The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality

[Meneldil]

Wolfram Wette, a supposedly preeminent german historian, released a book titled The Wehrmacht, History, Myth, Reality.

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.

I haven't read the book yet (it has just been translated from German to French), but to me, it's more or less what I've always been thinking. The whole 'German soldiers fought bravely and shouldn't be blamed for what Hitler did' argument we repeatedly hear - often on this forum - has always sounded like a pill of junk.
Whenever a country does something wrong during a conflict, we always blame the national army. But when it comes to Germany, we're told the most unbelievable slaughter ever committed by mankin is the deed of a small minority of nazi nutjobs? The Imperial army, on the other hand, is rightfully blamed for all the atrocities committed by Japan in China and eastern Asia (though Japan has some issues admitting it, but that's another topic).

Note that this topic isn't aimed at offending german people. I'm just sometimes baffled by the whole WW2-Wehmarcht-is-so-awesome crazyness going on on the internet. The Shoah, and the numerous other slaughters committed by Germany between 1939 and 1945 wouldn't have been possible without the Wehrmacht's approval and help.

[Tribesman]

The reality is that its all in writing already, by the Wehrmacht itself.

[I of the Storm]

About maybe 10 years ago there was an exhibition here in Germany about the atrocities your average Wehrmacht-soldier committed during WWII. While it had made some minor methodical mistakes, it proved the general point: that the Wehrmacht as an institution was involved in nearly all war crimes, in providing infrastructure and, more often than not, even personnel to the Einsatzgruppen etc. In other words: the Wehrmacht methodically commited war crimes according to the character of the war against the Soviet Union as a "Vernichtungskrieg".

Tbh, I thought this was common knowledge these days, but apparently that's the case for the inner-german debate only.
So: Yes, Crimes of the German Wehrmacht were a reality.

[KrooK]

Not only into Germany. I remember exhibition about similar issue - probably we mean the same - this with picture of old Jew being murdered someone and some smiling Wermatcht soldiers?

Theory that soldiers of wermacht did not know about war crimes and haven't done it was joke. However some people believe into every jokes. Luckily people into Germany slowly starts understanding that nazis were not a small group having lidership.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The Wehrmacht was a polarized force. Yes, elements of it did participate in war crimes, that is obvious (and nobody, on this forum at least, denies it). However, it also provided a huge part of the German resistance against Hitler. So what one has to bear in mind is that the Wehrmacht had more than one element, whereas the SS was extremely pro-Hitler and pro-atrocities through and through.

Saying it wouldn't be possible without the Wehrmacht is obvious enough. Without the Wehrmacht those countries never could have been taken in the first place.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Note that this topic isn't aimed at offending german people.

Just a minute there!

Don't fall for the trap of the revisionist, or of the uneducated internet adolescent. Fierce criticism of Nazi-Germany does not equal criticism of Germany.

I amyself consider the nazi regime the greatest crime ever comitted against Germany. It is the nazi-fanboyz who are anti-German.

I'm just sometimes baffled by the whole WW2-Wehmarcht-is-so-awesome crazyness going on on the internet. The Shoah, and the numerous other slaughters committed by Germany between 1939 and 1945 wouldn't have been possible without the Wehrmacht's approval and help.

Yes, an ongoing source of amazement and repulsion to me too.

The best way to deal with it, is to follow the general guidelines when dealing with revisionists or internet nazi imbeciles: do not let yourself get bogged down into revisionist traps, nor in the nonsense of the uneducated internet adolescents.

Best is, to simply point out the vulgarity of it and leave it at that. When nazism looks powerful or controversial or totally awesome, it will always have imbecile fanboyz. When it looks plain vulgar, not so much.



I haven't read the book. Nor will I. I am not all that interested in WWII. Hitler whipped Germany into a frenzy. He took what was the world's second largest power, and led it to complete ruination within a few years. Meanwhile, tens of millions had died.
So what's there to say about it anyway? The balance is entirely negative. It would be laughable if it wasn't all so tragic.

