[themanbeau]

Hey, Gunners-

I was (am) reading a very interesting book called "The Glory and The Dream"
by William Manchester (deceased-a WW2 Marine). In it is the following
passage (pg. 269/paperback):

What made Pacific combat so ferocious, and turned it into a conflict in which few prisoners were taken, was that Japs thought it shameful for their enemies to surrender, too. Their captives were not treated gently. Corregidor's survivors were led on a "death march" after their capitulation-that is, the weak and the wounded were literally marched to death. Nips beheaded marine raiders captured on Makin Island, and at Milne Bay they left behind bayoneted Australian prisoners whose penises had been lopped off and the foreskins sewn to their lips. Above hung a taunting sign: "It took them a long time to die."
Such behavior brought swift retaliation; not since the French and Indian War had American troops been so brutal. Women and children were excluded; there were none of the atrocities against civilians which were to stain the Army's honor a quarter-century later in Vietnam. But in combat there were no truces, no chivalric gestures. The U.S. Navy waged unrestricted submarine warfare. Nips in the Admiralty Islands who preferred starvation to surrender were left in the bush and used for target practice. It was a hard war. Generals and flag officers could be as bloodthirsty as riflemen. Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair told his troops, "We must hate with every fiber of our being. We must lust for battle, our object in life must be to kill."
Admiral William F. Halsey ordered the erection of a huge billboard on a Tulagi hillside, visible to passing ships:

KILL JAPS. KILL JAPS.
KILL MORE JAPS.

You will help to kill the yellow bastards if you do your job well.

In the same mood, MacArthur told General Robert L. Eichelberger that if he didn't take Buna he needn't come back alive, and in 1943, when spies reported where Japan's great Admiral Yamamoto was, American commanders deliberately sought him out with P-38 fighter planes and killed him.

What the author doesn't mention is that MacArthur ceased such a hard attitude as soon as the Japanese empire surrendered following the bombing of Nagasaki in August, 1945. Mac could have easily removed the Emperor from power, but was smart enough not to. His fair treatment post-war had the fantastic result of making Japan become the first (major) nation in history to place a "no offensive war" clause in it's new Constitution. He was relentless in combat, but generous once the last shot was fired. In fact, a little-known part of history is that the General called for the U.S. churches to send as many missionaries as possible to Japan, a call that (sadly) went largely unheeded.

A Historian's perspective-

[General_lee]

I vote Patton.

[White Rook]

I voted for Patton also.

[Dillinger]

Since you haven't clarified the subject matter to country only -

Any discussion of effective combat under the direction of a General that lacks the name of Irwin Rommel is incomplete and an exercise in self stroking.

I believe the Ineff will back me up on this as he has also studied extensive military history...

JD

[Shihan]

[themanbeau]

Since you haven't clarified the subject matter to country only

Well, Rommel was a very great General, indeed; but, since he served under the infamous mad dictator, I hardly think he would have fought any (what we would have called) 'terrorists' in his day, from our free (U.S.) perspective.

Thanks for mentioning him, he's one of my favs, for tactics-

[Dillinger]

Originally Posted by themanbeau

Well, Rommel was a very great General, indeed; but, since he served under the infamous mad dictator, I hardly think he would have fought any (what we would have called) 'terrorists' in his day, from our free (U.S.) perspective.

Thanks for mentioning him, he's one of my favs, for tactics-

You don't think that Rommel had his share of insurgents and home grown terrorists in his travels??

Rommel would have done whatever the country that was his benefactor told him to do, and he would have done it better than just about everyone on that list...

Rommel would have crushed the Allies in Northern Africa and waded across the Med to create havoc on the Southern front if Hilter wasn't such a tool....

JD

[themanbeau]

Rommel...(middle left out-just to shorten)....would have done it better than just about everyone on that list...

As I stated, he was a very great General, indeed. The whole point of this thread is not to debate which General (of all countries, in all times) was best, my point was that we have fought such folks before-(not just in Japan)-which includes the Germans, in my opinion, in both world wars. If Hitler was not a terrorist, then the term is meaningless.

Also, Rommel (as you probably know-but others might not-especially the younger members) was not afraid (in the end) to oppose Mr. Hitler, and was forced to drink poison, for that very opposition. Unfortunately, his resistance/disobedience came way too late to help his native land rid itself of the Nazis, which Rommel was not one of, but his service helped to support, sadly.

Clarified, I hope-

[skullcrusher]

beau,

What's that organization you have going on there? I know this is off topic, but can you elaborate on your group? I'm interested.

[RL357Mag]

Patton gets my vote - there would never had been a cold war had he prevailed.