Eh, not really - one way or the other West Germany needed self-defence forces at a minimum, unless they managed to get 'Finlandised'.
Sounds rather like how the Austrians sidled out of the whole thing. 'No! We were occupied!'
Rearmament without the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht
- Thread starter Quintuplicate
- Start date
That was the direction the French were pushing. In the late 40s as the US began raising the idea of German re-armament, they instead floated the alternative idea of integrating German companies (possibly battalions at most) into the divisions of western Europe, in order to prevent the existence of an autonomous German military. This would later evolve into the concept of the European Defense Community. Unlike NATO, the EDC would have been a unified (well, kind of) European military, and it existed largely to permit the tapping of German resources and manpower without giving Germany their own army.
Last edited:
Not as much as it may appear. The reality is that the vast majority of the Wehrmact WAS clean. The KM (1.5M personnel) and Luftwaffe with 3.4 million personnel (with some exceptions, chiefly in the Paratroops and Armored divisions) very "clean", at least as clean for a war that area bombing and UUW was an accepted part of warfare. Even a large percentage of the Heer was no more complict in War Crimes than someone who built panzer engines. That was why the "clean Wehrmacht" myth was possible to begin with.
The leadership of the Bundeswehr was comprised of personnel that had been, according to the WAllies investigated and found to be "innocent" of war crimes (in many cases actually had been acquitted during War Crime Trials). Exactly how true that was is open to question (of course the same can be said for the "cleared" rocket scientists who were integral to the Apollo Program), but the fact that well know wartime figures (Gunther Räll, with his 275 air-to-air victories, being among them) helped the myth take shape. Still, that "clean bill of health" meant that it was entirely possible to acknowledge what had happened, take responsibility for it as a nation, and still have a military.
Last edited:
Here we go again. A command economy isn't laissez faire Capitalism. Central planning, wage & price controls, and all workers in a State controlled labor front aren't free market economics. The Nazis controlled where you went, and what you did on vacation, and had full control of the media, just like the Communists do. Just because the Nazis ran a managerial muddle, like the Communists doesn't mean anyone could ignore the State, without running the risk of ending up in a Concentration Camp. The appeal of the Nazis to the middle & upper classes was that they weren't going to steal their property, just tell them what to do with it. The Nazis wanted everyone to shut up, and follow orders, that's what Nazis do, just like Communists tell everyone to shut up and follow orders. The main difference is Nazis justify their control of everything by saying it's all for the defense of the Master Race, and Communists say it's for the victory of the Proletariat in the Class Struggle. Both believe it's all for your own good.
Falk
Banned
Oh c'mon, for most of the war the Wehrmacht perpetrated enormous amount of food theft in occupied countries. They gorged on stolen food while tens of millions starved to death.
Part of why the Nazi Party had such strength in Bavaria wasn't exactly because of its Catholic faith, but more so when far right paramilitaries were cracked down on in the Weimar Republic, Bavaria was able to shield them. Wiemar wasn't totally centralized, the German states had varying degrees of autonomy, somewhat like the contemporary United States. The government of Bavaria, from the 1920s to Hitler being appointed chancellor by Hindenburg, was highly tolerant of right wing fringe parties, meaning that the National Socialist Workers' Party could fester there without being constantly cracked down on. One of the Nazis biggest bastions of support was rural protestants who opposed the republic, at least according to Richard J. Evans's The Coming of the Third Reich.
November 1932 German federal election - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Nazi Party was formed in Munich, and it was always the spiritual capital of the movement. True practicing Catholics were always the strongest anti Nazi group, but the Nazis had strong support in South Germany. Munich was one of the few big cities with strong Nazi support.
Nazi Germany's economy wasn't as state lead as say the Soviet Union's. Nazi Germany had some socialistic tendencies, sure, such as paid leave or maximum work hours, but that doesn't exactly make them a socialist state, or Nazism a socialist ideology. Though Hitler had adopted the 25 Points in 1920 or so, much of it was abandoned to expand their electoral votes among the middle class, which helped lead to the split between Gregor Strasser as Strasser was much more willing to emphasis the Socialism in National Socialist whereas Hitler was more focused on the National aspect.
I recently learned that the Pz. IV was a commercial contract and the tanks came with warranty (was mentioned in a video of Nicolas Moran, Inside the Pz IV). Doesn't sound like something a communistic state would do.
Uh, if that is a socialistic tendency, then pretty much the whole world, except the US, is socialistic.
During the early 20th century, it was a major platform of the various socialist organizations at the time. Though it was passed in the United States by the 1930s, such policies were still very much the policies of the left. But that also feeds into my point that Nazism isn't inherently an economically left wing regime.
And burned towns, shot, and hanged hundreds of thousands of civilian hostages, helped deport millions of Jews to their deaths, and millions of civilians to slave labor in Germany. The record of the crimes of the Wehrmacht is hard to understate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht
Carrying out such policies as the Night & Fog Order, the Commissar Order, and the Commando Order were all criminal, even by German Law. In the war in the East few had clean hands.
Typical of the German Army propaganda was the following passage from a pamphlet issued in June 1941:
German Army propaganda often gave extracts in newsletters concerning the missions for German troops in the East:"It is necessary to eliminate the red sub-humans, along with their Kremlin dictators. German people will have a great task to perform the most in its history, and the world will hear more about that this task will be completed till the end.[27]
As a result of this sort of propaganda, the majority of the Wehrmacht Heer officers and soldiers tended to regard the war in Nazi terms, seeing their Soviet opponents as so much sub-human trash deserving to be trampled upon.[12] One German soldier wrote home to his father on 4 August 1941 that:
In 1945 millions of German Soldiers acted as if they had woken from a 12 year bad dream. Everyone was desperate to escape, moral, and legal responsibility by pointing to someone else. Pointing up, and saying "We only followed orders", was the most popular defense. "It was war, and terrible things happen in war." was another. When you dehumanize others any act of cruelty, and sadism is possible. The Racist, and lawless mindset of the Wehrmacht leadership trickled down to the rank & file soldier, making unlimited evil possible, and destroyed the humanity of millions of normal human beings. The moral destruction of Germany was one of Hitler's greatest crimes.
I never said practicing Catholics supported the Nazis, I said the opposite. In Germany then, and America today practicing Catholics tend to vote on moral issues. All modern nations have degrees of socialist polices, such as social welfare benefits, and economic regulations. However if a total Command Economy isn't Socialism then the word has no real meaning. None of the economies of Europe today have anywhere near the degree of State Control Nazi Germany had. If the distinction is the narrow focus on the ownership of the means of production then you have a difference without a distinction. Or is it a distinction without a difference? It's still State control of the economy. An old friend of mine used to say. "In Capitalism man exploits man, in Communism it's the other way around."
In a Communist State someone delivering defective tanks might be shot, and then the tanks repaired at government expense. In Nazi Germany someone might be sent to a Concentration Camp, and the tanks fixed at company expense. Having defense contracts, with warranties doesn't indicate anything. Design bureaus in the Soviet Union were paid by the State to produce weapons, and make repairs to them. The only difference was no one in the Soviet Union was a stock holder, earning dividends. The USA has many Socialistic policies in place, and has for at least 85 years.
If they were laissez-faire capitalists they wouldn't have wage controls, price controls, quotas and heavy regulations. 19th century US and GB were close to that but Nazi Germany sure the hell wasn't.
Nazi Germany engaged in large scale expropriation of property without compensation, had a corporatist trade union and industrial structure, nationalized a great deal of transit and ran a good deal of steel and wartime raw materials through Reichswerke Hermann Goring. It was not laissez faire capitalism. It also wasn't Communism or industrial socialism. It became more socialistic by the end of the war due to necessity, but it never renounced private property, for example.
It is notable that the Nazi regime didn't rely on the votes of the urban working class pre takeover. It did need the votes of the rural working classes, however. It became more popular with the working class based on what we know from contemporary diaries and clandestine opinion monitoring, both by the regime itself (which wanted to know the truth for nefarious purposes) and by outside intelligence agencies (French and Soviet archives).
This shift was after the takeover and mostly because of the reduction in unemployment (this group never voted for the Nazis pre takeover) as well as some degree of material improvement over the 30s. It also was because of the closure of non Nazi sources of opinion and the end of SPD and KPD social organizations and unions. By the end of the regime, working class trust in Hitler was higher than upper class trust was.
It is notable that the Nazi regime didn't rely on the votes of the urban working class pre takeover. It did need the votes of the rural working classes, however. It became more popular with the working class based on what we know from contemporary diaries and clandestine opinion monitoring, both by the regime itself (which wanted to know the truth for nefarious purposes) and by outside intelligence agencies (French and Soviet archives).
This shift was after the takeover and mostly because of the reduction in unemployment (this group never voted for the Nazis pre takeover) as well as some degree of material improvement over the 30s. It also was because of the closure of non Nazi sources of opinion and the end of SPD and KPD social organizations and unions. By the end of the regime, working class trust in Hitler was higher than upper class trust was.
I think that you could be confusing 'socialist tendencies' with the Nazi Regime 'welfare/demagogic' politics that, of course, were intended only for a selected part of the German population: the Regime 'loyal citizens'.
I am sorry, but what kind of utter nonsense is this? Every (or near everyone) on the ground in the east knew what wen't on. All knew the Commisar Order. All knew (were periodically reminded, even) to show no "miguided" compassion to the native inhabitants and steal their food. Rape was so extremly common the authorities struggles massivly against it. Volunteers for support of the Einsatzgruppen were never an issue. And absolutly everyone knew what was happening to Jews.
If a Jewish child was killed in front of you, while your comrades raped an ukranian woman and you ate her last food, you were "complicit in war crimes", and this was absolutly an experience the vast majority of german soldiers participated in, saw, or, at the very least, heard from sources they trusted.
I am fucking speecheless to see such blatant nazi apologia from a mod.
Agreed, in part. Knowing what was happening is different from taking part, if that is the standard then the entire WAllied Leadership should have gone to the gallows simply for not dedicating every effort to destroy the Camps. Knowing is not a war crime, taking part is. You may have failed to note my comments regarding rape in earlier postings.
Taking of food, especially in the East, was a serious offense, less so in the West/Italy/North Africa. It should, however, be noted, that WAllied personnel were far from pure on this issue. If an egg survived the arrival of any Allied infantry unit it was a miracle of the 2nd Order. Chickens, pigs and cattle were also regularly turned into meals by WAllied forces, sometimes they even paid for them, although the owner may have preferred to retain the animal. Soldiers eat. Full Stop. If there is enough food for a soldier or a civilian it is the rare human, regardless of nationality, who will starve while allowing an absolute stranger to eat. They drink too, pillaging of liquor was rampant to the point that the main concern of the officers was that they got the "good stuff". Western personnel were, in general, kept under vastly better control than German forces (or Soviet/Japanese personnel for that matter) and, overall, had a much better supply system that reduced the urgency to pillage.
This being said, even if one stretches the definition of war criminal to include anyone who didn't intervene with lethal force to prevent looting or pillaging that leaves at least half of the total Wehrmacht out. Luftwaffe units, excepting, as noted earlier, the ground components, had little opportunity and even less need to loot/pillage. Those personnel who served their entire war in Germany (including the huge number of AAA gun crews and ground crews responsible for keeping the Luftwaffe fighters in the air against the CBO, had virtually no opportunity. U-boat crews, and the rest of the KM served mainly in the West, like their Luftwaffe counterparts their food supply was never in much doubt. War crimes were far from common by Heer personnel in the West, not unheard of by any means, but uncommon (eggs were, however, commonly stolen, as was milk, often straight from the tap).
I will happily compare my long posting history here regarding war crimes, the depravity of the Reich, the utter evil the Nazis inflicted on this Earth, and inexplicable willingness of "ordinary Germans" to take part in heinous acts in support of the Nazi government. That, however, does not mean that I am incapable of discerning the difference between a Luftwaffe mechanic who spent the entire war changing the oil on Fw-200s flying out of northern Norway and members of the SS.
Unsurprisingly, given the question under discussion of the "clean Wehrmacht" and how it was possible for it to have begun, and be accepted, it is necessary to acknowledge that every Wehrmacht conscript was not a Gobbles in waiting. Without that degree of discernment it is impossible to even begin the discussion.
Last edited: