On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:18:21 -0500, jmfbahciv <jmfbah...@aol> wrote: >>>> 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? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
