Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf](sci-hub.tw)
sci-hub.tw
Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]
https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/1429971
15 comments
The courage to stand up against your own ingroup is the highest form of courage and morals.
It requires independence of thought and high principles.
It requires independence of thought and high principles.
The other one is to acknowledge and believe deeply that your acts were wrong. I cannot think of another country that breathes these values so sincerely and profoundly. I am sure everyone knows that Germany is in no way unique in its killing of millions.
I have no German ties whatsoever but I am in deep admiration of their capacity to accept, correct and be vigilant of repetition.
I know neo-nazism exists. I hope it continues to be an aberration.
I have no German ties whatsoever but I am in deep admiration of their capacity to accept, correct and be vigilant of repetition.
I know neo-nazism exists. I hope it continues to be an aberration.
I moved to Germany from America precisely because of Germans' lack of hubris about their ability to take responsibility for the crimes of their nations' past - while America is, without doubt, not ready to confront its own heinous crimes, being committed in present time, as yet.
Neo-nazism doesn't scare me as much as the average American patriot, whose political cover allows many, many crimes to be committed in their name with, seemingly, no repercussion.
However, as a believer in karma, participating in such a society is not on - thus, I moved.
My only concern now is that the Germany of the future will have what it needs to address America - because it doesn't look like Americans are going to be roping in their criminal death cult any time soon ... and all signs point to an America, in the future, which will have to deal with the crimes being committed in its name, today.
Neo-nazism doesn't scare me as much as the average American patriot, whose political cover allows many, many crimes to be committed in their name with, seemingly, no repercussion.
However, as a believer in karma, participating in such a society is not on - thus, I moved.
My only concern now is that the Germany of the future will have what it needs to address America - because it doesn't look like Americans are going to be roping in their criminal death cult any time soon ... and all signs point to an America, in the future, which will have to deal with the crimes being committed in its name, today.
imrelaxed(1)
I agree with independence of thought, courage, and high principles, but is it moral? An militant anti-semite in present-day Germany is might be just as independent, principled, and courageous.
(In some views) morals are relative and personal, not absolute.
(In some views) morals are relative and personal, not absolute.
But that too is a moral view, is it not? It may be "meta-relative" to other moral views but doesn't keep it from being statement of values.
But that too is a moral view, is it not? It may be "meta-relative" to other moral views but doesn't keep it from being statement of values.
That's a good counterpoint to relativism, and that's why I accept moral realism, relative morals are self-contradicting (or you can accept that everything is morally right and wrong simultaneously, which is bordering on nihilism)
They don't have to be objective or subjective. I've never understood the argument that morals are individually subjective. If individual people freely did anything all the time then where would morals come from?
I don't agree with the relativistic point of view either, but it's a common enough viewpoint that I can forgive the GP's casual usage of the term :)
Morals are for the individual, ethics is for the group. The level and state of each realm, defines the state of the other.
Even if that's true, which I'm not sure it is, it doesn't necessarily mean that morals emerge from individual choice. Personally I think morals are emergent from groups.
Morals are an individual personal choice - derived from the word 'morales', which means 'custom'. Individuals adopt customs - both learned individually, and mores adopted from a group.
Ethics are a group choice - a set of morals, in the plural, derived from "ethike" - the 'science of morals'.
They're interlocked, sure, but it is an individual who makes a moral decision for themselves, but an ethical decision for their group...
EDIT: I mean, all you have to do is look at the definition of both words in a few dictionaries. Its pretty clearly stated that ethics are a group of morals formulated around the purposes of a group, where morals are derived from and based on an individual decision. Can't have one without the other.
Of course, you are within your rights to disagree - such is the nature of the ethics of philosophical discussions.
Ethics are a group choice - a set of morals, in the plural, derived from "ethike" - the 'science of morals'.
They're interlocked, sure, but it is an individual who makes a moral decision for themselves, but an ethical decision for their group...
EDIT: I mean, all you have to do is look at the definition of both words in a few dictionaries. Its pretty clearly stated that ethics are a group of morals formulated around the purposes of a group, where morals are derived from and based on an individual decision. Can't have one without the other.
Of course, you are within your rights to disagree - such is the nature of the ethics of philosophical discussions.
You've obviously defined it that way but I don't see why it's true. Your argument is essentially that morals emerge from individuals because of the etymology of the world moral. I don't find that very convincing.
Not sure that's an accepted definition. Others consider ethics the study of morality.
Like Snowden...
In Dortmund, Germany, on Good Friday, a commemoration ceremony took place in the afternoon at the Bittermark memorial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahnmal_Bittermark ).
300 POWs and resistance fighters were murdered there just weeks and days before the end of the war.
1700 demonstrators showed up this year. We must not forget.
1700 demonstrators showed up this year. We must not forget.
You are looking for the keyword "Endphaseverbrechen". Particularly crass: Willi Herold, the Butcher of Emsland.
There was a movie (The Captain?) released about that guy within the last year.
>1700 demonstrators showed up this year.
Were they demonstrating against or in favor of the POW's and resistence fighters?
Were they demonstrating against or in favor of the POW's and resistence fighters?
> There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop.
-- Mario Savio
I really think there is something to the idea of not going along because you just cannot. I think sometimes the "no" comes first, and then comes finding or making a way, maybe.
Though I think disgust with what one is complicit in, and the sheer inability to go on with it, are ultimately also based on positive values, and on not betraying oneself, so it's always a "no to X, to uphold a yes to Y" IMO.
from https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/marchapril/feature/the-t...
> Arendt had removed the guarantee of absolute innocence and automatic guilt from the question of moral responsibility. What did she put in its place? The capacity to exercise an “independent human faculty, unsupported by law and public opinion, that judges in full spontaneity every deed and intent anew whenever the occasion arises.” And who evidenced this capacity? They were not distinguished by any superior intelligence or sophistication in moral matters but “dared to judge by themselves.” Deciding that conformity would leave them unable to “live with themselves,” sometimes they even chose to die rather than become complicit. “The dividing line between those who want to think and therefore have to judge by themselves, and those who do not, strikes across all social and cultural or educational differences.”
Hannah Arendt's essay "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship":
https://grattoncourses.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/arendt-pe...
-- Mario Savio
I really think there is something to the idea of not going along because you just cannot. I think sometimes the "no" comes first, and then comes finding or making a way, maybe.
Though I think disgust with what one is complicit in, and the sheer inability to go on with it, are ultimately also based on positive values, and on not betraying oneself, so it's always a "no to X, to uphold a yes to Y" IMO.
from https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/marchapril/feature/the-t...
> Arendt had removed the guarantee of absolute innocence and automatic guilt from the question of moral responsibility. What did she put in its place? The capacity to exercise an “independent human faculty, unsupported by law and public opinion, that judges in full spontaneity every deed and intent anew whenever the occasion arises.” And who evidenced this capacity? They were not distinguished by any superior intelligence or sophistication in moral matters but “dared to judge by themselves.” Deciding that conformity would leave them unable to “live with themselves,” sometimes they even chose to die rather than become complicit. “The dividing line between those who want to think and therefore have to judge by themselves, and those who do not, strikes across all social and cultural or educational differences.”
Hannah Arendt's essay "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship":
https://grattoncourses.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/arendt-pe...
It makes me angry, when I see people online talking about the whole of the WWII Wehrmacht as if they are all uniform, fungible movie villains. This was a huge organization of human beings. The degree to which any individual is culpable needs to be considered on an individual basis. Human rights are absolute, even for the soldiers of the enemy. Principles like that are what separate free countries from tyranny.
This is not to say, that there isn't a group accountability for an organization like an army, where people are all wearing the same regalia and literally marching under the same banner. This implies a group responsibility for calling out the wrongs of one's own side. The morality of the faction can be measured as a whole by how well it calls out its own failures of principle, and by what principles it says it upholds and by what principles it eschews.
This is not to say, that there isn't a group accountability for an organization like an army, where people are all wearing the same regalia and literally marching under the same banner. This implies a group responsibility for calling out the wrongs of one's own side. The morality of the faction can be measured as a whole by how well it calls out its own failures of principle, and by what principles it says it upholds and by what principles it eschews.
As the paper clearly illustrates, there were so few documented cases of refusal that they are negligible when weighing the war crimes of the Wehrmact and its members.
Less than one hundred out of millions.
Viewing them all as “fungible villains” is a very accurate approximation with a ridiculously low error.
Less than one hundred out of millions.
Viewing them all as “fungible villains” is a very accurate approximation with a ridiculously low error.
Hey, we'd only disregard the truth for a couple of complete innocents, so let's just treat this entire group of individuals as fungible and disposable? Sorry, but that's not properly valuing individual human rights. As I point out above, almost every one in the faction is culpable. However, they should still be held individually culpable, in accordance with their particular facts and individual human rights and the stated principles of the founding of the United States.
If one starts allowing group culpability without regard for the innocents, no matter how few, then this destroys the principle of individual culpability. Sorry, but that's something the good guys shouldn't be doing, and only something one should expect the bad guys to do.
Good guys don't treat entire groups of people as fungible and disposable. Period.
If one starts allowing group culpability without regard for the innocents, no matter how few, then this destroys the principle of individual culpability. Sorry, but that's something the good guys shouldn't be doing, and only something one should expect the bad guys to do.
Good guys don't treat entire groups of people as fungible and disposable. Period.
I have no idea why you are injecting the founding of the United States into this.
Nobody can possibly weigh every Wehrmacht member’s actions. Those that acted with distinction have been documented. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. If they were not, the outcome of the Wehrmacht’s actions would have been very different.
Your criteria is impossible to satisfy, by design. An attempt to rewrite history.
Nobody can possibly weigh every Wehrmacht member’s actions. Those that acted with distinction have been documented. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. If they were not, the outcome of the Wehrmacht’s actions would have been very different.
Your criteria is impossible to satisfy, by design. An attempt to rewrite history.
Nobody can possibly weigh every Wehrmacht member’s actions
Strawman. Should you ever meet a former member of the Wehrmacht, you owe them the same general regard to be given any human being.
An attempt to rewrite history.
