Most over-rated WWII Leader

@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.

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

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

I approve of this message.

@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.

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.

@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!********

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.

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

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**

@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._**

@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’.

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.

you beat me to it Webb +1

@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’.

LOL! THis is good. How about the last 10 posts you sent my way. Do you have multiple personalities and each one happens to visit the axisandallies.org message boards? That would actually make sense.

@Vance:

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

Dose he really count as a commander? I mean he was the leader of the Communist party of China, but not the field armies. I mean both Hitler and Stalin were “commanders” in the same sense I guess but what battles can we really identify with them? Like we identify Rommel with El Alamein, Palus with Stalingrad, Eisenhower with D-Day but I can’t really identify Mao with any one battle. As a leader he was crap but during WW2 he wasn’t much more then a petty warlord.

test

@Col.:

LOL! THis is good. How about the last 10 posts you sent my way. Do you have multiple personalities and each one happens to visit the axisandallies.org message boards? That would actually make sense.

I presume you are also able to list the many references I am alleged to have made  to Monty as supreme commander (sans scare quotes)?

I can help you.

I re-entered this thread at post 48 (May 03, 2012, 08:17:40 am) and have 23 posts to date.

The word commander is mentioned in 4 posts.  Straight away that nails your last 10 posts you sent my way lie.

The 4 posts below:
_POST 62
Yes. The overall ground Commander for Normandy, the man who planned it and the man who brought about the complete collapse of the German Army in France in 1944 lacked any strategic boldness !!!

POST  88
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!

POST  100 
He(Monty) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

POST  114 
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_

The 4 terms used:
overall ground Commander/overall Commander/‘supreme commander’/in Command.

There you have it. A clear exposure of your distortion of  the record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQitfBT6q9g

Dr Lazarus!  We are humbled to be in your presence!

But you and your posts are quite complicated sir!

:P

Take a look in the mirror friend… and ask yourself, how did you come to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDJsCE01LYI

And do you know when to stop? or MUST the show go on?

Last, before you go… please sign me your autograph!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEdyNyQCjwE&feature=relmfu

@Col.:

I also know you edited your ‘supreme commander’ post at 10:30 this morning to add your scare quotes. :

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.

Quite simply untrue
I have not edited the original post.
See here that there are no messages to say  it was edited.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16779.msg956191#msg956191

It is even quoted by another poster and you can clearly see no alterations

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16779.msg956708#msg956708

What seems to have confused you is I assemble my posts in wordpad before posting them here and use a ‘standard’ (note the scare quotes) quote tag.
I am pleased that you have been so traumatised by the drubbing you suffered over  your Monty ‘facts’ that you have to resort to invention to salve some credibility.
Your  original error was a  rather simple one and this inability to admit any error  is troubling…

@CWO:

@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.

A number of people in this thread are on the ball. Which is nice, because it greatly reduces the time I might otherwise have had to spend dealing with Lazarus’s efforts to confuse or sidetrack the discussion. Because I don’t have to deal with that stuff, I’ll respond to your post instead. You’ve made a good point about the undeclared war between Japan and the Soviet Union. To add to what you’ve written, Japan achieved a roughly 1:1 exchange ratio during that undeclared war.

The problem with that is the following: in 1940, the Red Army was clearly nowhere near the equal of Finland’s Army, on a man-for-man basis. In 1941, the German Army achieved a better than 10:1 exchange ratio against the Red Army. I doubt the Red Army was more ready for war in '38 and '39 than it had been in '40 and '41. Which means that the 1:1 exchange ratio Japan achieved against the Red Army was very disappointing, and underscores the fact that Japan’s army was not ready for war against a large, modern opponent.

Iwo Jima was also the only U.S. Marine battle where the American casualties exceeded the Japanese,[6] although Japanese combat deaths numbered three times as many American deaths.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima

When the Americans fought the Japanese in land battles, my impression is that the normal exchange ratio was around 4:1 in the Americans’ favor. Unfortunately, both your post and mine are off topic. My next post in this thread (assuming there is one) will be on topic.