The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality

“And the United States, and Britain” Oh yeah, but after finishing the others. And the Germans were not alone. It is easy to dismiss Italy but the Italians did their bits in Africa (Folgore and Ariete Divisions) and held their positions when the Germans and Hungarians were retreating or routing in the counter-offensive during Stalingrad. And you can add the Hungarians, the Rumanians, Bulgarians then Croats, Bosnians, Albanians, few Cossacks, Baltic States, Vlassov Army and Finland (and foreign volunteers as the LVF and SS from Holland, France, Belgium, etc). So we are far from Germany alone standing in front of the mighty Allies.

“(oil, anyone?)” See Rumania, Ploesti. It was the reason why Hitler couldn’t allow the English to rescue Greece after the Italian attack. The Rumanian oil fields were in range of the Strategic Bomber Command if the English had built airfields…

“Let's take Stalingrad which some people use to show that the Germans could be beaten” The Germans have been bitten before: Moscow in 1941 and Leningrad where the Russian Defence obliged to start a siege and not a frontal assault… Stalingrad was the first compleate victory with the total annihilation of a German Army...
“interesting side-note: the Germans were so tenacious that the Russians found many of them had carved their frost-bitten fingers and hands into shapes sufficient enough to keep them pulling the trigger by jerking their arms back” ????

“Belgium”: Ah, yeah, the country so keen to keep its neutrality that its army deployed against the French and the British with the orders to shoot at them if they crossed the borders. It took few days for the Belgium to understand and to authorise the passage for the French Mechanised Army and the BEF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Belgium”: Ah, yeah, the country so keen to keep its neutrality that its army deployed against the French and the British with the orders to shoot at them if they crossed the borders. It took few days for the Belgium to understand and to authorise the passage for the French Mechanised Army and the BEF.

---

:laugh4:

That's nothing, the Swiss even shot down some allied bombers over their territory...

Yeap. You have even a Swiss "as".:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I think you are oversimplifying things a bit.

For such a big and powerful empire as you describe Germany in WW2 the Battle over Britain was a really poor show and the huge Empire was lacking planes, then gave up because they needed them in Russia and could hardly replace their losses over Britain while Britain could produce fighters by the dozens, that sounds a bit weird compared to your point that Germany had far more industry compared to everyone else in Europe.

---

Well the Battle of Britain had to be fought, rather then a naval invasion, as the German Navy was at that point in tatters and without air superiority they could not do much.

Radar/ Communications and Logistics (more fuel in planes at the place of confrontation means greater ability in dogfighting) were all in favour of Britain. Hurricanes might not be as sexy or deadly as the Spitfires, but they were easier to manufacture and maintain, so again a logistical win.

So Britain and a technological advantage made clearer by the Channel. Even with these Germany was doing fine while they attacked the military in particular the airfields. Losing focus and going for non-military targets was their own undoing.

The Battle of Britain started with Germany having twice as many planes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

At least in military technology, Soviet Union was on par with Germany, even ahead in some areas.

---

Not only that, but Monsieur is conveniently omitting the United States from his equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

[..] the fact that they managed to reach Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad and that it managed to fight the Red Army for four years is very much worthy of admiration.

---

Well said.

Besides, German soldiers fought practically all those years on enemy territory - a logistical nightmare in its own right - and acquitted themselves very well.

Excuse me, but I find it slightly amusing when people object to my thesis by saying 'Oh but the Germans had more and better planes, they had better tanks, they were better educated and organised and that's why they won for so long'.

Well, yes - that's what I have been saying all along. They weren't better humans. They were the better army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

But the USA's back was never agianst the wall esp. in Europe.

---

That's a damn good point, but for a different reason. The German army and paramilitaries radicalized, as did the whole nazi regime, as a consequence of the war and in particular of lost battles (Stalingrad). For lack of success on the battlefield they turned on the 'enemies' they could beat, such as Jews, Slavs, etcetera.

But they didn't have their back to the wall until they had provoked so many nations, including first and foremost the United States, that they couldn't possibly win the day anymore.

Maybe if the Japanese had achieved more in the Pacific war, the American treatment of the Japanese minority would have been worse than it already was. But I can not envisage an American government of the time calling for the 'eradication' of the Japanese race - and proceeding accordingly. The sickest puppies - by far - were in Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The German army and paramilitaries radicalized, as did the whole nazi regime, as a consequence of the war and in particular of lost battles (Stalingrad).

