George C. Marshall and staff rotation in WWII US military

[LegionnairE]

It's an old speech that I listened to years ago but I think it's still relevant. I think this speech even more important for Turkey, we NEVER fire generals.

Arguably Enver Pasha should have been fired from his duty as chief of staff of the Turkish Army after Sarıkamış.

Many people should have been fired after the blood bath at Al-Bab.

 

[Ryder]

Biggest problem of ww1 Ottoman commanders is how the Ottoman high command aka Enver Pasha handiled over command to the Germans.

Seriously the Germans serving the Ottomans were incompetent as shit!! Goltz Pasha is one of the few who deserve respect because he knew the Turks and respected them while nost German commanders like Otto von liman sanders sent our men to the meat grinder.

Its usual historical myth that ww1 ottoman commanders were incompetent which is bs when ypu have Ataturk, Nuri Pasha, Sakalli Nurettin Pasha, Kazim Karabekir, Mehmet Esat Pasha and various others.

Yes there were useless and incompetent Ottoman commanders but the Ottoman empire were better off not putting the Germans as the overall command because the Germans were clueless about the various fronts that the Ottomans were fighting in also due to their arrogance and superiority they usually never accepted Ottoman ideas or consulting with Ottoman commanders.

Ataturk had a lot of issues with this because a lot of Turkish commanders could not do their job properly or apply their strategies and tactics.

Germans serving ww1 apart from Goltz Paaha saw it as one big meat grinder. Sacrifice as much Turks just to keep the Allies at bay. Our lives were expendable compared to the Germans.

Germans also did this with their allies too like Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria.

Always take command from the people who know the environment and know how to fight rather than ignoring them.

When it comes to Sarikarmis yea that was a travesty as Enver Pasha foolishly marched an army into the winter and into the mountains. His rapid movement aka blitzkrieg like tactics to take the fight to the Russians and take the Caucasus worked good on paper. But the Ottomans were not equipped properly not to mention the place was full of mountains in Eastern Turkiye. Most perished in the winter thanks to Enver Pasha.

 

[LegionnairE]

I disagree with the part about Austro-Hungary.

Austria really benefitted from German officers, their defeats earlier on in the war really screwed things over.
They couldn't even beat Serbia without German help.

But the most important lesson we should draw from WWI is this: Ottoman Empire is the only major power to end the war with the same Chief of Army Staff as the one it started with. Helmuth von Moltke resigned very early on after the battles of Marne if I remember correctly, Falkenhayn resigned and then it was up to Hindenburg and Ludendorff. France started off with Joffre, they fired Nivelle then came Petain and Ferdinand Foch. British switched between 5 chiefs of staff in a 4 year war.

We only had Enver Pasha, he never resigned, he was never fired despite his failures. In general, we don't question our leaders, we follow them blindly.

Maybe if Enver was replaced with a different general, the collapse of the Palestine-Sina front could have been prevented. I don't know.

It's just strange to me that the winning side made more replacements than the losers.

 

[Ryder]

I disagree with the part about Austro-Hungary.

Austria really benefitted from German officers, their defeats earlier on in the war really screwed things over.
They couldn't even beat Serbia without German help.

But the most important lesson we should draw from WWI is this: Ottoman Empire is the only major power to end the war with the same Chief of Army Staff as the one it started with. Helmuth von Moltke resigned very early on after the battles of Marne if I remember correctly, Falkenhayn resigned and then it was up to Hindenburg and Ludendorff. France started off with Joffre, they fired Nivelle then came Petain and Ferdinand Foch. British switched between 5 chiefs of staff in a 4 year war.

We only had Enver Pasha, he never resigned, he was never fired despite his failures. In general, we don't question our leaders, we follow them blindly.

Maybe if Enver was replaced with a different general, the collapse of the Palestine-Sina front could have been prevented. I don't know.

It's just strange to me that the winning side made more replacements than the losers.

Jemal Pasha also suffered lots of defeats I mean his attack on Suez was a failure.

It was a brave decision to hit the British especially at Suez which was called the British Empire's life vein but it was a gamble that costed us in the Long run. Jemal Pasha did not resign for this defeat at all.

I felt it was better if the Ottomans waited for the British to attack rather than going on the offensive in the Suez. It was better off trapping the British by letting them attack first but instead Ottomans under Jemal Pasha went and tried to blitz them.

 

[Ryder]

@Nein2.0(Nomad)

Yeah nobody resigns in Turkish government, nobody gets fired. All mistakes are brushed under the carpet.

You know why we lost the Balkan wars is due to the Ottoman Chief of staff scrapping Goltz Pasha's defensive plan and went on the offensive.

Nazim Pasha believed that the Ottoman Empire could fight off the Balkan alliance by going on the offensive he also underestimated the Balkan countries. He said to his Ottoman officers to put their ceremonial uniforms on as we will be marching into Sofia with a military parade. Arrogant much?

Goltz Pasha's defensive plan made sense as he wanted to lock the Balkan countries into a war of attrition. Balkan alliance was no Russia, Britain, France or any other Great Power. Ottomans still had a chance to win in the short term but in the long term the balkans was already going to be lost. Ottoman plan was to minimise territory loss so a foothold in Europe can be still maintained.

Even with defeat Nazim Pasha did not resign until he got assassinated by Shevket Pasha and Enver Pasha. Enver Pasha was just as incompetent as him.

Ottoman navy was in even worse state but honestly I cant blame Jemal Pasha when the Ottoman navy due to various factors collapsed from barely any funding, being behind technology, also too expensive to maintain a navy also Abdulhamid II due to his paranoia locked up the navy because he feared a coup from Navy officers.

Honestly in ww1 the Ottomans went into war with a awful navy. Many say this is one of the factors why the Ottomans lost ww1 was not having a proper navy it is also said if the Ottomans had a proper navy they would have avoided Gallipoli from happening or the Allies blockading the Empire with their navy. I mean blockade worked in the long run as it strangled the Ottoman Empire.

We lost the Aegan Islands to Italy and Greece due to this reason and today we live with the consequences of it.

Its easy for people to talk shit about Ataturk not recovering the Aegan Islands when the Turks barely had a navy in the independance war apart from a few patrol boats.

Most of the ships were locked in Istanbul under the Allies like Yavuz.

 

[Nilgiri]

It's an old speech that I listened to years ago but I think it's still relevant. I think this speech even more important for Turkey, we NEVER fire generals.

Arguably Enver Pasha should have been fired from his duty as chief of staff of the Turkish Army after Sarıkamış.

Many people should have been fired after the blood bath at Al-Bab.

Before I watch this later when I have more free time, a small aside about G. C Marshall may be in order.

Marshall is somewhat (given where the spotlight tends to go in a war) an underrated general and character in many ways.

This is mostly due to fact he was not in theater direct command role like say Ike, Patton, Bradley et al. who get much more of the spotlight...given human mind is drawn to the "action" aspect.

He was much more strategic logistics driven, army staff management and (very important) liason with the political leaders in comparison. Not surprising as he was Army Chief of Staff....but he was especially competent at it if you study what he did (as I am sure this video also gets into). This played no small part in the naming of the later "Marshall plan".

Ike (whom I hold as gold standard) was promoted and sent to Europe (as chief of theatre) on his personal recommendation actually....and that says quite a lot (he could gauge exactly why Ike was the man for the job).

There are good points brought up in Ike's biography (by Michael Korda) regarding this that I remember to this day.
I rate Marshall slightly above RAF High command in the WW2 era (and that is a high bar indeed)...and just a slight touch below Ike who I have at the overall top (given importance of strategy to success, not just brilliant tactical stuff like more famous names of the War are known far).

Any military's most competent senior minds would do well to study Marshall deeply...if they have not already.

@VCheng

 

[VCheng]

Before I watch this later when I have more free time, a small aside about G. C Marshall may be in order.

Marshall is somewhat (given where the spotlight tends to go in a war) an underrated general and character in many ways.

This is mostly due to fact he was not in theater direct command role like say Ike, Patton, Bradley et al. who get much more of the spotlight...given human mind is drawn to the "action" aspect.

He was much more strategic logistics driven, army staff management and (very important) liason with the political leaders in comparison. Not surprising as he was Army Chief of Staff....but he was especially competent at it if you study what he did (as I am sure this video also gets into). This played no small part in the naming of the later "Marshall plan".

Ike (whom I hold as gold standard) was promoted and sent to Europe (as chief of theatre) on his personal recommendation actually....and that says quite a lot (he could gauge exactly why Ike was the man for the job).

There are good points brought up in Ike's biography (by Michael Korda) regarding this that I remember to this day.
I rate Marshall slightly above RAF High command in the WW2 era (and that is a high bar indeed)...and just a slight touch below Ike who I have at the overall top (given importance of strategy to success, not just brilliant tactical stuff like more famous names of the War are known far).

Any military's most competent senior minds would do well to study Marshall deeply...if they have not already.

@VCheng

I would suggest adding Gen MacArthur in that reading list.

 

[Nilgiri]

I would suggest adding Gen MacArthur in that reading list.

Well of course. The list is large (significant Generals, Air Marshalls and Admirals of WW2)....I just put Ike, marshall and some others at a real tier above most else (in a purely qualitative analysis of sigma [input --> output] or inherited situation vs results produced and the thinking/analysis between it if you will)

MacArthur for example had a number of character flaws within him that clouded and coloured lot of his decision making and his ability to learn from previous results....but he definitely had huge impact and role in the war undeniably anyway...and I doubt (even with hindsight) I would have picked anyone else for that theatre.

I often treat him as his own category....much like I do with most of the Soviet Generals on the Eastern Front (the eastern front, pacific theatre etc were very different in nature to what Ike had to contend with planning and prepping for overlord).

The theatres, settings and systematic contexts make strict cross comparisons pretty difficult....you just couldn't grow + develop folks like Dowding and Tedder (and the officers they appointed and cultivated underneath them) within the Soviet Air Force and especially the Luftwaffe to begin with.

It reflects very much in the immediate post war period when you talk to the larger body of veterans (who saw it all close up). Which sides are chock full of praise for their higher management, and which have severe grievance and even disdain for theirs. The why regarding this can be be studied and is of importance to militaries today.