PDA

View Full Version : General Douglas MacArthur this election day GDG



Patrick Johndrow
11-04-2008, 07:17 AM
I know he was addressing the Army at West Point but today I was reminded of a few of his words as I thought about today’s election that somewhat apply. Go exercise your right to vote today and remember these words as you cast you ballot:



"The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country."

This is the greatest country on the face of the earth.

Happy election day!

RedHeadedHurricane
11-04-2008, 07:26 AM
I know he was addressing the Army at West Point but today I was reminded of a few of his words as I thought about today’s election that somewhat apply. Go exercise your right to vote today and remember these words as you cast you ballot:



"The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country."

This is the greatest country on the face of the earth.

Happy election day!

It doesn't look good for the country. But, who cares to look at the fine print anymore or see that gray line that so many have fought and paid the ultimate price to gaurantee our way of life. It's rather disheartening.

Goose
11-04-2008, 10:27 AM
Wonder when CNN will call it for Obama? Noon?

Guard your wallet starting tomorrow.

Bob Gutermuth
11-04-2008, 10:29 AM
Anyone else read American Caesar? The General would have made a great President.

Ted Shih
11-04-2008, 10:35 AM
Anyone else read American Caesar? The General would have made a great President.

I have read American Caesar and more.

Military genius, ego maniac, and in my opinion, poorly suited for the Oval Office

DSemple
11-04-2008, 10:42 AM
I live in a republican county of a very republican state (Kansas) and had to wait 90 minutes in line to vote this morning after arriving at 5:50 am, 10 minutes before the polls opened.

Republicans are turning out in huge numbers here.

Obama couldn't get elected dog catcher here regards. ...Don

Marvin S
11-04-2008, 10:48 AM
I have read American Caesar and more.

Military genius, ego maniac, and in my opinion, poorly suited for the Oval Office

On this we heartily agree! Though I thought Truman wrong for stopping him from going further in Korea - Truman was still Commander in Chief & Mac A had an issue with accepting that.

Bob Gutermuth
11-04-2008, 10:54 AM
I kinda like the ideas that Patton and Mac had. If Geroge had rearmed those 10 SS divisions and sent them into the USSR, and Mac had crossed the Yalu, there would never have been a Cold War, and communism would not have dominated much of Europe and Asia for half a century.

Ted Shih
11-04-2008, 11:00 AM
As evidenced by his conduct in the Pacific Theatre in WWII and his conduct during the Korean "police action", Douglas did not play well with others

He did, of course, have a flair for the theatrical (witness Leyte)
And he did know how to turn a phrase (Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away)
And he was a military genius (Island Hopping in the Pacific and Inchon landings)

But, in my opinion, not presidential matter

Ted Shih
11-04-2008, 11:04 AM
I kinda like the ideas that Patton and Mac had. If Geroge had rearmed those 10 SS divisions and sent them into the USSR, and Mac had crossed the Yalu, there would never have been a Cold War, and communism would not have dominated much of Europe and Asia for half a century.

Not sure that German armies and Allied armies together would have sufficed to rebuff the Soviet Armies

And absent nuclear warheads, not sure that crossing the Yalu would have been successful either

Appealing ideas, but not militarily practical

Joe S.
11-04-2008, 11:04 AM
I have read American Caesar and more.

Military genius, ego maniac, and in my opinion, poorly suited for the Oval Office

Excellent Summation Regards,

Joe S.

Bob Gutermuth
11-04-2008, 11:06 AM
Ted, you may be right, but I like to debate the 'what ifs'. My favorite is what if Booth had missed and Lincoln had overseen the reconstruction? that would have been a significant change in one of the most difficult periods in American history, the ramifications of which are with us today.

Lucky Seven
11-04-2008, 11:23 AM
I think that this country will "Change" forever by 9am tomorrow....

The USA will be a weaker.....

More vulnerable .......

Soclialst country.....

Defense budget will be easy to cut ..... who in their right mind will sign up under a Obama "Commander and Chief." ??????

Are the 95% of African Americans that are voting for Obama because he is black...... going to go their local Armed Forces recruiting office to sign up to serve the Messiah ...... doubt it.

