better.

 

Back in the '70s when my interest in this subject was sparked I pursued it in two ways, reading everything I could get my hands on (no internet then), and by playing the old Avalon Hill and SPI board games ( in my experience vacuum cleaners where as grave a threat as the enemy!).

It was alot of fun playing the German side as you could go out and invade nations and conquer enemies. That fun of course was divorced from the reality of what those victory's meant. No displaced civilians, no starvation and certainly no Final Solution.

I still have those games in the back of the closet. The boxes are worn, the maps a little faded and some of the counters are hand made replacements for those that found themselves hors de vacuum cleaner. As the years have passed I find myself pulling them out to play them less often. Time certainly is an issue, I'm not a teenaged kid anymore with loads of free time on my hands. But also I suspect that after all these years I find it difficult to look on it solely as a game anymore.

The 20th Century has been called the 'Century of Warfare'. If so then I have been a truely fortunate man as I have never heard a shot fired in anger, never watched a buddy give his 'last full measure of devotion' or walked upon the killing fields of war.

So long as we humans stride the earth, and someday perhaps other worlds as well, we will be dogged by the scourge of war. Yes we must remember the sacrifices of those who have fought, but we should never forget the reason they had to fight if we ever hope to live in a just world.

 

Hitler loved dogs and was kind to children. Does that count? My foot it does.

The entire German society was geard towards Hitlers ambition. That is what a totalitarian system does.

The people knew what the wee Austrian was going to do. All newlyweds got a copy of Mein Kampf as a present. (that is how Adolf became loaded with cash)

It was vanilla Heer units looking at starving people in occupied countries. It was also vanilla Heer units firing into colums of Russian POW's.

The propaganda that happened before and during the war was immense. People were affected by it. The seeds fell in good soil. Germany had been utterly humiliated after the great war, and now was the chance to strike back. Read any book about the french campaign and the germans will speak of the pride of having gotten one back from the Versailles treaty.

When people try to pin the blame on the SS and police they have been eating to many funny muffins from Amsterdam.

If people want to admire the Landsers, fine go ahead. The dead in the streets of Warsawa and Rotterdam or the coloumns of refugees in Belgium and France strafed to block the road for the BEF won't mind I'm sure.

What the Wehrmacht fought for was the Third Reich, warts and all.

 

It pains me to concede that Much of what Biak writes is quite true. I would say that there were serious efforts to integrate the Nations into our society. Did not work all that well as they were not keen to give up their way of life.

 

The USA is also not the only country outside of Germany to have such history, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Exactly, the Germans are simply the most recent to do it with allot of media coverage. They will still always be though of in that manner until some other nation tries ethnic cleansing on a large scale. But I can happily say that I think Germany ended the cycle of terrible wars happening every 100 years as we know that if there is another large war, it is the end of everything, and no nation today is stupid enough to try it.

Reminds me of the Great Genghis, during the building of his empire, there really was no "empire" at all, just hundreds of miles of barren wasteland and fires, because every living person was killed.