On the Denazification of the Germans
[Der Weg 1948-10] An original translation of "Zur Entnazifizierung der Deutschen"
Title: On the Denazification of the Germans [de: Zur Entnazifizierung der Deutschen]
Author: Peter Hartmann
“Der Weg” Issue: Year 02, Issue 10 (October 1948)
Page(s): 732-735
Dan Rouse’s Note(s):
Der Weg - El Sendero is a German and Spanish language magazine published by Dürer-Verlag in Buenos-Aires, Argentina by Germans with connections to the defeated Third Reich.
Der Weg ran monthly issues from 1947 to 1957, with official sanction from Juan Perón’s Government until his overthrow in September 1955.
Source Document(s):
[LINK] Scans of 1948 Der Weg Issues (archive.org)
On the Denazification of the Germans
Peter Hartmann
Anyone paying close attention to what’s been happening in Germany over the past three years knows this: the idea of denazification doesn’t just rule public life—it’s wormed its way into the most private corners too. I’m not here to unpack this whole mess exhaustively, but I’ll offer some facts and reflections, drawn from what I’ve seen and lived through, to throw a bit of light on this classic post-war oddity.
There’s not much to say about the so-called “enrichment” this clunky, murky word has brought to the German language. At first, it was just lifted straight from the Anglo-American “denazification.” Later, some big shots in Germany’s public scene tried to domesticate it as “Entnazisierung.” Down south, the laws call it “Säuberung”—cleansing—while regular folks, with sharper tongues, say “Entbräunung”—de-browning. Every now and then, you’d hear it dubbed “Entlausung”—delousing—too.
No point in lingering long on denazification in the Russian zone either. Officially, they’ve just stamped it “done” over there, and what went on before—like everything behind the Iron Curtain—followed one basic rule: shut down anyone against the unity party and bend it all to the political and ideological whims of the ruling clique. Some folks reckoned the only way to dodge the Nazi label in the East was to line up with the local politics or sign up with the SED, the Socialist Unity Party. I once got a look at one of their join-up forms myself. Next to boxes for “political activity before 1933” and “party memberships after 1945,” they skipped the usual question about what you did under the Third Reich—something you’d see on heaps of other forms. Worth mentioning too is the recent launch of the “National Democratic Party” in the East, meant to scoop up all the “small-fry Nazis” who’d dodged the SED’s pitch so far. The unity politicos over there claim it’s all about forgivingly welcoming back the old sinners. Truth is, it’s likely just another stab at boosting the weak support their line’s got and rigging up a “democratic” majority for that regime.
In the West, the problems are different—but no simpler, that’s for sure.
Early on, the occupying powers called the shots on who was politically fit to pass muster. That cracked the door wide open to snitches, since the military governments had to lean on info that was shaky at best or downright biased. It’s a grim fact that some pretty shady types stepped up to play the game. In the US zone, the denazification tribunals—those “Spruchkammern”—kicked into gear pretty quick, while over in the British zone, they started with a stiff yardstick: how long you’d been in a party outfit and what kind it was.
The call mostly hinged on when you joined—early or late—and what rank you held. That setup missed the heart of it, though, since it barely glanced at the quirks of each person’s story.
Not long after, they rolled out these denazification committees. At first, they just advised, but bit by bit, they took over judging cases solo. They dove in with a gusto that deserved a better cause.
Plenty of voices have claimed denazification isn’t a legal thing—not some kind of courtroom justice—but a political scrub-down to rewire the German people. I’ve never bought that line. When you’re sizing up someone’s social conduct, pinning down their responsibility and guilt, handing out consequences—penalties, atonement, whatever—curtailing basic rights like moving around, working where you want, running a business, or holding property, that’s judicial work, plain and simple. It’s got to stick to the bedrock rules of law and courts, or you’re courting something else—not justice, but political caprice.
Thing is, a big chunk of those bedrock rules got brushed aside.
The committee members were picked by political parties, each with their own agendas for who they’d send. Those party reps often dragged political angles into the mix, and more than once, it felt like Goethe was talking about this or that “denazification judge” when he wrote: “But justice shall especially mean what I and my cronies deem wise!”
Whether the person on the hook got to speak up was totally up to the committee’s whim. (Mind you, it was a must in the appeals committee—the second round—where you could take a shot at recoursing.) Time and again, a committee member would haul in a damning witness, then team up with the others to weigh the “evidence” and march straight to a “verdict.”
Before landing in front of those committees, cases got a once-over from subcommittees tied to specific job groups or workplaces. So, a factory boss might end up with his own accountant and a couple of staffers deciding his political fate. I knew a carpenter whose rival from the next block over chaired the subcommittee handling his case. Anyone can see how ripe that is for biased calls—even if you think people’s all-too-human flaws don’t amount to much. Sure enough, that setup let personal grudges, business beefs, and other slanted takes run wild in plenty of hearings.
That rotten situation got worse with all the flip-flopping on how denazification was supposed to work. Methods shifted, little rule tweaks popped up all the time, leaving folks in the dark about whether they were finally clear or not. After the jumble of methods came the categorization—more on that below—then a special track for getting canned civil servants back on the job, plus constant rejigs to the appeals route. I’ve seen cases, appeals included, stretch out 12, 14, even 18 months before wrapping up. On top of that, any closed case could get reopened until January 1948. No surprise that just piled more chaos and jitters onto a system already shaky as hell.
Now, about the yardsticks—the legal benchmarks—handed to those denazification committees: that was another mess that didn’t pan out well. Without digging into every twist, a big step was setting up five groups or categories, cribbed from the US zone’s playbook. They slotted folks into these based on how deep they’d waded into political action or guilt, with Group 1 as the worst offenders and Group 5 for non-Nazis or those who’d just “nominally” tagged along with Nazi outfits. Never mind that lots of people thought it was neither smart politics nor good teaching to rank folks’ convictions and slap them with a “class” label—there weren’t even many solid legal rules to base it on. Clear standards or firm takes on what each category meant were scarce, so it mostly fell to the committees’ “gut feeling.”
Time and again, you’d see two committees judge near-identical cases differently. Word is, some even got denazified twice—somewhere else—and scored a sweeter deal. I saw it myself: an SS bigwig, loaded with denazification baggage, landed in Group 4, while nearby, an SA guy who’d never stuck his neck out politically—and got a low rank almost by accident—got pegged in Group 3.
Add to that what anyone who’s judged in a proper court knows: nailing down facts and replaying them true to life is damn tough. Tougher still is ruling fairly on slippery stuff like someone’s inner stance, gut feelings, moral drives, or clashing interests—figuring out where “guilty” splits from “not guilty” on a razor’s edge. That’s just as true, maybe more so, for sizing up folks in denazification.
Plus, you’ve got voices in Germany saying it’s wrong to punish people for what they thought or to slam behavior after the fact when it was allowed—hell, expected—back then, unless they crossed some criminal line of ethics or natural law. That kicks up the messy question of where morality and natural law draw their universal lines.
These aren’t just gripes from ex-Nazis dodging heat—they’ve grown louder the more absurd, unfair, and off-track denazification got. Thought crimes, retroactive laws, random calls, political plays dressed up as “the people’s will”—those are the exact things folks pinned on Nazism and its courts, and hated them for it.
Even the Allies’ own governments can see this kind of denazification just stirs up the already tangled political and social stew. In staffing and filling posts, it lets subjective political games creep in even more, when this dire time needs the sharpest pros and personalities in every public gig. Too often, interest groups hijacked the system to carve out spots for their own.
Worse, this denazification game risks flipping the Allies’ whole aim—purging Germans of Nazi thoughts—right on its head. I’ve known plenty who were party members under the Third Reich but didn’t buy the line back then—not like now, after a raw deal in denazification turned them into die-hard Nazis or doubled down on their old beliefs.
It’s just like some English voice said: “denazification” can slip into “renazification” real easy, and all the pieces are there for it to happen.
From where a German stands, next to no one—save opportunists or pigheaded fanatics—thinks this system’s any good. The German who despised Nazism sees that the last three years nabbed tons of small fry while plenty of big shots slipped through this patchy net. Worse, he spots how many chameleons—folks who flipped their coats with every breeze, even under the Third Reich—are riding high again, “clean” as can be. He sees methods he’d reject getting used anyway. I know a few like that who bailed on denazification work fast.
But heaps of Germans who backed Nazism once and were ready, right after the war, to try a new road—they’re let down now, feeling democracy’s path is choked off. I’ve run into tons in the Western zones who put it like this: “In ’33, they ‘decommunized,’ now it’s ‘denazified,’ and in a few years, maybe ‘decapitalized’—whatever’s hot then. Whoever’s in charge does what they want; power beats justice every time.”
That’s how denazification’s muddled minds more than you’d guess, blasting way past the old “Nazi or not” question.
Still, things are easing up, slowly settling in. The process is finding its groove, kinks are getting ironed out, and the wild hate and zeal from the start are cooling off. German lawmakers, even in the British zone, are steering it into orderly legal tracks, hunting for fairer rules. Sure, lots of these draft laws leave gaps—sometimes it feels like they’re dodging the final fix for past screw-ups—but with the goodwill, you can spot some headway. Take this: committees might have to hear the accused out, let defenses roll, and open up a cleaner appeals path with more central setups. Nice as that sounds, a system this stained with bias and blunders still looks iffy. What matters most to me is this growing sense: wrap up denazification quick, no fuss. Political parties are backing off—late, mind you—some even yelling to stop it now. It’s so loathed, any party sticking with it would just tank with its crowd.
The occupying powers keep hinting at an end soon too. Dates keep sliding, but it really doesn’t feel far off. You can’t shake the vibe that everyone—bar a few diehards—would cheer to ditch this hot mess fast.
So far, so good: with this dud fading out as expected, tempers might settle. But there’s an old truth—an unfair trial hurts more than ten fair ones help. The fallout won’t vanish easy; mistakes turned into facts, with ripples, and the hit to public trust won’t just wipe away. That’ll shape how Germans rethink their soul and spirit. So, denazification’s set to go down as one of post-war Germany’s ugliest chapters.