Publication: Air Power History
Publication Date: 22-JUN-07
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Miller, Roger G.
Article Excerpt
On Wednesday, October 28, 1925, the court-martial of Brig. Gen. William "Billy" Mitchell convened in the Emory Building, a facility across from the northwest corner of the U.S. Capitol. Over the next two months, the court-martial became the biggest media event in the nation, one of the great trials in Twentieth Century American history. Day after day, the legal proceedings dominated headlines as Mitchell's defense attorney, Congressman Frank Reid, put the Department of War's management of air power on trial rather than the defendant himself. Throughout the trial and despite bitter testimony by opponents--like U.S. Army Generals Charles Summerall, Hugh Drum, and Dennis Nolan-Mitchell presented an optimistic, often up-beat demeanor. In spite of everything, he appeared to enjoy himself--as Billy usually did when in the limelight. (1)
Testimony by one Howard G. Rath, however, provoked a different response. Rath had seen extensive combat with the Air Service's first bombardment unit, the 96th Aero Squadron, during World War I. He had flown on the 96th's initial combat mission on June 12, 1918, and served as a flight leader and operations officer before stepping up to the staff of the 1st Day Bombardment Group in mid-October. (2) On September 13, during the St. Mihiel offensive, he led three Breguet bombers through a formation of fifteen German pursuits, successfully striking the unit's target. Only Rath's aircraft survived and the lieutenant received the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), the nation's second highest decoration for valor. Ordinarily, Mitchell had close relations with his combat airmen. They liked him, and he respected them. But Rath's testimony as a rebuttal witness for the prosecution revealed that he had parted ways with Billy Mitchell. He contradicted the general on the effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire, testifying that it posed a deadly threat to aircraft, and charged that during the St. Mihiel attack Mitchell had ordered the 96th to bomb under horrific conditions, forcing the fliers to face unacceptable hazards. Half of the squadron's missions had to be canceled, Rath asserted, and many of those flown should never have been attempted. Aircraft had crashed and men had died without reason, and Rath blamed Mitchell for these losses. (3)
Rath's testimony deeply angered Billy Mitchell. As the veteran spoke, Mitchell seethed. According to biographer Douglas Waller, he
gripped the defense table as if it would keep him from launching himself at Rath. At times he leaned over to Reid, angrily whispering in his ear. Other times, he turned around to the reporter sitting just behind him and in a low hoarse voice uttered insults about Rath.... [T]o have one of his airmen accuse him of incompetent and reckless leadership in combat outraged him. It was the ultimate betrayal, as far as he was concerned. (4)
Mitchell's attorney compounded the impact of Rath's testimony. Reid attacked Rath during cross-examination, intimating that the former airman had shown cowardice in the face of the enemy. Reid had never spent a day under fire, and his abuse of a decorated veteran infuriated the distinguished members of the court. Brig. Gen. Edward L. King
wasn't going to let a US. Congressman humiliate a brave soldier. "I would like to ask the president of the court ... to inform defense counsel that a man may do things even if he is afraid!" he shouted, almost sputtering with rage. "I certainly object to the insinuation, as I get it, that this witness was a coward. I don't think that his testimony shows it!.... [Maj. Gen. Sidney S.] Graves ... put his arm around his fellow general's shoulder and squeezed it. (5)
Reid's performance not only deeply offended the generals sitting in judgment, but for the first time alienated the spectators, who until this point had demonstratively favored Mitchell. As Reid poured hostile questions on Rath, boos and hisses enveloped the courtroom. General King's righteous outburst led to applause and cheers from the spectators. "Their hostility stunned Reid and Mitchell." (6)
Reid, like his client, had given way to emotion when he should have remained calm. The defense's best approach would have been to turn Rath's testimony in Mitchell's favor. Reid should have shown Rath the respect his record deserved, then cross-examined him carefully to elicit the fact that commanders often send their men into combat at terrible hazard when they judge the effort necessary and at times when subordinates believe the danger too great. Combat demands extreme effort and tragic loss; sometimes the forces committed succeed and sometimes they fail; and often subordinate leaders blame heavy losses on superiors who they see as having demanded unreasonable, unjustified sacrifice. Rath, in short, was blaming Mitchell for a situation common in warfare. The president of the court was Maj. Gen. Robert Howze, holder of the Medal of Honor, (7) and the board was composed of senior leaders whose chests were heavy with decorations. Men like Maj. Gen. Douglas MacArthur understood and accepted a leader's need to order soldiers to perform beyond their capabilities. (8)
Ultimately, the court-martial never hinged on Rath's testimony and, in the final analysis, his assertions probably made little difference in the verdict. But the episode colored the proceedings and tarnished Mitchell's image. Still, the situation might have been even more damaging. Extreme demands during wartime can be justified by exigent conditions and military necessity. During peacetime, however, such exertions are quite another matter. It was probably fortunate for Mitchell and his reputation that the prosecution failed to exploit a somewhat analogous episode that occurred in Texas in February 1923.
When Maj. Gen. Mason M. Patrick assumed command of the U.S. Army Air Service on October 5, 1921, he also took on the task of managing his second-in-command, Billy Mitchell. Patrick had proven during World War I that he could handle the flamboyant, irrepressible airman. Now, that responsibility was his again. An essential element among Patrick's management techniques was to keep Mitchell on the move and out of Washington, D.C. One such trip took place at the beginning of 1923. (9)
On January 21, piloting his personal airplane and accompanied by an aide, Mitchell left Bolling Field bound for McCook Field near Dayton, Ohio, to visit the Air Service's Engineering Department. At McCook, the general examined the latest developments in night flying equipment, landing lights, and superchargers. He personally flew a new training aircraft that featured side-by-side seating, and also a two-seat, high-altitude pursuit plane that he judged promising. (10) From Ohio, Mitchell flew north to Selfridge Field, Michigan, home of his favorite unit, the 1st Pursuit Group. At Selfridge, he inspected the command, observed maneuvers, and tested a Thomas-Morse MB-3 pursuit aircraft equipped with an auxiliary fuel tank that could be dropped when empty, and an MB-3 that featured snow skis in place of wheels. Next, Mitchell inspected the Air Service's lighter-than-air training school at Scott Field, Illinois, and then flew to Kelly Field, outside San Antonio, Texas, for a week of inspections, reviews, and maneuvers. (11)
Subsequently, a three-day flight then took Mitchell to Camp Borden in Ontario, site of Canada's School of Aviation, and from there he went to Ottawa...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.
More articles from
Air Power History
Modern warfare: desert storm, operation Iraqi freedom and operation enduring freedom, 22-DEC-07
Books received, 22-SEP-07
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the First Indochina War, 1947-1959, 22-SEP-07
Looking for additional articles?
Click here to search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Click here to search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information. |
