After 30 years in service I think Ricks has a damn good point about why our WWII generals were more successful than our contemporary generals. Too many field grade officers I've watched either ridiculously micromanage or go to great lengths to never rock the boat. The senior officers that truly demonstrated both proficiency at their branch and position, and also leadership where the soldiers both know and trust you, were the exception.
I also served and I disagree. Government legislation has our military services fighting with both hands behind their backs with all the legislation so every is scared of repercussions. Every order goes down the chain and punishment will go up to whoever gave the order so it becomes a CYA situation.
He makes some very good points about personality traits, but these have to be set against the following backdrop: 1) The Allied armies in the West faced 60 German divisions whereas the Russians in the East faced 200 divisions: 2) The German divisions in the West had already been wearied by 4 yrs of war before the Normandy invasion: 3) The Germans facing the Allies were scaping the bottom of the available manpower barrel: 4) The Allies in the West had overwhelming airial support 5) most importantly the Allies combined were industrially out producing the Third Reich in material hardware lityerally faster than the Germans could destroy it: EXAMPLE - by the end of the war the Americans were producing an aircraft every 5 minutes, and one ship a day: the Russians were producing one tank every 5 minutes. The se fugures are cited by historian Paul Kennedy in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". Generalship was secondary to all of these factors because the Allies had unlimited resources.
I beg to differ. By this logic ww2 US generals should feel no motivation to take risk. After all, why risk one's career when victory is assured through sheer materiel? Yet the generals and admirals are frequently relieved as Rick shared as they are held accountable for their performance all the way from the top - by Marshall. Good generalship has a force multiplier effect which we shouldn't too quickly discount as secondary. Take for e.g. Battle of Midway. Bad Japanese admiralship driven by their bushido sense of honor led the last carrier to take unaffordable risk leading to its loss as well. The Kido Butai may be fearsome but its capability is nullified to zero as a consequence of the Admiral's decision.
@@joshh3304 At a slight tangent consider the report of eminent historian and military analyst BH Liddel Hart, whose careful analysis of the Wehmacht's battle perfomance though the whole of WW2 revealed some interesting data. His research revealed that whether the Germans were attacking of defending, whether on foreign soil or on home soile, they always achieved a 50% higher kill rate than their adversary. The Russians in the East simply ignored the causal;ty rate and pushed on regardless. The Western Allies were more cautious, but towards the end there was greater incentive for the Germans to surrender to the approaching Americans than the advancing Russians, which would also have undermined their resistance which would have been greater had not the Russians pressed them so hard in the East.
@@tuckhorse YEAH. HE’S A REAL MAGGOT. PATTON DID MORE TO WIN THAT WAR THAN ALL THOSE IDIOTS PUT TOGETHER. I had a great uncle who was a tank commander under general George S Patton. I’ll bet on everything I hold dear that I know more about that war than he does.
WWII Generals only had one single order and that is to win the war ...latter conflicts were halfhearted wars with too many restrictions to preserve the geopolitics.WWII was a slugfest with clearcut objectives.
Well, there is the fact that congress hasn't constitutionally declared war since WW2. Every "war" since then has been a conflict. This could have nothing to do with it however, but I also like to mention this everywhere I can because the thousands of men and women who died in the middle east weren't fighting a war, and that's really dumb.
USS INDIANAPOLIS Captain did not want to leave port with out a escort forced to go after the delivery of A BOMB. USS INDIANAPOLIS sunk hundreds died. Captain blamed court martial unjustified committed SUICIDE later on in life. Example of not so great leader ship by USA Generals and Admirals during WW2.
A bomb ended Japan's " boshido code" warrior ways. The leadership failed the Japaness people and the 2 A bombs could hace been prevented. Leaderships needs to know when it's game over and play NICE ! WW2 was HELL and cruel were the Japaness and so HELL came to find the DEVIL, peace.
First it did not start with World War II, U.S. Generals. It started in 1774, over the decades the Armed Forces if you will, built a house, And In addition we built the Military Academy's and military classes and of coarse there were wars, then they took these wars apart, what went right and more importantly what went wrong. It soon became apparent that leadership skills , take charge, Commanding presence,
Mark Clarke Italy June 1944. Disobeyed a order and appeared to be more concerned with the kudos of capturing Rome than cutting off and surrounding. a retreating German Army. Certainly in this instance not a team player. Why did he avoid being relieved?
@carmine paola Even with superior numbers, any force can be repelled without good leadership. The British at the start and mid points of the war had bad army commanders and their tactics had not evolved like the Germans had. Much like the Germans fighting and winning against the combine British/French armies and the much bigger Soviet armies.
HE DOESN’T KNOW SHIT! He has never been to war, and he mentions nothing about Patton, who without we might have lost, if nothing else we would have taken one hell of a beating. Nothing but shit coming out of his mouth.
Back then It was the Navy Department and the Department Of War. We now have The Department Of Defense. It should be the Department Of Offence. That would clarify the mission.
I think one of the good points he makes is the importance of success. "Relief" has two important roles. First it assures that people who don't have success are moved out of the way. Second it opens paths for successful people to have more opportunity and responsibility. It's creative destruction. If you don't burn out the forest every now and again, it doesn't open up space for the forest to renew itself.
While many of my views on this subject have already been said in the comments I would just like to point out one big thing. WWII generals took actions that would be unacceptable by today's standards. They bombed cities into oblivion, that attacked civilian heavy targets with overwhelming force, and the war ended with 2 nukes being dropped on Japan.
I thought I had watched this video before. Kept hearing things I thought sounded familiar. Walked into my study and I have his book "The Generals" on the shelf. Funny. It's a good book.
I'm a veteran. Ricks hits the nail on the head. Accountability. For a modern day pair of examples of the consequences of no accountability see our ineffectual and substandard public schools and our "systemic failure" Department of Veterans Affairs.
wayneyd2 Yes, victory by consensus in action evolves inevitably with improving communication. When they can communicate, they will. Sure mediocrity prevails over risk taking's outcome variability necessarily. Genius is neither encouraged nor tolerated. As a for instance, a pheromone, 1/4th gram of healthy adult male facial skin surface lipid, the grease on an officer's face, cures feelings of jihad, ADHD, heroin addiction, and sexual perversions. All that is needed is to wipe the pheromone onto chewing gum in a three day collection span to insure sufficient quantity. The collection and oral administration is easier than brewing tea, so losses are taken unnecessarily from suicide/PTSD/ADHD of troops. Sadly, this great idea was defeated by the "confederacy of dunces" unable and unwilling to learn a few simple lessons in biology. Exocrinology the Science of Love, Amazon.
@@chairforcegamer3571 I'm just saying success is relative. Our present-day generals are allowing our troops to die when the cure for ptsd and suicide is on the generals' noses, literally. All they need to do is wipe the clear, odorless, colorless, tasteless pheromone usually passed in kissing onto chewing gum or some other food vehicle, then blow off the volatiles (which are "emotionally dangerous"), then give the pheromone-laced vehicle to the disturbed troops to cure them instantly.
I am no expert, but from the German point of view the American leaders were extremely timid, lacked initiative, and were excessively cautious-- except Patton. When you read German accounts of major battles they often wonder out loud why the Americans didn't pursue the attack but stopped, right when the Germans were at their weakest.
The problem was that General George Marshall would pick friends and old associates who's main qualifications for higher command were personal loyalty to him rather then millitary expertise. He would put personal friends like Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Mark Clark and Bedal Smith all of which did not see combat during the First World War into the top posts in the European Theater Of Operations and he would micromanage there actions and decisions which caused an atmospher were they were reluctant to change there battle plans to meet changing situations on the battlefield. This almost caused a huge disaster during the Anzio campaign and it also allowed 100,000 German troops to escape from Normandy at the Battle of The Falaise Pocket in which Patton commanding the US Third Army wanted to advance to the town of Falaise and cut off and trap Models German forces, but Omar Bradley his superior refused to allow him to close the trap because it was not part of Eisenhower's grand strategy for the Normandy campaign and Bradley was worried that if it failed he would incur the wrath of Ike who in turn would be dressed down by Marshall. The best American Generals in the European Theater in my opinion were at the Division and Corps command level, not the army or Theater command level. Men like Lucian Truscott who commanded the Third Infantry Division in Sicily and Southern France or Matthew Ridgeway who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division or Lightning Joe Collins who commanded an Armored Corps during the allied race to the Siegfried Line. And Patton was the only real decent field army commander like you said. It should also be said that the British had the same problem as well. Montgomery was a good war planner but a slow implementer of his plans and Harold Alexander was for the most part an empty suit. To me the best allied commanders during the war were in the Asia Pacific Theater, mainly because the US and British governments were so obsessed with defeating Germany that they largley ignored the war against Japan and this gave more freedom of action to allied commanders in that theater who knew the situation better. US General Douglas MacArthur was abel to defeat a larger Japanese force in New Guinea and during the reconquest of the Phillipines and British General William Slim defeated a Japanese force nearly three times his size in Burma using an Army mostly made up of Indian conscripts. Also on the Eastern Front Soviet Marshal Zhukov managed to stop the German advance on Moscow with a grand counteroffensive in one of the few battles of the eastern front in which the Soviets were outnumbered by the Germans. In my personal view the best allied commanders of the war were 1.Zhukov, USSR 2.MacArthur, USA 3.Slim, UK 4.Patton, USA 5.Montgomery, UK And the best Axis commanders 1.Manstein, Germany 2.Yamashita, Japan 3.Mannerheim, Finland 4.Gudarian, Germany 5.Rommel, Germany
Patton wa not overly agressive or anything he fits perfecktly to Marshals profile of officers. he had a unique personalitie and tolerated no slackery of any kinde but was never a glass cannon. he is what MacArthur always inspired to be.
Reichsfuehrer Nivea Creme The Americans did not have to gamble. If a tricky battle was ahead they could hold back and reinforce. They had far more men and materials. Then they would move forwards like a rolling steamroller. Less men were killed this way.
The American strategic situation was extremely favourable to begin with. They had more industrial capacity, manpower and technological capacity than any nation to begin with. All while having an unthreatened homefront and plenty of time to plan their actions. The WW2 generals would not have done better in the other wars fought by the US, like Vietnam.
***** There is no such threat as during ww2 so its a completely unfounded statement. Remember the US was very isolationist with basically no army before their involvement in the world wars.
you people are all stupid. The defining factor for a democracy like the US going to war is political support, keeping political support when taking heavy losses means having a clear mission that the people believe is worth fighting for. It also means having a clear idea as to what it will take to win, and the understanding that Victory is getting closer. That is why the US was has struggled since WW2, almost all US conflicts since WW2 have had unclear goals with out a clear understanding as to what Victory will be. clear mission and public support are critical to winning a war.
"The American strategic situation was extremely favourable to begin with. They had more industrial capacity, manpower and technological capacity than any nation to begin with. All while having an unthreatened homefront and plenty of time to plan their actions. The WW2 generals would not have done better in the other wars fought by the US, like Vietnam." you do realize that Vietnam also had "more industrial capacity, manpower and terminological capacity" with "an unthreatened homefront" basically the evidence you cite has no bearing on your argument.
With more manpower and industrial capacity I meant the part of it that was actually devoted to the war effort. Point is that you had to be pretty fucking incompetent to mess up WW2 as an Allied general.
PATTON WAS THE BEST! I had a great uncle who was a tank commander under him. Learned a lot more about that war from my great uncles who fought in it than I did from the history books. This guy is a maggot. I think we all know what this dog shit who is talking is.
The finest allied commander during ww2 was William Slim, what he did it turning the British 14th army around and routing 2 entire Japanese armies was amazing
As a Brit I have to take issue with your view that Slim was the "finest allied commander". This is patently false and there many reasons why but instead I will say the it was Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov who was instrumental in defeating the Axis Armies that deserves the accolade as the finest allied commander.
