soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"David Thornley" wrote in message
news:13v0krlc1u08ba0@corp.supernews.com...
> In article ,
> Robert Sveinson wrote:
>>"David Thornley" wrote in message
>>news:13ur6tqkm4h6re6@corp.supernews.com...




> By himself? Not much. The raid did not simply grab him and
> leave all other PoWs behind, so the question is irrelevant.

The raid was to release Patton's son in law.
The fact that the other prisoners were there
is *irrelivent*.


>>Would the rescued POWs have been armed to continue
>>the fight against Nazi-ism?

> Very likely, depending on their treatment. If nothing else,
> liberating them would have been a good thing.

And did Patton know what condition these prisoners were in?
I doubt it.


>>What justification can there be for sacrificing approximately
>>200 US soldiers, who were killed, or
>>themselves became POWs to unite Patton with his *son in law*?

> It was a screwup. I can find far greater losses in operations
> that didn't do much of anything either.

But operations with a purpose other than for stroking Patton's
ego/vanity.


> Freeing prisoners, quite possibly putting them back in action.

Possibly? But not with any certainty!



> Is it your opinion that there is no point in recovering captured
> soldiers? Would you like to be in an army where the official
> position was that, if you were captured, tough?

There was no good reason to rush forward, deplete his fuel
for the express purpose of rescueing his son in law and/or
the other POWs. The POWs were in greater danger of being killed
or wounded because of the fighting to release the POWs. Would that
be a good thing? I guess the answer is yes as long as Patton's son in law
was not killed or wounded.



> When the British recovered prisoners, should they have shipped
> them back to the Germans?

Recovered? Do you have any information that the British did the John Wayne/
George Patton thing to release prisoners that had not been abandoned
by their guards?

Leonard Cheshire VC wanted to drop food and medicine on a POW camp
which held his relative and other British POWs. He was forbidden to
do so, as it was feared that the Germans would think that the packages
contained weapons. He did not there after drop any packages
on any guarded POW camp.



> In fact, the decision of what force to send was made, I believe,
> by the division commander. I could be wrong, but it wasn't
> made by Patton.

So Patton's subordinates wanted to suck up to Patton
and surprise him by rescueing Patton's son in law?
Good for field promotion I guess.



>>Does "fault" reside only with subordinates,
>>and "praise" only with the superior?

> In what context does this question make sense?

You did say that the resulting fiasco
"was not Patton's fault". He was the commander,
or does the buck always start lower in the
ranks than the commander?




> Decisions are made on various levels. Asking for the liberation
> was questionable, and Patton knew it.

So he knew about the folly and did not forbid it.
Sounds like he approved it. And the fault still lies
with his subordinates?





> Still, it wasn't inherently
> a bad thing to do. It became one through the use of insufficient
> force, which was a decision that Patton was not involved in in the
> least.

But how would this advance or assist in the defeat of Nazi-ism.


> It is possible to blame Patton for setting up the situation where
> the lower commanders did not feel they could refuse, and did not
> feel they could send enough force. However, Patton did not make
> the force selection, and did not actually order the attack.

"The lower commanders could not refuse".......................
Refuse what?
The order that Patton did not actually give?



> Patton was known for standing behind his subordinates' decisions,
> at least publicly.

The ones that he didn't slap in public anyway.




> Okay. Is this sufficient for you to consider Montgomery
> incompetent? You seemed to imply that you considered
> Patton incompetent based on one incident. If I misread
> you, please inform me.

Now let me quote Carlo D'Este's book: Decision In Normandy:
pages 404-405

"For weeks Patton* had been anxiously waiting in the wings for
an opportunity to redeem himself after the humiliation of his
relief in Sicily; he was determined not to bungle whatever chance
he got. Bradley* was not pleased to have him as a subordinate.


Let me re-iterate Walt's cogent, well thought out,
well researched, and well "cited" argument, and
you decide whether it proves that Montgomery was
incompetent.

Walt's contribution:

>Hopefully as the gross incompetent he was.

>Walt