Worst War Crimes of WW2?

The fair and open election that put Hitler in power suggest otherwise. It was a minority government but one that was stronger than any of his opponents.

The argument remains you can be a loyal supporter of a party without having a membership. The installment of commisars in the Wehrmacht, the use of military newspapers, political educational films and propaganda units, spread Nazi ideology. The increasingly young age of NCOs and Junior Officers due to attrition also meant that the Army's leadership moved closer and closer to the age groups that were more pro-Nazi.

Actually, I was mistaken. The historian was Omer Bartov in The Eastern Front. There were both "wild" and "organized" requisitions.

The sources cited are organized by their archive numbers in Germany and given as the following:

BA-MA RH26-12/291, 24.1.42; BA-MA RH27-18/184, 8.3.42; BA-MA RH27-18/27, 14.9.41. See also Meier-Welcker, Aufzeichnungen, p. 157.

One unit cited to have ordered its troops to take clothing from Russians was the 18th Panzer. It did so late, in the September of 1942. BA-MA RH27-18/194, 25.9.42.

They also fought against each other in the Spanish Civil War.

The governments never trusted each other. The tyrants thought of the Pact as a temporary reprieve and justifiably believed it would be broken the moment it became convenient for the other side.

Germany gets raw materials out of this deal. Specifically gasoline, pig iron and non-ferrous metals. The Soviet partition of Poland and control over the Baltic states created a buffer zone. That, combined with the attempted military reforms in 1940-41, and heavy garrison of the borders, suggest they really didn't trust the Nazis.

Lets not forget the cooperation after 39 and the fact that Lenin could only gain power due to Germany influence or the Soviet Union's role in post WW1 Germany.

It is safe to say that many who objected to those acts privately were reduced to the status of helpless onlookers. Many were probably forced to participate against their will by group pressure or direct orders. Some would have reveled in war crimes.

I think poor old Blazkowitz was example enough for the rest of the leadership. He refused to carry out orders to liquidate Jews in Poland. He was relieved of his command, banished to occupation duty in southern France and never given a combat post again, until the Allies came barreling down to southern France. Kruska, who was banished for bad manners, had a good list of other German generals who received similar treatment. I think other the circumstances, it would be difficult for a conscript not to do "as the Romans do".

After the war Blaskowitz committed suicide out of despair, having been imprisoned with other German generals accused of war crimes. Others who went unpunished were far more deserving of this disgrace then Blazkowitz. IMHO another example of how hard it is to dispense justice without hurting the innocent in the aftermath of a war.

Germany, while having a history of strong Anti-Semitism, was certainly not alone in having a tradition of hating Jews, and the Vichy exported their Jews to death camps out of their own initiative.

The Munich Post was described as the voice of the Social Democrats, basically the semi-official newspaper for the biggest opposition party in the left. People would be able to read it, if they were so inclined.

Agreed, but to practice it as a matter of policy was unheard-of in Western Armies. The Wehrmacht did not fail in taking care of POWs; it simply did not care. I do not recall a single case that the US, UK or Canadian command ordered captured German soldiers to be starved or deliberately marched them to death.

While that being true, the orders to execute legit POWs and the practice of killing POWs who weren't targeted was also present from day 1. Later the leadership ordered all Red Army soldiers who were not already captured to be shot on sight even if they were uniformed. That meant stragglers, pockets of resistance, etc., were all fair game. This was quite contrary to the spirit of the military code of law--which was suspended by the Barbarossa decree.

Ref. my earlier post on AARs of German units like the 12th ID. If memory serves, Bartov (Eastern Front) and Megaree (War of Annihilation) also found the 14th and 18th Pz. D. engaged in similar actions--to engage in punitive actions against villagers when partisan activity was encountered, which was killing all Jews found in the village or just executing all males, and burn the houses. The SS and Army security divisions' practice was actually similar in this regard. Jews were referred to as bandits and/or partisans, often in the same report one sentence would say Jews, the other bandits, referring to the same group that was liquidated.

 

Bad. That being said, you do not know what works and what doesn't until you try it. There was no way to test if the theories were correct, and if it was correct, then it offered a way to end the war expeditiously with a minimum of loss.

 

Can we all agree the majority of German soldiers weren't Nazis? Besides that, you have to understand Germany was a police state and therefore its people were afraid of doing ANYTHING against the government out of fear that the Gestapo would come and take them away. Hitler ruled under force, do you really think that in a police state that one person is going to go to their neighbor and say "hey, we need to revolt against what the Nazis are doing". No, because they knew what would happen to anyone who even tried that, they would end up in the same place as the Jews, and they never knew who was and wasn't a loyal follower of the Reich. Many Germans just decided to look the other way because they wanted to save their families. I'm positive that a lot of the people who were for the Nazis were doing it because Hitler gave them jobs which also gave them a living and food on the table. As for the soldiers on the front, I respect the German soldiers for putting up a good fight and for the majority of them that were doing it for their country. I just skimmed through my history book and I saw almost no variation between the Wehrmacht and SS, it just simply said "Nazis", and this is by far one of the biggest problems when it comes to teaching people WWII history, that they have only really learned about
D-Day and the Holocaust and see all Germans as bad.

 

That is a subject that has been beaten to death and has also lead to the dismissal and resignation of several members.
While the majority of Germans during WW2 were not "Nazis" all Germans are held accountable for the actions of the Nazis;Guilt by association and fruits of a poisoned tree.

 

lets not forget that the highest number of gestapo agents at one time was 30, 000 for a population of 70 million! (and most of those agents were not agents at all, but basically office bound)

in some cities, 80% of say race related charges were iniated by denuciations by members of the public.

my point? that the germans did act as they did out of fear of the police state, in fact they readily co-operated with it!

and the argument is not "were most soldiers nazis?" the argument is "how many were involved in war crimes?" which is a completely different question.

not all war crimes can be blamed on political brainwashing and propaganda of the nation's leaders. on the ground, the human condition and, as has been mentioned, the toll of war on the mind probably play a big part in causing people to commit war crimes.

 

The election was anything but fair and open, the SA was using intimidation to gain votes. This doesn't even include the other suspect events that happened to coincide with the majority elections.

Edit: Would also like to add, the convenient removal of the Communist Party (which held between 12-15% of Parliament) and the Nazi control over certain voting administrations should also factor into it.

Yes but official figures for party membership do not support this much. If someone was really being indoctrinated to such a degree, why wouldn't they sign up for a card?

Many veteran accounts that reference Nazism on the frontline usually describe an environment of fear. No one would openly say anything negative about the party in public for fear that a loyal supporter among them would report them for what they were saying.

Newer recruits may have been more "in touch" with Nazism but many battle tested veterans were hardly swayed by their words. If you survived Stalingrad, would you be willing to listen?

Thanks for those sources, will look into those when I have time. It seems like a valid conclusion which goes in line with what was originally said is that reasons for doing so varied. Are they justifications? Not exactly, but they do provide different view points to look at the situation from.

True, Soviet-German relations were/are difficult to asses. In the lifetime of a World War I veteran, how many times did friend turn to enemy?

In regards to the party, it does show that even they didn't know where they were going by they were accepting such alliances from nations they deemed inferior. It must have really sent out mixed signals to the masses.

True, there is also the possibility that those that took action against others who did such things may have been killed themselves.

Agreed, there are still people who have gone uncredited for their positive actions during the war.

And then there were people like Rommel who were able to help others and do so successfully with the Nazi's unable to do much about it.

Wasn't Vichy France simply a puppet government anyway?

So it could be classified as a niche paper of sorts? The fact that it was somewhat official raises further questions, were people willing to believe it for what it was or did they believe it was a ploy for votes?

A somewhat good comparision is probably looking at the Barrack Obama birth certificate issue in the States and how the public had reacted to that. Some considerations have to be used though of course.

Due to the issue with supply lines, The Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front was lacking in many resources. Could the Wehrmacht have taken better care of Russian POW's if the supplies were not an issue? Perhaps, but it really goes back to the "whose in charge" argument.

I don't think the US, UK, or Canada had anything official in that regard. I'm not sure about France though, in Africa the Free French Army had done some pretty inhumane things to captured Axis POW's. Most of those involved seem to have only gotten a slap on the wrist but information is pretty hard to come by.

In regards to shooting on sight, I assume this is when the war on the Eastern Front had began? Wouldn't this be similar to orders of not taking prisoners?

The Barbarossa decree still had a loop hole that one could have taken advantage of, I believe it allowed for action to be taken against soldiers committing offenses if it would maintain order within a unit? "Order" is of course in the eye of the beholder.

Isn't this specifically talking about the S.S.? I also wouldn't be surprised if some Wehrmacht units were also involved in these actions, I don't think anyone is denying some did play a role.

When it comes to partisans it's difficult to assess in my opinion, the lines blur far too much. Something to confirm though in regards to the Jew/Bandit/Partisan thing you mentioned, do you know which area they were referencing? The Bielski brothers come to mind when looking at partisan groups that were comprised mostly of Jewish volunteers, could the reports you mention be referring to them or other groups like them?

 

It isn't about throwing everyone you can into a concentration camp (although well over 4 million Germans did end up in them), it's about making an example out of people to deter the rest.

It also varied from area to area, in a place of high Nazi concentration you should probably be more cautious about what you say and to whom in comparison to a place where the Nazi's don't have as big of a presence.

The Hitler Youth was also involved in some reporting activities as were frontline soldiers who were loyal to the party. Also, the population was a little less than 70 million and going in line with the 30k figure you gave (which I believe was near the end of the war), a good chunk of the nearly 70 million would have been in the military to some degree.

In the army for one you will have a mix of people from all over the world. Some will gladly commit war crimes while others won't. If you were a soldier who was found committing treason (by the book definition), you will likely face disciplinary actions from your superiors than the secret police.

 

I have read that part of the LW's strategy pretty much from the beginning was to start bombing London among other cities at some point in the campaign. I've also read that several LW generals determined that they were at the point to do that and Hitler OK'd the order. I'm not sure where Goering stood on that point.

It is worth noteing that none were convicted of war crimes from what I've read for bombing cities. In part because in most if not all cases it was allowed by the conventions on warfare at the time.

 

Sorry Hop, but I can´t agree your opinion at all. If war laws allowed bombardement by land and naval forces against defended cities. Now please explain why the bombardement destroyed cities in 1945 with any defence? Some of the city which been destroyed in march and april had no longer a defence! Why did they used special tactics only to kill civilians by using bombs with time fuses - civilians who try to delete the fires of their homes? Why did they first use aerial mines to destroy the roofs of the houses, then using phospor-bombs igniting the houses and when the air-raid seemed to be over and the civilians tried to delet the fires these bombs with time fuses kill these innocent people?They used these tacties because it was a very effective way to terrorize civilians, maybe also to take revanche for bombing on London, Coventry etc. If they would like to destroy something to gain a military advantage from it - the sequence of the used weapons exposes this statement as lie.
War-crimes were done by nearly each side! The worst one for me-the Holocaust, although for me it´s more a crime against humanity at all.

 

Like it or not, those were the "rules" of aerial bombing at the time of the war, if the city was defended by cannon or airplane it was not exempted from attack by the enemy. And while you might think it is simple "revanche" (sic), it wasn't in truth.

The ideal (war rule) was ignored by the Germans first when they bombed places like Rotterdam, and then the cities in Britain. But, while there were atrocities which might be considered "war crimes" (which are different from "crimes during wartime"), by all sides on every front, the bombing of German cities aren't one of them. Civilian centers involved in war production are fair game, and again like it or not Dresden was a production center. As were most if not all cities in Greater Germany.

 

if civilians were terrorized,a military advantage was gained

 

I figured that what waging devastating war or what ever that charge was means.

 

I dont think the Geneva conviction set rules for aieral and terror bomings because thoses were new tactics what were never used before.

 

It's not just that. See for instance:
The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX); October 18, 1907
specifically

and The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

The implication is even if it is undefended the presence of military stores and equipment make it liable to bombardment.

 

According to: Hermann Goering's Hearing at Nuremberg

 

The treaties explicitly forbid "hit and run" raids, like bomber attacks, that mostly hit the civian population as precision was non existing, and require the presence of a nearby land or naval force to make the attack legittimate. There can be no "resistance" if there are no nearby enemy surface forces to resist.
Application of old rules to changing technologies is sometimes impossible, the guere de course rules and submarines are another obvious case, but IMO strategic bombing violated both the spirit and the letter of the treaties.

 

That may well be true, violation of both the spirit and letter, however it ignores one other portion of the Hague Convention and Geneva rules which was the "retaliation in kind" clause. This was put in place to allow the attacked to retaliate against the aggressor in the same way as they were attacked. This applied to gas war explicitaly, but could quite logically be extended to aerial bombardment as well.

So, the "guy" who strikes the first blow aggressively shouldn't be surprised if "he" is struck back in the same fashion.

 

You may have a point there assuming you can find a precedent of German or, even more difficult, Japanese strategic bombing. As far as I kow they never developed the doctrine, far less the capability.
No doubt that they both did use terror bombing tactics, by which I mean non precision attacks aganist population centers designed to cause shock and disruption rather than just destruction of well identified military targets that happened to be in the area, but it was, at least before the late war retaliation raids, within the context of a planned land attack and so within the sort of "softening up" bombardment allowed for by the treaties in direct support of surface operations.
The British resorted to strategic bombing when they had absolutely no capability to face the German army on the ground.