In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
He went to West Point, he fought with honor in the Mexican War, he was superintendent of West Point, and he led the raid that took down murderer abolitionist John Brown at Harper's Ferry.
1. George Washington- He did something no one had done up to that time, he defeated the British Army and made them surrender.
2. Winfield Scott- The fist use of an amphibious landings and he defeated a much larger army in their own back yard(Mexico for those who didn't know)
3. George Patton- This is a tough one there are so many who are just as good or as smart but I think he made a huge impact on WW2, his march on Sicily was a stroke of genius and he was even effective doing nothing as on D-day.
I think Honorable mention should go to:
Gen Jackson for the battle of New Orleans
Adm Nimitz for the Pacific Campaign
Adm Halsey ditio
Gen Grant Union gen
Gen Pershing WW1 and his efforts to keep US troops under US Commandeers
Best not so American Generals:
Robert E Lee
Thomas Jackson
Sam Houston
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
General George Washington ... Short of divine intervention I don't see how he did what he did.divine intervention, courtesy of the French
The French would never have taken our side had Washington not shown that the US had a chance to defeat the British. Washington's determination is the only thing that saved the United States. Nobody else was freezing their * off and starving to save this country but him and his men.
Also the French didn't help us because they loved us or believed in our cause, they would have sided with the devil if he was going to be fighting the British.
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
Yeah, well I'm not a big fan of using the feds on our own citizens. YMMV, but you're in good company it seems.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
American colonies did not defeat the British army all together. The British only gave up here because they knew they could not maintain a war across the Atlantic. They still ruled a large part of the world and the war of 1812 was yet to come. Washington was a great general in his time no doubt but he could never have beaten the Japanese or Hitler.
In my opinion this is a question that cannot be answered. I have often been asked who is the best gun maker in the USA. The Truth is there probably is no answer. It is a flawed question. There are a few people who rise to a level or superiority that are about equal. The answer will change by the day and is often only a matter of opinion. Like who is the most beautiful women? Look how many opinions we have here.
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
When you look at how MacArthur basically gave the Japanese air superiority over the Philippines and the then purposefully sent 70,000 men to starve on Bataan when there was food for the taking warehoused in Manila, one begins to understand the deep flaws within the man. He had ample warning after hearing of the attack on Pearl, but mismanaged his air power such that he, like Short, had his planes on the ground, ripe for the attack. Short was run out of town and he didn't have any warning. MacArthur was made a hero when he should have been court-martialed and sent to Leavenworth.
Add to that the strategically needless re-taking of the Philippines which then killed 100s of thousands more Filipinos and you find a tragically flawed man who play-acted his way into heroism.
Patton had a similar hero-complex, but opened his mouth too much to gain the bizarre level of uninformed adoration that MacArthur did.
We would have been a lot better off had MacArthur been sacked. Patton played a vital role, however. Perhaps his most important role was that of decoy during the Normandy landings. Arguably it was this ploy that tied down German armor for enough time to solidify the beachhead.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
American colonies did not defeat the British army all together. The British only gave up here because they knew they could not maintain a war across the Atlantic. They still ruled a large part of the world and the war of 1812 was yet to come. Washington was a great general in his time no doubt but he could never have beaten the Japanese or Hitler.
What??
Washington defeating the world's greatest superpower with a 2nd rate Army shocked the world.....so much so that the British band played "The world turned upside down" at the surrender.
The WW2 Generals had such a material advantage that the end was never in doubt.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
When you look at how MacArthur basically gave the Japanese air superiority over the Philippines and the then purposefully sent 70,000 men to starve on Bataan when there was food for the taking warehoused in Manila, one begins to understand the deep flaws within the man. He had ample warning after hearing of the attack on Pearl, but mismanaged his air power such that he, like Short, had his planes on the ground, ripe for the attack. Short was run out of town and he didn't have any warning. MacArthur was made a hero when he should have been court-martialed and sent to Leavenworth.
Add to that the strategically needless re-taking of the Philippines which then killed 100s more Filipinos and you find a tragically flawed man who play-acted his way into heroism.
Patton had a similar hero-complex, but opened his mouth too much to gain the bizarre level of uninformed adoration that MacArthur did.
We would have been a lot better off had MacArthur been sacked. Patton played a vital role, however. Perhaps his most important role was that of decoy during the Normandy landings. Arguably it was this ploy that tied down German armor for enough time to solidify the beachhead.
A couple of things we lucked up on on D Day. Luckily Hitler was asleep and all his aides were afraid to wake him on the morning of D Day so the German tanks sat idle until the afternoon. And Erwin Rommel took a couple of days off go home because the weather was so bad he didn't think the allies would attack. Otherwise D Day might have turned out a whole lot different.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
When you look at how MacArthur basically gave the Japanese air superiority over the Philippines and the then purposefully sent 70,000 men to starve on Bataan when there was food for the taking warehoused in Manila, one begins to understand the deep flaws within the man. He had ample warning after hearing of the attack on Pearl, but mismanaged his air power such that he, like Short, had his planes on the ground, ripe for the attack. Short was run out of town and he didn't have any warning. MacArthur was made a hero when he should have been court-martialed and sent to Leavenworth.
Add to that the strategically needless re-taking of the Philippines which then killed 100s of thousands more Filipinos and you find a tragically flawed man who play-acted his way into heroism.
Patton had a similar hero-complex, but opened his mouth too much to gain the bizarre level of uninformed adoration that MacArthur did.
We would have been a lot better off had MacArthur been sacked. Patton played a vital role, however. Perhaps his most important role was that of decoy during the Normandy landings. Arguably it was this ploy that tied down German armor for enough time to solidify the beachhead.
Nothing Mac could have done would have saved the PI or the garrison on it. FDR lied to everyone about reinforcements. His unofficial policy was that the war in Europe was the primary concern of the American military.
As to Patton, his performance and that of his men was paramount during the Battle of the Bulge.
HONORABLE MENTION and I can't believe his name wasn't brought up at all. General Billy Mitchell. Back then nobody would have believed that a single airplane could blow up a battle ship. Maybe if the upper brass would have listened to him Pearl Harbor may not have happened.
Nothing Mac could have done would have saved the PI or the garrison on it. FDR lied to everyone about reinforcements. His unofficial policy was that the war in Europe was the primary concern of the American military.
As to Patton, his performance and that of his men was paramount during the Battle of the Bulge.
We are led to believe that, but, like Singapore, had an involved commander been present, the outcome could have been a lot different. Ignoring the obvious threat to his air forces, declaring Manila an open city without consulting the Navy present, forcing the destruction of vital material, the afore-mentioned specific decision to leave stockpiles in Manila while sending empty trucks into Bataan, capped by the acceptance of half a million dollars from the Philippine President in January of 42, long after it was apparent that his 4 years building the Philippine Army was wasted time.
MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO.
Patton, as you reference could actually lead, and he did. He was instrumental in revitalizing the US Army in North Africa, and was very helpful, though paramount is a bit of a stretch, in the Battle of the Buldge. His petty rivalries with Montgomery, however, kept him doing things that perhaps would have been done differently had emotion been removed from the equations.
He is well represented (both his positive and less than positive attributes) in the Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson. A very good battlefield general for the most part, IMO, but does not reach consideration as the greatest in American History.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Nothing Mac could have done would have saved the PI or the garrison on it. FDR lied to everyone about reinforcements. His unofficial policy was that the war in Europe was the primary concern of the American military.
As to Patton, his performance and that of his men was paramount during the Battle of the Bulge.
We are led to believe that, but, like Singapore, had an involved commander been present, the outcome could have been a lot different. Ignoring the obvious threat to his air forces, declaring Manila an open city without consulting the Navy present, forcing the destruction of vital material, the afore-mentioned specific decision to leave stockpiles in Manila while sending empty trucks into Bataan, capped by the acceptance of half a million dollars from the Philippine President in January of 42, long after it was apparent that his 4 years building the Philippine Army was wasted time.
MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO.
Patton, as you reference could actually lead, and he did. He was instrumental in revitalizing the US Army in North Africa, and was very helpful, though paramount is a bit of a stretch, in the Battle of the Buldge. His petty rivalries with Montgomery, however, kept him doing things that perhaps would have been done differently had emotion been removed from the equations.
He is well represented (both his positive and less than positive attributes) in the Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson. A very good battlefield general for the most part, IMO, but does not reach consideration as the greatest in American History.
And not just for his piss poor decision making skills, as I noted above.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by mrmike08075
I sometimes wonder if a thread can garner more than 10 responses without devolving into personal attacks - ruffled feathers - and school yard level name calling and posturing.
Much positive and insightful here - if you can sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I like to see thought provoking replies that spur me to do more research and reading and contribute to the sum of knowledge I possess...
I like to add to the positive discourse and hope that my replies might trigger someone to do their own additional quest for knowledge based on my input.
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
quote:Originally posted by mrmike08075
I sometimes wonder if a thread can garner more than 10 responses without devolving into personal attacks - ruffled feathers - and school yard level name calling and posturing.
Much positive and insightful here - if you can sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I like to see thought provoking replies that spur me to do more research and reading and contribute to the sum of knowledge I possess...
I like to add to the positive discourse and hope that my replies might trigger someone to do their own additional quest for knowledge based on my input.
My FIL was IG in India, and met McArthur on several occasions....his point, was that Mc Arthur was a "Prima Donna"...very self centered....he did not like him at all. On the other hand he liked Adm. Chester Nimitz.....My other FIL,said he would have shot "Howlin" Red Smith if he had been ashore on Tarawa!..lost 80% of his company on he landing...
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many people at the time thought Mac should be a general, then an administrator of Japan, then a combat commander in Korea. Then one little pipsqueak from Missouri thought he should be fired.
He was aloof, he had gone Asiatic, and he moved between two worlds.
His experiences were beyond the realm that most people could relate to.
He dedicated his life to service to his country. He wasn't a diplomat, not even to Japan, even less to the North Koreans.
Had a man of guile and courage been at the helm in Washington in 1950, Kim Jong would be a pig farmer in 2017 Republic of Korea.
He has been called the American Caesar. That is a fitting comparison.
Don: "Add to that the strategically needless re-taking of the Philippines which then killed 100s of thousands more Filipinos and you find a tragically flawed man who play-acted his way into heroism."
My uncle, who I am named after, was killed on the beach in the invasion of Leyte. He was in the Army.
quote:Originally posted by mrmike08075
I sometimes wonder if a thread can garner more than 10 responses without devolving into personal attacks - ruffled feathers - and school yard level name calling and posturing.
Much positive and insightful here - if you can sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I like to see thought provoking replies that spur me to do more research and reading and contribute to the sum of knowledge I possess...
I like to add to the positive discourse and hope that my replies might trigger someone to do their own additional quest for knowledge based on my input.
Mike
I take the OP as a question about opinion. One's opinion is not going to be everyone's opinion necessarily.
The irritation begins when some people have to ridicule another's opinion because only THEIR opinion can possibly be the correct one.
Immaturity and boorish behavior, traits of libtards and narcissists.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many people at the time thought Mac should be a general, then an administrator of Japan, then a combat commander in Korea. Then one little pipsqueak from Missouri thought he should be fired.
He was aloof, he had gone Asiatic, and he moved between two worlds.
His experiences were beyond the realm that most people could relate to.
He dedicated his life to service to his country. He wasn't a diplomat, not even to Japan, even less to the North Koreans.
Had a man of guile and courage been at the helm in Washington in 1950, Kim Jong would be a pig farmer in 2017 Republic of Korea.
He has been called the American Caesar. That is a fitting comparison.
When you go around publicly badmouthing the commander in chief, that's a firing offense in anybody's book. MacArthur was mad because Truman wouldn't allow him to drop 20 to 30 nukes across Asia and massively broaden what was a limited war. Sorry, but that's insane.
Truman showed a hell of a lot of stones and firmly impressed up the military that only president makes the very big decisions and that the decision to use nuclear weapons is not up to the military.
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many people at the time thought Mac should be a general, then an administrator of Japan, then a combat commander in Korea. Then one little pipsqueak from Missouri thought he should be fired.
He was aloof, he had gone Asiatic, and he moved between two worlds.
His experiences were beyond the realm that most people could relate to.
He dedicated his life to service to his country. He wasn't a diplomat, not even to Japan, even less to the North Koreans.
Had a man of guile and courage been at the helm in Washington in 1950, Kim Jong would be a pig farmer in 2017 Republic of Korea.
He has been called the American Caesar. That is a fitting comparison.
When you go around publicly badmouthing the commander in chief, that's a firing offense in anybody's book. MacArthur was mad because Truman wouldn't allow him to drop 20 to 30 nukes across Asia and massively broaden what was a limited war. Sorry, but that's insane.
Truman showed a hell of a lot of stones and firmly impressed up the military that only president makes the very big decisions and that the decision to use nuclear weapons is not up to the military.
Nukes were not required. Chasing the North Koreans into China was.
We have been at war via "police action" for the past 65 years. North Korea threatens all it's neighbors locally and now even in other hemispheres. China had just gone Commie in 1949. They had Soviet backing, but the Soviets were still milking Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs for atomic secrets.
Had Truman the stones, Pax Americana would still be in effect.
HELLO McFly - American generals? the "southern generals" were fighting for the CSA, Confederate States of AMERICA which WOULD make them American generals. DUH
Originally posted by mlincoln
I'm always amused at how when this topic comes up, people name Confederate generals. Perhaps those folks missed the part about how they Confederate generals were fighting under a different flag and shooting at troops carrying the American flag. They were American generals like I'm a Chinese fighter pilot.
HAHAHAHA Eat your black heart out.
[/quote
Kimni, Mind not this poor fool that shows lack of historical knowledge and poor judgement..
please bear in mind my vote is totally from a neutral point of view.
So I pick The wall Dude Jackson this guy was a bad * to the core, and my second pick is Geronimo.
We have to fight so we can run away.
Capt. Jack Sparrow.
Nukes were not required. Chasing the North Koreans into China was.
We have been at war via "police action" for the past 65 years. North Korea threatens all it's neighbors locally and now even in other hemispheres. China had just gone Commie in 1949. They had Soviet backing, but the Soviets were still milking Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs for atomic secrets.
Had Truman the stones, Pax Americana would still be in effect.
There is no substitute for victory.
Would you prefer the standoff be at the Yalu instead of the 38th?
Rather than continue diverting this thread into a MacArthur discussion, I addressed this on your Founding Father's thread. I would be interested in your comments.
I even played nice.
(I think.)
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by CoolhandLuke
quote:Originally posted by kimi
Originally posted by mlincoln
I'm always amused at how when this topic comes up, people name Confederate generals. Perhaps those folks missed the part about how they Confederate generals were fighting under a different flag and shooting at troops carrying the American flag. They were American generals like I'm a Chinese fighter pilot.
HAHAHAHA Eat your black heart out.
[/quote
Kimni, Mind not this poor fool that shows lack of historical knowledge and poor judgement..
please bear in mind my vote is totally from a neutral point of view.
So I pick The wall Dude Jackson this guy was a bad * to the core, and my second pick is Geronimo.
Good Morning Friend! Stonewall was certainly a magnificent American. One that tops a lot of lists that names him as our greatest general. Geronimo is a great one as well! And, he reminds me of the type guerilla that was highly instrumental of inspiring Cornwallis to get the hell out of South Carolina and hurry to his defeat at Yorktown...enter BGen Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion. I'm happy to say that I have a whole slew of relatives alive and dead whose namesake was Stonewall Jackson and Francis Marion...same with Bobby Lee...some who were christened with both given names!!!! Here's a piece on The Fox:
?Come on Boys! Let us go back ? as for this damned old fox, the Devil himself could not catch him." British Lt. Colonel Banastre Tarleton?s comments after pursuing Colonel Francis Marion
quote:Originally posted by rambo rebel
HELLO McFly - American generals? the "southern generals" were fighting for the CSA, Confederate States of AMERICA which WOULD make them American generals. DUH
Even though they were enemies of The United States they certainly qualify as "generals in American History". Taken literally, we can also include Sim?n Bol?var for consideration. [:)]
One must not forget James Doolittle who not only struck the first blow to the Japanese main land. He was the first off the aircraft carrier, so had the shortest runway, to become air born. He also was a test pilot pushing many planes to the limit and on many occasions past their limit. He was the first pilot to take off, fly around and land in a plane without being able to see outside the plane canopy.. Fully on instruments that he designed many of, or adapted to make the flight. He was a leader, he never asked his men to do anything that he wouldn't do. His method of leading was from being out in front showing the way and that it could be done!
