Best general 1950-2000

[Kosmo]

The second half of the last century was one of "small wars" while preparing for the big one. Unlike the period before it did not produce famous military leaders.

Still, I propose this poll on military leaders, generals or politicians that had taken command of the armies of their countries/parties.

 

If you think of other ones put them here.

[Julius Ratus]

Interesting poll, Kosmo. I voted for Giap. I have read a good bit on the tactics and strategies employed by the VC and the NVA and they were pretty good fighters. The Vietnamese utilized their limited rescources to great extent in the war, and always used their knollege of the local culture and terrain to their advantage.

 

BTW, my grandpa fought in the Vietnam War as a chopper pilot, and I in no way belittle the experience of Vietnam vets. They fought hard and gave it their best. I respect our enemies because they fought hard, and in the end, their resolve was greater, which is why they won.

[Crastinus]

I am also gonna have to vote for Giap. The Vietnamese overcame incredible disadvantages in supplies and Technology. with it being said though i dont think the Vietnamese strategy was always effective, i mean the Tet Offensive was a terrible failure. What really won them the war was there tenacity compared to the lack of it on the other side, whether it be French or American.

Honestly im not impressed with the list, i mean Dayan did some great things for the Israeli army in multiple of there wars, with that being said he was a big proponent of the Bar Lev Line along the Suez (which if u dont know what that is think Maginot Line but surrounded by sand instead of grass, it also worked about as well), i think this was a big mistake because the one advantage the Israeli's had was in the flexibility and mobilty of there armor. If it wasnt for Sharon crossing the Suez and cutting off the Egyptian third army things in the war might have been very diffrent.

[Julius Ratus]

I wouldn't say the Tet Offensive was a total failure, if it was a failure at all. It damaged the American public's image of the war and it severely damaged the VC. Many believe that the Tet Offensive was not supposed to work, that the NVA wanted to remove some of the grass roots groups in the South who may have not had total loyalty for the govt in the North. Looking at it in this devious light, the Tet Offensive really was a brilliant opperation.

 

All in all I am pleased with Kosmo's list. While it is imperfect, no poll is ever perfect. His options give a well rounded look at all the major 'little wars' fought for the latter half of the 20th C. Plus, he left the 'other' option open so if anyone has a candidate fo their own they can offer their alternate.

[Carthago delenda est]

I voted "other" for the General who did more to deter another huge world-wide war from breaking out than any other: General Curtis Emerson LeMay. Cognizant that an Atomic "Pearl Harbor" would mean the end of the United States as we know it, he built SAC into a ruthlessly efficient organization with a "triad" of nuclear deterrence that came to inlcude: Air (B-52's), Land (ICBM's), and Sea (SLBM's).

Also, if our political leaders had listened to his advice regarding Vietnam one of two things would have happened: 1. The war would have never been fought. 2. The war would have been won.

IMHO, of course.

-C.D.E.

[M. Porcius Cato]

]I voted "other" for the General who did more to deter another huge world-wide war from breaking out than any other: General Curtis Emerson LeMay. Cognizant that an Atomic "Pearl Harbor" would mean the end of the United States as we know it, he built SAC into a ruthlessly efficient organization with a "triad" of nuclear deterrence that came to inlcude: Air (B-52's), Land (ICBM's), and Sea (SLBM's).

Also, if our political leaders had listened to his advice regarding Vietnam one of two things would have happened: 1. The war would have never been fought. 2. The war would have been won.

IMHO, of course.[/size]

An interesting choice. Curtis LeMay, it may be remembered, was the general on whom the fictional Dr. Strangelove was based.

[Pertinax]

Im not voting yet as I was trying to determine the "strategic" reach of the "small" campaigns in relation to the global situation. Fieldhouse made the Soviets freeze in their tracks when they understood the abilities of the UK armed forces to strike on the other side of the planet...I had thought of Giap , but then considered the casualties suffered to achieve the victory ( that is now lost anyway as Vietnam wishes to "be like Japan").Dayan ..well that victory has shaped politics for the last forty years . Im still pondering.Just thinking aloud.

[Carthago delenda est]

An interesting choice. Curtis LeMay, it may be remembered, was the general on whom the fictional Dr. Strangelove was based.

 

Actually, I think you're thinking of this guy:

 

 

The estimable General Jack Ripper from Stanley Kubrick's Cold War classic. And, if I catch your drift, you are quite right: Curtis LeMay was considered by some of his time to be a bit...enthusiastic shall we say, about the uses to which nuclear warheads could be put. However, I think it was JFK who put it best: he said something to the effect that while he didn't want General LeMay being the one who decided when it was time to go to war, if war did come LeMay was the kind of man he wanted around to wage it. I concur.

 

BTW, I'm new here, nice to meet you. Regards, -C.D.E.