Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sure not every soldier was a member of the Nazi party, but the military was created by the Nazi party, served the genocidal aims of the Nazi party, answered to the Nazi party and most, if not all, of the leadership were Nazi party members.

So what's wrong with calling them what they were?

Well, if you look at games like Axis and Allies, Memoirs '44, games like this will say German army. And on top of that, most games refuse to state the importance of the slave labour that was used to underpin some of the war effort.

I do not think it is okay to call the German Army a Nazi Army, as that is of course not the truth. The political arm of the German state was the Nazi party. By extenion they controlled the army and everything else, but the army establishment was separate on many levels from the Nazi party itself (i.e. the many many commanding officers in the army that separated themselves from the leeches and back-biting members of the Nazi party and the SS who inserted themselves into the army ranks).

All that being said, the German army is just as culpable in the atrocities of Nazi Germany like any other organization that supported the Nazi party and did nothing to oppose them.

WarOne wrote:

All that being said, the German army is just as culpable in the atrocities of Nazi Germany like any other organization that supported the Nazi party and did nothing to oppose them.

Until they were losing of course

While the German army wasn't an army of "Nazis", they were the "Nazi" army (in the sense that they were the army controlled by the Nazis), comprised of "Nazi" soldiers (in the sense that they were the soldiers serving the Nazis), so unless you're writing a serious report or something, you may as well just call them Nazis and call it a day.

For the sake of the argument, I will have to agree with Oreoasaurus that there were Nazis in the German Army, and the German Army was controlled by a Nazi dictatorship. As it was, the German Army was also know as the Defense Force (Wehrmacht) during the reign of the Nazis.

It was divided between an air, navy, land, and Waffen-SS force, which was an arm of the German army that was composed of die-hard Nazis.

But again, it was a German Army, with Nazis in it, controlled by Nazis, but was not a Nazi army. About eight and a half million Germans were Nazi party members out of a population of some 45-50 million people at the end of the war. 20 percent. Even if a disporportionate number were males (say, half the population), the German army would only be 50 percent Nazi. Keep in mind that many of these Nazis were only nominal Nazis, doing it to fuel their ambitions by being with the party in power. Ergo, most of the German army was not die hard Nazis.

In summary, a German army.

EDIT: I will have to amend some of what I said:

German population for what was inside Federated Germany after the war was 50 million; that is a number after the divide of the German state.

Population census placed the number at about 80 million total by 1939, so the best estimate would be about 20-25 percent of the armed forces could of been Nazi party members if we assume mostly males joined the party.

Because, as you said, not every soldier was a member of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

To call them "The Nazi Army" is like calling the US Army "The Democrat Brigade".

They were an army under the control of the Nazis, they were the military arm of a government controlled by the Nazis. To defeat the Nazi regime it was necessary to defeat the German army. It can be called the Nazi army.

But an individual soldier did not necessarily follow Nazi beliefs, and was likely drafted into service. Being a German soldier did not necessarily make him a Nazi.

So I think it is reasonable, in most contexts I can think of, to call it the Nazi army, but it is not reasonable to refer to all German soldiers as Nazis.

Gwar! wrote:Because, as you said, not every soldier was a member of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

To call them "The Nazi Army" is like calling the US Army "The Democrat Brigade".

Isn't more like the Red-neck, Deeply Conserative, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Poor, Working Class, Minority Army?

Sorry, couldn't resist all the generalizations the US Army has.

EDIT:

Oh noes, sebster has now entered the debate.

Well, the official army name was the Wehrmacht, encompassing anything militarily related to the German Army, which included regiments of hardened and dedicated Nazis in the SS.

Nazi Germany Army is about as far as I will compromise.

Gwar! wrote:Because, as you said, not every soldier was a member of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

To call them "The Nazi Army" is like calling the US Army "The Democrat Brigade".

There are a lot of differences between a democracy with strong levels of demarcation between the political leadership and the bureaucracy and a one party state with no checks on those in power. There are clear constitutional and practical limits to what an administration can order the army to do, no such distinctions existed in Nazi Germany.


And thinking about it a little more, we also need to consider the units under control of the Nazi government that weren’t actually German. There were Cossack units, for instance, that were formed under the Nazis – you can’t call these guys German, but they also didn’t have their own government like the Italians or the Hungarians – so what do you call them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:Oh noes, sebster has now entered the debate.

Well, the official army name was the Wehrmacht, encompassing anything militarily related to the German Army, which included regiments of hardened and dedicated Nazis in the SS.

Nazi Germany Army is about as far as I will compromise.

Yeah, the soldiers fighting in the SS units can, certainly early in the war, be called Nazis.

But I’m not really sure what compromise you’re looking to make. If an army is entirely controlled by a group, you call it the army of that group.

I mean, the USSR was also a single party state, where the government was all powerful just like the Nazis were. We call them the Red Army because the will of the communist party was reflected in the actions of its army. We call it the Nazi army because the Nazis controlled it.

But in both cases we should not assume a German soldier was a Nazi, or a Russian soldier a communist, because that wasn’t necessarily the case.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Sure not every soldier was a member of the Nazi party, but the military was created by the Nazi party, served the genocidal aims of the Nazi party, answered to the Nazi party and most, if not all, of the leadership were Nazi party members.

So what's wrong with calling them what they were?

I have no problem with it. NAZI NAZI NAZI NAZI

"I ing hate Nazis!" SuperRoosevelt, breaking a Hitler clone's back over the arm of his atomic powered wheel chair.

Oh noes, Frazzled has just entered the debate! *awaiting another mod locking the thread*

And I thought it was the frozen corpse of Lenin that led the assault into the Hilter bunker, using his fire breath that immolated the Fuhrer, and the Germans fabricating a story he killed himself with a cyanide pill and having his remains cremated?

The Wehrmacht was the army of Nazi Germany. Using the amazing command of the English language, I then can interpret the phrase Nazy Germany Army because the Wehrmacht was a creation of the regime controlled by Nazi Germany.

But it was not an army of Nazis. It was an army of Germans controlled by the Nazis as the core of the army was comprised of Germans who were not Nazis and a good chunk of the top brass within the army were really not Nazis.

WarOne wrote:Oh noes, Frazzled has just entered the debate! *awaiting another mod locking the thread*

And I thought it was the frozen corpse of Lenin that led the assault into the Hilter bunker, using his fire breath that immolated the Fuhrer, and the Germans fabricating a story he killed himself with a cyanide pill and having his remains cremated?

I see you also have the story of what really happened.
Zonbie Lenin led the assault. SuperRoosevelt harriered in with the rocketwheelchair leading sections commanded by Patton, Steve McQueen, Abraham Lincoln and the ghost of Washington. Using their supermoledriller car Churchill came up from underneath with Nelson, Lord Olivier, and Queen Victoria.

Despite this glorious combination they were almost defeated when the Germans formed MegaBismark out of four JagdTigers and a Polka band, but luckily Tbone the Terror saved the day by throwing his ball into their mechanical guts as they transformed. Tbone, saving the day for Amurica yet again.

Can we call the WWII US Army 'Capitalists?'

Sure not every soldier was a capitalist, but the military was created a capitalist state, served the capitalist aims of the Capitalist political parties, answered to the those parties and most, if not all, of the leadership were Capitalists.

So what's wrong with calling them what they were?

Well, if you wanted to name the armies based off of their economic system, let's do that.

Allies- Imperio-Capitalists in general. Soviet Russia would be Socialist/Communist (communal aspect of Communism).
Axis- Nationalist Jew Hating Anti-capitalists.

The Nazis instituted a policy of autonomous self-reliability in their economy, coupled with a belief the Jewish international capitalists were at large responsible for control of the world's money. Throw in the fact they also hated communism and a buncha of other things, the safe bet to call their economy was the command control economy (another nice word for socialist). Japan was imperio-socialist.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Can we call the WWII US Army 'Capitalists?'

Sure not every soldier was a capitalist, but the military was created a capitalist state, served the capitalist aims of the Capitalist political parties, answered to the those parties and most, if not all, of the leadership were Capitalists.

So what's wrong with calling them what they were?

I agree to some extent here. I think it common usage, as in over a historical wargame, there probably isn't anything wrong with referring to the German army in WWII as "the Nazi's", but it isn't true historically. In fact, there was a great deal of friction between some elements of the Wehrmacht and the party, in particular the SS and earlier the SA. My understanding is that the Wehrmacht felt that they were the "real" armed forces, while the SS were sort of the "new kids on the block", and in particular many in the Wehrmacht felt that they should be the sole military body of the German state.

I would suggest reading The Order of the Death's Head for details on the tension between the Wehrmacht and the SS/party, not to mention other organizations controlled by the Nazi government.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Can we call the WWII US Army 'Capitalists?'

Sure not every soldier was a capitalist, but the military was created a capitalist state, served the capitalist aims of the Capitalist political parties, answered to the those parties and most, if not all, of the leadership were Capitalists.

So what's wrong with calling them what they were?

Nice try but the National Socialist party is a specific group and not a broad term for an economic system. It doesn't reflect a specific period of time or the amount of influence a specific group has over a military's actions. The Nazi party put a lot of money into rebuilding the German Army, putting Nazi's in positions of power, indoctrinated the soldiers, and made them fight for Nazi aims. I'm not going to play this game where just by virtue of being a government that all governments are equal; they aren't and they weren't. Calling it the Nazi's army lets one know in what context the German Army is being referred to.

I would go into more detail but I have a headache and don't feel like it.

Frazzled wrote:"I ing hate Nazis!" SuperRoosevelt, breaking a Hitler clone's back over the arm of his atomic powered wheel chair.

Who needs SuperRoosevelt when you have, well, whatever the hell this thing is meant to be;




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Can we call the WWII US Army 'Capitalists?'

Sure not every soldier was a capitalist, but the military was created a capitalist state, served the capitalist aims of the Capitalist political parties, answered to the those parties and most, if not all, of the leadership were Capitalists.

So what's wrong with calling them what they were?

Because the US is a lot more than a capitalist system, and it's army was in place to represent the desires of more than just a group of capitalists. As I said earlier;

"There are a lot of differences between a democracy with strong levels of demarcation between the political leadership and the bureaucracy and a one party state with no checks on those in power. There are clear constitutional and practical limits to what an administration can order the army to do, no such distinctions existed in Nazi Germany."

i think there are two reasons not to do it"
1) WWII gaming is a pretty legitimate and serious hobby, but to be any fun you need to have historical conflict, and equating every German soldier with the Nazi elite makes it a lot more distasteful. The Nazi party was never seriously challenged internally, but it also wasn't universally beloved before the war. Hitler, IIRC, came into power on a coalition government.

2) The Nazis were the political party that controlled germany, and most German soldiers weren't party members. The number goes up in many units, but outside of war crimes and the like, there is a generally accepted idea that soldiers are apolitical. there are also plenty of terms to call the german army of WWII: Germans, Wermacht, etc.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Can we call the WWII US Army 'Capitalists?'

Sure not every soldier was a capitalist, but the military was created a capitalist state, served the capitalist aims of the Capitalist political parties, answered to the those parties and most, if not all, of the leadership were Capitalists.

So what's wrong with calling them what they were?

The biggest problem with doing that is the fact that the army of nearly every other country on earth is also fighting for a capitalist country. You may as well call them "the army of war", for all it tells you about them.

Polonius wrote:i think there are two reasons not to do it"
1) WWII gaming is a pretty legitimate and serious hobby, but to be any fun you need to have historical conflict, and equating every German soldier with the Nazi elite makes it a lot more distasteful. The Nazi party was never seriously challenged internally, but it also wasn't universally beloved before the war. Hitler, IIRC, came into power on a coalition government.

2) The Nazis were the political party that controlled germany, and most German soldiers weren't party members. The number goes up in many units, but outside of war crimes and the like, there is a generally accepted idea that soldiers are apolitical. there are also plenty of terms to call the german army of WWII: Germans, Wermacht, etc.

It is fully acceptable to call German soldiers nazis if pronounced properly. One may use:
1) "Nazis, I really hate those guys," and then immediately hum the opening bars to Raiders of the Lost Ark theme song

2) "Naaaazzzzzzzzzzies" as in "Hah, my thunderbolt strafes your nnnnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzi tiger."

I think things are trickier, because a lot of Germans were true believers in German nationalism, racial superiority (a not uncommon theory at the time), and the need to grow and expand. They liked what the Nazis were selling.

Those are national virtues though, and not really unique to the Nazis.

Theres been a problem with calling them Nazis?

I would like to know if our German members are offended by people calling the WW2 German army Nazis.

Kilkrazy wrote:I would like to know if our German members are offended by people calling the WW2 German army Nazis.

Why would we care? They started it. They lost. My concerns for whether they are offended that their murdering bastard armies are called Nazis is less than nothing.
The Germans alive today aren't murdering bastards and the Germans alive today aren't Nazis. Its no bearing on them.
If the descendants of those who fought for the Union want to call Southern Rebel troops "traitorous scum," its the same thing. They were, and none of us were alive then so its irrelevant to us.


In the immortal words of soccer fans doing the wave when playing a German team "If you won the war please stand up! If you won the war please stand up!"

So, Frazz's international relations aren't just "my dad can beat up your dad," but "my grandad, backed by the industrial might of my great-granddad, beat up your granddad."

You should send that in to the Maxwell School.

i think this discussion starts to smell somewhat funny in a sense of being not funny at all...
both my grandfathers where serving during the last great war. as you can see from my profil i´m german... and to think that my one grandfather was a nazi (he married a jewish woman, my grandma, her dad was released from concentration camp by russians... who got their thank yous by being reaaaaaaly not being nice....) is an insult.
personaly i dont see the whole point why one has to think that to rename the whermacht into the nazi army helps to achieve anything? is it a habbit to change your jars of marmelade with new tags?

Polonius wrote:So, Frazz's international relations aren't just "my dad can beat up your dad," but "my grandad, backed by the industrial might of my great-granddad, beat up your granddad."

You should send that in to the Maxwell School.

You should. Run it by the Russians. They'll give it a thumbs up too...

Actually you're wrong. note the Us Civil War comment. I think we're to the "my great great grand dad, beat up your great great grand dad."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Viktor von Domm wrote:i think this discussion starts to smell somewhat funny in a sense of being not funny at all...
both my grandfathers where serving during the last great war. as you can see from my profil i´m german... and to think that my one grandfather was a nazi (he married a jewish woman, my grandma, her dad was released from concentration camp by russians... who got their thank yous by being reaaaaaaly not being nice....) is an insult.
personaly i dont see the whole point why one has to think that to rename the whermacht into the nazi army helps to achieve anything? is it a habbit to change your jars of marmelade with new tags?

PC nonsense. The Nazi Party started one of the great killing sprees ever in the history of mankind, on the backs of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. You don't like your grandad being slandered with the term Nazi, then grandad's country and the wehrmacht shouldn't have let it happened.

Or as the Immortal Bard once said: "what? We're out of coconuts? Again?"

PC nonsense. The Nazi Party started one of the great killing sprees ever in the history of mankind, on the backs of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. You don't like your grandad being slandered with the term Nazi, then grandad's country and the wehrmacht shouldn't have let it happened.

And how do you feel when people call members of the U.S. military torturers, child killers, hospital bombers, and all those other neat little slanderous things that they actually did do but often under orders in conflicts of ambiguous moral value? Or really, does this mean that I get to constantly demean the southern side of the American Civil War as fighting for slavery, oppression, and indecency?

Keep in mind, I don't actually care about this debate at all. I just dislike such juxtapositions.

So, by your logic, the POWs that worked as slaves in the German war effort are just as culpable as Hitler in the crimes of Nazi Germany.

ShumaGorath wrote:

PC nonsense. The Nazi Party started one of the great killing sprees ever in the history of mankind, on the backs of the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht. You don't like your grandad being slandered with the term Nazi, then grandad's country and the wehrmacht shouldn't have let it happened.

And how do you feel when people call members of the U.S. military torturers, child killers, hospital bombers, and all those other neat little slanderous things that they actually did do but often under orders in conflicts of ambiguous moral value?

I say "Wait I should care what you say? Why?"

So you're supporting the Nazis now? excellent.