Very simply, I see Nimitz as the George Washington of the Pacific Theater. He was intelligent, just, courteous, and effective, but he knew when he needed to relieve an officer who could not handle the situation. Those who have studied General Washington, I believe, would agree wholeheartedly.
I’m in 100% agreement with your assessment and comparison of General (later President) George Washington, and Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz; Except that the admiral didn’t have wooden teeth!
@@parrot849 Throughout his life Washington employed numerous full and partial dentures that were constructed of materials including human, and probably cow and horse teeth, ivory (possibly elephant), lead-tin alloy, copper alloy (possibly brass), and silver alloy. It’s quite possible that some of his dentures, particularly after they had been stained, took on a wooden complexion, but wood was never used in the construction of any of his dental fittings.
I disagree. Mr. Simmonds glosses over many events and overly simplifies subjects as if he was addressing a group of freshmen. I was so disappointed that I stopped watching this series of Great Lectures.
If I had to summarize everything I’ve ever read of Nimitz, He was the right man at the right time in the right place. If we are ever faced with a modern circumstance that requires the level of decision and management that the Pacific war required of Chester Nimitz, I hope and pray we have a person stashed away somewhere that has the capability to rise to the occasion and fill the role of being able to put the right people in place to take ownership of the problems at hand and wrestle the bear of logistics to get them what they need when and where they need it to win.
Have read the biography of Fleet Admiral Nimitz, Churchill's six volumes of the History of World War II, Inside the Third Reich and Spandau, The Secret Diaries, by Albert Speer, and Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan, by Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya, but I must say, Professor Symonds' lecture was excellent.
Awesome lecture- thank you for presenting it, for NMPW for putting it on youtube for us all to enjoy. BZ! As a retired Chief Submariner, Nimitz was a GOD to us. Just FYI- he assumed duty as CINCPACFLT on the USS Grayling (SS-209) because he was a Submariner before then. In fact, it was Nimitz to get the Navy to STOP using gasoline engines on submarines and use train diesel engines instead because they were safer and more durable for submarines. After WW II, he was Chief of Naval Operations to get the Navy to START using nuclear power by pushing through funding for the USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first nuclear-powered Submarine and the USS Enterprise, the world's first nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier. So in addition to being a brilliant taction, he was also a pioneer in today's nuclear Navy.
The best thing King did was to make the US Navy’s voice heard by the command of US forces. Otherwise he was a real dick to his force commanders, always the Monday morning quarterback. Nimitz’ subterfuge to get Halsey to Midway was one of the keys to winning the battle. King continuously criticized Ray Spruance for not pursuing the enemy fleet aggressively after decisively winning two major carrier fleet battles, the only US admiral to do so without leaving landing forces and their support groups stranded. King was a dour critic of his commanders, possibly the best strategic commanders in the US. Operations
Montgomery was a bigger insubordinate dick - and dug out doug to. At least King tried to stop IKE and FDR rolling over for Winston/Brooke like a puppy rubbing their tummies. The very limited military partner in the ETO/Med tossing out edicts. I respect their fighting men but many of their officers were fox hunting fauntleroys pulled off their estates
@@dukeford8893 I liked KING the freaking British were really falling apart - specially in the Pacific.They used their colonial troops & tried to use the USA to hang on to their possessions as long as they could. Then attempting to step in the Pacific and fly their flag with ours to get in on the kill. KING wasn't like IKE who caved into the ineffective effete Montgomery and his catering to himself and his king
Nimitz did well in the beginning but he only executed War Plan Orange. War Plan Orange was never meant to be executed with the massive military power that he was eventually given. The power that he possessed was not used well at all. You can see that in Iwo Jima and and Okinawa. While he almost walked on water in the early days he clearly stumbled and did not do well at all in the later years. Overall he would rate a B but not the ass kissing these professors give him. The same is true of Halsey and Spruance. They all had their good moments but none of them changed when the power they possessed changed. If you look at the success of the American military you have to be floored by how phenomenal the ranks of Major and below were. It was those lower ranks and their consistent A ratings that made up for the serious mistakes made by those ranks above them. The same problems exist today. We have extremely good ranks of Major and below but well over 70% of the Admirals and Generals are worthless.
When you say Nimitz would rate a "B" you are looking at the Pacific War with hindsight. Look at it from the point of view of December 1941. Carrier aviation was still relatively new, and the planes were constantly changing. War Plan Orange did not fully take the aircraft carrier into consideration. Plus, the German First policy put War Plan Orange on the back burner. No one with the exception of the Japanese starting in April 1941 had ever operated a carrier striking force to attack the enemy. Nimitz, Halsey or Spruance just like the Japanese had to learn how to manage carrier task forces and to supply those forces with fuel, food, planes, ammunition and medical supplies. Nimitz had pioneered underway replenishment of Navy ships, but it took time to build the infrastructure needed to maintain the Big Blue Fleet. Both Halsey and Spruance had their role to play in the Pacific War. The genius of Nimitz is that he was able to use their skills to effectively fight the war. Halsey was the guy to go in and take chances to win. Spruance was the man that knew what his boss wanted and went out and executed Nimitz's plans.
@@johnfleet235 ya you could do better ripping those much better than he. The enemy gets a vote I'm sure law school there could handle the massive Kamikaze attacks no problem.Because like everyone sinks 4 aircraft carriers in a day. Hell it took half the Royal Navy to sink a Battleship,and they did that with bi planes
Excellent presentation Dr Symonds. Thank you!
Anything that includes Craig Simmonds is extremely entertaining, informative and honest.
I'm honored to get a seat at the presentation.
Symonds and Parshall are two of the giants in the field of pacific war history today. Always great to see them.
both talk so engaging and succinctly
Very simply, I see Nimitz as the George Washington of the Pacific Theater. He was intelligent, just, courteous, and effective, but he knew when he needed to relieve an officer who could not handle the situation. Those who have studied General Washington, I believe, would agree wholeheartedly.
I’m in 100% agreement with your assessment and comparison of General (later President) George Washington, and Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz; Except that the admiral didn’t have wooden teeth!
@@parrot849Neither did George Washington
@@wellsbengston4132 - Okay, I’ll bite(no pun intended). What’s the real story about the wooden teeth thing?
@@parrot849 Throughout his life Washington employed numerous full and partial dentures that were constructed of materials including human, and probably cow and horse teeth, ivory (possibly elephant), lead-tin alloy, copper alloy (possibly brass), and silver alloy.
It’s quite possible that some of his dentures, particularly after they had been stained, took on a wooden complexion, but wood was never used in the construction of any of his dental fittings.
His course on the Pacific War on the Great Courses channel is fantastic, I've watched it twice.
I disagree. Mr. Simmonds glosses over many events and overly simplifies subjects as if he was addressing a group of freshmen. I was so disappointed that I stopped watching this series of Great Lectures.
great stuff, I learned so much. Thanks for sharing this excellent presentation
Currently listening to his book Nimitz At War. A great lesson on leadership. Highly recommend it.
Nimitz was everything we needed in a leader, then and now!
If I had to summarize everything I’ve ever read of Nimitz, He was the right man at the right time in the right place. If we are ever faced with a modern circumstance that requires the level of decision and management that the Pacific war required of Chester Nimitz, I hope and pray we have a person stashed away somewhere that has the capability to rise to the occasion and fill the role of being able to put the right people in place to take ownership of the problems at hand and wrestle the bear of logistics to get them what they need when and where they need it to win.
Great behind the scenes history.
This is beyond BRILLIANT -- thank you for these insights.
Great Job Mr. Symomds. You kept me hanging on every word and minute! Fantastic Presentation. Would Love to have been a student of yours.
Ian Toll trilogy on the Pacific War is excellent with details on people, decisions, logistics, and more.
What an awesome lecture!!!
Have read the biography of Fleet Admiral Nimitz, Churchill's six volumes of the History of World War II, Inside the Third Reich and Spandau, The Secret Diaries, by Albert Speer, and Midway: The Battle that Doomed Japan, by Mitsuo Fuchida and Masatake Okumiya, but I must say, Professor Symonds' lecture was excellent.
Very good.
1942 was the year that Britain turned on Australia. The treachery was the end of their empire because it proved that the mutual alliance was false.
Awesome lecture- thank you for presenting it, for NMPW for putting it on youtube for us all to enjoy. BZ! As a retired Chief Submariner, Nimitz was a GOD to us. Just FYI- he assumed duty as CINCPACFLT on the USS Grayling (SS-209) because he was a Submariner before then. In fact, it was Nimitz to get the Navy to STOP using gasoline engines on submarines and use train diesel engines instead because they were safer and more durable for submarines. After WW II, he was Chief of Naval Operations to get the Navy to START using nuclear power by pushing through funding for the USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the world's first nuclear-powered Submarine and the USS Enterprise, the world's first nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier. So in addition to being a brilliant taction, he was also a pioneer in today's nuclear Navy.
One of my classmates attended West Point in 1976. Very intense and smart woman. Sadly she washed out.
I don't think anyone in professor Symonds class ever fa\ell asleep.
I don't buy his story on the "flight to nowhere".
11:50 Twelve years later???
The best thing King did was to make the US Navy’s voice heard by the command of US forces. Otherwise he was a real dick to his force commanders, always the Monday morning quarterback. Nimitz’ subterfuge to get Halsey to Midway was one of the keys to winning the battle.
King continuously criticized Ray Spruance for not pursuing the enemy fleet aggressively after decisively winning two major carrier fleet battles, the only US admiral to do so without leaving landing forces and their support groups stranded.
King was a dour critic of his commanders, possibly the best strategic commanders in the US. Operations
Montgomery was a bigger insubordinate dick - and dug out doug to. At least King tried to stop IKE and FDR rolling over for Winston/Brooke like a puppy rubbing their tummies. The very limited military partner in the ETO/Med tossing out edicts. I respect their fighting men but many of their officers were fox hunting fauntleroys pulled off their estates
You should really check your sources. Ernie King never criticized Spruance. In fact, he told him that his decisions were correct.
@@dukeford8893 I liked KING the freaking British were really falling apart - specially in the Pacific.They used their colonial troops & tried to use the USA to hang on to their possessions as long as they could. Then attempting to step in the Pacific and fly their flag with ours to get in on the kill. KING wasn't like IKE who caved into the ineffective effete Montgomery and his catering to himself and his king
🎉
❤
Walker Edward Allen Ruth Wilson Linda
Back when the military leadership wasnt politically orientated...
Nimitz did well in the beginning but he only executed War Plan Orange. War Plan Orange was never meant to be executed with the massive military power that he was eventually given. The power that he possessed was not used well at all. You can see that in Iwo Jima and and Okinawa. While he almost walked on water in the early days he clearly stumbled and did not do well at all in the later years. Overall he would rate a B but not the ass kissing these professors give him. The same is true of Halsey and Spruance. They all had their good moments but none of them changed when the power they possessed changed.
If you look at the success of the American military you have to be floored by how phenomenal the ranks of Major and below were. It was those lower ranks and their consistent A ratings that made up for the serious mistakes made by those ranks above them.
The same problems exist today. We have extremely good ranks of Major and below but well over 70% of the Admirals and Generals are worthless.
When you say Nimitz would rate a "B" you are looking at the Pacific War with hindsight. Look at it from the point of view of December 1941. Carrier aviation was still relatively new, and the planes were constantly changing. War Plan Orange did not fully take the aircraft carrier into consideration. Plus, the German First policy put War Plan Orange on the back burner. No one with the exception of the Japanese starting in April 1941 had ever operated a carrier striking force to attack the enemy. Nimitz, Halsey or Spruance just like the Japanese had to learn how to manage carrier task forces and to supply those forces with fuel, food, planes, ammunition and medical supplies. Nimitz had pioneered underway replenishment of Navy ships, but it took time to build the infrastructure needed to maintain the Big Blue Fleet. Both Halsey and Spruance had their role to play in the Pacific War. The genius of Nimitz is that he was able to use their skills to effectively fight the war. Halsey was the guy to go in and take chances to win. Spruance was the man that knew what his boss wanted and went out and executed Nimitz's plans.
@@johnfleet235 ya you could do better ripping those much better than he. The enemy gets a vote I'm sure law school there could handle the massive Kamikaze attacks no problem.Because like everyone sinks 4 aircraft carriers in a day. Hell it took half the Royal Navy to sink a Battleship,and they did that with bi planes