Your take on the German military during WWII

you are making an assumption that is not real on the basis of fear.

get back to your original posting which you may want to re-read again as it has gone OT

 

Thanks! Can't believe I didn't know about this forum until now. If you see my blog (shameless plug) you'll see how enthusiastic I am about WW2...

As others have noted since your post, it would be very hard to not know what your leadership is about since they were clear to espouse "we are superior to everyone and all who are inferior must be destroyed. And, really, once all the jews and gypsies, and blacks, etc start being removed, where does the common soldier honestly think they are going?

 

Have you ever seen any German propaganda? They stated they were being relocated to resort-like or labor camps, not extermination camps. And I don't remember seeing anything about Hitler saying the Jews needed to be destroyed, rather that they were inferior and should be removed from Germany or something similar to that.

 

In the Wehrmacht there was a good chance that you could have served with someone who the Nazi's weren't too fond of. The Nazi's themselves had made alliances with those they deemed inferior and done things that would be contrary to what they would preach. Say one thing, do another.

Certain groups were also allowed to return to society in some form and limited numbers as a way for things to seem "ok". Usually the Nazi's weren't 100% open about what they wanted to do, it was a gradual thing that they perhaps wanted to reveal overtime. Largely if they wanted to say or do something they would attempt to tie it in to an event to make it seem less suspicious or justified.

I'm personally doing research into the Haavara Agreement and how it impacted perceptions of what was happening in Germany at the time.

Edit: About the destroy thing, I don't think they used exactly that word but words such as destruction are common when looking into speeches. I don't know about Hitler but I do remember reading documents written by Goebbels that used such terminology.

Edit 2: Not that it would matter though since those are only the English interpretations of those words, in German they would be said another way but that's nitpicking, same meaning 99.9% of the time regardless given the contexts.

 

Mehar makes a fair point a good number of non-aryan and so-called subhuman's served as both armed and unarmed auxilleries within the Whermacht. Therefor it is possible that many German soldiers gained the impression that there is gulf between what was said and what was done.

Still a large number German military personel, both Whermacht and SS, could not disreguard what they saw with their own eyes and did with their own hands. Human nature being what it is it is difficult to accept the theory that no one who participated or observered these acts never spoke of them throught out their service. 'Scuttlebutt' has been a time honored practice thru out military history.

 

Yes, but I highly doubt the majority of them went around to civilian hangings or anything similar to that. I won't lie, the Wehrmacht has blood on its hands but any and every military during any war has blood on its hands. I saw something on the news a few weeks back where a SSgt. in Afghanistan went around shooting, mutilating, and taking pictures of Afghani civilians he and his men shot. Why did they do it? He told his men if they didn't he would have them killed. One of his men even told his parents over Facebook what was happening and that they needed to call the military about it. They did, and what was their reply? The military told them they couldn't do anything about it, and now that same soldier is being charged with murder of Afghani civilians. I don't doubt that some German soldiers were forced into the same situation; shoot or be shot. I'm reading a book on a German soldier on the Eastern Front, the same thing happened to him. But he took the partisans behind a rock, shot in the air, and they ran away, because he didn't want to kill them. He said there was a Sergeant who would go around and shoot Russian dead or seriously wounded point blank in the head to make sure they were dead, and that he and his comrades objected to what he was doing. Thats right, not just him, but his comrades as well.

 

My wife's grandfather was one of the sub-humans (as far as the Nazis were concerned) who served in the Wehrmacht. He was Serbian. He told his family that he had a choice - serve in the army where he had a decent chance of surviving the war, or go to a work camp where he knew he would have virtually no chance of surviving.

I am a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lot of people would automatically assume that I must support slavery or be a racist for belonging to such an organization. Those are the ignorant ones. Most of the common Confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Very few fought just to preserve slavery; most fought because their homes were being invaded. I guess what I am trying to say is that regular ol' Private Fitz in France wasn't always just fighting to eradicate Jews or havew a master race dominate the world, but because he was only playing the hand being dealt to him.

 

Cite your source please.

is the the article you are referencing?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11252987

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/20...ers-killed-afghans-mutiliated-corpses/?hpt=T2

 

A variety of sources;

US soldier accused of killing of Afghan civilians to appear at military tribunal | World news | The Guardian
U.S. Army sergeant described as ringleader in slaying of Afghan civilians - Los Angeles Times
BBC News - US army court hears Afghan civilian murder case
http://www.care2.com/causes/human-r...afghan-civilians-and-mutilating-their-bodies/

Edit; this has more details of the story behind the phrase you have highlighted below;
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/01/afghanistan.killings.father/

 

I found what he was talking about I am just taking exception to the highlighted phrase:

Accuracy in all things is paramount.

 

Looks like his Dad called the wrong number. The sad fact is that he may not have gotten in front of the problem soon enough. All the kid had to do was "request mast" up his chain of command; there is no Battalion or Company Commander in the universe that is going to disregard such allegations.

Something doesn't sound right in this story.

 

Yes I thought that it didn't sound quite right either. Complaining to his dad would really help only if dad was a US Senator or something like that. There are proper channels out there to bring unlawful orders and those who give them to light.

 

In some ways, regardless of the truth behind that story (which we will probably find out soon enough), the fact that there are protocols in place for passing this sort of issue up the chain of command in most armies strengthens Sturmpioniere's point. Despite these recourses existing for soldiers receiving illegal or immoral orders, during most conflicts atrocities still happen.

The Wehrmacht soldier of WW2 did not have as much freedom to protest up the line as more recent troops do, and although I don't have any definite sources yet, I believe the German soldier who complained about carrying out these sort of orders would have had some considerable repercussions, making him arguably less culpable.

The fact that in cases of protesting during the early part of the war, being ignored was a form of official acceptance of these acts both strengthens and weakens the argument - firstly it would seem to indicate more knowledge of official policy, but secondly it indicates less of a personal choice in the matter for the German soldier.

Blaskowitz's (probably the most politically neutral of the generals) complaints about the einsatzgruppen atrocities springs to mind as an example (albeit of a senior officer and not a line soldier) - he was essentially laughed at, ridiculed and then dismissed when he didn't shut up.

 

US Soldiers, Sailors and Marines have a duty not to follow unlawful orders; and that is a direct result of WW2 and the Nuremberg Defense.

Here is more about "Unlawful" or "Superior Orders"

I have taught this class at least 100 times in the 10 years I was in the military and at least another 50 during the time I was a Police Officer and Correctional Officer.

 

It seems to me that we may be having trouble seeing the trees for the forest here. No one here will dispute the German soldier was a highly skilled and determined opponent. Further, on the battlefield against uniformed members of a reckognised enemy combatant, the German soldier generally conducted himself honorably. Therefore it is certainly reasonable to respect them in this reguard.

No one can also dispute that uniformed members of the German Military committed acts that cannot be defended in any reasonable context. The acts were committed not simply by the General SS and the non-german auxilleries, but by the Waffen SS and even by members of the Heer.

What also cannot be in dispute is that the greater tragedy of the Holocaust could only have occured with the success of German arms on the battlefield. Their early victories made available to the Reich millions of victims, and their tenacity in holding off the Anglo-American-Soviet armies allowed the Reich the time to cause so much suffering. That suffering was militarily pointless and the policy of the government that sent them into battle.

Earlier in this thread Spartanroller and I debated the the issue of Intent as it reguarded this matter. Spartanroller is correct that Intent does have relevance in the criminal/legal sence, at least as far as western legal theory goes and Germany was a certainly a component of that theory. The argument is that the common soldier had no Intent to serve the Nazi agenda, simply to protect his homeland and to survive the madness of war.

This being the case, Intent is relevent to the Degree of guilt or responciblity, but not the Fact of guilt or responcibility. It is for this reason some of us cannot totaly disreguard the acts mentioned above when considering the German soldier in his totality. The common German was niether a true Nazi, or a war criminal, but whatever he hoped to achieve by his actions and sacrifices on the battlefield, it did promote a greater evil.

 

-WITHOUT TAKING THE HOLOCAUST INTO ACCOUNT-​

The argument you have just made is "mens rea v. actus rea" ( guilty mind v. guilty actions ), with a fair dose of "fruits of the poisoned tree" argument.

There is no doubt that any honor garnered by the German Army during WW2 will be forever tainted.

 

"There is no doubt that any honor garnered by the German Army during WW2 will be forever tainted"

That is undeniable, but the OP's point is - is that entirely justified?

 

Germany's actions in rebuilding their military and reclaiming their territory is understandable; but, once they exceeded the scope of reclaiming territory the issue gets convoluted.

What was the master intent of entering the Sudaten and Alsace? was it merely to retake territory that was lost as part of what the Germans perceived as punishment? or was it to conquer all of Europe and subject it to Nazi rule?

No matter how you slice it the Wehrmacht ( Heer, SS, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe) were all part of the same mechanism that was used to promote the Nazi ideal.

If the troops and military leadership did not support the Nazi agenda they should have surrendered.

You have to take too many politics out of the equation to make what the Nazis did, in trying to establish a "Thousand Year Reich", acceptable.

 

If it is true that it is undeniable, then it is at least in some measure justified. There is no scientific way to quantify it, each of us in our own hearts and consciences with have come to decision on what that may be.

 

The German military isn't the US military.

That being said, those who did attempt to not follow orders could be branded as traitors and be disciplined against. The reprecutions of disobeying in the German military were far greater than in the US for example

This wasn't a small time war fought on a single battlefield between two nations. It was, a world war. This would be impossible and the fact that certain POW's would be killed would be enough to deter. Like I said before, the German army promoted Camaraderie as a way of stopping such things from happening. You could surrender to save yourself but you would be leaving dozens of your comrades on the field to die.

Those who fought in World War I may have recalled instances of surrendering yet still seeing members of their unit killed by a enraged enemy soldier and warn against such actions.