- 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 2:51 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:51 pm to Roll Tide Ravens
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.
The depth, scale, and grislyness of the ground war on the Eastern Front is unfathomable. The ruthlessness that Zhukov waged it could not be done in a western democracy. The US and the UK wanted no part in tangling with the Red Army in 1945. Dropping the Atom bomb was child’s play compared to the atrocities on the Eastern front.
US and UK had superior navies and air forces, but at the end of the day, it’s the boots on the ground that hold territory and the Soviets started winning after they were bombed in oblivion.
Hindsight is always 20/20, but prolonging the war to kick the Soviets out of Eastern Europe would have been met with riots in the US in 1945.
1
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:53 pm 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.
It would have been a awful struggle. The Red Army learned a ton of hard, bloody lessons on the Eastern Front. It would have been far from a cake walk.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 2:54 pm to Cuz413
quote:
Are you saying the southern states were not a part of the US?
I was being a little tongue in cheek, but are you implying that they were at the time that those men served as generals?
Posted on 9/27/23 at 3:24 pm to Mo Jeaux
I'm saying that if the CSA was not part of the US and thereby a sovereign country, Lincoln never had the power to wage war without congressional approval, which they never voted on.
Lincoln said they were states in rebellion. Which I'm still not sure granted him authority to do what he did.
Given Lee's ability to win battles despite being grossly outnumbered and lopsided resources, I think puts him at the top of the list.
Lincoln said they were states in rebellion. Which I'm still not sure granted him authority to do what he did.
Given Lee's ability to win battles despite being grossly outnumbered and lopsided resources, I think puts him at the top of the list.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 3:29 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Eh. Lee is pretty widely recognized as a very talented tactician.
He won some battles, but lost the war. That doesn’t make you the GOAT general, that makes you the Minnesota Vikings.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 3:46 pm to Truama_dawg
William Bedford Forrest. He was a damned savant lunatic who understood logistics and tactics better than almost anyone during his time period. He also understood that his men and his enemies would only respect fearlessness.
While he was blamed for fort pillow, historically it isn't clear he was in any position to affect it given he had ridden across Mississippi in the previous day. His affiliations with the clan and political events also don't seem to match his behavior later in life. He was a proponent of unity later on. And found himself abandoned by those who valued hatred more than friendship.
When the possibility of another war arose, he offered sherman his military services.
Even Sherman acknowledged he would have been foolish to not accept his service.
While he was blamed for fort pillow, historically it isn't clear he was in any position to affect it given he had ridden across Mississippi in the previous day. His affiliations with the clan and political events also don't seem to match his behavior later in life. He was a proponent of unity later on. And found himself abandoned by those who valued hatred more than friendship.
When the possibility of another war arose, he offered sherman his military services.
Even Sherman acknowledged he would have been foolish to not accept his service.
This post was edited on 9/27/23 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 9/27/23 at 3:55 pm to Truama_dawg
quote:I wouldn't say Grant at all. In fact if Lee had stayed in the north I think the Mount Rushmore would be Washington, Ike, Lee, and take your pick of Patton or Nimitz.
probably won’t say Grant
Of the two commanding Generals at the end of the Civil War they were on opposite ends of the luck stick. Lee was a crushed man when Jackson was killed by friendly fire at Chancellorsville. Grant was lucky to be at the right place at the right time. Lincoln was burning through generals (even facing one of them in his re-election campaign) and Grant was stationed on the western theater before coming down and wrecking his way to Vicksburg. Without the successes on that campaign we might have seen Sherman picked by Lincoln (possibly saving much of Georgia from his scorched earth warfare).
Since the question was shaded with TD north-south bias... Keep in mind my opinion is largely formed from an upper midwest upbringing but deep south college education. It was the best thing I could've done and would have certainly had a profound impact if I had gone into teaching Social Studies as I had planned.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:05 pm to Truama_dawg
quote:
Who is the GOAT of all U.S generals?
Will Wade
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:05 pm to MSUDawg98
quote:
upper midwest upbringing but deep south college education
There was a time that was the best thing that could happen to someone.
Grant recognized Lee for what he was. Just a man. Far too many of his peers saw him as some sort of diety.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:08 pm to X123F45
quote:
William Bedford Forrest.
Racists pieces of shite who didn’t even win don’t belong on this list.
There were some great Confederate Generals, some of them were even great people.
Forrest was not, he was a horrible person, a horrible man, and not that great of a general. Yes he understood battle tactics, but when trying to be labeled “the greatest”, who you are as a leader of men must be taken into account.
He was a piece of shite and belongs nowhere near this list
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:13 pm to RolltidePA
quote:
Can't have this discussion without George Washington.
Washington lost almost every battle he was ever involved with, many of which due to gross incompetence.
His biggest merit was his ability to maintain an army in the field at all after all the losses.
I’d also point out that nearly all of the major US victories except Yorktown occurred without him present.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:18 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
Racists pieces of shite who didn’t even win don’t belong on this list.
You sure you want to look at the racial opinions of the revolutionary war, civil war and even many of the WW1/2 generals if that’s your criteria?
Modern racial equity wasn’t high on many of their lists and the majority of the revolutionary era people owned or had owned slaves or indentured servants.
I think maybe we should leave race out of military competency evaluations.
quote:
Forrest was not… that great of a general.
This is just laughably false and all the northern generals would agree.
He was the best cavalry commander of the war on either side and helped pioneer mounted infantry tactics that were copied by the north and US army post war.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:22 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
Racists pieces of shite who didn’t even win don’t belong on this list.
There were some great Confederate Generals, some of them were even great people.
Oh get your panties out of a bunch.
If you want to win you need Sherman, Jackson, stonewall Jackson, and Forrest.
He made efforts to change. Most at the time did not.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:22 pm to tide06
quote:
His biggest merit was his ability to maintain an army in the field at all after all the losses.
Under the circumstances, this was pretty impressive...
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:27 pm to tide06
quote:
He was the best cavalry commander of the war on either side and helped pioneer mounted infantry tactics that were copied by the north and US army post war.
Not to mention he was quite possibly the single most dangerous bastard on a battlefield since Hamilton.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:28 pm to Cuz413
quote:
I'm saying that if the CSA was not part of the US and thereby a sovereign country, Lincoln never had the power to wage war without congressional approval, which they never voted on.
Lincoln said they were states in rebellion. Which I'm still not sure granted him authority to do what he did.
Given Lee's ability to win battles despite being grossly outnumbered and lopsided resources, I think puts him at the top of the list.
Oh my God, man. Let it go. The fact is that they were never U.S Generals. It’s a technicality. I have no desire to litigate the war.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:28 pm to tide06
quote:
You sure you want to look at the racial opinions of the revolutionary war, civil war and even many of the WW1/2 generals if that’s your criteria?
Modern racial equity wasn’t high on many of their lists and the majority of the revolutionary era people owned or had owned slaves or indentured servants.
100%
Forrest was a piece of shite when compared to his peers, not just when compared to today.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:36 pm to Sus-Scrofa
quote:
Eh. Lee is pretty widely recognized as a very talented tactician. He won some battles, but lost the war.
He wasn’t working with the same resources as the north either.
I think there are a lot of great college football coaches at non-P5 schools who would get beat by 40 if their team had to play UGA.
Doesn’t mean if they swapped rosters they wouldn’t beat Kirby just as badly as they lost when the talent was against them.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:42 pm to Sus-Scrofa
quote:
He won some battles, but lost the war.
For Christ’s sake. Napoleon also lost some battles and ultimately his war, and yet is recognized as one of the greatest. Alexander the Great couldn’t hold his army together and had to turn back from further conquest, and yet is recognized as one of the greatest.
I realize that some of you feel the need to spike the ball over the civil war for some odd reason, but don’t be disingenuous.
Posted on 9/27/23 at 4:43 pm to Truama_dawg
Blackjack Pershing
Page 8 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News