Why our Generals Were More Successful in World War II

Author, reporter and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security Thomas E. Ricks explores national security issues and military history. He has covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Series: "Nimitz Lectureship Series" [5/2011] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 21093]

• Category

  Education

[nimium1955]

Does Ricks misspeak at 36:Commanders with names beginning with M: he says MacArthur and Marshall. Seems he meant to say MacArthur and Montgomery?

[Ysuu Bujiang]

did you read the title of the video?

[SgtShnackendale]

At one point he mentions, critically, that once appointed a command, the US Generals in WW2 were largely left alone, their plans were not messed with by superiors and politicians.

This was a massive flaw in Germany, Hitler made the majority of the bigger decisions, and he was a strategic and tactical failure at its worst.

For example, had he not split the German 6th army off to attack Stalingrad instead of the oil fields, the oil would have been taken, and Russia would have lost right there.

[M Graf]

Alone and confused in Vietnam..

[MultiTaysom]

43:48 "Petraeus really knows the reporters he's talking too." You got that right.

[tkcarr]

Right you are and the wars we fight now the stakes aren't as big as WWII was.

[Tony Frame]

Thanks for the reference to Marshall's book on WWI and his measure of a good general. (15:45min) -T.

[vantaron2011]

What a revelation! Generals were much more effective as the need arose to combat in war. Nowadays, there is not much to prove for them.

[cfneveu]

It implies nothing of the sort. You have inferred something that isn't the subject of the talk, is never claimed in the talk and is certainly not the opinion held by the speaker. Arguing that American generals were more successful because of increased use of relief does not lead to the logical conclusion that this was the reason the Allies won the war, any more than arguing that the Giants managed their pitchers better leads to the logical conclusion that that is why they won the World Series.

[openuniverse2003]

The one has nothing to do with the other, then? That's the logical conclusion of your premises. "Our generals were more successful" implies THAT is why we won. Not true. And that is indeed what you are doing when you throw Korea and Viet Nam in to the picture. Not only that, Viet Nam wasn't a true war, it was a 'police action" that had no real military objectives. THAT is why Viet Nam was a clusterfuck. Back to school with you, fool.