byron13
Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline
|
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between. I think you would both agree that you have made absolute statements so sweeping in their scope that they cannot possibly be true.
The maxim that a commander is responsible at all times for the actions of his subordinates is not correctly applied in all circumstances. While I'm not particularly familiar with the circumstances in the Philippines at the time, any commander - including so-called great ones - can lose control of their subordinates in a deteriorating situation. By the end of World War II, I can't imagine the conditions under which the Japanese soldier was living. They were hungry, tired, diseased, frustrated, and doomed. They were greatly outnumbered in men and materiel. Communications would have been difficult considering the size of the Philippines and the fact that it consists of thousands of islands while your opponent has control of the skies and the seas. At some point, any military's discipline breaks down under the pressure, and I cannot hold a commander responsible when direct orders are not obeyed.
Let's face it, people crack at unpredictable times and in unpredictable ways. I cannot hold a commander responsible for events that are not reasonably foreseeable - despite the dictates of the maxim.
On the other hand, I wouldn't expect commanders to willingly and publicly take the blame for disasters. Some who personally understand the magnitude of their errors have committed suicide. A good commander is one that gets the most out of his subordinates, so it is their job to fire people below him if that will improve the unit. It really isn't their job to affix the blame on themselves - that is the responsibility of the next one up in the chain of command. That next senior person must weigh whether the "guilty" commander is an asset or a liability, whether there is someone available that could do the job better, etc. I the guilty commander is an asset, publicly blaming him will simply render that otherwise valuable asset useless.
Name an institution that fixes responsibility on someone? If you're saying name a commander that blamed himself and resigned, it doesn't happen much at higher levels, but it has happened. At the higher levels, there are more important considerations that it is the duty of superiors to consider. If you're asking to name an institution - such as the Army as a whole - that affixes the responsibility for something, it happens all the time. Commanders are relieved on a regular basis for incompetence. MacArthur was relieved by President Truman. Rommel had few defeats and you would be a fool to believe that losing North Africa was his fault. Montgomery was the best commander the British had in North Africa and was generally successful, so the British could not relieve him there. Montgomery's bigger errors were in Northern Europe where it was politically impossible to relieve him. I'm sure Eisenhower would never have allowed him to be one of his commanders to begin with if he had had a choice. Assigning real blame is usually tough because there are always mitigating circumstances such as misunderstood orders, poor intelligence, equipment failures at key times, and the simple intervention of fate and chance.
I guess I haven't added much to the conversation, but the truth really is in between there somewhere. Commanders should be held responsible for the actions of their subordinates, but there are circumstances in which that cannot reasonably or ethically be done, and there are other time when it should not be done for the greater good.
|
Printable Version
- 
- 
- 
Comment, and question about the game - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread