Nazis, Germans, Wehrmacht...

It seems to quote Sajer out of context a few times but not sure about the others although generally it's a good book.

You have to keep the different ideals of Nazism, the Bolshevik conspiracy, etc in mind when reading memoirs from that era/front.

 

Not gonna go out and get it and I can't find the chapter online, what do they talk about?

 

Frontsoldaten: The German Soldier in ... - Google Books

page 187

 

Thanks Nigel! I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it seems like the last part I was reading focuses on how the soldiers writing the letters were happy Hitler came to power so that Communism wouldn't have taken over Germany instead because of all the murders they saw in Russia committed by the Communists.

 

You're welcome i challenge you to read it all without falling asleep

 

Quite.

...And if I may qoute myself "...using imprecise designations is critical and can potentially lead to all sorts of unintended and erroneous conclusions."

 

it's all good these terms get used so much in the wrong context because everyone has a different concept of what they mean. it's a shame but I'm not sure that'll ever change.

 

That's one correct usage. That doesn't mean it's the only one. Especially sense the Nazi's took over the country to a much greater extent than the Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, etc ever have.

I'm not sure. Certainly they weren't as indoctrinated but when push came to shove the Heer didn't jump much slower than the the SS when Hitler gave orders did it?

 

But was it any different than you would expect if Hitler was not the leader and there was a non-Nazi in that job?

 

If it was a democracy, yes. If not perhaps. The point is the Nazi's controlled or you could say "owned" Germany and thus the various official institutions. So it's legitimate to say said institutions were "Nazi" just as in and before WWI you culd talk of the Kaiser's army or the Empireal German army. Not the stricktest defintion of the term but a legitamate one. I will say that to avoid confusion I tend to use the more restricted defintion personally as I tend to reffer to the Soviets as that or the USSR rather than Russian.

 

I generally prefer the term Nazi to mean someone or some group who was idealogically motivated along Nazi lines, although in reality it is hard often to be able to judge motives. I am probably at fault in using 'Soviet' to mean as you do USSR rather than Russian with no political inferrence, for which I prefer communist, but think I'm guilty of using Russian to mean Soviet and Soviet to mean communist often also. Will have to try and be more consistent if I can decide which is the best

 

What do we do when people like Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Hitler use the term Nazi to describe German forces, censor their words?

 

or use quotes perhaps. a bit of a pain all the time, for sure.

If you have a link at all to an incidence of Hitler using 'Nazi' to describe Wehrmacht troops that would be interesting. Even more if we can find a Heer man using the same.

 

How are their words used today when words like Japs, Tojo's, etc arise (anyone, not just them)?

What context did they generally use those terms in? Propaganda and just general hatred towards "the other side" in World War II was directed at the leaders and not so much the soldiers, civilians, etc. The reason for this was they did the opposite during World War I and after the war ended people had trouble returning to normal life with the "Brutes".

This was only in Europe of course and it's hard to put Nazi in either category, but still would be interesting to see how such PR was handled.

 

There's obviously an easier subconscious separation when Europeans label Asians negatively in wartime, than if it is about other much similar races. The 'Nazi' label quite easily fills this requirement as it doesn't imply any racial differences which are so small as to negate the propagandistic value of terms like 'Hun' and similar.

I am unsure how much the term Nazi was used in that way - IIRC not much until quite late in the war, certainly among the lower ranks. Films I think have used the term in the mouths of ordinary people during the war much more than i suspect it actually was.

 

They, and anyone else of the WW2 generation, are entitled.

One thing you have to consider, though, is the context. If you consider Hitler a Nazi and beings he was the leader of the Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine and SS; all of which were doing his bidding, then they are "Nazi forces" or "nazis", by default irrespective of the political views of the individual soldier.

The "Third Reich" was a mechanism of Nazism

It's no different then a Republican, Centerist, Tea Partier et. al fighting for Democracy or the Democratic way of life.

 

I believe that most of us have neither the intent or desire to offend or to hurt the feelings of any other member of the forum, or the casual visitor. Yes words have power, and some words can be particularly frought with hazard in the way they are used. Words are the tools we use to communicate our ideas and opinions, and some of those words we must use to describe the events of this era can be terribly harsh.

Myself I am not a trained writer or a professional speaker, as most of you have already deduced by my previous posts, but rather a average person with a passion for history. I find that I use the terms Soviet/Russia/USSR interchangably, so to German/Nazi. I do so because they are used this way in the programs I seen and books I have read. Also it becomes tedious to write Russian 4 times in a single paragraph. Finaly, sometimes for structure reasons one word fits better than the other. Not because I am out to push an agenda or a political opinion.

I do not wish to rehash the debate of how Nazi the average German was during the war, but the idea of seeing only the SS as Nazi and the rest of the Whermacht as only apolitical German's is frought with landmines. Throughout the war Waffen SS units fought within the Armies of the Whermacht, side by side with Heer and Luftwaffe units. Do we attempt to determine how 'nazi' each army is before declare it a nazi formation? What of the SS armies created late in the war? Are the Heer units contained in these armies by default nazi too or free of this stain?

Some have argued that you cannot call Russian armies Soviet, or German ones Nazi, unless you also call American armies Democratic because the president of the time belonged to that party. To my mind this at best a flawed argument. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia were both totalitarian states, who thrived upon the cult of personality.

The Nazi Party did not resemble the Republican or Democratic Parties of the US, nor does the Communist Party resemble the Tory or Conservative Parties of England. Both Stalin and Hitler were the complete masters of their countries. They did not answer to either the parties or the people of there nations, but rather the opposite was the case. They obeyed only the laws they cared to, or changed them by fiat to make them fit their wishes. Both Churchill and Rooseveldt led their parties and nations, but were answerable to both the parties they led and the people who voted.

We should always strive to show courtesy to each member, and consider the feelings of others, but I hope we do not use that worthy goal to become a political correctness wasteland.

 

It's an interesting debate though, the Axis had their own terms for the Allies, Tommy, Yank, etc. But at the same time, the term Nazi does have a negative connotation to it in certain contexts given what happened under Nazism.

I guess it also depends on the way it's used, it can be used to talk about history, in a comedic way ("Soup Nazi", "Grammer Nazi", etc), and in a derogatory way as well.

If you are going by the card carrying definition of a Nazi I don't think certain S.S. divisions can apply as well since membership was not mandatory IIRC. Particularly in the foreign divisions? Could be wrong though.

Interestingly, a lot of the post war retribution against Germans in Germany was largely against the card carrying Nazi's, Stalin had them put in concentration camps, others had them blacklisted from various facilities, jobs, etc depending on a number of factors, etc.

Edit: One might argue the Nazi's were more similar to other political parties in structure and PR before they gained supreme power than after.

 

A bit OT but ...

I'd argue the other way on this one. The USSR was more than Russia and while the Russians may have been "first among equals" within it I find the term Soviet or USSR the more accurate one at least for the period in which it existed.

 

And it's very difficult to avoid the term 'Red' Army, despite the political connotations.