Best American Military Commander in WWII?

[Zuni]

My vote goes to Douglas MacArthur. Now, before I get flamed, let me point out that his failures in the early hours of the war and in Dec. 1941 in general were extremely grave. He nearly lost the war in the Pacific, and the Phillipines were blitzed even though he had over 9 hours between Pearl Harbor and the begginning of the Japanese air attacks to prepare. His failure to do anything in the early stages of the war is extremely puzzling. He also made terrible errors in judgement regarding deployments of ground forces, and it was his errors that caused the hasty retreat to Bataan and Corregidor.
His nickname 'Dugout Doug' is unfair, because during WWI, WWII and virtually every campaign he ever participated in, he never showed cowardice at all. In WWI, as a Brigadier General he led trench raids into German lines! I do not know of any other officer with stars in all of WWI going on trench raids.
MacArthur's campaigns in the South Pacific after the debacle of Buna and Gona were masterpieces of military strategy. His leapfrogging up the coast of New Guinea, his seizing lightly defended Islands to isolate heavily defended ones, all the while losing less men than were lost in Anzio is remarkable. He managed to cut off the Japanese South Pacific base at Rabaul as well. He mastered the art of using naval, amphibious, airborne, and infantry forcesin concert with strategic and tactical air as well as opening shipping lanes at a low cost. His campaigns were complex, well coordinated and always fit into a larger strategy.
His campaign to retake the Phillipines, excepting the carnage caused by the ill fated Japanese attempts to turn the city into a tomb, was another masterful campaign. His forces made over 100 amphib landings, fought the largest naval battle in history and closed off the south pacific to Japanese ships and aircrafts.
Also, it must be remembered the MacArthur was a hero in the Phillipines, and even in Japan after the war and was far more popular in those countries than he was at home. His enlightened administration of Japan led the way to producing one of history's most sucssesful pacifist countries.
MacArthur is either hated or loved. But to me it is undeniable that he led the most creative and well planned American campaigns in WWII. Compare MacArthur's leapfrogging campaigns to the bloodbaths that the Marines encountered in the Central Pacific---Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo, Pelielu. MacArthur was able to neutralize more Japanese in the South Pacific with far less casualties than Nimitz was able to with heavy losses in the Central Pacific

[Orrin_73]

1. Ike Eisenhower

was a good commander on the western front. Ike being of german ancestry fighting germans was probably not easy for him, but I admire him very much.

deanforamerica.com
clark04.com
kucinich.us
sharpton2004.org

[Zuni]

2. He was an excellent administrator

He did such a good job with war time diplomacy. The problems he had to deal with were enormous. He rarely slept during the war. He also had to keep a leash on Monty and Patton, primadonnas who threatened the transatlantic alliance.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Having been in the Navy for 24 years, I am compelled

to let Admiral Nimitz' record speak for itself.

[Swede]

4. Stalin of course!

He mauled the Wermacht,and he was this close do getting all of Germany.

[tabasco]

5. Are you joking?

I hope so. The Russians won in spite of Stalin, not because of him.

[DoNotRefill]

7. Ummm....Was Stalin an American?

I know he was Georgian, but not the AMERICAN kind of Georgian... :evilgrin:

Oh, and BTW...Stalin was absolute crap as a military leader. If he was a decent tactician, how do you explain the entirety of Barbarossa? The Germans attacked a 15 MILLION man in-theater force which was armed with better and more heavy equipment than the Germans had with a 1.5 million man army, and kicked their asses 6 ways from Sunday. The Soviets BARELY held. Stalin was, however, very good at taking the credit away from the real Soviet military leaders, along with purging them.

[Johnyawl]

8. Stalin was not a military commander

He was the political leader, like FDR or Churchhill. Read a little Russian history, and then give some credit to the actual Russian Generals who won those battles.

[JVS]

9. He did a good job, but wasn't an American

And he was a commander on more than the military scope

On edit: If discussing allied military commanders Zhukov deserves mention

[Zuni]

15. what did Stalin do?

He never went to the front once during the war.
He supplied Hitler until literally the day of the attack.
He helped Hitler conquer and subjugate Eastern Europe in 1939/1940
He ordered his forces not to prepare defenses so they would not provoke th Nazis.
He even ordered commanders not to respond to German provocations, which led a number of commanders to be paralyzed with indecision during the German attack. (They were afraid to use their initiative and end up like the 35,000 other Soviet officers shot during the Yezhovschina)

The Soviet Union won because of the people. The people were brave, tough, determined and fought like devils. They pushed on despite casualties that would mortify a western military commander.
The Soviet commanders that came out during the war like Chuikov, Konev, Zhukov, and Rokkossovsky were incredibly tough, skillfull, effective commanders, with few equals in large scale land warfare. But they were also draconian and cruel, and no western army would have tolerated the incredibly harsh punishments meted out to deserters, shirkers and enemy POWs.

[JVS]

16. Without Stalin's 5 year plans they would have lost for lack of...

Industrial capacity.

The deal with Germany in 1939 provided valuable time to arm. It was a good countermove to the Munich conference in which Western leaders moved to turn German attention Eastward.

Stalin's doctrine of "Socialism in one nation" had been instrumental in the re-establishment of relations with the US and UK. Had Trotsky continued with his idea of "World revolution" Russia would have been even more isolated than it was.

Sorry that you don't like it, but he did a good job leading the country during the war.

[LanternWaste]

25. Russia won the war *despite* Stalin

One of the reasons Russia was at the brink of disaster during '41 was the 1939 purge of the officer corp. All told, over 75% of Soviet officers equivalent to the rank of colonel and above were killed by Staln's purges. The lack of good leadership from the battalion level up was obvious in most of the encounters til app. '43, when the OCS had finally met it's production goals. Additionally, for the first three weeks after the German invasion, Stalin had, for all intents and purposes, hid in his dacha much as a petulant child would after a tantrum.

And even before the invasion, Stalin refused to even admit the possibility that Germany would *ever* invade, despite repeated warnings from his intellgence community. His obssesion w/ numerical superiority led to a woefully inadequate tank force made up of small 28mm cannons and lack of radio communication (despite all the lessons which had been learned in France the year before). It was despite Stalin own objection's that the T-34 was ever put into production.

The list goes on and on. Russia did not win the war because of Stalin, they won the war *despite* Stalin. Much of this information comes from two sources: Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy and Utopia in Power (can't remember the name of the author on this one).

[JVS]

26. No 5 year plans, no victory.

According to Alexander Werth's Russia at War, Stalin's actions while not always correct were generally correct.

[LanternWaste]

27. Things that make you go "hmmm..."

I think anyone with even the smallest amount of administrative capacity could turn a state-run economy to a "total-war" economy. And (according to Kennedy in Rise and Fall of the great Powers), it could have been done much more effectivly, efficiently and a lot less painfully than it was done during Stalin's dictatorship.

I still maintain that the Soviet Union won the war *despite* Stalin's ineptitude and paranoia.

[JVS]

32. And who was responsible for the construction of that state-run economy?

Give credit where it is due. If anything, more recent events have demonstrated that command economies are very difficult to administer. Gorbachev's bungling of the state run economy caused the whole system to collapse! I'll give you that command economies are well suited for warfare, but to call it easy to handle is being foolish. Especially considering the incredible conditions which prevailed at the time.

As far as a bad beginning to the war, generally the country which is attacked fares poorly at the beginning. When the Japanese attacked the US in 1941, we were put into the hurt box quite badly for several months and were very lucky that things turned out so well at Midway. The English didn't even have to worry about the Germans getting the drop on them and still got kicked around with the French so badly that they had to just sit tight on their island and hope that something would happen. Fortunately for the UK, Hitler turned East and the US was attacked. Compared with the English and French alliance the Russians didn't do so badly.

[Swede]

11. OOops sorry,not an American.

But yeah he won the war for us. No scruples,no morals,total war,but he won.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

13. I guess you confused Stalin with Zhukov?

[bushedout]

6. Patton

[grok]

10. Patton, BUT

Alotta buts. :D

Despite his image(well earned) of being a primadonna. He captured so much territory, captured and killed so many germans with one of the lowest casualty ratios ever. And with the most poorly built tanks in the theatre to boot. This madman got results!

Yet, I am SO glad Eisenhower had him him on a tight leash. He never got a chance to overreach. And thats how most great commanders(who think they are always right) fall and fail.

Grok

[HawkerHurricane]

12. MacArthur...

Lost the Philipines even though he outnumbered the enemy...

Almost lost New Guinea when he refused to reinforce the Australians on the Koda Track...

Let his ego take credit for Gen. Wainright's actions while blaming him for his own mistakes...

Took bribes from the Philipine government...

And only avoided the court martial he so richly deserved by being the darling of the Republican Party for breaking up the 'Bonus Army' of WW1 vets at bayonet point.

Reminds me of McClellan in the Civil War; only stayed where he was because the opposition party would have thrown fits for kicking him out.

Now, for American Generals, I always liked Chester Puller for the Corps, George Patton for the Army (with props to Ike for keeping him under control) and the navy, Raymond Spruance who won 2 of the 5 carrier battles fought (Midway, Philipine Sea).

[Zuni]

14. I mentioned all of MacArthur's failures

above. His performance in the Phillipines (he was unprepared 9 hours after Pearl!), and at Buna and Gona in the early New Guinea campaigns was atrocious. Nevertheless, he did not have an up to date force either in the Phillipines, but they would have been able to hold far longer without his mistakes.

No matter how bad MacArthur did against the Japanese, look at British General Percival in Malaya who lost Singapore to a heavily outnumbered Japanese Army under Yamashita.

As far as I know, it has not been proved that he was 'bribed' by the Phillipine Government. As he was the Phillipine Army Commander, he might have recieved a salary and perhaps he did recieve 'bonuses'.

The Bonus march is truly one of the most disgraceful episodes of his career, along with the Phillipine Fiasco

[grok]

19. Macarthur and west point.

Wasn't Clark first in his class too? How do they compare in Capability intelligence and Arrogance? Just wondering how the top dogs act in their military career.

Grok

[Devil Dog Dem]

17. "Howlin' Mad" Smith, Marine General who lead The Drive across the Pacific

For which Nimitz took all the credit. Holland M. ("Howlin' Mad") Smith was the most under-rated leader of the war. He commanded the Fleet Marine Force from Tarawa to Iwo Jima, stepping down before Okinawa.

That ingracious a-hole Nimitz refused to invite Smith to the surrender of the Japanese on the Missouri because of personal animosity between the two.

He gets my vote

fixed typos on edit

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

20. I agree with that assessment. Nimitz had his adjenda, Smith had

his, they clashed, and Nimitz had the extra star to make sure the point was learned.
McArthur and McClellan were cut from the same cloth, which, I hope has been long discarded, but I fear it is still around.

[ewagner]

21. That's a good choice

but there are lots of other too..

Like Claire Chennault who led the flying tigers to stop the Japanese advance toward India.

Hap Arnold of the 8th Air Force in Europe.

There were sooooo many brave, brilliant and heroic commanders, it's really hard to single out just one.

[Devil Dog Dem]

24. I Agree.

Many great and courageous leaders during WWII.
It is probably more appropriate to ask: who are the under-rated comanders of WWII? Smith makes the short list on that one.

[Devil Dog Dem]

18. If the Corps had followed MacAruther's tactics in the Central Pacific

the war would still be raging today. Can't compare the two theaters. The Marines by-passed as many islands as possible but had no choice but to take the ones they did. For example, but for taking Iwo Jima our planes had no safe route from the Marianas to Japan. More lives were saved in b-29 emergency landings alone on Iwo Jima (20,000) than Marines were lost (over 6,000).

And MacArther FUCKED UP royally in Korea at the Yalu. But for the heroism of the the men of the 1st Marine Division the entire X Corps would have met the same fate as the 8th Army.

[rasputin1952]

22. This is a tough one...

Generals, Admirals and the like, all have good and bad points; after all, they are no more human than you or I. The difference rests with the awesome resonsibility they have.

MacArthur was, and I say this in truth, an arrogant asshole that thought he could do no wrong. Even after being recalled from retirement to Command the Far East Forces, he blew it time and again. His concepts of war were far outdated, (although he did learn quickly). His father, Arthur MacArthur was a Civil War recipient of the MOH, and MacArthur always aspired to beat his father. He was eventually awarded the MOH, for the "Defense of the Philipines", which means he was the first MOH Awardee for instituting a defeat. Wainwright was awarded the MOH for holding on long after Mac had left the area. In fact, Mac was 'pissed' that Wainwright recieved the MOH, because he capitulated, (but there was little left to fight with, no ammo, no food, wounded and dead all over; Wainwright tried desperately to save what was left of Mac's Command).

Eisenhower, great administrator and wonderful at calming the waters. Marshall knew what he was doing when reccomending Ike. But Ike would have been a terrible Field Commander.

Patton, got the job done, but was a "strange" individual. He'd grease the wheels of his tanks with Infantry blood if he got to the battlefield.

Omar Bradley was probably the best all around Commander, and is highly underrated.

Back a step to Marshall...here was one of the most brilliant military men of his time. He wanted to be there on D-Day, becauseif anything went wrong, and we had to leave the beaches, he was willing to accept the blame. FDR would not let him go. You don't find many like Marshall.

Halsey, made a few bad mistakes, like taking fleets into typhoons, but his victories were well understood back home.

Adm Fletcher showed his mettle at Midway, when he was out of "his element" and put in charge of carrier operations. With the intelligence he had, and a hell of a lot of luck, he destroyed the threat of the Japanese Navy in the Pacific.

As I started this thread, I knew I'd get some heat; many were skipped over, and there are some gaffes that were overlooked. But, the bottom linein WWII...we learned from The Great War, to get rid of those who would not change and move forward with bold new ideas. It was a combination of talent, brains, luck and Good Old American Willpower, that brought the war to an end. Not to berate our allies of the time, but they were beaten and broken by the time we started kicking ass....we were fresh, and we had the resources to bring the war to an end.

Hap Arnold: Holy crap, the only thing he wanted was to incinerate anything that wasn't American, (and maybe us too), that was one cazy SOB.


O8)

edited: spelling

[LanternWaste]

23. Omar Bradley

Omar Bradley, Master of the set-piece battle. Not flashy but had a much more efficient and effective grasp of risk vs. gain and his tactics fit perfectly the American grand "99-Division" strategy. Picked up on combined arms tactics much faster than most other commanders at that level.

[indypaul]

28. Without question

George Marshall.

[rasputin1952]

31. I have always been a Marsahll fan...

and always felt he got short shrift rfom FDR by not being permitted to go Europe. With 20/20 hindsight though, I can see why FDR needed Marshal in the States.

George Marshall made it a point to never laugh at one of FDR's jokes, (even if it was funny), and FDR respected the hell out of him for that. Marshall's IQ was phenominal as well. he did exceptionally well as Sec of State as well.

O8)

[Devil Dog Dem]

29. kick

eom

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. ETO, Patton. Pacific, MacArthur.

Yes, MacArthur was a raging egomaniac. But one can't blame the failures of the early war on MacArthur...the War Department owns a lot of the responsibility for its failures to appropriately apprise US military commanders in the Pacific of the real threat presented by the Japanese. MacArthur's island-hopping strategy was brilliantly planned and executed, and even without the atomic bomb the Japanese probably would've been forced to surrender no later than the fall of '45. MacArthur also deserves props for his postwar role in the rebuilding of Japan.

Patton was a brilliant cavalry commander, easily the equal of, say, Stonewall Jackson or Nathan Bedford Forrest; his campaigns were bold, daring, and decisive, and, with Ike to keep him in check, he proved himself one of the most effective combat commanders of American history.

Definitely between those two, but the tactical and strategic situations in Europe and the Pacific were so different I don't really see a comparison as fair.

[rasputin1952]

33. MacArthur had a brilliant staff...

if you want to be a great General/Admiral, get a great staff.

As for Mac and his engineering the "new" Japan, he based virtually everything on the US Constition and Bill of Rights. He was indeed radical in gettting rid of the caste system and getting women suffrage and many other things we consider normal at this point in time.

Patton: Hmmmm...he spent a lot of time on G'pa's knee listening to the Confederate side of the CW. He had his good points, but he failed to realize that he far too often displaced his own lines of communication. His victories were generally 'normal', but lifting the siege of Bastogne was pure genius.

O8)

[jmowreader]

34. Chesty Puller on the American side

For the Soviets, I vote for Konstantin Konstantinovich Rokossovskij. (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_044700_rokossovskyk.htm)

Rokossovskij was a career soldier. He started his service in the Russian Army. When Lenin started the Soviet Union, Rokossovskij (you'll probably see this as Rokossovsky; both are correct) immediately joined the Soviet Army and was promoted to general-major before the purges happened. He suffered appalling tortures while in captivity, was sentenced to death and suffered several mock executions.

On the eve of war with Germany, Stalin paroled Rokossovskij. He eventually made Marshal...while under sentence of death. He won Stalingrad. He won Kursk. After the war he was appointed military governor of Poland...and his death sentence was never lifted until after Stalin had died.

[BiggJawn]

35. "Uncle Charlie" Lockwood, COMSUBPAC

By the end of WWII, it was like there was nothing his submarines weren't capable of.
We lost 3,600 men compared to Doenitz' 30,000-plus.