1. Douglas MacArthur - 1 Star General in WW I, Superintendent of West Point, Chief of Staff U.S. Army, Supreme Commander Allied Powers, 5-Stars, WW II mega-hero.

2. William Sherman - brilliant in cutting off the Confederate's supply lines during his very unpredictable and unreadable "march".

3. George Washington - totally outgunned and outnumbered during the early years of the Revolutionary War yet was able to achieve victories Trenton and Princeton despite having no advantage. Great intelligence strategist. Great leader during trying times.

4. George Marshall - very underrated staff officer (never had a major command) all of his life. Staff officer for Blackjack Pershing during WW I. Referred to by Churchill as the "Architect of Victory" during WW II where he was the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army (the highest non-civilian rank at the time). Was able to manage very different characters in MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, and others very well. Author of the Marshall Plan. Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State during the early years of the Cold War.

5. (Admiral) Bull Halsey - Won both the Battle of Coral Sea, assisted MacArthur towards towards the latter's "Return" helping capture several heavily garrisoned Pacific Islands without even attacking them. Won the Battle of Leyte (with some luck).

Admiral Nimitz is incredibly underrated. He deserves huge credit for what he accomplished at the Battle of Midway

George Patton. Sure, he was very controversial, but his successes at commanding the 3rd Army across France and into Germany, along with his North Africa campaign where he beat Rommel, and his Sicily campaign, all lead me to believe that he was certainly one of our best.

In terms of military genius, that is. His lack of political awareness is also well documented.

Lee

Nimitz was an outstanding commander.

Does Robert E. Lee count, even if he did fight for the wrong side? Very few generals did as much with as little as he did.

What do you all think about US Grant? I know he had more to work with than Lee, and was by many accounts a sub-par president, but the guy is my great-great-great grandfather, so figured I'd give him a shout out

george washington ftw

I love Douglas McArthur. The impudence of defying Truman, his commander-in-chief was one of such total chutzpah, It tickles me to contemplate. Add the brilliant watery landing in south korea, (which nobody thought could be successfully achieved) and the politically savy (and successful) campaign to return to the Phillippines, when all else insisted there was no objective, but he couldn't bear to break, his word. I won't argue the wisdom of some of his choices, but thoroughly admire his complete unmitigated gall, in making them. And old soldiers just fade away...The moral of the story? Don't let appetite overload *******. (and I haven't got it right, Yet!)



Everyone knows the definition of chutzpah, right? It's when a man accused of matricide, (mother-murder) goes before a judge and begs for leniency, because he's an orphan.

He is usually rated lower than Lee. Grant died busto, btw. LOL

Absolutely! He may be the best, yet! A sitting Admiral, listening to underlings about something of such primary critical importance as Midway? How easily could he have avoided the personal political risk, by blowing off those reports of impending invasion. And yet it may have been a necessary condition of winning WWII.

I think Chester Nimitz exemplefied the complete warrior, combining intelligence with carefully calculated risk. Defending Midway and Pearl's remnants simulataneuosly was no mean feet, with the breadth of the ocean, and limited fleet. I think his flagship was the USS Yorktown, with USS Enterprize, and USS Hornet accompanying.

The Japaneses planned to set a trap. Although their communications problems and lack of radar, was a handicapping factor, their, four carriers to our three would've challenged the edge. Nimitz planned to cut him off, and use superior aircraft to destroy the Japanese fleet. The first flying American squad, scored no hits and were decimated, losing their entire formation. The USS Yorktown, was nearly destroyed in early confrontation, but a quick thinking crew salvadger her for later rounds. The Japanese thought she was out of action, allowing her a stealthy resurgence with flight crew, and subsequent destruction of the enemy carrier. Altogether, three jap ships were destroyed, an achievement which forever after, altered the power balance in the Pacific, and may well, have won us the war. It's been said, that Midway was the most signifacant battle fought in navel history, and without Chester Nimitz, it may not have been.

I am not completely sure of my facts, but am certain of my conclusion.

There are so many significant elements, I would strongly recommend anyone interested look up the details. Midway was a glorious battle, of courageous men, and mighty machines. A genuine duel to the death, of men and the nations who bore them.

By putting Sherman on the list, and leaving Lee off the list, you're implying Lee was an inferior general to Sherman. Which is just old fashioned southern hogwash. Sherman was a typical balls to the wall type blue collar worker. His superior army won him his battles. It takes no brilliant stratagist to overwhelm an enemy you outnumber by several orders of magnitude. (Or at least so says the prime directive of the Southern Survival Society, also known as the Confederacy)

Now Robert E. Lee was a different kind of man. Your classical southern gentleman, he was educated at West Point, and hailed from an estate in Virginia, known as Arlington.
He was offered the chance to lead the union, but refused it, saying his loyalty was to Virgina. That's all I know about Lee. But it's high time I learned more. Awaiting instruction.

Good general, bad politician.

Gettysburg gets all the press, but Vicksburg was very very important, and he helped develop and implement the overall strategy that defeated the south. He had very capable subordinates, which doesn't happen by accident, and he gave them the trust and freedom to contribute significantly to victory.

He responded well to mistakes and misfortunes, and unlike some of his contemporaries, he did not flinch from taking or inflicting casualties.

He and Sherman both seemed to recognize that the south was not going to "give up" and that they would have to be both defeated militarily in the field and have their ability to equip and supply large armies destroyed. He sent Sherman on his March and had Sheridan finally destroy the farms in the Shenandoah Valley that had supplied Lee's army throughout the war.

He used his advantage of men and material to grind Lee down and not give him a chance for fancy tactics.

He had little success outside the military and his presidency was full of scandal. It is telling that his Memoirs (published by Mark Twain) end with the end of the Civil War.

He finished the Memoirs days before dying; they sold very well and restored his family's fortunes.

Some men are born to be generals. I wonder if a winning gerneral wishes he had won it by brilliance instead of attrition? I've heard it said Grant was a better general than he recieved credit for. That he did what the situation required, in order to win. Pity to have that kind of experience, and then live the remainder of your life for memory.

Butnahh

I reverently concede Midway to Thermopylae. You have to admit it, add the Athenian navy to Spartan stoicism and training, and you arrive at, heart stopping feats of bravery, tactical ingenuity, and excellence in execution, with a touch of romantic mysticism thrown in for flavor. Thermonuclear war, Pelipponnesian style.

Midway must be the second most valiant and eminently significant war, ever fought.

Agree with Nimitz. As an old Navy man myself he was always one of my heros.

Right now I am reading Ike by Michael Korda and it is a really amazing biography. A real page turner and it is giving me a lot more respect for his contributions as a military man. I really believe the Marshall/Eisenhower duo kept us on the right track in WWII.

I love Grant and Washington too. Pretty much for opposite situations. Washington because he did so much with so little against such overwhelming odds. Grant because he did what other Union generals wouldn't or couldn't do and use his advantages to actually bring it to the south.

First "Naval War" during which the ships did not see each other. Just planes versus planes. Totally historic and innovative.

Unfortunately for Nimitz, he didn't have a tenth MacArthur's charisma. He was totally overshadowed. But Mac still owns him despite his greatness.

Salamis was awesome. Too bad Thermistocles isn't as well remembered as that that dude in the movie "300".

I dreamed of joining the navy. My grandfather was a retired military officer, so I've always had a soft spot for military technique, and strategy, especially battles. He taught me about the book, The Art of War, when I was barely breathing. He was a wonderful, old-world gentleman, courtly and refined, if ramrod stiff in posture. I recognize military men eveywhere I go, because of how they carry themselves. It takes me back, with a momentary sentimental nostalgia.

No doubt Ike's ability to manage the conflicting personalities of his subordinates, contributed greatly to his success. But he wasn't really one of my favorites. He was a politician, not really a warrior. Although it's possible I'm just misinformed. The one thing I really liked about Ike, was the methods he used with George Patton. It must've taken some deep breathing, (and more than a couple shots of Scotch) to keep Patton in line, to the degree that he did. {one slip, (or slap) does not a career ending infraction make} I know little of Marshall, outside the obvious.

I agree. Washington was a general first, but an empathetic gentleman, after that. He sort of reminds me of Robert E. Lee, in his manner of approaching the world. He exuded regret, for what he had to do, for the greater good, of his country. All the while, I'd think, while fearing he would fail.

Grant was another heartwrenching figure. And he didn't really get to be a hero. His success was attributed to attrition (and still is) when actually, he implimented Art of War principles perfectly, by making southern weaknesses, his area of strenth. Despite being southern, I recognize the many tactical errors made in the Civil War. The old south, though underdogs in numbers, never really doubted they'd successfully defeat the yankees. Untill they met Sherman...personally.

Wasn't he fired by Truman for being a jackass? He wanted to utilize nuclear weapons in the Korean war against North Korea and China. ****ing crazy.

A great general but was an ******* to Truman.

Of course, I learned this from reading the book 'Truman.'

There's something mystical about dueling to the death, with an enemy you can't see. Recognizing the radar warning tone, as your harbinger of doom. I'd think the anonymity, makes it easier to eliminate the enemy, but makes dying, much more agonizing. Every take-off is a journey, into potential mortality.

Navel Air Wings must be interesting psychological studies. The quintessential adrenalin addict, as savior of the world. I can hardly imagine anything as exciting as a night landing on a moving carrier. Guess I'm an adrenalin addict too.

Wait a minute. There is something more exciting. War, and the best of warfare would have to be the naval battle. Safe and seriously insecure simulataneously. I get chills when I watch footage of the great battleships and cruisers of WWII. I would've loved being on the USS Yorktown at Midway. Let's not forget Bull Halsey. He was a tough-no-nonsense kind of commander, who tiptoed his way through the Atlantic, fighting under command of MacArthur.

For a man with pride, (as anyman of this caliber would be), it must have been difficult to live with MacArthur's noteriety, day in and day out. Somehow Nimitz managed it. Guess he wasn't consumed with ego.

What I really loved about Nimitz, was his keen instincts. The man was a marvel, at coming to the correct conclusion, without corresponding total information. And subsequently implementing his judgement, despite personal risk. He was keenly intuitive, and couragous. Overwhelming pot odds for success, in any individual venture.

But who wouldn't love McArther? Do you belive, had Eisenhower given him free reign, we'd have had nuclear war, with Russia and China? What about the thirty-eighth parallel? When MacArther crossed it, was he provoking the Chinese, or did he really consider it a tactical decision? He's both hero and anti-hero. This reminds me of "The White Cliffs of Dover" and I haven't a clue why. Anyone know the referrence? The relevance?

Funny thing, I haven't a clue who portrayed him in the movie, don't actually recall him heing portrayed at all. But I think about Thermistocles occasionally. And wonder what else, the Oracle told him.

Can you imagine the battle?

Rainy night, everyone's senses stuck on, "on", and enhanced by adrenalin. Mind racing, teeth on edge. Sea rocking you into lulls of contemplation. The impending confrontation an everpresent presence in the back of your mind. Officers shouting orders, preparing the ship for seaworthiness in battle. Darkness broken only by flickering flame, shadowing all your efforts with foreboding. Eagerly awaiting morning's revelation, and dreading it's portent, with equal emotion.

I love everything Greek, and need a painting of this. Any suggestions?

I am just up to the early parts of WWII so far in the book but Ike had an interesting career to that point. He always just wanted to command troops but was so skilled as an administrator he was always deemed too valuable not to do that. He was bitter it kept him from going overseas in WWI. He served directly for some very impressive mentors in Fox Connor, then Pershing and then 6 years as MacArthurs chief of staff prior to WWII.

Also he and Patton were old friends. After WWI (1920) they were the commanders of the US Armys only 2 tank divisions (Ike heavy tanks, Patton light tanks) and worked together on tank tactics and tried together (unsucessfully at the time) to make tank warfare more prevalent in the Army with more advanced future tactics that the powers that be at the time wouldn't even consider. He also specifically requested Patton for the first US actions in North Africa.

Patton was one of the heroes of Bastogne. He relieved the surrounded 101st airborn, at the very last moment. The Battle of the Bulge, Germany's last significant attempt to regain territory, was denied when an officer of the 101st replied to their damand for surrender, with NUTS!. Just one word, but confounded the Germans, buying precious time for the proverbial, Battling Bastards of Bastogne, to reinforce lines for final onslaught. Under orders to hold, at all costs. These valiant men, did just that. Out of amunition, bereft of supplies, the 101st were looking at being imminently overrun. George S. Patton, with his third army, after covering hard terrain in severely limited time period, arives in the nick of time, to rescue the embattled boys.

It's a sad take on America, that he's even more well known, for slapping a sailor, than participating in one of the most lyrical tales of the war.

I wasn't aware Patton defeated Rommel. I knew he wanted to engage that Desert Fox, but I wasn't aware he'd acheieved his objective. I thought it was Monty, the English General (Field Marshall) Bernard Montgomery, who defeated Rommel. Of course I'm sure there are numerous battles, I'm unaware of. lol

So he was only a bureaucrat by default, because they wouldn't allow him to serve in combat? Wow. That'll teach to you to perform to expectations. If he'd been more of a rebellous *******, he'd have made a bigger splash. Of course he did become president. Diplomacy and ongoing tedium wins, over egocentric drama.

I knew they were progressive thinkers, but why didn't powers that be, want futuristic tank maneuvers? We're tanks considered cavalry? And the backbone of army warfare, after troops? Did Patton ever defeat Rommel?

In the 20's (after WWI) the Army was small and getting smaller. Everything was being slashed and cut. There was no interest in tanks and especially paying for them. Who needs tanks when the war to end all wars just ended? But WWI era tanks were slow and designed to move no faster than infantry and only to support infantry. Blitzkrieg type tactics which Patton and Ike were envisioning were obviously going to be the future but it was a hard sell in 1920. Tanks were indeed part of the calvary and the old school Army at the time was still enamored with horses.

As far as Patton vs Rommel all I know is what they had in the movie Patton. According to that Patton beat Rommels army but it was unclear whether Rommel was present or not.

What about nathanal greene he lead the southern campaign in the american revolution ,had some important victories in the torrie colonies.

Yes. In some ways, MacArthur had perhaps become too powerful for his own good. He had essentially ruled over the Eastern Pacific as a warlord since the end of the Second World War, and was used to having a free hand to carry out whatever military operations he believed were necessary, as he had done during WWII. His stand-off with Truman was quite real, and it's a credit to Truman that he didn't blink, or it might have undermined civilian control of the military permanently (JFK had a similar stand-off with the Pentagon during the Cuban Missile Crisis and managed to keep the generals in check also).

MacArthur's real error was misunderstanding how the diplomatic situation had changed. By the time of the Korean War, the US was no longer the sole nuclear power, and carrying out a larger war, especially using nukes, against China would have had repercussions MacArthur was either unaware of or didn't care about (in either case, these were not good traits for a Commander with such extensive powers). Had the US expanded the war into China, the Soviets may well have gotten involved, kicking off WW3. Truman wisely realized how destructive such a conflict would be (as well as the very real possibility that the USSR might well conquer Western Europe within weeks if war broke out), and chose instead to accept a stalemate. When Eisenhower took over, he used MacArthur's suggestion to threaten the use of nuclear weapons to force a peace settlement, but he understood as well as Truman (and the Kremlin during the decline of Stalin's health) that a stalemate was the best outcome for all parties in 1953.

MacArthur was a great general during WWII and his shaping of post-war Japan should not be overlooked. But he was unfortunately still fighting the last war in Korea, which tarnished his otherwise illustrious career. He was still greeted with a hero's welcome upon his return to the States, and was courted by the Republican Party as a potential candidate, though MacArthur said he had no interest in becoming President. Near the end of his life, however, MacArthur seemed to develop better foresight, and advised Kennedy and Johnson not to escalate the war in Vietnam, and he was repeatedly critical of the Pentagon's advice to the Kennedy administration.