Was the luftwaffe really apolitical or not? Does a "clean luftwaffe" thing exist?

[michaelmaltby]

"... They did not, because they served a morally bankrupt and yet malevolently evil genius of a commander"
Parsifal it sounds like your saying that if a 'boss' is a corrupt, racist, sociopath ba**tard, it is impossible for anyone working for/beneath him/her to achieve anything of courage, skill, achievement, excellence etc. etc.
I totally reject that view .... it is as false as the notion of collective punishment.
As for LW flak units ... they and the paras were raised under Goering's greedy eye ... and it is they that are remembered for their achievements ... the LW Field
Units are largely irreverent .... used the same way as 'heevee' formations.

 

[swampyankee]

Regardless of left/right politics, do remember that military forces operate in the same bureaucratic environment as all other government entities. With an autocracy, like nazi Germany, playing the political game by sucking up to the big boss was an absolute necessity. Had the Luftwaffe failed politically or the Kriegsmarine or Heer succeeded, Raeder would have had his own aircraft, the paratroopers would be in the army, etc.

Also, I suspect that German involvement in the Spanish Civil War was something Goering pushed. At lower levels, I would be fairly sure that evaluations of officers was certainly influenced by the evaluated officers' politics.

 

[The Basket]

I will bow out of this one.

I will stick to over promoting the Enfield P-13.

 

[michael rauls]

In my opinion while there can't be a " clean Luftwaffe" durring ww2 as it was in the service of an evil regime there certainly were individuals within the Luftwaffe that were descent guys( Franz Stigler comes to mind) that seemed to try and behave in a chivalrous manner as much as was possible given the constraints of there situation. What were the percentages here? Could have been 5%, could have been 50%, I don't know but they certainly did exist.
From what ive read alot of guys didn't know about the full extent of everything that was going on under the Nazi regime( or so they claimed anyway) and didn't agree with all of that which they did know. I can see that when it's your country at war and your in the military it's not so easy to say" I don't agree with what the leadership is doing therefore im not fighting". As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure this would have got you executed in wartime Germany. I'll bet alot of rationalizing went on.
So I think that even in the wartime Luftwaffe there were descent guys within it but I don't think you could ever call the organization itself" clean" in any way.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that was a very sensible and reasonable post.

 

[parsifal]

Thank you for posting extensive materials about DKM. I'm sure they are very useful for those who were not aware of all that before. And for those who considered Donitz to be a "plain sailor" and apolitical warrior.

One small problem. Probably my eyes let me down but I found nothing which confirmed your following statement:
He...did order, the murder of helpless survivors

The order appears to have come from hitler as evidenced by the fuhrers meeting with Ambassador Oshima.. There are several orders from Donitz that were carefuly worded or at best ambiguopus. Several affidavits from serving DKM officers at the trial show that in their opinion Donitz made his meaning clear.

NImitzs affidavit derailed these indictments. Neverheless, Karl Doenitz was found guilty of Crimes Against Peace and War Crimes. The war crimes indictment relates mostly to the "annhilation order". that the court accepted he did order. The crimes against peace related more to his active preparations to fight an aggressive war. .

 

[parsifal]

And my apologies if that comes across as rude. It was a bit harsh, and I will tone it down. Any member on this forum who woukd have done that, is no longer here. It really was an uncalled for comment.

I apologise for the comment, and concede I should not have said it. If I could I would withdraw it.

This (the conduct of people in war) is always a raw issue, and one that does not win me any friends because of my uncompromising stand on the issue. As an officer then later someone deeply involved in the law, I apply the same standards as I am familiar with, and which began all those years ago as a serving officer. I wont compromise, because to do so would be a betrayal to the principals I hold as valuable. For me accepting that it was "alright" to conduct a war with no respect or observance of the "rules" suggests that millions (from all sides) who lost their lives was just an accident...... This particular discussion relates to the inferences that DKM fought an "honourable war" and was less politically motivated than either the army and the airforce. There is no such thing as an honourable war, they are always angry and innocent people in modern wars always suffer. The difference to make is whether such casualties were intentional or unavoidable. And for me, whether such deaths were "lawful". Its the lasting legacy we take away from this and other wars. Its what we do with that legacy that counts and in that opinions do matter.

. The best we as human beings can do is establish some rules, even guidelines about how wars should be fought and do our best to ensure that they are conducted in those pre-agreed upon rules. If we don't do that, future wars will be even worse than the last ones. Its the difference between the way we wage war and the way people like DA***ESH would like to conduct wars.

Frequently such discussions become mired in moral judgements and then followed closely by increasingly barbaric statements about how there should be no rules in warfare.

Its best not to get involved in the emotive arguments, in these debates. And im not. Im basing my statements on the findings of the Nuremberg war crimes trials and the evidence that supported the indictment of Doenitz. I am not making judgements of officers or men used to carry out those order. I have them, but they are irrelevant.

Some people are saying there is no evidence of him (Doenitz) issuing extermination style orders, Maybe. but that's not what the court found of him. If that were true, then he would at least have been guilty of gross negligence. For a man so closely in contact and in control of his command, how on earth could he have not been aware of such allegedly independent and unauthorised and unlawful acts, that would normally be punishable by a court martial or at least some clarification of his true meaning of the orders that he gave . I think the only plausible explanation was that his men were doing exactly what he had intended by those orders

 

[The Basket]

I need to step back in. Can't let that go!

I read a lot about Nuremberg and Doenitz and naval warfare and the point is missed here.

Both the RN and USN thought the Kriegsmarine played a straight bat and....cough...there was plenty incident where the RN and USN could have mud thrown at them for getting up to stuff. So the Royal Navy were not happy to pick on one off events in case mud was thrown back. And mud there was.

Nimitz memo was to do with unrestricted sub warfare not on killing shipwrecked crew. And I am not 100% convinced that there was a killing shipwrecked crew order so I am going to give benefit of the doubt.

So in a convoy battle, a u-boat is going to deliberately surface to shoot the lifeboats? While under constant threat of air power? While been depth charged? The life expectancy was already awful so to order the shooting of shipwrecked crews would be nonsensical.

Doenitz was not in a high command position in 1939 or 1940 or 1941 so charging him with aggressive war was hardly fair. The wars were well under way before he became Grand Admiral.

Now Commando order and use of slave labour and stuff like that is different so yes Doenitz was accountable and he was head of state. So he had responsibility outside the U-boat arm.

I don't have the full facts to hand. But I am sorry if your hatred for Doenitz blinds you.

 

[parsifal]

I don't hate Doenitz. I feel sorry for him. He was a brilliant officer, He was guilty of "war crimes" and "crimes against peace" . He issued illegal orders, or if you are not accepting the findings at nuremberg, ambiguous orders which means he was not a brilliant officer, he was a careless one. .

Inferred in the war crimes indictment, was his authorisation to attack all shipping, neutral or bellligerent, without warning outside a declared area that war was being waged. Also evident in the indictment was his "annhilation order" which featured in the prosecution case against him and despite Nimit's intervention (and it was submitted as an affidavit to the court incidentally...and could only have been so if he had agreed for that to happen..., so calling it a memo is inaccurate).

The allies committed some bad things as well, but how is that relevant?

The best article that I am able to lawfully post here can be found here

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/c...edir=1&article=1148&context=law_globalstudies

A definition of a "war crime can be found here as well as a simplified definition of a crime against peace.

Nuremberg Trials: What were the crimes?

" War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment of deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity (Calvocoressi 45).

In respect to war crimes, the "Tribunal found the facts as follows: 'The Truth remains that War Crimes were committed on a vast scale, never before seen in the history of war. They were perpetrated in all the countries occupied by Germany and on the High Seas and were attended by every conceivable circumstance of cruelty and horror'" (Calvocoressi 48).

The war crimes could be divided into "two categories: crimes against fighting men and crimes against civilians. In the first category there were included: the order to slaughter commandos to the last man even if they surrendered; the order to separate political commissars from other Russian prisoners and shoot them; ill-treatment and murder of Russian prisoners; the use of prisoners for medical experiments; the use of prisoners for labour contrary to international conventions. Against the civilian population the following crimes were proved: extermination of certain sections by organized mass murder; large scale deportation; for labour in Germany in the most shocking conditions; the taking and shooting of hostages; the economic exploitation of occupied territories over and above the needs of the occupying troops; wanton devastation of towns and villages; the plunder of works of art. The list is not exhaustive" (Calvocoressi 48)…
More often than not a crime which is a War Crime is also a Crime against Humanity and vice-versa:"

Crimes against peace: "namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing" (Calvocoressi 30)…

"Crimes against Peace" was a piece of legislature that was to pin point those people who were responsible for the intentional planning of inhumane actions. It describes actions considered to be those of aggressive war."

Doenitz was not convicted of Crimes against Humanity. I don't know that he was even charged with that. I think it reasonable that his reputation be spared of that

 

[The Basket]

Doenitz to my memory did issue the commando order which is pretty much open and shut case.

But Nimitz thingy was about the interpretation of unrestricted submarine warfare. So basically from a legal point of view the USN and Kriegsmarine acted the same. So if you hang Doenitz you hang Nimitz.

Goering for all his crimes was not convicted of bombing civilians. Why not? Because Nuremberg itself was a ruin!

The invasion of Iceland could be considered a war crime. And the Soviets at Nuremberg tried to put Katyn on the Germans.

We can play this game all day.

 

[parsifal]

"... They did not, because they served a morally bankrupt and yet malevolently evil genius of a commander"
Parsifal it sounds like your saying that if a 'boss' is a corrupt, racist, sociopath ba**tard, it is impossible for anyone working for/beneath him/her to achieve anything of courage, skill, achievement, excellence etc. etc.
I totally reject that view .... it is as false as the notion of collective punishment.
As for LW flak units ... they and the paras were raised under Goering's greedy eye ... and it is they that are remembered for their achievements ... the LW Field
Units are largely irreverent .... used the same way as 'heevee' formations.

The argument was first raised that DKM should be exonerated for whatever crimes it (allegedly) did because of the fine work it did at the end of the war. Its a variation to your collective punishment comment if you think about it....."officer, yes I was speeding along that part of the highway, but I wasn't speeding along this part"....really!!!!!!!! Excellent as it is, the bravery and determination shown in the last days of the war (made necessary because of the atrocious behaviour of the heer in Russia in the first place) by DKM does not serve as atonement for their other crimes. Their "other crimes" are no speeding tickets...they are not misdemeanours, they are major crimes carried out in time of war. they trace back to Doenitz (and yes he often added his own touches to hitlers exhortations) so it is there that we need to focus on whether DKM was firstly a political (in the sense of its malevolence) and secondly if fought an "honourabloe" or even "lawful" war.

There were many instances of courage, effective combat, initiative and a whole range of other praiseworthy attributes. That has zero relevance to whether the Kriegsmarine was a politically interfered with service. It was, but you have to look mostly at its leadership to determine that . As to the criminality of what was done, it is self evident, that if Doenitz was convicted of war crimes and crimes against peace, at least some of his lieutenants carried out his wishes.

As to the LW field divisions, that is actually more relevant to the thread. So you want to say, essentially that we should ignore the 22 failed (largely) LW field Divisions and treat them as unimportant or irrelevant compared to the 7 parachute divisions (11 were formed, but only 7 were ever really at divisional strength, of the 7 that were combat ready, only 4 could be classified as elite....so to meet the parameter you want to set, we have to ignore the combat performances of 31 divs, and just concentrate and praise the achievements of 5, including HG Pz?). The reason they were mentioned, was because they were raised because of inter service political rivalries not because they were ever thought likely to be effective. If ever there was a political decision,, they were it. .

 

[Shortround6]

The invasion of Iceland could be considered a war crime. And the Soviets at Nuremberg tried to put Katyn on the Germans.

We can play this game all day.

How many Icelanders were killed, massacred during/after the invasion of Iceland???

Granted an invasion/loss of sovereignty is still "illegal".

Trying to stay neutral while occupying the middle ground between two warring powers is noble but not very practical. It didn't save either Belgium or Holland.

 

[The Basket]

The invasion of Iceland was technically a war crime it was a war of aggression against a neutral country.

Legally speaking.

Just because there was no mass slaughter does not change the action.

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defence usually for territorial gain and subjugation.

Oops.

 

[parsifal]

Doenitz to my memory did issue the commando order which is pretty much open and shut case.

But Nimitz thingy was about the interpretation of unrestricted submarine warfare. So basically from a legal point of view the USN and Kriegsmarine acted the same. So if you hang Doenitz you hang Nimitz.

Goering for all his crimes was not convicted of bombing civilians. Why not? Because Nuremberg itself was a ruin!

The invasion of Iceland could be considered a war crime. And the Soviets at Nuremberg tried to put Katyn on the Germans.

We can play this game all day.

Doenitz was convicted principally on the basis of his "annihilation orders", and also because of his attacks on legitimate neutral shipping outside the war area. With the exception of the Russians in the Baltic, and black seas (attacks against Turkish shipping of which there is one documented case, and their attacks on Swedish shipping within the territorial limits of Sweden...still technically a war zone if you believe the russians) there are not many instances of allied shipping attacks against neutral shipping (none that I can think of outside the declared war zone) . there are at least three instances of allied submarine skippers attacking shipwreck survivors, the most notorious of which was the attack by the Wahoo. There is no evidence of allied orders from higher up to that effect (and plenty of evidence that Doenitz did issue the order) , and no evidence of allied attacks on neutral shipping outside the war zone (and undisputed evidence that Doenitz did issue such an order). there are plenty of examples of allies apprehending neutral shipping within the war zone, especially in 1939-40. those ships that failed to stop were fired upon (and often sunk), Many were boarded and seized. Doenitz was not convicted on the basis of carrying out unrestricted attacks on belligerent shipping. The british in particular wanted him stand trial for that, but nimitz' intervention (and i cant help thinking that King goaded him to it out of his hatred of the british) largely prevented that from happening. It was largely because the prosecution would not pursue Doenitz over this issue that he got off so lightly.

Allied commanders that committed atrocities should have been court martialled. I wish they were. But also this is irrelevant to what we are talking about, surely you agree. perhaps a separate thread? The various fleet commanders are not guilty however, and the Allied navies were not acting malevolently as a rule.

Goering was convicted on all four indictments. the Nuremberg indictements had to be general, but the body of evidence against each defendant had to be specific. The indictment against goering was no different, and he was found guilty, partly on the basis of his conduct of the air war. Of course the trials were imperfect, but it was superior to the summary justice advocated by Churchill (shoot 100000 officers I think was his opinion) or worse the wishes of stalin. I don't know exactly what he wanted, but it cannot have been good. the dogged pusuit of some form of justice by the American Jackson, and others, is the main legacy of WWII and something we should not discard.

If I could make a suggestion, there is no need to be emotional about this issue. I would like to hear your considered counter argument if possible.

 

[parsifal]

The invasion of Iceland was technically a war crime it was a war of aggression against a neutral country.

Legally speaking.

Just because there was no mass slaughter does not change the action.

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defence usually for territorial gain and subjugation.

Oops.

No it was not. it fails several of the tests that apply to any of the indictments underpinning Nuremberg. incidentally the concept of a "war of conquest" is different to a "war of aggression" so which one are you referring to here? A war of conquest is poorly defined but it does have meaning in international law prewar, and was not used for specific reasons like Iceland at nuremberg. For other reasons the occupation of the Baltic States and Bessarabia to say nothing of the Winter War were not pursued because of those legal conveniances.. Perhaps they should have, but not at Nuremberg. Nuremberg was set up for the specific purpose of pursuing Nazi war crimes. It was never quite repeated, not even after Japan surrendered (though the military tribunals set up there had the same basic effect) The pursuit of war crimes more generally would have to wait until the ICC was set up 40 years later, and then only with very patchy results and disdainful or non-existent support bordering on outright rejection.

Nuremberg was never seen as a general or permanent court.

Trying to apply a moral code to a legal question doesn't work well. You apply your moral standards to making the laws, not how you mete them out (though sadly that does happen regularly in the modern system). Trying to suck the british into the Nuremberg situation wont work. I am not saying that justice shouldn't occur, just that putting the wrong bunny in the wrong burrow is just as bad as taking a person out the back and just using rule 303 on them

 

[parsifal]

Just to clarify, the indictments against the Nuremberg accused were all the same, and were

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."

Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more "traditional" violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

The Indictments were developed under the guidance of the "Nuremberg Principals" a summary of which is fairly well laid out in wiki

Nuremberg principles - Wikipedia

For the men we are interested in the the following verdicts were reached

Karl Doenitz
Count I: Indicted Not Guilty
Count II: Indicted Guilty
Count III: Indicted Guilty
Count IV: Not charged

Herman Goering
Count I: Indicted Convicted
Count II: Indicted Convicted
Count III: Indicted Convicted
Count IV: Indicted Convicted

 

[The Basket]

How can the invasion of Denmark be illegal but the invasion of Finland and Iceland not?

 

[parsifal]

They might be. they have never been tested in a court of law of any description. They could not be tested at Nuremberg, by definition, but theoretically could be looked at by the ICC. That will never happen. In the case of Iceland, none of the indictable offences agreed upon could be applied to Iceland.

Count 1 _ There was never any conspiracy by Britain to wage aggressive war against Denmark, or Icleand.

Count 2 The peace for Denmark and Iceland had disappeared with the Nazi occupation of Jutland and Norway

Count 3 : What traditional war crime was committed by the British in Iceland. Claiming that they did is not only unsupportable, it cheapens the gravity of the crime.

Count 4: Exactly where were the concentration camps in Iceland?

Hard not to say that Finland was an aggressive war. A bit easier to say the occupation of icleand fails the test of a "war of aggression" since Denmark, which controlled Iceland had signed a peace deal with Germany making her territories fair game really.

 

[The Basket]

Occupation by military means is not aggressive? There was no war because Iceland had no capacity for war.

Did Iceland want to be invaded? Nope.

When did morality and legality depend on the willingness of the subject to be passive? You are actually justifying the invasion of a neutral country!

 

[nuuumannn]

Way outside of my wheelhouse but this guy gets into it for about 7 and a half minutes in his video here:

Best line in the whole thing (not that I watched it all): "Nothing says Valentine's Day like talking about the Luftwaffe".