# Worst of the Generals



## Theognome (Jul 10, 2009)

Yes, there are some folks who are remembered not for how good they were, but for how mind-numbingly bad. Who gets your vote as the worst of the worst generals in history? Feel free to explain your reasons, or add your favorite loser to the list.

Theognome


----------



## smhbbag (Jul 10, 2009)

Is the morality of a general part of the consideration of how bad they were? Or is this strictly based on tactical and strategic ability?


----------



## Theognome (Jul 11, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> Is the morality of a general part of the consideration of how bad they were? Or is this strictly based on tactical and strategic ability?



Take your pick- this is an equal opportunity thread.

Theognome


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 11, 2009)

I vote McClellan. Terrible terrible General. 
Fine soldier. He showed great courage during the Mexican-American War. During the War Between the States lets just say...he didn't fair as well.

Deo Vindice.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 11, 2009)

I chose Washington b/c of how trumped-up his skill seems to be in most history books compared to how he really was, but there are some real stinkers in there. Not sure I made the right choice.


----------



## Zenas (Jul 11, 2009)

Sherman.


----------



## Wannabee (Jul 11, 2009)

Mills


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 11, 2009)

George Armstrong Custer . . . preening narcissism, strategic overconfidence, tactical foolishness . . . what more can I say?


----------



## PresbyDane (Jul 11, 2009)

Hermann Goring


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 11, 2009)

Braxton Bragg


----------



## JoeRe4mer (Jul 11, 2009)

Almost every major French General in WWI. The casualty numbers speak for themselves.


----------



## Sven (Jul 11, 2009)

Tough to say...so many good candidates.


----------



## TimV (Jul 11, 2009)

> Almost every major French General in WWI. The casualty numbers speak for themselves.



Then you've never looked at the casualty numbers.

When it comes to 20th century armies, at least with the major powers, the Germans were so far better than anyone else that your really can't put them in normal type of rankings. But the second best pretty much had to have been the French, all FAUX NEWS slander aside.

For my pick of worst generals, I'll go with Eisenhower, although there are a bunch to choose from, like Vercingetorix and the Roman who's name escapes me that took on Hannibal right after Canae.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 11, 2009)

Custer - both morally and militarily. 

If this was only based on morals, Goring would be a close runner up.


----------



## TimV (Jul 11, 2009)

> If this was only based on morals, Goring would be a close runner up.



Why do you say that?



> Hermann Goring



Why?


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 11, 2009)

TimV said:


> > If this was only based on morals, Goring would be a close runner up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find Goring's participation in the Holocaust to be one of the most evil things I've encountered. Many of the men involved in the Holocaust actually believed that the Jews were sub-humans or that they would destroy western civilization. Obviously that's absolutely no excuse for the mass murder they committed, but they did have some kind of conviction or reasoning that they were doing something to help their country or the larger culture- even if they were utterly wrong. 

Goring didn't believe those things about the Jews. In fact, he helped some Jews escape - usually for bribes and a few times as a favor to his wife. But he still gave the directive to Heydrich to annihilate the Jews. I can't really imagine anything less moral than someone who believes that a group of people were blameless but still arranges for their annihilation because he knows it will benefit him. Goring also stole freely from the Jews that he had killed or imprisoned - often deciding to kill a certain family because he wanted the art they owned. In addition, he is almost certainly the man who started the Reichstag fire which resulted in the death and torture of hundreds - if not thousands.


----------



## Edward (Jul 11, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Custer - both morally and militarily.
> 
> If this was only based on morals, Goring would be a close runner up.



No, on the race to the bottom morally, the prize belongs to Butler. A common thief and a cad, he earned his nicknames of "Spoons" and "Beast". 

As for Goering, you need to separate his political offices from his office as General. Putting aside his addiction to pain medication (for injuries he suffered in a plane crash), his air warfare activities were no more immoral than those of Harris or even perhaps LeMay. 

Compare him to folks like Zhukov and the other Soviet generals, who brutalized German and Hungarian women and children.


----------



## TimV (Jul 11, 2009)

> Goring didn't believe those things about the Jews. In fact, he helped some Jews escape - usually for bribes and a few times as a favor to his wife.



Goering's God parents, Dr. and Mrs. Epstein were Jews. His wife (are you thinking about Karen?) was half Irish half Swedish from a noble family and I don't remember her influencing him in that way.



> But he still gave the directive to Heydrich to annihilate the Jews.



If you could show that, you'd be a very famous young woman!



> I can't really imagine anything less moral than someone who believes that a group of people were blameless but still arranges for their annihilation because he knows it will benefit him.



But you have to show he arraigned from their annihilation. That's a pretty big accusation. Have you gone through his trial transcripts at Nuremberg? If so, what did you think? I'd value your input, really. To me he's about the only one of that sorry lot (and I include the Soviet and American prosecuters as well) that handled himself like a man.



> Goring also stole freely from the Jews that he had killed or imprisoned - often deciding to kill a certain family because he wanted the art they owned.



Again, that's a pretty serious allegation, Kathleen, and if you do a bit of reading you'll find it a bald face lie. Not that I'd care to have him as a boss.



> In addition, he is almost certainly the man who started the Reichstag fire which resulted in the death and torture of hundreds - if not thousands.



The Reichstag fire was started by a Dutch communist with a history of mental problems.

Goering's main problem as a General, Reichsmarschall, actually was said to have been long periods of inactivitey followed by sudden bursts of energy. He ran the Airforce and the second biggest intelligence gathering agency, and his lack of leadership at crucial times caused trouble. But that doesn't mean he wasn't much better than average at what he did.

-----Added 7/11/2009 at 10:17:33 EST-----



> As for Goering, you need to separate his political offices from his office as General. Putting aside his addiction to pain medication (for injuries he suffered in a plane crash), his air warfare activities were no more immoral than those of Harris or even perhaps LeMay.
> 
> Compare him to folks like Zhukov and the other Soviet generals, who brutalized German and Hungarian women and children


. 

True, with the exception of the wound (which probably caused the destruction of his gonads by the resulting infection (poor guy!)) was cause by a rifle during a failed _coup_ attempt.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 11, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Almost every major French General in WWI. The casualty numbers speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> Then you've never looked at the casualty numbers.
> ...



Not understanding this, Tim.

I don't see how Eisenhower was a worst general by any standard. He did not really ever lose _any _campaign (or even battle that I can think of), and he pulled off the greatest logistic feat of modern warfare. Compare him with any number of Soviet generals whose tactic consisted of "throw as many men at them as possible, ignore casualties and shoot those who retreat" and it is no contest.

I also don't understand Vercingetroix. His failure was not really being horrible as much as facing perhaps the most brilliant tactician in the Ancient World. After all, Vercingetroix did manage to pull off _*putting *_Caesar in the difficult tactical position he did.

I also don't think Fabius Cunctator was a bad general. He used what he had (time and men) to attrition Hannibal down into eventual retreat. Now if we are talking about Varro, who fell into the trap at Canae, that's another matter.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 11, 2009)

Edward said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > Custer - both morally and militarily.
> ...



I'm actually not familiar with Butler - what's his first name? I googled him and came up with a couple of possibilities. 

Its always been my interpretation that Goering's military duties and political duties were closely tied together. (Hitler seemed to encourage this in many of his underlings.) I think its often been unclear to historians whether Goering was using his military or political power when he gave certain orders or seized goods. But, I do see your point. When commanding the Luftwaffe, Goering certainly not as brutal as he was when ordering the killing of the Jews. 

You make a good point about the Soviet generals. I've actually never studied Soviet military history (not a lot of eastern European history classes at my university, which was a pity), but we did touch on them sometimes, and my professors did always note their brutality. We just never really discussed the details.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 11, 2009)

Benjamin F. Butler


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 11, 2009)

> Goering's God parents, Dr. and Mrs. Epstein were Jews. His wife (are you thinking about Karen?) was half Irish half Swedish from a noble family and I don't remember her influencing him in that way.



