The Wehrmacht Exhibition

[Andy H]

Organised by the Hamburg Social Research Institute, the travelling exhibition began in 1994 and by 1999 had visted 33 cities in Germany 7 Austria, drawing a staggering 800,000 vistors. It wasn't just the SS the Wehrmach Ehibition showed. It was full of graphic photographs of ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers involved in war crimes and genocide in Russia in particular. Though not new to German historians it hit the general German popn like a bombshell, queues stretched for hours to see it.

Impassioned arguments broke out at the venues, on TV and in the German parliment. Conservatives mobilised against what they saw as a slur on a generation of soldiers who were "merely for their country".

However in 1999 the exhibition was halted in it's tracks after doubt over authencity in particular about photographs taken in Tarnopol.

Now the exhibition has hit the road again, and is currently at the Semperdepot in Vienna Austria till May 26th.

Has anyone here actually been and seen this exhibition and if so what were your thoughts on it.

From the Shire

[AndyW]

see the web page at: http://www.verbrechen-der-wehrmacht.de/

(The web presentation isn't a breaker, vbut it's worth checking the "Exhibition"-section in the english version and the subsequent chapters)

[Andy H]

Many thanks Andy W for the link

From the Shire

[michael mills]

There can be no doubt that, now that the dubious elements have been removed, the exhibition does show genuine crimes committed by elements of the German Wehrmacht in Eastern Europe, primarily in the SOviet Union.

In my opinion, the besetting sin of the exhibition is not in the material it shows, but in its distortion of its context. In conformity to the view of history presented by leftist German historiography, to which the producers of the exhibition belong, the German forces are presented as having brought death and destruction to an innocent, unsuspecting and peaceful Soviet people.

In fact, the Soviet people had been experiencing episodes of death and destruction ever since 1917, inflicted on it not by invading armies but by its own government. The most recent and bloodiest of those episodes, the Great Terror of 1936-38, was still fresh in the memory of the people when the German invasion began.

Some of the reports of the Einsatzgruppen show that the Soviet population interpreted the German measures against "supporters of the Communist apparatus", primarily Jews, as a RESUMPTION of the terrorist methods they had experienced only a few years previously, rather than as something new, and became very nervous for that reason, fearing that they would be included in the persecution. The German reports make it clear that there was a need to explain to the Soviet population that the violence of the Einsatzgruppen and the Security Police was targeted against particular groups and not the whole population.

It is absolutely true that the German forces created huge mass-graves filled with the bodies of victims killed by them. But mass-graves were nothing new, there were already many such in existence, filled with tens of thousands of victims of the NKVD and dating from the 30s. Some were found in the Minsk region after the fall of the Communist government.

The best interpretation of the actions of the German invaders is that they applied methods that were already commonplace in the country, having been used on a massive scale by the Soviet Government against particular groups in its own population. All that the Germans did was to change the direction of the mass-killing, targeting groups such as Jews that had not generally victims of the crimes of the Soviet Government, but usually bystanders and in many cases perpetrators.

As I see it, the "sin" of the exhibition is to give the impression that the mass-killings committed by the Wehrmacht were something new, unusual and unique, whereas in truth they were an imitation of the methods previously employed by the Soviet enemy.

[Scott Smith]

In my opinion, the besetting sin of the exhibition is not in the material it shows, but in its distortion of its context. In conformity to the view of history presented by leftist German historiography, to which the producers of the exhibition belong, the German forces are presented as having brought death and destruction to an innocent, unsuspecting and peaceful Soviet people.

The motives of the alienist Left are indeed difficult to understand but then so are the motives of any moral crusade.

As I see it, the "sin" of the exhibition is to give the impression that the mass-killings committed by the Wehrmacht were something new, unusual and unique, whereas in truth they were an imitation of the methods previously employed by the Soviet enemy.

When seen in a historical context that extends beyond 1945 or even 1917 it is not unique at all, the usual-methods employed historically by authoritarian states, but perhaps with the addition of modern methods of scale and technology. Of course, "authoritarianism" is defined here in the classical liberal sense and is certainly not unique to oriental antiquity any more so than the NS or Soviet period.

[AndyW]

In my opinion, the besetting sin of the exhibition is not in the material it shows, but in its distortion of its context. In conformity to the view of history presented by leftist German historiography, to which the producers of the exhibition belong, the German forces are presented as having brought death and destruction to an innocent, unsuspecting and peaceful Soviet people.

In fact, the Soviet people had been experiencing episodes of death and destruction ever since 1917, inflicted on it not by invading armies but by its own government. The most recent and bloodiest of those episodes, the Great Terror of 1936-38, was still fresh in the memory of the people when the German invasion began.

I wonder how this "context" can be put into the exhibition?

maybe A text at the entrance saying: "Death and destruction was nothing new to the people of the S.U., so as trhe Germans invaded the S.U., destroyed villages by the thousands,d mass killed a couple of million, planned to starve 30 million, this wasn't something special Let's forget it."?

As I see it, the "sin" of the exhibition is to give the impression that the mass-killings committed by the Wehrmacht were something new, unusual and unique, whereas in truth they were an imitation of the methods previously employed by the Soviet enemy.

Please specify. Katyn as an "excuse" for Babi Jar, I assume.

[Scott Smith]

I wonder how this "context" can be put into the exhibition?

A good question, indeed.

maybe A text at the entrance saying: "Death and destruction was nothing new to the people of the S.U., so as the Germans invaded the S.U., destroyed villages by the thousands, mass killed a couple of million, planned to starve 30 million, this wasn't something special Let's forget it."?

No, but victims of the Nazis are no better or more important than any other victims. Although a favorite of the Left, that rodomontade just doesn't make ballast.

As I see it, the "sin" of the exhibition is to give the impression that the mass-killings committed by the Wehrmacht were something new, unusual and unique, whereas in truth they were an imitation of the methods previously employed by the Soviet enemy.

Please specify. Katyn as an "excuse" for Babi Jar, I assume.

To argue that events must be placed in historical context is not to make a "moral equivalencies" argument or to say that two-wrongs-make-a-right.

[Ovidius]

In my opinion, the besetting sin of the exhibition is not in the material it shows, but in its distortion of its context. In conformity to the view of history presented by leftist German historiography, to which the producers of the exhibition belong, the German forces are presented as having brought death and destruction to an innocent, unsuspecting and peaceful Soviet people.

Innocent, unsuspecting and peaceful. Sounds great. Comrade Ehrenburg himself couldn't have said it better than modern Leftist scum.

In fact, the Soviet people had been experiencing episodes of death and destruction ever since 1917, inflicted on it not by invading armies but by its own government. The most recent and bloodiest of those episodes, the Great Terror of 1936-38, was still fresh in the memory of the people when the German invasion began.

The Great Terror was not even so harsh as the Russian Civil War, when both sides torn each other apart like two packs of wolves. But for both the post-Stalinist Soviets and for the Westerners it was easier to charge Stalin with all the guilt, because a remembrance of the Civil War could have hindered the perceived legitimacy of the Soviet Union itself.

The best interpretation of the actions of the German invaders is that they applied methods that were already commonplace in the country, having been used on a massive scale by the Soviet Government against particular groups in its own population. All that the Germans did was to change the direction of the mass-killing, targeting groups such as Jews that had not generally victims of the crimes of the Soviet Government, but usually bystanders and in many cases perpetrators.

I just expect Medorjurgen's reaction to this...

~Ovidius

[Roberto]

As I see it, the "sin" of the exhibition is to give the impression that the mass-killings committed by the Wehrmacht were something new, unusual and unique, whereas in truth they were an imitation of the methods previously employed by the Soviet enemy.

I strongly doubt that Michael Mills has seen the present exhibition or read the 750-page catalogue. Otherwise he might know that the exhibition is about the Wehrmacht's war of annihilation not as "something new, unusual and unique", but as an unfortunate phenomenon of recent German history that needs to be documented for the sake of historical truth. The exhibtion is not concerned with sweeping under the carpet the fact that the horrors inflicted on the Soviet people by the German invaders did not differ much from those inflicted on them by their own government (not that this would make the Nazis' atrocities look any better, by the way). This fact is simply immaterial to an exhibition made by Germans for Germans about facts of German history.

All that the Germans did was to change the direction of the mass-killing, targeting groups such as Jews that had not generally victims of the crimes of the Soviet Government, but usually bystanders and in many cases perpetrators.

I appreciate the above for what it tells us about Michael Mills' attitude towards the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants. The last half-sentence is particularly illustrative in that it betrays one of Michael Mills' obsessive preoccupations.

[michael mills]

I appreciate the above for what it tells us about Michael Mills' attitude towards the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants. The last half-sentence is particularly illustrative in that it betrays one of Michael Mills' obsessive preoccupations.

I note that Mr Muehlenkamp is still trying to imply that any reference to collaboration by Jews in the repression of the peoples of the Soviet Union by the Government of that country is somehow reprehensible. Such a stance is to be expected from someone with a generally judeocentric approach to the issue.

On the thread "6 Million", mr Muehlenkamp asked for some details of the nature and extent of involvement by some Jews in the repressive actions of the Soviet Government. I provided some material, but Mr Muehlenkamp has ignored it, preferring to indulge in innuendo.

I made no moral judgement either of the mass-killings carried out by the German Government or of those carried out by the Soviet Government. I made a statement of fact, namely that the German Government targeted a different group of victims than the Soviet Government. I made the statement of fact that Soviet Jews were targeted by the German Government, whereas they had been bystanders to the atrocities of the Soviet Government. I could also have said that ethnic Ukrainians had been targeted by the Soviet Government, and subsequently became bystanders to the atrocities of the German Government, and in many cases themselves became perpetrators.

It is Mr Muehlenkamp who reads some sort of moral judgement into my statements, and then affects to be offended by them.

[Roberto]

I appreciate the above for what it tells us about Michael Mills' attitude towards the cold-blooded murder of unarmed non-combatants. The last half-sentence is particularly illustrative in that it betrays one of Michael Mills' obsessive preoccupations.

I note that Mr Muehlenkamp is still trying to imply that any reference to collaboration by Jews in the repression of the peoples of the Soviet Union by the Government of that country is somehow reprehensible. Such a stance is to be expected from someone with a generally judeocentric approach to the issue.

Michael Mills should by now have realized that his persistent accusations of "judeocentrism" are as illustrative as they are ridiculous. I wonder why Michael Mills doesn't take the same approach he takes towards the Jews in regard to the ethnic Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians who, as prisoners of war, unfortunate peasants living in "bandit-infested" areas, forced laborers or starving inhabitants of besieged or occupied Soviet cities, fell victim to Nazi violence outside the scope of combat actions. Until convinced otherwise I'll assume that most of the executors of Stalin's NKVD were of Russian, Belorussian or Ukrainian stock, for the simple reason that it seems logical that a proportionate distribution of ethnicities in Soviet state organs should have been the rule and a disproportionate distribution the exception. Yet I don't think it would have occurred to Michael Mills to accordingly speak of a Russian, Belorussian or Ukrainian "collaboration" in Stalin's crimes. But the Jews who were members of Soviet organs of repression signal a "collaboration by Jews in the repression of the peoples of the Soviet Union" (which include Jews, unless Michael Mills wants to tell us that they were left unscathed by Stalin's purges in the USSR as of 01.09.1939, Eastern Poland and the Baltic countries) to Mr. Mills. Why is that so?

On the thread "6 Million", mr Muehlenkamp asked for some details of the nature and extent of involvement by some Jews in the repressive actions of the Soviet Government. I provided some material, but Mr Muehlenkamp has ignored it, preferring to indulge in innuendo.

No, Mr. Muehlenkamp simply hasn't read that stuff yet because he sometimes has other things to do than to debate propagandists who call themselves historians.

I made no moral judgement either of the mass-killings carried out by the German Government or of those carried out by the Soviet Government. I made a statement of fact, namely that the German Government targeted a different group of victims than the Soviet Government.

Nothing against such a statement of fact, except that the way it was worded (“All that the Germans did was …”) reveals a rather indifferent, not to say callous attitude towards human suffering.

I made the statement of fact that Soviet Jews were targeted by the German Government, whereas they had been bystanders to the atrocities of the Soviet Government.

That statement, apart from being wrong, is very revealing of what goes on inside Michael Mills’ mind.