quote:Originally posted by arraflipper
One must not forget James Doolittle who not only struck the first blow to the Japanese main land. He was the first off the aircraft carrier, so had the shortest runway, to become air born. He also was a test pilot pushing many planes to the limit and on many occasions past their limit. He was the first pilot to take off, fly around and land in a plane without being able to see outside the plane canopy.. Fully on instruments that he designed many of, or adapted to make the flight. He was a leader, he never asked his men to do anything that he wouldn't do. His method of leading was from being out in front showing the way and that it could be done!
Doolittle held the rank of Colonel at the time of the raid.
Comments
He went to West Point, he fought with honor in the Mexican War, he was superintendent of West Point, and he led the raid that took down murderer abolitionist John Brown at Harper's Ferry.
An American hero.
Curtis Lemay (army air corps)
Must be on any list for honorable mention purpose.
Mike
AND SAC (the Strategic Air Command, USAF)
General Mills or General Motors.[:D]
WTH
1. George Washington- He did something no one had done up to that time, he defeated the British Army and made them surrender.
2. Winfield Scott- The fist use of an amphibious landings and he defeated a much larger army in their own back yard(Mexico for those who didn't know)
3. George Patton- This is a tough one there are so many who are just as good or as smart but I think he made a huge impact on WW2, his march on Sicily was a stroke of genius and he was even effective doing nothing as on D-day.
I think Honorable mention should go to:
Gen Jackson for the battle of New Orleans
Adm Nimitz for the Pacific Campaign
Adm Halsey ditio
Gen Grant Union gen
Gen Pershing WW1 and his efforts to keep US troops under US Commandeers
Best not so American Generals:
Robert E Lee
Thomas Jackson
Sam Houston
quote:Originally posted by Smitty500mag
General George Washington ... Short of divine intervention I don't see how he did what he did.divine intervention, courtesy of the French
The French would never have taken our side had Washington not shown that the US had a chance to defeat the British. Washington's determination is the only thing that saved the United States. Nobody else was freezing their * off and starving to save this country but him and his men.
Also the French didn't help us because they loved us or believed in our cause, they would have sided with the devil if he was going to be fighting the British.
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
Yeah, well I'm not a big fan of using the feds on our own citizens. YMMV, but you're in good company it seems.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
In my opinion this is a question that cannot be answered. I have often been asked who is the best gun maker in the USA. The Truth is there probably is no answer. It is a flawed question. There are a few people who rise to a level or superiority that are about equal. The answer will change by the day and is often only a matter of opinion. Like who is the most beautiful women? Look how many opinions we have here.
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
When you look at how MacArthur basically gave the Japanese air superiority over the Philippines and the then purposefully sent 70,000 men to starve on Bataan when there was food for the taking warehoused in Manila, one begins to understand the deep flaws within the man. He had ample warning after hearing of the attack on Pearl, but mismanaged his air power such that he, like Short, had his planes on the ground, ripe for the attack. Short was run out of town and he didn't have any warning. MacArthur was made a hero when he should have been court-martialed and sent to Leavenworth.
Add to that the strategically needless re-taking of the Philippines which then killed 100s of thousands more Filipinos and you find a tragically flawed man who play-acted his way into heroism.
Patton had a similar hero-complex, but opened his mouth too much to gain the bizarre level of uninformed adoration that MacArthur did.
We would have been a lot better off had MacArthur been sacked. Patton played a vital role, however. Perhaps his most important role was that of decoy during the Normandy landings. Arguably it was this ploy that tied down German armor for enough time to solidify the beachhead.
Brad Steele
American colonies did not defeat the British army all together. The British only gave up here because they knew they could not maintain a war across the Atlantic. They still ruled a large part of the world and the war of 1812 was yet to come. Washington was a great general in his time no doubt but he could never have beaten the Japanese or Hitler.
What??
Washington defeating the world's greatest superpower with a 2nd rate Army shocked the world.....so much so that the British band played "The world turned upside down" at the surrender.
The WW2 Generals had such a material advantage that the end was never in doubt.
One that always seems to slip through the grate and is not usually mentioned is one I have much respect for.
That is Jimmy Stewart.
Actor yes and very well known but he was also a general who took the bull by the horns during WWII.
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
When you look at how MacArthur basically gave the Japanese air superiority over the Philippines and the then purposefully sent 70,000 men to starve on Bataan when there was food for the taking warehoused in Manila, one begins to understand the deep flaws within the man. He had ample warning after hearing of the attack on Pearl, but mismanaged his air power such that he, like Short, had his planes on the ground, ripe for the attack. Short was run out of town and he didn't have any warning. MacArthur was made a hero when he should have been court-martialed and sent to Leavenworth.
Add to that the strategically needless re-taking of the Philippines which then killed 100s more Filipinos and you find a tragically flawed man who play-acted his way into heroism.
Patton had a similar hero-complex, but opened his mouth too much to gain the bizarre level of uninformed adoration that MacArthur did.
We would have been a lot better off had MacArthur been sacked. Patton played a vital role, however. Perhaps his most important role was that of decoy during the Normandy landings. Arguably it was this ploy that tied down German armor for enough time to solidify the beachhead.
A couple of things we lucked up on on D Day. Luckily Hitler was asleep and all his aides were afraid to wake him on the morning of D Day so the German tanks sat idle until the afternoon. And Erwin Rommel took a couple of days off go home because the weather was so bad he didn't think the allies would attack. Otherwise D Day might have turned out a whole lot different.
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
quote:Originally posted by remingtonoaks
Douglas MacArthur, without MacArthur General Patton would've been unreatrained and ended up just a flash in the pan. Because General Patton would never stopped advancing even if it meant losing. But General MacArthur kept him in check. And it would take one hell of a leader to slow General Patton down
I just thought I would inform you that Gen MacArthur was not in command of Patton. Patton was in Europe. MacArthur was in charge of the pacific campaign.
Mr Perfect would have gotten rid of them.Then we would be better off today. Right??
When you look at how MacArthur basically gave the Japanese air superiority over the Philippines and the then purposefully sent 70,000 men to starve on Bataan when there was food for the taking warehoused in Manila, one begins to understand the deep flaws within the man. He had ample warning after hearing of the attack on Pearl, but mismanaged his air power such that he, like Short, had his planes on the ground, ripe for the attack. Short was run out of town and he didn't have any warning. MacArthur was made a hero when he should have been court-martialed and sent to Leavenworth.
Add to that the strategically needless re-taking of the Philippines which then killed 100s of thousands more Filipinos and you find a tragically flawed man who play-acted his way into heroism.
Patton had a similar hero-complex, but opened his mouth too much to gain the bizarre level of uninformed adoration that MacArthur did.
We would have been a lot better off had MacArthur been sacked. Patton played a vital role, however. Perhaps his most important role was that of decoy during the Normandy landings. Arguably it was this ploy that tied down German armor for enough time to solidify the beachhead.
Nothing Mac could have done would have saved the PI or the garrison on it. FDR lied to everyone about reinforcements. His unofficial policy was that the war in Europe was the primary concern of the American military.
As to Patton, his performance and that of his men was paramount during the Battle of the Bulge.
Nothing Mac could have done would have saved the PI or the garrison on it. FDR lied to everyone about reinforcements. His unofficial policy was that the war in Europe was the primary concern of the American military.
As to Patton, his performance and that of his men was paramount during the Battle of the Bulge.
We are led to believe that, but, like Singapore, had an involved commander been present, the outcome could have been a lot different. Ignoring the obvious threat to his air forces, declaring Manila an open city without consulting the Navy present, forcing the destruction of vital material, the afore-mentioned specific decision to leave stockpiles in Manila while sending empty trucks into Bataan, capped by the acceptance of half a million dollars from the Philippine President in January of 42, long after it was apparent that his 4 years building the Philippine Army was wasted time.
MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO.
Patton, as you reference could actually lead, and he did. He was instrumental in revitalizing the US Army in North Africa, and was very helpful, though paramount is a bit of a stretch, in the Battle of the Buldge. His petty rivalries with Montgomery, however, kept him doing things that perhaps would have been done differently had emotion been removed from the equations.
He is well represented (both his positive and less than positive attributes) in the Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson. A very good battlefield general for the most part, IMO, but does not reach consideration as the greatest in American History.
Brad Steele
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Nothing Mac could have done would have saved the PI or the garrison on it. FDR lied to everyone about reinforcements. His unofficial policy was that the war in Europe was the primary concern of the American military.
As to Patton, his performance and that of his men was paramount during the Battle of the Bulge.
We are led to believe that, but, like Singapore, had an involved commander been present, the outcome could have been a lot different. Ignoring the obvious threat to his air forces, declaring Manila an open city without consulting the Navy present, forcing the destruction of vital material, the afore-mentioned specific decision to leave stockpiles in Manila while sending empty trucks into Bataan, capped by the acceptance of half a million dollars from the Philippine President in January of 42, long after it was apparent that his 4 years building the Philippine Army was wasted time.
MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO.
Patton, as you reference could actually lead, and he did. He was instrumental in revitalizing the US Army in North Africa, and was very helpful, though paramount is a bit of a stretch, in the Battle of the Buldge. His petty rivalries with Montgomery, however, kept him doing things that perhaps would have been done differently had emotion been removed from the equations.
He is well represented (both his positive and less than positive attributes) in the Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson. A very good battlefield general for the most part, IMO, but does not reach consideration as the greatest in American History.
And not just for his piss poor decision making skills, as I noted above.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Aside from George Washington Chesty Puller comes to mind.
Puller performed a brilliant and seldom successful fighting withdrawal from the trap at the Chosin Reservoir.
Puller wasn't in command at the Chosin Reservoir although he obviously had a significant part to play.
I sometimes wonder if a thread can garner more than 10 responses without devolving into personal attacks - ruffled feathers - and school yard level name calling and posturing.
Much positive and insightful here - if you can sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I like to see thought provoking replies that spur me to do more research and reading and contribute to the sum of knowledge I possess...
I like to add to the positive discourse and hope that my replies might trigger someone to do their own additional quest for knowledge based on my input.
Mike
I agree Mike
+1
You would think this is a safe subject.
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
I sometimes wonder if a thread can garner more than 10 responses without devolving into personal attacks - ruffled feathers - and school yard level name calling and posturing.
Much positive and insightful here - if you can sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I like to see thought provoking replies that spur me to do more research and reading and contribute to the sum of knowledge I possess...
I like to add to the positive discourse and hope that my replies might trigger someone to do their own additional quest for knowledge based on my input.
Mike
Lee lost. Grant won. Daaaaaaaa[:D]
Aren't you supposed to be stepping on toes, and not tripping over your own *?
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many people at the time thought Mac should be a general, then an administrator of Japan, then a combat commander in Korea. Then one little pipsqueak from Missouri thought he should be fired.
He was aloof, he had gone Asiatic, and he moved between two worlds.
His experiences were beyond the realm that most people could relate to.
He dedicated his life to service to his country. He wasn't a diplomat, not even to Japan, even less to the North Koreans.
Had a man of guile and courage been at the helm in Washington in 1950, Kim Jong would be a pig farmer in 2017 Republic of Korea.
He has been called the American Caesar. That is a fitting comparison.
My uncle, who I am named after, was killed on the beach in the invasion of Leyte. He was in the Army.
Thanks, Doug. My dad still hates McArthur.
I sometimes wonder if a thread can garner more than 10 responses without devolving into personal attacks - ruffled feathers - and school yard level name calling and posturing.
Much positive and insightful here - if you can sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I like to see thought provoking replies that spur me to do more research and reading and contribute to the sum of knowledge I possess...
I like to add to the positive discourse and hope that my replies might trigger someone to do their own additional quest for knowledge based on my input.
Mike
I take the OP as a question about opinion. One's opinion is not going to be everyone's opinion necessarily.
The irritation begins when some people have to ridicule another's opinion because only THEIR opinion can possibly be the correct one.
Immaturity and boorish behavior, traits of libtards and narcissists.
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many people at the time thought Mac should be a general, then an administrator of Japan, then a combat commander in Korea. Then one little pipsqueak from Missouri thought he should be fired.
He was aloof, he had gone Asiatic, and he moved between two worlds.
His experiences were beyond the realm that most people could relate to.
He dedicated his life to service to his country. He wasn't a diplomat, not even to Japan, even less to the North Koreans.
Had a man of guile and courage been at the helm in Washington in 1950, Kim Jong would be a pig farmer in 2017 Republic of Korea.
He has been called the American Caesar. That is a fitting comparison.
When you go around publicly badmouthing the commander in chief, that's a firing offense in anybody's book. MacArthur was mad because Truman wouldn't allow him to drop 20 to 30 nukes across Asia and massively broaden what was a limited war. Sorry, but that's insane.
Truman showed a hell of a lot of stones and firmly impressed up the military that only president makes the very big decisions and that the decision to use nuclear weapons is not up to the military.
http://www.ranker.com/list/us-army-generals/mike-rothschild
Of course its all subjective and all our answers are as good as anyone else opinions...
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by mlincoln
quote:Originally posted by Fazer1
quote:MacArthur remains a joke to anyone who has seriously looked at his WWII performance, but he does have his followers to this day. It defies logic, IMO
Dugout Doug, as he is known in Australia and New Zealand. They were not impressed with his leading from behind, but still keeping a big hype about his achievements.
The man had big political aspirations.
Not really. He didn't think he should be president. He thought he should be God.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many people at the time thought Mac should be a general, then an administrator of Japan, then a combat commander in Korea. Then one little pipsqueak from Missouri thought he should be fired.
He was aloof, he had gone Asiatic, and he moved between two worlds.
His experiences were beyond the realm that most people could relate to.
He dedicated his life to service to his country. He wasn't a diplomat, not even to Japan, even less to the North Koreans.
Had a man of guile and courage been at the helm in Washington in 1950, Kim Jong would be a pig farmer in 2017 Republic of Korea.
He has been called the American Caesar. That is a fitting comparison.
When you go around publicly badmouthing the commander in chief, that's a firing offense in anybody's book. MacArthur was mad because Truman wouldn't allow him to drop 20 to 30 nukes across Asia and massively broaden what was a limited war. Sorry, but that's insane.
Truman showed a hell of a lot of stones and firmly impressed up the military that only president makes the very big decisions and that the decision to use nuclear weapons is not up to the military.
Nukes were not required. Chasing the North Koreans into China was.
We have been at war via "police action" for the past 65 years. North Korea threatens all it's neighbors locally and now even in other hemispheres. China had just gone Commie in 1949. They had Soviet backing, but the Soviets were still milking Klaus Fuchs and the Rosenbergs for atomic secrets.
Had Truman the stones, Pax Americana would still be in effect.
There is no substitute for victory.
Capt. Jack Sparrow.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by kimi
HELLO McFly - American generals? the "southern generals" were fighting for the CSA, Confederate States of AMERICA which WOULD make them American generals. DUH
Even though they were enemies of The United States they certainly qualify as "generals in American History". Taken literally, we can also include Sim?n Bol?var for consideration. [:)]
One must not forget James Doolittle who not only struck the first blow to the Japanese main land. He was the first off the aircraft carrier, so had the shortest runway, to become air born. He also was a test pilot pushing many planes to the limit and on many occasions past their limit. He was the first pilot to take off, fly around and land in a plane without being able to see outside the plane canopy.. Fully on instruments that he designed many of, or adapted to make the flight. He was a leader, he never asked his men to do anything that he wouldn't do. His method of leading was from being out in front showing the way and that it could be done!
Doolittle held the rank of Colonel at the time of the raid.