How guilty is the entire Wehrmacht of war crimes?
How guilty is the entire Wehrmacht of war crimes?
The impression I got from this website is that although some German soldiers did commit war crimes in World War 2, only a minority of the soldiers in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS divisions such as Nordland and Wiking were involved in it, even in the eastern front, but this article and the people who posted in this topic http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... 777&page=3 appear to disagree with this premise, so who is right?
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
I think to make best profit of reading that thread, you should find A/ a copy of the original Daily Mail article being discussed, and B/ read the book concerned. To precis the article - SOME German top-ranking officers did know and agreed with it, yes...though later denied they did and did - BUT also a LOT did not and did NOT agree with it.
THAT is the point of the article and book - that some who later denied all knowledge and sympathy...did know and did agree.
Also, it would be a mistake to equate "some top-ranking officers" with "all of the Wehrmacht" - as I'd be quite sure not ALL of the millions of Germans under arms 1939-45 were involved in "war crimes", and probably not even a statistically "significant" percentage.....
THAT is the point of the article and book - that some who later denied all knowledge and sympathy...did know and did agree.
Also, it would be a mistake to equate "some top-ranking officers" with "all of the Wehrmacht" - as I'd be quite sure not ALL of the millions of Germans under arms 1939-45 were involved in "war crimes", and probably not even a statistically "significant" percentage.....
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
I have stated no personal argument, this subject is very controversial, and very sensitive, especially here in Germany.
In my photo collection are two photos, photographed by a doctor in the Wehrmacht, these two photos display two male persons, in civilian clothes, hanging on trees, with a cardboard on their chest.
Very horrible photos, what was the intention of an officer in the german Wehrmacht, to take such pictures of dead bodies, hanging...?
Knox
In my photo collection are two photos, photographed by a doctor in the Wehrmacht, these two photos display two male persons, in civilian clothes, hanging on trees, with a cardboard on their chest.
Very horrible photos, what was the intention of an officer in the german Wehrmacht, to take such pictures of dead bodies, hanging...?
Knox
Knox
Soldier humor can get pretty macabre. Some US guys were photographed with Japanese skulls on their jeep.
The hatred of partisans was extreme (I hate 'em too - but would be one if the roles were reversed...). Seeing one's enemies dead can be very satisfying...
the more an enemy frightens us - the more we hate him.
I once heard two paras telling a story about a croc eating a fleeing terrorists and joined loudly in the laughter. Its a thing of circumstance - doesn't seem quite so funny now...
cheers
Reb
Soldier humor can get pretty macabre. Some US guys were photographed with Japanese skulls on their jeep.
The hatred of partisans was extreme (I hate 'em too - but would be one if the roles were reversed...). Seeing one's enemies dead can be very satisfying...
the more an enemy frightens us - the more we hate him.
I once heard two paras telling a story about a croc eating a fleeing terrorists and joined loudly in the laughter. Its a thing of circumstance - doesn't seem quite so funny now...
cheers
Reb
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
Reb, in my own collection are more than 5000 photos, conc. the former RAD, and the Wehrmacht.
The two photos, the Wehrmachtsarzt took, these two photos stand out from all the other material.
A well educated, and studied man, a former officer, took two photos of the dead bodies, for what reason, and why did he glue them in one of his photo albums...?
I knew the officer personally, he passed away in the early 1990s, the old warhorse was one of our former neighbors.
Knox
The two photos, the Wehrmachtsarzt took, these two photos stand out from all the other material.
A well educated, and studied man, a former officer, took two photos of the dead bodies, for what reason, and why did he glue them in one of his photo albums...?
I knew the officer personally, he passed away in the early 1990s, the old warhorse was one of our former neighbors.
Knox
Herr Phylo, I have posted these two photos in the Forum der Wehrmacht, some moons ago...phylo_roadking wrote:What does it say on the cardboard placards?with a cardboard on their chest
After the advice of one of the moderators over there, I deleted the photos.
Such pictures do not belong in a public internet forum...
Knox
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
On the contrary - it would very much depend on the forum and the topic at hand. Pictures a thousand times worse appear on current affairs and news sites every day.
The reason I'm asking about what was on the signs is very simple - IF these were partisans/guerillas...then death by hanging for franc-tireurs/guerillas/partisans was "NOT" a war crime and is actually as you know permitted by the Geneva and preceeding Hague Conventions. I'd be more dubious regarding the reasons for their execution if there WASN'T a sign round their necks...because this would be more redolent of arbitrary killing/murder.
Do you understand the logic of what I'm saying? IF there was a sign - then the signs must have related to known/advertised/posted "crimes" as notified by the occupying power - in this case Germany and the Wehrmacht. or else there would simply be nothing to write!
The reason I'm asking about what was on the signs is very simple - IF these were partisans/guerillas...then death by hanging for franc-tireurs/guerillas/partisans was "NOT" a war crime and is actually as you know permitted by the Geneva and preceeding Hague Conventions. I'd be more dubious regarding the reasons for their execution if there WASN'T a sign round their necks...because this would be more redolent of arbitrary killing/murder.
Do you understand the logic of what I'm saying? IF there was a sign - then the signs must have related to known/advertised/posted "crimes" as notified by the occupying power - in this case Germany and the Wehrmacht. or else there would simply be nothing to write!
The point of the article/book isn't in ANY way denying the Holocaust or who was responsible; it doesn't actually have any bearing at all on the historical events of the Holocaust one way or another. The point was that at various trials and hearings after the war, the officers in question PERJURED themselves by denying knowledge of the Holocaust AND saying that they didn't support it. It relates more to the personal honour of these officers and the beliefs they held and then denied.I have stated no personal argument, this subject is very controversial, and very sensitive, especially here in Germany
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
That's a bit too rich for me Phylo. A sign on a body does not mean that the person was really guilty of anything.IF there was a sign - then the signs must have related to known/advertised/posted "crimes" as notified by the occupying power
Most of those hanged for partisan/resistance/andsuch deeds/crimes got one of those signs but many of those hanged were hanged out of retribution, some minor infraction, unjust accusations, perceived threats, greed, fear........the sign itself proves nothing.
"Justice" in occupied territory (specially Russian) wasn't near just enough to ensure that everyone sentenced to death was sentenced for the right reasons (whatever those 'right' reasons may be) after a fair investigation and trial.
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
No, what I mean was - that there was something to say about the individual - perceived, real, erroneous or whatever - then they weren't just hostages shot in reprisal at random. You don't just put a placard round a guy's neck saying "hostage", you do it in front of their families/fellow villagers because its an object lesson...whether it works or not. You don't need to waste time putting a sign on them because you've just stood on a box or the back of your kublewagen and told friends and family. But if you take the time to write something about the individual - even if its just one word - its because it's about him and its something that you want people to associate with the individual.
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
-
sniper1shot
- Moderator
- Posts: 1438
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:56 pm
- Location: Canada
Wow, you couldn't of picked two totally wrong Div in your example.only a minority of the soldiers in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS divisions such as Nordland and Wiking were involved in it
Wiking was cleared of all charges by the allies incl. the Russians.
Only he is lost who gives himself up as lost.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi S1S,
I have seen it repeated in several places on the internet that Wiking was cleared of all warcrimes by the Russians. This seems unlikely in the extreme. When and where is this supposed to have taken place?
In what possible circumstances is it likely that anyone could or would collectively clear some 25,000 men of any and all charges, let alone the Soviet Union? It defies common sense.
And as for the other Allies, of course they are unlikely to have brought war crimes charges agaist the Wiking - it never served against them.
The case against Wiking members from its own side is damning enough. The Austrian General Eglseer and the Slovak Generals Malar and Turanec compained about its activities in the spring of 1942 on the Mius. The diary of a member of its Finnish battalion has been discussed on Feldgrau before. This also mentions atrocities. Elements of the division were also engaged in some brutal activities clearing Poles from around "Himmlerstadt" (Zamosc, I think) so that Volksdeutsch could be resettled there.The evidence is there for anyone willing to look.
However, some are not. For modern Nazi apologists the Wiking represents their ideal of a clean-cut, wholesome, anti-Communist, Nordic "Europa". In order for them to sustain their fantasy and recruit more devotees to it, it is necessary for Wiking to be seen as clean as possible. One therefore has to treat anything one reads about Wiking with caution.
I see no reason to believe that Wiking was particularly awful, but the idea that it was certified immaculate by the USSR defies common sense.
Cheers,
Sid
I have seen it repeated in several places on the internet that Wiking was cleared of all warcrimes by the Russians. This seems unlikely in the extreme. When and where is this supposed to have taken place?
In what possible circumstances is it likely that anyone could or would collectively clear some 25,000 men of any and all charges, let alone the Soviet Union? It defies common sense.
And as for the other Allies, of course they are unlikely to have brought war crimes charges agaist the Wiking - it never served against them.
The case against Wiking members from its own side is damning enough. The Austrian General Eglseer and the Slovak Generals Malar and Turanec compained about its activities in the spring of 1942 on the Mius. The diary of a member of its Finnish battalion has been discussed on Feldgrau before. This also mentions atrocities. Elements of the division were also engaged in some brutal activities clearing Poles from around "Himmlerstadt" (Zamosc, I think) so that Volksdeutsch could be resettled there.The evidence is there for anyone willing to look.
However, some are not. For modern Nazi apologists the Wiking represents their ideal of a clean-cut, wholesome, anti-Communist, Nordic "Europa". In order for them to sustain their fantasy and recruit more devotees to it, it is necessary for Wiking to be seen as clean as possible. One therefore has to treat anything one reads about Wiking with caution.
I see no reason to believe that Wiking was particularly awful, but the idea that it was certified immaculate by the USSR defies common sense.
Cheers,
Sid
-
Epaminondas
- Supporter
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:59 am
My understanding of the basis for saying that Wiking was a "clean" unit was that the Western allies (ie not Russia) compiled a list after the war of all war crimes each unit had committed.
the core of Wiking did not have any verified major war crimes. [some typical shooting of prisoners etc; but every unit in WWII, and war does that. Regrettable, but typically only punished if excessive].
One sub unit of wkinig, I forget if it was the training battalion, or one of the other support units was involved in some events in Poland and Yugoslavia in 1942/3 which could be viewed as war crimes.
One can argue it both ways- the subunit was NOT part of Wiking when the war crimes occurred, but was latter part of the unit when it become a panzer division in 1944.
===
As far as I know, Russia never cleared anyone or any unit. Heck they charged germans with eating russian chickens!
Did Wiking members commit war crimes? Certainly! Was the unit as a whole involved in substantial war crimes? Thats a tougher one. Under the unwritten laws of war, probably not. Under modern sensibilities, yes.
the core of Wiking did not have any verified major war crimes. [some typical shooting of prisoners etc; but every unit in WWII, and war does that. Regrettable, but typically only punished if excessive].
One sub unit of wkinig, I forget if it was the training battalion, or one of the other support units was involved in some events in Poland and Yugoslavia in 1942/3 which could be viewed as war crimes.
One can argue it both ways- the subunit was NOT part of Wiking when the war crimes occurred, but was latter part of the unit when it become a panzer division in 1944.
===
As far as I know, Russia never cleared anyone or any unit. Heck they charged germans with eating russian chickens!
Did Wiking members commit war crimes? Certainly! Was the unit as a whole involved in substantial war crimes? Thats a tougher one. Under the unwritten laws of war, probably not. Under modern sensibilities, yes.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Epaminondas,
As the Wiking did not serve against the Western Allies, one would not expect them to register any warcrimes by it. It would therefore be disingenuous to use the absence of charges by them as evidence that the Wiking was clean.
All its operations were on the Eastern Front and I list above several instances of misdemeanours by it reported from within Axis, not enemy, ranks. These include a senior German (von Rundstedt), Austrian (Eglseer) and Slovaks (Malar and Turanec) and even a Finn serving within Wiking at the time.
I am no specialist in this area, but I am not aware of any other Waffen-SS formation about which there was a greater volume of internal Axis complaints. At least in 1941-42 the Wiking seems to have stood out from the generality of German formations for its extra-curricular activities.
I would suggest that it actually looks rather worse if even the division's training battalion was implicated in such activities, as it implies a deep seated institutional problem that was not related to front line service.
Cheers,
Sid.
As the Wiking did not serve against the Western Allies, one would not expect them to register any warcrimes by it. It would therefore be disingenuous to use the absence of charges by them as evidence that the Wiking was clean.
All its operations were on the Eastern Front and I list above several instances of misdemeanours by it reported from within Axis, not enemy, ranks. These include a senior German (von Rundstedt), Austrian (Eglseer) and Slovaks (Malar and Turanec) and even a Finn serving within Wiking at the time.
I am no specialist in this area, but I am not aware of any other Waffen-SS formation about which there was a greater volume of internal Axis complaints. At least in 1941-42 the Wiking seems to have stood out from the generality of German formations for its extra-curricular activities.
I would suggest that it actually looks rather worse if even the division's training battalion was implicated in such activities, as it implies a deep seated institutional problem that was not related to front line service.
Cheers,
Sid.