What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler's Soldiers: The German Army in the Third Reich
For decades after 1945, it was generally believed that the German army, professional and morally decent, had largely stood apart from the SS, Gestapo, and other corps of the Nazi machine. Ben Shepherd draws on a wealth of primary sources and recent scholarship to convey a much darker, more complex picture. For the first time, the German army is examined throughout the Second World War, across all combat theaters and occupied regions, and from multiple perspectives: its battle performance, social composition, relationship with the Nazi state, and involvement in war crimes and military occupation.
This was a true people’s army, drawn from across German society and reflecting that society as it existed under the Nazis. Without the army and its conquests abroad, Shepherd explains, the Nazi regime could not have perpetrated its crimes against Jews, prisoners of war, and civilians in occupied countries. The author examines how the army was complicit in these crimes and why some soldiers, units, and higher commands were more complicit than others. Shepherd also reveals the reasons for the army’s early battlefield successes and its mounting defeats up to 1945, the latter due not only to Allied superiority and Hitler’s mismanagement as commander-in-chief, but also to the failings—moral, political, economic, strategic, and operational—of the army’s own leadership.
This was a true people’s army, drawn from across German society and reflecting that society as it existed under the Nazis. Without the army and its conquests abroad, Shepherd explains, the Nazi regime could not have perpetrated its crimes against Jews, prisoners of war, and civilians in occupied countries. The author examines how the army was complicit in these crimes and why some soldiers, units, and higher commands were more complicit than others. Shepherd also reveals the reasons for the army’s early battlefield successes and its mounting defeats up to 1945, the latter due not only to Allied superiority and Hitler’s mismanagement as commander-in-chief, but also to the failings—moral, political, economic, strategic, and operational—of the army’s own leadership.
664 pages, Hardcover
First published June 28, 2016
42 people are currently reading
414 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
May 11, 2021
What can I say? A very important re-examination of the performance of the German army during the Third Reich. Looking to inform the reader that the Cold-War necessitated "good soldiers" label was a fallacy, Mr Shepherd's chronological overview hammers so many nails into the coffin of that label that it's chances of ever rising again are unlikely.
A number of themes run through the book; an examination of the ups and downs of German military performance; how did they win, how did they then come to lose and why did they keep fighting? and equally, how complicit was the army in the persecution of Europe's Jewish population, and in the commission of war crimes against combatants and civilians?
A lot of the answers revolve around the toxic effect of National Socialism on the army - in the mindset of the troops and in the attitude of the High Command (it's telling that a number of rehabilitated 'good Germans' turn out too be anything but).
The chronological narrative shows how the initial successes were achieved, but how these were in fact rather less stunning than was made out, and how further factors, such as failure of intelligence and a lack of attention to logistics compounded these and were important in defining actions and relations with civilians in the occupied territories.
Overall a fascinating book, raising eyebrows and showing how the Nazi outlook coloured the army's actions during the war (fascinating that the Germans looked on their ex allies the Italians with extreme distaste even before their surrender), and how the excuse of "anti-partisan" operations were used to commit widespread murder. "Thus did the German army’s moral failure and military failure reinforce one another” An important counter to the "just soldiers" smokescreen and a fantastic review of how far Germany's moral compass went askew. Can we have another volume on the Luftwaffe please?
A number of themes run through the book; an examination of the ups and downs of German military performance; how did they win, how did they then come to lose and why did they keep fighting? and equally, how complicit was the army in the persecution of Europe's Jewish population, and in the commission of war crimes against combatants and civilians?
A lot of the answers revolve around the toxic effect of National Socialism on the army - in the mindset of the troops and in the attitude of the High Command (it's telling that a number of rehabilitated 'good Germans' turn out too be anything but).
The chronological narrative shows how the initial successes were achieved, but how these were in fact rather less stunning than was made out, and how further factors, such as failure of intelligence and a lack of attention to logistics compounded these and were important in defining actions and relations with civilians in the occupied territories.
Overall a fascinating book, raising eyebrows and showing how the Nazi outlook coloured the army's actions during the war (fascinating that the Germans looked on their ex allies the Italians with extreme distaste even before their surrender), and how the excuse of "anti-partisan" operations were used to commit widespread murder. "Thus did the German army’s moral failure and military failure reinforce one another” An important counter to the "just soldiers" smokescreen and a fantastic review of how far Germany's moral compass went askew. Can we have another volume on the Luftwaffe please?
August 25, 2016
Fascinating revisionist history of the Wehrmacht
Ben Shephard pulls aside the curtain of respectability that many accounts of the German Army are cloaked in, demolishing the image of an honourable and decent fighting force compared to the SS.
In a detailed account he highlights countless occasions where the Wehrmacht are complicit in war crimes showing that many took part and a few notable exceptions complained. What some may find surprising is the early war conduct of some of July 21st conspirators.
However, the book is not purely about war crimes, but also about the combat performance of the Wehrmacht. Shephard shows how the early war effectiveness was eroded away once the gargantuan task of taking on the Soviets was clear and shows how the army still continued to retain its cohesion even when the outcome of the war was clear.
I'd recommend this for anyone who wants to read a more rounded view of the 3rd Reich and some insight into how ordinary men descend into barbarians. .
Ben Shephard pulls aside the curtain of respectability that many accounts of the German Army are cloaked in, demolishing the image of an honourable and decent fighting force compared to the SS.
In a detailed account he highlights countless occasions where the Wehrmacht are complicit in war crimes showing that many took part and a few notable exceptions complained. What some may find surprising is the early war conduct of some of July 21st conspirators.
However, the book is not purely about war crimes, but also about the combat performance of the Wehrmacht. Shephard shows how the early war effectiveness was eroded away once the gargantuan task of taking on the Soviets was clear and shows how the army still continued to retain its cohesion even when the outcome of the war was clear.
I'd recommend this for anyone who wants to read a more rounded view of the 3rd Reich and some insight into how ordinary men descend into barbarians. .
December 4, 2022
This was excellent. Authoritative and scholarly, yet also compelling. The title is a bit misleading, as it leads one to expect a book from the soldiers' point of view; while it doesn't ignore the soldier, it tends to be more flavour, and Shepherd's focus is at more of a higher level - the generals and operations - and in this regard the subtitle ("The German Army in the Third Reich") is much more accurate. You would expect a book about generals and operations to be a bit dry, but it's absolutely not - I whizzed through this and was totally absorbed in his narrative of the war and the army's role in it.
Among the main questions he seeks to answer are how and why the army aligned itself with Nazism from 1933 to 1945, and how involved was it in Nazi criminality and why. Essentially, the army's participation in war crimes was overwhelming, though it was interesting to see cases where it played a lesser role in war crimes. Generally, older officers and soldiers were less criminal; similarly, more conservative and more religious were also less likely to commit criminal acts. In contrast, youth and elite units tended to result in war crimes. However, no unit or soldier that served in the east was clean - a result of severe brutalisation. Racism was endemic and a major cause of atrocities, and so Jews, Russians, Poles, Greeks, Italians, and French black Africans suffered the most. Thousands of black Africans in the French Army were shot by the German army in 1940, instead of being taken prisoner. Similarly, thousands of Italian soldiers were massacred when Italy capitulated in 1943 - I hadn't realised how much this was the case. As an interesting aside, as setbacks occurred in North Africa, the name of Rommel's army changed from Panzer Army Africa, to the German-Italian Panzer Army after El Alamein, to finally the First Italian Army, just before its surrender in Tunisia - this is both a reflection of the ill regard held for the Italians and a regular blame game. The occasional cases of when war crimes were not committed (or objected to) were also interesting: he found no cases where those who refused to participate in atrocities were punished, and rules out fear of punishment as the motivation for participating in war crimes, which was an interesting assessment to read. Carl-Heinrich Stülpnagel, the later military governor of France, deserves mention; he was *relatively* humane in his governorship of occupied France (even after being involved in atrocities with his unit in Russia in 1941), and his heel-dragging seems to have been a significant reason that a relatively low percentage of French Jews (25%) were deported to their deaths, a notably lower proportion than with other occupied Western European countries.
Shepherd also looks at why the army excelled in the early years of the war, and why it failed in the later years, and does comparisons with the various Allied armies throughout, which was also very interesting. Essentially the German army was excellent at the operational and tactical levels, showing superior skill, initiative and innovation, but was terrible at strategy, intelligence and logistics, and ultimately this (strategy in particular) lost Germany the war. The German leadership also prioritised land power over air power, which proved an important disadvantage. These comparisons were lively and fascinating.
Shepherd asserts that the war was lost for Germany as early as the summer of 1941, and it was incredibly interesting to read why and how the German army continued to fight for four more years, right until the end when it seemed utterly senseless. A major reason appears to have been that there were no better ideas than to keep fighting, kind of for the sake of it, which is unbelievable, but compellingly argued.
Shepherd draws from an impressive array of sources, both primary and secondary, and highlights some of the scholarly considerations with the primary sources in his analysis. His sources include soldiers' letters (extensively used), diaries, memoirs (including Guy Sajer, F.W. von Mellenthin, Hans von Luck, Heinz Guderian and others), and official records, such as unit reports and war diaries.
Among the main questions he seeks to answer are how and why the army aligned itself with Nazism from 1933 to 1945, and how involved was it in Nazi criminality and why. Essentially, the army's participation in war crimes was overwhelming, though it was interesting to see cases where it played a lesser role in war crimes. Generally, older officers and soldiers were less criminal; similarly, more conservative and more religious were also less likely to commit criminal acts. In contrast, youth and elite units tended to result in war crimes. However, no unit or soldier that served in the east was clean - a result of severe brutalisation. Racism was endemic and a major cause of atrocities, and so Jews, Russians, Poles, Greeks, Italians, and French black Africans suffered the most. Thousands of black Africans in the French Army were shot by the German army in 1940, instead of being taken prisoner. Similarly, thousands of Italian soldiers were massacred when Italy capitulated in 1943 - I hadn't realised how much this was the case. As an interesting aside, as setbacks occurred in North Africa, the name of Rommel's army changed from Panzer Army Africa, to the German-Italian Panzer Army after El Alamein, to finally the First Italian Army, just before its surrender in Tunisia - this is both a reflection of the ill regard held for the Italians and a regular blame game. The occasional cases of when war crimes were not committed (or objected to) were also interesting: he found no cases where those who refused to participate in atrocities were punished, and rules out fear of punishment as the motivation for participating in war crimes, which was an interesting assessment to read. Carl-Heinrich Stülpnagel, the later military governor of France, deserves mention; he was *relatively* humane in his governorship of occupied France (even after being involved in atrocities with his unit in Russia in 1941), and his heel-dragging seems to have been a significant reason that a relatively low percentage of French Jews (25%) were deported to their deaths, a notably lower proportion than with other occupied Western European countries.
Shepherd also looks at why the army excelled in the early years of the war, and why it failed in the later years, and does comparisons with the various Allied armies throughout, which was also very interesting. Essentially the German army was excellent at the operational and tactical levels, showing superior skill, initiative and innovation, but was terrible at strategy, intelligence and logistics, and ultimately this (strategy in particular) lost Germany the war. The German leadership also prioritised land power over air power, which proved an important disadvantage. These comparisons were lively and fascinating.
Shepherd asserts that the war was lost for Germany as early as the summer of 1941, and it was incredibly interesting to read why and how the German army continued to fight for four more years, right until the end when it seemed utterly senseless. A major reason appears to have been that there were no better ideas than to keep fighting, kind of for the sake of it, which is unbelievable, but compellingly argued.
Shepherd draws from an impressive array of sources, both primary and secondary, and highlights some of the scholarly considerations with the primary sources in his analysis. His sources include soldiers' letters (extensively used), diaries, memoirs (including Guy Sajer, F.W. von Mellenthin, Hans von Luck, Heinz Guderian and others), and official records, such as unit reports and war diaries.
March 7, 2019
A few years back my son asked me why I was obsessed with reading about the war. I explained to him that the war shaped the world I was born into and the world I grew up in.
I couldn't get over the idea that a race of normal people could turn into a race of murderers. I had no doubts that the German people were as normal as the English, that they were not inherently evil people but something happened to make them so. I wanted to know what that was.
I have never been anything but a Holocaust believer. My parents had kept the newspaper cuttings showing images from when the Allies liberated the camps. Piles of dead bodies, literally piles of bodies, each so thin as to add to the disbelief when trying to take in what our eyes were seeing. People standing like living skeletons with hollow eyes. As a child those images frightened me.
So, I was not looking to excuse what they did. I just wanted to understand how it all came about.
It's been a long journey getting to where I think I finally have some understanding. I lost a lot of preconceptions and learned a lot of bad things.
Judgement and condemnation is easy, especially when based on ignorance. Understanding means keeping your eye on the crime and working out the steps that the person took to get to stand in that place where they committed the crime. Understanding how they got there but never forgetting what they did.
After a lot of reading I feel I now have a coherent understanding of what influenced the Nazi ideology, the circumstances that lead to their rise to power and what they did with that power to bring about both the deaths of millions of innocent people and eventually their own downfall.
This is my journey to that understanding, I am not saying that I am right or anyone else is wrong, I am not denying anyone else's truth, this is only where I stand now.
My Conclusions:
It was the confluence of three things:
Eugenics
The Treaty of Versailles
Anti-Semitism
EUGENICS
A gift for white people everywhere. Eugenics came out of Darwin's idea that life is the survival of the fittest and that species improve by selective breeding.
If white people ruled the world it was obviously because they were "fitter" than other races. If rich people enjoyed more privilege it was obvious they were "fitter" than the poor.
Eugenics was the application of survival of the fittest and selective breeding to the human race.
Eugenics advocated higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits and reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilisation of people with undesired traits.
This led to the establishment of institutions where the mentally and physically defectives could be kept to minimise their harmful effects on the breeding population. The introduction of free contraception for lower class women was not led by pioneering feminists pursuing the interests of women but by eugenicists whose sole purpose was to stop the uncontrolled breeding of the lower orders.
It was a belief in Eugenics that led to forced sterilisations in many countries, especially the US. You could be sterilised against your will for something as simple as not having a fixed address.
Hitler was strongly in favour of the sterilisation programs pioneered in the US and promised to introduce them in Germany.
The whole white world was convinced that the pursuit of eugenics could only lead to a better world. The idea of a Master Race was not a Nazi invention. All the Nazis did was to take to the extreme and thereby (thankfully) fuck it up for everyone forever.
After the war, eugenics was quietly forgotten, all of a sudden, no-one wanted to talk about it. In fact, it went further than that, if you hadn't heard about eugenics until now then that is proof of just how far all countries went to to "forget" about eugenics. Try finding out about your country's history of eugenics, you may be in for a surprise.
Google "Eugenics Sweden" and it will cure you of any humanitarian ideas you may have had about Sweden. Up until the 1970s in Sweden you could apply to have "unruly families" in your neighbourhood sterilised!
(Imagine that as a Trump policy, he could get re-elected on that one policy alone. He wouldn't need a wall, he'd need bigger gates to allow for the numbers leaving to fit through. If ever there was a man born too late it is Trump.)
But, do not for an instant believe that Sweden was alone in these ideas that now read as nothing short of madness.
Whilst eugenics may have been "forgotten" its basic ideas are still alive and well, white privilege still has currency, the veneration of the rich still abounds, rich people are asked to comment on current affairs simply because they are rich. In fact, eugenic ideas have never gone away its just that for the time being no-one is offering a solution.
ANTI-SEMITISM
Everyone hated the Jews. Remember this was before the nation state of Israel existed. The western Allies had full knowledge of Hitler's extermination programs throughout the whole war and before. They never assisted him, but they never stopped him either, they had the means and opportunity but did nothing because, as unpalatable as it is to accept, pretty much the whole world thought Mr Hitler was doing a fine job.
Read: Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949 by the Jewish historian David Cesarani. The entire book is taken from official records from both sides, there is no conjecture or fiction, just1056 pages that will make you weep as you read who killed the Jews, how many, when, and where. At the end of that book you will have no illusions about who was guilty. Yes, the Nazis really did that, and the Holocaust absolutely happened, but they were not alone in its execution.
One other thing that needs to be said is that Anti-Semitism was the de facto official theology of the Nazi state.
The Treaty of Versailles.
This was the punishment imposed on Germany after the First World War. It was extremely draconian. All of Germany's wealth and resources were taken to pay back for losing. The reparations were so heavy that Germany was reduced to starvation and hardship. The French stationed Senegalese troops in the Ruhr Valley which lead to widespread rape and abuse of German women and girls. The German troops who fought in the First World War felt that they were defeated not by their enemies' soldiers but by their own politicians and generals. They came home to shame and starvation. The whole country was not only beaten but made to feel beaten.
At the time, it was pointed out that such enduring punishment could eventually work against the Allies by invoking some kind of backlash by the German people but such remarks were ignored.
Then one day, in Germany, a man stood up and said, "ENOUGH", let's Make Germany Great Again. (yes, that is where those words came from) and the entire German population cheered and got in behind him.
People came from all over the world to witness "The German Miracle" as it was called.
HOW IT ALL WORKED
Once the Nazis had taken complete control of Germany, the syllabus at all schools and universities was changed to match the Nazi world view. Any subject that could be altered to support their world view was. Ideas that had long been discredited became current again, like the idea that by looking at the shape of a person's head you could tell if they were of good stock or not.
Control of all media meant having control of the minds of the people. Dr Goebbels came up with the Principles of Propaganda and the world as it was known changed forever more.
The establishment of the Hitler Youth Movement meant that all young people were subjected to the unadulterated Nazi philosophy without anything to temper its extremes. Parents influences over their children was severely curtailed. The influence of the church was minimised. In short, generations that grew up believing it was an absolute fact that Jews were inferior, Slavs were inferior, Blacks were inferior and so on. Just as our kids believe what they are taught day after day, week after week, year after year. The real effect of that indoctrination came when these kids were old enough to be conscripted into the army. There was a noticeable difference between the older soldiers who had fought in WW1 and the new recruits. The older guys treated both POWs and civilians with respect but the new recruits showed nothing but a brutality. Their ability to unquestioningly follow orders and to kill people who were regarded as less than animals gave rise to the Germany army's fearsome reputation.
The first exterminations the Nazis carried out were on their own children as they systematically murdered any child that was defective in any way, kids with palsy, polio, autism, kids that just weren't too bright, they were quietly murdered. Parents were just sent a note saying that their child had died from flu, pneumonia or other common ailment. This mass murder was carried out with the full knowledge and cooperation of doctors, nurses, caretakers, gardeners, drivers, delivery men, cleaners, etc. Just like the killing of the Jews, after the war many claimed to be ignorant of these things too, but really you cannot escape the fact that to murder a whole race of people you need the active assistance of the whole population.
Read Hitler's Furies by Wendy Lower to see how women were actively complicit in this,. One of the key things the Nazis did was to give women a chance to break out of the Kinder, Kerk, Keuken mould that had shaped their lives for generations, all of a sudden it was allowed for women to pursue a career. One such career was concentration camp guard. 3500 women were trained at Ravensbruck alone, their average age was 26. The women that volunteered saw the camps not as mass murder sites, but as places of employment and opportunity, the pay was good and the uniform impressive. Another success for mass indoctrination of the youth! These new opportunities for women applied to all spheres, as all the men were required to fight, so their places were taken by women. They knew that it was people in those trains going east, except that to them Jews were not human. If a train had to be parked up for a few days to let essential war supplies through, then so be it. On that train were only "useless mouths" why waste food on them?
Membership of the Nazi party was obligatory and being a member meant being subject to endless sessions of "education". You could not progress in your job unless you showed enthusiasm and knowledge of Nazi philosophy.
THE WAR
There is quote that came from Hitler just after his rise to power. An army general asked him, "Herr Hitler, do you intend to turn every German soldier into a Nazi?" To which Hitler replied, "No Herr General, my intention is to turn every Nazi into a German soldier". And he did.
The German Army's early successes were breathtaking. Their superiority came from having the latest weaponry and modern ideas of battle drilled into their troops through years of training. As early as 1936 outsiders witnessed German Panzer divisions on training manoeuvres in Southern Germany. They trained their armed forces divisions to work in conjunction with each other. What evolved from that was the idea of Blitzkrieg (although they never used that word themselves). Another difference was that their troops were given an objective and it was left up their initiative as to how they accomplished that objective. Other armies gave their troops explicit instructions by officers who were, quite often, miles away from where the action would take place. This degree of autonomy meant that the German forces were more able to respond to changing battle conditions, were more flexible and could think on their feet whilst their enemies had to await new orders that often came too late to save a situation.
You could say that all of Hitler's early successes came as much from his enemies' sheer incompetence as from German smarts. Incompetence that comes from arrogance and from outdated ideas. Read about the Maginot line which epitomises the arrogance and sheer stupidity of both the French and English military leading to their utter humiliation.
Like all armies, the officer classes mostly came from the landed aristocracy. It may be too strong to say that Hitler never trusted them but the failed assassination attempt on his life made sure that he minimised both them and their influence. One of his most fundamental changes was to allow "ordinary soldiers" to be promoted upwards based on their performance on the battlefield and not on their family line.
It is hard to get a grasp of just how popular Hitler was, especially in this age of spineless, ethically challenged, leaders. To the German people he represented not only a way out of their past shame and unjust treatment but also a way to a new shiny future that was based on real and outstanding achievements. It an't just words, he delivered. As a person he represented everything that the German people aspired to. His ongoing successes only proved their belief in him.
Many other races fought alongside the Germans. They had regiments composed of English, French, American, Italian, Spanish volunteers from those and many other countries. They had a regiment of black soldiers.
The Scandinavians were terrified of the Russians. The Finns have lost 70 odd wars with the Russians. For them, a Russian invasion was a very real threat. The only country talking about standing up to the Russians was Germany. That was why thousands and thousands of Finns, Norwegians, Swedes, Danes etc voluntarily joined for the German Army. They were told by the Germans that they would be defending their homelands. In reality they all went to the Eastern Front.
Because they were not German nationals and could not be conscripted, they had to sign up for fixed periods as mercenaries. This lead to the bizarre situation where, in the middle of major battles, they would get a tap on the shoulder and be told that they served their allotted time and had to go home. They would literally put their guns down and leave the battle to catch the next train home.
There is a book called Hitler's Vikings by Jonathan Trigg
This is a quote from a Norwegian veteran:
"We, the Norwegian and other foreign volunteers, did not fight for Hitler or his regime, but alongside his country. Just as Britons didn’t fight for Stalin but alongside the Soviet Union, it’s a sad truth but in war you can’t pick your allies. If people are really interested in what actually happened then they should find out for themselves. They will see that it was not so easy at the time to choose a course of action, but it was then that a choice had to be made."
