The Clean Wehrmacht

[Latias]

Edit: Delete the poll, or if not, the poll asks if you agree with the sentiment by the comment expressed here (0:30), as my transcription of it has been cut off.

What is one’s general opinion towards the Wehrmacht in WWII? Were they independent of the Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen? Did they largely abstain from war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Is one’s assessment that the Wehrmacht was ideologically separate from the political wings of the Nazi Party such as the Waffen SS, were a professional and apolitical fighting forces, and conducted themselves honorably? They fought to conquer North Africa, most of European, and the Soviet Union. They were technically competent, valiant juggernaut that had exemplary military leadership, whose command that was trammeled by Hitler’s caprice later on in the war. The Wehrmacht took the Red Army to the brink outside the gates of Moscow, suffered a major defeat against at Stalingrad, and after the impasse at the Kursk salient, still fought tenaciously against the advancing barbarous, marauding, murderous hordes lead by Konev. Rokossovsky, and Zhukov towards their inexorable drive towards Berlin.

Often the perspective of the Wehrmacht conducting themselves with rectitude and honor is contrasted with allegations of mass Soviet rapes and the general view of the inhumanity of the Soviet authorities.

This image of the Wehrmacht is often asserted confidently, as it has been well-established.

youtube.com/watch?v=xj0lcIzHN74 (a video about it; shows the general influence of the political environment on the Wehrmacht. It also shows, using primary source documents which are translated, the influence of racial ideology on the Wehrmacht, or at least among von Reichenau’s (and later Paulus, with no “von”, although I have no evidence that Paulus condoned atrocities) troops. )

orientalreview.org/2013/06/29/myth-of-the-eastern-front-in-american-popular-culture/

 

[magnet]

Germany had a long military tradition independent of any political ideology. The Wehrmacht was formed in 1935 from combining the army (Heer), navy (Kriegsmarine) and air force (Luftwaffe). A private army, the S.A,. had been formed in the early 1920’s to support the Nazi agenda by committing violent non-military acts. However when Hitler came to power in 1933, he soon decided that the S.A. was not needed and murdered most of the commandants. His goal was to get the support of the Wehrmacht, which, while functioning as the Reichswehr, was commanded by a large contingent of traditional military people following an old-line military function.

Most of the officers of the Reichswehr had “von” in their names to indicate nobility stemming from the old Prussian land-owning aristocracy “Junkers” from which most of the officers were derived. Bismarck was a Junker. So was Hindenburg. Their primary orientation was toward Prussia where the military tradition was the strongest.

In World War I, there was no political ideology other than the monarchy, which the Reichswehr was sworn to support. When Hitler started adapting the Wehrmacht to further his agenda, he was interested strictly in military goals. However, when new organizations were formed such as the S.S., Waffen S.S., Einsatzgruppen, and the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, these were independent of the Wehrmacht. Most of the atrocities were committed by these new groups.

 

[Kaninchen]

“I swear by almighty God this sacred oath:
I will render unconditional obedience
to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler,
Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht,
and, as a brave soldier,
I will be ready at any time
to stake my life for this oath.”

The Wehrmacht oath was a personal one to the Führer, they took it very seriously until the end.

 

[Latias]

In World War I, there was no political ideology other than the monarchy, which the Reichswehr was sworn to support. When Hitler started adapting the Wehrmacht to further his agenda, he was interested strictly in military goals. However, when new organizations were formed such as the S.S., Waffen S.S., Einsatzgruppen, and the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, these were independent of the Wehrmacht. Most of the atrocities were committed by these new groups.

I would not say it is enitrely independent of ideology. It is often said that Hitler traditionally distrusted the aristocratic Prussian officer corp.

What type of soldiers, officers, captains were they? Were they just ordinary men or fanatical and brutal Nazi perpetrators?

That’s a difficult question, which I can’t answer definitively. The indoctrination of the Wehrmacht is one of the most controversial issues in German history. But because of the new sources, we can now build realistic images of the Wehrmacht, especially with regards to the indoctrination of German troops. This aspect was often given too much weight in earlier investigations. But now we can measure the extent of ideological indoctrination more realistically.

We see that the many Wehrmacht soldiers only had a very superficial political consciousness. But that does not mean that they were not influenced by National Socialist ideology. The transcripts from Fort Hunt show that the Wehrmacht was not a through-and-through political army - but it was not an army like any other. They had a political background. And many positions were occupied by political soldiers. Among them were many of the officers and non-commissioned officers, who stamped their mark on all levels of the Wehrmacht hierarchy. Through that hard core, the military leaders of the Wehrmacht led according to National Socialist ideology, without every ordinary private having to be a staunch National Socialist.

When you say that not every Wehrmacht soldier was a fanatical National Socialist, does that not decrease the level of blame that these people have been apportioned?

It’s not about placing blame here, but about analyzing the soldiers’ actions. It’s about how a military machine functioned. We want to better understand it. In the past, research approaches were in part too one-sided, especially the interpretation that every single soldier perpetrated war crimes because he was a staunch National Socialist. But with that, the social dynamics, which are extremely important in an army, were forgotten. We also see in the transcripts that soldiers often perpetrated crimes and then thought about the sense in them after the fact. In many cases, they simply did what all the others had done.

dw.com/en/uncovered-files-shed-light-on-hitlers-wehrmacht/a-16309930

The point is not to say that every soldier, or for the matter most soldiers, in the Heer were adamant Nazis. One should remember that the soldiers of the Heer lived in Germany and was exposed to its political environment. Many of them have accepted the “stab in the back” myth that the German war effort in World War I was sabotaged by Jews and leftists. (See 4:10 here from a primary source document written before Barbarossa, and this site also provides another translation of the same primary source). Due to the ideological content of that belief, I do not see how a conservative officer corp could have rejected that since they inherently have no sympathy towards the Bolshevists and social democrats. They had extreme antipathy for communism, and would likely condone or be complicit in the atrocities of the troops during the Eastern Front.

As the document shows, there is no requirement to bring a court-martial upon a soldier when he has committed some crime, except when the “maintenance of discipline or the protection of the [Wehrmacht] troops demands it”. The Wehrmacht document from the top mandates punitive, collective punishment against guerilla attacks. And, please note that the document was a month before Barbarossa.

It is fairly easy for a consideration of the political environment of Nazi Germany and official stance of complicity that many German soldiers would engage in acts of mass atrocity.

Saying that SS committed “most” of the atrocities especially when the SS committed plenty of atrocities already. The nature of the atrocities the Wehrmacht committed would likely be more distributed, than, say, the large scale massacres at Babi Yar and Odessa. For example, Wehrmacht soldiers could burn the home of Russian villages with people inside with such callousness. People don’t try to discuss or quantify that, but many are eager to portray the Red Army as rapists, with the Wehrmacht being comparatively clean.

 

[JurisPrudens]

Edit: Delete the poll, or if not, the poll asks if you agree with the sentiment by the comment expressed here (0:30), as my transcription of it has been cut off.

What is one’s general opinion towards the Wehrmacht in WWII? Were they independent of the Waffen SS and Einsatzgruppen? Did they largely abstain from war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Is one’s assessment that the Wehrmacht was ideologically separate from the political wings of the Nazi Party such as the Waffen SS, were a professional and apolitical fighting forces, and conducted themselves honorably? They fought to conquer North Africa, most of European, and the Soviet Union. They were technically competent, valiant juggernaut that had exemplary military leadership, whose command that was trammeled by Hitler’s caprice later on in the war. The Wehrmacht took the Red Army to the brink outside the gates of Moscow, suffered a major defeat against at Stalingrad, and after the impasse at the Kursk salient, still fought tenaciously against the advancing barbarous, marauding, murderous hordes lead by Konev. Rokossovsky, and Zhukov towards their inexorable drive towards Berlin.

Often the perspective of the Wehrmacht conducting themselves with rectitude and honor is contrasted with allegations of mass Soviet rapes and the general view of the inhumanity of the Soviet authorities.

This image of the Wehrmacht is often asserted confidently, as it has been well-established.

youtube.com/watch?v=xj0lcIzHN74 (a video about it; shows the general influence of the political environment on the Wehrmacht. It also shows, using primary source documents which are translated, the influence of racial ideology on the Wehrmacht, or at least among von Reichenau’s (and later Paulus, with no “von”, although I have no evidence that Paulus condoned atrocities) troops. )

orientalreview.org/2013/06/29/myth-of-the-eastern-front-in-american-popular-culture/

I don’t think this is something that can be determined by a poll. It is a matter for historians.

 

[Latias]

I don’t think this is something that can be determined by a poll. It is a matter for historians.

You could see general sentiment with a poll.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

They fought to conquer North Africa, most of European, and the Soviet Union. They were technically competent, valiant juggernaut that had exemplary military leadership, whose command that was trammeled by Hitler’s caprice later on in the war. The Wehrmacht took the Red Army to the brink outside the gates of Moscow, suffered a major defeat against at Stalingrad, and after the impasse at the Kursk salient, still fought tenaciously against the advancing barbarous, marauding, murderous hordes lead by Konev. Rokossovsky, and Zhukov towards their inexorable drive towards Berlin.

This statement seems to be about the glorification of the German Military and the vilification of the Russians. So I see a hidden agenda here.
The USA has never been at war with Russia and is not a traditional enemy of that country.
Nonetheless the USA has continued to treat Russia more as an adversary rather than the allie that she should be. That’s a terrible mistake.
In today’s world with threats from N. Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran, ISIS, al-Qaida, Taliban, etc, the USA needs every allie she can get, and Russia should be a primary one.
Instead our country continues its outdated cold-war posture. NATO should have allowed Russia to join, but instead used the breakup of the USSR to isolate Russia.
Now Russia reacts to an illegal fascist coup in its former allie, Ukraine, and NATO is all up in arms. It’s ridiculous and contrary to the best interests of the USA.

 

[edwest2]

This is a matter for historians. A poll will not solve the issue, one way or another. As a student of World War II history, it is too simplistic to say the Wehrmacht (Armed Forces) were better or clean, or not.

Many, many issues need to be taken into account.

One in four men fighting on the Eastern Front were not native Germans. They were volunteers from other countries, for the most part.

Ed

 

[on_the_hill]

I remember my high school AP European History teacher say of the Junkers who formed the core of the Wehrmacht officer staff: “They weren’t German officers; German officers were what they were.” Meaning that military tradition defined who they were as a culture and as individuals. It was part of their DNA (figuratively speaking).

None of this is to say that they weren’t Nazis, or sympathetic to the Nazis, nor does it excuse their actions, but rather that they would have been German officers regardless of national politics.

 

[on_the_hill]

**
The USA has never been at war with Russia and is not a traditional enemy of that country.**

What about the Cold War? The USSR having not been an enemy would certainly be news to millions of Americans from 1945 through ~1990.
But that’s a whole 'nother thread.

 

[magnet]

Could the bombing of civilians be considered an atrocity?

During the Battle of Britain, German bombing was at first concentrated on military installations. However, a mistake in navigation by German bombers led to bombing of London. This was counteracted by British bombers flying over German urban areas at night and releasing their bombs indiscriminately. The result was mass killing of civilians.

Because thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of innocents were killed, this was atrocious. However, being a collateral of war, it could be just a byproduct.

In the case of Babi Yar, the Germans felt that Russian Jews were key partisans and wanted them all dead. At least this was the interpretation of a few Wehrmacht officers, especially Reichenau, when he issued his Severity Order.

 

[Kaninchen]

Could the bombing of civilians be considered an atrocity?

During the Battle of Britain, German bombing was at first concentrated on military installations. However, a mistake in navigation by German bombers led to bombing of London.

Ah, well, there we all have been thinking that the Germans actually had developing bombing strategies where it was all really purely accidental.

In the case of Babi Yar, the Germans felt that Russian Jews were key partisans and wanted them all dead. At least this was the interpretation of a few Wehrmacht officers, especially Reichenau, when he issued his Severity Order.

Yes the threat to the Wehrmacht from pensioners and infants was too terrifying to contemplate.

 

[magnet]

I remember my high school AP European History teacher say of the Junkers who formed the core of the Wehrmacht officer staff: “They weren’t German officers; German officers were what they were.” Meaning that military tradition defined who they were as a culture and as individuals. It was part of their DNA (figuratively speaking).

None of this is to say that they weren’t Nazis, or sympathetic to the Nazis, nor does it excuse their actions, but rather that they would have been German officers regardless of national politics.

Indeed, Wehrmacht officers were susceptible to the Nazi political overtones. Reichenau was an anti-semite. His uncle became a Nazi. Later, he joined also, but this was against Wehrmacht policy, by which getting involved with politics was frowned upon. His Severity Order was later rescinded after his death in 1942.

 

[edwest2]

Could the bombing of civilians be considered an atrocity?

During the Battle of Britain, German bombing was at first concentrated on military installations. However, a mistake in navigation by German bombers led to bombing of London. This was counteracted by British bombers flying over German urban areas at night and releasing their bombs indiscriminately. The result was mass killing of civilians.

Because thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of innocents were killed, this was atrocious. However, being a collateral of war, it could be just a byproduct.

In the case of Babi Yar, the Germans felt that Russian Jews were key partisans and wanted them all dead. At least this was the interpretation of a few Wehrmacht officers, especially Reichenau, when he issued his Severity Order.

This is only one part of a much larger picture. Civilians were bombed directly and indirectly. The possibility of missing your intended target using a bomber was called Circular Error Probable, which was 3,000 feet. There were different groups of partisans. Look up Marshal Tito and his partisans. The Germans used SS paratroopers in an attempt to capture him. See: Operation Rösselsprung.

Ed

 

[Latias]

.

In the case of Babi Yar, the Germans felt that Russian Jews were key partisans and wanted them all dead. At least this was the interpretation of a few Wehrmacht officers, especially Reichenau, when he issued his Severity Order.

So it wasn’t general savagery; it was part of an anti-partisan campaign? Children and women were killed in Babi Yar.

Here was a re-enactment from something in Trent Park transcript

VON THOMA
He told me the kind of things that happened. I know myself that there were savage, brutalized louts there, who trampled on the bellies of pregnant women, and that sort of thing.

CRUWELL
Yes, but these are very isolated cases for which even the SS can’t be blamed. I cannot believe that Germans would do such a thing!

VON THOMA
I don’t think I should have believed myself, if I hadn’t actually seen it.

CRUWELL
I am the last to defend such atrocities but you must admit that we were bound to take the most incredibly severe measures to combat the illegal guerrilla warfare in those vast territories

VON THOMA
But the women had nothing whatever to do with it!

COL. FARRELL (a third party, giving some commentary)
Cruwell probably finds it difficult to believe these atrocities because now he’s faced with the spectre not only of a lost war, but a criminal war as well.

CRUWELL
If you listen to the gentlemen here, we’ve done nothing else but kill everyone off. But if you ask, they were never present themselves. They heard about it from von Thoma!

NARRATOR
The confessions of the unwitting prisoners would have shaken even Cruwell’s convictions.

pbs.org/wnet/secrets/bugging-hitler%E2%80%99s-soldiers-program-transcript/950/

NARRATOR
Luftwaffe pilot Fried described what happened after a routine transport flight…

FRIED
I was at Radom once and had my midday meal with the Waffen S.S. battalion there. An S.S. captain or whatever he was said: “Would you like to come along for half-an-hour? Get a machinegun and let’s go.” So I went along. I had an hour to spare and we went to some barracks and there we slaughtered 1,500 Jews. There were some twenty men with machine-guns. It was over in a couple of seconds, and nobody thought anything of it.

BENTZ
You fired, too?

FRIED
Yes, I did. There were women and children there, too!

BENTZ
They were inside as well?

FRIED
Whole families, some were screaming terribly others were just apathetic.

COL. FARRELL
One of the myths to come out of the war was that the mass murder genocide was committed by the Waffen SS. We know now that that was just that – a myth, that the army was complicit in carrying out the crimes of the Third Reich. This case shows us that conclusively.

BENTZ
What – you fired?

FRIED
Yes, I did. There were women and children there, too!

NARRATOR
The brutality is shocking, but the transcripts raise a question – how could an ordinary person become a genocidal murderer?

Von Thoma’s disgust shows that he doesn’t not believe in the myth.

It is not hard to believe that general anti-communism could be the driving force behind the crimes of humanity on the Eastern Front.

This even happened in the Battle of Britain where the gunners of bombers shot at civilians. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226078/We-gunned-English-women-children–great-fun-Newly-published-transcripts-private-conversations-PoWs-prove.html

 

[djames99]

They still had the duty to act morally at the first sign this was not the case. You recall months had passed of the pillaging and rounding up by the army of whole villages into churches and setting it allight. Hundreds of villages were decimated along the death trail of the Nazi party. This was also the peasant’s land it was occuring on, not an accupational territory by the Russions. The first news to the whermacht that this was happening was their revelation that their troops were acting barbarically, and not deserving of the air force protection. The bombing of London was a heads up also. Even when they had arrived at Stalingrad for the final push, the residents were stripped of their clothes and houses in the dead of winter. Anyway, the army wasn’t so bright, that even a sub leutenant could have seen the strategy paralleled Napoleon’s push. In fact, all of Paulus’s army should have been annihilated in payment for the atrocities, but were allowed to live who would be so fortunate, and some did make it back. This shows restraint by the Russions, and a mighty one indeed, and not barbarity.

Your beating a dead horse(albeit a frozen one) on this forum. No justification can be found here.