View Full Version : The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality
Sarmatian
11-30-2009, 17:47
Britain which had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium.
Not to mention that Germany, as a successor state to Prussia also guaranteed Belgian neutrality...
It was a Coup for various reasons:
Petain had no authority to call for a gathering of the Assembly, as his government hadn’t received the investiture for it.
The Constitutional law of the 25th February 1875 is precise: only the 2 chambers, after separate deliberations, could decide of a Constitution revision…
It was only AFTER this process that the President of the Republic would have signed the convocation…
He then excluded from the vote the Communist Representatives.
Then he proclaimed himself Chef de l’Etat, dissolved the Chambers, gave himself the executive power and the judiciary, becoming a dictator de facto…
To be continued but I have to bath my grand-daughter...
Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-30-2009, 22:15
Wait, so Germany can not be blamed for invading neutral Belgium, because the invasion of Belgium was needed by German war plans?
'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Surely my client can not be held responsible for the burglary because his plan to rob the house empty required it. Duh'
Bad analogy. A better one would be that, well, there is a neutral country and many more men will probably die and the war will be over much sooner if we go through it rather than walking straight into the arms of the enemy. The theory isn't necessarily justified or blameless, but it was more morally correct than simply getting all of your men killed in the first week.
Would you not think that the invasion of Belgium is instead telling of Germany's eagerness to plunge Europe into war? An invasion of a neutral country in itself. And also an invasion meant to provoke war with Britain, a Britain which had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium.
Meant to provoke war with Britain? Germany was taken by surprise when the British came to defend Belgium, as has already been pointed out by others. It wasn't meant to provoke Britain, the British were looking for an excuse.
"So what I said was entirely accurate then, good". Nope because what you said was "Germany declared war on France after the French had mobilized" which reverse causes and effects...:laugh4:
That depends entirely on what you believe. Personally, given the historical background in France, I believe that the French mobilization and the French attitudes were rather telling.
Coup d’Etat, suite: The Parliament had 907 members, 670 will vote. Some are still on the front line or on a boat to Casablanca in order, they thought, to organise a Government in exile…
About the militaries, it was in fat some gardes mobiles, put there by Laval who remembered how Napoleon was saved by his brother and the drums of the guards covering the voices of the opposition.
I can’t find the link any more, but it was eyes witness, not Shuman but other person. I will find who.
Even Guderian’s Panzers were in Vichy. If that is not enough to frighten anybody, what do you need?:beam:
“That depends entirely on what you believe. Personally, given the historical background in France, I believe that the French mobilization and the French attitudes were rather telling.”
It is NOT what I BELIEVE. It is a chronology, accurate one. The Germans mobilised and declared war to Russia, then to France.
What attitude did you expect from France? Germany attacked an ally, mobilised, and threatened a neutral country? What France should have done? Wait and see? Sent diplomats?:beam:
Not that the French were not some kind of happy for the opportunity to take back Alsace and Lorraine. :yes:
Yes, France did prepare this revenge for decennia, eyes fixed on the blue line of the Vosges, even creating a colonial Empire for this, but France just had no choice in August 1914. Germany was marching to its borders…
You can’t blame France to defend…
You said you hold all European powers responsible for WW1.
Yeah, they all had good reasons.
Austria-Hungary wanted to show strength, Russia wanted a revenge after defeat at Port Arthur and Tsushima, Germany want to destroy France again, France wanted its territories back, etc…
However, if Austria wouldn’t have occupied Bosnia, perhaps a Serbian now called nationalist but perhaps just patriot wouldn’t have killed a member of the oppressor Imperial family. Gavrilo Princip killed an occupier and nowadays it seems that he is guilty for WW1. Fears and speed drove the continent to war.
But, at the end as at the start, the ones who March na Drina were the Austrians, the ones who march to cross the borders of Belgium and France were Germans.
It was no fight in Germany during all the WW1.
That why in WW2, the Allies took care that the German civilians were aware that a war was running…
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-01-2009, 00:18
France was not really defending, at least not in practice. France was as or nearly as complicit in the beginnings of the war as Germany was. Yes, the reasons are your own opinion - I can back up mine with the accurate chronology that I used, but if you have a different interpretation of events, then be my guest.
