Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Mountbatten, WW2 Commander
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by seanG03 (U9345730) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
I understand Mountbatten was one of 3 Supreme Commanders used during WW2. Did he achieve that rank purely on merit, or because of his royal background? If so was that the highest commanding war time position ever attained by royal?
Monarchs and their relatives ie princes are usually given high ranks or honorary positions. Did this Prince Albert set a precedent,because as consort, he had to have the highest position of all services, in line with Victoria? I also read somewhere that Philip assumed the Queen would take the throne in 20 years or so, ample time for him to make it to Admiral on his own efforts. He was bitter that his career was cut shortwhen she became queen. He felt cheated that he was made field marshal equivalent of all the services as part of being consort. -
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
Sean
Neither, really. Mountbatten was an efficient naval officer. His Royal connection did him no harm socially, but probably had an ambivalent effect of his career (although it was his wife's wealth that was resented in the Mediterranean between the wars). But Churchill liked him (I think he recognised in Mountbatten the same hungry ambition and desire to restore the family name that he had) and sponsored him to Combined Ops and then for South East Asia, where he needed Mountbatten's youth and modernity as a gimic to seduce the Americans, and the Chiefs of Staff thought that the older single-service CinCs could keep him check (although in the event he managed to do for two of them - Somerville and Giffard - while Peirse self-destructed).
Mountbatten probably meets your criteria of highest wartime command by a Royal. The Dukes of York and Cambridge in the C19th were Commanders-in-Chief during wartime, but not in the field. And, of course, prior to that successive monarchs up to George II led their armies in the field.
Incidentally, Mountbatten was one of four British officers who were Supreme Allied Commanders. There were four Supreme Commands - Europe 44/45 (Eisenhower), Mediterranean 43/45 (Eisenhower, Wilson (UK) and Alexander(UK), South East Asia 44/46 (Mountbatten) and South West Pacific (Wavell (UK) in first version 41/42, better known as ABDA, then MacArthur 42/46).
Cheers
LW -
Message 3
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Saturday, 16th May 2009
Did he achieve that rank purely on meritΒ
Given that a promiscuous bisexual playboy from a German family would probably not be the obvious first choice for the role of "Supreme Commander", in a war against Germany and its allies, I think a case coould be made for arguing that he might have had a 'leg-up', as it were.
Mountbatten's (or 'Mountbottom' as he was widely known) rise to power is charted in:
A.N. Wilson's, After the Victorians: 1901–1953 (London: Hutchinson, 2005), pp.493–94. -
Message 4
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Saturday, 16th May 2009
Sean,
In addition to the last post. Have you read HMS Kelly by Kenneth Poolman? Some would argue that either his handling of the loss of the ship showed seamanship of high order or that he shouldn't have been at that particular location anyway. There is also the case of the lower rating who, it is said, had his court martial squashed by MB and the difference of opinion as to whether that showed humility by a Royal or perhaps someone did not want a Royal to be a witness against a common man; take your pick.
A friend served in India and was fulsome in his praise of him. According to my friend he certainly told the troops that they were not up against supermen who could see in the dark, or that the only way you could stop a Jap was by a head shot, both legends at the time. He thinks he was also responsible for the order 'take no prisoners'. which was a popular order of the day! But the Partition of India, well that's another matter entirely. -
Message 5
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 16th May 2009
If so was that the highest commanding war time position ever attained by royal?Β
King George II commanded an Allied army at Dettingen in 1743 during the War of the Austrian Succession. Does that count? -
Message 6
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 23rd May 2009
Mountbatten's (or 'Mountbottom' as he was widely known) rise to power is charted in:
A.N. Wilson's, After the Victorians: 1901–1953 (London: Hutchinson, 2005), pp.493–94.Β
That is a little harsh?
Wilson has been known too, well, "big it up?"
Feel free to read Ziegler on the subject?
AA. -
Message 7
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
That is a little harsh?Β
Sorry for any offence. The story is not my invention. Wilson and the Wikipedia article are in general agreement.
Wilson has been known too, well, "big it up?"Β
He is certainly very 'camp', but I found his earlier book on the 'Victorians' well-written and informative.
Feel free to read Ziegler on the subjectΒ
Very happy to take your advice in the name of balance. Do you have the title? -
Message 8
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
Greeting one and all,
With reference to the 'Mountbottom' which on balance seems quite a cruel jibe, would that possibly be the foundation of the alleged affair between Edwina and Nehru? -
Message 9
Posted by U3280211 (U3280211) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
Edwina's dalliance with Nehru is well known.
But why should this have given rise to Mountbatten's vulgarised nickname, unless the affair was even more complex than 'Private Eye' could deduce?
I believe that the 'Mountbottom' tag was a reference to the Supreme Commander's occasional homoerotic interludes. -
Message 10
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
I would endorse Arnald's recommendation of Zeigler's book.
The title is "Mountbatten", by Philip Zeigler. It is particularly interesting because, although it is the authorised biography, it is rather critical of Mountbatten.
In any case, Mountbatten's orientation is irrelevant to his qualities, or otherwise, as a commander.
One thing that suited him to the command in SEAC was his ability to get on with Americans, vital for a theatre where US transport assets would be vital to the effective conduct of operations, and where US strategic interests in the campaign were more limited than Britain's. -
Message 11
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 29th May 2009
LW,
Thank you for your support.
I'm quite curious that Mountbatten was so obviously the "best" person to be in charge of SEAC that anyone could question it.
So, in charge of SEAC? Anyone else?
AA. (Not a challenge to you LW). -
Message 12
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 30th May 2009
Mountbatten wasn't that popular with his own troops - for example, his response to the fact that Operation Zipper would be unopposed was that "I know you will be disappointed that you won't have a chance to take on the Japs". The view from the sharp end was along the lines of "If you want to fight them, go ahead. We are just glad we won't have to face an opposed landing".
-
Message 13
Posted by NICK (U1182021) on Saturday, 30th May 2009
He certainly didn't have much respect from lots
of his ships crews he was considered to be a death and glory skipper and it certainly worked
out that way when you come to look at the ships
he captained. -
Message 14
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 1st June 2009
Umungal,
Your post on troops reluctant to face battle reminds me of a story I heard which is probably apocryphal. During the Napoleonic Wars, a French General addresses his men about to advance towards a British line and tells them that as is well for he knows on good authority that the range of the English musket is only 50 metres.
A voice shouts from somewhere in the assembled ranks,
'Good - any one got a bayonet 51 metres long?' -
Message 15
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 1st June 2009
AA
I'd bee interested in other people's thoughts as well.
But it is worth bearing in mind that the original strategic concept of operations for SEAC when Mountbatten was appointed at the end of 1943 was of a limited operation in Northern Burma to clear the Burma Road, and the main effort concentrating on a series of amphibious leaps to the east - Rangoon, Singapore, Sumatra, Siam.
LW
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.