Matrix Games Forums

Interesting that Suez is the issue of debate. As I recalled, Esinhower sided against The UK and France , saying that what they were doing was wrong , and that "We do not have two rules , one for our friends and one for our enemies". Imagine that , a former five star American general who took the moral high ground......."INCONSIEVABLE!" (Aplolgies to Princess Bride). [:D]

ORIGINAL: Dili

The people that see things black and white is usually criticized by those that only have one shade of grey. Because of that i prefer to stay with Black and White...

That is why countries like USA, France and Great Britain have nuclear weapons. You not only can but you should use illegal weapons if your enemy is getting advantage by using illegal weapons. And both sides are not equally immoral because of that, you use it it until the other side stops or gets no advantage. Immoral is letting the other side win with that strategy, it ensures it will be here eventually forever. Or do you think the World will be more ethical if Nazis still had ovens to murder people?

Your comment is very interesting, and my answer would be this:

We demand a lot from several countries, and we demand them to enter treatys that we are also part of, unless they agree we blockade them, and unless they obey the treatys we blockade them.
But then, from time to time we ignore this treatys ourselves, and when we do that then there is no one blockading us.
I applaoud Eisenhovers decission in 1956, but he had a lot of things to take into consideration, and he wanted to avoid war with Soviet Union who was intending to join a "large scale war" on Egypt's side.


Do I think the world would been a better please without Countries like Iran, Israel or North Korea,: well yes of course!
But that does not give me the right to go and invade them (Unless they declare war on nations around them, then International Law allows me to assist).




So, do nations obey Treatys when it goes directly against their national interests ?

Yes, many do = here is a good example:



The World known Terrorist Mulla Krekar lives as a free man in Norway, he is wanted by some 20 +/- countries, including the USA, Israel, Iraq ect ect ect.. for multiple incidents of actual terrorist attacks he has done against the USA and he is the leader of a Islamic Terrorist organization, and he lives in Norway as a completely free individual under Police Secret Servise Protection. (They protect him as his life is in danger).
The reason for him having "our" Secret Service protecting him, is because his life is in danger, as both CIA and other organizations once planned to "pick" him up, and Israel Inteligence Mossad want to kill him.. So... why don't they give him to the US or any other nation (Because they want to, I ensure you they want to get rid of him) ?

Well, they can't, due to International Law. (If an individuals life is at risk, you must protect him).
If he is sent to the US or any other nation, his life will be in danger (death penalty), and for this reason Norway is due to International Law Obligated to give him Protection, and to not give him out to any nation were his life will be at risk.

Norwegian Supreme Court has ruled that he is "the biggest" threat to Norwegian Security, and that he must be sent out of the country as soon as possible, but it is not possible as he will be facing death penalty and for this reason gets to live in Norway. Why is he not arrested and put in prison in Norway ? Well, he has not done a crime there, and being "the biggest" threat to your nations security is not enough to be put in prisioned in a Democracy (If we stick to International Law, you may not put people in prision untill they have comitted a crime, People may not be put in prision only because they are a threat, they need to do a crime first!).

So what do they do.... well we offered this Terrorist a lot of money if he would leave Norway... but he refused, and well... he still lives in Norway, he still consumes more Protection Detail recourses then the Priminister, and he is still sort of a Political Embarrassment, and he will stay until his life and life quality can be guaranteed for elsewere. He is a free man, and he say he intend to stay in Norway for the reminder of his life.

So, if you want to read the entire story, you can look here at this link:

LINK AND SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullah_Krekar







So Dili, the point of my post was NOT to claim that all are equal, someone will always be more equal then others.
But we all do things for different reasons.


And sir, In my very humble opinion, we are All Good and we are All Bad, there is no nations who is only "good" or only "bad" I think we always will be a little of both, and yes of course someone more then others.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Famous commanders indeed. Was Patton a better commander than MacArthur?

apple to the orange.

Mac was a Theater C/O. Patton was a corps, then Army C/O

It would be more appropriate to compare Mac to Ike.

