From: Adam Flinton 

Gene McAloon wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:23:58 -0400, "Steve Ewing"
 wrote:
>
>
>>I always had the impression that Ike was a politician more than the
>>others, which I don't mean to be pejorative; I expect that in handling the
>>various factions and Allies a political general was exactly what was
>>needed in that position.
>
>
> That is exactly the case and that was his reputation even when he was a
colonel.
> None of the other generals mentioned by Bill Lucy was qualified for the job
> Eisenhower had, most certainly not the very quirky Patton, an excellent
> tactician but a lousy strategist.

Patton was interestred in gaining persoanl glory at the cost of his
soldiers lives. His end was fitting in that after all of that he never got
to benefit from the sacrifices his soldiers made on his behalf.

> Bradley wasn't qualified either. At one point
> the threatened to resign his commission rather than possibly serve under
> Montgomery and said so publicly.

That was mostly justr because they were bigots like you Gene. It also lost
the west the land between the final inner german border & berlin
(because the US simply could launch attacks from the Netherlands coz heck
that would mean coming under UK control). Sad to see such bigotry harm so
many lives.

> Marshall was never a consideration because he
> was Roosevelt's choice to run the whole war in both theaters. His talents
would
> have been wasted in confining himself to the European theater. The others
were
> excellent troop commanders, but had no particular talent for doing the job
> Eisenhower had to shoulder.
>
> Eisenhower was the right man for the job of supreme commander in the European
> theater. At that he did a suburb job.

Hohum. He did the best he could. He was simply a pol with fatigues on.

> And I say that even though as a President,
> I thought he was close to being an utter disaster.
>

Much like his running of the Western theatre then.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5