[KrooK]

Louis - I don't agree.
Nazism was not invented into 1933. It was all the time into Germans - since start of 2nd reich.
Just read german law into beginning of XX century - especially anti polish law.
If you change "poles" on "jews" you will be having something very similar to Nurnberg acts.

Its sad but ... majority of German population into 1939 were racists or nazists.
Majority of population believed that they are better nation and were ready to kill worse nations.
This did not begin with Hitler - it rises many years earlier.

Germans had to fall to rise again. Maybe it was their price to be normal people again.
Maybe thats why nowadays they don't have to fight on 2 fronts.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis - I don't agree.
Nazism was not invented into 1933. It was all the time into Germans - since start of 2nd reich.

Its sad but ... majority of German population into 1939 were racists or nazists.
Majority of population believed that they are better nation and were ready to kill worse nations.

Well I must beg to differ. Indeed, the roots of nazism run deep. Auschwitz was 'an outcome' of German history, but not 'an inevitable outcome' of German history.

Also, the French and British too believed they were the better nations, and had a God-given right to rule others. It still took another step to descend into full nazi madness.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Louis - I don't agree.
Nazism was not invented into 1933. It was all the time into Germans - since start of 2nd reich.

Sorry, the Hohenzollern Empire was not a National Socialist one, however much you dislike it for the fact it liked to fight with Poland.

Its sad but ... majority of German population into 1939 were racists or nazists.

Check how much of the vote the Nazis got in '33, will you?

Majority of population believed that they are better nation and were ready to kill worse nations.
This did not begin with Hitler - it rises many years earlier.

Yes, that's true. It also existed, to a [greater or] lesser extent, in every other European nation, including Poland.

In other words, this:

Well I must beg to differ. Indeed, the roots of nazism run deep. Auschwitz was 'an outcome' of German history, but not 'an inevitable outcome' of German history.

Also, the French and British too believed they were the better nations, and had a God-given right to rule others. It still took another step to descend into full nazi madness.

It took a very cunning propaganda system to tug just the right strings to drive some people - not all, and I believe less than half (though that is still absolutely nothing to be proud of) - past that point.

[Brenus]

“Also, the French and British too believed they were the better nations, and had a God-given right to rule others.” At least the British said it was God-given. The French were worst has it was a self inflicted prophecy… Le fardeau de l’Homme Blanc…

As the subject is concerned, without the logistic and the at least passive agreement of the High German Command, the Genocide would have been possible… The proof of it came when some officers did refuse to follow these orders.
Even some SS did refuse and couldn’t be prosecuted because the German Military Code was on their side.

[KrooK]

Maniac - start learning something different than german history books.

By 2nd Reich i mean germany after unification - Bismarck's Germany.
Hohenzollern empire (I understand that you mean Prussian Princedoom and later Kingdom of Prussia) is not 2nd Reich. Do not mix these things. And Bismarck's Germany was very similar to Hitler's Germany.
Country with official ideology which declare that German are best nation and should rule the world by destruction of other races and nations.

Read some orders given german troops who were sent to africa to fight with tribal risings.
Its really hard to find similar orders - maybe Tamerlane was giving something like this.

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.
We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.
Do not mix us with Germans. We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

[Meneldil]

Just a minute there!

Don't fall for the trap of the revisionist, or of the uneducated internet adolescent. Fierce criticism of Nazi-Germany does not equal criticism of Germany.

Yeah yeah, I know this. I just didn't want my comment to be understood as 'Zomg all germans are evil nazis!!', which seemed quite possible to me, since the Wehrmacht is often seen as an honorable force, not tainted or stained by nazism.

I also know many officers opposed Hitler, his methods and his ideology. What I wanted to point out is the simple fact that, unlike what I read many times on various internet fora, the Wehrmacht wasn't only an heroic army that fought to protect Germany against ze evil soviets and imperialist americans.


Krook, you should follow your own advices before trying to give other people a lesson. Pretty much all of Europe was racist in a way or another in the early 20th. The latin race was opposed to the germanic race and to the slav race. Black people were still regarded as inherently uncivilized and barely worthy of being educated. I highly doubt things were different in Poland (I'd go as far as saying that Poland has a pretty bad record when it comes to things such as minority rights, antisemitism and tolerance during the 30's).

Finally, unlike the huge majority German people, who openly admit that Nazi germany was wrong and overall a terrible experiment, you've proved yourself to be completely unable to accept any form of criticism toward your country. Anytime a topic about Germany is created, you jump in to bash the oh-so evil germans (or russians, or americans, or french, or british, or jews), yet you refuse to admit that Poland did some things wrong in the past. I hope you're a minority in your country, for complete lack of self-criticism and blind nationalism and bitterness would otherwise make Poland a really sad place.

[HunGeneral]

This is an interresting debate going on here. I myself have always been interrested in the history of WW2 yet for some reason I don't really know why some people wish to tell of any fighting force of any dicatatorian system that took part in the conflict to have benn "clean from any ideology" or other saying "the only reason they were so great is because the followed that x-ism to the last letter". (thank god I haven't seen any of that here so far, only on other places on the internet).

What really gets me mad is that many would try to make the whole confllict look like a fight between good and evil - a very wrong concept.
I think all armed forces that took part in the war have also taken part in war crimes to some degree more or less.

I myself have always read and gathered info about the wehrmacht because I am conwinced that they were the best fighting force of there time (till today I consider the german Blitzkrieg 1939 -1940 to be one of the best lead and fought campaings of the first half of the 20. century in Europe), for a while. However I have never seen or believed that only the "Nazi core" of the army where the only ones to commot warcrimes (although they were the most active in that matter, but not the sole perpretators).

This does however not mean that all germans (soldier or civilian) are the "bad guys" nor are the Allies the "good guys" and are neither free of commiting deeds that can be seen as "war crimes".

Just to name a few examples:

- The massacre of Katyn: well I don't think too much needs to be said.

- Sending there own men on suicide charges and executing thoose who refused - USSR

- Disquising some agents as German paratroopers, sending them to viligaes to see if they would help hide them and if the villagers did then deport/execute them all - NKVD activity in the Ukraine.

- Lead a whole arial bombing campaing tarteging the civilian population of the enemies country to increase suffering with the final goal of inciting a revolt against the goverment - United Kingdom (the USA forces atleast tried to concentrate on factories and military targets in Europe, but in the pacific they bombed/burned down entire cities in japan even such which had little if any military value. The Germans also had similer attempts over England but till then they mostly targeted military facilities, but started attacking London after the British bombed Berlin. - no wonder the term "Western Air terrorists" has been used so long in middle- and east Europe)

- Drezda, Hirosima, Nagasaki (correct exampels of the above)

Therefore I would conclude that neither side can be seen as completely innocent nor can all members of any people be seen as completely guilty.

[Tribesman]

And Poland has never been country ruled by racist ideology.
We have autoritarism (very good doctrine) but never racism.

Yeah right

Do not mix us with Germans. We don't build deathcamps - we liberate them.

Really? with the exception of the german prisons in warsaw during the rising all the concentration camps in Poland were liberated by the Russians.
So your claim about liberation is that the Polish got some people out of prison for a while before they surrendered them back to the Nazis.

[CBR]

Sure looks like this thread has many familiarities with a train wreck...

Stay on topic and no more of the nationalistic drivel please.



CBR

[Papewaio]

- Lead a whole arial bombing campaing tarteging the civilian population of the enemies country to increase suffering with the final goal of inciting a revolt against the goverment - United Kingdom (the USA forces atleast tried to concentrate on factories and military targets in Europe, but in the pacific they bombed/burned down entire cities in japan even such which had little if any military value. The Germans also had similer attempts over England but till then they mostly targeted military facilities, but started attacking London after the British bombed Berlin. - no wonder the term "Western Air terrorists" has been used so long in middle- and east Europe)

- Drezda, Hirosima, Nagasaki (correct exampels of the above)

Therefore I would conclude that neither side can be seen as completely innocent nor can all members of any people be seen as completely guilty.

