Talk:Maurice Gamelin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Completely flawed? The French army could have been a splendid instrument if its generals had the ingenuity to use it to meet current situations instead of limiting themselves to obsolete pat responses. Gamelin was an honorable man who was also a wrong man for the job. While being fair, the current article softens how overwhelmed Gamelin was by circumstances he did not comprehend and chose not to try. - SFOJ
- I'm afraid this is just the standard mythology. Gamelin understood the circumstances only too well; this is why he was so paralysed by events: he was correct in doubting the French army could best the German in an encounter fight. It's very hard to see what the French military should have done differently in the thirties. Prepare for a mobile encounter fight? No, for they would still have lost even after making the best possible efforts in that direction, as their manpower base was too small. They really needed the continuous front. The "sclerosis" imputed to the French High Command is absolute nonsense. Their methods weren't obsolete; they were modern but different. Gamelin's mistake was that he chose for a very risky strategy and, knowing the enemy would do likewise, falsely predicted the particulars of his plan. But he had very good reasons for making that mistake.--MWAK 12:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The changes I made to the Gamelin article I hope add a more balanced view of his full life and of his command during the 1940 campaign. I felt the earlier version relied almost entirely on Shirer's account. - JQ
- When I was still very young, I read Shirer's work and was quite impressed. Today I know his book gives a completely flawed view of the French military--MWAK 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)