- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is the GOAT of all U.S generals?
Posted on 9/27/23 at 9:50 am to Adam Banks
Posted on 9/27/23 at 9:50 am to Adam Banks
quote:
This is a man who has seen hell and didn’t blink.
1
Posted on 9/27/23 at 9:55 am to Pax Regis
quote:
They had to off him for fear he would keep WWII going to whip the Soviets arse while they were weak.
They were not weak at the end of WWII, they just didn’t have the nuclear bomb yet. The red army very well may have been the best land based military in the world at the time.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 9:56 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
His own Intel warned him the Chinese were preparing to cross the Yalu. He chose to ignore it.
the CIA also told Truman that the Chinese were not planning any major offensives into Korea. MacArthur's intel chief, Charles Willoughby, told MacArthur the same thing. that said, Willoughby was a total MacArthur sycophant, and he was certainly giving MacArthur the news he wanted to hear, not necessarily the truth.
he definitely fricked up, but it's not as clear cut as people like to make it sound when disparaging MacArthur.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:10 am to LSUDVM1999
George Washington
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:13 am to GetCocky11
quote:
I'm not sure what you expected Eisenhower to do in that situation.
Let Patton and Bradley run with the ball instead of eating lives and resources on Monty’s Market Garden. A very poorly made plan.
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 10:16 am
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:14 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:He saw hell because he caused it.
This is a man who has seen hell and didn’t blink.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:15 am to LongueCarabine
General Mills
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:16 am to Sam Quint
quote:
surrender half of Europe to communism for half a century?
i say that slightly tongue in cheek, because it's far more complicated than that, but Eisenhower definitely shares some responsibility in that as well.
He still answered to the leaders of the countries that made up the Allied Expeditionary Force. He couldn’t have just started a war with the Soviet Union. Even if he could have, would that have been a wise move? End WWII and immediately begin WWIII?
So what were his options? The Soviets had fought for and conquered much of Eastern Europe. The only way they would have given up what they had gained was to have it taken away from them, which leads me back to my questions above.
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 10:19 am
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:17 am to LB84
quote:
When morale, manpower, and material are low, Washington.
Estimates were Washington's army had 2,400 soldiers before he crossed the Delaware on Christmas. Revolution was hanging by a thread.
Washington crossing the Delaware on Christmas had a lot to do with soldiers enlistments ending January 1st and a lot were leaving.
Eisenhower was our greatest general.
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:18 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Everybody will say Patton but the answer is Eisenhower.
Mostly just because Patton has a better movie.
Meanwhile, Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe, five-star rank as General of the Army, and Commander in Chief. Quite literally no other general in American history has achieved more.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:22 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
They were not weak at the end of WWII, they just didn’t have the nuclear bomb yet. The red army very well may have been the best land based military in the world at the time.
Led by a very good general/field marshal in Georgy Zhukov.
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 10:22 am
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:25 am to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:
He still answered to the leaders of the countries that made up the Allied Expeditionary Force. He couldn’t have just started a war with the Soviet Union. Even if he could have, would that have been a wise move? End WWII and immediately begin WWIII? So what were his options? The Soviets had fought for and conquered much of Eastern Europe. The only way they would have given up what they had gained was to have it taken away from them, which leads me back to my questions above.
like i said in a previous post on this thread, i am shite talking Eisenhower with the benefit of 80 years of hindsight. through this lens, yes, it would have been better to end WWII and start WWIII immediately. millions of lives would have been saved. of course that was a complete non-starter domestic politically speaking. and tehre was no way of really knowing this in 1945. i do think Eisenhower bears part of the responsibility in deliberately slowing down the Western Allies and allowing the Soviets to take Berlin. Roosevelt of course bears the lion's share.
i like Eisenhower fine. but he was always as much of a politician as he was a general, for better AND worse.
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 10:31 am
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:26 am to Truama_dawg
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:26 am to Truama_dawg
Lucian Truscott
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:28 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
Meanwhile, Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe, five-star rank as General of the Army, and Commander in Chief. Quite literally no other general in American history has achieved more.
he also never fired a shot in anger.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:38 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
They were not weak at the end of WWII, they just didn’t have the nuclear bomb yet. The red army very well may have been the best land based military in the world at the time.
not sure why this is getting downvoted, it's pretty much historical record. going toe to toe with the Soviets in a land battle in 1945 would have been dicey at best. of course, we had the nuclear bomb, the mere threat of which may have been able to push the Soviets back into Russia if we had tried.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:51 am to Sam Quint
We would have had air and naval superiority and probably logistical superiority in terms of supplying our troops, but to think we could have easily or quickly rolled through the red army that had been hardened by their war with the Nazis is naive at best
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:52 am to Truama_dawg
Stonewall Jackson
Did the most with the least
Did the most with the least
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 10:56 am
Posted on 9/27/23 at 10:53 am to Truama_dawg
Chesty Puller has to be on the list. He was a bad, bad man.
Page 5 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News