Leadership and Commanders

[Simon Fox]

Notice: this thread is a 'release date' free zone

I was so impressed with Steve's contribution to the "SS-commanders" thread that I thought it deserved one of its own. One not limited to that pretty sorry bunch and not overtaken by a bizarre (though amusing and good natured) interarm rivalry and general name calling.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem with discussing good "commanders" is that there are three traits that make up each. Now, to the degree that they possess all three is the degree I rank them. But any STRONG showing in so much as one trait makes me tip my hat with some degree of respect. They are:

1. Military Leadership (in the sense of tactics, logistics, and overall sense of military situations). This can be subdivided into Tactical and Strategic if you like.

2. Motivational Leadership (in the sense of getting men to perform up to standards ABOVE normal military training under the most difficult circumstances).

3. Ethical Leadership (doing the "right" thing for either the men under him, for his country, or "greater society")

There are VERY few commanders that have high marks in all three. I would say that Hauser scores very well in all three. Someone like Rommel or Patton scores HUGELY the second and third, but only decently in the first. Eicke can only claim good marks in the second, very low in the first and NEGATIVE in the last. There are also two German Generals I can think of that surrendered major cities intact (Paris and Rome) instead of raising them to the ground as ordered. Their military careers were admirable, but not spectacular. However, they each made at least one decision that the world should forever be grateful to them for making.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think 1 definitely needs to be divided into 1A Tactical and 1B Strategic as too many generals were brilliant in one and mediocre in the other. For example Rommel 1A brilliant and 1B dud, though I definitely wouldn't score him highly for 3 either. Conversely Monty would get 1A adequate and 1B good, though he would score very highly in 2 and 3. Talking generally (no pun intended) I would also say that command at different levels (division, corps, army) requires different levels of each so it becomes more complex.

As for German WWII commanders very few of them would rate very highly in 3. Joachim Wieder makes the point in his book about the ethical vacuum that existed with some force and eloquence coming from a guy who was captured at Stalingrad. One German commander I would rate very highly in all three would be Frido von Senger und Etterlin.

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 01-19-2000).]

[Mark IV]

What, then, would you say about von Paulus, who surrendered against orders at Stalingrad?

He probably saved 200,000 lives, temporarily, and the rest was out of his control at that point.

Perhaps you underrate the "ethics" of German commanders in hopeless situations, with a mad leader, and no court of appeal. Ethics is an easy business in a nice warm living room in the year 2000.

[Simon Fox]

Paulus, don't get me going about that second rater, a very good staff officer but a dud commander, I would rate Paulus (he was no 'von') as a disgrace ethically. For a start his 'surrender' at Stalingrad was basically a fait accompli as the Russians were basically at his command post and large numbers of his troops had already taken their own initiative to do so. By his indecision and prevarication over the issues of breaking out and surrendering at different timepoints he condemned the vast bulk of his army.

By hanging on long beyond the point at which his army was actually tying down substantial Russian forces which could be employed elsewhere (and was therefore militarily useful) he condemned the majority of them to death in captivity. Why? Because though Russian captivity was certainly harsh the survival statistics for those captured at Stalingrad are not the same as those captured elsewhere. This is because starvation and disease had set in to such an extent that those troops had no inherent physical reserves to allow them to survive the initial period of captivity. Furthermore following the rejection of their surrender ultimatums the Russians expected few prisoners and did not make any provision for the numbers they did get. These factors are directly attributable to Paulus and not out of his control. I recommend you read Joachim Weider's Stalingrad:memories and reassessments for an accounting of Paulus's actions, he is not particularly enamoured with Manstein in this regard either though he is not as critical of Paulus as some other authors.

[Major Tom]

It is impossible to justifyibly judge military commanders in such situations. If Von Paulus did surrender very early, he could have been known as another Percival. If Percival had held out in Singapore longer, he could have been regarded as a Von Paulus. These were two military commanders in EXACTLY the same situation (Churchill also forbade Percival to surrender), each made a different decision, and each were criticised for it. It is a Catch 22 situation.

To say that it is the German's fault for the autrocious situation after the surrender by holding out is just the same as blaming the American's for the autrocity after Bataan. What of the defenders of Bastogne? If the 3rd Army wasn't able to relieve them in time, would their sacrifice be seen as a vain one?

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for German WWII commanders very few of them would rate very highly in 3<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are way off the mark with this statement. To question the ethics of the German commanders, I would think that one would have to have some idea of their situation (experience not theory). Some like Eicke were scum, but to say that the majority of German generals were unethical is grossly unfair. Mark IV is correct when he says,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ethics is an easy business in a nice warm living room in the year 2000<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ethics is also not a singleminded concept. It is a broad base of ideals that can conflict with each other. I agree that Palus is judged too harshly. He was no great leader, but the decisions he made at Stalingrad were not made by him alone. Personally, I *do* think that he should have disobeyed orders and broken out instead of staying put, but it is far too easy for me to say that.

As for the ethics of German Generals, I totally disagree that they were lacking on the whole. Certainly there were scumbags, and there were toadies, as well as wasters of life and limb. Mark Clark usually springs to mind when I think of terms like that and he was supposedly fighting for the Allies (I think he was fighting for his ego).

In fact, the Allies had a difficult time proving senior level officers guilty of war crimes. Most were double standard convictions or railroaded for PR sake, although there certainly were some bad apples at the divisional and rear area levels. However, most of the ethical problems were not created or condoned by front line soldiers. In fact, they generally disobeyed direct orders to harm the populace and property under their control.

There was a time on the Eastern Front where the local military authorities set up a administrations that were not only fair to the "untermenchen", but dare I say generous! One particular example east of Misk (IIRC) was held up as an example of what MIGHT have happened in the Soviet Union had Hitler been sane. But as always happened, the Golden Pheasants came in and did their usual great "warm the hearts" thing by murdering, raping, and plundering everything in sight.

Many would like to hold the military responsible for allowing the excesses of the Third Reich to happen. As a whole, I agree. The German armed forces were guilty of at least "passive" complicity. But judging a whole is not the same as judging individuals. Group and individual mentalities sometimes are oddly opposite to each other. Since I wasn't in their boots I find it hard to judge an individual in most cases. However, there are some (like Eicke) that I have NO problem passing judgement on.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

First,

I did not intend to start a debate about ethics, not interested unless provoked. I was glad that Steve included it in his assessment as many people don't which is problematic IMO. My comment as quoted by Berl was my take on Steve's high rating for Hausser and Rommel in this category which I considered generous. If you read Steve's wide definition of the ethical category you will see that it is multifaceted and IMO to just look good in one aspect doesn't fufill the requirements.

IMO Mark IV's choice of Paulus as an highly ethical German commander is way off the mark (he he). Simplistically one could compare his situation to Percivals but it is a far more complex question than that and the options facing Paulus are somewhat more complex and varied than Percival. Furthermore I would think that Percival has been rehabilitated somewhat in recent years and the principal criticism of him was not so much that he surrendered but that he got himself into a position where he had to. In fact all the comparisons that Major Tom uses are spurious since they are not in the same context at all. Indeed the principal involved is one of degrees rather than absolutes. Inflicting immeasurable suffering and unnecessary death upon your own men by holding out far beyond the point when justifiable even in purely military terms and additionally in so doing ensuring that they had little chance of surviving a harsh captivity might be your idea of sound ethical conduct but it isn't mine. Furthermore as I clearly pointed out Paulus's 'surrender' was essentially an empty gesture as by that time he had few troops under his direct control. A read of a biography of Paulus or a good book on Stalingrad should give you the measure of the man, demonstrate his moral dilemma and his failure to come to grips with it.

Berl,

I don't know if your native language is English (apologies if it isn't) but how you interpret my statement (which you quote) as being equivalent to stating that they were all 'unethical' is beyond my comprehension. As for belittling my well considered opinions which are based on widespread reading of accounts from guys who were there and serious biographical research by glib references to "living rooms" and "experience not theory". Well that's a pretty weak approach to arguing a case, a rational consideration of the circumstances and context of a decision would be better received.

To restate and make myself abundantly clear which seems necessary:

1. Lets stick to the ethical question in the overall context.

2. I did not say the majority of German commanders were unethical.

3. By the time Paulus surrendered he didn't have much left to surrender (his command post was surrounded) most of his troops had either (a) ignored his previous no-surrender orders or ( were out of contact. Furthermore IIRC he refused to order the northern pocket to surrender anyway.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark IV's choice of Paulus as an highly ethical German commander <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a very accurate representation of my post, I'm afraid . I asked "what, then, would you say about..."

I asked because the issue is complex. It's very difficult to judge ethical matters out of historical context. I certainly didn't intend to carry a pro-Paulus banner(you're right about the "von"). He didn't particularly shine.

You did state (by extension) that "very few" German commanders would rate very highly in "Ethical Leadership (doing the "right" thing for either the men under him, for his country, or "greater society")". I wonder how you determined this? Without parsing the sentence, I think most tried to do well for the men under them and for their country (of course, how one does the right thing for the Greater German Reich would be open to individual interpretation- it could mean "ethnic cleansing").

I don't understand the role of military commanders in "greater society" and I don't know how you rate it (sign along road: "This section of highway kept litter-free by SS Das Reich") .

Back to Paulus: commanders are men, not gods. Under a military dictatorship with an absolute despot, sent deep into Russia with a questionable objective by a mad leader, surrounded by the Red Army and forbidden to surrender (with a case of dysentery to boot), with no relevant experience, limited ability, but a strong personal devotion to the honor, spirit, and tradition of the German Army, you would be in a bit of an ethical pickle.

Paulus had never had a wartime command, and his largest peacetime command was at battalion level. He was not a great choice for 6th Army commander. On the other hand, he did not exactly campaign for the appointment, but there he was. The situation evolved over a year and I don't think printed words are adequate to empathize with his position.

That is why I comment on the "nice warm living room" perpective, and you needn't take it personally. I don't know what I would have done in his position. He tried to do his best and paid dearly for it.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't know if your native language is English (apologies if it isn't) but how you interpret my statement (which you quote) as being equivalent to stating that they were all 'unethical' is beyond my comprehension.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me rephrase. Your statement leads me to believe that the majority of German generals are less[/] ethical than their Allied counterparts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for belittling my well considered opinions which are based on widespread reading of accounts from guys who were there and serious biographical research by glib references to "living rooms" and "experience not theory". Well that's a pretty weak approach to arguing a case, a rational consideration of the circumstances and context of a decision would be better received.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not my intention to belittle. All I am pointing out is that you where not there. No ammount of reading or research can equal the experice of being there, or being in some similar situation. I tend to give the benifit of doubt. In the case of Paulas (of whom I share your opinion), I wasn't at Stalingrad, nor have I ever been in his situation. I do not, and never will know what he knew or felt during that battle. These are important factors in his decisions.

In reference to Rommel and Hausser. Why do you consider Steve's accessment generous?

[Maus]

I don't want to get involved in ethical discussions because from my perspective ethics not only vary from person to person but also from time to time. Ethics are not universal between cultures, time and certainly not in a war situation. WWII was was a time when virtualy the entire planet went mad on a national scale. I am not excusing the behavor of anyone in command, quite the contrary. To paraphrase a US supreme court justice---- I can't define ethical behavor but I know unethical behavoir when I see it.

Steve --- I'm glad you brought up Mark Clark. This guy has always really pissed me off. What a vain stupid bastard. Slaughtering the enemy because of your lack of ethics is bad enough but slaughtering your own men for percieved person gain is worse. This also reminds me a little bit of MacArthur. Fortunate for him and his men though he had alot more success. This may be skill in the different "command" areas but he came dagerously close to letting his ego get the better of him. After typing this about MacArthur though my statements about him could probably apply to most in command positions. Why do some many egomaniacs end up in leadership position? Isn't it kind of ironic that people who spend so much time thinking of themselves are put in leadership positions where the fate of so many rest on their of self-serving decisions?

[This message has been edited by Maus (edited 01-19-2000).]

[Mark IV]

Herr Maus: You prompt two further (probably inflammatory) observations:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ethics are not universal between cultures<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese cruelty to POWs is partly explained, NOT excused, by a culture that had no real concept of "surrender" and thus considers those who do as sort of "undead". I hope no one chooses to interpret this as excusing Japanese cruelty, though they certainly had no monopoly on it.

MacArthur's successes partially erase his erratic performance in the Philippines, but his performance there is not covered with glory as far as I'm concerned. His men performed better than he did. I don't have the materials at hand right now, but I think he could be found wanting in several ethical areas.

[Doug Beman]

It's been my recollection that the German relief effort at Stalingrad got within 30 miles (or km, stupid book got lost) of the city before being stopped by mud and Russian resistance. I am not totally clear on the timing between the final blunting of this and the surrender, but Paulus would have been unjustifiable in surrendering while the relief force was still battering its way toward the city.

If the relief failed (truly dooming the 6th Army) many weeks before the surrender, then Paulus may have saved lives by surrendering earlier.

HOWever, you must remember the number of Germans who marched into captivity vs. the number who marched out. The Germans knew the terrible fate awaiting them once they threw in the towel. In such an instance, what would you guys have done? Fought until there was no fight left in the hopes of either escaping or dying in action, or quit and accept what was already known would be among the most inhumane fates in warfare?

DjB

[Maus]

Mark IV,

I do not think your comments are inflamatory. In fact I agree with them almost completely. I just wanted everyone to keep in mind that I, you and we can judge from where we are and who we are but we must keep in mind that these people we are talking about come from different times and places. I'm not going to let anyone off the hook---- people are ultimetly responsible for their actions regardless to the explinations. It is not a clear cut subject though. I wholeheartedly condemn those soldiers that were involved in war crimes but in the back of my mind I sometimes wonder what I, you or we would have done if born into the imperial japanese system,raised in that belief system, subjected to that propoganda and invloved in that war. Who knows? I'm very opinionated. Sometimes to a fault but sometimes I have to consider others points of view. It would be much easier to condemn commanders because of their relative bad judgement or stupidty rather than their lack of ethics.

As far as MacArthur goes, everything I say about him should be taken as a grain of salt. My interest in the pacific theater is relativley new and I admit that everything I know about him I learned from the History Channel (I have learned lots of useless stuff from that particular channel... would anyone else like to discuss the history of alcoholic beverages in the US ? :-> ). I was simply off on a rant when he popped in my mind. Also I agree that many of MacArthurs success can be atrributed to them men serving under him but that is true for all commanders. On a side note I have been thinking about the historical what if(?) of the Wehrmacht meeting the US Marines in combat. It could have been interesting.......

Anyways,I still get pissed when I hear the name Mark Clark.

Cheers,

Maus

[This message has been edited by Maus (edited 01-19-2000).]

[AndyRoss]

Doug: 6th Panzer managed to get within 50 kilometres of 6th Army's lines (not Stalingrad though: the mainstay of 6th was not within the city). I think that the limit was just over the river Myoshka. In theory it was time for the 6th to commence breakout operations on the transmission of the codeword (...I THINK it was Donnershlag for a little trivia ).

However, by that time the Stavka had let Vasilevskii move up 2nd GA: I doubt that even if von Paulus had been given the command to break encirclement that he could have done so, and the 2ndG was able to blunt 6th Panzer.

[Doug Beman]

Do you know how much time elapsed between 6th Panzer reaching its closest mark and Paulus' surrender? I don't have any research materials on hand.

DjB

[AndyRoss]

It was mid-late December when the advance lumbered to a halt. I think that the 20th was the absolute limit of 6th Panzer's advance: so it probably about 41-42 days. I'll check up and post again if I've made any errors.

(the river was the Myshkova BTW.. in case anyone decides to be picky )

[Doug Beman]

Oh, that long, eh? I guess Paulus was not holding out due to the relief MAYBE getting to him. Oh well, there goes that reason.

DjB

I...must....resist.....rel{claps hand over mouth}mmffs dummmat.....

[Major Tom]

I did a history paper about old "Dougout Doug". That guy thought he was the best thing since God!

About that Japanese Culture thing. The Japanese actions during WWII was NOT representative of Japanese history. Education was not of the Bushido code, but, rather a militarized and contemporized version. Surrendering to an enemy wasn't traditionally an "end of the world thing". If this was true, the population of Japan would have been wiped out due to their fairly ununified and bloody history.

The Japanese fully understood and participated in the Genova Convention. There is NO excuse for 17% of Allied prisoners dying with only 5% of Allied POW's dying in the war in Europe.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, first of all... let us avoid getting into the warcrimes ethical debate. That is such a huge and emotional one that starting it up usually requires me shutting it down

As for Paulus, I think he did fail to show good leadership qualities, but that he has also been judged too harshly for what happened under his command. Think of it as the wrong leader for the wrong situation. He never should have been there in the first place, and that partially excuses his actions. If someone tossed me into a courtroom and told me to get a mass murderer's case dismissed, can I really be blamed for failing?

MarkIV, my "greater society" comment has to do with making a decision that might run counter to national interests and/or prudent military thinking in order to do something that helps some larger and admirable goal. The peacefull surrender of Paris and Rome are two examples. From a German perspective contesting the Allies in these cities probably would have served some short term military gain for the German Army. Men might have been sacrificed, but time would most likely have been gained in the process. But the destruction of large portions of the cities in question would have happened in the process. So the decisions to abandon these cities, contrary to direct orders and sound military principles, deserves special consideration.

Simon, my three points of discussion were not intended to be all considered at once for each man. No human General could score high on all three broad definitions over his entire career. Think of these as Fuzzy values in the context of the norm for each. No person is faultless, so there is little to be gained by holding an individual up to the ideal standards and pretending that they could have reached the top if they had done somethings differently.

Rommel, for instance, had his failings, but they are overshadowed by his successes and admirable qualities. Clark certainly didn't screw up EVERYTHING, but he botched far too many important things to deserve much credit for whatever he did right. McArthur is a flawed General as well, but the fact is that he was also a brilliant commander and had an overall positive effect on two wars in the Pacific. Manstein might be the most brilliant senior level field commander in the whole war, but the fact is that his efforts weren't enough to win the war.

Stuff like that

Steve

[Maus]

I didn't mean to get into war crimes, it just sort of snuck in. I was just trying to comment on some of the difficulties in the discussion of the ethical behavior of a warrior (although I should have paid more attention to Steve's examples of what he meant when said "Ethical Leadership", which as one of his criteria for assessing a military leader is quite useful, IMHO). I found the discussion interesting and decided to add some of my poorly spelled opinions.

Oh, and someone mentioned Mark Clark! It's just something about someone trying to use war to promote himself to the media that makes me kinda ill.

later,

maus

[This message has been edited by Maus (edited 01-19-2000).]