During World War II, two branches of Nazi Germany’s military machine the Wehrmacht and the SS operated in overlapping but often competing spheres of power. The Wehrmacht, Germany’s regular armed forces, was traditionally viewed as professional soldiers focused on conventional warfare. In contrast, the Schutzstaffel (SS) was a powerful paramilitary organization fiercely loyal to Hitler and central to the regimeʼs racial and ideological agenda. To ask whether the Wehrmacht hated the SS is to ask about the complex relationship between two intertwined yet ideologically distinct institutions. Their interactions reveal rivalry, distrust, and moments of uneasy cooperation.
Origins and Roles
Wehrmacht
The Wehrmacht was officially formed in 1935, succeeding the Reichswehr. It included the Heer (army), Kriegsmarine (navy), and Luftwaffe (air force). As Germany remilitarized, the Wehrmacht became the backbone of Hitler’s expansionist ambitions, representing professional military expertise and national defense.
Schutzstaffel (SS)
The SS originated as Hitler’s personal bodyguard unit under Heinrich Himmler and grew into a multifaceted organization. Its branches included the WaffenSS (combat troops), the AllgemeineSS (administration), and the Sicherheitsdienst (SD) and Gestapo (security police). The SS was deeply ideological and centrally responsible for implementing the Holocaust, war crimes, and occupation policies.
Early Tensions
Competition for Housing and Resources
From the early days, tension existed between the Wehrmacht and the SS. Both sought influence within the Nazi state, often competing for resources, recruitment privileges, and prestige. Wehrmacht officers, trained in traditional Prussian military values, looked down on the SS’s ideological overtones and political power.
Officer Training and Culture
Senior Wehrmacht officers were suspicious of SS recruits, seeing them as less professionally trained and more ideologically driven. They valued drills and traditional command structure, while the SS emphasized loyalty to Hitler and Nazi ideology over military professionalism.
Combat Collaboration
WaffenSS Units
During the war, the WaffenSS became a formidable fighting force, participating in major campaigns from Poland to the Eastern Front. Some units, like the Leibstandarte and Das Reich divisions, earned reputations for fierce combat performance.
Reluctance and Rivalry
Despite this, many Wehrmacht generals remained skeptical of the WaffenSS. Some refused SS units on their front or resisted SS influence in command decisions. Cases arose when Wehrmacht officers found SS troops’ political indoctrination and brutal tactics a liability. In several instances, commands overlapped, generating friction and rivalry.
Ideological vs. Professional Differences
Adherence to Conduct
The Wehrmacht, while complicit in many Eastern Front atrocities, formally adhered more closely to conventional military laws of war. The SS, by contrast, was explicitly ideological and instrumental in genocide and civilian massacres. Wehrmacht officers sometimes privately criticized SS atrocities as harmful to military operations. The differing missions led to conflict in priorities.
Frictions in Occupied Territories
In occupied territories like Poland and the Soviet Union, both organizations had overlapping duties. The SS applied racial policies and genocide, while the Wehrmacht managed military administration. Disagreements over treatment of civilians, resource seizure, and security responsibilities often produced tension and mutual dislike.
Public Critiques by Wehrmacht Officers
Notable Dissents
Some senior Wehrmacht officers expressed disdain for the SS’s brutality and political zeal. In diary entries and private correspondence, generals like Erich von Manstein criticized SS methods as detrimental to discipline and potentially damaging to morale among ordinary soldiers.
Dissent vs. Complicity
Despite these private criticisms, most Wehrmacht officers remained complicit in Nazi war aims. Cooperation with the SS, by administrative or operational design, made them part of the larger war machine. In practice, overt resistance was rare and would have been deadly.
How Deep Was the Divide?
Personal Hostility, Institutional Overlap
Tensions were often personal and not necessarily institutional. Low-ranking Wehrmacht soldiers sometimes admired WaffenSS bravery, while SS command recoiled at Wehrmacht traditionalism. Institutional rivalry, however, centered on prestige, authority, and differing worldviews.
Examples of Conflict
- Operational confusion in anti-partisan actions, where Wehrmacht commanders sometimes intervened to restrain SS reprisals.
- Conflicts over recruitment and deployment of Volksdeutsche, with SS seeking control over ethnic Germans while Wehrmacht demanded manpower.
- Personal feuds between generals and SS leaders during overlapping commands.
Collaboration Despite Differences
Joint Operations
Despite mutual distrust, cooperation was common. On Eastern Front and in anti-partisan actions, the Wehrmacht worked with SS units to secure captured areas. Wehrmacht logistical support, shared intelligence, and coordinated efforts in ghettos and executions were frequent.
End-of-War Unity
By 19441945, as Germany faced collapse, pragmatic cooperation increased. The SS and Wehrmacht fought side by side in battles like the defense of Berlin, revealing that operational survival often replaced old rivalries.
Postwar Legacy
Narratives of Clean Wehrmacht
After the war, many former Wehrmacht officials promoted the myth of the clean Wehrmacht, arguing they were distinct from the SS’s criminality. This narrative overlooked Wehrmacht participation in war crimes. The rivalry with the SS was emphasized to deflect broader culpability.
Historical Reassessment
Modern scholars reject the idea of a purely apolitical Wehrmacht. While rivalry and hate existed, institutional cooperation in carrying out Nazi objectives was substantial. The split was less moral than functional a competition for influence rather than a conflict of conscience.
So, did the Wehrmacht hate the SS? In many cases, yes individual officers and units distrusted and disliked the SS for its ideological zeal, brutality, and political encroachment. But this personal or organizational hostility didn’t prevent both from working together toward common goals under Hitler. The relationship was marked by friction, rivalry, and occasional disdain, yet sustained by shared objectives and wartime demand. Understanding this complex relationship helps reveal the overlapping responsibilities, moral compromises, and institutional rivalries under the Nazi regime.