Bernard Schriever – Black Saturday

In his book A Fiery Peace in a Cold War: Bernard Schriever and the Ultimate Weapon (2010) author Neil Sheehan describes the life and work of Bernard Schriever, who is considered to be the father of the American nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Schriever and his military and civilian colleagues believed firmly that if both the United States and the Soviet Union possessed these weapons of mass destruction the probability of them being used actually would be decreased.

Schriever had to overcome strong institutional resistance within the U.S. Air Force whose leadership was convinced that manned aircraft﹣strategic long-range bombers﹣was the only way to maintain a credible deterrent against the Soviet Union.

Through telling the story of Bernard Schriever and the development of the American ballistic missile program from the end of Second World War up to the mid-1960s Sheehan tells the history of the Cold War, which would last up until the 1990s with the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the unification of West and East Germany, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, and the freedom of Eastern Europe from Russian domination.

In a 2010 television interview (Booknotes on C-SPAN) Sheehan contrasted Schriever with his American-born military colleagues, Generals Paul Harkins and William Westmoreland, both who had overall command of U.S. forces in the Vietnam War.

Schriever would tell his subordinates that he would never fire anyone for failing, but instead for failing to inform him immediately of problems. For Schriever, as stated by Sheehan, success would take care of itself if one focused on solving the problems at hand. Go to minutes 25:10 to 26:50.

Sheehan had been a young war correspondent in Vietnam for United Press International (UPI), later with the New York Times. As told in his book A Bright Shining Lie (1989), which won both the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, the American generalship during the Vietnam War was unwilling to accept that America was losing that war.

General Schriever, according to Sheehan‘s research, made clear time and again to the members of this organization, whether military or civilian, that he wanted timely and accurate reports on the problems the program was experiencing, and was far less interested in the progress made.

So-called progress reports had become common within the U.S. military after the Second World War, and according to Sheehan, symptomatic for an institution unwilling to face what was not working.

Bernard Adolph Schriever was born in 1910 in the German port city of Bremen. His father was an engineer. They immigrated to the U.S. only months before the U.S. entered the First World War in 1917.

Schriever grew up in New Braunfels, Texas, an area mostly populated by German immigrants. Read about his fascinating life in Wikipedia

Jack Barsky was too pushy

“Barsky discovered that the people who trained him (Russian KGB) did not have an authentic understanding of Americans, and he struggled at first with his assignment. While his instructions were to infiltrate political circles and get close to Brzezinski (National Security Advisor under US President Jimmy Carter), he was not given specific instructions on how he was supposed to accomplish that.

He also learned that while his English was excellent, he was very pushy and argumentative when dealing with people. He was shocked when he was confronted with this fact by a fed-up friend. He realized that he was essentially too East German to fit in.” From Wikipedia

See the CBS 60 Minutes story on Jack Barsky:

Jordan Peterson’s interview with Jack Barsky is extraordinarily fascinating:

Prussian Civil Service

Civil Service Reforms (18th–19th Century). The Prussian state is famous for pioneering a professional, merit-based civil service. Reforms under Frederick the Great and later administrators emphasized: objectivity and efficiency in evaluating officials; performance-based promotions and appointments, not personal connections; a culture where professional conduct and results mattered more than personal feelings or relationships. Civil servants were expected to perform their duties impartially, and feedback on their work was formal, standardized, and focused strictly on results.

German Unification (19th Century)

The unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck was achieved through a series of carefully timed wars, diplomatic negotiations, and internal reforms. Bismarck was known for his patience and strategic waiting, choosing the right moment for each diplomatic or military move. Unification was not forced by immediate pressures but was the result of long-term planning and waiting for favorable conditions.

Das Boot

Das Boot (1981). Plot: This classic war film follows the crew of a German U-boat during World War II as they face life-and-death decisions in extreme conditions. The submarine’s captain and crew meticulously analyze every situation, weighing risks and gathering all available information before making critical decisions. Their survival depends on only committing to actions they are certain they can carry out.

“… when not to obey”

Here are two famous quotes illustrating the German/Prussian military tradition emphasizing the need for officers to exercise judgment even if it means disobeying orders:

The first historic anecdote involves Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz, a Prussian cavalry commander, who reportedly told his king during the Battle of Zorndorf (1758): “Tell the King that after the battle my head is at his disposal, but meanwhile I will make use of it.” This reflects the attitude that obedience alone is not enough; an officer must think critically and may need to disobey orders for the greater good.

Another related quote references a Prussian officer being told by Prince Frederick Charles (1868-1940): “His Majesty made you a Major because he believed you would know when not to obey his orders.“ This illustrates the principle that obedience has limits and military leaders must sometimes disobey orders based on the situation.

These quotes capture the essence of Auftragstaktik, the Prussian concept of mission-type orders, where the officer is entrusted with the freedom to decide the best way to achieve the goal.

Military realities

In the final days of WWII, Adolf Hitler meets with his generals to discuss the crumbling state of the Third Reich. The generals try to convince Hitler to surrender, while Hitler insists on continuing the fight. Hitler employs a rigid, authoritarian approach, refusing to accept contradictory opinions. He demands strict adherence to his orders, despite the dire situation.

The generals present logical arguments based on military realities and data, appealing to logic and reason, but Hitler dismisses their pragmatism. The scene highlights the tension between strict hierarchical adherence and pragmatic logic, illustrating how rigid adherence to orders can obstruct logical, outcome-driven negotiation.

Leaked German military documents

The Guardian. 2017. A leaked defence document has revealed the country’s worries about the breakup of the global order – a scenario with serious consequences for post-Brexit Britain.

The German defence ministry set out its worst-case scenario for the year 2040 in a secret document that was leaked to Der Spiegel last week: “EU enlargement has been largely abandoned, and more states have left the community … the increasingly disorderly, sometimes chaotic and conflict-prone, world has dramatically changed the security environment.”

The 120-page-long paper, entitled Strategic Perspective 2040, is a federal government policy document – and the scenarios it imagines are grimly realistic: an east-west conflict in which some EU states join the Russian side or a “multipolar” Europe, where some states adopt the Russian economic and political model in defiance of the Lisbon treaty.

How Short-Term Thinking is Threatening our National Security

September 2022. Many of the problems we face today, from recent global recessions to climate change, can be traced back to short term thinking. This week, host Elisa is joined by Ari Wallach, futurist and author of Longpath: Becoming the Great Ancestors our Future Needs.

Ari acutely notes that we are at a significant turning point in history, one when bold change is needed to lay the groundwork for future generations. Yet, many Americans remain distracted by division and focused on the here and now.

How do we compare to other nations that might be taking a longer term view of themselves? And how can we rethink our political, corporate, and education systems to better adapt to, and take leadership in, establishing the innovations to come?

How Short-Term Thinking Makes the U.S. Worse at Fighting Wars

The Atlantic. 2012. In 2010, the U.S. adopted a new tactic in southern Afghanistan: it began to bulldoze entire villages to clear them of IEDs. The policy — reminiscent of Vietnam, of destroying villages to save them — spoke to a deeper issue with how the war was being fought.

Short-term objectives were emphasized over long term planning or consequence management. Destroying villages carries enormous long-term costs for a region, and the U.S. military just wasn’t paying attention to what those would be.

understand-culture
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.