WW2: The Question of the Decent Ordinary Wehrmacht Member

**Wanderin' Zero** · 06-02-2016, 08:32

Originally Posted by CorditeCrazy

Yet the Afrika Corps had a reputation about as squeaky clean as the allied troops in Africa. Perhaps leadership is one facet?

So did the Kriegsmarine who fought the war as gallantly as it was possible for them to do.

I posted the links for the simple reason that I have heard various people who are under the impression that atrocities were solely province of the general SS (as opposed to the Wehrmacht units of the SS). Its simply not true. Many members of the ordinary Wehrmacht did terrible things that they were not necessarily ordered to do.

Ds J has a point; its not unique to the German race (although the events of WW2 were particularly egregious); but nor did I contend it was. I was simply addressing the aforesaid myth. Don't change what I said into something I didn't say.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 06-02-2016, 08:34

Originally Posted by BigT

Because we won. And the victor gets to write history.

I don't think its altogether that blithe an answer. You'll note I used the term "Commonwealth" and deliberately not "Allied".

**Wanderin' Zero** · 06-02-2016, 08:38

Originally Posted by Ds J

I do think that these things also happened on Commonwealth side but that it was not documented, either forgotten or kept silent because the victor writes the history. My reason for saying this is that there are a few accounts of attrocities committed by Allied and Russian soldiers. One of the first female German CEO's was apparently public about being raped by English soldiers. I personnaly spoke to an old German lady who experienced Russian planes shooting up the Germans fleeing before the Red Army. I also know of three concentration camps for Germans kept by US troops near Oldenburg in NW Germany. The commander of one of these camps used to shoot at the women and children with his service pistol. (I think I have mentioned these things in other threads.)

Allied and Commonwealth are two very different things. The Russians in particular were complete and unmitigated shits. The Americans did also not always behave with absolute honour. But amongst the Commonwealth troops atrocities seem to have been very rare indeed.

**BigT** · 06-02-2016, 08:47

Dude I honestly think your own bias is showing through here.

To think everyone except the members of the commonwealth committed atrocities is naive.

The more logical explanation is that the Brits were better at hiding them or reports of them. The fact that many members of the commonwealth like a good dig at the "bloody yanks "would explain why US events were better reported.

**Pirate** · 06-02-2016, 08:50

Originally Posted by Wanderin' Zero

But amongst the Commonwealth troops atrocities seem to have been very rare indeed.

Or perhaps just rarely documented. The Brits have always liked to portray their warriors as gentlemanly and gallant. Makes for good PR back home. Similarly, portraying the enemy as monstrous or backward also fits nicely into the propaganda machine.How were the British and Boer soldiers portrayed to their public in the two ABWs? How long did it take for the truth of their concentration camps to be made general public knowledge in Britain (this is an honest question, I don't know, but it must have happenned at some time for people like Emily Hobhouse to make their way here). Similar questions can probably be asked about India and East Africa too. And similarly "we" South Africans had our own way of disguising human rights violation (even before WW II).My point it, just because it wasn't reported, doesn't mean it didn't happen. How often / bad we'll probably never know. War is a damn ugly business, and I think it's the exception that, in that situation, people rise "above" their moral station. Gallantry, heroism and empathy with the enemy of course happens, but it remains the exception, not the rule.:- P

**BigT** · 06-02-2016, 08:50

Ps I bet the Soviets didn't believe they committed any atrocities either.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 06-02-2016, 08:55

There's no evidence that shows I'm wrong - at least not that I know of and using anything other than evidence is pure speculation.

It's not like the Brits tried to hide the bombing of German civilians under orders - something that remains highly controversial.

Individual soldiers did do terrible things but it seems to have been relatively rare.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 06-02-2016, 08:57

Originally Posted by BigT

Ps I bet the Soviets didn't believe they committed any atrocities either.

Under Stalin? Ghuh! They knew and just didn't care.

**BigT** · 06-02-2016, 08:59

Originally Posted by Wanderin' Zero

Under Stalin? Ghuh! They knew and just didn't care.

No. They didn't consider them atrocities. They considered them part of the war. That's my point. Soviet Russia saw the rape of Berlin in a very different way to the rest of us. Maybe the British were just better and ensuring they killed ALL the witnesses.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 06-02-2016, 09:16

Originally Posted by BigT

No. They didn't consider them atrocities. They considered them part of the war. That's my point. Soviet Russia saw the rape of Berlin in a very different way to the rest of us. Maybe the British were just better and ensuring they killed ALL the witnesses.

It is documented that some Soviet officers executed men for rape. So they knew it wasn't on.

Crimes by British soldiers were documented and investigated - we know this - but nothing like on the scale of others.

Anyway, as I said: follow the evidence; that's all we actually know. The rest is pure speculation.