After the war when returning home, some were made national heroes as in Finland and some were shot as traitors as in Denmark. Sweden imprisoned them. Other countries just wanted to quietly forget all about this.
If you read Hitler's Soldiers by Ben H. Shepherd, (this book) a long, but far from boring book, you will get a full account of how they won, then lost the war. In spite of what Hollywood would have us believe, the war was not won by the George Clooney or Brad Pitt.
Growing up in England in the 1950s I look back and see that we were bombarded by an endless re-telling of the war where the British were shown as the heroes of the day instead of the moribund, inefficient, poorly equipped lot that they were. We suffered this from TV, comics, movies, newspapers etc.
On reading actual accounts of battles and campaigns that took place, you can easily see that it is absolutely true when the Americans say they saved the English's ass.
But the Americans did not defeat the Nazis! No! The German army was defeated by the Russians. 80% of all German losses of men, machinery, and equipment was inflicted by the Russians. It really is as simple as that. Without their sacrifice of around 20 million people we would not be here.
If the Russians had lost the Eastern Front then the Allies would have been facing a battle hardened, well trained, highly disciplined, well equipped, army that was far superior than all their forces combined. Hitler would have had complete control of Europe and most of Asia and life as we know it now would not exist. My family, and many others, would have been exterminated in one of the camps.
WHAT ELSE DID I LEARN ALONG THE WAY?
Many unfortunate things:
I lived in Holland for 5 years and never knew they had camps for the Jews there, there were two camps and people were murdered there. How did I learn about that? I saw a list of all the camps where Jews died on a monument in Frankfurt and was surprised to see the name of a Dutch town in the list. After seeing that, I asked a few Dutch people and they never knew about them either.
And on the subject of Holland, we all know about Anne Frank but please do not be fooled by that bullshit. I do not mean that Anne Frank was bullshit, what I mean is the Dutch Jews were rounded up with the full cooperation and active assistance of the Dutch population. They didn't need any encouragement from the Germans.
Since the war the Dutch have been very successful in telling their stories of The Dutch Resistance. Yes, there really was a Dutch Resistance and they really did do brave things. But Dutch Volunteers were also the largest regiment in the Waffen SS. In other words more Dutch were on the side of the Nazis than against them.
I have picked on the Dutch but they are not alone in sanitising their history. Read about the Swiss and Jewish bank accounts.
As hard as it is to believe, the Nazis originally had no plans to kill the Jews, they simply wanted rid of them. They had not counted on every other country's downright refusal to take them.Eventually, the only option the Nazis had left was the Final Solution and that wasn't a problem for them apart from the logistics.
And don't mention the European Royal families, all of whom were devout believers in the Nazi cause. To put that in context, all those royals had all seen the Tsar and his family murdered by the great unwashed after the October Revolution. Bolshevism was a palpably real fear to all who had wealth and power. The Cold War did not come out of nowhere.
Never forget that the Nazis had massive support throughout all of Europe and America. I also have a suspicion that if the extermination of the Jews had been collateral damage for defeating the Russians then I don't think that anyone with the Allies would have lost a lot of sleep over it and many would have considered it an acceptable trade off as it killed two birds with one stone.
Let’s be absolutely clear, the Nazis were defeated, not hatred of the Jews because in that regard, everyone was on the same side.
Finally
We look back on these events and actions and wonder how anyone, let alone an entire race could be so cold and heartless as to inflict that level of suffering on helpless old people, women, and children. We cannot imagine ourselves ever doing that.
And yet we eat in the full knowledge that millions starve when there is nothing but idleness on our part from stopping those million of deaths.
We live in nice houses when our very own countrymen and women are homeless.
You see how easy it is?
After the war, lots of Germans said that if they had objected at the time they too would have been on those trains going to the camps or simply shot. That is absolutely true, the Nazis had zero tolerance for dissenting voices and murdered thousand of their own brave souls who did speak out.
Yet no-one is holding a gun to our heads now.
Peace and Love
(see my Third Reich shelf to see how I got here)
I couldn't get over the idea that a race of normal people could turn into a race of murderers. I had no doubts that the German people were as normal as the English, that they were not inherently evil people but something happened to make them so. I wanted to know what that was.
I have never been anything but a Holocaust believer. My parents had kept the newspaper cuttings showing images from when the Allies liberated the camps. Piles of dead bodies, literally piles of bodies, each so thin as to add to the disbelief when trying to take in what our eyes were seeing. People standing like living skeletons with hollow eyes. As a child those images frightened me.
So, I was not looking to excuse what they did. I just wanted to understand how it all came about.
It's been a long journey getting to where I think I finally have some understanding. I lost a lot of preconceptions and learned a lot of bad things.
Judgement and condemnation is easy, especially when based on ignorance. Understanding means keeping your eye on the crime and working out the steps that the person took to get to stand in that place where they committed the crime. Understanding how they got there but never forgetting what they did.
After a lot of reading I feel I now have a coherent understanding of what influenced the Nazi ideology, the circumstances that lead to their rise to power and what they did with that power to bring about both the deaths of millions of innocent people and eventually their own downfall.
This is my journey to that understanding, I am not saying that I am right or anyone else is wrong, I am not denying anyone else's truth, this is only where I stand now.
My Conclusions:
It was the confluence of three things:
Eugenics
The Treaty of Versailles
Anti-Semitism
EUGENICS
A gift for white people everywhere. Eugenics came out of Darwin's idea that life is the survival of the fittest and that species improve by selective breeding.
If white people ruled the world it was obviously because they were "fitter" than other races. If rich people enjoyed more privilege it was obvious they were "fitter" than the poor.
Eugenics was the application of survival of the fittest and selective breeding to the human race.
Eugenics advocated higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits and reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilisation of people with undesired traits.
This led to the establishment of institutions where the mentally and physically defectives could be kept to minimise their harmful effects on the breeding population. The introduction of free contraception for lower class women was not led by pioneering feminists pursuing the interests of women but by eugenicists whose sole purpose was to stop the uncontrolled breeding of the lower orders.
It was a belief in Eugenics that led to forced sterilisations in many countries, especially the US. You could be sterilised against your will for something as simple as not having a fixed address.
Hitler was strongly in favour of the sterilisation programs pioneered in the US and promised to introduce them in Germany.
The whole white world was convinced that the pursuit of eugenics could only lead to a better world. The idea of a Master Race was not a Nazi invention. All the Nazis did was to take to the extreme and thereby (thankfully) fuck it up for everyone forever.
After the war, eugenics was quietly forgotten, all of a sudden, no-one wanted to talk about it. In fact, it went further than that, if you hadn't heard about eugenics until now then that is proof of just how far all countries went to to "forget" about eugenics. Try finding out about your country's history of eugenics, you may be in for a surprise.
Google "Eugenics Sweden" and it will cure you of any humanitarian ideas you may have had about Sweden. Up until the 1970s in Sweden you could apply to have "unruly families" in your neighbourhood sterilised!
(Imagine that as a Trump policy, he could get re-elected on that one policy alone. He wouldn't need a wall, he'd need bigger gates to allow for the numbers leaving to fit through. If ever there was a man born too late it is Trump.)
But, do not for an instant believe that Sweden was alone in these ideas that now read as nothing short of madness.
Whilst eugenics may have been "forgotten" its basic ideas are still alive and well, white privilege still has currency, the veneration of the rich still abounds, rich people are asked to comment on current affairs simply because they are rich. In fact, eugenic ideas have never gone away its just that for the time being no-one is offering a solution.