David Colley, Zhukov was a very competent general. His understanding of strategy and tactics as well as logistics was solid, but his methods at times was suspect. Soviet losses were horrendous during many battles simply because they were many and expendable. Slim was good general but my favourite British general was Auchinleck. The Auk demoted by Churchill, was the one who took the wind out of Rommel's saails during the first battle of el alimein.
My Great Uncle, sadly no longer with us served under both Auk in Egypt, and Uncle Bill in India and Burma. He admired both Generals, but for him it was always Uncle Bill Slim as being the finest general in the British Army. It was the care and thoughtfulness he bestowed on the troops that served under him that stood out as an absolute. Also he took on the Japanese at their own game and defeated them, gave the nod for Wingate and his Chindit expeditions when nearly every other top ranking general labelled Wingate as a dangerous maverick. All this was achieved with an army that was almost an after thought when compared to those that fought in the campaigns of Europe, N. Africa, and the Pacific. Simply the best quote on leadership I have read: "I tell you, as officers, that you will not eat, sleep, smoke, sit down, or lie down until your soldiers have had a chance to do these things. If you hold to this, they will follow you to the ends of the earth. If you do not, I will break you in front of your regiments!" - Field Marshal Sir William Slim
Germany invested only 30%, western allies 20-25% and Japan 15% for armies and land battles. Average some 75% of war production of big powers went on air and sea warfare and armies played minor role than people and historians are generally thinging of. It's honest to say that Germany was not beaten by US, Royal or Red Army. Instead Germans lost the war because western allied air and sea power. Also it's well known fact that commanders of navies and air forces has better understanding for strategic warfare and so called "super battlefield" than commanders of land armies. The great names of WW2 were Nimitz, King, Leahy and Portal. U-boats of Dönitz were only thing Germans really could shake western allies.
+GNU/LINUX The contribution to the victory of "Western allies" was barely noticeable. 70-80% of soldiers and military equipment of germany and its allies (the whole of Europe) have been destroyed by the Red Army.
Douglas MacArthur had his mettle tested both in WW2 and in Korea facing dire situations where the massive US war making capacity was delayed in making an impact. Stilwell was a failure with limited resources, being forced out of Burma after wasting the best units of the Chinese army. Wainwrite surrendered when there was no hope of resupply. No other US army commander ever had to face a crisis that could not be mastered by simply throwing more men and material at it. I wonder how Patton would have performed if he had been in command of German 9th Army in December of 1941 when that army was fighting for it's life against forty or so fresh Russian divisions.
He forgot to mention that Buckner had loaned Grant some money some years before when Grant was hard up. That's another reason why I Buckner was upset by the "no terms" response.
Yaesu Kita Grant had the right idea. He viewed the Confederacy as rebellion, an inexcusable offense especially given its consequences. Of course if Honest Abe had handled his first campaign properly, there might have been no war at all, at least for several more years. Grant was not an ingrate, and a jurist might have obtained a loan from the condemned man some years before, yet the sentence would remain unmitigated by personal loyalties. Loyalty to the country is always the paramount duty of soldiers of all ranks.
Highly educational & interesting. I especially liked Marshall's requirements of General-ship list * good common sense * professionally educated * physically strong * cheerful & optimistic * energetic * extreme loyalty * determined.
the brittish officers were comlete badasses by the way. there's story's of them strolling around a battlefield like it was a sunday afternoon with bullets wizzing around them and not being fazed one bit.
Lexington73300 Patton was clown and utterly overrated. US army's verdict on Patton: XX Corps at Metz, 5-25 September 1944 On 7 September, 5th Infantry Division opened the assault on Metz, ignorant of the fact that it was attacking the most strongly fortified city in Western Europe. For a week one of its regiments was chewed to pieces among the forts west of the Moselle, which were manned by students of an officer candidate school. Even when reinforced by a combat command of the U.S. 7th Armored Division, the American attack made little progress. Incidently, this action took place on the same ground upon which two German, field armies were mauled in equally unsuccessful assaults during the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. Third Army Operations in Lorraine (The failings). From September to December, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton had their sights set firmly beyond the Rhine. Consequently, they underestimated the obstacles and opposition that their soldiers would have to overcome along the way. Thus, a difference in outlook arose between the higher commanders who drew large arrows on maps and the tactical units fighting for yards of muddy ground. General Patton can also be faulted for neglecting to practice economy of force. We have noted several instances in which Third Army's forces were spread out on a broad front in an attempt to be strong everywhere with the result that they were decisively strong nowhere. In retrospect, the important battle in September was XII Corps' fight around Nancy, and in November, the main effort was XX Corps' assault against Metz. And yet Patton failed to concentrate Third Army's resources in reinforcement of the corps engaged in decisive operations. Furthermore, Patton never made an attempt to punch through the German defenses with divisions in column, even though he received approval for such an operation from his superior, LTG Bradley. One rule of thumb for mechanized forces that emerged from World War II was to march dispersed but concentrate to fight. In Lorraine, Third Army fought dispersed. The Lorraine campaign taught us some lessons in combined arms warfare. The tank and the airplane, two weapons which were commonly believed to have revolutionized warfare, were an unbeatable combination during the pursuit, leading up to Lorraine. But when the enemy dug in and the weather turned bad, infantry, artillery, and engineers reemerged as the dominant arms. The critical shortage of infantry fillers demonstrated that the American high command had failed to anticipate this development. The American armored elements were not at their best in Lorraine either. Much of this can be attributed to the weather, but some of the blame must be given to the army commander for binding his armored divisions into infantry-heavy corps. Patton's reluctance to mass his armor came as a pleasant surprise to the Germans, who believed that their panzer divisions were just as useful in creating breakthroughs as they were in exploiting them. At a lower level, the combat command concept provided great tactical flexibility through decentralized control, but it also tempted Patton's corps commanders to break up the armored division and parcel it out by combat commands, a policy that further diluted Third Army's armored punch. In addition, American tank crews repeatedly paid a heavy price for a doctrinal decision made before the war that declared tanks to be offensive weapons not intended for defensive combat against other tanks. As a result of this official policy, the M-4 Sherman tanks in Lorraine were badly outgunned by German panzers that mounted superb antitank pieces. Was the Lorraine campaign an American victory? From September through November, Third Army claimed to have inflicted over 180,000 casualties on the enemy. But to capture the province of Lorraine, a problem which involved an advance of only 40 to 60 air miles, Third Army required over 3 months and suffered 50,000 casualties, approximately one-third of the total number of casualties it sustained in the entire European war. Ironically, Third Army never used Lorraine a s a springboard for an advance into Germany after all. Patton turned most of the sector over to Seventh Army during the Ardennes crisis, and when the eastward advance resumed after the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army based its operations on Luxembourg, not Lorraine. The Lorraine campaign will always remain a controversial episode in American military history. Interested parties may read the text in its entirety here: www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources.
The value of US Navy vessels took part in Marianas operation even without their immense logistic chain of transport vessels and smaller landing vessels was incredible during that time - about $3 billion. Comparing the value of German war machine in Kursk we understand it better. German armor, artillery, smaller weapons, aircraft, trucks had value less than $250 million. It tells how techno American war machine in Pacific was compare those armies of Germany and Soviet Union.
''Why our Generals Were More Successful in World War II'' ~ because german had at best about 20% of it's peak power left when US dare to land in Normandy
It doesn't matter. For example in Korea & Vietnam US armed forces was less effective because they were matched against heavily underdeveloped but well motivated forces in a harsh landscape. On the otherhand Germany was totally destroyed and outnumbered by the time US set their foot in EU. I am far from a wehrmacht fan, but it would be strange if US generals wouldn't be effective at that time, given all the advantages they had and the type of War it was.
@Wind Rose Pacific theatre was mainly about naval operations and american admirals did a good job indeed. As for japanese land forces, they were only threat to chinese peasants and small colonial units. They lost every major land battle to US and Soviets smashed their Kwantung army in less than 4 weeks.
Excellent presentation. Ricks is entirely correct about Marshal. A very helpful review about what Marshal achieved. One thing that has bothered me about the Marshal legacy is how he could have possibly thought a cross-Channel invasion was possible in 1942 or even 43. This became a major upset with the Brits. Does anyone know how a man of Marshal's caliber could have been so totally wrong?
It's not really hard to see how he might have thought that before Dieppe. There is an interview with Lord Louis Mountbatten in the outstanding "The World at War," documentary series, about the lessons learned from the failed Dieppe raid, perhaps the most important of which was that you would need to capture a major port in order to bring in the amount of supplies necessary to support your beachhead and not get thrown back into the sea, _but_ that the defenses around such ports were so formidable that it simply wasn't possible to capture one without subjecting it to such a heavy bombardment, meant to destroy those defenses, that you also ended up destroying the very facilities you needed to capture. This is why the British invented the Mulberry harbors. Prior to Dieppe, Marshall was simply one of many generals who didn't appreciate just how hard it was going to be to take a port and sustain a beachhead, and probably thought we could build up sufficient force to do it by 1943, which brings me to the next point... Donald Nelson, director of priorities of the United States Office of Production Management, learned from the people working for him that the initial production goals set were infeasible, even for an industrial juggernaut like the U.S. -- a 200 division army and a rapid build up that _would_ have gotten us enough of a build up potentially to have enough force for a cross-Channel invasion by the beginning of July1943. Toward the end of 1942, Nelson, with the support of the White House, was finally able to persuade Marshall and the rest of the army that they would have to settle for the more attainable goal of a 90 division army, and a build up that would be completed by early June of 1944; almost a full year later than what Marshall and the army wanted. Marshall wasn't an economist or industrialist, and I think he can be forgiven for not realizing that between the need to allocate a lot of our industrial output toward the navy and air force, and the need to avoid complete disruption of the civilian economy, the original goal of expanding the army to 200 division size by mid-1943 wasn't realistic, and a more achievable 90 division army would still not be available until the next year. If it had been possible to give Marshall the huge army he wanted by 1943, a cross Channel invasion probably _would_ have been feasible by then, but economic reality meant that wasn't possible, so the invasion took longer.
@@Hibernicus1968 Thanks for your assessment. I agree with everything you say. Marshall never really explained his change of mind. But the 90 Division Gamble you spell out is just what occurred. The Americans are often criticized by the Russians for not doing more of the fighting sooner. But Nelson was absolutely correct. If you take more men out of the factories you reduce war production and at the name time increase the need for supplies and equipment., meaning there would have been less Lend Lease for the Brits and Soviets. My assessment is that Marshall's initial concept is based on his World War I experience. Within a year of declaring war in 1917, the Americans went into combat in France in 1918. And America was even less prepared for World War I than for World War II. He at first assumed that this could be replicated. Dieppe as you say may well have been a factor. Torch was another factor. Also, American war production did not really ramp up until 1943. The few Shermans built in 1942 went to the British and not the Americans. Torch which Marshall opposed was also eye-opening. One historian (Andrew Roberts) believes his push was a bargaining ploy with the British who were not anxious to come to grips with the Germans in France. I am not sure to what extent Marshall entirely changed his mind about 1943, but the realities on the ground dictated postponement until 943. The Germans did not surrender in Tunisia until May 1943. And by then there was no way to move the men and equipment to Britain in time for cross Channel invasion in 1943. As it was, Eisenhower did not receive the landing boats he needed until just before the June 1944 invasion. I see it as the efficient if stormy workings of the war-winning Anglo-American alliance. The Americans in 1942-43 were not fully aware of the potential of the German military. The British with all too much experience were. And the British as a result were too timid in 1944. Thus the British prevented disastrous early action and the Americans insisted on action when it was finally possible.
Um because the enemy were easy to find - they always wore uniform. The war being fought for was valid reason and therefore total anihilation of everything infront of you was allowed. Two capital cities was what you aimed you entire arsenal at. The Nation was 100% devoted to the destruction of two enemies - Berlin and Tokyo. Generals do well or rather should do well in total war, Generals trained in convential total war do well in convential war. Conversely Generals trained in convential war tend to not do so good in asymetrical war. Especially when your overwhelming application of fire power kills the civilians you are supposed to be protecting.
@@lucasner463 that’s something that couldn’t have been avoided. The Germans maintained perfect radio silence in the weeks leading up to Herbstnebel. I’m not sure what Ultra could have done in a situation like that.
Both Marshall and Eisenhower understood that logistics was the key to winning WWII. But you still needed competent leaders to use that equipment correctly. Marshall especially, understood that too.
The Americans can afford to be cautious being too far away from the theaters of war, they had huge military hardware production facilities and the Soviets were busy slugging it out with the Germans. It was the Soviets that defeated Germany while the British and Americans played supporting roles.
+Alan A A lot of Soviet hardware was built by America. Marshall Zukov himself said it would have been impossible for the USSR to defeat Germany on the eastern front without the thousands of trucks supplied by the US and built by Ford and Studabaker. And lets not forget those American and British bomber crews that flew and destroyed Germanys production facilities. Without that Albert Speer would have built enough panzars to push the Soviets passed the Ural mountains and beyond.
Steve Cochrane Those are nice assumptions but it was Soviet blood that decimated 80% of the Wehrmacht KIA. It's like saying that Wellington beat Napoleon and not his disastrous Russian Campaign.
Alan A There not assumptions if there true. Zukov stated that in his autobiography. Besides if America did not get involved in the war there would have never been a second front because the British just did not have the manpower to land an invasion force in Europe. If that were the case then the best the Soviets could hope for would be a stalemate similar to the Iraq Iran war of the 1980's.
+Steve Cochrane The second front didn't do shit, it was only brutal because American soldiers were all nublets with no experience. 9th Army was entirely dissolved and decimated, they were going to lose anyhow, the question would be is when.
+Kill me please. By September 44 the American armies in the west were mostly battle harden veterans. During the Battle of the Bulge they tied up half a million German troops that would have been used to defend East Prussia from Soviet attack. And if it wasn't important for the US and UK to establish a second front then why was Stalin bitching to Roosevelt and Churchill to establish one? You would think a guy like Stalin would prefer to have Europe all to himself after the war and establish puppet regimes in France and Italy as well as Eastern Europe.
Soviets did most inflicting casualties to the Germans, while China did most inflicting casualties to the Japanese. It made all things easy and less casualties to US.
Marshall is also the main person responsible for China's fall to Mao in '49, and he did not perform too well before, during, and after Pearl Harbor on 12-07-41. In fact, General Marshall was held to have been derelict in his duties by the very first Army board of inquiry on the Pearl Harbor attack. Look it up yourself, because you will never hear that from sell-out historians like Mr. Ricks. Webster Tarpley has a good book on this subject called "The Real Pearl Harbor Conspiracy".
#1 - He was following Truman's direction. #2 - The well had already been poisoned. Chiang Kai-shek already felt betrayed by the US when FDR was not able to come though on promises in WWII due to resource limitations. #3 - The well had already been poisoned. All the anti-communist fervor back in the US made it impossible for Marshall to mediate anything with the communists. The US had basically been written off by both Mao and Chiang at that point. Marshall was not there to force a military solution. He was there as a diplomat, and the die had already been cast.
us generals had great help from german trader generals like GENERAL HANS SPEIDEL, EDUARD TOHMAS, AND MANY MORE WITHOUT DOSE MEN NO VICTORY IN NORMANDIE
Not that anybody cares, however, the comparison to Bulgarian army is interesting - Bulgaria at the point of WW1 had the biggest ratio of army:population - higher than any other country in the world.
Whether this guy is all out right or wrong I cannot judge. However, for your sake, understand that you can have the best army, the best troops and best equipped troops available and still lose battles and wars because the generals and commanders are inept. Because that brigade commander, that division commander and that corps commander may face an opposing general that is not mediocre and who can use his resources better than your general. This can cost you lives: soldiers and the civilians your army is to protect. A sergeant crashing a tank into a canal won't affect the outcome of a battle. A general ineffectively wielding his division will.
I'm only 23 minutes into this lecture and am puzzled as to why Patton is omitted from mention as a regular serving General officer that survived Marshall's axe to replace Fredenhal in Tunisia? I recall from Omar Bradley's memoirs "A General's Life," that Marshall was so disgusted by a display of unhinged abuse Patton levied on a junior officer demonstrating landing craft, that Bradley said in that moment Marshall decided that Patton would never gain high Command. He would be held to Corps Command. Never Army Group Command or Theater Command.
the one thing you need to have this relief policy is a leadership, on the level of the white house and congress, that is concerned with the war more than with political intrigue. Firing people is not popular and stirs up political drama. Fire too many people and you might create enemies in Washington that get you fired too. And you can't have the leadership be concerned with a war they are not really afraid of losing.
This is a stupid question. If you consider the fact that the United States produced more steel during the war than any other nation this capability provided a number of key advantages to American armed forces. Among them was deploying the biggest navy in the world, and fielding a larger number of tanks, artillery and other armored vehicles in comparison to her adversaries. American armed forces also possessed the biggest air force in the world and that critical asset proved to be the determining factor between victory or defeat. In effect, what the United States enjoyed a luxury of riches which included not only possessing the biggest navy and air force but also one of the largest armies. On top of all this, one must never overlook the fact that the United States could afford to wait until the most propitious moment to launch the second front as a consequence of the Soviet Union's success in repulsing the German offensive. At the time of the Normandy invasion until the conclusion of the war, the German army dedicated more than two thirds of it manpower to the Eastern Front.
The generals were much more sucessful because 2nd world war soldiers did not shout "They do it like this on COD II) 2nd world war soldiers didnt cry their feet hurt and call their moms on iphones for food and money during training 2nd world war UNITED the entire allied nations against common enemies, a bond still as strong today 2nd world war presidents were not called G W BUSH, 2nd world war soldiers did not cry "are we there yet" while driving through enemy territory. 2nd world war soldiers were fitter and better trained and risked everytrhing. Thats why, give the nation guns today and 90% will injure themselves.
its easy. usa generals were successfull because of usa's mighty industry. even if they fuck up, its no problem, all the casualties were replaced in double.
It is an interesting theory, but not more than that. It is good that George C, Marschall gets the credits he deserves. It is a long enumeration of facts and events which lead to a sudden recommendation, without any evaluation and solid conclusion. Therefore link between the the events described by the speaker and his recommendation is completely missing. There were too many differences between World War II and and the later conflicts, to make this comparison. One of the major differences which helped the Allied generals to be more successful, than in later conflicts, was the fact the that in most cased the Allied forces liberated occupied countries. Just to illustrate how fragile Mr Ricks's theory is: According to this theory the dekulakisation should be considered the Russia's best preparation for WWII.
10 to 1 in tanks controlled the skies and seas with the French, British, Canadian Australian, Russian, and many other countries armies fighting with them and the Germans still making their presents very hard for the alies
He compares our pre-WW II (and pre-nuke) 190K man Army vs current post-Cold War imperialist interventionist military. It's apples to oranges. OK, so Korea was an extension of WW II, as the aftermath of China's Communist Revolution, which was the final result of Japan's loss of hegemony in 1945. But US politicians & military had confused and unreasonable objectives in Vietnam, and had learned little about post-colonial global development when 9/11 demanded retribution. We still fail to understand Latin / South America as our last colonial quagmire despite the immigrants. But it's so glorious to see the US starting as reluctant underdog and doing the right thing geopolitically under Marshall, Ike, MacArthur and Patton. Nevertheless the the US was a major force in imperial colonial politics between1854 and 1941.
You may think he's perfectly suited but saying it doesn't make it true and having other people agree with you doesn't make it true either. If I want to know what's going on up at the farm I'll ask the farmer
In reality historians should focus more the role of air and sea war of WW2 than land war. American and British think tanks had their own civil war until 1942 Roosevelt and his trusted pro Navy-Air War commanders won that war and men of past (like Marshall was) was pushed to marginal. Roosevelt was right: Navy and Air Force were priorities.
75 % of gas and steal in the world at start of war .A-bomb production skill at the end .made a aircraft carrier every 2 day = 170 plus in a full year .note all would run out of gas but the US if we went 1 on 1 or any or all of them .
One area he doesnt dot all the I's. He point to marshall wanting team players, but he laments the current trend to conformity. What is the difference between being a team player and a conformist?
General Stillwell hated Madam Chang hai cheks wife. Because he didnt think her opinion on waror her husbands decisions was smart considering over 1.5 millions Japanese troops were expanding in China. They fired a good man. A very fluffy mentioned in this narrative .
Maybe because back in Dub Ya 2, generals were actually allowed to kill the enemy! Winning was the only order of the day, not rules of engagement and civilian lives.
Why were our Generals successful in WWII? American Industry, almost unlimited supply of soldiers from US and Russia. Beetle Baily could have won the war. Same reason the North won the civll war.
because Germans were all afraid of Russian advances not yours. you enter Italy 1943 and by end of the war still couldn’t get to north. what are you talking about?
Germany had no chance of winning that war their military capability was severely hindered after ww1 it's amazing what they were able to accomplish with so little against so many!
+Dominic La Rosa It wasnt hitler fault... most of the time he was listening to his generals... and the idea of blitzkrieg wokrs only against small nations, the fatal mistake was atacking USSR. Which was a decision talen by most Nazi general and not Hitler himself.
In the case of Vietnam and largely Koreas as well, the generals had little say as to overall strategy, which was set by the White House. In the Vietnamese war,the WH actually provided bombing missions and placed so many controls over what could not be attacked that the generals were little more than errand boys. Nevertheless, when Nixon came along and denied the North Vietnamese the sanctuaries that LBJ had allowed, the war was fairly quickly brought to a successful conclusion. North Vietnam was completely stymied and impotent. However, Nixon was burdened by years of incompetence by LBJ, which had wearied the nation, forcing Nixon to depart before he would have preferred which, combined with his replacement by the wishy washy Ford, gave the North Vietnamese the opportunity to invade the South again without US opposition. Unlike WWII, it's impossible to tell the story of Vietnam and Korea simply by relating what the commanders did or did not do. Their actions were subordinate to the civilians who were actually running the war. The relevant question is "Why were the civilian wartime leaders in WWII more successsful than those who ruled during Korea and Vietnam?"
You asked: "Why were the civilian wartime leaders in WWII more successsful than those who ruled during Korea and Vietnam?" 1. WW2 was supported by most folks: They volunteered in droves. Vietnam (VN) had no purpose; We trade happily now - They posed no threat. Hilter posed a actual threat, whereas "winning" in VN had no meaning to Americans. We lost. Defeating Hilterism had a simple defensive meaning. People pitched in and we won. 2. In WW2 our civilian leaders saw the chance to "own" the Middle East and come out with our economy humming in a otherwise shattered world economy. If you like controlling other peoples resources and setting the economic agenda for them, we won. A "win" in Vietnam would have only a fractional similarity as in WW2, or more likely, it would have precipitated a bigger guerilla war (Chinese volunteers for instance) which we would have also lost. As an anti-imperialist war, it had majority support within the VN population. VN was a dumb idea overall regardless. You seem keen enough on war to support it even when in hindsight we know it was: un-winnable in military terms, had shaky domestic support and no defensive basis, and winning couldn't be and isn't defined for the American people, though people patriotically (reflexively) supported our govt in the beginning. WW2 involved lies that we have yet to see through. Vietnam, Iraq, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc.........involved lies that are and were easily unpacked, cept perhaps by you and guys like Thomas Ricks. People avoid giving rationals for VN. You can give the usual rationals, but Americans already know they're not true. It was all about imperialism and nothing about defense and certainly our involvement was anti-democtratic.
