Soldaten

This catalogue of duties showed that, while the Wehrmacht of the early 1930s positioned itself as a part of German military tradition, it was adopting new accents. The emphasis on “unconditional willingness to sacrifice” and “steely determination” shows how battle was defined as the central element of soldiers’ existence. In keeping with the myths of incredible German courage on the front lines during World War I, living up to the demands of battle was the ultimate litmus test of a soldier’s worth, to which all other considerations were subordinate.⁵⁶ This catalogue of military virtues did not change substantially during World War II.

Admittedly, a paper published by the highest echelons of the military leadership is not necessarily proof that soldiers adopted a specific military value system into their frame of reference, but personnel files often suggest that was indeed the case. Superiors regularly evaluated every German officer, and the categories the evaluations contained included personality, strength in the face of the enemy, achievements while carrying out duties, and mental and physical abilities. A glance at this nearly endless and often ignored source reveals that the training desired by Germany’s military leadership had taken root at least in the reference frame of the corps of officers. In the files, a personality of “high military quality” was defined as being energetic and “strong-willed,” “brave and demanding of itself,” “physically adroit, tough and with great endurance.” Courage, energy, toughness, willingness to act, and decisiveness were needed, if the officers wanted to receive a positive evaluation and position themselves for promotion. It was also important for officers to show that they were “crisis-proof.” For instance, a superior wrote of the future lieutenant general Erwin Menny: “He knows no difficulties.” Likewise General Heinrich Eberbach was repeatedly praised in the course of his career as a “brisk and prudential tank commander equal to the most difficult situations…. He’s one of our best.” Enumerating his particularly positive traits, a superior characterized Eberbach as “brave, loyal, steadfast.”⁵⁷

Negative attributes for soldiers were softness, “lack of energy,”⁵⁸ lack of “resilience,”⁵⁹ and insufficient “hardness of will and ability to withstand crises.”⁶⁰ For instance, in 1944 a superior wrote of Major General Albin Nake, the commander of the 158th Reserve Division: “A typically East Prussian commander, who does not possess the severity and decisiveness to lead a division in the most difficult situations.”⁶¹ General Otto Elfeldt was criticized for allowing “his sub-commanders too much independence of opinion.”⁶² A superior wrote of Major General Alexander von Pfuhlstein: “Pfuhlstein is a pessimist. Probably a congenital one. He lacks the conviction of belief in the National Socialist idea. For this reason, he tends to forgive obvious failure in his troops.” ⁶³ After this damning report, Pfuhlstein was relieved of his division command. Colonel Walther Korfes, the commander of Grenadier Regiment 726, even became the subject of an investigation as to whether he had been honorably captured or not by British forces. Previously, he had been classified as a “fundamental skeptic and critic.”⁶⁴

The evaluations contained within the personnel files of Wehrmacht officers also suggest that the ideological changes brought by National Socialism to the military value system were limited. Significantly the words “sacrifice” and “fanaticism” do not occur in army files. (The ones from the navy were largely destroyed.) Only SS files contain this sort of vocabulary. For instance, an evaluation of SS Lieutenant Colonel Kurt Mayer of April 29, 1943, reports that his “massive success… is the result solely of his fanatical willingness to do battle and his circumspect leadership.”⁶⁵ Willingness to sacrifice and fanaticism were two unquestionable indications of an increasingly ideological system of values. The ideal of the “political soldier,” ceaselessly promoted by Nazi propaganda, was not only a courageous but a fanatic fighter, willing to sacrifice himself. These terms repeatedly crop up in conjunction with soldiers who were committed National Socialists. One of the most prominent was Admiral Karl Dönitz. When he assumed command of the German navy on January 30, 1943, he declared that he planned to lead with “ruthless decisiveness, fanatic commitment and the most iron will to victory.”⁶⁶ In countless commands, he demanded the same commitment from his troops. And Dönitz was hardly alone. Fanaticism became an omnipresent category in the official correspondence of the military leadership in the second half of World War II.