Your take on the German military during WWII

I think you missed my point. The undeniable fact is that the reputation of the German armed forces is tainted in many peoples minds, and will remain so. That in no way 'makes' it justified, nor would the opposite make it unjustified.

You can say that because a lot of people believe it to be justified, it is justified. I disagree. The same argument can be used for the existence or otherwise of UFOs, and the fact that a lot of people believe them to exist doesn't make them any more or less real.

I think there is a relatively scientific way to quantify the way people feel about the German soldier of WW2, by adequate sample sized polls asking direct questions. I have found no evidence yet of this having been carried out, but I'm fairly sure the BRD government would have carried out similar studies (perhaps one of our German contributors can help track something down?) in order to assess foreign acceptance or not of their defence policies over the years since the war.

There is no way to scientifically quantify how justified or not the prevailing attitude is, because there is no useful way to statistically compare acts of inhumanity. It is possible to compare numbers of dead, and amount of fiscal damage caused, and individual cases can be examined comparitively, but these would not make possible a 'nastiness out of 100' or 'validity of given excuse for committing nastiness out of 100' figure for each nation's troops that meant anything.

As a result, you are right that we each have to use our own moral yardstick to compare acts we believe are wrong. However, doing that on an individual case basis and then applying that moral conclusion to every soldier of that nation is also incorrect.

The more individual cases of atrocities we study, the greater the moral indignation felt, and yet we rarely study the stories of ordinary soldiers who didn't commit atrocities - firstly because they don't read as interestingly or sell as many books, and also because they often haven't been written.

 

You're 100% correct; however, the duty to refuse unlawful orders is a direct result of the German Army's action in WW2.

Then they made a choice: either die for what you believe in or live with regret.

I am not going to have this argument here as to wether or not the current conflict stacks up against WW2.

No it's not impossible, Improbable maybe but not impssible, the leadership could have surrendered instead of subscribing to the propaganda put forth. Granted the Russians were always a bit of a wild card; but, there is nothing to say that if the Germans had surrendered in North Africa during '41 they would not have been well treated.

Kind of hard for a single soldier to kill a squad, Platoon, Company or Battalion. There are a few examples of entire companies surrendering to Allied forces in WW1 where no harm came to them. I don't think the same can be said for Malmedy.

 

I only have a little bit of time, but I will say this. German soldiers during WWII were not fighting for the Nazi cause, that is mainly the SS(no doubt there were some loyal Nazis in the Wehrmacht). The Nazi cause was to eliminate the Jews, if many Heer soldiers had no clue what was happening to the Jews how were they to know what they were fighting for? I'll say this-if every German soldier was fighting for Hitler and the Nazis, then that must mean every soldier over in Afghanistan is fighting for Obama and the Democrats.

 

It wasn't my intent (whoa irony) to misrepresent you, it seemed to me that you felt that it was justified and I responded in that vein, sorry.

With respect for those of us who hold the opinion that the German soldier of WWII has some taint because of his affiliation with Hitler and the Nazi party, have a bit more to go on that a few grainy photos of some blob in the sky. The German government has left a substantial amount documentation, physical evidence and fairly clear, crisp photos of the acts commited.

Perhaps a poll of the forum members of his matter might have benifit.

Another avenue of discussion could be, did the Imperial German army, the Weimar Republic army, and that of Hitler's Germany have any thought or theory reguarding the concept of an illegal order and an officers responibility to act in a honorable manner. Much has been made about the German inability to get around the personal oath to Adolf Hitler. So it would seen that idea of 'personal Honor' is also worth considering.

 

A lot of reforms came as a result of World War 2, but many of these resources didn't exist at the time. In Germany at least.

Like I said before, due to the principals of the Wehrmacht you weren't deserting a Nazi cause, you were deserting your commrades. Germany had a pretty low desertion rate, at about 30,000 men in total? Depending on which front you fought on, desertion, surrender, etc would be near impossible.

I never mentioned a current conflict, the logistics of one side giving up won't accomplish anything. The higher ups will simply be forced to send more men to the front.