---

The worst misteatment of Soviet POW was during the first winter on the eastern front (about 2 millions died, more than 75% of the total russians captured), and the first year on this front was also the golden ages of Einsatzkommandos and the destruction of Shtetls. The crushing of Warsaw's ghetto occured long before the defeat in Stalingrad.
Maybe the collective conscience of having assisted such crimes was a boost to the fighting spirit of the german soldier, though; "if they catch us, they'll do us what we did to theirs" sounds a good leitmotiv to make men hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's a damn good point, but for a different reason. The German army and paramilitaries radicalized, as did the whole nazi regime, as a consequence of the war and in particular of lost battles (Stalingrad). For lack of success on the battlefield they turned on the 'enemies' they could beat, such as Jews, Slavs, etcetera.

But they didn't have their back to the wall until they had provoked so many nations, including first and foremost the United States, that they couldn't possibly win the day anymore.

Maybe if the Japanese had achieved more in the Pacific war, the American treatment of the Japanese minority would have been worse than it already was. But I can not envisage an American government of the time calling for the 'eradication' of the Japanese race - and proceeding accordingly. The sickest puppies - by far - were in Germany.

---

I see what you're saying now and it makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristuskhan

Maybe the collective conscience of having assisted such crimes was a boost to the fighting spirit of the german soldier, though; "if they catch us, they'll do us what we did to theirs" sounds a good leitmotiv to make men hold.

---

That maybe true, but it cuts both ways and arguably the double edge was the stronger. The Wehrmacht's early victories were marked by a collapse of their opponent's will to fight. While the victories were remarkable, equally impressive to me is how the Russians in particular managed to fight back after losing so much (more than half?) of their men in 1941. How much of the stiffening of the Russian soldier's morale was due to learning the brutality of their opponents and the fate of those who had earlier surrendered?

I think there is a certain enlightened self-interest in observing conventional rules of war surrounding the treatment of prisoners etc. Treat prisoners well and enemies will be more likely to surrender. Subject them to something close to a death sentence and it will be no surprise if they fight on bitterly.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

But I can not envisage an American government of the time calling for the 'eradication' of the Japanese race - and proceeding accordingly.

---

Absolutely! They never did that to anyone before. :cowboy:
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

.


Absolutely! They never did that to anyone before. :cowboy:
.

---

Indeed. Neither Franklin D. Roosevelt, nor Harry Truman, George Marshall or any other member of their administration ever called for the eradication of races or peoples.

You are probably hinting at the fate of the American Indians. Maybe even implying that, well, you know, war is a bitch and all the countries and governments involved were equally bad so what's the big deal about the Jews and such? Is that what you are getting at?

American history has some very black pages, but it is unfair and useless to project these into later stages, all the more if it serves to belittle the American role in the defeat of Germany and all it stood for since 1933. And it would be outrageous to suggest that the internment of Japanese equalled the German death camp system of the time. It was bad, but it wudn't that bad by a very long stretch.

.
More or less, yes, but nobody will ever know if the tide of the war favoured the Japanese and not the Americans. Europe (incl. US & Canada) evolved after the WWII and thanks to its traumatic experience very much, yet steadily, in terms of equality, human rights etc. (Before the civil rights movement's achievements the lighter greens were more equal than the darker ones, you know. ~;))

Historical facts support it: When you're cornered, you act even more vilely. The "final solution" came to be pursued harder after Stalingrad, Kursk and the assault on Sicily; Armenian genocide happened while the Ittihad-Terakki armies were ruined on all fronts. (One counter-example, a strong one, would be Stalin's frenzy following his victory.)

Anyway, a third and more atomic bombs would certainly be dropped unless Japan surrendered, which is known. So, I don't feel right about one or the other parties being more docile in nature than the evil other. We're just too comfortable as armchair strategists with the gift of hindsight. Still, I don't deny that, if not magnitude, methods could be different.
.

Well we are far the creation of the Wehrmacht Myth of Invincibility and the realty of its deep involvement in the extermination process…

To counter the parallel between the US Japanese camps:
Can you find Jewish SS division? That is because you can find Japanese origin US battalion.

“When you're cornered, you act even more vilely. The "final solution" came to be pursued harder after Stalingrad, Kursk and the assault on Sicily”
Nope. The use of brutality was in the heart of the Nazi political system and they input it in the Werhmacht’s doctrine. Shock and terror as we say today but with more brutality and more plnned horror than it can be imagine.
The killing of English and French prisoners happened when the Germans Army was victorious… The early killings in Russia and the extermination of entire Jewish populations started immediately after the crossing of the borders.
The 20th of January 1942, during the Wannsee Conference the Nazi organised the technical aspect of massive deportation and extermination of all sub-humans but the decision was long time ago decided. And at that time the Germans were entitled to think they would win the war. The lost of Stalingrad (the Army of) was of course a disaster but the Germans were confident they would recovered, and de facto, they did, as you have to wait Kursk to see the first German summer offensive failure.

“One counter-example, a strong one, would be Stalin's frenzy following his victory.” Stalin? Did he built extermination camp or deport Germans to death camps. He did it for political opponents and “traitors” but not for the Germans. He treated the Polish worst than the Germans, IMO.

As I understand it the Russians were the last people any German soldier wanted to surrender to primarily because to survive it would mean to be a slave, and that's if you surivive it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

To counter the parallel between the US Japanese camps:
Can you find Jewish SS division? That is because you can find Japanese origin US battalion.

---

No, but you could find French, British, Belgian, Danish, Russians, and Dutch in there, among others. You could also find Jews working for the Nazis in certain policing roles. I have no idea why some of them did it - whether they didn't know what was going on or if it was a way to save their own lives* (though I think most of them were murdered in the end). It's a really sad story, actually.

*I'm talking about the Jews here, there's no doubt that the other groups did it out of their own free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snite

As I understand it the Russians were the last people any German soldier wanted to surrender to primarily because to survive it would mean to be a slave, and that's if you surivive it.

---

You don't understand it.

Russians didn't have any "racial" issues against the Germans. No one was supposed to be a slave, or even subservient just because he/she was German. Stalin didn't treat Germans any worse than he did Russians or Poles.

Any German soldier would have liked far more to surrender to the Western Allies, of course, but that is because he was aware how different the war in the West to the war in the East was. That and Nazi propaganda even before the war portrayed Russians as barbaric sub-humans...

“Russians were the last people any German soldier wanted to surrender to primarily because to survive it would mean to be a slave, and that's if you survived it”.
No. The Germans were fully aware how THEY treated the Russians POW and were not expecting any mercy. They were proved to be right even if, again, it was no systematic extermination of German Soldiers as the Germans did to the Russian (Political Commissars). Not that the Russians cared of their prisoners very well, but nothing compared to how the Germans treated the Russians POW.

“No, but you could find French, British, Belgian, Danish, Russians, and Dutch in there, among others” These people were not on the “to be eradicated from the surface of the planet” list.
“You could also find Jews working for the Nazis in certain policing roles.” Yes, but it could be under the rules “they didn’t know what was planned for them”. And again, they were not in the fighting units, defending the Nazi Germany against the Red.

Concerning the concentration camps etc., the Nazis were quite clever, they didn't go and just said we're gonna kill jews from tomorrow, they started by boycotting jewish shops, banning jews from public places etc. In a way they established an apartheid state first and even the jews thought it couldn't get much worse, but in reality the concentration camps were built and planned very early in the 1930s. The younger germans already learned at school what a jew looks like and what was bad about jews, that they were greedy, ugly, whatever. That some of them actually believed this after about 10 years of indoctrination and in an age where jews weren't liked anyway and where all the nationalists needed someone to blame for all the "shame" is no big surprise to me. So yeah, obviously some in the Wehrmacht probably did think of jews as subhumans and the others maybe didn't want to fall into the back of their comrades etc, especially since that could mean being sent to a suicide mine-clearing squad or similar.
How many people show courage nowadays when an old man gets beaten up in a subway?

I'm not excusing anything here, just want to shed some light on the why and how. I don't think I'd help an old man against 3 knife-wielding thugs myself, would just get two dead people instead of one. Except in this case one could try to get the police for help, back then the police was collaborating with the thugs. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Yes, but it could be under the rules “they didn’t know what was planned for them”. And again, they were not in the fighting units, defending the Nazi Germany against the Red.

---

There were half-Jews and those with Jewish spouses fighting on the German side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre

Historical facts support it: When you're cornered, you act even more vilely.

---

Recent German research seems to give this some support, too. Newspaper Die Welt ran an article today about a series of monographies on the Wehrmacht during the nazi period. They encompass five books, produced by a very respectable oufit in Munich called the Münchner Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Munich Institute for Contemporary History, short: IfZ). The studies document and discuss what the reporter calls the Prozess der Verrohung (process of brutalization) that occurred among both elite and ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers. The last volume deals in great detail with three panzer divisions and two infantry divisions on the Russian front. For the former, it seems that the more losses they incurrred on the battlefield, the more they turned against prioners and civilians. Remarkably, the latter suffered few losses but contributed to the excesses behind the lines anyway.

All in all, the authors of this series conclude that the Wehrmacht as an institution was deeply and consciously involved in nazi war crimes almost from the beginning.

link

The library apparently got the titular book shipped from somewhere else so I'll read it soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

I feel the same about the matter and as much as I know the germans preferrred to use there bomber force as ground support, and attacked primearly military targets if possible, this is reinforced by the fact that they developed only light to medium bombers, but never had a really effective heavy bomber like the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters of the US an UK.

---

Germans terror-bombed Warsaw and Rotterdam to force their surrender. They even wiped out Guernica, mostly just for the heck of it. All of these long before the Allies had started serious bombing campaigns against the Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

(I'm not sure but as much as I know the Luftwaffe even forbade any bombers to bomb anything near London without Hitlers personal orders. - The first Luftwaffe bombers over London were a small detachment that lost orientation at night and dropped there bombs not knowing where they were.

---

That was a purely political decisions. Hitler still hoping for a negotiated peace with Britain, seemd to recognize that wiping out downtown London would not endear Germany to the British hearts. He also did not want to encourage British air attacks on Berlin (which it was feared would demoralize the German people).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HunGeneral

As a reaction churchill ordered Bomber command to attack Berlin

---

British strategic bombing was initially intended to be precision bombing, but the British discovered they had trouble hitting the right city at night, much less an individual target set in the city. Bomber Command, initially at least, simply made a virtue of necessity with area bombing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NimitsTexan

Rotterdam to force their surrender.

---

The bombing of Rotterdamn was actually probably a miscommunication between German commanders. A hell of a miscommunication, but still...

Quote:

---

They even wiped out Guernica, mostly just for the heck of it.

---

That was technically under Nationalist Spanish command.

Quote:

---

British strategic bombing was initially intended to be precision bombing, but the British discovered they had trouble hitting the right city at night, much less an individual target set in the city. Bomber Command, initially at least, simply made a virtue of necessity with area bombing.

---

In other words, since they figured out they had a tough time hitting the factories they decided to demolish the whole city.

Quote:

---

I feel the same about the matter and as much as I know the germans preferrred to use there bomber force as ground support, and attacked primearly military targets if possible, this is reinforced by the fact that they developed only light to medium bombers, but never had a really effective heavy bomber like the B-17s, B-24s and Lancasters of the US an UK.

---

Into 1939 at the beginning of defence of Warsaw hospitals had big red crosses on its roof. Germans used them as a target. Yep - and of course it has not been planned.

from someone who appears to have a ethno/cultural chip nearly as large as krooks, that's pretty rich!

More to the point, the Soviets didn't really have an effective Strategic bomber force, but they were still fully capable of leveling Dresden. The He-111 may not have been a big bomber, but it's payload could be significant enough to do considerable damage if enough were deployed to an area that needed to be 'softened up'. The Lancasters and B-17 were only marginally better suited to the role of wide spread destruction, not because they carried that much bigger of a payload than the 111, but because they could travel much, much further into industrialized areas, that the German Bombers, quite frankly, couldn't get to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

More to the point, the Soviets didn't really have an effective Strategic bomber force, but they were still fully capable of leveling Dresden.

---

The Allies destroyed Dresden, unless you are talking about some incident which I haven't heard of.

I just finished reading this book today. I thought it was pretty good overall, though it was a little dry and certainly oriented toward professional historians. The author conducted a study of the attitudes that the Germany military had from WW1 on and how it allowed the Nazis to bind the Wehrmacht to their purpose rather easily. I thought it relied maybe a little too much on other sources for actually establishing how prevalent the war crimes were. It had a good chapter on how the myth of a "clean" Wehrmacht was established after the war (though it's also a bit common sense).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The Allies destroyed Dresden, unless you are talking about some incident which I haven't heard of.

---

Hah, yeah Brain Meltdown. Soviets wanted Allies to destroy Dresden. Ahem, but the IL4 was quite well known for destroying large swathes of Berlin that the Allied Bombers hadn't already destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

From the little I've gathered, the main idea of said book is that the Wehrmarcht willingly took part in the various atrocities committed by Germany during WWII. The high command knew what was going on, and the rank-and-files soldier often directly helped the SS in their sick duty.

---

This is the reality to anyone who's actually done some reading of unbiased sources. You can't tell this to the quasi-Nazi sympathizers at TWC though, they will defend 'til death the myth that 99% of Wehrmacht soldiers were "innocent Germans just doing their duty." And of course many were, but the Wehrmacht as a whole is severely tainted.

Too many people get caught up in how cool the uniforms looked, how cool the StG44 was and how cool Panther tanks are and what not, so they try hard to make the German army squeaky clean so they don't feel bad for idolizing them.