Ozi Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 Absolutely. Montgomery was really difficult to manage. Of course Churchill had the huge weight of his family's reputation behind him and had a fairly spectacular intellect when he was sober, but he always did his own thing ... and both had huge egos but that probably comes with the territory. "My information tends to come not from websites but reputable news organisations." So these 'reputable' news organisations don't post on websites? Who are these 'reputable' news organisations? The German commander of the 5th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel said: The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough I'm not even going to bother making any comment about Churchill. I would suggest you utilise the NATO System on your reputable news organisations: Reliability of Source- A - Completely reliable, B - Usually reliable, C - Fairly reliable, D - Not usually reliable, E - Unreliable, F - Reliability cannot be judged Accuracy of data- 1 - Confirmed by other sources, 2 - Probably True, 3 - Possibly True, 4 - Doubtful, 5 - Improbable, 6 - Truth cannot be judged An A1 is a rarity, but a D to F coupled with a 4 to 6 is the most common with news organisations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 Well not really. Until the final paragraph I think I'm only stating what happened as well as a bit of comment with reference to interfering in states and the possibility of solving Kashmir before years of protracted hostility. It probably would have been much better if India had remained, as Gandhi supposedly wanted, one nation but I don't see how that could have been achieved without civil war. Yes, really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 Looks like the discussion is shaping up a bit better here recently. I've studied a lot of history, and I have yet to find an Empire that fell which didn't leave massive collateral damage in its wake. Granted, we tend to think of the Fall of the Roman Empire to be a big one, sending all of Western Civilization into the murk of the "Dark Ages." Yet that yielded a Renaissance, and led to a stronger, better Western Civilization. The fall of the Chinese Empire at the hands of an uneducated Mongol ultimately led to a rather nasty civilization that killed every single Muslim in Baghdad, dominated the Rus, and stabbed the eastern flank of Europe. It also created extremely secure commercial trade routes between Asia and Europe. In just the last century alone, however, we've seen the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, The Russian Imperial Empire, the Soviet Empire, the Imperial Japanese Empire, and numerous wannabe European empires, any one of which could have beaten the hell out of Imperial Rome or Genghis Khan. No wonder the world appears to be so chaotic and fucked-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts