Nazis, Germans, Wehrmacht...

Interesting how the terms Nazis, Germans and Wehrmacht are used when referring to soldiers fighting for Germany during WWI. Often as not, no distinction is made. Kinda irks me. I hear the term Nazi's, in this context, and think of committed National Socialists; the term Wehrmacht, the old line combat service; and, of course, German's -- the enemy, the guys on the other side shooting back..

I imagine there were combatants who would and could encompass all three categories. But, certainly that was not the common occurrence. One could be a Nazi soldier and not a member of a Wehrmacht combat unit (SS, for example). And no doubt many if not a plurality of the Wehrmacht were not card carrying Nazis and, if fact, could arguable be designated as Non-Nazis. And a host of enemy combatants weren't even German!

Of course I appreciate that you must take into account the context of any particular piece to aid understanding. But using imprecise designations is critical and can potentially lead to all sorts of unintended and erroneous conclusions.

 

did you mean WW2?

If so then is your post a question?
Also you might want to be careful using the term 'enemy' when describing troops, as this is a relative term depending on the reader unless used in a very direct sense.

 

Of course there's another way to look at this.

Soldiers and units of the German military were under control of Hitler and the Nazi party. The former indeed were required to take an oath of loalty to Hitler were they not? So in at least some senses of the word the Wehrmacht was German and Nazi. I see more of a problem when people use army or Heer when they should be using Wehrmacht or visa versa.

 

Every soldier takes an oath to their leader, it doesn't mean they support them though. If so, then that must mean US soldiers today are democrats who are fighting for Obama. Let's face it, when it comes to Germany during WWII most people just call them Nazis and leave it at that, and it p***** me off. It's very difficult for people to understand, it's just because they lost that only the bad about them is exposed. But really, if one soldier is a dedicated Nazi does that mean everyone in the Wehrmacht is a Nazi? I'm positive that most soldiers at the front weren't involved in killing civilians, yet for the few that did the whole Wehrmacht is seen as bad. It's just like the saying "A few bad apples have to ruin it for everyone else." Yes, Hitler used the Wehrmacht to start the war, but does that mean most German soldiers were fighting to occupy countries so the SS could come in and kill Jews? No, it doesn't, but yet there are some ignorant people out there who will agree simply because they were in the German military. Sorry for my tone in this post or if I go from one thing to the other, I'm just a little out of it today.

 

I think some of the issue is that in recent years 'Nazi Germany' has come to mean not Imperial or Bundesrepublik Germany, thus 'Nazi troops' is more intended to say troops of the 1933-45 German Reich rather than troops who were all Nazis.

It adds terrible confusion, but somehow this separation of the 3rd Reich from Germany as a continuous nation appears to be for reasons of 'moving on', whereas in reality it means that all activities of Germany for 12 years are described as 'Nazi' even when they were not politically connected.

As an example you could have been a 'Nazi fireman' or 'Nazi shopkeeper' - which I don't think implies in anyones mind that your putting out of fires or selling goods was much affected by politics.

 

Sturm,

I am afraid you are mistaken in the assertion that all soldiers take an oath to obey a leader. That usually only occurs in a totalitarian government like Nazi Germany. They usually take an oath to obey the orders of senior officers and the government of that country. In Germany after 1933 its soldiers gave a personel oath to Adolh Hitler himself. No American soldier gave an oath to obey Barrack Obama, but rather to the President of the United States.

AS for using the term Nazi/German/Whermacht/Hun/Boche/Kraut/or slime sucking toad (you get the idea), it should be remembered that the leaders as well as the common soldiers and people of that era used these term interchangably though out the war period to describe Germany. People within the Reich did the same about the other side.

It is always good to be precise in the words we write because those veiwing the forum cannot see your body language or tone or demeaner when they read a post. Similarly those who read a post should keep in mind that word may not be loaded, but simply a shorthand to get the point across.

 

LaRusso216, thanks for the exact wording. It was my intent to show that the Fueher Oath was very different than the norm for most modern western nations, which you have done spendidly, thanks.

 

Regardless of how the oath sounds, it means diddly squat (I can't believe I used that phrase) in comparison from the collective group who took it, in comparison to the individual soldiers who took it. The notion of taking an oath to the leader of your country is no new concept, it dates all the way back to the first crusade and even longer before. It has always been a formality in the soldiers eyes, regardless of what way they worded it. I understand the videos of the roaring crowds would prove me false, but you must take into account of "The hero Hitler" who brought the Germans back to being powerful, to the "All or nothing" Hitler, who emerged after 1941.

However there should be full distinction between towards affiliation with your leaders ideology, and your own. The Wehrmacht was no different in this, there wartime army was compromised of "Mandatory Service" recruits which is just a way of buttering up that they were conscripted. Conscripts taking an oath pales in comparison to having 1 million volunteers taking that oath and making it well known they would fulfill it.

This is another subject where the "Human factor" must be taken into account, as what could an individual soldier do? Stand amongst the crowd with his arms cross and holding a scowl? Regardless of the strong sense of Kameraden that the German army held so dear, they were still littered with those party enforcers (Commissars make a good example) that made sure that the soldaten acted like the soldat that they were supposed to and keep their personal feelings for private times with their kamrades.

There is nothing like a good discussion to start the night!

 

Totenkopf, US military personel have taken the same oath since WWII does it mean that the oath has or had a different value to the conscripts of WWII, Korea and Vietnam compared to those volunteers in Iraq and Afganistan today? Are conscripts not held accountable or bound by any oath they give?

 

Certainly conscripts can be held accountable for the collective actions of their country, the honest men of the Wehrmacht had their honor shamed by the destruction and death they brought to Europe, while there are those who were your average joe, they can be held responsible that their fighting in the helped further the death and destruction they helped further. But the other side is that you can't grab any random conscript and tell him that he was a Nazi just because of "guilt by association"


While them being bound by their oath, that depends on how fair said man wishes to take it, in the sense of formality; it was just as "necessary" as basic training but that doesn't mean that you followed it. Its hard to say whether or not they were bound by the oath as Germany rarely took men off the line for good except in cases of severe injury as the manpower strain was felt as early as 1941. Take a look at the German vets who were on the front from the start until the end, it was not of personal choice but simply that the country had no choice but to keep their men fighting.


To the volunteers of WW2 and today, certainly the oath would have value to them as to volunteer for a potentially fatal career, you would likely be enthusiastic and patriotic about about your cause and the oath more or less seals the "deal".

 

A Nazi in the politically and historically correct version of the term was a member of the Nazi party. Similar to a Democrat, Liberal, etc.

I wouldn't say the Wehrmacht was under control of the party in the same way as the S.S. was for example.

 

I got done reading a book not to long ago call "Blood Red Snow". The author clearly states he and his comrades were at first fighting for they're country, but by the end they were fighting for their comrades. In my honest opinion, we cannot judge those fighting at the front except for those who commit crimes, which leads to my next question, did the average German joe commit a crime?

 

Please God, lets not go there again!

 

its a popular one to be sure

 

Hello Sturm...

Im afraid that there were more than just "few" rotten apples in the whermacht on the Ost Front. I will try to locate some sources for you but the whermacht commited at least as many crimes as the SS had; whether committing them or just "helping out", the numbers are staggering. Some source claim as high as one third committed crimes in East.

 

This exhibit was actually criticized heavily for inaccuracies, forged material, etc by historians and had to be pulled as a result. A nearly decade long investigation took place and the exhibit had to be changed.

Wehrmacht and Red Army crimes on the Eastern Front was nothing new, the number of soldiers who took part is where people can't agree.

 

Well, it would make sense. Whenever Germans are called Nazis it's because people think they all supported Hitler because he carried out the process of killing six million Jews.