Am I wrong to respect the person in my avatar ... Heinz Guderian ?

[vogtmurr]

I'm not an expert on the period but I don't believe there's any serious claims that the Reichenau Order was composed by one of Manstein's subordinates and he put his signature on it without reading it. Hitler had glowing praise for Manstein after that, and the latter did not do anything to cancel the order, which seemingly suggests that Manstein promulgated it for the purpose of gaining prestige with Hitler's eyes.

That one quote you cited is horridly out of context. Perhaps you should also mention that it says, "The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevik terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews."

?

I'm not 100% certain that we are talking about the same order, but my quote was from 1941, and like this one you've quoted, included material definitely out of character with Manstein's typical orders. The implication was that the SS routinely appended their own orders to general dispatches, and the general had little opportunity to review them or avoid signing them, hence he denied knowledge of some of the content.

Anyway, we are talking about Manstein; Guderian actively participated in propping up the crumbling regime after the 1944 plot, which neither took part in. Ironically Guderian's old enemy von Kluge did, then withdrew his support, and eventually commit suicide. Kluge was perhaps even less motivated by moral responsibility, and was thought to be one of Hitler's 'yes-men'.

 

[LightSpectra]

As I said, I'm not aware of any seriously-taken scholarly claims that the order Manstein gave (which I incorrectly called "the Reichenau Order;" my confusion came from the fact that some people referred to the order Manstein gave as "his version of the Reichenau Order") in 1941 was not authored by Manstein himself.

However, von Manstein did issue an order on November 20, 1941: his version of the infamous "Reichenau Order" [2], which equated "partisans" and "Jews" and called for draconian measures against them. Hitler commended the "Reichenau Order" as exemplary and encouraged other generals to issue similar orders. Von Manstein was among the minority that voluntarily issued such an order. It stated that:

"This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet Armed Forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare.
Behind the front too, the fighting continues. Partisan snipers dressed as civilians attack single soldiers and small units and try to disrupt our supplies by sabotage with mines and infernal machines. Bolshevists left behind keep the population freed from Bolshevism in a state of unrest by means of terror and attempt thereby to sabotage the political and economic pacification of the country. Harvests and factories are destroyed and the city population in particular is thereby ruthlessly delivered to starvation.
Jewry is the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe they hold all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish Bolshevik system must be wiped out once and for all and should never again be allowed to invade our European living space.
The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people."
...
"The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevik terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews."
(Nuremberg trials proceedings, Vol. 20, pp. 639–645 [3])

The order also stated: "The food situation at home makes it essential that the troops should as far as possible be fed off the land and that furthermore the largest possible stocks should be placed at the disposal of the homeland. Particularly in enemy cities a large part of the population will have to go hungry."(ibid.) This also was one of the indictments against von Manstein in Hamburg; not only neglect of civilians, but also exploitation of invaded countries for the sole benefit of the "homeland", something considered illegal by the then current laws of war.

The order additionally stated that "severe steps will be taken against arbitrary action and self interest, against savagery and indiscipline, against any violation of the honor of the soldier" and that "respect for religious customs, particularly those of Muslim Tartars, must be demanded." (ibid.) The evidence for this order was first presented by prosecutor Telford Taylor on August 10, 1946, in Nuremberg. Von Manstein acknowledged that he had signed this order of November 20, 1941, but claimed that he didn't remember it. This order was a major piece of evidence for the prosecution at his Hamburg trial.

Source

If you think Wikipedia is inaccurate on this charge (which it very might well be, I'm only citing this at the moment because I'm a little busy), then I'll try to fetch another one as soon as I'm done with class today.

 

[kiwitt]

In reading this Article on Manstein's war crimes, I note that Hoth had also issued a similar order to his troops as the Manstein's Nov 41 order.

Does this mean that possibly the High Command wrote the order(s) and passed it down the line as a kind of "template", which required the signature of the lower ranking officers to pass on to their troops. i.e. Hitler issued many directives, which then High Command translated into orders for the Military and then passed these down the line. (I have not researched yet how the High Command issued orders ... others may be able to enlighten me). The General's staff may have also typed out these orders and made slight variations to the actual order from High Command, which could imply that the order was unique.

While this does not excuse the generals for their war-crimes, it could mean that they may have not actually authored the actual orders. They were simply "rubber-stamping" what was given to them by High Command and the general staff.

This link gives some information in the inner workings of the High Command. there maybe more elsewhere.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Alright; now that you've recanted your previous position, have we arrived at a resolution?

It is brilliant how you automatically conclude that I changed my position, instead of considering that you drew conclusions from what I said not valid. The only thing regarding my personal set of values or my moral compass I talked about was my understanding of duty and that the in my opinion the honorable nature of duty would not negate wrongdoings, but would exist anyway. As a logical consequence everything else is at best a vague assumption on your part. I indicated and directly wrote that those assumption are totally off. I believe you to be mature enough to accept that.

Are you aware of how severely you're contradicting yourself right here?

Nope. But yes, I am interested in your opinion why that would be so.

Then you don't know what glory is. Stauffenberg was a glorious patriot; Manstein and Guderian betrayed their nation by refusing to stand up to the men destroying it.

For a second time, I did not refer to my personal understanding of glory (besides, to claim that you knew about the only true understanding of glory is IMO insolent). Why do you find it so hard to understand this?
Anyway, what I wrote is the way glory was viewed since the dawn of man. And it still is, also if you disagree with this view.

Not at all. My conclusion is not worthless even if I do not state it.
My failure to lay it out in more detail can only mean it's worthless to you.

Whatever you think this nitpicking accomplishes, it surely is a waste of my time.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Whatever you think this nitpicking accomplishes, it surely is a waste of my time.

No. It's a relative truth that it's a waste of your time. You should stop clinging to it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Relative to what? What I find deserves respect in human qualities? Well that is the whole point of morality in the first place. However, it is not relative to a outcome of my liking. And if an outcome is to be liked is as circumstantial and relative as it can get.

 

[LightSpectra]

In reading this Article on Manstein's war crimes, I note that Hoth had also issued a similar order to his troops as the Manstein's Nov 41 order.

Does this mean that possibly the High Command wrote the order(s) and passed it down the line as a kind of "template", which required the signature of the lower ranking officers to pass on to their troops. i.e. Hitler issued many directives, which then High Command translated into orders for the Military and then passed these down the line. (I have not researched yet how the High Command issued orders ... others may be able to enlighten me). The General's staff may have also typed out these orders and made slight variations to the actual order from High Command, which could imply that the order was unique.

While this does not excuse the generals for their war-crimes, it could mean that they may have not actually authored the actual orders. They were simply "rubber-stamping" what was given to them by High Command and the general staff.

This link gives some information in the inner workings of the High Command. there maybe more elsewhere.

How is any of this relevant? Whether or not he decided to author the command on his own accord or somebody else did, he signed it; remembered signing it; and never recanted it, at least before the war was over.

 

[vogtmurr]

In case of Hartmann after the war he was accused for some war crimes by Russians (killing civilians or something). But I don't know how it ended.

Guderian was also accused for commiting war crimes by Americans (and indeed units he commanded commited numerous war crimes - however, I don't know if he was involved in commiting them personally, e.g. if he gave orders) but in the end his court trial never started, so maybe they didn't have enough proofs.

In case of Manstein there are proofs that he at least tolerated war crimes commited by his subordinates.

Hans Ulrich Rudel and Erwin Rommel, on the other hand, were "clear".

It is a thorny business trying to separate what could reasonably be considered the normal pursuit of their duties, or necessity of survival, from culpability in war crimes. It was enough to get Manstein an 18 year sentence, but he had lots of supporters and only ended up serving 4 post trial, plus time served before. It must have been 'diffuse' enough to avoid the death penalty, anyway. In the absolute sense, you would have to go out of your way and accept personal risks to prevent atrocities, or undermine your country's war effort to avoid any taint. The latter would be anathema to most.

Unless you count that whole business about rounding up Italian Civilians as hostages and shooting them whenever the Italian Resistance killed a German Soldier.

Who are you referring to ?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Who are you referring to ?

Rommel.

 

[kiwitt]

How is any of this relevant? Whether or not he decided to author the command on his own accord or somebody else did, he signed it; remembered signing it; and never recanted it, at least before the war was over.

Why would he recant an order passed on from the top ... that is how the military apparatus worked.

Hitler Directive -> High Command Order -> Army Group Commander Order -> Army Commander (Manstein) Order -> etc ...
(At the time of the November 1941 order he was leading the 11th Army - I believe)

Failure to obey or pass on orders, could have even be a court martial for failure to obey orders. That would have been dishonorable for an distinguished and long serving officer

Again you are are judging him from the comfort of an armchair well into the future. In the early 1940's in Germany, it was a much different place and time. He was judged to be guilty, but he was out after only a few years, so his culpability was slight in comparison to others. He even became an respected advisor to the new German Army. I am sure those people who respected him (including Churchill) would have also recognised that he was operating in a different time-frame.

Just curious - Have you ever served in the Military and disobeyed an order ?

 

[ParkCungHee]

He was judged to be guilty, but he was out after only a few years, so his culpability was slight in comparison to others

By a similar feat of reasoning we may conclude Himmler was far less culpable, as he never spent a day of his life in jail.

 

[Dragonlord]

In case of Hartmann after the war he was accused for some war crimes by Russians (killing civilians or something). But I don't know how it ended.

Guderian was also accused for commiting war crimes by Americans (and indeed units he commanded commited numerous war crimes - however, I don't know if he was involved in commiting them personally, e.g. if he gave orders) but in the end his court trial never started, so maybe they didn't have enough proofs.

In case of Manstein there are proofs that he at least tolerated war crimes commited by his subordinates.

Hans Ulrich Rudel and Erwin Rommel, on the other hand, were "clear".

As to Manstein, I don't know - reading the above posts, he may have been more guilty than I thought. In any case, no high-ranking Nazi officer could have been totally guiltless. OTOH, I judge people in the context of their times and circumstances, not by hindsight.

As to Erich Hartmann, the Russian accusations were total BS and AFAIK they themselves acknowledged them as such post-1989.
Hartmann, who was the highest-ranking fighter ace of all time, was captured by the Russians at the end of the war and illegally kept in prison for some 10 years IIRC, during which time they attempted to coerce him into serving in the East German air force. The accusations of war crimes were a pretext for keeping him in prison - they attempted to force a (false) confession from him, but never succeeded.
He was finally released in 1955 IIRC and served in the WEST German air force.

The simple truth is the Russians hated him for shooting down over 300 of their planes and even had a price on his head during the war.

I can respect a man like this, even if he did fight for the wrong side. One could argue he was partly responsible for the atrocities because by fighting ably he helped prolong the war - but by that line of reasoning you dilute the actual responsibility borne by those who actively contributed to the atrocities.

 

[vogtmurr]

Rommel.

I haven't been able to link any such anti-partisan activities to Rommel by direct order or even chain of command. I think Kesselring is your man, and he later rescinded the order, though he felt it was justified in the extremities of war, which tainted his otherwise high regard and respect in the allied command, and for which he stood trial and received a death sentence, but was given a reprieve.

By a similar feat of reasoning we may conclude Himmler was far less culpable, as he never spent a day of his life in jail.

but of course that isn't really fair because Himmler never stood trial.

 

[LightSpectra]

Why would he recant an order passed on from the top

The same reasons Rommel did, because they're utterly immoral.

Failure to obey or pass on orders, could have even be a court martial for failure to obey orders.

Good. Less competent commanders to be utilized in an unjust war, no?

That would have been dishonorable for an distinguished and long serving officer

Hitler isn't the one who dispenses honor. Guderian and Manstein became aware of this by the end of the war, at the very least, because (I'm going by memory here) one of the two was asked to kill himself by the High Command, and responded "I'm not killing myself for that Austrian corporal."

Again you are are judging him from the comfort of an armchair well into the future. In the early 1940's in Germany, it was a much different place and time. He was judged to be guilty, but he was out after only a few years, so his culpability was slight in comparison to others. He even became an respected advisor to the new German Army. I am sure those people who respected him (including Churchill) would have also recognised that he was operating in a different time-frame.

Precognition is not necessary to see that Nazi Germany was a wicked state causing preempted wars. The evidence of this was that it was Guderian and Manstein themselves planning the aforementioned preemptive wars. Even civilians like the White Rose movement were aware of the moral errors of Nazism.

Just curious - Have you ever served in the Military and disobeyed an order ?

I've never served in the Wermacht circa 1939-1945, no.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I haven't been able to link any such anti-partisan activities to Rommel by direct order or even chain of command. I think Kesselring is your man, and he later rescinded the order, though he felt it was justified in the extremities of war, which tainted his otherwise high regard and respect in the allied command,

Kesselring continued the policy, but it was Rommel who concieved it. Check out Lamb (1996) on this. And Kesselring's continuation evidently didn't taint the views in Allied command enough, as Churchill interevened to stop charges against him as he was 'always an honorable opponent to the British' ignoring the fact that the charges were for his dishonorable behavior against the Italians.

 

[vogtmurr]

Kesselring continued the policy, but it was Rommel who concieved it. Check out Lamb (1996) on this. And Kesselring's continuation evidently didn't taint the views in Allied command enough, as Churchill interevened to stop charges against him as he was 'always an honorable opponent to the British' ignoring the fact that the charges were for his dishonorable behavior against the Italians.

Rommel was only there for 3 months in late 1943, and his command only extended over northern Italy. Rommel deported Italian soldiers unwilling to fight in German units. Whether Lamb asserts he gave the orders for anti-partisan activities or not, it was enacted under Kesselring.

I don't want to seem insensitive, but I have to ask: were these anti-partisan activities moderately successful ? It was probably more successful then carpet-bombing and napalming defenseless cities. Neither Rommel nor Kesselring may have been able to appreciate the subtle difference you are trying to emphasize.

And Kesselring was sentenced to death by a British military court, despite a great deal of controversy in the House of Lords. All the commanders of the British Eighth army rose in his defense, and many other influential people besides, not just Churchill. Ironically, the Italians refused to put him to death, because they banned capital punishment. His sentence was commuted to life, but he was eventually released in 1952, for among other things throat cancer. The Italians were unhappy that these charges were inadequately addressed, while some senior SS officers walked free. As a bit of background, it appears the posture of Italy towards war's end was ambiguous to the allies, as well as Germans, and this may have affected the outcome of some legal proceedings.

But there is a great deal to respect about Kesselring. In addition to being an outstanding general who took considerable personal risks, he resisted orders to deport jews, punished looters, took steps to preserve Italian monuments and treasures, and denounced art thieves like Goering. He had an easy chance to escape from Wolfsberg to South America, which many of his fellow inmates did, as he felt it would confirm his criminal guilt in the eyes of the world.

So if you want to retry him and Rommel, go ahead. I will take the verdict of those who fought against him and would have every reason to harbor a legitimate grudge, over an author 50 years after the fact. Kesselring is definitely from another time: on the 40th anniversary of his death in 2000 the Bundeswehr officially disavowed any connection to his memorial, but it was enthusiastically attended by aging veterans groups.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Whether Lamb asserts he gave the orders for anti-partisan activities or not, it was enacted under Kesselring.

Please explain how Kesselring exectuting civilians precludes Rommel from doing it.

 

[vogtmurr]

Please explain how Kesselring exectuting civilians precludes Rommel from doing it.

it doesn't PCH. I just don't see how he had the opportunity, and I can't find any record of it. Whereas there are ample records of Kesselring's incidents and the death tolls. Maybe you can furnish some details.

 

[ParkCungHee]

it doesn't PCH. I just don't see how he had the opportunity,

In general, do you imagine it takes more then three months to kills someone?

 

[vogtmurr]

In general, do you imagine it takes more then three months to kills someone?

Answer my question first, and spare the sarcasm. There was not a lot of partisan activity in Rommel's temporary theater prior to 1944. Rommel may have had some deserters shot - but I am still awaiting details of anti-partisan mass executions under his command. And while you are at it - put it in the context of my full response. Nitpicking on this does not necessarily change that.