(Allegedly) On this date in 1863...
Bruce Martin
the battle of Chancelorsville. He is reported to have said "Let us
cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees" as his last
words, although this has never been verified by historians.
Did Lee beat Hooker, or did Hooker beat himself at Chancellorsville?
Brooks D. Simpson
"Bruce Martin" <mart...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:409F83AD...@worldnet.att.net...
> ...Stonewall Jackson died from wounds received several days earlier at
> the battle of Chancelorsville. He is reported to have said "Let us
> cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees" as his last
> words, although this has never been verified by historians.
The tape recorder wasn't working that day. Bud Robertson's still angry
about that. :)
> Did Lee beat Hooker, or did Hooker beat himself at Chancellorsville?
Hooker beat himself by withdrawing just before Lee would have sacrificed his
command with an assault on a prepared position. For all the talk about
Jackson's flank assault, the situation was easily salvagable. The problem
with popular understandings of the battle -- and this is reinforced to some
extent by the NPS treatment of the field -- is that people tend to abandon
interest in the battle after May 2. The Fredericksburg battlefield is set
up to interpret 1862, not the 1863 action; Salem Church is overrun by
development; although there is a Hazel Grove interpretive stop and walking
tours of the final Union positions, people tend to go to the
Chancellorsville VC to look at where Jackson was hit (not at the monuments,
by the way).
I was at Guinea Station eight days ago, and it's an interesting site. By
the way, Grant visited it during the 1864 campaign.
raymond o'hara
"Brooks D. Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7ofrv$r59$1...@news.asu.edu...
e p.alexander in his bio says he never saw a better defensive position
than the union works at c-ville . he marveled the union abandoned it and
shuddered at the thoughof assaulting it .
Tookie Honey
The South loses one of its boldest and most colorful generals on this
day. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson died of pneumonia a week after losing
his arm when his own troops accidentally fired on him during the Battle
of Chancellorsville. In the first two years of the war, Jackson
terrorized Union commanders and led his army corps on bold and daring
marches. He was the perfect complement to Robert E. Lee.
A native Virginian, Jackson grew up in poverty in Clarksburg, in the
mountains of what is now West Virginia. Orphaned at an early age,
Jackson was raised by relatives and became a shy, lonely young man. He
had only a rudimentary education but secured an appointment to West
Point after another young man from the same congressional district
turned his appointment down. Despite poor preparation, Jackson worked
hard and graduated 17th in a class of 59 cadets.
Upon graduating, Jackson served as an artillery officer during the
Mexican War, seeing action at Vera Cruz and Chapultepec. He earned three
brevets for bravery in just six months and then left the service in 1850
to teach at Virginia Military Institute. He was known as a difficult and
eccentric classroom instructor, prone to strange and impromptu gestures
in class. He was also a devout Presbyterian who refused to even talk of
secular matters on the Sabbath. In 1859, he led a group of VMI cadets to
serve as gallows guards for the hanging of John Brown.
When war broke out in 1861, Jackson became a brigadier general in
command of five regiments raised in the Shenandoah Valley. At the Battle
of Bull Run in July 1861, Jackson earned distinction by leading the
attack that secured an advantage for the Confederates. Confederate
General Bernard Bee, trying to inspire his troops, exclaimed "there
stands Jackson like a stone wall," and provided one of the most enduring
monikers in history.
By 1862, Jackson was recognized as one of the most effective commanders
in the Confederate army. Leading his force on one of the most brilliant
campaigns in military history during the summer of 1862, Jackson marched
around the Shenandoah Valley and held off three Union armies while
providing relief for Confederates pinned down on the James Peninsula by
George McClellan's army. He later rejoined the Army of Northern Virginia
for the Seven Days battles, and his leadership was brilliant at Second
Bull Run in August 1862. He soon became Lee's most trusted corps
commander.
The Battle of Chancellorsville was Lee's and Jackson's shining moment.
Despite the fact that they faced an army twice the size of theirs, Lee
daringly split his force and sent Jackson around the Union flank—a
move that resulted in perhaps the Army of the Potomac's most stunning
defeat of the war. When nightfall halted the attack, Jackson rode
forward to reconnoiter the territory for another assault. But as he and
his aides rode back to the lines, a group of Rebels opened fire. Jackson
was hit three times, and a Southern bullet shattered his left arm. His
arm had to be amputated the next day. Soon, pneumonia set in, and
Jackson quickly began to fade. He died, as he had wished, on the
Sabbath, May 10, 1863, with these last words: "Let us cross over the
river and rest under the shade of the trees."
Tookie Honey
These were Jackson's final words, spoken on his deathbed on May 10,
1863. Civil War historian James I. Robertson, Jr., author of the widely
acclaimed 1997 biography of Jackson, believes that as he lay dying,
Jackson envisioned scenes from his beloved boyhood home at Jackson's
Mill, West Virginia. Robertson describes the context of the words as
follows-
...There, clearly in view, was Jackson's Mill! The West Fork River was
still curling like a moat around the boundaries of the family home
place. ...Look! He could see the little boy: tired, withdrawn, alone. He
knew where the lad was going. It was where he wanted to go. On the other
side of the West Fork was the little grove of white poplars that was his
solitude---and his refuge---from the cares of the world. The sanctuary
beckoned to him now with an intensity he had never felt before. "Let us
cross over the river," he exclaimed, "and rest under the shade of the
trees." Tom Jackson had come home.
Dennis Maggard
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Hooker beat himself by withdrawing just before Lee would have sacrificed his
>command with an assault on a prepared position. For all the talk about
>Jackson's flank assault, the situation was easily salvagable.
I don't think any of Lee's famous victories were won without some
combination of incompetence and/or hubris on the part of his opponent.
He basically did not fare nearly well against opponents who were not
self-defeating, even when they were no more brilliant than Meade.
Dennis
W. G. Davis
There is no room for plagiarists here.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"During my 87 years I have witnessed a whole succession
of technological revolutions. But none of them has done
away with the need for character in the individual or
the ability to think."
-Bernard M. Baruch
"Tookie Honey" <Hone...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:26051-40...@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
Tookie Honey
These were Jackson's final words, spoken on his deathbed on May 10,
1863.
Civil War historian James I. Robertson, Jr., author of the widely
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson died of pneumonia a week after losing
>his arm when his own troops accidentally fired on him during the Battle
>of Chancellorsville.
Given Jackson's hard-assed command style, are you sure it was an accident?
>. Confederate
>General Bernard Bee, trying to inspire his troops, exclaimed "there
>stands Jackson like a stone wall," and provided one of the most enduring
>monikers in history.
Are you sure that Bee was not cursing Jackson for standing there "like a stone
wall" rather than coming to Bee's support? Bee was killed so we don't have the
benefit of his after action report.
> He later rejoined the Army of Northern Virginia
>for the Seven Days battles, and his leadership was brilliant at Second
>Bull Run in August 1862.
How was his leadership during the Seeven Days?
"He soon became Lee's most trusted corps
>commander.
Actually didn't Lee have greater trust in Longstreet?
>The Battle of Chancellorsville was Lee's and Jackson's shining moment.
At Chancellorsville the AoNVa suffered 12,764 casualties -- more than 20
percent of their effective force. Had Lee had that kind of "shining moment"
four more times he would have been minus an army.
W. G. Davis
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040510171314...@mb-m10.aol.com...
He's not sure of anything. He's plagiarizing. He steals this stuff from websites and posts it indiscriminately, without attribution, without any indication whatsoever that it is not his work.
He is a common thief, stealing other's work and taking credit for it!
--
Regards,
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"Evolution is a harsh mistress."
--anon.
W. G. Davis
Of course you never wrote what you posted, but you post it as if you did. That's plagiarism. And plagiarism is, quite plainly, stealing.
You've been stealing for years. It is time you were stopped.
Get off these newsgroups!
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"During my 87 years I have witnessed a whole succession
of technological revolutions. But none of them has done
away with the need for character in the individual or
the ability to think."
-Bernard M. Baruch
"Tookie Honey" <Hone...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:14440-409...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
Dimitri Rotov
<Excellent points snipped.>
Am curious as to how widespread is the acceptance of the "Jackson was
fragged" idea. The only piece I've ever seen on this was speculative.
Some Army officers - in my day and even today - have this Walter Mitty
fantasy about Jackson; in their constrained world of minimum
discretion and maximum supervision and reporting, here's this historic
personality with an independent command who roams the Valley on
self-selected missions with a self-managed timetable. Deserters? Shoot
'em. Supplies? Who needs 'em. Food? You'll get some in a few days.
Orders? I'll give the orders at a time and place of my choosing.
