Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wosung
quote:
ORIGINAL: Charles_22
wosong: I think you go too much to the other extreme, where you looking for reasons to discredit everything the Wehrmacht did and put some evil intention behind it. It wouldn't surprise me if you had this attitude towards WWII german civilians as well. You had that dark attitude about the German High Command allegedly putting basically no importance behind evacuating civilians, and yet I give you a huge contradiction in the form of the Baltic evacuations and you ignored it.
quote:
-And last not least the Wehrmacht elite were deformed by their profession and believe. You should just read some files written by die-hards like Schörner or Dönitz. They were more than willing, without mercy, to sacrifice their men by senseless combat orders, by draconian disciplinary orders for even minor offenses – and so they did. In the Götterdämmerung 1945 some of them ressorted to Wagnerian symbolic warfare: The Wehrmacht generals in peaceful Denmark & Norway in May 1945 wanted to fight one last proper battle to the end, simply for the sake of postwar Wehrmacht reputation. The battered German troops in Alsac-Lorraine, an area for ages disputed between France and Germany, were orderd to fight to death, demonstrating the German claim for that region. But only few Generals were willing to follow those orders themselves, like Model, who shot himself in 1945 in the Ruhr-cauldron.
First of all, one of these so-called die-hards was the one in charge of the Baltic evacuations. Had it not occured to you that "if" he pressed his men as he you say, that evuacations might not had been possible? As well, think of the famed men of the 101st Airborne for the USA. Were they lame-brains or die-hards or what not because they fought on despite overwhelming odds? In their case, this was only a temporary problem they had to put up with, but soldiers and commanders don't have the benefit of a crystal ball. If the germans had somehow continued to overrun at the Bulge, be that through forces from the East coming over (such as the USSR signing a peace treaty suddenly) they would had been in worse shape than many of the german fighting on cases you describe.
Certainly the germans weren't the first ones who fought simply for the sake of their reputation, because in a number of cases, that's all they had, because there's a lot of combatants that knew they were probably better off, and the civilians, for their standing their ground longer, and imprisonment to some of the nations was often worse than doing your duty and fighting on. One of the things that kept the Eastern Front from total collapse was that Stalingrad continued to fight on so long and that the USSR put in way more attention than it deserved. The Russians too, if all they did was get surrounded and surrendered all the time, how much easier that would had made things for the Wehrmacht. Some of the worst fighting (Stalingrad for the USSR too) nations had to face was what they faced from a tenacious badger cornered and hoping relief would come; others, OTOH, just packed up their bags and headed towards enemy lines.
Oh, and if you have a search to defame anything WWII-era german, do please explain away all those german civilians who died in concentration camps for opposing Hitler. We non-germans forget way too easily that a good many germans paid for their lives, and often their family's lives, for not marching lockstep with Hitler. I'm sure many of them are what we would term german heroes, if only we would not forget them.
If you read my former posts carefully, you find me writing exclusivly about the Wehrmacht, state and party leadership.
I’m not at all aiming for the Gefreiten Hans Doe or the elderly woman Grete Doe.
But I do take the liberty to judge those in high offices, where responsibility comes with privilege, according to their possibilities and their own high standard.
Especially in an institution as highly hierarchically as the Wehrmacht.
Especially in a state based on the Führerprinzip, the principle of absolute leadership.
Where was the “Führer” in Nuremberg? Did he “lead” his cronies?
What did operational genius Manstein said, when he was asked to take part in the anti-Hitler plot?
”Prussian Fieldmarshalls don’t mutiny!”
Who else should have done it?
The Gefreite Hans Doe? The elderly woman Grete Doe?
Schörner and most of the Field commanders down to division level were not overly concerned with the needs of civilians. For them those civilians mostly were a nuisance, congesting the the traffic system. There are quite a few reports about Wehrmacht troops ruthlessly chasing away civilians from the precious roads.
As I wrote before, some high level military transportation orders for the German East in 1945 gave civilian refugees lowest priority, even after the cattle. But not the Wehrmacht leadership failed at worst, its was the Nazi party civil administration, the Gauleiter. Those fine leaders regularly forbade evacuations of civilians until it was to late, for “keeping up the moral”. But exactly those figures were the first ones, who got out Dogde when the Red Army was approaching.
For political reasons, there was no orderly organized evacuation. Most of the refugees were saved because of their own initative, helped by ordinary soldiers and lower officer ranks.
So, arguably, most of the refugees survived, not because of the military and politically leadership, but despite of it.
Stalingrad was in 1941/42. It may have saved the Heeresgruppe A then.
It didn’t save Nazi Germany.
Over 200.000 men were in the chauldron.
Only some 5.000 came back home.
And not only the Russians are to blame for it.
Regards
You have mentioned Stalingard as though only absolute success should result from continuing to fight on (didn't save nazi germany). Any german soldier who at that point would had thrown down his arms because of something that ended up happening 3 years later, which he could not foresee, would more aptly be called a traitor to his country than some guy knowing all was lost and wisely giving up.
Well at least I see you have dropped Doenitz from your ruthless, not-helping-civilians outlook. There are a good number of questionable orders that came to bear on the commanders, such as Hitler wishing Speer to conduct scorched earth in western europe, only to have Speer either greatly reduce the rate, or get Hitler to rescend the order to some extent. In order for the German High Command to be totally corrupt (and this doesn't even factor in the aspect of not following order as being treasonous) they had to follow seemingly evil orders. I have pointed out Speer helping in this manner, and also Doenotz helping civilians in the Balkans. Just like this civilians-being-lower-level-for-transport order you see. Commanders had to actually follow it, and I acknowledge some of that went on, but you have to also ask yourself, if your military gets trapped because of civilians on the roads, just how is it those same civilians will be later protected? It's clear the roads, even in retreat, shouldn't be for nothing but civilians and it make any sense. Unfortunately, the roads aren't built to accomodate every civilain that wishes to leave, and the military, as those who have lived in Galveston and New Orleans found out in recent years.
Also, it's quite common for successful generals, and so on, to profit through successful military campaigns (except Zhukov perhaps), and it's not necessarily why they fought with distinction, to get themselves rich. It is possible that the nation wishes to reward them for their success and very many do not refuse such an honor. Nations, german or not, are often indebted to their military leaders for having pulled off great victories or staving off disasterous defeats.
You said there was no organized evacuation, and though having an enemy breathing down your neck can make that next to impossible (or even a hurricane), the germans, anyway, managed to pull off the Baltic evacuations. So, if the germans had so little regard for civilians, even their own, and they're so evil, just why is it they evacuated so many from the Baltics, and yet the Dunkirk evacuated how many civilians for the British? Think of all those english and french left behind to deal with those evil nazis, and still they left them behind? Why? Because there are times where evacuating military HAS to take precedence over evacuating civilians, in order to protect a whole other set of civilians.
|
Printable Version
RE: Read the superb Germany and the Second World War - 
But please, correct me if I'm wrong.
RE: Read the superb Germany and the Second World War - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread