v. Manstein -- The commissar order was disregarded

Einsamer_Wolf · Post by **Einsamer_Wolf** » 13 Jun 2003 00:55

We are straying off topic--but it ought to be noted that Manstein says in his indispensible memoirs, Verlorene Sieger, that the Commissar order was disregarded--almost to a man.

Einsamer Wolf

Caldric · Post by **Caldric** » 13 Jun 2003 00:57

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:We are straying off topic--but it ought to be noted that Manstein says in his indispensible memoirs, Verlorene Sieger, that the Commissar order was disregarded--almost to a man.

Einsamer Wolf

Then what happened to the millions of Soviet POW's?

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 13 Jun 2003 01:05

Einsamer_Wolf -- You said: "it ought to be noted that Manstein says in his indispensible memoirs, Verlorene Sieger, that the Commissar order was disregarded--almost to a man."

This is off-topic, and if you want to continue it we can start a new thread, but "the Commissar order was disregarded--almost to a man" doesn't say who was doing the diregarding. It sure wasn't the men of Einsatzgruppen C and D, or the kommandos of the Senior SS and Police Leader "South" who were "disregarding" the commissar order. That statement is misleading, to say the least. Furthermore, von Manstein was put on trial and convicted of assisting those people to carry out their mass executions.
A lot of people were unhappy with the von Manstein trial result, but the evidence made it clear that the commissar order was not "disregarded--almost to a man."

Oleg Grigoryev · Post by **Oleg Grigoryev** » 13 Jun 2003 01:06

Einsamer_Wolf wrote:We are straying off topic--but it ought to be noted that Manstein says in his indispensible memoirs, Verlorene Sieger, that the Commissar order was disregarded--almost to a man.

Einsamer Wolf

did he now? did he say anything about this order of his ?

Since 22 June the German Volk is in the midst of a battle for life and death against the Bolshevik system. This battle is conducted against the Soviet army not only in a conventional manner according to the rules of European warfare. . . .Judaism constitutes the mediator between the enemy in the rear and the still fighting remnants of the Red Army and the Red leadership. It has a stronger hold than in Europe on all key positions of the political leadership and administration, it occupies commerce and trade and further forms cells for all the disturbances and possible rebellions. The Jewish-Bolshevik system must be eradicated once and for all. Never again may it interfere in our European living space. The German soldier is therefore not only charged with the task of destroying the power instrument of this system. He marches forth also as a carrier of a racial conception and as an avenger of all the atrocities which have been committed against him and the German people. The soldier must show understanding for the harsh atonement of Judaism, the spiritual carrier of the Bolshevik terror

Einsamer_Wolf · Post by **Einsamer_Wolf** » 13 Jun 2003 03:39

I would have to look it up. But I think von Manstein was referring exclusvily to das Heer. The Commissar order pertained to the Fuehrerbefehl to execute any commissars on the spot; this commissar order was premised on some esoteric notion that commissars were not really prisoners of war under the Geneva convention. It would not surprise me if the EInsatzgruppen oblgied the Fuehrerbefehl even when the officers of das Heer, did not. I will look upon Manstein's text when I have a chance.

Einsamer Wolf

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 13 Jun 2003 06:33

Einsamer_Wolf -- Even if your explanation is accepted without reservation (and I, for one, have reservations about it), how clean is the general who says: "They ordered me to shoot these folks on the spot. I'm not going to do it, but I'll turn him over to these other fellows who will"? And if you're thinking that von Manstein didn't know about the mass murders conducted behind the front lines, what was he talking about when he said: "The soldier must show understanding for the harsh atonement of Judaism, the spiritual carrier of the Bolshevik terror"?

"The harsh atonement of Judaism" -- now there's something to think about. The language is not restricted to captured commissars, or soldiers, or even males. It is "Judaism" which must atone.

How "harsh" is the "atonement"? Harsh enough so that von Manstein's order tells the soldier he "must show understanding" for it. The inescapable suggestion of the sentence structure is that the atonement is so harsh that the soldier might not ordinarily "show understanding" for it, so von Manstein uses the mandatory tense "must show understanding." And needless to say, the "understanding" isn't wasted on the victims, but is directed to the process of "atonement." There's a lot to think about in that single sentence of von Manstein's order.

Einsamer_Wolf · Post by **Einsamer_Wolf** » 13 Jun 2003 07:16

David Thompson wrote:Einsamer_Wolf -- Even if your explanation is accepted without reservation (and I, for one, have reservations about it), how clean is the general who says: "They ordered me to shoot these folks on the spot. I'm not going to do it, but I'll turn him over to these other fellows who will"? And if you're thinking that von Manstein didn't know about the mass murders conducted behind the front lines, what was he talking about when he said: "The soldier must show understanding for the harsh atonement of Judaism, the spiritual carrier of the Bolshevik terror"?

"The harsh atonement of Judaism" -- now there's something to think about. The language is not restricted to captured commissars, or soldiers, or even males. It is "Judaism" which must atone.

How "harsh" is the "atonement"? Harsh enough so that von Manstein's order tells the soldier he "must show understanding" for it. The inescapable suggestion of the sentence structure is that the atonement is so harsh that the soldier might not ordinarily "show understanding" for it, so von Manstein uses the mandatory tense "must show understanding." And needless to say, the "understanding" isn't wasted on the victims, but is directed to the process of "atonement." There's a lot to think about in that single sentence of von Manstein's order.

I do not know the context of this speech, nor am I familiar with what resulted immediately from its wake. I do not think, however, that just because von Manstein had some anti semitic tendencies that he should be equated with the more grim auspices of the Nazi regime. By that standard, one could condemn most all of Eurppe prior to 1945. Why? Because anti-semtism was a European phenomenon. Something like that could just as well have been said by a Frenchman or a Pole as a German. Again, I need to know the context in which it was stated, particularly in terms of how it may have been compelled by Hitler, and in what ways such "atonement" actually manifested itself in the immediate aftermath. Until then, I will peruse my treasured copy of Verlorene Sieger to see what I can find.

Einsamer Wolf