Tapping Hitler's Generals

The predominant group at Trent Park was the 63 generals. These divide by rank into Generaloberst–1: General–8: Generalleutnant–23 and Generalmajor–23. The British were therefore listening-in to the second layer at the top of the Wehrmacht command structure. At first glance it is a reasonably heterogeneous group. At one end of the scale is 56-year-old Generalmajor Alfred Gutknecht, whose social background was the Kaiserreich and who since 1939 had held only administrative posts; at the other the youngest divisional comander of the German land forces, highly decorated SS-Brigadeführer Kurt Meyer, 34 years old, who since 1939 had been at the front in the thick of the fighting. The breadth of the band is what makes the protocols especially valuable, making it possible to see how differing social circumstances and war experiences had a bearing on the content of conversations.

The generals were all born in the years between 1882 and 1910, but the majority (24 generals) were born in 1894–95. The religion is known in only two-thirds of cases: the relationship of 41 Protestants to 10 Catholics may possibly represent the religious split of the whole group. All regions of the 1914 German Reich feature amongst the places of birth, although the majority of officers were Prussian born.[75] Most of the generals came from upper-class origins, although only 18 were actually of noble birth plus three amongst the lower officer ranks. Only eight of the 63 generals had seen long service with the General Staff.

Kroener[76] suggests that the social profile and make-up of the Wehrmacht officer corps should be distributed in the following manner:

–General Staff officer of WWI

–Front officer of WWI

–Reichswehr officers without war experience

–Soldiers trained before September 1939 but who became officers in wartime.

The generals should be grouped into those who rose to general rank:

–before September 1939

–between 1939 and 1943

–from 1944 onwards.

Following this system, it will be seen that almost all 63 generals served at the front in WWI and were appointed to the rank of general between 1939 and 1945 (one prior to 1939, 52 between 1939 and 1943, 10 between 1944 and 1945). Put another way, the military career path of the majority was generally similar until the outbreak of war in 1939. In WWI they had served at the front as young officers, most of them being senior lieutenants and company commanders at its conclusion: they were then accepted into the Reichswehr and by the outbreak of war in 1939 were as a rule regimental commanders. For further progress technical qualifications and especially achievement at the front were decisive. Of the 33 officers born in 1894–96, six were of the rank of Oberst when captured, 12 Generalmajor, 12 Generalleutnant and four General. Only two of the 63 continued into the West German Bundeswehr.

Experiences in World War II differed widely: whilst one group had made a career at the front, the other ‘also served’ behind the lines. The decorations awarded highlight the division as according to fighting experience. Of the total of 86 officers, 48 had awards for bravery, 26 wore the Knight’s Cross (of whom five had the Oak Leaves, two the Swords and one the Diamonds), 13 had as the highest award for bravery, the German Cross in Gold. In other words, nearly all very senior officers who had been at the front over a long period were decorated. If a general lacked a decoration it was a sure sign either that he had not been at the front long, or that he had been on a quiet section of front, or had not proved his fighting abilities adequately, or he had served at a front base where little opportunity presented itself for distinguished activity.[77] Thus the undecorated general had as a rule experienced a different war to one who had won the Knight’s Cross.

The question may be posed whether the protocols, at least for the generals appointed between 1939 and 1943, are representative. The great diversity of careers appears to suggest this conclusion at first glance, but the material does not lend itself to judgements about the group.