Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 3 of 7 pages
197, so then my idea won't fly for having Henry Louis Gates sit down with the descendents and track down whether Sherman's army destroyed the family farm or not?
Just among Americans, I'd have him clearly behind Patton, and Washington. Don't know how you count Eisenhower (never actually commanded troops in battle) but he has to get some consideration. I'd also take Lee and MacArthur over Grant.
Sherman ..... was a very moral man.
That's a pretty significant #### up, methinks.
The one sour note was Biak. That was a failure of intelligence -- there were far more Japanese there than he'd been led to believe -- and a failure of command.
I also think you grossly overstate the devastation he caused. He tended not to destroy private property. There is no evidence of starvation deaths in Georgia following his march.
The burning of Columbia
If Montgomery had been tasked with the relief of Bastogne, he would have arrived in March of '45 with 400,000 men 2500 tanks, and 5000 guns.
MacArthur's approach through the Philippine and then Formosa would have defeated Japan without any of Guam, Saipan, Tinian, Pelileu, Iwo Jima or Okinawa being captured.
This reminds me of my last visit to the Imperial War Museum in London (which is... awesome). They had a special exhibit dedicated to the Paragon of Martial Virtue that was Bernard Montgomery. I found it quite hilarious.
The Bastogne relief was a pretty nifty piece of administration. Patton's staff was planning a response to a German breakthrough before it even happened.
My history book reading is pretty limited, but in the The Coldest Winter, Halberstam does not have a favorable view of McArthur.
The demonization of Sherman by the South is one of the great propaganda campaigns of all time, and a very peculiar one since Sherman--as he had promised at Atlanta--lobbied hard for soft treatment of the South from the moment Johnston offered to surrender through the end of Reconstruction.
When some were pushing for him to reprimand, even court-marshal, Halsey after Leyte Gulf, MacArhthur lased out: leave Bull alone; he likes to fight and I like that.
If Kurita hadn't inexplicably abandoned the plan that was actually working* (because Halsey had taken the bait) and shelled McCarthur's beachead with his Battle Group, I really kind of doubt McA would have been so forgiving- Halsey screwed up massively at Leyte- he only got bailed out - because Kurita fumbled the ball right back (to use a football analogy)
I love the explanation of French involvement in WWII.
In either event- whether the decoy failed or not- Kurita's JOB was to plow ahead towards McA's beach head- and he didn't he disengaged and eventually retreated- a stunning blunder
I love the explanation of French involvement in WWII.
Can you elaborate?
MacArthur most certainly would not have liked being told off in no uncertain terms where he got off
Their strategic surrender made Hitler overconfident and paved the way for later Allied victories.
"A French Army Which Fought With Honour"
In spite of the extent of the French defeat, it was not so easy for the German army to face with the campaign in France. From May 10, to June 25, 1940, the German army lost 160,000 men (40,000 dead and 120,000 wounded). Half of their tanks was made out of action and about a thousand of aircrafts was shot down.
Moreover, thanks to the French resistance located in Lille and around Dunkirk, the British succeeded in re-embarking almost their total strength that the German army would confront another time in Africa, Italy, and in Normandy in June 1944.
Yet off guard, however the French army managed to oppose a strong resistance to the invaders during the first part of the fights. The French army stood up to the German army in Belgium, in Hannut (May 12 and 14), and in Gernboux (May 14, and 16), in the Ardennes, in Stonne (May 16, and 18), and inflicted them each time high losses. On May 17th, at Montcornet, as Colonel de Gaulle was setting up the 4th Reserve Armoured Division, he decided with audacity to engage it in order to counter Panzers who were advancing to the Somme.
Because of the breakthrough of the "ligne Weygand", and of the will of passing through the MAginot Line - a real German failure in Sarrable on June 10, and 11 - the second part of the fights was characterised by the daily losses rates which doubled on the German side. For the French army, some dates are distinguishable from others, like on May 19, in Rethel (14th Infantry Divisionof General de Lattre de Tassigny), and like the dates from May 19, to 21, in Saumur. It represents a glorious feat of arms of the cadets from the Cavalry School, the "Train des Equipages" (Logistics Train), the Infantry School of Saint-Maixent, and also from the "Tirailleurs algeriens" (North Africa Infantry), who held back almost 40,0000 German Troops in the Loire.
The Maginot Line, even encircled, resisted at every attack and did not capitulate. After all, from June 21st to 24th, the Alps army conducted by General Orly, in face of the Italian army, let them only Menton and some lands on the ridge of the Alps. Even if its rearguards were threatened by a German Armoured Corps, the Alps army succeeded in blocking its progress at Voreppe in front of Chambrey and Grenoble.
Most notorious was Butler's General Order No. 28 of May 15, 1862, that if any woman should insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and shall be held liable to be treated as a "woman of the town plying her avocation"
or didn't think boots on the ground could tell the difference between NKA and ChiComs
Basically it's the start of the South's attempts to systematically re-write history but they haven't settled on a final version yet.
No doubt they were excellent light infantry. The issue is that light infantry isn't that useful. They would have been much more useful if they were the 82nd and 101st Infantry Divisions (Motorized).
The slapping incident is absolutely ridiculous. A General can order men to charge machine gun nests in suicidal assaults, but we're going to get weepy with a little slap?
I've heard these stories first hand as my uncle served under Patton (he was also Mark Clark's driver for a while; hated Clark, loved Patton.
This is anecdotal of course and should be regarded as such. So you think it's OK for a general to abuse a soldier with malaria and dysentery then, I guess. I don't
At some point you have to take the ground the enemy is holding. That is true in all wars ever fought.
Lot's of people outside of Patton's command criticized him for all kinds of things, including his strict uniform regulations.
Nimitz was, by all accounts level-headed, smart, and a really nice person, but he let his generals throw tens of thousands of Marines and soldiers into island meat-grinders to no real purpose.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 0.9777 seconds, 45 querie(s) executed