I've a question on great Generals of WW II such as Patton, McArthur ...

Why couldn't they keep their mouths shut?

MAYBE IT TAKES GREAT EGOS TO MAKE GREAT GENERAL?

Originally Posted by RFOWELL

MAYBE IT TAKES GREAT EGOS TO MAKE GREAT GENERAL?

Yes but it could also be said that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. The two generals mentioned are probably best remembered because of their own self promotion and less for out performing others who carried out similar tasks without requiring a headline.

As to why they couldn't keep their mouths shut well some people like the limelight and others just do their jobs and go home.

I must strongly disagree. They were Generals. The press followed them around everywhere. If either of them so much as passed gas, what they had eaten was in the newpaper the next day! Patton was a soldier! Not a politician! He always spoke his mind. An indepth study of him and the press shows that he had enemies in high places. He was targeted by unscroupulous members of the press and the resulting mis-truths were not questioned at the time. But he was right about one thing: the Russians. 50 years of cold war proved that.

Originally Posted by RFOWELL

MAYBE IT TAKES GREAT EGOS TO MAKE GREAT GENERAL?

I disagree, Eisenhower and Bradley (who IMHO were much better than Patton) were known to be very humble.

Eisenhower never had a combat command.. He was a politician He was a great organizer. He was instrumental in keeping the Allies at peace with each other. Omar Bradley was a "Yes Man" to Eisenhower. He was at his best when he let Patton do his thing: attack, attack, attack! Read up on the difficulties that Patton had to overcome. Such as when Eisenhower withheld material and men from Patton to pacify the British so that Montgomery could plan Market Garden. The Allies paid dearly for that monumental blunder. But on a couple of occassions Bradley did support Patton against the wishes of Eisenhower.

Erwin "The Desert Fox" Rommel i believe is one of the best Generals of WW2, though his title stated Field Marshal, in most countries that is the equivalent of General. Also General Georgi Zhukov of the Russians proved himself in the battle for Moscow all the way to Berlin, if it wasn't for him i doubt the Russian front would have recovered from Hitler's blitz.

Originally Posted by Somalia

Erwin "The Desert Fox" Rommel i believe is one of the best Generals of WW2, though his title stated Field Marshal, in most countries that is the equivalent of General. Also General Georgi Zhukov of the Russians proved himself in the battle for Moscow all the way to Berlin, if it wasn't for him i doubt the Russian front would have recovered from Hitler's blitz.

Well in the German Army of WW2, the rank of Field Marshall was directly equivalent to a 5 Star General in the US Army, although operationally it was probably more akin to a 4 Star General. There are many grades of General and Rommel attained the highest field rank in the German Army regardless.

Your answer is typical of someone who has not done a great deal of reading on WW2. Rommel was a good general but one of the best? I think that is being a bit generous. His military achievements certainly don't stand up compared to his reputation. As far as Zhukov goes another fine commander but he certainly wasn't solely responsible for Russia's eventual victory, far from it. Russia was always going to win eventually when the Germans failed to knock them out quickly in 1941.

I have done extensive readings on ww2, and read books from the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which is about 1500 pages to such books as Fatal Decisions which is about the most crucial mistakes made during ww2. I won't argue with you b/c i can discuss ww2 down to the detail, but thats besides the point....Every war has great Generals that usually played a crucial difference, and Zhukov played that part on the Russian front. As far as Erwin Rommel is considered ppl have their differring views but he is recognized as one of the Greatest military tacticians and General/Field Marshal of WW2. Hitler handicapped him in North Africa did not send supplies of men and material and basically abandon the Afrika Corps, if Hitler gave Rommel what he need in North Africa, things might have turned differently in that theater.

Originally Posted by Somalia

I have done extensive readings on ww2, and read books from the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which is about 1500 pages to such books as Fatal Decisions which is about the most crucial mistakes made during ww2. I won't argue with you b/c i can discuss ww2 down to the detail, but thats besides the point....Every war has great Generals that usually played a crucial difference, and Zhukov played that part on the Russian front. As far as Erwin Rommel is considered ppl have their differring views but he is recognized as one of the Greatest military tacticians and General/Field Marshal of WW2. Hitler handicapped him in North Africa did not send supplies of men and material and basically abandon the Afrika Corps, if Hitler gave Rommel what he need in North Africa, things might have turned differently in that theater.

I have always felt that Rommel was over rated and certainly not in the same league as the likes of Erich von Manstein, I tend to believe that his fame has been enhanced by a his "anti-Hitler" stance and a lot of positive revisionist history writing.

This is not to say that he wasn't an adequate commander but I don't believe he was the best Germany had to offer.

Zhukov well I really don't think it was hard to look good as a red army commander as long as you had no regard for the lives of your troops it was a pretty easy job as replacements were unlimited.

If I had to pick a German general for the role of best I probably would go for von Manstein, maybe Hoth or Hauser.