Talk:War crimes of the Wehrmacht

'Destruction of Warsaw' part

"Up to 250,000 civilians were killed. Human shields were used by German forces during the fighting. During the Wola Massacre 50,000 civilians were murdered to intimidate the Poles into surrender. "

I really would like to see some evidence that the Wehrmacht did all ths. Remember this should be about the crimes of the Wehrmacht.

129.13.186.1 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about Wola, but during the Vinkt Massacre on the Western front civilians were definitely used as human shields by the Wehrmacht. Of course, 27 dead Belgians is a bit less than 50,000 dead Poles - I agree there. User_talk: Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 19:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The article should be merged with Wehrmacht. Reasons: 1.War Crimes of Wehrmacht are integral part of its history. 2.Removal of war crimes obscures the atrocious nature of Wehrmachts role in WW2. 3.The massive war crimes of Wehrmacht overshadow every other possible activity of the organisation. --Molobo 01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Wehrmacht#Merge so all discussion will be in the same place. — JonRoma 09:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wehrmacht crimes on the Western front

I am working on the may 1940 Vinkt_Massacre at this very moment. The article her seems to imply that such war crimes by the Wehrmacht on the Western Front did not exist before 1944, but I am a bit too timid to add Vinkt here - as, with the present construction of the article, that would mean adding an entire chapter. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm a revisionist

I consider the information in this article to be accurate, encyclopedic, and relevant...however, an article titled "War Crimes of the Wermacht"....? I never thought I'd say this, but I think Wikipedia is repeating itself here. A few helpful suggestions which could improve this...A) merge this and other articles into a new article entitled "War crimes committed by Nazi Germany" which, although it would be rather long, would remove superfluous articles such as this one. B) dissolve this article entirely but retain the information in the respective articles about each particular atrocity. C) turn this into a disambiguation page that simply links to full articles about the atrocities, getting rid of the descriptions of the events on this page...there is some rather subjective language used in these brief descriptions and some editors may take that as an NPOV conflict (I won't go so far as to say it is, yet). Regardless, this article is borderline unacceptable in its current form. We should mull this over for a few days, of course, so please let me know if you think I'm mistaken or if you have any other comments. I will take it upon myself to make the appropriate edits if no one else wants to, but of course this is a process and I want to avoid reverts if possible. Naturally, if I hear a solid argument against mine, I will be deferential. However, please, at the very least, take this into consideration. Antimatter 23:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Allied War Crimes

Is there also an article dealing with allied war crimes?! If yes, where is it?

Luftwaffe

Greetings. When people here discuss about the Wehrmacht, they’re thinking it’s a synonym of the German Army (Heer). It is not. It means Armed Forces which also includes the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. This article only mentions das Heer and other German atrocity articles only mention SS and gestapo. However, I remember reading in a book (I forgot the title) that some Luftwaffe ground airmen helped the SS massacre or help round up some civilians in Poland or Soviet Union to be executed by the SS. Does anybody have information on this or can they confirm this? Thanks for any response I get. --James 12:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW Some Wehrmacht officers and enlisted servicemen did help Jewish people escape from the Holocaust or help hide some of their fellow servicemen who were considered “half-jewish” from the SS and gestapo. http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous/bycountry/germany/battel_dr_albert.html

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html

problem with this article

this article has serious POV problems. Whereas other articles give the benefit of the doubt. for instance, in this article under invasion of Poland it states 50000 civilians were killed, which is the total, then claims they were all murdered/terrorbombed/executed. that is a bald-faced lie, of course a majority was actually collateral damage, not every single one of them was murdered as claimed.

don't even get me started on the Vinkt section, it doesn't even match what that article states.

the POW camps section is horrendous, it simply states that 2 million were taken captive, not that the logistics required to intern those 2 million are complicated to say the least, and the Germans were not expecting to be keeping them in camps that long. Of course there was the Nazi ideas of Russian inferiority, but that wasn't why a lot of them died. this article wreaks of Molobo

--Jadger 03:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Molobo is, but I do agree that it has serious POV problems. Every single civilian killed by the Wehrmacht during the invasion of Poland is counted as a murder and warcrime. The allies entirely get the benefit of the doubt for the bomibing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki(!). If Germany had, for example, nuked Belfast it would be remembered as a horrible warcrime and no one would question it's injustice. Indeed, if we applied this same standard to coalition forces during the invasion and occupation of Iraq then the US army is guilty of more warcrimes in Iraq then the Wehrmacht was in Poland.

