Why did America never adopt the pinnacle rank of Field Marshal?

The military rank of field marshal is the highest general officer rank for most countries that have land forces. Traditionally British monarchs hold the rank, even though Her Majesty has never officially assumed it (no real need if you are already Queen, Commander-in-Chief and Head of your Armed Forces). In times of peace, the rank is usually the preserve of senior royals like the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Kent, although there have been some notable exceptions over the decades. Extraordinarily, the Duke of Wellington was field marshal in twelve different armies. Only one American can lay claim to the rank: General Douglas MacArthur was appointed a field marshal of the Philippine Army.

Field Marshal Marshall doesn't exactly roll off the tongue
As for why America never adopted the pinnacle rank, one may be forgiven for thinking it was thanks to George C. Marshall (see photo above), the very first 5-star army general (field marshal equivalent) of the United States. Field Marshal Marshall would have sounded undignified, and leads immediately to the theory that President Roosevelt out of deference to his chief military advisor (in Churchill's words, the "organizer of victory", the man who, after all, expanded the size of U.S. military forces forty fold), instead proposed a new rank to Congress called "General of the Army". The rank was duly approved and General Marshall was promoted on December 15, 1944. (General MacArthur received his promotion the following day, not because he was less senior to Marshall, but by virtue of not being in Marshall's shoes as Army Chief of Staff, the same position that MacArthur held more than a decade earlier.)

Indeed the need for American field marshal status came to a head in September 1944, when the irascible general, Bernard Montgomery, was promoted to the highest rank in the British Army. How could (4-star) General Eisenhower carry out his superior function as combined Supreme Commander in Europe, if he was of lower rank than Field Marshal Montgomery? As noted, the issue was solved by an act of Congress in December 1944, and Eisenhower became a 5-star General of the Army one week after MacArthur.

General MacArthur for his part, was later considered for an unprecedented new 6-star rank, "General of the Armies", which planners were calling for in July 1945, given the sheer scale of the invasion force being contemplated for Japan and its surrounding islands. The Institute of Heraldry produced a single sketch of how the insignia for six star rank would appear, which was later filed into Douglas MacArthur's service record. The 6-star rank was not to be, however, and the Instrument of Japan's Surrender was signed on September 2, 1945. Interestingly, the United States came within a hair's distance of establishing a military rank superior to that of even a field marshal.

That said, the senior 5-star (initially a 4-star) rank of "General of the Armies of the United States" (a development that goes back to 1799, which is the substantive reason why field marshal was not chosen) does currently exist and is the highest possible officer rank of the United States Army. Only two soldiers have been granted the rank of General of the Armies; John J. Pershing in 1919 to honor his service in World War I, is the only person to be promoted in his own lifetime to such a rank; and George Washington (a retroactive Congressional edict passed in 1976 promoted General Washington to the same rank but with higher seniority), as part of the American bicentennial celebrations, to commemorate his leadership and involvement in the founding of the United States. As mentioned above, Douglas MacArthur was considered for the rank, both during and after World War II, but a formal promotion order was never issued.

Read More »»

The Queen's English Society and the Academy of the English Language

Is the attempt by the Queen’s English Society to create an Academy of English, on the model of the Académie Française, both welcome and long overdue? Gerald Warner thinks we need an authoritative body to maintain the purity and beauty of the English language, given the falling standards of its use around the world.

I'm more skeptical and not so sure what good any of this would do. I do remember priding myself on the idea that the Anglophone countries never had such a top-down academy to instruct the masses on proper grammar, spelling or punctuation. I wish we could all speak the Queen's English, but the reality is that most mother tongue English speakers live outside the UK, led by the U.S.(251 million speakers), India (125 million), Nigeria (79 million) and only then Great Britain (60 million), Philippines (49 million), English-speaking Canada (25 million), Australia (18 million)....the language is perhaps too widely dispersed and varied to foster universal standards. The famed "Immortals" of the French Academy are a dying breed - I do not know if this is a model worthy of imitation in the English-speaking world.

Read More »»

The Threat of War

After all, my friends, only a few hours away by air there dwell a nation of nearly seventy millions of the most educated, industrious, scientific, disciplined people in the world, who are being taught from childhood to think of war as a glorious exercise and death in battle as the noblest fate for man.

There is a nation which has abandoned all its liberties in order to augment its collective strength. There is a nation which, with all its strength and virtue, is in the grip of a group of ruthless men, preaching a gospel of intolerance and racial pride, unrestrained by law, by parliament, or by public opinion. In that country all pacifist speeches, all morbid war books are forbidden or suppressed, and their authors rigorously imprisoned. From their new table of commandments they have omitted "thou shall not kill."

It is but twenty years since these neighbors of ours fought almost the whole world, and almost defeated them. Now they are rearming with the utmost speed, and ready to their hands is the new lamentable weapon of the air, against which our navy is -no defense, and before which women and children, the weak and frail, the pacifist and the jingo, the warrior and the civilian, the front line trenches and the cottage home, all lie in equal and impartial peril.

Nay, worse still, for with the new weapon has come a new method, or rather has come back the most British method of ancient barbarism, namely, the possibility of compelling the submission of nations by terrorizing their civil population; and, worst of all, the more civilized the country is, the larger and more splendid its cities, the more intricate the structure of its civil and economic life, the more is it vulnerable and at the mercy of those who may make it their prey.

Now, these are facts, hard, grim, indisputable facts, and in the face of these facts, I ask again, what are we to do?

There are those who say, "Let us ignore the continent of Europe. Let us leave it with its hatreds and its armaments, to stew in its own juice, to fight out its own quarrels, and decree its own doom. Let us turn our backs to this melancholy and alarmist view. Let us fix our gaze across the ocean and see our own life in our own dominions and empires."

There would be very much to this plan if only we could unfasten the British islands from their rock foundations, and could tow them three thousand miles across the Atlantic Ocean, and anchor them safely upon the smiling coasts of Canada; but I have not yet heard of any way in which this could be done.

Winston Churchill, The Threat of War, 1934

Read More »»

O God, Our Help in Ages Past

A little Sunday morning inspiration for you, courtesy of Padre Benton

On Sunday morning, August 10, (1941) Mr Roosevelt came aboard H.M.S. Prince of Wales and, with his Staff officers and several hundred representatives of all ranks of the United States Navy and Marines, attended Divine Service on the quarterdeck. This service was felt by all of us to be a deeply moving expression of the unity of faith of our two peoples, and none who took part in it will forget the spectacle presented that sunlit morning on the crowded quarterdeck...... the American and British chaplains sharing in the reading of the prayers.. I chose the hymns myself.

We ended with "O God, Our Help in Ages Past" which Macaulay reminds us the Ironsides had chanted as they bore John Hampden's body to the grave. Every word seemed to stir the heart. It was a great hour to live. Nearly half those who sang were soon to die.

- From The Second World War by Winston Churchill Volume III page 345.

Read More »»

"Obama Beach"

You can almost forgive Gordon Brown for his Freudian slip on Omaha Beach, for subconsciously admitting that the 65th anniversary of D-day has been more about the presence of one man than the sacrifice of thousands of English-speaking veterans. No disrespect to the President, but the Queen should have been the lightning rod for this event, the only head of state to have served during the Second World War, who was a dear friend of Ike, and who therefore would have been a more generational and affectionate representative for D-day veterans.

I think I have watched Saving Private Ryan about a dozen times, love the film, but one gets the impression that too many Americans believe Operation Overlord was a mostly American show. It was not an overwhelmingly American operation, most of the troops who landed on the Normandy Beaches were from other countries.

No it was not a Franco-American initiative, nor was it an Anglo-American one, unless you believe the 15,000 Canadians who landed on Juno Beach that fateful day was a minor event. Remember that "Anglo-American" is a British invention, most Americans would probably rather not share the glory, but neither would most Britons want to share it beyond those two.

Properly told, D-day was a triumph of the English-speaking peoples. Yes, a battalion of Free French came ashore that day, as did some Polish and Norwegian units, but it was predominantly the work of three nations, many of whom died fighting for King and Country. What a travesty the Queen couldn't be there.

Read More »»

Nothing Special About Britain? Britain!?

Re: the anonymous Obama administration dufus who said: "There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment."

As an unapologetic, full-throated Anglophile I find those comments idiotic, offensive, ahistorical, and in a certain sense anti-American.* I'm of course appalled.

But it's worth focusing on one aspect of this sentiment: It's idiocy. According to the liberal-realist school, some countries matter more than other countries because they are powerful and have the ability to adversely affect our national interest. According to the liberal-internationalist school, allies matter more than non-allies because grand international coalitions are the best way to do the wonderful things want to do on the world stage. So, China matters because it's a rising hegemon. Burkino Faso matters . . . eh, not so much. "Europe" matters because they are allies on security, global warming, human rights, etc. Well, Britain just happens to be our most important, reliable, and powerful ally.

So even if you take the pragmatist's razor to our shared history, culture, and all other romantic attachments to Great Britain, the bulldog still matters — a lot. In other words, to say that Britain isn't any more special than the other 190 countries in the world, you actually have to dislike Britain to the point where you're willing to suspend what are supposed to be your guiding principles and objectives about foreign policy.

* Just to be clear, what I mean by anti-American isn't a knee-jerk attack on anyone's patriotism. Rather, I simply mean that if you think the country that gave us our system of laws, our democratic tradition, our dominant culture, much of our greatest literature, and even our language is no more special than any backwater country which immiserates or brutalizes its people, then you must not think very much of America's culture, traditions, etc. either.

— Jonah Goldberg

Read More »»

AMERICA'S QUEEN

Presidents have come and gone but Her Majesty remains. For me, a subject of this vast English-Speaking Kingdom, the Royal Visit to America invokes that ancient sense of belonging together as a single people born of a common mother. The Queen herself embodies the mystic chords of our collective memory, in a way that no other human being can. Gone are the national prejudices when Americans feel a special bond to my Queen. We are in these moments connected as one, and I for one would like it to stay that way.

The Queen (when Princess Elizabeth) with President Truman (President from 1945-53) in Washington in 1951.

The Queen meets Marilyn Monroe prior to the Royal Command Film Performance of 'The Prince and the Showgirl' at the Empire Theatre in London in October 1956.

The Queen meets Judy Garland at the Royal Variety Performance held at the London Palladium in November 1957.

The Queen, Prince Charles, and Princess Anne with President Eisenhower (President from 1953-61) at Balmoral Castle in 1959.

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh with President and Mrs Kennedy (President from 1961-63) at Buckingham Palace in 1961.

The Royal Family meet American Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins at Buckingham Palace in October 1969. The astronauts were in London as part of their world tour following their historic moon landing.

The Queen with President Nixon (President from 1969-74) and Sir Edward Heath during a visit to Chequers in 1970.

The Queen dancing with President Ford (President from 1974-77) at the White House in 1976.

The Queen with President Carter (President from 1977-81) at Buckingham Palace in 1977.

The Queen with President Reagan (President from 1981-89) riding at Windsor in 1982.

The Queen with President Bush (President from 1989-93) at Buckingham Palace in 1989.

The Queen with President Clinton (President from 1993-2001) and his family at Buckingham Palace in 2000.

The Queen meets Madonna at the World Premiere of the James Bond film 'Die Another Day' at the Royal Albert Hall in November 2002.

The Queen with President George W Bush (President from 2001-present) at Buckingham Palace in 2003.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda meet The Queen at Buckingham Palace, March 2005. The businessman was awarded an honourary knighthood by Her Majesty for his charity work.

© Press Association photos via Royal Insight

Read More »»

Young Winston

The greatest Briton, surely, though many of his fellow Britons proved and continue to prove themselves unworthy of him. Our brave old lion, stalwart defender of the sacred Crown and leader of the English-speaking peoples! He is, in some respects, an effectual patron saint for this blog; and a perpetual rebuke to the grotty, shameless politicians we are so unlucky to have today. (With some exceptions).


So the Monarchist reader will no doubt be happy to hear the good news that Richard Attenborough’s 1972 film ‘Young Winston’ has just been released on DVD for the first time. It lacks some of the charm of ‘My Early Life’, Churchill’s boffo autobiography (still available in a beautiful paperback from Eland), but remains an excellent piece, featuring much of its content, a film of awesome scope and home to some remarkable performances.

It takes in everything from Churchill’s cavalry charge against the Dervishes (who scream ‘Allahu Ackbar’ as they attack, oh how the times don’t change), his unsuccessful days at school (here we might have done without the rather seedy beating scenes), his midnight escape from a Boer prisoner-of-war camp, and his early years in Parliament. Simon Ward looks uncannily like the young Churchill, and does a great job of his snarling, flighty brand of eloquence.

Like the book, the film is a continually impressive, inspiring account of a great man’s formation. There’s none of the silly nonsense of ‘finding oneself’, or self-exploration, or backpacking in Thailand, that constitutes the present-day ‘development’ into adulthood. Instead we have an illustration in bravery, patriotism and good humour that all would do well to learn from.

Read the book first, and set aside a spring evening for the film. It goes down well with a brandy and a cigar, and a roaring fire, and a happy stomach full of some roast joint.

Read More »»

The Tipping Point

As our readers will by now clearly understand, the Monarchist and I are devoted Anglophiles and supporters of the Commonwealth, and loyal subjects of Her Majesty. But we are also – like most others of our ilk – intense admirers of the United States. This twin devotion may appear paradoxical to those with a weaker grasp of history, but of course there lies therein neither contradiction nor riddle.

As William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, insisted at the height of the American Revolution, the Americans were not traitors to England; rather, they revealed England’s betrayal of herself. It was the Americans who demanded the continuance in fact, and refused the relegation to the theoretical, of the fundamental principles of liberty and parliamentary democracy that Britain had so painfully brought into the world. For the Americans, liberty was not a buzz word or a punch line. It was not something that they would see diluted or bought off with creature comforts or temporary personal advantages. It was the core, the fundamental, the irreducible basis of how they intended to live their lives and to structure their government and their society. Give me liberty or give me death, they said – and they meant it. They say it, and mean it, to this day.

With the events of the past two weeks, I have finally come to understand why the American people, whom I so admire, are so despised by so many in Canada. It is because people of principle and courage are bound to be despised by those who can claim neither. I have also come to understand, on a visceral level, what I have so far appreciated only on an intellectual, theoretical basis. I have always marveled at how the great Americans of their revolution – men like Washington and Adams, who were men of the greatest integrity, and possessed of the most irreproachable personal virtue; men for whom loyalty was a core quality – came so precipitously and violently to shift their allegiances. I now understand that it was because they encountered what exists in all things: a tipping point; a point of no return. It is precisely those of the greatest character, whose very integrity and loyalty most retard their progress toward it, who cross the chasm most abruptly. Adams and Washington had attempted as far as possible to reform the nature of British dominion over America. They had resisted as long as possible the idea that such reform would never happen. But, as if on cue, they recognized all at once that they had been wrong: that reform would never, ever come; that radical measures were, in fact, required; that continued prevarication was futile and only demeaned them; that to overthrow that which had evolved to become the opposite of what it claimed and ought to be would be virtue, not sin.

I am not so arrogant as to set my personal qualities, and my thoughts and actions, on a plane with those of Washington and Adams. But I will say this: with Thursday’s votes in the House of Commons, capping what are surely the two most disgraceful weeks in the history of the Canadian Parliament, I have reached my own, personal tipping point. I have abruptly come to see – with the force and clarity of a thunderclap – that the Canada that I have defended and loved no longer exists, and cannot be retrieved. And with that realization, I say that as of now, I believe this: what Canada has become not only is not worth perpetuating; it should be euthanized at the earliest opportunity.

What exactly have we witnessed over the past two weeks? We have witnessed a parliamentary government of the British Crown and tradition, faced with a protracted and clear demonstration of a loss of majority confidence, refuse to adhere to the most fundamental tenets of responsible government by submitting itself to an immediate and declared confidence vote. We have watched that government instead suspend democracy until its bribes and enticements to the characterless could bear fruit. We have watched a blonde Judas cross the floor, oblivious of how ephemeral her new friendships will prove; casting the will of her constituents - and with it, the core mechanism by which the will of the people is translated into the reality of parliamentary power - into the dust; for obvious, crass and fleeting personal gain. And we have watched the chief architect of this farce declare, with a straight face, that he had secured the renewed confidence of the House and assured the future of a united Canada.

As this tragedy concluded, I listened to some around me, here in Ontario, actually declare their relief that they would not soon have to make another trip to the ballot box. And in that moment, I reached my tipping point. I realized that a people unprepared to devote a single hour – without sweat, cost or blood – to the enforcement of democracy, to the assurance that they might be governed by decent and responsible people of their actual choice; that a people too selfish and shameless to care whether their countrymen felt respected and represented under the common roof; that a people too brain-dead to understand how deeply their traditions of democracy have been compromised, and how dangerous a precedent has just been set - were not worthy of my allegiance.

The Liberals believe that they have saved Canada. It is stupefying that they cannot see, that they cannot even imagine; that saving Canada and saving themselves are not the same thing. Because they can be bought and sold, they cannot conceive that a Canada that is anything other than a hollow and worthless shell might not be. But above all, they suffer from that greatest of delusions: they imagine that the universe is static. This is Canada, they think; this is how it works. Elections are decided in Ontario and Quebec. Quebecers are sleazy and stupid: just throw them some bones, and try not to get caught. And no one else matters. Those westerners are crazy; they are dangerous; they are not reading the script. So just take their money and ignore them. Things have always been thus, and always will be. The Liberals, and with them much of Ontario, just cannot conceive that all this could ever change; that this grand order of theirs might one day soon be turned on its head, and cease to be.

But it could – just ask George III. And unless I am much mistaken, the events of the past two weeks have virtually ensured that it will.

I am not a Quebecer. I have not spent much time in Quebec, nor do I identify personally with Quebec’s culture and history. In short, I do not readily identify with Quebecers; I do not naturally walk in their shoes. But over the past several months, as Gomery has dropped bombshell after bombshell, I have found myself quietly and steadily becoming outraged on their behalf. And I have been inspired to behold the rise of their quite righteous indignation. I have been encouraged by the resolution and grit of Gilles Duceppe and his party, as they have stepped up to refuse, on behalf of all Quebecers, to be tarred by the Liberal manure. And I was proud to see the Conservatives join with them in an attempt to bring this disgrace of a government to the ground. Belinda Stronach accuses Stephen Harper of siding with separatists. I would say, rather, that the Conservatives chose to side with men and women of integrity and honour, against those who lack both, and that Belinda went where she belongs. Duceppe and the Bloc represent their people faithfully. Martin and the Liberals represent only themselves, and a view of how a country should function that no decent person can share. So from now on I say: Quebecers, save yourselves; take your birthright, take your beautiful land and heritage, take your pride and your self-respect, and go. I will be cheering you from the other side: cheering your courage and character, and cheering the death blow you will be delivering to the rotten structure that Canada has become.

To Albertans, and indeed to all Western Canadians, I now say: what are you waiting for? Can you now doubt that Ontario will never, ever, give you a seat at the table? Your money is taken from you, year after year, and not only have you no say in the matter, but under the current order, you never will. Make no mistake: with the new precedents of irresponsible government just set, what has been true in the past will be even truer in the future. And dissecting the events of the past two weeks, this has become clear to me: that the Stephen Harper who so closely represents you, your beliefs, and your aspirations for your future in Canada, is hated in Ontario precisely because he represents you, your beliefs and your aspirations. What does that tell you? This is the outcome of your twenty years of work in building a party, a platform, a cause that would bring you into Canada. This is the answer to “the West wants in”. So I now truly hope that the West will want out. Really, what is there here for you? Do you really want to continue to be taxed without representation, especially when so much of what you pay is handed over to others? Do you really want to continue to be despised and mocked? Do you really want to continue to elect senators who will go nowhere while Ontario Liberals send hacks of their own to the red chamber to “represent” you, and laugh in your face?

The Americans speak of “the spirit of ‘76”. This is the spirit of righteous indignation, the spirit of self-respect. It is the spirit that made the gentle and loyal farmers of the colonies conceive as their banner a coiled rattlesnake over the words: don’t tread on me. It is the spirit that brought ordinary men from their hearths and homes into the fields of Lexington and Concord, to stand against the soldiers of the greatest armed power on earth. It is the spirit that led the great men of an age to cast aside everything they had known and served, to build something better, something greater, something that they could reconcile with their beliefs, their integrity and their dignity. Will a “spirit of ‘05” now arise here? I believe it is already stirring. The Liberals, with much of Ontario in dumb connivance, have sown the seeds. They do not understand what they have set irretrievably in motion. It is far beyond their sphere of recognition to see that far from saving Canada, they have destroyed it. A Canada worth preserving might just have been revived had this government fallen. But the very factors and forces that prevented that fall have now pointed the future in a very different direction. And I say: so be it. The chasm has been crossed. The tipping point has been reached.

Walsingham (originally posted here, along with over 100 comments. Was described as "seminal" in the Ottawa Citizen)

Read More »»