Why Generals Guderian and Rommel Ignored Halders Order: A Study in Military Chain of Command
Why Generals Guderian and Rommel Ignored Halders Order: A Study in Military Chain of Command
In the context of the Battle of France, the decisions made by Generals Guderian and Rommel stand as a pivotal moment in the annals of armored warfare. This article explores the reasons behind their actions, the principles of Auftragstaktik, and the broader issues of chain of command discipline in military organizations.
The Battle of France and the Pursuit of Tactical Flexibility
During the Battle of France, young panzer generals like Heinz Guderian, Erwin Rommel, and Hans-Hugo Reinhardt sought to define and expand the boundaries of armored combat. The German army, while adhering to a strict chain of command, also had a tradition of tolerating and even encouraging Auftragstaktik, or mission-type tactics. This flexible approach allowed unit commanders to make independent decisions tailored to the specific circumstances of the battlefield.
Auftragstaktik in Action
Auftragstaktik is an operational principle that emphasizes initiative and decentralized decision-making. At the core of this approach is the belief that frontline commanders are in the best position to assess the immediate situation and make real-time decisions. This flexibility allows for quicker reactions to changing conditions, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the force.
However, in the Battle of France, this flexibility was sometimes challenged by more rigid adherence to orders. For instance, General Dwight J. Exner’s halt order to General Guderian to cease their drive on the Channel in the hopes that infantry complements would catch up, was met with defiance. This incident highlights the tension between strict adherence to orders and the need for flexible, mission-driven tactics.
Impact on Military Chain of Command
The young panzer generals, including Guderian, Rommel, and Reinhardt, utilized Auftragstaktik to justify their actions. This approach not only made their maneuvers less of a mutiny but also built a case for tactical flexibility. In a highly charged situation, this tradition of Auftragstaktik was instrumental in solidifying their victories, which in turn reinforced their approach.
The consequences of such actions were mitigated by the perception that successful execution would ultimately outweigh any disciplinary action. Generals such as Hoth, Reinhardt, and Guderian had reason to believe that their motivations were pure, and that military success would speak louder than any command.
Organizational Culture and Chain of Command
The German army's tradition of tolerance towards officers who deviate from orders was rooted in the belief that those leaders could—or at least attempted to—do the right thing. This attitude was particularly evident among younger officers who, while legally under orders, also understood the imperatives of battlefield effectiveness.
The case of Hoth, Reinhardt, and Guderian—a group collectively referred to as the "brat pack"—illustrates the tension between youthful professionalism and military hierarchy. Hoth, at 55; Reinhardt, at 53; and Guderian, at 52, maintained a sense of rebellion against conventional military procedures, driven by a desire for tactical creativity and initiative.
For young soldiers and officers in such organizations, this rigid adherence to tradition can often be a source of frustration. In contrast to the fictional narratives where protagonists find freedom in breaking rules, real-world military environments often offer fewer opportunities for independent decision-making. This discrepancy between perception and reality can lead to disappointment and disillusionment among young military personnel.
Conclusion
The defiance of Halders order by Guderian, Rommel, and Reinhardt in the Battle of France highlights the complex interplay between military traditions, strategic decision-making, and the flexibility of chain of command. While the tradition of Auftragstaktik enabled tactical innovation, it also created a tension that sometimes challenged the established chain of command. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for any military organization striving to balance discipline with operational effectiveness.