Talk:Maurice Gamelin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have copied this from the Weygand article
Weygand arrived on May 17 and started by cancelling the side counter-offensive ordered by Gamelin, to cut off the enemy armoured columns which had punched through the French front at the Ardennes. Thus he lost 2 crucial days before finally adopting the solution, however obvious, of his predecessor. But it was by then a failed manoeuvre, because during the 48 lost hours, the German infantry had caught up behind their tanks in the breakthrough and had consolidated their gains.
Yet the Gamelin article reads
Gamelin was replaced by Maxime Weygand who immediately tried to launch counter-attacks but the British forces by then were keen to evacuate from France.
This is important, because the French contend that they cancelled their counter attack because the British under Lord Gort had taken the decision to evacuate, but the British say theat Gort only took that decision because of French prevarication and confusion. --Streona (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction with Weygand Article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maurice Gamelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721231107/http://www.normannia.info/opdf/11/5771/61_72_53/1935-01-19_61_72_53_0001.pdf to http://www.normannia.info/opdf/11/5771/61_72_53/1935-01-19_61_72_53_0001.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In moving from France to Belgium and then back to France, a substantial amount of the armour was lost due to mechanical failure.
:It is not clear whether this refers to the Germans or the French/British armies. Valetude (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The French (and maybe the British as well) as they started in France.Paulturtle (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which side?