Boots? What are you, a sissy?
A unique case that translates into bad military science.
RIP, Jackson.
Best,
Dimitri
http://cwbn.blogspot.com
Robert Willett
"Dimitri Rotov" <roto...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:8ecc5305.04051...@posting.google.com...
But success. Kinda reminds you of another maverick from VMI - Patton.
Rich Rostrom
Quite true, ironically.
Lee achieved a seeming miracle in the Seven Days - despite the
fact that most of the battles were Union victories (Beaver Dam
Creek, Savage Station, Malvern Hill) or draws.
But McClellan, even before the fighting started, had already
accused Lincoln and Stanton of conspiring to bring about a
defeat - in other words, he was already beaten in his own mind.
Pope was not quite so "self-defeating", but the hostility and
division in Union command ranks was obvious, even if one doesn't
think Porter actually deserved court-martialling.
Burnside acknowledged beforehand that he probably was not up to
the job - and it appears he was right.
Hooker's self-destruction at Chancellorsville is truly
astonishing. I count six separate gross mistakes by Hooker,
all of them necessary to Lee's victory. (That is, if any one
of these mistakes had not been made by Hooker, the Union
would have won.)
However, it is a truism that great generals seem to be lucky
in their opponents - or that to a substantial degree they
make their luck. Knowing what one can get away with is half
the game.
Lee's campaign of 1864 is still impressive - fighting against
a command team that was in no way self-defeating and had greatly
superior force, he managed to check every drive and hold every
key position.
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were there eighty?
Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there was only one, and the
attributes of all of them will be combined into his compressed and consensus
story. --- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_
raymond o'hara
"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@reader3.news.rcn.net...
he was driven back and he was unable to do anything about it .
every battle was fought closer to rich/pete ,
Dennis Maggard
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
[snip]
>However, it is a truism that great generals seem to be lucky
>in their opponents - or that to a substantial degree they
>make their luck. Knowing what one can get away with is half
>the game.
>
>Lee's campaign of 1864 is still impressive - fighting against
>a command team that was in no way self-defeating and had greatly
>superior force, he managed to check every drive and hold every
>key position.
The 1864 campaign certainly shows that Lee wasn't just lucky; however,
while Meade and Grant were not self-defeating in 1864, I'm not sure if
that can be said of the AoP officer corps as a whole, particularly in
regard to the hesitation to attack Petersburg; and certainly Butler
was self-defeating in his handling of the Army of the James.
Otherwise, the war, or at least the fate Richmond, might well have
been settled in the summer 1864.
Dennis
Robert Willett
"Dennis Maggard" <dmag...@MAPSONjuno.com> wrote in message
news:47a54f68faef665b...@news.teranews.com...
And Butler wasn't even facing Lee when he failed.
Dimitri Rotov
"Robert Willett" <rbwi...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:<kTVnc.11272$zq4.9...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> But success. Kinda reminds you of another maverick from VMI - Patton.
Good one Robert.
But success is never assured, and if you break your army or yourself,
then fail to achieve your ends, well ... you get the idea.
Considering Jackson in the Seven Days, C. Dowdey makes the key
observation that Jackson could not meet his timetable and was
completely exhausted physically and intellectually once he reached the
field. He broke down and could not recover in time to be a decisive
influence.
A very bad thing that happens with a Jackson/Patton persona: people
buy into your image and raise the bar. A member of Jackson's command
who deserted on June 21 told McClellan that Jackson would hit the
Union right flank on June 28 - an achievable date for the Jackson
command. Then Jackson meets with Lee on June 23 and allows the attack
date to be revised to June 26 - a date which which he cannot
realistically achieve - and he suffers a personal collapse trying to
fulfill his mission.
"Where is Jackson?" He was found sleeping under a tree, I think.
Best,
Dimitri
http://cwbn.blogspot.com
Robert Willett
Interesting that you point to this one failure and not to his successes.
Sort of like pointing to Patton's famous hospital incident to deny all his
other achievements. Guess you would consider Ike a failure on the basis of
his failure to foresee the Bulge.
It seems you are working very hard to create a failure persona which the
uninformed can buy into.
raymond o'hara
that failure at seven days cost them their best chance to kill the aop .
if he hadn't been such a paraniod ,secretive man and actually passsed on the
plans to his subordinates they might have accomplished something while he
napped .wars and battles are won with info , he never shared his . jackson
would have been a disaster commanding any force bigger than he could
personely supervise as he was unwilling or unable to trust his subordinates
.
Robert Willett
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:va6oc.27030$iF6.2777409@attbi_s02...
Once again Raymond demonstrates he never met a man in gray he couldn't
disparage.
Would like to hear your comments Ray on my post on Little Mac
raymond o'hara
i've attacked lil'mac with the best of them . and yes i tend to be a little
critical of loser traitor types . i thought your post on lil'mac was
posistive . and he was useful in creating the aop no one disutes that but if
he wasn't replaced there would have been an independent csa . the other
union armies trained and led by other generals did just as well if not
better than the aop . there was nothing mac did that somene else couldn't
have done and plenty of things he couldn't do that others could .
Brooks Simpson
> "Dimitri Rotov" <roto...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:8ecc5305.04051...@posting.google.com...
> > buy into your image and raise the bar. A member of Jackson's command
> > who deserted on June 21 told McClellan that Jackson would hit the
> > Union right flank on June 28 - an achievable date for the Jackson
> > command. Then Jackson meets with Lee on June 23 and allows the attack
> > date to be revised to June 26 - a date which which he cannot
> > realistically achieve - and he suffers a personal collapse trying to
> > fulfill his mission.
> >
> > "Where is Jackson?" He was found sleeping under a tree, I think.
> >
> > Best,
> > Dimitri
> > http://cwbn.blogspot.com
>
> Interesting that you point to this one failure and not to his successes.
I found it interesting. I think the point's a valid one. Sometimes
it worked (May 2 -- when Jackson traded time for position in
continuing the flank march), sometimes it didn't. When you fabricate
an image of Jackson and then hold him up as an example to officers,
you ask them to respond to the image you've created, not the man's
actual record. In short, you risk lives in having a commander attempt
to emulate a ghost.
I think Russ Wiegley did this in The American Way of War in writing
about Grant's 1864 as if the campaign as conducted was the campaign as
planned. Grant did not plan for a war of grinding attrition on the
battlefield, but that's what happened, and then Weigley latched on to
that as a model for American military performance. If you buy his
argument, then you have to accept that misinterpretations of Grant's
generalship in 1864 have cost American lives because commanders
thought the example sanctioned the practice of attrition.
[snip]
> It seems you are working very hard to create a failure persona which the
> uninformed can buy into.
I strongly urge readers to visit Dimitri's blogsite to consider his
recent discussion on Jackson, Patton, and military education. He
would argue that certain people are working very hard to create a
success persona which the uniformed can buy into.
I just can't wait to see what he has to say about Perret's new book.
:)
Brooks "not just a Grant biographer, and it was May 2, *1863*" Simpson
(nudges to Dimitri)
Robert Willett
That's what I like about you Ray - no apologies for your prejudices.
Reminds me of the early George Wallace.
Robert Willett
Ray that is meant as a compliment. Mike Wallace has said several times he
enjoyed his conversations with Wallace (which developed into a friendship)
because after you got by George's basic prejudice he was totally internally
consistent unlike so many people on extreme positions who are very
inconsistent.
raymond o'hara
there is nothing extreme about think stonehead and r.e.flee were traitors
,and unlike wallace i won't come around . jackson wasn't as loved during the
war as much as he was after it .
Robert Willett
Those who stand on the edge looking away from it never know where they are
until they step backwards.
raymond o'hara
> >
> >
>
> Those who stand on the edge looking away from it never know where they are
> until they step backwards.
>
>
an imcomprehensible and non-sequitortian statement as ever there was . i
realizeyou hate the united states bob and you lionize thosewho wish to
destroy it .
Robert Willett
You have a vivid imagination. Do you find it in the bottom of a bottle.
Unlike you I love and served the whole United States and hate no part of it
because of something that happened more than 135 years ago. Only a very
sick person would make such a statement as you did.
Of course one who cannot find the shift key would have trouble understanding
my little qwip. Perhaps we can get someone to draw you a picture.
raymond o'hara
i don't nor have i ever drunk booze , to me it's like drinking gasoline .
the fact you always talk up the traitors and get upset with anyone who
points out they were traitors gives lie to your claims of loving the us .
and typical of your ilk you resort to ad homminen attacks to cover your
views .
Dimitri Rotov
> news:<kTVnc.11272$zq4.9...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> Interesting that you point to this one failure and not to his successes.