Ontop of that the "Allied War Crimes" article doesn't even mention the fire-bombing of dresden. The fire-bombing was terror-bombing, but I suppose it's ok if the winners of the war do it. If the loosers do it, then it's a war crime. This double-standard isn't really surprising though, the winners write the history. 130.71.96.23 06:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's become something of a tired cliche to say "winners write history," as hear you are, on equal terms, debating history from what is obviously the loser's point of view. Stop trying to sell yourself as an underdog, it only makes you look pathetic. You have the power to write history. Hit EDIT and start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.249.192 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Overview on Partisan operations against Wehrmacht?

Apart from the articles I linked, is there any overview on partisan activity in general, and against Wehrmacht in special? I think that Gestapo, SD, SS, Waffen-SS were prime targets of at least the hate, if not the actions of "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". On the other hand, I try to imagine how the everyday life of e.g. a small troop of Wehrmacht soldiers in charge of guarding/maintaining a railway line or a bridge somewhere in the hinterland might have looked like.

• Did they get bored and killed civilians to have "some action"?
• Or were they the easy target of constant possible harassment, having to expect a sniper bullet or hand grenade any moment?
• Or, after successful sabotage acts, were they subject to santions for failing to ensure the usability of the bridge, like getting send to the front, to a firing squad, mine field clearing etc.?
• Where there any official warnings of reprisals in case a soldier gets harmed or a bridge gets damaged?

One would expect that the heroic acts of resistance fighters either get praised afterwards (Robin Hood, Wilhelm Tell, ...), or get covered up in order not to reveal the reasons that triggered reprisals. Or is all that well documented? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Atrocities during the Invasion of Poland

Wehrmacht units killed over 16,000 Polish civilians during the 1939 September campaign through executions. After the end of hostilities, during the Wehrmacht's administration of Poland, which went on until October 25, 1939, 531 towns and villages were burned, and the Wehrmacht carried out 714 mass executions and a number of other crimes. Altogether, it is estimated that 50,000 Polish civilians had perished including 7000 Jews.

sorry this is wrong these AB Measurements (AB= Außerordentliche Befriedungsmassnahme = extraordinary pacification measurements) were carried out by the SS Division ZBV under the direct command of nazi party (heinrich himmler the high commander of the police and SS forces). they were not attached or included in the wehrmacht chain of command --131.173.252.9 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So not true that the Wehrmacht carried out 714 mass executions but true that during the Wehrmacht's administration of Poland (German Wiki: daher für deren Taten mitverantwortlich). Xx236 12:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial?

This article posts a "see also" link to Holocaust denial. Why? What does this article have to do with Holocaust denial? [Strictly speaking, this article doesn't even concern the Holocaust, since it aims to document the crimes of the Wehrmacht, not the crimes of the Nazi Party and the SS...]

Anyway, the point is, I don't like the implicit suggestion that the soilders of the Wehrmacht are Holocaust deniers. There's a world of difference between simply pointing out that the crimes of the Holocaust were committed by the SS and not the army, and absurdly claiming that those crimes never occured. Unless someone can explain why this link should be here, it should be removed. --Filippo Argenti 14:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust "The Wehrmacht, or regular German army, participated directly far less than the SS in the Holocaust (though it did directly take part in the massacre of some Jews in Russia, Serbia, Poland, and Greece), but it supported the Einsatzgruppen, helped form the ghettos, ran prison camps, occasionally provided concentration camp guards, transported prisoners to camps, had experiments performed on prisoners, and substantially used slave labor."

I don't know why the link is there, but you seem to be misinformed about the role played by the Wehrmacht. The basic problem, not discussed above, is that the Wehrmacht conquested lands inhabited by 6 000 000 Jews making the Holocaust possible. The leaders of the Wehrmacht knew about the Holocaust and didn't oppose it.Xx236 07:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All which has nothing to do with denying the Holocaust. Link removed. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Blacks in France

The black soldiers were actually shot by members of Waffen-SS divisions Totenkopf and Großdeutschland. See:

Hitler's African Victims: The German Army Massacres of Black French Soldiers in 1940 by Raffael Scheck. MoritzB 06:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Grossdeutschland was a Wehrmacht unit.--Caranorn 10:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have used the book MoritzB cites to cite this information. I have also linked to a excerpt from this book which discusses German soldiers and their officers. There are only two mentions of the SS, and one involves an SS unit refusing to murder people, the other mention involves Poland and not France. Then there's this quote: "In the Western campaign of 1940, the time span between the first and last executions of black POWs was relatively short (less than one month), but some units were repeatedly involved in massacres and thus likely to have experienced routinization. Moreover, we have to consider that the German army had already committed crimes against civilians and POWs in Poland in September 1939. While shooting civilian hostages and POWs the previous fall, a significant number of German soldiers fighting in France had gathered experience in mass executions. This must have made it easier for them to shoot black POWs." The book is called "Hitler's African Victims: The German Army Massacres of Black French Soldiers in 1940". Alun 05:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Trang's Totenkopf examines the executions of black POWs in some detail, check it out. 10:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous" rapes

There are several reasons why this section may not be applicable in this particular article. I did not ask you to place a citation at "numerous", I aksed you to change the weasel word to a more encyclopedic word, preferably with a numerical interval.

1. Numerous is a weasel word. Numerous says nothing, was it 3 rapes, 7, or even as many as 15 rapes?
2. Was the number notable enough to be included in an article?
3. Were they ordered by their officers to rape, or were the rapes on a scale meriting the definition War crimes? (see the title of this article...) instead of just "ordinary" rapes that unfortunately happen all the time.
4. Were rapes by military forces included in the definition of War crimes during this time period?
5. Does the source use the word "war crimes" to describe them?

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Szymon Datner is a highly respected researcher about Nazi Germany's war crimes. He writes in scholary study of atrocities that they were numerous rapes, and I see no sources provided by you that claim otherwise. As to war crimes-the full title of the book is about war crimes. --Molobo (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He can be as respected as he likes, but I think you know that it is up to you who wants to include it in the article to provide evidence that it was a war crime and not just an atrocity. No such verification, and deleted from the war crimes article it will be.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference already provided. Provide sources claiming otherwise and contradicting Datner's book.--Molobo (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have done nothing of the kind. You have just provided reference to a book saying there were rapes. Provide a quote where he specifies that the rapes were warcrimes is what I'm asking. without that your citation is just garbage--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources contradicting Datner's book about war crimes please.--Molobo (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that everything listed in his book is a war crime according to his definition? Then you of course have no problem telling me which paragraph in international law the acts were in violation of? No you cant? fancy that, heh.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read on policy for Original Reasearch on Wikipedia.--Molobo (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess he is not such a respected historian after all, if he in a book, allegedly about war-crimes, never bothers to explain what makes them war crimes and not ordinary crimes/atrocities. As I suspected--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No OR please. Provide sources that contradict him.--Molobo (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You still dont' get it do you, I don't have to, since you have presented no information to contradict. You have presented no quote where he calls the rapes war-crimes or explained what makes them warcrimes. You might as well have added a citation to the Bible and expect us to say: aaah, but he has provided a source so thats all right then.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources Stor Stark. Please provide them. Definition of why all events described are war crimes is provided from page 34 to 58.--Molobo (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, It is you who wants to include text, then it is up to you to provide us with the evidence. Especially since it is in a non English language and thus not verifiable for us. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources--Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-english sources are accepted in Wiki. Present sources contradicting Szymon Datner.--Molobo (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw: * Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Already done :)--Molobo (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's still rubbish. There's not single figure there, no idea of occurrence, no idea of official policy - nearly no useful information. Numerous is still, by wikipedia definition, a weasel word. If you really want to include it, then it must be included as a quote from your source, not as a statement of fact. Also, I don't see any english language sources. For all we American readers know, the website linked could be written by a polish ultra-nationalist or could be something entirely unrelated. I've made some quick modifications to at least remove the world numerous, there's no circumstance under which it should be used in the current manor. If you would like to change feel free. I'm sure there are reputable English language sources for this, assuming the information is accurate (also, please be clear if it was an official policy, because Russian soldiers committed "numerous" rapes against Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, but not as a matter of official policy. Pretty much every army in human history raped women as it made its way through, including polish armies during their war with Russia). 130.71.96.19 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly image captions