ANTI-SEMITISM
Everyone hated the Jews. Remember this was before the nation state of Israel existed. The western Allies had full knowledge of Hitler's extermination programs throughout the whole war and before. They never assisted him, but they never stopped him either, they had the means and opportunity but did nothing because, as unpalatable as it is to accept, pretty much the whole world thought Mr Hitler was doing a fine job.
Read: Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949 by the Jewish historian David Cesarani. The entire book is taken from official records from both sides, there is no conjecture or fiction, just1056 pages that will make you weep as you read who killed the Jews, how many, when, and where. At the end of that book you will have no illusions about who was guilty. Yes, the Nazis really did that, and the Holocaust absolutely happened, but they were not alone in its execution.
One other thing that needs to be said is that Anti-Semitism was the de facto official theology of the Nazi state.
The Treaty of Versailles.
This was the punishment imposed on Germany after the First World War. It was extremely draconian. All of Germany's wealth and resources were taken to pay back for losing. The reparations were so heavy that Germany was reduced to starvation and hardship. The French stationed Senegalese troops in the Ruhr Valley which lead to widespread rape and abuse of German women and girls. The German troops who fought in the First World War felt that they were defeated not by their enemies' soldiers but by their own politicians and generals. They came home to shame and starvation. The whole country was not only beaten but made to feel beaten.
At the time, it was pointed out that such enduring punishment could eventually work against the Allies by invoking some kind of backlash by the German people but such remarks were ignored.
Then one day, in Germany, a man stood up and said, "ENOUGH", let's Make Germany Great Again. (yes, that is where those words came from) and the entire German population cheered and got in behind him.
People came from all over the world to witness "The German Miracle" as it was called.
HOW IT ALL WORKED
Once the Nazis had taken complete control of Germany, the syllabus at all schools and universities was changed to match the Nazi world view. Any subject that could be altered to support their world view was. Ideas that had long been discredited became current again, like the idea that by looking at the shape of a person's head you could tell if they were of good stock or not.
Control of all media meant having control of the minds of the people. Dr Goebbels came up with the Principles of Propaganda and the world as it was known changed forever more.
The establishment of the Hitler Youth Movement meant that all young people were subjected to the unadulterated Nazi philosophy without anything to temper its extremes. Parents influences over their children was severely curtailed. The influence of the church was minimised. In short, generations that grew up believing it was an absolute fact that Jews were inferior, Slavs were inferior, Blacks were inferior and so on. Just as our kids believe what they are taught day after day, week after week, year after year. The real effect of that indoctrination came when these kids were old enough to be conscripted into the army. There was a noticeable difference between the older soldiers who had fought in WW1 and the new recruits. The older guys treated both POWs and civilians with respect but the new recruits showed nothing but a brutality. Their ability to unquestioningly follow orders and to kill people who were regarded as less than animals gave rise to the Germany army's fearsome reputation.
The first exterminations the Nazis carried out were on their own children as they systematically murdered any child that was defective in any way, kids with palsy, polio, autism, kids that just weren't too bright, they were quietly murdered. Parents were just sent a note saying that their child had died from flu, pneumonia or other common ailment. This mass murder was carried out with the full knowledge and cooperation of doctors, nurses, caretakers, gardeners, drivers, delivery men, cleaners, etc. Just like the killing of the Jews, after the war many claimed to be ignorant of these things too, but really you cannot escape the fact that to murder a whole race of people you need the active assistance of the whole population.
Read Hitler's Furies by Wendy Lower to see how women were actively complicit in this,. One of the key things the Nazis did was to give women a chance to break out of the Kinder, Kerk, Keuken mould that had shaped their lives for generations, all of a sudden it was allowed for women to pursue a career. One such career was concentration camp guard. 3500 women were trained at Ravensbruck alone, their average age was 26. The women that volunteered saw the camps not as mass murder sites, but as places of employment and opportunity, the pay was good and the uniform impressive. Another success for mass indoctrination of the youth! These new opportunities for women applied to all spheres, as all the men were required to fight, so their places were taken by women. They knew that it was people in those trains going east, except that to them Jews were not human. If a train had to be parked up for a few days to let essential war supplies through, then so be it. On that train were only "useless mouths" why waste food on them?
Membership of the Nazi party was obligatory and being a member meant being subject to endless sessions of "education". You could not progress in your job unless you showed enthusiasm and knowledge of Nazi philosophy.
THE WAR
There is quote that came from Hitler just after his rise to power. An army general asked him, "Herr Hitler, do you intend to turn every German soldier into a Nazi?" To which Hitler replied, "No Herr General, my intention is to turn every Nazi into a German soldier". And he did.
The German Army's early successes were breathtaking. Their superiority came from having the latest weaponry and modern ideas of battle drilled into their troops through years of training. As early as 1936 outsiders witnessed German Panzer divisions on training manoeuvres in Southern Germany. They trained their armed forces divisions to work in conjunction with each other. What evolved from that was the idea of Blitzkrieg (although they never used that word themselves). Another difference was that their troops were given an objective and it was left up their initiative as to how they accomplished that objective. Other armies gave their troops explicit instructions by officers who were, quite often, miles away from where the action would take place. This degree of autonomy meant that the German forces were more able to respond to changing battle conditions, were more flexible and could think on their feet whilst their enemies had to await new orders that often came too late to save a situation.
You could say that all of Hitler's early successes came as much from his enemies' sheer incompetence as from German smarts. Incompetence that comes from arrogance and from outdated ideas. Read about the Maginot line which epitomises the arrogance and sheer stupidity of both the French and English military leading to their utter humiliation.
Like all armies, the officer classes mostly came from the landed aristocracy. It may be too strong to say that Hitler never trusted them but the failed assassination attempt on his life made sure that he minimised both them and their influence. One of his most fundamental changes was to allow "ordinary soldiers" to be promoted upwards based on their performance on the battlefield and not on their family line.
It is hard to get a grasp of just how popular Hitler was, especially in this age of spineless, ethically challenged, leaders. To the German people he represented not only a way out of their past shame and unjust treatment but also a way to a new shiny future that was based on real and outstanding achievements. It an't just words, he delivered. As a person he represented everything that the German people aspired to. His ongoing successes only proved their belief in him.
Many other races fought alongside the Germans. They had regiments composed of English, French, American, Italian, Spanish volunteers from those and many other countries. They had a regiment of black soldiers.
The Scandinavians were terrified of the Russians. The Finns have lost 70 odd wars with the Russians. For them, a Russian invasion was a very real threat. The only country talking about standing up to the Russians was Germany. That was why thousands and thousands of Finns, Norwegians, Swedes, Danes etc voluntarily joined for the German Army. They were told by the Germans that they would be defending their homelands. In reality they all went to the Eastern Front.
Because they were not German nationals and could not be conscripted, they had to sign up for fixed periods as mercenaries. This lead to the bizarre situation where, in the middle of major battles, they would get a tap on the shoulder and be told that they served their allotted time and had to go home. They would literally put their guns down and leave the battle to catch the next train home.
There is a book called Hitler's Vikings by Jonathan Trigg
This is a quote from a Norwegian veteran:
"We, the Norwegian and other foreign volunteers, did not fight for Hitler or his regime, but alongside his country. Just as Britons didn’t fight for Stalin but alongside the Soviet Union, it’s a sad truth but in war you can’t pick your allies. If people are really interested in what actually happened then they should find out for themselves. They will see that it was not so easy at the time to choose a course of action, but it was then that a choice had to be made."
After the war when returning home, some were made national heroes as in Finland and some were shot as traitors as in Denmark. Sweden imprisoned them. Other countries just wanted to quietly forget all about this.
If you read Hitler's Soldiers by Ben H. Shepherd, (this book) a long, but far from boring book, you will get a full account of how they won, then lost the war. In spite of what Hollywood would have us believe, the war was not won by the George Clooney or Brad Pitt.
