IV Both Lee and Custer were defeated. Why were the consequences of defeat so different? Both General Lee and Custer had been defeated. Therefore, it could be argued that both men could be considered as failures. The scale of defeat for Lee was far greater. He commanded entire armies whereas Custer had only a mere regiment at his disposal. Lee’s campaigns covered a larger geographical area and spanned a longer time frame – four years from 1862 to 1865. Custer had lost a battle and his life. Lee had lost the entire war and thousands of lives. Yet most military historians considered Lee the greater general. Custer was considered to be a rash and arrogant leader. Wasn’t it ironical that the general who suffered the more devastating defeat should be held in …show more content…
The bomb exploded but Hitler was shielded from the blast by a large oak table. In the aftermath, the Gestapo identified Stauffenberg as the assassin. He was arrested and executed by firing squad. Both von Paulus and Stauffenberg had failed in their respective missions. The scale of defeat of von Paulus was greater. The armies involved on both sides totalled over a million men. The geographical areas covered more than a hundred miles behind Stalingrad. The duration of the campaign lasted more than six months. The defeat of Stauffenberg was on a smaller scale. He paid for his failure with his life. In that sense, it was the reverse of the General Lee-Custer situation. The person who suffered the greater defeat (von Paulus) was castigated as an unimaginative fool. The person who made the fatal mistake (Stauffenberg) from which there could be no hope of recovery was hailed retrospectively as a hero of sorts. Yet, whatever their failings in terms of character and human endeavour, this entire quartet of persons sincerely believed that they had done their duty – and in the process, fulfilled their