Who do you think is the best american general.
Just put up a poll.Its my first time doing this,and if I forgot a general,very sorry
Maybe you should put another one as other. Then they can tell you who their like in there reply.
I meant in the poll.
I’m unsure how I’d go about comparing a tactician like Patton, who held field command, with a strategist like Eisenhower.
JT
That probably is a hard question for you. ( At least it sounds like it.) If you can not decide at all will you please tell us why you would choose the two as the same.
General Patton
General Patton was the ultimate Allie General. He led many attacks and was a great commander. He never liked Russia and Montgomery during World War 2. He was eager to beat Montgomery to Berlin and other strongheld citys by the Axis soldiers. By now Montgomery is disagreeing with Pattons plans in Europe. Patton however will not take orders from him. He goes by his own rules. (At least most of the orders, except when the war department recommends he do it.) So this is why Patton is the greatest General of World War 2 on all allied fronts.
Here is a picture of Patton with his dog.
Ah, at least I’m not voting for Patton, who speaked so much about killing that his soldiers murdered POWs, and who beat/slapped his own soldiers, and who said about blacks “I have no faith in the inherent fighting ability of the race”, and who used army resources for saving his son-in-law, and who looted nazi objects and turned them over to the Huntington Library… and so on…
_
I have never consider Patton as the Best Allies General. This madman dreamed to continie the war in 1945 agains Soviet Union. It’s obvoius his get to much pleasure for the war as a process.
I vote for D.Eisnhower.
Patton was an excellent self publicist and a reasonable general. Same for MacArthur. Eisenhower wasn’t all that good as a general, but was absolutely superb as a Field Marshal (i.e. in his job of commanding a multinational force in immense operations). I do not think there was another general on any side in WW2 (with the possible exception of Bill Slim) who could have commanded Overlord and the following operations until the defeat of Germany so effectively and with so little friction between allies. Eisenhower was also (in my opinion) one of the greatest presidents the US has ever had.
Eisenhower gets my vote. He was less controversial than the other two, and, though they each performed different roles, I would say that his performance was more effective than was that of the other two.
Was Nimitz the one you forgot?
but “Old Blood and Guts” was a great tank commander and and great general,yea he might be crazy byt he still is the best general in my my eyes.
I guess so.
I can’t say I know enough about Patton, beyond the hype, to comment. So I’m not disagreeing with you.
I would suppose that if one wants to be really meaningful about choosing who was the best General, then it would be better to begin by describing the sine qua non of a good General?
Then perhaps transfer this to the general discussion thread (please excuse the pun) and compare with others such as Zhukov etc - or has that been done already??
Rifleman, I have to applaud you. You always deliver simple, yet interesting, ideas for discussion that everyone appears to be able to get their teeth into.
I believe Patton was an Excellent General and tactician.Everybody has there quirks and you gotta remember Patton’s father was in the confederate calvary in the civil war,so obviously they are gonna be racist to a point because that was how he was brought up.As for the slappings I believe he went overboard,he had some excuses I know,but that still does not make up for it.As for Russia,generals do not decide where we go to war,they just tell us how to win it(or so they are supposed to).LOL Mcarthur wanted to nuke Korea so he had his quirks too!Eisenhower,I can’t say he was as good a general,but I though he was very good at handling his lower generals.
Okay, I hear what you’re saying. I know little of Patton. I wasn’t aware that his father was in the Confederate Cavalry, or that he was tinged with Racism.
I would argue that Macarthur wanting to ‘Nuke’ the Chinese displays a flaw in his character. However, if we step away from Korea and into WW2, what would you describe as being his flaws or his strengths in that conflict or, rather, what made him a good (or bad) general in that conflict.
We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Eisenhower was good at identifying those traits in his subordinates. But there is far more to good generalship than diplomacy, tactical skills or even charisma. For example: a general can do nothing without consideration for his logistical supply and lines of communication.
Of course, Napoleon argued that he would take a lucky general above all, but that was rhetoric.
I merely mentioned Zhukov as an example of introducing an international flavour to the debate. Within the British Army, there is great emphasis placed on trianing. Zhukov stated “Train hard! Fight easy!”. It has become ingrained within the ‘soldier-culture’ of the British Tommy. So, we like Zhukov. Then again, this is an American thread and we shouldn’t impinge on that.
As I have commented, I know little of Patton, so I would be looking for an explanation as to why he was such a good general… was he lucky?
By the way, some of us Brits also rather like Omar Bradley.
well thank you sir bravo
You’re welcome, sir!
Incidentally, is that a picture of your good-self, dressed as Patton?
You mean my avatar no sir if so its an actual picture of "Old Blood & Guts"Am younger then you think
I wasn’t thinking of your age. It could easily have been the result of a heavy session down the pub. 