Pride in Germany article

Recently read this article over Right Wing comments which sparked controversy over pride in German involvement in the World Wars. We have touched on this in the forum many times.

Interesting read.

German storm over 'pride in WW2' remarks

 

Interesting article. I remember asking my Scots born father if he shot anyone while in the Army, never got a straight answer, but I did get told "we were all somebody's son".

It will be 30 years this November since he passed and I doubt I would be so ignorant to ask him such a question again. I'd prefer to hold him in my arms and let him weep for all he endured and what he must have bourne witness too. Does it matter what side of the fence they were on this far down the line?

 

My Dad fought through northern Europe and ended up in occupation in Hamburg. He was very vocal about his experiences, good and bad, and encouraged us to learn about the Holocaust. He did not vilify the entire German nation and got to know many decent people who, like us, were caught up in a horrific conflict. Germans today understand and accept that Hitler led their country into the abyss and I cannot see where pride can be applied. There are always extremists who will rock the boat.

 

History inevitably becomes sanitized, take Ghengiz Khan as a example. He conquered half the known world in his day, wiped off the map entire cities and nations, killed millions well before 'factories of death' were a twinkle in Hitler's eye. Raped so many women (as well as his son's) that perhaps 8% of the male population throughout Asia are his decedents

In Mongolia his name and image is on everything from mountain sides to money to soft drinks.

In a thousand years will they be buying Hitler Cola and Goering Chips?.

 

If I were a veteran of a Wehrmacht combat unit, will I celebrate and express my pride in Germany? Ok, you know the answer, unless you're an unbelievably weak and sheltered flake.

 

He without sin throw the first stone...soldiers should NEVER be tarnished by the politicians decisions...Take a look at the British Empire, and we are allowed to feel pride over that, despite its many atrocities...I think the average German Soldier/Pilot/Navy man covered themselves in glory personally, a fearsome bunch in a stoush. Even today.

 

In my opinion there is a tremendous difference between pride in the politics of your nation and pride in serving your nation.

Vietnam is a more modern example.

KTK

 

On the other hand they can be tarnished by their own decisions and actions. In some areas the Wehrmacht was exemplary in others not so much. Taking pride in service well performed but the shame from the atrocities can't be ignored either.

 

Completely agree...what the soldiers do is on them...the Japanese the best example of them all...I doubt the Japanese government even knew about let alone ordered half the atrocities chronicled...at least I hope! The vast majority of stories about and from the Germans (that ive heard) portray them as very much a normal soldier, far away from politics. And they fought, for the most part, like lions.

IMO

 

The Japanese represent an example on both ends. I remember reading of one ships CO who fought orders to execute some POWs repeatedly although I think he eventually followed orders. When higher command ignores or even encourages atrocities it clearly makes matters a lot worse.

As for the Germans I've read over the last decade or two that the Wehrmacht was an active participant in quite a few atrocities particularly in the East. There was something of a white wash from what I gather that tended to shift all the blame to the SS and police organizations. Certainly the Germans fought hard, SS and Heer both, as did the Japanese. The trick is in separating that from the other and from the organization they served. Much easier IMO with WWI than with WWII.

 

Agreed.

 

I mostly agree with you. However, some German soldiers participated in shootings when they didn't have to. Some did it because they were ordered to. A big difference (not to those shot, but morally). Most young men in the armed forces will obey orders. As an example, Chuck Yeager in his autobiography told of being ordered to strafe ANY German they saw. He said his unit complied! During the Philippine insurrection the U.S Army committed atrocities every bit as bad as what went on in Poland during ww2. So, my point being that soldiers will do what they're told. Some enjoy it! So, any soldier who resists these orders is, to me, a hero. Therefore, I'd like to see more on German soldiers from generals on down to privates who resisted these orders. I know there were some!

 

I'd take issue with that on a number of levels. For one many of those killed in Poland during WWII were killed only because they belonged to a group that was not approved of by the German government. In the Philippines the actions were taken against those who were at least believed to be insurgents or their supporters. There's also the aspect of the time difference. Many of the actions of the Germans in WW2 were specifically proscribed by the Conventions in effect at the time not so for the Philippines.

That said I do believe there's a difference between doing something willingly and following orders. What happens if one disobeys orders is also of some import. In some cases (for example US military in Vietnam) if you refused orders to commit an atrocity you had a pretty good chance of not being incarcerated or worse the same doesn't necessarily apply to German or Japanese forces in WW2.

 

It sti

In the War Between the States the U.S. Army didn't kill civilians in the South as a matter course even though they probably were supporters of the "insurgents". They certainly did so in the Philippines. Gen. Fredrick Funsten gave the order to kill every male over 10 years of age. Many villages were massacred. What's the difference? They considered the locals "ni@@ers", their term, not mine. Therefore, anything done to them is ok. Please, lwd, how is this is different from what the Nazis did?

 

I explained the difference in my first post. Try reading for comprehension. The Civil war was indeed more "civil" than many of the time for a number of reasons that didn't apply to the Philippines. It was also a war where both sides wore uniforms and tended to honor the conventions of the time such as accepting surrender. Can you say the same of the Philippines? Indeed just looking at wiki one can find that it was a pretty dirty war on both sides. Just looking at the incident you described one can see it was hardly comparable to Poland in particular:

From: Philippine–American War - Wikipedia
From a bit of reading it also appears that both sides were accusing the other of atrocities from very early in the conflict with the foot soldiers probably believing the accounts of their side. Hardly the same as going after non threatening civilians is it?

 

Nevertheless, we committed them and the orders were issued--and carried out, at least for a while.

 

Oh, and how did the "Southern Gentlemen" handle black union soldiers that they captured? If indeed they allowed them to surrender at all.

 

I disagree. Certainly as I've already stated atrocities were committed. However it's not clear to me how long if at all Smith's orders were carried out. His subordinate (and the one apparently conducting operations in the area) countermanded the order and he was exonerated while Smith was court-martialed and convicted for issuing them. To me that makes them the actions of an individual and not ones of the US collectively. So no "we" didn't commit them individuals at least some of whom were held accountable for them committed them and they were repudiated by the authorities. That's a long way from what happened in Poland even without considering the context of an active insurrection vs the state of things in Poland.

There were cases where white soldiers on either side were not allowed to surrender as well. Nor was the survival rate of those who did surrender all that one would wish for but the point is in the main surrenders were accepted and care was given to those who did surrender. That's in spite of the fact that the "Conventions of War" didn't really exist at the time and the unofficial conventions with regards to rebellions were quite a bit harsher. Which brings up again the point of trying to hold those from earlier periods to the standards of today.

In summary while there were atrocities committed in the Philippines and ACW and for that matter just about every war I can think of (the "Pig War" being the exception) what happened in those two places was nothing like what happened in Nazi occupied Poland. Your position simply has no merit.

 

Except you don't seem to understand what I was trying to get across. In my original post I stated, "...soldiers do what they're told to do...So any soldier who resists these orders is, to me, a hero." Your point, whatever it is, is obscure. They can, and have, happened in every army and sometimes on orders from above. While there were certainly more "innocent deaths" in Poland than in the Philippines, in neither case are these deaths excusable. Anybody who resists these orders from above is a hero because he is fighting both his superiors and his conditioning to obey orders.