Comparing General Success in World War II vs. Later Wars
A comparison of general success in World War II versus later wars, exploring the reasons for their contrasting effectiveness.
00:00:11 A discussion on the success of generals in World War II compared to later wars, questioning why successful generals were fired in WWII while ineffective ones were not in later conflicts.
The speaker introduces the Nimitz Lecture Series and the importance of being an informed public.
Tom Rix, the Nimitz Lecturer, discusses his background and expertise in military and foreign affairs.
Rix expresses his curiosity about why generals in World War II were fired for mistakes, while generals in recent wars have not faced the same consequences.
00:08:37 The success of our generals in World War II compared to subsequent wars is explored, with a focus on the leadership of George C. Marshall.
📚 The video discusses the success of generals in World War II compared to later wars like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan.
👴🏻 George C. Marshall's leadership and transformation of the US Army during World War II is highlighted.
✈️ Marshall's focus on generalship and his approach to selecting and training effective army commanders is discussed.
00:17:05 The success of generals in World War II was attributed to their dashing optimism, quick decision-making, and the practice of relieving ineffective commanders. The lack of relief and rotation of officers in later wars led to a culture of mediocrity and an officer corps built for stalemate.
The success of generals in World War II can be attributed to their dashing, optimistic, and resourceful nature, as well as their ability to make rapid decisions and prevent gross errors.
In World War II, successful commanders were kept in place and promoted, while unsuccessful commanders were relieved and moved to other positions, creating a culture of excellence.
The policy of rotating officers in later wars, such as Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan, led to a culture of mediocrity and an officer corps built for stalemate rather than victory.
00:25:35 Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan.
The success of generals in World War II was influenced by the challenging nature of the war and the need for coalition warfare.
Relief of generals was common in World War II, often due to a loss of confidence from governments or subordinates.
Different leadership styles and strategies were valued in different theaters of the war.
00:34:02 During World War II, the relief of generals was a common management tool. However, in later wars such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the practice diminished due to various reasons including rotation and the difficulty of relieving commanders in unpopular wars. The lack of relief led to a decrease in accountability and the development of risk-averse and conformist leadership. The speaker argues for the restoration of the tradition of relief to ensure effective leadership in the military.
🔑 The tradition of relieving generals was more common and accepted in World War II compared to later conflicts.
🤔 It became less common to relieve commanders in unpopular wars or when there was a rotation system in place.
⚠️ The lack of relieving generals can lead to risk-averse and conformist leadership.
00:42:28 The summary of the video is why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan.
🔑 The failures of generals in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were due to a lack of warfighting ability, political savvy, and discipline in the chain of command.
💥 The incident involving McChrystal's firing in Afghanistan was a result of his lack of awareness about being on the record during interviews, leading to indiscipline and a failure of the public affairs office to brief his commander.
🔥 The lack of consequences in the Abu Ghraib scandal and the failure to relieve senior officers like Janice Karpinsky and Sanchez showed a lack of accountability and understanding of the conflict on the ground.
00:50:55 Why the success of Army generals in World War II differs from those in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Navy's handling of command and relief is discussed. The Army's failure to adapt to the situation in Iraq is also highlighted.
🔑 The navy has a tradition of command and relief, although it may have lost some of it. Relief of commanders is seen as a good thing to prioritize the safety of enlisted personnel.
🔍 The army has not revised generalship and has not addressed the failures of generalship in Vietnam. The army has adapted in other areas but still has concerns about the exhaustion and lack of critical thinking in professional military education.
💡 When generals are not held accountable, there is less incentive to take risks. Taking risks together as a team is crucial for success, as seen during the surge in Iraq.
Want to deep dive into this video?
