oh dear, how many times - every quiz on this! Eisenhower was NOT the Allied Supreme Commander in Europe because there was no such position. He was Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. There were always two Allied Supreme Commanders in Europe, responsible for different theaters.
Who is the other one then? I'm reading an Eisenhower biography right now, and it's clear that he was appointed Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in the early 50's, and that he was the only one. I just reread Time's issue commemorating the 75th-anniversary of Pearl Harbor, which also refers to Eisenhower as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during the war. I just tried googling it too, and I'm only coming up with Eisenhower.
Interesting. I missed a lot of them. Some I should have got, some I recognised but didn’t remember and a lot of the civil war ones I had never heard of.
Are you from the USA? If so everyone has studied Lee, Jackson, Grant and Sherman at some point in school. People might not know Pickett or McClellan, but almost every American knows at least Grant, Jackson and Lee.
This. Traitor who led an armed insurrection against his country so he could continue to enslave his fellow man also did other bad stuff. It is actually a little weird to me that any confederate general is included in a list of American generals as if they were all part of the same team.
Wouldn't the description "Traitor who led an armed insurrection against his country so he could continue to enslave his fellow man" also apply to Washington?
The American colonists weren't British citizens. They were subjects of the British Crown. We don't call members of the Algerian National Liberation Front traitors, because they weren't. Neither were the American colonists.
Nathan Bedford Forrest, et al., were U.S. citizens and went to war against their own country for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. They were traitors, and their cause was (to put it mildly) unjust.
I think a little charity is called for. People like to imagine that, had they been born in the South, they would have taken a bold stand for justice in truth. But the vast majority didn't. The vast majority believed in and fought for the cause of the South.
There's no reason to expect that you (whoever is reading this) would be any different. Who knows, maybe you're that 1% outlier? Maybe you are just that special and uniquely virtuous. But the odds are that you are not.
Judging people by modern standards is ultimately pointless and uncharitable.
Charity is not deserved for Nathan Bedford Forrest. Was he a naturally brilliant Cavalry commander? Absolutely. Probably the best of the war (the best Union cavalry commander was probably Phil Sheridan).
However, after his massacre of Fort Pillow - when surrendering Black Union soldiers were slaughtered for the crime of being Black against all known rules of war - he does not deserve defense. Even many other Confederates like the great Patrick Cleburne were disgusted by Forrest.
Probably because they don't know him? Unless you have greater than average knowledge of the American Civil War you probably aren't familiar with the generals outside of Grant and Lee, and maybe Sherman and Pickett from their March and Charge, respectively.
The comment about Pershing is a bit misleading. When the United States entered the war in 1917 the Western Front trench lines stretched from the North Sea to Switzerland. Pershing might not have been a miracle worker, but clearly his offensives of neccesity would involve a lot of frontal assaults.
No, Pershing deserves some hate. He naturally looked down on the British and especially the French, so when they told him (after 3+-years of experience when he arrived) that they’d learned to their horror the failures of head-on frontal attacks, he simply thought they were cowards.
It’s true people only really learn from experience and Pershing and the Americans needed to gain some, however his immediate hostility and slowness to take the other Allies seriously DID cost more casualties than would have been lost had he found the wisdom in the British and French views on the war that they’d gained from the atrocities of 1914-17.
Sounds like Pershing would have done well to have consulted Australian general John Monash, who was the first to coordinate artillery, planes, tanks and infantry, and was hailed by many as the best general of WWI
To be fair to Nathan Bedford Forrest, his views changed later in life. He quit the KKK and began speaking out in favor of racial equality, for which he caught a lot of criticism from other Southerners.
His reputation would likely be better today had he also owned up to the racism he was known for. He never owned up to any responsibility for the Fort Pillow Massacre & even denied he had ever been a member of the KKK.
I guess that Kazimierz Pulaski, the father of US cavalry, would be a nice addition (provided that US citizenship is not required (or maybe posthumous honorary one given by the Congress would be sufficient?))
Montgomery was the overall Allied ground commander during the early stages of Overlord but not a Supreme Commander.
stained by serving as Grand Wizard of the KKK"
Is his legacy not stained by being a Confederate?
There were two rebellions in America led by slave owners spouting about liberty. One succeeded. One failed.
Nathan Bedford Forrest, et al., were U.S. citizens and went to war against their own country for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. They were traitors, and their cause was (to put it mildly) unjust.
The Confederates were US citizens who didn't want to be, so they rebelled.
Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if it prosper none dare call it treason.
There's no reason to expect that you (whoever is reading this) would be any different. Who knows, maybe you're that 1% outlier? Maybe you are just that special and uniquely virtuous. But the odds are that you are not.
Judging people by modern standards is ultimately pointless and uncharitable.
However, after his massacre of Fort Pillow - when surrendering Black Union soldiers were slaughtered for the crime of being Black against all known rules of war - he does not deserve defense. Even many other Confederates like the great Patrick Cleburne were disgusted by Forrest.
It’s true people only really learn from experience and Pershing and the Americans needed to gain some, however his immediate hostility and slowness to take the other Allies seriously DID cost more casualties than would have been lost had he found the wisdom in the British and French views on the war that they’d gained from the atrocities of 1914-17.