Why would clever and lazy officers be "qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions"?
Posted on
I don't understand this quote of Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.
How does "General Staff" differ from "highest leadership duties"? I embolded and italicized these two phrases.
Even if lazy officers "possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions", are they truly "qualified for the highest leadership duties"? I'd prefer clever and hardworking over clever and lazy. Or is "lazy" a misleading translation?
I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.
- Quoted in, Poller, Horst (2010). Bewältigte Vergangenheit. Das 20. Jahrhundert, erlebt, erlitten, gestaltet [Conquered Past. The 20th century, witnessed, endured, shaped]. Munich, Germany: Olzog Verlag. p. 140. ISBN 9783789283727.
[link] [comments]
Subscribe to our newsletter
Promotions, new products and sales. Directly to your inbox.