Talk:Johannes Blaskowitz

WP:MILHIST Assessment
Article needs expansion overall, wherever possible or applicable. Introduction especially needs expansion - what distinguishes him from other German WWII generals? LordAmeth 20:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2004 Encyclopedia Britannica computer disc, Blaskowitz was a "German field marshal," although the date on which he attained that rank was not indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.189.90 (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If in fact it said that then it's wrong. Hitler didn't care for him and would have never promoted him to that rank.__209.179.60.161 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

War crimes
From the description, Gen. Blaskowitz blatantly opposed the SS atrocities. What war crimes was he accused of? What chance did he have of being convicted?


 * The specific trial became known as the "High Command Trial," the actual title however was "United States of America v. Wilhelm von Leeb, et al. (Case 12). It was something of a follow-on to the unsuccessful effort at the prior IMT court to establish collective responsibility of the General Staff.  The crimes were crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.


 * I'm not entirely certain what criteria were used to pick the defendants, who seem an odd mixture; my tentative guess is that the inclusion of Blaskowitz was merely a tragically ironic coincidence; alternatively, perhaps they were aware of his protests and intended to use them as evidence of the 'guilty mind' of high ranking officers and their knowledge of what was going on. 142.167.169.231 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen a less citationed article in wiki. Any citations - factual not reliable. Are his memos to Hitler,etc available? It seems almost myhtical that he could oppose Hitler and the SS so oprnly and return to command and prosper, actually more that mythical,downright impossible(this definitely needs citations.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1) The charges likely had much to do with his control over occupied Netherlands during the "Hunger Winter" following Operation Market garden. They were likely dismissed because besides placed in charge of the forces in the area he didn't actively repress the population and refused to fire on Allied planes which were dropping food to the civilian population.

2) There are MANY high-ranking officers who opposed Hitler and the SS, both openly and more low-key. The thing that makes Blaskowitz distinct is that unlike the majority of the officers who openly opposed Hitler or the SS on occasion, it wasn't due to meddling in army affairs. Blaskowitz opposed over moral concerns. Hitler meddled in strategic affairs and many of the OKW hated him for it, and openly opposed him on occasion. This is one of the reasons tensions between the Wehrmacht and Hitler grew so much during the war, and he came to rely more on the SS. The tired response the officers would say to "Why didn't you oppose Hitler?" is "I would've been shot" - this has perpetuated a myth that high-ranking officers would be shot for disagreeing or opposing - they wouldn't. They just wouldn't. They would be relieved of command - as Blaskowitz was - but after 1943 things became exceedingly desperate and the need for experienced commanders led Hitler to give him another posting - he agreed.

The reason you don't believe it is due more to your misconceptions of history. Let's not edit pages due to misconceptions. 2601:87:4400:AF2:84D7:679C:1DA0:C7F6 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Blaskowitz or Von Blaskowitz?
This article seems to switch between referring to the general as "Blaskowitz" and as "Von Blaskowitz" at random. The two are not synonymous; "von" designates a member of the junker class. It is a common mistake to randomly insert "von"s into German names, as in the frequent error "Erich von Ludendorff" for WWI's Erich Ludendorff. In this article, the actual article is titled "Johannes Blaskowitz", but then the introduction immediately redubs him "Johannes von Blaskowitz". Which is it? Whoever knows should make appropriate edits to the page to ensure consistency. Segregold (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is definitely "Blaskowitz" without "von". I've corrected everything (hopefully). --Bernardoni (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * @Segregold It should be said that even when the name contains the von, whether it is used as part of the last name is a matter of style. For instance, according to the American Psychological Association 7th edition style, only when there is an article along with the preposition should the preposition be part of last names. So, it'd need to be "von der" or "vom". 2804:14C:6586:553C:2A2B:FEB5:F5B0:C66E (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Suicide, or ... ?
Richard Giziowski, in The Enigma of General Blaskowitz — which I confess I haven't read — reportedly argues that Blaskowitz did not commit suicide, but was murdered by other high-ranking Wehrmacht officers who wanted to avoid his disclosures about their crimes during the Nazi era. I was surprised to find that neither this entry, nor the one on German Wiki, reference this theory. I was thinking about buying Giziowski's book. Now I'm wondering how credible its premise might be. Any info out there?


 * Hippocrene Books,1996. ISBN-10: 0781805031; ISBN-13: 978-0781805032.

Sca (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Poland: Plotting Hitler's Death, by Fest. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Blaskowitz would have preferred a different approach, but ...
... in the end he shared the overall objective of german rule in Poland, when he said: ''Es ist abwegig, einige Tausend Juden und Polen, so wie es augenblicklich geschieht, abzuschlachten; denn damit werden angesichts der Masse der Bevölkerung weder die polnische Staatsidee totgeschlagen noch die Juden beseitigt. Im Gegenteil, die Art und Weise der Abschlachtung bringt größten Schaden mit sich. (cit. following: Klaus-Jürgen Müller: "Das Heer und Hitler", Stuttgart 1969, p. 448) That means: It is devious, to slaughter several thousands of jews and poles, as it happens right now; because in consideration of the masses of population, neither the idea of a polish state is beaten to death nor a disposal of the jews is achieved. On the contrary, the method of slaughter entails the greatest disadvantage.'' - The defenders of this truly "christian general", like C. Clark, sure will comment such a statement in the way the Blasko was forced to camoflage his friendliness towards jews and poles by a language sounding nazi, but doesn't that appear a bit weak, in face of this brutal line, with due respect... --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of his phrasing and what he may have meant, his complicity in the German war effort - and his knowledge of and proximity to various crimes against humanity in Poland, France, and the Netherlands - pretty clearly cements him as an accomplice in it all. A willing cog in the machinery of murder, if you want to be poetic about it. In fact, it's as a case-study in the insidious influence on the Wehrmacht and the acquiescence of highly-ranked officers to the various trespasses of the regime that Blaskowitz is perhaps most pertinent to the wider historiography of the conflict. That said, it doesn't seem to me that the APPROACHES alone differed, the SS and the Nazi leadership had goals that went far beyond "German rule in Poland" and I'm sure we both know how far-reaching their plans for the occupied East were - and would become - during the course of the war. Whether Blaskowitz was incredibly naïve of the extent of these goals or what, it's up to interpretation as you've demonstrated but his actions and statements - even the statement you've transcribed - seem like a strange assertion to make if he knew the plan was to be the complete removal of the Jewish populace and the removal or complete subjugation of the Polish, which was the intended end-goal of the German leadership. As you've noted, he said that "...in consideration of the masses of the population, neither the idea of a Polish state is beaten to death nor a disposal of the Jews is achieved" - if the end-goal is the eventual destruction of those populations, why would Blaskowitz state their existence as an intractable factor that necessitates a change in policy? That to me indicates that not merely the approaches differed, but that Blaskowitz's understanding of the aims of the occupation itself were not in line with the reality being put into motion by his superiors. It almost sounds condescending, in a way - that he's aware of the fatalistic rhetoric that was disseminated, but discounts it as "pie in the sky" and unrealistic as if to say "I know you want to destroy the idea of a Polish state and to remove the Jews altogether but your rhetoric has made the ACTUAL job here difficult, look what these SS radicals are doing" which is totally me reading into it, granted, but would also explain why he sentenced SS men to be executed and wrote to his superiors as if they DIDN'T directly order the behavior in the first place. If Blaskowitz knew better, then why did he complain to the very people that sanctioned that behavior and expect results? Context makes a world of difference in trying to piece things together. It's better to ere on the side of caution and not treat interpretations as fact, but it's also important to look at these kinds of things from multiple angles.

Don't get me wrong, I by no means think that his actions were due to his "friendliness towards Jews and Poles" - Blaskowitz would've had a personal stake in the occupation. He was Prussian, after all, and would absolutely consider the notion of a Polish state anathema to his aspirations of German rule in the area - but foreign occupiers dismantling a state and the extermination of entire populations are not the same thing and I think history attests to the differences therein.

Perhaps this is where your quote really comes into focus - if we go with my hypothetical that Blaskowitz understanding (or perhaps his personal aspirations or hopes) of the end-result of the occupation of Poland and the Nazi leadership's end-result differed, then it's still possible to interpret Blaskowitz statement as a cold, purely strategic consideration rather than an appeal to humanity or decency (though his actions in regard to specific trespasses and the doggedness of his attempts to initiate policy change, even to the point of harming his own position point towards some level of humanistic motivation to a degree, but that's just my personal take on the matter - he could simply be acknowledging the more tangible benefits of said humanistic approach - the morale of the men in the Wehrmacht for instance, which he also directly references in correspondence or perhaps even the view of Germany and of the Wehrmacht on the world stage - a prestige thing - he doesn't have to be Mother Theresa), in his mind - he wants stable German rule in Poland including the parts he personally considers to be his homeland, these crimes against the Jewish and Polish population do little to stabilize the situation and will only inflame tensions and further alienate the populace which endangers the German position and the potential future he envisions, therefore he acts against this behavior - seeing it as aberrant to the stability he's been charged with administering, unaware that "stability" is not the goal - but rather a complete upheaval of the social and cultural make-up of the region.

In this context, Blaskowitz is of a totally different mindset of his superiors - not necessarily a benevolent one but a more classically 'colonial' attitude towards the occupied peoples. I say this because later in France he would adopt much the same posture regarding the local populace, and elaborate on it more. It's also important to consider his professional character. It might seem baffling that Blaskowitz could be so naïve as to not see the strings of the SS men in Poland being pulled by his superiors in Berlin, but Blaskowitz adamantly clung to his Prussian ideal of the 'apolitical soldier' - a fallacy given his situation but one that he so earnestly believed that he was considered a non-starter as a potential member of the German military resistance even despite his history of chafing against the regime, and a value that is consistent for him his entire career, whether he was in the Kaiser's army, the Weimar Republic's, or Nazi Germany's.

I have not read C. Clark on the matter, so I don't know if he tries to make Blaskowitz out to be some God-fearing, human rights-avenging, model of resistance within the Wehrmacht - but regardless of Blaskowitz personal thoughts on the matter or what he said in correspondence, or what he MEANT by what he said in correspondence, he is forever damned by virtue of his continued participation in the regime throughout the war, including a written reaffirmation of his loyalty to Hitler following the failed coup. His stubbornly-followed principle of "apolitical service" ironically contributing to his culpability in the excesses of the regime - a regime in which "being apolitical" was impossible - despite his continued self-delusion to the contrary. His story is illustrative of just how Prussian military values and the Wehrmacht's internal culture made it susceptible to supporting such a regime and actively engaging in its worst crimes.

Not to get too "the banality of evil" on you or anything, but I don't think it's too out there to assert that had Blaskowitz been in almost any other military during the conflict he would not have been a war criminal. It speaks to the dangers of regimes like Nazi Germany that they can take otherwise-unremarkable people and turn them into willing instruments of their depravity, all the while letting them delude themselves with a façade of nonparticipation. The damage these types of people cause is truly felt in aggregate and facilitated by either their unwillingness or inability to confront their own complicity. When viewed at an individual level, it doesn't seem like they've done anything wrong at all because the guilt is collective and dispersed among the whole, and by making the guilt collective the true-believers and leadership in something like Nazism shackle themselves to the rest of the people who are not as enamored with the regime, forcing them on to the same sinking ship, and selling them on the lie that their fates are intrinsically shared, in turn making them fight on and sacrifice more and compromise more of their own integrity and humanity. I think Blaskowitz was one of these people more than anything else. 2601:87:4400:BEC0:9863:B4D:CFE8:23D6 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @2601:87:4400:BEC0:9863:B4D:CFE8:23D6 I suspect he killed himself because he agreed with you. As a psychologist, the first thing that came to mind when I read about his death was that he was certainly haunted by his role in the war. If ideological Nazis had trouble (famously the person who had the idea for Auschwitz became psychotic having hallucinating about the death of Jewish people), it's likely that he also did. And these things have a way of getting worse when you do all that and still lose. Perhaps his idea of redemption was suffering in prison or being put to death as a result of the trial, and when that did happen, he killed himself. It certainly fits the psychopathology of it all. 2804:14C:6586:553C:2A2B:FEB5:F5B0:C66E (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)