Those that try to criminalise the german army as an institution have a political agenda or are biased.You can go on any internetforum and find lefties attacking not only the german army but also other armies in other wars.The methods used are always the same.There are also biased persons who apply totally different standards on the german army.
Convictions by tribunals without legal preexisting basis where normal rules of evidence were not applied do not make much of an impression.
This user always uses the same tactic that consists in not accusing individuals but always the whole german army or whole german divisions.Because he lacks the evidence to support these claims he resorts to guilt by association.Here he does it again by pointing out that the dirlewanger brigade fought together with wehrmacht divisions and therefore the whole wehrmacht is guilty of what it did.Because heer units were ordered to take one or the other artifact,the whole army is guilty of looting.It is interesting to note in this context that many artifacts in western museums come from 'looting' in the past centuries and they will certainly not give them back.
This posting again shows that the author is on a crusade against THE german army.If he would limit himself to say that this or that german soldier committed warcrimes,I would not even read the posting because the subject is completely indifferent to me.If the german army as an institution is attacked then I react.
It is a matter fact that on any internetforum you will find leftists attacking any army that is not that of a leftist regime of warcrimes.The methods this user uses against the german army are used by them to criminalise the german army in ww2,the us army in vietnam,iraq, afghanistan etc...The second category that tries to criminalise the german army are people with anti-german bias.
The statement about the sixth army order and its relevance to the stalingrad campaign is obviously wrong because Reichenau was not in command during the stalingrad campaign,he was already dead by then and the army was commanded by Paulus.
As Reichenau was a convinced nationalsocialist the wording of his order is not surprising but certainly not caracteristic for the mentality of most german generals that were not ardent nationalsocialists.
The content of the order is not shocking either.Reichenau does not want armed people in civilians clothes to be treated as prisoners of war.That is rather obvious.
In view of the logistical problems of the german army,not feeding non combatants that do not work for the german army from army kitchens ,is also common sense.
Not putting out fires in buildings that were put on fire by the retreating red army except when to be used to house german troops and the statement about the destruction of communist buildings is harsh but not shocking.If the red army puts buildings on fire then obviously the german army will only put them out if it needs the buildings itself.
The hard treatment of people that aid or abet partisans is perfectly understandable in view of the way these communist partisans fight.
Michael kenny presents a text obviously not written by Manstein as Manstein's view .One only has to read the text to know that this was not written by Manstein but by somebody else with a strong national socialist opinion and signed by him.This is an old story.Manstein does not write like that.
At the same time it does not prove any warcrime by anybody.It is again another sign of weakness to use this type of argument.In the abscence of enough evidence to implicate the whole army these texts are produced and we are then supposed to accept that most german soldiers must in consequence of this type of orders have committed massive warcrimes without any proof of these having to be produced. A gimmick just like the guilt by association one.
I am just reading the history of the 95th infantrydivision(Kampf und Untergang der 95. Ifanteriedivision,Karl Knoblauch Flechsig 2008).This division was part of the Sixth army and when you read about the circonstances as they were in october 1941 ,you start to understand the Reichenau order which is also sometimes used against the german army.Because of the heavy rains roads had become mudpools and supply broke down;german troop at times even having no bread.The rear area was insecure because of the presence of armed civilians.Villages and towns were left burning by the red army and buildings were mined.
One incident on p146 proves that german soldiers executed their orders with discretion.When on the 3rd november 1941 the 95th infantry division takes Kursk many armed civilians are arrested but as the division supposed that they were forced to bear arms ,they were not shot.
At the same time it does not prove any warcrime by anybody.It is again another sign of weakness to use this type of argument.In the abscence of enough evidence to implicate the whole army these texts are produced and we are then supposed to accept that most german soldiers must in consequence of this type of orders have committed massive warcrimes without any proof of these having to be produced. A gimmick just like the guilt by association one.
I am just reading the history of the 95th infantrydivision(Kampf und Untergang der 95. Ifanteriedivision,Karl Knoblauch Flechsig 2008).This division was part of the Sixth army and when you read about the circonstances as they were in october 1941 ,you start to understand the Reichenau order which is also sometimes used against the german army.Because of the heavy rains roads had become mudpools and supply broke down;german troop at times even having no bread.The rear area was insecure because of the presence of armed civilians.Villages and towns were left burning by the red army and buildings were mined.
One incident on p146 proves that german soldiers executed their orders with discretion.When on the 3rd november 1941 the 95th infantry division takes Kursk many armed civilians are arrested but as the division supposed that they were forced to bear arms ,they were not shot.