Not God Bless America .... if Obama wins.

God HELP America .... if Obama wins.

Patrick Johndrow
11-04-2008, 11:39 AM
I have read American Caesar and more.

Military genius, ego maniac, and in my opinion, poorly suited for the Oval Office




Or in my opinion military genius, confident to the bone and to good of a man to be a politician.

FoggMoore
11-04-2008, 12:38 PM
Based on American Ceasar and The Coldest Winter, my opinion of MacArthur is that he was primarily concerned with self-aggrandizement, surrounded himself with sycophants, gave no credit to subordinates, ignored the training and supplying of American troops in Korea prior to hostilities, grossly underestimated the ability of the North Korean troops and the tactical affect of the Korean terrain, disregarded reports and intelligence gathered by our troops in Korea because it did not comport with his statements that the North Koreans were of no consequence militarily, misrepresented conditions in Korea to the administration and Joint Chiefs, and brazenly flaunted the orders of the Administration and the Joint Chiefs.

Bob Gutermuth
11-04-2008, 12:47 PM
Whatever his personality faults and he had them, MacArthur was a winner. He and Bull and Blood & Guts can be forgiven much because of their competence, and fighting ability. Had things been left to an incompetent like Monty we would be singing Deutschland uber Alles at baseball games.

K G
11-04-2008, 12:52 PM
I have read American Caesar and more.

Military genius, ego maniac, and in my opinion, poorly suited for the Oval Office


As evidenced by his conduct in the Pacific Theatre in WWII and his conduct during the Korean "police action", Douglas did not play well with others

He did, of course, have a flair for the theatrical (witness Leyte)
And he did know how to turn a phrase (Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away)
And he was a military genius (Island Hopping in the Pacific and Inchon landings)

But, in my opinion, not presidential matter



Based on American Ceasar and The Coldest Winter, my opinion of MacArthur is that he was primarily concerned with self-aggrandizement, surrounded himself with sycophants, gave no credit to subordinates, ignored the training and supplying of American troops in Korea prior to hostilities, grossly underestimated the ability of the North Korean troops and the tactical affect of the Korean terrain, disregarded reports and intelligence gathered by our troops in Korea because it did not comport with his statements that the North Koreans were of no consequence militarily, misrepresented conditions in Korea to the administration and Joint Chiefs, and brazenly flaunted the orders of the Administration and the Joint Chiefs.

An overwhelming trifecta of reasons why MacArthur should not have been President. More than half of us might never had been born had he had his way in North Korea/China....not to mention that nuclear winter would be a recent memory.....

So glad things ain't what they used to be regards,

kg

Mike Tome
11-04-2008, 12:58 PM
Mr. Moderator, my friend Chris A.,

Is there a way to resurrect this thread in 4 years so we can see if in fact these predictions of doom and gloom are in fact found true? Talk about no faith in the American public.....

Looks like we're going to survive George W...... I think we'll manage whatever the outcome of today.

Bob Gutermuth
11-04-2008, 01:30 PM
Keith, I'm not so sure of your scenario. The chi coms did not have nukes at the time, and olthough the Sovs did, I don't know if Uncle Joe would have gotten in the fight on the side of the Chi Coms. Even then he knew they were a threat to the USSR.

RedHeadedHurricane
11-04-2008, 01:35 PM
I've got a new ad campaign slogan that mimics the "What's in Your Wallet" catch phrase! Now it's gonna be "What was in Your Wallet?"

K G
11-04-2008, 01:42 PM
Joe wasn't nearly as concerned about China as he was the US. He sacrificed millions of his own comrades in WWII to defeat the Axis; by the time of the Korean War, he'd have thought nothing about exacting the same price on China to have a kill shot at the US.

My "nuclear winter" scenario had to do more with the effect after the war, when he'd have been President and had his finger on the "launch" button.

JMHO....;-)

kg

cgoeson
11-04-2008, 02:44 PM
I live in a republican county of a very republican state (Kansas) and had to wait 90 minutes in line to vote this morning after arriving at 5:50 am, 10 minutes before the polls opened.

