Himmler did briefly issue orders to various Volkssturm units. That is 'leading' combat units.

(07-21-2014 10:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Himmler did briefly issue orders to various Volkssturm units. That is 'leading' combat units.

You're right, of course. I had forgotten that.

(07-20-2014 09:07 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  "Ni@@&rs and cotton caused this war. I wish them both to hell".

William T. Sherman Fayetteville, NC 1865.

Said while destroying a textile mill.

Quite the racist as well as terrorist.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Sherman by his own admission said the march to the sea was to bring the war to the citizens of the South and break their morale..thus shorting the war. If we are going to call him a terrorist(and that is fine with me)then we also must call the commanders of the RAF that fire bombed Hamburg and Dresden...and the US Commanders that fire bombed Tokyo terrorists. They did those things for expressly for the same reasons. I chalk it up to the insanity of war. Sherman did what lots before and after him did....killing civilians under the logical assumption that it would shorten a war and save lives in the long run.

We can talk about those other once the quotes and actions of Sherman are addressed. Don't jump around and deflect.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-22-2014 04:27 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  We can talk about those other once the quotes and actions of Sherman are addressed. Don't jump around and deflect.

Perhaps he's a politician. That kind of activity is SOP for politics.

(07-22-2014 04:27 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  We can talk about those other once the quotes and actions of Sherman are addressed. Don't jump around and deflect.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I already earlier said I believed Sherman was a POS. That has nothing to do with him not being a good general. There have been a bunch of good leaders that were awful human beings. In fact....I'd submit that often times they are better when they are. Leaders that have empathy for the enemy are often less effective. Some how we now believe that winning a war without killing innocents is possible. The overwhelming historical evidence is contrary to that.

(06-11-2014 04:52 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 02:42 PM)UofM_Tiger Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 12:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Eisenhower was not a great general. He was too busy playing politics to be a good general.

(06-11-2014 07:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  McArthur?

MacArthur was an arrogant fool, who lead many men to their deaths, just so he could return to the place where he barely escaped with his life. He could have avoided those deaths and still won the war without all that bloodshed. But he had to fulfill his promise to return to the Philippines, sacrificing thousands of his men to do it.

Screw MacArthur.

Amen to that. Plus, he essentially wanted to turn Korea into WWIII.

C'mon man! An arrogant fool? Look, MacArthur sure as heck was neither the first nor the last general to have some ego and pride. Don't let that discount his ability to lead and govern. After he retired from the army he accepted a military advisor position in the Philippines to help organize and train their army. His family had a previous history with the Philippine people and MacArthur grew to respect them and had a great relationship with the Philippine President. Once the Japs cranked up their imperialistic ways FDR reinstated him as general. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his efforts to try and defend the islands with limited resources. The point is that his promise to return was mainly due to his affinity for the Philippine nation and the men that died during the invasion. He also believed it was a moral obligation to liberate the Philippines since they were allies to the U.S. and the Japs were ruthless occupiers.

The governance he did in post-war Japan was incredible with rebuilding their nation and establishing a constitution and democracy all the while keeping the peace and respecting the cultural traditions of Japan.

Throw in his deployment of "island hopping" tactics that took strategic islands back from the Japs to establish air bases for air support and supplies was critical to helping defeat them. He understood the power and logistics in combining air, naval and ground forces in battle. IMO, he was one of the great generals ever for the U.S.

Also, taking the Philippines back cut of oil to Japan. Oil is why Japan invade the Philippines in the first place.

(07-18-2014 08:02 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-18-2014 02:58 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Yes Terrorist...just research Roswell Women Mill workers for one instance..

Vast contrast between the two governments and their military leadership. The Army of Northern Virginia followed General Orders #72. Sherman as well as Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley burned private property, live stock and raped women.

The South has been fighting terrorism since 1859.

As for the urban legend of the KKK and N.B. Forrest that is incorrect and there is no supporting evidence to point towards that accusation.

.....and there's no supporting evidence Gen. Sherman was a terrorist. Yet you've said it twice and not once condemned N.B. Forrest for his blatant terrorism towards blacks/former slaves.

I'll just chalk you up as another red-assed South Carolinian who's still bitter about something that happened before he was born.

Sherman was a terrorist and a war criminal. Unfortunately war criminals are rarely prosecuted when they nning side.

Lee
Jackson
Washington

1. Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler (2-time CMOH winner)
2. Insert random general here

Washington for obvious reasons founded the country, even though he loss most of his battles, but he won the war.

McArthur, Spearheaded the fight against Japan in the Pacific, then he single handily reformed Japan from a totalitarian state to a liberal democracy.

Patton greatest battlefield leader tactician, we ever had.

Colin Powell led our Armed forces to a devastating victory in such a short amount time over an enemy (many experts thought, we would be bogged down in defeating because of their firepower) with a minimal loss of American lives.

do not mention Lee because he was not an American (he was a traitor and Confederate) when he led the rebellious southern troops.

(07-19-2015 01:26 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  do not mention Lee because he was not an American (he was a traitor and Confederate) when he led the rebellious southern troops.

Now! Now! Let's not turn this into politics. Lee was born a US citizen and died a US citizen. He was never once charged with treason nor was any member of the Confederate government.

Perhaps the most underrated, Gen. John Pershing.

He took a group of nobodies with none of the equipment or experience to fight a modern was and turned them into an effective fighting force in record time. Also, to add to that, he really did create the first modern American army from scratch.

We've perhaps never had a leader to match his administrative skill.

To his tactical and strategic skill, it can't exactly be measured in the same way as say a Lee or Grant but it can be measured in the learning curve he underwent. The American army in the field began the war woefully unprepared from a strategic and tactical perspective and learned what took the other allies 3 years in less than 1.

He was an impressive individual to say the least, and one often forgotten by our history since we don't seem to spend a lot of time on the First World War.

(07-20-2015 08:30 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(07-19-2015 01:26 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  do not mention Lee because he was not an American (he was a traitor and Confederate) when he led the rebellious southern troops.

Now! Now! Let's not turn this into politics. Lee was born a US citizen and died a US citizen. He was never once charged with treason nor was any member of the Confederate government.

Lee's US citizenship was never restored, neither was he pardoned, until Congress "In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution effective June 13, 1865."

LINK

He died in 1870, how was he honored posthumously in 1865?

Also , there's a reason why Salmon P. Chase never tried Jefferson Davis as a traitor. Sand applies to Lee and each Southern Patriot.

As a General is still studied at USMA.

(07-22-2015 10:14 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  He died in 1870, how was he honored posthumously in 1865?

Also , there's a reason why Salmon P. Chase never tried Jefferson Davis as a traitor. Sand applies to Lee and each Southern Patriot.

As a General is still studied at USMA.

I think the Congress, did it that way because that's when the Civil War ended in 1865 and the United States was whole again with the southern states back in the fold.

(07-22-2015 10:39 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 10:14 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  He died in 1870, how was he honored posthumously in 1865?

Also , there's a reason why Salmon P. Chase never tried Jefferson Davis as a traitor. Sand applies to Lee and each Southern Patriot.

As a General is still studied at USMA.

I think the Congress, did it that way because that's when the Civil War ended in 1865 and the United States was whole again with the southern states back in the fold.

Wrong. They did it that way because of the tremendous regard everyone in the nation had for General Lee. He was offered the command of the Union Army before the war started, but he couldn't fight against fellow Virginians, and took command of the Confederate Army instead

But he was a man of honor, and was treated as such. Had it not been for the respect granted General Lee, the south would have been treated far worse.

Plus Salmon P Chase couldn't try Davis nor any other Confederate since their acts were covered under the Constitution. Would have lost that in the court of law.

1) Lee
2) Patton
3) Stonewall Jackson
4) Andrew Jackson
5) Sam Houston

General Greene has to be top 5.