Growing up in England in the 1950s I look back and see that we were bombarded by an endless re-telling of the war where the British were shown as the heroes of the day instead of the moribund, inefficient, poorly equipped lot that they were. We suffered this from TV, comics, movies, newspapers etc.
On reading actual accounts of battles and campaigns that took place, you can easily see that it is absolutely true when the Americans say they saved the English's ass.
But the Americans did not defeat the Nazis! No! The German army was defeated by the Russians. 80% of all German losses of men, machinery, and equipment was inflicted by the Russians. It really is as simple as that. Without their sacrifice of around 20 million people we would not be here.
If the Russians had lost the Eastern Front then the Allies would have been facing a battle hardened, well trained, highly disciplined, well equipped, army that was far superior than all their forces combined. Hitler would have had complete control of Europe and most of Asia and life as we know it now would not exist. My family, and many others, would have been exterminated in one of the camps.
WHAT ELSE DID I LEARN ALONG THE WAY?
Many unfortunate things:
I lived in Holland for 5 years and never knew they had camps for the Jews there, there were two camps and people were murdered there. How did I learn about that? I saw a list of all the camps where Jews died on a monument in Frankfurt and was surprised to see the name of a Dutch town in the list. After seeing that, I asked a few Dutch people and they never knew about them either.
And on the subject of Holland, we all know about Anne Frank but please do not be fooled by that bullshit. I do not mean that Anne Frank was bullshit, what I mean is the Dutch Jews were rounded up with the full cooperation and active assistance of the Dutch population. They didn't need any encouragement from the Germans.
Since the war the Dutch have been very successful in telling their stories of The Dutch Resistance. Yes, there really was a Dutch Resistance and they really did do brave things. But Dutch Volunteers were also the largest regiment in the Waffen SS. In other words more Dutch were on the side of the Nazis than against them.
I have picked on the Dutch but they are not alone in sanitising their history. Read about the Swiss and Jewish bank accounts.
As hard as it is to believe, the Nazis originally had no plans to kill the Jews, they simply wanted rid of them. They had not counted on every other country's downright refusal to take them.Eventually, the only option the Nazis had left was the Final Solution and that wasn't a problem for them apart from the logistics.
And don't mention the European Royal families, all of whom were devout believers in the Nazi cause. To put that in context, all those royals had all seen the Tsar and his family murdered by the great unwashed after the October Revolution. Bolshevism was a palpably real fear to all who had wealth and power. The Cold War did not come out of nowhere.
Never forget that the Nazis had massive support throughout all of Europe and America. I also have a suspicion that if the extermination of the Jews had been collateral damage for defeating the Russians then I don't think that anyone with the Allies would have lost a lot of sleep over it and many would have considered it an acceptable trade off as it killed two birds with one stone.
Let’s be absolutely clear, the Nazis were defeated, not hatred of the Jews because in that regard, everyone was on the same side.
Finally
We look back on these events and actions and wonder how anyone, let alone an entire race could be so cold and heartless as to inflict that level of suffering on helpless old people, women, and children. We cannot imagine ourselves ever doing that.
And yet we eat in the full knowledge that millions starve when there is nothing but idleness on our part from stopping those million of deaths.
We live in nice houses when our very own countrymen and women are homeless.
You see how easy it is?
After the war, lots of Germans said that if they had objected at the time they too would have been on those trains going to the camps or simply shot. That is absolutely true, the Nazis had zero tolerance for dissenting voices and murdered thousand of their own brave souls who did speak out.
Yet no-one is holding a gun to our heads now.
Peace and Love
(see my Third Reich shelf to see how I got here)
June 10, 2021
This is a military history of Nazi Germany focusing on army soldiers at strategic (generals and their actions), tactical (division and battle groups in technique and episodes) and individual levels (such as letters home). This is well-trodden territory. However, recent access to previously unreleased material from government and primary sources. This led to a few insights:
1) Panzers and their tacticians went through an improving period and learning curve
2) US/UK/USSR forces also went through painful periods of learning to incorporate armor, etc.
3) The Italian army was not as incompetent as the scapegoat-seeking Nazis would have us believe.
4) There is statistically significant evidence from prisoner-slaying to atrocities that army soldiers did not need to be SS to act on the racist ideology that had become institutionalized. This was especially true in the West (France) about African colonial soldiers and in the East targeting Slavs and Jews.
5) One key part of soldierly success was an early and wide adoption of battlefield radio and rehearsed coordination effected by this real-time communication.
1) Panzers and their tacticians went through an improving period and learning curve
2) US/UK/USSR forces also went through painful periods of learning to incorporate armor, etc.
3) The Italian army was not as incompetent as the scapegoat-seeking Nazis would have us believe.
4) There is statistically significant evidence from prisoner-slaying to atrocities that army soldiers did not need to be SS to act on the racist ideology that had become institutionalized. This was especially true in the West (France) about African colonial soldiers and in the East targeting Slavs and Jews.
5) One key part of soldierly success was an early and wide adoption of battlefield radio and rehearsed coordination effected by this real-time communication.
March 2, 2018
Misleading title, expected more of sociology and less history.
January 3, 2020
This is an ambitious book, perhaps overly ambitious. It contains a chronological narrative of the rise and decline of the German Army throughout WWII, which of course amounts to a short history of a large part of that war, combined with an analysis of the ideology of that army and its leadership, and its complicity in war crimes. Even for a book of 536 pages, not including appendices and notes, this is a challenge. The chronological framework takes up space at the cost of more analysis.
Perhaps it was inevitable. Shepherd focuses on the German Army itself, Das Heer, thus largely excluding the SS, the Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine from consideration. He analyses how a force that started out with a mostly conservative and nationalist ideology first allied itself with Nazism and then was gradually subsumed by it, a process of radicalisation and brutalisation that took the five years of the war and the major events in it: Separating the chronological narrative from the ethical and ideological analysis would have been difficult.
But it does result in weaknesses. For example; Shepherd argues that as the war progressed, one of the radicalising factors was the growing number of soldiers and officers who had grown up under the Nazi regime, and had been indoctrinated during their membership of the the Hitlerjugend and other political organisations. This makes sense, but as he does not pursue any analysis of this evolution in German society, the bald statement alone does not give the reader much insight in this process. This seems a major blind spot. There are others, for example Shepherd repeatedly seems to dismiss the about half a million of Osttruppen recruited in Eastern Europe for German army service simply as "Polish Germans", which is a crass oversimplification. In many ways this wide-ranging history is inevitably a bit superficial, and the reader doesn't really gain an understanding of the experience of the soldiers.
The biggest strength of the book is the exploration of events away from the battlefield, and the German army's role in them. There is a lengthy analysis of occupation policy in different regions and the army's actions towards resistance and partisan movements, which were generally brutal as well as ineffective. The role of the army in food policy, which lead to the starvation of millions, is part of that story. Shepherd also makes a good effort to analyse the social evolution of the officer corps, and the way in which its composition influenced its policies.
Overall, this is a good summary account of the role of the German Army in the war. It doesn't have much depth or detail, as the challenge was too great for that, but it has more than enough to demolish the myth that the Army was not deeply involved in war crimes.
Perhaps it was inevitable. Shepherd focuses on the German Army itself, Das Heer, thus largely excluding the SS, the Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine from consideration. He analyses how a force that started out with a mostly conservative and nationalist ideology first allied itself with Nazism and then was gradually subsumed by it, a process of radicalisation and brutalisation that took the five years of the war and the major events in it: Separating the chronological narrative from the ethical and ideological analysis would have been difficult.
