General scapegoats

The popular view of generals as losers often owes more to politicians shifting the blame onto generals for losses caused by politicians’ decisions, frequently against the advice of the generals who subsequently suffered for being unable to achieve what they had rightly predicted they could not achieve because their political masters would not back up the politicians’ demands for results with the resources needed to achieve them.

Wavell and Percival were a couple of British generals who were among the many military scapegoats for political incompetence or interference in military affairs.

Wavell. He was on a roll in North Africa until Churchill forced him to divert forces to a doomed campaign in Greece, to demonstrate British support for the Greek leadership (that worked a treat!) which campaign Wavell and others on the spot unsuccessfully argued against. So Brtain loses in Greece, not least because Winston fails as usual to grasp that air support is critical and that the vastly superior German air forces will overwhelm British air forces. Net result: Wavell gets the boot and Winston carries on regardless.

A minor footnote. When Wavell boarded his plane to leave North Africa after being sacked, the only officers present to farewell him were the Australian commander, Gen Thomas Blamey and Blamey’s ADC. Blamey was Deputy CIC to Wavell as CIC. Wavell and Blamey had had many tough disputes, but each respected the other. Apparently no British officers respected their CIC enough to turn up to farewell him. A lonely and sad farewell for a sound commander treated unfairly by his superiors and, at the last moment, all but two of his juniors.

Percival. Knew what had to be done to defend Malaya but was prevented from doing it by Churchill. Duly loses Malaya, not least becuase as usual Winston, having learnt nothing from Greece six months earlier, still can’t grasp that air power is decisive. Repulse and Prince of Wales go down as further evidence of Japanese superiority and invincility after Pearl Harbor, and further evidence that Winston still hasn’t worked out the little planes can kill big battleships and decide battles and campaigns. Percival goes down in history as the man who lost Malaya. Meanwhile Winston is portrayed as the defiant British bulldog who would never give in, despite having orchestrated the circumstances where Percival had to give in in Malaya. Net result: Percival is the man who lost Malaya and Winston carries on regardless.

Anyone want to contribute some other generals, of any nation, who were made unfair scapegoats?

The point regarding Churchill not grasping the philsophy seems an incredible one when one considers that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was inspired by the British attack on Taranto. Also, the Royal Navy’s success against the Bismark was brought about by a Swordfish from the Fleet Air Arm flying from a Carrier, Ark Royal, I think.

I would suppose that there was a certain mind set within the Navy that drove them to operate in the way in which they had trained for years?

Was there not a certain mislpaced confidence in a skirt of extra thick armour around the British ships that was meant to be proof against torpedoes?

Yes, the problem with Winston, was his being Generalisimo. If he had left the fighting to the generals things may have turned out a little differently. He was always in a hurry to beat the Germans somewhere. His eye for politics of Empire were probably his motivation and the cause of his impatiience.