Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : A CENTURY OF LIONS/THE 20TH CENTURY TOP 100 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (729)	10/26/1999 1:09:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 3246

Okay, so does Bill. I am waiting for a fuller argument on the question....

To: jlallen who wrote (729)	10/26/1999 6:52:00 PM
From: Michael M	Respond to of 3246

JLA, I differ with you on import of military commanders. Prior to JFK (BoP, Cuban Missiles and Vietnam), campaigns and battles depended largely on the intellect, courage and leadership of military commanders. The U.S. hasn't won many since the con' shifted the the WH basement. I'm no U.S. Civil War buff, but, I seem to recall Union fortunes improving with key command changes. No change in the WH. The "generals" are probably worth a list of their own, if interest ever looms. I would certainly include Ike, Mac and Marshall on the main list. All had enormous impact beyond the military realm and did much to shape the post WWII era. Nimitz and Hallsey are more pure military. In some ways, naval victory in the Pacific may constitute the most incredible campaign in military history. I might even add the Russian military commander/s who drove Hitler's forces back to the west. FWIW, I would remove HST and Thatcher from Neos top ten. Final note on the military guys -- if the bad guys win, the rest doesn't matter (except for invention of the high speed dental drill). later - Mike