HIAG

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
HIAG
Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit der Angehörigen der ehemaligen Waffen-SS
Jubilant crowd at a HIAG convention. Kurt Meyer standing with his fist in the air, while Paul Hausser looks on
Kurt Meyer (standing, left) cheers the crowd at a HIAG convention, while Paul Hausser (seated, center) looks on
Successor War Grave Memorial Foundation "When All Brothers Are Silent" (Kriegsgräberstiftung 'Wenn alle Brüder schweigen') (informal)
Formation 1951
Founded at Bonn, West Germany
Extinction 1992
Type Advocacy group; in later history: right-wing group
Purpose Legal, economic and historical rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS
Methods Lobbying, outreach to political parties, annual conventions, historical revisionism
Membership
20,000 in the early 1960s
Key people
Paul Hausser, Otto Kumm, Felix Steiner, Kurt Meyer, Herbert Otto Gille, Sepp Dietrich, Wilhelm Bittrich, Erich Kern, Hubert Meyer
Main organ
Der Freiwillige ("The volunteer")

HIAG (German: Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit der Angehörigen der ehemaligen Waffen-SS, literally "Mutual aid association of former Waffen-SS members") was a lobby group and a revisionist veteran's organisation founded by former high-ranking Waffen-SS personnel in West Germany in 1951. It campaigned for the legal, economic and historical rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS, using contacts with political parties to manipulate them for its purposes.

HIAG's historical revisionism encompassed multi-prong propaganda efforts, including periodicals, books and public speeches, alongside a publishing house that served as a platform for its publicity aims. This extensive body of work – 57 book titles and more than 50 years of monthly periodicals – have been described by historians as revisionist apologia.

Always in touch with its Nazi past, HIAG was a subject of significant controversy, both in West Germany and abroad. The organisation drifted into right-wing extremism in its later history; it was disbanded in 1992 at the federal level, but local groups, along with the organisation's monthly periodical, continued to exist at least through the 2000s, possibly into the 2010s.

While HIAG only partially achieved its goals of legal and economic rehabilitation of Waffen-SS, its propaganda efforts led to the reshaping of the image of Waffen-SS in popular culture. The results are still felt, with scholarly treatments being out-weighed by a large amount of amateur historical studies, memoirs, picture books, websites and wargames.

Post-World War II context

The Potsdam Conference held by the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and United States from 17 July to 2 August 1945 largely determined the occupation policies that the defeated country was to face. These included demilitarization, denazification, democratization and decentralization. The Allies' often crude and ineffective implementation caused local population to dismiss the process as "noxious mixture of moralism and 'victors' justice'".[1]

For those in the Western zones of occupation, the arrival of the Cold War undermined the democratization process further by seemingly justifying the key tenet of Hitler's foreign and military policies — the fight against Soviet communism.[2]

Another important post-war development was the decision to rearm West Germany. In 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean War, it became clear to the Americans that a German army would have to be revived to help face off against the Soviet Union. Many former German officers were convinced, however, that no future German army would be possible without the rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht. To this end, in October 1950, a group of former senior officers produced a document, which became known as the "Himmeroder Memorandum", for West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. It included these key demands:

  • All German soldiers convicted as war criminals (Kriegsverurteilte) would be released;
  • The "defamation" of the German soldier, including those of the Waffen-SS, would have to cease;
  • The "measures to transform both domestic and foreign public opinion" with regards to the German military would need to be taken.[3]

Adenauer accepted these propositions and in turn advised the representatives of the three Western powers that German armed forces would not be possible as long as German soldiers remained in custody. To accommodate the West German government, the Allies commuted a number of war crimes sentences. Public declarations from Dwight D. Eisenhower and other American military leaders followed in early 1951, saying that there was "a real difference between the German soldier and Hitler and his criminal group".[3]

In the same year (1951), some former career officers of the Wehrmacht were granted war pensions under the Article 131 of the Common Law. Unlike the Wehrmacht, the SS had been deemed a criminal organisation at Nuremberg and could thus act as an "alibi of a nation" (as the Gerald Reitlinger's 1956 book of that title suggested). The SS was the entity onto which all crimes of the Nazi regime were conveniently shifted. Consequently, Waffen-SS career soldiers were not covered under the 1951 law.[4]

It looked like the political climate was changing and the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted in 1949. Encouraged by the shifting tone of the World War II discourse and the courting of the Wehrmacht's veterans by the West German government and political parties, former Waffen-SS members came forward to campaign for their rights.[5]

Formation

HIAG began in late 1950 as a loose association of local "support groups". The majority of participants were officers, most often of junior grades. In the summer of 1951, HIAG was formally established by a former SS-Brigadeführer, Otto Kumm. By October 1951, HIAG consisted of 376 local branches across the whole Federal Republic.[6][7]

Leadership

File:Paul Hausser and Kurt Meyer-at HIAG meeting 1957.png
Paul Hausser and Kurt Meyer chat during a two-day HIAG convention in Karlsburg, in July 1957

In December 1951, the former high-ranking Waffen-SS member Paul Hausser became HIAG's first spokesperson.[8] Two well-known former Waffen-SS commanders — Felix Steiner and Herbert Otto Gille — became early leading figures.[9] Sepp Dietrich[10] and Kurt Meyer[11] became active members upon their release from prison, in 1955 and 1954 respectively; Meyer became HIAG's most effective spokesman.[9] After Meyer's death in 1961, Erich Eberhardt, formerly of SS Division Totenkopf, assumed that role.[12] As of 1977, Wilhelm Bittrich served as the chairman.[13] Those in the leadership roles held high wartime SS ranks ranging from SS-Oberst-Gruppenführer to SS-Obersturmbannführer.

Ostensibly, HAIG existed to provide aid to veterans, but it included many members who were convicted war criminals.[14] These included Bittrich, Dietrich, Meyer and Gustav Lombard. Kumm managed to avoid extradition to Yugoslavia to stand trial for war crimes by fleeing over the wall of the Dachau internment camp.[15]

Organisational principles

With the publication of its first periodical in late 1951, HIAG was beginning to draw attention to itself and generate public controversy, including speculation that it was a neo-Nazi organization. In response, Hausser wrote an open letter to the Bundestag denying these accusations and describing the HIAG as an advocacy organisation for former Waffen-SS troops. Hausser asserted that its members rejected all forms of "radicalism" and were "upstanding citizens".[16]

The HIAG bylaws of 1952 described the aims of the organisation as providing comradeship, legal assistance, support for those in Allied captivity, help for families, and aid in searches for those still missing. The HIAG campaigned for Waffen-SS veterans to be awarded the legal status of "persons formerly in the public service" under article 131 of the Basic Law, so that they would qualify for the same rights and pensions as Wehrmacht's career soldiers.[8]

The historian David C. Large wrote that, like any public pronouncements, these bylaws did not tell the full story HIAG's real goals. By investigating how these statutes were applied in practice, he was able to tease out what the organisation stood for.[17]

HIAG claimed to represent the entire Waffen-SS apparatus – the former members, the fallen, and their families – 500,000 in total. In reality, the organisation's rolls did not exceed 20,000. HIAG attained this number in the late 1950s, and held it until the early 1960s.[17]

The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"; these claims were even "more dubious", explains Large. As a Nazi organization combining both military and police powers, Waffen-SS was a military arm of the SS: its members stood under SS jurisdiction separate from that of the Wehrmacht; personnel transitioned smoothly between the frontline formations, punitive detachments and SS concentration camp organisation; and the frontline units themselves were thoroughly implicated in atrocities during the campaigns in the West and in the East, and in the aktionen against civilian population in the Soviet Union and Poland.[18]

The Waffen-SS had played a "paramount role in the ideological war of annihilation", and not just as frontline formations: a third of the Einsatzgruppen (mobile death squad) members which were responsible for mass killings, especially of Jews and communists, had been recruited from Waffen-SS personnel prior to the invasion of the Soviet Union.[19]

On the other hand, as the war progressed and the rosters of Waffen-SS swelled with volunteers and, from 1943, conscripts, Waffen-SS personnel did begin to resemble the Wehrmacht in their experiences. It was this dual quality of the Waffen-SS that contributed to the postwar confusion as to its role and status and allowed the Waffen-SS proponents to put forth the idea of Waffen-SS personnel being soldiers "like all others". (Large argues that while this distinction needs to be kept in mind, it should not be overly stressed, as the Wehrmacht also actively participated in Nazi atrocities, and thus the "clean Wehrmacht" is a myth.)[20]

Ideology

Although political affiliations were discouraged by HIAG's leaders, any leanings were to be "in the spirit of European and patriotic sentiment", as quoted from a 1951 issue of Wiking-Ruf ("Viking Call"), HIAG's first publication.[21]

Internal disagreements began to emerge in the mid-1950s as to the stance of the organisation: Steiner, Gille and Meyer favored a more political, outspoken orientation. The rest of the leadership favored a moderate approach in order not to jeopardize HIAG's goals of legal and economic rehabilitation, which, in their opinion, could only come from the establishment: the government and the Bundestag.[22]

Waffen-SS advocacy

The main stated aims of the organisation were to provide assistance to veterans and campaign for the rehabilitation of their legal status with respect to war pensions. During its early existence, HIAG also focused on "help-find-lost-comrades" actions (Kameraden-Suchdienst).[21]

Public activities

HIAG embraced the Suchdienst activities, not only because it was concerned for the fate of some 40,000 members of the Waffen-SS who were missing in action, but because this outwardly humanitarian and non-political activity could help improve its image with the West German government and the public. Such "image polishing" was important to HIAG as it faced on-going scrutiny, and even calls for a ban on the organisation.[23]

The Suchdiensttreffen events (literally: tracing service meetings) later evolved into annual "veterans' reunions" (Kameradschaftstreffen), which were in fact large-scale conventions, often accompanied by rallies.[21] These conventions, which were in effect used for political purposes, added to the controversy surrounding the organisation.[24] (See also "Controversies" section below.)

Along with other veterans' organisations, HIAG campaigned for the immediate amnesty and early release of war criminals (Kriegsverurteilte) still in Allied captivity. This issue was significant, as most of these organisations made their cooperation in the area of rearmament contingent on the satisfactory resolution in this area. It was partly for this reason that the West German government was sympathetic to the fate of these individuals and made every effort to secure their early release. Chancellor Adenauer even met with Kurt Meyer in Werl Prison when he went there on an inspection tour.[25]

Relationship with political parties

Behind the scenes, HIAG cultivated close relationships with the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the main opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD), garnering attention by inflating its membership numbers and influence. In meetings with politicians in the early 1950s, HIAG claimed to represent 2 million potential voters, a vast exaggeration as only 250,000 Waffen-SS veterans were living in West Germany at that time.[26]

HIAG was successful in stoking politicians' fears that millions of disaffected former soldiers would be a threat to the nascent West German democracy. That is perhaps why SPD leader Kurt Schumacher, who himself had been persecuted by the Nazis, decided to establish contact with HIAG. When he first met with its leaders in 1951, Schumacher believed that 150,000 people were already members of HIAG, as evidenced by internal party correspondence; he considered that number to be "politically significant". In the same letter, Schumacher referred to the Waffen-SS as a "branch of the Wehrmacht".[27]

Later, the SPD defense policy expert Fritz Erler and Helmut Schmidt, a member of SPD parliamentary delegation and a future Chancellor of West Germany, handled the relationship with HIAG. They maintained close contact, attending private and public meetings and keeping regular correspondence. They often admonished HIAG leadership for the membership's "undemocratic" ways, but these efforts at reforming the veterans were futile. Such dealing with the "unteachables" (Unbelehrbaren) only succeeded in causing concerns within SPD, as evidenced by internal party correspondence.[28][26]

HIAG found its best champion in the center-right Free Democratic Party (FDP), whose platform was most closely aligned to its goals. The FDP voted against the de-nazification process in 1950; demanded the release of all "so-called war criminals" in 1951; and welcomed the establishment of veterans' organization of former Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS members. However, as only a coalition partner to the larger CDU and SPD, it could not deliver on what HIAG wanted; hence, the main thrust of HIAG's lobbying was directed at CDU and SPD, especially during the election years.[29]

Results

Lobbying by HIAG and other revisionists produced some early successes. In 1953, Chancellor Adenauer announced in a public speech in Hannover that members of the combat formations of the Waffen-SS had been "soldiers just like the rest" who had been "simply drafted". (Large describes this declaration as "irresponsible and unhistorical",[30] while the military historian S.P. MacKenzie refers to it, when used in reference to the Western front, as "the least credible" of the several claims put forth by Waffen-SS apologists. He points out that, in the East, the Wehrmacht equaled the Waffen-SS in its brutality, so the attempted equivalence was "rather ironic".[31])

In the following months, a number of war criminals from the ranks of the Waffen-SS were released. Many of them were made eligible for prisoner-of-war compensation from local governments. In 1956 the German Ministry of Defence announced that former members of the Waffen-SS, up to the grade of lieutenant colonel, would be accepted to the Bundeswehr at their old rank.[11]

Former Waffen-SS men who wished to join the Bundeswehr still faced heightened scrutiny. All Waffen-SS applicants went through the rigorous vetting process reserved only for those with the higher ranks in the Wehrmacht. HIAG protested to the government and its military planners, but to no avail. As a result, by September 1956, only 33 of 1310 applications by ex-Waffen-SS officers had been accepted (making them 0.4% of the Bundeswehr's officer corps), as compared to 195 of 462 applications by enlisted men.[4]

At its height in the early 1960s around 8% of the approximately 250,000 former Waffen-SS members living in West Germany were members of HIAG.[32] This was the timeframe when HIAG achieved its last success in the economic rehabilitation: in 1961, the West German government partially restored pension rights to Waffen-SS personnel under the the 131 legislation. Included were those former Waffen-SS members who had served for a minimum of 10 years strictly in the military capacity, thus amounting to a tiny number of eligible personnel. HIAG greeted this development as a partial victory, which they hoped would lead to a complete rehabilitation.[33]

But this wider aim proved impossible to achieve: the government was circumspect as rehabilitating the Waffen-SS would have opened the door to claims by personnel of other SS and Nazi organisations, including SA, SD, Hitler Youth, and others – a prospect Bonn would rather not have raised either domestically or internationally. The public image of the organisation was not helping either, because some of the more outspoken HIAG members sounded "alarmingly Nazi in their pronouncements".[6][30]

Historical revisionism

Ever since the Nuremberg Trials, the defenders of the Waffen-SS argued that it was a purely military organisation no different from the Wehrmacht. The prosecution at Nuremberg rejected that claim and successfully argued that the Waffen-SS was an integral part of the SS apparatus. The Tribunal found that "the units of the Waffen-SS were directly involved in the killings of the prisoners of war and the atrocities in the occupied countries" and judged the entire SS to be a criminal organisation.[34]

HIAG aimed to set aside that verdict by attempting "to manipulate historical record or simply to ignore it".[35] HIAG's rewriting of history encompassed multi-prong propaganda efforts, including tendentious periodicals, books and public speeches, alongside with a publishing house to serve as a platform for its publicity aims. Restoring the tarnished image of the force was viewed by the leadership as a key component of the desired legal and economic rehabilitation, and thus no effort was spared.[36][37]

Periodicals and illustrated books

Graphic of the 1959 cover of Der Freiwillige
1959 cover of Der Freiwillige with a reference to the HIAG convention in Hamelin

HIAG's first periodical was Wiking-Ruf. It was launched by Gille in 1951 and was initially aimed at the veterans of the SS Division Wiking. Within its first year of existence, it became the official publication of HIAG. In 1955, it was renamed Der Freiwillige ("The Volunteer").[38]

In 1952, Otto Kumm published an editorial in HIAG's monthly periodical outlining the organization's grievances, previewing, in effect, the thrust of the content to come:[39]

Even during the war, and especially after the war, infamous and lying propagandists have been able to make use of all the unfortunate events connected to the Third Reich and also with the SS to destroy and drag through the mud all of what was and is sacred to us. [...] Let us be clear about it: the [Allied] battle was directed not only the authoritarian regime of the Third Reich, but, above all, against the resurgence of the strength of the German people.

Erich Kern, a far-right Austrian journalist and a former Nazi war correspondent, became the organisation's key employee responsible for its publishing arm. He first became active within HIAG in 1955, and then joined as a full-time employee in 1959. (Until his death in 1991, Kern remained an "unrepentant and unreconstructed Nazi", according to Jonathan Petropoulos.)[40]

The theme of foreign volunteers was featured prominently, with Felix Steiner lending his voice in this area. In an 1958 editorial, he praised the foreign volunteers as men of spirit who, like their German comrades, saw the "diabolical" threat to Western civilization posed by Bolshevism and "fought like lions" against it under the banner of the Waffen-SS. The picture books echoed the same themes; one of them proclaimed: "From all European lands came volunteers as genuine comrades-in-arms. They fought for their Fatherland against Bolshevism."[36]

Gossy books such as Waffen-SS in Pictures (1957) featured similar content, with "tales of valour and heroism" and "propaganda photographs of Aryan-ideal volunteers from all over the Continent".[36] In 1973, HIAG produced a five-hundred page SS picture tome under the nostalgic title When All the Brothers Are Silent.[41] Other glossy books in the same vein included Scattered are the Traces (1979), Cavalry Divisions of the Waffen-SS (1982), Panzer Grenadiers of the 'Viking' Division in Pictures (1984) and many others. (One of the cavalry units in question, SS Cavalry Brigade, was responsible for the murder of an estimated 23,700 Jews and others in July–August 1941 alone during the Pripyat swamps punitive operation. Its regimental commander Lombard reported eliminating close to 11,000 "plunderers" in the first two weeks the same operation.[42][43])

Kriegsverurteilte as victims

Photo of the 1941 SS tour of Mauthausen concentration camp; future HIAG leaders Otto Kumm, Wilhelm Bittrich and Paul Hausser took part in the tour
Otto Kumm (front row, left), Heinrich Himmler and other SS officers on tour of Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, June 1941. Wilhelm Bittrich and Paul Hausser also took part in the tour.

The notion that Waffen-SS personnel had been "soldiers like all others" found its way into the discourse of war captivity. HIAG claimed that its members were victims of victor's justice and complained of harsh internment conditions. HIAG equated the status of prisoners of war with that of war criminals, obfuscating the differences between the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS.[44]

In its periodical Wiking-Ruf, HIAG made use of the same drawings of emaciated German POWs behind barbed wire used by the publications of another post-war organization – the Association of Returnees and Families of POWs and MIAs (VdH).[44] War captivity was depicted as the last stage of the so-called ordinary military career in the Waffen-SS in books and publications of the HIAG.[45] (In its turn, VdH saw its role as a peace-seeking counterbalance to other militaristic veterans' associations such as HIAG and explicitly distanced itself from them in the early 1950s).[46]

Memoirs

The memoirs of former high-ranking Waffen-SS members invariably portrayed Waffen-SS men as "misunderstood idealists who fought honorably and well". Testimonials by former Wehrmacht generals praising the fighting qualities of the Waffen-SS were prominently displayed.[6]

Steiner's, Meyer's and Hausser's books and memoirs have been characterised by historian Charles Sydnor as the "most important works of [Waffen-SS] apologist literature". These works demanded rehabilitation of the military branch of the Nazi Party and presented Waffen-SS members as both victims and misunderstood heroes. Nothing was said on the Nazi indoctrination of the troops or the atrocities committed by them.[47]

Book cover of 1953 Waffen-SS in Action (Waffen-SS im Einsatz) by Paul Hausser
  • Paul Hausser's 1953 book Waffen-SS in Action (Waffen-SS im Einsatz) was the first major work to come from among the HIAG leaders. It had an unmistakable connection to the Nazi origins of the Waffen-SS: the SS runes on the cover art and the SS motto ('my honor is my loyalty') embossed on the cloth cover. A foreword from the former Wehrmacht general Hans Guderian provided a glowing endorsement for the Waffen-SS troops and praised them as "the first realization of the European idea". Hausser followed up by describing the growth of Waffen-SS into a so-called multinational force where foreign volunteers fought and died heroically as a "militant example of the great European idea".[48]
  • Kurt Meyer's memoirs, Grenadiers (German: Grenadiere), were published in 1957 as part of the same rehabilitation campaign and detailed his exploits at the front. He condemned the 'inhuman suffering' that the Waffen-SS personnel had been subjected to "for crimes which they neither committed, nor were able to prevent".[49] Sydnor referred to Grenadiere as "perhaps the boldest and most truculent of the apologist works".[50]
  • Felix Steiner published The Volunteers of Waffen-SS: Idea and sacrifice (German: Die Freiwilligen der Waffen-SS: Idee und Opfergang) in 1958. It presented the sacrifice messages echoing those of Der Freiwillige and stressed the theme of the purely military Waffen-SS.[51]

Both Hausser and Steiner followed up their 1950s books with works published in the 1960s. Published in 1963, Steiner's book was called The Army of Outlaws (German: Die Armee der Geächteten). Hausser's work appeared in 1966 under the title Soldiers Like Any Other (German: Soldaten wie andere auch). These works epitomised how HIAG leaders wanted the Waffen-SS to be remembered and were equally tendentious.[6][50]

Prior to the establishment of HIAG's own publishing house Munin Verlag (below), HIAG-affiliated books were predominantly published by Plesse Verlag in Göttingen.[6]

Munin Verlag imprint

HIAG established its own publishing house – Munin Verlag – in 1958.[52] The name comes from Norse mythology, popular with the right-wing movements.[53] Muninn is one of the two ravens that are the companions of the war god Odin on the battlefield; muninn is Old Norse for "memory".[54]

The aim of the publishing house was to publish the "war narratives" of former Waffen-SS members, in cooperation with HIAG. The authors of the publishing house were former Waffen-SS unit commanders or staff officers, who were members of HIAG.[37] The Munin Verlag titles did not go through the rigorous fact-checking processes common in the traditional historical literature; they were revisionist accounts unedited by professional historians and presented the former Waffen-SS members' version of events.[55]

Until HIAG's dissolution in 1992, Munin-Verlag published 57 titles.[55] The authors included Patrick Agte; Willi Fey, Albert Frey; Paul Hausser; Otto Kumm; Rudolf Lehmann; Hubert Meyer; Eberhard Wolfgang Möller; Richard Schulze-Kossens; Franz Schreiber; Hans Stöber; Peter Strassner; Ralf Tiemann (Wilhelm Mohnke's adjutant); Wilhelm Tieke; Karl Ullrich; Otto Weidinger, among others.[56]

Unit histories and biographies

Waffen-SS unit histories were produced with the assistance from HIAG from the 1950s. Former SS-Oberführer Walter Harzer became the official historian of HIAG, in charge of coordinating the writing of the histories of Waffen-SS divisions. HIAG worked with the Federal Military Archive in Freiburg to screen materials donated to it for any information that may have implicated units and personnel in questionable activity.[41] To legitimize its image, HIAG underwrote the publication of works by right-wing academics sympathetic to the Waffen-SS.[47]

The unit narratives were extensive (often in several volumes) and strived for a so-called official representation of their history: they were filled with exhaustive details on military operations, along with tales of gallantry in attack and steadfastness in defence. MacKenzie points out that "the older or the more famous the unit, the larger the work – to the point where no less than 5 volumes and well over 2,000 pages were devoted to the doings of the 2nd Panzer Division Das Reich", authored by its former officer Otto Weidinger.[36]

The unit histories, like other HIAG publications, focused on the positive, "heroic" side of National Socialism. The French author Jean-Paul Picaper, who studied the Oradour massacre that was perpetrated by the men of the Das Reich, notes the tendentious nature of Weidinger's narrative: it provided a sanitized version of history without any references to massacres.[57] Similar efforts were undertaken to rewrite the history of the Leibstandarte division, "the way the old comrades wanted it remembered". HIAG worked with Rudolf Lehmann, chief of staff of 1st SS Panzer Corps, to produce an "exculpating multi-volume chronicle", even including the Malmedy massacre. HIAG involved a legal consultant to make sure the account would be within the framework of the strict German laws prohibiting glorification of the Nazi past.[58]

In the mid- to late 1970s, HIAG attempted to commission a favorable biography of a controversial Waffen-SS figure, Jochen Peiper, to stop "the bad rumors". "We must steadfastly remain behind the wheel and direct this book ourselves, otherwise [Erich Kern] will do it", Harzer wrote to a fellow member in 1976. HIAG contemplated approaching (or approached) Herbert Reinecker, a prolific screenwriter who had served in a propaganda company of the Waffen-SS, but nothing came out of it.[59]

Public speeches

Meyer embodied the voice of Waffen-SS apologists. Speaking before some 8000 SS men at the HIAG convention in Karlsberg, Bavaria, in 1957, he stated that "SS troops committed no crimes, except the massacre at Oradour, and that was the action of a single man", who, moreover had died a "hero's death" before he could be court martialled. Meyer also insisted that the Waffen-SS was a regular army outfit, just like any in the Wehrmacht.[60]

On another occasion, Meyer publicly denounced the "regime" [West Germany] that could "honor traitors" but would vilify its soldiers. He condemned the notion of "collective guilt" and then equated Jews and Jesuits to the Nazis and the Waffen-SS as all being victims of history and prejudice.[9]

In the first instance, Meyer was most likely referencing Adolf Diekmann who was the senior officer present during the Oradour massacre. Meyer himself had served a lengthy prison term for his role in the Ardenne Abbey massacre. In the second instance, he was apparently referring to the members of the 20 July conspiracy.[60][9]

The rhetoric of victimhood and so-called pan-European unity continued well into the later history of HIAG. At Peiper's memorial in 1976, Hubert Meyer said:[61]

For a broad public in Germany and even more throughout the rest of the world, [Peiper] has become the embodiment of that which all of us were clearly, intentionally and wrongly burdened in Nuremberg.... We have not forgotten what Jochen Peiper wrote to us from Landsberg Prison in 1952: "Don't forget that the first Europeans killed in action were in the units of the Waffen SS, that the one beaten to death during the post war period mostly were men from our ranks. They had become fair game because of their belief in the indivisibility of Western Europe. Remember these martyrs."

Hubert Meyer's speech later appeared in the November 1976 issue of Der Freiwillige; Peiper's open letter was quoted in Hausser's 1953 book.[62]

Successes and outcomes

By mid-1950s, HIAG established an image that separated the Waffen-SS from other SS formations and shifted responsibility for crimes that could not be denied to the Allgemeine-SS (security and police), the SS-Totenkopfverbände (concentration camp organisation) and the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units). The Waffen-SS was thus successfully integrated into the myth of the 'clean Wehrmacht'.[44]

File:SSWallonie.jpeg
This World War II-era Waffen-SS recruitment poster would not be out of place in any of HIAG's propaganda efforts.

The positive image of the Waffen-SS as an organisation indeed took root, and not only in Germany itself. In the era of the Cold War, senior Waffen-SS personnel were "not shy about the fact that they had once organized a NATO-like army, and an elite one at that", notes MacKenzie (emphasis in the original).[6] John M. Steiner, in his 1975 work, points out that SS apologists, especially strongly represented in HIAG, stressed that it was their foremost task and privilege to be the first to save Europe and Western civilization from being overrun by "Asiatic Communist hordes".[63]

Quoting German politcal journalist Karl Otto Paetel in his 1966 book, the historian George Stein writes that the works produced by HIAG's circle were "trying to prove only what no tolerably informed person has ever attempted to deny, viz., that the soldiers of the Waffen-SS were brave fighters, suffered big losses and, as far as they served in the front line, did not run exterminations camps".[64]

Stein notes that the apologists define the Waffen-SS "in the narrowest of terms" and are silent on the matter of war crimes, or how the organizational structure of Waffen-SS tied it to the Nazi annihilation machine through transfer of personnel between various SS units and the shifting responsibilities of the units themselves, as they may perform frontline duties at one time and then be reassigned to "pacification actions", that is, punitive operations in the rear. Nonetheless, Stein notes that only a minority of men were implicated in known atrocities and that the most historically significant role of the Waffen-SS was in the battles for "Hitler's Europe". But "to recognize this is not to agree with the apologists who picture the overwhelming majority of the men of the Waffen-SS as idealistic, clean-living, decent and honorable soldiers".[65]

The German researcher Karsten Wilke notes that, by the 1970s, HIAG attained a monopoly on the historical representation of the Waffen-SS. Its recipe was simple and contained just four ingredients:

  • The Waffen-SS was "apolitical"
  • It was "elite"
  • It was "innocent of all war crimes or Nazi atrocities"
  • It was "a European army par excellence, the Army of Europe".[66]

Historians dismiss, and even ridicule, this characterisation. Picaper labels it as a "self-panegyric",[57] while Large uses the words "extravagant fantasies about [Waffen-SS's] past and future".[67] MacKenzie refers to HIAG's body of work as a "chorus of self-justification"[6] and Stein as "apologetics".[68] The historian James M. Diehl describes HIAG's claims of the Waffen-SS being the so-called fourth branch of the Wehrmacht as "false", and HIAG's insistence that the force was a precursor to NATO as "even more outrageous".[69]

Controversies

HIAG took on the cause of those imprisoned or executed for war crimes and openly celebrated its Nazi past. Below is a partial list of ensuing controversies in the first 12 years of HIAG's existence:

  • In 1952, the organization held its first major meeting in Verden. It began respectably, with Gille announcing that the veterans were ready to "do their duty for the Fatherland" and Steiner declaring support for "freedom, order and justice". But the next speaker delivered a different message. Hermann-Bernhard Ramcke, a former paratroop general, invited to demonstrate so-called solidarity with the Wehrmacht, condemned the Western Allies as the "real war criminals" and insisted that the blacklist on which all former SS members then stood would soon become "a list of honor".[70] The outburst caused a furor within West Germany. Periodicals as far as the U.S. and Canada carried headlines Hitler's Guard Cheers Ex-chief and Rabble-Rousing General Is Worrying the Allies, with the latter article reporting that Ramcke's speech had been greeted with "roars of approval and cries of 'Eisenhower, Schweinehund!' ('Pig – Dog')".[71][72] HIAG and its spokesperson Felix Steiner hastily tried to distance the organisation from Ramcke and his remarks.[70]
  • In 1953, HIAG conventioneers staged a torchlit procession, ostensibly for a "solstice celebration". They marched up to Staufeneck Castle in Bavaria, chanting Nazi songs, including This Is the Guard that Adolf Hitler Loves.[26]
  • In 1954, plans for a HIAG convention in Göttingen faced strong opposition from the local Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Jewish Council, the Students' Association and the University hierarchy. Federal government officials intervened, and the event was first postponed and then scaled down to a much smaller meeting lacking the qualities of a political event.[73]
HIAG members laying a wreath at the grave of the executed war criminal Bernhard Siebken in 1959; photo originally appeared in Der Freiwillige
  • Following the reburial of executed war criminals in Hamelin in 1954, the cemetery became the focal point for veterans' reunions, with distinct Nazi overtones. In 1959, the HIAG convention in Hamelin attracted a crowd of 15,000 and concluded with "comrades gathering around the tomb of Bernhard Siebken", a convicted war criminal who had been executed in 1949.[74]
  • Also in 1959, the Interior Minister of Hesse prohibited the holding of a HIAG Suchdiensttreffen citing the German Red Cross's decision not to lend its support due to these meetings being "superfluous".[24]
  • In 1961, HIAG attempted to place a glorifying obituary of a former SS-Gruppenführer Max Simon in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. Simon had been convicted as a war criminal and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Allied courts for his role in the Marzabotto massacre, but was pardoned in 1954. He was subsequently tried twice in the Federal courts for the killings in Brettheim and other crimes, but, "to the horror of the West German public", was found not guilty. To HIAG's indignation, Frankfurter Allgemeine refused to run the obituary.[75]
  • In 1963, a HIAG convention planned for the city of Hamelin had to be cancelled at short notice, due to public pressure.[74]

Large, who studied HIAG extensively, stated in 1987 that HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic public statements were not mere gaffes or lapses in taste: "they were the essence of what HIAG was all about". HIAG's leaders "never cast off the political philosophy in which they had been reared and trained", he wrote.[76]

Similarly, Wilke, who worked with the HIAG archives in the 2000s, discovered that the HIAG members' positions were "consistently racist, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic". Referencing Wilke's work, Spiegel quoted one of the HIAG member's writings to the leadership conveying their dismay at "once-again-powerful Jews" who would not hesitate to besmirch any member of parliament who dared to stand up for the Waffen-SS members and survivors. Spiegel also reported Wilke's findings that the HIAG leadership maintained close contacts with the far-right groups.[26]

Transition into right-wing extremism

In the 1960s, it became clear that the legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS was out of HIAG's reach. At the same time, attitudes were beginning to change as the country emerged from a "decade of suppression of Germany's Nazi past".[77] Waffen-SS veterans' activities were increasingly greeted by suspicion from the community, while the government and military planners came to the realisation that they could meet their goals of rearmament without them. HIAG was thus increasingly marginalized and ignored by the political parties, while any pretenses of moderation no longer served a purpose as no further benefits were forthcoming from the government.[78][79]

HIAG then began its drift into the far right, further retreating into its Nazi past. For a time, HIAG published a calendar that marked Nazi commemoration dates.[26] Many of the organization's founding members did not evolve with the times. For example, at least through the 1970s, Otto Kumm remained "the ever unreformed Nazi enthusiast", according to researcher Danny S. Parker, who was given access to the previously closed HIAG archives.[41]

As the West German public's awareness of the SS atrocities grew in the 1970s and 1980s, the attitudes began to change. Waffen-SS veterans were increasingly shunned and ostracised, with their meetings and commemorations greeted with public protests. At the same time, neo-Nazi and nationalist movements found in the Waffen-SS an icon to project their understanding of the World War II.[79]

During the 1980s, the HIAG celebrations grew so large and bold that they created enormous problems for the organisation, such as when a 1985 meeting turned into a public relations disaster. The press reported on signing of forbidden Nazi songs, clashes with demonstrators in the streets and even Waffen-SS reenactors. In an even more damaging development, Stern investigative reporter Gerhard Kromschröder infiltrated the meeting posing as a war buff. He later published a damning article called Nazi Family Reunion containing statements from Waffen-SS veterans that ranged from Holocaust denial to virulently anti-semitic comments and references to happy concentration camp inmates 'singing like birds'.[80]

In its later history, HIAG was monitored by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution as a far-right organisation. It briefly went off the list of neo-Nazi and extremist groups in 1984, causing another controversy.[81][82]

Dissolution

Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organization, HIAG was disbanded at the federal level in 1992.[14] HIAG's last chairman was Hubert Meyer, who provided access to the previously closed HIAG archives to several researchers, including Parker. Parker used the HIAG materials in his 2014 study of Peiper.[83]

Der Freiwillige was still being published in the 2000s. At some point, the HIAG's periodical and the Munin Verlag publishing business had been taken over by Patrick Agte, a right-wing author and publisher.[84] Regional HIAG chapters continued to exist at least through the 2000s, possibly into the 2010s. These groups worked to maintain momentum through the recruitment of younger generations and through outreach to foreign veterans of the Waffen-SS, aided by the continued publication of Der Freiwillige. "[Its] acclaimed aim, today [2014], is to link older and younger generations in a common cause," note historians Steffen Werther & Madeleine Hurd. The publication's predominant theme continued to be "Europe against Bolshevism", with several editorials devoted to the idea that the Waffen-SS laid the foundation for the unification of Europe, expansion of NATO and "freedom of Fatherlands".[79]

HIAG's informal successor was the international War Grave Memorial Foundation "When All Brothers Are Silent" (Kriegsgräberstiftung 'Wenn alle Brüder schweigen'), formed with a stated goal of maintaining war graves. In the 1990s and 2000s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it worked on arranging new commemorative sites for the Waffen-SS in the former Soviet Union, including one in the Ukraine.[79]

Assessment and legacy

HIAG never grew to the size of other West German veterans' organisations, the most successful of which, VdH, had membership approaching 500,000. Diehl, who studied postwar veterans' movements in West Germany, writes that Der Freiwillige's "fire-eating editorials" were ignored by the overwhelming majority of Waffen-SS veterans, who were more interested in rebuilding their civilian lives or getting too old to consider returning to military service. HIAG's membership began to fall sharply in the 1960s, while the organisation itself was never a significant threat to democracy. "HIAG's main goal was pensions, not a restoration of the Third Reich," he notes.[85][17]

HIAG's performance as a lobbying organization ("pressure group") was mixed. Large sees a "combination of resentment, myopia and inflated self-importance" in HIAG's efforts and attitudes. "[The campaign] to regain their 'honor' and exercise political influence [...] was only partially successful", he writes. He credits West Germany's government, major political parties and military planners with keeping sufficient distance from HIAG and other veterans' organisations to limit their role in the new republic and its armed forces. "In that respect,[...] Bonn was not Weimar," he concludes.[67]

Book cover of The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser and Davies; image adopted from cover art of electronic game The Last Victory: Von Manstein's Backhand Blow, February–March 1943. The game depicts the Third Battle of Kharkov, in which several Waffen-SS units took part.

On the other hand, as a "crucible of historical revisionism",[57] HIAG achieved remarkable success in its rewriting of history, unlike in its goals of economic or legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS. The results are felt to this day in public's perceptions and popular culture.[86]

German accounts, and HIAG's contributions among them, were embraced by the US military people as they prepared for the eventuality of an armed conflict with the Soviet Union. The narrative also found its way into popular culture, with many works translated into English. The historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies write:[86]

Paradoxically, these post-Cold War books thrived despite two decades of German, Israeli and American scholarship that convincingly portrayed the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS as part of the killing machine in the East. Unfortunately, the scholarly writings remained confined to a small audience, whereas the readership of the German authors (and their English-language spin-offs) was considerably larger.

German accounts were spurred on by Cold War era anti-communist messages. Smelser and Davies write that "little if any sentiment has been extended [by the Americans] to the families of the 8 million Red Army soldiers who died fighting the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS, or the 22 million civilians killed by these military organizations and the killing squads, the Einsatzgruppen", that worked closely with the army formations. "With a forty-year head start", the predominance of the German account, and the related fascination by Waffen-SS "romancers", "hardly remains a mystery", they conclude.[87]

Revisionist tradition outside of HIAG

The image of the Waffen-SS as "comrades-in-arms engaged in a noble crusade", established by HIAG, was questioned by German scholars, notes MacKenzie. But the society overall wanted to forget the past; after all, the country was full of people who had fought for the Nazi regime. This meant that "instead of fighting an uphill battle, the vision propounded by HIAG was to some extent filling a void". MacKenzie notes the long-term effects of HIAG's revisionism:[88]

As older generation of Waffen-SS scribes has died off, a new, post-war cadre of writers has done much to perpetuate the image of the force as a revolutionary European army. The degree of admiration and acceptance varies, but the overall tendency to accentuate the positive lives on, or has indeed grown stronger.

File:Book-cover of Narwa by Richard Landwehr.jpg
Book cover of Richard Landwehr's 1981 revisionist work glorifying the role of the Waffen-SS, published by Bibliophile Legion Books; the image appeared as an advertisement in a periodical sympathetic to the Waffen-SS

New titles appear every year, propagating the myths first put forth by HIAG's propaganda efforts. James Pontolillo, who studied war crimes of the Waffen-SS, notes that the majority of these books fall into three groups: amateur historical studies that focus solely on the military aspects of the Waffen-SS; apologetic accounts by former Waffen-SS personnel; and works by a multinational group of admirers who judge Waffen-SS to be unfairly associated with the crimes of the Third Reich.[89] The historian Bernd Wegner observes that any survey of the literature on the history of the Waffen-SS would show "an immense discrepancy between the veritable avalanche of titles and the quite modest yield of credible and scholarly insight".[90]

One of the better known authors in the space is Agte, who was closely associated with HIAG. He wrote Jochen Peiper: Commander Panzerregiment Leibstandarte and Michael Wittmann and the Waffen SS Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte in World War II; the first book was referred to as a "hagiography",[91] while Agte himself was described as a neo-Nazi.[92]

MacKenzie offers a list of authors that carry on the Waffen-SS revisionism tradition:

  • Richard Landwehr; Jean Mabire – "extreme admirers [from] the fringes of the far-right" [88]
  • Gordon Williamson; Edmund L. Blandford – admirers who write with "predictably positive results" and in "unquestionably partisan" manner[93]
  • John Keegan; James S. Lucas; Bruce Quarrie – popular historians "partially or wholly seduced by the [Waffen-SS] mystique"[93]
  • Ernst Nolte; Andreas Hillgruber – conservative academics and right-wing journalists in Germany, "offering tacit support"[31]

Smelser and Davies offer their treatment of the current admirers, highlighting the role of "gurus" in the space. Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army and, in particular, the Waffen-SS".[94]

  • Mark Yerger published 11 books up to 2008, mostly through Schiffer Publications. Far from being a historian, he is most interested in highlighting the exploits of the Waffen-SS men and has been "influenced away from objectivity" through close contacts with the veterans.[95]
  • Richard Landwehr (already mentioned above)[96]
  • Trevor James Constable & Raymond E. Toliver wrote The Blond Knight of Germany about Luftwaffe ace Erich Hartmann – a "hallmark of romanization", with it "insidious" title suggesting medieval chivalry that "not only fails to characterize the conduct of the German Army in the East, but, indeed, marks its opposite".[97]
  • Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces) and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write: "Kurowski gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards." Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", they conclude.[98]
  • Antonio Munoz focuses on the foreign formations of the Waffen-SS and "combines exhaustive research with a heroic description of his subjects".[99]

The revisionist-inspired messages and visuals found their way into wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums and the popular culture of Waffen-SS "romancers". (Romancers are those who romanticize the German war effort.) The following website are especially attractive to this group:[100]

  • Achtung Panzer[101]
  • Feldgrau (formerly German Armed Forces in WWII); managed by Jason Pipes[102]

Popular culture of the romancers also includes Waffen-SS reenactment. Although illegal in Germany and Austria, SS reenacting groups thrive elsewhere, including in Europe and North America. In U.S. alone, by the end of 1990s there were 20 Waffen-SS reenactment groups, out of approximately 40 groups dedicated to German World War II units. In contrast, there were 21 groups dedicated to the American units of the same timeframe.[103] The website of the U.S. Waffen-SS reenactor group Wiking was quoted by The Atlantic in 2010 as follows:[104]

Nazi Germany had no problem in recruiting the multitudes of volunteers willing to lay down their lives to ensure a "New and Free Europe", free of the threat of Communism. [...] Thousands upon thousands of valiant men died defending their respective countries in the name of a better tomorrow. We salute these idealists.

Historians categorically reject this contemporary characterization. According to Charles Sydnor, these groups "don't know their history" and have "a sanitized, romanticized view of what occurred". Other historians go further and condemn the reenacting activities, including Rob Citino who states: "The entire German war effort in the East was a racial crusade to rid the world of 'subhumans'. [...] It sends a shiver up my spine to think that people want to dress up and play SS on the weekend."[104]

References

Citations

  1. Large 1987, pp. 79–80.
  2. Large 1987, p. 80.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 72–73.
  4. 4.0 4.1 MacKenzie 1997, pp. 136–137.
  5. Diehl 1993, p. 224.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 MacKenzie 1997, p. 137.
  7. Large 1987, p. 82.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Large 1987, p. 83.
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Large 1987, p. 93.
  10. Caddick-Adams 2014, p. 753.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Stein 1984, p. 254.
  12. Cüppers 2005, p. 336.
  13. Chairoff 1977, p. 460.
  14. 14.0 14.1 Levenda 2014, p. 167.
  15. Kumm 1995, p. 273.
  16. Large 1987, pp. 82–83.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 Large 1987, pp. 83–84.
  18. Large 1987, pp. 85.
  19. Bartrop & Jacobs 2014, p. 1424.
  20. Large 1987, pp. 86.
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 Steiner 1975, p. 277.
  22. Large 1987.
  23. Large 1987, pp. 90–91.
  24. 24.0 24.1 Large 1987, pp. 92–93.
  25. Large 1987, pp. 88.
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 Der Spiegel 2011.
  27. Large 1987, pp. 97–98.
  28. Large 1987, pp. 99–101.
  29. Large 1987, pp. 97–101.
  30. 30.0 30.1 Large 1987, p. 90.
  31. 31.0 31.1 MacKenzie 1997, p. 141.
  32. Wilke 2011, p. 78.
  33. Large 1987, p. 102.
  34. Stein 1984, pp. 250–251.
  35. Large 1987, p. 81.
  36. 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 MacKenzie 1997, p. 138.
  37. 37.0 37.1 Wilke 2011, p. 399.
  38. Large 1987, p. 84.
  39. Steiner 1975, p. 278.
  40. Petropoulos 2000.
  41. 41.0 41.1 41.2 Parker 2014, p. 215.
  42. Parker 2014, p. 81-82.
  43. Pieper 2015, p. 120.
  44. 44.0 44.1 44.2 Wienand 2015, p. 39.
  45. Wienand 2015, p. 247.
  46. Wienand 2015, p. 299.
  47. 47.0 47.1 Sydnor 1990, p. 319.
  48. MacKenzie 1997, pp. 137–138.
  49. Stein 1984, p. 256.
  50. 50.0 50.1 Sydnor 1973.
  51. Sydnor 1990, p. 145.
  52. SPD Inquiry 2009.
  53. Janson 2006, p. 393.
  54. Orchard 1997, p. 115.
  55. 55.0 55.1 Wilke 2011, p. 379.
  56. WorldCat 2016.
  57. 57.0 57.1 57.2 Picaper 2014.
  58. Parker 2014, p. 217.
  59. Parker 2014, pp. 298, 418.
  60. 60.0 60.1 Stein 1984, pp. 255–256.
  61. Parker 2014, p. 296.
  62. Parker 2014, p. 416.
  63. Steiner 1975, p. 96.
  64. Stein 1984, p. 258.
  65. Stein 1984, p. 257-281, 293.
  66. Wilke 2011, pp. 379 and 405.
  67. 67.0 67.1 Large 1987, p. 111-112.
  68. Stein 1984, p. 252.
  69. Diehl 1993, p. 225.
  70. 70.0 70.1 Large 1987, p. 91.
  71. Ottawa Citizen 1952.
  72. Sarasota Herald-Tribune 1952.
  73. Large 1987, p. 92.
  74. 74.0 74.1 Ward 2015.
  75. Frankfurter Allgemeine 2010.
  76. Large 1987, p. 101.
  77. Heberer 2008, p. 235.
  78. Large 1987, pp. 112–113.
  79. 79.0 79.1 79.2 79.3 Werther & Hurd 2014.
  80. Parker 2014, pp. 389–390.
  81. JTA 1985.
  82. NYT 1984.
  83. Parker 2014, p. 425.
  84. Antifa-Infoblatt 2001.
  85. Diehl 1993, p. 236.
  86. 86.0 86.1 Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 135.
  87. Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 136.
  88. 88.0 88.1 MacKenzie 1997, p. 139.
  89. Pontolillo 2010.
  90. Wegner 1990, p. 1.
  91. Parker 2014.
  92. Raudvere, Stala & Willert 2012.
  93. 93.0 93.1 MacKenzie 1997, p. 140.
  94. Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 159.
  95. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 159–161.
  96. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 161–167.
  97. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 170–173.
  98. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 173–178, 251.
  99. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 181–185.
  100. Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 187.
  101. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 201–205.
  102. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 206–218.
  103. Smelser & Davies 2008, pp. 226.
  104. 104.0 104.1 The Atlantic 2010.

Bibliography

Books

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Journals

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Websites and periodicals

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Further reading

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

External links