"John Hanson" <jhanson@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
news:4l8sp01jbunqv2s8tvq7lsujp9jpvk6sle@4ax.com
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:42:49 +1100, "DRS"
> <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au> wrote in misc.fitness.weights: 

[..]
[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
> Commonwealth being a convenient term to use to distinguish the
> different troops.

The term you are looking for is Dominion, Australia, New Zealand and Canada
being self-governing dominions within the empire at the time.
 
>
> In other words, incompetence.

There was incompetence but it does not logically or necessarily follow from
what I said.  That's just your troll rearing its ugly head again.
 
>
> Military authorities then and now consider the US Marines the elite
> troops on the Western Front.  Granted, you are referring to pre-US
> involvement.

Never, ever were any American forces considered elite troops in WWI by
military authorities then or now.  The elite troops on the Western front
were unquestionably the ANZACs and the Canadians (some military historians
say the Canadians should be ranked ahead of the ANZACs but that's a
quibble - the American troops simply are not on the list).

[..]
 
>
> "One thing was for certain; General Montgomery's plan was a failure.
> It not only failed to encircle and trap the Germans, it also failed in
> that it lost and wasted thousands of tons of supplies that could have
> been used by other armies (especially the Third Army) to continue
> their successful attacks. Because none of the plans were accomplished,
> it was also a waste of many soldier's lives. Lastly, it caused
> unnecessary destruction in the Netherlands. After it was all over,
> Prince Bernard of the Netherlands said, 'My country can never again
> afford the luxury of another Montgomery success.'"

Your plagiarism is utterly pathetic.  You are quoting from a site devoted to
Patton, Monty's arch-competitor, from an article utterly without sympathy or
nuance to the realities of the situation.  Patton was always seriously
pissed off when Monty got any support of any kind - whether political or
logistical - since he was convinced he and the Third Army could win the war
singlehanded if only he was given the necessary petrol to head directly for
Berlin.  That fatuous arrogance was completely unrealistic, there being no
way the Allies could have kept supplying him from Normandy even if they'd
wanted to, hence the emphasis on liberating the Netherlands.  The Allies
desperately needed the port of Rotterdam before they could even think of
heading for Berlin.  Once the Benelux was liberated it made more sense to
then attack due east, across the Ruhr and the plains of western Germany
rather than trying a moronic route through the mountains of southern
Germany, which is what Patton's plan would have entailed.

--

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]