Can You Guys Imagine World War II's Result If ...

[timlan2057]

I just finished reading Stanley P. Hirshon's excellent biography of General George S. Patton Jr. ... "General Patton ... A Soldier's Life."

The book was not my first rodeo with Patton, his life and history. I've watched the movie many times and WWII history is some of my favorite reading.

What I'm focusing on ... in World War II's European and North African theaters, Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander. He presided over what many times was an uneasy alliance with several British and American commanders with strong personalities.

George Patton and British Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, two of the finest generals who ever lived, couldn't stand each other and often drew up battle plans for Eisenhower's approval in both North Africa and Europe that were diametrically opposed.

Both men were somewhat prima donnas and hams and wanted a lot of personal attention and adulation.

When Ike turned down Patton's plan for the invasion of Sicilly in favor of Montgomery's, GSP and the allies castigated Eisenhower by saying: "That's what happens when your commander ceases becoming an American and becomes an 'Ally.'"

Of course Monty bitterly complained as much that Ike showed favoritism the other way because he was an American.

It was constant disagreement on battle doctrine and at times one commander, nation or the other had to swallow hard and go along with the program in the war against Nazi Germany.

My question:

How simultaneously pitiful and comical would it have been - in the "war to end all wars" against Nazi aggression - if Great Britain announced it was "pulling out" of the alliance and setting up a formation meeting for a new headquarters in Cherbourg instead of Paris with Montgomery named Supreme Commander ...

"We'll still both be fighting against the Germans but we'll do it independently and with our OWN chain of command - forget about coordinating attacks because we just can't agree." ?

And of course, the British officers from Generals on down to Colonels and Leftennants would all sanctimoniously intone how "Montgomery is a man of conviction ... he was FORCED into pulling out because Patton kept causing DIVISION!"

Of course reverse it if you're British and have Patton "pulling out."

I wonder if Germany would have surrendered in 1945?

Anybody see a parallel?

Now a lot of the good ole boys won't get it - or SAY they don't get it.

But enough will and it's interesting to speculate on the analogy anyway.

From a thirty-six year perspective of being a part of and observing oneness pentecostal organization and ministers, I've spent a bit of thought on what it's now come down to in 2008 even though I'm no longer a part.

Next little blog when I get the chance, I hope, in the next few days?

An open letter to Kenneth Haney.

[grace_seeker]

Good post! Especially because I love WW2 History. Yes, alliances do work better than divisive armys wanting the same thing.

[pelathais]

There is an axiom of anthropology that says something like: "Human beings, when the have been successful, have been successful because they cooperated in groups."

[Ron]

Tim, excellent post.

You make a very good point.

Good to see ya posting!

Ron

[NW Pastor]

I guess the proves the the old adage true again. "The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history."

[NW Pastor]

Divide and conquer is the most famous of miltary strategies. If you can separate the opposing forces, forcing them to act independently from each other without coordination and communication then you can destroy them. The Nazi secret police was constantly trying to sow discord and slice nations from the Allies side. The less coordination the less chance for victory.

Yes, there have been times when two or more separate armies have prevailed against a common foe, but only if they are coordinated by a single "high command".

The problem with many WPF'ers is that many feel like they are the "high command" or they only have God as their "high command". It's like the lady who told me the other day, "God is my pastor!" This allows her to be obedient to her leader at all times, because who knows what her pastor is telling her but her? I told her, "Then you don't have a pastor."

I wish them well, but fear for our overall objective of winning our world for Christ.

[Nahum]

Originally Posted by timlan2057

I just finished reading Stanley P. Hirshon's excellent biography of General George S. Patton Jr. ... "General Patton ... A Soldier's Life."

The book was not my first rodeo with Patton, his life and history. I've watched the movie many times and WWII history is some of my favorite reading.

What I'm focusing on ... in World War II's European and North African theaters, Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander. He presided over what many times was an uneasy alliance with several British and American commanders with strong personalities.

George Patton and British Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery, two of the finest generals who ever lived, couldn't stand each other and often drew up battle plans for Eisenhower's approval in both North Africa and Europe that were diametrically opposed.

Both men were somewhat prima donnas and hams and wanted a lot of personal attention and adulation.

When Ike turned down Patton's plan for the invasion of Sicilly in favor of Montgomery's, GSP and the allies castigated Eisenhower by saying: "That's what happens when your commander ceases becoming an American and becomes an 'Ally.'"

Of course Monty bitterly complained as much that Ike showed favoritism the other way because he was an American.

It was constant disagreement on battle doctrine and at times one commander, nation or the other had to swallow hard and go along with the program in the war against Nazi Germany.

My question:

How simultaneously pitiful and comical would it have been - in the "war to end all wars" against Nazi aggression - if Great Britain announced it was "pulling out" of the alliance and setting up a formation meeting for a new headquarters in Cherbourg instead of Paris with Montgomery named Supreme Commander ...

"We'll still both be fighting against the Germans but we'll do it independently and with our OWN chain of command - forget about coordinating attacks because we just can't agree." ?

And of course, the British officers from Generals on down to Colonels and Leftennants would all sanctimoniously intone how "Montgomery is a man of conviction ... he was FORCED into pulling out because Patton kept causing DIVISION!"

Of course reverse it if you're British and have Patton "pulling out."

I wonder if Germany would have surrendered in 1945?

Anybody see a parallel?

Now a lot of the good ole boys won't get it - or SAY they don't get it.

But enough will and it's interesting to speculate on the analogy anyway.

From a thirty-six year perspective of being a part of and observing oneness pentecostal organization and ministers, I've spent a bit of thought on what it's now come down to in 2008 even though I'm no longer a part.

Next little blog when I get the chance, I hope, in the next few days?

An open letter to Kenneth Haney.

Tim, this is a nice analogy but, have you considered that maybe the two "battle doctrines" are emblematic of two completely different goals?

I am not so sure that we (Tulsa, UPC) even share the same vision any longer. I'm not sure that there is agreement that we even preach the same message and fly the same flag.

When that sort of internal conflict exists the only logical plan is to divide.

For example, critical programs - that would have supported our "troops" - have been raided or ignored for years by those who do not agree with the mothership's "battle doctrine."

How, exactly, could we survive with this sort of dissention in the ranks?






By the way, I am not saying those men were wrong to withhold support from programs they were dissatisfied with. Each of us has an obligation to be the best stewards we can with what God has given us. And when we see exorbitant waste it is our duty to send our earnings to a place where they will be best used.

Originally Posted by timlan2057

"We'll still both be fighting against the Germans but we'll do it independently and with our OWN chain of command - forget about coordinating attacks because we just can't agree." ? [...]

I wonder if Germany would have surrendered in 1945? [...]

Anybody see a parallel?

If the relationship between the US/UK military commanders had broken down, as you speculate, then the USSR simply would've taken all of Germany, the Balkans, Greece, and perhaps some of Italy and France. Germany might not have surrendered in 1945, but there wouldn't be a Germany TO surrender in 1946 or '47.

[Jekyll]

I can't believe that Tim has hit the nail yet again. No one knows what went on behind the doors of those war rooms. Yet Eisenhower was able, quite admirably, to orchestrate the defeat of a world power in its own neighborhood. The last line of the opening post says it all.

Leadership. This thing hasn't been going this direction just in the past couple of years.

[Trouvere]

I loved the movie Patton.Great topic.