Total War. Once Germany had decided that it was waging a total war (bombing London first) then the gloves were off. That idea is even support in the likes of the Geneva Convention. So the bombing of civilian populations to bring about an early end to the war was deemed to be 'fair'. Problem with this thinking and what High Command should have seen is that bombing a civilian population only gets their backup and is hence counterproductive. Mind you that probably is one Dresden happened... total destruction was supposed to break morale, much like mustard gas and other nerve toxins were supposed to end WWI in weeks. Again HQ doesn't factor in counter measures and that atrocities beget atrocities and only gets morale up of those who survive (well anger if nothing else).

The bombing of Japan is different on both the conventional front and nuclear. Japan dispersed its manufactoring ability throughout its cities. Meaning that to attack the manufactoring base you had to attack the civilian sites as they were often the same building. The nuclear attack was a much better option then mass starvation and invasion see Okinawa for results of a land invasion.

There is also a massive difference between bombing a country and taking prisoners and making lampshades of their skin or gutting pregnant women to see who won a bet on the sex of the unborn. The primary difference can be seen after occupation to compare who was good and who was evil if you want to bandy those terms around. Germany and Japan slaughtered those they took over that they had no use for, those who looked different, had different genders to those they agreed with, those who had different religion or beliefs or politics they also killed the mentally ill and the handicapped. On the other hand Germany and Japan once taken over by the Allies got the likes of the Marshall plan.

Quite a telling difference.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Total War. Once Germany had decided that it was waging a total war (bombing London first) then the gloves were off.

I may be completely wrong, but wasn't German bombing of London originally confined to generally industrial targets and the docklands? Regardless, in terms of tonnage the response was vastly disproportionate. I wouldn't have minded so much if it was focused on industry, but the goal was to kill as many humans as possible. That is despicable regardless of which side did it (and both did).

Germany and Japan slaughtered those they took over that they had no use for, those who looked different, had different genders to those they agreed with, those who had different religion or beliefs or politics they also killed the mentally ill and the handicapped.

Honestly though, what use did the Allies have for the burned victims of the bombings? To use them prove to the Soviets that they could do it? To try a little experiment to see if they could make the Hun give in a little quicker? Make no mistake, I'm glad the Allies won and am well aware that they committed crimes at a much, much lesser scale, and you'll catch me throwing rocks at the likes of the NPD sooner than marching anywhere near alongside them. But something that is morally wrong is morally wrong, whoever does it.

On the other hand Germany and Japan once taken over by the Allies got the likes of the Marshall plan.

Oh, West Germany is grateful for the Marshall Plan, but would we have received anything or as much if there hadn't been an immediate threat to us in the West? Regardless, the aid was very much appreciated. The Allies did more for us in those few years than the Nazi scum did in twelve or the Soviets did for the East in forty...

[Adrian II]

So, um - what was teh topic? Ah yes:

I'm just sometimes baffled by the whole WW2-Wehmarcht-is-so-awesome crazyness going on on the internet. The Shoah, and the numerous other slaughters committed by Germany between 1939 and 1945 wouldn't have been possible without the Wehrmacht's approval and help.

I think the Wehrmacht was both an excellent fighting machine and a representative of extreme evil. Both aspects appeal to a mostly youthful audience, i.e. boys i their teens who want to be awesome, do awesome things and admire awesome precedents in history.

However, the former most often predominates at the cost of the latter.

If you look at the magazines and websites in question, you will see that they enumerate, discuss and analyse the military feats of the Wehrmacht without ever touching on the crimes you mentioned. It is the military prowess of that army that fascinates people, therefore they don't want to know about the downside. As if one were possible without the other; as if Germany's military efficiency didn't come at a horrible price.

Only a fringe of lunatics admires or condones the excesses of the Wehrmacht.

[Graphic]

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

Many were, many were not. To a greater or lesser extent, every army is the same. I don't see why people try to argue it.

[Brenus]

“To a greater or lesser extent, every army is the same. I don't see why people try to argue it.” Yes and no. We speak here of the involvement of the Werhmacht in a process which crossed the usual borders. No other organised armies did support logistically and proceeded to execution in such scale.
The High Command did nothing to prevent or even ignored orders to execute prisoners, civilians and minorities. It was left to the individual soldiers, NCO and low rank officers to obeys/disobey to orders, without the moral support of their officers in charge.
The mass execution by the Werhmacht in France can not be put on the heavy fight, as the Germans won quite easily the campaign, excepted few battles and pockets of resistance. The Plan worked and France had to surrender, the main armies cup from their logistical point and made useless. And the British had to evacuate…
So, the Wermacht as an entity was guilty in the choice of high level of violence and cruelty.
In France as in Poland, the SS were not so many…

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes and no. We speak here of the involvement of the Werhmacht in a process which crossed the usual borders. No other organised armies did support logistically and proceeded to execution in such scale.

That is, quite frankly, untrue or half-true at best.

The High Command did nothing to prevent or even ignored orders to execute prisoners, civilians and minorities.

So members of High Command did ignore orders to execute prisoners? Glad we agree. Though, for the record, High Command was often a bastion of resistance against Hitler.

So, the Wermacht as an entity was guilty in the choice of high level of violence and cruelty.
In France as in Poland, the SS were not so many…

The Wehrmacht did participate, and indeed, was heavily involved in war crimes and illegal actions, but I disagree that the organization itself was inherently bad, just as I would disagree that the Red Army was inherently bad.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Is the Waffen SS inherently bad?

[Graphic]

Many were, many were not. To a greater or lesser extent, every army is the same. I don't see why people try to argue it.

Even in a very messy modern war like Vietnam there's no evidence that G.I.'s went on an organized campaign of slaughter of the civilian populous. War is a messy business period, but the Wehrmacht was exceptional in its brutality in modern times.

[Brenus]

“So members of High Command did ignore orders to execute prisoners? Glad we agree”. No. Read the sentence: Ignore did nothing to prevent or ignore.
They choose to at best remain silent when they received the orders to kill Political Commissars and Jews.

“the Red Army was inherently bad.” I was waiting for this. The comparison between the Red Army and the Werhmacht: Indeed the treatment by the Red Army of German population was far from civilised. However find one example of massive execution by machine gun of civilian population? Few organised convoys of elderly, children and women machine-gunned in some dark woods. A specific order issued from the STAVKA to kill and to show no mercy to a particular type of German soldiers or personnel.
And quite frankly, what the German would have expected after THEY started a war of extermination where the open goal was to either kill or enslave the Slavic population. When the open aim of Hitler Germany was to starve Leningrad to death.
They knew what Hitler intended to do, because he broadcasted it.
So what the Russian soldier had to do? Ok, guy, you raped my sisters, daughters, mothers, you hanged my grad dad, my uncles because they were who they were, you torched my houses and wanted to enslave me but yeah, I understand, war is bad…

“Is the Waffen SS inherently bad?” Yes. Don’t try to separate the Waffen SS from the SS in the camps. They were belonging to the same organisation, the same ideological basis.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, I was asking EMFM to see if I could get more insight into his viewpoint.

[Kralizec]

And quite frankly, what the German would have expected after THEY started a war of extermination where the open goal was to either kill or enslave the Slavic population. When the open aim of Hitler Germany was to starve Leningrad to death.
They knew what Hitler intended to do, because he broadcasted it.
So what the Russian soldier had to do? Ok, guy, you raped my sisters, daughters, mothers, you hanged my grad dad, my uncles because they were who they were, you torched my houses and wanted to enslave me but yeah, I understand, war is bad…

Er, I agree with what you're trying to say but this is a flawed argument. Soviet troops raped and pillaged every country they came across on the way to Germany- including Poland, wich as far as I know never supplied any troops to fight on the eastern front.