Hitler directive 46 (east front)

[Epirus]

18.08.42 directive 46

From the below items 3,4,5 (full text on order 46 bottom link), there was a view by Hitler that local populations could be driven to become partisans if not handled in a correct manner. Given the historical research that outlines how the population was not fairly treated, was this down to over zealous racialist nazis ignoring directive 46, frustrations by German troops leading to the poor treatment of the locals, an inability to provide the locals with the minimum needed for them to survive, or other reasons?

I’m trying to understand when and what may have caused a general turning point in the treatment of the civilian populace that lead to a significant increase in partisan activity. There were reports of some Ukrainians welcoming German troops as liberators but did this change due to maltreatment or a recognition that the tide of the German invasion was reversing?

My general view at the order date of directive 46 was that Hitler did not want the civilian populations mistreated but that this appeared to have not occurred. Hitler frequently complained about his orders being ignored. Is this an example?

3. The confidence of the local population in German authority must be gained by handling them strictly but justly.

4. A necessary condition for the destruction of bandit gangs is the assurance to the local population of the minimum requirements of life. Should this fail, or -- what is particularly important -- should available supplies not be fairly distributed, the result will be that more recruits will join the bandits.

5. In this struggle against the bandits, the cooperation of the local population is indispensable. Deserving persons should not be parsimoniously treated; rewards should be really attractive. On the other hand, reprisals for action in support of the bandits must be all the more severe.

https://der-fuehrer.org/reden/english/w ... es/46.html

[Takao]

It's all doublespeak. Hitler did not care one whit about the Russian occupied civilians.

3. The confidence of the local population in German authority must be gained by handling them strictly but justly.

Is contradicted by

6. Misplaced confidence in the native population, particularly in those working for the German authorities, must be strictly guarded against. Even though the majority of the population is opposed to the bandits, there are always spies to be reckoned with, whose task is to inform the bandits of all action contemplated against them.

Trust them, but don't trust them.

On to

4. A necessary condition for the destruction of bandit gangs is the assurance to the local population of the minimum requirements of life. Should this fail, or -- what is particularly important -- should available supplies not be fairly distributed, the result will be that more recruits will join the bandits.

Huh? Assure the local population? Assuring the local population...Is not FEEDING the local population, or PROVIDING for the local population.

Then there is the next bit...minimum requirements of life...Are you kidding me? Were German civilians living on the minimum requirements of life? Don't know about you, but if I am "assured" the "minimum requirements of life", I am joining the bandits, because that means I will have it worse than I have it now.

Then, there is the third bit... should available supplies not be fairly distributed...Please note the word "available." Who is defining available & how is it being defined. What happens if supplies are not available? Should not the Germans go get more?

5. In this struggle against the bandits, the cooperation of the local population is indispensable. Deserving persons should not be parsimoniously treated; rewards should be really attractive. On the other hand, reprisals for action in support of the bandits must be all the more severe.

Again...Huh? The cooperation of the local population is indespensable...Then? Why in 4. did the Hitler only "assure" them "minimum requirements of life." Any civilian who is not supporting the bandits should be a "deserving person", yet Hitler is parsimoniously only giving them "assurances" of the "minimum requirements of life."

Finally, "On the other hand, reprisals for action in support of the bandits must be all the more severe." Is a rather open-ended statement. How do you conduct these reprisals? Certainly, there were no trials conducted. And what is "supporting"? If a Soviet civilian does not report a bandit, can they be shot? After all, that is supporting a bandit by not reporting them.


Epirus...Did you actually sit down and read Directive 46 before posting?