soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article ,
Robert Sveinson wrote:

> As opposed to the very competent Patton?
>
Both Patton and Montgomery were very competent.

> Carlo D'Este's recent biography of General George Patton relates
> another rescue attempt. **Patton's son-in-law** was a POW in a
>German stalag not too far
> behind the lines during the last months of the war. Against the advice of
> his staff, and his own better judgment, when Patton found his army within
> striking distance of the stalag, he detailed a task force to liberate the
> camp.

As I remember, according to D'Este, he asked, somewhat sheepishly,
for the raid, and then did nothing about it. Liberating a PoW
camp is not in itself a bad idea, but sending insufficient force
is.

Patton, according to D'Este, exerted no influence over the details,
which is a pity. The local commanders didn't want to not do a raid
that Patton wanted, and they didn't want to send enough force to
do the job right.

> Would Patton have risked his combat machine,

If Patton had risked his combat machine, or a significant part of
it, the raid would likely have been a success.

To repeat, the bad idea was in attempting it with insufficient force,
and that was not directly Patton's fault.

had a close
> relative not been in that stalag?

Certainly not.

Now that you have carefully dissected precisely one highly questionable
act, are you going to offer to let Walt dissect one of Montgomery's
acts of Walt's choosing, and base his opinion of Montgomery
on it?

I can find individual incidents that reflect very badly on pretty
much every high commander in WWII. (Of course, it's easier for
*cough*Clark*cough* some people than others.)

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