Republicans are turning out in huge numbers here.

Obama couldn't get elected dog catcher here regards. ...Don

So why in the world do you have a Democrat Governor?

Granddaddy
11-04-2008, 03:31 PM
History says the Soviets had little resources (men & equipment) left with which to fight IMMEDIATELY after WWII ending in Europe. Therefore a senario of pressing the Soviets from the east at that time would certainly have been more realistic than waiting until both the Soviets & China (& their proxies) had rebuilt/build formidable ground forces just prior to the Korean conflict. Unfortunately the failure to effectively confront both the Soviets & China during the intervening years until Reagan became president left much of Asia & eastern Europe to those marxist regimes to control & derive wealth for their purposes. When Trumann said no to pressing on in Korea he took the threat of military action to achieve military victory off the table and began a doctrine of using military action only to achieve limited political purposes that has continued to exist up to the present.

FoggMoore
11-04-2008, 05:07 PM
David,

I was under the impression that at the end of WWII the Soviet Union had retooled and had a large, experienced, and modern army and air force. The USSR had also rebuilt and modernized its industrial capability.

The US at the end of WWII was tired of war. When you suggest attacking the USSR from the East, are you suggesting that we should have gone through China?

It is my understanding that Reagan didn't bring the USSR to its knees, but rather it was the USSR attempting to keep up with our military spending for approximately four decades.

stoney
11-04-2008, 06:11 PM
Whatever his personality faults and he had them, MacArthur was a winner. He and Bull and Blood & Guts can be forgiven much because of their competence, and fighting ability. Had things been left to an incompetent like Monty we would be singing Deutschland uber Alles at baseball games.

Bob
you have a seriously different take on history. McArthur was anything but a military genius. He was hopelessly out of touch with the pacific theatre particularily the new guniea campaign.Dougs comunicaes were a laughing stock around the world in 1942. Strong rumor has it he ran away from the germans in 1918 and he definitely ran away from the japs in 1941. He may have had a great presence but he was a massive ego manic greatly disliked in Washington and a poor commander because of his penchance to blame other people for his failings.Patton likewise is over rated. It was his lack of strategic thinking that allowed Hans Hube to successfully withdraw most of his panzers and almost all of his german and italian troops from Sicily in 1943. IT WAS BECAUSE OF PATTONS INCOMPETANCE that he was passed over for Bradley , much Pattons junior, to head the US forces for the liberation of Europe. Almost everyone universally agrees that the Germans had the best Generals and they collectively after the war rated Troy Middleton and Lightening Joe Collins as the 2 best US generals of WW2
Pattons shining moment came during the battle of the bulge. His superior staff work allowed him to be the only US general to foresee the attack and respond effectively. Pattons disregard for casualities and his "blood and guts bravedo" doesnt allow him to be ranked in the same catogry as a true professional like Monty(another ego manic)
Another patton debacle happened on 28th march 1945. In what Bradley described as the "brashest; decision of WW2. Patton sent sent a task force 50 miles behind german lines to liberate a POW camp. they liberated the camp but took 2/3 casualities and ended up surrendering the next day.
Patton was in essence a small version of Zhokov.Both commnders cultivated an image of a swashbuckling military hero, but to my mind a far greater but much less publicized American hero was Vinegar Joe who did extradinary things in Indo China, Burma and mainland china
To suggest that we should have taken on the commies in 1945 is an absurd idea. Their army was about 3 times our size and much more battle hardened. We might of lost!!! Arent we lucky Patton never got his way!!! and that a deranged Mc Arthur got the hook in Korea
As for your baseball i dont think you need worry about having to sing the Horst Wessel song , the Germans much like the rest of the world have no interest in baseball and wouldnt be bothered

BonMallari
11-04-2008, 06:28 PM
My dad was a US Army captain in the Philipines and General MacArthur was very well loved there, he was my dad's hero. We used to go to Fort MacArthur when it was in existence in San Pedro Ca. on a regular basis, just so my dad could pay tribute to the General's statue..you dont even want to know how many times my dad played the movie with Gregory Peck over and over again. we even had a full military funeral at his request at Fort Sam Houston, complete with gun salute and trumpeter playing taps...very moving.

Granddaddy
11-04-2008, 06:40 PM
David,

I was under the impression that at the end of WWII the Soviet Union had retooled and had a large, experienced, and modern army and air force. The USSR had also rebuilt and modernized its industrial capability.

The US at the end of WWII was tired of war. When you suggest attacking the USSR from the East, are you suggesting that we should have gone through China?

It is my understanding that Reagan didn't bring the USSR to its knees, but rather it was the USSR attempting to keep up with our military spending for approximately four decades.

Soviets lost approx 25 million during WWII. Those men & women could not be replaced IMMEDIATELY. As for equipment, Soviets began to modernize their equipment from their initial battle defeats by the Nazis. That said they did not have the atom bomb IMMEDIATELY after ending WWII nor the modern equipment, particularly airpower of the western allies.

My point above was not to advocate continuing a war against the Soviets immediately after WWII but rather to point out it appears to have been a more reasonable option as opposed to a full scale confrontation by the time of the Korean conflict. I.e, Soviets were less prepared in 1946 than in 1950. Also in 1946, Nationalist China would have supported & welcomed that option. Of course, like now, civilized people don't like war and a decision to continue a war against the Soviet Union even as WWII was ending would not have had the commitment politically necessary. Also as we would have been seen by much of the world as the aggressors in such a move.

I will make this point however, if we continue to transfer our wealth to China & the middle east, we will not have the ability to sustain a credible threat to their designs for global dominance in the future. In addition, Russia with its natural resource exportation is also regaining financial wealth to again impose its will upon the world. Conflict & confrontation are coming, it's just a matter of when. Ironically, we are making all this possible by our exportation of technology & applied knowledge.

Ted Shih
11-04-2008, 06:51 PM
Soviets lost approx 25 million during WWII. Those men & women could not be replaced IMMEDIATELY. As for equipment, Soviets began to modernize their equipment from their initial battle defeats by the Nazis. That said they did not have the atom bomb IMMEDIATELY after ending WWII nor the modern equipment, particularly airpower of the western allies.


Notwithstanding their losses by the time that the Soviets had captured Berlin, they had

- More tanks than the Allies
- Better tanks than the Allies (the T34 was the best tank of the war)
- More men/women in their armed forces than the allies
- The largest artillery forces ever seen in modern combat

They did not have the atom bomb (but we shot our wad of bombs in the Pacific)
And the quality of their air force was not up to the standard of the allies

However, they had crushed the Nazi Armies (teen agers and grandparents defended Berlin with Mausers and Panzerfausts)


Conflict with the Russians was hardly the walk in the park that Patton suggested

Granddaddy
11-04-2008, 06:58 PM
Again, my point was Soviets were less prepared in 1946 than 1950 - when MacArthur suggested he take the fight to China by the opportunity provided by the Korean conflict.

The Soviet capabilities are well documented at WWII's ending, also in 1950. Same info available for Rep of China (known as red China) at 1946 & 1950. And both were better prepared in 1950 when MacArthur would have sustained the conflict through Korea.

stoney
11-04-2008, 07:17 PM
Notwithstanding their losses by the time that the Soviets had captured Berlin, they had

- More tanks than the Allies
- Better tanks than the Allies (the T34 was the best tank of the war)
- More men/women in their armed forces than the allies
- The largest artillery forces ever seen in modern combat

They did not have the atom bomb (but we shot our wad of bombs in the Pacific)
And the quality of their air force was not up to the standard of the allies

However, they had crushed the Nazi Armies (teen agers and grandparents defended Berlin with Mausers and Panzerfausts)


Conflict with the Russians was hardly the walk in the park that Patton suggested
ted
you are correct on all but one point
the best tank in WW2 was undoubtedly the king tiger. Michael Whitman killed 27 shermans in one day alone during the normandy campaign.however the King Tiger was never produced in large enough numbers to make a difference and you are absolutely right the T34 was the best mass produced tank of WW2

Ted Shih
11-04-2008, 08:00 PM
ted
you are correct on all but one point
the best tank in WW2 was undoubtedly the king tiger. Michael Whitman killed 27 shermans in one day alone during the normandy campaign.however the King Tiger was never produced in large enough numbers to make a difference and you are absolutely right the T34 was the best mass produced tank of WW2

Depends on what you consider to be best

King Tiger limited because of:
- Fuel economy
- Weight
- Track size
- Reliability issues

Not mobile, limited to highways, and as you mentioned, never produced in sufficient numbers to make a difference

Patrick Johndrow
11-04-2008, 08:01 PM
My dad was a US Army captain in the Philipines and General MacArthur was very well loved there, he was my dad's hero. We used to go to Fort MacArthur when it was in existence in San Pedro Ca. on a regular basis, just so my dad could pay tribute to the General's statue..you dont even want to know how many times my dad played the movie with Gregory Peck over and over again. we even had a full military funeral at his request at Fort Sam Houston, complete with gun salute and trumpeter playing taps...very moving.

And there you have the difference between a REAL soldier and a bunch of arm chair want to be warriors. Your father sounded like a great man bonjovi. Thanks for the story


There is nothing funnier than average men critiquing great men.

If I remember right I think we whipped the Nazi’s and Japanese’s asses back during WWII and we should have jerked a knot in Stalin’s butt while we were over there. Never underestimate the desire of an American soldier to win…NEVER.

BonMallari
11-04-2008, 08:10 PM
And there you have the difference between a REAL soldier and a bunch of arm chair want to be warriors. Your father sounded like a great man bonjovi. Thanks for the story


There is nothing funnier than average men critiquing great men.

If I remember right I think we whipped the Nazi’s and Japanese’s asses back during WWII and we should have jerked a knot in Stalin’s butt while we were over there. Never underestimate the desire of an American soldier to win…NEVER.

My father was a good military man and recipient of both the Bronze Star and the Silver Star w/gallantry...unfortunately the Army never left my dad and my dad never left the Army, kind of the like the character in the movie the Great Santini....General MacArthur was a great man...period..

Ted Shih
11-04-2008, 10:11 PM
There is nothing funnier than average men critiquing great men.



Or wannabees who mistake eloquence for judgment.

stoney
11-04-2008, 11:11 PM
Or wannabees who mistake eloquence for judgment.

very very good point Ted
Patrick,i think you have been living in a bubble.The major land battles of the european theatre occurred on the eastern front.When you say we whipped the germans ass I am assuming by we you mean the russians,australians ,brits ,canadians, and all the other members of the british commonwealth as well as the Americans.We certainly didnt whip them even though we severly outnumbered themThey were better than we were, we just had to many resources for them in the end
Bon Im sure your father was a fine soldier and i commend him for his devotion to his CO.Many Americans feel the same way about McArthur but Im sure Wainwright didnt see it that way

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 09:56 AM
True enough, not everey major land battle in Europe was fought on the Western Front, but how many of those battles on the Eastern Front would have been won without Lend Lease? It was the US Merchant Marine and the industrial base of the US that kept the Sovs in the war. It was also not Zhukov and Koniev who won the war for the Sovs, but Generals January and February. In retrospect had the Wehrmacht beaten the Sovs at Kharkov , Stalingrad and Kursk that wouldn't have been a bad thing, it would have helped weaken the USSR after the war. The south Pacific effort was similar, without Bull Halsey and the US Navy, how long would the Australian and NZ Navies have stood up to Yamamoto and company?

stoney
11-05-2008, 05:39 PM
I was at West Point the day in May 1962 when McArthur gave the speech. After lunch he rose and spoke to us without notes and delivered what many to believe was the finest speech ever delivered by an American.
Your post is full of misrepresentations and does not reflect the feeling of his fellow soldiers. Many of his former conrades in arms were there at WP that day. They sat in awe of a great military mind. It is interesting that today there are statues of the two you wish to disparage on the Plain at West Point. Someone obviously found their leadership to be something worth emulating.

McArthur was certainly an impressive speach maker however.McArthur was one of the USA's most overrated generals.When he came to Australia in 1941 he was hailed as a saviour and feted by the australian public.The truth is that washington wonted to get rid of him and australia was about as far away as they could send him.the decision to send him to Australia from the philipines came from pressure from the Australian PM, John Curtain. McArthur could have stayed and fought if he had pushed hard enough but he was miracoiusly spared the fate of his successor Wainwright.He and his australian sidekick Blamey, grossly mis handled the new guinea campaign.McArthur was not a great warrior because he never got within 30 miles of a combat zone in WW2 except for photo shoots.To be fair he is acclaimed for his heroism as a divisional commander in WW1 He issued orders that demonstrated his total lack of understanding of the front line situation. he was very good at shifting the blame for all his gaffs and was greatly disliked by his immediate subordinates although his men still believed all the PR b/s that his office spewed forth. he is the second most disliked general in australia behind Blamey. Blamey will go down in infamy for giving that sickening speech to the 39th battalion about the rabbit that runs away . The 39th had just fought a fightening withdrawl against the best jungle fighters in the world and although outnumbered by 5 to 1 had inflicted massive losses on the japs on the Kokoda trail despite McArthur telling them to take offensive action when it wasnt possible
To get a little historical perspective maybe you should read some of mark Boatners books He is an emminent US historian , Professor at West Point and WW2 vet In Australia McArthur disparaged his own troops and was very critical of the Australians ( amongst the finest troops in the world). he clashed with many Australian generals but managed to engineer Blameys appointment as Aust GOC Mc Arthur expected to direct the main effort against the japs but King and Nimitz saw to it that the pacific theatre was primarily a navy show. King and Nimitz also disliked Mc Arthur
To McArthurs credit he is acclaimed for a particulariy brillant peice of generalship. His leapfrogging strategy carried out by Halsey, isolated the powerful jap garrison in Rabal and new britan with miminal casualities
As a civil administrator in Japan after WW2 McArthur excelled and gained universal acclaim
In Korea he had both success and massive failure His amphibious attack at Inchon was a masterpeice of military excellence but he then made serious mistakes. the first was to order another landing at Wonsan the second was his inability to grasp the concept of limited war and the third was his diasterous inability to anticipate the chinse reaction to his threat to their border at Yalu river this led to a humiliating and costly defeat. He finally got the hook for insubordination.
Like most things the truth about ' great Men" is always a little different from the publicity
and McArthurs publicity machine was unparelled

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 06:47 PM
I spent parts of the last 2 yrs reading Addm Samuel Elliot Morrison's History of US Naval Operations IN WWII. Even though Adm Morrison was Navy, he is full of praise for Gen MacArthur, interservice rivalries not withstanding. without Mac, Chesty Puller, Bull, Howlin Mad Smith, and others lots of folks would be singing Kimigayo instead of Waltzin Matilda or God Save the Queen at rugby matches.

stoney
11-05-2008, 07:25 PM
I spent parts of the last 2 yrs reading Addm Samuel Elliot Morrison's History of US Naval Operations IN WWII. Even though Adm Morrison was Navy, he is full of praise for Gen MacArthur, interservice rivalries not withstanding. without Mac, Chesty Puller, Bull, Howlin Mad Smith, and others lots of folks would be singing Kimigayo instead of Waltzin Matilda or God Save the Queen at rugby matches.

not sure what point you are trying to make Bob.No one is belittling the US involvement in the Pacific theatre. The japs are enthusiastic rugby players but not in our class I hope we always contiue to sing waltzing matilda before our test matches.They are a sporting event without parrarell
bob wrote
"True enough, not everey major land battle in Europe was fought on the Western Front"
this is a strange statement Bob , by far the biggest and most numerous battles of WW2 were fought on the eastern front.I think the Russians would have a very different take on history to you

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 08:08 PM
My point is that without the US Navy,and land forces, there would have been NO allied victory in the Pacific. The Royal Navies of Australia, NZ and Holland were no match for the IJN across the Pac, niether were their respective armies. Mac and Bull and the others saved the bacon of these and other allied nations. For this alone, mac et al deserve to be forgiven whatever foibles they may have had.

