by Wilfried Heink
Part I
The following essays are based for the most part on “Verbrechen der Sieger. Das Schicksal der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Osteuropa” (Crimes of the victors. The fate of German POWs in Eastern Europe; Leoni am Starnberger See: Drufferl-Verlag, 1975). It begins with a foreword by Brigadier General Wolfgang Schall, retired, POW in the SU (Soviet Union) from 1945 to 1955, as well as a statement of intent by Wilhelm Anders. No actual author is mentioned; it is a compilation of documents and witness statements by the Verband der Heimkehrer und Bund der Vertriebenen (Organization of Returnees and Organization of the Dispelled). They decided to publish this book in 1975 as a result of the preparation for the celebration of the 30th anniversary of Germany’s defeat and the distortions of history affiliated with that defeat.
Since then, many books were written defaming German soldiers, portraying them as mostly brutal killers. The latest effort by Sönke Neitzel and Harald Welzer, simply titled “Soldaten” (Soldiers), features a collection of ‘newly discovered’ British and American wiretaps, allegedly of conversations of German POWs in various camps. And of course there was the 1995-1999 exhibitions “Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941 bis 1994” (War of Annihilation: Crimes of the German Armed Forces 1941-1945), produced by the Hamburg Institut für Sozialforschung (Hamburg Institute for Social Research) with its many distortions and outright lies, addressed by Walter Post in “Die Verleumdete Armee” (The defamed army; Pour le Mérite, 1999). These are only two of many examples of attempts by German scribblers, some calling themselves historians, to try and distort history. But all of them ignore the book under discussion and what is stated right up front.
For example, W. Schall writes, on p. 7:
“Was die Wissenschaftliche Kommission für deutsche Kriegsgefangenengeschichte in fünfzehn Bänden und mehreren Beiheften an Zeugnissen zusammengetragen hat, ist ein Epos des Grauens und Leidens, das oft jede Phantasie übersteigt. Und doch haben wir es erlebt und sind Zeugen—soweit wir die Heimat wiedersehen durften“.
(The fifteen volumes of testimonies, compiled by the Scientific Commission for Prisoner of War History, tell of an epoch of horror and sufferings straining the imagination. But we did experience it and are witnesses—those of us, at least, who were fortunate enough to return home.)
This informs us that an official body gathered evidence of crimes committed by the victors, documents as well as testimonies: a fifteen-volume endeavor. So, what happened to this fifteen-volume magnum opus? W. Anders writes on p. 9:
“In einem Telegramm an den Bundeskanzler forderte das Präsidium des Verbandes der Heimkehrer die „sofortige Freigabe der unter Verschluß liegenden deutschen Kriegsgefangenen-Dokumentation durch die Bundesregierung“.
(The steering committee of the [abovementioned] organization, in a telegram to the German chancellor, is demanding that the POW documents still under closure be released immediately.)
Why would this material be, to this day, under lock and key? If reconciliation is the aim, or “never again,” is it not of the utmost importance that the truth be told and all sides heard? Apparently not since finger pointing directed only at the Germans continues unabated. And this one-sidedness is supposed to be the basis of understanding between peoples? Never!
W. Anders titles his introduction: “Warum dieses Buch geschrieben wurde” (Why this book was written). It starts out with a declaration by the Organization (I will refer to the Verband der Heimkehrer as Organization), an appeal to Germans for unity:
„Zur Würde eines jeden Menschen gehört sein guter Ruf. Ohne Grund und leichtfertig darf er nicht in Frage gestellt werden. Dies gilt auch für die Deutschen.
Der überwältigende Teil der deutschen Soldaten hat nicht für eine unmenschliche Diktatur, sondern in Erfüllung der Pflichten für Volk und Vaterland gekämpft. Unser Volk darf diese Soldaten nicht als imperialistische Faschisten-Horden beschimpfen lassen. Es ist aufgerufen, sich in Wahrung seiner Selbstachtung dagegen zu wehren.
Wir verschweigen kein Unrecht, das Deutsche begangen haben. Wir wehren uns aber dagegen, daß jede Erwähnung des schweren Unrechts, das an Deutschen begangen wurde, unterdrückt wird. Wir rechnen nichts auf, aber verwahren uns gegen jede Geschichtsklitterung und gegen jede einseitige Dokumentation“.
(Part of everyone’s dignity is a good reputation; it must not be jeopardized. This also applies to Germans.
The overwhelming majority of German soldiers did not fight to protect an inhuman regime, but considered it their duty to fight for their nation. Our people must not be allowed to defame those soldiers as imperialistic fascist hordes. We call upon them to defend themselves, so as to sustain their own dignity.
