Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘… imprisonment of relatives, life or liberty …’ Sippenhaft and the Wehrmacht

  • Chapter
Family Punishment in Nazi Germany

  • 149 Accesses

Abstract

Building on the notion that the family of a political enemy was also liable for punishment, the Wehrmacht developed an understanding where Sippenhaft increasingly became a viable threat towards its soldiers for what were considered ‘political’ crimes such as desertion, cowardice or ‘attempting to undermine military strength’. Similarly in some respects to the German home front, the threat of Sippenhaft within the Wehrmacht was developed and promoted not through codification or directives, but rather was passed on by personalized threats or actions from commanders to their units on a local level. In the latter stages of the war the broadening application of Sippenhaft — seen in multiple decrees and in military court sentences — still did not create an environ-ment for its systematic application. On the contrary, its effectiveness lay in it being maintained as a general threat, against individual soldiers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Leo Daugherty, ‘The Volkdeutsche and Hitler’s War’, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 8, 2 (1995), pp. 296–318. George S. Stein defines ‘Volksdeutsche’ as ‘those who were not citizens of the German Reich but who were German in language and culture’.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. See George S. Stein, The Waffen-SS: Hitler’s Elite Guard at War, 1939–1945 (New York 1984), p. 173. In the area of Poland ‘categories’ had been created to determine, with ever changing boundaries who would qualify to be classed as ‘Volksdeutsche’.

    Google Scholar 

  3. See Alan Steinweis & Daniel E. Rogers, The Impact of Nazism: New Perspectives on the Third Reich and Its Legacy (Lincoln 2003), p. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Maria Fritsche, … haftet die Sippe mit Vermögen, Freiheit oder Leben … ’ ‘Die Anwendung der Sippenhaft bei Familien verfolgter Wehrmachtsoldaten’, in Walter Manoschek (ed.), Opfer der NS-Militärjustiz Urteilspraxis — Stra fvollzug-Entschädigungpolitik in Österreich (Wien 2003), p. 483. Maria Fritsche claims that it formed the basis of a significant level of fear amongst these soldiers.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Norbert Haase, ‘Justizterror in der Wehrmacht am Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieg’, in Cord Arendes, Edgar Wolfrum and Jörg Zedler (eds), Terror nach Innen: Verbrechen am Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges (Göttingen 2006), p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Omer Bartov, ‘Soldiers, Nazis and the War in the Third Reich’, The Journal of Modern History, 63, 1 (March 1991), p. 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hannes Heer & Klaus Naumann, War of Extermination: The German Military in World War II, 1941–1944 (Oxford 2000), p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Klaus Latzel has argued that caution needs to be exercised when using field post letters for determining general notions of ideological support amongst the army as a whole. Klaus Latzel, ‘Wehrmachtsoldaten zwischen “Normalität” und NS—Ideologie, oder: Was sucht die Forschung in der Feldpost?’ in Rolf—Dieter Müller & Hans—Erich Volkmann (eds), Die Wehrmacht: Mythos und Realität (München 1999), pp. 573–88. While Jürgen Förster considers it is unclear whether ideology or ‘family and country’ played a more crucial role in the willingness of the soldiers’ to continue to fight.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Jürgen Förster ‘Geistige Kriegführung in Deutschland 1919 bis 1945’, in Jörg Echternkamp (ed.), Die deutsche Kriegsgesellschaft 1939–1945, Das Deutsche Reich unde Zweite Weltkrieg 9, 2 (Munich 2004/5), p. 639.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Orner Bartov, Mirrors of Destruction: War, Genocide and Modern Identity (New York 2000), p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality (Cambridge 2006), p. 185

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stephen Fritz, Endkampf Soldiers, Civilians and the Death of the Third Reich (Lexington 2004), p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  13. It is worth pointing out that family punishment methods were used by the Soviets against their own troops in the difficult 1941 period. A family liability policy had been codified during the Great Terror (15 August 1937 ‘Operational Order 00486’ for the ‘repression of wives of the traitors from the Rightist-Trotskiist espionage and sabotage organization’), resulting in the arrest of around 43,000 women and children before the war. Marc Jansen & Nikita Petrov, Stalin’s Loyal Executioner: People’s Commissar Nikolai Ezhov (Stanford 2002), p. 100. Stalin updated this on 16 August 1941 in Stavka Order 270, which threatened punishment for families of captured soldiers. However, it is alleged — but unconfirmed — that individual Soviet commanders like Marshal Zhukov also released similarly worded orders. Anthony Beevor claims that research yet to be published describes how, at the end of September 1941, Zhukov, as Commander of the Leningrad Front, issued a directive which instructed commanders, ‘to make clear to all troops that all families of those who surrender to the enemy would be shot, and they themselves would be shot upon return from prison’.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Robert von Maier & David Glantz, ‘Anthony Beevor: Questions and Answers’, World War Two Quarterly, 5, 1 (Winter 2008), p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See also Amnon Sella, The Value of Human Life in Soviet Warfare (London 1992), pp. 96, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. The often-quoted figures concerning death sentences carried out during the First World War: British sentenced 3,080 soldiers to death and executed 346, French 2,000 for 700 carried out, while the Germans sentenced 150 and only carried out 48. Manfred Messerschmidt, ‘German Military Law in the Second World War’, in Wilhelm Deist (ed.), The German Military in the Age of Total War (London 1985), p. 324.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Matthias Weidemann, Geschichte der Sippenhaftung (Berlin 2002), p. 192. Describes how forms of family liability punishment were present in various German states until the late 19th century. Weidemann shows how instances exist throughout the early modern period where various German states had legislated property confiscation for the family of a soldier who had ‘disgraced the colours’ with cowardice. See also Bartov, Hitler’s Army.

    Google Scholar 

  18. In 1916 a Social Democrat parliament committee suggested that, should a soldier be sentenced to more than six months’ jail, regardless of his crime, his family should have their financial support withdrawn. The Ministry for the Interior rejected this on the grounds of practicality: withdrawing support from a family would merely cause them to turn to welfare agencies. Subsequently, in 1917 the National Liberal faction suggested confiscation of the property of any soldier accused of desertion. It was proposed that, after a predetermined period of time, the property of the deserter would be handed over to the State. While the Justice Office believed the idea had merit, it did not act upon it. See Christoph Jahr, Gewöhnliche Soldaten: Desertion und Deserteure im deutschen und britischen Heer 1914–1918 (Göttingen 1998), p. 301.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Annedore Leber, Conscience in Revolt: Sixty-Four Stories of Resistance in Germany 1933–1945 (Oxford 1994), p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Together with thousands of other German prisoners of war, Wenzeslaus Leiss returned to Germany in 1949, as haggard and maltreated as all the rest. According to his brother-in-law Johann Chwirot, Leiss was adamant that he had not deserted, and claimed that ‘he knew exactly what would happen. I would not have risked my family.’ Interview with Johann Chwirot in Bernard Schmidt & Fritz Burger, Tatort Moers: Widerstand und Nationalsozialismus im südlichen Altkreis Moers (Moers 1995), p. 331.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Serge Hoffmann & Henri Wehenkel, Musée national de la Resistance (Luxembourg 1995), p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Aimé Knepper, Les refractaires dans les bunkers (Luxembourg 1987), p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Daniel Lerner, Sykewar: Psychological Warfare against Germany (New York 1949), p. 295.

    Google Scholar 

  24. ‘SS-Untersturmführer Lebrechtsdorf to SD Leitabschnitt Danzig’, 28 November 1944. The State Archive in Bydgoszcz, Poland (hereafter SAB) 96/278. In Alan E. Steinweis & Daniel E. Rogers, The impact of Nazism: New Perspectives on the Third Reich and Its Legacy (Lincoln 2003), p. 106.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Photocopy of this ordinance is in Leopold Steuer, Martha Verdorfer & Walter Pichler, Verfolgt, Verfemt, Vergessen: Lebensgeschichtliche Erinnerungen an den Widerstand gegen Nationalsozialismus und Krieg Südtirol 1943–1945 (Bozen 1993), p. 442.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Manfred Messerschmidt & Fritz Wüllner, Wehrmachtjustiz im Deinste des Nationalsozialismus: Zerstörung einer Legende (Baden-Baden 1987), p. 310.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Erich Kuby, Das Ende des Schreckens: Dokumente des Untergangs Januar bis Mai 1945 (München 1961), pp. 50–1.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Also Heinz Bergschicker, Deutsche Chronik 1933–1945: Ein Zeitbild der faschistischen Diktatur (Berlin 1990), p. 537, has a full transcript of this order.

    Google Scholar 

  29. While Cornelia Schmitz-Berning, Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (Berlin 2000), p. 581,

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hilde Kammer (ed), Lexikon Nationalsozialismus: Begriff, Organisation und Institution (Berlin 1999), p. 234, only have only selected extracts of this order. A transcript of this announcement could not be found in either the Ba-B or Ba-F.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Edward Shils & Morris Janowitz, ‘Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War Two’, The Public Opinion Quarterly, 12, 2 (Summer 1948), p. 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. John Erickson, Road to Berlin (London 1983), p. 545. Lasch had signed the surrender terms the night before on 9 April 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Otto Lasch, Zuckerbrot und Peitsche: Ein Bericht aus russischer Kriegsge fangenschaft — 20 Jahre danach (Ilm 1965), p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Karl-Heinz Roth, ‘Die Modernisierung der Folter in den Beiden Weltkriegen: Der Konflikt der Psychotherapeuten und Schulpsychiater um die deutschen “Kriegsneurotiker” 1915–1945’, in 1999: Zeitschrift für Sozialgeschichte 3 (July 1987), p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of New South Wales, Australia

    Robert Loeffel (Visiting Fellow)

Authors
  1. Robert Loeffel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2012 Robert Loeffel

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Loeffel, R. (2012). ‘… imprisonment of relatives, life or liberty …’ Sippenhaft and the Wehrmacht. In: Family Punishment in Nazi Germany. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137021830_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137021830_3

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-34450-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-02183-0

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation