Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Greatest General of WW2
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
I'm sure it will have been asked before but - following on from the Monty discussion - who would you all rate as the top WW2 general?
I would award the honors to the German commander Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein.
He gets points for the plan for invading France in 1940, taking Sevastapol and understanding Operation Citadel at Kursk was only workable while there was a degree of surprise but his crowning success was stabilizing the eastern frontline in 1944. -
Message 2
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Hi Mahros,
I'd say a tie between Manstein and Rommel.
Manstein for his almost perfect execution of Blitzkrieg, so good that it is my opinion that Schwarzkopf pinched it (or at least borrowed heavily) for the conceptual plan of Desert Storm.
Rommel, well the man was fighting with small resources, very little in resupply, against a numerically superior enemy over hostile ground, and did so with so many incredible manoeuvres that he almost succeeded. Had he had reliable supplies and reinforcements, he would probably have taken the Suez Canal. The Desert Fox also had the qualities of a gentleman warrior, which were very rare during World War Two. There are numerous tales of captured British troops being treated with the utmost respect by Rommel, and this is reinforced by his realisation of the true nature of the regime he fought so well for.
In fact, the act which adds great credit to him was when ordered to "fight to the last man" by Hitler, he simply ignored the order, and withdrew to a more defensible position anyway.
So, I would vote for Manstein as a military genius, but Rommel as the true gentleman warrior (and no slouch tactically either).
Cheers
DL -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
TimW, who used to frequent these boards, mentioned Slim in a similar post a while back. hard to argue against. He never lost. He suffers, of course, from being part of the Forgotten Army, but you can't help wondering whether he would have done a better job than Monty if he had been in charge in Europe.
-
Message 4
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
I know I'm going off topic a bit by going on about best British commanders but I wonder what peoples views on O'Connor.
As I understood it he was well ahead of other commanders in his use of tanks, and had been successful until his capture. -
Message 5
Posted by U1969296 (U1969296) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Hi Guys
its been said before Marshall Zukov
The best I'm sure it will have been asked before but - following on from the Monty discussion - who would you all rate as the top WW2 general?
I would award the honors to the German commander Field Marshall Erich Von Manstein.
He gets points for the plan for invading France in 1940, taking Sevastapol and understanding Operation Citadel at Kursk was only workable while there was a degree of surprise but his crowning success was stabilizing the eastern frontline in 1944.
Ìý -
Message 6
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Stan,
Zhukov was good, but can only be described as careless when it came to the lives of his men. Plus there wasn't really much finesse in his tactics either. Blast it to bits with artillery (lots of it), then send in a steel wave of armour, and a human wave of infantry. Not really too imaginative.
Admittedly his defensive actions in 41 were damn good, and he and Koniev did defeat about 70% of the German army between them, but as a stand alone commander? Good, but no genius.
DL -
Message 7
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
Well, wild guess who I'm going for. Slim.
Talk about supply issues? Slim had them (oh boy did he have them) and overcame them. Talk about restoring army morale. Slim in spades. Talk about defeating the Japanese on land with little direct air support. that'll be Slim. (Incidentally the Burma campaign caused more Japanese casualties than the island hopping of the Americans). Talk about the terrain, think you'll find the jungles of Burma some of the toughest terrain to fight in out of the theatres of the 2nd World War. Talk about the opponent he faced. Well, no-one has ever called the Japanese soldier in WW2 soft. Talk about his troops, well I think I'm right in saying that there was every nationality in the British Empire in XIVth Army. Talk about improvising a river crossing (equivalent to the Rhine) with no specialised equipment. That'll be Slim again. Talk about managing to maintain the health of his troops in one of the easiest places in the world to catch any number of diseases. Slim again.
Now I'm not pretending that Slim did all of these things by himself, it would be impossible. However he did put the people in place to do it and then made sure they did.
