Suchergebnisse

"Love Between Enemies explores the forbidden relationships which formed between foreign prisoners of war and German women during the Second World War. From the desire to have fun to deep love commitments, this study examines the range of motivations which lay behind these relationships, tapping into new documents and drawing on thousands of court cases to offer a transnational analysis of personal relations between enemies. Highlighting gender roles, the contradictory reactions of the communities surrounding the couples, and the diplomatic tensions resulting from the severe punishments, this is a history of everyday life which throws light on this subversive aspect of intimacy in wartime Nazi Germany. Comparing the "transgressing" couples to other groups persecuted for their cultural or private choices, Scheck demonstrates how the relationships were silenced or justified in the post-war memory of prisoners, while the German women, who had been publicly shamed, continued to live with the stigma, and even illegitimate children, for the years that followed"--

"Germany, 1871-1945 presents a pragmatic interpretation of German history, from the unification to the end of the Nazi regime. This more open approach acknowledges the strong trend in German society towards modernization and democratization, particularly before 1914, while also highlighting the factors which propelled Germany toward World War I. The rise of the Nazis also demands a close analysis of the economic and political instability of the 1920s and early 1930s. Finally, a detailed assessment of the Third Reich explains how the regime's early successes fostered a loyalty and acceptance that remained hard to shake until disaster was obvious and unavoidable."--Jacket

Given that the Geneva Convention of 1929 placed prisoners of war under the laws of the detaining state, Nazi courts martial could sentence prisoners of war for offences that did not exist in the western democracies, such as insults to the Führer, or severely punish them for acts leading only to mild disciplinary sanctions in Britain or America. Moreover, convicted prisoners of war had to experience the singularly brutal German prison system. These asymmetries, which influenced the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war of 1949, challenge the paradigm of reciprocity and symmetry in prisoner of war regimes between Germany and the western countries in World War II.

The fact that the Geneva Convention of 1929 placed prisoners of war (POWs) under the laws in effect in the army of the detaining state meant that western POWs in Nazi Germany were exposed to the extremely repressive Nazi wartime legislation. Hundreds of western POWs had to appear in front of German court martials as a result of a joke on Hitler, a critical comment on the conditions of captivity or the behavior of German soldiers. They were judged under the Nazi anti-subversion laws, which led to thousands of death sentences for civilians and German soldiers (although none for a western POW). Even private remarks in a letter to family could lead to several years in military prison. German judicial practice against POWs became more repressive as cases multiplied and as the judges and civilian witnesses became more nervous toward the end of the war, leading to rapid and harsh judgments based on dubious evidence and frivolous denunciations. The court martials sometimes reflected the attitudes and subversive thoughts of German witnesses. The fact that the sentences were legal according to the Geneva Convention of 1929 prompted the drafters of the 1949 Geneva Convention to revise the provisions for trials of POWs.

The breadth and complexity of Lemkin's definition of "genocide" results from several influences during the time he developed the concept. One of them is a belief that Nazi Germany was engineering a demographic revolution that would leave Germany predominant in Europe regardless of the outcome of the military conflict. This notion facilitated the assumption of a coherent cynical motivation behind disparate policies, laws, and decrees. Second, Lemkin's daily work for the U.S. Government reinforced his focus on economic and legal matters and helps to explain why they occupy such a prominent place in his book Axis Rule. His job provided Lemkin with good access to information and encouraged a detailed analysis of Nazi occupation techniques, but it prioritized economic exploitation over atrocities, with a view to restitution after the liberation of the occupied territories. Third, Lemkin's strong focus on the law and his belief in the curative effect of law, although already evident before the war, was reinforced by his desire to prove German violations to a hesitant American public and by his hope to contribute to a legal condemnation of genocide in all of its forms after the war. This focus favored Nazi violations of international law that could be proven through legal texts and therefore led to a broad definition of genocidal acts while obscuring the most heinous crimes.

The breadth and complexity of Lemkin's definition of "genocide" results from several influences during the time he developed the concept. One of them is a belief that Nazi Germany was engineering a demographic revolution that would leave Germany predominant in Europe regardless of the outcome of the military conflict. This notion facilitated the assumption of a coherent cynical motivation behind disparate policies, laws, and decrees. Second, Lemkin's daily work for the U.S. Government reinforced his focus on economic and legal matters and helps to explain why they occupy such a prominent place in his book Axis Rule. His job provided Lemkin with good access to information and encouraged a detailed analysis of Nazi occupation techniques, but it prioritized economic exploitation over atrocities, with a view to restitution after the liberation of the occupied territories. Third, Lemkin's strong focus on the law and his belief in the curative effect of law, although already evident before the war, was reinforced by his desire to prove German violations to a hesitant American public and by his hope to contribute to a legal condemnation of genocide in all of its forms after the war. This focus favored Nazi violations of international law that could be proven through legal texts and therefore led to a broad definition of genocidal acts while obscuring the most heinous crimes.