The 'ordinary' soldiers of the Wehrmacht

There are many good arguments for and against just how complicit the German people actually may have been in war crimes and the slaughter of innocents. I have known people who fought on all sides, i have been studying the war for decades and the overwhelming impression is one of desperate times and desperate measures, promises made and broken by the Nazis, and the quiet horror of amny Germans on realizing what a monster had been unleashed in Hitler. Certainly all Germans knew the jews were receiving "special treatment' and many knew of the existance of the camps. Few knew that some of the camps were death camps as the Nazis did not actually advertise it on the radio or something like that! most Germans were just as shocked as anyone else when it was revealed just how great the Nazi's crimes were. The fact is that the average German was as powerless to stop the Nazis as you or i had as much power to stop America's invovlement in the war on Vietnam in the 1960's!

 

Jeffin:

I haven't read Grossman's diaries, but I have indeed read Life and Fate, which is not only a must-read first-hand account for war buffs, but it is one of the XX centurie's greatest novels. As you said, it is the equivalent to War and Peace.

Regards.

 

And all designed to keep their own people from thinking about the problems of their own societies and governments. Better to keep young boys fired up about Israelis who are thousands of miles away instead of matters much closer to home. Yeah, the song is always the same and always sickening.

Cheers

BW

 

I never said he had an agenda. I merely pointed out that the example given was a poor one. I have read not just one book but many and base my views on that.

There is some miscommunication going on here and we shall leave it at that. No bad feelings on my part.

This is so true and this is what we need to keep an eye out for.

 

No. What some people fail to see is the distinction, between the individual actions, which are that, individual. There is a first distinction, between individual soldiers that, personally, were never involved in any kind of war crime, and other who did. But the second distinction is the bitter one, and is no generalisation, but a reality: the Waffen SS and the German Army, as institutions, openly participated in a criminal war of agression and annihilation.

No. That is the distinction I mentioned, basing on Hannah Arendt's cathegories of guilt/blame and responsibility. Two different things. Men who shot unarmed POWs, threw civilians into the freezing cold, rounded up annd deported Jews, hanged 'partisans', etcetera, are personally guilty of crimes, of which they must have answered to justice (and will answer for in the afterlife). Men who did not personally commit any of such acts, but nonetheless was a member of criminal organisations and participated actively or passively in a war effort that aimed at ultimate genocide, are responsible. They of course cannot and must not be prosecuted for concrete acts they did not do, but there is a conscious, moral, historical issue that they must face.

We cannot accuse them all of personal crimes, of course not! But they, we, do have a responsibility. I, myself, as a German, a European and a citizen of the world, do have a responsibility for what happened in WWII: to get to know the facts, think and learn from them, try to build a better present and future. We all do.

And in the case of men and women who lived then, they have a duty to the new generations, to explain what and why did it happen. If you think that is a generalisation I'm doing, calling everyone a 'criminal', then...

And again, NO, NO and NO. Not every country committed mass, industrial, centrally-planned genocide. And of course one country fought to make it possible and others fought precisely against it. Period.

I hope this two distinctions, between guilt/blame and responsibility, and the uniqueness of Germany's apawling and incomparable crimes, serve us to keep this thread on track.

 

Nor are there bad feelings on my part.

By way of clarification -- my views are colored by, in the case of my family, bad experiences with the Germans as occupiers, and in the case of my wife's family, truly horrific experiences with the Germans as occupiers. For them, the behavior of the German troops was not a matter for historians -- it was everyday life for the duration of the occupation. Thus, while I'm aware that many Germans in Hitler's military went about a variety of duties without being criminal in their behavior, there were others (and some German civilians) who acted out the worst type of "master race" behavior just because they had the power to do so.

My own experience includes decades of living in Germany and observing the Germans and their attitudes with the critical eye of someone who knows a bit about the history of the 20th Century. I won't belabor the forum with my observations but I will say it has always been a fascinating experience.

Cheers

BW

 

Well said Jeff, Jason! It couldn't have been written better.

