English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Eisenhower? Patton? Marshall?

2006-12-02 08:33:22 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

gene m: thx and oh yeah, i forgot about Omar Bradley, he was something. and Douglas MacArthur....him and his pipe.

2006-12-02 08:52:54 · update #1

11 answers

Without a doubt it was Patton. Eisenhower was a politician and planner, not a combat leader or strategist, Bradley was good, but plodding and relied on massive firepower before he would commit troops. Marshall was army chief of staff and really a strategic planner. MacArthur was definitely a leader, very brave, but he enjoyed a tremendous military power advantage over the Japanese.

Patton was aggressive, intelligent, and led by example. He almost single handledly forced the army to adopt the tank as a weapon. He actually paid for the army's first tank out of his own pocket, and when army officer's were afraid to drive the tank, his own wife Bea drove the tank in her dress!

Unfortuanetly because of his contoversial actions in speech and actions he was shunted to the back burner, and did not get the opportunities his talents really deserved. This included not being part of the actual D-Day landings. When the allies got bottled up in Normandy it was not until Patton and his third army were activated did the allies break out. Then Patton's rapid advance through Europe was only slowed by lack of supplies, and Eisenhower's dumb deference to British General Montgomery. If Patton would have been given what he needed the war would have definetly ended earlie.The Montogomery concieved disaster at Arnem wouldn't have happened and Eisenhower and Bradley wouldn't have been surprised by the German counter attack in Christmas 1944 in the Ardenne forest. Of course when the chips were down and the brave Americans at Bastogne needed assistance Eisenhower called on Patton to come to their relief, which is one of the one of the most spectacular advances in military history.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, Patton was exactly right about the Soviets. He wanted to take care of them while we had the army there and use the Germans to help. Just think no Cold War, no trillions of dollars spent, probably no expansion of nuclear weapons beyond the US, and no enslavement of millions of people, no advance of communism in China.

2006-12-02 10:08:37 · answer #1 · answered by mk_matson 4 · 2 2

That is an excellent question! It's also very subjective depending on the person you ask and what Historian's think. Marshall was not in the War zone as Eisenhower and Patton were but at the end of WW II, he established the Marshall Plan on how to re-build Europe. Ike, (Eisenhower) was the Supreme Allied Commander and worked out hte plan to invade Europe on June 6, 1944, called D-Day. Patton called Old Blood and Guts, among other battles helped defeat the Nazi's at the Battle of the Bulge during December of 1944. But don't forget Bradley! He, along with Marsahll and Ike, became a General of hte Army, (5-star General) and was a great soldier himself. Great great question.

2006-12-02 08:46:18 · answer #2 · answered by gene m 3 · 2 1

Lucian Truscott! He worked for Patton, but he was a better General. He could take orders and get things done without his ego getting in the way. He also got wounded. Truscott accomplished things that Patton talked about, things that Bradley thought about, and things that Eisenhower was given credit for. He even eclipsed Mark Clark for ground gained and prisoners taken. Forget the Patton movie. It was fiction. Very little truth to it. Patton was a blowhard and a diva, Bradley was a planner and Eisenhower was an office clerk, never even got his boots dirty.

2006-12-02 10:50:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It s difficult to rank the American commanders of WW II. They did not have the Russian Front as a stage like Zhukov, Konev, von Manstein and Guderian. They are judged for 8 to 10 months in northwestern Europe. To me the best American general was Eisenhower.

Ike had to keep everyone happy from Roosevelt and Churchill on down. All the army and army group commanders had problems with him but he kept the coalition together...which was not easy with all these egos.

Everyone denigrates his strategic vision. He could not have the Americans or the Commonwealth Nations win the war...the Allies had to win the war, that influenced the use of a broad front strategic rather than one of concentration.

It must be remembered it was Ike won recognized the Battle of the Bulge for what it was...not Bradley or Montgomery. He made the hard decision to give Montgomery command of the northern...and most important area of the Bulge, basically giving Bradley nothing to command during this battle, which caused a life long riff been these former friends and classmates.

The strength of the American army of WW II, in my mind, was the corps commanders. Generals; such as, Collins, Gerow, Middleton and Ridgeway. These generals are rarely talked about when it comes to best. It was Collins, who recognized the collapse of German resistance of St. Lo sending in his mobile forces at the right time to start the Allies breakout in Normandy and he could not have been better in Belgium.

2015-12-24 12:39:11 · answer #4 · answered by William 1 · 0 0

The best political/military general was George Marshall. The best all around general in the field was Ike Eisenhower. The best fighting general was George Patton

2006-12-02 10:56:41 · answer #5 · answered by dustycat 2 · 1 2

Eisenhower, as the supreme allied comander and future president, was probably the best logistics man.
Marshall, for figuring out post-war Europe, was a very good big-picture man.
Personally, I think the best was Patton. He was great at commanding his troops, he was daring, and he was a tactical genius. Patton has my vote.

2006-12-02 08:58:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Patton's field of expertise was armored combat, while necessary, he lacked the ability to focus on the overall picture. Eisenhower, overall, was the better General.

2006-12-02 09:14:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Patton would be my choice. Not only was he a great general in WW2 he also helped develop the US tank program in WW1 and helped create the communication systems for tanks as well as coaxial mount for machine guns.
In WW2 he was able to smash through the German lines and traveled over 600 miles of territory and captured approx. 81522 miles of territory.

2006-12-02 10:04:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

American Generals Of Ww2

2016-11-15 03:59:05 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

The best general of WWII was George Patton. In fact, ol George wasn't just the best general of WWII, he is widely considered the top military strategist of the modern age.

2006-12-02 08:38:25 · answer #10 · answered by Twister 2 · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers