Morale is an imprecise term. It is related to the moral qualities of the individual (indeed, in earlier times it was often spelt ‘moral’) and may be defined, in the words of Irvin L. Child, as ‘pertain[ing] to [the individuals'] efforts to enhance the effectiveness of the group in accomplishing the task in hand’. This definition links the morale of the individual with that of the larger organization. The relationship between the two can be described as follows: unless the individual is reasonably content he will not willingly contribute to the unit. He might mutiny or desert, but is more likely simply to fail to work wholeheartedly towards the goals of the group. High group morale, or cohesion, is the product in large part of good morale experienced by members of that unit. The state of morale of a larger formation such as an army is the product of the cohesion of its constituent units. The possession by an individual of morale sufficiently high that a soldier is willing to engage in combat might be described as ‘fighting spirit’.
In his book On War, the 19th-century Prussian soldier and military philosopher Clausewitz differentiated between professional armies which possess such attributes as discipline, experience, and skill, and non-professional armies which have ‘bravery, adaptability, stamina and enthusiasm’. He divided what we might call morale into two components, ‘mood’ and ‘spirit’, and warned that the two should never be confused. An army's mood is a transient thing, which can change day by day or even minute by minute depending on whether troops are hungry or well fed, warm or cold, and the like. An army with ‘true military spirit’ keeps ‘its cohesion under the most murderous fire’ and in defeat resists fears, both real and imaginary. Clausewitz argued that military spirit is created in two ways, by the waging of victorious wars and the testing of an army to the very limits of its strength: ‘the seed will grow only in the soil of constant activity and exertion, warmed by the sun of victory’. Thus in 1861 a Union army of inexperienced volunteers marched out to the first battle of the American civil war at Bull Run with superficially high morale, only later to flee from the field, defeated and its morale shattered. Four years later, the fatalistic veterans of the Union Army of the Potomac wrote their names and addresses on slips of paper which they pinned to their uniforms, so that if they were killed in the coming battle their families might learn of their fate. Their mood might have seemed to indicate low morale: but as their dogged fighting during the battles of attrition in 1864 demonstrated, these veterans, some of whom might have fought at Bull Run, had true military spirit. Similarly, Napoleon's nickname for the infantryman of his élite Imperial Guard was grognard (‘grumbler’).
During WW I, the unending nature of the fighting took a heavy toll on military morale. A decline in French morale resulted in widespread mutinies in 1917, although it recovered somewhat during 1918. German military morale underwent a partial collapse in the autumn of 1918, while the British army's morale remained remarkably high; these two factors help to explain why the war should have ended in November. Generally speaking, a swift and decisive victory can only be achieved if one adversary is greatly inferior to its opponent in terms of ‘fighting power’, a term that encompasses such factors as training, tactics, weapons, and morale (see operational concepts). French civilian and military morale was noticeably poor in 1940, as were other aspects of its army's fighting power. During the Vietnam war, effective American tactics, logistics, and the like were undermined by a collapse of morale among its troops, which was in turn related to the decline of support for the war on the US home front.
In the era of total war civilian morale became as important as military morale. Basing their views on the experience of German bombing of British cities during WW I, air-power theorists and governments alike during the inter-war period believed that civilian morale was likely to crumble under sustained air attack. In fact, as the experience of Britain in 1940-1 and 1944 and Germany in 1942-5 demonstrated, civilian morale proved to be remarkably resilient under aerial bombardment.
Research into what makes western armies ‘tick’ suggests that high military morale depends on a number of factors. These include: belief in a cause; good training; trust in leaders; honour; good logistics, which ranges from everything from hot baths and dinners to an efficient postal service; pride in the unit; and a sense of being treated fairly. The ‘primary’ or ‘buddy’ group, the small clique of friends who provide a substitute family for the soldier, is widely perceived as being of vital importance, for soldiers do not usually fight for queen, cause, or country, but rather so as not to let down their mates. However, it would be unwise to assume that the same factors also apply to the morale of soldiers drawn from very different cultures, such as the communist North Vietnamese Army or the Islamic Iranian Pasdaran.
Being attentive to the morale of the troops does not automatically make one a successful commander. McClellan was renowned for his care for his men but scarcely rates as a great general. However, the achievements of Slim and Montgomery in rebuilding the morale of the British Fourteenth and Eighth Armies respectively during WW II rate among their finest achievements. The military leader at all levels has a vital role in ensuring that the aims of the group—which might be simply survival—are congruent with those of the army. Research also suggests that high personal and group morale can retard, although not prevent, the onset of psychiatric casualties.
Bibliography
- Clausewitz, C. von, On War, ed. and trans. M. Howard and P. Paret (Princeton, 1976).
- Holmes, Richard, Firing Line (London, 1985)
— Gary Sheffield