I have yet to be allowed to just debate only one person at a time. Usually, it is several at a time, throwing multiple posts at me.
If you didn't issue multiple challenges and were prepared to stick with one issue at a time this would be less of a problem for you[:-] This is a 'public forum' so stop whingeing about it. If you really want to debate with one person at a time you could do it via e-mail or 'private messaging', it's not difficult.
Me whine?
Never.
It's only when others complain about a comment or two that I make, considering all the trash that has been thrown at me.
Let's see how well you stand the heat when 4 or 5 people come gunning for you, my friend.
As far as sticking to one topic - that is all I have tried to do.
But it becomes difficult when 4 or 5 people bombard you with different topics.
Right now YOU and I are debating the Lorraine Campaign, and you are doing terribly.
Prepared to go down with the ship are you?
I have completely demolished your argument using YOUR OWN SOURCES. [:-]
To be fair to you, I can understand why you and several others believe what you do about Patton and about the Campaign in Lorraine.
Many historians, including D'Este have left out a lot of info about Patton and Third Army that has done them a great injustice.
Just stand back for a minute and read about what was done to Third Army by the end of August 1944, and then later what they had to endure in the Lorraine fighting.
Even to me, it is a far different picture than what has been presented by many historians.
In particular, I am quite unhappy with D'Este for what he has left out of his book about Metz. My research indicates that he has painted a very unfair picture of Patton during this period.
Also, I'm highly critical of D'Este for what he leaves out of his book about the Bulge. Just the Official History alone contains so much info about Third Army at the Bulge, that I just shake my head in wonderment how D'Este could not have included it.
If people are getting a slanted view of Patton, then there is a reason why.
Patton makes all of the other Allied generals look bad.
In addition, my research has uncovered some very disturbing things that should make anyone sit up and ask questions:
1) Why did a British fighter with Polish markings try to shoot down Patton's plane at the end of April, 1945?
2) Why did a small group of newspapers and reporters launch a campaign to get Patton removed from command in 1943 and 1945, even against the wishes of Ike, Marshall and Bradley?
3) Why has an investigation not been done into the scandalous workings of John Clifford Hodges Lee, who was second in command of the European Theatre to Ike, and who oversaw COMM Z, which supplied the Allied Armies? While Third Army sputtered to a halt just before the Moselle River for lack of gas, Lee was using hundreds of trucks and thousands of gallons of fuel to move his bloated headquarters of 30,000 people to Paris to claim 400 hotels and their rooms; while Third Army soldiers lacked adequate food, Lee was sending bombers to North Africa to ferry in oranges for himself; and while Third Army ran low on ammo and artillery shells and had 18,000 cases of trench foot because of improper footwear, Lee used badly needed trucks and fuel to carry in prefabricated homes for his supply staff. I could go on and on about this fellow. Why was there NO investigation?
Patton and Bradley despised Lee. Even D'Este has contempt for him. Yet Ike did nothing. . .
Anyway, I have been finding lots interesting stuff.
If I was going to do a masters degree in military history, I think I would do it on Patton in the Lorraine Campaign or the Bulge, just to help set the record straight. Really some interesting stuff.
A while back Ironduke posted a quote from D'Este where General Balck gives an unflattering remark about the Americans at Lorraine. D'Este tried to indicate that this unflattering comment was about Patton.
However, I have recently come across another comment by General Balck who had this to say about Patton:
General Balck, commenting on the Lorraine Campaign, said: "Patton was the outstanding tactical genius of World War II. I still consider it a privilege and an unforgetable experience to have had the honor to oppose him" (Ladislas, Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., Inc., 1964), p. 505).
'If Manstein was Germany's greatest strategist during World War II, Balck has strong claims to be regarded as our finest field commander. He has a superb grasp of tactics and great qualities of leadership'
