The British press lauded Montgomery to the point where it became impossible for him not to be given command of Overlord land operations or, due to the belief in some quarters that his performance was unsatisfactory, replaced. I know you will be glad to hear this, I am so effing sick of you and your completely pompous rhetoric against anything and everything American, and anything the Americans did in the Pacific Theatre. Note he had some pretty good subordinates to make it work too I don't usually bother editing endless repetition after all it demonstrates you have no good points to make , but I am going to start editing for offensiveness. The general was quite skilled. Once the child-emperors reached an age of maturity, they would retire. A very minor example of this from the invasion of Europe would be the Channel Islands.
If you read a lot of the literature on Macarthur, there's much, much harsher stuff than this. But the main difference was that Montgomery, no matter what you think of his approach and his weaknesses, was always successful in the tasks set him, and was always trusted and admired by those who served under him - of any race or religion or nationality. They have professional political classes where you get advancement by loyalty to the party. There is a serious argument by some that the Italian campaign was a wasted way to bring down Germany, as once the southern Italian airfields were occupied the campaign resources could be better utilised. Try and accept that everyone has both strengths and weaknesses. Washington was bvery lucky that only second or third rate generals ever faced him. I will be posting on teh other two in future posts.
rethinking history: Rating General Douglas MacArthur
Yet native Americans have never done better. His constantly having to defer to the Continental Congress didn't work well. Churchill, Brooke, and Marshall, perhaps even Nimitz, were too important to risk at the front. Its amazing they didn't when it was so effective. As Herbert Bix and other scholars are increasingly discovering,Hirohito was a driving force behind japanese expansion over two decades and a part of the actual decision making process in a way which could never happen in the West.
Nimitz is the guy who won the damn war in the Pacific. But I sometimes wonder if having civilians around as in Singapore might have led to an earlier surrender and less suffering for the troops? As I understand it the idea of this blog is to question what you believe. I have been in communities where the teachers at the schools outnumber the students! Mine is in a bit of a slump. Dear Anonymous I agree with you. That is an absolute nonsense.