Why our generals performed so well in WWII compared with Korea, Vietnam…

[Mick]

…Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m not usually given to lengthy military videos, but this presentation by journalist Thomas Ricks on how Marshall purged the mediocre failures in the U. S. Military from 1937 to 1941.  He fired over 600 senior officers in that period.  One was an admiral named Kimmel, fired two weeks after Pearl Harbor.  He was replaced by an obscure officer named Chester Nimitz, who turned out pretty well.

Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan – YouTube

The senior army leaders from the 1930s were replaced.  Only General Kruger kept combat command in WWII.

This was General Marshall’s policy.  He valued team players, optimism, resourcefulness, etc.  General Eisenhower was an anomaly, he made mistakes but Marshall singled out Eisenhower knowing that we’d need to fight in a coalition with other nations.  There was a real anti-British streak in the U. S. Army at the time.

Ricks’ contention is that incompetence and mediocrity was allowed to thrive in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

[Author]

Posts