{"id":62020,"date":"2024-07-24T16:43:41","date_gmt":"2024-07-24T23:43:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/?p=62020"},"modified":"2024-07-24T16:43:41","modified_gmt":"2024-07-24T23:43:41","slug":"how-did-germany-denazify-so-quickly-after-wwii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.todayifoundout.com\/index.php\/2024\/07\/how-did-germany-denazify-so-quickly-after-wwii\/","title":{"rendered":"How Did Germany DeNazify So Quickly After WWII?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>On May 8, 1945, the German armed forces signed their unconditional surrender to the Allied powers. WWII, at least in Europe, was over. And now that the guns had fallen silent, the US, Britain, France and the Soviet Union had to face a daunting conundrum: how to deal with the active members of the National Socialist Party, the SS, the Wehrmacht and other organisations who had committed some rather extreme war crimes and crimes against humanity? On top of that, how to rid the fabric of the fallen III Recih\u2019s society from the pernicious influence of an extremist ideology so many had bought into? Afterall, in some respects with those who had bought into the ideology wholly, it would have been like going back to the 1700s American South and trying to convince a mass group of slave owners to completely, and almost immediately, rethink their ideas on slavery and those of African descent in the nation. A seemingly impossible task. And then beyond ideological shifts, Just from a practical standpoint, how to speed up economic recovery for the nation and ensure nothing like this would happen again in the country and provide a strong buffer between the Soviets and the rest of Europe. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So, how was all of this accomplished? And how did they do it so fast? And just how successful was all of this in reality?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To begin with, the very top ranking members of the Nazi Party, and nazi-adjacent organisations – 199 defendants in total – were tried at the famous Nuremberg Trials in 1945 and 1946. Of course, hundreds, if not thousands, of other officials and officers wanted by Allied authorities were able to escape to Argentina via the numerous \u2018rat lines\u2019 through Scandinavia, Spain or even Vatican City. And countless more had no need to escape. Entities within the Allied and Soviet forces were more than happy to look the other way about anything they got up to during the war owing to the knowledge contained in their brains. More on this in a bit.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But when looking at the more wide-scale process of Denazification of the citizenry, most of these efforts consisted of special tribunals reviewing the alleged Nazi past of German and Austrian citizens. As well as just a general instillment in the mass populace that everything that had happened was their fault, and trying to get rid of various works that espoused Nazi ideology.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On that latter, over 30,000 different books were not only banned in the country after the war, but also systematically collected and destroyed. Anyone who tried to keep a copy could face legal consequences. The irony of this was not lost on anyone, given this was more or less a tactic taken out of the Nazi handbook when they came to power.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond this, as alluded to, there was the general populace, who were to be made to feel responsible for what Germany had done under the Nazi regime, with the Psychological Warfare Division of Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force taking point on this. They began efforts here seeing to it that the media from radio to newspapers not only strongly emphasised the atrocities in their coverage, but also explicitly noting that it was every single German\u2019s fault for allowing it to happen, not just the Nazis, in all heavily controlling the press to say what they wanted it to say\u2026 Another rather ironic page taken out of the Nazi handbook. Although, to be fair, in this case strongly emphasising educating the German public on all the atrocities that had actually been committed, unlike much of the things completely made up by the Nazis. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Beyond the various media outlets, posters were put up all around showing pictures from concentration camps with giant text overlaid saying things like \u201cYOU ARE GUILTY OF THIS.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As noted by British author James Stern, in one German town a \u201ccrowd\u2026 gathered around a series of photographs which though initially seeming to depict garbage, instead reveal dead human bodies. Each photograph has a heading “WHO IS GUILTY?”. The spectators are silent, appearing hypnotised and eventually retreat one by one. The placards are later replaced with clearer photographs and placards proclaiming “THIS TOWN IS GUILTY! YOU ARE GUILTY!”<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On top of that, in towns near concentration camps, the citizenry were often made to tour them, and even help bury the dead, help dig up mass graves, and things like this, with films also made of all this by the American War Information Unit to be shown to Germans who couldn\u2019t see for themselves. As noted by the Chief of the film division of Psychological Warfare, Sidney Bernstein, the point of all this was \u201cTo shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people \u2013 and not just the Nazis and SS \u2013 bore responsibility.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This general shift in mindset to blame all Germans, and not just the Nazis began around 1944, with before this generally a distinction made by the U.S. brass and with the U.S. public, whereas after a strong push to solidify in everyone\u2019s minds that there was little difference between a Nazi and a non-Nazi German citizen.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This also seems to have been a general mindset pushed by the military brass to their own troops, warning soldiers that \u201cthe majority of Germans supported the Nazis try to make friends with us \u2013 to get information, to get favors, to create sympathy for the \u2018poor down-trodden\u2019 German people, to make us disagree among ourselves, or just to get a good chance to slip a knife into Allied soldiers.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Speaking of the soldiers and going back to taking pages out of the Nazi handbook, it is also noted that during the denazification process, not just on the Soviet side, but on the U.S. side as well, frequent random beatings and rape of German civilians out and about was a thing. As one German professor noted, \u201cThese assaults have become notorious among the civilian population of Marburg; nobody risks going out in the evenings, and people feel as if they were exposed to acts of indiscriminate brutality with no means of protection.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But in all, to help change the mindset of the German populace who had bought into Nazi ideology, the general push was to show the atrocities that had been committed, and try to make every German citizen feel responsible.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Going back to the tribunals to try to punish those more directly involved and rid society of them in any prominent position, very briefly, the objectives of this process were codified as early as July of 1945, and while the tribunals\u2019 sentences dragged into 1957, the vast majority of the millions of card-carrying Nazi Party members had already been reviewed and sanctioned by April 1948.
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But that\u2019s all at a high level. How was this actually accomplished, and so quickly?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To begin with, the process of removing National Socialism ideology from the social fabric of Germany was conceived long before the end of the war in Europe. In fact, the term \u201cdenazification\u201d itself was coined in 1943 by the Pentagon as they began thinking about what post-war Germany legal system would look like. And as early as August 1944, this had all gotten expanded with US President Franklin Roosevelt writing in his memos that the Allies should \u2018drive home\u2019 to the Germans that they had participated in a \u2018Lawless conspiracy\u2019.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The same sentiment was expressed more formally when Roosevelt met with Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. On that occasion, the so-called \u2018Three Greats\u2019 clarified that denazification was to be considered a strategic war aim. More precisely, the removal of \u2018All Nazi and militarist influences from public offices and from the cultural and economic life of the German people.\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The III Reich surrendered on May 8, 1945 and the drive for denazification was restated in the Potsdam Agreement of August 1945. By that month, the western Allies had compiled a list of 178,000 nazis to be put under arrest, while the Soviets had already proceeded to the internment of 67,000 Reich officials.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Such a huge endeavour could not be conducted willy-nilly of course. Allied occupation forces had to clearly state the denazification objectives and parameters, as well as the categories and related sanctions for nazi offenders. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

According to a US Department of State memo of July 1945, the objectives of the denazification program included:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The arrest of Nazi leaders, supporters and any other persons \u2018dangerous to the Allied occupation or its objectives\u2019
    \n<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Exclusion of members of the Nazi Party, who had been more than nominal participants, from both public office and positions of responsibility in private enterprises
    \n<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Eradication of Nazi laws and decrees<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. The dissolution of the Nazi Party and all its affiliated organisations, as well the prevention of their revival. This went hand in hand with:
      \n<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Elimination of all paraphernalia, so central to Nazi propaganda: symbols, flags and anthems. And finally
      \n<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Complete removal of nazi ideology from German information services, schooling system, and religion.<\/span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Having clarified what denazification was about, Allied forces had to define how it would be carried out. The Allied Control Council reached an agreement only in January 1946, issuing Directive 24 which contained guidelines for a coordinated approach – as we shall see later, this would be anything but coordinated!
      \n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      In each of the four occupation zones of Germany, the Allies set up ad-hoc denazification commissions and tribunals, which involved the participation of local, vetted individuals, such as union leaders, judges and opponents to Nazism. The rulings of these bodies were made on the basis of an extensive, 131-point questionnaire drafted by the Public Safety Branch of the Allied Military Government.<\/p>\n

      This was known as the \u2018Fragebogen\u2019 which, translated from German, simply means \u2018Questionnaire\u2019<\/p>\n

      Respondents had to provide accurate and detailed answers about their education, their professional training, employment and military service. Going even deeper, those filling in \u2018The Questionnaire\u2019 had to provide details on the source of their income and assets since January 1931, as well as their writings and speeches published since 1923.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      But most of all, they had to provide a full account of their membership and role within the National Socialist Party or any other affiliated organisation.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      In the American occupation sector, filled in and signed questionnaires would be evaluated by a denazification tribunal in collaboration with the US Counter Intelligence Corps and a Special Branch Section of the Military Government\u2019s Public Safety Division. These bodies would then cross-check all the answers against police files, civil service records and the very archives of the Nazi Party.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      The purpose of this screening was not to identify all German citizens who had joined the Party or an adjacent organisation at any point, as there would have been very few exceptions. The Allied Military Government in fact agreed to safeguard from sanctions the \u2018Purely nominal member of the Nazi Party who was forced to join in order to retain his position of livelihood or escape the concentration camp.\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      The point was to ascertain if the individuals under scrutiny had been involved in more than just a nominal capacity in supporting the Nazi regime; if they had contributed to perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity; or if they posed a threat to the Allies and the restoration of democracy. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Based on these factors, respondents would be classified as follows: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      \u2018Major offenders\u2019 were to be sentenced to life imprisonment, or even to death.
      \n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Then you had the \u2018offenders\u2019: activists, militarists and those who had profited from Germany\u2019s war of aggression, who could face up to ten years of prison.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


      \nNext, you had the somewhat murkier category of \u2018lesser offenders\u2019, subjected to a probationary period of up to three years.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


      \nThe rank-and-file followers or supporters of Hitler\u2019s regime, with no specific active responsibilities might encounter a fine, and be subjected to surveillance.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


      \nAnd finally \u2018exonerated individuals\u2019 would not receive any sanction.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Based on this categorisation, anybody from \u2018lesser offender\u2019 and up were deemed to have had more than a nominal participation in the Nazi Party\u2019s activities. As such, in addition to the sanctions described, they would face mandatory removal from their post, be them military officers or public officials. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      OK, so we have covered how the denazification of Germany should have worked. But how did it actually turn out?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Well, especially in the US-controlled occupation zone, military authorities started with a bang, preemptively detaining 400,000 Germans in internment camps, before they had even started filling in their 131-point questionnaires. But when the tribunals and commissions started applying due process, it became apparent that discerning rank-and-file party members from lesser or more serious offenders was no easy task \u2026 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      The US military had access to excellent records – one thing the Nazis were unquestionably good at was record keeping. Occupation troops in Munich, in fact, discovered the party\u2019s entire registry with the names of 12 million card-carrying members. But, according to Earl F. Ziemke, writing for the US Army Centre of Military History, \u2018It was on the gray fringes of denazification that the question of who and what were Nazis vexed military government,\u2019<\/p>\n

      The military occupation authorities still had to sift all those 12 million individuals, trying to identify the worst that humanity had to offer. And it turns out that many of those 12 million Nazis \u2018had training, experience, energy, affability, and not a bad political record.\u2019 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      As reported by Ziemke, American troops found those under scrutiny to be, on the whole, surprisingly pleasant chaps, which made their denazification efforts all the more difficult. A US high-ranking officer commented that if \u2018All the Nazis had been exceedingly unpleasant and rude, denazification would have been easy.\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      On the other hand, many among those Germans who were not formal members of the party could fall into two categories: those ballsy enough not to fall for Nazi ideology and propaganda; and those who had applied for membership but had been rejected! Interestingly, the former were equally not keen to cooperate with the Allies. And the latter likely did not make for ideal members of society.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      And that was the problem: denazification was all well and good, but the Allies were also seeking to rebuild German society from its ruins, and as fast as possible. If they made a clean sweep of anybody even loosely associated with National Socialism, in Ziemke\u2019s words: \u2018They were going to have to run the country with old men until the next generation grew up. The number of political acceptables between the ages of twenty and fifty who were also trained and competent was exceedingly small.\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      So, that was the first snag. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      The second one was that the whole program required a huge bureaucratic apparatus which the Allies simply could not manage. In the US controlled zone alone, the commissions and tribunals had to review a whopping 10 million questionnaires. Sure, they had enrolled local personnel to run the tribunals, but even so trained man-power was scarce. And even those Germans who were willing to participate were reluctant to dish out harsh sanctions to their fellow citizens.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      The third snag was that defendants in these tribunals had found a convenient way out: they could easily obtain signed, sworn affidavits from priests or even just friends and neighbours, attesting that the defendant was a mere rank-and-file follower, or that he or she could be altogether exonerated. Naturally, a cottage industry emerged, putting these affidavits on sale. They later became colloquially known as \u2018Persilscheine\u2019 after the popular Persil brand of detergent. In other words, they would leave a defendant\u2019s reputation squeaky clean!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Eventually, US authorities could not cope with the red tape associated with denazification in their controlled areas, and with tensions between the Soviets and the U.S. rising, also somewhat shifted their focus. In particular, they were now much more concerned with Germany\u2019s rapid economic recovery than trying to make sure everyone paid for their crimes and weren\u2019t allowed in prominent positions. A similar thing happened over in Japan with the now termed \u201cReverse Course\u201d policies. But back in Germany, with this shift, on March 5, 1946, they formally transferred all such duties to reconstituted German authorities, something that the British had done a few months earlier as well.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


      \nOn that note, with the British and French occupation zones, local military governments took an even more pragmatic approach. Both prioritised the efficiency of local administration and economy, to quickly cope with housing and food shortages. Thus, they were even less scrupulous when it came to allowing former high-ranking officials to hold or resume important positions. French authorities were most lax of all, even allowing nazis residing in other zones to move and resume work in their occupied areas with no hinderance. As another example, given the Nazis had placed individuals whose beliefs aligned with their ideologies in prominent teaching positions, around 3\/4 of teachers in the country were immediately fired after the war\u2026 only for the vast majority in the French zone to be quickly rehired and given their positions back. This was reflected in most industries in the French zone. In the end, in total, the French only labelled 13 total individuals in their region \u201cmajor offenders\u201d.
      \n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Finally, moving to the Soviet occupation zone, the removal of Nazi personnel and ideology appeared to be more resolute than in the zones governed by the Western Allies. In fact, denazification proceeded hand-in-hand with the \u2018Sovietization\u2019 of Eastern Germany, that is extensive land reforms and nationalisation of industry. Moreover, while Western Allies strove to replace Nazi officials with political representatives from a broad spectrum, Moscow had a preference for the KPD, or Communist Party of Germany, later the Socialist Unity Party or SED. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      However, according to historian Timothy R. Vogt, the denazification in the Soviet-held area was not as thorough as it initially appeared. Thanks to the cooperation of the KPD, Soviet authorities were able to delegate most denazification processes to the Germans themselves, in the form of local anti-Nazi committees and newly formed provincial governments. These bodies enacted their measures inconsistently, and were prone to caving in when meeting local resistance and objections.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Moreover, they appeared to follow the general principle that if former Nazis were willing to rebrand themselves as Communists, they would not be removed from public life.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      As you might have guessed from all this, as early as 1948, it had become apparent that the denazification of Germany had not resulted in the intended restructure of society. In December of that year, international relations scholar John H. Herz, a member of the US delegation at the Nuremberg trials, published an article with the self-explanatory title of \u2018The Fiasco of Denazification in Germany\u2019<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Herz focused on the American occupation zone, reporting how trials conducted there were frequently hindered by intimidation on the part of nazi sympathisers. Even without intimidation, prosecutors based their indictments of the answers provided in the questionnaires, without verifying their veracity. Thus, most defendants were categorised as mere \u2018followers\u2019.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Moreover, after denazification efforts had been handed over to German authorities in March 1946, they had issued two amnesties, one in August, one in December, exonerating members of the Hitler Youth, persons of low income and disabled citizens. Herz pointed out how such amnesties allowed even war criminals to escape prosecution.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      The scholar also unearthed a major procedural flaw.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Until October 1947, denazification processes had vetted some 50,000 individuals a month. Quite a good number! But the tribunals had given precedence to those who had been classified as \u2018followers\u2019 on the basis of their questionnaires. By the time tribunals finally worked their stash of paperwork to those classified as \u2018offenders\u2019, a legislative amendment allowed prosecutors to re-categorise them as \u2018followers\u2019, too – with the exception of members of the SS.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Such re-categorisation still required approval from the Allied Military Government. But in January 1948 this procedural step was removed by the enactment of an expediting procedure. Now all \u2018offenders\u2019 could be rubber stamped as \u2018followers\u2019 wholesale!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      A further relaxation of standards took place in March 1948, with the almost total removal of the exception clause for members of the SS and other criminal organisations affiliated to the Nazi Party. Now, only those belonging to the category of the \u2018Major offenders\u2019 could expect major sanctions. Everybody else was deemed a \u2018follower\u2019 and was free to go after paying a fine.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      As for the numbers on all this, some 12,753,000 Germans were expected to undergo the denazification procedures. More than 9 million were found \u2018not chargeable\u2019. The remaining 3,209,000 were processed by the end of April 1948. And of these, more than 2.3 million were amnestied without trial. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      This left 836,000 to be tried – a mere 6.5%. More than one third of these were exonerated, and more than half classified as \u2018followers\u2019.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Of the remainder, 10.7% were categorised as \u2018lesser offenders\u2019; 2.1% were Class II \u2018offenders\u2019; and only 0.1% were found to be \u2018major offenders\u2019. That\u2019s 836 individuals from the original nearly 13 million person pool.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      And even those who were sentenced as \u2018offenders\u2019 in any degree of severity, most received lenient sanctions, such as community work, payment of fines, or shortened prison sentences.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

      Herz proceeded to compile several examples of such lenient treatments, of which we shall report only a few:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n