 

Hi Ike, I wish I could salute you and Rep you but can't yet. Anyway, well said and I completely concur with you, Jason and Jeff.

 

I can say the same as far as my views being coloured. My Grandfather was a volunteer in the Waffen SS. A Spanish volunteer. I have done a lot of research into the SS as an organization and the different departments and the roles they had. I'm no expert though.

I also have lived in Germany for a long time. I can only describe my feelings and experiences which leads me to defend those who are not here to do so.

 

This is a convoluted issue. Many of the German soldiers from 41' and on werent fighting to save the horror that is war crimes. But rather fighting for Germany. Fighting for your country is a very different matter then fighting for the government. The way you put it is quite an epic twist from the truth.

The fact that the Heer fought for Germany didnt mean that they endorsed everything the government did.

What is a soldier to do? They cant only carry out the orders they want. Having an oath to Hitler is no different Than the Brits being loyal to their Queen. It is simply the baggage that comes along with the current state.

 

PZ;
So have you heard any family buzz about your Grandfather? We at this remove tend to pass too many judgements on just what it was like to live in that place and time and what the "moral" course might have been. The reality is that most of us would instantly PISS OURSELVES if we were faced with what our parents and grandparents faced in the 1930's and 1940's.
Put yourselves in their shoes first.
Jeffin

 

AMEN to that Ike. I find im more and more having to defend those who are no longer around to do it themselves. Remy Schrijnen and others-are great cases in point. It irks me that people make "blanket statements" concerning every person who served in the various organizations that made up the Wehrmacht.

Those who make these statements REALLY do need to get off of their pedestals-and actually make come contact with the men who were actually there. After doing that more than once-then I can better accept-but still strongly disagree with-their limited views.

 

Bravo TK-and you just got 27 reps for this ;-)) Well-stated.

 

Don't know what you mean by 'family buzz' but I agree with your last statement. Which is why we should not judge those who were there.

 

PZ;
I mean. are there some of your grandfather's stories you would like to share? I am sure he was an honorable man and had his reasons, or otherwise you would not be here.
Jeffin

 

I very much appreciate the Rep.

I do strongly agree with you and Pz that it isnt fair that we should judge those who cannot defend themselves. Who are non-veterans to judge veterans?

 

I remember alot of what he shared with me before he passed away. I also have one of his journals that I have been reading, translating more like it. I won't detract from this thread but will start a thread in the future.

 

Letting aside the 'bravos' and 'amens' that contribute so much to a high quality discussion, I have to strongly disagree again:

That acusation that I'm 'epically twisting the truth' is rather a complete lack of profundity in the matter being discussed.

First, I wonder why is it that we don't talk about Russia, in WWII, but rather about the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, and try so hard to make a distinction about Germany and Nazi Germany.

Second, the history of Germany and that of the Nazi Party, of régime and country, was so closely linked during this period precisely because the Nazi Party and Nazi ideals incarnated many of Germany's 'values' and ambitions.

There can even be a stronger argument in favour of calling the USSR's 'Great Patriotic War' as defensive. It was for sure more defensive than Germany's, since Germany broke a non-agression pact between the two countries and invaded the Soviet Union. And yet we do accept that the Red Army was Stalin's Army, that it fought to spread communism. That its defensive war ended in the conquest of the Baltic States and the invasion of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary... That it helped creating satellite communist dictatorships. And that is in a country (the Soviet Union), whose population was far more terrorised than the German population under nazism. Communism was a more 'international' ideology and the communist State tried very hard to controll its population.

Now, unlike communism, which was not exceptionally Russian, nazism was Germanic in essence (and did not try, not even remotely, as hard to impose its acceptance on the population). So, we're stepping in a very, very slight border between the two, the Nazi régime and the German nation. As T. L. Jarman's magnificent book The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany states in its first chapters, it was typical German megalomania (Germanic militarism, belicism, nationalism, State-latry, cult of blind obedience, authoritarianism and racism) what shaped nazism (see Norbert Elias book The Germans). And that was the tradition belonging to most Germans, from which upsurged the Army's military chaste, the Junker aristocracy, big industrialists, nationalist scientists and intellectuals (Wagner, Nietzsche), conservative middle classes... And, as Hannah Arendt explains, every human community shares a tradition. Hence, the responsibility of the individual to that tradition, to which he owes his personality and which he helps shaping.