"Execution of Russian civilians by a shot in the back of the head, carried out with a certain grim intensity, even relish. German officers felt a contempt for the "sub-human" Slavic people, coupled with a disposition towards anti-Semitism." - Putting thoughts into their heads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchernobog (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for war crimes articles

Please comment here Talk:Japanese_war_crimes#Asian_Holocaust.2C_July_2008--Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I KNEW something was wrong here

Basically, the quoted parts of this article are: two books (english, only one quoted), one polish book (non verifiable source), a german pdf (http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/historiker/03431.pdf) (another non verifiable source), 3 links about the same photo exposition held in Germany in the years 2001 - 2004, 1 link to the main page from the nuremberg museum(http://www.museen.nuernberg.de/dokuzentrum/ausstellungen.html#polen) (no article), two polish website: one a dead link (http://www.dhi.waw.pl/de/instytut/projekty/2/) and the other the main site of politya.pl website (no articles on both). Now looking close to the sources we had access throu this article Photo exposition (http://www.verbrechen-der-wehrmacht.de/pdf/vdw_en.pdf is the pdf research over it) has: (1) war against the Soviets, which was brutall on both sides; and most important (2)on the conclusions, no full denial, but discovered "errors in content, inacurracies and careless mistakes in the use of historical source material", and "due, in particular, to the form of presentation, unduly generalized and suggestive statement" (p.36 of the pdf). http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/historiker/03431.pdf - is an commentary based on a photo exposition of the crimes in Poland, and even so we encounter a clear statement that most of this issues, if ever held, were done be Einsatzgruppen and the SS, were the writer critics the position of the army in not containing such organisations(p.17), and not that the WEHRMACHT actually DID that crimes in Poland (stating that the OKW, especially the OKH had his jurisdiction over this matter removed by hitlers will once the Generals started to protest - p.18) - not to mention it does give the reason of the German attack on Poland based on the army mobilisation made be the second on august 28-30. As it seems, most crimes listed here are from SS and Einsatztruppen (which NEVER were part of the Wehrmacht as some believe, example: SS led foreigners in their ranks, the Wehrmacht this was forbidded. SS was direct subordinated to the NSDAP and the OKH had only ad hoc command). It is disapointing to see one more antigerman article on wiki, not to mention that this entire article is based on "air sources" or, better saying, "strong imagination" with source distortion, and use of imaginary sources. ---PHWeberbauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.161.6 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Please specific POV you claim is existing. So far your accusations are general and emotional and I can't address anything specific in them.--Molobo (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the POV specifics pointed out by the OP (Molobo is being disingenuous here), the section violates WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:VERIFIABLE. A section devoted to a single source simply doesn't belong in this article. Any actual verifiable info from the source should be incorporated throughout the article itself. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

After looking further into this, the source used in this section is a non-peer reviewed essay published on a website by two authors who have no apparent expertise in the area. Also, the authors' opinions are presented as fact in the article, and amounts to WP:OR. Furthermore, a little digging has turned up research by an expert in the field that has a more balanced account of interpretations of the photographs and specifically challenges the interps given by the two authors in question.[1] In short, the entire section reads like a fluff piece written about this one source and its two authors, and needs a serious rewrite to meet WP standards, or better yer, be removed and what facts it contains integrated into the body of the article. For now, I'm going to tag the section. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-partisan operations

"In Yugoslavia and Greece, several villages were razed and their inhabitants murdered during anti-partisan operations." Nasty but who says these were a war crime? If they were war crimes who was tried for the crime? Who was found guilty?

The section should be based on the Hostages Trial and similar articles and not on the POV of the editor who adds such uncited sentences. --PBS (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Branding of Rape Victims

That section of the Wiki that says Wehrmacht soldiers branded females "whore of Hitler's troops" is lurid, sensational and unattributed. I was incredulous since there was no footnote but instead wrote the the name of the author and the title of her work, which is in turn available online but also without its footnote. Fortunately, I found the original reference: SUSAN BROWNMILLER, AGAINST OUR WILL: MEN, WOMEN AND RAPE. The witness to the event is a Rabbi that the author interviewed. Would the editor please insert the footnote so as to avoid controversy? Jonathan Chin