Tearing the Guts out of the Wehrmacht: a Re-Examination Of

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Tearing the Guts out of the Wehrmacht: a Re-Examination Of LIBERTY UNIVERSITY TEARING THE GUTS OUT OF THE WEHRMACHT: A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE RUSSO-GERMAN WAR A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in History By Randall S. Wells Jr. August 2018 The thesis of Randall S. Wells Jr. is approved: ______________________________________ _________________ Dr. Martin Scott Catino Date Thesis Director _________________________________________ ___________________ Dr. David Jonathan White Date Second Reader i Acknowledgments I would like to offer my deepest gratitude to all those who have mentored me during my graduate studies at Liberty University, Virginia and who have assisted me in the completion of this project. Thank you to Dr. David Snead and Dr. Martin Catino whose courses in World War II and Modern European History piqued my interest in this field and inspired me to focus my thesis on a related topic. I would especially like to thank Dr. Cary Roberts for providing me the opportunity to finish my graduate degree with a thesis module and for his interest in this project, his time and guidance throughout the preliminary writing process. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Williamson Murray, Professor Emeritus of History at the Ohio State University for chatting with me over the telephone about my thesis and for steering me towards some truly valuable source material. Additionally, I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge my wife, Denise Wells, for her tireless support during the many hours I was busy with this project. Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my great uncle, Norris Byron Wells Jr, who gave his life fighting the Nazis in southern France on 28 August 1944. ii Table of Contents Signature Page i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii Abstract iv Introduction 1 Chapter One 29 Chapter Two 70 Chapter Three 91 Conclusion 102 Bibliography 106 iii Abstract Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. Hitler’s plan to annihilate Germany’s Eastern neighbor and populate the vast Russian expanse with his own people was as ambitious as it was adventuristic. Although it began successful, the Russo-German War quickly devolved into a quagmire as Russian troops outfought their German opponent and beat them back to Berlin. Contrary to prevailing historiography, the Wehrmacht’s loss on the Eastern Front cannot be solely attributed to a failure to equip German troops with proper winter clothing, an inadequate logistics network or Hitler’s interference in military decisions. For an army that had enjoyed rapid gains during late 1930s and 1940, only an enhanced tactical revolution, superior armor and a more aggressive martial ethos explains how the vaunted German military suffered ignominious defeat at the hands of what many consider a third-rate adversary. iv Introduction More than 2,000 years ago, King Solomon wrote, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”1 Perhaps in no other example is this verse more prescient than in the adventuristic German invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. Considered the largest land invasion in military history, Hitler’s aspirations to expand Germany’s living space to the east constituted a monumental overreach that left an indelible stain upon the German people, which time itself cannot erase. Before the ink had barely dried on the Treaty of Versailles, Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich had been busy arming herself for yet another war. First, Hitler secretly mandated the German Army triple its strength from 100,000 to 300,000 men by October 1934. Second, he approved Admiral Erich Raeder’s project to assemble forbidden U-boats and third, he gave Hermann Goering the green light to establish the Luftwaffe. For all intents and purposes, the makings of the German Wehrmacht were falling into place.2 Up until April 1934, Hitler had worked clandestinely to rebuild the German military machine. The following year, the Führer openly repudiated the military stipulations of Versailles and introduced conscription.3 As early as 1936, just three years after becoming Chancellor, Hitler made the first of several bold moves to test Anglo-French resolve. Like a schoolyard bully, Hitler began pressing his luck to see if anyone would move to stop him. They did not. Rather than sending troops into Germany to punish Hitler for violating the Versailles Treaty, England and France squeaked out a mild protest and took the matter before the League of 1 Prov. 16:18 (KJV). 2 James L. Stokesbury, A Short History of World War II (New York: Harper Collins, 1980), 18. 3 Wolfgang Foerster, Generaloberst Ludwig Beck: Sein Kampf gegen den Krieg (Islar Verlag: Muchen, 1953), 22. 1 Nations. The League condemned Germany but did nothing. Conveniently for the Führer, an international incident captured the attention of the League of Nations in late 1935, which Hitler immediately exploited.4 Benito Mussolini, Italy’s fascist dictator, decided to invade Ethiopia in October 1935 as a matter of payback for Italy’s humiliating defeat during the First Italo-Abyssinian War in 1896. Again, France and England protested to the League of Nations, however, little was done and Mussolini defeated the tiny nation in 1936 after taking the capital. Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, coupled with Anglo-French reactions, fractured the Locarno Pact and revealed the League of Nations to be an impotent attempt at collective security.5 With France, England and Italy’s attention focused on Ethiopia, Hitler reasoned that these nations would be less inclined to resist his attempt to remilitarize the Rhineland. Therefore, in the early morning hours of 7 March 1936, three battalions of German troops goose-stepped across the Rhine bridges and entered the demilitarized zone. Germany’s Foreign Minister announced to the ambassadors of France, England and Italy that their abrogation of the Locarno Pact justified the incident.6 Yet again, the League of Nations condemned Germany but took no concrete action. With the eruption of civil war in Spain later that summer, Hitler saw an opportunity to test his nascent Wehrmacht in combat. Along with Mussolini, Hitler sent military support to anti-Communist General Francisco Franco, which further linked the fascist dictators together and facilitated a 4 Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett, A War to Be Won: Fighting the Second World War (Cambridge: Harvard Press, 2000), 2-8. 5 Ibid., 5. 6 John Keegan, The Second World War (New York: Penguin, 1989), 37-38. 2 “dress-rehearsal” for German and Italian armies. France and England sponsored a non- intervention committee but did nothing.7 Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin, sent financial aid to pro-Communist forces in Spain, but refrained from dispatching troops. Additionally, Stalin viewed Anglo-French intransigence as a clear sign that they would likely sit back while Hitler did what he wanted in Europe. Stalin’s assumption proved prophetic as Hitler next targeted Austria and Czechoslovakia.8 Following the Nazi-orchestrated assassination of Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss in 1934, Hitler began manipulating Dollfuss’ successor, Kurt Schuschnigg into agreeing to the unification of Austria and Germany. When Schuschnigg balked, Hitler replaced him with Austrian Nazi, Arthur Seyss-Inquart on 11 March 1938. As his first official act as Austria’s new chancellor, Seyss-Inquart requested that Hitler send German troops to “restore law and order.” Two days later, Hitler annexed Austria and gained not only Austria’s money but 85,000 troops to add to his burgeoning army.9 British and French reaction was similar to what had occurred the previous few years. Neither nation wanted a repeat of the Great War, and therefore sought diplomatic solutions in an effort to make the Führer behave. Hitler, however, had no intentions of playing nice and the following year, demanded the relinquishing of the German inhabited region of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland.10 7 Stokesbury, A Short History of World War II, 37. 8 Murray and Millett, A War to Be Won, 13. 9 Keegan, The Second World War, 37-39. 10 Ibid., 40. 3 Eager to prevent an escalation into war, British Prime Minister Sir Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler in Munich and drafted the Munich Agreement, which effectively ceded the Sudetenland to Hitler. With the west floundering, Hitler then moved to secure his gains in Eastern Europe taking Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia. Within three weeks of the signing of the Munich Agreement, he ordered the military to prepare to occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia and began terrorizing Jews and other non-Aryans.11 Finally, Britain took notice and Chamberlain began offering Hitler industrial loans and other concessions if he would only back down. Outraged at Chamberlain’s weakness and audacity to think he could push the Führer around, Hitler executed his plan to invade Poland on 1 September 1939. Since Britain and France had promised to come to Poland’s aid in the event she were attacked, they were forced to declare war on Germany three days later. However, their inaction during Germany’s annihilation of Poland and the days preceding the invasion of France in the summer of 1940 resulted in a period of relative inaction called the Phony War.12 With each move, Hitler paused to see if the Allies would act. They did not. Confident the Allies had no stomach for war, Hitler simply did what he wanted and acted with impunity. Indeed, by the time the Wehrmacht had cowed Poland, Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries and France into submission, much of the world stood in awe at the apparent unassailability of the Nazi juggernaut.13 Undoubtedly, many wondered where Hitler would strike next. In keeping with his strategic and ideological goals, Hitler had cast his gaze on the vast expanse of Russian territory to the east long before he decided to invade.
Recommended publications
  • The Battle of Stalingrad: a Behavior Analytic Perspective
    REVISTA MEXICANA DE ANÁLISIS DE LA CONDUCTA 2007 NÚMERO 2 (DIC) MEXICAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 33, 239-246 NUMBER 2 (DEC) THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD: A BEHAVIOR ANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE LA BATALLA DE STALINGRADO: UNA PERSPECTIVA BASADA EN EL ANÁLISIS DE LA CONDUCTA MARCO A. PULIDO1 LABORATORIO DE CONDICIONAMIENTO OPERANTE UNIVERSIDAD INTERCONTINENTAL ABSTRACT The purpose of the present paper is to suggest ways in which historians may use behavior analysis as a tool to design research agendas that may help them understand complex human behavior and atypical decision making pro- cesses. This paper presents a brief outline describing the general epistemo- logical and pragmatic virtues of approaching human behavior from a behavior analytic perspective. This outline is followed by a general description of the elements that should be taken into consideration when developing a research agenda based on behavior analytic principles. Lastly a research agenda re- garding a series of puzzling events leading to the encirclement of German Sixth Army during the so called “Battle of Stalingrad,” is used to exemplify the methodology proposed in this paper. Key words: Battle of Stalingrad, behavior analysis, research agenda RESUMEN El propósito de este ensayo es el de sugerir formas en que los historiado- res pueden utilizar los principios del análisis de la conducta para desarrollar 1. Este trabajo fue realizado gracias al apoyo de la Facultad de Psicología y al Instituto de Posgrado e Investigación de la Universidad Intercontinental. El autor agradece a Marco A. Pulido Benítez la corrección de estilo del trabajo y a los revisores anónimos sus valiosas aportaciones al mismo.
    [Show full text]
  • What Was the Turning Point of World War Ii?
    WHAT WAS THE TURNING POINT OF WORLD WAR II? Jeff Moore History 420: Senior Seminar December 13, 2012 1 World War II was the decisive war of the twentieth century. Millions of people lost their lives in the fighting. Hitler and the Nazis were eventually stopped in their attempt to dominate Europe, but at a great cost to everyone. Looking back at the war, it is hard to find the definitive moment when the war could no longer be won by the Axis, and it is even more difficult to find the exact moment when the tide of the war turned. This is because there are so many moments that could be argued as the turning point of World War II. Different historians pose different arguments as to what this moment could be. Most agree that the turning point of World War II, in military terms, was either Operation Barbarossa or the Battle of Stalingrad. UCLA professor Robert Dallek, Third Reich and World War II specialist Richard Overy, and British journalist and historian Max Hastings, all argue that Stalingrad was the point of the war in which everything changed.1 The principal arguments surrounding this specific battle are that it was the furthest east that Germany ever made it, and after the Russian victory Stalin’s forces were able to gain the confidence and momentum necessary to push the Germans back to the border. On the other hand, Operation Barbarossa is often cited as the turning point for World War II because the Germans did not have the resources necessary to survive a prolonged invasion of Russia fighting both the Red Army and the harsh Russian weather.
    [Show full text]
  • Avanti Savoia!
    The Red Army entered the war in a state of chaos. Stalin’s purges had eliminated the professional officers before the war, then German victories wiped out the entire prewar army within months. The Red Army desperately rebuilt its strength with barely-trained conscripts. Years of hard fighting forged the survivors into a war-winning force capable of taking on and beating the best the enemy could offer. These rules only apply to Soviet teams and platoons. DOCtrinE CENTRALISED CONTROL Wherever the rules talk about a platoon, read that as a Soviet EXAMPLE company. Where the rules talk about a company, read that as a Kapitan Tchaikovsky’s company were Pinned Down by Soviet battalion. heavy enemy fire last turn. Now, at the start of the Soviet player’s turn, they are attempting to rally. KOMISSAR The player rolls the Motivation test to rally the company If a Soviet company containing a Komissar team that is In as usual and scores a 1. The test fails. Command fails its Motivation Test to rally from being Pinned Down, to counterattack in an Assault, or to pass a Platoon Fortunately, Podpolkovnik Tolstoy, the battalion Morale Check (but not to launch an assault against tanks or any commander, is near by and joins the company. With a other Motivation Test), you may immediately Destroy any other little encouragement from his commander, Tchaikovsky Infantry or Gun team from the company within Command tries again. This time the Soviet player rolls a 2. Kapitan Distance of the Komissar team and re-roll the Motivation Test.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Tribunal, Indictments
    MILITARY TRIBUNALS Case No. 12 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against- WILHELM' VON LEEB, HUGO SPERRLE, GEORG KARL FRIEDRICH-WILHELM VON KUECHLER, JOHANNES BLASKOWITZ, HERMANN HOTH, HANS REINHARDT. HANS VON SALMUTH, KARL HOL­ LIDT, .OTTO SCHNmWIND,. KARL VON ROQUES, HERMANN REINECKE., WALTERWARLIMONT, OTTO WOEHLER;. and RUDOLF LEHMANN. Defendants OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (US) NORNBERG 1947 • PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c6a171/ TABLE OF CONTENTS - Page INTRODUCTORY 1 COUNT ONE-CRIMES AGAINST PEACE 6 A Austria 'and Czechoslovakia 7 B. Poland, France and The United Kingdom 9 C. Denmark and Norway 10 D. Belgium, The Netherland.; and Luxembourg 11 E. Yugoslavia and Greece 14 F. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 17 G. The United states of America 20 . , COUNT TWO-WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: CRIMES AGAINST ENEMY BELLIGERENTS AND PRISONERS OF WAR 21 A: The "Commissar" Order , 22 B. The "Commando" Order . 23 C, Prohibited Labor of Prisoners of Wal 24 D. Murder and III Treatment of Prisoners of War 25 . COUNT THREE-WAR CRIMES AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS 27 A Deportation and Enslavement of Civilians . 29 B. Plunder of Public and Private Property, Wanton Destruc­ tion, and Devastation not Justified by Military Necessity. 31 C. Murder, III Treatment and Persecution 'of Civilian Popu- lations . 32 COUNT FOUR-COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY 39 APPENDIX A-STATEMENT OF MILITARY POSITIONS HELD BY THE DEFENDANTS AND CO-PARTICIPANTS 40 2 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/c6a171/ INDICTMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Enemy at the Gates
    IS IT TRUE? 0. IS IT TRUE? - Story Preface 1. STALINGRAD 2. SOVIET RESISTANCE 3. THE SIEGE OF STALINGRAD 4. VASILY ZAITSEV 5. TANIA CHERNOVA 6. STALINGRAD SNIPERS 7. THE DUEL 8. IS IT TRUE? 9. OPERATION URANUS 10. HITLER FORBIDS SURRENDER 11. GERMAN SURRENDER 12. THE SWORD OF STALINGRAD Most scholars recognize Antony Beevor’s 1998 book, Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, as the best account of the battle. Beevor interviewed survivors and uncovered extraordinary documents in both German and Russian archives. His monumental work discusses Vasily Zaitsev and his talents as a sniper. But of the duel story, Beevor reports, at page 204: Some Soviet sources claim that the Germans brought in the chief of their sniper school to hunt down Zaitsev, but that Zaitsev outwitted him. Zaitsev, after a hunt of several days, apparently spotted his hide under a sheet of corrugated iron, and shot him dead. The telescopic sight off his prey’s rifle, allegedly Zaitsev’s most treasured trophy, is still exhibited in the Moscow armed forces museum, but this dramatic story remains essentially unconvincing. If the telescopic sight is still on display, and the story made all the papers, why does Beevor think it is not convincing? It is worth noting that there is absolutely no mention of it[the duel] in any of the reports to Shcherbakov [chief of the Red Army political department], even though almost every aspect of ‘sniperism’ was reported with relish. What did Vasily Zaitsev have to say about the duel? Living to old age in the Ukraine, where he was the director of an engineering school in Kiev, this Hero of the Soviet Union was apparently quoted by Alan Clark in Barbarossa: The sun rose.
    [Show full text]
  • Two New Studies Challenge Received Opinions About How the Soviet
    First Films of the Holocaust: Soviet Cinema and the Genocide of the Jews, 1938–1946, Jeremy Hicks (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2012), iii + 300 pp., pbk. $28.95. The Phantom Holocaust: Soviet Cinema and Jewish Catastrophe,Olga Gershenson (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2013), ii + 276 pp., pbk. $29.25, electronic version available. Two new studies challenge received opinions about how the Soviet Union represented the persecution and mass murder of the Jews before, during, and after the “Great Patriotic War.” Many standard histories of World War II and its aftermath in the USSR—Alexander Werth’s classic Russia at War (1964), Amir Weiner’s Making Sense of War (2001), and Yitzhak Arad’s recent The Holocaust in the Soviet Union (2009) are representative examples—underscore the ambivalence, indeed, the outright hos- tility, of Soviet authorities toward singling out Jews as the Nazis’ particular targets. Candid reports or allusions to the slaughter did appear initially in official pronounce- ments and major news outlets, but they soon became infrequent and increasingly vague; Jewish victims were routinely described only as “peaceful Soviet citizens,” their ethnic identities suppressed. Accounts of the Nazis’ killing of Jews were relegated to small-circulation Yiddish newspapers such as Einikayt, sponsored by the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. The reasons for this suppression of terrible truths were complex. The Communists were, ostensibly, ideologically opposed to differentiating among civilian victims of different national groups, even as they ranked these groups according to their alleged contributions to the defense against the German onslaught.1 Given the extent of civilian deaths, they also feared alienating other ethnic communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Tyazhelyy Samokhodno-Artillyeriyskiy Polk (Guards)
    Tyazhelyy Samokhodno-Artillyeriyskiy Polk (Guards) Fearless Trained Heavy Self-propelled Artillery Regiment Soviet Late-War Tank Company Platoon Qty Unit Points Headquarters Tyazhelyy Samokhodno-Artillyeriyskiy Polk HQ - 1 KV-1s 85 p.61 Combat Companies Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company - p.61 3 SU-152 235 Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company - p.61 3 SU-152 235 Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company - p.61 3 SU-152 235 Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company - p.61 3 SU-152 235 Corps Support Companies Gvardeyskiy Tyazhelyy Tankovy Company - p.54 5 KV-1s 425 Flame-tank Company - p.148 5 KV-8s 300 Confident Trained Company Points: 1750 www.EasyArmy.com Source document: Red Bear (Revised) Arsenal Tank Teams Name Mobility Front Side Top Equipment and Notes Weapon Range ROF Anti-tank Firepower Heavy Tanks KV-1s Standard Tank 8 6 2 Co-ax MG, Hull MG, Turret-rear MG, Wide-tracks. 76mm F-34 gun 32"/80cm 2 9 3+ Flame Tanks KV-8s Standard Tank 8 6 2 Hull MG, Turret-rear MG, Wide tracks. ATO-42 flame-thrower 4"/10cm 3 - 5+ Flame-thrower. 45mm obr 1938 gun 24"/60cm 2 7 4+ Assault-guns SU-152 Slow Tank 7 6 2 . 152mm ML-20S gun 32"/80cm 1 13 1+ Bunker Buster, Hull mounted. Vehicle Machine-guns Weapon Range ROF Anti-tank Firepower Vehicle MG 16"/40cm 3 2 6 ROF 1 if other weapons fire. Special Rules Guards Heavy Assault Gun Company - p.61 Crazy Vasily 'Zig-Zag' All ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns in Rat's company, that are not Bogged Down or Bailed Out, who moved at least 6"/15cm towards any enemy team or Objective in their previous Movement Step, and are hit in the enemy Shooting Step, may roll a die for each hit they are allocated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle of Moscow
    Centre for Comparative and Public History Department of History Chinese University of Hong Kong In-Service Teacher Training Course Conflicts and Cooperation in the Twentieth-Century World Lecture 3:3: “World War II” Source 6 The Battle of Moscow Context: To the German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, Moscow was the key to bringing about the surrender of the Soviet Union. From October 1941 to January 1942, the Soviet capital served as the key battle ground between the German Wehrmacht and the Soviet Red Army. The successful defense of Moscow became a rallying point for opponents of the Axis and sowed seeds of mistrust and dissension at German military headquarters. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_of_moscow05.jpg Questions: 1. Given Germany’s remarkable success in the first two years of World War II, how were the Allies able to turn the tide and defeat the Nazi forces? 2. What advances in technologies and tactics altered military tactics and outcomes during World War II. Assignment: Divide the class into groups and assign them each a notable World War II military battle or campaign, e.g. the invasion of Poland (Operation Fall Weiss), Battle of France (Fall Gelb), Battle of Britain (plus Operation Sealion), Siege of Leningrad, Battle of Moscow, North African Campaign (the Desert War), Battle of Sicily, Battle of Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Berlin. Require each group to report on the combatants’ tactics, the importance of the encounter, and the outcome. Their reports can be fashioned in a variety of ways - dispatches to headquarters, letters to relatives, or newspaper accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • River Flotillas in Support of Defensive Ground Operations: the Soviet Experience
    The Journal of Slavic Military Studies ISSN: 1351-8046 (Print) 1556-3006 (Online) Journal homepage: http://tandfonline.com/loi/fslv20 River Flotillas in Support of Defensive Ground Operations: The Soviet Experience Lester W. Grau To cite this article: Lester W. Grau (2016) River Flotillas in Support of Defensive Ground Operations: The Soviet Experience, The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 29:1, 73-98, DOI: 10.1080/13518046.2016.1129875 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2016.1129875 Published online: 16 Feb 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 51 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fslv20 Download by: [Combined Arms Research Library] Date: 09 May 2016, At: 10:45 JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES 2016, VOL. 29, NO. 1, 73–98 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13518046.2016.1129875 River Flotillas in Support of Defensive Ground Operations: The Soviet Experience Lester W. Grau Foreign Military Studies Oce ABSTRACT In the history of warfare, ground and naval forces frequently have to cooperate. There are usually problems putting these two forces together since their missions, equipment, training, communications and mutual unfamiliarity get in the way. These problems are common during transport of ground force equipment and personnel aboard naval vessels, exacer- bated during amphibious landings and assaults and very di- cult when operating together along major rivers. This article analyzes the Soviet history of defensive river otilla combat during the rst period of the Great Patriotic War (World War II against Germany).
    [Show full text]
  • Subject Listing of Numbered Documents in M1934, OSS WASHINGTON SECRET INTELLIGENCE/SPECIAL FUNDS RECORDS, 1942-46
    Subject Listing of Numbered Documents in M1934, OSS WASHINGTON SECRET INTELLIGENCE/SPECIAL FUNDS RECORDS, 1942-46 Roll # Doc # Subject Date To From 1 0000001 German Cable Company, D.A.T. 4/12/1945 State Dept.; London, American Maritime Delegation, Horta American Embassy, OSS; (Azores), (McNiece) Washington, OSS 1 0000002 Walter Husman & Fabrica de Produtos Alimonticios, "Cabega 5/29/1945 State Dept.; OSS Rio de Janeiro, American Embassy Branca of Sao Paolo 1 0000003 Contraband Currency & Smuggling of Wrist Watches at 5/17/1945 Washington, OSS Tangier, American Mission Tangier 1 0000004 Shipment & Movement of order for watches & Chronographs 3/5/1945 Pierce S.A., Switzerland Buenos Aires, American Embassy from Switzerland to Argentine & collateral sales extended to (Manufactures) & OSS (Vogt) other venues/regions (Washington) 1 0000005 Brueghel artwork painting in Stockholm 5/12/1945 Stockholm, British Legation; London, American Embassy London, American Embassy & OSS 1 0000006 Investigation of Matisse painting in possession of Andre Martin 5/17/1945 State Dept.; Paris, British London, American Embassy of Zurich Embassy, London, OSS, Washington, Treasury 1 0000007 Rubens painting, "St. Rochus," located in Stockholm 5/16/1945 State Dept.; Stockholm, British London, American Embassy Legation; London, Roberts Commission 1 0000007a Matisse painting held in Zurich by Andre Martin 5/3/1945 State Dept.; Paris, British London, American Embassy Embassy 1 0000007b Interview with Andre Martiro on Matisse painting obtained by 5/3/1945 Paris, British Embassy London, American Embassy Max Stocklin in Paris (vice Germans allegedly) 1 0000008 Account at Banco Lisboa & Acores in name of Max & 4/5/1945 State Dept.; Treasury; Lisbon, London, American Embassy (Peterson) Marguerite British Embassy 1 0000008a Funds transfer to Regerts in Oporto 3/21/1945 Neutral Trade Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • Quiet in the Rear: the Wehrmacht and the Weltanschauungskrieg in the Occupation of the Soviet Union
    Quiet in the Rear: The Wehrmacht and the Weltanschauungskrieg in the Occupation of the Soviet Union by Justin Harvey A thesis presented to the University Of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master Of Arts in History Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2018 © Justin Harvey 2018 I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Historians widely acknowledge that the Second World War witnessed a substantial degree of ideology in the conflict itself. This paper will establish the degree to which the ideology of National Socialism shaped the Wehrmacht’s decision-making process prior to and during their occupation of the Soviet Union, as well as the outcomes of those decisions. To this end, those in positions of authority in the military – including Hitler himself, the OKW, the OKH and various subordinate commanders – will be examined to determine how National Socialist tenets shaped their plans and efforts to quell and exploit the occupied Soviet Union. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my most profound gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Alexander Statiev, for guiding me as this project came together. Your patience and support in this process were greatly appreciated. This work is dedicated to my grandfather, Jack Harvey, whom I never met, but whose service in the RCAF in the Second World War first inspired me to engage in the serious study of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Lithuania and the Jews the Holocaust Chapter
    UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM CENTER FOR ADVANCED HOLOCAUST STUDIES Lithuania and the Jews The Holocaust Chapter Symposium Presentations W A S H I N G T O N , D. C. Lithuania and the Jews The Holocaust Chapter Symposium Presentations CENTER FOR ADVANCED HOLOCAUST STUDIES UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM 2004 The assertions, opinions, and conclusions in this occasional paper are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council or of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. First printing, July 2005 Copyright © 2005 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Contents Foreword.......................................................................................................................................... i Paul A. Shapiro and Carl J. Rheins Lithuanian Collaboration in the “Final Solution”: Motivations and Case Studies........................1 Michael MacQueen Key Aspects of German Anti-Jewish Policy...................................................................................17 Jürgen Matthäus Jewish Cultural Life in the Vilna Ghetto .......................................................................................33 David G. Roskies Appendix: Biographies of Contributors.........................................................................................45 Foreword Centuries of intellectual, religious, and cultural achievements distinguished Lithuania as a uniquely important center of traditional Jewish arts and learning. The Jewish community
    [Show full text]