Apology for Girlfriends of German Soldiers?

Norway's Prime Minister Erna Solberg has issued an official government apology to Norwegian women who were mistreated over World War Two-era relationships with German soldiers.
Undignified treatment'
"Young Norwegian girls and woman who had relations with German soldiers or were suspected of having them, were victims of undignified treatment," Ms Solberg said at an event to mark the 70th anniversary of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Wednesday.

"Our conclusion is that Norwegian authorities violated the rule fundamental principle that no citizen can be punished without trial or sentenced without law."

"For many, this was just a teenage love, for some, the love of their lives with an enemy soldier or an innocent flirt that left its mark for the rest of their lives.

"Today, in the name of the government, I want to offer my apologies."
Norway apologises to WW2 'German girls'

 

I suppose an apology for shooting Quisling will come next.

 

Interesting article in Dutch News: "An association supporting the children and grandchildren of women who had a relationship with a soldier in the German army during World War II have asked the Dutch government to apologise for the treatment meted out to them after the war."

Personally, I'd lean towards no apology, given the suffering the Dutch had to endure under Nazi occupation. Having said that, I'd be interested in other people's views.

Full article here:
'Women reviled for wartime relationship with Germans deserve state apology' - DutchNews.nl

 

There was a quite similar recent (October 17th 2018) story here, about the situation in Norway: Norway apologises to WW2 'German girls'

'Undignified treatment'
"Young Norwegian girls and women who had relations with German soldiers or were suspected of having them, were victims of undignified treatment," Ms Solberg said at an event to mark the 70th anniversary of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Wednesday.

"Our conclusion is that Norwegian authorities violated the rule fundamental principle that no citizen can be punished without trial or sentenced without law."

"For many, this was just a teenage love, for some, the love of their lives with an enemy soldier or an innocent flirt that left its mark for the rest of their lives.

"Today, in the name of the government, I want to offer my apologies."

&

"More than seven decades on from the war, not many of the women directly affected are likely to still be alive to hear it."

There are also a number of stories I recently saw too about the situation in the Channel islands.

And the question of whether young women and girls, and any innocent children (i.e. born as a result etc.) were especially singled out for harsher treatment to other, more powerful sectors of society etc.

It's complex.

 

Whether it's legal or not, whether its unethical or not and putting aside any personal views, I can understand why the girls/women having such relationships suffered a degree of retribution at the time and for a period thereafter but....there is no excuse for treating any offspring in the same way. Children should not be blamed for the actions of their parents before the children were even born. Sounds too much like 'the search for scapegoats and punishment of the innocent' to me.

There are a number of grey lines in all this and hence the general difficulty is coming to a conclusion even in individual cases: when does a 'innocent teenage flirt' become 'assisting the enemy'? Some cases are, however, very clear cut such as when the 'girlfriend' effectively changed sides and fought for the enemy: there are cases reported in Normandy of female snipers being the French girlfriends of German soldiers.

 

link already here re the Norwegians
http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/norway-apologises-to-its-world-war-two-german-girls.74872/

 

When people lived through

THIS



THIS


AND A SHORT TIME AFTER PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THIS




It is not a surprise that fraternisation with the enemy was seen as betraying a country.

I remember in the late sixties and even early seventies people from that era in the UK still held a stick against the axis powers.

 

This need to 'apologise' seems to be fashionable amongst the limp career politicians we are beset with these days. What does it really mean? I suggest absolutely nothing. How about the UK Labour Party apologise for the actions of their post war politicians?

 

Case, by case but in the instance for example of: Diana Mitford - Wikipedia

There is a section on the post war, and treatment etc: Diana Mitford - Wikipedia

To take into account there's how people behaved at the time, and what views they expressed and also how they behaved after the war.

If there were actual "crimes" etc. or if there was actually no breaking of any law, though here too "which law", i.e. not just the law(s) of the "occupying power".

I suppose too, it might be argued, how the next generation behaves, though if a state is "punishing babies" i.e. for the crimes of their parents etc. something is obviously wrong.

If the next generation is interested in the 3rd Reich and fascists it's their look-out, though if half of "their heritage" wants to despise and reject them - for what might be their "other half" - what might they tend towards?

Re. The non-fraternisation rule - Fraternization - Wikipedia

Has: "General Dwight Eisenhower ordered "No Fraternization" between US troops and the German people. Over a period of many months, the policy was loosened, first by permitting US GIs to talk to German children and then allowing them to talk to adults, both in certain circumstances."

If you "get to know the people" though - I have seen many quotes along the lines of - they are actually "just like us"

Fraternization with "civilians" is what soldiers might tend to want to do.

Fraternization - Wikipedia

 

However, he is yet to apologise for the things he actually did himself

 

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.

Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.

C.S.Lewis

 

What about the many British women who married German and Italian POWs? Did they face any prejudice:
Sleeping with the enemy: The British women who fell for German PoWs | Daily Mail Online
Not quite the same because we weren't occupied TG.

 

Unless of course you lost a loved one and could not forget the suffering.

 

On the Channel Islands, I think it was actually fairly rare for the local girls to date the Germans, but some did.

Life under Nazi rule: the occupation of the Channel Islands

"Why, then, were people outraged when women had relationships with German soldiers?
It was one thing to be polite to someone, but it was a massive taboo to actually be in a relationship with ‘the enemy’. This was the case for both sides – the Germans could be in trouble for forming relationships with the local women too. But when you have tens of thousands of young men and women in one place, it’s inevitable what will happen.

The women who entered into relationships with Germans were called ‘jerrybags’, and there was this assumption that they were doing it for selfish reasons – to get more food or luxuries like lipstick and silk stockings from Paris. I think for some of the local men, the resentment that they had about the occupation was targeted at these women. Those who were discovered to be having these illicit relationships had their heads shaved and were ‘tarred and feathered’ – had liquid tar and feathers poured over them. I interviewed a man who was involved with tarring at least one of these women, and he told me that the ‘jerrybags’ were considered just as much ‘the enemy’ as the Germans.

I was quite shocked to hear how angry people can get about this subject even all these years later. Having a relationship with someone from the ‘other side’ was considered much worse than some of the wrongdoings that – to me – seemed more deserving of anger: collaboration, dodgy trading with the Germans, etc."

 

No apology required. Let sleeping dogs lie and move on.

 

In this: 'Women reviled for wartime relationship with Germans deserve state apology' - DutchNews.nl

The "basic headline" tells you the story is about "a state apology for women who were reviled"

The article itself talks about worse consequences than being "reviled", an apology for being reviled is one thing, but actual crimes committed against some of these women by vigilantes and people in authority after the war is also a factor.

Did and indeed do post-war states routinely condone such, and if so would it now help the families of these women and girls for someone in authority to acknowledge this, and apologise for it.

I guess the goal is so that those affected could move on with their lives and not continue to feel stigmitised etc. for something in their genetic past which they have no responsibility for.

Also, re. the Dutch situation I posted this WW2 letter, sent from the Netherlands on 29th September 1944 quite recently here: The SRY in NWE in September 1944

"I went back through one town, we could tell who were pro-Germans by the big swastikas tarred on the doors, I looked into one house through the broken windows, fine job of smashing up had been done. Why the silly asses didn’t share the stuff to the people who had suffered I don’t know. Anyway, the Free French, Free Belgians, and Free Dutch know exactly who to go after and they nip around in cars and pick them up in a very short time, if they resist it’s just too bad for them. I can’t say I like it, it gives some a chance to settle old scores and is too much like the old Witch hunt for my palate, but we don’t know everything so they can settle that problem themselves.
There’s no getting around with the girls as far as I can see, somehow we hold aloof from them, it’s hard to explain because to say a soldier won’t take out a nice bit of stuff is nonsense. But I can honestly say that I haven’t seen a soldier by himself with a girl, I think it’s because we aren’t in any one place long enough, or are the girl’s canny? I’ve asked a few and they all say “B--- this place, let’s get home”"

A bit later - around Xmas 1944, still in the Netherlands, my grandfather wrote this: Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry (SRY) in North West Europe

"You’d love this country and its people I’m sure, they’re so very kind and of course they love the English. Of course their children have insisted that I promise to bring you here after the war, you see they have an interest in the “kline kinda” (little child). They are quite rich too, the brother is an Advocate in the law courts. At the moment he is president of the courts trying the offenders against the state."