Hardly. The Marines alone lost 7,000 men taking Iwo Jima.
The fact of the matter is that the Pacific War consumed only 30% of our war resources, involved mainly U.S. troops and Navies (with some commendable help from the Australians), was fought against a far more determined opponent and still saddled us with far fewer losses.
Our blunders in the Pacific were limited to a few places like Tarawa and Pelielu. Those in Europe/Africa range from Kasserine Pass to Market Garden to the final conquest of Berlin, and scores of examples in between (Anzio, Monte Cassino, etc.).
And, yes, Ike, Mark Clark, George Marshall, Montgomery and others were political generals. The more capable (Patton, Omar Bradley) ranked further down. My father fought in that war and had little respect for the political general class.
MacArthur, OTOH, not only learned from is mistakes but became a capable postwar administrator and a hero to the people he conquered. Until another mediocre politician fired him.
Wrong. Plus, macarthur did not “retake the south pacific. Time to study some history.
bump
Oh I do love the armchair Generals. And I’m sure you could have done it better smart guy? Someone is criticizing the planning of D-Day. I do think I have now seen it all.
Eisenhower was a political general, but that's exactly what was required in that job. There were incredible tensions between the Americans and the Brits, and I doubt there was another American who could have held them together as well as Eisenhower did, given the vast array of prima donna generals and politicians on both sides. Montgomery actually came up to him on VE Day and apologized, sort of.