From: Gene McAloon 

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:00:39 +0100, Adam Flinton
 wrote:

>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.

First I have ever heard that criticism of him. It is untrue, of course. I am not
aware that his casualty figures were higher than any other's. On the other hand,
Marine casualties were consistently higher than the armies and I have never
heard anyone but army people claim that the Marines were reckless with the
lives
of the troops.

>> 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.

Wrong again, of course. The US's dislike of Montgomery was a direct result
of their experience of him in the North African campaign, which also
explains the Brit general staff's opposition to giving him the D-Day
command of Brit and Commonwealth troops. He got that command because
Churchill insisted and that insistence was based on the Beaverbrook press
having made Montgomery a national hero. He simply couldn't be dropped after
that.

>> 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.

Precisely the point. Do try to pay attention here.
>
>> 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