Who Was the Greatest Commander to Face the British?

[Peter Graham]

Hi Vertigo

An excellent and thought-provoking post.

I agree there comes a point at which the military must disagree with the Government - it is commonly known as a revolution, or coup. Deciding when to cross that line is not easy.

I think there is a significant difference between individual soldiers saying "get stuffed" and resigning, deserting or whatever and a military coup. A coup occurs when the military brass hats decide that they should be in charge in place of the civilian authority. Disobedience or adherence to morality does not require armed intervention at a national level.

Certainly when I was in the army as an officer in the '70s we were required to be apolitical.

But being officially apolitical is not the same thing as being personally amoral. I have a close relative in the Forces and his view - echoed by many of his brother officers - is broadly "we have a job to do - it is not for us to reason why". To me, that's a cop out. In any other walk of life, professional people do reason why and hurrah for that. I don't see why Rommel should be excused from getting to grips with the reality of what he was doing just because he's a military officer.

What you are suggesting is essentially anarchy.

It's a long way short of anarchy. What I am suggesting is personal responsibility for upholding the rule of law. We are governed - and policed - by concensus.

Should our military commanders have refused to take part in the Suez canal fiasco? Should they have refused to take part in Iraq?

If they felt strongly enough about the issues, then yes.

All wars I personally disagree with but the fault was with the government not the military commanders

I think there are occasions when war is the least bad option, but they are few and far between. If one looks through history, most wars are about money, power and conquest. The government might start the wars, but military commanders pursue them with the predictable consequences. They cannot escape the moral consequences of their actions by arguing that their job places them beyond morality. It won't wash.

If military commanders started behaving like that you might think the world would be a better place but I assure you it would not. It would only create chaotic anarchy with a lot of death. Not to mention the perfect opportunity for the removal of democracy 'for our own good'.

How would anarchy have arisen had military top brass told Blair to take a running jump when he was following the US into war like an overexcited puppy? In any event, I'm not so naive as to think that everyone shares the same morality. Or that a resigning commander cannot be replaced by one sympathetic to the government.

And by the way you do not swear to defend your country; you swear to serve your government. Actually in my day I'm pretty sure it was still the Queen that we were sworn to not the government.

There you go then. The government are Her Majesty's government. Your commissions come from the Queen in her capacity as Commander-in-Chief, do they not? Now, if the Queen was replaced, do you still serve her, or do you serve whatever replaces her?

another point just raised by my german lodger is that the german military before the start of WWII were required to swear loyalty specifically to Hitler not Germany

So Rommel actively and willingly swore loyalty to Hitler? Doesn't that rather support my original argument?

Regards,

Peter

 

[Vertigo]

I think there is a significant difference between individual soldiers saying "get stuffed" and resigning, deserting or whatever and a military coup. A coup occurs when the military brass hats decide that they should be in charge in place of the civilian authority. Disobedience or adherence to morality does not require armed intervention at a national level.

Yes it was a bit of a melodramatic jab from me that one sorry!

But being officially apolitical is not the same thing as being personally amoral.

I agree but who decides where that line is drawn. Tough one that.

I have a close relative in the Forces and his view - echoed by many of his brother officers - is broadly "we have a job to do - it is not for us to reason why". To me, that's a cop out. In any other walk of life, professional people do reason why and hurrah for that. I don't see why Rommel should be excused from getting to grips with the reality of what he was doing just because he's a military officer.

Again difficult to know when to draw the line. 'Bomber' Harris was probably directly responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone else in the second world war*, certainly more than Rommel. Should he have refused to obey Churchill? Military personnel are required to obey in a way that is not found anywhere else in normal life (including the police). If every soldier was permitted to question his/her orders then they would not win any battles. Period! Obedience is fundamental to the military and is deliberately conditioned into all soldiers. That's not an excuse, just a fact. A necessary fact. That is what all that apparently senseless marching about is for. Disagreeing is simply not enough to justify disobedience. And don't forget, what he was doing was conducting his part of the German war effort with honour.

Even Churchill said of him during the war: "We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general." and later after the war "He also deserves our respect because, although a loyal German soldier, he came to hate Hitler and all his works, and took part in the conspiracy to rescue Germany by displacing the maniac and tyrant. For this, he paid the forfeit of his life. In the sombre wars of modern democracy, chivalry finds no place ... Still, I do not regret or retract the tribute I paid to Rommel, unfashionable though it was judged." Well I'm not sure Churchill had the 'taking part in the conspiracy' bit quite right but close enough!

It's a long way short of anarchy. What I am suggesting is personal responsibility for upholding the rule of law. We are governed - and policed - by concensus.

Upholding the rule of law is exactly what Romel was doing. As a senior officer, if he had refused an order, especially in time of war, it would be a crime. It would be treason. Again, in time of war a General can't just resign.

If they felt strongly enough about the issues, then yes.

OK but they had better be ready to run fast. Very fast. At least back in those days they had.

I think there are occasions when war is the least bad option, but they are few and far between. If one looks through history, most wars are about money, power and conquest. The government might start the wars, but military commanders pursue them with the predictable consequences. They cannot escape the moral consequences of their actions by arguing that their job places them beyond morality. It won't wash.

Here I disagree. All military forces are intended to be a weapon wielded by their government. And the weapon is not guilty. So long as no atrocities are done by the commanders. So long as they have followed the 'rules of war' - the Geneva convention - then they have behaved correctly and appropriately. No matter the morality of the conflict. Remove that fact and you remove the ability of a government to govern.

How would anarchy have arisen had military top brass told Blair to take a running jump when he was following the US into war like an overexcited puppy? In any event, I'm not so naive as to think that everyone shares the same morality. Or that a resigning commander cannot be replaced by one sympathetic to the government.

Generals are not elected so it would be no more correct for them to take it upon themselves to refuse their elected** government's legitimate orders to go to war than it would be correct for them to refuse their Government's orders not to go to war (think Dr. Strangelove).

There you go then. The government are Her Majesty's government. Your commissions come from the Queen in her capacity as Commander-in-Chief, do they not? Now, if the Queen was replaced, do you still serve her, or do you serve whatever replaces her?

That all depends on how the replacement takes place. If our government (actually probably a referendum) decided to do away with the monarchy then I would have to swear allegiance to whatever replaced her, probably the government. Actually I just checked and was surprised to see that the British army does still swear allegiance to the Queen and not the government! If I considered that the removal of the monarch was unconstitutional then I would probably already be fighting!

So Rommel actively and willingly swore loyalty to Hitler? Doesn't that rather support my original argument?

No absolutely not! That oath would have been sworn in 1934. At that time, whilst there were some indications of the future, Hitler was still very much the person who had given the German people back their pride, created jobs for them and put food on their plates. What he achieved in his early years was really quite remarkable. Did you take your family and move from Britain in protest at the invasion of Iraq? That is what Rommel or any other senior commander would have had to do and no invasion was even openly planned at that time. A drastic course of action that was not really justifed by Hitler's actions at that time.


*Please don't quote me on that one as I haven't checked it but the point is still valid. And I'm not including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

** Yes I know Hitler's election was distinctly questionable as far as democracy goes, but the rest of the world happily acknowledged his legitimacy.

 

[Bowler1]

Bun fight - ohhh, look what I started - my turn!

Napoleon's character is hard to defend but when it came to his family he made sure they were all taken care of, even a weak brother was rewarded and taken care of.

He freed Jews in Italy and set about major law reforms. He was as much a reformer as a commander, which is why Britian did not like what he was doing - he was empowering the common man of the time. Not reforms as we in the modern world would accept, but for his time they were radical - hence his war - or one reason for them anyway.

Rommel it would seem, took the course of least resistance. As field marshal he would have known the big picture, ignorance was not an excuse for him. Take Syria today, there are army defections, are they wrong?

More buns - take that........splat!

 

[Vertigo]

Well I wouldn't want to knock Napolean either. He was pretty impressive after all.

With regard to Rommel I think talking about his campaigns as the easy option is a little glib Also at the outbreak of the war he was only a colonel I think. He was promoted after France was taken and again after the fall of Tobruk:

On 21 June, after a swift, coordinated and fierce combined arms assault, the city surrendered along with its 33,000 defenders, including most of the South African 2nd Division. Only at the fall of Singapore, earlier that year, had more British Commonwealth troops been captured. Hitler made Rommel a Field Marshal for this victory.

And I give you two buns for your one... splat, splat!

 

[Bowler1]

Abloished serfdom.
The metric system! - half a bun........

Rommel was only ever a military commander, good but that was all.

My anti hero - had bigger visions and the force of will to acheive them - one BIG bun, with cream & jam...

 

[Bowler1]

I is back - with lots of buns.

Austerlitz
Central Banks
Napoleonic code - civil law/due process
End of fuedalism
5 - repeat - 5 wars
Invasion of russia

Yawn- where was I??

Oh yes - almost a rocky come back.

Rommel - please!

 

[paranoid marvin]

Churchill's comments about Rommel were mainly at sideswipe at the rest of the German High Command; I'm sure it was also done to sow seeds of doubt in Hitler's mind about a known Nazi non-sympathiser. It's also to be magnanimous about an opponent when you're starting to gain the upper hand, which the Allies were around this time.

Having said that Rommel was quite happy to receive lots of men and weaponry from a war-mongering regime; indeed, Erwin himself was a war-hungry person, often at the forefront of the action. 'In the absence of orders, find something and kill it' quite clearly says everything you need to know about the man.

He was a great General, but usually had superior armour; often overwhelmingly so. If the Germans were good at one thing, it was creating Panzers; often Allied weapons would simply bounce off their armour. His tactics were imaginitive, but his penchant for being on the front line often meant that he missed the bigger picture, and he was withdrawn to Europe before his Afrika Korps were wiped out. Which is a shame, as it's only when you're on the backfoot that you see the true qualities of any commander.

 

[Bowler1]

Thank you Marvin.

Almost my mans final battle he led from the front, after Waterloo.

When his troops asked him not to risk bullets - he replied there was not one yet cast that could shoot him - or similiar. His troops rallied, he won the battle. This was after Waterloo, what more can I say. Occured near Paris, can't remember where.

 

[Vertigo]

Bowler, you can't bring up Napoleon's invasion of Russia in support of him!!!! Besides you're drifting away from the remit of the question.

PM - I think it was only the Tigers that had such superior armour and they only appeared late in the war but yes tanks like the American Sherman were almost useless against them.

There are plenty of examples of Rommel on the back foot in Africa. As Hitler's enthusiasm for Africa waxed and waned and Rommel's supplies and reinforcements did likewise he was pushed back and then moved forward again. Invariably he was less well equipped than the British troops and yet held his own despite that.

Churchill's first quote (the inner quote) was in 1942 and there was no mention in that about hating Hitler. The second quote was defending his first quote in 1950. So I don't think you can say it was sowing seeds of doubt. And Churchill was criticised heavily for making that first quote.

Eeee this is fun this!

 

[Bowler1]

I don't think I am drifting away from the question.

The question was - who was the greatest commander the British faced. To ignore acheivements off the battle field would be to ignore the thought processes and character of the individual on the battle field. Battles are usually short sharp actions, certainly in Napoleons time battles they were contained affairs for the most part.

So instead of sitting around waiting for his next battle Napoleon kept himself busy, gave himself something to do. keeping himself busy in between killing people. His list of acheivements off the battle field are hard to ignore and show him to be a reformer as well as a commander.

And this is my point - Rommel was only ever a general - Napoleon was much more, a statesmans and a leader of nations. This makes the frenchy far more of a danger to the British, attacking Britian through trade, diplomacy and war.

 

[Bowler1]

I'll give you Russia, if you give me Rommels failure in Africa?

One failure for one - ohhh sorry, Rommel would only have the invasion of France left - better not!

For those of you reading this thread - vote Napoleon if you think I'm making a good point, we have to catch up with Rommel and give him a kicking....

 

[Vertigo]

Well the aim of the original National Army Museum poll is definitely geared to commanders facing the British. But I'll not split hairs on it.

The big difference about Rommel's failures as opposed to Napoleon's is that Napoleon, as an absolute ruler, had complete control over what resources (troops, weapon's, ammunition etc.) were available to him. Rommel didn't. Had Rommel had greater resource given to him by Hitler, there is no way he would have failed in Africa, and almost certainly the Normandy landings would have failed as well. In fact they might well have been called off. The allies were keeping a very close eye on what forces they would be up against on the beaches. And let's be honest, the Normandy landings were a pretty close thing anyway. Once the beachhead was established Rommel didn't really have much chance against the overwhelming numbers of allied forces. And it still took the allies massively longer to get to Germany from Normandy than it had taken Rommel to get to Paris from Germany.

 

[Bowler1]

And it still took the allies massively longer to get to Germany from Normandy than it had taken Rommel to get to Paris from Germany.

A clever point but not a valid point I think. It was a very different war by 1945, hard lessons had been learned by both sides. So the campaigns don't really compare.

I think Rommel would have failed in Africa at some point, the arrival of the Americans did finish him off and would have regardless of resources available.

Normandy is a complete unknown Vertigo, but I will admit if Rommel had been around life would have been far more interesting for the allies.

Rommel is still however - only a general no matter how good.

 

[Peter Graham]

Again difficult to know when to draw the line. 'Bomber' Harris was probably directly responsible for more civilian deaths than anyone else in the second world war*, certainly more than Rommel. Should he have refused to obey Churchill?

Here's the rub. It's not up to me to decide what he should or shouldn't have done. Nor is it of any relevance what I would have done - or might like to think I would have done - in his place. Incidentally, I'd probably have done the same as him, but that's by the by. It was up to him. But if he, for whatever reason, was not happy about what he was doing, then I see no reason why he should not have stepped down.

Military personnel are required to obey in a way that is not found anywhere else in normal life (including the police). If every soldier was permitted to question his/her orders then they would not win any battles.

A good point. I suppose the counter is that if soldiers were permitted to question, we'd have far fewer battles. But it still doesn't absolve individuals of taking responsibility - and the further up the chain of command you get, the greater that responsibility. Just because we have a system that says "just do as you're told" doesn't mean that anyone who agrees to sign up for that is then entitled to say "don't blame me - I was just doing what I was told."