I agree with your analysis as regards Nixon and his predecessor. Nixon, for all his paranoia, possessed a fine mind and a deep understanding of geopolitics in terms of conflict. In your example politics drove the war and the capacity to wage war properly right into the ground. I would not have mired the U.S. into that war, as I believe it would be pointless in geopolitical terms as to outcome, but no president in all of those years of involvement handled the matter more intelligently. Our system of governance is such that wars are inhibited in execution and in the way that war should be fought. In my opinion wars should only be declared by Congress and then the military should be allowed to bring the war to a conclusion with expediency and by any means.
Richard Davis Nixon could not change the fact that Americans themselves did not like this war. The lies in the media were failing to change those feelings. The wars we've won had the backing of Americans themselves. You have to compare the economic - political effect of a popular war to an unpopular one. One where the whole economy is marshalled and one where the war is run independent of the people. A determined adversary cannot win against a unified US economy. A declaration of war is a part of the kind of commitment necessary to winning a tough fight. Nixon, Bush, Clinton, etc....... never marshalled the US economy because their "wars" could not be explained to anyone but the already deluded insider. In a unipolar world, with the US militarily and economically dominant (for now), Americans have scant reason to accept a "War on Terror". They are not engaged much, for or against. The strength that could be brought to bear simply isn't requested or given and the explanations for these wars are thin. We lack the means of determining if we've won or lost and clearly stated goals are absent or just abandoned. The North Vietnamese, the Taliban, and chaos ruled/rule Vietnam, Afgh. and Iraq respectively after our media and leaders declared "victory". All were US losses in classic understandings of win/lose, though the media follow the leaders like pet dogs in foreign policy matters.
Interesting premise but doesn't really explain why US Generals were supposedly more successful in World War 2. More successful than our Allies or the German forces?? There is an old saying that goes, 'the Americans beat the Japanese and the Soviets beat the Germans. The Western front gets a hell of a lot of press, even today, but during the Second World War it was more of a side show than a serious theater of war. Nothing was going to stop the Soviet juggernaut. And when you factor in the breaking of the Enigma Codes in 1939, it is surprising it took so long to defeat the excellent German units they were up against. The problem in WW2 was the political interference which generated appalling decisions. The communist sympathizer FDR never should have given any German territory to Joseph Stalin. And the American and British forces were certainly in a position to take not only all of Germany but also Czechoslovakia. Patton seems to have been the only high ranking American General who understood the political situation. The fanatic anti-German General D.D. Eisenhower was a clerk who never should have been given overall command of the forces. His subsequent immoral behavior of constructing the Rhine Meadow Death camps murdered about 2 million German forces, some as young as twelve years old. These camps which the Red Cross was not allowed to visit was part of the disgusting Morgenthau plan which the government swore was never implemented.
Michael Salmon, FDR's entire administration was Socialist, Communist and Zionist. The sick idiot gave half of Europe to his good friend uncle Joe. Sorry, if you don't like the truth, but don't shoot the messenger.
Michael Salmon, The list of Stalinist's and Communists exposed by the Venona Project and the Russian archives includes Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury who designed the world bank and international monetary fund. Then there's Harry Hopkins FDR advisor, commerce secretary and key architect of 'The New Deal.' And lets not forget Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice-President from 1941 to 1944. Also, let us not forget Alger Hiss who was a key FDR advisor to FDR at Yalta. And no Michael, I don't mean Jews. I mean Zionists which was one of the main reasons for the war in the first place. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. The eventual occupation of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinian families didn't just start in 1948. It was crafted before the war, during the war and after the war by FDR's administration and eventually Truman's. And you got me Michael. You see its the jack-boots I love so much. I march around listening to the Horst Wessel song giving the sanctified Roman salute to giant pictures of the Fuhrer. Then of course I sit around with my cronies and reminisce the happy days from 1933 to 1944. How long have you been such a brain washed twerp? You probably haven't read any history that isn't on the New York Times best seller list. And you certainly haven't searched in any archives.
+Don Hermiston You said FDR shouldn't have given any German territory to Stalin? FDR didn't give Stalin any German territory. Stalin conquered that territory off Hitler. Patton? Patton was a Nazi, who judged a book by it's cover. His opinion resembled those Nazis opinions pre Operation Barberossa. You say two million Germans were killed in meadow death camps? Where do you get such foolish information? You are clearly delusional. You have just denied the Holocaust also. WTF??
simplistic view on my part. WW2 was a clear cut war with American generals given a clear objective "fucking win this shit at all costs" why did we lose vietnam korea etc etc etc? because the opposing generals were given orders to "win the war at all costs" they were able to execute thier war with a free hand. american generals were told win.. but do not do this.. that this and definetly not this.. unless that occurs. hard to win a fight when your opponent is told to fuck u up any way they can. while u yourself are told.. fight with one hand and do not punch them in the face
They were way more successful in Vietnam. You assume they had the same goal but they did not. The mission was way different. Drugs transport being a chief priority ;) It's in the history books at your local library.
His comparison of WW2 (Fascism) and the later wars, -Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, begs the question - After WW2, what was there to win? The potential and effort to harm America in the later countries was either momentary or never existed. Besides, Iraq is destroyed as thoroughly as post war Germany (little electricity, dirty-unreliable domestic water, cultural wreckage everywhere) though they did absolutely nothing to us.. Isn't that what any military is for - To destroy things? If so, we won, and firing more generals wouldn't change a thing militarily or morally. There was no enemy, but it was destroyed anyway. WW2 was won by totally mobilized populations here and abroad. The whole economy in unison. Our leaders couldn't justify that kind of effort and haven't tried since 1945, and the results are obvious. The fundamentalists (enemy) now control half of Iraq, and nearly all of Afghanistan. His grasp of military doctrine is undermined by his lack of common sense.
I think it was to stop the spread of paramilitary subversion, and block the resources from the soviets or other forces, while also acquiring resources (in the case of the middle east). The terms of victory are hazy, but it wasn't as simple as acquiring resources or "destroying things."
The "subversives" in Afghanistan (Taliban) control 80% of the ground, The "subversives" in Vietnam control a rather nice country which I've visited recently. The soviets control neither. You can't venture into the land of our propaganda to explain the obvious results. The US has been negotiating with Taliban for a long time now, because one has to negotiate with the future leaders at some point. Military action is exactly "destroying things". Look, I'm not pitching for the NVA or the Taliban or any of the places we're wrecked. I am pitching that Americans lose security, not gain it, in the most recent actions. From the public point of view, there is no reason to be destroying these places. The solution to fundamentalism is development, education, and cooperation with civil - secular groups existing everywhere. The truth is, our leaders look for horrible folks like Karzai, Maliki, etc.............. who can provide no future to their respective populations. Imagine if we'd taken a small fraction of the military expense and build colleges, electrical supply, and other means to modernization rather than "bouncing the rubble". Use your head and think independently. A knee jerk patriotism or just easy answers aren't adequate to what out leaders do.
Robert Brothers Ho Chi Minh was going to win an election in North and South Vietnam. Our support for S. Vietnam was initiated to prevent the election. That makes our leaders, not Ho, the subversives.
***** Eisenhower's book "Mandate for Change 1953-1956" contains the quote with relevant explanations. It's not a "misquote", it's what he himself wrote. Ike said ""It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier" He also said: "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh" I tried your link but to no avail. If you think Ike didn't believe that Ho would win the election, please provide an explanation that can reverse our understanding of what he published. The question of how to set up elections is tricky even in the US and would have been more so in Vietnam, but even so, if our president believes that Ho is the likely winners before the "non-election", this at least is consistent with the fact that when the US forces ran away, Ho's government (with Ho now dead) quickly established what became and still is the government. If the government of Vietnam was such a threat that millions had to die to prevent its taking power, why is that same government is just fine at the present? In other words, all the B.S used to continue the war was just B.S. to begin with, not unlike the WMD in Iraq.
It would seem that Marshall didn't follow his own criteria for what qualities a General Officer must possess when he selected and ensured Omar, "I never read a book in my life and I am as dumb as a freaking rock" Bradley became an Army Group commander and CSA after WWII. Good lord, what a pathetic excuse for a senior officer.
I'd sum it all up in one word: Ultra. When you know the whole picture of the enemy's position, in all levels from operational to strategic better than what the enemy high command does (and there were times that it was just like that with Ultra/Magic) things get a lot easier for the generals at the front, rather than having them guessing about the enemy's intentions, assets, and plans. there are other reasons why things were different in Korea or Vietnam than in WWII but the main one and the primordial advantage the allies (and by extension the US) had over the Axis was that they had Ultra. Without it things would've been far more difficult and the performance of the allied armies (not just the US armed forces) would've been far less effective.
Check out "The Moment in Time: THE MANHATTAN PROJECT" here: th-cam.com/video/xwpgmEvlRpM/w-d-xo.html
After 30 years in service I think Ricks has a damn good point about why our WWII generals were more successful than our contemporary generals. Too many field grade officers I've watched either ridiculously micromanage or go to great lengths to never rock the boat. The senior officers that truly demonstrated both proficiency at their branch and position, and also leadership where the soldiers both know and trust you, were the exception.
Finally of all the comments this one is on point. Here have an upvote.
i know right. here you get a good lecture about an important topic and 90% of the people commenting are mouth-breathing morons.
i know right. here you get a good lecture about an important topic and 90% of the people commenting are mouth-breathing morons.
I also served and I disagree. Government legislation has our military services fighting with both hands behind their backs with all the legislation so every is scared of repercussions. Every order goes down the chain and punishment will go up to whoever gave the order so it becomes a CYA situation.
Yep, well put.
He makes some very good points about personality traits, but these have to be set against the following backdrop: 1) The Allied armies in the West faced 60 German divisions whereas the Russians in the East faced 200 divisions: 2) The German divisions in the West had already been wearied by 4 yrs of war before the Normandy invasion: 3) The Germans facing the Allies were scaping the bottom of the available manpower barrel: 4) The Allies in the West had overwhelming airial support 5) most importantly the Allies combined were industrially out producing the Third Reich in material hardware lityerally faster than the Germans could destroy it: EXAMPLE - by the end of the war the Americans were producing an aircraft every 5 minutes, and one ship a day: the Russians were producing one tank every 5 minutes. The se fugures are cited by historian Paul Kennedy in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". Generalship was secondary to all of these factors because the Allies had unlimited resources.
I beg to differ. By this logic ww2 US generals should feel no motivation to take risk. After all, why risk one's career when victory is assured through sheer materiel? Yet the generals and admirals are frequently relieved as Rick shared as they are held accountable for their performance all the way from the top - by Marshall. Good generalship has a force multiplier effect which we shouldn't too quickly discount as secondary. Take for e.g. Battle of Midway. Bad Japanese admiralship driven by their bushido sense of honor led the last carrier to take unaffordable risk leading to its loss as well. The Kido Butai may be fearsome but its capability is nullified to zero as a consequence of the Admiral's decision.
@@joshh3304 At a slight tangent consider the report of eminent historian and military analyst BH Liddel Hart, whose careful analysis of the Wehmacht's battle perfomance though the whole of WW2 revealed some interesting data. His research revealed that whether the Germans were attacking of defending, whether on foreign soil or on home soile, they always achieved a 50% higher kill rate than their adversary. The Russians in the East simply ignored the causal;ty rate and pushed on regardless. The Western Allies were more cautious, but towards the end there was greater incentive for the Germans to surrender to the approaching Americans than the advancing Russians, which would also have undermined their resistance which would have been greater had not the Russians pressed them so hard in the East.
@@richardduplessis1090 I just realise your earlier comment was 6 years ago. Thanks for taking time to read mine and to also reply :)
@@joshh3304 My pleasure, - you raised a valid point.
Russians didn't really have much military leadership to start out.
Great lecture from a man who really knows what he's talking about and isn't afraid to voice it. I wish the UK had a Tom Ricks.
Andrew Moody We do. His name is Gwynn Dwyer. He teaches at Sandhurst.
You kids are funny keep listening to these people who make a career off of other people's dime
@@tuckhorse YEAH. HE’S A REAL MAGGOT. PATTON DID MORE TO WIN THAT WAR THAN ALL THOSE IDIOTS PUT TOGETHER. I had a great uncle who was a tank commander under general George S Patton. I’ll bet on everything I hold dear that I know more about that war than he does.
WWII Generals only had one single order and that is to win the war ...latter conflicts were halfhearted wars with too many restrictions to preserve the geopolitics.WWII was a slugfest with clearcut objectives.
Well, there is the fact that congress hasn't constitutionally declared war since WW2. Every "war" since then has been a conflict. This could have nothing to do with it however, but I also like to mention this everywhere I can because the thousands of men and women who died in the middle east weren't fighting a war, and that's really dumb.
USS INDIANAPOLIS Captain did not want to leave port with out a escort forced to go after the delivery of A BOMB. USS INDIANAPOLIS sunk hundreds died. Captain blamed court martial unjustified committed SUICIDE later on in life. Example of not so great leader ship by USA Generals and Admirals during WW2.
A bomb ended Japan's " boshido code" warrior ways. The leadership failed the Japaness people and the 2 A bombs could hace been prevented. Leaderships needs to know when it's game over and play NICE ! WW2 was HELL and cruel were the Japaness and so HELL came to find the DEVIL, peace.
Manny Boy p
First it did not start with World War II, U.S. Generals. It started in 1774, over the decades the Armed Forces if you will, built a house,
And In addition we built the Military Academy's and military classes and of coarse there were wars, then they took these wars apart, what went right and more importantly what went wrong.
It soon became apparent that leadership skills , take charge,
Commanding presence,
29:50.
The Allied triumph in Tunisia in ‘43 wasn’t the first major victory in the west. That distinction goes to El Alemein.
He's referring to American victories
Mark Clarke Italy June 1944. Disobeyed a order and appeared to be more concerned with the kudos of capturing Rome than cutting off and surrounding. a retreating German Army. Certainly in this instance not a team player. Why did he avoid being relieved?
@carmine paola Didn't the English beat the combined German and Italian armies at Northern Africa?
@carmine paola Even with superior numbers, any force can be repelled without good leadership. The British at the start and mid points of the war had bad army commanders and their tactics had not evolved like the Germans had. Much like the Germans fighting and winning against the combine British/French armies and the much bigger Soviet armies.
Santa sure knows a lot about ww2.
+Tors Hammer No thanks i have no need for paranoid delusions or crypto fascist bullshit.
+Tors Hammer
What a tarrydiddle!
Genghis gFunk and he literally made a list and checked it twice! He knows which generals were naughty and who were nice!
Santa flew a B17 and dropped bombs on all the bad little girls and boys
HE DOESN’T KNOW SHIT! He has never been to war, and he mentions nothing about Patton, who without we might have lost, if nothing else we would have taken one hell of a beating. Nothing but shit coming out of his mouth.
Back then It was the Navy Department and the Department Of War. We now have The Department Of Defense. It should be the Department Of Offence. That would clarify the mission.
Department of defence - as in defending the caravans of drugs coming from over there :)
I think one of the good points he makes is the importance of success. "Relief" has two important roles. First it assures that people who don't have success are moved out of the way. Second it opens paths for successful people to have more opportunity and responsibility. It's creative destruction. If you don't burn out the forest every now and again, it doesn't open up space for the forest to renew itself.
While many of my views on this subject have already been said in the comments I would just like to point out one big thing. WWII generals took actions that would be unacceptable by today's standards. They bombed cities into oblivion, that attacked civilian heavy targets with overwhelming force, and the war ended with 2 nukes being dropped on Japan.
Sigourney Fotheringham Yeah that's what I said.
"nukes were off the table" ya think.
My oh my. Maybe you should read up on the topic.
I thought I had watched this video before. Kept hearing things I thought sounded familiar. Walked into my study and I have his book "The Generals" on the shelf. Funny. It's a good book.
I'm a veteran. Ricks hits the nail on the head. Accountability. For a modern day pair of examples of the consequences of no accountability see our ineffectual and substandard public schools and our "systemic failure" Department of Veterans Affairs.
The young officer at the end asked a good question.
"Why our Generals Were More Successful in World War II"
Because they were allow to do their job. politician were mostly kept out of the war.
wayneyd2 Yes, victory by consensus in action evolves inevitably with improving communication. When they can communicate, they will. Sure mediocrity prevails over risk taking's outcome variability necessarily.
Genius is neither encouraged nor tolerated. As a for instance, a pheromone, 1/4th gram of healthy adult male facial skin surface lipid, the grease on an officer's face, cures feelings of jihad, ADHD, heroin addiction, and sexual perversions. All that is needed is to wipe the pheromone onto chewing gum in a three day collection span to insure sufficient quantity. The collection and oral administration is easier than brewing tea, so losses are taken unnecessarily from suicide/PTSD/ADHD of troops. Sadly, this great idea was defeated by the "confederacy of dunces" unable and unwilling to learn a few simple lessons in biology. Exocrinology the Science of Love, Amazon.
@@TogetherinParis what?
@@chairforcegamer3571 I'm just saying success is relative. Our present-day generals are allowing our troops to die when the cure for ptsd and suicide is on the generals' noses, literally. All they need to do is wipe the clear, odorless, colorless, tasteless pheromone usually passed in kissing onto chewing gum or some other food vehicle, then blow off the volatiles (which are "emotionally dangerous"), then give the pheromone-laced vehicle to the disturbed troops to cure them instantly.
@@TogetherinParis where can I learn more about this?
You mean generals didn't have answer to an idiot corporal.
I am no expert, but from the German point of view the American leaders were extremely timid, lacked initiative, and were excessively cautious-- except Patton. When you read German accounts of major battles they often wonder out loud why the Americans didn't pursue the attack but stopped, right when the Germans were at their weakest.
The problem was that General George Marshall would pick friends and old associates who's main qualifications for higher command were personal loyalty to him rather then millitary expertise. He would put personal friends like Dwight Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Mark Clark and Bedal Smith all of which did not see combat during the First World War into the top posts in the European Theater Of Operations and he would micromanage there actions and decisions which caused an atmospher were they were reluctant to change there battle plans to meet changing situations on the battlefield. This almost caused a huge disaster during the Anzio campaign and it also allowed 100,000 German troops to escape from Normandy at the Battle of The Falaise Pocket in which Patton commanding the US Third Army wanted to advance to the town of Falaise and cut off and trap Models German forces, but Omar Bradley his superior refused to allow him to close the trap because it was not part of Eisenhower's grand strategy for the Normandy campaign and Bradley was worried that if it failed he would incur the wrath of Ike who in turn would be dressed down by Marshall. The best American Generals in the European Theater in my opinion were at the Division and Corps command level, not the army or Theater command level. Men like Lucian Truscott who commanded the Third Infantry Division in Sicily and Southern France or Matthew Ridgeway who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division or Lightning Joe Collins who commanded an Armored Corps during the allied race to the Siegfried Line. And Patton was the only real decent field army commander like you said.
It should also be said that the British had the same problem as well. Montgomery was a good war planner but a slow implementer of his plans and Harold Alexander was for the most part an empty suit. To me the best allied commanders during the war were in the Asia Pacific Theater, mainly because the US and British governments were so obsessed with defeating Germany that they largley ignored the war against Japan and this gave more freedom of action to allied commanders in that theater who knew the situation better. US General Douglas MacArthur was abel to defeat a larger Japanese force in New Guinea and during the reconquest of the Phillipines and British General William Slim defeated a Japanese force nearly three times his size in Burma using an Army mostly made up of Indian conscripts. Also on the Eastern Front Soviet Marshal Zhukov managed to stop the German advance on Moscow with a grand counteroffensive in one of the few battles of the eastern front in which the Soviets were outnumbered by the Germans.
In my personal view the best allied commanders of the war were
1.Zhukov, USSR
2.MacArthur, USA
3.Slim, UK
4.Patton, USA
5.Montgomery, UK
And the best Axis commanders
1.Manstein, Germany
2.Yamashita, Japan
3.Mannerheim, Finland
4.Gudarian, Germany
5.Rommel, Germany
Steve Cochrane Interesting. Never heard that before.
Patton wa not overly agressive or anything he fits perfecktly to Marshals profile of officers. he had a unique personalitie and tolerated no slackery of any kinde but was never a glass cannon. he is what MacArthur always inspired to be.
Reichsfuehrer Nivea Creme
The Americans did not have to gamble. If a tricky battle was ahead they could hold back and reinforce. They had far more men and materials. Then they would move forwards like a rolling steamroller. Less men were killed this way.
Steve Cochrane
"2. MacArthur, USA"
Are you serious. He was an egotistical buffoon.
The American strategic situation was extremely favourable to begin with. They had more industrial capacity, manpower and technological capacity than any nation to begin with. All while having an unthreatened homefront and plenty of time to plan their actions.
The WW2 generals would not have done better in the other wars fought by the US, like Vietnam.
***** There is no such threat as during ww2 so its a completely unfounded statement.
Remember the US was very isolationist with basically no army before their involvement in the world wars.
Lexington73300 yeah japan thought the same way about the United States citizens before pearl harbor look what happened to them
you people are all stupid. The defining factor for a democracy like the US going to war is political support, keeping political support when taking heavy losses means having a clear mission that the people believe is worth fighting for.
It also means having a clear idea as to what it will take to win, and the understanding that Victory is getting closer.
That is why the US was has struggled since WW2, almost all US conflicts since WW2 have had unclear goals with out a clear understanding as to what Victory will be.
clear mission and public support are critical to winning a war.
"The American strategic situation was extremely favourable to begin with.
They had more industrial capacity, manpower and technological capacity
than any nation to begin with. All while having an unthreatened
homefront and plenty of time to plan their actions.
The WW2 generals would not have done better in the other wars fought by
the US, like Vietnam."
you do realize that Vietnam also had "more industrial capacity, manpower and terminological capacity" with "an unthreatened homefront"
basically the evidence you cite has no bearing on your argument.
With more manpower and industrial capacity I meant the part of it that was actually devoted to the war effort.
Point is that you had to be pretty fucking incompetent to mess up WW2 as an Allied general.
Does Ricks misspeak at 36:Commanders with names beginning with M: he says MacArthur and Marshall. Seems he meant to say MacArthur and Montgomery?
I was surprised too. Ricks speaks very highly of Marshall so it had to be a slip of the tongue.
Patton was lousy in the defense? No, Patton didn't believe in defense because it makes you a sitting duck.
PATTON WAS THE BEST! I had a great uncle who was a tank commander under him. Learned a lot more about that war from my great uncles who fought in it than I did from the history books. This guy is a maggot. I think we all know what this dog shit who is talking is.
@@bjlecorno8468 You sound SO trustworthy...
Very important analysis!
The finest allied commander during ww2 was William Slim, what he did it turning the British 14th army around and routing 2 entire Japanese armies was amazing
As a Brit I have to take issue with your view that Slim was the "finest allied commander". This is patently false and there many reasons why but instead I will say the it was Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov who was instrumental in defeating the Axis Armies that deserves the accolade as the finest allied commander.
Zukhov had the numbers, It's Slim for me
David Colley, Zhukov was a very competent general. His understanding of strategy and tactics as well as logistics was solid, but his methods at times was suspect. Soviet losses were horrendous during many battles simply because they were many and expendable. Slim was good general but my favourite British general was Auchinleck. The Auk demoted by Churchill, was the one who took the wind out of Rommel's saails during the first battle of el alimein.
My Great Uncle, sadly no longer with us served under both Auk in Egypt, and Uncle Bill in India and Burma. He admired both Generals, but for him it was always Uncle Bill Slim as being the finest general in the British Army.
It was the care and thoughtfulness he bestowed on the troops that served under him that stood out as an absolute. Also he took on the Japanese at their own game and defeated them, gave the nod for Wingate and his Chindit expeditions when nearly every other top ranking general labelled Wingate as a dangerous maverick. All this was achieved with an army that was almost an after thought when compared to those that fought in the campaigns of Europe, N. Africa, and the Pacific.
