Pannonius
Reconquistador
And now, ladies & gentleman: the brave Wermacht soldiers doing their best!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kragujevac_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kragujevac_massacre
Glamorization of the Wehrmacht
- Thread starter Darth_Pugwash
- Start date
Till
Adventurer
Out of interest, where did you spot this resurgence in Germany?
holy king
Deity
i once called myself anarchist, and although i lost hope in any political vision i still share my criticism on political issues, state and capitalism with anarchists or socialists, right...
that's the definition of a nationalist (be it a 19th century progressive or a 21st century conservative one) and i dont agree with it.
oh, and max weber for example had similar views of the state as i described in short, and i wouldnt call him a radical leftist...
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
aelf, I do not think we should reopen the Versailles debate her again. Also I never denied the Wehrmacht did not commit attrocities. I never denied the German direct war guilt about ww2.
Holy King, that is a sociological definition, which is debatable. However the modern and accepted definition in law and politics as well as history is defining a modern state by his people, government and area. You can call that how you want, but that is the state. Weber's definition is too strongly based upon the government. A state is more. After Weber Poland did not exist in 1939- 1945. As there was no Polish governement or force. Or today's Somalia. But it is accepted that these states existed resp. exist.
That's why the classical definition is widely accepted and should be used here, too.
Adler
Holy King, that is a sociological definition, which is debatable. However the modern and accepted definition in law and politics as well as history is defining a modern state by his people, government and area. You can call that how you want, but that is the state. Weber's definition is too strongly based upon the government. A state is more. After Weber Poland did not exist in 1939- 1945. As there was no Polish governement or force. Or today's Somalia. But it is accepted that these states existed resp. exist.
That's why the classical definition is widely accepted and should be used here, too.
Adler
holy king
Deity
you dont understand, there was no polish state, thats all. there were people who were ethnically polish and in 45 a polish state was re-established.
louis xiv said "l'etat c'est moi" because he had absolute power within his state, and so did the nsdap in the german state.
(and just because a state consists of independent legislative, judicative and executive corpi doesnt mean it's not the state holding power, just that this state is a bit more controlable and less absolute than one in which all three are the same, as in for example nazi germany)
aelf
Ashen One
We had discussions about Germany, WW1 and 2 and Versailles in this forum some time ago, and I remember a German poster lamenting that some people in Germany are now trying to deny war guilt again, blaming it solely on the Nazis and even other countries.
But you do not think that the Wehrmacht or the German people were much more responsible for atrocities than the armies and the people of other nations in the war (excluding the Soviet Union). You even tried to equate them to the French, if you didn't try to imply that the latter were worse (at least in their intention).
holy king
Deity
and btw. if 50 percent of the tax income the german state has to operate with comes from 10% of the population, i'd seriously ask myself who is in charge here...
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
@ aelf: I did not equate the French army. All I said is that the French army threatened to kill 10 Germans for each French killed by Werewolves. Thus I only said to shoot hostages in that extent was accepted by the international laws of that time. Not more or less.
@ holy king: The power of a governement is indeed the weakest point of definition. Given that all could invade and annex Somalia as it would be no state. Weber's theories can not be followed.
The last time I saw the German election laws have generally one man, one vote. The last constitution having ties to the income was the Prussian constitution of 1848/49. Which is out of force since 1919.
Adler
@ holy king: The power of a governement is indeed the weakest point of definition. Given that all could invade and annex Somalia as it would be no state. Weber's theories can not be followed.
The last time I saw the German election laws have generally one man, one vote. The last constitution having ties to the income was the Prussian constitution of 1848/49. Which is out of force since 1919.
Adler
holy king
Deity
well, anybody powerful enough could in fact invade somalia, its just a matter of cost and gain...
there are countries with no functioning state, of course international law still has to consider them states as there would be no law otherwise that could be applied, but what has international law to do with reality?
again you answer by quoting laws (as you did to tell us the atrocities concerning partisans were totally legal and thus cant be war crimes)
do you really want to deny that the possession of capital is tied to power, well independent of the existance of a census system?
Hawe Hawe
Warlord
If you really do get this impression it is a sad and shocking development.
The german guilt for WW2 is considered a historical fact in german public and politics represented in the parliament. So this impression can only result from non representative individual opinions. But i hope you don't judge from the posts you read in the Off-topic history forum of a computer game?
I didn't want to participate in this discussion at first. but now it's to late. so here is my opinion:
I absolutely can't stand the translation: German people living in 1933-1945=Nazi=Wehrmacht, but i also can't stand the opposite: sometimes it sounds like there were three different parallel societies living in Germany in this period: The Nazis, the Wehrmacht(mostly abroad since 1939)and the population.