That's not an excuse, just a fact. A necessary fact.

Agreed, but as you say, it isn't an excuse......

Disagreeing is simply not enough to justify disobedience. And don't forget, what he was doing was conducting his part of the German war effort with honour.

I'm reminded of Falstaff's speech about honour in Henry IV! Is it honourable to follow one's duty, even when that means one is part of a particularly nasty and bellicose ideology? I think not.

Upholding the rule of law is exactly what Romel was doing. As a senior officer, if he had refused an order, especially in time of war, it would be a crime.

Having decided to go along with it, having accepted the various promotions of which you speak and having (possibly) put following orders ahead of personal morality, I agree with you. But would he have been tried for that crime by the Allies? Did he have to get into that advanced situation in the first place.

Here I disagree. All military forces are intended to be a weapon wielded by their government. And the weapon is not guilty.

A weapon is a tool. Tools have no capacity for conscious or rational thought. Lancaster bombers, ME109s, Sherman tanks, V2's, lugers and sten guns are all tools. Men are not tools. They wield the weapons, but they are not the weapons.

So long as no atrocities are done by the commanders. So long as they have followed the 'rules of war' - the Geneva convention - then they have behaved correctly and appropriately

This whole notion of "rules of war" harks back to the Middle Ages, when war was basically a gentlemanly pursuit akin to hunting or hawking. In war, lots and lots of people die - regulars, conscripts and civilians. It is good that the Geneva Convention exists, but to say that anything done within the Convention is therefore OK is stretching it a bit.

No absolutely not! That oath would have been sworn in 1934.

What about when he accepted his promotions?

I'm really not trying to turn this into an argument about whether he should or shouldn't have stood down (or tried to). All I'm saying is that military leaders cannot use notions of duty and honour to escape personal moral responsibility for their actions (good or bad).

Regards,

Peter

 

[Vertigo]

I would agree tentatively with most of that Peter (excellent discussion/debate incidentally!). However...

A weapon is a tool. Tools have no capacity for conscious or rational thought. Lancaster bombers, ME109s, Sherman tanks, V2's, lugers and sten guns are all tools. Men are not tools. They wield the weapons, but they are not the weapons.

This is right to an extent but a large part of military training in all armies is designed (rightly or wrongly) to turn people into tools. This is a very fine line to run, particularly with officers, both commissioned and non-commissioned; you still want the NCOs and officers to think for themselves but not too much! You want them to obey orders pretty much unconditionally, but, as they go up in rank, they must be given more freedom and and that point you'd better hope you haven't killed that individuality.

The balance of obedience against freedom of action has certainly changed over the years but obedience is still a major factor. The bottom line is that if a soldier disagrees with their commander's orders they are implicitly saying that they know better than, not just their commander, but also the more senior officers who decided upon that commander's promotion, which is both an arrogance on the part of the disagreeing soldier and a failure on the part of the commander. This kind of thing destroys the chain of command and ultimately weakens the army.

Of course sometimes it is absolutely right to disobey. If I was ordered to massacre a thousand civilians say, I'd like to think I would refuse. But I'd know that that refusal would almost certainly be the end of my career and in an army that issues such an order quite possibly the end of my life. Believe me, in a court martial for disobedience you will need a mighty powerful justification to be acquitted. Even if they consider the disobedience to be justified, if no attempt has been made to go to a higher authority first (difficult if your commander is the supreme commander) the soldier will almost certainly still be punished and probably discharged or worse if it is an officer.

Ultimately the heads of armies need their armies to be a tool and they will go to great lengths to make that the case. Smart tools maybe, but tools all the same.

 

[Bowler1]

It would seem my reasoned arguement is not going to do it, you two are too good at it.

So

Napoleon - vote now.

VOTE NAPOLEON - VOTE NOW - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.

 

[paranoid marvin]

There's one obvious name missing from that list...

Oliver Cromwell

 

[paranoid marvin]

Just to explain my point. He destroyed the King's armies, he massacred the Irish and he banned Christmas. And then he sat on the throne as Lord Protector until he died. So feared was he by the British, so intimitdated by him were they , that only after his death did they dare to attempt a restitution of the monarch.

He may have been British, but no other commander did more to wreak havoc on the population of these isles than Mister C.

 

[Foxbat]

I certainly don't dispute the claim of Cromwell as one of the best commanders but feel that he should be dscounted on the basis that the Act of Union did not take place until 1707.

 

[Bowler1]

Marvin, "The Devil Himself" as he is still known in Ireland - is English. For that reason I would discount him from this question and thread.

However, if asked who were my all time commanders he would get top three, as he never wavered on his convictions; I admire that much in him. It is also nice to see a name not regularly used on the History Channel mentioned!

VOTE NAPOLEON - YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO!