World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

Op-ed

World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

Wikipedia's myth of the clean Wehrmacht and what you can do about it

Poster reads: "German Soldier is Fighting for Europe", aka "romantic heroicisation of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism".^[1]

Note: This op-ed has been adapted from an article on the same topic in Society for Military History's Headquarters Gazette, Winter 2018.^[2]

Despite the abundant World War II historiography published in the last 20 years, the popular perceptions of the German armed forces as an apolitical and professional institution that stood apart from the Nazi regime largely remains intact in the Anglophone world. The myth of the "clean Wehrmacht"—and even clean Waffen-SS—lives on. Below are my experiences in dealing with the issues of historical distortions in Wikipedia articles, along with my outreach to outside experts and suggestions for the Wikipedia community.

Nur-Soldat

Nowhere was the distorted picture more apparent than on English Wikipedia c. 2015, with the articles on "Stuka aces" and "Panzer aces";^[3] thousands of recipients of the "coveted Knight’s Cross" awarded for "extreme battlefield bravery or successful military leadership";^[4] and generals leading from "the frontlines" with "jovial, caring attitude".^[5] There were Waffen-SS commanders who "opposed the Nazi party"^[6] and Luftwaffe pilots who were "rabidly anti-Nazi".^[7] A Wehrmacht general was "praised for his humanitarianism",^[8] while a field marshal had a whole section dedicated to same.^[9] Collaborationist police units "clashed" with SS forces, who moreover only "tried" to execute concentration camp inmates.^[10] In the more extreme example, a commander of an SS death squad "worked (...) to reduce the atrocities committed".^[11]

That some of Wikipedia's low-trafficked articles would be sourced to AchtungPanzer!, Aces of the Luftwaffe, and other dubious websites was not surprising.^[12] But what troubled me was that the concept of Nur-Soldat ("merely soldier") was so prevalent on Wikipedia. This view celebrates the martial accomplishments of military men with a focus on their medals, "ace" status, enemy materiel destroyed—ships sunk, aircraft downed, tanks "busted", bridges blown up, and so on while dismissing social and political context of the war as irrelevant. Because of the questionable sources, which tend to be hobbyist and / or non-independent in nature, this view frequently veers towards fan fiction and hagiography. Undertones of war-time Wehrmacht propaganda are also present since that’s where the origins of the sources often lay.^[13]

The other side of the coin is the "clean Wehrmacht" mythology, which emphasises the professional, apolitical image of the German armed forces and its commanding officers, who (according to the myth) stood apart from and in disapproval of Hitler’s regime, whom they allegedly opposed at every turn. An apologist worldview akin to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, it posits that if it weren’t for Hitler’s inept leadership, difficult terrain and weather conditions on the Eastern front, and Allied material superiority, the German army would have emerged victorious. This outlook borders on historical revisionism and whitewashing: accomplishments are celebrated while crimes and ideological alignment with the regime are minimised, in contrast to the contemporary historiography of the war.^[14]

Reaching out to outside experts

I was surprised that editors did not share my concerns or appreciate the extent of these problems. Faced with what I perceived to be issues of entrenched local consensus, I emailed a number of historians, providing examples from my user page (User:K.e.coffman) and a few Wiki discussions. I initially emailed those experts whose books I read and used in my editing. I then expanded my outreach to members of the Military History Working Group, a German professional association that focuses on interdisciplinary war studies and military history. I also contacted the U.S.-based international Society for Military History and was invited to submit a story for their quarterly newsletter.^[2]

Reaching out to historians was relatively straightforward: those in academia almost always have their emails published in their University profiles. Military History Working Group publishes a member list, which includes contact information, specialisation, and interests. I received responses from about half of those whom I emailed. Some referred me to others while some offered encouragement and feedback. Below are select quotes from the responses I received:^[15]

Let me recommend Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies, The Myth of the Eastern Front (NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008). It provides an interesting (or horrifying) look at the topic you wrote about.
— Charles D. Melson, U.S. Marine Corps Chief Historian (retired)

This is fascinating and quite disturbing.
— Deborah Lipstadt, Holocaust historian

I had noticed occasionally that on some pages this myth of the clean Wehrmacht is reproduced but wasn't aware that it is done so systematically. Even more do I appreciate your work.
— Thomas Kühne, historian of Nazi Germany

The English Wikipedia pages are far more sympathetic towards the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS than the German ones. Of the mainstream websites, Wikipedia and Amazon are the worst distributors of pro-Nazi perspectives and the Wehrmacht myth.
— Jens Westemeier, military historian

Yes, this is one of those myths about Nazi Germany at war that simply won't lie down and die, no matter how many stakes are driven through its heart. The nature of Wikipedia is a large part of the problem, because "enthusiasts" are the ones who tend to spend the most time writing and editing.
— S.P. MacKenzie, military historian

Some sources belong in the dustbin of history

Why should this concern Wikipedia editors? First, I believe that mythology in our articles has a large—and detrimental—impact on the popular perception of the World War II history, due to Wikipedia's high rankings in search engines and perceived authoritativeness. An academic article may be read by a thousand of people in total, but a page on Heinz Guderian, for example, receives an average of a thousand views per day, every day.

Second, we should use sources that do not meet the bar set forth in WP:MILMOS#SOURCES with caution. In my experience, the types of sources that almost always turn out to be problematic fall roughly into these three categories:

Phaleristics-oriented catalogues of award winners and their respective decorations; these are primary sources insufficient for establishing notability or for sourcing matters of history.
Landser-pulp literature, known in German as Landser-Hefte, which aims to heroicise the military men and strays into historical fiction while doing so. Franz Kurowski is the prime example of such authors.
Deliberate historical distortions, published by authors such as the fringe Richard Landwehr and various authors affiliated with HIAG, the post-war Waffen-SS lobby group in West Germany. In German, these works are generally published by far-right and extremist publishers such as the Munin Verlag, the Arndt Verlag, and the Nation Europa Verlag, among others.

In North America, Group 2 & 3 titles are being published by militaria presses J.J. Fedorowicz and Schiffer Publishing. Some eventually find their way into speciality publishers, such as Osprey Publishing and Stackpole Books that have a wider distribution. The prolific Kurowski reached even wider audiences through the publication of his works in the mass-market Ballantine Books.

"A new era has opened in which new histories and fresh perspectives on the war [on the Eastern Front] are not only possible, but expected. It is no longer acceptable to simply parrot the views of historians who wrote their books, no matter how definitive at the time, more than twenty years ago."

—Historian Lee Baker, of University of Cincinnati, writing in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies in 2008^[16]

Finally, we need to be aware of the conflict between recent historiography and older popular history or even academic publications, which present more positive views of the German military, such as those steeped in Cold War mentality. The key underlying issue is that many sources that would normally meet Wikipedia's criteria for WP:IRS are unusable because they are dated or skewed by political or self-serving, exculpatory motivations.

Wikipedia can be a wonderful resource to educate the public about the important issues of history. What’s great about it is that it’s always evolving, with new knowledge added all the time. It’s in everybody’s interest that this knowledge is free of historical distortions. I’m looking a for wider awareness of these issues and I thank the Signpost for providing me with an opportunity to share my perspective.

K.e.coffman has been a member of WikiProject:Military History since 2015 and a member of the Society for Military History since 2017. His Good Articles include Rommel myth, HIAG, Arthur Nebe, Hitler's Generals on Trial, Mogilev Conference, and others. K.e.coffman can be reached at User talk:K.e.coffman or via email wiki.coffman-at-gmail.com.

Citations

^ * Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008). The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 191. ISBN 978-0-521-83365-3.
^ ^a ^b Headquarters Gazette, Society for Military History, Winter 2018, p. 10.
^ See AfD:List of Stuka aces and 2015 version of the Panzer ace article.
^ "...the coveted Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes mit Eichenlaub)..." in Otto Weiß (pilot).
^ "His jovial, caring attitude towards his troops resulted in him being granted the affectionate nickname Papa Scholz" in Fritz von Scholz, cited to a hagiographic source.
^ "Opposition of the Nazi Party" (section), in Wilhelm Bittrich (uncited).
^ Edit summary: "It is a firm fact, was Marseille rabidly anti-Nazi" in Der Stern von Afrika.
^ "The Cardinal left notes in his diary praising Bayerlein for his humanitarianism", in Fritz Bayerlein (uncited).
^ "Humanitarianism" (section), in Erwin Rommel. See also: "Humanitarian actions" (section) and "humanitarian actions" (body), both in Wehrmacht.
^ "On September 19, 1944 Police Battalion 287 had a clash in Klooga concentration camp with members of the German Sonderkommando, who tried to execute prisoners in the camp", in Estonian Auxiliary Police, cited to a fan site. See also: Talk:36th Estonian Police Battalion#Novogrudok.
^ As detailed on Talk#Use of source, in Arthur Nebe.
^ Problematic WII content: Selection of diffs on my user page.
^ See for example: Talk#Sources, in Hans-Ulrich Rudel; Talk#Propaganda origins, in Helmut Wick; and Talk#Tags, in Erich Hartmann. All three are GA / MilHist A-class articles.
^ See for example: Talk#Leeb and Einsatzgruppe A, in Wilhelm von Leeb, and Talk#Commissar order, in Erich Hoepner.
^ Note: Before submitting my draft to SMH, I approached each historian for quote approval. My email was: "I reached out to the U.S. based Society of Military History http://www.smh-hq.org/, who invited me to submit an article for their newsletter. I'd like your permission to quote you in the article, which is attached as a Word document." Sample responses were: "I have no objection to my inclusion as quoted in your piece for the SMH newsletter" and: "You have permission to quote me. In fact, you can say: this is fascinating and quite disturbing".
^ Baker, Lee (2008): "Review: The German Defeat in the East, 1944-1945 by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr". Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Jul-Sep 2008, Vol. 21 Issue 3, pp. 593-594. DOI: 10.1080/13518040802313985.