In that contest Ike was the better commander, he thought about his men, not his own glory.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

... Same thing with Mark Clark in the Med. He wanted so desperately to "liberate" Rome that he didn't do the job that the Anzio landing had been intended to accomplish and for which his own troops had suffered so many weeks and months of misery ...

Clark was a very tall soldier, but otherwise unimpressive commander; however, didn't Churchill reserve his vitriol re the Anzio debacle for the reluctant general in charge of the Allied beach head, whom the PM compared to a "beached whale"?

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Footslogger

Famous commanders indeed. Was Patton a better commander than MacArthur?

apple to the orange.

Mac was a Theater C/O. Patton was a corps, then Army C/O

It would be more appropriate to compare Mac to Ike.

In that contest Ike was the better commander, he thought about his men, not his own glory.

Yes...he also stressed Allied unity, a key factor in victory during the war often underappreciated. Another good point i've seen mentioned more than once was that talented leaders under Ike were allowed to shine and advance whereas those under Mac were overlooked because of his titanic ego. Aspects like this tend to make me appreciate Ike more than Mac.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

... Same thing with Mark Clark in the Med. He wanted so desperately to "liberate" Rome that he didn't do the job that the Anzio landing had been intended to accomplish and for which his own troops had suffered so many weeks and months of misery ...

Clark was a very tall soldier, but otherwise unimpressive commander; however, didn't Churchill reserve his vitriol re the Anzio debacle for the reluctant general in charge of the Allied beach head, whom the PM compared to a "beached whale"?

Maj. Gen. John P. Lucas.

How would this "Norman Cota" character compare to these other two guys? Just read about his exploits in the Overlord book last night.

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

How would this "Norman Cota" character compare to these other two guys? Just read about his exploits in the Overlord book last night.

We will only be able to suggest suposition....how about evaluating MacArthur and Patton as Cota? Both did very credible jobs as junior commanders (equivalent to Cota) , with Mac and the the Rainbow division and Patton at Cambrai.

The basic truth is that Patton was an adequate sometimes outstanding mechanized higher unit commander; with a screw lose at times.

While MacArthur was an adequate sometimes very bad theater commander, who was blinded by his own ambition.

They were also men of their time, and were probably the best available at the time, also they were better that most of the other commanders available to other countries.

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
We will only be able to suggest suposition....how about evaluating MacArthur and Patton as Cota? Both did very credible jobs as junior commanders (equivalent to Cota) , with Mac and the the Rainbow division and Patton at Cambrai.

Well, I will be dipped! We actually got some closure on this thread! Good on you guys! This goes right back to Nik’s take on apples, oranges and the Manchester book. If ya look at Mac’s accomplishments with Rainbow, in War-I, he comes off as one hell of an infantry Bn/Brig leader.

But command is echeloned, and each level requires very, very different skills that have absolutely no relation to the skills developed at a lower level. And every country has a different perception and standard for the skills of each echelon. So comparison of generals becomes as vague and useless as between breeds of dogs and types of deciduous trees.

Imho, Mac was a hero at front line personal leadership; he was a zero at anything that involved ‘generalship’; but was once again a hero when things left the realm of generalship and moved into the structural and conceptual world of nation building; once again, echeloning.

Btw, I like Norm Cota; good man, self possessed, competent, brave, intelligent, a teacher, always willing to show a private soldier how to do it. I would follow him.

Same here. Cota was what I'd like in a front-line officer, and he somehow managed to maintain it after he got his first star. Brigadier General at Omaha, IIRC.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

... Same thing with Mark Clark in the Med. He wanted so desperately to "liberate" Rome that he didn't do the job that the Anzio landing had been intended to accomplish and for which his own troops had suffered so many weeks and months of misery ...

Clark was a very tall soldier, but otherwise unimpressive commander; however, didn't Churchill reserve his vitriol re the Anzio debacle for the reluctant general in charge of the Allied beach head, whom the PM compared to a "beached whale"?

Correct, but General Lucas was told specifically by Clark to "not stick your neck out". If he had broken out of the beachhead immediately, his two-and-a-bit-divisions would have been destroyed, so he did the right thing.

Anzio was a very bad idea, another one of Churchill's idiotic military schemes.