I am actually referring to his second wife, Emmy. She was German and married him in 1935. I think his first wife died? (not sure about this). She wrote an autobiography called My Life with Goering that I've read sections of. Pretty interesting stuff if you're interested in Goering. Also, Goering's brother was an anti-Nazi and was sometimes able to get his help in aiding the escape of Jews. 



> If you could show that, you'd be a very famous young woman!



I'm a little confused, Tim. This is actually really common knowledge (Goering's order to Heydrich). Here is a link to a translation of the order. Goering Order to Heydrich Concerning the finding of a "solution of the Jewish problem", 31 July, 1941. Granted, he doesn't use the word "genocide", but he does say "I hereby charge you with making all necessary preparations in regard to organizational and financial matters for bringing about a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe." Also, here is a link to the Nuremberg question of Goering. Goering Transcript You have to scroll down a ways to see the bit where they question him about his order. There's a photocopy of this order in pretty much every western European history reader. 



> But you have to show he arraigned from their annihilation. That's a pretty big accusation. Have you gone through his trial transcripts at Nuremberg? If so, what did you think? I'd value your input, really. To me he's about the only one of that sorry lot (and I include the Soviet and American prosecuters as well) that handled himself like a man.



I'm not sure what you mean by "arraigned from their annihilation." (I'm not being sarcastic - I'm really not sure of your meaning - sorry!). Do you mean that he benefited from their annihilation? If so, then I don't think that that's too hard to show. They found massive amounts of art and other objects that had belonged to Jews decorating Goering's house. The US Archives has records of what the US army found when they went into Goering's home. (Documenting Nazi Plunder of European Art) which includes things stolen from European museums. (I include the link mostly because there are interesting photos). The UK's Independant also has an interesting article (Goering's lost art - News, Art - The Independent) The relevant part is:


> Photographs of every painting ever possessed by Goering will be published in April in a book that is expected to become an essential research tool for the world's museums. As well as shedding light on Goering as a historical figure, scholars hope the archive will help in the ongoing battle to return looted art to its rightful owners and their decendants.
> 
> The project, by Nancy Yeide, head of curatorial records at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, has already found that Goering amassed around 2,000 looted works of art – at least 700 more than had been previously thought. Ms Yeide scoured wartime archives in the US and Germany, as well as Goering's letters to his dealers and auction catalogues.
> 
> "Goering was essentially a black hole," Ms Yeide commented. "No one has ever really looked closely at the collection and tried to reconstruct everything that was ever in it. That has been my goal."



I have read bits of the Nuremberg trial transcripts, but not a lot, to be honest. They are really interesting, aren't they? I actually find Albert Speer to be a slightly sympathetic character - more sympathetic than Goering, actually. I should probably reserve my judgment on their conduct during the trial until I've read more though. I'm not sure I have a very good idea of the context that Goering was in during the trials. 



> Goring also stole freely from the Jews that he had killed or imprisoned - often deciding to kill a certain family because he wanted the art they owned.
> 
> Again, that's a pretty serious allegation, Kathleen, and if you do a bit of reading you'll find it a bald face lie. Not that I'd care to have him as a boss.



I actually took a Nazi Germany class in college and we read some really interesting articles by researchers who had investigated these claims. I am absolutely convinced that Goering did this. Unfortunately, I don't have those articles on hand ( I no longer have access to academic databases for free). If you are interested, I would encourage you to watch The Rape of Europa - a recent documentary and a book. I have not actually seen this film, but a friend of mine has, and I know it discusses how Hitler and Goering would make a list of art that they wanted to steal before invading a country (and this art wasn't just from museums but from individual art collectors- often Jews)



> The Reichstag fire was started by a Dutch communist with a history of mental problems


.

This is widely debated by historians and is certainly not a settled issue. Again, I've done a lot of reading about this, and my conclusion is that it was Goering. The fact that the Nazis accused and the executed Van Der Lubbe is enough to make me doubt his guilt. Also, the Gestapo archives were opened in 1990 and the evidence there points to a Nazi (and I think GOering) starting the fire. 

...this is a long post...


----------



## D. Paul (Jul 11, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Benjamin F. Butler



Benjamin P. Glaser

Hmmm...same first name; P's and F's are very similar and each last name has six letters ending in "er". Could there be some connection? (just kiddin', Ben)

p.s. i do Bible codes also, therefore Hillary Clinton is the Antichrist


----------



## Berean (Jul 11, 2009)

Gen William Westmoreland


----------



## TimV (Jul 11, 2009)

Long posts are good, Kathleen, if they're informative and carefully done, so keep them up. You deserve thorough replies, so I'll not try to tackle them all now.



> "I hereby charge you with making all necessary preparations in regard to organizational and financial matters for bringing about a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe."



The context was to settle the perceived problem of Jews in German controlled areas, and the problem was that the Jews (again, the perceived problem) wouldn't assimilate. The theory was that the Germans gave Jews equal rights as citizens on condition that they would work to the best of the population as a whole, rather than "Jewish interests" the chief of which was, to the nazi mind, communism.

There were several main ways that the Jewish problem would be solved. I'll mention a few of them.
1. Assimilation. According to the Nuremberg race laws, one quarter Jews were forbidden by law to marry anyone except "Aryans" i.e. full Germans. The resulting children, one eighth Jews, would be considered German. Half Jews could apply to be considered quarter Jews, otherwise they would only be allowed to marry other half Jews, thus creating a special class of people with limited rights. The idea was to make those people choose whether to be Jews or Germans.
2. Emigration. Jews were given financial incentives (at first, later more pressure was put on them) to leave Germany. Palestine, the US, etc...although neither the US nor UK helped, frankly. After the British and French declared war on Germany, the Western paths were closed, but up until Operation Barbarosa Jews continued to legally leave Germany. After the war started on both fronts, things got ugly, and round ups began, resulting in at least hundreds of thousands of murders. 

But that isn't proof, not by a long shot, that Goering was involved in what went on at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, etc... For instance, Dr. Best, who the SS Gruppenfuehrer who ran Denmark wasn't punished when he turned a blink eye (and probably took lots of money) when all Denmark's Jews were smuggled to Sweden. As he said, he was just following orders.

And it's that order which no one has, that's why I said you'd be famous if you could implicate any top German leader in ordering the annihilation of the Jewish race.

-----Added 7/11/2009 at 02:27:35 EST-----



> I don't see how Eisenhower was a worst general by any standard. He did not really ever lose any campaign (or even battle that I can think of), and he pulled off the greatest logistic feat of modern warfare. Compare him with any number of Soviet generals whose tactic consisted of "throw as many men at them as possible, ignore casualties and shoot those who retreat" and it is no contest.
> 
> I also don't understand Vercingetroix. His failure was not really being horrible as much as facing perhaps the most brilliant tactician in the Ancient World. After all, Vercingetroix did manage to pull off putting Caesar in the difficult tactical position he did.
> 
> I also don't think Fabius Cunctator was a bad general. He used what he had (time and men) to attrition Hannibal down into eventual retreat. Now if we are talking about Varro, who fell into the trap at Canae, that's another matter.



Varro is who I meant 

As to Eisenhower, I heard a lecture that a British officer named General F E Morgan organized Overlord. To look at Eisenhower on his own, one could, if properly cynical like myself, look closer at North Africa to get a picture of the man, and I doubt you'll find anyone who considered that campaign anything but an unmitigated disaster. Eisenhower was more of a figure head, and spent more time with his mistress Kay Summersby than on actual military planning.

At Alesia Vercingetorix outnumber the Romans (probably) 3 to one, when the Romans were largely cut off from supply lines and in hostile territory. But then again, before the Scots became Calvinist nobody's ever got any Celts to organize, so I guess we can't blame him totally.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 11, 2009)

> The context was to settle the perceived problem of Jews in German controlled areas, and the problem was that the Jews (again, the perceived problem) wouldn't assimilate. The theory was that the Germans gave Jews equal rights as citizens on condition that they would work to the best of the population as a whole, rather than "Jewish interests" the chief of which was, to the nazi mind, communism.



I'm a candid person and I'm going to put that into practice right now, so please excuse me if I offend. I do not mean to. 

If the above statement is something that you hold to then I am afraid that we don't really have enough common ground to have a discussion. We would probably just talk past each other and I, at least, would become angry which isn't helpful. I spent a year studying Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and its a subject about which I am very passionate. For the sake of not hijacking Bill's thread, I'm going to bow out. Feel free to respond to my points if you want - just don't be offended when I don't reply.

For further reading, I would suggest Hitler's Mein Kamph. He lays out his whole plan in excellent detail and I think it pretty well squashes the idea that he only wanted the Jews to "assimilate." Jews were actually assimilating quite nicely in Weimar Germany. This assimilation is part of what provoked him to such anger. Hannah Arendt's "Totalitarianism" is also very good as is the Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Jul 11, 2009)

I vote for King John "Lackland".


----------



## Skyler (Jul 11, 2009)

I voted for "other", because what historical knowledge I have usually derives from historical fiction. Therefore, I haven't a clue.


----------



## TimV (Jul 11, 2009)

> If the above statement is something that you hold to then I am afraid that we don't really have enough common ground to have a discussion. We would probably just talk past each other and I, at least, would become angry which isn't helpful.



No need for anger. As far as "me" holding to it, we are all allowed to have our own opinion, and so far, I haven't given mine. I'm just pointing out that there simply isn't any smoking gun implicating Goering, and I can't believe any professional holocaust historian would say that there is.



> I spent a year studying Nazi Germany and the Holocaust and its a subject about which I am very passionate. For the sake of not hijacking Bill's thread, I'm going to bow out. Feel free to respond to my points if you want - just don't be offended when I don't reply.



I spent about 15 years, and have become friends with several leading holocaust researchers, including several on the board of the holocaust history project, and all of them would, I think, agree with everything I've written on this thread.

The holocaust has become something of the new national religion in the US, and there are mythological aspects to it. Tim Cole, a British Visiting Scholar at the national Holocaust Memorial Museum wrote a book called "Selling the Holocaust, which is a must read for especially American students of the subject.



> For further reading, I would suggest Hitler's Mein Kamph. He lays out his whole plan in excellent detail and I think it pretty well squashes the idea that he only wanted the Jews to "assimilate."



There have been several books written on the subject in the last few years. One is Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military by Bryan Mark Rigg, which won the 2003 Colby award. He and others have show that as many as 150,000 part Jewish men fought for nazi Germany, as signing up for the military was a way of changing one's racial status. As a PS, that included a Field Marshall who was Goering's right hand man, and who ran Lufthansa after the war.

Anyway, one should keep in mind that 5-7 times as many Slavs were killed during that time period as Jews, and no one seems to care one way or the other, and that should give pause for thought.

Regards, Kathleen!


----------



## Ivan (Jul 11, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> George Armstrong Custer . . . preening narcissism, strategic overconfidence, tactical foolishness . . . what more can I say?



Bingo! We have a winner!!


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 11, 2009)

I voted McClellan (sorry Amber!).

I saw a documentary once that said his greatest flaw was he did not have the heart to send his men into situations where he knew many of them would die. That makes him a good human being but a terrible general.


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 11, 2009)

Just to clarify, I said that I "would become" angry, not that I already was.


----------



## TimV (Jul 11, 2009)

Good! Remember I didn't give my own personal opinion on the question.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 11, 2009)

Zenas said:


> Sherman.





What he allowed his men to do is beyond war crimes. For what his men did in the South he should have been shot and had his body dumped in a latrine. The attack of civilian people ... it is beyond atrocities. There are others, but Sherman was attacking what for him was his own people, and inciting his troops to evil.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jul 11, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Sherman.
> ...




I'll second that Ditto.

Re: Vercingetroix- I think he was actually quite brilliant. Doing what he did, with what he had, against whom he was fighting is rather amazing.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 11, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Sherman.
> ...



I don't have an exact quote from the horse's mouth, but per Lew Rockwell (and other sources back me up):

"Sherman admitted in his memoirs that he was taught at West Point that he could have been prosecuted and possibly hanged as a war criminal for doing the things he did. "

Of course Sherman seemed to view his war crimes as a brutal necessity; Philip Sheridan (on the other hand) seemed to enjoy it more, stating that "the people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war."


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 11, 2009)

Sherman was the best general in the Civil War. His tactics were rough but effective, and no different from the fire-bombing of Germany and Japan employed in World War II by the US.

I voted for Darius III, simply because he squandered such a massive army to such an outmanned foe in Alexander. Granted, Alexander is one of the great generals of all time, but even a moderately competent commander could have beaten the hapless, arrogant Darius.


----------



## TimV (Jul 11, 2009)

We should start a list of Generals who would have thought Sherman and Sheridan were wussie girl scouts who were afraid to inflict punishment ;-) How many people did Tamerlane murder just outside of Delhi? 100,000? And the low numbers for Ukrainians starved in Stalin's man made famine just in this last century were what, 3,000,000?


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> True, with the exception of the wound (which probably caused the destruction of his gonads by the resulting infection (poor guy!)) was cause by a rifle during a failed _coup_ attempt.



You are correct about the Munich injury, but I was thinking there had been an earlier plane crash in Sweden. I could be mistaken, as I can't turn up a reference to it this afternoon.

-----Added 7/12/2009 at 03:12:38 EST-----



fredtgreco said:


> Not understanding this, Tim.
> 
> I don't see how Eisenhower was a worst general by any standard. He did not really ever lose _any _campaign (or even battle that I can think of),



Kasserine Pass. If he gets credit for France, he should get blame for the failures in North Africa. 

Market Garden. Even more responsibility than for Kasserine.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 12, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> > Sherman.
> ...



Let us not forget the Beast Phil Sheridan as well.


----------



## Edward (Jul 12, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> I'm actually not familiar with Butler - what's his first name?



Benjamin Butler. But you can Google Beast.Butler

He basically said that his troops could treat all of the women of New Orleans like they were prostitutes. (General Order 28) if they didn't show proper respect. 

He's also known for the large amount of silverware (thus the 'Spoons' nickname) and other valuables that he stole.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 14, 2009)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Sherman was the best general in the Civil War. His tactics were rough but effective, and no different from the fire-bombing of Germany and Japan employed in World War II by the US.
> 
> I voted for Darius III, simply because he squandered such a massive army to such an outmanned foe in Alexander. Granted, Alexander is one of the great generals of all time, but even a moderately competent commander could have beaten the hapless, arrogant Darius.



The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis. The decision to burn an individuals house ... to actually set fire to it ... is significantly different than collateral damage to deciding to burn a city that contained factories of war. Sherman himself gave orders for the army to be ruthless to civilian populations where any resistance was felt. That is unconscienable. It might be successful, but telling troops to kill innocent and guilty alike is not just "the horrors of war" it is a crime against civilization.

That the right to secede is not prohibited in the pre-war constitution, nor reserved to the federal government, means that it is reserved to the states and the people. The war of northern aggression is an appropriate name for it, and the south had a right to secede. While Lincoln may have had a grand thought of "any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure" was ended when the north refused to allow the south to depart in peace. The opening line contains "conceived in Liberty" which Lincoln destroyed by his invasion and refusal to live by the rule of law.

I'm not saying the south was right in what it did, but the rule of law was abrogated first with Lincoln in the war.


----------



## Jennie (Jul 17, 2009)

I vote for Hitler and associates for three major blunders:
1. Not conquering Britain when they had a chance
2. Opening a two-front war by attacking Russia (they should have remembered Napoleon's experience regarding an invasion of Russia)
3. Allowing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, thus getting the US involved in the war.

The very best general in the world? My relative, Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Hitler sent Rommel to Tennessee to study Forrest's tactics before WWII started.


----------



## TimV (Jul 17, 2009)

> The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis. The decision to burn an individuals house ... to actually set fire to it ... is significantly different than collateral damage to deciding to burn a city that contained factories of war.



I'll take a third opinion on that one. I agree with Mason that there isn't any difference between what Sherman did in the South and what we did in (among many examples) Dresden, murdering 30-40,000 civilians in an "open city" with no military manufacturing capability. I disagree with Mason, though, as I don't consider it legitimate, and I can't understand how anyone holding to Christian Just War theory could say so.

And I have to mention that Mason show personal bravery often on this board, taking unpopular stances.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 17, 2009)

TimV said:


> And I have to mention that Mason show personal bravery often on this board, taking unpopular stances.



And that is a reason I like both of you.


----------



## ZackF (Jul 17, 2009)

Pardon the technicality but are not a couple of those guys admirals?


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jul 18, 2009)

TimV said:


> And I have to mention that Mason show personal bravery often on this board, taking unpopular stances.





fredtgreco said:


> And that is a reason I like both of you.



Thank you Tim and Pastor Greco. The kind comments are much appreciated! 



Brian Withnell said:


> The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis. The decision to burn an individuals house ... to actually set fire to it ... is significantly different than collateral damage to deciding to burn a city that contained factories of war. Sherman himself gave orders for the army to be ruthless to civilian populations where any resistance was felt. That is unconscienable. It might be successful, but telling troops to kill innocent and guilty alike is not just "the horrors of war" it is a crime against civilization.
> 
> That the right to secede is not prohibited in the pre-war constitution, nor reserved to the federal government, means that it is reserved to the states and the people. The war of northern aggression is an appropriate name for it, and the south had a right to secede. While Lincoln may have had a grand thought of "any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure" was ended when the north refused to allow the south to depart in peace. The opening line contains "conceived in Liberty" which Lincoln destroyed by his invasion and refusal to live by the rule of law.
> 
> I'm not saying the south was right in what it did, but the rule of law was abrogated first with Lincoln in the war.



Brian,

I disagree with just about all of your post, especially the 2nd paragraph and last sentence. Read Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The Confederacy was in clear violation of multiple aspects prior to seceding - Lincoln was enforcing the Constitution, which is his job. So rule of law was without question violated by the Confederacy. I'll say nothing more about this here to avoid getting further 

The fire-bombing of Germany and Japan was largely intended to break the will of the people to fight. The US carpet-bombed German factories - the firebombing was unnecessary for military purposes. Tim is correct: thousands of civilians were killed in both Germany and Japan, and that says nothing of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan (which I support, by the way).

Sherman never ordered his troops to rape and pillage. Yes, they destroyed the crops and any infrastructure they could find, including railroads. This had a major impact on the civilians without question, but it also devastated the Rebel army. The line between uninvolved civilian and armed combatant is often very hazy - I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Sherman in the Civil War or Eisenhower in WWII. But if you're going to vilify Sherman, there are plenty of other "heroic" generals you must vilify as well.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 18, 2009)

McClellen - Because such a fatal combination of tactical ineptitude and pansiness has seldom been achieved by a general officer.


(But, thankfully, balance in the universe was attained by George Patton who truly was the anti-McClellen...)


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 18, 2009)

General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett

...oh no, wait a minute, he wasn't real. Might as well have been though!


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jul 18, 2009)

JonathanHunt said:


> General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
> 
> ...oh no, wait a minute, he wasn't real. Might as well have been though!



Baaah!
Sadly, the reference may be lost on most North Americans.
I am impatiently waiting on Blackadder II coming from Amazon.


----------



## HokieAirman (Jul 18, 2009)

Morally, Butler, Sherman, Sheridan. Don't know some of those generals, but I voted for McClellan cause he not only was defeated constantly by armies 1/2 and 1/4 the size of his own, but then lied in the official record about his casualties to make himself look...not quite as bad as he was. 

Then again, maybe he was an OK general...Jackson & Lee just simply outclassed him at every level.

-----Added 7/18/2009 at 02:27:27 EST-----



Brian Withnell said:


> The decision to fire-bomb was one of destroying the manufacturing capability of the cities, not one of allow men to pillage, plunder, and kill innocents on a one by one basis.



To add to that, it should be noted that it was the Americans who had 80% and higher casualty rates specifically because their leaders chose NOT to carpet-bomb at night, at high altitude. In order to reduce civilian casualties, they chose to bomb targets during the day, at low altitude. This ensured a greater chance of hitting the target and missing civilians.

We have the Providence of God and outstanding, determined fighter pilots to thank that any of our bombers survived at all.


----------

