Officers..The Bridge at Remagen

"ArtKramr"
When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their
officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.

Art:
I have been following this discussion for sometime and think I should
jump in. Blind obedience of a direct command by an officer is sometimes NOT
the wisest choice! I site the event of March 16, 1968, the Mylai massacre!
Officers can be dead wrong at times! At the German War Crimes trials the
defence of saying, "I was ordered to do this", did not work.
Ed

Subject: Officers..The Bridge at Remagen
From: "Ed Majden"
Date: 2/26/04 12:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: Zws%b.605494$JQ1.62940@pd7tw1no


"ArtKramr"
When ordered to take the bridge troops obeyed the commands of their
officers
instantly and obediently. No debates. No second opinions. Just immediate
action. It is how wars are won.

Art:
I have been following this discussion for sometime and think I should
jump in. Blind obedience of a direct command by an officer is sometimes NOT
the wisest choice! I site the event of March 16, 1968, the Mylai massacre!
Officers can be dead wrong at times! At the German War Crimes trials the
defence of saying, "I was ordered to do this", did not work.
Ed



We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

----- Original Message -----
From: "ArtKramr"

We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an
army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.

Unfortunately there are many examples! If an officer has the confidence
of his men and he has respect for the troops he commands in most cases his
orders will be followed without question. Just because a guy has bars on
his shoulders does not necessarily mean he is a good leader or for that
matter a knowledgeable one. In the British forces rank often came from
class distinction not whether you deserved the position. Remember Dieppe or
Hong Kong!

With respect:
Ed

Subject: Officers..The Bridge at Remagen
From: "Ed Majden"
Date: 2/26/04 12:53 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: W0t%b.621339$X%5.404706@pd7tw2no


----- Original Message -----
From: "ArtKramr"

We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an
army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.

Unfortunately there are many examples! If an officer has the confidence
of his men and he has respect for the troops he commands in most cases his
orders will be followed without question. Just because a guy has bars on
his shoulders does not necessarily mean he is a good leader or for that
matter a knowledgeable one. In the British forces rank often came from
class distinction not whether you deserved the position. Remember Dieppe or
Hong Kong!

With respect:
Ed



What you say is true. But an undiciplined army will always come out the loser.
And it is not reasonable to take the position that most officers don't know
their job. Or most sargeants for that matter. Is it?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:W0t%b.621339$X%5.404706@pd7tw2no...

----- Original Message -----
From: "ArtKramr"

We can always give isolated examples that prove the exception. But in an
army
when the exception is the rule, we end up with a mob where everyone is
in
business for themselves. Not a good way to go to war.

Unfortunately there are many examples! If an officer has the
confidence
of his men and he has respect for the troops he commands in most cases his
orders will be followed without question. Just because a guy has bars on
his shoulders does not necessarily mean he is a good leader or for that
matter a knowledgeable one. In the British forces rank often came from
class distinction not whether you deserved the position. Remember Dieppe
or
Hong Kong!

Hang on Ed, surly you can't pin Dieppe on British ineptitude - being an
Allied venture, it needed Allied ratification. If anything it was a Canadian
effort (something like 5,000 Canadian troops), the only British employed
were a number of commandos, IIRC about the same number of US Rangers were
also used. Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?!
Can't argue with your stating that often British officers were born to it.
John E Johnson (sp?), the wartime spitfire ace, had his initial pre-war
pilot application turned down since he stumbled in the interview having been
ask for which hunt he rode! I can guarantee this is not the case any longer.

With respect:

Genuinely likewise,

Jim D

Ed

"Jim Doyle"
Hang on Ed, surly you can't pin Dieppe on British ineptitude - being an
Allied venture, it needed Allied ratification. If anything it was a
Canadian
effort (something like 5,000 Canadian troops), the only British employed
were a number of commandos, IIRC about the same number of US Rangers were
also used. Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?!
Can't argue with your stating that often British officers were born to

I'm not necessarily blaming the Brits for Dieppe except for Montbatten's
involvement. Canadian officers were just itching to get into action. The
whole plan was just stupid. Promised support did not materialize and the
numbers were not near enough for an effective assault. That's why Ike
didn't listen to the Russian's demand for a second front until the allies
were ready. As for Hong Kong, I'm talking about the stupid Canadian
decision to send a poorly equipped and poorly trained battalion into a place
they had no chance of winning. I don't think they even delayed the Japanese
victory at Hong Kong. It was a lost cause from the start. This was probably
much a political decision but the Generals must have agreed to it. People
killed and maimed for nothing with no hope of success. Just a plain stupid
loss of life. This was a decision by politicians and high ranking officers
not the grunts who suffered and died!
Ed

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
news:qOw%b.625931$ts4.78485@pd7tw3no...

"Jim Doyle"
Hang on Ed, surly you can't pin Dieppe on British ineptitude - being an
Allied venture, it needed Allied ratification. If anything it was a
Canadian
effort (something like 5,000 Canadian troops), the only British employed
were a number of commandos, IIRC about the same number of US Rangers
were
also used. Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn
it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?!
Can't argue with your stating that often British officers were born to

I'm not necessarily blaming the Brits for Dieppe except for
Montbatten's
involvement. Canadian officers were just itching to get into action. The
whole plan was just stupid. Promised support did not materialize and the
numbers were not near enough for an effective assault. That's why Ike
didn't listen to the Russian's demand for a second front until the allies
were ready. As for Hong Kong, I'm talking about the stupid Canadian
decision to send a poorly equipped and poorly trained battalion into a
place
they had no chance of winning. I don't think they even delayed the
Japanese
victory at Hong Kong. It was a lost cause from the start.

Rather like the Phillipines, Guam or Wake in fact

Keith

Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?

I suspect the poster was referring to its loss to the Japanese about
Christmas 1941.

Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Plus what on earth did the Brits do to Hong Kong except turn it
into the prosperous place of commerce and business it is now?

I suspect the poster was referring to its loss to the Japanese about
Christmas 1941.

Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.


The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Keith

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:32:08 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


Deep down, however, I suspect he was actually thinking of the loss of
Singapore in February 1942. Unlike the situation in indefensible Hong
Kong, the early surrender of Singapore was a rather shameful moment in
British arms.

The surrender occurred only after the Japanese captured the reservoirs
and cut off water to the city. 2 million people without water dont survive
for very long in a tropical climate. Without air cover Singapore was
simply not defensible but as with the Phillipines it wasnt politically
possible to abandon it.

Nevertheless, while I'm usually the first to point out that the fall
of Singapore was fundamentally due to external factors (chiefly the
war cabinet decision to prioritise everything else, including supply
to Russia, above providing the recognised minimum in the way of
resources to defend the place effectively), the fact remains that the
forces which were there did not operate effectively enough even when
the external constraints were taken into consideration. Having said
that, at least Percival had the strength of character to surrender at
the end of practicable resistance rather than make grandiose postures
at the expense of the lives of everybody else - the sort of thing that
a lot of Wehrmacht commanders failed to manage.

Gavin Bailey