General Douglas MacArthur this election day GDG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth

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

Not so hot about Mark Clark, his indecision cost the allies dearly at Anzio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted Shih

Or wannabees who mistake eloquence for judgment.

---

Irony is even funnier sometimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stoney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Johndrow

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

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.