Why do we persist in thinking all Germans were Nazis in WW2?

A recent event run by the West Wiltshire Military Vehicles Trust (WWMVT), at Lacock, has apparently upset a number of people. The National Trust owns Lacock Abbey and lets-out part of the grounds, including the Playing Field to the local council. At the MVT Living History event on the 19th of August, there were stands displaying memorabilia and other WW2 paraphernalia, as is often the case at such gatherings. Some of this was Second World War German equipment and uniform items, including medals and various badges. Some people have reportedly taken grave offence at the selling of such items, calling them Nazi-memorabilia and, therefore, highly offensive. One person suggested that such items should all be in a museum and not be bought and sold. Some were apparently in tears as a result of their experiences.

The MVT has responded by saying that, apart from the fact that there is no law prohibiting the sale of WW2 German badges or uniforms in this country, they were not aware of any “NAZI-specific” items on sale or on display. Objectors then pointed to photographs of a 2017 event at which attendees (and not MVT staff) appeared in “Nazi uniform”; this was, in fact, a Luftwaffe FLAK-gunner’s uniform. Some recent photographs of this year’s event have now emerged which also show people in German uniform, which of course includes the use of sewn-on badges such as the eagle with the small swastika below it.

A spokesman for WWMVT said: “We are sorry that your complainant was offended and we have investigated and addressed your concerns. I have spoken to various people who attended the show, re-enactors, members of the public, and the show committee, and no one saw anybody dressed in Nazi uniform, or wearing swastika armbands. If someone was dressed in Nazi or SS uniform then they would be asked to remove it and escorted from the show.”

The MVT have also pointed out that people who made various accusations must have seen equipment and uniforms in the public areas and then bought a ticket to view items in the paid-access area. Were they deliberately setting out to be upset?

This issue highlights the rather larger question about the increasing tendency for some in these modern times to expect others to go well beyond the requirements of the law of this country in assessing whether or not to do or say something that “might challenge or offend others”. Our laws are generally designed to address the standards of behaviour expected of a reasonable person to allow all of us to get on together in what is becoming an increasingly crowded country and planet. But they cannot, of course, legislate for every minute contingency - and some who visited the MVT event clearly believed that this was an example of where morality went beyond the rule of law.

There have been a number of examples of this quite recent phenomenon. Recall, if you would, the comments that the then-Prime Minister, David Cameron, made in 2016 about people who took quite legal measures to minimise their tax bills. “Frankly some of these schemes where people are parking huge amounts of money offshore and taking loans back to just minimise their tax rates it is not morally acceptable,” said Cameron (shortly before having to admit he also benefited from having a stake in a tax-efficient offshore investment fund), with Jimmy Carr being the main target of Cameron’s indignation in that particular case. And yet, Jimmy Carr did not write the rules and was being given advice which was compliant with British law. So why the fuss? Of course, many of us with less than a few million in our back pockets at any one time might feel a bit peeved that we cannot do the same - and is it not possible that Mr Cameron, being the consummate politician that he is/was, was merely seeking to score a few Brownie-points with the public? Is that the act of a morally impeachable person ?

In reality, all of us take steps to avoid paying tax in our lives. (And it might be hard to find someone takes the “moral high-ground” and offers to pay more tax than required by HMRC!) We shop at “duty free” shops as we leave or enter the country. We take advantage of tax breaks when we take out an ISA. Or we might prefer to put money into Premium Bonds, rather than the bank, as the winnings are tax-free. These are all perfectly legal “tax-avoidance” measures enjoyed by millions each day. In most, if not all, countries there are substantial and generally accepted “grey economies” where transactions are conducted in cash - crossing the boundary into the illegal world of “evasion”as opposed to “avoidance”.In all of the above, we rely upon the law and related regulations to tell us what is not Legal and then act accordingly. The Law cannot have things all their own way and say, for example, that this or that act is illegal, but that there might well be unspecified others that fall into the same category, but we will only find out by a process of trial and error.

Are we obliged, therefore, as individuals, to consider what might be remotely offensive to others ? Are we obliged to consider, for example, whether there is the faintest chance that a Jewish Star being displayed at an MVT Living History event might offend someone ? This was specifically cited as a cause for someone’s concerns. But did that person stop to examine what they were looking at? In fact, as was explained to The Military Times by the organiser of the event, the Star was given to the person running the stand by an elderly lady who had been in a Concentration Camp when she was 12. It was displayed along with her ID Card. She gave it to him because she knew he would always look after it and never give it away or sell it, and instead would use it to try to make people aware of what she and others had been through. But of course, that explanation never entered the lurid accounts of the event as it would not make the headlines.

Some accounts of what people saw are curious, to say the least. Descriptions of people in black uniforms “strutting around” etc. (People in German uniforms are always “strutting” for some reason.) As far as the MVT organisers are concerned, the only people “in black” were wearing white hats - that is to say, they were in Kriegsmarine uniforms, ie. the German Navy. What is more, members of the three German armed services were in fact not allowed to be affiliated to a political party - though of course that regulation might well have been overlooked as the war progressed.

Back to Lacock. The National trust have said: “We are aware of concerns raised over a ‘living history’ event at Lacock over the weekend and have contacted the organisers for an urgent explanation. The event was organised by the Military Vehicle Trust and included uniforms and materials, which understandably caused distress and led to a complaint. We will make it very clear to the MVT that these displays were insensitive, unacceptable and should not be repeated.”

Actually, what they are saying is that in future, and insofar as the National Trust have any say in such matters about land which they have leased or let, they want history to be re-written so that it cannot possibly offend anyone in any shape or form. OK - so let’s start “talking turkey” and have an open discussion about 1066 and all that. Might we not consider a sanitised version of the Bayeux tapestry so that modern Britons of Saxon-descent are not offended by the overtly biased Norman record of the defeat of Harold?

Yes - we do all have a social responsibility to avoid offending anyone in a deliberate and inconsiderate manner. But those who do take offence at something or other also have a social responsibility to consider whether their concerns are so very personal that by seeking to remove the offending item, they deny others the chance of learning from history - which is what organisations such as the Military Vehicle Trust are all about.

Images: West Wiltshire MVT