'Too Many *Nice Nazi* Films Being Made' ?

Well what would happen to a German who objected against the handling of Jews? I doubt he would have been transfered to a more suitable location, shot and killed is probably the best bet.

As a matter of fact nothing happened to those refusing to take part in executions (see C. Browning). They were dismissed and did a different job. The excuse has however been brought up (after the war anyway) - yet it can probably be dismissed as defence in most cases.

As for examples of of such actions, the German speaking among you might want to check out W. Wette, Retter in Uniform. Handlungsspielräume im Vernichtungskrieg der Wehrmacht (2002) (reliable author).

 

As a matter of fact nothing happened to those refusing to take part in executions (see C. Browning). They were dismissed and did a different job. The excuse has however been brought up (after the war anyway) - yet it can probably be dismissed as defence in most cases.

As for examples of of such actions, the German speaking among you might want to check out W. Wette, Retter in Uniform. Handlungsspielräume im Vernichtungskrieg der Wehrmacht (2002) (reliable author).

Really? I've heard stories of soldiers on the front line being killed for disobeying. Can you provide some links?

And just to clarify, I can't speak for everyone else but I'm not saying the Jews and prisoners of war should be held accountable. I'm merely saying should the Germans who were facing similar conditions be dealt with in such a way?

 

Heimbrent

As for examples of of such actions, the German speaking among you might want to check out W. Wette, Retter in Uniform. Handlungsspielräume im Vernichtungskrieg der Wehrmacht (2002) (reliable author).


A review (in English) of Wette's book can be found here:
H-Net Reviews

 

Really? I've heard stories of soldiers on the front line being killed for disobeying. Can you provide some links?


I was speaking of executions - examples of this you should find in Browning's book (if I remember correctly that is, I read it a coupla years ago...)

As for being killed for disobeying orders, some difference should be made:

Whenever the discipline (Manneszucht) of the troop was at risk by whatever infraction a soldier committed, punishment was severe (see Kriegsgerichtsbarkeitserlass, 13.05.1941). Or, esp. in the case of the SS, when rules were broken. An SS man was executed because he was stealing from a comrade (his record as soldier was as good as can be, no other infractions, nothing).
Here's an extreme example of that (from the SS again, no, I don't love the bunch, but it's where I'm currently most up to date):
In Leleu, there's an example of a unit, where stealing wasn't all that uncommon (it was somewhere in '44 I believe, a considerable amount of the recruits weren't volunteers in the unit given). Now, instead of shooting them all, the "worst" was picked for execution - and those who were believed to be stealing too had to carry out the execution...
And (especially towards the end of the war) a lot of soldiers were sentenced to death for going awol - often they were executed in front of their unit. An SS commander of a unit (mostly non-German "volunteers") in the Ardennes claimed that if one of his soldiers only "turned his head" he'd shoot him (as the rate of soldier going awol was so high).

To back up what I said above (about not being punished for refusing to take part in executions), I'll give another example:
The SS had very strict rules about e.g. marriage and procreation. If you didn't follow those rules, it was likely that your career suffered. However, there was nothing the RFSS could really do about it...
Or, officers who (towards the end of 1944) showed defeatism - even in front of their unit) weren't even degraded! They were sent to a different unit but kept their rank (mostly due to lack of officers in the SS at that time).

This should point out that the circumstances should always be taken into consideration...

Hope that clears things up

(I can't provide links because I don't usually base research on internet sources but books... If you'd like to get more detailed reference, just shout )

 

Peter & Ron,
I honestly think you're selectively quoting Drgslyr and disregarding the rest of the post that places that "If someone adheres to that way of thinking" beginning of the second paragraph in it's proper context.
The post in it's entirety isn't anything more sinister than an enquiry about the rightness of mass condemnation of all German civilians that lived under the Nazis.
Adam

You say of me (and Ron) that you honestly think we're "...selectively quoting Drgslyr and disregarding the rest of the post. ...". I in turn cannot see how the phrase "The concentration camps would not have been operable without the assistance of the Jews." can be taken out of context. I honestly thought that it would help simply quoting it rather than giving the entire post. But if I have misunderstood posting etiquette, here is the full quote I was referring to
Of course people were aware of things that they wouldn't admit to, but what would anyone have to gain from admitting they knew anything - they would just be accused of collaboration for not taking a stand against the evils around them. I'm a firm believer, however, that knowing about an evil and not taking some form of action against it is not a form of collaboration or consent.

If someone adheres to that way of thinking then why weren't the Jews who worked in the concentration camps - sorting baggage, applying a trade or disposing of bodies - condemned as well? They were aware of the evil around them but continued to serve the Nazis to save themselves. The concentration camps would not have been operable without the assistance of the Jews.

Nobody condemns the Jews in that situation for assisting the Nazis, yet people outside the concentration camps were equally as impotent to do anything about the situation and they are almost unanimously condemned. One could argue that more Germans could have taken some form of action, but when the probable consequence of that action is a bullet through the head or internment in a concentration camp for yourself, how can the majority of those people be condemned for acting in a manner that would be the typical human response for a person put into that situation?

I'm not inferring that there weren't some despicable people who willingly collaborated with the worst of the Nazi party atrocities or who took advantage of others for personal gain, but I think the vast majority of Germans were - albiet quietly - opposed to the inhumanities that they are now condemned for actively propagating through inaction.
This quite simply happens to be wrong, regardless of who says it. The vast majority of Germans were not opposed to Nazi methods, a tiny minority were. There alway has been and always will be decent people everywhere, but to jump from that to believing that the majority wanted to speak out but were afraid of the Nazis is wrong. Anti-Semitism was rife in Germany Austria, Poland, and the Baltic States even before 1939. Pogroms were nothing new.

No one, so far as I am aware, was forced to take part in atrocities, if a German soldier didn't have the stomach for it his superiors were invariably understanding, even in the SS. There is extensive research on this.

I am probably one of the few in the forum who has lived under Nazi rule. When a massacre took place (and believe me shooting half a dozen civilians wasn't considered a 'massacre') the Germans themselves made sure that everyone knew to ensure its deterrent effect. In the following days one still saw German soldiers strolling around laughing and joking. It didn't seem to me that it worried them too much.

As for saying that the Germans could not have run the concentration camps without the Jews, that is plain nonsense. Usually the Capos were common German criminals, not Jews.

 

I'm aware of the fact that Drgslyr didn't yet have/take the chance to clear things but I'd like to make a few points anyway:

I think the discussion here about how much Jews "supported" Nazis (sounds perverted I know) is too much influenced by an ex post view.

First, I think someone who wasn't in a concentration or death camp can't comprehend what it meant being there... The question, why - apart from some exceptions - Jews didn't stand up and resist can't be answered fully. One can point out factors that played a role, the will of surviving just being one of them, but perhaps it was so extreme a situation that it simply can't be understood...

Second, there's a saying among historians that "the worst enemy of a historian is the contemporary". Being part of history doesn't mean you fully understand it just because you were there. That doesn't imply contemporaries' accounts are worthless or should be neglected. They simply offer a different approach, are helpful to understand things and broaden the picture by adding detail - but they're usually no big help uncovering the big plan.

Nothing of what I said above lessens the horror of what happened when the Nazis were in charge and I would go nowhere near excusing crimes committed in the Third Reich, no matter what they were (apart from that I do however reject Goldhagen's view of "eliminatory antisemitism" being part of German culture...).

(And for the sake of understanding history I think Drgslyr's question is justified - as long as it doesn't imply anything or even accuse Jews of being responsible for their death (which, I'd like to make that clear, I'd consider a grave error, to say the least).)