Die Selbständigkeit der Unterführer im Kriege. Karl Woide. Berlin: Eisenschmidt, 1895.

A Russian General, the First Advocate of Auftragstaktik: Battlefield Initiative from Sedan to Donbas

Is there any value today in reviewing a book published at the end of the nineteenth century? The answer in this case is yes, because the book is still relevant today…and not only on the grounds of history. Firstly, it is the first book to deal exclusively with the concept of Auftragstaktik, or mission command, long before the term was coined. Secondly, the concept is in the limelight because of the war in Ukraine. Many sources, from like the Financial Times, to The Economist, to Mick Ryan have been attributing the Ukrainian military’s success against the Russians to the adoption of the NATO practice of mission command.[1]

While teaching at the Hellenic Military Academy a few years ago, I discovered the Russian General Karl Mavrikievitch Woide’s book On the Initiative of Subordinate Leaders in War. The book had been translated into German[2] and French, and from the French edition[3] it was translated into Greek in 1907 by Major Ioannis Velissariou. My surprise was great for two reasons.

Firstly, Velissariou is a legend in the Greek military and his name has become synonymous with initiative. As the commander of a battalion of Evzones, elite light infantry, during the siege of Ioannina, the largest Greek effort in the First Balkan War, he demonstrated exceptional initiative and leadership qualities.[4] He finally fell fighting in July 1913 while leading his battalion from the front in the Second Balkan War, at the battle of Kresna Gorge.[5]

Secondly, it is remarkable that the first non-German to recognize the concept now called Auftragstaktik, or mission command, was a Russian general. Karl Woide (1833-1905)—whose name appears in French as De Woyde, in German as Woide or Voide, and in Russian as Voide or Vojde—was a prominent military writer. He first wrote a penetrating analysis of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, The Causes of Victories and Defeats in the War of 1870. His two-volume work was translated into German and French and went through repeated editions.[6] The Russian general wondered what caused the continuous successes of the Germans and the constant defeats of the French. He was the first neutral observer to attribute the German victory to the “officially recognized and obligatory independence of the subordinate leaders.”[7] Furthermore, he considered that the “initiative of the subordinates acted as a force multiplier that increased the drive of the higher command.”[8] The Germans at that time hardly ever used the term Auftragstaktik when discussing issues of command. Rather, they spoke of selbständigkeit, meaning independence, initiative, and autonomy.[9]

Evidently thinking that the subject of initiative was worth separate discussion, Woide wrote the book under review, Die Selbständigkeit der Unterführer im Kriege (On the Initiative of Subordinate Leaders in War), in which he thoroughly examined this issue. Not translated into English, the book remained relatively unknown in the Anglophone world.

The book is divided into eight short chapters. In the first chapter, the introduction, Woide summarizes his conclusions from the experience of the Prussian army in the War of 1870. He argues that “the amazing successes achieved by the German army in the campaign of 1870 are due, in large part, to initiative of subordinates. Because the French were ignorant of it during 1870-71, it gave them the impression of a newly perfected weapon.”[10]

The second chapter deals with how initiative arose in modern wars. In pre-nineteenth century wars with linear tactics, initiative existed but was not necessary in the same ways. From the Napoleonic Wars onwards, initiative became imperative, mainly due to the increase in the size of armies. The third chapter examines how we should interpret the principle of initiative. Woide believes that it should be made obligatory for the entire army, its implementation should be formalized and it should be considered a professional duty. In addition, initiative must be exercised within defined limits because it is a double-edged sword.

In the fourth chapter, the Russian general points out that initiative should not be confused “with the fury of attacking anywhere regardless of the circumstances or marching to the sound of guns.” In other words, true initiative has nothing to do with arbitrary actions. The fifth chapter deals with the recognition and interpretation of the situation, i.e. what we now call situation assessment.

In the sixth chapter emphasis is placed on the fact that subordinates, if they correctly assess the situation, can anticipate the expected orders. Of course the compass that unifies the actions of everything is the common purpose, the superior’s intent as we would say today. In the seventh chapter, the distinction between the execution of orders according to their letter or their spirit is developed. He considers obvious “on the one hand the successful consequences of intelligent insubordination and on the other, the disastrous consequences of literal submission to the order.” It is interesting that “intelligent disobedience” is still in the military discourse today. Indicatively, the American Army Chief of Staff Mark A. Milley in 2017 stated, “a subordinate needs to understand that they have the freedom and they are empowered to disobey a specific order, a specified task, in order to accomplish a purpose.”[11]

In the last and longest chapter, Woide summarizes all aspects of initiative, with the aim of stimulating study and thought, since he considers that cognitive education is necessary for its establishment. He observes that the right of initiative has been recognized and sanctioned in the armies, “but it is far from being exercised everywhere and understood in its proper sense. The good will is not lacking, but it is not sufficiently understood that the implementation of the new principle requires a complete transformation of the command methods”.[12]

Influence

The Germans, who developed selbständigkeit as a command philosophy, analyzed and discussed the subject extensively from 1870 to 1914.[13] Nevertheless, it is interesting that Woide’s books also influenced the German army, where subordinates’ independence took the form of educational principle, which was criticized for its excess and partly attributed to Woide’s input.[14] Germany, with its huge armies, increased lethality, and wide dispersion of forces, was best adapted to the battlefields of the industrial age. To overcome the chaos and fog of war, the German army found the solution to decentralized command by developing the initiative of subordinates at all levels. It was a whole philosophy and not a technique, which gradually evolved and received the name Auftragstaktik.

The most important question is, how much did Woide’s writings on initiative influence the armies of his day? At first, in his own country, although his two books were included in the curricula of the military academies, they failed to influence the entrenched thinking of the leadership of the Russian army.[15] Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his astonishing blend of fiction and historiography, August 1914, describing the Battle of Tannenberg at the beginning of the First World War, dissects the mentality of the Russian army leadership by emphasizing:

“Provided you stuck to the letter of regulations, orders, and directives, you could make as many blunders as you liked; you could be defeated, you could retreat, be routed, run away—no one would ever blame you and you would not even be called upon to investigate the cause of your failure. But woe to you if you once diverged from the letter, if you ever thought for yourself or acted on your own initiative; then you would not even be forgiven your successes, and if you failed, you would be eaten alive.”[16]

August 1914 is an excellent read about how a petrified army—completely devoid of initiative and where mediocrity reigns—makes war. Some authors believed the Soviet system limited the freedom of tactical commanders while maximizing that of operational level commanders.[17] However, in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, we have not noticed initiative by Russian commanders at either the tactical or at the operational level.

The U.S. Army adopted Auftragstaktik in the 1980s, and while it has officially incorporated mission command in its doctrine, it has been less successful in utilizing it in operations. David Barno and Nora Bensahel maintain that mission command often remains aspirational in practice. The reasons for this failure include excessive bureaucracy, extensive micromanagement, widespread risk aversion, and endemic distrust.[18] Today, mission command is part of NATO doctrine and all western armies have adopted and practice it, or at least that is what they claim.[19]

Turning to recent events, are the successes of the Ukrainians in the war against the Russians due to the adoption of mission command? If that holds true, then there are three explanations. Firstly, a military descendant of Soviet tradition could adopt and practice mission command in a matter of a few years or even months, when other militaries struggle for decades to incorporate it and this is an amazing feat. Secondly, we could probably attribute everything that works in the battlefield to mission command. However, by doing so we run the risk of robbing mission command of its meaning. Thirdly, a military can succeed in the battlefield even without practicing mission command. The Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht; proving mission command is not a silver bullet on the battlefield.[20]

Conclusion

Some authors, such as the historian Robert Citino, argue mission command is not transferable beyond the historical and social context in which it was developed.[21] Many others, such as Martin van Creveld and Stephen Bungay, claim that a non-German Army can emulate this approach despite its unique German cultural roots.[22] In fact, the German concept of Auftragstaktik has spread widely as mission command and been emulated by many militaries, although employing it has been difficult for most Western militaries. But, as Eitan Shamir demonstrated in his excellent study Transforming Command, to successfully exercise this concept, militaries have to overcome two gaps. The first gap is between understanding mission command and putting it into doctrine, that is the interpretation gap; the second one is the praxis gap between doctrine and its practical application during operations.[23] In other words, it is not enough merely to adopt mission command; you must also adapt it to your own particular circumstances. Recently, some other authors such as Conrad Crane and Amos Fox have criticized the cult of mission command and highlighted the flaws of the concept.[24] Eventually, it seems that we need more research on command approaches because they are generally poorly studied, and hence poorly understood.[25]

Major General Panagiotis Gkartzonikas, Hellenic Army (Ret.) is the editor of the military strategy e-journal STRATEGEIN and founder and president of Advanced Battlefield Studies – GREECE.

The Strategy Bridge is read, respected, and referenced across the worldwide national security community—in conversation, education, and professional and academic discourse.

Thank you for being a part of the The Strategy Bridge community. Together, we can #BuildTheBridge.

Header Image: Soldier, Thievpal, France (National Library of Scotland).

Notes:

[1] Ben Hall, ‘’Military Briefing: Ukraine’s Battlefield Agility Pays Off’’, Financial Times, May 26, 2022; ‘’What Is Mission Command? Democracy and Freedom Can Play a Role in Military Effectiveness’’, The Economist, July 25, 2022; Mick Ryan, ‘’A Tale of Three Generals — How the Ukrainian Military Turned the Tide’’, Engelsberg Ideas, October 14, 2022.

[2] Karl Mavrikievitch Woide, Die Selbständigkeit der Unterführer im Kriege (Berlin: R. Eisenschmidt, 1895).

[3] Charles De Woyde, De l'Initiative des chefs en sous-ordre à la guerre (Paris: L. Baudoin, 1895).

[4] Richard C. Hall, The Balkan Wars 1912-1913: Prelude to the First World War (London: Routledge, 2000), 83-5.

[5] Ibid, 121-22.

[6] Woide, Die Ursachen der Siege und Niederlagen im Kriege 1870 (Berlin: Mittler & Sohn, 1894-1896) and in French, De Woyde, Causes des Succès et des Revers dans la Guerre de 1870 (Paris: L. Baudoin, 1899-1900).

[7] Woide, Die Ursachen, Ι, 5.

[8] Woide, Die Ursachen, ΙΙ, 428.

[9] Robert Citino, The German Way of War: From the Thirty Years' War to the Third Reich (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2005), 308-10.

[10] Voide, Die Selbständigkeit, 5.

[11] David Barno and Nora Bensahel, ‘’Three Things the Army Chief of Staff Wants You to Know’’, War on the Rocks, May 23, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/three-things-the-army-chief-of-staff-wants-you-to-know/.

[12] Voide, Die Selbständigkeit, 122.

[13] Stephan Leistenschneider, Auftragstaktik im preußisch-deutschen Heer 1871 bis 1914 (Hamburg: Mittler & Sohn, 2002).

[14] Marco Sigg, Der Unterführer als Feldherr im Taschenformat: Theorie und Praxis der Auftragstaktik im deutschen Heer 1869 bis 1945, (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 2014), 220-21.

[15] Olaf Rose, Carl von Clausewitz: Zur Wirkungsgeschichte seines Werkes in Rußland und der Sowjetunion 1836-1991 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1995), 61.

[16] Alexander Solzhenitsyn, August 1914 (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1972), 124. See also Christian E.O. Millotat, ‘’Die Schlacht von Tannenberg im Spiegel des literarischen Meisterwerks von Alexander I. Solschenizyn – August 1914, Das Rote Rad, Erster Knoten,’’ Military Power Revue der Schweizer Armee, no. 2 (December 2014): 38-48.

[17] For example Michael Eisenstadt and Kenneth M. Pollack "Armies of Snow and Armies of Sand: The Impact of Soviet Military Doctrine on Arab Militaries," in The Diffusion of Military Technology and Ideas, ed. Emily O. Goldman and Leslie C. Eliason (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003), 68-70.

[18] David Barno and Nora Bensahel, Adaptation under Fire: How Militaries Change in Wartime (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020), 265-68.

[19] North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Allied Joint Publication-3 (AJP-3), Allied Joint Doctrine for the Conduct of Operations (NATO Standardization Office, 2019).

[20] Robert Leonhard, The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare Theory and Airland Battle (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1994), 52-8.

[21] Citino, The German Way of War, 310.

[22] Martin van Creveld, ‘’On Learning from the Wehrmacht and Other Things’’, Military Review, Vol. 68, no 1 (January 1988): 70-1; Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps between Plans, Actions, and Results (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2011), 76-82.

[23] Eitan Shamir, Transforming Command: The Pursuit of Mission Command in the U.S., British and Israeli Armies, (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011), 6-7.

[24] Conrad Crane, ‘’Mission Command and Multi-Domain Battle Don’t Mix’’, War on the Rocks, August 23, 2017. https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/mission-command-and-multi-domain-battle-dont-mix/; Amos C. Fox, ‘’Cutting Our Feet to Fit the Shoes: An Analysis of Mission Command in the U.S. Army’’, Military Review, Vol. 97, no 1 (January-February 2017): 49-57.

[25] Martin Samuels, “Understanding Command Approaches”, The Journal of Military Operations, Vol. 1, no. 3 (Winter 2012): 25-29.