American Tribute to British Generals

Camp News, Volume 3, Issue 156, 8 January 1943, Page 2

American Tribute to British Generals

All America is talking about a book by an American, which pays a fine tribute to the performance of British generals and the British soldiers in this war. This book— “RETREAT TO VICTORY” — constitutes a crushing and convincing reply to anyone who dares question the ability of British officers to plan, and lead, a victorious offensive against Hitler on the Continent. An American — who, a week ago, told me, “Britain has no outstanding military commander” — came to mt after reading “Retreat to Victory,” and said: “I realise now that the quality of your military leadership has been, and is, still being, cruelly misjudged.” The author of “Retreat to Victory” is Allan Michie of “Time” magazine, who, in the Middle East and other areas, personally . witnessed British retreats whichdespite their glory — have greatly lowered the prestige of British . officers . among many, ill-in-formed Americans. Michie argues that Britain’s series of retreats" were so brilliantly carried out, and so upset the Axis time-table and strategic plans, that they have laid the firm foundations of an Allied victory. He contends that, owing to their great numerical inferiority and lack of supplies, the only strategy possible for the British Armies was t 6 retreat -but not without fighting fiercely at every step backward. 1 ‘ j “The British Army is the . best retreating army in the world, and I don’t say that- as a jdke,” writes Michie,' stressing how many thousands of British soldiers “have their lives so that their ' countries could gain time necessary to put an end toretreats.” “But," in their two year's "of retreats, the British have never hesitated to take the offensive whenever they have the slightest hope of success.” ; ' Michie points out that our generals, far from being - defence-minded, can and will turn their strategy to offence, if only given equipment equal to that of the enemy. ; “There is no . evidence that the British , commanders who. have Jt>een in control since Dunkirk are caught in the rut of defensive warfare. “Those whom I knowand they are on top are not. . . . General Sir Alan Brooke, General Auchinleck, General Wavell. Nor are the lesser commanders Alexander, who was in Burma, Platt, in East Africa, Quinan, in Iran, Wilson, in Palestine and Syria.” In a moving tribute to Wavell, Michie writes: “If .unjustified attacks have made him bitter, he is a big enough man not to-show it.' No commander in this war has been assigned to fight so consistently against such hopeless odds. .. .” ”” ' ’ " As United Nations Commander in the Far East, Wavell was “outnumbered in the air and on the ground, and harassed by jealousy and friction among his American, Dutch and British Staff Officers.” It was a “hopeless 'assignment.” Wavell had extraordinary difficulties in Burma, too. “Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek’s Chief of Staff, Lieutenant-General Joseph Stilwell, had little to do with the British Commander.” . .. ,s - Finally, it' was necessary for Kai-

Shek “to instruct Stilwell to groove his tactics with those of Wavell’s officers operating in India and Burma.”

“Wavellsays war is neither an art nor a scienceit is a very rough and very dirty game. Give him the planes, tanks and guns equal to the Axis, and he will play it as rough and dirty as the Japs and Germans.” There s is tremendous praise for Auchinleck, too. “He preaches and practises one military tenet: “A general should choose his battlefield and oblige his enemy to fight on that battlefield and no other. He must choose his objectives and then prepare. . . .’” Surely an excellent tenet for the present moment, when a second front is being discussed. “Singapore was defended by the the bravest army in the world” writes Michie. Since Java, Singapore and Burma fell so quickly, how is it that America’s Bataan Peninsula held out 'so long? Because, compared to these, Bataan “was a minor front occupying comparatively few Japanese troops, and a few squadrons of planes the Japs preferring to use their available air, naval and land forces for more important assaults upon Java ano Burma. They were content to keep American defenders holed up on the Bataan Peninsula.” But, finally, the Japanese replaced their inferior soldiers on Bataan by “divisions of crack troops trained in Manchuria.” “The campaign-in the Philippines was a side-show to the main Japanese objectives in , the Far East — the capture of the entire Dutch East Indies.” Michie recalls how, in America, Australia and Britain, MacArthur’s successful defence of the Philippines led to the hope that . “MacArthur would put an end to. retreats: that he would take the offensive and that MacArthur was the one man who could win the war.” “There is no doubt,” comments Michie, “that MacArthur is the best fighting general the United States has produced so far in World War Number 2, but whether or not he could do any of these things remained to be seen.” Expressing disguest at the tendency of some Americans to criticise Britain,' Michie writes: “It seems to me that America has forgotten what Britain has done. Maybe we need a reminder.” Michie then gives an impressive list of British wartime achievements, adding: “Had it not been for the victories of the British at Dunkirk, and in the skies over England, Americans would be taking their orders from Berlin’s Wilhelmstrasse by now. Don’t forget that.” And then: “The British are our Allies. Without them you could write an end to America. Without us, their hope of winning the war would fade to nothing. ... We cannot allow ourselves to indulge in criticism just because we don’t like the way the British pronounce their “A’s.” .-No wonder that Americans are talking about this book. No wonder it is causing them to revise their opinions regarding British military genius, and the part it should play in the coming United Nations’ offensive.