The extraordinary military value of the Wehrmacht, in its action and resistance, has often been attributed to the influence of Nazi ideology on the soldiers as its unifying capacity. Many people have seen National Socialism as the driving force of the Wehrmacht. However, according to Shils and Janowitz, the strength of conviction is not sufficient to ensure resilience, as the Wehrmacht was demonstrated during the Second World War.
The drag force depends on internal factors, like any social group. Indeed, the authors consider the German army, or by extension, any army, as a social group in its right. However, it is a social group on which they focus here. The army is operating on a population of mechanisms, within no less special structures. Also, this study is a sociological analysis of military fact. However, this is the case of the Wehrmacht.
The central question is therefore about the factors of resistance. Shils and Janowtiz consider the ability of cohesion as the driving force of a social group, and therefore, its ability to resist external and internal aggression. The authors' premise thus is: the motivation to fight like the soldier; to resist socialization to keep the organization optimized as in the German army, or the integration of isolated individuals in elementary groups and social units, likely to meet the psycho-social needs inherent to the human condition.
Tags: The Second World War; the Wehrmacht; cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht; authors E. A. Shils & Janowitz, M.
[...] However, according to Shils and Janowitz, strength of conviction is not sufficient to ensure resilience, as was demonstrated by the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. The drag force is a function of internal factors like in any social group. Indeed, the authors consider the German army, and by extension any army, as a social group in its own right. However, this is a specific social group; they are working as a population operating on own mechanisms within no less special structures. [...]
[...] According to Shils and Janowitz, cohesion is first of all, a determined mechanism of socialization and integration in the related social structure. The concept, if not the "key" factor of cohesion, is the primary group whose own structure is not unimportant. The elementary group is the minimum unit of combat to which soldiers are attached. This small group is, by proxy, a projection replacing the basic social unit of individuals: the family. Group membership allows the satisfaction of physical, psychological or emotional needs, needed for the wellbeing of an individual. [...]
[...] However, in the case of the Wehrmacht, the central issue is that of resistance factors. Shils and Janowtiz consider the ability of cohesion as the driving force of a social group, and therefore, its ability to withstand external attacks is perceived as internal. The premise of the authors is as follows: The motivation to fight and to resist on the part of the soldier is to implement an optimized organizational socialization which was then performed in the German army, or the integration of isolated groups in elementary individuals and social units, which is likely to meet the psychosocial needs inherent to the human condition. [...]
[...] The purpose of this activity is actually the fight, then more strongly soda around ideas under - taking the fight beyond the battle. These are just a set of symbols, values and conceptualizations of political and ideological ideas built around the central figure of the Führer. Paradoxically, purely political ideas or simply "national socialism” does influence the soldiers. These are "highest” ideas, a specific way to evade the ethical issues which have arisen from a broader ideology of homeland defense, and recovery of the German State. [...]
[...] Built around the authoritarian and patriarchal figure of the officer, it is part of the socialization process augured by the formation of elementary groups. Hence the most important ascending ranking officers are closer physically and psychologically to the said elementary group. Thus a series of representations and symbols around the officer status develop, with the conceptual system strongly reminiscent of an effective transfer order. If the leading office is the psychoanalytic father- figure, the unconditional basis for well -being is the driving force of the group. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
