A Matter Of Survival

When it comes to WWII-era Germans, I have rather a callous attitude towards tales of their suffering at the hands of the Allies — Russians, Brits, Americans, whoever — because it’s easy to say, “They started it.”

But I’ve been thinking a lot about the topic over the past week or so, and especially since I read the appalling fates of the German women in captured Berlin at the hands of the  barbarians  Russian soldiers who were the first into the capital.  Specifically, I refer here to the anonymous diary kept by one such woman, published under the title A Woman In Berlin.  (The movie version can be viewed or purchased through Amazon Prime;  I remember watching it several years ago, and be warned:  it is seriously intense and violent.)

The text, though, is all the more remarkable because of the woman’s clear, almost dry depiction of the plight of all the women, and not just herself.  (That does not in any way diminish the horror, by the way;  I lost count of the times she was raped over the eight weeks of the story.)

Remember that there were very few men in Berlin at that stage of the war:  they were all off fighting the Allied troops.  So the women were largely unprotected against the marauding Soviet soldiers, and believe me, they took full advantage.  Yet even then, there were some interesting asides:  almost to a man, for instance, the soldiers wouldn’t rape a pregnant woman, or one with small children, or the very old women (although of course there were exceptions).

Now I know that women were very much supporters of Nazism — Orwell’s comment still resonates:  “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy.”  Indeed, I have no doubt that most of the women of Berlin were little different, in the 1930s and early -40s.  And our storyteller also points out, with wry amusement, just how many of them suddenly claimed to have been opposed to the Nazi Party all along.

Still, that didn’t ameliorate their predicament at all.

The amazing thing about it all was how they survived, against all the odds.  Our heroine, for example, very soon made the decision (after several rapes and narrow escapes) that if she was to escape being raped daily by multiple men, she could only survive by hooking up with a Soviet officer and becoming his girlfriend — still a precarious situation, but appallingly cold-blooded all the same.  (She did it not just once, but several times, as officers were posted away or simply disappeared.)

Which brings me to the interesting part of all this.

When the dust had settled and the bullets no longer whistled through the streets, the Germans made a conscious decision to collectively forget all about their conquest and the conditions thereof.  It was a societal repression of memory, a “Don’t talk about it” mentality that was, I suppose, one way of getting away from it.  (It worked only too well, by the way, as an entire generation of Germans born after WWII were in large part ignorant of what had transpired, as the recent history had all but disappeared from German-language history books in primary- and secondary schools.)

The real hero of the story, by the way, is the publisher of A Woman In Berlin, who went to extraordinary lengths to validate that the diary wasn’t some concoction of fictional storytelling, and somehow managed to keep the woman’s identity a secret — despite German journalists of the time, who made a concerted effort to find it out so that they could denigrate her character and discredit the story.  All of this was because the Germans wanted to airbrush the atrocities and more importantly, deny how the conquered women had come to terms with their situation.  (Imagine the indignant:  “No German woman would behave that way!  Das ist unmöglich! “)   It was seen as besmirching the female character, and was part of the head-in-the-sand approach to the events of 1945.

Despite all that, I have to admit to becoming impressed with the women — not just the author, but all the women — simply because in the absence of the men, they started to clean up and rebuild the huge, demolished city, starting with their bombed-out houses and apartments, cleaning the floors and walls, fixing doors and removing the rubble.  There was little complaining, by the way, because they had the very German attitude that there was work to be done, and therefore they had to do it.  (One can only wonder how today’s pampered princesses would cope, or rather not cope under the same circumstances.)  And the author nicknamed herself the “Twelve Mile Woman” because that was how far she had to walk each day through the ruined city to work, just to earn the food ration book that would keep her from starving.

Anyway, the book is well worth the time — more so, I think, than the movie — and I recommend it unreservedly.

Namibia

I already knew most of this story, and I used it as a basis for my (still-unfinished!) novel, Skeleton Coast.  Take an hour out of your busy life, and find out all about the most savage land in the world.  I’ve been there many times, sometimes with the South African Army, a few times on business and as a tourist, and only once to hunt.  So I’ve really only brushed on it, but it still continues to leave a mark in my memory.

It’s an absorbing show, and I recommend it wholeheartedly.  Unlike several of the videos on that channel, it’s light on commentary and long on observation.  And historically, it’s quite accurate.

Yer welcome.

Revision

I have to say that I’ve always thought that WWII’s Operation Market Garden was actually a very successful military campaign, and not the horrible failure as it’s been painted.  And this guy agrees with me:

In fact, the operation succeeded at six of its seven principal objectives, a rate of achievement that would be considered remarkable in almost any other military context. The American 82nd Airborne Division, under Brigadier General James Gavin, faced the daunting task of seizing the great road bridge at Nijmegen across the Waal River, one of the widest river crossings in Western Europe. They did so after brutal urban combat and a daylight assault river crossing in canvas boats under direct enemy fire, one of the most audacious tactical actions of the entire war.7 The bridge was taken intact even after the Germans tried to blow it up. The 101st Airborne Division, led by Major General Maxwell Taylor, seized the majority of its assigned bridges and canal crossings in the southern portion of the corridor and held the vital road that the operation depended on, quickly dubbed “Hell’s Highway” by the soldiers who fought along it, against repeated and determined German counterattacks. British armored units of XXX Corps advanced deeper into occupied territory in a shorter period than in any previous operation in the Western campaign. The scale of what was accomplished tends to disappear in the shadow of Arnhem, but it was genuinely extraordinary, representing the successful coordination of tens of thousands of men, hundreds of aircraft, and an armored column driving north along a single road through hostile country.

I have read a ton of history on the topic — WWII is very much a period of history near to my heart — and I think that too often Market Garden is used a lot by American historians to have a go at Brit Field Marshal Montgomery.  (He’s too often caricatured instead of appreciated.  Not that I have a problem with that, in general terms, because he set himself up for it pretty much all the way through the war.  But we tend to forget that the reason Monty was so cautious a military commander was that he was faced with the stark fact that British and Commonwealth manpower’s losses were, to use the modern term, quite unsustainable.)

Going back to Market Garden:  it may well have been a bridge too far (Arnhem), but its only real failure was that even if it had been a total success, it’s doubtful that it would have been the war-ender that Montgomery believed it would be.

I await Reader Sage Grouch’s informed opinion on this.

Null Set

From that Yglesias twat:

Name one.

Seriously.  I have studied Nazi Germany extensively for well over half a century — both as an amateur historian* and as a serious student (as part of my Western Civ major) — and I’ve yet to come up with a single Nazi “idea” that can be called good.

And I don’t accept the red herring about aeronautics and blitzkrieg, for instance.  Those were engineering and military ideas conceived by Germans, not Nazis;  and in many if not most cases, they predate the NDSAP’s assumption of power in 1933.

If you exclude any “good” Nazi ideas that weren’t related to making war, propaganda or genocide more efficient, or furthering the Nazis’ obsession with race, you’re not going to find any.

Ich habe Dachau gesehen.

Oh, and please don’t even think of the “medical advances” made by using concentration camp inmates as guinea pigs, because that just turns my stomach.  Ditto the “miracle” of keeping their industrial centers going despite the Allied bombing, which they achieved only through extensive use of slave labor.

So as a piece of provocative writing, Yglesias’s little statement is cute — but it’s also specious.  The Nazis had no good ideas, and to even suggest they did is either malicious or moronic.


*I first read Shirer’s Rise And Fall back when I was in high school, and have re-read it maybe a dozen times since.  Ditto works from Erich Manstein and a host of other military figures.  Even that slimy little shit Albert Speer’s Inside The Third Reich  has been on my bookshelf.  And the lasting impression from all of them is that the Nazis were absolutely hopeless, at everything.

Turning Back A Page

As you may remember, I went back to university in my mid-fifties to get a college degree, ending up with a B.A. in Modern Western European History.  There’s no reason for having specialized in that as opposed to say Classical History (which I had studied before, many years ago), because to me, pretty much all history is interesting.

Anyway, one of the courses I took was on the French Revolution, delivered by one of my favorite professors, Michael Leggieri*.  He opened the course by giving a single lecture on what exactly the French were revolting against.  It wasn’t just the monarchy and the Church they hated so much (with, it should be said, considerable justification), but theirs was a reaction to the entire societal structure, which was largely still medieval and had the effect of not only grinding the noses of the common people into poverty, but preventing them from ever rising out of that miserable state.

Small wonder they went all French (i.e. overboard) and took a long trip down Guillotine Road.  I might have done the same, in their position.

Anyway, Leggieri’s lecture lit a spark in me (as so many did), because I had no more than a passing acquaintance with the period between the Dark Ages and said Revolution in Europe.

Sadly, Life intervened and I wasn’t able to devote much time to studying that period… until now.  I was chatting to New Wife the other night, and told her that I’d been doing a lot of reading while she was gadding about Seffrica with the Beloved Grandchildren.  When she asked me what I’d been reading and I told her (history, duh), she ordered me to go to Half Price Books and get more because Aren’t You Sick Of Reading About The Same History All The Time?

Well, no;  but the point was a valid one.

So off I went, and the first book to catch my eye should be a decent gateway, I think, into further study:  the New Cambridge Modern History VII:  The Old Regime 1713-63.  It’s seems like a fairly comprehensive study, I think (after but a cursory glance at the contents pages), but it should set the scene properly.  This work was first published in 1957 so it may be free of modernistic cant, but we’ll see.

And now, if you’ll excuse me… this book isn’t going to read itself.


*I see that Mike Leggieri has left U. North Texas and ended up at the University of Florida as Professor of War, Strategy and Statecraft at the Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education.  They are lucky, because he’s one of the best — and that’s not just my opinion, either.  (He’s also very conservative, which helps.)