Germany did not mobilize until after the Russian mobilization, and not until after asking Russia to halt their mobilization. At this point Germany also requested French neutrality, but the French mobilized regardless. If you consider Russia an ally of Germany up to the point of the declaration of war, then I ask you provide some sort of source. :inquisitive:
If one understands the chronology of the war, one cannot really blame Germany any more than any other major power (read: France, Russia, possibly Great Britain) which was involved before August 4th, or perhaps even the 3rd.
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 00:45
Bad analogy. A better one would be that, well, there is a neutral country and many more men will probably die and the war will be over much sooner if we go through itWould you be awfully insulted if I called this some most peculiar reasoning?
I mean...´there was a neutral country in the way, yes. But we wanted to attack and attacking through this neutral country is the better war plan, so we are morally justified...´
It is street thug reasoning, so frustrating in courtrooms: ´I wanted to get his watch but his friend was in the way so obviously I had to shoot him. Don't blame me, blame his friend for being in my way.´
To say that it would've saved lives is the argument one can use to prevent violence, not to start it. That is why the bombing of German cities in WWII can use this argument, but Germany bombing cities can not.
Likewise, a police offcier shooting a thug in the leg is justified if it prevents further violence. A thug shooting an unarmed granny in her leg so he did not have to kill her for her watch is not considered an excuse.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-01-2009, 01:22
Would you be awfully insulted if I called this some most peculiar reasoning?
No, I would disagree with you.
I mean...´there was a neutral country in the way, yes. But we wanted to attack and attacking through this neutral country is the better war plan, so we are morally justified...´
I didn't say it was morally justified, simply more morally correct when viewed from one perspective. I'm not going to even argue it was an exceptionally good plan, or even an average one once the modifications had been made. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean Germany started the First World War, which brings us back to the point.
It is street thug reasoning, so frustrating in courtrooms: ´I wanted to get his watch but his friend was in the way so obviously I had to shoot him. Don't blame me, blame his friend for being in my way.´
Again, a false analogy. You are presuming Germany is a criminal in doing so. Why not take the analogy that a police officer has to push a bystander to the floor to catch a criminal? That would also be an inaccurate analogy, but no worse than yours. Rather, two criminals are fighting and one happens to go through a bystander (how innocent the bystander is is another matter altogether). As a result, a third criminal comes in to "protect" the bystander, though really they are just using the bystander as a tool to declare a turf war on the criminal who knocked them over.
One giant mob racket, really.
To say that it would've saved lives is the argument one can use to prevent violence, not to start it. That is why the bombing of German cities in WWII can use this argument, but Germany bombing cities can not.
Which comes back around to my argument that Germany did not start the First World War.
IIRC Germany asked France what they would do if Germany and Russia would clash, France responded by saying they would do what's in their best interest (taking Alsace and Lorraine back for example, thus attack). So it's no wonder that the German army mobilized near the french border...
On the other hand, it was largely the fault of the German government that their only ally was Austria, they actually seemed to want it that way and wanted to get Germany a place under the sun etc. I find it hard to excuse that lunatic of a Kaiser, especially after others(hint: Bismarck) had shown what can be achieved through diplomacy.
“France was not really defending, at least not in practice. France was as or nearly as complicit in the beginnings of the war as Germany was. Yes, the reasons are your own opinion - I can back up mine with the accurate chronology that I used, but if you have a different interpretation of events”
Ok: Did France mobilise then declared war to Germany or did Germany did mobilise and declared war to Russia? By the way, Russia was a French ally. So France had the obligation (as the Alliance between Russia and France was a defensive one) to act. Still no declaration of war from France…
The Schlieffen plan was clearly a plan of attack so a German Mobilisation was Germany going to war.
Schlieffen estimated Russia needed a minimum of 6 weeks to mobilise. So when the 1st of August gave the mobilisation order it effectively order to go to war. When the Kaiser asked to slow down the process he was told that 11,000 trains were on the move, and war could not now be stopped.
The 3rd of August Germany declared war on France under the pretext a bombing by French planes of the German town of Nuremberg.
The 4th, France declared war on Germany.
The questions are simple: Did France attack Germany on its territory? Did French soldiers crossed German borders before 1918? Did France declare war first?
You have de facto 2 countries that didn’t have choice in 1914 because war was declared on them and these are Serbia and France. And Serbia could have chosen to say yes to the Austrian ultimatum somehow (which Serbia did, as Kaiser Wilhelm wrote on 28 July: 'the reply amounted to a capitulation in the humblest style, and with it there disappeared all reason for war'. France had no choice.
Your chronology is accurate but you manipulated it as I showed it…
Germany declared war before France mobilised, you can try to say otherwise, dates are dates.
Or course I will have a different interpretation of events, but here we don’t speak of events, we speak of chronology…
Germany didn’t start the war, but Germany did start the war on the western Front.
What I find funny is you have the same reaction than the WW1 German about the UK intervention: What, for a piece of paper, for a treaty so old (and by the way designed against France, as Prussia was involved in it, remember Napoleon), the UK is defending Belgium, fulfilling her international obligations (infamous “scrap of paper” from German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg)…
“Germany did not mobilize until after the Russian mobilization, and not until after asking Russia to halt their mobilization”
True, but it doesn’t wash. Russia mobilised because Austria-Hungary was shelling Belgrade (28th of July!!!) Serbia, and Serbia was a Russian Ally. So in you view, Russia should have left Austria deal with Serbia, in order not to up-set Germany… And the Russian Tsar sent a message sent a telegram to the Kaiser assuring him that the mobilisation was NOT against Germany.
“If one understands the chronology of the war, one cannot really blame Germany any more than any other major power”
Oh. So the one who could have stop it (in clearly not backing –up Austria on the war against Serbia, after it became visible that Austria wanted a war when the 5th of July Austria asked for a blank cheque…), the one who could have say no, because Austria wasn’t attacked by Serbia, the one who attack a neutral country because it was the Plan, is not really to blame…
To take Louis analogy, if you have a friend who want to attack a small skinny kid with spectacles in schoolyard, and you say to him to carry on and you will back him up if his stronger and well trained brothers would intervene, you think that the bigger brothers are to blame as much as the one who support the bully… It is a point of view…
Meneldil
12-01-2009, 10:26
It was a Coup for various reasons:
Petain had no authority to call for a gathering of the Assembly, as his government hadn’t received the investiture for it.
The Constitutional law of the 25th February 1875 is precise: only the 2 chambers, after separate deliberations, could decide of a Constitution revision…
It was only AFTER this process that the President of the Republic would have signed the convocation…
He then excluded from the vote the Communist Representatives.
Then he proclaimed himself Chef de l’Etat, dissolved the Chambers, gave himself the executive power and the judiciary, becoming a dictator de facto…
Well basically, that's as much of a coup as most government changes in France. No different from 1789, 1799, 1815, 1830, 1848, 1852, 1870, 1875 and 1958. The only reason why we regard it as worse than others is because 1 - Pétain effectively established an dictatorship that strongly cooperated with the 3rd Reich and 2 - Gaullist propaganda.
I still need a link or a source for the soldiers in the building though :-P
To be continued but I have to bath my grand-daughter...
Holy crap, didn't know you were *that* old. :clown:
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 12:05
Holy crap, didn't know you were *that* old. :clown:Brenus was there at Verdun already. That's why he always knows all those details in historical threads. :book:
Me, I have fifteen years. But I am really clever for my age so I can beat all you adults in debate. :kid:
I am not "that" hold. but in UK there is something called "teenage pregnacy" and is hight rate. My wife's last daughter is one of them, so I am a "young" (50) grand dad.
"Brenus was there at Verdun already": Gravelotte. I was in Gravelotte.
Sarmatian
12-01-2009, 20:54
I was expecting Agincourt...
“The only reason why we regard it as worse than others is because 1 - Pétain effectively established an dictatorship that strongly cooperated with the 3rd Reich”
Not the no 2 for me.
My grandfather was a FTPF (Franc Tireur Partisan Francais -communist for the Anglo-Americans following this debate). So, de Gaulle wasn’t precisely his choice…:laugh4:
So, yes, the French did change a lot of times by Coups and Revolutions but none of them pretended it was not a Coup.
Petain did a Coup d’Etat, illegal and in the boot of the German tanks.
Meneldil
12-01-2009, 22:35
Now that we've settled than, can we go back to the main topic: bashing our neighbours?
Louis VI the Fat
12-01-2009, 23:26
Now that we've settled than, can we go back to the main topic: bashing our neighbours?Did we mention yet the many brave, indomitable Wehrmacht soldiers with the crispy clean uniforms who were mass rapists as well?
In between bravely fighting unarmed civilians for wife and fatherland, the Wehrmacht soldier could live out his violent fantasies in 500 rape camps the German military had set up for them.
Women, teenage girls, were kidnapped by the tens of thousands from the streets in occupied territory by German soldiers, and enslaved in 'brothels'. Where the brave invincible Wehrmacht soldier could think himself superior by overpowering frightened 17-year old girls.
Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II
[/URL] Forced prostitution by the Nazi state for sexual gratification of German soldiers and members of other Nazi-controlled organizations became prevalent in occupied Europe during [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II"]World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#searchInput).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Gaevert-0) It is estimated that a minimum of 34,140 women from occupied states were forced to work as prostitutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitute) during the Third Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reich).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Herbermann-1) The brothels established by the Nazi state were for use by soldiers of the Wehrmacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht), SS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS) officers, and foreign laborers working in the German Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Reich) (including those working within the concentration camps).
The subject of forced prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_prostitution) and camp bordellos has remained largely taboo in studies of Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) until recently, when new publications by women researchers broke the silence.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Schulz-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Paul-3)
Usually organized in hotels confiscated by the Nazis, 'rape camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_camps)' also served travelling soldiers or those withdrawn from the front. Usually, they included a bar, a restaurant and a brothel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothel).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Yudkin-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Lenten-5) In most cases, especially in the East, the women were forced to serve as prostitutes after being caught at random on the streets in Łapankas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81apanka) (Nazi German military kidnapping raids against civilians in Poland).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Yudkin-4)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Lenten-5)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Gaevert-0) The authors of a 2004 German documentary on the victims of forced prostitution in Nazi Germany[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Gaevert-0) estimate that in 1942 alone, there were over 500 such brothels for German soldiers all over Europe.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-PAP-6)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Gaevert-0)
It is estimated that at least 34,140 women were forced to serve as prostitutes in Nazi brothels for Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi) officials, SS and soldiers, but also in similar institutions for slave laborers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_labor) and privileged German concentration camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_concentration_camp) inmates[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Paul-3) even though many more women remained silent about the experience after the end of the war.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Herbermann-1) According to a Gestapo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo) report on one such brothel located in Łódź (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81%C3%B3d%C5%BA) in occupied Poland, there were roughly 4,000 "visitors" a month, including more than 3,000 soldiers of the Wehrmacht.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Siepracka-7)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Siepracka-7)
The hotels/brothels in question were known as German Soldier's Houses (German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language): Deutsches Soldatenhaus), DSH, or in German Militärbordelle or Wehrmachtsbordell.
Thomas Gaevert and Martin Hilbert, authors of a documentary called "Women as Trophy" (made for ARD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARD_%28broadcaster%29))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Gaevert-0) claim that Eastern European sex-slaves in the hands of German military were the most perfidious form of slave-labor of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). The revealing of the extent of their abuse is not always desirable, because many victims remain afraid of being wrongfully accused of collaboration with the occupier.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_enslavement_by_Nazi_Germany_in_World_War_II#cite_note-Ga.C5.82kiewicz-8)
Edit: to stay on-topic for a change: that is the true face of the Wehrmacht. A state-sponsored, state-induced orgy of violence.
Violence, violence against the unarmed, the weak - that was not a byproduct, but the very aim of the war. The Superior German soldier must be acknowledged as superior by the inferior. This is achieved by murder, rape, plunder. The tears of the powerless victim IS the aim of the Wehrmacht soldier. A perfidious mechanism, of frustrated little men.
Meneldil
12-01-2009, 23:49
Though I've never heard about that until now, that's not really surprising. Even the most respectable armies often maintain brothel, and the less respectable ones (such as the Japanese) are usually not well known for behaving nicely with women.
Kind of kill the whole "honorable soldier who fought to save German women from the communist rapists" cliché, heh.
Louis VI the Fat
12-02-2009, 00:14
Though I've never heard about that until now, that's not really surprising. Even the most respectable armies often maintain brothel, and the less respectable ones (such as the Japanese) are usually not well known for behaving nicely with women.Democratic Germany has accepted its responsibility in this, apologised and paid compensation.
Japan still denies, reacts with bitterness or at best indiferrence.
Other nations too have crossed the line between rape as a product of war, and rape as a systematic instrument of warfare. Few have shown the remorse and acceptance that democratic Germany has.
I shall not tire of insisting upon this difference between civilized Germany and the beastliness of dictatorial Germany.
What puzzles and exasparates me much is that on the internets, there is more interest, fascination, and knowledge about nazi Germany than for democratic Germany. Painful. Fifteen year olds, sometimes grown men, who call themselves 'Germanophile' and then espouse their 'fascination' or 'respect for the achievements' of nazi Germany. For what I consider the greatest crime ever committed against Germany.
Louis has a point, Japan still isn't willing to admit what they did in China, they killed so many but they refuse to admit it, I guess pride isn't something to be proud about when it is really uncalled for. Germany has accepted it's wrongdoings, and everybody saw it so nobody is guilty, or everybody. I have had enough anyway I like the Germans they are great fun, screw the war one round of beer. But the Japanese still can't.
The problem is the Myth.
If you read books about Nazism, if you watched movies like e.g. Schindler List, the Iron Cross (superb J Koburn), you will find out corruption, orgies, brutalities, and stupidity everywhere in Nazism.
From the Night of the Generals from Hans Kirst (who wrote the series Caporal Ash to Lt Ash) to the Legion of the Damned (Sven Hassel), all describe this absolute inefficiency of Nazism.
But the decorum of the Black Order, the motto (My honour is my Fidelity), the “Knighthood” and the real ferocity is just a cover up for in fact the most decadent behaviour of all soldiers in the world.
The facts are that Himmler betrayed Hitler, Goering too, and tried to escape in disguised. They didn’t thought until the last. They surrendered.
The last SS fighting in Berlin were not the super German Heroes but Foreign SS who had no real choice.
Skorzeny fled to Spain. None of them went until what they were demanding to the Germans.
Pathetic savages they were. Arrogant and with no mercy in victory, cowards and docile in defeat, the Nazi just deserve the bin of history where they are.
The problem came when this aspect was left from the popular literature. I do remember reading books about SS, French, Belgium, Dutch and others. You have all a series (I’ve got them) by Jean Mabire. This man wrote bout the LVF and others collaborators showing them as good soldiers involved in the wrong side. Never a word about raping and killing Russians civilians, only presenting theses units as the shield against bolshevism, well, he is part of the Myth construction.
Another one could be Guy Sager (Le Soldat Oublié) who during all his fight in Russia never saw one village burning, never saw the Einsatz Troopers in action…
So the image of clean, efficient and honourable soldiers emerged (a little bit of Samurai) instead of what SS and others Nazi were: War profiteers, vulture feeding on human flesh, looting and pillaging all what they could, sending their populations to the slaughter.
Now, not all the Allies were nice and kind.
But, I wanted to find a man in the German ranks who during the war, wrote a novel like the Silence of the Sea by the French Resistant Vercors (Jean Bruller): Novel written in 1942. There were the Heroes.
Horatius
12-16-2009, 07:16
Wait, so Germany can not be blamed for invading neutral Belgium, because the invasion of Belgium was needed by German war plans?
'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Surely my client can not be held responsible for the burglary because his plan to rob the house empty required it. Duh'
Would you not think that the invasion of Belgium is instead telling of Germany's eagerness to plunge Europe into war? An invasion of a neutral country in itself. And also an invasion meant to provoke war with Britain, a Britain which had guaranteed the neutrality of Belgium.
Unmatched as a an informative and at the same time amusing post great job :yes: and thanks for doing such a great job in debating our mutual views :2thumbsup:
I still sometimes cry when reading my biography of Wilhelm Canaris, slain only a few days before he would have been liberated and hailed as the hero he was by liberating allies.
The unfortunate fact is that no matter what you do to explain away the nazis from an apologist perspective you will always have to (if you are doing a fair and accurate examination) return to decades of theories about superior blood.
Blinding yourself to this will only diminish the glory that heroic but usually unsung (Intelligence officers working for their conscience against their country, and aging retired noble generals are not to the liking of Tom Cruise type actors) men like Ludwig Beck, or Wilhelm Canaris deserve.
You also should ask yourself why there was a long and substantial military occupation involving martial law, and direct controll of every German classroom by the occupation authorities by the allies, and soviets.
The obvious answer isn't the wrong answer, the Germans needed to be re-educated and despite the desire of virtually every soldier (Draft was in full effect) and their families for returning home the allies wished to provide.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.