"US Generals Kruger and Eichenberger, An Assesment" Topic

Looking for help here.
These two generals were the commanders of the US 6th and 8th Army in the Pacific.

Due to the megalomania of an un-named Philipino field marshall, these two are barely even known.

Has anyone ever done an honst assesment of them or of their tactics?
Does anyone have an actual opinion of them as commanders.

The only US general of any note in the entire Pacific is Stillwell and that is because he was the scapegoat for the above un named individual. How about these two? Everyone studies the western european commanders but why are these guys unknown?

I would love to hear if anyone has any thoughts or stories on them.

I'm not aware that Stillwell was involved with anything outside China for most of the war, so I don't understand the reference.

I'd guess that given their tenure that they were competent enough to make the UnNamed look good and get the job done. Any brilliance would have been attributed to YKW.

Generals Kruger/Eisenberger were Officers, Who got on the wrong side of Marshall's little black book due to thier ages. I would say they were a good Corp Commanders.

Why the hate on the man who can't be named?

The guys who got the really shaft were the Generals like Wainwright , who spent the war in Japanese POW camp. They came back with their careers ruined because FDR desided they need to lay down a bunt.

From my study they both were capable and competent commanders. But as many noted here, they may have been overshadowed, etc. for a number of reasons. Also mentioned here and more.

As far as thoughts & "Stories" …

IIRC, Kruger initiated the formation of an "elite recon" type unit- the Alamo Scouts, in the PTO. They operate primarily in the PI. And ran ops with the US Rangers there at times. The 6th Ranger Bn, IIRC.

The movie "The Great Raid" was based on the book "The Ghost Soldiers". The movie is pretty good with some Hollywood, but generally accurate. In a number of ways.

The book of course was very good. Back when the History Channel showed real history. They aired a good program about the movie and book. Both are worth a look.

The Plt Ldr of the Ranger unit that executed the mission was still alive and interviewed. You can't get better history than that, IMO …

Thanks Wackmole, I couldn't remember Wainrights' name and had Stillwell on the mind.

I wonder if Stillwell is another one of the over age generals that Marshall did not want around too? Surprisingly I like Stillwell. Very practical thinker and a plain talker who told it like it is, probably to his detriment when dealing with the Chinese. Slim really liked him! That goes a long way to me, especially when Slim did not even get along with a lot of his own. Seeing Stillwell carry his own pack and rifle tended to open the eyes of your average ground troops. I think he got rail roaded in the end to appease 'the peanut'. His disagreement with the USAAC, Chenault(?) led to his firing. If you build up and attck the Japanese by air, they will launch a ground offensive in China, he warned. He was proven absolutely correct in the end and the USAAC pulled out of China in a major way as their bases were over run. So he had some strategc foresight as well. It makes me wonder how he would have done instead of Patton if he was in charge of an army in France?

No, not necessarily hate for the one who will go un-named. I think it is better to see the other US commanders on their own in their own light. Every time he gets mentioned, it turns into a cult issue. Stranngely enough, last time I recall he did not have many backers on this site. I would prefer it to remain about the other generals.

When it comes to Wainright, how much is he to actually blame?
Who was it that changed all the defensive plans on the brink of war?

Stillwell was in a position calling for a lot of diplomacy, and that really wasn't his strong suit. We had very few ground troops in the CBI, and Stillwell couldn't get along with either the Brits or the Chinese, who were doing the heavy lifting. I also get the impression he was no good in bureaucratic infighting, which is a critical skill at theater level.

A general carrying his own pack is good copy for the newspapers, but what the country needed was perhaps a general who left the KMT army better trained and equipped.

As for Wainwright, he was unlucky, not scapegoated. If you spend most of a war in a POW camp, you're going to get passed over by the people who fought successful battles and campaigns. How else should it be? Would any of you promote the guy who might have done well in different circumstances over the guy who actually delivered? Not me.

Stillwell was a competent general who was hated by every officer who had ever served under him because he believed in being understated when writing Officer Efficiency Reports, thus retarding the careers of all his subordinates. He also, as Bob noted, was deficient in tact and diplomacy, especially when dealing with Chiang Kai Scheck and, more importantly, Madame Chiang.

|||||||||Kruger and Eichenberger are like ghosts,,,.

When people are asked what Generals served under Eisenhower even the casually informed person could come with, Patton, Montgomery, Bradley and Clark,

But asked what Generals served under MacArthur, you hear crickets. Thanks to MacArthur's "PR Department" one would think he won the war all by himself.

But he had a cadre of brilliant officers in Walter Krueger, Robert Eichenberger and George Kenney to name just a few. Had they served in the ETO their names would be as familiar as Patton's and Bradley's.