Conventional myth on the crimes of World War II has held (a) that they were almost exclusively German, and (b) that they were almost exclusively
perpetrated by the SS -- the Nazi Party paramilitary organization -- rather than by ordinary conscripts. Neither of these two points is true, though they were
certainly convenient for a time, especially (in the case of the first) when the Allies required Soviet cooperation, and (in the case of the second) when
the West German government desperately felt the need to forgive and forget in order to maintain a stable post-war society.
Widespread belief in the
innocence of ordinary soldiers was shattered in 1995, though, with an exhibition in Germany on the war crimes of the
Wehrmacht, the German army. Popular books and history programs detailing not just the gassing of Jews late in the war but the mass shootings in Eastern
Europe, and the deliberate starvation of Soviet prisoners, have done the rest of the work.
Soldaten is not the best introduction to the atrocities of World War II (for that, try Yale historian Timothy Snyder's
Bloodlands, a highly praised and profoundly disturbing overview). But the book does allow non-historians to read soldiers' own accounts of their actions, as spoken to other soldiers. There's much of interest here -- the soldiers' knowledge and attitude toward technology, their attitude toward Hitler, and their perception of the
German chances of winning -- but their discussion of war crimes and genocide seems likely to draw the most attention.
"We sank a children's transport," admits one bomber, likely referring to an English passenger ship sunk in 1940, the authors note. "Talk about keeping the
race pure," says another, speaking of Jewish women this time: "... at RIGA they first slept with them and then shot them to prevent them from talking." Or
consider what was revealed of the brothels set up for soldiers with Western European, "racially suitable" women brought in by force: "Every woman had 14-15
men an hour. They changed the women every two days. We buried a lot of women there."
Some soldiers witnessed the executions of the Jews by the SS. Others seem to have participated. Some appear horrified, but not morally opposed. "I could
kill fellows who had committed crimes, but women and children -- and tiny children! The children scream and everything," says a Lieutenant. In other cases,
the cool analysis is more shocking than the boasts.
Aue: Perhaps we didn't always do right in killing Jews in masses in the East.
Schneider: It was undoubtedly a mistake. Well, not so much a mistake as un-diplomatic. We could have done that later.
Aue: After we had finally established ourselves.
Schneider: We should have put it off until later, because Jews are, and will always remain, influential people, especially in America.
Neitzel and Welzer have put together a rare, truly interdisciplinary work. They examine both the boasts of brutality and the squeamish or principled objections with a psychologist's lens as well as a historian's. Where are the soldiers revealing their true feelings? Where are they behaving as most humans
do in group situations? Did being National Socialists make a discernible difference in the soldiers' outlooks or actions? And Neitzel and Welzer examine the soldiers'
paradoxical moral frameworks at length: It was always dishonorable to shoot at an enemy airman who had ejected from his plane, but often acceptable to mow down
civilians; understandable to execute prisoners of war, but horrifying to starve them to death.