View the H-German Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-German's February 2008 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-German's February 2008 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-German home page.
Every author hopes that his work will be the object of careful reading and criticism, but Sonja Levsen's review does not meet that standard. Levsen seems to want my book to have the same goals, aims, and methods as Birgit Beck's book, _Wehrmacht und sexuelle Gewalt_ (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2004), which examines rape crimes (and only rape crimes) from the victim's perspective. My aim instead was to examine a broad spectrum of sex offenses from the perspective of the military judicial authorities. Levsen is critical throughout because I did not more prominently feature or engage with the conclusions of Beck's book. Because my own book had already entered the copyediting phase when I received Beck's, my ability to make changes was severely limited. I nevertheless acknowledged her valuable contributions in a footnote, and cited her earlier work on many occasions. Nonetheless, Beck and I have different purposes and different perspectives. In studying the prosecution and punishment of sex offenders in the Wehrmacht, much of my effort was devoted to punishment and the Wehrmacht's penal institutions. This focus involved tracing the wartime paths of nearly five hundred perpetrators as they made their way through the penal system as prisoners and then into the field as parolees with frontline units. This analysis was essential for understanding the military judicial system and for comprehending the fates of the perpetrators discussed in chapters 6-10. Levsen barely acknowledges this aspect of my work or its importance. Instead, from her opening remarks, Levsen's review contains misrepresentations and omissions. For example, she writes, "Snyder ... does not discuss questions such as the extent and nature of sexual crimes committed by German soldiers in the Second World War; he does not write either about the offenders or the victims, nor about the role, nature and reasons of sexual violence in war; he focuses exclusively on the trials." These issues are indeed discussed, and in chapters 6-10, they often figure quite prominently in the analyses. In fact, it would be impossible to analyze the prosecution and punishment of sex offenders in the Wehrmacht without their inclusion. Levsen's review is suspicious of my methods of source critique in a way that suggests I am an apologist for Wehrmacht military justice. It states that I "controversially" conclude that court documents should be "accepted as the courts' honest interpretation of the evidence." Her quotation of my work here is incomplete and insufficiently contextualized, omitting key information. In a discussion regarding the accuracy of court records (p. 102), I state that it is impossible to verify the validity of the courts' findings and acknowledge that confessions and testimony may have been extracted by force. Concluding the analysis, I state, "[T]he information contained in the court transcripts, even if not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, will be accepted as the courts' honest interpretation of the evidence, even if that evidence was extracted by forceful means." The difference between my position and Levsen's representation of it is significant. Perhaps more importantly, this position is hardly "controversial"; other scholars who work with these documents--including Beck--make most of the same assumptions. Another baffling criticism by Dr. Levsen is that I fail to contextualize my readings of controversial evidence, with the Barbarossa Jurisdiction Decree, a highly controversial moment in the historiography, as her most prominent example. Chapter 3, however, contains a subsection entitled "The Barbarossa Jurisdiction Decree and Commissar Order," which can be found on pages 56-62. I further analyze the decree in several places in chapter 7. The reviewer's most serious charge, however, relates to the contentious issue of sexual assault on the Eastern Front. Misrepresenting my position, Levsen writes, "[D]isparaging remarks by judges regarding the allegedly different nature of a woman's honor in Russia do not count as 'ideology' for Snyder." Here, Levsen again insinuates that I am an apologist or worse. On page 148, however, I acknowledge that these "disparaging remarks" may indeed have had their origin in Nazi ideology. I also stress the complexity of the issue by questioning whether the prejudice encountered in the east had its "origin in traditional German anti-Slavic bias or Nazi racial concepts." Courts, I conclude, may have "combined [these] two forms of anti-Slavic prejudice, creating various and unique strains of German racial bigotry." Throughout, Levsen's reading of my book ignores or rejects the nuances in my arguments. For instance, although my investigation supports the conclusion that the Wehrmacht reintegrated the majority of homosexual offenders during the war, this point is barely acknowledged by Levsen. Instead of treating my analysis of the important issue of reintegration, she focuses the reader's attention on a passage of secondary importance in which I write, "Although punishments could indeed be severe, this was a Prussian tradition, not necessarily a Nazi one" (p. 130). Based on this observation, Levsen suggests that I find no difference between concentration camps or Wehrmacht penal units and punishments meted out for homosexual contact in the Wilhelmine army. In the noted passage, the key phrase is "not necessarily." My point is not that punishments were the same in the Imperial and Nazi periods, but rather that punishments for homosexuals in Prussia could be severe, and punishments in Nazi Germany could also be severe. Thus, explaining the severity of punishments in Nazi Germany will be difficult because it is impossible to determine what degree of severity was continuous with previous military traditions and what degree was additional and instituted under National Socialism. Severe punishment, as I write, might have been a Nazi tradition, but not necessarily. The statement has nothing to do with the Nazi-era institutions she mentions. I draw no such connection. Levsen's review frequently jumps to quick conclusions. It suggests, for example, that my book tries to show that "Wehrmacht trials" were "in opposition" to "National Socialist principles." The book never states or implies this. In another example, Dr. Levsen claims that the book uses the terms "fascist" and "Nazi" interchangeably to discuss ideology. It does not. The review reports that I claim that sex offenses provide a "better" litmus test for the role of Nazi ideology in Wehrmacht punishments than does desertion. I do not. Misreadings of this sort are frequent. Levsen's review has far too many errors, omissions, contentious readings, and outright misrepresentations with regard to its description of my book's purpose, use of evidence, and interpretations to be considered an accurate assessment of my work. Colleagues are invited to read the book; I am confident they will agree with me. David Raub Snyder Austin Peay State University snyderdr[AT]apsu.edu