Command and obedience in the Bundeswehr

Central aims were the reduction of power to command by superiors and a shared responsibility for obedience by subordinates.

He may only give orders concerning official aims and respecting international and national laws and the general directives issued by the Ministry.

This is known as Auftragstaktik, and would enable subordinates to act to achieve the order's aim in changed circumstances.

[5] The command relationships in the Bundeswehr are defined in the Ministerial Directive Governing Superior–Subordinate Relations (official translation[1] of German: Verordnung über die Regelung des militärischen Vorgesetztenverhältnisses, abbreviated Vorgesetztenverordnung (VorgV)).

These service regulations were decreed March 19, 1956, shortly before the first soldiers joined the newly founded Bundeswehr, and went into effect June 7, 1956.

Examples: Not mentioned in the Vorgesetztenverordnung, but recognized in practice (if rare), is "superiorship by consent of the subordinates": If no other superior is on site and either the situation is not an emergency, or none of those involved is at least an NCO (hence cannot use § 6), then the soldier with the highest rank on site or one of them if several can command if the others don't object.

He may but need not obey if the order has obviously no legitimate aim (e. g. "clean my boots" in usual situations), violates the soldier's own human dignity (e. g. "run into the city and shout that you are a fool"), or is unconscionable (e. g. obliges the soldier to spend amounts of his own money above limits mentioned in directives).

He must not obey if the order violates others' human dignity, international law or consists of a crime (including a misdemeanor).

[8] Apart from that, it is not the soldier's job to investigate the entire legitimacy of the order; e. g. whether the not obviously lacking official aim actually existed, or whether non-penal laws or directives of the Ministry were complied with.

[10] If subordinates avoided executing orders frivolously, they could also be sentenced to imprisonment up to two years in cases of severe consequences.