Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/27/2002 5:28:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2002 5:39:14 PM EDT by geezhound]
(Thanks for the idea raf) Most people will say Patton. But in my opinion, he would have dragged us into a pointless war with Russia that would have been very destructive. I also think he was a glory-hound. MacArthur on the other hand knew when it was time to get it on with China, but he was denied and relieved. Ike was a suck-ass, politician from the get go.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:37:12 PM EDT
LtGen. Lewis "Chesty" Puller. If not him, then Patton.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:42:26 PM EDT
Robert E. Lee If he had half of the resources that Grant had available, the Civil War would have been over in a year and the Mason-Dixon line would be a border.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:43:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:44:55 PM EDT
George C. Marshall..
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:46:38 PM EDT
Sherman
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:48:01 PM EDT
General Pain in the Ass - used to call just outta high school once a week. George Washington.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:51:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2002 5:52:40 PM EDT by 1GUNRUNNER]
While many military historians would disagree with the order in which the public ranks the three greatest American military generals of all time, they probably would agree that the three leaders mentioned most frequently by the American public all deserve special praise for their military accomplishments. According to a recent Gallup poll, 17% of Americans cited George S. Patton Jr., the flamboyant, aggressive armor leader in World War II -- whose most lasting impression may well be the face-slap he administered to one of his hospitalized soldiers in 1943 -- as the greatest American military general of all time. Another 14% say the greatest general was Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe who directed the World War II invasion of Normandy that eventually led to the defeat of Germany, and who was later elected president for two terms. In a close third place, cited as the greatest by 12% of the public, is Douglas MacArthur, a Medal of Honor winner, the youngest American general in World War I, the Pacific Area commander in World War II who helped bring about the defeat of Japan, and the United Nations Supreme Commander in the Korean War, whose landing at Inchon behind enemy lines is considered one of the most brilliant military maneuvers in history. Other generals named by the public include Colin Powell (mentioned by 9%), George Washington (8%), Norman Schwarzkopf (7%), Robert E. Lee (3%), Ulysses S. Grant (2%) and Omar Bradley (1%). An analysis of the responses from the public shows major differences in ratings among the generations. Older Americans, who were born before the beginning of World War II and were alive when the generals were in action, cite Eisenhower (35%) as the greatest general, followed by MacArthur (18%), and then Patton (9%), with George Washington coming in a distant fourth place (6%). By contrast, the youngest adult Americans, whose "top-of-mind" reflections apparently led them to name the generals they had most recently heard or studied about, show a virtual tie for the greatest general between Colin Powell (14%), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Persian Gulf War, and George Washington (13%), the "father" and first president of this country. Eight percent of young Americans also mention the Persian Gulf War commander, Norman Schwarzkopf, while 6% each mention MacArthur and Civil War General Robert E. Lee. From a Gallup poll in 11/2000
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 5:51:37 PM EDT
Lee, MacArthur, Patton in that order! 'Course, it's just my $0.02. Eric The(EmotionallyInvolved)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:00:43 PM EDT
Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson Robert E. Lee Not the greatest, but I always liked Bendict Arnold - before the switch.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:05:56 PM EDT
Patton was actually a fairly reviled man until the George C. Scott movie rehabilitated his image. George Marshall was primarily a staff officer and , as mentioned earlier, Ike was a suck butt. Chesty Puller was a war monger who once said he would bring back a sea bag full of dog tags to win the CMH. "Dugout Doug" MacArthur was an exasperating drama queen, but an outstanding tactician and "casualty friendly" during WWII: 90,000 casualties from Australia until V-J Day as opposed 106,000 in the Battle of the Bulge. He gets my vote.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:08:28 PM EDT
Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:09:32 PM EDT
George S. Patton Jr., the flamboyant, aggressive armor leader in World War II -- whose most lasting impression may well be the face-slap he administered to one of his hospitalized soldiers in 1943
View Quote
Actually, he abused TWO soldiers in hospitals which is why everyone raised hell with him. Also want to throw my vote to "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:13:51 PM EDT
One of the Georges.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:17:31 PM EDT
Omar Bradley. Often overlooked and overshadowed by Patton, he had a great hand in running the strategic tone of the European theater.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:21:51 PM EDT
'Dugout Doug' is a nickname that is insulting to the memory of that great General. BTW, the only general we've mentioned who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor! Eric The([s]Hysterical[/s]Historical)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:22:17 PM EDT
I would say that is a toss up between General Curtis LeMay and Patton. They both help save the world, just at different times and different ways.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:23:47 PM EDT
MacArthur was a piss poor general. He simply was very good at taking credit for the incredible actions of his subordinates. I would submit that either Lee, Pershing, or Jackson (Stonewall) were the best. Eisenhower was very good at what he did, which was to hold the Allies together.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:29:36 PM EDT
Post from redmanfms -
MacArthur was a piss poor general.
View Quote
Explain that. Eric The(Inquisitive)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:31:25 PM EDT
Robert E. Lee
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:31:47 PM EDT
The top few, not necessarily in order: Washington. Only two or three victories, but no catastrophic defeats, which was what was needed. Winfied Scott. A figure from the war of 1812 to the mexican war to the civil war, and the mentor to the famous generals of the civil war. Grant. Lee gets all the glory and Grant is called a plodder, but Vicksburg argues otherwise. He always knew what the objective was, and that counts for a lot. Lee. McArthur, Ike, Marshall, Patton. McArthur was highly variable, but very good when he was on his game. Ike was a politician, but that's what was needed for his position. Marshall had the overall vision for the war. And Patton was a fine corps commander.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:33:02 PM EDT
Rated ONLY on military skill (not politics/statesmanship): 1) MacArthur 2) Eisenhower 3) Grant 4) Patton 5) Washington
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:41:07 PM EDT
IMHO, it would have to be Gen G. Washington. He was our nations first underdog. We (The Colonies) were not supposed to be able to defeat the Brits, but people like Washington were brave enough to try to fight oppression and won!! W e should never forget those brave souls who risked it all in order to create this great country we all enjoy today. none of the other generals listed would even have a country to fight for if it wasnt for old George. again just MY HUMBLE OPINION.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:42:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: MacArthur was a piss poor general. He simply was very good at taking credit for the incredible actions of his subordinates.
View Quote
BWAAHAAHAAHAA!! [b]ALL[/b] generals rely on their subordinates for their victories. A [u]great[/u] general is one who knows the strengths and weaknesses of his subordinates just as well as of his enemy. He inspires and then utilizes the strengths those under his command against the weaknesses of his enemy.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:43:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from redmanfms -
MacArthur was a piss poor general.
View Quote
Explain that. Eric The(Inquisitive)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
My dislike for MacArthur comes mostly from his abundant willingness to take chances with other men's lives, more so than a general should. My great uncle was at Corregidor (sp), he told me of how the oh-so-brave general had his damn luggage brought instead of his staff and/or the 50 or so female nurses. MacArthur had an entire squadron of PTs at his disposal, and he didn't bring another damn soul with him. There is also the little incident in Washington. Any man who would have his troops run down and machine gun unarmed veterans is a piece of shit.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:43:48 PM EDT
'Dugout Doug' is a nickname that is insulting to the memory of that great General.
View Quote
He was called that by the men of Bataan who wrongly believed that he'd abandoned them. He was actually quite brave in the face of fire. Everyone keeps mentioning Patton, like he was some god. Turn off the television. He was at best a loud mouth lackey who wound up subordinate to his West Point classmates. In peacetime he'd be just another loud drunk at the O Club.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:46:59 PM EDT
My dislike for MacArthur comes mostly from his abundant willingness to take chances with other men's lives, more so than a general should. My great uncle was at Corregidor (sp), he told me of how the oh-so-brave general had his damn luggage brought instead of his staff and/or the 50 or so female nurses. MacArthur had an entire squadron of PTs at his disposal, and he didn't bring another damn soul with him.
View Quote
Totally untrue. He in fact advised Nimitz to bypass Peleliu as too costly in lives. As far as that other horseshit statement, there has never been any substantial proof to back up that silly little innuendo.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:47:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By Redmanfms: MacArthur was a piss poor general. He simply was very good at taking credit for the incredible actions of his subordinates.
View Quote
BWAAHAAHAAHAA!! [b]ALL[/b] generals rely on their subordinates for their victories. A [u]great[/u] general is one who knows the strengths and weaknesses of his subordinates just as well as of his enemy. He inspires and then utilizes the strengths those under his command against the weaknesses of his enemy.
View Quote
Ahhh!!! But not all generals are so willing to have their subordinates placed at great risk while they themselves are thousands of miles away. MacArthur was a politician, not a general. His men fucking hated him, but the public loved him because he always took credit for any victory and foisted off responsibility for any defeat. He was very good at playing the press and the unknowing civilian population, all the while his troops began to hate him. It's not a good sign when his own troops hate his guts and consider him a coward. MacArthur didn't choose his subs. If he had chosen them, your contention would hold water, but he didn't, so it doesn't.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:50:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2002 6:53:13 PM EDT by Redmanfms]
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
My dislike for MacArthur comes mostly from his abundant willingness to take chances with other men's lives, more so than a general should. My great uncle was at Corregidor (sp), he told me of how the oh-so-brave general had his damn luggage brought instead of his staff and/or the 50 or so female nurses. MacArthur had an entire squadron of PTs at his disposal, and he didn't bring another damn soul with him.
View Quote
Totally untrue. He in fact advised Nimitz to bypass Peleliu as too costly in lives. As far as that other horseshit statement, there has never been any substantial proof to back up that silly little innuendo.
View Quote
Actually genius, a whole squadron of PTs came to Australia with only the general, his wife, and his son aboard, as well as most of his furniture. No staff, no nurses, no wounded, nobody. My great uncle was at the freakin' battle, I think he would know a little better than you. He languished in a Jap POW camp for 4 years. His memory on MacArthur is pretty clear. And please look up the definition of innuendo.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:55:19 PM EDT
Actually genius, a whole squadron of PTs came to Australia with only the general, his wife, and his son aboard, as well as most of his furniture. No staff, no nurses, no wounded, nobody. And please look up the definition of innuendo.
View Quote
Actually, he was smuggled out on ONE PT boat, along with the Filipino president, Manuel Quezon and cabinet, and then transferred to a submarine for the trip to Australia. Not a SQUADRON as to your false claim and not exactly much room for anything extra. Come back when you have something of merit.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:57:06 PM EDT
Post from redmanfms -
My dislike for MacArthur comes mostly from his abundant willingness to take chances with other men's lives, more so than a general should.
View Quote
Yet, as was pointed out, fewer men died under his command than at the single Battle of the Bulge! Would that all US generals were so foolhardy with the lives of their men!
My great uncle was at Corregidor (sp), he told me of how the oh-so-brave general had his damn luggage brought instead of his staff and/or the 50 or so female nurses. MacArthur had an entire squadron of PTs at his disposal, and he didn't bring another damn soul with him.
View Quote
He was ordered out by Roosevelt who thought that it would create havoc with American morale early in the war to have someone of Gen. MacArthur's stature captured by the Japs. MacArthur offered to resign his commission to FDR and take back his Philippine army commission and fight in the hills with his men as guerillas - to which FDR said NO! BTW, my father was in the South Pacific and served under MacArthur and absolutely idolized the man!
There is also the little incident in Washington. Any man who would have his troops run down and machine gun unarmed veterans is a piece of shit.
View Quote
'Run down' and 'machine gun'? Now isn't that a little too melodramatic? No one was machine-gunned. The only two vets who were shot were shot by the Washington DC police during a riot, before MacArthur even came onto the scene. There was no 'machine-gunning'! Period! Only one (or two, depending upon the sources) died during the destruction of the vet's quarters and that was from asphyxsiation from the tear gas. You gotta quit reading those liberal rags! Eric The(SquadronOfPTs,MyAss!TheyWereLuckyToGetOut­AtAll!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 6:57:50 PM EDT
My great uncle was at the freakin' battle, I think he would know a little better than you. He languished in a Jap POW camp for 4 years. His memory on MacArthur is pretty clear.
View Quote
I don't give a good-God-damn if your cousin Fred scrubbed General Homma's latrine in Manila, they're full of SHIT.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:01:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Actually genius, a whole squadron of PTs came to Australia with only the general, his wife, and his son aboard, as well as most of his furniture. No staff, no nurses, no wounded, nobody. And please look up the definition of innuendo.
View Quote
Actually, he was smuggled out on ONE PT boat, along with the Filipino president, Manuel Quezon and cabinet, and then transferred to a submarine for the trip to Australia. Not a SQUADRON as to your false claim and not exactly much room for anything extra. Come back when you have something of merit.
View Quote
I guess the other five PTs were just a figment of the imagination of the captain who received the MOH for smuggling MacArthur out. I'm biased, I freely admit it. My grandfather served under him in Korea and hated him. My great uncle served under him in WWII and hated him too. If you think he's a great general, fine, but I really don't see it. Most of the third-person information I got was from MacArthur: An American Ceasar. It was less than a glowing review of the man.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:01:23 PM EDT
Post from redmanfms -
His men fucking hated him
View Quote
I say bullsh|t, B.S., crapola! Most men that my father served with honored the general. When my father told me of his death, it was only the second time I had ever seen my father cry in my life! I know better! You should too! Eric The(ReadABook!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:05:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from redmanfms -
His men fucking hated him
View Quote
I say bullsh|t, B.S., crapola! Most men that my father served with honored the general. When my father told me of his death, it was only the seocond time I had ever seen my father cry! I know better! You should too! Eric The(ReadABook!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
I suppose that's how he got the nickname "Dugout Doug" right? I know two men who served under him, they didn't like him. Actually, I've never met a vet who thought much of him. Had a Ranger for a history teacher who hated him, but he was in Europe and therefore didn't serve under him. My English Teacher was a Korea and Vietnam vet, he would go out of his way to piss on MacArthur. Apparently I don't know any better, or I just know too many liberals.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:07:06 PM EDT
What Sherman Knew: You know, I get a kick out of reading all the posts here, By people, Who for one reason or anouther, Advocate either armed revolution or a second American Civil War. Why do I admire Sherman? Because, Unlike most of the Officers of his day. Sherman understood what was about to happen to his country. Shermam was a realist, who Told em, right strait up, At the beginning of the war, That it was going to go on for years and that they would have to tear the guts out of the south to win it. This at a time when the predominant way of thinking, was, That the Civil War would be over in a few weeks and and that Washingtonians could pack a picnic lunch and go and watch The First Battle of Mannassas (Bull Run). It would be fine sport to see our gallant boys in blue Scatter that Rebel mob. Of course it did not work out that way, Still they Thought Sherman a mad man. Yet Sherman was the only one of the bunch who understood what the grim course of the war would be. From Start, To end game, He had Far more stratigic vision than most of his peers. And of course when the time came to do the dirty work of destroying The Army Of Northern Virginia's Suppy base and cutting a swath thru Georgia, Sherman had no problems with doing what was needed to bring an end to the awful carnage of that war. Even to this day Little Billy is thought of as the devil incarnate, in many parts of the Southern United States. Gun counter revolutionaries and Che spouting left wing Revolution of the masses types, should pause for thought. Revolution has never come cheap here in the Americas. The last time we had one, We killed more Americans, Than WWII, Korea, Veitnam and Desert Storm, COMBINED. The flower of the manhood from four states lay in that cornfield at Gettysburg. Sherman understood, That there is no cheap revolution. The anti Goverment, Gun counter commandos, need to understand, That anouther American Civil War would be a national holocaust, No matter how well armed they think they are. And frankly, After 9-11, I'm fed up with listening to their mealy mouthed, twisted Constitution, Yell fire in a crowded theater, National suicide pact. B.S.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:07:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
My great uncle was at the freakin' battle, I think he would know a little better than you. He languished in a Jap POW camp for 4 years. His memory on MacArthur is pretty clear.
View Quote
I don't give a good-God-damn if your cousin Fred scrubbed General Homma's latrine in Manila, they're full of SHIT.
View Quote
Apparently you have a fundamental problem with respect. You can flame me all you want, but don't bad-mouth my family or we'll have a serious problem.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:07:48 PM EDT
I guess the other five PTs were just a figment of the imagination of the captain who received the MOH for smuggling MacArthur out.
View Quote
They're a figment of YOUR imagination. My wife's grandad was in his command that eventually capitulated on Bataan, so I guess he'd know a little, too. Until they ran out of supplies and FDR ordered him out, Mac was able to repel Homma's numerically superior force and turn back two different amphibious landings behind Am-Fil lines. Considiering that his troops were green, diseased, starving and without air support, I'd say that was pretty damned impressive.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:09:53 PM EDT
I suppose that's how he got the nickname "Dugout Doug" right? I know two men who served under him, they didn't like him. Actually, I've never met a vet who thought much of him. Had a Ranger for a history teacher who hated him, but he was in Europe and therefore didn't serve under him. My English Teacher was a Korea and Vietnam vet, he would go out of his way to piss on MacArthur. Apparently I don't know any better, or I just know too many liberals.
View Quote
That's because you associate with morons.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:10:33 PM EDT
Post from Redmanfms -
Most of the third-person information I got was from MacArthur: An American Ceasar. It was less than a glowing review of the man.
View Quote
Nonsense, if anything it was too pro-MacArthur in the minds of most liberal critics. You must be talking about the Gregory Peck movie by the same name, 'cause when I read William Manchester's fine biography, [u]American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1880-1964[/u], I was most struck by this little snippet: "Most of all, however, MacArthur was like Julius Caesar: bold, aloof, austere, egotistical, willful. The two generals surrounded themselves with servile aides-de-camp; remained long abroad, one as proconsul and the other as shogun, leading captive peoples in unparalleled growth; loved history; were fiercely grandiose and spectacularly fearless; and reigned as benevolent autocrats." It's on page 21, of the preamble to the book. Doesn't sound like Manchester has too low an opinion of MacArthur, does it? Eric The(TheManWasAGiant!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:11:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
I guess the other five PTs were just a figment of the imagination of the captain who received the MOH for smuggling MacArthur out.
View Quote
They're a figment of YOUR imagination. My wife's grandad was in his command that eventually capitulated on Bataan, so I guess he'd know a little, too. Until they ran out of supplies and FDR ordered him out, Mac was able to repel Homma's numerically superior force and turn back two different amphibious landings behind Am-Fil lines. Considiering that his troops were green, diseased, starving and without air support, I'd say that was pretty damned impressive.
View Quote
Fine, whatever. MacArthur is the best general to ever walk the Earth, in your opinion. I don't agree.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:13:47 PM EDT
Fine, whatever. MacArthur is the best general to ever walk the Earth, in your opinion. I don't agree.
View Quote
No, not "whatever." You're just wrong and out of your element.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:16:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
I suppose that's how he got the nickname "Dugout Doug" right? I know two men who served under him, they didn't like him. Actually, I've never met a vet who thought much of him. Had a Ranger for a history teacher who hated him, but he was in Europe and therefore didn't serve under him. My English Teacher was a Korea and Vietnam vet, he would go out of his way to piss on MacArthur. Apparently I don't know any better, or I just know too many liberals.
View Quote
That's because you associate with morons.
View Quote
You do realize what a stupid jackass you look like, right? Making ASSumptions about people you have never met is normally a sign of somebody who is doing a personal rectal examination. I could go into the background information of them, but that would be pointless and entirely wasted on somebody of your limited intelligence. Because men who have first-hand knowledge don't agree with you doesn't make them morons, but if you really want to believe that, go ahead. MacArthur is your god of war, but he ain't everybodies.'
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:18:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Fine, whatever. MacArthur is the best general to ever walk the Earth, in your opinion. I don't agree.
View Quote
No, not "whatever." You're just wrong and out of your element.
View Quote
Wow! I don't think somebody as unstable as you should have access to firearms.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:20:53 PM EDT
General Washington. He not only kept his army together, he did it almost by will and with none of the advantages his latter succesors had. For a soldiers general, Omar Bradley. I also like Swarzekopf & the current commander in Afghanistan for using equipment instead of American corpses to win their battles.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:21:12 PM EDT
You do realize what a stupid jackass you look like, right? Making ASSumptions about people you have never met is normally a sign of somebody who is doing a personal rectal examination. I could go into the background information of them, but that would be pointless and entirely wasted on somebody of your limited intelligence. Because men who have first-hand knowledge don't agree with you doesn't make them morons, but if you really want to believe that, go ahead. MacArthur is your god of war, but he ain't everybodies.'
View Quote
So you're basing everything you believe on TWO malcontents? You [i]are[/i] out of your element.....and FULL OF SHIT. Add something of merit or nothing at all.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:21:13 PM EDT
First Airborne attack in the history of the US... Ridgeway planned Airborne attack of France..jumped with the troops Went on to plan a winning strategy in Korea Gen. Ridgeway gets my vote.. [url]http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWridgeway.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:23:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2002 7:26:04 PM EDT by Redmanfms]
Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
You do realize what a stupid jackass you look like, right? Making ASSumptions about people you have never met is normally a sign of somebody who is doing a personal rectal examination. I could go into the background information of them, but that would be pointless and entirely wasted on somebody of your limited intelligence. Because men who have first-hand knowledge don't agree with you doesn't make them morons, but if you really want to believe that, go ahead. MacArthur is your god of war, but he ain't everybodies.'
View Quote
So you're basing everything you believe on TWO malcontents? You [i]are[/i] out of your element.....and FULL OF SHIT. Add something of merit or nothing at all.
View Quote
Actually it's 4 malcontents. I guess counting isn't one of your elements, is it? You really shouldn't get this worked up, you'll live longer. Getting into shit-slinging matches with people who simply don't agree with you is not a good way to spend your spare time. You believe MacArthur is great. I don't.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:29:27 PM EDT
I'm biased, I freely admit it. My grandfather served under him in Korea and hated him. My great uncle served under him in WWII and hated him too. If you think he's a great general, fine, but I really don't see it.
View Quote
Actually it's 4 malcontents. I guess counting isn't one of your elements, is it?
View Quote
I count TWO. The rest of your statement is just too stupid for me to waste my precious time in responding. Add something of merit, or nothing at all. Hint: that's your cue to bow out.
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:31:39 PM EDT
Redmanfms, do yourself a favor and read this little story about the General's flight from Corregidor, it may help you in future discussions: [url]http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/macarthur.htm[/url] You will note that it's very well documented! Check it out and see if your opinion remains the same. From the article: The Japanese Navy had Corregidor surrounded. On 22 February 1942, General Marshall advises MacArthur that the President had directed MacArthur to leave Fort Mills and proceed to Mindanao. Finally on 9 March 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt tells General Douglas MacArthur that he must leave Corregidor. MacArthur agrees to leave by March 15th March. [b]Japanese patrols are heavy and "Tokyo Rose" brags to her audience that MacArthur will be captured within a month. Some US Navy officers give MacArthur only a one-in-five chance.[/b] MacArthur decides to escape Corregidor by PT boat to Mindanao and fly to Australia from Del Monte on a B-17 Flying Fortress. MacArthur arranges for himself and his family [b]and military entourage of 13 officers, two naval officers and a technical sergeant to travel on four decrepit PT boats of Lt. John Bulkeley's Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 3, based at Bataan[/b]. He also ordered three B-17's to fly from Australia to Del Monte airfield on Mindanao. They left Corregidor at dusk in the PT Boats on 11 March 1942. At 6:30 am on 13 March 1942, PT 34 sights Cagayan Point on Mindanao Island. -------------------------------------------- Once in Adelaide, MacArthur moved into a luxurious private carriage provided by Australia's Commissioner of Railways. The press seek a statement and MacArthur scrawls on the back of an envelope, "The President of the United States ordered me to break through the Japanese lines ...for the purpose, as I understand it, of organizing the American offensive against Japan, a primary object of which is the relief of the Philippines. I came through and I shall return." ------------------------------------------ MacArthur's first duty was to sack Major General George H. Brett and send him back to Washington. The problems with MacArthur's rescue and some other events such as the failure to reinforce Bataan, had led to MacArthur's decision. Little did he know that it had been Brett who had recommended to Washington that MacArthur become the Supreme Commander of the SWPA (South West Pacific Area). This command was formally assumed on 18 April 1942. On 26 March 1942, Gen. Douglas MacArthur received the citation for his Medal of Honor at a formal dinner in Melbourne. He told the audience, "I have come as a soldier in a great crusade of personal liberty as opposed to perpetual slavery. My faith in our ultimate victory is invincible, and I bring you tonight the unbreakable spirit of the free man's military code in support of our joint cause." [b]The audience was delighted. MacArthur continued, that the medal was not "intended so much for me personally as it is a recognition of the indomitable courage of the gallant army which it was my honor to command."[/b] From then on, liberating the Philippines was his personal obsession. ----See remainder of story, if you will.------ So even when told of the CMOH, he brushed all personal motives aside and claimed that it was in recognition of the army he left behind. That, gentlemen, is a man worthy of being an American Ceasar! Eric The(Genuflecting)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/27/2002 7:32:12 PM EDT
If it was'nt for Von Stueben we would'nt be having this conversation. Who Generaled the troops that were of the sorriest sort into an effective army at Valley Forge? Von Stueben of course. Maybe this thread should be "Generals I would die for under their order"
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top