Homecomings: Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar Germany available in Paperback, eBook
Homecomings: Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar Germany
- ISBN-10:
- 0691143145
- ISBN-13:
- 9780691143149
- Pub. Date:
- 06/28/2009
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- ISBN-10:
- 0691143145
- ISBN-13:
- 9780691143149
- Pub. Date:
- 06/28/2009
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
Homecomings: Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar Germany
Buy New
$47.00Buy Used
$27.92-
-
SHIP THIS ITEM
Temporarily Out of Stock Online
Please check back later for updated availability.
-
Overview
Historian Frank Biess traces the origins of the postwar period to the last years of the war, when ordinary Germans began to face the prospect of impending defeat. He then demonstrates parallel East and West German efforts to overcome the German loss by transforming returning POWs into ideal post-totalitarian or antifascist citizens. By exploring returnees' troubled adjustment to the more private spheres of the workplace and the family, the book stresses the limitations of these East and West German attempts to move beyond the war.
Based on a wide array of primary and secondary sources, Homecomings combines the political history of reconstruction with the social history of returnees and the cultural history of war memories and gender identities. It unearths important structural and functional similarities between German postwar societies, which remained infused with the aftereffects of unprecedented violence, loss, and mass death long after the war was over.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780691143149 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Princeton University Press |
| Publication date: | 06/28/2009 |
| Edition description: | New Edition |
| Pages: | 384 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.10(w) x 9.10(h) x 1.00(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Homecomings
Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar GermanyBy Frank Biess
Princeton University Press
Copyright © 2006 Princeton University PressAll right reserved.
ISBN: 0-691-12502-3
Chapter One
IMPENDING DEFEAT: MILITARY LOSSES, THE WEHRMACHT, AND ORDINARY GERMANS
The onset of the postwar period coincided only in a very literal sense with the unconditional surrender of the German military on May 8, 1945. Long before the end of the war, ordinary Germans had begun to experience the consequences of defeat. The decisive defeats of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern front and in North Africa in 1942-43 not only set in motion a social transformation from "Stalingrad to the currency reform," but also ushered in a period of "brutal peacemaking" that extended far into the postwar period. Impending defeat brought back to ordinary Germans the massive and unprecedented violence that they had previously meted out to the nation's victims all over the European continent. Civilian and military casualties figures on all sides exploded during the last two years of the war. German casualties took a sudden jump with the defeat of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad in January 1943, when 180,310 soldiers were killed in one month. Among the 5.3 million Wehrmacht casualties during the Second World War, more than 80 percent died during the last two years of the war. Approximatelythree-quarters of these losses occurred on the Eastern front (2.7 million) and during the final stages of the war between January and May 1945 (1.2 million).
Apart from the dramatic surge of casualty figures, Stalingrad also brought to the fore a problem that was to preoccupy Germans long after Soviet troops had raised the Red Flag on the Reichstag in May 1945: soldiers missing in action and POWs in Soviet captivity. The problem of German MIAs and POWs became one of the key links between the last years of the war and the postwar period. After 1943, MIAs and POWs represented an increasingly large segment of German military losses. In part, this was a result of the military leadership's deliberate practice of downplaying German casualties and ascribing them to the category of MIAs. At least since 1943, moreover, casualties could often not be confirmed with final certainty. As a result, MIAs accounted for more than 40 percent of all German losses on the Eastern front in 1943 and close to 60 percent in 1944. At the end of the war, the total number of soldiers missing in action amounted to 1.5 million. According to recent estimates, half of them had died on the Eastern front, the other half in Soviet captivity. As with the MIAs, the growing number of German POWs in Allied or Soviet captivity represented another widely visible reminder that the war's fortunes had turned against the Third Reich. Whereas the Wehrmacht had captured millions of Soviet POWs during the early stages of the war, approximately 110,000 German soldiers fell into the hands of the Red Army at Stalingrad. But most of the more than three million German POWs in Soviet captivity were captured during the last months of the war in eastern Prussia and Kurland (200,000-250,000), in eastern Germany and Poland (800,000), in the Berlin area (330,000), and in Bohemia (630,000). The largest segment of approximately eight million German soldiers, however, managed to avoid Soviet captivity and ended up in the custody of the Western allies, often after a panic-stricken effort to reach British and American lines.
This chapter analyzes official, popular, and private responses to rising military losses after Stalingrad. It inserts the hitherto largely neglected issue of German MIAs and POWs into the larger story of the German transition from war to the postwar period. Official and popular reactions to the increasing number of MIAs and POWs reveal much about ordinary Germans' confrontation with impending defeat. The liminal status of MIAs and POWs threatened to undermine the Nazi cult of heroic death, and it inspired family members to search for alternative vision for the future that no longer centered on an increasingly unlikely "final victory" but on a reunion with a missing or captured soldier. These "privatized" responses to impending defeat were based on predominantly female experiences on the home front, and they generally did not extend to (male) soldiers on the front. Even though Nazi authorities took this "private" dissent very seriously, it ultimately did not challenge the Nazi regime's remarkable ability to hold on to power in the face of certain defeat. The Wehrmacht's tenacious resistance up to the last minute not only produced the escalating casualties on all sides but also allowed for the continuation of the Holocaust up until May 8, 1945. My argument does not seek to divert from this important historical reality, nor does it attempt to belittle the considerable popular support that large segments of ordinary Germans extended to the Nazi regime, even though this consensus began to erode after Stalingrad.
What requires explanation, however, is not just the failure of popular resistance before defeat but also its complete absence after the war's end in 1945. Despite Allied and Soviet expectations to the contrary, ordinary Germans did not offer any sustained resistance to military occupation in the aftermath of total defeat. The absence of any popular allegiance to National Socialism after 1945 points to processes of popular disengagement from it that originated in the last years of the war. The chapter demonstrates how popular responses to growing losses during the last two years of the war anticipated confrontations with total defeat after 1945. It also stresses the significance of the Christian churches in shaping this transition from war to postwar. Despite their strong ideological support for the war in the East, Germany's religious institutions provided an alternative set of meanings for coping with uncertainty and loss after 1943; in so doing, they forged interpretive patterns that then assumed even greater significance in the postwar period. The chapter thus offers an essential prehistory to the protracted aftereffects of war and defeat that form the central subject of this book.
OFFICIAL AND POPULAR RESPONSES TO RISING LOSSES
The rising casualty figures on the Eastern front posed new challenges to the political and military authorities of the Third Reich and transformed popular attitudes toward the war. Different kinds of casualties, however, prompted a variety of official and popular responses. In a straightforward manner, the Nazi regime incorporated the increasing number of fallen soldiers into its political mythology. In the aftermath of Stalingrad, the dead Wehrmacht soldier replaced the "old fighter" as the central object of the Nazi cult of the fallen hero. Death on the battlefield became the ultimate sacrifice for the promised "final victory." This myth of the "fallen hero" served to extract new sacrifices from civilians and soldiers alike. In line with the more general "partification" of the Third Reich during the last years of the war, Nazi Party officials took over the business of communicating German losses to bereaved family members beginning in July 1942. For the Nazi Party, increasing German losses did not signal the necessity to end the war but rather represented a means for further mobilizing the population. Ultimately, Hitler and the Nazi regime categorically refused to even conceive of a compromise peace as had been concluded in the aftermath of the First World War. Instead, the Nazi leadership set in motion an escalation of violence against internal and external "enemies" and ultimately orchestrated the nation's own self-destruction.
It is difficult to assess how ordinary Germans responded to this official call for even greater sacrifices and, eventually, collective suicide in the face of rising casualties. Even if they subscribed to other key ingredients of Nazi ideology, many front soldiers resisted specific National Socialist interpretations of death and dying. Family members found little solace in the official portrayal of their relatives as fallen heroes. Even before Stalingrad, death announcements tended to omit the "Führer" from the standard line that a soldier had died for "Führer," "Volk," and "Fatherland"; and family members of fallen soldiers often refused to give the "Hitler salute." In the face of deep personal loss, the Hitler myth began to crumble.
