Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II

TLDR

The article, while appearing to concern only military affairs, actually addresses broader issues relevant to public relations, opinion analysis, propaganda, education, and the psychology of individuals and groups. The authors sought to determine why the German Army in World War II fought so stubbornly to the end. They conducted an intensive study of the army’s social structure, its symbols, Nazi morale‑boosting efforts, and Allied attempts to undermine it. The study revealed that an infantryman’s behavior and attitudes are largely shaped by his relationship with his primary company group, explaining his responses, combat engagement, and surrender, and offering a sociological–psychological model useful for propagandists.

Abstract

The title of this article may suggest to some that it is of interst only to the student of military affairs. But it is of a far wider scope. The Public relations expert, the opinion analyst, the propagandist, the educator, and all those who are interested in relating attitudes to the psychology of the individual and the structure of the group will find it deserving of close attention. For the authors, in attempting to determine why the German Army in World War II fought so stub-bornly to the end, have made an intensive study of the social structure of this army, of the symbols to which it responded, of the Nazi attempts to bolster its morale, and the Allied attempts to break it down. They have found a key to many of the behavior and attitude patterns of the individual infantryman in the interpersonal relationships within the company—his primary group. His relationship to this primary group goes far to explain why he reponds to one appeal and not to another, why he fights, and why he surrenders. This study thus provides an example of the sociological and psychological analysis which the propagandist must make if he is to obtain maximal response to his communications.