A Re-Evaluation of Generalship: Lieutenant- General Guy Simonds and Major-General George Kitching in Normandy 1944
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds, commander of 2nd Canadian Corps to which 4th Canadian Armoured Division belonged, relieved Kitching of command on 21 August, ostensibly for lack of leadership.The story of Major-General Kitching and 4th Canadian Armoured Division in Normandy has so far not been portrayed in an especially positive light.Most scholarship, including the official history of the Canadian Army, accepts that Simonds was justified in relieving Kitching from command.Criticism from contemporary American and British commanders, repeated by subsequent historians, claimed that attacks by 2nd Canadian Corps, with the object of closing the Falaise Gap, were not pressed forward with sufficient resolve and thereby resulted in the escape of some quarter million German soldiers.1 The "poor" performance of 4th Canadian Armoured Division in general, and the supposed lacklustre command performance of Kitching in particular, have been convenient explanations for this failure.Simonds viewed the case as one of leadership potential that was never achieved by Kitching.The expectation was that the Canadians should have been more successful in Operations "Totalize" and "Tractable" and that 4th Canadian Armoured Division, as the spearhead for the Canadian advance, should have closed the Falaise Gap sooner.John English even goes so far as to state that the lacklustre performance of the Canadian army in Normandy laid squarely at the feet of the divisional commanders. 2 Is this assessment valid?George Kitching tried to do his duty as a general.He tried to win the battles he was ordered to fight and he tried to prepare his men as best he could for the battles they would have to fight in Normandy.He was prevented from accomplishing both objectives by his superior Guy Simonds.Taking a more multi-disciplinary approach to the question reveals that the command relationship between Simonds and Kitching was beset with serious problems.The personal performance of Kitching as General Officer Commanding 4th Canadian Armoured Division was a direct result of being forced to operate in what Ross Pigeau and Carol McCann describe as a compromised command environment and the resulting emotional and physical strain that this situation placed on him personally.3 This command environment, created by Simonds, was derived from the corps commander's mistrust of his subordinate divisional commanders after his failed attacks of July.Simonds decided he would maintain greater control and in so doing, stripped his divisional commanders of their command authority.Kitching was not responsible for the resulting compromised command environment, but he was forced to command his division within it until 21 August.Lack of sleep, combined with the stresses of sustained combat and the high casualties in the August 1944 battles, sapped what was left of Kitching's capacity to command effectively at the divisional level under Simonds.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,050 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,024 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».