We will not cover up injustices committed by Germans. We are however protesting against the cover up of the injustices committed against us Germans. We are not interested in finger pointing, but are against the distortion of history and the one-sided portrayal of history.)
The book was published because of the waves of propaganda emanating from the east about the “German criminals,” while portraying the Soviet army as the “most humane army in the world” (p. 11): this according to a TASS release. Novosti, a Russian daily, praised the immediate help provided by the Red Army, supplying necessary goods for civilians. (Actually, they stole everything they could get their hands on; I witnessed some of it. Wilf). The article continued that the treatment of German POWs was “beyond reproach,” according to the Geneva Convention itself which surprised the POWs (p. 10). Here’s a comment by the Organization on the same page:
“Dies ist ein Hohn auf die 1,2 Millionen in sowjetischen Lagern umgekommenen deutschen Kriegsgefangenen und Hunderttausender von Heimkehrern, die nach ihrer Entlassung in der Heimat vor Entkräftung verstorben oder heute noch schwer gesundheitsgeschädigt sind“.
(This makes a mockery of the 1.2 million German POWs who died in Soviet captivity, as well as of the hundreds of thousands who died at home as a result of malnutrition or are still suffering from the effects of ill treatment.)
The voice of the GRD (Stimme der DDR) on April 26, 1975 asked why German fathers and sons were killed. Their answer: they were part of a “fascist campaign of conquest” and it is therefore a fact “that every German soldier was a participant in the biggest crime in European history.” This is how every German soldier was branded a war criminal, a practice originating from propaganda at that time and now accepted as fact by “historians” and the public. The Czech news agency PAP stated on the same day “that German soldiers were kept a little longer in POW camps because of their dishonorable fighting practices.” This “little longer” meant ten years for many, violating all international agreements regarding the treatment of POWs.
But, there appears to have been some concern in the East—i.e., the truth was told. On March 20, 1975 – keep in mind that this hype was all about the 30th anniversary of the defeat of the “German fascists” and the May 8th celebrations – Radio Moscow raised concerns about “curious news” coming from Bonn (the German capital then) of the pending release of “disreputable (berüchtigte) documents concerning the allegedly committed crimes against German soldiers during the war,” and that the publication of this material would be considered a new “provocation.” In this documentation, Radio Moscow continued, “soldiers and partisans of the SU, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, in fact the whole of the antifascist organizations, are defamed.” Comment by the authors: Whoever experienced the malicious and devious tactics used by the partisans will have to agree that it is not a defamation, but fact. (p. 11)
No effort was spared to prevent the publication of the 17-volume documentary, as well as the book under discussion: the eastern paranoia suggesting that some details were known and thus publication of them was feared. “The intent was to exonerate the Germans and to defame the Red Army,”: that according to the eastern mass media. “Izvestia” on March 1, 1975 called the documentary “dirty rubbish” (diesen dreckigen Plunder); Radio Prague talked of a “neofascist provocation”; and Radio Moscow informed its listeners that this was “in contrast…to the spirit and contents of the agreements signed with the socialist countries,” referring to the 1975 Helsinki accord being prepared then.
And as expected, the German government, no doubt ‘encouraged’ by others, caved in. Government spokesman Bölling already eclared on February 4, 1975, even before the big push from the east, that although the facts cannot be denied and he has no reason to doubt any of it, he is against a publication of the documents because this would nullify all efforts made by German governments. “By our policy we have for years tried to come to an understanding with other countries, to overcome the problems of crimes committed by Germans and on Germans.” And he considers it bad politics that this issue “is pushed to the fore and used by those not interested in conciliation.” (pp. 12-13)
The authors protest against this interpretation, especially the last sentence. It is not they who are preventing conciliation, but the east that continues to distort facts, portraying German soldiers as criminals and the others as saints. It is not the Organization’s intention to shift the blame, but to present facts to prevent this subject from being used as a “political club.” Soldiers especially are interested in peace, but if one side continually sabotages every effort at coming to an understanding by distorting facts, peace cannot be achieved.
Wilhelm Anders closes his deliberation by stating that, according to a poll, 55% of Germans are in favor of addressing this issue fairly. It asks: are they all “Neofascists, Revanchists or Enemies of Detente”? One has to wonder if 30 plus years later 55% of Germans would still welcome a fair reworking of history. I doubt it, for it appears that most of today’s Germans are satisfied with the distorted history and are comfortable with playing the part of the guilty. This is a very disturbing development: the intended “re-education,” or rather brainwashing, has taken effect.
To be continued…
Diocletian on 
caligula on