Your take on the German military during WWII

Certainly seems the case. As I recall, the oath came as part of the deal made between the Senior Military Officers and Hitler to get rid of the SA and retain the traditiona army as the primary military arm of the Nazi state. This seems to make those senior officers complicent with Hitler even if they did not fully understand what they were getting into.

 

I'm trying to connect this to what you said before but it's difficult. First you claimed the clause of not having to follow orders if they're unlawful was added as a result of what happened to the Wehrmacht. Now this?

I don't think the true extent of the Eastern Front was known by the Allies or even Axis until years after the war. A lot of the research which brought to light the atrocities committed on the Eastern Front by both sides was brought to light in the 70s I believe?

Different story with the S.S. of course.

Did other militaries at the time officially support this idea and in a sense, indoctrinate it (Volksgemeinschaft)? Was it a policy of officers to nurture this concept as much as they could among their men?

Sorry, but I don't see how this is related.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about this to comment at the moment but I'll look into it. I was originally referring to some sort of a legal system that a soldier could go to if they witnessed an atrocity or were forced to commit one under blackmail.

I don't think it was that rampant in the Wehrmacht but in the Japanese army there were issues of people from lower "castes" becoming officers and put in charge of soldiers from higher "castes". As a result there were cases of abuse of power and such in attempt to even the odds for suffering lower "caste" members faced before the war. This of course can't apply directly to the Wehrmacht but perhaps a similar system may have existed to a certain degree?

 

Mehar, I am going to try and answer this so it makes sense.

The obligation of US Soldiers not to follow unlawful orders has always been paramount. Even greater emphasis was put on this after the Nuremberg Trials. The Superior Order defense was even taken into consideration when planning the prosecution and preparing for the tribunal. Wiki cites several times prior to Nuremberg that the Superior Order defense has been used to establish culpability in war crimes.
The Nuremberg Trial were not just about trying the German leadership for their participation of the Holocaust and the exploitation of the Jews; the "Crimes Against Humanity" charge was very far reaching. Every battle the Germans waged after entering Poland was unlawful as it was predicated on a ficticious attack by Polish sabateurs.


As far as fighting for your friends and not to promote politics that is simply called "esprit de corps". Military leadership plays a major role in instilling and nurturing it, when done correctly it creates unit cohesion and discipline. Even in the absence of good leadership a bond between soldiers will exist and flourish as a result of shared hardships.

If Hitler had not exceeded the bounds of the Munich Agreement in 1938 WW2 most likely would have been avoided or at the very least been relegated to a "European Problem".

 

The refusal to follow orders debate is more so post war, but weren't we talking about during the war? The odds of the Wehrmacht knowing the war would end in such a way from day one is highly unlikely. From the getgo, it was about dealing with the Wehrmacht/Nazi's judicial system which was hit or miss.

The charges against the war and Nazi officials were cited as engaging a war of aggression if I recall correctly.

Depends what can be defined as Polish Sabotoeurs, Partisian activity for instance? And I think it might be a far stretch to say that as well. I also assume you are specifically talking about the Eastern Front?

Perhaps I'm not explaining this properly. The book Frontsoldaten (which I'm currently reading) explains this and the extents many had gone to for enforcement pretty well.

Hitler personally wanted a harsher environment within units since he believed the army was too loose when dealing with desertion, mutiny, etc in the first World War in comparison to the Allied nations and as a result lost the war. The concept of commraderie was just one of the many ways they attempted to deal with it, looking at the statistics, it seems to have worked.

Perhaps, but even the war as is could have been kept within Europe had colonies, conflicts in Asia, etc not been factored in. The enemy of my enemy is a friend after all.

 

I saw it on TV, but the sources you listed cover the same story.

 

I was using it as an example of how the actions of the German Army have affected the way "War Crimes" are prosecuted or prevented .

That would be a partially incorrect recollection:

I think what you're looking for is: "Crimes Against Peace"

A Partisan is not necessarily a saboteur, unless they are engaged in an act of sabotage.

Camaraderie is not solely endemic to the Wehrmacht.

Camaraderie - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

esprit de corps

Esprit de corps - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Don't mistake what I said for implying that the conflict would merely stay in Europe. What I said was that if Hitler had abided by the Munich Agreement the problem would not have escalated and would have been a "European Problem" without involving the US , Britain or the Soviets.

As well all know Hitler exceeded the parameters of the Munich Agreement by invading Poland hence setting into motion what developed into WW2.

 

Strictly speaking Hitler first violated the Munich agreement by occupying the parts of Bohemia and Moravia that were not designated as German in the Munich terms. He was in contravention of the agreement almost six months before Poland

 

He didn't violate it, he obfuscated it; huge difference. The German seizure/ absorbtion of Bohemia and Moravia were certainly outside the guidlines of the Munich terms they didn't technically violate them as both regions "chose" or " accepted" the occupation as part of a "Protection Agreement" (Protectorate).

WW2 began 1, September 1939 whe the Germans invaded Poland:

And beings we a speaking strictly: Hitler didn't occupy Czechoslovakia, the Wehrmacht did (Heer, SS, and Luftwaffe).

 

You will have a salute when i can just for managing to use obfuscate in a sentence.

 

There is a joke about a Marine and big words in there somewhere, but since I don't want to be hunted down and terminated with extreme predjudece, I will wisely keep it to myself!

 

I would actually say all belligerents in the war had impacted post war laws to a certain degree. The Atomic bomb, ways of surrender, partisan activity, etc.

It's safe to say that certain atrocities could only be committed as a result of how the Nazi's had setup their legal system. Especially on the Eastern Front with things such as the Commisar order for instance. It's also safe to say that as a result certain members of the Wehrmacht were made victims of the system. By not having the proper venues to report inhumane offenses or being forced to take part in them for example. It's also safe to say that some members enjoyed these "freedoms" and took advantage of them.

Thanks!​

Depends what you classify as an act of sabotage, is attacking a German train convo by first blowing the track and taking shots at the carriages a simple Partisian act, sabotage, or both?

The other event you mentioned, it seems like it was more the S.S. that was involved? Shortly before Barbossa occurred, reading about the rumors, hopes, and beliefs that existed among soldiers is very interesting. Some had even thought Stalin gave the Germans permission to walk through Russia on their way to the Middle East to hook up with Rommel (quoted in Frontsoldaten, I can find the name of the memoirs later).

​

I'm not saying it was, what I am saying is it was something the Nazi's wanted to indoctrinate into the Wehrmacht, Hitler Youth, etc at a state wide level.

The purpose was not just to let Hans Muller make friends while he is away from home but to ensure he doesn't come home too early. They would then drive the point home by enacting harsher punishments for offenses especially if they could be linked back to the Camaraderie system. Like I've stated above, Hitler believed this to be the ultimate failing of the German army in World War I especially in comparison to the French and British.

 

We are talking about the Germans who were a stunning example of how things shouldn't be done.

The Germans set up their "Legal System" to protect themselves and persecute those who would stand in their way.

The Commisar order was not universally adhered to as it was considered "un soldierly", and was rescinded within the year. It is also interesting to note that it was issued to all units; not just the SS.

Sabotage is more about disruption than it is about inflicting casualties. Blowing up a train track so that the train can be destroyed is actually a "delaying action" or "counter mobility". Partisans can sabotage the train tracks in order to stop the train so it is more easily attacked.

It is generally accepted that Parisans are not members of a uniformed military force and are more closely associated with an indigeonous militia.

If you mean Gleiwitz that was the justification Hitler used for invading Poland

The Allies did this as well. An example is the "Two Man Fighting Postion" and the "Battle Buddy" system. There are instances dating back to the Spartans where unit cohesion and cammraderie are recognized in making soldiers more effective in battle. It also has the corollary effect of not only giving the soldier the security of someone always "having their back"; but also, and more subtly, instilling in the soldier that someone is always either watching or depending on them.

 

Just a little question, but are the US archives open? If not, I'm sure theres a lot of stuff we did that we don't know about. Remember Katyn was said to have been done by the Germans until the Russian archives were opened sometime in the 90's. Also in the book I'm reading the author mentions that the Russians would kill their own civilians in areas once occupied by the Germans and that they would blame it all on the Germans. Once again, the victors write history. I'm not saying the Germans should have won, but at least respect the enemy rather than dehumanize him. The SS is a different case, although no doubt not everyone in the SS enjoyed seeing what their comrades did. That is not to say that applied to the majority though. As for the Heer, just because they invaded other countries doesn't mean that they wanted to further Hitlers policies; as far as I know the Holocaust was mostly known by those who were around it or participated in it, that doesn't mean that there were some frontline soldiers who didn't know. But remember, the Nazis would put in their propaganda films or whatever else that the Jews were being sent to resort-like or work camps, not concentration camps. But I still firmly believe the common German soldier was fighting for his country and his comrades.

 

SP - we all have to wait until and if any of those sort of records are revealed - discussing them isn't going to further anyone's argument and speculating about their existence is counter-productive.

In general the US has been much more open with these sort of records than the Soviets were. A lot of WW2 records were declassified already, more may come to light.

If US troops had been involved in similar activities to those you mention in the East, it is much more likely that they would be known about. Don't forget the population density in Western Europe is much, much higher than in the East. There is always someone who sees.

 

Sturm,

You are very passionate about defending the reputation of the German fighting man. A commendable effort by all means. However to attempt to find some equaty in the random acts of brutality committed by indiviual Soviet or Allied soldiers during WWII or troops currently deployed in Iraq or Afganistan is a false road to travel.

In every army who fought, in every war fought, there are incidents where a individual or small group of people who have acted in a moment of madness in a way that can only considered a atrocity. As such things are common to all conflict, one cannot tar all soldiers by the actions of a few impared individuals be they German, American or Soviet.

What seperates these acts and the greater crimes of mass executions, forced labor, depopulation of villages as well as the more serious acts such as einsatzgruppen and concentration camps were that they were both systemic and organized by the command structure of the Third Reich. They were official government policy not the act of deranged individual acting on their own initative.

To make these acts a reality a vast number of people, of every stripe of German society, had either to participate or know of it. Not dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands, but tens of thousands were needed. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. SS, Gestapo, Police, Order Battalians, Government Officials, Railroad workers and yes some common Soldiers. Not every person saw every piece of the puzzle, but they did see enough to understand that something truely horrible was going on.

To illustrate my feelings about the common German soldier allow me speak on a somewhat related subject. The Great Wall of China is a magnificent structure and a marvel to see. Should I disreguard the fact that thousands of remains of Chinese killed building it are entombed within? The great pyramids of the Aztec empire are wonderous, but is the purpose they were built for of no relevence?

I can respect the combat record of the German soldier, while still feeling that the Government that sent him into battle tarnished in some manner his acts of courage and sacrifice. The only thing worse than the thought that all their efforts were futile, is the idea that they could have won. It is for this reason that I feel equal measures of respect for the German serviceman as well as pity.

 

But like I said, didn't the majority of Heer soldiers not know about the Holocaust? And of course they would have said yes to wanting their leaders to be victorious, but I highly doubt that they would agree with Hitler's plan to exterminate all the Jews and other "undesirables". And the book is Blood Red Snow by Gunter K. Koschorrek.

Spartan, I was just wondering if they were open or not. Of course the USSR was much, much more different than the US. But if a lot of the WWII records wouldn't have been declassified, then I'm sure there would have to be some reason behind it. But since there isn't, I'll just drop the subject.

 

Well of course he was fighting for his country and commrades, the caveat is that it was in battle for world domination and racial superiority. I mean if you take the politics and genocide out of the equation then there really isn't a need for the Second World War.

 

I also agree with Belasar and Lou, with the proviso that I believe there was less choice in the matter for the ordinary German than we sometimes allow for. The leadership were the ones to blame in the most part.

And SP, there are still records classified in almost all countries going back at least as far as WW2 and often before. The reasons for their secret classifications are often not as clear to us now as they were when they were first classified. One thing I am fairly sure of, is that in the US there are more people trying to gain access to classified government documents than in any other country, so if there is anything there it will probably come to light eventually.

Perhaps you should consider that if the German common soldiers were really worthy of our respect, then they themselves would have been very ashamed at what their country had done, whether they were involved in it directly, they knew about it or they didn't. There is a certain responsibility attached to all members of a nation for it's actions, with or without choice, and not dependent on winning or otherwise.