Document created: 1 December 03
Air & Space Power Journal - Winter 2003

Disobedience and Conspiracy in the German Army, 1918–1945 by Robert B. Kane. McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers (http://www. mcfarlandpub.com), Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640, 2002, 279 pages, $45.00.

Robert Kane seeks to discover why a few German officers chose disobedience over blind obedience in conspiring against Hitler and the Nazi regime. What set these officers apart from their compatriots? Why had so few joined Ludwig Beck, Claus von Stauffenberg, and the military opposition? For Kane, one of the major answers to these questions lies in the “origins, consequences, and significance of the personal oath of loyalty” (p. 1) that German military members swore to the führer. Dividing the German military into Hitler followers (true believers, idolizers, and careerists), nonconspirators (those critical of Hitler but unwilling to take action), and conspirators, Kane contends that the oath was more than mere words in that it prevented many people from becoming active conspirators.

Kane commences his investigation into the significance of the Hitler oath by discussing the origins and meaning of military oaths from prehistory to the Wilhelmine era. After offering a brief introduction to those theories of moral development that inform his analysis, Kane turns to examining the interplay between oaths, loyalty, and the German state from 1918 through the Second World War. His final chapters provide a brief survey of the military opposition to Hitler, followed by an analysis of those factors that persuaded a few members of the military to break their oaths of loyalty to him. Kane concludes that the military opposition shared three common characteristics: a nurturing childhood, spiritual home life, and humanistic education. Although “none of these factors individually can explain why some officers chose conspiracy and others did not” (p. 211), the combination of them produced a moral and ethical value system that empowered these men to question the morality of blind, unthinking obedience.

This study is problematic at a number of levels. The starting premise of the book—that the oath of loyalty rendered to Hitler by German soldiers prevented many of them from joining the active opposition—is questionable. A number of officers who hid behind their oaths of loyalty to Hitler had earlier circumvented or ignored oaths of loyalty to the Weimar constitution, and several later felt free to lie under oath before the Nuremberg tribunal. Kane acknowledges that German officers never internalized their oath to the Weimar constitution yet fails to recognize the logical implication: the key question is not why a few soldiers proved willing to violate their oath to Hitler but why so many remained committed to the regime even as defeat stared them in the eyes. Exploring and acknowledging the appeal of Hitler’s military buildup and foreign-policy successes during the 1930s, the growing influence of Nazi ideology among the junior officer corps, and Hitler’s use of bribery to co-opt senior generals, Kane contends that the oath of loyalty played a very important role in limiting active opposition to Hitler. This reviewer endorses a simpler explanation: military opposition to the führer was limited because few individuals actually opposed his leadership. The oath played a minor role.

Secondly, Kane’s conclusion needs elaboration and development. Given that a number of Hitler loyalists (such as Karl Dönitz) and nonconspirators (such as Erich Raeder) had experienced nurturing childhoods, spiritual home lives, and humanistic educations, why did they stay true to the führer while Beck, Stauffenberg, and associates concluded that resistance was a moral imperative? More importantly, did other military resisters such as those associated with the Red Orchestra or those who deserted to join Germany’s enemies share these traits? Kane’s thesis may apply to the nationalist-conservative military resistance, but one must question whether it applies to others who opposed the Hitler regime, such as trade unionists, communists, and groups such as the Edelweiss Piraten.

Disobedience and Conspiracy, based overwhelmingly on published English-language sources, overlooks many of the debates and recent publications that might inform its analysis. Kane’s brief comments on Hitler’s bribery of the senior officer corps, for example, fail to draw upon Gerd Ueberschär and Winfried Vogel’s Dienen und Verdienen: Hitlers Geschenke an seine Eliten (Service and reward: Hitler’s gifts to his elite) (Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 1999), or Norman Goda’s “Black Marks: Hitler’s Bribery of His Senior Officers during World War II,” The Journal of Modern History, June 2000, 413–52. Uebershär, Vogel, and Goda show that numerous officers (Erich von Manstein, Gerd von Rundstedt, Gunther von Kluge, and Hans Guderian, to name a few) who later claimed that their sense of duty and honor had precluded their joining the anti-Hitler conspiracy accepted large, covert monetary gifts from the führer. Pleas of honor and duty ring hollow when corruption is their handmaiden. Likewise, Kane’s discussion of the Wehrmacht’s responsibility for war crimes overlooks material generated by the controversial Wehrmacht exhibit that toured Germany and Austria throughout the 1990s (see, for example, Hannes Heer and Klaus Naumann, eds., War of Extermination: The German Military in World War II, 1941–1944 [New York: Berghahn Books, 2000]). Lastly, Kane’s narrow focus on figures associated with the assassination attempt of 20 July 1944 overlooks recent historiography on military resistance in the Third Reich, in which a younger generation has turned to examining the resistance of the “little man”—desertion.

Despite these drawbacks, Disobedience and Conspiracy has its merits. Kane scrutinizes the dynamics of oath giving in far greater depth than do the leading historians of the military opposition to Hitler (Peter Hoffmann, Klemens von Klemperer, and Theodore Hamerow), appending his study with an overview of oaths sworn to the Prussian king and Weimar constitution, and oaths given to Hitler by the military, Hitler Youth, SA, and SS. Spanning the period from Germany’s defeat in the First World War through the aftermath of the attempt on Hitler’s life, Kane’s study conveys a firm sense of the historic context to the issue he examines. Furthermore, the author provides a valuable service by integrating perspectives from the disciplines of philosophy and psychology into his analysis: his introductory discussion of obedience and disobedience is most commendable. Though flawed, the study adds a fair discussion to the English-language literature on the topic and will appeal to readers seeking a detailed if controversial examination of the origins, significance, and impact of the Hitler oath.

Dr. Douglas Peifer
Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.