Talk:Maurice Gamelin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This french general also stayed in Brazil, during 1920 decade.He also was a freemason.The article dosn't tell nothing about these things.Agre22 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Contradiction with Weygand Article[edit]

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)[reply]


Errors. The French didn't view the Ardennes as "completely impenetrable"; otherwise they wouldn't have defended it at all. They choose to defend it with 10 divisions. They viewed it as difficult to penetrate and just as importantly they had intelligence (plane crashed in Belgium with Luftwaffe plans for attack through Belgium before Hitler, Erich von Manstein, and Heinz Guderian created the Sichelschnitt plan later that winter), as well as their own political and military reasons for desiring to fight in Belgium and to assume the Germans would replay the Schlieffen Plan of WW1.

The French divisions opposite the Ardennes weren't all Reserve Divisions. There was a Regular North African Division as well as a Regular Motorized Division in the line.

Also I've read that the Allies didn't expect to be able to take the offensive until 1942 in all likelihood, not 1941.

I may come back and give you page citations. To Lose a Battle: France 1940 Sir Alistair Horne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.108.56 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which side?[edit]

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)[reply]
The French (and maybe the British as well) as they started in France.Paulturtle (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurice_Gamelin&oldid=1207637149"