Sure they are not the same, but there were so high overlaps. If they weren't active members, most of them surely backed the ideology or at least the system. So they backed the war crimes, and to me it is abolutely irrelevant who fired the guns on civilians, whether it was SS or Reichswehr or Fritz Müller. The whole system was based on the support of majority of the population and on institutions like the Reichswehr. As conclusion it is not only justified to say the Nazis were guilty, but also to say the Wehrmacht was guilty and even to say the Germans were guilty. Not all as individuals but alltogether as society responsible for the actions of their own institutions.
There was no unpolitical Reichswehr, every individual person has a political responsibility. To say "I don't care about politics", doesn't free you from political responsibility. And in this sense the leaders of the Reichswehr were highly responsible, because they could have cared about politics but they didn't or later claimed not to do.
aelf
Ashen One
But you used the French threat (not action) as an example of how Germany did not commit more warcrimes than any other participant.
Actually, I got this impression from a German poster in the past, as I said earlier:
Hawe Hawe said:
That is a very balanced point of view
I have nothing against Germans and I have no conceivable personal reasons for having an opinion on the matter. Truth is truth, though.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
@ Holy king:
You said a state is defined by the government. That was your argumentation. I said it isn't. If Honnecker was the last man in the GDR left, he was the ruler and thus the GDR a state after this theory. Or if I discovered an unknown island, uninhabited outside of all sea borders, I could say, this is my country and I am emperor! That's both a farce. Impossible to accept. Thus the conventional theory is the best we have. Weber is not to follow.
Also I never denied that money isn't power. But in modern democracies that power is only limited to influence. The means you can have a lobby to make your interests be represented. But that's the same with labour unions and civil rights movements and so on. Thus it is decided finally by the governement. And that is elected by the people. May it be a Fritz Müller or a Gloria von Thurn und Taxis. One man, one vote (or resp. two within the German election system(one direct candidate, one for the state's list)).
@Hawe Hawe:
There is no question about the war guilt. But we do have here a much more complicated situation. Is the German people responsible for Hitler's crime? That can't be denied nor accepted at once. Hitler came to power after a series of bad luck for democracy. The reasons were made from foreign powers and domestic mistakes. I don't want to discuss them here. However in 1933 no one could see what would happen. And I would myself never believed the true ambitions made public in "Mein Kampf". There is no hindsight. The Reichswehr did not act. If she acted she would have prevented Hitler. But now we would critizise them for making a coup. As Hitler did not had a chance. He was legally chosen.
Yes, the German state failed here. And yes, Hitler needed support. But that support top of 1940 after the fall of France was gone in 1941. And in 1943 only the terror of the Gestapo together with the fight for the daily life (air attacks) made a civil revolution like in the GDR impossible. When the Holocaust started there was no chance to organise such actions. Fear, not knowing what is going on and the need to survive were greater.
So I can't blame that people fearing about their lives and not going out on the streets.
I can blame the Wehrmacht for not acting more against Hitler. But again they were acting but it failed. Should they act more? Yes. But they had also the task to defend Germany. And considering the situation I can't blame them for fighting the Allies, especially the Soviets. Perhaps if the (western) Allies would have helped them a bit more, it would be another thing. Anyway here only the units conducting war crimes are responsible for their crimes. Alone for fighting the Wehrmacht is not guilty.
I can blame the officers and officials who are involved in the Holocaust without acting. So who is guilty? The Nazis. The SS. The Gestapo.
Did the others the right things to avoid the catastrophe? No. In so far they all are reponsible. But not guilty about the crimes the Nazis made.
@aelf:
I only said that the French threatened to kill hostages for the soldiers killed by partisans. It was considered as legal in that times to kill hostages up to 10:1. That this is moralically problematical at best is another thing. Nevertheless that shootings of hostages were so no war crimes. That was all I said and more you lay in my mouth although I did not say so.
Also I never denied the German war guilt. But again: Hitler's rise was also responsible in a high degree by Versailles. I know, you are denying this fact and do not want to discuss that here again. Only so much: To deny the war guilt and to say Versailles was responsible for Hitler are two different things.
Adler
You said a state is defined by the government. That was your argumentation. I said it isn't. If Honnecker was the last man in the GDR left, he was the ruler and thus the GDR a state after this theory. Or if I discovered an unknown island, uninhabited outside of all sea borders, I could say, this is my country and I am emperor! That's both a farce. Impossible to accept. Thus the conventional theory is the best we have. Weber is not to follow.
Also I never denied that money isn't power. But in modern democracies that power is only limited to influence. The means you can have a lobby to make your interests be represented. But that's the same with labour unions and civil rights movements and so on. Thus it is decided finally by the governement. And that is elected by the people. May it be a Fritz Müller or a Gloria von Thurn und Taxis. One man, one vote (or resp. two within the German election system(one direct candidate, one for the state's list)).
@Hawe Hawe:
There is no question about the war guilt. But we do have here a much more complicated situation. Is the German people responsible for Hitler's crime? That can't be denied nor accepted at once. Hitler came to power after a series of bad luck for democracy. The reasons were made from foreign powers and domestic mistakes. I don't want to discuss them here. However in 1933 no one could see what would happen. And I would myself never believed the true ambitions made public in "Mein Kampf". There is no hindsight. The Reichswehr did not act. If she acted she would have prevented Hitler. But now we would critizise them for making a coup. As Hitler did not had a chance. He was legally chosen.
Yes, the German state failed here. And yes, Hitler needed support. But that support top of 1940 after the fall of France was gone in 1941. And in 1943 only the terror of the Gestapo together with the fight for the daily life (air attacks) made a civil revolution like in the GDR impossible. When the Holocaust started there was no chance to organise such actions. Fear, not knowing what is going on and the need to survive were greater.
So I can't blame that people fearing about their lives and not going out on the streets.
I can blame the Wehrmacht for not acting more against Hitler. But again they were acting but it failed. Should they act more? Yes. But they had also the task to defend Germany. And considering the situation I can't blame them for fighting the Allies, especially the Soviets. Perhaps if the (western) Allies would have helped them a bit more, it would be another thing. Anyway here only the units conducting war crimes are responsible for their crimes. Alone for fighting the Wehrmacht is not guilty.
I can blame the officers and officials who are involved in the Holocaust without acting. So who is guilty? The Nazis. The SS. The Gestapo.
Did the others the right things to avoid the catastrophe? No. In so far they all are reponsible. But not guilty about the crimes the Nazis made.
@aelf:
I only said that the French threatened to kill hostages for the soldiers killed by partisans. It was considered as legal in that times to kill hostages up to 10:1. That this is moralically problematical at best is another thing. Nevertheless that shootings of hostages were so no war crimes. That was all I said and more you lay in my mouth although I did not say so.
Also I never denied the German war guilt. But again: Hitler's rise was also responsible in a high degree by Versailles. I know, you are denying this fact and do not want to discuss that here again. Only so much: To deny the war guilt and to say Versailles was responsible for Hitler are two different things.
Adler
Case
The horror, the horror
Given that a large number of Germans and Japanese were successfully prosecuted in military and civilian courts for murdering hostages in several countries after the war, you really need to provide a very good source for the claim that this behavior was legal. Were all these court cases wrong?
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
These court cases are wrong, be it political pressure and victor's justice. Like also the latest BGH trial in that case. A good source for that is:
Ingo v. Münch, Geschichte vor Gericht- Der Fall Engel ISBN: 3-8319-0144-9 (In German only, sorry).
Ingo v. Münch is a well recognized, liberal professor, who tought at Hamburg state's and international law. He is publishing a well known commentary for the German constitution.
Adler
Ingo v. Münch, Geschichte vor Gericht- Der Fall Engel ISBN: 3-8319-0144-9 (In German only, sorry).
Ingo v. Münch is a well recognized, liberal professor, who tought at Hamburg state's and international law. He is publishing a well known commentary for the German constitution.
Adler
holy king
Deity
victor's justice? finally you have revealed the roots of your opinion...
ridiculous...
ridiculous...
Captain2
ಠ_ృ
yeah I agree, the Germans tend to have an appeal.... I personally think its the showmanship
British and Canadian:a helmet that looks like a plate and wearing largely brown uniforms, not exactly stylish
Germans: great looking helmets, grey uniforms and a sharp look to them overall
the little things do matter, even while playing company of heros I find my friend and I playing as the Germans, of course most of the fun is gone now that he keeps hitting me whenever I do my German accent while reporting on battles
British and Canadian:a helmet that looks like a plate and wearing largely brown uniforms, not exactly stylish
Germans: great looking helmets, grey uniforms and a sharp look to them overall
the little things do matter, even while playing company of heros I find my friend and I playing as the Germans, of course most of the fun is gone now that he keeps hitting me whenever I do my German accent while reporting on battles
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Holy King, if you see the Nuremberg trials so you have to see that they are in no way the fair trials as they should have been. Too many mistakes were made here. The judges could not be refused because of prejudices, the nulla poena rule was violated, the defenders had not the possibility to see all files, the accuser could just rely on "facts already commonly known"... This made these trials (unfortunately) not to the trials they should have been. Thus the terminus victor's justice has to be taken.
On a sidenote: I do not think that the guys like Göring and Streicher and so on were not guilty. But they deserved a fair trial. For some, especially against Dönitz, Raeder and Jodl, the sentence was wrong, mostly because of the violation of nulla poena sine lege.
Adler
On a sidenote: I do not think that the guys like Göring and Streicher and so on were not guilty. But they deserved a fair trial. For some, especially against Dönitz, Raeder and Jodl, the sentence was wrong, mostly because of the violation of nulla poena sine lege.
Adler
Pannonius
Reconquistador
And you're either unknowing or indoctrinated.
Just do a little research about "unrestricted submarine warfare", relating to the trials.
Similar threads
