soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article ,
Die Whigphilosophie der Geschichte im Hefeweizen wrote:
>
>I tend to feel that comes from his experience with Clark to a great
>extent, and Clark was going to be a problem for any British superior.

Granted, but Alexander had other opportunities to show some
firmness. In North Africa, he let Montgomery do what he wanted,
which was actually a pretty good choice. In Sicily, he
let his subordinates fight their own wars, although he did
have authority (Patton didn't fight when Alexander removed
a road from his sector).

To me, it doesn't look like just Clark. Alexander looks
inadequate for high command, since "command" just wasn't
what he did.

I believe that Montgomery was the best British general
above the position of army commander in Europe and
Africa, and I don't think it's all that close.


--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-