---------------------------------<snip>-------------------------------
Note that both Patton and Montgomery agreed that the best approach was
a spearhead across Europe into Germany. They disagreed on who should
lead it, each wanted to be the sole leader of the action. Eisenhower
overruled both and ordered a broad approach. Was Eisenhower or Patton
correct? Again, Hindsight is 20/20.
And we do know that Eisenhower was correct "enough". And that's what
really counts.
Is it really enough??? If *many* more lives could have been saved by
doing things a different way and *still* succeeding... would that *not*
have been better???
You are unbelievable. Do you really wish that Europe dithered until
after Germany had the atomic bomb?
He implied nothing of the kind. The question was - if, say, Patton
and Montgomery were right, that the war could have been won quicker
with fewer casualties - wouldn't that have been better?
------------------------------------<unsnip>----------------------------------------------
Since none of us were likely there, and since the principal decision
makers have all "met their maker", it doesn't really matter. I'm sure
that these are all questions that caused a LOT of lost sleep, not to
mention the political concerns. War itself is a stupendous waste of men
and material; anything that reduces the amount of these costs is
goodness. And having been involved in combat, in Viet Nam, I can tell
you that the suffering inflicted on non-combatants in the area is
emminently more terrible and senseless.
Now let's get back "on-topic".
Rick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
