Criminality and the German Army

[PaulJ]

Ok Paul thanks for the clarification obviously a misunderstanding of the first sentence in your post.

That first sentence ("...I'm afraid won't contribute any actual new data for the substantive topic at hand") was meant to be a somewhat self-deprecating apology for the fact that my comments were going to be about historiography rather than the actual topic Jake originally started the thread for.

Just in case this horse isn't quite dead yet, I'll beg the forum's indulgence for one more entry on this theme. I thought of another anology that might resonate with Feldgrau members. The historical community is in many ways like this forum -- a debate back and forth between participants that assumes the form of an ongoing discusion. Entries in this debate are "posted" (if you will) by publishing, either in book or journal article form. One has to keep abreast of the publishing in order to be "up to date" on the latest interpretations or theories (with which one may or may not agree), which will also alert one to any new evidence that has been turned up.

Also, just as in a forum such as this it is poor form to repeat material that has already been posted, so (if one wishes to enter into the historical dialogue) one is expected to know what has been published before. This is why one of the academic requirements at post-grad level is an ability to "demonstrate a grasp of the literature" (often in the form of what amounts to a grilling from verbal examiners, or should I say inquisitors?)

Given the breadth of the publishing on a topic like WWII, obviously one cannot read everything published. But one can read the seminal works, and the more applicable works in one's own specific area. And just as most of us are "familiar" with Marx's Das Kapital but few have actually read it, one doesn't necessarily have to read everything published cover-to-cover either. That is one of the reasons why academic journals always contain pages and pages of book reviews. Reading them will allow one to pick books to read, and at least be aware of the existence of most others.

Cheers,

[Jake]

Hi Cristoph

Hello Jake!

Maybe I read something between your lines that I experienced as well in the first years of my interest for the german army and WW2 - It is to be able to be interested in something with a good conscious and this is sometimes hard when it comes to the german army.
Sometimes I was so fascinated by the stories in diaries, of my relatives and other vets that I really, really hoped that nothing of the "bad" side will turn up so that I can "like" this piece of history with a good conscsious. In most if not all cases I was disappointed.
I think the best way is to accept the "bad" sides of the war, accept that probably the now nice white haired grandfather did horrible things in the war and deal with such things as well as with the fascinating professionalism, innovativity (whatever...) of the german army.

\Christoph

A thoughtful post. Thank you.

Regards
Jake

[Hans]

Primary sources too have their problems. Having just dissected Bomber Command Losses, which is based on primary sources, it was clear that the author had his difficulties with the official records and also relied on OTHER primary sources. I was able in fact to clear up one issue concerning an airman, as I had a primary resource, that was not available to anyone else. A letter from the lone survivor which clearly stated that he became a POW. The official records were unclear.
As mentioned before my father was severely wounded in 1942 on the Eastern Front, from his official record one could come to the conclusion that he had bullet holes in every part of his body, every document had the three wounds he received in different places. My mother was able to provide accurate information. The official records certainly could not, although every wound was correctly identified some of the time.
Again it depends on the accuracy of the primary source, and your ability to verify or otherwise.
- Hans

[PaulJ]

Primary sources too have their problems...

Absolutely. Actually, all records have their problems. The point is to compare, weigh the evidence, and come to the best possible conclusions.

In fact, there's another excellent analogy. The historical process is like a trial in court. Evidence is presented in support of an argument for a specific version of events. That evidence must be weighed and considered. Some things will be good evidence, others not.

That, by the way, is one of the key reasons for footnotes in historical writing (or more often nowadays, endnotes). Often footnotes or endnotes are beat into undergrads as important so as to avoid plagariaism, but actually, one's footnotes are one's means of presenting evidence to support the argument one is making.

Cheers,

[Christoph Awender]

Primary sources too have their problems. Having just dissected Bomber Command Losses, which is based on primary sources, it was clear that the author had his difficulties with the official records and also relied on OTHER primary sources. I was able in fact to clear up one issue concerning an airman, as I had a primary resource, that was not available to anyone else. A letter from the lone survivor which clearly stated that he became a POW. The official records were unclear.
As mentioned before my father was severely wounded in 1942 on the Eastern Front, from his official record one could come to the conclusion that he had bullet holes in every part of his body, every document had the three wounds he received in different places. My mother was able to provide accurate information. The official records certainly could not, although every wound was correctly identified some of the time.
Again it depends on the accuracy of the primary source, and your ability to verify or otherwise.
- Hans

Of course if the primary source is not correct the secondary source cannot be correct. I can´t see what your example should proof because a veteran is a primary source as well as a original file. Of course both of these primary sources can be wrong but then it is impossible that secondary sources are correct.

\Christoph

[mtranierman]

A good historian can use both primary and secondary source materials, that's what I was taught by Dr. Bernard Boylan, my undergraduate thesis advisor (Anglo-French Relations 1936-38).