Even before the outbreak of WWI, the worst of this German tradition was already pointing to the elimination of the socialist and liberal opposition, a purge of 'alien' entities from society (Jews, Gypsies) and, of course, supremacy over Europe by force. Nazism didn't invent all that, just made even more extreme and did carry it out relentessly.

Maybe you can indeed talk about a war for the defence of Germany at some point of the war. 1944, perhaps? Certainly 1945, to stop or delay the instauration of communist rule and the inevitable revenge of the Soviets. But, in 1939? Poland, Denmark, Norway, even France and the same USSR? There is no way to deny that it was a war of agression, unleashed by Hitler, but carried out by the German nation, for the sake of many of the interests of the very same German nation and not just those of Hitler and his NSDAP.

Yes, you are right. But you can't also deny that there was a very convenient alliance between Army and régime, can you? That the Army, as an institution, shared many of the military objectives of Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg... (military defeat of France and Britain, supremacy over Europe, territorial conquest of Austria, Bohemia and Moravia, Poland, the Ukraine, the destruction of the Soviet régime)? But then, the SS, Waffen or Allgemeine? You can't say that the SS did not endorse everything the government did!

It is only necessary to see some of the testimonies of the German generals in the documentary I suggested (and on written sources)... Their complaints about the massive slaughter of Jews were about the methods used by Einsatzgruppen. The killing itself was rarely questioned. Perhaps there was concern about women and children. Even the men who outstand amongst the mejority of German officers as the just ones (Von Choltitz, Von Tresckow, Hoeppner, Von Kluge, Von Stülpnagel...) were either timid to express complaints, quietly supported them or even openly participated in such crimes.

I cannot accept that. Nor dd the Nuremberg tribunal. Nor anyone with common sense can. That would mean that the soldier has no concience and is nothing but a robot. Höss, Eichmann, Nebe, Ohlendorff... all claimed to be soldiers, just following orders.

 

Friedrich

Using Russia would be like using Prussia instead of Germany. I think I get what you mean, but Soviet Socialist was part of that political entity's name so using USSR is correct even if looks like it implies it was someting different from the current or Tzarist nation state(s).

But from what I understand of your post you believe what you call "typical German megalomania" to be unique. I would sleep a lot easier if I believed it to be so, but unfortunately it's not, the same traits are present in a lot of other countries to a greater or lesser degree and, to further muddy the water, are sometimes actually a good thing, I have no tollerance for racism but national pride and belief in the state, in reasonable quantities, is a good thing as it's essential to limit government corruption.
That Germany had the misfortune to get a carismatic madman at time of it's history where it was particularly vulnerable does not make it unique, there are plenty of those even in recent history like Amin Dada and "Doc" Duvalier.
As to Germany's aggression there are two components to it, one was a desire to overturn the Versailles treaty and re-establish the "rigthful borders". That's is so common in the history of established nation states that it can't be considered in any way unique. The second was Hitler's racial superiority based expansionism eastwards which is pretty similar to the borderline genocides of native populations by more technologicaly advanced countries or the recent "ethnic cleansing" atrocities. That in the end the USSR proved to be nearly on a technological par with Germany is beside the point, AFAIK practically noboby believed that in Germany at the time and that's why they started a campaign that, with 20/20 hindsight, they could not hope to win.

IMO a combination of multiple elements made 1939 Germany what it was, considering them unique does not help understanding them, only by realizing that nationalism, widespread disrespect for other people's rights, religion and ethnicity, blind belief in the government, and other "to be identified" factors if taken beyond a point are a deadly mixture can we prevent that sort of tragedy from happening again. IMO the responsibility of those that were closer to the horror is to help others to understand, nothing more, preventing it from happening again is every human being responsibility.