Was General MacArthur a good army leader of the U.S.?
344080
MacArthur had an attitude toward Truman that was like "I don't need to take orders from you, you don't have the experience I have."  That's a destructive attitude to have towards your commander.  If you notice in later video footage of MacArthur meeting with Truman, MacArthur doesn't even salute Truman.  MacArthur was a brilliant commander, but all brilliant commanders have their time.  As the Romans say "all glory is fleeting".
429787
My generals fully support me...\n\nHAHAHA.. that was a good one...
234177
At the time, Arnold was revered as a heroic and competent general, know for his exploits at the Battle of Saratoga which was the turning point of the War of Independence.  Another name that comes to mind is General Horatio Gates but he was not a great military mind (he suffered one the greates American military loss in history at the Battle of Camden) but General Nathanael Greene was a famous name and an excellent leader.  So you have Arnold-good and traitorous, Gates- not so good and Gates- good and not a traitor
408207
hey, i just took a test over this, well as you probably know he was the presidentat WWII. He created the United Nations, he lead the miltary alliance that defeated the Nazis(italy and japan)he was best known for his role in the great depression, using his deal new that created the democratic party.
219410
Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller \n(he was a Colonel at the time, of course)\n\nFull article here:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesty_Puller
778229
With equal Armys to command it would be very close. Same general style. Attack Attack Attack. The only real advantage would be to Patton who did study Lee's tactics and every other general from the time of the civil war to Patton's present at West Point and an extra 100 years of "lessons learned" that Lee wouldn't have had. Playing chess or checker probably an even draw.
475198
from , http://ask.yahoo.com/20020308.html\n\nThe five star general rank was created in the midst of World War II to address the fact that several American commanders found themselves in the delicate position of supervising Allied officers of higher rank. Initially, the new rank was to be called Field Marshal, after the British military, but this was nixed due to stern (and quite understandable) objections from General George C. Marshall. \nWhen General of the Army Omar N. Bradley died in April of 1981, the five star ranking was consigned to history. In all, four Army generals, four Navy admirals, and one Air Force general have held this rank. The Army's five star generals were General George C. Marshall, General Douglas MacArthur, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and General Omar N. Bradley. The Navy's five-star fleet admirals were Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Ernest J. King, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey. And General Henry Arnold was the Air Force's five star general. \n\nWho beats a five star general? A General of the Armies of the United States -- the highest military rank of all time, hands down. To date, only George Washington and John J. Pershing have held this position
849734
Initially, the German army was one of the best, if not the best army in WW II.  Hitler was very helpful in decimating that army with his plunge into Russian in June 1941.  After that, the Red Army, the Russian Winter and Hitler's blunders destroyed the Army.  Troops in Russia with no winter clothes and Hitler's refusal to let Paulus and the German 6th Army break out of Stalingrad are a couple of examples of wasting fine troops.\n\nWhen the Allies landed at Normandy, the German army they faced was still a force to be reckoned with.  But a combination of Allied pressure and dwindling natural resources brought about by the day and night bombing of Germany, soon reduced the effectiveness of German army.  The Bulge further depleted the Wehrmacht.\n\nNear the end, the German army was using kids and old men.  The veterans and especially the NCOs had long been killed.
178592
There was an article about the Admiral Nelson in US News and World Report a few months ago.  He really did lose an arm and won several naval victories.  Great leader.
390162
I consider President George W. Bush as a good leader for the United States of America in the 21st Century. You cannot call Bush an Emperor because America is not an Empire and has never been an Empire.
466414
While he was an outstanding general and military leader, he wrote down his tactics in "Infantry Attacks" and never deviated much from them.  Patton read this book, and others Rommel wrote, and used that knowledge to defeat him.\n\nRommel also tried to get Hitler to see reason and support the North African Campaign.  Luckily for the free world, Hitler ignored him.\n\nHmmm...interesting view on my answer below.  And your sources are?  Yes, Rommel was overrated and Guderian (The "Difficult Subordinate") was probably the better general, as was von Manstein.  Rommels "currying favor" did little for him in the end though.  And all officers on the General Staff had to be party members.  \n\nAnd Patton never used combined arms?  Odd, no tactical studies I did of him showed that and I've been an Army Armor officer for years.  He did have a love for the saber and horse CAV, but was able to give that up.  Knowing how your enemy fought was the source of Patton's quote, not fighting as Rommel did.  It took a while for the US to catch up to the Germans, but, unlike other nations fighting Germany, we actually tried to mimic combined arms warfare.  Today we have prety much mastered it and are expending ever more on those concepts.\n\nLuckily for the world, Hitler was a terrible general and Germany always seemed to lose when Hitler got involved in Operational levels of war.  Unfortunatly for the Germans, but fortunatly for us, the German army, at all levels, really screwed up their LOG tail and issued so many varients of tanks that mechanics couldn't keep up. \n\nI can list book after book supporting views what I wrote.  You can still have your opinions, just please stop coughing at me, it's rude.
278344
Which office?  If you mean President of the U.S., that would be Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Yeah, ya might say he was pretty successful, winning a war and all.
382822
Five-Star Generals and Dates of Rank:\n\nGeneral of the Army George C. Marshall: December 16, 1944\n\nGeneral of the Army Douglas MacArthur: December 18, 1944\n\nGeneral of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower: December 20, 1944\n\nGeneral of the Army Henry H. Arnold: December 21, 1944\n\n(Redesignated General of the Air Force pursuant to Public Law 58, 81st Congress, approved May 7, 1949):\n\nGeneral of the Army Omar N. Bradley: September 20, 1950 \n\nThe Navy's Five-Star Fleet Admirals:\n\nAdmiral William D. Leahy \nAdmiral Ernest J. King\n\nAdmiral Chester Nimitz\n\nAdmiral William F. "Bull" Halsey\n\nThe Air Force Five-Star General:\n\nGeneral Henry "Hap" Arnold --Note: General Arnold actually was awarded this rank twice. In 1944, he received his fifth star while the air force was still part of the Army. It was then known as the U.S. Army Air Corps. After the Air Force separated from the Army, he became the new service's only Five-Star General.
12255
His promotion to Major General was likely a war-time promotion, which by definition reverts to the lower level once his position in charge of the division was eliminated. He would have to be a general of some sort to be able to give orders to every member of the division. He was ostensibly removed because of his age, but I'm sure the fact that the division failed its readiness test didn't help anything.
617757
Eisenhower.  He was a tank commander in wwi and Supreme Commander of Allied forces in wwii.\n\nedit: although he served during wwi, he never saw combat.  He was a tank trainer in the U.S.\n\nvballlish13: sorry, FDR was never in the military.  He was Commander-in-Chief during wwii, but was never in uniform.
412882
"Nathan Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877), was a Confederate general and perhaps the American Civil War's most highly regarded cavalry and partisan ranger (guerrilla leader)."
1047558
In the military sense only:\nHitler--Operation Barbarossa; his attack of the Soviet Union; especially before Great Britain was vanquished--this allowed the Allies to operate against him on two fronts.\n\nJapan--the attack on Pearl Harbor.  In Admiral Nagumo's own estimate, even had the attack been a complete success, the US would have regained the upper hand in the Pacific war in no more than one year.\n\nthe Allies--probably Operation Market-Garden, the push by Field Marshall Montgomery to drive through Holland and into Germany, summed up in the novel "A Bridge Too Far".