Simply the best quote on leadership I have read:
"I tell you, as officers, that you will not eat, sleep, smoke, sit down, or lie down until your soldiers have had a chance to do these things. If you hold to this, they will follow you to the ends of the earth. If you do not, I will break you in front of your regiments!"
- Field Marshal Sir William Slim
Slim was a wonderfull General
The reason our Generals were more successful because the Goal Of The Country Was Victory
Germany invested only 30%, western allies 20-25% and Japan 15% for armies and land battles. Average some 75% of war production of big powers went on air and sea warfare and armies played minor role than people and historians are generally thinging of. It's honest to say that Germany was not beaten by US, Royal or Red Army. Instead Germans lost the war because western allied air and sea power. Also it's well known fact that commanders of navies and air forces has better understanding for strategic warfare and so called "super battlefield" than commanders of land armies. The great names of WW2 were Nimitz, King, Leahy and Portal. U-boats of Dönitz were only thing Germans really could shake western allies.
+GNU/LINUX The contribution to the victory of "Western allies" was barely noticeable.
70-80% of soldiers and military equipment of germany and its allies (the whole of Europe) have been destroyed by the Red Army.
+GNU/LINUX Yes The Western allies won the naval war, before it even started. The main war that Germnay had was on land though...
Starts at 4:00
To look smart: take the glasses off, put them back on, repeat infinitely...
Axis was vastly outnumbered and war was fought on the Axis's land not on America's land.
Marshall is the man! He was the US in WW2.
Douglas MacArthur had his mettle tested both in WW2 and in Korea facing dire situations where the massive US war making capacity was delayed in making an impact. Stilwell was a failure with limited resources, being forced out of Burma after wasting the best units of the Chinese army. Wainwrite surrendered when there was no hope of resupply. No other US army commander ever had to face a crisis that could not be mastered by simply throwing more men and material at it. I wonder how Patton would have performed if he had been in command of German 9th Army in December of 1941 when that army was fighting for it's life against forty or so fresh Russian divisions.
Why???? Because they had to Soviet Union in the Eastern front....
He forgot to mention that Buckner had loaned Grant some money some years before when Grant was hard up. That's another reason why I Buckner was upset by the "no terms" response.
Yaesu Kita Grant had the right idea. He viewed the Confederacy as rebellion, an inexcusable offense especially given its consequences. Of course if Honest Abe had handled his first campaign properly, there might have been no war at all, at least for several more years.
Grant was not an ingrate, and a jurist might have obtained a loan from the condemned man some years before, yet the sentence would remain unmitigated by personal loyalties. Loyalty to the country is always the paramount duty of soldiers of all ranks.
Highly educational & interesting. I especially liked Marshall's requirements of General-ship list * good common sense * professionally educated * physically strong * cheerful & optimistic * energetic * extreme loyalty * determined.
the brittish officers were comlete badasses by the way. there's story's of them strolling around a battlefield like it was a sunday afternoon with bullets wizzing around them and not being fazed one bit.
Lexington73300 Patton was clown and utterly overrated. US army's verdict on Patton:
XX Corps at Metz, 5-25 September 1944
On 7 September, 5th Infantry Division opened the assault on Metz, ignorant of the fact that it was attacking the most strongly fortified city in Western Europe. For a week one of its regiments was chewed to pieces among the forts west of the Moselle, which were manned by students of an officer candidate school. Even when reinforced by a combat command of the U.S. 7th Armored Division, the American attack made little progress. Incidently, this action took place on the same ground upon which two German, field armies were mauled in equally unsuccessful assaults during the 1870 Franco-Prussian War.
Third Army Operations in Lorraine (The failings).
From September to December, Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton had their sights set firmly beyond the Rhine. Consequently, they underestimated the obstacles and opposition that their soldiers would have to overcome along the way. Thus, a difference in outlook arose between the higher commanders who drew large arrows on maps and the tactical units fighting for yards of muddy ground.
General Patton can also be faulted for neglecting to practice economy of force. We have noted several instances in which Third Army's forces were spread out on a broad front in an attempt to be strong everywhere with the result that they were decisively strong nowhere. In retrospect, the important battle in September was XII Corps' fight around Nancy, and in November, the main effort was XX Corps' assault against Metz. And yet Patton failed to concentrate Third Army's resources in reinforcement of the corps engaged in decisive operations. Furthermore, Patton never made an attempt to punch through the German defenses with divisions in column, even though he received approval for such an operation from his superior, LTG Bradley. One rule of thumb for mechanized forces that emerged from World War II was to march dispersed but concentrate to fight. In Lorraine, Third Army fought dispersed.
The Lorraine campaign taught us some lessons in combined arms warfare. The tank and the airplane, two weapons which were commonly believed to have revolutionized warfare, were an unbeatable combination during the pursuit, leading up to Lorraine. But when the enemy dug in and the weather turned bad, infantry, artillery, and engineers reemerged as the dominant arms. The critical shortage of infantry fillers demonstrated that the American high command had failed to anticipate this development.
The American armored elements were not at their best in Lorraine either. Much of this can be attributed to the weather, but some of the blame must be given to the army commander for binding his armored divisions into infantry-heavy corps. Patton's reluctance to mass his armor came as a pleasant surprise to the Germans, who believed that their panzer divisions were just as useful in creating breakthroughs as they were in exploiting them. At a lower level, the combat command concept provided great tactical flexibility through decentralized control, but it also tempted Patton's corps commanders to break up the armored division and parcel it out by combat commands, a policy that further diluted Third Army's armored punch.
In addition, American tank crews repeatedly paid a heavy price for a doctrinal decision made before the war that declared tanks to be offensive weapons not intended for defensive combat against other tanks. As a result of this official policy, the M-4 Sherman tanks in Lorraine were badly outgunned by German panzers that mounted superb antitank pieces.
Was the Lorraine campaign an American victory? From September through November, Third Army claimed to have inflicted over 180,000 casualties on the enemy. But to capture the province of Lorraine, a problem which involved an advance of only 40 to 60 air miles, Third Army required over 3 months and suffered 50,000 casualties, approximately one-third of the total number of casualties it sustained in the entire European war.
Ironically, Third Army never used Lorraine a s a springboard for an advance into Germany after all. Patton turned most of the sector over to Seventh Army during the Ardennes crisis, and when the eastward advance resumed after the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army based its operations on Luxembourg, not Lorraine. The Lorraine campaign will always remain a controversial episode in American military history.
Interested parties may read the text in its entirety here: www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources.
The value of US Navy vessels took part in Marianas operation even without their immense logistic chain of transport vessels and smaller landing vessels was incredible during that time - about $3 billion. Comparing the value of German war machine in Kursk we understand it better. German armor, artillery, smaller weapons, aircraft, trucks had value less than $250 million. It tells how techno American war machine in Pacific was compare those armies of Germany and Soviet Union.
Right you are and the wars we fight now the stakes aren't as big as WWII was.
''Why our Generals Were More Successful in World War II'' ~ because german had at best about 20% of it's peak power left when US dare to land in Normandy
Tjecktjeck He means relative to more recent US wars
relative to us wars after not relative to german generals
It doesn't matter. For example in Korea & Vietnam US armed forces was less effective because they were matched against heavily underdeveloped but well motivated forces in a harsh landscape. On the otherhand Germany was totally destroyed and outnumbered by the time US set their foot in EU. I am far from a wehrmacht fan, but it would be strange if US generals wouldn't be effective at that time, given all the advantages they had and the type of War it was.
@@Tjecktjeck I like reading with you kids right a lot of entertainment value here. But take time to do some more research if you want to get serious
@Wind Rose Pacific theatre was mainly about naval operations and american admirals did a good job indeed. As for japanese land forces, they were only threat to chinese peasants and small colonial units. They lost every major land battle to US and Soviets smashed their Kwantung army in less than 4 weeks.
Excellent presentation. Ricks is entirely correct about Marshal. A very helpful review about what Marshal achieved. One thing that has bothered me about the Marshal legacy is how he could have possibly thought a cross-Channel invasion was possible in 1942 or even 43. This became a major upset with the Brits. Does anyone know how a man of Marshal's caliber could have been so totally wrong?
It's not really hard to see how he might have thought that before Dieppe. There is an interview with Lord Louis Mountbatten in the outstanding "The World at War," documentary series, about the lessons learned from the failed Dieppe raid, perhaps the most important of which was that you would need to capture a major port in order to bring in the amount of supplies necessary to support your beachhead and not get thrown back into the sea, _but_ that the defenses around such ports were so formidable that it simply wasn't possible to capture one without subjecting it to such a heavy bombardment, meant to destroy those defenses, that you also ended up destroying the very facilities you needed to capture.
This is why the British invented the Mulberry harbors. Prior to Dieppe, Marshall was simply one of many generals who didn't appreciate just how hard it was going to be to take a port and sustain a beachhead, and probably thought we could build up sufficient force to do it by 1943, which brings me to the next point...
Donald Nelson, director of priorities of the United States Office of Production Management, learned from the people working for him that the initial production goals set were infeasible, even for an industrial juggernaut like the U.S. -- a 200 division army and a rapid build up that _would_ have gotten us enough of a build up potentially to have enough force for a cross-Channel invasion by the beginning of July1943. Toward the end of 1942, Nelson, with the support of the White House, was finally able to persuade Marshall and the rest of the army that they would have to settle for the more attainable goal of a 90 division army, and a build up that would be completed by early June of 1944; almost a full year later than what Marshall and the army wanted.
Marshall wasn't an economist or industrialist, and I think he can be forgiven for not realizing that between the need to allocate a lot of our industrial output toward the navy and air force, and the need to avoid complete disruption of the civilian economy, the original goal of expanding the army to 200 division size by mid-1943 wasn't realistic, and a more achievable 90 division army would still not be available until the next year. If it had been possible to give Marshall the huge army he wanted by 1943, a cross Channel invasion probably _would_ have been feasible by then, but economic reality meant that wasn't possible, so the invasion took longer.
@@Hibernicus1968 Thanks for your assessment. I agree with everything you say. Marshall never really explained his change of mind. But the 90 Division Gamble you spell out is just what occurred. The Americans are often criticized by the Russians for not doing more of the fighting sooner. But Nelson was absolutely correct. If you take more men out of the factories you reduce war production and at the name time increase the need for supplies and equipment., meaning there would have been less Lend Lease for the Brits and Soviets.
My assessment is that Marshall's initial concept is based on his World War I experience. Within a year of declaring war in 1917, the Americans went into combat in France in 1918. And America was even less prepared for World War I than for World War II. He at first assumed that this could be replicated.
Dieppe as you say may well have been a factor. Torch was another factor. Also, American war production did not really ramp up until 1943. The few Shermans built in 1942 went to the British and not the Americans. Torch which Marshall opposed was also eye-opening. One historian (Andrew Roberts) believes his push was a bargaining ploy with the British who were not anxious to come to grips with the Germans in France.
I am not sure to what extent Marshall entirely changed his mind about 1943, but the realities on the ground dictated postponement until 943. The Germans did not surrender in Tunisia until May 1943. And by then there was no way to move the men and equipment to Britain in time for cross Channel invasion in 1943. As it was, Eisenhower did not receive the landing boats he needed until just before the June 1944 invasion.
I see it as the efficient if stormy workings of the war-winning Anglo-American alliance. The Americans in 1942-43 were not fully aware of the potential of the German military. The British with all too much experience were. And the British as a result were too timid in 1944. Thus the British prevented disastrous early action and the Americans insisted on action when it was finally possible.
Um because the enemy were easy to find - they always wore uniform. The war being fought for was valid reason and therefore total anihilation of everything infront of you was allowed. Two capital cities was what you aimed you entire arsenal at. The Nation was 100% devoted to the destruction of two enemies - Berlin and Tokyo. Generals do well or rather should do well in total war, Generals trained in convential total war do well in convential war. Conversely Generals trained in convential war tend to not do so good in asymetrical war. Especially when your overwhelming application of fire power kills the civilians you are supposed to be protecting.
