I simply don't believe her accounts of ignorance. Do you?
She was Hitler's secretary, doing all his correspondance, privy to many conversations amongst the inner circle. We saw, in the drama, that within her hearing people like Goebbels were quite free with their attitudes about inferior races, and such.
It just doesn't wash that she can claim the excuse of not understanding the 'sheer size' of the slaughter.
At any rate, she is presented as the primary narrator / character, and although many of the events must certainly be true, find her personal account of knowledge/participation/conviction to be full of evasion.
When the Russians were entering parts of eastern Europe that the Germans had once held. They were telling their western allies about the death camps they were finding. The British and American military and press didn't believe the Russians. They thought is was all Russian propaganda. It was only when the British and American forces entered Germany and found death camps on there own did the realize that the Russians weren't lying about what the Germans were doing to the Jewish people.
In the movie Schindler's List. Schindler knew what was happening to the Jews when they were put on the train. When Schindler's workers were being send off to the gas chambers. His aid and accountant, Itzhak Stern told Schindler that he's seeing the orders coming in. And he keeps seeing the words "special treatment" for the Jews. Schindler asked Stern "Do you think that the Germans had to make up a word for killing the Jews?" Stern said, "Yes I think they have. Because anyone who gets the orders for "special treatment" is never seen again.
Sadly it's proven in world history. People can and will turn a blind eye to evil.
while that is certainly true in general, i don't think it perhaps applies to hitler's personal secretary.
i find her account to be quite self-serving. however, since she was not a decision-maker, the russians and americans held her for a while, then let her go.
if you are a nazi inner-circle survivor, you probably have a pretty good capacity for deception, including self-deception.
edit: in re-reading this thread, i see your point more clearly. i believe you are correct entirely about that. inconvenient/appalling realities are often denied. but it is still a lie, just one that we may tell ourselves, and pretend to believe. its a convenience during, to avoid responsibility, and after, to evade responsiblity.
You are analyzing it through the context of Western Propaganda. The truth is, the so called "atrocities" that Hollywood obsesses over were nothing more than footnotes in the actual history of WWII. The battle between the Russians and Germans was the greatest bloodbath in the history of the world. Everyone Traudl Junge knew growing up was either already dead or at great risk of dying. The idea that a people engaged in such an existential struggle would notice or care that death rates at a few concentration camps might be a little higher than you would want is simply absurd.
the execution of many million civilians by a military force - not for any military purpose or as collateral damage but entirely as targets - is a "footnote"?
The Soviets slaughtered civilians in their droves, yet it's relegated to a footnote in Western history. The victors write the history, hence why there isn't an uproar about bombing Dresden.. 3 times.
we all know that the soviets killed millions - mostly of their own people. nobody denies or belittles that.
and dresden wasn't exactly an oasis of innocent peacefulness in the heart of nazi germany, either. still, you might have noticed a definite ambivalence over whether bombing it was necessary or not. correct me if i'm wrong, but the nazis never declared dresden to be an open non-militarized city, did they? no, hitler's orders were to destroy everything the allies hadn't already destroyed and for the extermination of the german people.
Where in that does it show that Hitler ordered the destruction of all industry in Germany? Where does it say it is part of a plan to exterminate Germans?
His orders were of the destruction of materials that could be used by the Soviets in the foreseeable future for war purposes. A common, well tried strategy in warfare. Deny the enemy resources.
so the order to destroy paris was intended to deny it to the soviets? interesting reasoning you have, there.
destroying all infrastructure in germany would necessarily lead to massive starvation and death for german civilians. scorched earth makes sense in russia, because the russians have a thousand miles to retreat and regroup. it makes no sense in germany.
There is no order to destroy Paris, and certainly not the Eiffel Tower. There is an order to destroy equipment useful to the enemy, on the basis of:
-If you are about to lose it to the enemy, you will have no use for it. -If you regain it later, the enemy will destroy it himself.
From your own document: Our nation’s struggle for existence forces us to utilize all means, even within Reich territory, to weaken the fighting power of our enemy and to prevent further advances.
Our nation's struggle for existence
This is what he wrote in his political testament the day he died, after he had appointed positions for the government:
Although a number of these men, including Martin Bormann, Dr Goebbels and others together with their wives have joined me of their own free will, not wishing to leave the capital under any circumstances and prepared to die with me, I implore them to grant my request that they place the welfare of the nation above their own feelings.
I implore them to grant my request that they place the welfare of the nation above their own feelings
Now what do you think comes closer to Hitler intent with that order, his own words or the claims of Albert Speer facing the death penalty?
sigh...yes, there was an order to destroy paris. that's common knowledge.
look, this stuff is trivial to find. if you are interested in the truth, go look for it yourself. there's plenty of documentation for hitler's preferred outcome for the german people.
and his preference is obvious thanks to his leadership by example: suicide is the only honorable choice for a beaten leader and a beaten nation.
speer might have concocted the story of his hare-brained non-plot to kill hitler, but the rest of what he testified to has pretty solid documentation.
I have not found any orders about destroying Paris. There seems to be an order to destroy bridges and strategic targets. Not the Eiffel Tower and historical buildings. That is an invention of Von Choltitz. He also claimed he disobeyed this order because he was such a good hearted man, when the truth was he lacked the ability to destroy anything at that point.
The only "documentation" I have seen on Hitler wanting the German people to perish comes from Der Untergang. His political testament does not suggest so, nor does his order to destroy military targets in the Reich. The destroyers of Europe was the allied bombing campaigns. Hitler spared several cities, like Rome, when it was strategically sound to have them destroyed.
