What is the measure of a war, or a general for that matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
My current contention is that Patraeus was in charge when things got better. At the moment, there simply is not the evidence to credit him having the degree of personal responsibility some seem to want to attribute to him. Signing off on someone else's a good idea does not make you the man of the moment.
....and as a "war" Iraq is pretty small beans. US casualties never got about 200 a month. Ken White's fought in two wars were US KIA reached over 1,000 in one calender month.
Fame?
Nationality?
The amount of casualties the enemy inflicts upon your force?
The amount of casualties one inflicts on the enemy's force?
Duration?
Complexity?
Strategic Importance?
Sun Tzu would argue that the general who oversaw the war that was never fought at all should top the chart. Not great boxoffice, nothing sells like sex and violence; but good generalship all the same.
So I think there are many ways to make this list; and leaders like Marshall and Powell stand out for good reason, as does General Patraeus. Are they historically great? That is a question for history to answer.
You have to remember, Fuchs, that for most Americans
under 60, history was not a subject taken in school. For too many, history covers only those things that occurred in their lifetime or in a movie. The history of anything other than the US is rarely touched upon even in the movies (who get most things totally wrong...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Keep in mind that WW2 kept only one generation busy. The well-documented human history encompasses about a hundred generations spanning two to six continents.
Two WW2 generals in the top 20 would in itself already be highly suspicious.
Quite true. Subotai Bahadur rules!!!
My point, Fuchs, was twofold
1. I was comparing only WWII generals on the side that won the war: in Eur my comparison was essentially with Montgomery, Clark, Bradley, etc. In the Pacific, it was with Admiral Nimitz - the other theater commander - and his subordinates as well as those in the CBI. No comparison with comparable level enemy commanders was made. It is, however, worth noting that MacArthur was almost always short on materiel and so was engaged on a more even basis with the Japanese than was Nimitz.
2. My underlying purpose, however, was to illustrate Bob's World's point that the criteria you use determine the outcome of the discussion. If one is comparing generals in terms of their quality of achieving the political-military goals of the war then neither Patton nor MacArthur would make my list (nor would any Axis generals). My candidates would be Marshall/FDR and Churchill supported by Alanbrooke. Eisenhower falls into a critical but subordinate role which he performed superbly. By that standard - from another time and place - perhaps one of the greatest of all time was Genghiz Khan.
What is interesting is that without criteria to set parameters around the problem, we get a fascinating view of the perceptions and biases of those who join the discussion and no real ranking of the "greatest generals."
Cheers
JohnT
As an aside, it is noteworthy that the two MacArthur debacles
you mention (of several more...) were pretty egregious and the responsibility for both those (and some of the others) can be laid directly on first COL, later MG Charles Willoughby, his G2...
It's also noteworthy that MacArthur's reputation in WW II post Bataan is very much attributable to LTG Walter Krueger and the Sixth US Army as well as Dan Barbey and the 7th Phib Force. Plus the Australians who pulled our fat out of the old fire a couple of times...
Krueger is an undersung Commander. His Alamo Scouts BTW were probably the premier scouts and raiders of the war for the US, they never failed an op and never had a man KIA.