To develop a comprehensive view you must understand the biases of the authors of secondary sources and balance them with reference to primary sources and different points of view. That's why for example, I have read both Goldhagen and Brownings work in my study of the Holocaust (along with a whole shelf of other materials).

Similarly, the behavior of the Wermacht in the USSR was both good and bad.

The atrocities in the USSR however were pre-figured by Heer actions in Poland, where a long history of ethnic cleansing by both ethnic Germans and ethnic Poles existed.

That history was most recently intensified in the years following WWI when a large slice of formerly German territory was given to the recreated Polish state. Real sins committed by Poles and years of public writings stirred anti-polish feeling in Germany, long before the emergence of the National Socialists and certainly before their rise to power in 1933.

Once the war started, ethnic Germans in Poland in self-defense units called Selbstshutz, rose up to attack their Polish neighbors and aid the Wermacht advance. The Poles killed by some estimates 6000 ethnic Germans. The Heer troops were given sanction from the get go for collective reprisals against Polish civilians/irregulars. It went down hill from there. Heer troops in the 10th, 4th Pz, 19th, and 24th Divisions committed atrocities against civilians, both Jews and non-Jews. Hitler issued what amounted to a blanket pardon for all such acts.

Please see Alexander Rossino's very well documented work (primary sources are cited extensively), Hitler Strikes Poland. Rossino is very fair to the Germans in pointing out actions by Poles and the history of propaganda that affected the individual soldiers mind set. Rossino also points out numerous examples of German officers stopping atrocities by both their own troops and SS units, reporting atrocities by the Einsatzgruppen all the way up to OKH Brauchitsch and so on.

However, in the USSR, the Wermacht became not just a bystander to atrocities but a participant. Even though the operational plans for Barbarossa anticipated large numbers of POWs from cauldron battles (encirclements) the plans did not lay down any logistical support for such an event. Halder and Brauchitsch agreed to cede control over Heer rear-areas to Himmler. The OKH and OKW leadership knew that massacres of civilians, both Jews and non-Jews would be part of the operation. OKW orders issued between March and June 1941 removed military courts from any jurisdiction over troops behavior toward civilians and authorized shootings of political commisars (Kommisarbefehl) and "bolshevist agitators, guerrillas, saboteurs, Jews." Troops were taught that Jews and bolshevists were one and the same.

I am too early in my research of Wermacht atrocities in the USSR to go further in this post but you see how the stage was set by the leadership.

The Soviet regime is recorded in history as one of the most bloody towards its own people ever. They also massacred Poles in their occupation zone in WWII, so this is not intended as a one sided perspective. In a contest of evil, the USSR under Stalin and the Third Reich run a close race.

Here there truly is a moral equivalence, unlike say atrocities committed by U.S. and British troops (they happened) against Germans and German actions in WWII overall or U.S and British abuse of prisoners in Iraq and German actions in WWII. While all such actions are reprehensible, I would argue that it is wrong to maintain that they are morally equal in totality and on that point would agree with VPatrick. (FYI, I recently left the Pentagon where I worked on, among other things, Iraq. Been there, got the T-Shirt).

I maintain that you can respect the military accomplishments of German troops and condemn the cause they fought for and atrocities that they committed at the same time.

[Jake]

Hi mtranierman

Thanks for an interesting post, and for the mention of the Rossino book - I hadn't heard of it. I'm going to have to read Browning, Goldhagen, Bartov etc. for myself, Rossino too, just to get a different view. The more I've read about the German Army of WW2 the more I've felt a sense of admiration which I'm not always sure I can justify, all things considered, which I think they have to be with something like this. Being interested in the Wehrmacht, in the soldiers who served in it, most definitely; respecting them for their military achievements, as you say in your post, absolutely; but ADMIRING them, bearing in mind the atrocities they committed? That's the hard one. I wonder about exactly who (arm of service, particular job) did what kinds of things when and where and under what circumstances, and how these things varied among the German troops throughout the war and all across the Eastern Front. I'm just trying to draw an overall conclusion for myself, wondering about the real balance between the Wehrmacht's admirable qualities and its not-so-admirable ones, at the same time trying to steer clear of too much bias and generalising. I'll keep reading.

Regards
Jake

[sid guttridge]

Hi Jake,

While attention usually focuses on Waffen-SS crimes, the rest of the Wehrmacht was not without fault. For example, the massacre of thousands of Italian prisoners on Corfu in late 1943 was carried out by the Army's 1st Mountain Division, while Luftwaffe paratroops shot dozens of Cretan civilians in mid 1941.

However, most of the regular Wehrmacht (indeed most members of the Waffen-SS) maintained standards of behaviour similar to those of most troops in Western Allied armies when operating in the West. However, as we have discovered from previous threads on Feldgrau, what went on in Eastern Europe is much murkier because it is less well recorded in English-language literature.

Cheers,

Sid.

[PaulJ]

... what went on in Eastern Europe is much murkier because it is less well recorded in English-language literature.

