Ernest Schaal wrote:

> But they weren't generals using WWI were they.

You don't know who Petain and Hindenburg are? Even an American 
should know that.

(I don't remember the name of the two Russian generals and Turk)

> 
> 
>>>I think we can agree on one thing: that we doubt the credibility and
>>>knowledge of each other.
>>>
>>
>>Difference is I studied this stuff professionally.
> 
> 
> That does not mean you studied it well or that it wasn't biased by your own
> prejudices. You were a military officer? So was I.

It doesn't show.

Oh, you said "military" officer. Code word for airforce. Is my 
contempt obvious enough?


> 
> I didn't say he wasn't competent, he merely was not up to par of Patton or
> Bradley or Macarthur. As I said before, he had similarities to Pershing in
> that they were the best each country had in their respective war.

Patton????? What the fuck? The man was a glorified battalion 
commander. The only thing he matched Montgomery on was ego. You 
have been watching too many movies. Do you watch a lot of John 
Wayne movies?

Maybe you should also read up a bit on some of the diasters 
Macarthur was responsible for.


> Why don't we simply agree to think lowly of each other? I don't think that
> you could redeem yourself from your previous remarks, which showed a lack of
> general grasp of world history, let alone military history.
> 

Yes Field Marshall von Schaal. Your only tatical suggestion was 
the use of defense. You haven't shown any detailled knowledge 
only a general vague idea that the generals were dumb and did 
stupid things.

Read up on the Nyle commision and occupation of the Rhine yet?