Posted on 06/11/2015 6:12:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ike became to political with the Europeans. Became an ally instead of being an American.
WE should never have given Iwo back to the Japanese. We paid too high a price for it.
Quote; “Ike Became an ally instead of being an American.”
I know that is a quote from “Patton” but it was not quite true. Ike and his commanders did disagree but were of a like mind when it came to Montgomery. I suspect that legacy vis-à-vis the American view of the British military has lasted until this day.
Ever since Abraham Lincoln starting changing his top generals as often as he changed his socks during the US Civil War, every United States President expects a commensurate prerogative to micro-manage ongoing military operations. FDR was not about to let a mere 4,000 miles of Atlantic Ocean keep him from having a major say in how Germany was to be defeated. Eisenhower was NOT selected for either his strategic or tactical genius (geniuses being a dime a dozen); instead, Eisenhower was selected because he could be TRUSTED to enact the political will of Washington DC without letting his ego get in the way. Say what you will about Ike, when it came to being a personality, he was essentially EGO-LESS in comparison to Patton, Montgomery, and even Omar Bradley.
Tonnage.
It wasn't that clear cut. Technically Halsey's third fleet at Leyte took direct orders from Nimitz, nevertheless US losses in the Phillipines were 13,973 KIA, to say nothing of Australian, New Zealand, Phillipine losses which were technically under MacArthurs command.
As to the "political charge" in a total war, often unfortunately, the final word is with the politicians and generals have to live with that.
Patton actually captured a large chunk of what would become Eastern Germany, the Czech republic and Austria. As another poster noted the politicians gave it away at Yalta, probably the work of Harry Hopkins.
The fact of the matter is that the Pacific War consumed only 30% of our war resources, involved mainly U.S. troops and Navies (with some commendable help from the Australians), was fought against a far more determined opponent and still saddled us with far fewer losses.
Our blunders in the Pacific were limited to a few places like Tarawa and Pelielu. Those in Europe/Africa range from Kasserine Pass to Market Garden to the final conquest of Berlin, and scores of examples in between (Anzio, Monte Cassino, etc.).
And, yes, Ike, Mark Clark, George Marshall, Montgomery and others were political generals. The more capable (Patton, Omar Bradley) ranked further down. My father fought in that war and had little respect for the political general class.
MacArthur, OTOH, not only learned from is mistakes but became a capable postwar administrator and a hero to the people he conquered. Until another mediocre politician fired him.
FDR and Lincoln's micro-managing was successful. Both were committed to victory and unconditional surrender of the enemy. No president since V-J Day has been so committed, and we have not won a war since then.
“Iwo Jima was not under MacArthur but under Nimitz”
Which was exactly Timocrat’s point...
The United States Army lost the same amount of men fighting in the Pacific, as the Navy and Marines lost, in the entire war combined.
Ike was still an idiot. He didn’t do many favours for the country. Not many have.
“The port facilities in Normandy were not big enough to handle the logistics for a quick win.”
Nor close enough when the push east toward Germany was in full swing.
President Johnson did it in 1968 so blame him. To be fair Nixon returned Okinawa in 1972.
I posted this elsewhere, but think it is appropriate here. While there is a request for a donation, you can watch this fascinating graphic 18-minute display for free.
The graphics for Russian losses were horrific, and the disparity of American casualties between the Pacific and European campaigns were a surprise - to me anyway.
Check out http://www.fallen.io/ww2/
The Allies decided on unconditional surrender before they had gotten to the concentration camps. So it was just as well they took their time grinding the Germans down and not letting them have “stabbed in the back” excuse they conjured up after WW1. As it was, we would have probably nuked them before the Japanese if the war had still been active in Aug 45.
News Flash!!! General Eisenhower wasn’t President and therefor not Commander in Chief until 1953, eight years after the war
OK “Supreme Allied commander and Operation Overlord”, I stand “corrected”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.