Sid,

You think so? Certainly in relative terms the volume of works in English is less than for the West, but in absolute terms there's plenty.

See, for example,just off the top of my head:
Omar Bartov, Hitler's Army
Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men

Not to mention any number of campaign, unit, and personal histories that make it quite clear what conditions on the Eastern Front were like.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Jake,

You are right.

But ask most Feldgrauers to name a specific war crime by the Wehrmacht of Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front, and they would be hard pushed. However, most would be able to name at least one in the West, where there were far fewer.

I, too, have no doubt it was far worse in the East, but the detail is much less widely available in English.

Cheers,

Sid.

[1871]

Hi Jake,

While attention usually focuses on Waffen-SS crimes, the rest of the Wehrmacht was not without fault. For example, the massacre of thousands of Italian prisoners on Corfu in late 1943 was carried out by the Army's 1st Mountain Division, while Luftwaffe paratroops shot dozens of Cretan civilians in mid 1941.

However, most of the regular Wehrmacht (indeed most members of the Waffen-SS) maintained standards of behaviour similar to those of most troops in Western Allied armies when operating in the West. However, as we have discovered from previous threads on Feldgrau, what went on in Eastern Europe is much murkier because it is less well recorded in English-language literature.

Cheers,

Sid.

And here is an example of ignorance and foolish comment.

You submit False statement.

You know nothing of German paratroops. You anger me greatly. For you put lies on here.

You do so continually.

You are a disgrace of no substance or learning.
-

[Stefan]

What went on in Eastern Europe is much murkier because it is less well recorded in English-language literature?

So do you say that all things that have not been recorded in English language never happened or were of no significance, and that German or Russian records don't even count? What an arrogance!

@1871: Why don't you come over and visit good old Germany? There is a nice cell waiting for you just next to the one inhabitated by you great idol Ernst Zündel.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Stefan,

I was simply pointing out the self evident fact that the English speaking world (in which, incidentally, the Germans committed almost no identifiable war crimes) and the West in general (where the Germans committed a limited number of identifiable war crimes), have far less idea about specific crimes committed in Eastern Europe (where the Germans committed the majority of their war crimes) than they do about specific war crimes committed in Western Europe.

Do you disagree with that proposition?

If you are suggesting that it would help to make events in Eastern Europe a great deal less murky for Anglo-Saxon and Western European audiences if they had as much access to German and Soviet publications as they have to their own, then I agree entirely. That was exactly the point I was making.

Thank you for your support.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Jake]

Hi Sid

Hi Jake,

You are right.

But ask most Feldgrauers to name a specific war crime by the Wehrmacht of Waffen-SS on the Eastern Front, and they would be hard pushed. However, most would be able to name at least one in the West, where there were far fewer.

I, too, have no doubt it was far worse in the East, but the detail is much less widely available in English.

Cheers,

Sid.

Although you addressed this post to me, I think you meant it in response to PaulJ's post which preceeded it. My apologies if I'm mistaken. Otherwise I think we agree entirely. There have been a great many books and articles about the whole gamut of warcrimes on the Eastern Front written and published in German, Russian and other languages but very few either written in or translated into English. One glance at Muller & Ueberschar's fairly extensive 1997 overview of Eastern Front literature confirms this (Hitler's War in the East 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment). I accept that the literature is out there, it's just my own problem that I can only read English.

There's obviously a big English-speaking market for the heroics on the Eastern Front but much less so for the rest of it, and consequently the rest of it is not so well known in the English-speaking world. The desire to know isn't that widespread, which is understandable. It's all in the past and it doesn't make nice reading. And of course it all happened to 'other' people anyway. It's just that this issue happens to have a bearing on my own interest in and view of the Wehrmacht, as ultimately I think it should. And it's not just warcrimes. Frankly the translation into English of the whole scope of the Eastern Front experience on both sides is still in its infancy. And given some of what HAS been long-since translated and available in English, it's breathtaking what hasn't been. But as I said, this is just a problem for us English-only readers. The failing is entirely ours!

Regards
Jake

[Stefan]

If you are suggesting that it would help to make events in Eastern Europe a great deal less murky for Anglo-Saxon and Western European audiences if they had as much access to German and Soviet publications as they have to their own, then I agree entirely.

To a certain degree, access has always been there, and now in the web age it is even more easy to get hold of any publication you want. The question is whether there is any significant number of Anglo-Saxons willing and capable of reading foreign-language sources and literature. If I had decided to wait for someone to translate the vast amount of Civil War literature into German, I would still be waiting and my ACW bookshelf would be nearly empty rather than measuring about four meters. But even if we consider it unneccesary to learn foreign languages (and I admit that English is easier to learn than German or Russian), why are there so many people on this forum who know scores of English-language Nazi apologist literature written by some former Wehrmacht and SS officers, but have never heard of Sophie Scholl or Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Because there is obviously a great demand for Nazi memorabilia in the US, but no demand for the works of competent scholars, so no one has taken it upon himself to translate the professional high-quality literature.