Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
De Gaulle had no problem telling his superiors they were wrong, and I think you'd find that both Eisenhower and MacArthur had no problem dabbling in politics as well. Once you're that senior, you are forced to deal with the political stuff.
Eisenhower especially. He was in a very delicate position, being headquartered in Britain and commanding troops from so many different countries. He had to constantly play both ends against the middle and balance the different political and military interests of Britain, France, and the United States, and always with an eye toward Soviet interests as well. His handling of De Gaulle was masterful, and his relationship with Churchill was often very prickly. At one point, he threatened to Churchill that he would resign his position if he weren't given command of the British bomber force. The British war cabinet met the next morning, and Eisenhower was given his authority.
The man was a consummate politician, and only someone with exceptional political skills could have made something as impossibly complicated as Overlord work so smoothly. I often wonder how the Normandy Invasion would have gone had Roosevelt put Marshall in command, as he initially wanted to do.
tony t...i couldn't agree more...little know outside germany...but great general and great german and national hero...a tantalizing thought...henrici in the battle of normandy or perhaps the battle of berlin against patton
Well having read TonyT's excellent summary post of the German leader, Heinrici, I would have to agree with that choice if being restricted to Word War Two. However, if not restricted, to WW2, I'd have to go with USMC General Smedley D. Butler.
Re:
"Really? He had one thing going for him that hardly any of his contemporaries on the Allied side had: A thorough understanding of the role of armor on a modern battlefield. There's a reason his writings are mentioned in the same breath as those of Guderian and Liddell Hart. If the French had organized their armor according to his doctrine, things could have been very different"
You know I'd suggest Patton 'knew' about armor and tank warfare as well. But it would be difficult to argue the point that General Patton would have the temperament and more importantly the skill to run a war at a much higher level. He just wasn't made for top command like Eisenhower who I think had a much better grasp of fitting things all together at his level of command. Just my take.
"Once you're that senior, you are forced to deal with the political stuff.
Yes I'd say military commanders do indeed deal with politics but I don't believe they make political policy. Of course they influence it and carry it out. But they don't make final political decisions.
Hands-down. My favorite would be George "Blood-and-Guts" Patton. He got the job done, and many/most of his soldiers were more afraid of him than they were of the Germans...
Seriously, though, Patton was the "General's General". My father was under his command up to, and through, the Relief of Bastogne in late 1944. Though this may be inaccurate,my father said that fewer soldiers lost their lives under Patton's command than under any other Allied general officer.
The Ultimate Soldier? Hell-Yeah! The Basic Diplomat? Hell-No!
Hands-down. My favorite would be George "Blood-and-Guts" Patton. He got the job done, and many/most of his soldiers were more afraid of him than they were of the Germans...
Seriously, though, Patton was the "General's General". My father was under his command up to, and through, the Relief of Bastogne in late 1944. Though this may be inaccurate,my father said that fewer soldiers lost their lives under Patton's command than under any other Allied general officer.
The Ultimate Soldier? Hell-Yeah! The Basic Diplomat? Hell-No!
That's my opinion and mine alone...
I dont know the real figures but I could believe this. I read a book on Patton and of course his top command was never retreat and keep on the offensive but he also would fight by trying to bypass strong points as to go around them and cut them off from their communications and supply lines. Once you isolate the enemy divisions or army and they dont have any communications to know where the enemy is and you cut their supplies off you can then mop them up and take them prisioners. I would think it should be less causualties then a head on assault. It seemed like a smart tactic to me and I know he is not the only general who fought that way. I liked his fighting tactics and his men were very well trained and fit to fight under his command. One of the reasons his 3rd army reliefed Bastogne as quick as they did was his troops were trained to be in top physical condition as he presed them very hard and they pushed hard to get to Bastogne as soon as they could. The 4th armored kept the pressure up until they got to Bastogne and then fought hard to keep the road open. I liked Major Wood of the 4th armored alot and the way he fought. Ron
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
