Most over-rated WWII Leader

[Col. Ty Webb]

@Lazarus

From KurtGodel7 to you:

“If you’re claiming there was no political component to the Allies’ command decisions, then your perspective bears no relationship with reality.”

How did you derive the exact opposite of that?

You also go from one post where you say Eisenhower was always in overall command, then in more than one post say how many people didn’t know that Montgomery was in overall command. Which is it?

If you can’t even keep your own story straight, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Lazarus]

@Col.:

@Lazarus

From

“If you’re claiming there was no political component to the Allies’ command decisions, then your perspective bears no relationship with reality.”

How did you derive the exact opposite of that?

You also go from one post where you say Eisenhower was always in overall command, then in more than one post say how many people didn’t know that Montgomery was in overall command. Which is it?

If you can’t even keep your own story straight, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion.
.

[Lazarus]

@KurtGodel7:

As for the chart, I have not made the claims you’ve said I’ve made. I will not allow you to sidetrack the discussion with something so petty. My only observation about it had been that it was relevant for only a very narrow time range (around two months, with Operation Goodwood occurring around the middle of that time).

It is hard to take seriously someone who clearly has trouble understanding a simple  chart.
First you  falsely claimed  the chart was  only relevant for the period of Goodwood (3 days July 18/19/20)
Now you  opine that the chart covers a 2 month period.
How hard is it to figure out the chart covers the period  June 25th to July 25th, a month?

[Lazarus]

@KurtGodel7:

As you’ve seen fit to regurgitate your earlier quote from the German generals, I will likewise revisit the following text from the Wikipedia article about Patton……

Feel free to repeat your errors.
I remind you that the ‘quotes’ contained in the Wiki article are � corruptions of the original quotes from Liddel Hart.

To wit the part where Wiki claims Rundstedt said:
@KurtGodel7:

In an interview conducted for Stars and Stripes just after his capture, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt summed up the predominant German view of the American general: “Patton,” Rundstedt concluded simply, “he is your best.”[4]

has been doctored by removing the words that refer to Montgomery.

The original:

In a reference to the Allied commanders, Rundstedt said:
“Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met”.

Deliberate falsification.

[Gargantua]

Quote from: KurtGodel7 on Today at 06:06:17 am

In an interview conducted for Stars and Stripes just after his capture, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt summed up the predominant German view of the American general: “Patton,” Rundstedt concluded simply, “he is your best.”[4]

has been doctored by removing the words that refer to Montgomery.

The original:

In a reference to the Allied commanders, Rundstedt said:
“Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met”.

Deliberate falsification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLyxmD_UAK4

[Lazarus]

I think the link is a perfect anology-fact is discarded in favour of the comfort of  fiction.
The 3 Wise Monkeys are alive and well……

[Clyde85]

@Lazarus:

I think the link is a perfect anology-fact is discarded in favour of the comfort of � fiction.
The 3 Wise Monkeys are alive and well……

I think Gar is making fun of you, though there are worse things to be compared to then a whiny Luke Skywalker  :-D

Anyway, rather then treading old ground (ground sooo well trod that it is nearly completely worn through) I think that as Cwo Marc and I were discussing, do(or rather did) the early victories of the Axis powers give then a false sense of superiority, as their early opponents weren’t really that tough. This obviously extends to the Italians (Ethiopia and Albania, really Italy?) but I would say should especially apply to Japan. Their first opponent, China, was more then they could handle and during the war their tactics seemed to resemble more of the WW1 variety. The US suffered higher casualty rates against Japan but when you’re fighting over such small spaces and have such dense troop concentrations is that really a surprise? Not to mention all the logistical difficulties in transporting men a material to assault small islands. I have heard talk that in a fight over open ground, like the Asian mainland, against decent opponent, not a Chinese rabble, the Japanese would not have lasted very long.

[Col. Ty Webb]

@Lazarus:

The 3 Wise Monkeys are alive and well……

And the great and wonderful Wizard of Ox is just some guy behind a curtain who can’t even keep his story straight.
It amazes me how many facts you are willing to change to convince yourself you are right.

And apparently it’s not so simple for you. On May 6 you said Eisenhower was always the supreme commander. He just knew when to delegate authority. But then you come back and say that Monty was in supreme command from June 6 until Sept. 1. You don’t even know what you’re talking about. Please figure out what you actually believe before you try to tell it as fact.

[CWO Marc]

@Clyde85:

Anyway, rather then treading old ground (ground sooo well trod that it is nearly completely worn through) I think that as Cwo Marc and I were discussing, do(or rather did) the early victories of the Axis powers give then a false sense of superiority, as their early opponents weren’t really that tough. This obviously extends to the Italians (Ethiopia and Albania, really Italy?) but I would say should especially apply to Japan. Their first opponent, China, was more then they could handle and during the war their tactics seemed to resemble more of the WW1 variety.

Continuing on with this discussion (or rather dialogue, since you and I seem to be the only ones who are debating this sub-topic), I would note that Japan did actually run into a tough enemy soon after their 1937 invasion of China proper: the Soviet Union.  In the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars of 1938 and 1939 (specifically the Changkufeng Incident and the Battle of Khalkhin Gol), the Japanese were unpleasantly surprised by the drubbings they received from the Russians – the second one at the hands of a certain General Georgi Zhukov.  I think these two affairs ultimately helped to convince Japan’s leaders to ditch the Japanese Army’s preference for expansionist conquests to the north and west and adopt the Japanese Navy’s preference for expansionist conquests to the south and east.

[Guest]

Hands down the most overrated leader of World War II is Chairman Mao Tse Tung.  What a commie loser.

[Gargantua]

Hands down the most overrated leader of World War II is Chairman Mao Tse Tung.  What a commie loser.

I approve of this message.

[CWO Marc]

@Vance:

Hands down the most overrated leader of World War II is Chairman Mao Tse Tung.  What a commie loser.

His opposite number on the Nationalist side, Chiang Kai-shek, had problems too.  He was, understandably enough, portrayed by the U.S. as a great military leader (see for example Frank Capra’s film The Battle of China, part of the Why We Fight series), but behind the scenes he and General Joe Stillwell had a bad relationship.  Chiang and Mao were in some ways less interested in fighting the Japanese than in positioning themselves advantageously for the Chinese Civil War they both anticipated would follow WWII.

[Guest]

They were both losers.  But Chairman Mao’s resume also includes the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.  Where Stalin intended to kill off his own people; Mao murdered millions of Chinese out of plain old fashioned socialist INCOMPETENCE.

[Lazarus]

@Col.:

And apparently it’s not so simple for you. On May 6 you said Eisenhower was always the supreme commander. He just knew when to delegate authority. But then you come back and say that Monty was in supreme command from June 6 until Sept. 1. You don’t even know what you’re talking about. Please figure out what you actually believe before you try to tell it as fact.

You are correct. I did make a mistake.
The mistake I made was to assume you were  conversant with the nuances of the English language.
After refering to Eisenhower as the Overall Commander here.

**Post 88   08:27:06 pm

@Lazarus:

The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!

I went  on to explain Montgomery’s role in
**Post 114  at  04:40:51
@Lazarus:

It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion

and again in

**Post  100 at  06:19:55

@Lazarus:

He (Montgomery) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

Now I suggest you  immerse yourself in a crash course in English and pay attention to the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

In brief:
Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase **to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning.

My use of the quotation marks around the phrase ‘supreme commander’ in post 100 was to make clear my intention that the phrase was not to be taken in its strictly litteral definition,
The error appears to stem from your unfamiliarity with the usuage rather than any confusion on my part.

I can do no better than quote your own words back at you:

It amazes me how many facts you are willing to change to convince yourself you are right!********

[Col. Ty Webb]

As long as you promise not to be teaching the English class. You’d have “English” written on the chalkboard then would teach Aramaic.

Thanks for proving my point with your entire post. All you did was show that you change your story in every single post to fit your needs.

BTW, after you take a crash course in logic, maybe you can eplain to me how someone who has always had supreme command can assume it from someone that didn’t have it.

Until then I’m afraid all you do is take the stance that Eisenhower was always the Supreme Commander, but that Montogmery was the Supreme Commander as well. Quite logical.

I’m surprised the English major that you are didn’t know that supreme means above all others. There can only be one supreme. You admit that it was always Eisenhower, but then try to say it was Montgomery. Your thinking defies not only the rules of logic, but of the English language.

[Deaths Head 420]

Wiki’s Definition of Supreme Allied commander

Supreme Allied Commander
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about Supreme Allied Commander. For Commanders of Military Forces, see Commander-in-chief.

Supreme Allied Commander is the title held by the most senior commander within certain multinational military alliances. It originated as a term used by the Western Allies during World War II, and is currently used only within NATO. Dwight Eisenhower served as Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force (SCAEF) for the Battle of Normandy during World War II. The current commander of NATO’s Allied Cand South East Asia]] (SACSEA) and Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force (SCAEF) in northwest Europe. The Allied Mediterranean theatre’s Commander-in-Chief, Allied Force, the American Commander-in-Chief South West Pacific and Commander-in-Chief Pacific Ocean Areas also functioned as de facto supreme commanders. These commanders reported to the Combined Chiefs of Staff, although in the case of the American commanders in the Pacific and SACSEA, the relevant national command authorities of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Chiefs of Staff Committee had responsibility of the main conduct of the war in the theatre of operations.

General of the Army Dwight Eisenhower had the highest profile of the supreme commanders. He served successively as the Allied Mediterranean theatre’s Commander in Chief, Allied Force and then as European theatre’s Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force (SCAEF). Eisenhower was succeeded as Commander in Chief, Allied Force by Field Marshal Henry Maitland Wilson who was in turn succeeded by Field Marshal Harold Alexander who continued in charge of allied forces until the end of the war. The post of Supreme Commander South East Asia Command (SACSEA) was occupied throughout most of its existence by Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten. The post of the American Commander-in-Chief South West Pacific was held by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur.

Following the end of the war, the term came into use again with the formation of NATO, at which point Eisenhower again found himself as Supreme Allied Commander.

Where is Montgomery’s name?
I know i am not blind, but i don’t or can’t seem to find it

[Deaths Head 420]

Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, KG, GCB, DSO, PC (play /məntˈɡʌmərɪ əv ˈ�ləmeɪn/; 17 November 1887 � 24 March 1976), nicknamed “Monty” and the “Spartan General”[9] was a British Army officer. He saw action in the First World War, when he was seriously wounded, and during the Second World War he commanded the 8th Army from August 1942 in the Western Desert until the final Allied victory in Tunisia. This command included the Battle of El Alamein, a major turning point in the Western Desert Campaign. He subsequently commanded Eighth Army in Sicily and Italy before being given responsibility for planning the D-Day invasion in Normandy. He was in command of **all Allied ground forces during Operation Overlord from the initial landings until after the Battle of Normandy. He then continued in command of the 21st Army Group for the rest of the campaign in North West Europe. As such he was the principal field commander for the failed airborne attempt to bridge the Rhine at Arnhem and the Allied Rhine crossing. On 4 May 1945 he took the German surrender at Luneburg Heath in northern Germany. After the War he became Commander-in-Chief of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) in Germany and then Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

I do Believe this is what i stated before, and you told me i was incorrect Lazurus. So you can eat your own post

He commanded all Ground forces, but it in know way makes him a “Supreme” Commander as you have stated he was several times. He still had to answer to Eisenhower**

[Lazarus]

@Col.:

BTW, after you take a crash course in logic, maybe you can eplain to me how someone who has always had supreme command can assume it from someone that didn’t have it.

Until then I’m afraid all you do is take the stance that Eisenhower was always the Supreme Commander, but that Montogmery was the Supreme Commander as well. Quite logical.

I can only tell you to study the term ‘scare quotes’ and everything will be revealed.

Try these for starters:

**_quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning.

quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it should not be taken literally or automatically accepted as true.

quotation marks (=the symbols ’ and ') used before and after a word or phrase to show that the word or phrase is unusual or perhaps not accurate

quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use

quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase

No need to get snotty with me just because you  did not understand the principle.
.
Consider it part of your education and another example of your supreme (no scare quotes) error in assuming you somehow have a superior intellect._**

[Lazarus]

@Deaths:

I do Believe this is what i stated before, and you told me i was incorrect Lazurus. So you can eat your own post

And you can eat the fact you do not understand commonly used rules of grammar.

The term was clearly signposted and  yet the great and the good completely misunderstood/misread it.

@Deaths:

He commanded all Ground forces, but it in know way makes him a “Supreme” Commander as you have stated he was several times. He still had to answer to Eisenhower

Might have more impact without the  homonym.

Is it possible you could list the ‘several times’ I refered to Monty as ‘Supreme Commander’.

[Col. Ty Webb]

No need to get hurt because you can’t explain to me how Eisenhower assumed command when you say he was always the Supreme Commander.

It’s cool man, you contradict yourslef alot. Everyone one here can see it. You’ll actually use one of your statements to support something in one post, then use the same one to suppor the exact opposite in the next.

I also know you edited your ‘supreme commander’ post at 10:30 this morning to add your scare quotes. In your post from May 9, 3:42 p.m., where you actully quote yourself contradicting yourself:

Quote from: Lazarus on Today at 10:39:23 am
The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!
I went � on to explain Montgomery’s role in

Quote from: Lazarus on Today at 10:39:23 am

It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion

Quote from: Lazarus on Today at 10:39:23 am
He (Montgomery) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

All of those say they were posted today, but none of them were because you went back in and edited them to make your argument seem less stupid.

You actually changed history in a post, just like your trying to do with WWII, just to make yourself look less ignorant.

It didn’t work.