False. You are projecting. My words state the opposite of what you suggest. I take it you are invested in the idea that it’s okay to throw away individual rights in some situations and simply punish groups. If that is the case, then you are advocating for committing exactly the moral failing we should hold against the Wehrmacht.
In this case, this is the least popular implication of the principles which were fought for in WWII at the price of millions of lives.
In short, in 2019 terms, “Punch a Nazi” is committing the exact moral failing at the root of the discredited philosophy being fought. Peacetime politics through violence is wrong. Period.
(No, punching for political gain doesn’t make you a war criminal, obviously. No equivalence, obviously. What you are doing is introducing that moral framework. Best to avoid the moral framework of the worst villains.)
Strawman. Should you ever meet a former member of the Wehrmacht, you owe them the same general regard to be given any human being.
An attempt to rewrite history.
False. You are projecting. My words state the opposite of what you suggest. I take it you are invested in the idea that it’s okay to throw away individual rights in some situations and simply punish groups. If that is the case, then you are advocating for committing exactly the moral failing we should hold against the Wehrmacht.
In this case, this is the least popular implication of the principles which were fought for in WWII at the price of millions of lives.
In short, in 2019 terms, “Punch a Nazi” is committing the exact moral failing at the root of the discredited philosophy being fought. Peacetime politics through violence is wrong. Period.
(No, punching for political gain doesn’t make you a war criminal, obviously. No equivalence, obviously. What you are doing is introducing that moral framework. Best to avoid the moral framework of the worst villains.)
Should you ever meet a former member of the Wehrmacht, you owe them the same general regard to be given any human being.
Most human beings have not taken up arms to make war on behalf of a genocidal regime led by a fanatical anti-Semitic tyrant. It’s okay to look askance at those who did.
Most human beings have not taken up arms to make war on behalf of a genocidal regime led by a fanatical anti-Semitic tyrant. It’s okay to look askance at those who did.
However, most human beings in their situation did. There but for the grace of god go I.
There but for the grace of god go I.
I also use that phrase. In my youth, I would even have meant it literally. Now, I will respond to it in the sense of cognitive traps which people too easily fall into and are lucky to escape. I have been "lucky" to have experienced racially motivated harassment in my youth, so I have had a direct view of what people taken by groupthink are like.
Far too many human beings in 2019 are falling into groupthink where they will gladly throw young people and children under the bus, just to serve their "side." Note that this applies equally to the political Left and the Right. Once one wants one's own side to win so badly, that basic principles go out the window, one's mind has been taken by groupthink.
The following is directed generally: If one is of the Left and cannot see or automatically excuse all of its transgressions, then one's mind has been taken by groupthink. If one is of the Right and cannot see or automatically excuse all of its transgressions, then one's mind has been taken by groupthink. If one is of the mindset that critics are automatically enemies, one's mind has been taken by groupthink.
I also use that phrase. In my youth, I would even have meant it literally. Now, I will respond to it in the sense of cognitive traps which people too easily fall into and are lucky to escape. I have been "lucky" to have experienced racially motivated harassment in my youth, so I have had a direct view of what people taken by groupthink are like.
Far too many human beings in 2019 are falling into groupthink where they will gladly throw young people and children under the bus, just to serve their "side." Note that this applies equally to the political Left and the Right. Once one wants one's own side to win so badly, that basic principles go out the window, one's mind has been taken by groupthink.
The following is directed generally: If one is of the Left and cannot see or automatically excuse all of its transgressions, then one's mind has been taken by groupthink. If one is of the Right and cannot see or automatically excuse all of its transgressions, then one's mind has been taken by groupthink. If one is of the mindset that critics are automatically enemies, one's mind has been taken by groupthink.
Most human beings have not taken up arms to make war on behalf of a genocidal regime led by a fanatical anti-Semitic tyrant.
Too many people in 2019 are caught up in groupthink and outright hate, but camouflage it and justify it to themselves as a worthy cause. This is what happened in Germany prior to WWII, and it is something we need to look out for.
It’s okay to look askance at those who did.
Yes. So long as you view them as individual human beings and the particular facts. So long as you're not responding to a shallow label and taking action with little thought. That is the underlying philosophical mistake which is the foundation of the very wrong you would hold against them.
I too would look askance at them. But if you treat them as fungible and disposable, then what exactly did our side fight for?
Too many people in 2019 are caught up in groupthink and outright hate, but camouflage it and justify it to themselves as a worthy cause. This is what happened in Germany prior to WWII, and it is something we need to look out for.
It’s okay to look askance at those who did.
Yes. So long as you view them as individual human beings and the particular facts. So long as you're not responding to a shallow label and taking action with little thought. That is the underlying philosophical mistake which is the foundation of the very wrong you would hold against them.
I too would look askance at them. But if you treat them as fungible and disposable, then what exactly did our side fight for?
You're shot for refusing orders. In a war situation no one is going to bother recording this. You'll either get a letter home that you were a deserter and died dishonourably, so your widow and kids won't even get a pension, or you'll be lucky and the commander sends back a letter that you were killed in the line of duty or from injury/disease.
One way or the other, there will be few situations where such refusal is possible, much less written down.
One way or the other, there will be few situations where such refusal is possible, much less written down.
Better to die with a clear conscience than to murder the innocent. If you were cunning you could take the commanding officer out instead.
