Dutch memorial getting build for German Wehrmacht hero

[Skybird]

While there are many German language reports on this, I did not find a related English link, so I must refer to this forum entry.


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...d.php?t=130836


If this is remarkable or not depends onw hat you assume the relations between the dutch and the Germans to be. I was often told that many Dutch still have ressenbtiments against the Germans and have not forgiven them, but I must say the Dutch people I met or have talked to in my life were all missing this "feature", and in fact made friendly partners for talking. Even the "hostility" between Dutch and German football fans is - for the most - not to be taken serious: you often can see Germans and Dutch celebrating together after the match between both national teams, no matter who won.

Probably a generation issue. The younger people are, the more relaxed they seem to deal with each other.

Just the language sounds terrible .

[Dowly]

I have to say I'm quite happy about this. And I dont see anything "controversial" in it. For too long, the Wermacht has been shadowed by what the Waffen SS has done. I actually saw a doumentary on telly the other day about Finns (or Norwegians, cant remember) who lived in the towns that were in direct contact daily with the germans. And one woman said, that the soldiers of Wermacht were very nice ppl, just ordinary men who you could just chit-chat with. But she also said that the SS were a whole different bunch, a true robots with whom an ordinary civilian of the area couldnt have a chat, they just would ignore or drive the nosy civvy out.

And the story about this hero is one good example that even if a soldier fought for Germany, he wasnt a mean grinning killing-machine who breaks the legs of an baby just for amusement.

But of course, there were those who enjoyed killing and then, the SS.

[Letum]

Jolly good.
It is important to consider the "humans-in-the-circumstances" and not just the
circumstances the humans are in.

*edit* I am very jealous of the German word "Mann". There is nothing in English to replace it well.

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by Dowly

And the story about this hero is one good example that even if a soldier fought for Germany, he wasnt a mean grinning killing-machine who breaks the legs of an baby just for amusement.

Clearly, fighting for Germany involves invading all of its neighbors and declaring martial law on everyone.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

Clearly, fighting for Germany involves invading all of its neighbors and declaring martial law on everyone.

And refusing would very well mean an execution of you and possibly your family. Not much of a choice is there? Fight for your country that is lead by a fricking lunatic or die. Dont know how many of you have read books about Wermacht fighting in the Russian front. They didnt give a flying frick about Hitler, nor the Germany after a year or so there. They fought to survive, surrender wasnt an option, Russians were savages to them. And I cant blame them, a book I read awhile back ( I think it was the Forgotten Soldier, not sure), said how they came to an bunker, where 2 German soldiers had been killed by the Russians, the other had his face literately split in two with an axe and his gold tooth had been taken off.

[Letum]

Good book the Forgotten Soldier, but bear in mind that the author may not have stuck
100% to the truth.

Thats not a point relevent to this topic, but it's intresting.

There is even controvsy about wheather he was even in the wehrmacht.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Letum

Good book the Forgotten Soldier, but bear in mind that the author may not have stuck
100% to the truth.

Thats not a point relevent to this topic, but it's intresting.

There is even controvsy about wheather he was even in the wehrmacht.

Yes, I'm aware of that. But even if it wouldnt be true, the pictures and the documentaries from the eastern front backs what he said. Not a fun place to be. As for the brutality of some Russian soldiers, we've had few occasions of veterans telling about some quite sick things they've seen, like at one time they found a finnish woman tied up to a tree with her breasts split in two. War is hell, for every side.

And as for the book, it has to be one of the beast books I've read. The end especially was very touching.

[Skybird]

Contains a picture of the model for the sculpture.

http://www.welt.de/politik/article19...ten_ehren.html

It's the intention that counts, I assume.

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by Dowly

And refusing would very well mean an execution of you and possibly your family.
Not much of a choice is there?

Didn't stop White Rose.

Fight for your country that is lead by a fricking lunatic or die.

And who put said lunatic in power in the first place? And then mindlessly supported every decision he made until the war turned obviously grim? Even Germany admits to the mistakes it made during World War 2. So why defend what they won't even touch themselves?

Dont know how many of you have read books about Wermacht fighting in the Russian front. They didnt give a flying frick about Hitler,

Except for the part where they still invaded on his orders. If they didn't give a hell, why DID they participate in the invasion so willingly?

nor the Germany after a year or so there. They fought to survive, surrender wasnt an option, Russians were savages to them.

And none of this would have needed to happen had they not supported Hitler anyway. How ironic.

And I cant blame them, a book I read awhile back ( I think it was the Forgotten Soldier, not sure), said how they came to an bunker, where 2 German soldiers had been killed by the Russians, the other had his face literately split in two with an axe and his gold tooth had been taken off.

War is hell. Maybe next time, Germany shouldn't start it.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

Didn't stop White Rose.

And who put said lunatic in power in the first place? And then mindlessly supported every decision he made until the war turned obviously grim? Even Germany admits to the mistakes it made during World War 2. So why defend what they won't even touch themselves?

Except for the part where they still invaded on his orders. If they didn't give a hell, why DID they participate in the invasion so willingly?

And none of this would have needed to happen had they not supported Hitler anyway. How ironic.

War is hell. Maybe next time, Germany shouldn't start it.

If we go down this road you will have to start to look in the mirror also.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

Didn't stop White Rose.

And who put said lunatic in power in the first place? And then mindlessly supported every decision he made until the war turned obviously grim? Even Germany admits to the mistakes it made during World War 2. So why defend what they won't even touch themselves?

Except for the part where they still invaded on his orders. If they didn't give a hell, why DID they participate in the invasion so willingly?

And none of this would have needed to happen had they not supported Hitler anyway. How ironic.

War is hell. Maybe next time, Germany shouldn't start it.

Please, some of the indicated generalisations are - simply unjustified.

Some germans were active, convinced Nazi supporters. Most were not - but were born in the wrong place and the wrong time - and this was true for most of the Wehrmacht soldiers. That the officer corps was living by the old Prussian ideals of loyalty, serving, being precise and efficient, and not questioning orders, did not help, of course. But it is the same ideals that you see in all Western armies today, sold to the public in pictures and slogans like service in the army today it sold in recruiting videos of the US forces. Nobody blow up, please - but if you compare the style and picture language of such videos, and propaganda art by the Nazis, you will easily see striking similarities. Many US boys today join the forces for comparable reasons why young Germans back then joined the Hitler youth or the army - and liked it. And their parents, having experienced WWI, probably were not as enthusiastic, in most cases. Also, Hitler was said to have been able to be very charming with women, and very convincing and blending with high ranking generals, whom often visited him with critical news - and left him with conviction on their face, and lightened spirit again. the man was a perfect blender, like there have been other blenders later, and before, and even today in the present. Some of the leaders today are capable of exactly the same. and as we know - they are successful.

If somebody believes hitler was only possible in Germany, then he is making a most dangerous mistake. Most western people allowed themselves to get blinded on this and that issue. Many even re-elect the leaders that blind them. In case of Hitler, the historic constellation was just especially explosive, and fertile for the ideology of darkness the Nazi had on their mind - and thought about as being an ideology of light and a vision of a bright future. Carefull guys! don't spend your trust, your loyalty and your service so easily and uncritically.

Not everybody has what it takes to sacrifice himself, like the Scholls did. Get this video
http://www.amazon.com/Sophie-Scholl-...9895805&sr=8-2
and then ask yourself wether you would have the selfdenying greatness of hers, too, if being in her place.

And to see it from young people's perspective, and why children fell for the Nazis uncritically: http://www.amazon.com/Bridge-Die-Bru...9896609&sr=8-1

These two are amongst the best film about that era I know of. Ironically, both of them are German. but maybe that isn't any ironic at all - nobody knows all that stuff better than today's Germans' parents and grandparents.

Or take the brother of my grandfather - the reason why I take your offhanded comments a bit queer. Both of them were officers the Wehrmacht. My grandfather indicated that he was shot after having refused to participate in one of those "cleaning" operations behind the front usual special units of the SS carried out. they did not want to let it become known, he said, what was happening. Such units for the most were made up of loyal Nazi-soldiers, like were KZ-guards.

If you know so well how Hitler came to power, then you know that the opinion of the majority of the German people was not really a factor - most did not like the Nazis, but saw little strength and courage to stand up against them - and that would not be any different today, with any people in the world. Hitler had sympathizers both in Austria and in Germany, but it can be doubted that they were a majority. Most people probably just thought about how to protect their families and not getting into conflict with the secret police. - Beyond that, it must be said that initially the Nazis created jobs after a long economic crisis that left many families in despair. It was temtping to tolerate the Nazis when suddenly you have bread and butter on your table again and somebody gives you a vision for a bright future after the years of the treaty of Versaille.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I have to say I'm quite happy about this. And I dont see anything "controversial" in it. For too long, the Wermacht has been shadowed by what the Waffen SS has done. I actually saw a doumentary on telly the other day about Finns (or Norwegians, cant remember) who lived in the towns that were in direct contact daily with the germans. And one woman said, that the soldiers of Wermacht were very nice ppl, just ordinary men who you could just chit-chat with. But she also said that the SS were a whole different bunch, a true robots with whom an ordinary civilian of the area couldnt have a chat, they just would ignore or drive the nosy civvy out.

And the story about this hero is one good example that even if a soldier fought for Germany, he wasnt a mean grinning killing-machine who breaks the legs of an baby just for amusement.

But of course, there were those who enjoyed killing and then, the SS.

Havre to say that it is proven that Waffen-SS had many units that didnt commit a single war crime.
The Waffen-SS ideological side is often over blown and the military side forgotten.
Many things in armies today are influenced or copied from them.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Havre to say that it is proven that Waffen-SS had many units that didnt commit a single war crime.
The Waffen-SS ideological side is often over blown and the military side forgotten.
Many things in armies today are influenced or copied from them.

Right you are, I could have said it better. But compared to Wermacht, I'd bet that the SS was the one doing more atrocities.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Right you are, I could have said it better. But compared to Wermacht, I'd bet that the SS was the one doing more atrocities.

Im not sure, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_cri...Vinkt_massacre

The thing with war crimes is that they are done mostly by troops that are in the rear, occupying and possibly fighting against insurgents. Frontline and elite troops seem to commit them more rarely. Maybe they feel they are above that kind of stuff or they dont have the time.

[jumpy]

'The Forgotten Soldier' is a great read, and if not a verbatim factual account (as claimed by some) it certainly has enough of the feel for life on the eastern front to have my esteem for anyone who suffered it.
Another good one is 'Sniper on the Eastern Front' pretty brutal stuff, but a good read none the less.

On another note, there was a history channel program on about the Waffen SS no so long back; one of the men they interviewed was speaking about a russian attack on their trenches: he said 'this russian, a huge fellow attacked me with his bayonet, down in the trench... and, ...I don't like to speak about what I did then. Well, I bit him, with my teeth, in the throat ...like an animal, I killed him.' or words to that effect. He goes on to talk about the overwhelming will to live and the things you become capable of in those conditions. Most of the veterans are all visibly scarred emotionally, which becomes so clear when they are recounting their experiences; the look in their eyes, as they relive events of 60 years ago like it was just yesterday, is a painful thing to behold.

TBH I think there's always going to be a little bit of 'storytelling' involved with books of these kinds; after all they are not textbooks - look to our modern counterparts 'Bravo 20' (andy mcnab) and 'The One That Got Away' (chris ryan) they might be based to a greater or lesser extent on reality, but remember that a factual account of such things would most likely be rejected out of hand by a publisher for being too dull, so we have embellishment for the benefit of the reader and sales.
Perhaps our own resident novelist could shed some light on the business of negotiating a manuscript with publishers?