I could also have said that ethnic Ukrainians had been targeted by the Soviet Government, and subsequently became bystanders to the atrocities of the German Government, and in many cases themselves became perpetrators.

Such a statement would have been no less inappropriate, though it would have revealed a bias against Ukrainians rather than Jews. If Michael Mills had wanted to be objective, he’d simply have said that Hitler, as opposed to Stalin, chose his victims according to racial rather than social criteria.

It is Mr Muehlenkamp who reads some sort of moral judgement into my statements, and then affects to be offended by them.

I’m too bad an actor to affect anything, and I’m neither offended by Michael Mills’ statement. I merely consider them to corroborate my observation that the greatest weakness of the “Revisionists” is their being themselves.

[AndyW]

I agree very much that historical events need to be viewed and assesed in their right context (emphazise: "right"!). If we wouldn't do that, we would never understand how "ordinary men", who lived in a dictatorship who did not sanctionized criminal behavior but supported it, became sadistic mass murders and criminals.

But I disagree that Russia's (or later Soviet Union's) history of immanent violence (way back since the Tsars, from Revolution up to Stalin's terror) is a reasonable context to the Wehrmacht killings between 1941-1944 and the exhibition dealing with it.

The name of the exhibition is: "Crimes of the Wehrmacht". It focuses on the perpetrators, namely within the Wehrmacht, not on the victims. So we have to view the historical context under which the Wehrmacht commited her crimes - which was hardly under the impression of pre-war soviet terror, but their own Nazi ideology, indoctrination and subsequent orders. Nazi Germany's war of annilihation at the East Front wasn't only focussed on destroying Bolshevism (which one might see as a "reaction"), but also the destruction of the entire Eastern European Jewism, of all "racial inferior" and handicapped and any other "surplus" Slavs.

Just pointing out that the people who had suffered under German aggression had also suffered under Soviet terror or Bolshevist reign, is no "historical context" to the topic of this exhibition.

Complaing about such a "missing context" is like complaining that a exhibition about heart diseases does not mention Cancer.

It's more a lame excuse.

Cheers,

[Scott Smith]

I agree very much that historical events need to be viewed and assesed in their right context (emphazise: "right"!). If we wouldn't do that, we would never understand how "ordinary men", who lived in a dictatorship who did not sanctionized criminal behavior but supported it, became sadistic mass murders and criminals.

The Nazi era is not understandable without an understanding of the times and what they were (or thought they were) fighting against. The Nazis were radicalized by war, revolution and economic collapse, encircled by greedy, moralistic, and vindictive enemies.

The name of the exhibition is: "Crimes of the Wehrmacht". It focuses on the perpetrators, namely within the Wehrmacht, not on the victims. So we have to view the historical context under which the Wehrmacht commited her crimes - which was hardly under the impression of pre-war soviet terror, but their own Nazi ideology, indoctrination and subsequent orders. Nazi Germany's war of annilihation at the East Front wasn't only focussed on destroying Bolshevism (which one might see as a "reaction"), but also the destruction of the entire Eastern European Jewism, of all "racial inferior" and handicapped and any other "surplus" Slavs.

The promoters are certainly focusing on the victims; it is Victimology and Groupthink in its essence. If the German alienist Left wants to promote a Genocide theory-of-history then they should be honest about it and not try to besmirch German veterans--the vast majority of whom were as fine as any the world has seen, and should be honored and not abused by a bunch of hippies and cowards.

Just pointing out that the people who had suffered under German aggression had also suffered under Soviet terror or Bolshevist reign, is no "historical context" to the topic of this exhibition.

I think it is. The German elders should not be taken to task for fighting a war on the same terms as the enemy. One can argue any ethics if anything goes for those you like but every single thread of paranoia, injustice and atrocity among those you dislike is ipso facto unparalled and unalloyed barbarism. The exhibit is all about the moralistic waving of the proverbial bloody shirt and not historical awareness. It seeks to grind knives not make peace.

Complaining about such a "missing context" is like complaining that a exhibition about heart diseases does not mention Cancer.

Perhaps. But divorcing heart disease from disease in general removes context entirely and seeks to paint a picture based not on medicine but on a distorted moral philosophy. That is what is happening here in a country where historical dissent is a crime.

It's more a lame excuse.

What is even more lame are the motives of the alienist German Left. We won't see any Crimes of Communism or even Crimes of Capitalism, I am sure. They have an agenda like the Pope is Catholic. This would not even be an issue, because the real world is populated by different points-of-view, but it is a view forced-fed with legal repression--brainsoap by any other name. Anyone who finds flaws with the atrocity propaganda does so at their own risk, particularly if it is a direct challenge to Bundestablishment hypocrisy.
:roll:

[michael mills]

But the Jews who were members of Soviet organs of repression signal a "collaboration by Jews in the repression of the peoples of the Soviet Union" (which include Jews, unless Michael Mills wants to tell us that they were left unscathed by Stalin's purges in the USSR as of 01.09.1939, Eastern Poland and the Baltic countries) to Mr. Mills. Why is that so?

It is quite common to speak of collaboration by Ukrainians/Latvians/Lithuanians/Croats etc with German forces in their anti-Jewish actions and other repressive measures. One does not imply thereby that every single ethnic Ukrainian etc collaborated with German forces. What the statement means is that there were significant elements of those populations that collaborated.

In like manner it is legitimate to refer to Jews who collaborated with the Soviet regime in its repressive acts. Such a reference does not imply that every single Jew was a collaborator. Only a person with a judeocentric outlook could jump to that conclusion.

Just as, say, Ukrainians collaborating with German forces could have ended up inflicting violence on fellow Ukrainians who were anti-German or supported the partisans, so could Jews working in the repressive apparatus of the Soviet state end up persecuting fellow Jews who were anti-Soviet. In the early part of the Bolshevik regime it was quite common to find Bolshevik Jewish Chekists arresting right-wing Zionists or Bundists who refused to transfer their allegiance to the Communist Party. But the historical fact is that the great majority of leftist Zionists and Bundists did end up collaborating with their fellow Jews who were already Bolsheviks.

Later, in the 30s, the purges of the Communist Party initiated by Stalin claimed many Jewish victims who were Party members. But that was because they were Party members and the Party was being purged, not because they were Jews. It is not true to say that Stalin "dejudaised" the Communist Party; basically a high percentage of old Party members, including Jews, were purged and replaced by new members, including Jews.

The basic issue is that from 1917 to 1953, the Soviet Government victimised whole population groups as groups, not as individuals, eg kulaks, Ukrainian peasants, Cossacks. Jews were never victimised as a group; indeed, as a group, they belonged to the more privileged part of the population, being over-represented in the bureaucracy, although certain individual Jews were persecuted because they belonged to political groups seen as anti-Soviet, eg bourgeois Zionists, Bundists.

At the beginning of the 1930s, over half the Jews of the Soviet Union lived in the Ukrainian SSR. Between 1932 and 1933, a huge famine raged in Ukraine, and several million people perished. How many Jews living in Ukraine died? No abnormal mortality of Jews shows up in the population statistics. The Jews of Ukraine belonged to the privileged urban groups that were fed at the expense of the peasantry.

Many of the victims of the National Socialist Government were German, eg German Communists, German Social Democrats, German opponents of Hitler. But it would absurd to say that because some of the victims of the NS Government were German, that that government was itself not German, or that the German people as a whole did not collaborate with that government, or that the german people as a whole were victims of it. In like manner it is absurd to argue that because some victims of the Soviet Government were Jewish, then Jews as a group were victims, or that there was not collaboration by significant sections of the Jewish population with the Soviet Government in its repressive actions against other population groups.

[Roberto]

The promoters are certainly focusing on the victims; it is Victimology and Groupthink in its essence.

The Reverend obviously neither saw the exhibition nor had a look at the 750-page catalogue. Otherwise he would know that the exhibition focuses on the point of view of the perpetrators, not that of the victims.

If the German alienist Left wants to promote a Genocide theory-of-history

Can the Reverend only shoot hollow propaganda slogans, or can he also explain what a "Genocide theory-of-history" is supposed to be?

then they should be honest about it and not try to besmirch German veterans--the vast majority of whom were as fine as any the world has seen, and should be honored and not abused by a bunch of hippies and cowards.

