Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan
Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan on HackerTube: recommended by 3 Hacker News commenters across 3 separate months, 2018–2024.
Thomas Ricks's Nimitz Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley asks why US generals did better in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq and Afghanistan. A central point is the WWII practice of quickly reassigning or relieving underperforming generals.
What HN commenters said
6 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
m0lluskNov 2021Strongly recommends
Possibly the best analysis of this I have yet seen is the video Why our generals were most successful in World War II that in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan: ▶ this video Essentially, the answer is the hiring methodology. If someone seemed like a best fit for a job then they were hired. They then had two weeks to demonstrate basic functional capacity and six weeks to make significant progress. If at any point things did not work out then they were immediately dismissed and replaced with someone else. The high rate of this process meant that there were always open opportunities even for those who had been dismissed from other positions, so things worked out for both employers and employees.
in “Coding Interviews Are BS (largely)” · View on HN
sofrimientoMar 2024Recommends
This is a interesting talk held on UC Berkeley about the culture of firing officers during WWII: ▶ this video Thomas E. Ricks main hypothesis is that the US failures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq can be attributed to the culture of firing under-performing disappearing. It mirrors what I've seen in a lot of organizations as well, under-performing executives keeping their jobs when they shouldn't.
in “Peter principle” · View on HN
AdrianB1Jun 2020Recommends
Never joke about firing people, but don't hesitate to do it. That is the complete advice. Joking about firing people never brought anything good; firing people when needed, that is essential for organizations. There is a lengthy explanation in this: "Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan" ( ▶ this video )
in “Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people” · View on HN
m0lluskDec 2022Cites it
A potentially interesting contrast: Why our generals were more successful in WWII than in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq/Afghanistan ▶ this video Briefly, minimize the application process and aggressively review work. Any mistake or failure and you're fired, two weeks to prove competence or you're fired, six weeks until a significant accomplishment or you're fired. And no stigma against being fired, just keep trying until you find a fit.
in “Against All Applications” · View on HN
m0lluskAug 2021Cites it
This reminds me of this historian's theory that WWII generals were unusually successful because of the dynamic way they were assigned and potentially reassigned within weeks: (US Berkeley Events 2011) ▶ this video
in “If software engineering is in demand, why is it so hard to get a job?” · View on HN
NomentatusNov 2018Cites it
Interesting comparison - how important firing (actually, relieving) high numbers of generals is in war, when the rubber has to hit the road. ▶ this video
in “Musk shakes up SpaceX in race to make satellite launch window: sources” · View on HN