Had the Sovs been beaten at Stalingrad, Kursk and Kharkov, the Nazis would still have lost the war, but a bonus for the US and the world would have been a weakened USSR with a corresponding lack of ability to stir the pot in places like Kenya, or to be competetive in the cold war.

stoney
11-05-2008, 08:33 PM
My point is that without the US Navy,and land forces, there would have been NO allied victory in the Pacific. The Royal Navies of Australia, NZ and Holland were no match for the IJN across the Pac, niether were their respective armies. Mac and Bull and the others saved the bacon of these and other allied nations. For this alone, mac et al deserve to be forgiven whatever foibles they may have had.

Had the Sovs been beaten at Stalingrad, Kursk and Kharkov, the Nazis would still have lost the war, but a bonus for the US and the world would have been a weakened USSR with a corresponding lack of ability to stir the pot in places like Kenya, or to be competetive in the cold war.

Bob no one is arguing that allied victory in the pacific would have been possible without the US forces but victory in europe without the Russians would have been very problematic.If they could have redeployed most of the eastern front army groups to france we would have been in massive trouble. their staff work, generals ,equipment and fighting qualities were all superior to ours.But we did have air superiority. as for forgiving McArthur for his mistakes?? I still think he was overrated. I do share your high opinion of howlin mad Smith, Bull Hawsley Nimitz and king. Dont forget the quiet but effective mark Clark in Italy and the best US commander in europe, lightening Joe Collins

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 08:48 PM
Not so hot about Mark Clark, his indecision cost the allies dearly at Anzio

stoney
11-05-2008, 11:23 PM
Not so hot about Mark Clark, his indecision cost the allies dearly at Anzio

Anzio was an intelligence mistake.Mark Clark cannot be blamed for that. he also faced i think from memory the Hermann Goring division who were well dug in , recently reinforced and superbly led;. Mark Clark was a team player much like Ike and a very competant general. It must have been very trying having to deal with fragiles like Patton and Monty.If they had been in the German army they would have been busted back to divisional command level.
mark Clark like Bradley and Allan Brooke got the job done without the pearl handle colt 45s and the shiney helmut

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2008, 11:27 PM
Clark was the honcho, any foul up can rightly be laid at his doorstep. He could have made a breakout but passed up the window of opportunity.

Monty darned near lost the war with Market Garden and the foul ups there. I did have a little respect for him until I read A Bridge Too Far.

stoney
11-06-2008, 01:05 AM
Clark was the honcho, any foul up can rightly be laid at his doorstep. He could have made a breakout but passed up the window of opportunity.

Monty darned near lost the war with Market Garden and the foul ups there. I did have a little respect for him until I read A Bridge Too Far.

Clark was not as reckless with other peoples lives as some others and your only as good as your intelligence

Field Marshall Sir Bernard Law Montgomery offers a fascinating insight into command and leadership at the highest levels, . Before August 1942 Montgomery was a virtual unknown outside the British Army. However Montgomery motivated a defeated Eighth Army to rise and regain the initiative, and inspired the British people’s resilience through to wars end. Indeed, after the war Churchill observed ‘…before Alamein we never had a victory; after Alamein we never had a defeat’. Bradley dubbed Montgomery the ‘Dean of the Allied field commanders’, while Eisenhower called him ‘able, but very conceited’. Accused of failing to adequately employ the tenets of mobile warfare, yet credited as the only allied General never to have lost a campaign. In the chronicles of twentieth century military history, the single universal agreement on Montgomery is that his superiors tolerated him, his contemporaries held him in disdain, and his subordinates revered him. With the fame and controversy surrounding his career, particularly following the defeat of Rommel’s Afrika Korps in the North African desert in 1942 and the failure of Operation Market-Garden in 1944, For the rest of his life, Montgomery avowed that Operation Market-Garden was ‘90% effective’, and would have succeeded but for ‘unfavourable weather delaying the build-up of forces’. What led Montgomery to mount such a monumentally unsuccessful operation? Riding a bow-wave of success from the North-African desert and the Normandy landings, why did the ultra-conservative, methodical field marshal embark on such a dubious and impractical plan?
It beats me how Monty could defend market garden maybe his colossal ego wouldnt let him admit his mistake , Not withstanding he is still the most successful allied commander of WW2 along with Zukhov

Bob Gutermuth
11-06-2008, 09:49 AM
Monty won one battle and lost one, El alamein and Market Garden. He also almost screwed up the invasion of Sicily, where Patton and his boys had to save the day. Any half competent General could have done what Zhukov did allowing for the size of his command. Give me George S Patton, who with his 3rd Army pulled out of one engagement moved 100 plus miles and settled the Battle of the Bulge and Anthony McCauliff and the Battered Ba--ards of Bastonge as candidates for top commanders. Of course Field Marshall Erwin Rommell must be added to the list of top field commanders.

Patrick Johndrow
11-06-2008, 05:57 PM
Or wannabees who mistake eloquence for judgment.

Irony is even funnier sometimes

Patrick Johndrow
11-06-2008, 06:55 PM
very very good point Ted
Patrick,i think you have been living in a bubble.The major land battles of the european theatre occurred on the eastern front.When you say we whipped the germans ass I am assuming by we you mean the russians,australians ,brits ,canadians, and all the other members of the british commonwealth as well as the Americans.We certainly didnt whip them even though we severly outnumbered themThey were better than we were, we just had to many resources for them in the end


Not a bubble at all....Without the USA Europe would be speaking German today. To suggest that it was "group" effort that the USA just kinda of helped out a little is absurd. I have nothing but admiration for the great men of history and if disrespecting great historical figures (disguised as critiquing) is your deal more power to you…if it fills some hole good one on ya.

stoney
11-06-2008, 11:39 PM
Not a bubble at all....Without the USA Europe would be speaking German today. To suggest that it was "group" effort that the USA just kinda of helped out a little is absurd. I have nothing but admiration for the great men of history and if disrespecting great historical figures (disguised as critiquing) is your deal more power to you…if it fills some hole good one on ya.

Patrick
where did i say the US just helped out a little?????????? and yes Patrick whether u like it or not it was a group effort and the major player in the group was the Russians.Thats right Patrick not the US of A but the Russians who suffered 25 million war casualties and did the majority of the fighting. Over 120 countries combined to take on Germany and Japan.The US involvement was significent but the war began in sept 1939 and the first US major battle in the west was at the Kasserine Pass in febuary 1943 and we all know what happened there. As for all this B/S about disrespecting great historical figures, you need to look a little further than the hype and try and educate yourself. I would be happy to supply you with a reading list if your interested or ask Ted, he seems to have a very good general knowledge of WW2

Bob Gutermuth
11-07-2008, 11:02 AM
Considering all the grief that the USSR caused Europe and the rest of the world after the war they didn't lose enough people, especially in the military.

Hew
11-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Monty was an animal molester and Rommel wore women's panties. And don't even get me going on Zukhov...;-) j/k

I have a question that's been puzzling me for years and have never been able to find out the answer to. A scene from "The War" on PBS last night reminded me of it...

What is the white cream/paste on the faces and necks of topside sailors while in battle or during shore bombardments? Sometimes, in lieu of the cream, you see guys wearing white facemasks that cover the neck too. The only guess I have is that it protects them from acrid gunpowder residue/smoke. Thanks in advance.

K G
11-10-2008, 04:22 PM
My guess is zinc oxide.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8025sunscreens.html

It would appear that it was used to protect the face from flash heat and burns as well as the Pacific sun.

kg

stoney
12-08-2008, 02:34 AM
I was watching the last days of WW2 just now on fox history channel and they had an interview with an american sailor who acted as a aide to Admiral Nimitz during 1944/45.Nimitz had a large framed picture of MacArthur on his wall and after several months the youthful aide plucked up the guts to ask the admiral why he kept McArthurs picture on the wall. Everyone knew that the 2 didnt get along. Nimitz stared down at the young ensign and in his slow texan drawl calmly replied
"Son i never wont to forget what a jackass looks like"