OT: Is George Marshall our (United States) greatest military mind?

[phillybillyreprise]

...Marshall seemed particularly adept at knowing how to leverage talent. Eisenhower had no combat experience, yet Marshall saw Eisenhower's logistical and political acumen as a good fit for Supreme Allied Commander for the European theater prior to the invasion of Europe.[/QUOTE]
Additionally Eisenhower had been the aide to Pershing for the writing of history of World War I. He knew Europe.

 

[Overthereguy]

Hard to ignore Grant or Sherman earlier, or Patton or Nimitz later.

I'll offer up James "Mad Dog" Mattis for the modern day candidate.

 

[Ian]

John Moseby from Middleburg, Va. was incredible during the CW. Gave guerilla war a new meaning. Longstreet was pretty good, too. Lee’s right arm all through the war. Many wrongly blame him for Lee’s short comings. Sherman was a bad ass and his March to the Sea was both nuts and genius at the same time.

 

[Mr. Potter]

Reasonable men can differ, and in doing so, the debate could rage for days, but my choice is George Washington.

He and General Pershing were the only 6 star generals in the American Armed Forces

 

[Nitt1300]

I don’t think lee could ever be overrated. Even after the fight at Gettysburg he still fought for two more years. Heck he beat the hell out of grant for a time and he didn’t even have his best then. He also told his troops to surrender at the end and not fight a guerilla warfare that would have dragged on for years.

while opinions will of course vary, I have long shared a pov similar to this author's

Why Grant Won and Lee Lost
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/comment/why_grant_won.htm

 

[LemonEars]

We had the good fortune as a nation to have the right people rise to the right positions at the right time. Eisenhower was the perfect allied commander, able to employ his military expertise and pull together the various allied powers and negotiate the politics. MacAurthur was an expert at island hopping and carrying on a massive campaign against Japan. Nimitz was a master at naval warfare on a grand scale. Patton was a brutal ground commander, who could slice through German formations like a knife through butter.

Marshall was in Washington, pulling together the war effort and getting the Department of Defense off the ground. There was no better place for each of these men. They had their perfect roles.

How we were able to move these people through our military academies and into their perfect positions for the nation was amazing.

Good post. We should also recognize FDR and Harry Truman for having the wisdom to stay in the background and let the generals fight the war with minimal interference.

 

[delcoLion]

Eisenhower a perfect Commander.......didn't even attend Patton's funeral.......not sure I'm to impressed. Patton was the one that bailed him out multiple times and all Ike cared about was his girlfriend and politics.

Patton had family resources, some would call him an aristocrat- he didn’t need the army but the others did. Bradley hated Patton. Not sure what Eisenhower felt about him but I do hope to read more.

After he died, some people went through Patton’s personal library trying to find some idea as to what or whom influenced his military theories. They found numerous books on tactics and strategy with Patton’s annotations throughout. He studied like no other commander. There was a short allusion to this in the “Patton” movie, if you recall.

 

[Howie'81]

Hard to ignore Grant or Sherman earlier, or Patton or Nimitz later.

Or this man:

 

[Howie'81]

I am going to add Nathan Bedford Forrest to the mix as the best calvary commander on either side in the Civil War. Stuart has his fans and Buford on the Union side, but I go with Forrest. His legacy has been overshadowed, and rightly so, by Ft. Pillow and the Klan, but he was a tactical genius.

Agreed.

 

[Howie'81]

I don’t think lee could ever be overrated. Even after the fight at Gettysburg he still fought for two more years. Heck he beat the hell out of grant for a time and he didn’t even have his best then. He also told his troops to surrender at the end and not fight a guerilla warfare that would have dragged on for years.

But this was actually Grant's genius. He knew he had the numbers and Lee didn't. So did Lincoln. His other generals hesitated. Grant knew the math and kept attacking until Lee finally gave up. Yes, he sustained a lot of casualties, but it won the war. Sherman was also ruthless, but brilliant.

 

[auxgym]

Patton had family resources, some would call him an aristocrat- he didn’t need the army but the others did. Bradley hated Patton. Not sure what Eisenhower felt about him but I do hope to read more.