At the same time, German soldiers and civilians exhibited a remarkable tenacity during this period. Until the very end, large sections of the German population simply denied the possibility of defeat. As Robert Gel-lately has argued, despite numerous signs of disintegration and dissolution, "many people, and not just the died-in-the-wool Nazis, showed themselves anxious to interpret events in the most optimistic way possible." Nazi Party membership actually rose from 6.5 million to 8 million between 1943 and 1945. For many ordinary Germans, the realization that past sacrifices and losses might have been in vain was simply too painful too accept. In April 1942, Martha S., a sixty-six-year-old widow, denounced to the Gestapo the soldier Herbert N., who had told her that the war was lost. As the motive for her denunciation, she explained that "it would simply be inconceivable to experience that all the sacrifices of this war would have been in vain." Like Martha S., large sections of the German population were incapable of conceiving of a future beyond Hitler and National Socialism despite increasing casualties. Rising death tolls on the Eastern front thus did not prompt opposition and resistance to the Nazism. Instead, collective experiences of loss bound ordinary Germans to the regime or fostered, at best, widespread apathy and depression.
In contrast to fallen soldiers, the liminal position of MIAs and POWs between active soldiers and mythical fallen heroes rendered these casualties more difficult to incorporate into the political mythology of Nazism. The widespread uncertainty about an increasing number of soldiers missing in action ran counter to the finality of official tales of heroic sacrifice. Likewise, captivity signaled the individual's desire for-as well as the actual possibility of-survival and thus threatened to undermine the National Socialist myth of heroic death. Consequently, the Wehrmacht command never prepared German soldiers for captivity, nor did the Nazi leadership ever try to integrate this possibility into its worldview. Initially, the regime even tried to deny that any German soldiers had fallen into Soviet captivity at Stalingrad. The official Wehrmacht proclamation on Stalingrad from February 3, 1943, asserted that the members of the Sixth Army had "fought to the last bullet" and had died a heroic death "so that Germany will live." The decision of the commander of the Sixth Army, General Paulus, to go into Soviet captivity rather than to commit suicide infuriated the Nazi leadership. Shortly after the surrender at Stalingrad, Goebbels noted in his diary the "depressing news that Paulus and fourteen of his generals had fallen into Bolshevist captivity." Some days later, he worried that "it would be the most severe shock to the army's prestige that we have experienced during the entire National Socialist regime" if "several German generals had indeed voluntarily entered Bolshevist captivity." As Goebbels's reaction makes clear, the liminal nature of German MIAs and POWs threatened to "pollute" the purity of the National Socialist "all or nothing" logic.
Such concerns over detrimental influences emanating from Soviet captivity were further aggravated by the founding of antifascist organizations among German POWs in Soviet captivity: the National Committee for a Free Germany (NKFD) in July 1943 and the League of German Officers (BdO) in September of the same year. The existence of these organizations turned Soviet captivity into an even more delicate political issue for the Nazi regime. By trying to win over German soldiers for the struggle against Hitler and National Socialism, these organizations gave Soviet captivity a more explicitly political dimension. The Army High Command (OKW) and the Nazi leadership took these organizations very seriously and were concerned about their negative propagandistic impact on both front and home front. In National Socialist memory, the NKFD and the BdO evoked the specter of 1918 and of defeat not on the battlefield but through a "stab in the back"-this time not by a revolutionary home front but by "treacherous" generals such as Walter von Seydlitz, one of the founding members of the BdO. As a result, the Nazi regime simply denied, until early, 1944, the existence of the BdO and of Seydlitz's participation. When news about the NKFD and the BdO was confirmed through Soviet flyers and radio broadcasts, the Nazi regime engaged in extensive counterpropaganda and denounced both organizations as the creation of "Communist emigrants, mostly of the Jewish race."
Popular concerns about the increasing number of missing and captured soldiers also entailed the potential of drawing ordinary Germans away from the regime's insistence on a "final struggle." Among family members of MIAs, the existential uncertainty about the fate of a missing relative produced, above all, a massive desire for information. Official statements that a "segment of the missing comrades in the Soviet Union has died a heroic death for the fatherland" appeared premature to many family members and failed to alleviate their nagging concerns about the fate of relatives missing on the Eastern front. In contrast to the depressing certainty of an official death notification or the uncertainty of having a relative classified as MIA, captivity-even Soviet captivity-clearly represented "good news." "I wish Kurt were in Russian captivity; it would be better for him than to have died a heroic death for nothing," wrote the brother of a soldier missing in the East to his mother in June 1943, and, in so doing, willingly or unwillingly undermined the Nazi myth of heroic sacrifice. Throughout the last years of the war, family members of MIAs and POWs confronted the political and military authorities with pressing demands to account for the fate of their sons, brothers, or husbands. In addition, they also began to develop their own activities that served one primary goal: to discover reliable information about the fate and the living situation of a son, brother, or husband. Sooner or later, these efforts brought them into contact with the main official agency for registering and communicating war losses, the Wehrmacht Agency for War Losses and POWs (Wehrmachtsauskunftsstelle für Kriegsverluste und Kriegsgefangene, WAST).
THE SEARCH FOR MISSING SOLDIERS: POPULAR RUMORS ON THE HOME FRONT
The task of the WAST was to record all German losses-casualties, missing soldiers, and prisoners of war-and to provide Wehrmacht agencies as well as individual family members with information about German losses. The massive losses at Stalingrad prompted the establishment of a separate "working agency" (Abwicklungsstab) that was supposed to determine the identities of the fallen soldiers at Stalingrad. While the "working agency" did not engage in active search operations for missing soldiers, it extensively communicated with family members in order to establish the location and date of the last news of each missing soldier. After additional losses in northern Africa and on the Eastern front in June 1944, its responsibilities were extended to all German casualties that could no longer be reported by military units themselves. The skyrocketing casualty rates during the last stages of the war, however, meant that an increasing number of Wehrmacht soldiers were reported as "missing in action" without any more definitive information. Other losses were left unclassified after contact between family members and soldiers on the front had simply ceased to exist. Hitler's failure to conclude any agreement with the Soviet Union regarding the exchange of information about POWs further aggravated this situation. As a result, family members were left in a state of fundamental uncertainty that often lasted into the postwar years. The false postwar rumors about "missing divisions" in the East or hundreds of thousands of German POWs languishing in "secret camps" in the Soviet Union originated in this basic uncertainty about MIAs and POWs during the last years of the war.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Homecomings by Frank Biess Copyright © 2006 by Princeton University Press . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations ix
Acknowledgments xi
INTRODUCTION 1
PART ONE: From War to Postwar 17
CHAPTER ONE: Impending Defeat: Military Losses, the Wehrmacht, and Ordinary Germans 19
CHAPTER TWO: Confronting Defeat: Returning POWs and the Politics of Victimization 43
CHAPTER THREE: Embodied Defeat: Medicine, Psychiatry, and the Trauma of the Returned POW 70
PART TWO: Making Citizens 95
CHAPTER FOUR: Survivors of Totalitarianism: Returning POWs and the Making of West German Citizens 97
CHAPTER FIVE: Antifascist Conversions: Returning POWs and the Making of East German Citizens 126
CHAPTER SIX: Parallel Exclusions: The West German POW Trials and the East German Purges 153
PART THREE: Divergent Paths 177
CHAPTER SEVEN: Absent Presence: Missing POWs and MIAs 179
CHAPTER EIGHT: Divided Reunion: The Return of the Last POWs 203
CONCLUSION: Histories of the Aftermath 227
Notes 233
Bibliography 307
Index 359
What People are Saying About This
Homecomings expertly intertwines high political history, history of civil society, cultural histories of representations, and the social history of everyday life. A significant contribution to the field. A must-read.
— Elizabeth Heineman, University of Iowa
A thoughtful, well-researched, and important new book that will complement the best scholarship on postwar Germany and Europe.
— Eric Weitz, University of Minnesota
"A thoughtful, well-researched, and important new book that will complement the best scholarship on postwar Germany and Europe."—Eric Weitz, University of Minnesota"Homecomings expertly intertwines high political history, history of civil society, cultural histories of representations, and the social history of everyday life. A significant contribution to the field. A must-read."—Elizabeth Heineman, University of Iowa