Audacity
I was reading through the headlines today, and stumbled upon an article that caught my attention. It’s a New York Times Op-Ed entitled “How World War II Wasn’t Won.” I’m, unfortunately, not as big of a history buff as I think I should be, but I do know that the 65th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge (not the annual battle to keep extra weight off during the holiday season!!) is quickly approaching on Dec. 16. For those that are not aware, the multi-week battle was the bloodiest battle U.S. forces experienced during the war, claiming more than 80,000 dead and wounded. It was a big deal!
Briefly, the piece describes how Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers, commander of the Allied Sixth Army, brilliantly advanced through France to Strasbourg and found himself on the verge of breaking through an undefended German border slightly more than three weeks before the Battle of the Bulge began (he arrived in Strasbourg on Nov. 24 actually). The author writes that had Eisenhower allowed Devers to cross the Rhine and continue his march onto German soil that the Allies could have crushed the Germans and effectively ended the war without the great bloodshed experienced three weeks later.
Lt. Gen. Alexander Patch, commander of the Allied 7th Army, also thought Devers’ audacious plan would have been successful. The problem is, it cut across the grain of Eisenhower’s plans, and thus never materialized. So, it’s uncertain as to what might have happened, but we most certainly prevailed both three weeks later (albeit at great cost) and ultimately against the Axis forces.
The history lesson got me thinking about an instance where our national leadership DID support an audacious plan – Operation Ivory Coast, the final phase of which was called Operation Kingpin, or the Son Tay Raid, led by Col. "Bull" Simons. Incidentally, the 39th Anniversary of that mission just occurred on the 21st of November. If you aren’t familiar with that operation, it involved Special Operations Forces’ attempt to rescue 54 Americans from a prison just 23 miles from the North Vietnam capital city of Hanoi.
Although the raid failed to recover any POWs and appeared to be unsuccessful on the surface (it was heavily criticized in the press because of thoughts that the prisoners might face additional torture), it resulted in consolidation of American POWs into a single compound in Hanoi. According to former POWs, the fact that a rescue was attempted combined with their close contact with each other actually lifted overall morale and thus contributed, according to many of them, to hundreds of lives saved.
What does any of this have to do with SOCEUR and EUCOM? Well, it simply serves as a reminder that throughout history, huge decisions made by our national leadership, both military and civilian, where guaranteed success was impossible, most assuredly still led to forward progress. The anniversary of two examples just occurred within the past week. The bottom line is that today, here within EUCOM, our leadership is still making critical decisions on our behalf so that we can all live a better life together.
Are we on course? Well, I think so. And by reading through the posts on this EUCOMversations blog, my confidence is boosted. Great…audacious… things are happening throughout the command at all leadership levels. It’s important to remember our history, but it’s just as important to capture and learn from it as it’s occurring as well. And that’s the magic of the blogsite! IMH (&A)O…
MAJ Jim Gregory
SOCEUR PAO
Comments: 4
Great piece Jim! It's always good to see some reminders of the lessons we've learned so we can try not to repeat them. I'm a history fan and especially interested WWI/WWII. I wish more of today's youth were interested in or at least knew about this part of our nation's history. Your article goes to show that even the best stratigic, technological and tactical advantages are often trumped by the ego and aspirations of our leaders. To think such a critical decision played a huge part in the tremendous loss of life that may possibly have been averted. Hopefully our current and future leaders take a little more interest in the lessons of the past.
It's easy to lose perspective of events when we're a part of them. Taking a look at history and the parallels that can be found there to our actions in our time is a great way of extracting the enduring lessons that may not be apparent from our current perspective. It’s always good to have a reminder that the actions of the few, in support of the many, often have a significant impact and that each of us, in our own way, can apply those lessons to our own lives…
There are few pursuits more enjoyable than to study historical events well enough to be able to draw linkages with other events and see the similarities that exist. There is a hazard for the armchair historian, though, who does not study events himself yet choses to utilize the learning of others and their opinions rather than perform his own study to form what should be his own opinions. Gen. Devers had no crystal ball. His insight that the war would have ended earlier is dicey at best, and probably just plain fantasy more likely. Though light, this article makes it very plain what is opinion and what the facts are. The only facts are that things would have been different, had event "x" not (or actually) occured. Even the opinions of learned people who were "there" can not positively determine what the actual alternative history might have been, had events unfolded differently. Only the plausible possibility, at best...at very best, can be presented. A little truth, in this case, can mislead "students" of history who try to draw parallels in history to find actions that would help them to more surely manifest their own will in the current age. This is a reach at best, destined to failure most likely. All actions are based on some degree of chance. Wise leaders do not hinge strategic goals on possible tactical outcomes, or even chains of those events occuring according to plan. Wise leaders build a vision and strategy that can withstand loss and even steady, sound defeat on the tactical level. As pointed out, the path for decisions that are made in good faith are strewn with defeat, but it seems that whatever is good and right ends up on top, either through long struggle or by sheer opportune luck.
History, I would submit, should be considered (as you have) much more than merely dates and events. The pages of History are actually human (Leader) decisions which like laws of physics reflect themselves as (mortal) "cause and effect." Except for academic and discussion purposes, the "should have/could have/ought to" propensity to view History does not change the reality of those decisions and subsequent effects. Maybe there was a way to avoid a Battle of the Bulge and the dire consequences it produced in terms of human lives and maybe, if different decisions had been made at that time, World War II; that horrible extension of World War I, might have ended sooner. Maybe. Your example of Operation Ivory Coast brings to surface those unplanned and unexpected consequences which in this case were positive. The mission was deemed "failed" for a long time - until the real side effects were known. Times and conditons may have changed but faith in the Leadership has not. History shows us that when decisions are made in good faith, the natural course of events will ultimately prevail. It will be up to an academician or historian (yet to be born) to dissect today's decisions in view of tomorrow's realities. But, the message cast to that individual is simple - we are on course with our plans and decisions while advancing to your time; regardless.