Exploding Monkey Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Rommel said something like: 'The best laid plans are all shot to hell at contact,' or something along those lines. Anyone got this one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Wether it was Napoleon or von Moltke who originally said that no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy is a subject of feud between the French and Germans. I note however that in the Encyclopedia Britannica, von Moltke wins. Hear hear. Both being Gods of military Genious, it is frequently quoted. In his book, Guderian uses this very quote on the survivability of battleplans. Sepp Dietrich tried to use it but as usual fails - reading books wasn't his thing really and he is known to frequently misquote. Being a former teacher, I am sure Rommel was very aware of the quote, and probably used it too. Seeing as he never made any detail plans, but rather made things up as he went along, I always assumed he had capitulated to the fact behind the quote, and decided not to make any battleplans. Perhaps he at some point had to explain himself, and used the quote then. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 There's also a classical quote that means basically the same thing, but I can't rememeber the details of who and what. Perhaps some Latin or Greek scholar can help us out. The sentiment is really a fundamental concept of military science, and it's been expressed in many different ways by many different strategists and theoreticians. I do like von Moltke's version, though -- it has that wounderful German quality of being very concise and to the point. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Originally posted by Dandelion: Sepp Dietrich tried to use it but as usual fails - reading books wasn't his thing really and he is known to frequently misquote. Deitrich wrote a book!??! :confused: :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dandelion: Sepp Dietrich tried to use it but as usual fails - reading books wasn't his thing really and he is known to frequently misquote. Deitrich wrote a book!??! :confused: :eek: </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dandelion: Sepp Dietrich tried to use it but as usual fails - reading books wasn't his thing really and he is known to frequently misquote. Deitrich wrote a book!??! :confused: :eek: </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 So, just misunderstood then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exploding Monkey Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 Thanks for the great reply Dandy!! :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Originally posted by Richie: So, just misunderstood then? Possibly, but I'd say more like he didn´t understand a thing himself. One can only feel the greatest fascination for a régime that in such a short period managed to place so many so interestingly stupid individuals in such tremendously powerful positions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Originally posted by Dandelion: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Richie: So, just misunderstood then? Possibly, but I'd say more like he didn´t understand a thing himself. One can only feel the greatest fascination for a régime that in such a short period managed to place so many so interestingly stupid individuals in such tremendously powerful positions. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Originally posted by YankeeDog: There's also a classical quote that means basically the same thing, but I can't rememeber the details of who and what. Perhaps some Latin or Greek scholar can help us out. YD My brain is mush right now so I'm drawing a blank. Any chance for a small hint as to what it was or what it was about? The tiniest thread would give me somewhere to look (though it's probably in one of those tactical handbooks that were so much in vogue in the late empire). On an unrelated but thematically connected note, there's a famous german military quote attributed to Frederick the Great that I've seen in German and English but that was probably composed in classical French ("Qui defend partout defend nulle part" -- sounds like something La Fontaine would say). Old Fritz allegedly only used German for speaking to his horses (there's probably a metaphor buried in there somewhere), but I would love to see the exact references for this one. [i went looking through Frederick's Instructions once, but was either daft or looking in the wrong one, or both]. Does anyone happen to know anything about the history of this quote? Did he really write/say/think it, and if so, where (and how often), and in what language? I hope this doesn't turn out to be an apocryphal dictum... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 I think it is now generally accepted that this quote is constructed. From this original text in Fritz's written instructions to his Generals (this is UK Army translation): "A defensive war is apt to betray us into too frequent detachment. Those generals who have had but little experience attempt to protect every point, while those who are better acquainted with their profession, having only the capital object in view, guard against a decisive blow, and acquiesce in small misfortunes to avoid greater." Fritz was not a laconic man adept at brief statements, he was not known for saying with one word what could be said with five. Being Francophile, he froliced in useless eloquence. A reaction against his father perhaps. As for the reasons for his fierce propagating the offensive, a l'outrance et a tout prix, he had little choice as he engaged in three major conflicts, all against superior armies with far greater area denial capacity than his. He had to focus on the destruction of enemy forces and ignore borders, landscapes and cities. An art later picked up and by the Corsican, then Moltke. The Germans of WWII, facing much the same situation, took a natural interest. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
With Clusters Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Aineias "the Tactician" perhaps, for the possible classical reference? Just a wild guess... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philippe Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 That, or Frontinus, who wrote a nifty little compendium of gamey tactics. Plutarch's Moralia has a lot of juicy bits. It's also the kind of thing you'd expect to find buried away in Lucian somewhere. And I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up in Polybius, in one of his rants about Tyche. The problem is, apart from the handbooks, that's a lot of material to dig through looking for a quote that may or may not exist. If I knew that this might be something associated with a particular general or speech, I'd happily start plowing through Cicero's speeches. There are lots of nice tropes about the uncertainty and mutability of war, but aphorisms on the futility of making plans don't ring a bell. Of course, I haven't lived there in a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stUkrainianFront Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Dandy -- I thought *planning* was Rommel's big thing? You say: "Seeing as he never made any detail plans, but rather made things up as he went along, I always assumed he had capitulated to the fact behind the quote, and decided not to make any battleplans." Rommel's book "Infantry Attacks" is all about planning every little detail...What the HMG fire plan is, how each platoon will move, how the field phones will move forward (it was WWI) etc. Plenty of good thoughts for CM... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 The statements are not mutually exclusive, though they appear to be. Rommel was an excellent company commander. Certainly with detailed planning, he even taught it at infantry officer cadet schools. Even as a Division and Corps commander, he'd make detailed plans for his company commanders and interfere in small unit operations. In fact, even as an army commander, he'd visit battallions and inspect planning. And most anecdotes about Rommel, true or untrue, will find him interfering in local combat, won't they. As commander of the DAK, he is not known to make any detailed plans. He largely made it up as he went along. Many of his decisions were brash, unreflected and without real basis in fact. Having made them, he was prone to regret and would spend sleepless nights pondering them. Or simply countermand them in a very confusing manner, a "90 degree turn commander" as Bayerlein calls him. He is also known to make sudden, unrealistic demands on units with complete disregard - or lack of understanding some say - of logistics. He'd also tend to forget about logistics in the most inopportune moments. He had brilliant Ia's and Ib's to fill his gaps. They are not very affectionate in their testimonies of how it was to work with Rommel. the few that have written about it (several died in the war). For most of the battles, they had no idea of where he was, or how to get in touch with him. Nor did they know what new orders he issued. Wherever he was. Being in the frontline, Rommel could observe (and act on) developments, at least locally, but would not normally bother relaying (either of) them to central command and communication functions. The battles had to be led in his absence, and in want of detailed plans to execute. The latter was just as well, as plans changed anyway. Rommel never really got the hang of big unit leadership. A bit like Model in that sense. But given a professional staff, he was able to act on instinct. Just like Model. The staff would do the detail planning and be the expeditors of all ideas.The German system of leadership was meant to handle this. Even the Firma Ludendorff-Hindenburg was structured like that. Speaking of structure, you will note that his book is in some want of it. Rommel was not the man to extract from his experience and his obvious talent any fundamental rules or basic principles. He'd just hand you practical, very concrete examples, one after the other, as he was a practical man. So yes, I agree his book on the infantry is very hands-on and detailed. But from his elevation to Divisional commander and up, planning (especially long term such) became too complex for him, reaching beyond his frame of competence, and grew out of his hands. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stUkrainianFront Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Cool! Thanxx for the detailed response! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.