Stone K,
I hope you weren't referring to General George Catlett Marshall as a "lesser general".
As the first General of the Army, he held seniority over all 5-star generals in the US Army during World War II. Marshall ran the war with the efficiency of an accountant. He designated several of the generals previously mentioned in this post to their commands. He served the duration of the war as Army Chief of Staff. He designed the invasion of Normandy. He organized and coordinated the resources used to win the war in both the European and Pacific Theatres. After World War II, his plan for the restoration of Europe saved the European economy. Without the Marshall plan, Europe may very well have remained a third world continent to this day.
As previously stated, the answer depends on your criteria for determining who the greatest general of World War II was. If you are talking about punching nazis in the face, it was probably Patton. If you are talking about wrestling footholds in the pacific one island at a time, maybe MacArthur...maybe. If you want to know which general was the most instrumental to the achievement of total victory in Europe and the Pacific, look no further than General George C. Marshall.
How strongly do I appreciate his efforts to preserve the American way of life? My second son is named George Marshall in his honor.
Support our troops!
2006-12-08 09:16:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Fireball 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That’s actually a tough question, it really depends on what Criteria you give and go by.
Bradley by far is one of the mot respected if understated Generals (also the last of the 5 Stars). He had a very sound tactical mind and was not afraid to get his hands dirty in the front lines.
Ike, despite his later reputation as a sub par President, he actually had a strong background in strategy and even if a little cautious knew when to trust his generals and when to go in whole hog.
Patton (my personal Favorite) is in a class of his own. Truly he was a knight in the modern world. Tactics and strategy were second nature, Cold efficiency and bold maneuvers paint his already colorful career. He didn’t see the need to white wash anything and he certainly didn’t see the need to second guess a decision. Bold, deadly, honorable, the last of a dieing breed to say the least.
As for MacArthur, yes he was a good general, but his legend is slightly over inflated by his own ability to self promote (his need to change uniforms sometimes 4 times a day to appear constantly clean despite living in a cave is a great example). Don’t get me wrong, he was in a very tough spot and had a great strategic mind, but if it wasn’t for the massive works done by the navy he would not been half as successful. He was pompous and arrogant which led to his dismissal during the Korean conflict. He wanted glory and excelled in earning it.
Of this list, three of the four were 5 Stars, I think of this list however the G.I. General wins out. Bradley was not the glory hound that Patton or MacArthur was. He could measure out the right amount of bold aggression and wise defense. He was just as comfortable in a trench as in the HQ. Humble and soft spoken, but could get it done when the fire was on. He even provided his personal experience and insight in to the classic movie “Patton”. My father had the privilege to know the general and has the highest respect for the man he knew as being “the most humble hero I ever met.”
Anyhow that’s just my perspective, additional arguments can be made for Marshal and other “lesser” Generals, it just depends on your point of view and idea of what makes a great leader and warrior.
2006-12-08 00:41:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by Stone K 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
The allies had agreed:'Germany first' as the most dangerous enemy,therefore the best general comes from that theatre of operations:One general really stands far out from all the others:
George Patton;the best modern mobile warfare commander in the allied camp and in WW2 only second to Heintz Guderian the real father of the armoured warfare and one of the great captains
of History.Why?the answer comes from the enemy;the oldest and most professional general staff in the world,the German one,
said:Where Patton is,the Second Front will take place.See numbers of german casualties and prisoners against the third army,also read about his rapid move to break the german counter
attack in the Ardennes and relieve Bastogne(amove none believed possible in such a short time...)and draw your conclusions...
2006-12-07 22:04:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
MacArthur all the way...Look at our victories in Saipan, Iwo Jima, Phillipines, And Midway. Big area, and only a modest force of marines and navy. Says a lot for marines too.
Montgomery and his "market garden" also was a key decision to execute, without it, Germany may have had too much time to prepare and repel an attack on her homeland.
That plan was one of the most brillant drummed up in the war.
2006-12-07 21:03:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Diadem 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
General Macauthur.
He stood strong and would not allow Australia to fall to the Japanese.
Australia enjoys a freedom to day because of this American hero.
Along with the wonderful old diggers .
Merry Christmas to all!
2006-12-07 23:07:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i have to agree with MacArthur he had less resources and more area to cover. he was a brilliant tactician and motivator of men.
i would also have to add gen Matthew B Ridgway the father of the 82ND airborne and the general who took over as supreme allied commander after MacArthur was replaced during Korea.
that and he's a distant cousin..
2006-12-07 20:58:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by stanyazfan 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
European Theater: Omar Bradley, the epitome of leadership.
Pac Theater: Douglas MacArthur, brilliant stategist and tactician
2006-12-11 05:29:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by CPT Jack 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
General Omar Bradly. I think he was a brilliant general.
2006-12-07 20:24:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Zabanya 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bradley/ Eisenhower... Id say Bradley
2006-12-07 20:28:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Harry Merkin 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
MacArthur. He had to fight in a bigger theater(The Pacific) with most of the resources going to Europe. So had to fight more with less and still win.
2006-12-07 20:15:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Carlos D 4
·
0⤊
0⤋