You cannot have a discussion with a Leftie.
Several days ago I posted that many times what we think as the biggest “story” of the year isn’t actually the “biggest” story. One of the examples I provided was the reining in of Patton in the Fall of 1944 in favor letting Monte attack in the north.
Weeder Gander took exception. The following shows how the discussion dissolved into him losing control when I disagreed.
Weeder Gander wrote:
Except that Eisenhower disagreed with you about the B of the B being a disaster:
"Eisenhower, realizing the Allies could destroy German forces much more easily when they were out in the open and on the offensive than if they were on the defensive, told the generals, "The present situation is to be regarded as one of opportunity for us and not of disaster. There will be only cheerful faces at this table." Patton, realizing what Eisenhower implied, responded, “Hell, let’s have the guts to let the bastards go all the way to Paris. Then, we’ll really cut ’em off and chew ’em up.” Eisenhower asked Patton how long it would take to turn his Third Army (located in northeastern France) north to counterattack. He said he could attack with two divisions within 48 hours, to the disbelief of the other generals present. Before he had gone to the meeting, however, Patton had ordered his staff to prepare three contingency plans for a northward turn in at least corps strength. By the time Eisenhower asked him how long it would take, the movement was already underway.[17] On 20 December, Eisenhower removed the First and Ninth U.S. Armies from Bradley’s 12th Army Group and placed them under Montgomery’s 21st Army Group."
I responded:
Patton is one of my favorites, but his troops called him “Blood and Guts.” Their blood and his guts. But he prepared them to fight and fight they did. The rescue is unparalleled in military history.
But my point is that if Eisenhower had not slowed Patton down in the fall, none of this would have happened.
And although I understand the political pressure to try and stop the rockets raining down on London I still think it was bad strategy to rein in Patton.
There would have been no battle of the bulge.
Oh well, Monday morning qbacking football games is fun but military history even more so.
Of course my main point remains. We rarely recognize the truly important events when they happen. I seem to remember something happening 2008 years and one week ago that really made no particular splash that had major long term changes.
Now I should have ended the thread there. But I didn’t.
Weeder Gander replied:
Here's an analysis of Eisenhower's situation:
"However, Eisenhower was almost certainly right in rejecting the "single thrust" plans offered by his subordinates. They underestimated the Germans' ability to recuperate and the Allies supply and engineering problems. The success of the logistics people is supporting more divisions than expected in the drive to the Seine supported a tendency to underestimate the difficulty of supplying a continued advance. SHAEF's own investigation of the possibility of a quick attack by the Third Army across the Rhine showed that only a dozen divisions could be sustained in such a move and that only by stopping all other Allied movements, opening Antwerp, and using bombers as well as troop carriers for supply. Even this effort would peter out by the time Frankfurt was reached; the effort would leave exposed flanks for a length of 300 miles and bring logistical disaster if the enemy were not shocked into giving up. LT Colonel Herbert Ehrgott, the Chief of Staff of IX Air Engineer Command, later declared that Patton could not have received close air support and would've gotten little supply by air past Reims."
D-Day to Berlin: The Northwest Europe Campaign, 1944-1945, Page 96.
I responded:
A good point and I have heard it before.
But I tend to go with the guy on the ground and Patton disagreed, believing that the Germans were demoralized and ready to surrender.
So I politely acknowledged his point and again noted what Patton believed. Did that end it?
No. Weeder Gander wrote:
Unfortunately, being the guy on the ground doesn't solve the problems of supply, lack of air cover, and stretched flanks.
"Page 98:
In any case, not enough got forward, especially on the American front. The First Army estimated its needs as 5,500 tons a day, the Third Army at 6,600. Both together were allocated 7,000. Both armies strongly critical of JCH Lee and his organization, insisted that the real figures were a good deal less, and some of what did arrive were neither wanted nor needed. As September arrived, American equipment and combat vehicles were badly worn."
Patton also didn't understand the German psychological make-up, given the fact that the military men took a personal oath promising loyalty to Hitler, who himself wasn't at the point of being demoralized and ready to surrender at that point in time. Some commentators believed the oath was one of the reasons the German military remained obedient to Hitler until the very end. The troops on the ground were subject to the Stippenhaft law implemented soon after D-Day(page 104):
On August 1 the Nazis announced the "Stippenhaft law", under which family members would be held responsible if a man deserted or surrendered.
which, as long as there were family members of the soldiers under the control of the Nazi regime, was a strong deterrence to Pattons' idea that the ground forces were ready to surrender.
Now I could have just noted that the "Stippenhaft law" didn’t stop thousands of German troops from surrendering in August, September and October, but instead I wrote:
As I said, you have a good point and I have heard it before. Fortunately, or unfortunately, we will never know who is right.
I am cheered by the thought that many of those who say reining in Patton was right also thought that he could not turn his troops and save those engaged in the Battle of the Bulge.
Patton's belief was that the German Army was in a state of collapse and he wanted to take advantage of that. He was, after all, a cavalry man, and cavalry men believe that when you have the enemy scattered and running you don't stop killing them.
I play poker and understand Patton, I think, better than you.
Further down I have a post about a poker hand. (Poker grumbles) In it I moan about a player drawing out on me as if I had a right to do the wrong thing and still win. What I did was try and trap a player who still had enough chips to hurt me. Greed is a terrible thing. If my first bet had been enough to put him all in he would have folded. Instead I trapped him and gave him enough of a reason to call and beat me on the river.
Fortune favors the bold.
Again a polite acknowledgement of this point, and a point that, since I play poker I think I understand Patton better than Weeder.
So how does Weeder respond? He attacks.
(quoting me)I play poker and understand Patton, I think, better than you.(end quote)
I have Germanic roots and I think that I have a greater knowledge and understanding of them better than you, and I got an A in statistics on the college level, which is useful when playing a game in part dictated by numerical laws of probability.
(quoting me)I moan about a player drawing out on me as if I had a right to do the wrong thing and still win. What I did was try and trap a player who still had enough chips to hurt me. Greed is a terrible thing.(end quote)
That's why one should think of the possible highest hand any opponent can have given the 1st three cards and proceed from there.
"Fortune favors the prepared mind"
Louis Pasteur
A Leftie can never be disagreed with, even when it is done politely. That is why KOS and TalkLeft are often full of Lefties attacking other Lefties often over arcane points, but most likely because one commentator or the other is judged to be less radical than the accepted norm of the Left.
My response:
You have Germanic roots and you think?
Sigh.... and we were having such a nice rational conversation.
You do realize that you have just advanced the same argument that racists have used......
As for poker, there is one, and only one way to find out if you know Jack...or Sue or Charley... and that is to play.
I have invited Kdog to the big show in January. Can you come??
Of course that sent him into orbit. The following was his response and my answers.
(quoting me) we were having such a nice rational conversation.(end quote)
Then you decided to tell me what you know more Patton and poker without knowing what I know about either one aside from what I've demonstrated on this thread.
Nope. I said, “I think.” That means it is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
(quoting me)You do realize that you have just advanced the same argument that racists have used.(end quote)
No, I was just using your own logic on you on a different subject.
Apparently you can't tell when you're being treated the same way you treat others. Why is that?
Nope. You referred to your “genes,” and the “genetics” argument that is often used by racists to slur blacks. e.g. All blacks can run fast… dance well, etc.
I just noted that I play poker and because of that I understand the importance of a bold strike at the right time. I even included an example where I played wrong and lost.
(quoting me) As for poker, there is one, and only one way to find out if you know Jack...or Sue or Charley... and that is to play(end quote)
If you haven't played me before, again, on what basis did you make your earlier assertion in the first place?
Notice how Weeder declares all to be about him.
Actually, dear Weeder, if you will try and read carefully, I assert nothing about you, just that you have to actually play to know if you can. College level classes are meaningless and… trust me on this… you can learn the “odds” in about 15 minutes. It is the ability to apply the card odds, the pot odds, the implied pot odds, the granularity of the game and the expected play of the individual players that make a difference.
Of course having decided that this is all about himself, and angered because I have only agreed that there are differences of opinion about Eisenhower’s reining in Patton and then pointing out that his analogy is one often used by racists he has become unglued.
So he concludes with this.
Since you've already outlined one of your weaknesses, and you're seem to be unfamiliar with the strategy I outlined above, for me to play you would be unfair using such an advantage on my part.
Remember what Dr. Pasteur said, it might come in handy even when you're not playing poker.
Heh. The invitation to come to Tunica still stands.
Those who can, do.
And no, you can’t have a conversation with a Leftie in which you disagree. They demand agreement. That is why they buy into speech codes and why freedom of speech runs and hides when they show up.