After he died, some people went through Patton’s personal library trying to find some idea as to what or whom influenced his military theories. They found numerous books on tactics and strategy with Patton’s annotations throughout. He studied like no other commander. There was a short allusion to this in the “Patton” movie, if you recall.

As noted in O'Reilly's Killing Patton, the only thing Ike cared about was whether Patton flew in formation. Ike seems to have a short memory and lack of loyalty toward Patton. Interesting how Ike and Truman's lack of balls sent us right in to the Cold War carrying B.B. guns.

 

[razpsu]

while opinions will of course vary, I have long shared a pov similar to this author's

Why Grant Won and Lee Lost
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/comment/why_grant_won.htm

The difference was in part Lincoln and Davis.

Lincoln offers Lee command of the army. Davis puts him behind a desk.

Imagine lee at bull run and pushing the union back to Washington.

The author doesn’t understand that what lee did when he finally took command was genius. Sevens days battle they were up against it then lee came in and turned the battle. If they stayed on the defensive the whole time then eventually they would have lost much sooner than 4 years.

Grant was helped by Sidney Albert Johnson being killed on the first day of Shiloh. He came in late in the day and the rebel’s had control and then didn’t reset due to their new commanders incompetence. It was just like Jackson one of those flukes that eventually would cost them

Grant was as tenacious as lee.

Grants team grew and Lee’s team diminished as the numbers helped grant in the end.

Lincoln put grant in control of all armies and grant planned a three prong approach to finish the south. Thomas was great and Sherman was awesome!! Lee knew what was happening with this three prong approach and knew it was a matter of time. Grant taking Vicksburg was much worse than lee being turned back at Gettysburg.

Davis hampered lees movement. Save Richmond at all costs and get stuck in the mud at Petersburg. Grant lost more in the first month against lee when they were as close to equal strength as they could be. Then lee lost his next best general in Longstreet who was wounded at the battle of the wilderness after his great flanking maneuver.

Lee certainly did less with more and he had too.

Grant like chamberlain rose from little and became true American heroes through their fight and advancement in rank.

 

[Metal Mike]

While there is no clear cut winner, I believe Marshall was our greatest military mind. Marshall was picked to be the operations officer of the 1st Infanry Division and later of the 1st Army in WWI. Key posts that ourlined our path to victory. Between the wars Marshall drafted a "Little black book" of who he saw as future leaders of the Army. Marshall used this knowledge to pick division, corps and army commanders. After the war as Sec of State Marshall developed and oversaw the "Marshall Plan" that helped Europe get back on its feet. A stellar career who in addition bit his lip and remained a team player when Roosevelt picked Ike to lead the Army in Europe.

On another note I am reading a bio of Marshall that states while he was born and raised in Uniontown he had strong Virgina roots. He went to VMI, married two ladies from VA and his family roots were in VA,

 

[LemonEars]

While there is no clear cut winner, I believe Marshall was our greatest military mind. Marshall was picked to be the operations officer of the 1st Infanry Division and later of the 1st Army in WWI. Key posts that ourlined our path to victory. Between the wars Marshall drafted a "Little black book" of who he saw as future leaders of the Army. Marshall used this knowledge to pick division, corps and army commanders. After the war as Sec of State Marshall developed and oversaw the "Marshall Plan" that helped Europe get back on its feet. A stellar career who in addition bit his lip and remained a team player when Roosevelt picked Ike to lead the Army in Europe.

On another note I am reading a bio of Marshall that states while he was born and raised in Uniontown he had strong Virgina roots. He went to VMI, married two ladies from VA and his family roots were in VA,

I wouldn't call Marshall "a great military mind". I would call him "a great mind". He excelled at everything he got involved in. The Marshall Plan had nothing to do with military strategy. Marshall would have made a great Chairman of General Motors or a great Head Surgeon at Johns Hopkins. He would have been a fine President. I would call Patton "a great military mind".

 

[lionroar88]

You all need to research General of the Armies - John J Pershing. There is a reason the P2 missile system was named after him, and there is a reason the Russians were scared shitless by the P2.

Infantry = Queen of Battle
Field Artillery = King of Battle
Pershing P2 = The LAST Argument of Kings

I proudly wore his name on my left shoulder for 3 years while on Active Duty. Every one of the Generals you mention from WWII served under Pershing - translation - he trained each and every one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Pershing

 

[Media Fan]

Wasn't George Marshall from Uniontown?

Born Uniontown, Pa. 12.31.1880.

On another matter, I saw the name Jayne Mansfield pop up in some article --she was born in Bryn Mawr, Pa. And, no the article was not dirty.

 

[childsSkip]

Thoughts.

Check out Winfield Scott from the Mexican-American War, and Marshall Georgy Zhukov, the Russian general who defeated the Germans and saved Russia in World War 2

 

[fkkkjm]

You or

Check out Winfield Scott from the Mexican-American War, and Marshall Georgy Zhukov, the Russian general who defeated the Germans and saved Russia in World War 2

Yes good call on Zhukov. He had an extremely complex relationship with Stalin - very interesting that Zhukov was able keep his scalp (despite being demoted to the Urals post war), given Stalins propensity toward whacking subordinates.

 

[Nittanyfarmer]

Check out Winfield Scott from the Mexican-American War, and Marshall Georgy Zhukov, the Russian general who defeated the Germans and saved Russia in World War 2

Been reading several books on Marshall Zhukov and the Eastern Front. He was like U.S. Grant in that he knew that he had the numbers to replace losses and the Germans didn't. For the whole Eastern front war, the Germans inflicted almost 3 to 1 loss against the Russians in both material loss and manpower losses, but Russia's industrial might was cranked up to maximum output and could replace losses within a week while Hitler would not place Germany's industrial output on the same scale, and the armed forces suffered for it.

 

[Nitt1300]

Been reading several books on Marshall Zhukov and the Eastern Front. He was like U.S. Grant in that he knew that he had the numbers to replace losses and the Germans didn't. For the whole Eastern front war, the Germans inflicted almost 3 to 1 loss against the Russians in both material loss and manpower losses, but Russia's industrial might was cranked up to maximum output and could replace losses within a week while Hitler would not place Germany's industrial output on the same scale, and the armed forces suffered for it.

Grant inflicted more losses than he took

 

[Nashville Lion]

Thoughts.

He is absolutely our greatest statesman. He is a very under appreciated American.

 

[Nashville Lion]

Wasn’t Marshall the only General to ever be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize ?
This was back when those prizes weren’t given to just anybody.

Yes his Marshall Plan resulted in him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He rebuilt Europe. Folks from Europe appreciate him more than the average American does. That is pretty sad.

 

[razpsu]

StatesmAn yes. Battlefield genius? No.

 

[diontechristmas]

Grant.

Many experts state that he made moves that no other general alive at the time would’ve done (and they worked). He was also a logistical genius in keeping supply lines open and his men well cared for.

He counter attacked at Shiloh when most would’ve retreated and won a major victory. His treatment of Vicksburg was masterful.

People stare that he was alarmingly calm and focused during battle. He was a great battke general, and also understood the bigger picture.

 

[kijanacat]

Well, for one thing, you have to divide the personalities into the Strategists and Tacticians. George Marshall would fall into the Grand Strategy type of military commander. The best of WW2. Manstein was the best of the Germans but he was their only true strategist. Rommel was a tactician as was Guderian and all of them gave bad advice on the Barbarossa operation.
In our Civil War, the Confederates were constrained in that they were fighting to leave the Union and not preserve it. I think Nathan Forrest was exceptional as was Sherman and in my readings I see that Winfield Scott deserves credit as a great commander for us.

 

[Nashville Lion]

Born Uniontown, Pa. 12.31.1880.

On another matter, I saw the name Jayne Mansfield pop up in some article --she was born in Bryn Mawr, Pa. And, no the article was not dirty.

Graduate of THE Virginia Military Institute

 

[kijanacat]

It is hard to rate the Americans in WW2 as the main battles of the war were over by September 1943. Even in the movie "Patton" the main character asks Bradley for permission to proceed since second rate troops were being used in the West so the Germans could use front line troops against the Soviet Union.

 

[delcoLion]

It is hard to rate the Americans in WW2 as the main battles of the war were over by September 1943. Even in the movie "Patton" the main character asks Bradley for permission to proceed since second rate troops were being used in the West so the Germans could use front line troops against the Soviet Union.

I don’t think historians of Normandy or the Bulge would agree with that.

 

[kijanacat]

Norman Davies, in his book, "No Simple Victory" states that about 70% to 80% of the Germans killed in WW2 were killed on the Eastern front. At the time fo the Normandy Invasion, Stalin launched Operation Bagration in part to relieve pressure on the Western Allies. Americans took more casualties on the last Day of WW1 than they did in the Normandy Invasion. The battle of the Bulge resulted in 19,000 American deaths. Stalingrad destroyed an entire German Army (the same one that demolished France/Great Britain in 1940) and German casualties were about 250,000. Kursk, in July 1943, had enormous casualties and the Wehrmacht was in retreat from that point on.
Be careful of the historians you read because they all promote a point of view.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Lee Jackson Longstreet. Had to say it.

They weren’t great US generals.

 

[lionroar88]

They weren’t great US generals.

Yeah - because non of them were officers in the US Army prior to The Civil War, and Lee wasn't Lincoln's first choice to lead The Union Army.

 

[razpsu]

Lee was Scott’s right hand man in the Mexican American war. Yes he is considered in top ten of our best generals. Jackson was like Patton and Longstreet is the father of trench warfare understanding the invention of rifling.

 

[Howie'81]

Lee was Scott’s right hand man in the Mexican American war. Yes he is considered in top ten of our best generals. Jackson was like Patton and Longstreet is the father of trench warfare understanding the invention of rifling.

I'd say Sherman was more Patton than Jackson. Sherman also brought the concept of total war to the world. In other words, you had to make war unbearable for the enemy population as well as the enemy army.

 

[razpsu]

Patton and Jackson understood the concept of keep advancing and don’t give up ground. Sherman did the same but with leave nothing behind us as far as material or morale.

 

[PSU87]

Norman Davies, in his book, "No Simple Victory" states that about 70% to 80% of the Germans killed in WW2 were killed on the Eastern front. At the time fo the Normandy Invasion, Stalin launched Operation Bagration in part to relieve pressure on the Western Allies. Americans took more casualties on the last Day of WW1 than they did in the Normandy Invasion. The battle of the Bulge resulted in 19,000 American deaths. Stalingrad destroyed an entire German Army (the same one that demolished France/Great Britain in 1940) and German casualties were about 250,000. Kursk, in July 1943, had enormous casualties and the Wehrmacht was in retreat from that point on.
Be careful of the historians you read because they all promote a point of view.

There is no doubt that far more men and resources were expended on the Eastern front. However your statement was that there were no front line troops on the Western front. That is not a true statement.

 

[Nitt1300]

And since this has morphed to include foreign leaders, let's not forget the Fighting Admiral

 

[KnightSlayer]

Yeah - because non of them were officers in the US Army prior to The Civil War, and Lee wasn't Lincoln's first choice to lead The Union Army.

And all his great military victories were while he was fighting against the US.

 

[razpsu]

And all his great military victories were while he was fighting against the US.

Lee was the first choice. Scott was general Of the army and retired. Lee was most definitely his first choice since lee was his star pupil and lee was Superindent at West Point at one point. So it was a no brained.

Lee was a great American.

 

[lionroar88]

Lee was the first choice. Scott was general Of the army and retired. Lee was most definitely his first choice since lee was his star pupil and lee was Superindent at West Point at one point. So it was a no brained.

Lee was a great American.

Lee was a Virginian first and foremost. He was conflicted as to where his 'loyalties' really pulled him. Ultimately he determined he was more loyal to Virginia and he would not take up arms against his fellow Virginians. He felt the federal government was over stepping by raising taxes on Southern goods, especially cotton and tobacco, and he felt the states should have more say in their governance. Prior to The Civil War, yes he was a great American, during and after... you could characterize him as 'conflicted', not truly 'great'. Had Lee led The Union Army, The Civil War would have lasted maybe 6 months because The Confederacy did not have another military leader of Lee's acumen.

 

[razpsu]

I would like to know could any one here say with ease that they would take up arms vs there family, town, friends. Etc.