Posted on 10/17/2006 5:18:26 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Wouldn't it have been interesting to have followed Patton's activities five years after the close of the Second World War, had Patton's life not been taken in the vehicle "accident" that claimed his life.
A Patton-versus-MacArthur brawl to see which was top dog would have been unpleasant, but Patton as a replacement for Mac [instead of former Airborne General Matt Ridgway] would have no doubt terrorized the North Koreans, Chinese and Russian Soviets, as well as their sympathizers at the UN and in the U.S. State Department. But somehow, I suspect he would have gotten along with the tough little former artillery officer from Missouri as his commander-in-chief, and would have performed miracles for him.
Sounds like archy has the makings of a great novel. I want the first draft on my desk within a year... so get crackin'.
Charming to the end, aren't you?
George Washington recognized loyalty to one's country came before loyalty to one's state. Something Lee didn't see to understand.
Nor can you apparently disprove. Evidence apparently being an unknown concept to you, Pea.
A serious study of such leadership really requires three categories. Try as *Marshals,* those who led entire armies on multiple fronts, then your *Field Generals* leading multi-Corps and multi-divisional Armies, and finally simply *Generals* operating Divisions or Brigades- usually.
My nominees would be: Patton and Lee as Field Generals and Marshall and Ike as Organizational Generals
*Marshals*: George C. Marshall , Halder, Zhukov, F.M. Alexander Suvarov ,von Moltke, Alexander III, king of Macedon, Frederick II of Prussia
*Field Generals*: Patton, Lee, Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur , George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Gen. Sir Bernard Law Montgomery
*Generals, Brigade and Divisional*: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Patrick Cleburne, Stonewall Jackson, Scipio Africanus, George Henry Thomas, Zhuge Liang, MGen John E. Sloan, Gotthard Heinrici, LtGen. John [Iron Mike] ODaniel
I would also scratch Sherman. The actions of his troops on the March to the Sea should have resulted in his Court Martial.
Sherman's bungled relief of Burnside at Knoxville takes him out of the running in any event. Ever wonder why there's no major stateside U.S. military base named Ft. Sherman? [Though there's one in Panama...]
Remember Napolean's dictum that a good commander may be forgiven being defeated should superior numbers or resources be thrown at him, but cannot ever suffer being surprised....
And too, it's a mark of a good leader if he sets an example for his troops by surviving the wars in which he's fought.
I'm a newspaperman, not a novelist. I'm working on something a bit more recent.
Again your perception of Lee depends on your view of states' rights. Lee did work after the war was over to heal the wounds caused by the conflict.
Ike is one of my American heroes. From what I've read of Ike's speeches and writings, betcha he personally wrote this letter.
Why confine Jackson to Brigade or Division? I think he should be included in the list of Patton and Lee. In my opinion, the Valley Campaign alone solidly puts him there.
Newspapermen can't be novelists? Okay...make it two years. But no more!!!
The north wants to wrap itself in the cloak of moral superiority. I wonder if the war would have turned out differently if Lee had been willing to make aggressive war on an undefended civilian population and leave a trail of pillage, starvation and smoldering wreckage in his wake as did Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant (among others)? These actions we would condemn today as war crimes. So you have to ask yourself - did the civilized side win?
BTTT!
Great thread!
Grant understood that the agriculture of the South kept the Confederates in the field. He wanted to destroy the South's ability to wage war.
It was harsh...but he believed it necessary to end the war as quickly as possible and save lives ultimately.
It was a strategy that Lincoln endorsed, and Lincoln made the right choice. It was the same type of decision that we made in World War II... Total war against Germany and Japan's ability to wage war. If Grant and Sherman are to be held as criminals, then so should the generals who made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan.
Jackson had the same attitude. He said that war was the sum of evil, but if we (the South) were going to wage war, then the South needed to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard. Raise the black-flag. If you read some of the correspondence that Jackson wrote to Lee about going North, you would see the same attitude. Where Jackson and Sherman differed is there was nothing in Jackson's attitude or actions to suggest he would allow his soldiers to burn down homes or steal their wealth. He was strict on looters and wouldn't even allow the destruction of fence rails for fire wood.
But when we did what we did to Germany and Japan THEY had started that kind of warfare first. That puts the north in some pretty uncomfortable company.
Your comments about Jackson proved my point. He had his starving and cold soldiers bypass food and firewood that were in the hands of noncombatants. And you didn't answer my question. Would the war have ended more quickly (and differently) if Lee have been willing to wage total warfare first?
I only make these remarks to defend Lee from those who would condemn him.
Lee would have never engaged in that type of warfare. It would have been alien to him.
If he had, would the war have ended differently? I think so because I think his military ability far outweighed any general from the Union. (My father vigorously debates this with me - he's a Grant man).
As for WWII, we did not engage in total war as a revenge tactic. We engaged in total war because it was the only way to end the war quickly and reduce causalities.
There have been exceptions, some of whom have churned out some pretty good yarns [former Reuters and BBC newsie Freddy Forsyth and Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Hunter's books make a pretty fair read.
And I once pitched an idea about a possible early-days FBI agent's involvement in the Lindbergh kidnapping, though it's not hit print.
Besides, I've come to the conclusion reached after 35 years in the racket that the real stories are more fantastic than the fictional ones, if usually not as tidy or neatly concluded.
When Ronald Reagan was asked how we should fight in Vietnam, he replied..."We should go in at breakfast, pave it over by lunch, and be home by dinner."
"As for WWII, we did not engage in total war as a revenge tactic. We engaged in total war because it was the only way to end the war quickly and reduce causalities."
Perhaps, but we would never have been able to justify doing it without the other side sinking so low first.
Just to be clear: I fully support the dropping of the bomb to end the war as my father was in the Navy and in Pacific and that let him come home sooner rather than later. Fortunately, as someone with an engineering degree, he was on the destroyer tender U.S.S. Dixie and wasn't shot at much, but, still.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.