Obvious, we had Ultra and knew their plans before they did, broke their codes in the Pacific, and simply overwhelmed them both logistically.
Read a book about Ultra...we definitely did NOT always know what they were doing. Ever hear of the Battle of the Bulge for 1 example.
@@lucasner463 that’s something that couldn’t have been avoided. The Germans maintained perfect radio silence in the weeks leading up to Herbstnebel. I’m not sure what Ultra could have done in a situation like that.
Both Marshall and Eisenhower understood that logistics was the key to winning WWII. But you still needed competent leaders to use that equipment correctly. Marshall especially, understood that too.
The Americans can afford to be cautious being too far away from the theaters of war, they had huge military hardware production facilities and the Soviets were busy slugging it out with the Germans. It was the Soviets that defeated Germany while the British and Americans played supporting roles.
+Alan A A lot of Soviet hardware was built by America. Marshall Zukov himself said it would have been impossible for the USSR to defeat Germany on the eastern front without the thousands of trucks supplied by the US and built by Ford and Studabaker. And lets not forget those American and British bomber crews that flew and destroyed Germanys production facilities. Without that Albert Speer would have built enough panzars to push the Soviets passed the Ural mountains and beyond.
Steve Cochrane Those are nice assumptions but it was Soviet blood that decimated 80% of the Wehrmacht KIA. It's like saying that Wellington beat Napoleon and not his disastrous Russian Campaign.
Alan A There not assumptions if there true. Zukov stated that in his autobiography. Besides if America did not get involved in the war there would have never been a second front because the British just did not have the manpower to land an invasion force in Europe. If that were the case then the best the Soviets could hope for would be a stalemate similar to the Iraq Iran war of the 1980's.
+Steve Cochrane The second front didn't do shit, it was only brutal because American soldiers were all nublets with no experience.
9th Army was entirely dissolved and decimated, they were going to lose anyhow, the question would be is when.
+Kill me please. By September 44 the American armies in the west were mostly battle harden veterans. During the Battle of the Bulge they tied up half a million German troops that would have been used to defend East Prussia from Soviet attack. And if it wasn't important for the US and UK to establish a second front then why was Stalin bitching to Roosevelt and Churchill to establish one? You would think a guy like Stalin would prefer to have Europe all to himself after the war and establish puppet regimes in France and Italy as well as Eastern Europe.
he forgets that nuclear bombs come into play and then generals became not only fighting but political people also
How do you know they weren't always political?
High Professor!!
Soviets did most inflicting casualties to the Germans, while China did most inflicting casualties to the Japanese. It made all things easy and less casualties to US.
Marshall is also the main person responsible for China's fall to Mao in '49, and he did not perform too well before, during, and after Pearl Harbor on 12-07-41.
In fact, General Marshall was held to have been derelict in his duties by the very first Army board of inquiry on the Pearl Harbor attack. Look it up yourself, because you will never hear that from sell-out historians like Mr. Ricks.
Webster Tarpley has a good book on this subject called "The Real Pearl Harbor Conspiracy".
#1 - He was following Truman's direction. #2 - The well had already been poisoned. Chiang Kai-shek already felt betrayed by the US when FDR was not able to come though on promises in WWII due to resource limitations. #3 - The well had already been poisoned. All the anti-communist fervor back in the US made it impossible for Marshall to mediate anything with the communists.
The US had basically been written off by both Mao and Chiang at that point. Marshall was not there to force a military solution. He was there as a diplomat, and the die had already been cast.
one wonders what MacArthur or who MacArthur new to keep his job after the abject failure in the Philippines
I think you should review Marshall's list for qualities of a good commander starting at 16:00
us generals had great help from german trader generals like GENERAL HANS SPEIDEL, EDUARD TOHMAS, AND MANY MORE WITHOUT DOSE MEN NO VICTORY IN NORMANDIE
Not that anybody cares, however, the comparison to Bulgarian army is interesting - Bulgaria at the point of WW1 had the biggest ratio of army:population - higher than any other country in the world.
Patton should have been relieved? What bullshit. I suppose the next thing he'll say is that Chesty Puller should have been relieved.
Whether this guy is all out right or wrong I cannot judge. However, for your sake, understand that you can have the best army, the best troops and best equipped troops available and still lose battles and wars because the generals and commanders are inept. Because that brigade commander, that division commander and that corps commander may face an opposing general that is not mediocre and who can use his resources better than your general. This can cost you lives: soldiers and the civilians your army is to protect. A sergeant crashing a tank into a canal won't affect the outcome of a battle. A general ineffectively wielding his division will.
I'm only 23 minutes into this lecture and am puzzled as to why Patton is omitted from mention as a regular serving General officer that survived Marshall's axe to replace Fredenhal in Tunisia? I recall from Omar Bradley's memoirs "A General's Life," that Marshall was so disgusted by a display of unhinged abuse Patton levied on a junior officer demonstrating landing craft, that Bradley said in that moment Marshall decided that Patton would never gain high Command. He would be held to Corps Command. Never Army Group Command or Theater Command.
Omar Bradley's memoirs "A General's Life," is a a memoir, it was written after Bradley died.
Interesting.
the one thing you need to have this relief policy is a leadership, on the level of the white house and congress, that is concerned with the war more than with political intrigue. Firing people is not popular and stirs up political drama. Fire too many people and you might create enemies in Washington that get you fired too. And you can't have the leadership be concerned with a war they are not really afraid of losing.
German generals > US and other allied generals . The advantage to the US was resources and (well) resources.
This is a stupid question. If you consider the fact that the United States produced more steel during the war than any other nation this capability provided a number of key advantages to American armed forces. Among them was deploying the biggest navy in the world, and fielding a larger number of tanks, artillery and other armored vehicles in comparison to her adversaries.
American armed forces also possessed the biggest air force in the world and that critical asset proved to be the determining factor between victory or defeat. In effect, what the United States enjoyed a luxury of riches which included not only possessing the biggest navy and air force but also one of the largest armies.
On top of all this, one must never overlook the fact that the United States could afford to wait until the most propitious moment to launch the second front as a consequence of the Soviet Union's success in repulsing the German offensive. At the time of the Normandy invasion until the conclusion of the war, the German army dedicated more than two thirds of it manpower to the Eastern Front.
You should have listened. He is comparing how our generals did in WWII to how they have done since 1951.
Well ...Jerries mess with the wrong guys: Patton and Zukov.
How about Mark Clark, why wasn't he fired?
its a question he himself asks.
The generals were much more sucessful because
2nd world war soldiers did not shout "They do it like this on COD II)
2nd world war soldiers didnt cry their feet hurt and call their moms on iphones for food and money during training
2nd world war UNITED the entire allied nations against common enemies, a bond still as strong today
2nd world war presidents were not called G W BUSH,
2nd world war soldiers did not cry "are we there yet" while driving through enemy territory.
2nd world war soldiers were fitter and better trained and risked everytrhing.
Thats why, give the nation guns today and 90% will injure themselves.
They never said "Rush B Cyka Blyat" even on the eastern front
So, basically, you just called all the veterans from the Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam (etc) Wars wishy-washy children. Nice.....
The subject shoukd be...Why did the Allied generals study from German generals in post war.Especialy from Erich von Manstein and Hasso von Manteufel
its easy. usa generals were successfull because of usa's mighty industry. even if they fuck up, its no problem, all the casualties were replaced in double.
explain what happens to general sasobowski?
It is an interesting theory, but not more than that. It is good that George C, Marschall gets the credits he deserves. It is a long enumeration of facts and events which lead to a sudden recommendation, without any evaluation and solid conclusion. Therefore link between the the events described by the speaker and his recommendation is completely missing. There were too many differences between World War II and and the later conflicts, to make this comparison. One of the major differences which helped the Allied generals to be more successful, than in later conflicts, was the fact the that in most cased the Allied forces liberated occupied countries. Just to illustrate how fragile Mr Ricks's theory is: According to this theory the dekulakisation should be considered the Russia's best preparation for WWII.
A lot to think about.
They were better educated
The were tough
They were independent thinking n creative.
They believe in there goal to victory
10 to 1 in tanks controlled the skies and seas with the French, British, Canadian Australian, Russian, and many other countries armies fighting with them and the Germans still making their presents very hard for the alies
He compares our pre-WW II (and pre-nuke) 190K man Army vs current post-Cold War imperialist interventionist military. It's apples to oranges. OK, so Korea was an extension of WW II, as the aftermath of China's Communist Revolution, which was the final result of Japan's loss of hegemony in 1945. But US politicians & military had confused and unreasonable objectives in Vietnam, and had learned little about post-colonial global development when 9/11 demanded retribution. We still fail to understand Latin / South America as our last colonial quagmire despite the immigrants. But it's so glorious to see the US starting as reluctant underdog and doing the right thing geopolitically under Marshall, Ike, MacArthur and Patton. Nevertheless the the US was a major force in imperial colonial politics between1854 and 1941.
The present culture of mediocrity is a cancer.
You may think he's perfectly suited but saying it doesn't make it true and having other people agree with you doesn't make it true either. If I want to know what's going on up at the farm I'll ask the farmer
So to sum up this lecture, Political Correctness kills.
Very few leaders that aren't just "Polididiots or Presstitutes" polishing knobs .......
Of course we won, we had General Motors and General Electric!
Fun fact General Motors funded nazis and lobbied against joining the war.
In reality historians should focus more the role of air and sea war of WW2 than land war. American and British think tanks had their own civil war until 1942 Roosevelt and his trusted pro Navy-Air War commanders won that war and men of past (like Marshall was) was pushed to marginal. Roosevelt was right: Navy and Air Force were priorities.
no ground war is not marginal. you are an idiot.
75 % of gas and steal in the world at start of war .A-bomb production skill at the end .made a aircraft carrier every 2 day = 170 plus in a full year .note all would run out of gas but the US if we went 1 on 1 or any or all of them .
German's generals better than other generals in the ww2
And the Depression ended on 1939 too. How about that?
No it was 7th December
because they had the British generals to show them how it is done
Generals Zhukov, Rommel, Monty and Admiral Yamamoto were the best commanding officers in WWII. The Americans had it too easy.
Montgomery was a weak and indecisive commander, but I like the rest of your list.
One area he doesnt dot all the I's. He point to marshall wanting team players, but he laments the current trend to conformity. What is the difference between being a team player and a conformist?
General Stillwell hated Madam Chang hai cheks wife. Because he didnt think her opinion on waror her husbands decisions was smart considering over 1.5 millions Japanese troops were expanding in China. They fired a good man. A very fluffy mentioned in this narrative .
Maybe because back in Dub Ya 2, generals were actually allowed to kill the enemy! Winning was the only order of the day, not rules of engagement and civilian lives.
Why were our Generals successful in WWII? American Industry, almost unlimited supply of soldiers from US and Russia. Beetle Baily could have won the war. Same reason the North won the civll war.
Generals in WW2 were more successful because the objective was to win and the politicians stayed the fuck out of the warfighters way. The End.
One reason why our generals did so well is that they didn't have to answer to an idiotic corporal.
Because they had balls, and they didn't distinguish between Nazis and Radical Nazis.
because Germans were all afraid of Russian advances not yours. you enter Italy 1943 and by end of the war still couldn’t get to north. what are you talking about?
Germany had no chance of winning that war their military capability was severely hindered after ww1 it's amazing what they were able to accomplish with so little against so many!
+Dominic La Rosa It wasnt hitler fault... most of the time he was listening to his generals... and the idea of blitzkrieg wokrs only against small nations, the fatal mistake was atacking USSR. Which was a decision talen by most Nazi general and not Hitler himself.
54:21 Hear, hear a turtle only moves forward when it sticks its neck out.
In the case of Vietnam and largely Koreas as well, the generals had little say as
to overall strategy, which was set by the White House. In the Vietnamese war,the WH actually provided bombing missions and placed so many controls over what
could not be attacked that the generals were little more than errand boys.
Nevertheless, when Nixon came along and denied the North Vietnamese the sanctuaries that LBJ had allowed, the war was fairly quickly brought to a successful conclusion. North Vietnam was completely stymied and impotent. However, Nixon
was burdened by years of incompetence by LBJ, which had wearied the nation,
forcing Nixon to depart before he would have preferred which, combined with his replacement by the wishy washy Ford, gave the North Vietnamese the opportunity
to invade the South again without US opposition. Unlike WWII, it's impossible
to tell the story of Vietnam and Korea simply by relating what the commanders did or did not do. Their actions were subordinate to the civilians who were actually running the war. The relevant question is "Why were the civilian wartime leaders in WWII more successsful than those who ruled during Korea and Vietnam?"
You asked: "Why were the civilian wartime leaders in WWII more successsful than those who ruled during Korea and Vietnam?"
1. WW2 was supported by most folks: They volunteered in droves. Vietnam (VN) had no purpose; We trade happily now - They posed no threat.
Hilter posed a actual threat, whereas "winning" in VN had no meaning to Americans. We lost. Defeating Hilterism had a simple defensive meaning. People pitched in and we won.
2. In WW2 our civilian leaders saw the chance to "own" the Middle East and come out with our economy humming in a otherwise shattered world economy. If you like controlling other peoples resources and setting the economic agenda for them, we won. A "win" in Vietnam would have only a fractional similarity as in WW2, or more likely, it would have precipitated a bigger guerilla war (Chinese volunteers for instance) which we would have also lost. As an anti-imperialist war, it had majority support within the VN population.
VN was a dumb idea overall regardless. You seem keen enough on war to support it even when in hindsight we know it was: un-winnable in military terms, had shaky domestic support and no defensive basis, and winning couldn't be and isn't defined for the American people, though people patriotically (reflexively) supported our govt in the beginning.
WW2 involved lies that we have yet to see through. Vietnam, Iraq, El Salvador, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, etc.........involved lies that are and were easily unpacked, cept perhaps by you and guys like Thomas Ricks. People avoid giving rationals for VN. You can give the usual rationals, but Americans already know they're not true. It was all about imperialism and nothing about defense and certainly our involvement was anti-democtratic.
i'm afraid you are full of shit. or very, very young.
jlawrence You have anger, but present no ideas beyond bodily functions and guesses.
Get some help.
I agree with your analysis as regards Nixon and his predecessor. Nixon, for all his paranoia, possessed a fine mind and a deep understanding of geopolitics in terms of conflict. In your example politics drove the war and the capacity to wage war properly right into the ground. I would not have mired the U.S. into that war, as I believe it would be pointless in geopolitical terms as to outcome, but no president in all of those years of involvement handled the matter more intelligently. Our system of governance is such that wars are inhibited in execution and in the way that war should be fought. In my opinion wars should only be declared by Congress and then the military should be allowed to bring the war to a conclusion with expediency and by any means.
Richard Davis Nixon could not change the fact that Americans themselves did not like this war. The lies in the media were failing to change those feelings. The wars we've won had the backing of Americans themselves. You have to compare the economic - political effect of a popular war to an unpopular one. One where the whole economy is marshalled and one where the war is run independent of the people.
A determined adversary cannot win against a unified US economy. A declaration of war is a part of the kind of commitment necessary to winning a tough fight. Nixon, Bush, Clinton, etc....... never marshalled the US economy because their "wars" could not be explained to anyone but the already deluded insider.
In a unipolar world, with the US militarily and economically dominant (for now), Americans have scant reason to accept a "War on Terror". They are not engaged much, for or against. The strength that could be brought to bear simply isn't requested or given and the explanations for these wars are thin.
We lack the means of determining if we've won or lost and clearly stated goals are absent or just abandoned.
The North Vietnamese, the Taliban, and chaos ruled/rule Vietnam, Afgh. and Iraq respectively after our media and leaders declared "victory".
All were US losses in classic understandings of win/lose, though the media follow the leaders like pet dogs in foreign policy matters.
Interesting premise but doesn't really explain why US Generals were supposedly more successful in World War 2. More successful than our Allies or the German forces?? There is an old saying that goes, 'the Americans beat the Japanese and the Soviets beat the Germans. The Western front gets a hell of a lot of press, even today, but during the Second World War it was more of a side show than a serious theater of war. Nothing was going to stop the Soviet juggernaut. And when you factor in the breaking of the Enigma Codes in 1939, it is surprising it took so long to defeat the excellent German units they were up against. The problem in WW2 was the political interference which generated appalling decisions. The communist sympathizer FDR never should have given any German territory to Joseph Stalin. And the American and British forces were certainly in a position to take not only all of Germany but also Czechoslovakia. Patton seems to have been the only high ranking American General who understood the political situation. The fanatic anti-German General D.D. Eisenhower was a clerk who never should have been given overall command of the forces. His subsequent immoral behavior of constructing the Rhine Meadow Death camps murdered about 2 million German forces, some as young as twelve years old. These camps which the Red Cross was not allowed to visit was part of the disgusting Morgenthau plan which the government swore was never implemented.
What you posted is inaccurate information.
Marty Robinson, 'Inaccurate' information? According to who.
Michael Salmon, FDR's entire administration was Socialist, Communist and Zionist. The sick idiot gave half of Europe to his good friend uncle Joe. Sorry, if you don't like the truth, but don't shoot the messenger.
Michael Salmon, The list of Stalinist's and Communists exposed by the Venona Project and the Russian archives includes Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury who designed the world bank and international monetary fund. Then there's Harry Hopkins FDR advisor, commerce secretary and key architect of 'The New Deal.' And lets not forget Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice-President from 1941 to 1944. Also, let us not forget Alger Hiss who was a key FDR advisor to FDR at Yalta. And no Michael, I don't mean Jews. I mean Zionists which was one of the main reasons for the war in the first place. Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. The eventual occupation of Palestine and the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinian families didn't just start in 1948. It was crafted before the war, during the war and after the war by FDR's administration and eventually Truman's.
And you got me Michael. You see its the jack-boots I love so much. I march around listening to the Horst Wessel song giving the sanctified Roman salute to giant pictures of the Fuhrer. Then of course I sit around with my cronies and reminisce the happy days from 1933 to 1944. How long have you been such a brain washed twerp? You probably haven't read any history that isn't on the New York Times best seller list. And you certainly haven't searched in any archives.
+Don Hermiston
You said FDR shouldn't have given any German territory to Stalin?
FDR didn't give Stalin any German territory. Stalin conquered that territory off Hitler.
Patton?
Patton was a Nazi, who judged a book by it's cover. His opinion resembled those Nazis opinions pre Operation Barberossa.
You say two million Germans were killed in meadow death camps?
Where do you get such foolish information?
You are clearly delusional. You have just denied the Holocaust also.
WTF??
simplistic view on my part.
WW2 was a clear cut war with American generals given a clear objective "fucking win this shit at all costs"
why did we lose vietnam korea etc etc etc? because the opposing generals were given orders to "win the war at all costs" they were able to execute thier war with a free hand.
american generals were told win.. but do not do this.. that this and definetly not this.. unless that occurs.
hard to win a fight when your opponent is told to fuck u up any way they can. while u yourself are told.. fight with one hand and do not punch them in the face
So it will be up to the people .people that have balls.sence our military leaders don't seem to have any .
I read at one time that most US divisions only fought for 10 days a year during well,,of course the generals were better
The only expert on war is our Lord.his will be done,on earth as well in heaven,remember those 5 minutes in the battle of Midway?A True Miracle!
Air power and firepower.
They were way more successful in Vietnam. You assume they had the same goal but they did not. The mission was way different. Drugs transport being a chief priority ;)
It's in the history books at your local library.
His comparison of WW2 (Fascism) and the later wars, -Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, begs the question - After WW2, what was there to win? The potential and effort to harm America in the later countries was either momentary or never existed. Besides, Iraq is destroyed as thoroughly as post war Germany (little electricity, dirty-unreliable domestic water, cultural wreckage everywhere) though they did absolutely nothing to us.. Isn't that what any military is for - To destroy things? If so, we won, and firing more generals wouldn't change a thing militarily or morally. There was no enemy, but it was destroyed anyway.
WW2 was won by totally mobilized populations here and abroad. The whole economy in unison. Our leaders couldn't justify that kind of effort and haven't tried since 1945, and the results are obvious. The fundamentalists (enemy) now control half of Iraq, and nearly all of Afghanistan.
His grasp of military doctrine is undermined by his lack of common sense.
I think it was to stop the spread of paramilitary subversion, and block the resources from the soviets or other forces, while also acquiring resources (in the case of the middle east). The terms of victory are hazy, but it wasn't as simple as acquiring resources or "destroying things."
The "subversives" in Afghanistan (Taliban) control 80% of the ground, The "subversives" in Vietnam control a rather nice country which I've visited recently. The soviets control neither. You can't venture into the land of our propaganda to explain the obvious results.
The US has been negotiating with Taliban for a long time now, because one has to negotiate with the future leaders at some point.
Military action is exactly "destroying things".
Look, I'm not pitching for the NVA or the Taliban or any of the places we're wrecked. I am pitching that Americans lose security, not gain it, in the most recent actions.
From the public point of view, there is no reason to be destroying these places. The solution to fundamentalism is development, education, and cooperation with civil - secular groups existing everywhere. The truth is, our leaders look for horrible folks like Karzai, Maliki, etc.............. who can provide no future to their respective populations.
Imagine if we'd taken a small fraction of the military expense and build colleges, electrical supply, and other means to modernization rather than "bouncing the rubble".
Use your head and think independently. A knee jerk patriotism or just easy answers aren't adequate to what out leaders do.
Robert Brothers Ho Chi Minh was going to win an election in North and South Vietnam. Our support for S. Vietnam was initiated to prevent the election. That makes our leaders, not Ho, the subversives.
***** Eisenhower's book "Mandate for Change 1953-1956" contains the quote with relevant explanations. It's not a "misquote", it's what he himself wrote.
Ike said ""It was generally conceded that had an election been held, Ho Chi Minh would have been elected Premier"
He also said: "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the communist Ho Chi Minh"
I tried your link but to no avail. If you think Ike didn't believe that Ho would win the election, please provide an explanation that can reverse our understanding of what he published. The question of how to set up elections is tricky even in the US and would have been more so in Vietnam, but even so, if our president believes that Ho is the likely winners before the "non-election", this at least is consistent with the fact that when the US forces ran away, Ho's government (with Ho now dead) quickly established what became and still is the government. If the government of Vietnam was such a threat that millions had to die to prevent its taking power, why is that same government is just fine at the present?
In other words, all the B.S used to continue the war was just B.S. to begin with, not unlike the WMD in Iraq.
Why wasn't MacArthur fired?
The comments here suggest the audience are all generals and proficient at wìnning wars.
It would seem that Marshall didn't follow his own criteria for what qualities a General Officer must possess when he selected and ensured Omar, "I never read a book in my life and I am as dumb as a freaking rock" Bradley became an Army Group commander and CSA after WWII. Good lord, what a pathetic excuse for a senior officer.
I'd sum it all up in one word: Ultra.
When you know the whole picture of the enemy's position, in all levels from operational to strategic better than what the enemy high command does (and there were times that it was just like that with Ultra/Magic) things get a lot easier for the generals at the front, rather than having them guessing about the enemy's intentions, assets, and plans.
there are other reasons why things were different in Korea or Vietnam than in WWII but the main one and the primordial advantage the allies (and by extension the US) had over the Axis was that they had Ultra. Without it things would've been far more difficult and the performance of the allied armies (not just the US armed forces) would've been far less effective.
What is Ultra??
He probably did mean Montgomery.