But it does result in weaknesses. For example; Shepherd argues that as the war progressed, one of the radicalising factors was the growing number of soldiers and officers who had grown up under the Nazi regime, and had been indoctrinated during their membership of the the Hitlerjugend and other political organisations. This makes sense, but as he does not pursue any analysis of this evolution in German society, the bald statement alone does not give the reader much insight in this process. This seems a major blind spot. There are others, for example Shepherd repeatedly seems to dismiss the about half a million of Osttruppen recruited in Eastern Europe for German army service simply as "Polish Germans", which is a crass oversimplification. In many ways this wide-ranging history is inevitably a bit superficial, and the reader doesn't really gain an understanding of the experience of the soldiers.
The biggest strength of the book is the exploration of events away from the battlefield, and the German army's role in them. There is a lengthy analysis of occupation policy in different regions and the army's actions towards resistance and partisan movements, which were generally brutal as well as ineffective. The role of the army in food policy, which lead to the starvation of millions, is part of that story. Shepherd also makes a good effort to analyse the social evolution of the officer corps, and the way in which its composition influenced its policies.
Overall, this is a good summary account of the role of the German Army in the war. It doesn't have much depth or detail, as the challenge was too great for that, but it has more than enough to demolish the myth that the Army was not deeply involved in war crimes.
December 8, 2023
In Hitler’s Soldiers Ben H Shepherd writes a history of the german army under nazi rule; from 1933 through to the end of the second world war. This is not a history of the campaigns of WWII, though they get a lot of page time, but of the organisation; how it accepted Nazi rule, its’ complicity, its’ conduct, and the impact of war upon it.
Hitler’s Soldiers is the kind of book everyone interested in military history should read every so often; a pertinent reminder of the suffering armies cause, and the potential for a descent into moral depravity. As such it is a cautionary tale; the army did not start off nazi, it was mostly conservative but it was not opposed to the nazis and slowly became nazified and dehumanised during the war. Its’ acts became bloodier and bloodier - and with less justification. The book does a good job of looking at how differences in officers and soldiers age, between units, and locations impacted how much restraint an army unit took.
While an excellent book I feel it does somewhat fall between two stools; first as a military history of the German Army (Heer) in WWII and second a thorough debunking of the myth of the ‘clean Wehrmacht’. These are intertwined as a narrative so cant be disentangled if only wanting one of these. If you are are looking for a shortish narrative of WWII’s European theatre land battles then the outline of the war will be helpful, but the half dealing with with atrocities likely to be too in depth. I imagine most readers however will be the other way around, and be more interested in the second element, for them it is likely that the outline of the war is treading old ground. I certainly found the parts about the army in occupation, morale and how it conducted itself to be the more interesting elements. That said Shepherd does trace a link between defeat and declining fortunes on the battlefield and this moral downward spiral.
I did not have many issues with the book, but there was one thing that consistently annoyed me; anonymity. Most of the accounts from participants are simply identified by their initials, sometimes on one initial. Clearly this is not a practical problem, but it does reduce the immediacy, and means you can't tell if a viewpoint is the same person as was quoted before. It is also inconsistent, sometimes it is both initials, sometimes one, sometimes with rank, and sometimes a name is given, but it is all unclear why one format and not the other for a particular individual. It is the kind of thing that would normally be explained in the preface but is not.
I recommend this book for those who already have a decent understanding of WWII.
Hitler’s Soldiers is the kind of book everyone interested in military history should read every so often; a pertinent reminder of the suffering armies cause, and the potential for a descent into moral depravity. As such it is a cautionary tale; the army did not start off nazi, it was mostly conservative but it was not opposed to the nazis and slowly became nazified and dehumanised during the war. Its’ acts became bloodier and bloodier - and with less justification. The book does a good job of looking at how differences in officers and soldiers age, between units, and locations impacted how much restraint an army unit took.
While an excellent book I feel it does somewhat fall between two stools; first as a military history of the German Army (Heer) in WWII and second a thorough debunking of the myth of the ‘clean Wehrmacht’. These are intertwined as a narrative so cant be disentangled if only wanting one of these. If you are are looking for a shortish narrative of WWII’s European theatre land battles then the outline of the war will be helpful, but the half dealing with with atrocities likely to be too in depth. I imagine most readers however will be the other way around, and be more interested in the second element, for them it is likely that the outline of the war is treading old ground. I certainly found the parts about the army in occupation, morale and how it conducted itself to be the more interesting elements. That said Shepherd does trace a link between defeat and declining fortunes on the battlefield and this moral downward spiral.
I did not have many issues with the book, but there was one thing that consistently annoyed me; anonymity. Most of the accounts from participants are simply identified by their initials, sometimes on one initial. Clearly this is not a practical problem, but it does reduce the immediacy, and means you can't tell if a viewpoint is the same person as was quoted before. It is also inconsistent, sometimes it is both initials, sometimes one, sometimes with rank, and sometimes a name is given, but it is all unclear why one format and not the other for a particular individual. It is the kind of thing that would normally be explained in the preface but is not.
I recommend this book for those who already have a decent understanding of WWII.
June 2, 2018
A solidly written and comprehensive account of the German army throughout WWII, covering all theatres of operations. What made the army so successful during the early stages of conflict, what went wrong, why did it continue to fight on when all was lost, and how culpable was it for atrocities committed by the Nazi regime? I liked the use of contemporary sources, letters/diaries etc. Surprisingly for something with so much military detail it isn't dull. Informative, cogent and interesting, fair and balanced, too. Shepherd corrects a common misapprehension the German army was known as the Wehrmacht: "Whilst many books employ the term ‘Wehrmacht’ to denote the German army, this is actually incorrect. ‘Wehrmacht’ directly translates as Armed forces, and technically speaking the Wehrmacht comprised not just the army, but also the air force (Luftwaffe), navy (Kriegsmarine), and from 1944, the Waffen-SS.”
The myth of a 'clean' German army vs evil Waffen-SS has long been debunked. Shepherd explains how Nazi ideology and propaganda permeated all levels of the German army from top down making them brutal occupiers and exploiters of territories, particularly in the east, whose inhabitants were deemed racially inferior. The horrors of the Holocaust are familiar to us but anti-partisan (and the term was applied very loosely) warfare claimed very many victims, too. “As has been made abundantly clear, the army as a whole was complicit in terror, exploitation and criminality virtually from the war’s start.” As the war went on more of the army has grown up indoctrinated by the Nazi regime through the Hitler Youth and devoted to the Führer, and soldiers exposed to the horrors of the eastern front were more inclined to brutality against those seen as a threat.
Ruthless economic exploitation (for e.g. sending agricultural produce home to feed the Reich while local farmers starved) and murderous treatment of civilians, combined with fanatical pursuit of warfare, turned initially sympathetic populations hostile and made the Allies more determined to accept nothing other than unconditional surrender and the total destruction of Germany. “Thus did the German army’s moral failure and military failure reinforce one another.”
The myth of a 'clean' German army vs evil Waffen-SS has long been debunked. Shepherd explains how Nazi ideology and propaganda permeated all levels of the German army from top down making them brutal occupiers and exploiters of territories, particularly in the east, whose inhabitants were deemed racially inferior. The horrors of the Holocaust are familiar to us but anti-partisan (and the term was applied very loosely) warfare claimed very many victims, too. “As has been made abundantly clear, the army as a whole was complicit in terror, exploitation and criminality virtually from the war’s start.” As the war went on more of the army has grown up indoctrinated by the Nazi regime through the Hitler Youth and devoted to the Führer, and soldiers exposed to the horrors of the eastern front were more inclined to brutality against those seen as a threat.
Ruthless economic exploitation (for e.g. sending agricultural produce home to feed the Reich while local farmers starved) and murderous treatment of civilians, combined with fanatical pursuit of warfare, turned initially sympathetic populations hostile and made the Allies more determined to accept nothing other than unconditional surrender and the total destruction of Germany. “Thus did the German army’s moral failure and military failure reinforce one another.”
May 5, 2024
Interesting to the Serious Student of the Eastern Front
Any review of this book would have to start out by clarifying the audience is that it is intended for. This book is definitely not those without an in-depth knowledge of the second world war in Europe. It is geared for those with at least an intermediate level, if not above. Having said that, it does provide much information that was typically not provided in most of the typical historical narratives of the past in terms of military action. Other aspects of the book such as the German occupation and anti-guerilla tactics are also covered that have received little attention in the past. This reviewer only wished the book covered some other major topics that have, in the past, been little written about such as economic rationalization in the occupied lands.
All and all a four star book.
Any review of this book would have to start out by clarifying the audience is that it is intended for. This book is definitely not those without an in-depth knowledge of the second world war in Europe. It is geared for those with at least an intermediate level, if not above. Having said that, it does provide much information that was typically not provided in most of the typical historical narratives of the past in terms of military action. Other aspects of the book such as the German occupation and anti-guerilla tactics are also covered that have received little attention in the past. This reviewer only wished the book covered some other major topics that have, in the past, been little written about such as economic rationalization in the occupied lands.
All and all a four star book.
July 29, 2023
Ben Shepherd's book covers historical facts of the WW2 German Army not covered in books published prior to 1991. I read every book on WW2 and the German Army I could both as kid and as an adult, all pre 1991. my career got in the way and I didn't start reading until the last couple of years. His book was the first time I heard of National Socialist Field Officers.
October 11, 2018
A thorough history of the Reichswehr and Wehrmacht. Covering both its brilliance in tactical and operational warfare, its deficiencies in strategy and its criminal behaviour in the occupied territories once and for all bursting the bubble of the 'clean Wehrmacht'.
August 28, 2021
An excellent book all in all, although a few points when mentioning history on the non-German side which stuck out as being a little iffy. Doesn't detract much, but if you are more familiar with Soviet milhist, for instance, still noticable.
October 23, 2019
Underwhelming in its reliance on Mad Hastings. Not enough of this is original, much of it has been said elsewhere, and better.
April 25, 2020
Already widely known information
September 4, 2022
This is an excellent book. At something over 500 pages it might appear daunting at first glance. But considering how much is covered - from the blitzkrieg in Poland and France, to the heat of North Africa or the cold of Russian winters; from heady victories to abject defeats, on the frontline and in the occupied rear areas - it's actually remarkably concise.
Over twenty-four chapters, subdivided into five parts whose headings pithily map the narrative trajectory - Military Ascent, Moral Decline; Triumph & Hubris; Losing The Initiative; Beleaguered; Defeat, Destruction & Self-Destruction - Ben Shepherd both tells the story and analyses the actions of the German Army between 1933-45.
I don't want to give too much away for readers coming to this fresh, a great deal of whom will probably know much of the history beforehand anyway. But, in brief, Hitler's brinkmanship and the army's own 'auftragstaktik' doctrine (something Shepherd makes much of) initially appear to serve the German cause well.
But, ultimately, the huge gulf between ends and means, and the toxic racism central to Nazi ideology, ensure that the rot sets in very quickly. Once the regime's brutal belligerence - the army being a chief tool in this respect - has angered and alienated a large enough coalition, the 'thousand year Reich' and the army used to create it, are doomed to an early demise.
This comprehensive and compelling account is, above all else, a very nuanced and balanced reading of this dark and messy chapter of recent history. And as the books subtitle, ‘The German Army in the Third Reich’ suggests, as well as simply telling us what happened, Shepherd examines the context, asking such questions as how complicit was the German army in Nazi atrocities? and why did it continue to fight so ardently when it was clear the war was lost?
Journeying throughout the varied theatres of this monumental conflict with the German armed forces, as Shepherd seeks the answers to these questions, was fascinating and enlightening. A sure-fire sign that a book is worth reading is when it's hard to put down, and stokes the fires of interest in further, deeper reading. This book assuredly does both.
For anyone interested, I have a slightly more in depth review on my blog, aquestionofscale.blogspot.com.
Over twenty-four chapters, subdivided into five parts whose headings pithily map the narrative trajectory - Military Ascent, Moral Decline; Triumph & Hubris; Losing The Initiative; Beleaguered; Defeat, Destruction & Self-Destruction - Ben Shepherd both tells the story and analyses the actions of the German Army between 1933-45.
I don't want to give too much away for readers coming to this fresh, a great deal of whom will probably know much of the history beforehand anyway. But, in brief, Hitler's brinkmanship and the army's own 'auftragstaktik' doctrine (something Shepherd makes much of) initially appear to serve the German cause well.
But, ultimately, the huge gulf between ends and means, and the toxic racism central to Nazi ideology, ensure that the rot sets in very quickly. Once the regime's brutal belligerence - the army being a chief tool in this respect - has angered and alienated a large enough coalition, the 'thousand year Reich' and the army used to create it, are doomed to an early demise.
This comprehensive and compelling account is, above all else, a very nuanced and balanced reading of this dark and messy chapter of recent history. And as the books subtitle, ‘The German Army in the Third Reich’ suggests, as well as simply telling us what happened, Shepherd examines the context, asking such questions as how complicit was the German army in Nazi atrocities? and why did it continue to fight so ardently when it was clear the war was lost?
Journeying throughout the varied theatres of this monumental conflict with the German armed forces, as Shepherd seeks the answers to these questions, was fascinating and enlightening. A sure-fire sign that a book is worth reading is when it's hard to put down, and stokes the fires of interest in further, deeper reading. This book assuredly does both.
For anyone interested, I have a slightly more in depth review on my blog, aquestionofscale.blogspot.com.
September 21, 2025
This book begins with the premise that there is a belief that the German army was an upstanding, professional organisation, in sharp contrast to the violent SS, Gestapo and other such nefarious groups. But this book shall reveal that this is not the case! Uhhh... -squint-... I feel like anyone who knows anything about WWII wouldn't believe that? The army might not be the SS but they still follow the Nazi doctrine of believing they are the master race and that it's a-ok to be invading other nations. So it doesn't come as a surprise that they did some bad things. Whodathunk.
It takes a chronological view of the German army's activities in great detail. A lot of it is about military strategy which I find very boring, and the more interesting things about their non-military actions was all stuff I knew already. And I know that saying "I knew this already" doesn't mean everyone who reads it would also know, but it is worth saying that if you're up on your WWII history, there isn't much new here.
Not too impressed. A bit boring and nothing new.
It takes a chronological view of the German army's activities in great detail. A lot of it is about military strategy which I find very boring, and the more interesting things about their non-military actions was all stuff I knew already. And I know that saying "I knew this already" doesn't mean everyone who reads it would also know, but it is worth saying that if you're up on your WWII history, there isn't much new here.
Not too impressed. A bit boring and nothing new.
Read
May 27, 2016A new book in the library,glad I choose it.It is a book that allows us to see the German army as it was in the second world war.A detailed look from the generals down to the ordinary soldier.A book that dispels the myth that the Wehrmacht was not complicit in war crimes.Many took part and few senior officers complained.The author allows us to understand why the army fought on in late 1944 to May 1945 suggesting that indoctrination and fear of punishment made the remnants of a great army fight on.The book is recommended as a introduction into the German Army pre war and how it's senior officers became supporters of Hitler, leading them to accept(as normal) the extermination of those deemed unfit to live in Nazi Germany.
March 2, 2023
very informative I loved it. I will read the kindle version also sometime
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews