1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Glamorization of the Wehrmacht

Discussion in 'World History' started by Darth_Pugwash, Aug 28, 2007.

  1. Adler17

    Adler17 Prussian Feldmarschall

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,341
    Location:
    Schleswig- Holstein. Germany
    @ Park:

    1. The threating and committing to do so was legally accepted. Thus you can't blame them for committing a crime. It wasn't one.

    2. Dito, dito, dito, dito.

    3. It is no circular reasoning. The coup had a chance but therefore Hitler had to be dead. When he wasn't, or the message of his surviving did not came out in time, the coup failed.

    4. IIRC that order was retreated by Göring.

    5. Dresden. I could give you more examples after making some researches. I lack in time however.
    P.S.: Patton made some Brutal orders before the landing in Italy. That lead to at least one massacre.

    @ Case: In the Battle of the Bulge US forces were also ordered to shoot all captured German commandos.

    @ Holy King: The NSDAP, and so Hitler, was leading the state. But it was never a legitime state organ. The army was the army of Germany and never of the NSDAP. Also other here doubted that the (western) Allies committed no war crimes.
    You can't say something was a crime if ti was legally allowed. And unless it was not out of total barbarism a law is a law. If it was morally okay is a completely other question.
    His aims were mad, his deeds, too, at least to a certain extent. However I can not see any bad in the initial things like rearming (up to Sudetenland/CSR).
    An oath was in that time and place a much other thing you can immagine. So if you lie before a court, why is it harder punished if you do that with an oath than without, if it were only words?

    Adler
     
  2. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    The coup of the 20th of June was a last resort; the original plan of a number of those somewhat involved was to ask Hitler to abdicate to let the geenrals continue the war
     
  3. C~G

    C~G Untouchable

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,146
    They were also probably taught and experienced how the first world war affected Germany after their humiliating defeat giving extra fuel to the thought not to surrender.

    Nazis probably did also lot of good to Germany and after all said and done, would you support in those circumstances someone from your own country (remembering your families are still in Germany) or someone who you have fought bitter few years?

    This problem or hindsight rises from the fact that we happen to know how well everything went for Germany because of western allies and they did not, or thinking that nazis were evil and allies were the "good guys".
     
  4. Case

    Case The horror, the horror

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    I don't agree. The nature of the Nazi regime was obvious by 1939, with all Germans having experianced repression while the Nazis blantantly plundered the state for their own gain. Richard Evans' excellent recent books on the Nazis rise to power and the period leading up to the invasion of Poland make it clear that the Nazis never really enjoyed widespread public support and ruled through intimidation and fear.
     
  5. C~G

    C~G Untouchable

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,146
    I probably wasn't clear enough in that what I meant.

    I mean that germans didn't know what would happen to them if they would surrender and despite they might already acknowledge earlier or at least at that point the fact that nazi regime wasn't anything good, it's possible they thought the total defeat of Germany even more disastrous option.

    With the quote you used I was also referring that we can operate with the knowledge that those german soldiers simply didn't have about the end of the war and it's effects to Germany. I think asking ordinary soldiers just to surrender to allies is just something you might do in their position but just because you know about the favorable outcome not because you know that "nazis are bad for Germany" which soldiers might have already noticed but just didn't have much option to choose from what to do then.

    And, now I'm actually confused about what exactly is your position since I agree with that above assertation.

    So what exactly is your reason then behind why germans kept fighting if nazis didn't have such support since I thought it was your claim right from the beginning? :confused:

    (I'm sorry if I don't make much sense, I have had long long days at work so it's possible I haven't been really clear what I mean. :))
     
  6. Case

    Case The horror, the horror

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Frankly, I don't know. I don't understand why the bulk of the German Army fought fairly ethusiastically for what was clearly such a bad cause. I don't see anything admirable in it though.
     
  7. Eran of Arcadia

    Eran of Arcadia Stormin' Mormon Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    23,090
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Sunshine and Lettuce Capital of the World
    That always struck me. So many brave soldiers, fighting skillfully for a lost cause, and the grand total effect of their courage and devotion to duty would be . . . several thousands more dead, and a little bit larger piece of Germany brought under the Soviet sphere, or something.
     
  8. C~G

    C~G Untouchable

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,146
    I think they were just too deeply involved with it all and most of them couldn't see any other options than to continue.

    Admirable? The cause of course not really, but individual soldier's fate, sacrifice and just the effort trying to survive whether they were german, russian or allied is in my opinion admirable. Most of them were just in the same mess without ever going able to affect their state and possible destiny in any other but minor ways. The story of "unknown soldiers" is always admirable even though deep glamorization of that myth might cause people to think war itself should be glamorized.

    And that's why quite plenty of books and movies about WWII suck since they make difference between the different sides soldiers and their desire to fight for some cause. It's total BS since most of them were in deep crap up to their neck without having helping hand to draw them out of it. Sure, maybe some of them were offered such but it probably came in such occasion that it was impossible to make grab for it.
     
  9. Adler17

    Adler17 Prussian Feldmarschall

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,341
    Location:
    Schleswig- Holstein. Germany
    Most Germans fought for Germany and not for Hitler. Especially at the end. At first they believed they were attacked by Poland (there was still a bill open as it was with France). The attack on the Soviets was the turning point. Especially after the first attrocities. They kept fighting, but many comabat troops wanted to defeat the enemy in Berlin later, too. After the victory.
    The biggest mistake of the Allies was the unconditional surrender. With a conditional one Hitler would have had no chance to survive as "Führer" much longer and war would have been ended much sooner.
    Yes, the first attempts were also to imprison Hitler. But in each time he should be shot if he resisted. That he would do so was nearly clear, so that this was only seen as a kind of compromise with the plotters who had scruples in killing him. The ones he didn't have.
    BTW, holy king, if you want to set the party equal to the state you have to say all Germans were nazis then, even the German Jews and communists. And that is ridiculous.

    Adler
     
  10. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,575
    Location:
    Scotland
    That doesn't make sense- it equates the state with the population, an incorrect assertion.
    Germany 1933-45 was a one-party state completely dominated by the Nazi party, that;s why it's commonly known as "Nazi Germany". Equally, Russia 1922-91 was "Communist Russia" and Spain 1939-75 was "Falangist Spain".
     
  11. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    Bearing in mind that Jews had their German citizenships revoked....
     
  12. Adler17

    Adler17 Prussian Feldmarschall

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,341
    Location:
    Schleswig- Holstein. Germany
    nonconformitist, the Reichscitizenship was revoked, not the states citizenship. They were still regarded as Germans. It is a bit more complicated.
    Although Germany was a one party state, the party was not equal with the state in contrast with the USSR.

    Adler
     
  13. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    Hehe, almost like Comic Ali defending the Baath Party and the Iraqi State. :)
     
  14. Adler17

    Adler17 Prussian Feldmarschall

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,341
    Location:
    Schleswig- Holstein. Germany
  15. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    I am not necessarily Mr Bean. But I think minimizing that the Germans revoked someones citizenship for racial reasons is not something to be nuanced too much. It is ok to be for the German Army and all, but some issues are not to be greyed out and should remain black and white.
     
  16. holy king

    holy king Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    16,323
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    as said before, if you want to set the state equal to its population, you havent understood what a state is.
     
  17. Adler17

    Adler17 Prussian Feldmarschall

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,341
    Location:
    Schleswig- Holstein. Germany
    What does the revoking of the citizenship of the Reich, which is not the same with the German citizenship, has to do with the Wehrmacht? Anyway that was illegal and retaken after '45 at once. Also indeed the racial laws were no laws at all and the worst which could happen. But I never defended them! I think we speak about different things and should come back to topic.

    holyking, what is a state? The definition of a state is a state's area with a state's population and a state's government. If latter is not there due to unrests (Somalia) or annexed or occupied that does not matter. Thus the population is part of the state and partly equal. So if you define the NSDAP (or CPSU) as state you also imply all Germans were nazis and all Soviets communists (with Soviet I mean citizen of the Soviet union). The Nazis were in the government until May 1st 1945. The Nazis might have made illegally the NSDAP to an organ of the state, but in no way equal with that.

    Adler
     
  18. holy king

    holy king Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    16,323
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    a state is a political apparatus that claims a monopoly on physical violence to maintain a certain kind of order within geographical borders defined by itself and other states.
    it does so to defend a ruling group of people against attacks from within and from the outside (and may or may not allow its citizens a certain amount of participation, while never allowing the possibilty of changing into anything other than a state)
    (the ruling group in our middle european countries today would be the capitalist elite, a historically very special group, since there's almost no homogenity in itself and it's possible for individuals to enter and leave it while the number of "members" stays roughly the same)

    therefore the nsdap was the state, and the wehrmacht was its army.

    defining the population as a whole as part of the state may be idealistic or propaganda, it however has nothing to do with reality...
     
  19. Adler17

    Adler17 Prussian Feldmarschall

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,341
    Location:
    Schleswig- Holstein. Germany
    Holy king, that is a (roughly) description of the tasks of the state, but not the definition of a state per se. A state is an area with a population, which is ruled by a government. Thus your equilisation of the NSDAP with the state is wrong.
    Also in modern western democracies no capitalist elite rules but the people. You're very left, are you?

    Adler
     
  20. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,711
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    With all due respect, as usual, Adler would rather blame France and Austria than admit that Germany as a whole made serious mistakes.

    I seriously find it hard to believe that the Wehrmacht was not in a significant way involved in the horrendous war crimes commited. And those were in a much larger scale than commited by the Allies apart from the Soviet Union. Like someone has pointed out, if the Americans had behaved 50% like how the Germans behaved, the chances that Adler would not be here to discuss this would grow exponentially. And - I already can see evidence of it appearing in the debate - using Versailles to justify the German attitude is insane. Sure, it might have indirectly caused massive unemployment and economic despair, and it might have been harsh (though certainly not harsher than what the Germans would have imposed if they had won), but you go out there and systematically kill millions of innocent people because of it? Was it only Germany that got hit by the Depression hard?

    It is with great disappointment that I see a resurgence of the denial of war guilt in Germany and Japan.
     

Share This Page