Good to know. Thank you. And I did mean Palermo Italy.
Most over-rated WWII Leader
-
If Hitler had supplied Rommel with what he had requested… namely: another Panzer Division and enough oil and ammo for a three-week campaign of solid driving and fighting, Egypt would have fallen.
Even if Hitler had tried to send Rommel what he needed overwhelming British air superiority, intelligence, and T-class submarines might well have sunk any ships carrying Panzers en route, and they would have been bloody useless at the bottom of the Med.
-
Colonel Klink! Hogan and his men ran circles around him. I don’t really think Stalag 13 deserved its reputation as escape proof.
-
Colonel Klink! Hogan and his men ran circles around him. I don’t really think Stalag 13 deserved its reputation as escape proof.
Yea that guy was terrible. Id vote for him too. You could dress Sgt. Shultz like Hitler and Klink would be easily fooled!
-
As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).
Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?
-
Colonel Sanders!
-
-
Well of course, that is the obvious choice :)
-
I’d have to agree with Macarthur and Patton, they are well known and famous for their bombastic rhetoric and PR crews, but they werent that great in terms of commanders. They made alot of bad decissions and would waste their advantages on stupid prestige missions. Now, a great under rated allied commander, I think was Joe Stillwell. The things he managed to do with some of the lowest priority troops in the world and the worst supplies is simply amazing. Also, their is a long list of under rated commanders from the Chinese Nationalist army during WW2 who, when you think of the quality of their troops on average, its really amazing that the won ever. Commanders like Du Yuming, commander of the 200th division, Chinas first Mechnaized division. Xu Yu, commander of forces in Hunan province, who defeated the Japanese 3 times when they tried to take the provinical capital of Changsha. Also, Li Zhongren and Bai Chongxi, 2 of the best, who managed to stop the Japanese drive on Wuhan and kept the Japanese armies advancing from the North from linking up with those comming from Shanghai in the battle of taierzhuang. The list could go on.
-
As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).
Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?
He did not LOSE the Philippines! His lines of supply were cut off buy the Japanese navy and air force. Most of his land forces were Philippine army. The U.S. air forces that were lost on the ground would only have prolonged the fight a little longer. He had no hope of resupply or reinforcement. He did not LOSE the Korean conflict. The North Koreans were soundly defeated. Then the Chinese started a totally new war. Truman was worried that MacArthur would escalate the war (which the Chinese had already done) so he relieved the general and settled for a stalemate.
-
I’m surprised to see General Patton’s name pop up in this discussion. The Germans considered him (correctly) to be the most capable, aggressive, and outside-the-box general the Anglo-American force had. It was precisely that belief which led the Germans to conclude Patton would be in charge of the D-Day invasion.
Patton was clearly superior to the slow, plodding Montgomery, or even to any of his American contemporaries (including Eisenhower). Many are aware that Patton’s performance in the Battle of the Bulge was brilliant. What is somewhat less well-known is that his performance in France as a whole was first-rate. Joseph Stalin said that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton’s advance across France. (And that was after many years of the Red Army fighting and gaining experience.)
Of all the generals the British or Americans had, Patton was the closest to a Guderian, a Rommel, or a von Manstein. Those four generals are characterized by a flexibility of thought, an understanding of the value of combined arms and of mobile warfare, and a skilled aggressiveness which made each of them highly formidable adversaries.
-
As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).
Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?
He did not LOSE the Philippines! His lines of supply were cut off buy the Japanese navy and air force. Most of his land forces were Philippine army. The U.S. air forces that were lost on the ground would only have prolonged the fight a little longer. He had no hope of resupply or reinforcement. He did not LOSE the Korean conflict. The North Koreans were soundly defeated. Then the Chinese started a totally new war. Truman was worried that MacArthur would escalate the war (which the Chinese had already done) so he relieved the general and settled for a stalemate.
Poor MacArthur had his work cut out for him for sure. Can you name anything that he was in charge of that he actually won?
-
As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).
Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?
He did not LOSE the Philippines! His lines of supply were cut off buy the Japanese navy and air force. Most of his land forces were Philippine army. The U.S. air forces that were lost on the ground would only have prolonged the fight a little longer. He had no hope of resupply or reinforcement. He did not LOSE the Korean conflict. The North Koreans were soundly defeated. Then the Chinese started a totally new war. Truman was worried that MacArthur would escalate the war (which the Chinese had already done) so he relieved the general and settled for a stalemate.
Poor MacArthur had his work cut out for him for sure. Can you name anything that he was in charge of that he actually won?
He was in command of the entire southwest pacific area. Seems like I heard that he did ok there even with the limited navy that he had.
-
I’m surprised to see General Patton’s name pop up in this discussion. The Germans considered him (correctly) to be the most capable, aggressive, and outside-the-box general the Anglo-American force had. It was precisely that belief which led the Germans to conclude Patton would be in charge of the D-Day invasion.
Patton was clearly superior to the slow, plodding Montgomery, or even to any of his American contemporaries (including Eisenhower). Many are aware that Patton’s performance in the Battle of the Bulge was brilliant. What is somewhat less well-known is that his performance in France as a whole was first-rate. Joseph Stalin said that the Red Army could neither have planned nor executed Patton’s advance across France. (And that was after many years of the Red Army fighting and gaining experience.)
Of all the generals the British or Americans had, Patton was the closest to a Guderian, a Rommel, or a von Manstein. Those four generals are characterized by a flexibility of thought, an understanding of the value of combined arms and of mobile warfare, and a skilled aggressiveness which made each of them highly formidable adversaries.
Yes, Patton was as good as we had in Europe and the Germans feared him.
-
I guess how one treats his soldier is irrelevant?
Patton was nearly court martialed for slapping a crying soldier in the face. I think that puts him front and center for " Worst World War II General " ever.
I think the most overrated leader is definitely Montgomery.
Nobody liked him, not even Churchill. He considered Operation Market Garden, as noted in his after battle reports to be a " moderate success. "
-
I guess how one treats his soldier is irrelevant?
Patton was nearly court martialed for slapping a crying soldier in the face. I think that puts him front and center for " Worst World War II General " ever.
I think the most overrated leader is definitely Montgomery.
Nobody liked him, not even Churchill. He considered Operation Market Garden, as noted in his after battle reports to be a " moderate success. "
Patton felt that if one soldier did less than his fair share, it meant some other soldier would have to do more than his fair share. To allow soldiers to abandon the front, therefore, represented an injustice to the other soldiers left behind to do the fighting and the dying.
There were two slapping incidents, including the one you mentioned. In both cases, Patton had encountered a soldier who had abandoned the front; and who had refused Patton’s command to return to combat.
Patton’s attitudes about this subject are largely a product of the culture in which he was raised. The U.S. has traditionally had four major cultural groups: the Puritan, the Cavalier, the Quaker, and the Borderer. Of those four, the Borderer is the most warlike. The Borderers are descended from people who lived in the six northernmost English counties, the Scotch Lowlands, and northern Ireland. For many hundreds of years, that region was a constant war zone. As a consequence of all that war, Borderers adopted warrior values; including the kind of contempt for personal cowardice Patton displayed in the slapping incidents.
The Quaker group was by far the most pacifistic, and tended to oppose all wars on principle. Eisenhower was raised in that cultural group, and adopted a milder version of that group’s distaste for war. His initial reaction to the slapping incident–a desire to remove Patton from command–was typical of how a Quaker would see such a situation.
Given the cultural backgrounds of the two men, one would expect that the warrior (Patton) would favor harsher treatment for postwar Germany than the one with qualms about war (Eisenhower). Oddly enough, the opposite proved the case.
Patton was relieved of duty after openly revolting against the punitive occupation directive JCS 1067.[49] His view of the war was that with Hitler gone, the German army could be rebuilt into an ally in a potential war against the Russians, whom Patton notoriously despised and considered a greater menace than the Germans. During this period, he wrote that the Allied victory would be in vain if it led to a tyrant worse than Hitler and an army of “Mongolian savages” controlling half of Europe. Eisenhower had at last had enough, relieving Patton of all duties and ordering his return to the United States.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Patton#Relations_with_Eisenhower
JSC 1067 was specifically intended to starve the German people, as indicated in the below quote:
On March 20, 1945 President Roosevelt was warned that the JCS 1067 was not workable: it would let the Germans “stew in their own juice”. Roosevelt’s response was “Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!” Asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, “Why not?”[45] . . .
In his 1950 book Decision in Germany, Clay wrote, “It seemed obvious to us even then that Germany would starve unless it could produce for export and that immediate steps would have to be taken to revive industrial production”.[48] [Those steps were specifically forbidden under JCS 1067.]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan#JCS_1067
The fact that Eisenhower supported starving the Germans (JSC 1067), and Patton sacrificed his career to oppose the measure, tells me a lot more about the relative degree of kindness and morality the two men had, than does a mere slapping incident.
-
As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).
Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?
He did not LOSE the Philippines! His lines of supply were cut off buy the Japanese navy and air force. Most of his land forces were Philippine army. The U.S. air forces that were lost on the ground would only have prolonged the fight a little longer. He had no hope of resupply or reinforcement. He did not LOSE the Korean conflict. The North Koreans were soundly defeated. Then the Chinese started a totally new war. Truman was worried that MacArthur would escalate the war (which the Chinese had already done) so he relieved the general and settled for a stalemate.
I agree. MacArthur was actually a great leader. He just made a mistake by openly disagreeing with his commander-in-chief the President, Eisenhower.
-
wow…where to choose…if i had to make one pick…i think it would be Gen. Montgomery…assume Hitler sends Rommel what he wants and TORCH doesnt happen…how do u think he would have done?
Monty started the Battle of El Alemein in October 1942, one month before Torch
-
As far as overrated generals go I vote for MacArthur. What did he do besides loose the Philippine’s (when he had a 3:2 advantage over the Japanese) and loose the Korean war (ending with him being relieved of command).
Still he is looked at as one of the best generals of all time?
How was the Korean war lost? It was a draw(status quo ante bellum)
-
I guess how one treats his soldier is irrelevant?
Patton was nearly court martialed for slapping a crying soldier in the face. I think that puts him front and center for " Worst World War II General " ever.
I think the most overrated leader is definitely Montgomery.
Nobody liked him, not even Churchill. He considered Operation Market Garden, as noted in his after battle reports to be a " moderate success. "
Patton felt that if one soldier did less than his fair share, it meant some other soldier would have to do more than his fair share. To allow soldiers to abandon the front, therefore, represented an injustice to the other soldiers left behind to do the fighting and the dying.
There were two slapping incidents, including the one you mentioned. In both cases, Patton had encountered a soldier who had abandoned the front; and who had refused Patton’s command to return to combat.
Patton’s attitudes about this subject are largely a product of the culture in which he was raised. The U.S. has traditionally had four major cultural groups: the Puritan, the Cavalier, the Quaker, and the Borderer. Of those four, the Borderer is the most warlike. The Borderers are descended from people who lived in the six northernmost English counties, the Scotch Lowlands, and northern Ireland. For many hundreds of years, that region was a constant war zone. As a consequence of all that war, Borderers adopted warrior values; including the kind of contempt for personal cowardice Patton displayed in the slapping incidents.
The Quaker group was by far the most pacifistic, and tended to oppose all wars on principle. Eisenhower was raised in that cultural group, and adopted a milder version of that group’s distaste for war. His initial reaction to the slapping incident–a desire to remove Patton from command–was typical of how a Quaker would see such a situation.
Given the cultural backgrounds of the two men, one would expect that the warrior (Patton) would favor harsher treatment for postwar Germany than the one with qualms about war (Eisenhower). Oddly enough, the opposite proved the case.
Patton was relieved of duty after openly revolting against the punitive occupation directive JCS 1067.[49] His view of the war was that with Hitler gone, the German army could be rebuilt into an ally in a potential war against the Russians, whom Patton notoriously despised and considered a greater menace than the Germans. During this period, he wrote that the Allied victory would be in vain if it led to a tyrant worse than Hitler and an army of “Mongolian savages” controlling half of Europe. Eisenhower had at last had enough, relieving Patton of all duties and ordering his return to the United States.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Patton#Relations_with_Eisenhower
JSC 1067 was specifically intended to starve the German people, as indicated in the below quote:
On March 20, 1945 President Roosevelt was warned that the JCS 1067 was not workable: it would let the Germans “stew in their own juice”. Roosevelt’s response was “Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!” Asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, “Why not?”[45] . . .
In his 1950 book Decision in Germany, Clay wrote, “It seemed obvious to us even then that Germany would starve unless it could produce for export and that immediate steps would have to be taken to revive industrial production”.[48] [Those steps were specifically forbidden under JCS 1067.]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_plan#JCS_1067
The fact that Eisenhower supported starving the Germans (JSC 1067), and Patton sacrificed his career to oppose the measure, tells me a lot more about the relative degree of kindness and morality the two men had, than does a mere slapping incident.
In one of those cases, the soldier was sick/shell-shocked;
-
Incorrect. There is no verifiable German source that rates Patton as ‘the best’ Allied General.
General Rundstedt said that “Patton was your best,” and even Hitler described Patton as “the most dangerous man [the Allies] have.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Patton#Relations_with_Eisenhower
According to Wilcox and a number of other historians, Patton was the American general most feared by the Germans. See: http://www.amazon.com/Target-Patton-Assassinate-General-George/dp/1596985798
That Patton was the American general the Germans respected and feared the most is also a statement I have seen in other history books. If you feel some other American general deserves the credit for being the most highly regarded by the Germans, please provide both that general’s name and citations to support your claim.
Suggested Topics