← Previous "Op-ed"

Next "Op-ed" →

In this issue

26 April 2018 (all comments)

Op-ed

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Huh. I am minded to agree that enWikipedia has some issues with its coverage of the Wehrmacht. Our articles often seem to emphasize military performance and deemphasize war crimes when compared to deWikipedia pages, with adulatory adjectives "outstanding performance" or the like being common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there armies, commanders, campaigns, weapons etc which ENWP describes in detail and unfavorably? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. But it isn't easy. As K.e.coffman points out, you need to know more than just the history; you need an understanding of the historiography in order to avoid the pitfalls of various national myths and narratives. For anyone interested in this sort of thing, my recommendation is a book called Frogs, Snails and Feminist Tales (1989, 2003), in which the author examined children's books written by well-meaning feminist authors, but their messages hilariously fail when they encounter the entrenched gender notions of children. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman, having worked with you on Kurowski, and in view of my close association with the Bundeswehr in the early 70s, I turned my German WWII research towards a deeper interest in German WWII 'historical fiction'. I thought I would do a translation for en.Wiki for another author for the Pabel pulp. As the German Wikipedia is not so concerned about references as we are, searching for sources I came across this October 1959 issue of Der Spiegel , a much earlier source than the ones being used in our en.Wiki articles, and even more critical of the hero-drivel. Worth reading. I didn't know that Der Landser sold up to 3mio copies of each issue. That was a sizable percentage of the post war population. I shared offices for years with supposedly denazified Wehrmacht NCOs and officers but I never saw one of those rags lying about. Perhaps they read them on the loo in the lunch break. OMG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: yes, thank you for your translations of Kurowski and Clean Wehrmacht. I found it surprising that an article on the myth of the 'clean' Wehrmacht did not exist on en.Wiki in 2016, while - at the same time - Field Marshal Erwin Rommel was described as a "humanitarian". And I would find it odd for any general, whose job is to wage war, to be described as such, irrespective of whether they were Allied or German. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those who haven't heard of it, the "clean Waffen-SS" myth says that it was the Allgemeine SS which committed the atrocities and not the Waffen-SS (or presumably the SS-Totenkopfverbände or Sicherheitspolizei). But of course all the branches were involved in, well, everything. This myth came to wider public attention due to the Bitburg controversy in 1985. The "clean Wehrmacht" myth is similar; it says that the atrocities were committed by the SS, and not the Wehrmacht. In the article on Albert Kesselring, I purposefully highlighted one war crime each by the SS, Heer, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe to avoid giving oxygen to the myth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An ideal of even-handedness, especially considering the article reached FA status here on English Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I wrote about my trials and tribulation in writing it here in this MILHIST 2011 Op-Ed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all have a lot to learn from that honest and forthright account of the difficulties of presenting a historical account of terrible times. (I have fixed and expanded the link because I think it is important.) MPS1992 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I was not going to ping you again, but since you've commented here, could you clarify your statement in the comments section of the Bugle' essay on the same topic. You wrote: Sometimes poor or outdated sources are all we have, so that is what he must use, presumably referring to primary sources as was clear from your follow-up: [1].

I responded with a request for a clarificationn and pointed to a MILHIST A-Class article, which, IMO, uses "poor" and "outdated" sources; see: Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins. I would appreciate hearing from a professional military historian on whether you believe the article should retain its A-Class / GA status. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an opinion I give as a military historian, because it is not the subject area where I am the world expert. But our policy on Wikipedia is clear: reliable sources may be non-neutral. It's not enough to drive-by template the article based on your own opinion; you have to detail specific factual errors. On that basis, there is no issue with the German or English versions, and any passing editor is entitled to remove the template unless details are forthcoming on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I agree with your comment that "reliable sources may be non-neutral". This is discussed in WP:BIASED. It also mentions the bright line that needs to be passed for reliability first, i.e. "normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking".

With that in mind, I am curious as to how you made the determination that the source being used in the Wick article, Ringlstetter, Herbert (2005). Helmut Wick, An Illustrated Biography of the Luftwaffe Ace and Commander of Jagdgeschwader 2 During the Battle of Britain. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7643-2217-4., is a reliable source. Please help me understand. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is a reputable publishing house, so that does not apply. If you find some factual errors, material can be removed under WP:FALSE, but you'll need a better source. More interesting is the German version, which is based on 1943 material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: The RSN discussion being linked is about The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s. Schiffer may reputable for hobbyist topics, such as Transformer collecting, but not for WW2 biography, for which it was actually criticised (see linked article). The source itself - written by an amateur military writer and based on what appears to be Luftwaffe propaganda and a non-existing diary - is highly questionable. I've already linked to that material, but I'll do it again: Talk:Helmut Wick#Propaganda origins. But well, okay. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through this before too. I say: "That source has been questioned". Admin says: "Questioned? By whom?" I say: "Would 'Wikipedians on the talk pages' be an acceptable answer?" and admin says: "No, it would not." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: are you saying that editors should not be evaluating sources, i.e. as described in WP:IRS? If we go by your logic, then your opinion that the Ringlstetter source is reliable carries no weight either, since you are just one of the (...Wikipedians on the talk pages...). For context, could you link to the discussion with SandyGeorgia? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The evaluation of sources under WP:IRS is rather different than what you're thinking of. Many Wikipedians would regard it as WP:OR to the criticise sources that a secondary source is based on. The publisher is reliable, and the challenge is just from a Wikipedian who has no sources to back their assertions up under WP:FALSE, so the source passes WP:IRS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I've linked to Schiffer Publishing which contains a reliably-sourced criticism of the publisher when it comes to WW2 biography. I'll repeat it here: "...Schiffer provides a platform for authors who present an uncritical and ahistorical portrayal of the German war effort during the Soviet-German war of 1941–1945." You've so far presented your opinion that the publisher is reliable, backed only by an unrelated discussion at RSN, about The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s.

In any case, re The evaluation of sources under WP:IRS is different (...) Many Wikipedians would regard it as WP:OR to the criticise sources that a secondary source is based on, I don't think that's quite right. Evaluation of sources is not WP:OR. I created a short essay on the topic: Wikipedia:When OR is OK. This was prompted by the discussions I had with a couple of editors, as discussed here: Evaluation of sources as OR?. The policy was modified accordingly: [2].

Also, could you link to the discussion with SandyGeorgia? They have pinged me on my Talk page about this. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People interested in this Op-ed may like to know that there's a related Request for arbitration here, filed by K.e.coffman, which currently looks like it'll be accepted by the Arbitration committee. Bishonen | talk 22:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Anyone considering expressing dissident opinions should think again. "most respected and experienced arbitrators" are ready for you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting piece - military history tends to be a bit of a closed garden, in which people are either interested, or not. But could not similar criticisms be made of most of our milhist coverage? Articles on say the Napoleonic Wars, Hundred Years War etc rarely dwell much on the mass rapes, pillage and extortion inflicted on the civilian populations of the "theatre". It's perhaps only become a major element of coverage since WW2, for obvious reasons. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, our articles on military history where they collide with social and political history ought to represent the other sub-disciplines as well. To assist this under "comprehensiveness" and "authoritative sourcing" type criteria I've started querying FA / MILHIST-A proposers regarding their observation of historiography, social history big three (class / gender / race), and whether "unpleasant" things are weightily treated. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This issue also seems to occur in other forms of media. See here for example, where the co-founder of the studio says that members of the Wehrmacht were "doing their duty." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Ernie: Yes. Our article on the Clean Wehrmacht goes into it a bit, but in the West this myth is common because a rearmed West Germany was needed by the Western Allies during the Cold War, so they promoted the myth. The academic consensus is that it is indeed a myth, but popular histories are often either outdated or out of the mainstream consensus, which makes the problem difficult to deal with on a project like Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the Helmut Wick good article, we can read "Wick received orders in the late afternoon of 6 October to report to Reichsmarschall Göring in Berlin by 3 p.m. the following day. Due to bad weather, he chose to drive from Normandy to Berlin by car. Together with his wingman and friend, Rudolf Pflanz, Wick travelled all night and arrived at the Reich Air Ministry right on time to meet with Göring, Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Erhard Milch, Generaloberst (Colonel General) Ernst Udet, General der Flieger (General of the Flyers) Kurt Student and General der Flieger Karl Bodenschatz. After the meeting in Berlin, Wick and Göring drove to Berchtesgaden in the Reichsmarschall's personal train, where they arrived at 5 p.m. on 8 October for the official Oak Leaves presentation". The question is not if this § is sourced to "reliable sources" (RS) or to "shit resources" (SR). The very question is: what the fuck ? Successfully conducting a car over the distance from Los Angeles to El Paso, what an extraordinary achievement ! Pldx1 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah. I don't mind an article about Nazi heroes to be stupid and boring. 16:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
To be fair to our efforts, it was here on Wikipedia that I first learned—and read in detail—of the clean Wehrmacht myth. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is written by editors like you – join in!

Home

About