Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor
Actually the Luftwaffe was not much different from the Army or the Navy. In the lower echelons were just as many Nazi-supporters as people who despised the Nazis. And of course there were many soldiers simply had no interest in politics and therefor no opinion beyond the usual crackerbarrel rhetorics (i.e. Hitler saved Germany and removed unemployment ... bla bla bla). The difference was that the higher echelons of the Luftwaffe were a lot more riddled with Nazi supporters than the Navy or the Army.
As for ethics ... Soldiers back then simply had a very limited amount of information available to them. I've read exerpts of Hannes Trautloft's war diary and it soon becomes obvious that even for a Geschwaderkommodore there's little beyond the scope of his role as commanding officer and fighter pilot. He simply has no way of gaining more insights because there are no alternative (and maybe even broader) sources of information available to him. This becomes very obvious in the later stages of the Battle of Britain where he remains extremely confident and expects the launch of the invasion anytime soon.
He also never questions his duty for his country and there's nothing in his diary that is political, although Trautloft was known to be one of those who had no use for the Nazi leadership and despised them for their crudeness and violence. What does that tell you about the ordinary soldier?
Hindsight, which is obviously applied in the question posted by the thread starter, is a marvelous thing, but it's quite clear that most germans remained unaware what kind of criminals they were serving.
|
I think this is pretty much spot on.
The young men were fighting for their countries and their comrades. Most knew very little about "the big picture". There was no internet, there were few papers, and there were few radio stations. There were was no internet and no 24 hour news networks.
People believed what their government said. The government said it was their duty to go fight and that's what the people did. It was a duty and I respect that very much.
Certainly there were atrocities, I would argue that most were committed by the Axis. Now....when a soldier willingly participates in such atrocities, they have crossed the line from warrior to criminal. In those instances, when a soldier is ordered to do something outside of the scope of warfare or when a soldier takes it upon themselves to commit such atrocities, then that individual needs to be held accountable. At that point, they are no longer soldiers.
Any soldier has the obligation to disobey an "unlawful" order but no soldier can refuse to fight.
It is also important to separate the soldiers from the leadership. Just because the leadership may have been evil does not mean that the society or the soldier was also evil. Therefore it is completely logical to be able to honor the common German soldier while despising the Nazi leadership. (this was just a convenient example, there are others)
Honestly, that's only fair. You cannot hold the common soldier accountable for the evil done by the country's leadership. Conversely, you cannot hold the leadership responsible for an isolated atrocity committed by a soldier or small group of soldiers.
Keep the soldiers and the leadership (the political ideologies and decisions) separate. Critique the leadership all you want, but honor the warriors if they fought honorably.
Splitter