A Moral Man in an Immoral Society

Is it possible to remain ethical while working for a government built on corruption and violence? That is the dilemma faced by Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin, a German general in World War II.

Senger was born in 1891 in Bavaria. He could easily have become a scholar rather than a soldier. In 1912, he attended Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, where he became fluent in French and English. But when World War I began in August 1914, he returned to Germany and joined the German Army.

Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin — FRIDOLIN VON SENGER UND ETTERLIN

His war record was meritorious enough to ensure he was selected as one of the 100,000 soldiers allowed by the Versailles Treaty during the Weimar Republic. The rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis must have been a depressing shock. Senger was a devout Catholic and a lay Benedictine who hated Hitler as the immoral demagogue he was.

In 1934, Hitler changed the oath of allegiance for the military. Where the military had sworn allegiance to the German Constitution and the country, the new “Hitler” oath required them to swear unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler.

The new oath was one of the earliest moral tests experienced by Senger. Whatever his personal feelings, and those of the other anti-Hitler officers, they all took the oath. They may have believed they could mitigate the damage inflicted by Hitler and his sycophantic entourage by staying on the job. It was also the only way to keep their jobs, although most ended up watching individuals with fewer moral qualms get promoted ahead of them.

Senger was never promoted above the level of a corps commander despite serving well in the 1940 campaign against France and the invasion of Russia. In 1943, he was transferred to the relative backwater Italian front where he served until the end of the war. He is remembered today for what he did – and didn’t do – in Italy.

The Italian theater of operations began in September 1943 when the British and Americans crossed over from Sicily. The Allies thought they could be in Rome within weeks because they expected the Italians to surrender (they did) and the Germans to retreat to the Alps (they didn’t).

Invading Italy from the south is militarily stupid. The Apennines Mountain chain runs up the spine of the peninsula with a fringe of low-lying ground on each coast. The mountains are broken up by valleys and rivers. The Germans usually held the high ground, choosing when to fight and when to fall back to the next line of defense. They were able to defend every inch of ground despite being outmanned, outgunned, and lacking air support.

The Allies suffered huge losses as the Germans retreated slowly from one fortified position to the next. Senger was the key tactical architect of these defensive maneuvers as the commander of the XIV Corps. His corps had orders to delay the Allied advance as long as possible to allow time to strengthen the main defensive line south of Rome.

The main defensive line was the Gustav Line, stretching across the narrowest point of Italy and blocking the road to Rome. It consisted of a series of fortifications across the mountains near the great Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino. Although Senger built many strongpoints around the Abbey, he ordered his troops to avoid the Abbey itself. As a Catholic and an amateur historian, he made it clear that he didn’t want to weaponize the Abbey.

In January 1944, the Allies bombed the Gustav Line, reducing the great Abbey to ruins. The Allies argued that the Abbey was a fortified defensive position for the Germans; the Germans retorted that they only moved into the ruins of the Abbey after it was flattened by the Allies. This operation remains controversial, in part because it destroyed a cultural monument. (The United Nations has since adopted rules that make the destruction of cultural monuments a war crime. War causes moral dilemmas on many levels.)

The Italian campaign had other controversies related to the rules of war. As the Germans retreated, Italian partisans attacked their supply lines and troops. In a fit of rage, Hitler ordered reprisals against civilians in the areas where partisans operated. (A war crime.)

Senger refused to obey, and he ordered all the troops under his command not to engage in reprisal attacks or murders of civilians. Senger managed to avoid being fired by Hitler, probably because his tactical skills were needed as the Germans continued to retreat toward the Alps through a seemingly endless series of improvised defensive positions. When the Germans in Italy finally surrendered in May 1945, Senger represented the German Army.

Senger’s dilemma resonates today as populists are once again lying, cheating and bullying their way into power. Populists and dictators (two sides of the same coin) know their positions are morally and ethically bankrupt. That’s why they hate, and fear, moral people who see through their demagoguery. While it’s popular to talk about “speaking truth to power”, few people have the suicidal courage exhibited by Alexei Navalny who did and was murdered on Putin’s orders.

Senger managed to stay alive and remain a moral man while serving an immoral regime led by a paranoid megalomaniac. He died in 1963.

For a philosophical view on this topic, I recommend, Moral Man and Immoral Society, by Reinhold Niebuhr, continuously in print since 1932. Niebuhr was an optimist; he believed that individual morality could overcome an immoral society.

This account of Senger’s life is based on, Fatal Decision, by Carlo d’Este (1991), a well-researched account of the Italian campaign focusing on the flawed Anzio-Nettuno operation.