INTRODUCTION
2
never  to  his  courage  or  soldierly  virtues.  Doubt  no  longer  attaches  to  Hitler’s
courage under fire or his record as a Great War soldier. He was awarded both
grades of the Iron Cross and deservedly so. There can be no doubt that he was
a brave and fanatical soldier, and that his fanaticism stemmed from the (widely
held) media-inspired belief that the Reich was ringed by enemies and must fight
and  win  to  achieve  its  rightful  place  in  the  sun.  As  for  Austria-Hungary,  his
nominal homeland, Hitler had only contempt. By 1914 he already saw the future of
German Austria (including much of Bohemia and Moravia) lying in an Anschluss
with Germany, with the rest of the Habsburg domains being left to fragment as
they may. The 
degree
 to which Hitler was an active anti-Semite in 1914, and how
much his potentially eliminationist post-1919 attitudes grew, either out of belief
or from political opportunism, will always be open to doubt. The evidence (apart
from what he himself claimed) is inconclusive. 
What does  seem  certain is  that  by August  1914  he already  favoured  a pan-
German,  anti-Marxist  and  anti-Socialist  worldview.  It  is  also  apparent  that,
during the war, he was prepared to harangue any comrade, or group of comrades,
willing to listen to his monologues. Hitler was neither a good observer nor a good
listener. His mind was fixed and he was willing to see, read or hear only what
further confirmed him in his prejudices. In the mostly volunteer List Regiment of
October 1914, his was hardly a unique case. Most of these volunteers were like-
minded, being patriotic true believers, to the point of gullibility, in the official
Reich propaganda espoused in governmental, semi-governmental or independent
right-wing newspapers of the day. Thus, we can be sure as to sources (newspapers
primarily) influencing Hitler and motivating him to become the good soldier that
he undoubtedly was. We can also be sure not only from the testimony of Hitler
himself,  but  through  the  confirmatory  sources  of  both  friend  and  foe  that  in
subsequent years he saw himself uniquely qualified – by virtue of his front-line
service,  self-belief  in  his  talent  for  command  and  his  dilettante’s  theoretical
knowledge of the conduct of war – to dismiss men he sneered at as staff college
strategists and assume the role of supreme commander of all Germany’s forces.
In Hitler’s case, his Great War knapsack contained no marshal’s baton, but the
tunic of an all-powerful warlord. 
It  hardly  exaggerates  to  say  that  every  military  decision  made  by  Hitler
between 1939 and 1945 was in some way influenced or coloured by his experiences
with the List Regiment. In 1939–40 this may have worked in his favour. His first-
hand  field  knowledge  of  French  and  Belgian  Flanders  (where  the  water  table
always  lies  just  below  ground  level  and  the  countryside  is  criss-crossed  with
drainage ditches and narrow lanes) must have told him that this was no country
to  employ  a  major  panzer  thrust.  Instead  of  adopting  a  kind  of  mid-century
Schlieffen Plan – using tanks and Stukas to follow the old German invasion route
of  1914  –  he  chose  to  back  a  panzer  thrust  through  the  allegedly  impassable
Ardennes forest. Even Hitler’s enthusiastic adoption of the concept of blitzkrieg
itself can be seen to originate in his battle experiences in July 1918, when the
regiment was forced into a headlong retreat, harassed in a co-ordinated counter