Evening star., 1942-07-04

ana tne puDllC MAJ. Eliot.
attitude during, for example, the
Civil War Then it was question
of who was to be in command, of
the man who was to do things rather
than the means he had to accom-
plish them.
Public opinion was concerned, for
| example, who was to have command
of the Army of the Potomac rather
than with how many field pieces
and muskets the Army possessed.
The history of the Civil War is
written in terms of Grant and Lee,
Sherman and Johnson, Sheridan,
Jackson, Forrest and Stuart, rather
than in terms of the production of
the Northern arsenals or Confeder-
| ate imports of munitions.
This is not to say that weapons
were not of tremendous Importance
In that war as in every other war;
but today the compleXity of modern
armament and the increased de-
pendence of man on the machine
has tended to overshadow in the
| public mind the true place of lead
ership-Which is just as important
in a war of machines as in q war
of muzzle- loading muskets or, for
that matter, a war of stone axes.
Rommel's Leadership Cited.
Thus we have seen almost every
sort of explanation in the press for
the recent British disaster in Libya,
which was probably at least rs per
cent due to superior leadership by
Field Marshal Rommel. Rommel is
not only great commander, but he
has been in command of the Afrika
Korps long enough to weld it into a
tough, hard-fghting military ma
chine, whose officers and men be-
heve thoroughly in their leader.
The results we have seen-time
| and again Rommel has extricated
himself from positions of the great
est difficulty and now he has driven
deep into Egypt and is threatening
the main British positions.
This is the same man who was in
command of the German armored
division that raced down the Somme
to Abbeville after the great Ger
man break through in 1910.
Behind you there will be moth
ing he said to his officers, 'tc
your right there will be nothing, to
your left there will be nothing, but
ahead of you there will be Rommel
Get it?" How we'll they got it is
written in the records of that bril-
liant achievement.
This is the sort of leadership that
counts in war. The Russians under
stand it very we'll Ask yourself why
it is that in every crucial period of
the campaign in Russia the name OF
Marshal Semyon Timoshenko ap-
pears as the man in charge in the
decisive area. 1t is because he is
the best field commander the Rus
slams have, perhaps the best COM
mander OF large forces that this war
has yet produced, and his very name
and presence are as inspiring to the
Russian soldier as the white plume
Of Henry of Navarro to the charging
cavaliers of Ivry.
We have heard many technical
explanations as to why it was that
Bataan and Corregidor held out so
much longer than Singapore or
Java, but I will venture the predic-
ton that when the historian of the
future, with all the records and all
the personal narratives available
comes to sum up his objective survey
of the war in the Southwestern Pa
cific, ne will give by far the greatest
part OF the credit to the personal
leadership of Douglas Macarthur.
How does it happen that the Brit
ish Navy in the Eastern Mediter-
ranean has given us such splen-
did record of accomplishment? The
answer is not superior ships or SUI
perior men anywhere near so much
at it is Admiral Sir Andrew Cum
ningham.
1t is time that we began to think
in these terms to a far greater ex-
tent than we have been doing
Whatever the accomplishments OF
our production lines, whatever the
output of our shipyards, however
many young men we may train il
the profession of arms, they will ac-
complish little unless they are COM