My vitriol is reserved 100% for Clark. He valued his own "glory" as the "liberator of Rome" more than pocketing and destroying a sizable part of the German army in Italy.

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Same here. Cota was what I'd like in a front-line officer, and he somehow managed to maintain it after he got his first star. Brigadier General at Omaha, IIRC.

I read this somewhere, don’t know if it’s true, but it sure sounds like him.

On D-day, a platoon of the 29th was held up by some Germans in a farmhouse, a LMG and some rifles and such, and they weren’t sure what to do. Who should show up, but Norm Cota. “What’s the problem, Lieutenant, why aren’t you moving forward?”

“We’re held up by that farmhouse, sir.”

Norm looks and says, “Alright, Lieutenant, follow me.”

He zigzags across the open space, throws grenades in the windows, kicks open the front door, carbine blazing, and as the Germans scramble out the back windows and run for cover, turns to the LT and says “That’s how it’s done, son. Now keep moving.” Then he left to go somewheres else. I “think” that story was in “29 Let’s Go” by Joe Ewing, but it’s endemic at the Infantry School.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Correct, but General Lucas was told specifically by Clark to "not stick your neck out". If he had broken out of the beachhead immediately, his two-and-a-bit-divisions would have been destroyed, so he did the right thing ...

Re "The Real History of World War II" Lucas' literal interpretation of Clark's orders was to divert enemy forces South, not gain territory. However, after a very successful landing that took Kesselring by surprise, Op Shingle was a missed opportunity that turned into a bloody stalemate.

With maps, observations on Clark, Lucas, Churchill "whale" quote, and more:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GqYWmU ... #PPA208,M1

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
We will only be able to suggest suposition....how about evaluating MacArthur and Patton as Cota? Both did very credible jobs as junior commanders (equivalent to Cota) , with Mac and the the Rainbow division and Patton at Cambrai.

Well, I will be dipped! We actually got some closure on this thread! Good on you guys! This goes right back to Nik’s take on apples, oranges and the Manchester book. If ya look at Mac’s accomplishments with Rainbow, in War-I, he comes off as one hell of an infantry Bn/Brig leader.

But command is echeloned, and each level requires very, very different skills that have absolutely no relation to the skills developed at a lower level. And every country has a different perception and standard for the skills of each echelon. So comparison of generals becomes as vague and useless as between breeds of dogs and types of deciduous trees.

Imho, Mac was a hero at front line personal leadership; he was a zero at anything that involved ‘generalship’; but was once again a hero when things left the realm of generalship and moved into the structural and conceptual world of nation building; once again, echeloning.

Btw, I like Norm Cota; good man, self possessed, competent, brave, intelligent, a teacher, always willing to show a private soldier how to do it. I would follow him.

I'm trying to reserve judgement on Mac until i nab the Manchester book, which will have to wait a bit given what i just spent on several books. [X(]. As i mentioned earlier...my last two books that dealt with Mac were far from flattering. Hastings rips him a new one in "Retribution" primarily for his willingness to sacrifice his own men to acomplish his goals (liberation of his beloved PI's and site of his great defeat) and also, from a more strictly military viewpoint, from allegations that he continually ignored the recommendations and warnings of his own Intelligence branch which in turn led to further casualties and problems for his troops. On the + side, Hastings does shed some light on the his relationship with Australia and the accusation that he purposely held back Oz troops in backwater areas to hog the glory for himself and his US troops. (Hastings shows there were some other valid reasons for the dispositions due to the latewar situation on the home front in Oz). From Shores of course one gets a front row seat on the debacle of Dec10....and my last read on the Korean war (The coldest Winter) was also not so good outside of Inchon. I give Mac a break there though because he was in his seventies by then and should have retired leaving a younger brood to fight a new type of war so very different from the one Mac fought.

As far as Patton goes........i recently finished D'estes "Patton, a genius for war".....a book i'd been wanting to read since managing to parse through the entire two Patton flame threads from 5 years ago on this very website (and still available for viewing.....both a source of great analysis as well as a case study in Troll 101)

Without digging into the book to sound more impressive [;)], i'll recall my general impressions given from the book.....which i found overall to be a well balanced piece, highlighting both his good and bad points...as well as the wierd. I found the revelations regarding his relations with other generals extremely interesting, particularly his debunking of the alleged Monty-Patton rivalry and his relationship with Ike and Bradley.

Patton's greatest strength appeared to stem from his training and motivation of the men and despite his reputation as "Blood and Guts" (to which none ever said that too his face), he did care about the fate of his men.

Patton's greatest battlefield strength appeared to be his ability to effectively manage a larged armored corp/army and keep it moving forward. (The flame thread put it best....."Traffic management")

He was aggressive and bold which appears to be why the Germans feared him the most. In terms of operational skill....he seems less inspired and brilliant, being primarily focused , nay obscessed with attacking, irregardless of the direction.

On the con side, like Mac, his fixation on fullfilling his self perceived destiny could get in the way of smarter more conservative decisions. His impulisiveness could get him in trouble....both shone very clearly in a botched late war operation he sanctioned trying to free a son in law sitting in a POW camp. His unpredictability, which led to the famous slapping incidents would prevent him from ever being trusted with a command higher than the Army level.

Judging leaders is always a tricky business, full of hindsight and different angles of context that can be taken....which is one reason why i usually stay out of such discussion, preferring to sit on the sidelines. However having taken the plunge here, i'd rate Patton overall as competant on the battlefield but hardly spectacular. His go go go attitude was perfectly suited when facing an enemy that was outgunned and/or disorganized and bereft of air superiority....i'd be less confident if he faced a more organized defense. He was brilliant as a motivator and trainer....and while prone to impulsiveness, was also decisive when it came time to make a decision. He sought out and cultivated good talent and formed an excellent staff which was in many ways Third Army's secret weapon. (the other being IX airforce) He was smart enough to listen to their advice and that of his Intel sources (unlike Mac apparantly if Hastings is right) but as mentioned, when it came time to make a decision....he and he alone made it. As an example, Third Army's ability to quickly shift axis for the Battle of the Bulge was due primarily to a recommendation from his staff....one that Patton supported and ordered implemented just in case. It proved to be a smart move. As mentioned in the flame threads though, once the army got going, Patton was less spectacular. I think D'este did a great job showing Patton's strengths and weaknesses.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm trying to reserve judgement on Mac until i nab the Manchester book, which will have to wait a bit given what i just spent on several books. [X(].

I can lend you mine. It’s pretty old and ratty, but all the pages are there. If you want, shoot me a note.

Mac in War-II makes me very queasy also, for some of the same reasons. Was just trying to say that Mac in War-I seemed to be a different animal. Maybe because the command echelon he was at didn’t give enuf scope for the ego or the ‘tude.

Carlo D’Este is on my bookshelf too, and I think your take on Patton, and generalship in general (like the pun?), is pretty judicious. I think you have hit upon the real secret of operational success – your staff. Lot of biographers make a point about a general’s ability to judge character. From a purely military point of view, a basic difference between Dougie and Georgie is the quality and competence of the men they selected for for their staffs.

And whether or not they listened to them, which Mac didn't. Neither did the other Mac of the previous century.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm trying to reserve judgement on Mac until i nab the Manchester book, which will have to wait a bit given what i just spent on several books. [X(].

I can lend you mine. It’s pretty old and ratty, but all the pages are there. If you want, shoot me a note.

Mac in War-II makes me very queasy also, for some of the same reasons. Was just trying to say that Mac in War-I seemed to be a different animal. Maybe because the command echelon he was at didn’t give enuf scope for the ego or the ‘tude.

Carlo D’Este is on my bookshelf too, and I think your take on Patton, and generalship in general (like the pun?), is pretty judicious. I think you have hit upon the real secret of operational success – your staff. Lot of biographers make a point about a general’s ability to judge character. From a purely military point of view, a basic difference between Dougie and Georgie is the quality and competence of the men they selected for for their staffs.

All very true. And Mac in Korea was even more different than WW1 & 2. I guess I've just never liked anyone who always refers to himself in the third person, as Mac did. [8|]