His successes are talked about everywhere constantly. In fact, my
motivation for posting this was an article published by a couple of
U.S. Army War College graduates, senior officers, who said that the
Seven Days were the highlight of Jackson's career. (I think you've
already seen this: http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume2/april_2004/4_04_1.html)
That's the "normal" level of information one faces in dealing with
Jackson in a public forum. These officers also said he was "literally
worshiped by his men." It got my juices going.
> Sort of like pointing to Patton's famous hospital incident to deny all his
> other achievements. Guess you would consider Ike a failure on the basis of
> his failure to foresee the Bulge.
We have adulation (worship?) of Jackson as our daily bread and if I
raise criticism of Jackson it should not becomes incumbent upon *me*
to show more balance. I'm trying to show balance by being critical of
the excessive praise.
Amd yes, I do recognize a mixed record of both success and failure.
Some successes were spectacular; strategic impact was occasionally
sky high, esp. when J killed the McDowell/AoP junction. J can't be a
role model because his circumstances were so special and the risks he
took were so extreme. That makes great reading but it's not military
science. If you are in the position of the CSA, fighting for
everything with what you've scraped up, then you need these Frederick
the Great types like Jackson (and perhaps Lee). But no army plans for
a Jackson, nurtures a Jackson, nor should any officer emulate Jackson
except in a closely similar situation to the CSA.
> It seems you are working very hard to create a failure persona which the
> uninformed can buy into.
Jackson's success persona cannot be affected by anything I say or
write here or elsewhere. Jackson survived serial failure in the Seven
Days because he had built up a reservoir of good will. Dowdey
speculates as to why Lee did not get rid of Jackson after the Seven
Days as he did Smith, Huger, Magruder et al. He concludes that Jackson
was to get a last chance from Lee. Jackson had ups and downs
afterward, but his victories reinforced a perception of continuous
success.
McClellan was able to bottle Jackson up inside the Valley during the
second Richmond campaign simply by depositing brigade size forces in
the passes as he followed the line of mountains on a swinging arc
curving towards Richmond. Jackson had a resupply activity going in the
valley and could not or did not react to McClellan's movements until
it was too late. Longstreet whose command was positioned outside the
Valley faced the AoP alone as the AoP closed on it. The Longstreet
wing of the AoV was the only force between Mac and Richmond and
McClellan's relief forestalled an imminent battle that might have
ended Jackson's career whether or not the Union won that battle.
I enjoyed your comments, Robert, don't think me too hard on Jackson.
I'm backlashing from too much Jackson sugar spooned out elsewhere this
week.
Dimitri
http://cwbn.blogspot.com
Robert Willett
Well now I understand, the non-existent Mac Second Richmond campaign is one
of Jackson's failures. Jackson was in the valley to deny it to Mac and to
use it's granaries to provision his troops. There is no evidence to show
Mac could have prevented Old Jack from leaving the Valley at anytime he and
Lee decided to do so. As to leaving Longstreet alone to battle Mac, it
wasn't much of a battle compared to the whining I don't have enough troops,
forage, horses, etc battle Mac carried on with Washington. After all there
is no battle when Mac is very careful not to get too close to any major
Confederate force of any size and is actually so stationary that Stuart can
ride around him a second time.
You are absolutely correct, armies don't encourage the Jackson's, Patton's
and Mongomery's or Grant's but when it hits the fan they are damn glad they
have them. Of course on the other side you have the Mac's, Friedendahl's,
Auchinleck's and Halleck's. All by the book soldiers who failed in combat.
Dimitri Rotov
> Well now I understand, the non-existent Mac Second Richmond campaign is one
> of Jackson's failures.
The campaign existed and is studied.
> Jackson was in the valley to deny it to Mac and to
> use it's granaries to provision his troops.
And there he remained, too late to be of help to Longstreet.
> There is no evidence to show
> Mac could have prevented Old Jack from leaving the Valley at anytime he and
> Lee decided to do so.
No evidence except that the AoP was on Longstreet before the AoV could
be reassembled.
> As to leaving Longstreet alone to battle Mac, it
> wasn't much of a battle compared to the whining
It wasn't much of a battle because he was relieved (without whining)
and Burnside opted to move the army east before striking south. No on
knows why he did this. Perhaps he thought that if he beat the isolated
Longstreet wing and continued Southwest to Richmond, Jackson would
eventually leave the Valley to get on his rear.
We have come some way in this post: from a non-existent campaign to no
stopping Jackson from leaving the Valley to not much of a battle. Hey,
come on.
> You are absolutely correct, armies don't encourage the Jackson's, Patton's
> and Mongomery's or Grant's but when it hits the fan they are damn glad they
> have them.
The record for showing gladness is spotty.
> Of course on the other side you have the Mac's, Friedendahl's,
> Auchinleck's and Halleck's. All by the book soldiers who failed in combat.
We'll be doing good history when we make the effort to see their
war from their perspectives.
In all friendliness,
Dimitri
http://cwbn.blogspot.com
Dimitri Rotov
> Well now I understand, the non-existent Mac Second Richmond campaign is one
> of Jackson's failures.
The campaign existed and is studied.
> Jackson was in the valley to deny it to Mac and to
> use it's granaries to provision his troops.
And there he remained, too late to be of help to Longstreet.
> There is no evidence to show
> Mac could have prevented Old Jack from leaving the Valley at anytime he and
> Lee decided to do so.
No evidence except that the AoP was on Longstreet before the AoV could
be reassembled.
> As to leaving Longstreet alone to battle Mac, it
> wasn't much of a battle compared to the whining
It wasn't much of a battle because he was relieved (without whining)
and Burnside opted to move the army east before striking south. No on
knows why he did this. Perhaps he thought that if he beat the isolated
Longstreet wing and continued Southwest to Richmond, Jackson would
eventually leave the Valley to get on his rear.
We have come some way in this post: from a non-existent campaign to no
stopping Jackson from leaving the Valley to not much of a battle. Hey,
come on.
> You are absolutely correct, armies don't encourage the Jackson's, Patton's
> and Mongomery's or Grant's but when it hits the fan they are damn glad they
> have them.
The record for showing gladness is spotty.
> Of course on the other side you have the Mac's, Friedendahl's,
> Auchinleck's and Halleck's. All by the book soldiers who failed in combat.
We'll be doing good history when we make the effort to see their
Robert Willett
Come on Dimitri your Second Richmond Campaign was Mac sitting around on his
camp stool. He didn't threaten anybody or bottle up anybody. He just sat and
complained which is why he was relieved.
All four of the regular soldiers I mentioned have been well studied and
unless you propose some great historical conspiracy to suppress their
greatness they are all judged much less than successes.
Brian Blakistone
[...]
>You are absolutely correct, armies don't encourage the Jackson's, Patton's
>and Mongomery's or Grant's but when it hits the fan they are damn glad they
>have them. Of course on the other side you have the Mac's, Friedendahl's,
>Auchinleck's and Halleck's. All by the book soldiers who failed in combat.
Auchinleck did a better than fair job, it was he that
finally stopped Rommel at first Alemain. He was then
relieved unfairly by Churchill. My grandfather fought
under both and claimed Monty wasn't fit to shine
Auchinleck's shoes. That goes too far, but so does
categorizing him as a failure.
Brian
Robert Willett
military history is on my side.
"Brian Blakistone" <bblak...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:40a38e54...@news.individual.net...
Brian Blakistone
>Sorry Brian but your grandfather's opinion not withstanding the balance of
>military history is on my side.
The balance? I'll give ya points for Chutzpah anyway.
raymond o'hara
i'll go with you brian, the auk was mistreated by churchill and monty
grabbed credit . the decisive battle wasn't alamein but ruweistat . the
build up and prep for supercharge was started by the auk .
churchill is the man who gave us gallipol and , anzio , he insisted on p o
wales and repulse staying in harms way and then getting uselesslly sunk . he
didn't want d-day, instead he wanted to invade greece or norway . a more
over rated fool never lived .
Dennis Maggard
I wouldn't put Montgomery in the same company as Grant, Jackson and
Patton, nor would I put Auchinleck in the company of Little Mac and
Halleck. I'd put them both somewhere in between, although Patton's
tongue-in-cheek assessment that Montgomery was the best general the
British had in World War II probably is correct, especially if you
leave aside Sir William Slim.
Dennis
Drazen Kramaric
wrote:
>he was driven back and he was unable to do anything about it .
>every battle was fought closer to rich/pete ,
You don't ever quit, do you? What was Lee supposed to do in 1864 to
prevent the ultimate victory of the Union?
Drax
remove JAMRZIMSPAM for reply