Page images
PDF
EPUB

124

MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER

sailles introduced certain complications into the situation as soon as that treaty went into effect. One was that the American Forces in Germany continued under the Old Armistice Agreement, whereas Belgium, France, and Great Britain automatically abandoned that agreement by ratification of the treaty. Another complication was that the American Government, not having ratified the treaty, could not be officially represented on the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission. The Commission government nevertheless designated General Allen, the commander of the American Forces in Germany, as an "unofficial observer," and he sat with the Commission from the beginning, but unofficially and without vote. He was accorded the right to discuss all questions and to express his own views and his Government's instructions, if he so desired. His opinions were not only welcomed but respected, and either he or his deputy was present at each meeting. America continued to share uniformly in representation on all committees and other agencies of the Commission.

b. Notwithstanding this cooperation, General Allen asserted his rights under the Armistice Agreement and held himself free to accept or negative, so far as his zone was concerned, any action of the Commission. In case of approval he ratified the action by publishing it in a general order which legally bound every resident within his zone. This policy lasted almost two years, or until the ratification of America's separate peace with Germany. During this time the American commander practically controlled his zone under the laws of war, issuing his own orders as occasion required and punishing violations of the same in his own provost courts, the theory being that until peace had been declared officially between America and Germany those countries were still at war.

c. During this period there was much speculation, not only among the inhabitants and German officials, but also among the personnel of the Commission and the American Forces, as to what was really the dominant authority in the American zone. The American assertion of rights in

MILITARY GOVERNMENT

125

dependent of the Commission and of the Rhineland Agreement certainly deprived the Commission in some degree of the privileges and dignity which it otherwise would have enjoyed.

[blocks in formation]

81. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.-a. This comparison is made with reference to occupied Germany where these countries administered military governments side by side. All allied commands in the occupied territory were directed to exercise their authority through the regularly elected or appointed German civil officials. Under the general rules of international law, hostile or inefficient officials were not required to be retained in office, and all the armies fully exercised the right of removal for cause. Few officials were removed, however, for the reason that they were a carefully selected and trained body of administrators with reasonable prospects of life tenure in their positions. Their performance was, therefore, generally more efficient and their supervision was far simpler than government by Allied officers or new civilian appointees would have been. The tendency was rather to try by military courts such officials as failed to discharge their duties satisfactorily. and to retain them in office if practicable.

b. We largely adopted the French general staff system for our armies abroad, but we did not follow the French in applying the general staff system of control to our military government. We naturally more nearly approached the British system, being familiar, as were the British, with

126

MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER

the principles of criminal law originating in the common law, which differ greatly from those principles derived from the Roman civil law which formed the basis of the jurisprudence in France. We do not seem to have appreciated as fully as did either the British or the French the vital necessity of organizing a special staff system, separate from the purely military staff, to deal with the problems of military government.

c. The British, perhaps because of their more extensive experience in colonial administration, assigned a far greater number of trained staff officers to duty with the military government than did either the French or ourselves. Whether or not it was proper to employ so large a military government personnel in this particular case is at least questionable.

82. THE FRENCH SYSTEM.-a. The French had a special general staff section (Bureau des Affaires Civilės) to handle their military government. This left their usual general staff sections free to give their whole attention to keeping the military forces prepared to renew hostilities in case of necessity.

b. The chief of the Bureau des Affaires Civiles, being a member of the general staff, met in daily conference with the chiefs of the other sections of the general staff, thus insuring harmonious action and a common policy. The civil affairs section being a separate section of the general staff, the army could move forward to a renewal of hostilities without being hampered by the military government, and likewise the military government could continue to operate efficiently after the army had moved on. Orders concerning purely civil matters within the occupied territory were issued by the civil administrators; those relating to purely military matters were issued by the division or other tactical commanders. In the event of conflict between the two, the matter was referred to the army commander.

c. The French system differed from the British in having all officers who were connected with the civil administration serve on the staff of the supreme military

MILITARY GOVERNMENT

127

commander in the occupied area. Subordinate commanders were entirely free from responsibilities pertaining to the civil administration.

d. The following are regarded as the strong features of the French system:

(1) The army commander was the head of both the military and the civil administrations.

(2) The organization of a special general staff section to deal with civil matters, and the control of civil affairs through the bureau thus created.

(3) The organization of the civil administration along territorial lines.

The principal merit was that the territorial and separate organization of the system permitted the free reassignment or employment of the troops without disturbing either military operations or the civil administration.

e. Its weak features are regarded as being the failure to assign similar civil administrative staff sections to staffs of corps and division commanders and to make those commanders responsible for the civil administration within their respective areas, and the fact that the personnel for the civil administration was inadequate.

83. THE BRITISH SYSTEM.-a. The British put an organization into effect from the beginning which more nearly embraced all the sound fundamental principles of military government than did any of the systems organized by the other armies. This, as already suggested, was perhaps because of their more extended colonial experience. However, as we shall see, not even the British system was devoid of weaknesses.

b. One of the important priciples applied was that the army commander was the supreme authority within the occupied area. British General Headquarters did not attempt to interfere in the administration of the military government, concerning itself solely with the larger questions of policy emanating from the headquarters of Marshal Foch.

c. Another important principle applied by the British was the creation of a special staff department for the con

128

MILITARY AID TO THE CIVIL POWER

duct of civil affairs. This department was separate and distinct from the usual military staff. The army commander really had two staffs, one for performing the usual military staff duties and the other for performing duties pertaining to the military government. The latter staff was headed by a Chief of Staff for Civil Affairs who was styled the "Military Governor." As in the case of the French system, the responsibility for both the army and the military government rested with the army commander. The system was not a dual one to the same extent as the French, however, for reasons presently to be stated.

d. A third principle was that the area commandants controlled absolutely the civil administration in their respective areas. Responsibility for both the purely military affairs in the area and the military government of the civil population in the same area was vested in the person of the commanding officer of the troops in that area. The same principle extended to smaller subdivisions, the only differences being those arising from the smaller tactical units involved and the more restricted responsibilities with regard to the military government. In this the British practice differed widely from that of the French. The British seems preferable.

e. The principle of providing subordinate commanders with trained staffs for the administration of civil affairs was carried out, thus freeing the normal military staffs of those commanders from the burden of civil administration. This principle was carried down to the lowest units, until the town commander became the superior of the local burgomaster.

f. Another principle involved in the British organization was that military commands were made co-extensive with the political subdivisions of the occupied territory.

g. The following are regarded as the strong features of the British system:

(1) Centralization of authority in one commander.

(2) Special staff section to handle civil administration. (3) Assignment of similar staff sections to staffs of subordinate commanders.

« PreviousContinue »