The paper documents that those who resisted in the army and police suffered very little in the way of negative consequences. From the conclusion of the paper:
“There was not a uniform system of "terror-justice" operating automatically against those whose civil and moral courage forced them to declare "ohnemich!"(without me!). In fact, the opposite is true. In every case of documented refusal to obey orders to exterminate people, the coercive powers of the Nazi system proved to be impotent or ineffective.”
“There was not a uniform system of "terror-justice" operating automatically against those whose civil and moral courage forced them to declare "ohnemich!"(without me!). In fact, the opposite is true. In every case of documented refusal to obey orders to exterminate people, the coercive powers of the Nazi system proved to be impotent or ineffective.”
Something like 80% of the 60 - 65 million people killed during world war 2 were unarmed. They were civilians or prisoners of war.
The vast majority of these were killed by Germany, Japan, Italy, and Soviet Union.
While there were individuals who resisted this, the systems of government and the belief systems that drove the totalitarian states where unprecedentedly horrific.
If you're interested in learning more about this history, "The Second World Wars" by Victor Davis Hanson is a good place to start.
The vast majority of these were killed by Germany, Japan, Italy, and Soviet Union.
While there were individuals who resisted this, the systems of government and the belief systems that drove the totalitarian states where unprecedentedly horrific.
If you're interested in learning more about this history, "The Second World Wars" by Victor Davis Hanson is a good place to start.
> While there were individuals who resisted this, the systems of government and the belief systems that drove the totalitarian states where unprecedentedly horrific.
World War 1 happened 2 decades earlier and wasn't totalitarian and was nearly as horrific (the combat itself was usually far more horrific than WW2). The legacy of humans has been constant war for centuries before that. Even reducing it to some 20th century political ideology is insufficient. Human history has long been a series of duelling nation states, religions, city states, war lords, tribes, etc.
The only thing that stopped wars was economic production trumped state expansion while becoming global creating strong interconnections between nation states... and technology (ie, nuclear weapons, total war economies) made the stakes of war too high. But again that's just what stopped or slowed down the bloodshed, not a sufficient explanation of why it kept happening.
World War 1 happened 2 decades earlier and wasn't totalitarian and was nearly as horrific (the combat itself was usually far more horrific than WW2). The legacy of humans has been constant war for centuries before that. Even reducing it to some 20th century political ideology is insufficient. Human history has long been a series of duelling nation states, religions, city states, war lords, tribes, etc.
The only thing that stopped wars was economic production trumped state expansion while becoming global creating strong interconnections between nation states... and technology (ie, nuclear weapons, total war economies) made the stakes of war too high. But again that's just what stopped or slowed down the bloodshed, not a sufficient explanation of why it kept happening.
WW1 was of course an enormous tragedy, but it was fought between armies.
I'm not aware of any major attacks on civilians in that war.
I'm not aware of any major attacks on civilians in that war.
About 20 million died in world war 1, and deaths were primarily combatants.
World War 2 was directed primarily at killing unarmed.
The Nazis wanted to colonize eastern Europe, so killed many to make room for that, as well as anyone that did not fit in with their notion of racial purity. The Japanese killed their millions in China, but also elsewhere. The Italian killing fields were in Ethiopia. The Soviets killed millions of prisoners of war.
Looking at the ideologies of these countries, their goal was to kill anyone who got in the way of those ideologies.
World War 2 was directed primarily at killing unarmed.
The Nazis wanted to colonize eastern Europe, so killed many to make room for that, as well as anyone that did not fit in with their notion of racial purity. The Japanese killed their millions in China, but also elsewhere. The Italian killing fields were in Ethiopia. The Soviets killed millions of prisoners of war.
Looking at the ideologies of these countries, their goal was to kill anyone who got in the way of those ideologies.
Precisely why we need to steer away from might makes right and stick to universal principles.
While there were individuals who resisted this, the systems of government and the belief systems that drove the totalitarian states where unprecedentedly horrific.
There is nothing controversial about saying that. If you are implying that I'm ignorant of such a basic fact, then this is insulting and commenting in bad faith.
What is controversial nowadays, ironically for a society which claims to be founded on inviolate individual human rights, is that the exact same regard for individual culpability should be accorded members of the Wehrmacht. My previous comment supports the notion of group culpability for members of an army. However, the idea that all members of the Wehrmacht are equally culpable is simply ridiculous and untenable, given the facts and given the principles of individual human rights.
If you're interested in learning more about this history, "The Second World Wars" by Victor Davis Hanson is a good place to start.
If you mean to insinuate that I know nothing of the very basic history of WWII, please know that I am already a fan of David Hanson.
As noted elsewhere, it is an act of individual courage to go against the flow of the groupthink. I hardly think "Nazi German Bad" is at all controversial. However, in 2019, "individual rights for all, no exceptions" is controversial, in direct contradiction to our stated values in the US.
There is nothing controversial about saying that. If you are implying that I'm ignorant of such a basic fact, then this is insulting and commenting in bad faith.
What is controversial nowadays, ironically for a society which claims to be founded on inviolate individual human rights, is that the exact same regard for individual culpability should be accorded members of the Wehrmacht. My previous comment supports the notion of group culpability for members of an army. However, the idea that all members of the Wehrmacht are equally culpable is simply ridiculous and untenable, given the facts and given the principles of individual human rights.
If you're interested in learning more about this history, "The Second World Wars" by Victor Davis Hanson is a good place to start.
If you mean to insinuate that I know nothing of the very basic history of WWII, please know that I am already a fan of David Hanson.
As noted elsewhere, it is an act of individual courage to go against the flow of the groupthink. I hardly think "Nazi German Bad" is at all controversial. However, in 2019, "individual rights for all, no exceptions" is controversial, in direct contradiction to our stated values in the US.
I think there's a rational explanation for making what I agree with you is a quite a wrong assessment.
First of all, modern armies are mass action: uniforms make the "other side" literally uniform and undifferentiated. The purpose is twofold: first so that your own troopers won't think rationally about what they are doing and will simply follow along with the crowd, whether the rule is "shoot", "dig a foxhole", "don't run away" or whatever. The second value is to dehumanise the enemy and increase the chance that violence will actually be done to him (this is why the officers were so unhappy with the Christmas Day football game between British and German troops in WWI).
This whole process appeared in the Nopoleonic->Prussian invention of mass warfare; until then it was a largely retail affair when you really figured if you needed to kill that other guy in front of you or not.
Second of all, and again this is a function of 20th century warfare, this process was amplified through mass propaganda to whole populations, again dehumanizing the enemy. It's own long topic so I"ll stop here.
I will say that these refusals are even harder, not easier, when you're in a group who can see you take action or not (as opposed to firing at a far-away enemy where your colleagues can't really see how well you're aiming).
So in other words: everybody on HN has been trained to think this way, and all active participants in WWII had been likewise trained to think this way of the "other side"
First of all, modern armies are mass action: uniforms make the "other side" literally uniform and undifferentiated. The purpose is twofold: first so that your own troopers won't think rationally about what they are doing and will simply follow along with the crowd, whether the rule is "shoot", "dig a foxhole", "don't run away" or whatever. The second value is to dehumanise the enemy and increase the chance that violence will actually be done to him (this is why the officers were so unhappy with the Christmas Day football game between British and German troops in WWI).
This whole process appeared in the Nopoleonic->Prussian invention of mass warfare; until then it was a largely retail affair when you really figured if you needed to kill that other guy in front of you or not.
Second of all, and again this is a function of 20th century warfare, this process was amplified through mass propaganda to whole populations, again dehumanizing the enemy. It's own long topic so I"ll stop here.
I will say that these refusals are even harder, not easier, when you're in a group who can see you take action or not (as opposed to firing at a far-away enemy where your colleagues can't really see how well you're aiming).
So in other words: everybody on HN has been trained to think this way, and all active participants in WWII had been likewise trained to think this way of the "other side"
Normal men - farmers, workers, clerks - receive a letter in the mail: " on the first of next month, report to base X. Failure to report will be considered treason".
You have kids at home. They'll have no more food on the table if you are dead.
You show up. You do what they tell you.
Sadly that's how it has always been. Some enjoy it-most though just want it to end.
You have kids at home. They'll have no more food on the table if you are dead.
You show up. You do what they tell you.
Sadly that's how it has always been. Some enjoy it-most though just want it to end.
I think it's worth noting that the armed forces and the Nazi party itself were not in lock step for the duration of the 3rd Reich. While the SS answered more or less directly to the Nazi party there were certainly individuals throughout the leadership of the armed forces that did not like their resources being used to carry out genocide and or help the SS because they had little interest in that, they wanted to fight a real war. A lot of the leadership of the armed forces resented the fact that the Nazi party has usurped some of their power so they weren't too keen on bending over backwards to further the goals of their unspoken political opponents. Also have to remember that until they got the death camp system up and running most executions were done by firing squad. Doing this to civilians at large scale is kind of a shitty task so there's going to be really little enthusiasm for it from the lower officers and the grunts who will generally drag their feet and stall.
It is always better to study history then to make broad general statements.
As an example Babi Yar one of largest mass execution of Jews during II WW.
> Contrary to the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht", the Sixth Army under the command of Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau worked together with the SS and SD to plan and execute the mass-murder of the Jews of Kiev.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
As an example Babi Yar one of largest mass execution of Jews during II WW.
> Contrary to the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht", the Sixth Army under the command of Field Marshal Walter von Reichenau worked together with the SS and SD to plan and execute the mass-murder of the Jews of Kiev.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
The relationship between the armed forces and the Nazi party was indeed complex.
Eg the noble officiers didn't like the Nazis' populism. They were however mostly happy to fight a war, especially when it was going well.
Eg the noble officiers didn't like the Nazis' populism. They were however mostly happy to fight a war, especially when it was going well.
The last line resonated with me a lot "In every case of documented refusal to obey orders to exterminate people, the coercive powers of the Nazi system proved to be impotent or ineffective."
I would have expected the opposite. I guess this means, the structures of society and rule of of law were actually sort of still working, but that most people feared going against the zeitgeist.
I would have expected the opposite. I guess this means, the structures of society and rule of of law were actually sort of still working, but that most people feared going against the zeitgeist.
This is an important point that is too often left unsaid. People today have an image of the Nazis organizing the deportation and murder of the Jews in a top-down fashion while everyone who wasn't German powerlessly looked on. But, actually, the Holocaust happened at the scale that it did because people went along with it. And not just the Germans; also the people in occupied countries, and in some cases even the Jews themselves. In places where people didn't go along with it, the Holocaust was ineffective, and survival rates were much higher.
Some places where people did not go along are (famously) Denmark and (less famously) Bulgaria. These countries managed to save the vast majority of their Jewish populations (though in the case of Bulgaria, Macedonian and Thracian Jews were murdered). 75% of French Jews survived the war because the French largely protected French Jews (though stateless Jewish refugees living in France fared much worse).
Some places where people did not go along are (famously) Denmark and (less famously) Bulgaria. These countries managed to save the vast majority of their Jewish populations (though in the case of Bulgaria, Macedonian and Thracian Jews were murdered). 75% of French Jews survived the war because the French largely protected French Jews (though stateless Jewish refugees living in France fared much worse).
Yes, I have read that, and find it... I'm not sure of the best word, maybe daunting? From what I've read, the Wannsee conference was convened with the expectation that they would have to convince a bunch of middle-management bureaucrat types that switching to organized mass-murder was necessary. Apparently, much to their surprise, everyone agreed right away, and immediately started coming up with their own ideas to make it run more smoothly and efficiently. Apparently, nobody at all raised any objections or even dragged their feet at the idea of organizing mass murder.
In fact, the Nazis had perverted the law and its rule but retained the structure of a lawful state, as chaos and anarchy were pretty much out of fashion in Germany after the 20s. Think of the Nazis as a gang of uneducated mobsters winning some decent hotel in a game of poker. They had to retain the reception, the service personal and the kitchen. But they behave disgustingly at every opportunity.
There's nothing stopping a highly educated person from being an absolute monster, as we've seen repeatedly throughout history.
> Nazis as a gang of uneducated mobsters
Not at all e.g. most of the Wannsee Conference attendants had "Dr." title. Numerous responsible for massacres of civilians or inhumane medical experiments had the "Dr." title. The so called elite can turn into monstrosity as well. It's not "the primitives" which are the real threat most of the time. "The primitives" gain power only after the the elite is purged and/or expelled - see the first decades in Soviet Union after the Bolshevik revolution, or Stalinism in Poland.
Not at all e.g. most of the Wannsee Conference attendants had "Dr." title. Numerous responsible for massacres of civilians or inhumane medical experiments had the "Dr." title. The so called elite can turn into monstrosity as well. It's not "the primitives" which are the real threat most of the time. "The primitives" gain power only after the the elite is purged and/or expelled - see the first decades in Soviet Union after the Bolshevik revolution, or Stalinism in Poland.
"Think of the Nazis as a gang of uneducated mobsters"
Only that they were quite educated. Not the lower troops of SA. But the party members were very much into classical education, classical music etc.
And they totally went by law and order. "Just" a different order. With racism as its core fundamentals and the neglect of humanism in general.
Only that they were quite educated. Not the lower troops of SA. But the party members were very much into classical education, classical music etc.
And they totally went by law and order. "Just" a different order. With racism as its core fundamentals and the neglect of humanism in general.
>Think of the Nazis as a gang of uneducated mobsters
Actually lots of highly educated people were Nazis, including Nazi leaders and apologists.
Including people considered by their (even Jewish, even post WWII) academic peers, as the "biggest thinkers" of the 20th century.
Heck, Mengele had 2 Ph.Ds (anthopology and medicine).
Actually lots of highly educated people were Nazis, including Nazi leaders and apologists.
Including people considered by their (even Jewish, even post WWII) academic peers, as the "biggest thinkers" of the 20th century.
Heck, Mengele had 2 Ph.Ds (anthopology and medicine).
Oskar Dirlewanger had a PhD in political science, and commanded a unit so brutal that an SS court was convened to investigate.
Imagine how horrific someone's actions must be when even the SS think they might be going too far.
Imagine how horrific someone's actions must be when even the SS think they might be going too far.
[deleted]
> Think of the Nazis as a gang of uneducated mobsters
This is such a ridiculous claim to make. There is absolutely no correlation between Evil and Stupidity. And pretty much every fact of that time disagrees with the theory that Germany was led by idiots and uneducated people. On the contrary, you should be all the more afraid when smart people turn evil.
This is such a ridiculous claim to make. There is absolutely no correlation between Evil and Stupidity. And pretty much every fact of that time disagrees with the theory that Germany was led by idiots and uneducated people. On the contrary, you should be all the more afraid when smart people turn evil.
This was not a claim, although I very much doubt the intellectual capacity of Himmler, Göring, or Keitel. It was a metaphor. The Nazis had as much regard for the rule of law as a drunk member of a street gang may have for the correct placement of the several forks and knives and a dinner table.
The OP link is dead for me: returns 0 bytes. Anyone got another link?
This link doesn’t seem to work in Australia (Optus). Censorship?
Server overload. You can get it from here for the price of creating a login: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1429971
The White Rose pamphlets, by Germans who opposed Nazism during World War II, are fascinating -- http://whiterosesociety.org/WRS_pamphlets_home.html
Conclusion at the end is the biggest surprise.
[flagged]
Was this post intended as sarcasm, or did you actually mean to equate the torture of a small number of prisoners with mass executions of millions of civilians?
[deleted]
I never said they were equal. I don't know if anyone was punished for doing it though.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Don't encourage him. He obviously likes feeling morally superior.
Perhaps you misunderstand. This is an issue better approached with logic than with emotion.
I draw attention to the parent's false equivalency of Nazi Germany and 21st Century USA. I describe the Nazi regime's recognition of the morale toll on its soldiers of gunning down innocent souls. Himmler himself saw this as an "issue."
Conjecture basis the article that the Nazi German legal system is similar to the modern American system is logically fallacious and dangerous insofar as it suggests that Nazism is compatible with contemporary American political and ethical values.
I draw attention to the parent's false equivalency of Nazi Germany and 21st Century USA. I describe the Nazi regime's recognition of the morale toll on its soldiers of gunning down innocent souls. Himmler himself saw this as an "issue."
Conjecture basis the article that the Nazi German legal system is similar to the modern American system is logically fallacious and dangerous insofar as it suggests that Nazism is compatible with contemporary American political and ethical values.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The Milgram Experiment[1] shows that most people do go along with what an authority figure tells them. It’s one of the more depressing experiments in social psychology.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
The Milgram experiment shows people will role-play if you put them in a role play situation.
It doesn't tell you anything about what people do in the real world in real situations.
It doesn't tell you anything about what people do in the real world in real situations.
That’s just not correct.
In the original form of the experiment (and several subsequent replications), the “teacher” was under the impression everything was real and wasn’t aware the “learner” (the person pretending to get shocked) was an actor.
Today, you’d never get an ethics board to approve the experiment in this form, as several former “teachers” were distraught, after being told the true nature of the experiment, because they naturally assumed they’d never be capable of such terrible acts.
There is no evidence to support the view that the “teachers” who administered dangerous shocks were somehow clued into the fact that it was an actor. That would have made the entire experiment worthless, as “Will people pretend to do evil things while role playing?” isn’t an interesting question because thats well understood to be true. Milgram set out specifically to see if every-day people would commit acts that go against their personal conscience if directed to do so by authority.
In the original form of the experiment (and several subsequent replications), the “teacher” was under the impression everything was real and wasn’t aware the “learner” (the person pretending to get shocked) was an actor.
Today, you’d never get an ethics board to approve the experiment in this form, as several former “teachers” were distraught, after being told the true nature of the experiment, because they naturally assumed they’d never be capable of such terrible acts.
There is no evidence to support the view that the “teachers” who administered dangerous shocks were somehow clued into the fact that it was an actor. That would have made the entire experiment worthless, as “Will people pretend to do evil things while role playing?” isn’t an interesting question because thats well understood to be true. Milgram set out specifically to see if every-day people would commit acts that go against their personal conscience if directed to do so by authority.
That is an interesting article. There are certainly lots of reasons for thinking that the behavior of the participants was much more complicated than is sometimes presented, but nevertheless, it seems not beyond possibility that, when questioned after the event, participants might have made somewhat self-serving statements about actions of theirs that they may have had qualms about at the time.
I find it interesting that the article makes an issue over the point that "the majority do not appear to have continued out of commitment to science," as this particular motivation seems to me to be one of the lesser issues raised by the exercise.
I find it interesting that the article makes an issue over the point that "the majority do not appear to have continued out of commitment to science," as this particular motivation seems to me to be one of the lesser issues raised by the exercise.
> That would have made the entire experiment worthless,
Welcome to psychology in the 1960s.
Welcome to psychology in the 1960s.
If the participants thought they were in a real-word situation -- and apparently many did -- then their responses (which were varied) do raise questions about real-world behavior.
As I understand it, it is an optimistic experiment: almost a third of people can think for themselves and won't torture only because they were given an order.
Some of us are not automatons :) https://www.xkcd.com/610/
Some of us are not automatons :) https://www.xkcd.com/610/
I fail to see what's 'optimistic' about that. By those numbers, independent-minded people are outnumbered 2:1 by tools. Those numbers are likely way off the mark given both the tiny number and relative homogeneity of subjects in the original study, and the decades that have since passed with all the social and cultural changes. But the fact that so many populist politicians choose to predicate their campaigns on increasing animus towards some marginalized social group suggests there's quite a lot of people who either don't want to think for themselves or select for authority figures that will permit them to indulge their worst impulses.
It's not obvious that it's a binary classification of people into buckets labeled "independent thinker" and "drone / tool". Surely every social person participates in groupthink to some contextually-dependent degree.
It becomes binary when people are ordered to harm someone else and must decide whether or not to obey. I picked the word tool not as an insult but as a descriptor of a person who has allowed themselves to be so instrumentalized.
Interestingly, the Geneva Convention was barely used at all, and the "excuses" given were mostly based on the politics of the military instead.
That's because civilian protections where only added in 1949 to the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention as-of WW2 would only be applicable to PoWs, not civilians.
Russian pows where murdered by neglect in large numbers
It's true both ways: for the German POWs who were sent to Russia, almost none of them made it back alive.
That's just plain wrong. German PoWs in the USSR had a death rate of 15% to 30% depending on the sources, while Soviet PoWs in Germany had a death rate of 57% to 65% depending on the sources.
Well I don't want to make this into an argument about who was worse but the Russians didn't honor the Geneva convention. The last German POWs weren't released until the mid 50s.
The Soviets did not honor the Geneva convention, as they had not even signed it at the time.
The Germans explicitely suspended its use in their armed forces for the Eastern Front – which is why millions of Soviet PoWs were left to die of starvation in what was basically large cattle pens while Jews or card-carrying Communists were to be shot on the spot after capture.
The Germans explicitely suspended its use in their armed forces for the Eastern Front – which is why millions of Soviet PoWs were left to die of starvation in what was basically large cattle pens while Jews or card-carrying Communists were to be shot on the spot after capture.
What are the sources you are quoting?
Zemskov, Krivosheev, Overmans, Glantz, Goldhagen.
To be fair I don't think anybody saw systemic violence upon civilians during a war between states (as opposed to a civil one) as a realistic possibility during the inter-war period. It was well outside the customs of war in our corner of the world at that point.
The national-social cocktail completely tore apart common decency.
The national-social cocktail completely tore apart common decency.
> To be fair I don't think anybody saw systemic violence upon civilians during a war between states (as opposed to a civil one) as a realistic possibility during the inter-war period. It was well outside the customs of war in our corner of the world at that point.
Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies.
Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies.
> Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies.
I think the point was that scale of it was quite different in WW2. In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts.
I think the point was that scale of it was quite different in WW2. In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio is of relevance here. WW1 already had an almost 1:1 ratio, though this ratio isn't really indicative of atrocities per se. E.g. previously you might have rather seen pillaging. Going a bit back, the people's crusade of 1096 mostly pillaged European cities and landscape.
> In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts
I'd have to see data on that, not that I definitely disbelieve it. But it does seem to me that this was more often the case than not.
I'd have to see data on that, not that I definitely disbelieve it. But it does seem to me that this was more often the case than not.
I was not only about the land anymore, the massive industry [1] and agriculture [2] needed a lot of free stuff. Mistreatment of civilians was an implication, and we overestimate the destructiveness of hate - until the unification of Germany their fragmented principalities had been trembling from hate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_concentration_camp#Bu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostarbeiter
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monowitz_concentration_camp#Bu...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostarbeiter
Countries east of Germany were not signatories of the Geneva Convention as of WWII. The civilians of these countries were basically considered as and treated as cattle, including when they were kidnapped to inland Germany as slave labor. I don't think the Geneva Convention would change anything though...
Why would they care for the Geneva Convention? The whole point of the war was to ignore and bypass all kinds of previous signed conventions (regarding WWI, borders, alliances, etc).
i get a [PDF] from the submission.
no complaints from me but usually a tag [PDF]
is appended to title. That being said there are those that just love the excuse of just following orders, and those that have a moral boundary stronger than a perceived social duty.
in a lot of cases there was a cloak such as, we are not told to do it immediately i have more efficient plans.
>Oskar Schindler (28 April 1908 - 9 October 1974) was a German industrialist and a member of the Nazi Party who is credited with saving the lives of 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust by employing them in his enamelware and ammunitions factories in occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.<
These people were declared essential servants and diverted from concentration.
in a lot of cases there was a cloak such as, we are not told to do it immediately i have more efficient plans.
>Oskar Schindler (28 April 1908 - 9 October 1974) was a German industrialist and a member of the Nazi Party who is credited with saving the lives of 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust by employing them in his enamelware and ammunitions factories in occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.<
These people were declared essential servants and diverted from concentration.
Highly recommend watching this 4 minute piece about Sir Nicholas Winton. Makes you feel good about humans.
https://youtu.be/PKkgO06bAZk
https://youtu.be/PKkgO06bAZk
Thank you so much for sharing. We should know this man's name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Winton
You are welcome.
Thank you for spreading his name, here and hopefully elsewhere. He and the people he helped deserve it.
Thank you for spreading his name, here and hopefully elsewhere. He and the people he helped deserve it.
Well researched (based on testimonials) and well written.
Some men get used to the job, some enjoyed it, some kept refusing.
> Twelve out of 500 soldiers opted out when allowed to leave freely.[34] Those of them who felt unable to continue shooting at point-blank range of prisoners begging for mercy, were asked to wait at the marketplace where the trucks were loaded.[35] The action was finished in seventeen hours. The bodies of the dead carpeting the forest floor at the Winiarczykowa Góra hill (about 2 km from the village, pictured)[36] were left unburied. Watches, jewelry and money were taken.[3]
Unfortunately some of those men who refused were hanged after the war for made up war crimes. History has bitter sense of humor.
> For a battalion of less than 500 men, the ultimate body count was at least 83,000 Jews.[50]
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Soluti...
[2] http://hampshirehigh.com/exchange2012/docs/BROWNING-Ordinary...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Police_Battalion_101