German TV drama confronts a nation's wartime guilt

Is it? From my understanding what is sometimes called the "Napoleonic Code" was in use by a fair number of countries and one of its outstanding characteristics was that the accused was assumed guilty and had to prove his innocence.

 

No.That is plain Burden of Proof - A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.

If someone disputes the number of criminals within Wehrmacht and proposes a number of just 10.000 the burden of proof is on his side. So simple is that.

But to prove that just 10.000 Wehrmacht members were directly involved in war crimes would be really difficult.

 

As was pointed out earlier, the difference between a partisan and a terrorist can sometimes be blurred.

I think the difference between a war criminal and a soldier can also be blurred. We have clear criminals in the case of SS and SD units who rounded up or simply exterminated people - Einsatzgruppen. I don't think the average Wehrmacht unit participated in any of that except in the case of political leaders, but hauling off the local mayor or Kommissar is no different than what the allies did in Germany with political and Nazi party figures.
But, what of Wehrmacht units who cleared towns and villages in the wake of partisan attacks? Are they really war criminals? The allies did the same thing - certainly the Russians did it on a sweeping scale. Should we even mention the air war targeting population centers?

The concept of total war has been accepted in the US since Sherman's campaign. You destroy the enemies means of production; factories, farms, mills.

I don't know where you draw the line - perhaps Nazi party membership? It seems overly harsh to blame every soldier for the machinations of his government.

 

That's how most boards operate. However it's not law. And you were talking about assumed guilt or innocence. Either is possible under law.
I agree by the way on proving the 10,000 number. Indeed I don't believe it's possible. One could in theory and probably in practice disprove that conjecture but prove it? I don't think so especially if one considers that we hardly talk at all about some of the less serious war crimes.

 

Unfortunately, or fortunately, this thread has diverged into multiple directions. It is impossible to talk seriously about legal aspect today when virtually all of Wehrmacht members have died. Even at the end of the war it was impossible or impracticable to prosecute all that murdered civilians. But just failure to prosecute them isn't a proof of their innocence. Perhaps that they've just got away with it.

It is however valid to talk about scientific validity of new revisionist claims. I have addressed this question in my post #155. Just simple calculation reveals how ridiculous that claim is. Therefore revisionists have decided to cover themselves under the umbrella of artistic freedom.

 

Tamino;
The Allied occupiers in the post war era finally ended up throwing up their hands and prosecuting a few officials and some of the more egregious offenders. As I recall someone said that if they went after all war criminals there would soon be no one left to do the work. The War in the East was a blood soaked nightmare, where atrocities were just a matter of "how business was done" BY ALL THE COMBATANTS. The USSR had their share of criminals, but lucky for them the USSR won. The Partisan Wars behind Axis lines were the most ruthless of all. It is a fact that NAZI policies initiated the carnage-but can you really hold the rank and file German soldier accountable for the doings of his masters? They were after all, just slaves in the iron grip of the most terrible criminal regime to date. Now if there is one group of Germans I WOULD wag a finger at, it would be the people who were of age when Hitler seized power in 1933.
JeffinMNUSA

 

But at that point it wasn't clear how bad he was. Then there's the fact that he was legally appointed Chancelor. It wasn't until later that the questionable acts began and even then he arranged things so that there was "plausable deniability". A serious question is at what point they should have known and what tools they had to work with at that time.

 

It's the internet it happens.

I disagree. I think we could discuss it and perhaps quite productivly but it is Off topic in this thread so better that we not persue it here.

It doesn't seem to want to let me type below the following quote so what follows is inreference to it.
I dislike using the term "revisionist" to describe such people. Revisionism is an old and cherished tradition in history. Shattered Sword is a classic example of what it can lead to. Nor is making things up out of whole cloth as some of these (trying to think of a good term) shall we say "Distortionists" do is not particularly artistic either. Mostly it relies on smoke, mirrors, lies, bad science, worse math, and misdirection. I think we are fundamentally in agreement on that.

 

But thats just it Jeff...Now I am wanting to speak for Tamino, because I think language is getting in the way...What he is saying if I understand him rightly is pretty close to what you and others are saying...And wanting to show that this particular drama is tryng to change that perception. Our perception. You have just said what the whole thread is littered with...And the drama in question is attempting to change this black and white view.

 

Tamino, i have some other opinions on this seen by many vets. My Grandfather fought against partisans at Russia and he whitnessed some really bad things made from both sides. Its the POV how you will see Partisans. From the point of the regular army they are criminals. Seen from the citizen of the attacked country they are heroes. The Red Army made definately warcrimes and there are reports for this. Same did the Partisans. Yes, a part of this was made as a response on German warcrimes, but many have been done for very low reasons like the feeling of beeing omnipotent over my prisoners and for the pure fun to kill them. Any war at any time and any place brought out the dark side at some dubios characters.


urqh, i can understand what you mean, but i haven´t felt guilty for the crimes the Nazis has done nor will i ever feel. Only thing i feel is shame. But i can´t feel guilty for things that wether my father nor i did.

 

As I've said constanly G...you have no guilt, no need to feel guilt...and certainly no need to feel shame...This thread started as a pointer to a war drama...any shame or guilt is on the producers of the drama for seemingly having ulterior motives...The producers may have a motive. I don't know who they are, you would know better than me...But this looks like a case of not just national bias on their part, not yours, but as with British media a need to change perceptions and at the end of this line of perceptions...the truth...where we have gone wrong in this thread is talk of the guilt and whatever of Germany...My view now is the makers of this drama are guilty...The ones who committed any atrocities be they German Russian or Yank or British know their guilt and we do too...You and your folk..have no need to feel guilt or shame and thats not what I for one have been stating...I do now believe the makers of this drama are not worthy of their audience.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Its just my bad.

 

Sory Kodiak, I'm again without the "likes", but tomorrow, you're the first to get one.

 

After re-reading this thread I must say that I'm proud to be a member of this great community. I am proud of my friend Ulrich.

 

So the drama is reaching some wrong conclusions? Yes it would seem that way if they are presenting the whole train wreck as the result of some sort of "group guilt" -a totalitarian concept-as well as a sketchy grasp of the effects of mass state terror on individuals. I will still be watching it on HULU! It does sound like they are addressing the Partisan Wars for what they were at the time; which was "a major factor in the defeat of Hitler's legions in the East." How major? Well that remains to be sorted out but; hats off to Tamino's Father!
JeffinMNUSA

 

The worst distortion of history is shades-of-gray theory, which unfortunately dominates here, at this forum. The aim of this unfair oversimplification is to push the victim in the same basket with the perpetrator. When this has been done, the crime becomes relativized and then the responsibility may be easily shared among the murderer and the murdered.

Let me explain this with an example involving well known characters; Sharon Tate and Charles Mason:

Charles Mason's attorney: It is true that Mr. Mason has caused fatal injuries on Ms. Tate's body, but the DNA analysis has shown that Mr. Masons skin tissue has been found under Ms. Tate's nails. This clearly indicates that Ms. Tate has caused injuries on Mr. Mason's back. Obviously they have been entangled in mutual struggle and hence both have contributed to this unfortunate event. According to Mr. Mason's statement under the oath, Ms. Tate has caused this incident. Mr. Mason regrets this unfortunate event and accidental death of Ms. Tate.

Do you notice the trick? To find the whole truth, description of Sharon Tate deserves more than just gray; she deserves to be painted in rosy colors and Mr. Mason deserves just tick black color. And made smell of sulfur, to make the picture reflect the real truth.

The shades-of-gray theory eliminates important dimensions which should be taken into account to reach a proper judgement.

The reality isn't gray; it's in color and multidimensional. It may stink sometimes. That is the only valid way to observe and seek the real truth.

That's all I wanted to say about the shades of gray theory.

@LWD: thanks for the inspiring post. Distortionizm; that's really good.

 

CAC - I would like to think I would have been the one there helping assassinate Herr Heydrich or one of his ilk. Would really like to think I could've summoned that much courage and reckless abandon. Have had dreams about that, going Audie Murphy and all.

Yes, Ulrich's insights here are worth careful study and I agree there is no guilt on the German people, just on the Nazi's and the perpetrators who assumed the roles of judge, jury and executioner for their helpless victims. Very good observations of partisans as well Ulrich bro.

And great comments from all here.

Tamino, I think you should photoshop a trim to the mustache and perhaps a Cohiba cigar rather than the lucky strike. I am just sayin'.

Brother, can you spare some likes, I seem to have run out again.

Tamino, the name is Manson (not to nitpick bro), one severely twisted SOB. And here he sits, rotting in a CA cell in Pelican Bay Correctional Facility, a Hannibal Lecter like caricature of a some being, just not a human one. Why won't he die already, jeepers.

 

My paternal and maternal family is 100% German. We are very proud of our ancestors and embrace our heritage.

Our family had a brutal dilemma during WW 2. We sent 5 over to Europe to fight our forefathers. My Grandpa was a barber here in America and his name was Wilhelm Gottlieb. After 1941 he went by the name of William G. due to the Nazi regime. Regardless of our ancestors my family stood and fought for their country, as any Patriot should. The citizens of Germany took arms to support their country too.

During total war, there are no rules or guidelines, just Patriots...

 

I'm afraid there are rules of war even in total war mate. They may not have been followed by all but the rules exist, and existed..Not signed by all, but that is encompassed anyway under the rules...War does indeed have its rules...We as nations are even today signatories to them..No rules.... then we cannot have war crimes...