I shouldn't really criticise anyone elses claim (but I will). Rommel had in the Western Desert a unique (for the Germans) advantage. He knew Auchinlecks plans, it is recorded that by lunchtime the following day Rommel knew the position of the evening before of every Allied Unit in the Desert, its morale, numbers and orders. Cdr. Fellers the American Naval Attache had been reporting back to Washington all of Auchinlecks plans in a code the Germans knew. (They'd got the code books from the Italians, who'd stole it from the American Embassy in Rome). This came to light 10th July 1942. Check Rommels record after July 1942. Not quite so foxy now?
Cheers AA. -
Message 8
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
On the allied side I have to nominate Slim and McArthur. (Eisenhower may hve had the toughest job in WWI, trying to keep all the different countries aimed in the same direction)
On the Axis side, Yamamotto (sp) did a pretty good job and I can't remember the name of the Japaneese General that took Singapore (sp). Rommell and Manstain (sp) IMO have to stand at the top of the heap. -
Message 9
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
I'd also add Guderian to this list. One of the founding fathers of Tank warfare.
-
Message 10
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Tuesday, 22nd November 2005
I'd also add Guderian to this list. One of the founding fathers of Tank warfare.Ìý
Lord Ball: Excellent choice. There is the story that when Rommell was given a Panzer division prior to the invasion of France, Rommell asked Guderian for advice. Guderian's advice was move, move as fast as you can. -
Message 11
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Hi Mahros
I wouldn't choose Von Menstein because he was in the eastern front and what about Rommel?
wasn't he big?
evry german commander in the war had his own talent.
I don't know exactly what was his talent? but there were allied commanders that had there talents and honor.
If you want my opinion I think that Patton has diserve to get a respect becasue he was the only general that the germans had affraid from him because he was courge -
Message 12
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Hi Mahros
I wouldn't choose Von Menstein because he was in the eastern front and what about Rommel?
wasn't he big?
evry german commander in the war had his own talent.
I don't know exactly what was his talent? but there were allied commanders that had there talents and honor.
If you want my opinion I think that Patton has diserve to get a respect becasue he was the only general that the germans had affraid from him because he was courge. -
Message 13
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Hi Jeesw1962
I'm sorry of asking question but who is slim -
Message 14
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Hi Dl
About what you said about Rommel was true but let me give you a question.
If rommel was big so why didn't he win a lasting victory?
think about it and I will wait for answer from you as soon as answer the messege. -
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Good question!
I suppose you could say he did win a victory in France 1940. His Panzer division was so effective at appearing unexpectedly and attacking in force, then moving on to repeat the feat again that it was given the nickname "The Ghost Division". That in itself was a victory, since France collapsed under the German attack, and was soundly defeated.
In the North African campaign, Rommel's achievements were very impressive, even though he was finally defeated. The reason for this eventual defeat was twofold. One, the massive build up of forces by the Eighth Army under its various commanders, before Montgomery finally unleashed its full force at El Alamein, and secondly, I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that 80% of his supplies and reinforcements never arrived. Each time a convoy left carrying supplies for Rommel (which were meagre anyway as the priority was the Russian Front), the British already knew about it through the broken Enigma codes. So, in order to protect the code breaking intelligence, they would send a reconnaissance plane to "spot" the convoy, and the convoy would report that it had been discovered. Then either the RAF or the Navy would simply sink it. So Rommel was basically starved of supplies and equipment. Also, Rommel had a significant advantage in intelligence since the Wehrmacht was getting regular intel from the broken US diplomatic codes (the code books had been stolen in Cairo). Once the codes were changed, the agent who got the code breaking info was caught, and finally the Wehrmacht radio listening post was attacked by a commando raid, effectively cutting off his flow on intelligence. So, there are many reasons why Rommel was defeated, but I do believe that had he had proper logistical support, and the reinforcements he requested, he would probably have defeated the British in North Africa.
Cheers
DL -
Message 16
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 23rd November 2005
Hi DL
about what you said about the supplies you are right.
becasue hitler never order to send it because he was focused on the eastern front if I not mistaken it was stalingrad battle.
So in this situasion he couldn't send supplies.
And also the british trapped rommel in their minefields but I think there is another reason.
I have to say that he attacked before the british were ready.
about what you said in france with rommel the victory of his division attrract hitler's attanion.
but without the element of surprise rommel couldn't never reach his glory today.
but there is something I cant undrstand if he was so focused in africa why he forgot to take malta first? becasue as long as I know malta was an importan naval air base for britain so he did'nt attack malata first and the to proceed to the rest of africa correct me if I'm wrong the british were already starving of supplies.
If you can answer it today -
Message 17
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Slim - General William Slim commanded the 14th Army in Burma and defeated the Japanese forces there. In a theatre given low priority and against an enemy that was undefeated in the region, he turned round a demoralised British (Commonwealth & Empire) army and won battles on the Indian border (Impal etc) and then all down Burma.
Malta - Rommel gambled and lost. In 1942 Malta had been bombed so heavily by the Axis air forces that it was, for a brief period, neutralised. Both Kesselring and the Italian command wanted to invade the island (Operation Hercules) but Rommel thought the delay and diversion of resources would ruin the chance at invading Egypt by giving the Allied forces time to prepare. As it happened, General Alexander stopped him at the first battle of El Alamein anyway.
North African campaign - this was considered the Italians war by the Germans and the Afica Corps was only sent there to stiffen them. Rommel had the advantage that one of the most professional units in the British Army - the Western Desert Force - was broken up and sent to Greece and Crete.
Rommel vs Manstein - Rommel was very good but seems to have been less successful when unable to use manouevere warfare - e.g. Tobruk and El Alamein - although he was hampered by 80% of his forces being Italian with their obsolete equipment. Guderian was also excellent, although his division was mauled by T-34s in the winter of 1941 but that would happen to anyone. Hard to get my vote as he was a frontline commander for relatively little time. -
Message 18
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi Mahros
you said that rommel took a gamble but he has already seen the results in africa and even thogh he didn't invade malta with orginaized troops
My question is why after the results in malta and in africa he still didn't attack malta -
Message 19
Posted by DANNY-FRANKS (U2186615) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi,
For me Von Manstein is the top commander.
For those interested I thought Len Deightons "Blitzkrieg" was a very readable account of the fall of France 1940 and Mansteins "Lost Victories" a good read though a bit heavy.
DF -
Message 20
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi Danny frank
you said that the top commander was von manstein.
But don't frorget that he lost the whole eastern front to germany if I'm not mistaken
was he the german commander at the battle of kursk? -
Message 21
Posted by DANNY-FRANKS (U2186615) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi faran,
Von Manstein wasn't i/c of the whole front and he also saw the weaknesses in Op Zitadelle. By 1943 Germany had effectively lost the war and it was only a matter of if not when. He was still tactically astute and his counter offensives around Kharkov were brilliant for the resources he had available.
DF -
Message 22
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi DF
yes you are right about it.
But as far as I know von menstein was in command during the battle of kursk and he lost the whole front to germany.
And do you want to tell me that Von Menstein saw the weaknes of russia and doesn't see the weaknes of germany? -
Message 23
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
And there is more something else I want to know.
Some people have said that Von Menstein was in stalingrad battle is that true? -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Manstein was involved in the attempt to relieve Stalingrad, but not the actual commander of the relieving force. That dubiously suicidal honour fell to General Hoth. I think he ended up being executed by the Nazis for some reason or other. He got within 30 miles or so of the pocket, but then had to withdraw to avoid being encircled himself.
The units trapped at Stalingrad were the 6th Army under von Paulus. He wasn't too hot as a commander to say the least. To make matters worse, he rejected offers of surrender as Hitler ordered him to fight to the last man. He ended up surrendering anyway, and later broadcast anti-Nazi propaganda for Stalin. -
Message 25
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Hi DL
Do you say that Von Menstein didn't get a direct involvment in stalingrad?
So what was the exact job of Von Menstein? -
Message 26
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
On the allied side I have to nominate Slim and McArthur. (Eisenhower may hve had the toughest job in WWI, trying to keep all the different countries aimed in the same direction)
On the Axis side, Yamamotto (sp) did a pretty good job and I can't remember the name of the Japaneese General that took Singapore (sp). Rommell and Manstain (sp) IMO have to stand at the top of the heap.Ìý
Macarthur was a good general, not a great one. Furthermore, he was such a consumate liar that it's hard to tell whether some of his announced achievements were real or just imagination. If he had moved on Biak when Marshall told him to, he could have just walked in. The 3 weeks he spent moving his luxurious hq from Sydney to Brisbane let the Japanese occupy that area and the delay cost 5,000 Aussie and American lives to take it. His confusion and apparent lassitude in early December '41 permitted his AF to be caught on the ground and destroyed without striking a blow, despite continued pressure from the joint chiefs and his own air commander to attack Formosan airfields. As it happens, had he done so, he would have caught the Japan a/c on the ground. It may not have beaten off the Phillipine invaders, but it certainly would have given them a bloody nose. If anyone deserved to be cashiered for neglect of duty in December '41, it was MacArthur.
Yamashita was the Japanese general who took Singapore. Homma took the Phillipines....both did so with fewer troops than their opponents, and both managed to bluff the opposition into surrendering when victory either way was actually hanging by a thread. -
Message 27
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
I have only one question for you.
Why has macarthour chosen as supreme allied commander in the pacific -
Message 28
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
faran1,
I'll get back to you on von Manstein's role in Stalingrad later on, need to check some sources first (my memory has let me down here!!!).
With regards to Kursk, there is a famous scene where he was discussing it with Hitler before the battle, and Hitler was heard to remark " So you think we shouldn't do this one.." or something along those lines. However, Hitler wanted his "final cataclysmic clash", so he went ahead regardless, and the German Army never went on the offensive in Russia again.
Cheers -
Message 29
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
and the leader of the 'desert rats' f. marshal montgomery was a good genera in both n. africa and w. europe
-
Message 30
Posted by hallamhal (U2549864) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
and the leader of the 'desert rats' f. marshal montgomery was a good general in both n. africa and w. europe
-
Message 31
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
hallamhal,
You might want to have a look at this thread
It was seriously lacking in support from Monty, so feel free to pile in!!!
Cheers -
Message 32
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Actually after kursk the germans couldn't made an offensive because both soviets and allies actions were plnaed together.
And also the germans were affraid from russia before berlin was took by the russians in 1945.
Does the war with russia had an ideological reasins or somthing else? -
Message 33
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Thursday, 24th November 2005
Actually after kursk the germans couldn't made an offensive because both soviets and allies actions were plnaed together.
And also the germans were affraid from russia before berlin was took by the russians in 1945.
Does the war with russia had an ideological reasins or somthing else? -
Message 34
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Kursk - Manstein was on the planning staff and saw the opportunity to pinch out the bulge but he realised that this was only going to work if it was done early - April or May. Once Hitler delayed the operation, he advised against it as the Soviets would be too prepared. The Soviets and the western allies did not plan together but after Kursk, the Germans never had the men and materiel to seriously regain the initiative against two emerging superpowers. However, one of the reasons Operation Citadelle was halted was the Allied invasion of Sicily.
Malta - there was only a small window of opportunity for the Axis to invade - after the North African coast had been captured but before Allied reinforcements strengthened the island. Rommel hoped to use that time to drive to Suez. By the time he was halted at El Alamein, Malta had recovered and Axis supplies and reinforcements were needed in North Africa.
Rommel had one big advantage in North Africa - Hitler left him pretty much to it. In the east Hitler constantly interfered with operations to their detriment.
Ideology - Hitler had determined the the Slav nations in the east were sub-human (untermenschen) and planned for eastern europe and Russia to be slave states to Germany. Subsequently, while there were isolated atrocities in the west (e.g. Malmedy), in the east there was wholesale slaughter of Russia villagers. Following the Soviet counter-offensive in December 1941, they saw what the Germans were doing to Russians and thereafter fought harder and replied in kind - even when prisoners were taken, few survived. Most of the Germans captured at Stalingrad died but of 3 million Russians captured only 10% were liberated and then some of those were sent to Siberia as traitors and cowards by Stalin. When Berlin fell, the Russians commited large-scale atrocities but this was only reflecting what had been done in the Soviet Union by the Germans. As ever, it was mainly the civilians who suffered. -
Message 35
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Hi mahros
Let me tell you that also the germans were confident that the victory will be for them and the soviet army is premitive.
Also the germans built the strategy on the air but because the luftwaffe failed in britain he somehow showed his weaknes.And he wasnt strong to suppurt the german infantry on the ground -
Message 36
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Best Allied Generals:
British = General Slim - by far the best British Commander. Managed to reorganise the XIV Army into a fighting force that killed more Japs than any other. Conducted the longest retreat in British Military History extremely effectively, and then managed to counter-attack.
American = General Patton - He may have been slightly unstable, but that's what made him great. His relentlessness at attacking the enemy may be considered crude, but it did the job.
French = A good french military commander? You've got to be kidding... lol
Best Axis Generals:
Germany = Guderian - the father of tank warfare. Superb commander. Equal of all the others you talk about.
Italy = Baggalio (I think that's his name) - the best they had. Managed to conduct war in North Africa fairly good, until he faced opposition.
Axis = The Guy who took Singapore - Don't know his name, but the way he outmanouevred and outwitted the 30,000 British has to be admired. -
Message 37
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Lord B
The brits agree Slim altough o´Conell could have been the shining light .
US agree.
Italian Baggalio best but substandard
Finns Ehrensvärd Soumasalmi won against bigger odds that any other general of the war.
Germans Manstein,Rommel,Guederian,Rundstedt,Kesselring.
Of the top ten generals you probably put in more than six germans.
Singapore It was more up to gen Percivals mediocrasy than Yamashitas brilliance that Singapore fell so easily.
Tito wasnt bad either.
Le´Clerc of the French a truly good general,wich his later exploits shown.
Its hard to say whos best its differ between the situations.
Kesselring was marvelous iice versan defence weaker in ofence,Rommel was versa.
If forced to put a vote I give it to the most versatile briliant both in attack and defence,Mannstein.
Hasse
Hasse -
Message 38
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Thats the error to not preview.
What I mean Kesselring was a defensive master when Rommel was an offensive one.
Hasse -
Message 39
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Undoubtedly De Gaulle. Who else could command so much respect whilst directing his forces from a secure distance knowing victory was inevitable?? That's a winner. That's the kind of General you would want to be with when the going gets tough. Political expediency will always outweigh military genius which is why Rommell, Von Manstein et al, and dare I say it MacArthur will resonate in the annals of history, but people like De Gaulle will always be remembered. In Weastern Europe today, with the groundbreaking significance of a female, eastern born, German Chancellor, her first stop was not Washington, as might be expected, it was Paris. This is not because of the (fantastic) deeds of Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, Von Rundstedt,.... it is because of the foresight of a militarily inept, yet politically astute De Gaulle. Imagine making the whole Allied invasion force wait until you are ready to enter your Capital on your own terms. That's Genearalship!!!
-
Message 40
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Re: Message 39.
Plancenoit,
you sounds nearly as a Belgian. You are lucky that the British, South-African?, Rhodesian? James Welsh, living in Paragay, isn't on the boards anymore. BTW. JAMES, WHERE ARE YOU?
Nevertheless, prepare for hiding for the "flak" from others too(I learned that German word from my parents, who endured WWII in Belgium. For some odd reason the British seems to use that word too. Or is it not the same word?)
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 41
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Oh, I think the Brits are all too familiar with the word "flak" Paul. We have taken a lot, but given it back too where necessary . Please DO NOT set a South African on me. I could not defend the British policies in Natal and that area 1850-1900. I will have to hide for a week or two. Re: Message 39.
Plancenoit,
you sounds nearly as a Belgian. You are lucky that the British, South-African?, Rhodesian? James Welsh, living in Paragay, isn't on the boards anymore. BTW. JAMES, WHERE ARE YOU?
Nevertheless, prepare for hiding for the "flak" from others too(I learned that German word from my parents, who endured WWII in Belgium. For some odd reason the British seems to use that word too. Or is it not the same word?)
Warm regards,
Paul.Ìý -
Message 42
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 25th November 2005
Undoubtedly De Gaulle. Who else could command so much respect whilst directing his forces from a secure distance knowing victory was inevitable?? That's a winner. That's the kind of General you would want to be with when the going gets tough. Political expediency will always outweigh military genius which is why Rommell, Von Manstein et al, and dare I say it MacArthur will resonate in the annals of history, but people like De Gaulle will always be remembered. In Weastern Europe today, with the groundbreaking significance of a female, eastern born, German Chancellor, her first stop was not Washington, as might be expected, it was Paris. This is not because of the (fantastic) deeds of Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery, Von Rundstedt,.... it is because of the foresight of a militarily inept, yet politically astute De Gaulle. Imagine making the whole Allied invasion force wait until you are ready to enter your Capital on your own terms. That's Genearalship!!!Ìý
Plancenoit, thank you, I haven't had such a good laugh in ages. (I really appreciate your sense of humour).
Cheers AA. -
Message 43
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Saturday, 26th November 2005
I would agree with you Arnald. What was it Churchill said about De Gaulle? Besides, we give him shelter when his country has been occupied and the way he treats us as mere contemptibles? Also, his words after Churchill's death "Now Britain has stopped being a great power." He wasn't the nicest house guest we've had.
-
Message 44
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Saturday, 26th November 2005
Thank you for your kind words. An interesting little 'titbit' emerged during the D-Day 60 celebrations about De Gaulle. Apparently one of the Normandy towns, possibly Caen, has a very large distinctive memorial to the Allied fallen, with a section of text in Latin. When translated into English part of it roughly reads, "We, the true sons of William, have returned to free our native land". De Gaulle raged against what he saw as an insult to the French people, but the local dignataries of the time who endured the Nazi occupation realised the significance and truthfulness of the statement and allowed it to stand. To my knowledge, it still exists. I've tried unsuccessfully to find out a little more about this, so if anyone can inform (or correct) me on this, I would be very grateful.
-
Message 45
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231725) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
I have only one question for you.
Why has macarthour chosen as supreme allied commander in the pacificÌý
Actually, Roosevelt wanted to cashier him for the Phillipines fiasco but his continued press releases (engineered mainly by his sycophantic staff and which depicted him as a fighting general) painted him as such a glorious figure to the American public that they adopted him as their hero. Faced with defeat after defeat America badly needed a hero so Roosevelt decided to let MacArthur's personally-manufactured public image stand and once that happened, he couldn't knock him off his pedestal.
As a general, MacArthur was pretty average, but as the military governor of Japan, he was probably the finest choice that could have been made. He did a far better job governing that conquered country than Eisenhower did governing Germany. -
Message 46
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Re: Message 41.
Plancenoit,
my expat-fellow Belgian countryman, excuse for the delay. Wanted to reply immediatelly but with my long backlog of replies (full of hidden agenda...) I forgot.
Plancenoit, reading your message in a hurry I hadn't seen the irony...Only by rereading I saw the mistake. Yes, you are a true British subtle...I wanted to say Englishman, but perhaps you are a Scot, an Irish or even a Welsh...Not to say that they aren't as witty as those English...(Hope you are not American?...)
BTW. See my defence of de Gaulle and Churchill to Expat(Matt), Darklight and my support for Tas in another thread, where I am involved...But I have to search first the name back...
Warm regards and with esteem, especially for your wit (I first wrote, witness. English is a difficult language, big smile), I was already witness of. -
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 29th November 2005
Re: Message 45.
Eric,
thank you very much for this interesting message.
Kind regards.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.