Poll: Greatest General of World War 2

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Jack the Potato said:
Squilookle said:
Jack the Potato said:
No MacArthur? Or did I just not see him? He was great! Crazy... but great!
Hahaha! That's a good one!

Oh wait... were you serious?
Indeed sir. I mean, AFTER WW2 he kind of... lost it, sure. But during WW2 he was invaluable in the Pacific front! And that's what this topic is about.

Come to think of it, Eisenhower probably deserves a slot too. Granted, he wasn't a front lines general like some others but he was a great leader to be sure. Escapist polls need moar slots!
He never 'had' it to begin with. MacArthur was an utter embarrassment to the US. He started out in public relations, and much of the reason he narrowly avoided getting sacked on two occasions prior to 1943 was because he was exceptionally talented at shifting blame from himself onto others. At times he could appear completely insensitive to danger, yet he shrank away from visiting troops serving under him in the field, especially the sick and wounded. He had a habit of becoming ill at times of crisis, and his behaviour even when he was young (remember that by 1941 he was 60) included a tendency to hyperventilate and vomit.

His closest group of 'advisers' weren't really advisors at all. He kept them like a pep group, constantly encouraging him and insisting his decisions were sound, plus a personal physician he kept close by at all times. He never waivered his meal and rest schedules, and many of his decisions put his own and other nation's forces under far greater risk than they would otherwise have had.

For example, nine full hours after the Pacific war had got into swing, Luzon's Army Air Force squadrons of 107 P-40s and 35 B-17s hadn't moved- neither retreating south to more secure air bases, or striking north at Japanese front line airfields on Formosa, because MacArthur couldn't make up his mind quite what do do with them. The Japanese flew in and solved his dilemma by wiping out planes and ground staff alike, ending any American ability to mount an air defence.

The Army-Approved plan Orange-3 recommended retreating to the Bataan peninsula and mounting a concentrated defence from there. Rejecting it as defeatist, MacArthur cancelled any buildup of food, ammunition and medical supplies around Manila. Bataan saw through the entirety of December 1941 without any measures taken to organise its defence.

Once the US and Philippino forces were forced onto Bataan anyway, they were woefully underequipped for an extended fight. The Japanese considered the US plight so hopeless that they removed an entire Division to go fight in the Dutch East Indies. This left the remaining troop ratio in the region of 2:1 in the American's favour, and while MacArthur and his staff effectively locked themselves in Malinta Tunnel on Corregidor island at Bataan's southern tip, only visiting Bataan once -notably avoiding any of his own troops- Jonathan Wainwright put up a furious and valiant fight against the Japanese on the Peninsula itself, critically low on ammo, reduced to half -and later quarter- rations, and with nothing to fight the widespread Malaria sweeping through the ranks.

Meanwhile, back on Corregidor, MacArthur did his best- sending pleas to Washinton for reinforcements, which included all manner of threats and charges. Simultaneously he pumped out press communiques misrepresenting the plight of the Allied troops, the enemy strength, and his own role in the whole affair. MacArthur was determined not to sink with his own ship. He diverted much of the remaining food supplies to Corregidor and was so determined to hole up there with all the supplies he could hoard that it took a direct presidential order to force him to retreat to Australia, leaving Wainwright in charge of rapidly diminishing forces on Bataan.

All this only gets us as far as March 1942, and it doesn't get any better. Between his men-wasting greed for a quick victory for the papers at New Guinea, to his abhorrent practice of labelling all joint-Allied victories as American, and American defeats as Allied, he was a theatrical schemer who was quite rightly described by contemporaries as "The greatest Actor to serve in the U.S. Army."

In short, he was terrible.
 

McShizzle

New member
Jun 18, 2008
225
0
0
Squilookle said:
Jack the Potato said:
Squilookle said:
Jack the Potato said:
No MacArthur? Or did I just not see him? He was great! Crazy... but great!
Hahaha! That's a good one!

Oh wait... were you serious?
Indeed sir. I mean, AFTER WW2 he kind of... lost it, sure. But during WW2 he was invaluable in the Pacific front! And that's what this topic is about.

Come to think of it, Eisenhower probably deserves a slot too. Granted, he wasn't a front lines general like some others but he was a great leader to be sure. Escapist polls need moar slots!
He never 'had' it to begin with. MacArthur was an utter embarrassment to the US.

- snip -

In short, he was terrible.
And that's all before Korea.
 
May 28, 2009
3,698
0
0
McShizzle said:
Man generals always get the glory. What about Chester freaking Nimitz?
Out of MacArthur and Nimitz, the latter was definitely better. The US navy effectively blockaded Japan and of course rendered its navy impotent. The navy argued that re-invading the Philippines was unnecessary because it was isolated, like many of Japan's Pacific conquests by that time. Taking everything one at a time instead of simply valuable locations for airbases to bombard the mainland with, like the Marianas and Okinawa, is understandably costly.

MacArthur however wanted to take the Philippines back, a campaign that never truly ended until the war did, cost unnecessary American, not to mention many Filipino, lives, and mainly because he said he would and wanted to look the returning hero.
 

Andrew_C

New member
Mar 1, 2011
460
0
0
Shock and Awe said:
saintdane05 said:
How is the epicness that is Winston Churchill reduced to "Other"? London Blitz, anyone?
Churchill wasn't a General, the closest thing he did to that was being First Lord of the Admiralty....he was the guy who thought Gallipoli Campaign was a great idea.
And Dieppe, and invading Norway (although the Germans arrived first, so the British invasion force came in handy)
 

Darren716

New member
Jul 7, 2011
784
0
0
Patton he's getting my vote not only because he was a damn fine general but because my grandfather acually served under him from the beaches of Normandy till after the fall of the Riech.
 

Blunderboy

New member
Apr 26, 2011
2,224
0
0
Corax_1990 said:
Rommel, both for his ability as a general and as an honorable man. Under his command, the Akricakorps was never accused of war crimes and he was involved in the plot to overthrow Hitler. The man was a Nazi general who defied orders from Hitler himself and protested the treatment of the Jews. It takes a great man to achieve one objectives when given orders, but takes a greater man to stand up to those orders when they are wrong.
This.
It's a shame he is tarnished with the same brush as those who happily joined in with the round up of the Jews.
Interestingly, when I had a similar conversation about the bet generals of WW2 with a 90 year old ex Desert Rat my dad knew he surprised me by saying that Rommel was the best leader in his opinion.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
McShizzle said:
Man generals always get the glory. What about Chester freaking Nimitz?
In retrospect I probably should have put him up there and renamed the thread "best commanders" whats done is done though. Nimitz was a hell of an Admiral though.