Respected WW II Generals

Interesting observations but they do not take into consideration the overall allied strategy and the political pressure that Eisenhower was under. It is true that Eisenhower wanted the Allied advance towards Germany to be measured and methodical. He did not just reign in Patton's second army because gasoline was needed elsewhere. He feared Patton would advance so far ahead of the main body of Allied troops that he would be vulnerable to a pincer movement by the Germans. Eisenhower was not going to roll the dice on a high risk, high reward strategy. Most military historians agree that once the Allies successfully moved inland from their beachhead in Normandy that the German army was on borrowed time. The Luftwaffe was decimated and the Allies owned the skies. In reality, victory was inevitable after Paris fell. Even if Bastogne had fallen in the Battle of the Bulge, Germany did not have the resources to resupply and launch another attack. It was always a battle of attrition at that point. With the Soviet Army advancing from the east the German army was on the defensive.

 

The nazis respected Patton enough that a vast D-day deception worked extremely well. The Allies deceives the nazis into believing an army under Patton was gonna land in the Pas De Calais area, the closest to Britain, & thus, the Normandy defenses were drained some to strengthen the Pas De Calais.

Their lack of respect for Monty got them whupped in Africa And even competent field commanders such as Kesselring despaired because they couldn't guess what "those crazy Americans" would do next.

But they had a genuine fear of the Russians. remember, Germany "sneak-attacked" the USSR, even more-so than Japan did the US. And their ill-treatment of Russian POWs & civilians alike made implacable foes out of the Russians, who wanted revenge even more than the US did on Japan. And the Russians took revenge when they got the chance !

As for Lee & Grant, we must remember that Lee usually fought with fewer men & resources than his opponents. Lee showed his mettle in defending Richmond against Mc Clellan, whuppong the federals at Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville, & holding off Grant at Spotsylvania & Cold Harbor, as well as beating Grant to Petersburg, thanx to an incompetent subordinate of Grant's, who coulda walked his men into Petersburg without firing a shot, ahead of Lee. He then held off Grant's much-larger army for 10 months til the inevitable end came.

Now, Grant's early conquest of Fts. Henry & Donelson, & later, Vicksburg, showed his mettle.

But neither Lee nor Grant was perfect. After 2 major wins, Lee was convinced his army could whup the Feds in any battle, & thus made the fatal mistake of trying to crush a well-dug-in fed army at Gettysburg. And Grant caused a huge loss of life by attacking Lee's dug-in Reb army at Cold Harbor. But overall, both were great generals.

 

Ike was right & the Germans are wrong. Supply problems are important & it was the Germans who lacked supplies & reinforcements on all fronts. There was no rush for Americans to gain glory if the Russians were chewing up the Germans. Now is a good time to begin pulling US troops out of Germany.

If the Germans were so smart, why did they let the British escape at Dunkirk?

 

I'm about to start Tuchman's book on "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell.

 

Now, Vinegar Joe Stillwell was quite a guy in all respects. That book should be very good.

 

It was Tuchman's second Pulitzer, so I have high hopes.

 

I forgot the name of the military historian but I remember reading his opinion on Dunkirk The German army surpassed its own aggressive expectations on the invasion of France. They did not expect to push the British army to the shore of the English Channel so quickly. They expected a more effective defense from the French army. While they pressed their attack upon the retreating British, they feared the unknown. Was the armada of military, commercial, and private vessels sailing from England bringing fresh troops and supplies to the cornered British army? Was the British army planning a "last stand" counter-attack? There were too many variables to consider. That is why German General Gerd Von Rundstedt did not push his attack more aggressively. If Von Rundstedt had better intelligence he may have chosen a different strategy. What a battlefield commander knows and does not know can turn victory into defeat and vice versa.

 

Thanks for the link. The entries are quite interesting. They make it sound like the hubris of the German generals surpassed that of most others.

 

Let's not overlook General Robert Eichelberger who served under McArthur in the South Pacific Theatre. In 1942 he was sent to the Southwest Pacific area where he led Allied troops in the battle of Buna-Gona. He also had victories at Hollandia New Guinea and Biak and he finally led the Eighth Army as the Commanding General during the battle to liberate the Southern Philippines.

You don't hear much about him but he was a highly capable leader of men, often close to the front lines and I would think that he was most likely highly respected by the Japanese forces he faced.

 

I have a lot of respect for BG Theodore Roosevelt III, too.

 

I did read that Hitler expected Churchill to come to terms when our troups were surrounded at Dunkirk, and only sent the Stukas in when it was obvious we wouldn't.

As regards the Pas de Calais deception. We had many mock inflatable tanks covered in camouflage to fool the Germans in Kent. We also had a number of tank movements in the area. At one time the common ground opposite I school was a camp for the army with many tanks. AS children on our way home from school we used to play up the soldiers.

The tanks made a mess of our roads, their tracks tore up our road sufaces.

Hitler always thought the landings would come in Normandy, but his generals thought it would come in the Pas de Calais. (Play on words here but pas in French is negative so "Not Calais". When the attack came, the generals realised it was the real thing butHitler changed his mind, believeing it was a diversion. He changed from being the only one who was right to the ol=nly one who was wrong.

When we visited Luxembourg, we found that General Paton was much respected there.

 

So you knew a lot about Ike. What is the consensus on him today?

 

I didn't mention Ike.

 

George Patton was the most respected general. The Patton movie won six academy awards.

 

They feared Patton. Patton was the WWII Sherman. He realized that to win you had to make war Hell. He also realized that if a commander was not capable of reducing a battle to numbers (no emotion) then he could not be successful.

 

Yeah, I know, but I meant that he was in the UK for a period of time.

 

Also, Hitler wouldn't allow any panzer deployment without his express permission, which greatly hindered his forces' ability to counter the invasion, as, when it occurred, Hitler was sleeping & his entourage didn't dare awaken him. Had his field commanders been able to react at once to the invasion, especially his panzer units, it mighta ended much-differently.

 

Another overlooked Pacific commander was Jonathan Wainwright. He oversaw the first Philippine campaign after MacArthur skedaddled and was right up on the front line firing a rife at times during the Bataan fighting. After the surrender he spent the rest of the war in a Japanese POW camp suffering degrading treatment.

Then to add insult to injury, MacArthur refused to sign off on Wainwrights Medal of Honor presentation for the longest time, with President Truman finally giving General Wainwright the medal despite Macarthur's opposition.