How could immediate self-control be demanded from men who had just seen what they had seen and were still under combat tension with isolated shooters, rumors of counterattacks, and guards who in some cases were still trying to escape or resist.

The liberators had to construct a new ethical and moral narrative that did not appeal to vengeance, but rather the institutional reflection of restraining it, channeling it, or at least recording it.

Because the same army that had witnessed the horror needed more than indignation.

It needed discipline to occupy Germany, authority to administer cities, and above all, credibility for what was to come next, the trials for war crimes.

That goal clashed headon with an uncomfortable truth.

If justice was allowed to become summary execution, the moral message would be contaminated.

And if soldiers were harshly punished for losing control, there was a risk of breaking internal cohesion and legitimacy.

as if the command were defending those who wore the wrong uniform.

For this reason, formal investigations began almost immediately.

As mentioned earlier, Colonel Joseph Whitaker took charge of the formal investigation at Dhaka, focused on alleged mistreatment and deaths of German guards in custody.

But now, it is important to go into a little more detail about what Whitaker recorded.

This investigation known by the title investigation of alleged mistreatment of German guards at Dau dated June 1945 gathered testimonies, reconstructed sequences and documented specific facts.

Shootings of surrendered prisoners in a rail car, executions after the segregation between Vermar and SS and emissions of medical assistance to the wounded.

The mere existence of this report indicated something key.

The US military structure understood that once the surrendered enemy became a prisoner, the issue was no longer combat but custody and therefore fell under a different logic, responsibility, regulations, and eventually a court marshal.

This distinction was at the heart of the law of war.

It wasn’t a matter of sympathy for the prisoner, but of limits for the captor.

The convention, in fact, was based on the idea of state responsibility above individual impulses.

There was political pressure and strategic pressure.

The Allies were beginning to document Nazi crimes at a near frenetic pace with intelligence teams and testimony gathering operations producing field reports to ensure that what was discovered would not remain rumor or oral account.

In Dhau, for example, military reports circulated that sought to establish facts and the structures of the camp system shortly after liberation as part of the urgency to record everything.

And in parallel, branches and procedures for investigating war crimes in the European theater were being consolidated at least nominally based on frameworks like the Geneva Convention and accepted rules of war.

This is the point where the intervention of senior commanders appears because military justice did not occur in a vacuum.

According to widely cited reconstructions, the investigation into Dacow came to contemplate potential court marshals for those involved.

However, the chain of command also had the power to shut it down.

In this context, it is recorded that General George S.

Patton, already appointed as military governor of Bavaria, chose to dismiss the charges, which meant that the witnesses were not confronted in a formal trial and that the case was closed without a military criminal process.

That decision, regardless of how it is judged, revealed a dilemma that the allies faced.

Maintaining discipline without denying the psychological impact, upholding legality without turning it into a scene of exemplary punishment against their own, and protecting the moral authority of the future trial of the Nazis without opening an internal front that could be read as an equivalence between crimes.

In documents cited regarding the case, the idea of mitigating circumstances was also raised.

The letter of the law might have been violated, but it was argued that the conditions seen by the first troops made it impossible or unfair to assign individual responsibility with precision long after the fact.

Thus, within a matter of weeks, the scenario changed silently.

The first day had been driven by impulse.

The law disappeared because reality pushed it aside.

The second moment was bureaucratic and strategic.

The law returned not as comfort but as a tool of governance, occupation and legitimacy.

And still there remained an unresolved issue because not all the allies and not all fronts had the same relationship with vengeance, discipline and the concept of prisoner.

In the east the word custody carried a different weight and the immediate past of total war pushed for different responses.

The problem for the allies was that the impulse to punish and the obligation to restrain appeared at the same time in the same place and in front of the same people.

In theory, the framework was clear.

Prisoners of war were under the power of the detaining state, not individuals, and they had to be treated humanely and protected from acts of violence.

Furthermore, reprisals were prohibited.

This was not a moral detail.

It was a written rule.

And in 1945, that rule still applied when versions of summary executions began circulating, such as guards being shot after surrendering, shootings at close range, and bodies piled in corners where there was no longer any combat.

The natural reaction of a regular army was to try to name and legally frame what was happening.

Not because the war was ending in the abstract, but because military control depended on one idea.

Violence had to be an instrument, not an overflow.

This brings into play a tool that may seem minor, but is not administrative language.

In situations where it was no longer possible to undo what had happened, the report, the dispatch, and the exact phrasing served to frame the event, mitigate its public impact, and above all, protect the cohesion of the command.

Modern warfare operated with documents.

If something could not be justified as combat, then it had to be presented as an incident, as resistance, as an escape attempt.

This formula, which stated that a suspect had been shot while attempting to escape, had history.

In fact, it had been a recurring fiction within the Nazi system.

The SS and police forces frequently used it to describe the murders of prisoners, giving them an appearance of legality and discipline.

The bitter irony is that on the other side there was also the temptation to use similar phrases when the goal was to close a dangerous gap in the official narrative.

Not because they were morally equivalent, but because military bureaucracy in any army tends to seek terms that reduce political friction.

In a study of the US Army’s own professional and ethical system, a striking example appears.

Upon learning of a massacre of prisoners in 1943, George S.

Patton remarked that the officer should certify that the dead were snipers or that they had tried to escape or something like that to avoid scandal in the press and civil anger.

That phrase does not describe Dhao.

It describes a logic.

The logic of a command that when the event has already occurred first asks about the political and disciplinary effect and in 1945 that effect was explosive.

The liberation of the camps was being photographed, filmed, and narrated by correspondents.

The Allied public, which had heard general reports of atrocities for years, was now seeing concrete images, bodies, furnaces, barracks, death trains.

In that context, admitting that Allied soldiers had executed prisoners could be seen as an intolerable stain or as a comprehensible reaction, and that ambiguity was dangerous.

If the overflow was legitimized, the door would open for the war to end, not with surrender and occupation, but with a chain of uncontrolled vengeance.

Therefore, in many cases, the movement was both double and almost contradictory.

First, immediate violence was tolerated or passed over because no one wanted to be the officer who stopped men who had just witnessed horror.

And then the attempt was made to restore order through investigation, discipline, and the transfer of responsibilities.

Not always to punish harshly, but to close the episode, fit it into a file, isolate it as an exception.

The document had that function, to turn the unbearable into a case, the visceral into an incident, the morally dangerous into a resolved matter.

Meanwhile, at a higher level, another kind of response was being prepared.

formal justice, deliberate, slow, and slow not due to a lack of will, but due to scale to judge, the Allies needed more than fury.

They needed an international structure, a definition of crimes, a court rules, evidence, translation, logistics, custody of the accused, and above all, a political objective that the punishment would also be a historical record impossible to deny.

This design was consolidated with the London Agreement of August 8th, 1945, which established the basis for the International Military Tribunal and its charter.

But even after that step, the process was gradual.

There was an inaugural session in Berlin on October 18th, 1945 before the machinery was moved to Nuremberg, where the main trial formally began on November 20th, 1945.

Here lies the heart of the contrast.

Immediate punishment was a matter of minutes or hours.

Formal justice a matter of months.

And this interval was not a vacuum.

It was a period of occupation, interrogations, the hunting of fugitives, the reorganization of prisons and displaced persons camps, epidemics, famines, repatriations.

In this world in ruins, the idea of waiting for the tribunal could feel like an affront to some survivors and a relief to some officials.

Waiting meant that the state was reclaiming the sovereignty of punishment which was no longer the mass or the impulse but the procedure.

However, deferred justice was not simply softer.

It had another ambition.

The goal of Nuremberg was not just to punish individuals but to demonstrate a pattern.

How a criminal state was designed, how orders were obeyed, how murders were masked with bureaucracy, how an entire system was executed with signatures, stamps, chains of command.

In that sense, Nuremberg sought something that revenge could not give, a global record.

Yet, the tension did not disappear.

Formal justice was also selective.

It could not judge everyone nor every guard nor every collaborator.

It chose primary culprits, constructed categories such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and let thousands of lesser cases fall into other courts into denazification or simply into oblivion.

This selection inevitably fueled resentment.

For some, the fact that a well-dressed official ended up in a well-lit room and not in a muddy courtyard felt like injustice.

For others, it was the only way to prevent the end of the war from resembling too closely what was being condemned.

The moral questions raised by the liberation.

The public history of liberation was constructed almost from the very first day as a necessary narrative.

The gates opened, the crime was exposed, and the Allied armies appeared as the force that set the world back on its axis.

This narrative had real value as it clearly stated that the allies had saved lives, stopped murders, and documented evidence.

But it also served another function, to order the moral chaos.

Because in the same place where the horror was discovered, there were also episodes that didn’t fit with the image of the liberator as an impeccable figure.

This clash is clearly seen in what historians call without euphemisms a sensitive issue.

The famous German historian Jurgen Zeruski has made this clear when studying the shootings of captured SS members during the liberation of Dhaka outside of Germany due to the shadow it casts on the reputation of the liberators and inside Germany because of the potential and real use that apologetic sectors can make to retrospectively justify Nazi atrocities or pseudo exonerate perpetrators.

That’s the underlying reason why this issue was often sidelined.

Not because it was non-existent, but because it was dangerous in the realm of memory.

Opening that door could feed the deceptive argument of everyone did the same.

Right when the world was trying to prove with evidence that the Nazi system was not just another violence in the war, but a state machinery of persecution and extermination.

The consequence was a kind of narrative selection.

In survivors memoirs, for example, these events appear, but as a marginal aspect compared to the overwhelming weight of the liberation itself.

The priority of memory was survival, not creating a moral account of the moment when power changed hands.

In institutional accounts, the focus shifted toward what was strategically essential, securing the perimeter, addressing epidemics, recording evidence, establishing command.

Everything else, like shootings in a courtyard, hitting a guard, and the gaze that did not intervene, tended to remain in a gray area without heroism and with no clear place in the communicates.

And when something threatened to become a scandal, the most effective tool to close the issue appeared, the file.

Zerooki also points out that just days later, a meticulous investigation into the events at Dhaka was initiated with sworn statements and command reports.

But he also emphasizes something decisive for understanding the disappearance of the issue in the public narrative.

The originals of these sources were in the US National Archives and were only released in the summer of 1992.

Between 1945 and that document release, the public memory had decades to solidify without that uncomfortable layer in view.

It’s not that no one knew.

There were rumors, scattered testimonies, contradictory versions.

What was lacking was accessibility, contrast, and the kind of discussion that only becomes widespread when sources appear and historians can work with them with some stability.

In parallel, a useful myth was consolidated, the shadowless liberator.

Useful because the postwar period needed clean symbols to rebuild legitimacy and sustain the great trial that was coming.

With Nuremberg, justice had to be deferred, but public, rigorous, international.

The world had to see the perpetrators seated, identified, confronted with documents, not just punished by impulses.

The inaugural session of the International Military Tribunal was on October 18th, 1945 in Berlin, and the main trial formally began on November 20th, 1945 in Nuremberg.

For this justice to work as a foundational act, a sharp contrast was needed.

Organized crime versus restored legality.

In this framework, immediate revenge was a noise that was attempted to be reduced.

But history does not remain silent forever.

It changes form.

What didn’t fit into the official narrative resurfaced over time in late testimonies.

Many veterans described decades later the psychological shock of entering the camps.

The mix of nausea, anger, and bewilderment, and how this shock altered their understanding of the war and their own conduct.

There were also voices of soldiers, doctors, and correspondents who recalled that moment when discipline seemed insufficient to process what was seen.

These are not uniform or convenient accounts.

Precisely for that reason, they matter because they break the idea that human morality is automatic, that it activates by itself in the face of absolute evil like a perfect machine.

This is the door through which the concept of the gray zone enters.

And it is here that precision is necessary.

Primo Levi formulated this idea to describe the moral complexity within the concentration camp universe where the Nazi system pushed victims into ambiguous positions to exploit minimal privileges by performing control tasks, thus establishing a sinister survival system in exchange for concessions without erasing the fundamental difference between executioners and the persecuted.

His point was that the reality of the lagger cannot be reduced to two pure blocks.

Victims on one side and persecutors on the other because the system itself was designed to degrade relationships, induce complicity, and generate degrees of coercion and responsibility that are difficult to judge from the outside.

What is disturbing is that this idea, originally meant to describe the internal camp experience, helps illuminate what happened in the minutes following liberation.

Not because Allied soldiers and liberated prisoners became equivalent to the SS, but because the line between justice and vengeance became, in some places as thin as a gesture.

There were capos identified and punished by other prisoners.

There were guards handed over to mobs.

There were soldiers who intervened and soldiers who did not.

All of this coexisted with the attempt to restore legal order.

And this coexistence is in itself a form of the gray zone.

Not the one of systemic crime, but the one of momentary moral collapse.

The comfortable narrative prefers heroes without fractures.

The reality of 1945 did not offer that.

It offered human beings.

Some reacted with extraordinary self-control, others with an impulse for immediate punishment, others with a paralysis that they later confused with guilt.

And upon this diversity, a tension was mounted that never completely disappears.

When an evil is so absolute, can the human response remain pure without cost? The Geneva Convention prohibited reprisals against prisoners of war.

The principle was written.

What is difficult to accept is that even with the written principle, real behavior can deviate when the mind is confronted with something it was not prepared to see.

So why is this issue still uncomfortable today? For two reasons that pull in opposite directions.

The first is moral.

Recognizing shadows in the liberator seems to some a way of diminishing the liberation or tarnishing the memory of those who did the right thing under impossible conditions.

The second is political.

deniialist or relativist sectors seek exactly that crack to turn it into propaganda as some extremist authors tried to do by distorting the episode to relativize the condemnation of national socialism or invert the moral sense of liberation.

But silence is not a solution because silence is also a weapon.

When the complex is omitted, the ground is left open for the complex to be hijacked by those who manipulate it the worst.

To speak about this seriously requires two statements at once without allowing one to negate the other.

Liberation was a historical act of rescue and revelation of the crime.

And at the edge of that act, there were episodes of vengeance and summary executions that show human fragility under extreme shock.

It is not an equivalence.

It is a warning.

The final warning does not aim to judge 1945 from a comfortable chair, but to understand what happens to morality when it is pushed to the limit.

Public memory needs symbols, yes, but mature memory also needs full truth.

Because if the camps taught anything, it is that degradation doesn’t start suddenly.

It starts when it is accepted that there are lives to which rules do not apply.

And if anything, the moment of liberation taught us.

It is that even those who come to restore rules can for a moment feel the temptation to suspend them.

That is the edge.

Continue reading….
« Prev Next »