Sieg Heil! Could the Reverend please explain in what way the sober collection of primary documents that the present Wehrmacht War Crimes exhibition is "besmirches" the German veterans? Why, the exhibition even contains a chapter called "Handlungsspielräume", which deals with the reactions of German officers and soldiers to the criminal orders and directives issued by their high command and contrasts those who willingly followed such instructions with those who managed to keep their soldierly honor.

Just pointing out that the people who had suffered under German aggression had also suffered under Soviet terror or Bolshevist reign, is no "historical context" to the topic of this exhibition.

I think it is. The German elders should not be taken to task for fighting a war on the same terms as the enemy.

On the same terms, Reverend? Did the enemy have plans to starve to death a considerable proportion of the German population? Did the enemy target certain segments of that population for extermination, as the Germans did Jews, gypsies, political commissars, civilian government representatives and - before they realized that they could use them as forced laborers - prisoners of war, besides the unfortunate inhabitants of "bandit-infested" areas and the population of major cities such as Moscow and Leningrad?

One can argue any ethics if anything goes for those you like but every single thread of paranoia, injustice and atrocity among those you dislike is ipso facto unparalled and unalloyed barbarism. The exhibit is all about the moralistic waving of the proverbial bloody shirt and not historical awareness. It seeks to grind knives not make peace.

Once again the Reverend is revealing that he doesn't know a damn thing of what he's talking about. The exhibition analyzes in detail the conventions and rules of conduct in force at the time and explains in what way the orders under which the Wehrmacht waged war on the Soviet Union constituted a breach thereof. It has no intention to make the Wehrmacht's crimes look like "unparalled and unalloyed" barbarism except to such an extent as is borne out by the evidence, namely documentary evidence, and far from seeking to present the Wehrmacht's crimes as a "unique" horror it strives to convey objective, matter-of-fact information about facts of German history that should not be forgotten but openly discussed in order to understand how the proud armed forces of Germany allowed themselves to become the instrument of a government's criminal policies - not exactly an uninteresting object of study if such derangement is to be avoided in the future. The exhibition was made by Germans for Germans and deals with events of German history, by the way. Who does Reverend Smith from Scottsdale, Arizona think he is to mouth off about it the way he does?

Complaining about such a "missing context" is like complaining that a exhibition about heart diseases does not mention Cancer.

Perhaps. But divorcing heart disease from disease in general removes context entirely and seeks to paint a picture based not on medicine but on a distorted moral philosophy. That is what is happening here in a country where historical dissent is a crime.

It's more a lame excuse.

What is even more lame are the motives of the alienist German Left.[/quote]

What are those motives supposed to be, Reverend? Who is supposed to make up the "alienist German Left", whatever that is held to be, and what does the Reverend know about the extent to which they are connected to the present-day exhibition?

We won't see any Crimes of Communism or even Crimes of Capitalism, I am sure.

Unless Russia and the United States have the honesty and courage to look at their history the way the Germans do, there is actually not much of a chance that such will happen, unfortunately.

They have an agenda like the Pope is Catholic.

Can the Reverend identify the ones who supposedly have such agenda, tell us what the agenda is supposed to be and provide evidence supporting his contentions? Or are we expected to be content with his unsubstantiated invective sermonizing?

This would not even be an issue, because the real world is populated by different points-of-view, but it is a view forced-fed with legal repression--brainsoap by any other name.

Dead wrong, Reverend. Legal repression such as exists in certain countries, wrong as it is, does not strive to impose a given point of view but to prevent disturbances of the public order and inter-ethnic violence that might result from the influence of extremist hate propaganda - right or left - on discontented segments of the population, particularly the unemployed.

Anyone who finds flaws with the atrocity propaganda does so at their own risk, particularly if it is a direct challenge to Bundestablishment hypocrisy.

Translation (from "Revisionist" propaganda mouthing into common language): Anyone who decries facts that do not fit into his ideological bubble as "atrocity propaganda" does so at their own risk, particularly if it is a direct challenge to the historical record established on the basis of conclusive evidence and serves a hate-speech agenda.

This should not be so, in my opinion, but offensive propaganda nonsense declared illegal in some countries is still offensive propaganda nonsense.