Comparing the Otto Skorzeny Waffen SS commando doctrine to that of the British SAS (Special Air Service)

Comparing the "Skorzeny doctrine" to that of the SAS (Special Air Service) reveals both striking similarities in the practical application of special operations and fundamental differences in their underlying philosophy, ethical considerations, and institutional integration.

The "Skorzeny Doctrine" (Unconventional Warfare as a Personal Art)

As established, this isn't a codified doctrine but rather a reflection of Otto Skorzeny's approach to special operations, characterized by:

• Audacity and Daring:  A willingness to conceive and execute highly risky, often unprecedented missions (e.g., Mussolini's rescue).
• Deception and Ruses of War: Extensive use of elaborate deceptions, including impersonating enemy forces and using enemy equipment, to achieve surprise and sow confusion (e.g., Operation Greif during the Battle of the Bulge). This often pushed, and sometimes crossed, the boundaries of international law.
• Psychological Warfare: Operations were designed not just for physical impact but also for profound psychological effect on the enemy and, crucially, to boost the morale of his own side.
• Focus on High-Value Targets/Strategic Impact: Missions aimed at individuals or specific objectives that would have disproportionate strategic or political consequences.
• Improvised and Adaptive: Skorzeny was known for his adaptability and ability to improvise solutions in the field, often operating with significant autonomy.
• Personal Leadership: His operations were heavily reliant on his personal charisma, cunning, and direct leadership.

The SAS Doctrine (Codified Special Operations)

The SAS (Special Air Service), founded by David Stirling during WWII, developed a more formalized doctrine rooted in specific principles that have evolved over decades. Key tenets include:

• Selection and Training: A rigorous, highly selective process designed to identify individuals with extreme physical and mental resilience, adaptability, and self-reliance.
• Small Teams and Independence: Operations are often conducted by small, highly trained teams capable of operating independently for extended periods behind enemy lines.
• Surprise, Speed, and Violence of Action: These are core principles for direct action missions, overwhelming the enemy at the point of attack.
• Detailed Planning and Rehearsal: Meticulous planning, intelligence gathering, and realistic rehearsals are paramount to minimizing friction and ensure success. (This is a key element of McRaven's influential theory of special operations, which echoes early SAS principles).
• Adaptability and Initiative (Mission Command): While highly trained and briefed, SAS operators are empowered to use their initiative to adapt to changing circumstances on the ground, within the commander's intent.
• Discreet and Covert Operations: A strong emphasis on stealth and avoiding detection, especially in special reconnaissance and covert action roles.
• Intelligence Gathering: Integral to all operations, from planning to execution, for target acquisition and situational awareness.
• Unconventional Warfare (UW): Long-term engagement with indigenous forces, training, advising, and assisting them in resistance or insurgency against a common enemy. This is a core SAS capability, particularly historically.
• Counter-Terrorism (CT): A specialized and highly prominent role since the 1970s, demanding precision, speed, and often overt force.

Comparison: Similarities and Differences

Similarities:

1. Audacity and Risk-Taking: Both approaches embrace daring operations that deviate from conventional military tactics.
2. Focus on Relative Superiority: Both seek to achieve a decisive advantage over a numerically superior or well-defended enemy through tactics like surprise, speed, and specialized skills. As McRaven outlines, this involves simplicity, security, repetition, surprise, speed, and purpose – all elements found in successful Skorzeny operations and foundational to SAS methods.
3. High-Impact Operations: Both aim for missions that yield significant strategic, political, or psychological outcomes disproportionate to the size of the force employed.
4. Elite Personnel: Both require highly capable, adaptable, and determined individuals who can operate under extreme pressure.
5. Unconventional Methods: Both operate outside the strictures of conventional warfare, leveraging ingenuity and unorthodox tactics.

 Differences:

1.Ethical and Legal Boundaries

Skorzeny: Famously (and controversially) blurred lines regarding the laws of armed conflict, particularly with the use of enemy uniforms in combat (Operation Greif), which is considered perfidy under the Geneva Conventions if used to feign protected status during an attack. His methods were often expedient and disregarded established international norms.

SAS: Operates strictly within the framework of international law and the laws of armed conflict. While highly secretive and often covert, the SAS adheres to rules of engagement and maintains accountability to its government. Deception is used, but typically within the bounds of "ruses of war" (e.g., feints, camouflage, disinformation) rather than perfidy.

2 Institutionalization and Doctrine:

Skorzeny: His "doctrine" was largely personal, uncodified, and tied to his unique command within the SS. It was less about a reproducible, institutional approach and more about his personal genius (or notoriety).

SAS: Has a deeply ingrained, codified doctrine built on rigorous selection, standardized training, and established procedures. It's a professional military unit with a clear hierarchy and accountability. Its methods are taught, refined, and disseminated throughout the organization.

2. Mission Scope and Evolution:

Skorzeny: Primarily focused on direct action, special reconnaissance, and politically sensitive missions within the context of a declining Nazi regime.

SAS: Evolved from desert raiding and partisan support in WWII to encompass a broader spectrum of roles, including counterterrorism, foreign internal defense, hostage rescue, and intelligence gathering, adapting to modern threats.

3. Long-Term Strategy vs. Immediate Impact:

Skorzeny: Often sought immediate, decisive impacts, sometimes without a clear long-term strategic follow-up, especially as the war turned against Germany.

SAS: While executing immediate tactical missions, these are typically integrated into broader strategic objectives, particularly in roles like counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense which require sustained engagement.

In essence, while Skorzeny demonstrated the “potential” of special operations through his audacious exploits, the SAS represents the “professionalization” and “institutionalization” of special operations, embedding similar tactical principles within a framework of rigorous training, ethical conduct (within military norms), and long-term strategic relevance.

The SAS, and indeed many modern special forces units, have likely studied Skorzeny's successes and failures, but they have built their capabilities on a foundation of discipline, accountability, and adherence to the laws of war, which Skorzeny often disregarded.