The fact that Hitler could have had a better chance at bargaining with a surrender in the 44 and the fact that the Russians made it all the way to Berlin shows leadership wasn't able to do much. Those who did see the signs and attempted to change things paid for it with their lives or well being.

Millions of soldiers were fighting on the various fronts, do you think it would be easy for all of them to put down their weapons? Even if leadership did so, do you think they would accept this order or willingly fall into enemy hands when so many other alternatives exist?

Too many factors come into play, even the propaganda you mention. It didn't paint foreign leaders as nice people. Would you really want them staying in your house?

And those Afrika Korp soldiers who were captured by Free French Forces would like to have a word with you.

Malmedy was the S.S. but I don't know enough about it to comment. Simply due to how the war was fought it was impossible to know what would await you on the other side. The Nazi's from day one made implementations that would discourage such actions. The World War 2 was unique in that it presented a very real threat to many different countries, the threat of the enemy making it to your doorstep, the threat of invasion, etc.

I don't think there is a point in this discussion since it really isn't grounded in fact, it's not something you can prove or disprove. It's simply speculation not grounded in reality.

 

I'm not so certain of that. I seem to recall reading that there was a clause in the German regulations of the time that allowed them to disobey an "unlawful order". Consider the case if say a German officer had told his troops to shoot Hitler some time is say 1937. Would they have been prosecuted for refusing said order? The wiki write up at Superior Orders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is interesting and indicates that "Superior Orders" was not always a successful defence even prior to World War II.

 

I'll say this again

The NAZI cuase was to conquere Europe and then the world; creating a "Thousand Year Reich". A thing to remember is that it wasn't only the Jews that were to be eliminated in the quest for a pure Aryan race.

And now on to Mehar:

A result of WW2 and what the Germans did, not just the NAZIs.

That's not something unique to the German military; it's called being a soldier.

He would have had an even better chance had he adhered to the limits of the Munich Agreement in 1938.

 

No need to apologise. Just to be clear, I do not think the worst of the Nazis actions were justified, but I also do not think it is entirely justified to tar all the serving personnel of the wehrmacht with the same brush.

I suspect the representation percentages of different nationalities on this forum would make results of a poll unscientific due to sample bias (perhaps one of the site apparatchiks have figures that would clarify this point?)

However, the results may be interesting. I suggest that the questions asked and the wording of them would be very important in such a poll, so perhaps some discussion here of the possible content of such a poll would be useful before starting one?

If so, then I would say the poll would need to be an 'answer as many questions as you like style'

in my view the principal questions relating to the OP's original premise (many generalisations necessary of course) are; (yes/no answers)

1. Do you believe a high enough proportion of Wehrmacht personnel were Nazis that generalising them all as such is justified?
2. Do you believe that the Wehrmacht acted primarily to further the aims of Germany, rather than those of the Nazi Party?
3. Do you believe that the German common soldier, sailor or airman had any viable recourse if ordered to carry out orders he or she believed to be wrong?
4. Do you believe the common soldier knew about the worst aspects of putting Nazi racial policy into practise soon after it began.
5. Do you believe the leadership cadre of the Wehrmacht could have resisted the Nazis and brought about a change in regime or policies at any time without causing military disaster, particularly in the east?
6. Do you believe it is fair to accuse someone who has respect for the Wehrmacht's fighting abilities of being a Nazi?
7. Do you respect the fighting troops of the Wehrmacht?

Any additions/deletions/comments would be appreciated, the questions definitely need to be carefully designed in order to limit any bias they might themselves cause.

 

That could be a problem. Specfic comment on your propsed questions follow:

Are they so generalised as individuals? In any case the Wehrmacht was a tool of the Nazi government. So it's not incorrect to refer to it as "Nazi". Also wasn't there an oath of loyalty to Hitler at some point?

What "aims"? How were they different?

Personally I think that very much depends on what the order was. The actaul situation, who his commanding officers were, and his record likely would impact this as well. Knowing exactly what the German regs were in regards to this would help as well.

What is "soon"? There's also the ability to ignore or turn a blind eye to things. Didn't many of the residents of villages near the camps claim that they had no idea of what was going on in them?

From the phrasing of the question there's an implication that this is after the war started, however it's not explicit. What did you intend?

I'm not sure the word "fair" is best here. Certainly it's inaccurate as many individuals from private soldiers up through general officers serving in the millitaries of the various allied forces had consideralbe respect for them.

There is a difference between the wording of question 6 and 7 that can have considerable impact on the answer. 6 asked about respecting the "fightin abilities" 7 asks about "respecting the fighting troops". Especially in the order they are in some may respond to 7 as if it were the same question. Tied into this as well is what does one have to do to be worthy of "respect". Personally I see many characteristics of the Wehrmacht as worthy of respect, but others worthy of derision, on yet others I'm either unsure or have no opinion.

 

Many thanks Lwd - you make some good points, bearing in mind this poll would not be designed to establish fact, merely opinion - I'll leave the proposal as it is for now and see what other opinions surface - do you have any extra questions you think worth including?

 

It might be interesting to see how opinions vary about the various German organizations. Many accounts I've read place the KM as perhaps the least "Nazified" of the military organizations with the SS as the most (unless you include the GESTAPO). Some questions as to the variations over time might be useful as well. Consider either starting seperate topics or adding to the poll that discusion related to a each of the points should take place in a seperate thread. Otherwise we may find ourselves discussing a dozen different things from the very beginning. I think in referency to Germany of that period it might be worth remembering one of Lincoln's famous quotes: "You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time." How many both within and without of the military were fooled is an interesting question. Tooze in Wages of Destruction seems to imply that it was a fairly high percentage at least prior to the war.

 

Perhaps a poll would make more sense with just a single question along the lines of;

"Do you personally respect the majority of individuals who served in the Wehrmacht during the Nazi period??"

with possible responses being;

a)Yes
b)No
c)No opinion either way

 

Question 1, Pretty good as is. I might insert after it Question 1a: Do you believe the German Serviceman believed/accepted the Nazi Idology of a Master Race and need/right of Lebensraurm?

Question 2, Also pretty good as is. Possible question 2a: Do you think the German serviceman believed he fought for reasons other than Nazi war goals?

Question 3, I might preceed it with the Question: Does a serviceman of any nation have a moral or legal obligation to disreguard or disobey a morally questionable order to harm or kill unarmed civilians or pow's?

Question 4, Tough one there. I might rephrase it this way, Was the German Serviceman in a position to see enough of the greater Nazi race policies to question their moral or legal nature. Not ideal , but the best I can come up with.

Question 5, I am with lwd on this one. Could be seen to imply the reason for resitance was lack of battlefield success as oposed to a rejection to Nazi race policy.

Question 6, In my mind no problem with that question, though it seems aimed at the members of the forum, rather than opinion on German Military personel.

Question 7, Might be neccesary to break down by branch as obviously the Kreigsmarine had little contact with civilians, while the SS had some pretty nasty ones.

I might question what degree of responcabilty does the OKW/OKH have? The Army Group Commanders? Were they dupes or indespencable to the Final Solution?

 

It may be best to tackle them one at a time to aviod cross arguments.

 

I don't believe that the individual soldiers had the option not to take that that oath. It was presented to them as a fait accompli.

 

I think Spartanroller is correct on this, and perhaps in a sense it was the first illegal order given and followed to the German Serviceman.

 

I'm not so sure it is illegal though - the British oath for example is also made to the head of state, and there are many other countries, i think the majority, where this is the case. The taking of the Hitler oath was made law by the cabinet, and I don't believe it went against any international laws either.

 

I was not commenting from a strickly legal point of view but rather as an origin point for all that followed. I cannot speak from the German legal system, but within the US a law can be formed and passed only to be declared unconstitutional as much as years later.

 

Certainly the fact that Hitler did implement this oath adds strength to the argument that he believed the Wehrmacht would feel bound by it to carry out his orders and not oppose him en masse.