The only "documentation" I have seen on Hitler wanting the German people to perish comes from Der Untergang.
This idea clearly comes from Speer and his final meeting with Hitler. Guy Liddel's papers were released a couple of years ago and say the same thing. The questions remain - can Speer be believed and how would Liddel know.
The destroyers of Europe was the allied bombing campaigns. Hitler spared several cities, like Rome, when it was strategically sound to have them destroyed.
Hitler didn't spare Warsaw. He decided, once the uprising had failed, to wipe it off the map and the German army spent 3 months dynamiting and burning down all the surviving buildings, such that only around 7% survived.
As regards Germany, there was a scorched earth and never surrender policy. Thus, while Hitler may not have said the German people deserve to perish, his actions speak louder. reply share
Hi Phantom, please note that I wrote that, architecturally, Dresden was supposed to be one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, not discounting other cities like London. Trust me, I have been to London, and absolutely adore it. I was privileged to study abroad there 10 years ago, and spent hours just wandering its streets. My comment about Dresden stems entirely from my love of old buildings, and not from any desire to defend the Nazi regime. I feel that architecture should be judged by its aesthetic beauty, and not by whatever regime was in power at the time of its destruction. Also, I would respectfully like to point out that there are probably more preserved areas of pre-war London than there are areas of pre-war Dresden.
The Allies did a good job of destroying the German people. Saturation bombing was intended to kill as many German civilians as possible. This was known as the Lindemann Plan - www.whale.to/b/lindemann_h.html www.whale.to/b/bombing_ger.html www.whale.to/b/kollerstrom.html Hitler offered to stop the bombing of civilians in 1940 and restrict Luftwaffe attacks to military targets and factories making arms and armaments if the RAF would do the same. Churchill refused. This is confirmed by British air ministry official J M Spaight in his wartime book Bombing Vindicated published in 1944 - http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2015/volume_7/number_1/bombing_vindicated.php The red army of the Soviet Union raped 1 million German women with Stalin's blessing - www.theguardian.com/books/2002/may/01/news.features11 The biggest act of ethnic cleansing in European history occurred when over 10 million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled at gunpoint from eastern Europe by order of Stalin with the full support of Churchill and Roosevelt - www.hellstormdocumentary.com
yes, Churchill wasn't prepared to hand Europe over to the Nazis. Bombing civilian targets enabled the RAF to survive the blitz. It was a tactical decision, and worked to Britain's survival.
and no, the greatest acts of ethnic cleansing were:
the holocaust Japanese atrocities througout the pacific rim large-scale German extermination of slavs (military and civilian) thru executions, starvation in German pow camps.
and yes, the Germans got some blow-back (mainly rape, not like the Germans, extermination) when the Red Army beat them into oblivion, after suffering upwards of 20 million casualties, military & civilian, by a heartless, inscrupulous invading German army.
read some real history. get a real clue. Hitler doesn't get to gobble up continental Europe and then think he can call a time-out and make his conquests permanent.
read some real history. get a real clue. Hitler doesn't get to gobble up continental Europe and then think he can call a time-out and make his conquests permanent
Hitler did not "gobble up" continental Europe. Hitler and Stalin together gobbled up Poland. At that point England and France declared war on Germany (though not the Soviets, even though the Soviets had seized the other half of Poland). This forced Germany in to a war in Western Europe that it never wanted. France fell to Germany only because France declared war on Germany.
Churchill was a lunatic who plunged his country in to a disastrous war over Poland, and then when the war was over (with Poland being no more free than the when he started the war) Churchill acted like he had achieved some great victory!
reply share
i guess the reason they didn't declare war on the soviets is because the soviets hadn't invaded their country - jeeze, what planet do you live on?
russia cooperated on dismembering poland to:
a] create a buffer region (russia was invaded after wwi, remember) b] buy time to hold off an inevitable german assault, build an army & armaments to match the nazis, which stalin knew was years away in prospect.
the rest of the 'gobbling' was russia beating back the german wehrmacht at hideous cost, and largely on their own. certainly their own manpower.
the russians defeated the nazis. yes, the west helped, provided material, etc., but we were dillydallying down in n. africa and freaking italy, while the russians took the vast brunt of the ground war (churchill's 'plan')
now, this is stuff you should know.
i agree that churchill was an imperialistic swine, but give him great credit for holding it together during the battle of britain, and keeping resistance alive on hitler's western flank. also great disgrace (to both britain and the US, though we had the pacific war going in slight defense) for playing hooky during most of the years 42-43 to protect britain's empire whilst millions of russians did the dirty work, paid the price to keep europe, its resources, out of the nazi orbit.
none of which, in any sense at all, relieves hitler & the germans of the culpability for their war of conquest & all its extraordinary attendant atrocities.
"The reason they didn't declare war on the Soviets is because the Soviets hadn't invaded their country".
Germany didn't invade France or Britain, either. As for these nifty excuses on offer for the Soviet occupation of Poland... I'm not sure they would have sounded so convincing to the Poles that actually had to suffer through this wave of red terror that practically amounted to ethnic cleansing.
"It just doesn't wash that she can claim the excuse of not understanding the 'sheer size' of the slaughter".
I find that quite believable - it's not like the top Nazis were discussing the extermination of Jews as a matter of small talk in front of some desk clerks; it wasn't exactly flaunted or advertised - quite the opposite. And very few 'did' know the actual magnitude of what was going on (of course, most didn't even want to know).
Really Frau Gertraud "Traudl" Humps, was married with a Waffen-SS officer called Hans Hermann Junge of the Adolf Hitler's escort commando. Like so many germans after the war, she has much interest in be forgiven......