I’m gonna cheat here and say all three!
They served in different theaters at different levels and filled niches that worked well for each. It would be very interesting to jumble them around and see how things would have turned out differently.
that’s true too but they can make decissions for 20 000 soldiers, but the soldiers can’t make they own decissions. Everyone should get the respect they erned and i respect a simple soldier more than a general.
There’s alot to be said about that.
This far too simplified. 
In modern times, when it comes down to making big decisions, for a general to have become a general he has to have proven that he is man of quality. In the British Army, if an officer doesn’t make the grade within five years, he recieves his marching orders i.e. he is dismissed. To achieve field rank and progress to Lieutenant Colonel he must succeed at staff college. To complement the academic side of soldiering, he must follow a certain career path which will enable him to gain the practical experience required to command large bodies of men in war. Not many achieve it. As one rises up to the apex of the pyramid, it becomes narrower. The whole process is about proving ones ability.
Soldiers, on the other hand, are trained to operate to a high standard. Those who demonstrate they have leadership ability are promoted to become junior NCOs. Once the rank of lance corporal is achieved, they can only progress by passing certain courses such as weapons instructor and tactical courses such as junior and senior NCOs courses which are extremely gruelling and tactically testing. The pressure is applied to to put them through their paces. Junior NCOs from armies all over the world, including the US Army, partake in these courses which are considered to be as tough as they come. Once qualified, an NCO can lead a platoon, and be raised to the rank of sergeant and upwards to Regimental Sergeant Major. It takes a lot of time to gain the experience to excell on these courses and it is reflected by the calibre of those who pass through them. Failure is not an option.
Generals are groomed for their job as soldiers are groomed for theirs. No one should consider either as being cowards or slackers (that’s an individual affair). Each as his duty to perform, and his responsibility either to his soldiers or to his mates/buddies.
When in a combat situation, individual soldiers have ample opportunites to use their initiative. If their leaders are killed in action, then the most senior or competent of the soldiers will have to take command.
For a practical example try reading up on Corporal Abols of 2 Para at Darwin Ridge in the Flalklands, after Colonel ‘H’ jones was killed.
And Bravo just said it.
But those were his good points!
Seriously, Patton was way overrated. Bellicose rhetoric does not a great general make. And that goes double for “Dug-out Doug” MacArthur.
This poll is seriously flawed. I like Ike, but others need to be considered. I’d take Omar Bradley over anyone…
Nor does relentless self-promotion through a heavily censored press, which was Doug’s specialty, make a great general. Except in the enduring public mind whose knowledge comes from such carefully managed sources. Mac was good, but he was a better politician and self-promoter than general.
This poll is seriously flawed. I like Ike, but others need to be considered. I’d take Omar Bradley over anyone…
Yes.
The poll also reflects a knowledge limited to publicly well known generals, rather than all effective generals.
For a great performance I think Gen Robert Eichelberger at Buna in Papua in December 1942 is hard to beat.
The US 32nd Infantry Division, an inexperienced, under trained, poorly supplied, racked by hunger and illness and not brilliantly led National Guard division had stalled at Buna. Some of the troops were so undisciplined and badly led that they had laid down their arms and were lounging about in the field, refusing to fight. Eichelberger was sent in by MacArthur to retrieve the situation. He did so. To convert a largely useless division into a moderately effective fighting force in a week or two is an outstanding achievement. To do it in the field with so many disadvantages is a brilliant achievement. Eichelberger did it by, among other things, personal leadership in things such as leading what might be the most highly ranked infantry reconnaissance patrol with various officers of staff and field rank into Japanese lines.
A few sidelines.
The 32nd Div, the Red Arrow Division, http://www.32nd-division.org/history/ww2/ww2.html went on to give great service. It was formed from Wisconsin and Michigan members. I believe it spent more time in combat than any other American Division in WWII.
When MacArthur told Eichelberger to take over (there are various versions of these events so I’ll stick to the common elements) he had Eichelberger and Eichelberger’s chief of staff before him. Mac told Eichelberger to sort out the 32nd by, if necessary, putting lieutenants (or sergeants) in charge of battalions and sergeants (or corporals) in charge of companies, as long as they would fight. Then he told Eichelberger that Eichelberger would succeed or not come back alive. Then Mac pointed to Eichelberger’s chief of staff and said “And that goes for your chief of staff, too.”.
Eichelberger recounts, somewhat derisively, in his book “Our Jungle Road to Tokyo” how Mac told him that if he was successful Mac would release his name to the press. It says all we need to know about Mac’s values and obsession with publicity.
Truth is, they were all important to the winning of the war,each in their own way, Though my personal favorite among the WWII Generals is Patton, Ike had his hands full trying to maintain cooperation between allies, and our own branches of service. Patton was the Pitbull "can do "guy.And Bradley kept the other two from strangling each other lol They all had tough jobs, and we cant interchange the man with the job. I would choose as “best General” for modern times, Gen. Smilin’ Jack Mountcastle. One of the flaming swords of the 1st. Armored Div. - Baron Raspenau -
erm , i would have to say patton , that would be my choice
can you explain your choice i tottaly agree with you though but what is your reason
Oh well. In the long run, seething self-promoters and bible thumping Pro-consuls like Macarthur will get history’s due. Patton was a horrible man but a great and aggressive general, proof that when the bullets start flying, that at least some of the bastards will be around to forge the point of the spear. Patton was a seriously, deeply seriously, flawed man, also with visions of grandeur, but he was fairly prodigious on the battlefield. Montgomery was fastidious and thorough to a fault. He was usually, but not always victorious, Market Garden being an example. Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands said of Montgomery, “We can’t afford too many of these victories.” It is instructive to remember as well that at El Alamein, Montgomery easily outnumbered Rommel by factors of 4-5 to one in almost every category of arms. But his troops seemed to have liked him a great deal. Eisenhower was not a field commander so the arguments hardly apply. Bradley was and he was solid, steadfast and successful.
This is an interesting discussion. I wonder how it will end up?
Agreed I love the hell out of this man, Primarly because he possessed qualities that I feel a general needed to possess more so a field general, Ike was a great man who cared about his guys too however bradley to my knowledge visited and cared for his troops on a level that many did no understand, He was cool ,collective and observant. I think he lead each battle he commanded with tact and a sort of foeshadow in mind thinking of ever possible outcome or possibilities.
I personally think Ike was a brilliant tactiction, considering the men under him i.e patton, macarthur.
I have a signed framed picture of Omar when he visited the Sgt Majors academy Fort Bliss when my father was a young buck sgt, then my mother was training supervisor of said acadmey and arranged the meeting between my father and the general, My father tells me he was very down to earth a well mannered kind man. I only wish I was around to meet him before he passed away.
MacArthur was a contemptible individual. Aside from his outzsized ego - General Marshall said to him, “General, you don’t have a staff; you have a court” - he was probably OK, but just OK as a field commander. His performance in the Philippines, however, in the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor was so strikingly incompetent that it merited courts martial. His performance in Korea really wasn’t much better - he never spent a single night in Korea during the time that he commanded AMERICAN troops there. It is also instructive that for all his ballyhooing, the heavy lifting in the Pacific War was done by the marines - they were the point of the spear, not the army. Comparing Patton to Eisenhower is apples to oranges and doesn’t really belong here in this discussion. Patton also had a titanic ego, but he performed in the field.
Patton did well in North Africa but was under Mark Clark in the Italian campaign and under Omar Bradley from Normandy to the end of the war but a great Field Commander.
Ike and MacArthur ran the shows in Europe and the Pacific campaigns and what about George Marshall ? Below is a King Tiger with an American Hole In It …
Eisenhower for the simple fact that out of the 3 he was the best man for the job of cammanding a multi national multi army force with the least friction and most diplomacy. Both Patton and MaCarthur were self promoters who would do things for themselves and their Commands over the good of the cause as a whole.
for me the best general was eisenhower no question asked . but from what i know only operation overlord was his plan . but also he use to talk to his men and this used to make their morale up . this is something that a good leader not only a good general has to do
yea, but he was like a moral support general, but he was also i think the commanding officer of the whole army, not sure i have to look it up, but he was a higher ranking general then patton
I think the strategic and organizational genius of General George Marshall cannot be overlooked, as it all too often is. Although he never really had a combat command in the War, he was indispensable in building an American Army from a constabulary force of less than 200,000 soldiers in 1939 to a juggernaut of 11 million+ men. I guess he very well could have commanded D-Day if Ike had fumbled…
None of the above. You are mixing a General more concerned with Tactical matters (Patton) with Generals more concerned with Strategic/Political matters. You must also bear in mind that behind every great General is a great staff, turning his decisions into fact. At the Strategic/Political level I would vote for General of the Army George C. Marshall as the best of the war. He was Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during the war and thus oversaw the U.S. ground war worldwide and coordinated strategy with our Allies. On the Tactical level I would choose either General J Lawton Collins a Corps commander (who commanded a Diviison in the Pacific) or Generals Simpson or Courtney Hodges both of whom were Army commanders (9th and 1st respectively). Alll three served in Europe in 1944-45.
Patton was a good General, but he was a bull in a China shop. Just about any competent General who was given command of 3rd Army could have overrun France as Patton did. There has been some speculation by Historians and Patton’s family members that Patton may have been suffering from some form of brain damage which might explain his bizare behavior problems. Patton was kicked in the head by horses at least twice in the 1930’s. I highly recommend you read ALL of Carlo D’Estes books. Especially D’Estes’ Patton: A Genius for War and Stanley Hirshon’s General Patton: A Soldiers Life and Martin Blumenson’s Patton: The Man Behind the Legend.
Both MacArthur and Eisenhower were excellent Strategic level General officers. Between the two I would vote for Eisenhower if for no other reason than that he had not only Strategic considerations to handle but also had to balance a multinational coalition.