7 ms·

I was kinda curious if Nazi and German WWII soldier is equivalent. From an academic point of view it seems not. But from a popular point of view it probably is

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• lolinder 2y ago
  > From an academic point of view it seems not. More than a purely academic point of view, the distinction actually does matter. It's the difference between someone who affirmatively made a choice to join the Nazi organization and someone who simply didn't actively decide to dodge the draft or desert. The level of agency invested into the Nazi cause varies dramatically, and it's useful to have language that can distinguish between those shades. We can get into philosophical discussions about whether it's worse to affirmatively support evil than to just go with the flow and not make waves either way, but that's more than an academic discussion—it has real relevance for today.
  • wutwutwat 2y ago
    Every soldier in the German military at that time was a nazi soldier. They reported to hitler, who was the person who brought the nazi party into power, the party who controlled the government and military. They took orders from nazis. They were nazis. Their officers had skulls on their uniforms. They were rounding up and slaughtering people they viewed as less than them, they had posters in the streets painting them as rodents and infections. Nobody saw all of that and said “well, I don’t want to dodge a draft, I better just sign up and do this evil shit, it’s my moral duty to serve”. Nobody was blind to what was happening and nobody accidentally went and did those things without believing they were somehow right. They were doing those things because they wanted to, the same way everything any person does when they have something that they have the power over to choose between. Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted. Downvote the people trying to claim German soldiers in wwII were not nazis.
    • aguaviva 2y ago
      You're getting downvoted because what you're saying is just historically wrong. You can call them all "bad" if you want. But (regardless of whether they committed war crimes) the Nazis and the armed forces were different (though obviously overlapping) subsets. This is not an academic distinction at all, and is extremely important if one is to understand how the dictatorship and the Final Solution actually worked. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42276731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42276731
      • wutwutwat 2y ago
        > The German Army (German: Heer, German: [heːɐ̯] ⓘ; lit. 'army') was the land forces component of the Wehrmacht,[b] the regular armed forces of Nazi Germany, from 1935 until it effectively ceased to exist in 1945 and then was formally dissolved in August 1946.[4] During World War II, a total of about 13.6 million volunteers and conscripts served in the German Army. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(1935%E2%80%931945) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(1935%E2%80%9319... So far, seems one army existed. The German army. That army was the army of Nazi Germany. that army was Nazi Germany‘s army. > The Wehrmacht (German pronunciation: [ˈveːɐ̯maxt] ⓘ, lit. 'defence force') were the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1945. It consisted of the Heer (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy) and the Luftwaffe (air force). The designation "Wehrmacht" replaced the previously used term Reichswehr (Reich Defence) and was the manifestation of the Nazi regime's efforts to rearm Germany to a greater extent than the Treaty of Versailles permitted.[11] Here’s probably the most important thing to read, because it directly disproves you > After the death of President Paul von Hindenburg on 2 August 1934, Adolf Hitler assumed the office of President of Germany, and thus became commander in chief. In February 1934, the Defence Minister Werner von Blomberg, acting on his own initiative, had all of the Jews serving in the Reichswehr given an automatic and immediate dishonorable discharge.[33] Again, on his own initiative Blomberg had the armed forces adopt Nazi symbols into their uniforms in May 1934.[34] In August of the same year, on Blomberg's initiative and that of the Ministeramt chief General Walther von Reichenau, the entire military took the Hitler oath, an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht The German army adopted Nazi symbols and swore an oath to hitler.
  • qwer1234321 2y ago
    I'm inhabitant of a country Germans tried to anihilate in 1939. Germany of 1939 is usually called Nazi Germany here, still- it's Germany. Same as Soviet Russia who attacked 17 days later- it was Russia, not some misterious nation called Soviets. These are language cover-ups. I do acknowledge there had been many Germans who chose death rather than to join their countrymen in horrible crimes, and I admire those who did not join. Unfortunately orders of magnitude more volunteered and were actively taking part in German death machinery.
• Archelaos 2y ago
  > I was kinda curious if Nazi and German WWII soldier is equivalent. Try this excersise: Define "Nazi" and then see whether every German WWII soldier fits the definition. Additional excersise: Define it that way that no Allied soldier fits the definition. Then check whether the definition makes any sense as a political distinction. I never came across one.
• GloomyBoots 2y ago
  This is very nitpicky, but “Nazi” always seems out of place to me in historical discussions. It’s a derisive nickname mainly used by their opponents. It’s convenient, sure, and more recognizable than “national socialist” in popular culture. I use it as well, but it always feels a little goofy, like talking about “commies” in an otherwise serious discussion.
• ninalanyon 2y ago
  > from a popular point of view it probably is. Surely not.