Wehrmacht and SS-Einsatzgruppen tensions

jonniebgood1

How were relations between the ordinary German soldiers and the ordinary members of the einsatzgruppen. I have read recently that the wehrmacht soldiers in some cases resented the relative comfort that the SS-Einsatzgruppen soldier had. This was specifically in relation to the kovno area in Lithuania. The einsatzgruppen did not have to endure the conditions on the front line and were usually posted well behind the front. A similar situation is referenced here in a book summary

There was tension between the German army and the SS-Einsatzgruppen, at high levels and lower levels, especially early on. At high levels, the leaders of the Wehrmacht believed that the strategy of mass-murdering Jews in their towns and cities was ill-advised, especially in terms of world public opinion. At lower levels, the German soldiers of the Wehrmacht, who were of course risking their lives to serve their country, were resentful of the SS-Einsatzgruppen members who fancied themselves soldiers but spent their days risklessly murdering unarmed, defenseless civilians. http://open.salon.com/blog/ranjit_souri/2010/04/12/post_not_ready_still_working_on_photos

Was this common? I thought they worked in unison so how widespread was this tye of feeling and did any hostilities arise from it? Does'nt seem to be much info on this.
Does anyone have any further information or sources on this?

Morlar

Kind of reads like an excuse for an Einsatsgruppen thread. Based on a comment in a website review of a book ?

berettaman

You should read Rupert Butlers book the black angels-the story of the waffen SS. It speaks of tensions between the wehrmacht and the SS at practically all levels above NCO. There were various gripes about pensions and conditions..I.E theregular army were being paid more! It also seeks to distinguish between the scumbags that over saw the death camps and the guys in the panzer divisions that were in the teeth of the fighting. A good read although it doesn't cover the concentration camps in detail (done elswhere anyway) but focuses on their actual combat record and the interaction of Himmler with the Wehrmacht..The Erickson guy that did the road to stalingrad is supposed to be doing a book on exactly how much the Higher Wehrmacht knew about what the Einsatzgruppen were up to. Should be good. Hard to accept that top Generals were too busy fighting Russians (and each other in terms of rivalry)not to know what was going on..

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Kind of reads like an excuse for an Einsatsgruppen thread. Based on a comment in a website review of a book ?

Why would an excuse be needed for discussing einsatzgruppen in a WWII forum? It is based on a passage in 'forged in fury' by Michael Elkins by the way, the review quoted was supplementary. You should engage positively in the conversation, it could be an interesting subject.

berettaman wrote: »

You should read Rupert Butlers book the black angels-the story of the waffen SS. It speaks of tensions between the wehrmacht and the SS at practically all levels above NCO. There were various gripes about pensions and conditions..I.E theregular army were being paid more! It also seeks to distinguish between the scumbags that over saw the death camps and the guys in the panzer divisions that were in the teeth of the fighting. A good read although it doesn't cover the concentration camps in detail (done elswhere anyway) but focuses on their actual combat record and the interaction of Himmler with the Wehrmacht..The Erickson guy that did the road to stalingrad is supposed to be doing a book on exactly how much the Higher Wehrmacht knew about what the Einsatzgruppen were up to. Should be good. Hard to accept that top Generals were too busy fighting Russians (and each other in terms of rivalry)not to know what was going on..

Thanks for the book link, I would have presumed that the SS were paid more as an 'elite' force so find that surprising. Looking into Himmlers relationship with the Wehrmacht will be a good starting point, what did they think of him I wonder.
How did the ordinary soldiers relationship develop with their SS counterparts as the war situation worsened in the east? As part of the eastern warfare information is more difficult to find on this.

marcsignal

The resentment went both ways.

Initially the Wehrmacht looked down on the SS as 'Asphalt Soldiers' (only impressive on the parade ground).
The SS were also issued with out dated weapons at the beginning, and expected to do the same job.

Waffen SS soldier armed with an out dated Erma MP 28E


Erma MP 28E

chicken and egg situation imo.

Morlar

marcsignal wrote: »

The resentment went both ways.

Initially the Wehrmacht looked down on the SS as 'Asphalt Soldiers' (only impressive on the parade ground).
The SS were also issued with out dated weapons at the beginning, and expected to do the same job.

chicken and egg situation imo.

I think there is an important distinction to be made between

a)
the multiple front line combat SS divisions
&
b)
the tiny percentile of SS who were in einsatzgruppen, rearguard anti-partisan & civilian 'resettlement' units.

Resentment did exsist, however the frontline SS combat divisions saved the wehrmacht on so many occassions in time the 'resentment' faded away and basically amounted to nothing.

There was also resentment between Wehrmacht and Feldgendarmerie, (leading to formation of Jager Feldgendarmerie units), also Postal units, supply and so on. In fact artillery units within wehrmacht were also the source of friction, however they also saved the infantry on so many occassions it was really a non factor. I think the phrase eventually was 'infantry's best friend'.

I have also read in unit histories of 'resentments'/Friction between different regiments of the same combat division, different divisions within the same kampfgruppe/sector and so on. It is to be expected and in reality is of not much consequence to the scheme of things. As I said, the whole thing reads like an excuse for starting an einstazgruppen thread imo.

Stovepipe

the soldier in the picture is not armed with a German weapon, rather a PPD-41, which was the forerunner to the famous PPsh-41.
regards
Stovepipe

jonniebgood1

The period relating to Kovno was the beginning of Barbarossa. The advance of the front was rapid. The Osprey publishing warrior set 'German infantryman (2) Eastern front (1941-43) suggests that most of the infantry troops complained bitterly about the amount of marching they had to do at this time. Would the einsatzgruppen have been a mechanised division? If the marching was as torcherous as described it would make it easy to resent a section of men who did not have to march. From this set a soldier is credited with this description

Nobody can convince me that any non-infantryman can imagine what is taking place here. Think of the most brutal exhaustion you have ever experienced, direct burning sunlight, weeping sores on your feet - and you have my condition not at the end but at the beginning of a 45km march. It takes hours before your feet become insensitive to the painful wounds at each step on these roads which are either gravel or sand at the edges. (pg13)

marcsignal

Stovepipe wrote: »

the soldier in the picture is not armed with a German weapon, rather a PPD-41, which was the forerunner to the famous PPsh-41.
regards
Stovepipe

You're right! Well spotted Stovepipe
I'd just googled the Erma, and that pic was there. I didn't notice myself.

Reekwind

From what I've read the distinctions between the Wehrmacht and Einsatzgruppen can be greatly exaggerated. There may have been some operational tensions, of the sort that you get between any organisations, but both were actively involved in various atrocities and extermination campaigns. For example, even if "the leaders of the Wehrmacht believed that the strategy of mass-murdering Jews in their towns and cities was ill-advised", that didn't stop them from swinging behind genocidal measures like the Hunger Plan or the deliberate starvation of Soviet POWs

I don't have it on hand but Mark Mazower's Hitler's Empire does go some way towards exploding the myth of the 'fighting Wehrmacht' and the 'genocidal SS/Einsatzgruppen'. I'm trying to remember what other works have dealt this, Tooze's Wages of Destruction, perhaps?

jonniebgood1

marcsignal wrote: »

The resentment went both ways.

Initially the Wehrmacht looked down on the SS as 'Asphalt Soldiers' (only impressive on the parade ground).
The SS were also issued with out dated weapons at the beginning, and expected to do the same job.

Were all SS known as 'Ashphalt men or just a certain group of them?

After 1929 the SS began to expand rapidly, and standards in personnel unsurprisingly began to lower. This slide was arrested early in in 1933 after Hitler had been elected Chancellor of Germany, when a review was carried out on all existing members. The political changes also led Hitler to call for the creation of a dedicated guard formation from the ranks of the SS, and instructed one of his oldest colleagues, First World War veteran Josef "Sepp" Dietrich, to set the wheels in motion. Dietrich quickly set about selecting a group of men applying rigorous standards, and by the spring of 1933 had established the SS-Stabswache Berlin, consisting of 117 men. The primary role of this new Stabswache was the guarding of the Reich Chancellery, and as a result they were quickly given the nickname "asphalt soldiers". Of course, none of the unit's detractors would have known that of these initial 117 men, over sixty were to become company commanders or above, with three becoming divisional commanders. http://en.specwar.info/special_forces/Waffen-SS/history.php

I have read elsewhere that the SS were known as Asphalt men due to their uniforms colour and training.

citizen_p

The waffen ss didn't perform well in the Invasion of Poland (this was the SS-VT technically, precursor to the Waffen SS), well not as well as their wehrmacht counterparts and were seen as somwhat reckless, this soon changed with the invasion of france and future campaigns after they were reorganized...

jonniebgood1

I've come across an early example from 'Hitler's death squads: the logic of mass murder' by Helmut Langerbein (pg26)



This is an incident that was earlier in the war than refered in OP. For clarity the initial query is in relation particularly to the einsatzgruppen/ wehrmacht relationship, of course this may include SS leaders and SS in general as the relationship was complex and changing from the early 1930's till the end of the war.

marcsignal

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Were all SS known as 'Ashphalt men or just a certain group of them? I have read elsewhere that the SS were known as Asphalt men due to their uniforms colour and training.

I understand it was initially a 'marketing term' if you want to call it that, to promote the Leibstandarte SS, but from what I learned, Wehrmacht soldiers used it as a lightly scarstic term, for men they didn't consider regular soldiers, but rather political ones.

Mouseys point about their wrecklessness in Poland was also a part of this. The Wehrmacht considered the SS casualties, were down to lack of professionalism. The idea/cult of the suicidal SS warrior was a new concept, and not fully comprehended by regular troops.

Stovepipe

Hi there
I have read accounts where the SS, such as Totenkopf, while praised by the Wehrmacht for their dogged bravery, were reckless and wasteful of their own mens' lives in action in Poland and France.
I can't remember the name of a recent book about the Wehrmacht in Poland but Leni Reifenstal is pictured in it, crying at the sight of civilians being shot by Wehrmacht within hours of the first assault. She had been tasked with filming the attack and stopped when she saw the killing of civilians.
regards
Stovepipe

berettaman

Great thread. Some many interesting tangents. Where do I start? Himmler was a supposed to be a complete crank herbalist. SS recruits led a very spartan existence, breakfast (was porridge and mineral water, himmlers idea) lots of drill, weapons/tactics training and docterine.In the early days they had to be at least 1.7 metres tall and have no fillings in their teeth! Recruits were urged by Himmler to revel in their godlessness as to believe in the bible was deemed "too Jewish"?!. As the war went on it was all about resouces and each arm of the german military were fighting for men and materiel. Interestingly the SS formed the viking division from scandanavian recruits and it had a muslim division in the balkans. go figure
The liebstandarte, germania and gross deutschland divisions did the bulk of the fighting and won the respect of the wehrmmacht as the war wore on for their tenacity and bravery. Interesting Rupert Butlers book sites many SS verterans expressing admiration for the ANZAC trpoops it encountered during the war on the Greece penninsula(I think). They felt they matched them for physical fitness/bravery and unwillingness to take a backward step. B

BlaasForRafa

berettaman wrote: »

The liebstandarte, germania and gross deutschland divisions did the bulk of the fighting and won the respect of the wehrmmacht as the war wore on for their tenacity and bravery. Interesting Rupert Butlers book sites many SS verterans expressing admiration for the ANZAC trpoops it encountered during the war on the Greece penninsula(I think). They felt they matched them for physical fitness/bravery and unwillingness to take a backward step. B

Grossdeutschland was a Heer division. It often gets lumped in with the Waffen SS as it fought with the Liebstandarte, Das Reich and Totenkopf at the 3rd battle of Kharkov and on the same front of the battle of kursk.

Reekwind

Got hold of Mazower's work. Quoting him:

"Neither soldiers nor SS men had waited for [draconian] orders and from 2 September onwards, Polish citizens of all ages fell victim to frontline troops, at times carrying out reprisals for 'partisan' attacks, at others merely murdering at random"

So from the very beginning of the occupation of Poland the Wehrmact was involved in war crimes. It took a brief while for some officers to adjust to this reality but those arrested for such crimes - military or SS - were either released or given lenient sentences. The Wehrmacht would continue to carry out vicious anti-partisan campaigns, relying heavily on collective punishment, and two years later OKW had come so far as to declare that "the struggle against Bolshevism requires a ruthless and energetic assault above all against the Jews, the main carriers of Bolshevism" (September 1941, Mazower)

So any friction between the Wehrmacht and SS was more a matter of politicking than any real moral differences. Both were, institutionally at least, fully signed up to a vicious war of annihilation in the East

Morlar

Reekwind wrote: »

Got hold of Mazower's work. Quoting him:

"Neither soldiers nor SS men had waited for [draconian] orders and from 2 September onwards, Polish citizens of all ages fell victim to frontline troops, at times carrying out reprisals for 'partisan' attacks, at others merely murdering at random"

Firstly, SS men were soldiers.

If he is distinguishing between Wehrmacht and Waffen SS frontline combat troops he is using either loaded or incorrect terminology.

Also, could he be less specific ?

Who exactly did the wehrmacht kill from sept 2 1939 'onwards' ?

What were the circumstances ? Are you taking isolated examples to condemn an entire army of conscripted landser ? Is this how we should also treat the British or American armies ?

You are aware that the invading German army came across multiple instances of mass murder of defenceless ethhic Germans ?

Do you mean killings in retaliation or in cold blood ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_%281939%29

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau investigation in 1939–1940 concluded that the events were a result of panic and confusion among the Polish troops.[14] The Wehrmacht investigation included the interrogation of captive Polish soldiers, ethnic Germans from Bydgoszcz and surrounding villages, and Polish civilians. The bodies of the victims were exhumed and the cause of death and the possible involvement of military rifles was assessed.[15] According to this investigation, a squad of Polish soldiers was sent in to clarify the situation after hearing shots being fired within the city.[citation needed] Uniformed Polish soldiers, assisted by the local Polish population, were led to houses from which shots were allegedly heard.[citation needed] In households where weapons were found, people were subject to summary executions and other atrocities.[citation needed] To a significant extent, those conclusions are repeated in post-war German historiography.[citation needed]
[edit] German reprisals and further atrocities
Polish hostages including a priest awaiting execution in Bydgoszcz. September 1939

The killings were followed by German reprisals and oppression, including a "de-Polonisation" campaign.[4][11] In an act of retaliation for the killings on Bloody Sunday, a number of Polish civilians were executed by German military units of the Einsatzgruppen, Waffen SS, and Wehrmacht.[16] According to German historian Christian Raitz von Frentz, 876 Poles were tried by German tribunal for involvement in the events of Bloody Sunday before the end of 1939. 87 men and 13 women were sentenced without the right to appeal.[4] Polish historian Czesław Madajczyk notes 120 executions in relation to Bloody Sunday, and the execution of 20 hostages after a German soldier was allegedly attacked by a Polish sniper.[4][17]

I think with sweeping statements like that detail and context can be everything.

I would also point out that from immediately after D-day American troops raped approx 3,500 women. Could the equivalent sweeping statement be just as easily made that 'the US army were complicit in massive warcrimes against the civilian population from d-day +1'.

Whatever standard you are applying to condemn the Wehrmacht should apply elsewhere too, or not at all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8084210.stm

In his book, Mr Hitchcock raises another issue that rarely features in euphoric folk-memories of liberation: Allied looting, and worse.

"The theft and looting of Normandy households and farmsteads by liberating soldiers began on June 6 and never stopped during the entire summer," he writes.

One woman - from the town of Colombieres - is quoted as saying that "the enthusiasm for the liberators is diminishing. They are looting... everything, and going into houses everywhere on the pretext of looking for Germans."

Even more feared, of course, was the crime of rape - and here too the true picture has arguably been expunged from popular memory.

According to American historian J Robert Lilly, there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war.

"The evidence shows that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common," writes Mr Hitchcock.

"It also shows that black soldiers convicted of such awful acts received very severe punishments, while white soldiers received lighter sentences."

Of 29 soldiers executed for rape by the US military authorities, 25 were black - though African-Americans did not represent nearly so high a proportion of convictions.

Reekwind

jonniebgood1 wrote:

I've come across an early example from 'Hitler's death squads: the logic of mass murder' by Helmut Langerbein

From The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality:

"[Blaskowitz's] objections, however, seem to have been based not so much on fundamental moral concerns as on pragmatic and tactical considerations. Blaskowitz thought that 'slaughtering' ten thousand Jews and Poles in mass shootings was inefficient and would also have an adverse effect on discipline among his troops"

Morlar wrote: »

Firstly, SS men were soldiers

Arguably they should be categorised as 'paramilitaries' but frankly I'm not interested in splitting hairs. The distinction is both obvious and, given the shared responsibility for the atrocities, fairly irrelevant

Also, could he be less specific ?

Yes. Mazower himself gives Zlocew, the execution of twenty Polish "so-called criminals", the deaths of 50 Jews, the massacres at Bydgoszcz, etc, as examples. Excuse me if I'm not keen enough to type out a few pages of text

Who exactly did the wehrmacht kill from sept 2 1939 'onwards' ?

Are you seriously denying that Wehrmacht personnel were involved in the deaths of numerous Polish civilians throughout the war? That is simplt perverse. Not only did its troops commit war crimes against the civilian population - Polish and Jewish - but they also facilitated those of the SS. It was the army that turned its prisoners over to SS death squads at Bydgoszcz and the army was entirely aware of the systematic system of racial liquidation that the SS units, which were technically under Wehrmacht jurisdiction, was putting into practice.

Are you taking isolated examples to condemn an entire army of conscripted landser ?

Armies are institutions. If the Wehrmacht had taken prompt action to discipline its soldiers and put procedures in place to ensure that there was no repeat of them, well, then that would be different. But it didn't. Despite the protestations of some officers, which were not supported in any real way by their superiors, the Wehrmacht reconciled itself to 'outrages' against civilians and went on to commit atrocity after atrocity later in the war. Which entirely undermines the myth that the Wehrmacht was somehow isolated from or immune to the Nazi state's genocidal campaign of extermination

To quote Westermann (in The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies)

"...Rossino i]Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology, and Atrocity[/i outlined the German preparations for a premeditated Volkstumskampf against the Polish people. This ethnic battle involved mass murder by Wehrmacht and SS forces, and their joint enforcement of draconian reprisal policies, the brutal treatment of Polish civilians and the ghettoisation and deportation of Jews. The initiation of severe reprisals against the Polish population by the German army set an ominous precedent and became 'a critical component of the racial-ideological warfare waged by the Third Reich'"

You are aware that the invading German army came across multiple instances of mass murder of defenceless ethhic Germans ?

Yes. I don't see how this excuses the crimes of the Wehrmacht. The Nazis understood this of course, and the murder of 50 Jews in Sept 1939 was largely excused by the courts on the basis that "because of the numerous atrocities committed by the Poles against ethnic Germans, [the perpetrators] were in a state of irritability" (quoted in Mazower). Personally however I don't believe that 'race war' is an adequate excuse for murdering civilians

Do you mean killings in retaliation or in cold blood ?

Nor do I believe that collective punishment against civilian populations is in any way acceptable

I think with sweeping statements like that detail and context can be everything

The detail is that many hundreds, if not thousands, of Polish and Jewish civilians were murdered by Wehrmacht soldiers in the first weeks of the occupation. You can put context to this if you want but it does not excuse it

I would also point out that from immediately after D-day American troops raped approx 3,500 women. Could the equivalent sweeping statement be just as easily made that 'the US army were complicit in massive warcrimes against the civilian population from d-day +1'.

You could say that, if you wanted to entirely ignore the "detail and context". Anyone who seriously compares the Nazi occupation of Poland to the Liberation, or contends that the crimes of the Wehrmacht are somehow acceptable, is either ignorant or a Nazi apologist

But perhaps you have an example of US or British soldiers murdering hundreds of POWs?

Morlar

Reekwind wrote: »

From The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality:

"[Blaskowitz's] objections, however, seem to have been based not so much on fundamental moral concerns as on pragmatic and tactical considerations. Blaskowitz thought that 'slaughtering'

ten thousand Jews and Poles in mass shootings was inefficient and would also have an adverse effect on discipline among his troops"

You are quoting from an utterly flawed book that has not surprisingly come up before :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59184294&postcount=83

Morlar wrote: »

As an aside I am in the middle of reading a really really shoddy book

http://www.amazon.com/Wehrmacht-History-Myth-Reality/dp/0674025776/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235583775&sr=8-1

To give you an idea of how terrible and onesided the book is here is a snip of a couple of reviews :

"The book is a polemic with carefully cherry-picked facts and contradictory evidence omitted to arrive at the author's conclusion that "... only those few resistance fighters in the Wehrmacht who protested against extermination (of the Jews) in one way or another deserve our respect." (page 296) "

"Wolfram Wette's book, "The Wehrmacht", is an attempt to take a simple question (Were all members of the Wehrmacht guilty of war crimes under international law?) and assert a simple answer

(Yes. All but a dozen of the claimed 20 million members of the Wehrmacht were guilty of war crimes.). "

In all honesty its a terrible book so far but the reason I mention it is because the author began work on it after seeing a photo exhibition which ran for a limited time and showed a series of approx 90 pictures of atrocities commited by the wehrmacht. I could not find it online anywhere (working properly) but there are plenty of those photos out there alright.

Anyway the exhibition was called "War of Extermination: The Crimes of the Wehrmacht 1941-1944" touring exhibition Hamburg institute for Social Research. You can read more about it on page Vii here if your interested :

http://books.google.ie/books?id=VMqpuY24EkoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59565121&postcount=88

Morlar wrote: »

.. - I meant a terribly badly put together book. This was why I included excerpts of 2 seperate but indicative reviews I wish I had read before I bought it :

.....

I dont have it to hand but I can remember reading sentences over and over again trying to make sure I had read it right. The conclusions are very flimsy. The author takes every opportunity to portray the Wehrmacht as almost universally bad in terms of their moral outlook. It is not just wW2 either but WW1 too.

In terms of ww2 to put it bluntly the author seems to assert that the absence of proof proves only how efficient the cover-up must have been and how widespread was the complicity in warcrimes.

Another point which I did not know when I wrote the above post was that the author wrote the book after visiting the exhibition, however the exhibition (of atrocity photos) was later withdrawn. Something the author neglects to mention.

The reason it was withdrawn was because it was discovered that many photos of atrocities labelled as 'Wehrmacht warcrimes' were in fact bolshevik/Soviet NKVD or mis-identified latvian/lithuanian etc. The people who put the exhibition together may have been a little over-zealous in my view. Pictures were removed from the exhibition and it was re-launched. That would be just one criticism of the book. Dont take my word for it - if you read it you might agree just how shabbily put together it is. Then again you may not - in my view it is shockingly bad in terms of how un-balanced and biased it is. It is a book with an extremely unbalanced agenda using the flimsiest of pieces of information thrown together to paint a wholly bad picture of an entire army.

Reekwind wrote: »

Arguably they should be categorised as 'paramilitaries' but frankly I'm not interested in splitting hairs. The distinction is both obvious and, given the shared responsibility for the atrocities, fairly irrelevant

Statements such as those do nothing for your credibility whatsoever.

The 40 or so SS Frontline combat divisions were comprised of Soldiers.

Attempting to portray them as less than soldiers / paramilitaries is categorically factually incorrect. It's attempt to delegitimise their military record, which is considerable. I take it you read the earlier post re the difference between :

Morlar wrote: »

I think there is an important distinction to be made between

a)
the multiple front line combat SS divisions
&
b)
the tiny percentile of SS who were in einsatzgruppen, rearguard anti-partisan & civilian 'resettlement' units.

I will say it again - this is an important distinction. Trying to blur the lines between those seperate elements is misleading.

This is a WW2 history forum, being accurate in terminology or at least attempting accuracy is expected. Your statement above that the frontline combat SS divisions were 'not soldiers', is either based on a very shallow knowledge of this field of study, or it is a political/ideological viewpoint masquerading as neutral WW2 historiography.

Reekwind wrote: »

Yes. Mazower himself gives Zlocew, the execution of twenty Polish "so-called criminals", the deaths of 50 Jews, the massacres at Bydgoszcz, etc, as examples. Excuse me if I'm not keen enough to type out a few pages of text

Which massacres at Bydgoszcz ? The massacre of ethnic Germans as part of widespread atrocities ? Or, the reprisals against Poles for those atrocities ?
Intentionally omitting relevant contextual details, because they undermine the point an author is trying to make, is misleading.

Reekwind wrote: »

Are you seriously denying that Wehrmacht personnel were involved in the deaths of numerous Polish civilians throughout the war? That is simplt perverse. Not only did its troops commit war crimes against the civilian population - Polish and Jewish - but they also facilitated those of the SS.

This is quite typical of your discussion level, accuse the person with whom you are discussing of saying something which they have not said. It is tiresome, weak & not very convincing.

The Wehrmacht is a distinct organisation to the SS. No one has denied warcimes were committed on all sides. However trying to condemn a 20,000,000 strong army on the basis of handfuls of examples, some of which are retalliatory in aspect is simply incorrect.

Reekwind wrote: »

It was the army that turned its prisoners over to SS death squads at Bydgoszcz and the army was entirely aware of the systematic system of racial liquidation that the SS units, which were technically under Wehrmacht jurisdiction, was putting into practice.

Perhaps you can clarify if you are referring in this part here to SS-Einsatzgruppen and not Waffen SS ? The level of awareness among Wehrmacht leadership, officers and men of the specific details of SS-Einsatzgruppen activities is a complex area (much like the organisational and leadership structure of the SS or the Police). It is not an area you can accurately cover in one-liners such as that.

Reekwind wrote: »

Armies are institutions. If the Wehrmacht had taken prompt action to discipline its soldiers and put procedures in place to ensure that there was no repeat of them, well, then that would be different. But it didn't. Despite the protestations of some officers, which were not supported in any real way by their superiors, the Wehrmacht reconciled itself to 'outrages' against civilians and went on to commit atrocity after atrocity later in the war. Which entirely undermines the myth that the Wehrmacht was somehow isolated from or immune to the Nazi state's genocidal campaign of extermination

You might be surprised to learn that not just the Wehrmacht but the Waffen SS disciplined soldiers throughout the entirety of the war.

Reekwind wrote: »

To quote Westermann (in The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies)

"...Rossino i]Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology, and Atrocity[/i outlined the German preparations for a premeditated Volkstumskampf against the Polish people. This ethnic battle involved mass murder by Wehrmacht and SS forces, and their joint enforcement of draconian reprisal policies, the brutal treatment of Polish civilians and the ghettoisation and deportation of Jews. The initiation of severe reprisals against the Polish population by the German army set an ominous precedent and became 'a critical component of the racial-ideological warfare waged by the Third Reich'"

You are aware you are quoting one historian, who is in turn quoting another historian ? There is no evidence present in those conclusions. Merely the use of one conclusion to support another.

There were often draconian reprisal policies, Civilians were at times treated with great brutality (as they were under red army occupation also), there was ghettoisation and deporation of jews (as there also was of ethnic Germans). These facts are seperate to the conclusions you are drawing about the organisational character of the wehrmacht.

Reekwind wrote: »

Yes. I don't see how this excuses the crimes of the Wehrmacht. The Nazis understood this of course, and the murder of 50 Jews in Sept 1939 was largely excused by the courts on the basis that "because of the numerous atrocities committed by the Poles against ethnic Germans, [the perpetrators] were in a state of irritability" (quoted in Mazower).

No one has said that the retalliatory nature of an action excuses the action, in terms of taking an ideologically neutral approach it is important not to leave out the relevant context in presenting such information.

Reekwind wrote: »

Nor do I believe that collective punishment against civilian populations is in any way acceptable

Nor do I. Particularly where the civilian population are actually entirely innocent. I would also apply this to the ethnic Germans who were massacred during and after the 2nd World War. Including the millions of missing ethnic Germans (3m as of Govt Study 1953).

Reekwind wrote: »

The detail is that many hundreds, if not thousands, of Polish and Jewish civilians were murdered by Wehrmacht soldiers in the first weeks of the occupation. You can put context to this if you want but it does not excuse it

I would be interested in the breakdown of how many, when and where. Rather than one liners such as 'hundreds if not thousands'.

I would also be interested in determining who the guilty parties were and what was the context. There are also warcrimes in the modern context, (not to mention the other armies of WW2). The fact that warcrimes exsist does not prove top-down, comprehensive, organisational support for warcrimes.

Reekwind wrote: »

You could say that, if you wanted to entirely ignore the "detail and context". Anyone who seriously compares the Nazi occupation of Poland to the Liberation, or contends that the crimes of the Wehrmacht are somehow acceptable, is either ignorant or a Nazi apologist

No one has compared Poland to D-Day. What was compared were the standards you are using to condemn an organisation, and whether or not you applied those standards equally to all sides or just the German side.

Reekwind wrote: »

But perhaps you have an example of US or British soldiers murdering hundreds of POWs?

What would that have to do with anything ? For the record however they did, most famously at Dachau where wounded SS combat veterans were taken outside, lined up and machine gunned. The men who did that were never punished (being on the winning side), this does not however prove a comprehensive top-down policy of warcrimes in that case either.

Reekwind

Morlar wrote: »

The 40 or so SS Frontline combat divisions were comprised of Soldiers

I love that logic. We can call these men soldiers because they were Soldiers. Perfect :rolleyes:

SS members, regardless of whether they served in combat divisions or not, fell under the authority of the Reichsführer. That is, they were outside of the traditional army structures

Which massacres at Bydgoszcz ?

This is going to be painful

What massacres at Bydgoszcz were the Wehrmacht involved in? I know that you like 'precision' but I expect you to apply some basic thought to my posts. Or perhaps this is a luxury on "WW2 history forum"?

This is quite typical of your discussion level, accuse the person with whom you are discussing of saying something which they have not said. It is tiresome, weak & not very convincing

Well then you tell me, "who exactly did the wehrmacht kill from sept 2 1939 'onwards'"? Do you accept that there were thousands of Polish civilians amongst this?

Perhaps you can clarify if you are referring in this part here to SS-Einsatzgruppen and not Waffen SS ? The level of awareness among Wehrmacht leadership, officers and men of the specific details of SS-Einsatzgruppen activities is a complex area (much like the organisational and leadership structure of the SS or the Police). It is not an area you can accurately cover in one-liners such as that.

The activities of the Einsatzgruppen were not a secret. It has already been shown in this thread that senior Wehrmacht officers were aware of the "slaughter" of Jews and Poles

You might be surprised to learn that not just the Wehrmacht but the Waffen SS disciplined soldiers throughout the entirety of the war.

For executing civilians? I'd like to see the evidence of that. jonniebgood1 was correct to note Hitler's October amnesty: this effectively served as a 'green light' for continued brutality against civilian populations. And that is the critical 'context': the Wehrmacht was an arm of Nazi Germany and not immune to the constant pressures, from above and below, for escalating violence against perceived racial enemies

You are aware you are quoting one historian, who is in turn quoting another historian ?

Well yes. I think that's pretty evident from how I explicitly referenced the second historian. I've not read the second work though

There were often draconian reprisal policies, Civilians were at times treated with great brutality (as they were under red army occupation also), there was ghettoisation and deporation of jews (as there also was of ethnic Germans). These facts are seperate to the conclusions you are drawing about the organisational character of the wehrmacht.

No, not when it can be shown that the Wehrmacht was intimately involved in "draconian reprisal policies", massacres of civilian populations and the formulation of genocidal starvation policies

Nor do I. Particularly where the civilian population are actually entirely innocent. I would also apply this to the ethnic Germans who were massacred during and after the 2nd World War. Including the millions of missing ethnic Germans (3m as of Govt Study 1953).

And the relevance of this 'whataboutism' when discussing the crimes of the Wehrmacht is...?

The fact that warcrimes exsist does not prove top-down, comprehensive, organisational support for warcrimes.

We know that there were specific measures from Germany's political leadership that encouraged draconian measures (eg, Himmler's Oct 3 order to shoot suspected "insurgents" on sight) and we know that the Wehrmacht authorities made no real efforts to curtail these. And this is just dealing with the initial period in Poland - trying arguing that there was no "organisational support for warcrimes" in the occupation of the USSR

What was compared were the standards you are using to condemn an organisation, and whether or not you applied those standards equally to all sides or just the German side.

Which is silly. Are you going to suggest that because some GIs committed rape then the US Army is as morally suspect as the Wehrmacht?

Morlar

Reekwind wrote: »

I love that logic. We can call these men soldiers because they were Soldiers. Perfect :rolleyes

This is the case. The clearly flawed logic here is yours, in attempting to paint the combat divisions of the Waffen SS as being composed of non-soldiers or paramilitaries. Calling that mistake on your part as 'flawed logic' is being charitable.

Reekwind wrote: »

SS members, regardless of whether they served in combat divisions or not, fell under the authority of the Reichsführer. That is, they were outside of the traditional army structures

Indeed they were a distinct organisation to the Wehrmacht. This is your evidence that they were made up of non soldiers ?

Reekwind wrote: »

Well then you tell me, "who exactly did the wehrmacht kill from sept 2 1939 'onwards'"? Do you accept that there were thousands of Polish civilians amongst this?

You have made the point of 'hundreds if not thousands', I have simply asked you to establish this by saying who, where and when. What part of that is not clear ? Also - from sept 2 onwards can mean from sept 2 until 1945. Whereas your point could be summarised as 'immediately, for racial reasons only and in very large numbers' - there is a difference there.

Reekwind wrote: »

Well yes. I think that's pretty evident from how I explicitly referenced the second historian. I've not read the second work though

So - posting a conclusion, based on a conclusion to support a conclusion is suffice in your view to establish something ? That is not the way I see it.

I also think most readers would prefer you to point to evidence rather than conclusion if you are seeking to establish something.

Reekwind wrote: »

No, not when it can be shown that the Wehrmacht was intimately involved in "draconian reprisal policies", massacres of civilian populations and the formulation of genocidal starvation policies

They clearly are isolated & seperate facts to your conclusion.

Reekwind wrote: »

And the relevance of this 'whataboutism' when discussing the crimes of the Wehrmacht is...?

Context is important to any meaningful study of WW2 period Europe.

Reekwind wrote: »

Which is silly. Are you going to suggest that because some GIs committed rape then the US Army is as morally suspect as the Wehrmacht?

I have pointing out the flawed nature of the conclusions you present here, you are yet again applying one standard to one side only, and you clearly don't like it when the patently obvious limits of this approach are highlighted.

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

Statements such as those do nothing for your credibility whatsoever.

The 40 or so SS Frontline combat divisions were comprised of Soldiers.

Attempting to portray them as less than soldiers / paramilitaries is categorically factually incorrect. It's attempt to delegitimise their military record, which is considerable. I take it you read the earlier post re the difference between :

Originally Posted by Morlar View Post
I think there is an important distinction to be made between

a)
the multiple front line combat SS divisions
&
b)
the tiny percentile of SS who were in einsatzgruppen, rearguard anti-partisan & civilian 'resettlement' units.

I will say it again - this is an important distinction. Trying to blur the lines between those seperate elements is misleading.
.

How far do you go with this distinction? In the Ukraine and Belarus the einsatzgruppen worked in tandem with the wehrmacht yet you wish to distinguish between them for some reason. How does your distinction work with the extermination carried out in Minsk for example? http://books.google.ie/books?id=cDP1d8RMND8C&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=wehrmacht+minsk+19,000&source=bl&ots=ZWzwa3YhFx&sig=1_7dBC9QZO-l8y0udXaYukXty-4&hl=en&ei=cRFHTpLDBMbQhAeM5M3CBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

I see you also commenting on credibility of other posters!!! I laughed out loud at the irony of this.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

How far do you go with this distinction?

You seem to be confusing 'ss-Einsatzgruppen & wehrmacht', with 'ss-Einsatzgruppen & Frontline Combat SS'. Not really sure how that is possible when the distinction has been pointed out multiple times at this stage. Unless the point of this thread is simply to try to blur those lines ?

Any assertion that the 40 or so frontline SS Combat divisions were made up of 'non soldiers' or paramilitaries - does lack credibility.

Perhaps you can point to where in your linked reference the Wehrmacht were engaged in Einsatzgruppen activity ?

I take it you see this reference as proof that the ss-einsatzgruppen and wehrmacht were one and the same ? If not, what exactly are you asserting that it (your linked book) proves ?

P.S. you really are not one to laugh

jonniebgood1

Morlar wrote: »

You seem to be confusing 'ss-Einsatzgruppen & wehrmacht', with 'ss-Einsatzgruppen & Frontline Combat SS'. Not really sure how that is possible when the distinction has been pointed out multiple times at this stage. Unless the point of this thread is simply to try to blur those lines ?

Any assertion that the 40 or so frontline SS Combat divisions were made up of 'non soldiers' or paramilitaries - does lack credibility.

Where did I suggest this?

Morlar wrote: »

Perhaps you can point to where in your linked reference the Wehrmacht were engaged in Einsatzgruppen activity ?

I take it you see this reference as proof that the ss-einsatzgruppen and wehrmacht were one and the same ? If not, what exactly are you asserting that it (your linked book) proves ?

The book references 19,000 Jews shot by the wehrmacht. I assert nothing with this, I am querying the relationship between the Einsatzgruppen and the wehrmacht (as per OP) and how it developed. You have queried the attribution of war crimes to the wehrmacht:

Morlar wrote: »

Who exactly did the wehrmacht kill from sept 2 1939 'onwards' ?

What were the circumstances ? Are you taking isolated examples to condemn an entire army of conscripted landser ?

I think as you have queried that we can look into it further in the context of the OP. The link I provided suggests the wehrmacht were involved in shooting of a large number of people. Were they working in tandem with the einsatzgruppen and were the general SS men involved? Or alternatively maybe the book I linked is incorrect, I keep an open mind for the moment.

BlaasForRafa

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

How far do you go with this distinction? In the Ukraine and Belarus the einsatzgruppen worked in tandem with the wehrmacht yet you wish to distinguish between them for some reason. How does your distinction work with the extermination carried out in Minsk for example? http://books.google.ie/books?id=cDP1d8RMND8C&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=wehrmacht+minsk+19,000&source=bl&ots=ZWzwa3YhFx&sig=1_7dBC9QZO-l8y0udXaYukXty-4&hl=en&ei=cRFHTpLDBMbQhAeM5M3CBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

I see you also commenting on credibility of other posters!!! I laughed out loud at the irony of this.

It would help the credibility of your posts if you knew the difference between "the Wehrmacht" the the Heer. The seemingly interchangeable way the names of two different organisations is used on this thread is headwrecking. The Heer were the german army, the Wehrmacht was the entire armed forces which included the Heer, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Waffen SS. In theory the Waffen SS was independant but operationally it operated under the orders of the OKW or OKH defending on the theatre of war it was in.

Also the seeming confusion of terms regarding the SS is headwrecking, although somewhat understandable given the nature of links between several organisations. The SS was divided into two main parts, the Waffen SS which were frontline combat units and the Allegemeine SS (the General SS) which consisted of many sub-organisations like the police, gestapo, kripo, einsatzgruppen, concentration camp guards, anti-partisan units, Rona and many more. The Allegemeine SS answered directly to Himmler whereas the Waffen SS answered directly to Hitler (and operationally to the OKW and/or OKH).

Although the Waffen SS was involved in the holocaust and in warcrimes against civilians in general, the Allegemeine SS had a far far bigger role.

The Waffen SS were soldiers and not some paramilitary unit which some here inexplicably have said. Heinz Guderian said of the Waffen SS in Panzer Leader "There was a feeling of comradeship which existed on the battlefield between the Waffen SS and Army formations. I fought with SS-Liebstandarte Adolf Hitler and with SS Division Das Reich: later as Inspector General of Armoured Troops I visited numerous SS divisions. I can therefore assert that to my knowledge the SS divisions were always remarkable for a high standard of discipline, of esprit de corps, and of conduct in the face of the enemy. They fought shoulder to shoulder with the panzer divisions of the Army and the longer the war went on the less distinguishable they became from the army."

Guderian on the Allegemeine SS "A far different judgement must be passed on the Allegemeine SS. The SS took over numerous police functions of a most dubious sort. Then unite of the Allegemeine SS were armed. The number of foreign formations was here also constantly on the increase; these were markedly worse than the units of the Waffen SS, as, for example, was shown by the behaviour of the Kaminski and Dirlewanger Brigades in the crushing of the Warsaw uprising. I never had anything to do with the SD and its Einsatzkommandos and am therefore not able to give any first hand information concerning them"

Stovepipe

Hi all
@Blaas, I agree about the correct use of terms but generally, everybody uses the term "Wehrmacht" for the German Land Army and the term "SS" for the Waffen SS. Obviously, historians and well-informed readers know the difference, especially between the Waffen SS field formations,ie Das Reich, and the police/Einsatzgruppen. Sometimes, the distinction is blurred, though, given that many of the second-line SS units were regularly in action in anti-partisan combat, a lot of which was as bloody and costly as "regular" battlefront combat.
regards
Stovepipe

jonniebgood1

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It would help the credibility of your posts if you knew the difference between "the Wehrmacht" the the Heer. The seemingly interchangeable way the names of two different organisations is used on this thread is headwrecking. The Heer were the german army, the Wehrmacht was the entire armed forces which included the Heer, Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Waffen SS. In theory the Waffen SS was independant but operationally it operated under the orders of the OKW or OKH defending on the theatre of war it was in.

Also the seeming confusion of terms regarding the SS is headwrecking, although somewhat understandable given the nature of links between several organisations. The SS was divided into two main parts, the Waffen SS which were frontline combat units and the Allegemeine SS (the General SS) which consisted of many sub-organisations like the police, gestapo, kripo, einsatzgruppen, concentration camp guards, anti-partisan units, Rona and many more. The Allegemeine SS answered directly to Himmler whereas the Waffen SS answered directly to Hitler (and operationally to the OKW and/or OKH).
.........

Thank you for the detailed breakdown. I agree the water is being muddied here but arguing over terminology does'nt help. I was quite clear in my OP and previous post on what area I wished to look at.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Morlar View Post
Who exactly did the wehrmacht kill from sept 2 1939 'onwards' ?

What were the circumstances ? Are you taking isolated examples to condemn an entire army of conscripted landser ?

I think as you have queried that we can look into it further in the context of the OP. The link I provided suggests the wehrmacht were involved in shooting of a large number of people. Were they working in tandem with the einsatzgruppen and were the general SS men involved? Or alternatively maybe the book I linked is incorrect, I keep an open mind for the moment.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

How were relations between the ordinary German soldiers and the ordinary members of the einsatzgruppen. I have read recently that the wehrmacht soldiers in some cases resented the relative comfort that the SS-Einsatzgruppen soldier had.

For clarity the reference to 'wehrmacht soldiers' here means all other parts of the german army other than the einsatzgruppen. I thought this would be clear but apologise if it was not. Also I would prefer avoiding comments in relation to this "somewhat understandable" confusion, as it takes away from the issue being discussed .

To try and get back to the subject of the thread take Minsk for example (as per book link) 19,000 people were killed. Was this exclusively an einsatzgruppen action or was there collaberation between other elements of the 'wehrmacht'. This is an important point to clarify as there are plently of people who would claim that the ordinary soldier was not involved in this. So were they? There were tensions in Kovno as per OP between the ordinary soldiers and the einsatzgruppen. As the war developed did this continue or did the einsatzgruppen get greater military support in their operations.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In the Ukraine and Belarus the einsatzgruppen worked in tandem with the wehrmacht yet you wish to distinguish between them for some reason. How does your distinction work with the extermination carried out in Minsk for example? http://books.google.ie/books?id=cDP1d8RMND8C&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=wehrmacht+minsk+19,000&source=bl&ots=ZWzwa3YhFx&sig=1_7dBC9QZO-l8y0udXaYukXty-4&hl=en&ei=cRFHTpLDBMbQhAeM5M3CBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Morlar wrote: »

Perhaps you can point to where in your linked reference the Wehrmacht were engaged in Einsatzgruppen activity ?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

To try and get back to the subject of the thread take Minsk for example (as per book link) 19,000 people were killed. Was this exclusively an einsatzgruppen action or was there collaberation between other elements of the 'wehrmacht'. This is an important point to clarify as there are plently of people who would claim that the ordinary soldier was not involved in this. So were they? There were tensions in Kovno as per OP between the ordinary soldiers and the einsatzgruppen. As the war developed did this continue or did the einsatzgruppen get greater military support in their operations.

You are introducing this source, I really think it is up to you to clarify what point you are intending to establish with it. You have already been asked and failed to clarify. Also pointing to a book and saying 'this book says 19k killed' is insufficient.

You need to say who, what, where and when, not just 'it's in the book'.

Which page of the book and which passage which event where when ? If there was an incident of that sort do you think that enough to condemn an entire 20,000,000 army ?

If not, then what are you contending that it actually establishes ?

BlaasForRafa

Thank you for the detailed breakdown. I agree the water is being muddied here but arguing over terminology does'nt help. I was quite clear in my OP and previous post on what area I wished to look at.

Getting the terminology right is a part of having a discussion about what actually happened rather than what one thinks happened or what one presupposes had happened.

For clarity the reference to 'wehrmacht soldiers' here means all other parts of the german army other than the einsatzgruppen. I thought this would be clear but apologise if it was not. Also I would prefer avoiding comments in relation to this "somewhat understandable" confusion, as it takes away from the issue being discussed .

To try and get back to the subject of the thread take Minsk for example (as per book link) 19,000 people were killed. Was this exclusively an einsatzgruppen action or was there collaberation between other elements of the 'wehrmacht'. This is an important point to clarify as there are plently of people who would claim that the ordinary soldier was not involved in this. So were they? There were tensions in Kovno as per OP between the ordinary soldiers and the einsatzgruppen. As the war developed did this continue or did the einsatzgruppen get greater military support in their operations.

I prefer to use the terms for individual units if possible rather than catch all terms which can mean just about anyone in the general area. By the period you are talking aboutthe war had moved far east and Army Group Centre would have been involved in the battles around Bryansk and minsk would firmly be considered a rear area at this point.

The book you linked to mentions the 707th infantry division being in the Minsk area at the time but it dosen't mention the context that although it was called an infantry division, it wasn't, it was a security division which is a different thing altogether. Security divisions were made up of older troops who were unfit for front line combat, at the time the Heer was already short of infantry so it wouldn't have wasted frontline troops on rear area security.

From the book you linked to all it says about the minsk incident is "Shootings of jews by frontline troops during advance which occurred in a number of cases had the character of antisemitic attacks or brutal acts of retaliation. killings by frontline troops however did not affect most cities; nor did they reach the massive dimensions of the massacres later carried out by the SS, police, and security troops. After the advance, army participation was apparently limited: it is only possible to document the murder of so-called "country jews" by several security divisions, the participation in massacres by Security Police with their own shooting commandos on the local level, and voluntary participation in shootings by numberous individual soldiers and officers. The operations of the 707th infantry division (sic) are in fact an exception."

I'd suggest that if you want to research it more that you find out more about the 707th security division, who commanded it at the time and what organisation it reported to at the time, that way you'll find out more about why it was involved in whatever action it took at the time. It seems unlikely to me that it would have been under direct command of army group centre at the time.

As for whether there were tensions between the frontline Heer troops and einsatzgruppen, I'd suggest that troops who were involved in constant fighting for months would resent rear-area personnel of any type.