| Author |
Topic:
** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
darthdrago
Registered:
Dec '03
|
Date Posted:
1/10 7:56pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
- Date Edited:
1/10 7:56pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
darthdrago
|
2) General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, United States of America
Wiki entry
In 1942, Eisenhower was appointed Commanding General, European Theater of Operations (ETOUSA) and was based in London. In November, he was also appointed Supreme Commander Allied (Expeditionary) Force of the North African Theater of Operations (NATOUSA) through the new operational Headquarters A(E)FHQ. The word "expeditionary" was dropped soon after his appointment for security reasons. In February 1943, his authority was extended as commander of AFHQ across the Mediterranean basin to include the British 8th Army, commanded by General Bernard Law Montgomery. The 8th Army had advanced across the Western Desert from the east and was ready for the start of the Tunisia Campaign. Eisenhower gained his fourth star and gave up command of ETOUSA to be commander of NATOUSA. After the capitulation of Axis forces in North Africa, Eisenhower remained in command of the renamed Mediterranean Theater of Operations (MTO), keeping the operational title and continued in command of NATOUSA redesignated MTOUSA. In this position he oversaw the invasion of Sicily and the invasion of the Italian mainland.
In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. In January 1944, he resumed command of ETOUSA and the following month was officially designated as the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF), serving in a dual role until the end of hostilities in Europe in May 1945. In these positions he was charged with planning and carrying out the Allied assault on the coast of Normandy in June 1944 under the code name Operation Overlord, the liberation of western Europe and the invasion of Germany. A month after the Normandy D-Day landings on June 6, 1944, the invasion of southern France took place, and control of the forces which took part in the southern invasion passed from the AFHQ to the SHAEF. From then until the end of the War in Europe on May 8, 1945, Eisenhower through SHAEF had supreme command of all operational Allied forces, and through his command of ETOUSA, administrative command of all U.S. forces, on the Western Front north of the Alps.
As recognition of his senior position in the Allied command, on December 20, 1944, he was promoted to General of the Army equivalent to the rank of Field Marshal in most European armies. In this and the previous high commands he held, Eisenhower showed his great talents for leadership and diplomacy. Although he had never seen action himself, he won the respect of front-line commanders. He dealt skillfully with difficult subordinates such as Omar Bradley and Patton, and allies such as Winston Churchill, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and General Charles de Gaulle. He had fundamental disagreements with Churchill and Montgomery over questions of strategy, but these rarely upset his relationships with them. He negotiated with Soviet Marshal Zhukov, and such was the confidence that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had in him, he sometimes worked directly with Stalin, much to the chagrin of the British High Command who disliked being bypassed. During the advance towards Berlin, he came to the conclusion that Allied forces would suffer an estimated of 100,000 casualties before taking the city. The Soviet Army sustained 80,000 casualties during the fighting in and around Berlin, the last large number of casualties suffered in the war against Nazism.
What Drago Says:
Okay. I'm probably risking a flame here, but I'm just going to say it point blank: I disagree with Eisenhower even being on the list, to say nothing of landing the #2 spot.
I'm well aware that he successfully coordinated the largest invasion in history, and that his overall command did lead to success in both military and diplomatic terms. But this leads back to the same question that was earlier broached with George Washington: where does the bulk of the credit lie? With the individual commander's talents, or with his officers (who oversaw all the legwork on the ground & on the water)? I won't deny that Eisenhower was talented. I think the problem for myself is that, when scrutinizing Eisenhower's abilities, it becomes for me a "chicken and egg" scenario and becoming a circular pattern of shifting credit. Ike himself never had a field command during WWII. Instead we have stories of Patton, Montgomery, Omar Bradley, etc.
So if we instead shift the discussion to his (admittedly superior) organizational skills, I have to reflexively ask: why stop there? Why not go further up the chain of command, all the way up to General George Marshall, who was then the Army's Chief of Staff back in the States? Marshall appointed Ike, and helped draw up the plan for the Normandy invasion (indeed, Marshall hoped that he himself would be taking over the Operation Overlord reins from Ike in 1944, but Roosevelt kept Marshall Stateside, thinking Marshall too valuable to go to Europe). I just can't help but wonder how Eisenhower would have lead his troops if he had a field command in say, north Africa, when America's green army was on full display against Rommel at Kasserine Pass.
But, I have to honor the rules established for this list: five votes of Ike placed as folks' #1 pick (50 pts) are worth more than ten votes for Rommel as folks' #10 pick (10 points). So it's very possible that Ike didn't get very many votes, but perhaps those votes for him ranked him high enough on people's personal lists to give him a large margin. Just how many votes/points Ike received, I cannot say; Mr44 did the tallying, so you'll need to ask him if you want point totals disclosed.
Like I said, I'm not trying to take away any of Eisenhower's unique gifts for coordination & diplomacy (I cringe at the thought of trying to make Patton, Bradley & Montgomery all trying to get along, while helping keep the peace between Churchill & Roosevelt, plus getting on Stalin's good side, and trying to win a war all at the same time [face_dizzy].) But I say his talents as a leader get a little sketchy since I personally considered a military leader's strengths would combine both organizational skills AND proven skills on the battlefield as well. Maybe that's not what history really cares about? Maybe history really cares only about having a "1" in the win column? Or does it require intangibles like political & diplomatic skills on top of martial skills? You made the call: Ike's #2.
Jello's up next with the #1 military leader. Stay tuned...
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/10 9:18pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
I think, as you pointed out, that it says something that Marshall selected Ike to be the Supreme Allied Commander. As a result, Ike's face came to represent the actions of Patton, Montgomery, etc.. You raise an interesting point about military leadership, but by WWII, warfare had become so complicated and so complex, that I don't think any one individual could have commanded it all.
But it was Ike who gave the go ahead for Overlord, and while the overall plan was created by many, it would be him who would literally "sink or swim" based on the results.
Eisenhower represented the hopes of the entire planet, a situation of which hasn't been duplicated since:
"Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force. You are about to embark upon the great crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Hammurabi
Registered:
Jan '07
|
Date Posted:
1/11 2:12am
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
|
Choices like Washington and Eisenhower make this list seem incredibly American-centric.
-----signature-----
and i know no one can sing the blues like blind willie mctell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GrandAdmiralPelleaon
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
1/11 3:33am
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
- Date Edited:
1/11 3:35am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
GrandAdmiralPelleaon
|
|
It's an American forum, what did you expect? I didn't have time to make up a list which I thought to be in any way fair towards the commanders, but had I participated, I probably wouldn't have included any Americans just because I know that they already get a disproportional amount of the vote. I wouldn't disagree with some Americans on the list, but Washington and Eisenhower, in my mind, are far from the best commanders the US has ever fielded and a long long distance away from even being in the top 10 of military commanders in the world...ever. We've got thousands of years of military history and well, people who lose most of their battles and people who don't actually do much field work, in my eyes, have no real business being on the list. All respect for their diplomatic and moral leadership, it's a Military Leaders list for a reason, no?
-----signature-----
Vita vinum est.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
1/11 6:55am
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
I can see how Washington may not deserve to be on the list, but I think Eisenhower should certainly be on it. The trend over the last 60 years, especially the last 20, has been joint and coalition warfighting and Eisenhower did an excellent job organizing and planning for the largest joint/coalition war ever fought.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/11 7:30am
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
Choices like Washington and Eisenhower make this list seem incredibly American-centric.
And I don't understand this statement at all. When the list was tallied, exactly 2 people out of 10 were American, the other 8 came from outside of the US. But because people included Washington and Esienhower, the list is suddenly "American-centric?
If the list was reversed and contained 8 Americans and 2 from other areas, I could see a claim like this, but let's not get carried away.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Hammurabi
Registered:
Jan '07
|
Date Posted:
1/11 3:13pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
Going by the numbers, it looks like a well-balanced. But if we look any deeper, it just doesn't feel quite right. I reserve the right to designate as American-centric anyone who would rank Eisenhower as the second best military leader of World War II alone.
And no, simply by saying that Eisenhower fits from his organizational work doesn't cut it either. If we're going by that, Stalin should be up there instead of Eisenhower.
-----signature-----
and i know no one can sing the blues like blind willie mctell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_NoONE
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
1/11 4:02pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
|
I'm glad not a lot of credence is going to Augustus/Octavian. His major achievements were not military but social, iirc. All of his military achievements were due to Agrippa.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/11 4:18pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
- Date Edited:
1/11 4:36pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
|
To be fair though, as opposed to what exactly, Hammurabi?
I mean, I suppose that if one was a deep scholar of military history, one might list Norman "Dutch" Cota* as a commander who represents D-Day. But Cota was in charge of a specific slice of the overall battle, and certainly doesn't represent the overall "face" of the operation.
That's the key. Anyone can get rather specialized based on their own knowledge and expertise. ie-"Hey I vote for the ancient Roman general Manius Acilius Aureolus!" Except 1) Manius is only going to get that single vote, and 2) Julius Caesar represents the popular epitome of the Roman general, in addition to himself.
I actually thought that people included a wide cross section of examples in all their votes. Ike did poll consistently high, and it had nothing to do with being "American-centric," although I remember he got one or two low votes as well. Someone even listed Ike and added "as the representation of the Allied commanders." (or wording close to that)
Or you mentioned Stalin. If enough people voted for Stalin to get him a place on the countdown, would the list suddenly have a "Russian-centric" slant, especially if 8 or 9 of the other choices weren't even Russian? The inclusion of a couple of Americans doesn't equal a slant in any direction.
After the main results discussion, there should be a couple of "interesting-but-obscure" choices revealed, in addition to a couple of leaders who just missed the poll. For example, DarthDrago, the host of this, voted for an interesting choice, and I'm looking forward to seeing his supporting opinion. The leader who could be considered to be number 11 just missed taking the 10 spot from Rommel, which is intriguing considering the link they share.
In other words, it's all good stuff! 
*=(for those who don't know, Dutch Cota was Deputy Commander of the 29th INF DIV, and IIRC, was the highest rank to be among the first wave on Omaha Beach)
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Hammurabi
Registered:
Jan '07
|
Date Posted:
1/11 5:37pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
- Date Edited:
1/11 5:37pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Hammurabi
|
Mr44 posted:
To be fair though, as opposed to what exactly, Hammurabi?
I thought I made it quite clear that if we're examining things from a very broad perspective (as we are with Eisenhower), Stalin would be a far superior choice.
Stalin's not even the prime Russian example - though Stalin might deserve more recognition than Eisenhower, he had a few excellent generals who deserve far more recognition than Eisenhower. Would Zhukov's presence make the list Russian-centric? No, because he was an excellent general who deserves a spot among the greatest. Then why does Eisenhower's presence make the list seem American-centric? Because Eisenhower really has no reason to be on the list, much less in the second position.
-----signature-----
and i know no one can sing the blues like blind willie mctell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/11 7:05pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
Would Zhukov's presence make the list Russian-centric? No, because he was an excellent general who deserves a spot among the greatest. Then why does Eisenhower's presence make the list seem American-centric? Because Eisenhower really has no reason to be on the list, much less in the second position.
Right, how silly of me.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GrandAdmiralJello
Title:
Emperor
• EUC
• JCC
Registered:
Nov '00
|
Date Posted:
1/12 2:17pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
Lord_NoONE posted:
I'm glad not a lot of credence is going to Augustus/Octavian. His major achievements were not military but social, iirc. All of his military achievements were due to Agrippa.
Except the parameters of the original vote gathering would allow for that sort of incidental position.
At any rate, I'll be posting the champion sometime soon. 
-----signature-----
Roma Æterna|SPQR Imperium Sine Fine "Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque" -Ennius, Annales "Tu regere imperio populos, Romanæ, memento;hæ tibi erunt artes; pascisque imponere morem, parcere subjectis et debellare superbos" -Virgil, Aeneid
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
lorn_zahl
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
1/12 9:34pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
GrandAdmiralPelleaon posted:
Seriously, David Petraeus on 10? This just seems like national posturing, the guy only has had one significant command post up till now that I'm aware of and that's Iraq, and a battle against insurgents, that's not even won yet can hardly be taken into account. Do you have any motivation to place him on this list?
It's my opinion that the Iraq war is one of the most difficult conflicts any occupation force has had to face and General Patreaus has done an excellent job so far, far better than war critics like to admit. To cure some of your outrage I suggest you look into his background, Patraeus is an academic expert in counterinsurgency warfare who was on the ground during the invasion in 2003 and oversaw the retaking of Fallujah in late 04.
I'm okay with you disagreeing with me but hopefully you have a better idea for my 'motivations'. I don't need to know yours as it'll probably descend into an Iraq war debate.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GrandAdmiralPelleaon
Registered:
Oct '00
|
Date Posted:
1/13 5:04am
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
|
It has nothing to do with the Iraq war, aside from the fact that the conflict and his handling of it does not merit him a place in the 10 greatest of all time. The conflict isn't even finished yet, not to mention that he has so many more resources than the insurgents that it's no wonder that he wins engagements like fallujah.
-----signature-----
Vita vinum est.
Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthKarde
Registered:
Jun '02
|
Date Posted:
1/13 1:01pm
Subject:
RE: ** The Senate's TOP 10 MILITARY LEADERS (Countdown Discussion)**
|
|
On the subject of Ike being given command of Overlord this was probably a result of Churchill's dogged insistance on keeping a seperate Supreme Commander in the Mediteranean. Roosedveldt and the American Chiefs of Staff had wanted a Supreme Commander for the whole of Europe but Churchill insisted that Overlord and the Mediteranean theatres each have a seperate Supreme Commander. Churchill (who expected Marshall to be the Supreme Commander for Overlord) believed that Rooseveldt eventually decided that he wouldn't send Marshall unless he got the whole of Europe.
-----signature-----
The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
