Posts made by Lazarus

@Gargantua:

Please specify some incidents.

I can think of several, but they are in the 20 to TOPS 100 people range.

Millions of POW’s were never shot.

See this link

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=8034

@Col.:

As you said earlier, and as Lazarus apparently didn’t know, the man was a national hero after WWI,

I assure you Lazurus did know.
However Lazarus was unable to see what bearing it had on Goering’s performance in WW2.
Perhaps you could establish the link so Lazarus can see his error?

@Col.:

You spent a whole day posting things you thought proved that Germans thought Monty was on Pattons level, when nobody else who read that passage came to your conclusion.

I posted the considered opinion of Blumentritt and  Rundstedt. They  are the ones who ranked Monty  as on par with Patton.
I am sure, if they were still alive, they would be mortified that some here consider they made a mistake. Burdened as they were with fighting against Patton and Monty that had not the time to stand back and form an opinion that would be acceptable to the community of WW2 gamers.
I am not here to convince anyone. You are entitlled to your view and it won’t change the facts.
The puzzle for me is the complete inability of many to accept  dissent from the herd mindset…

@Clyde85:

The problem is that there seems to be no bases in reality for any of your claims, and most of what you bring up sounds like revisionist nonsense.

Look hard in the mirror.  I remember an earlier post where you  introduced  British losses for Goodwood (to prove Monty always came off worst) that turned out to be an estimate of POW’s.
I see a lot of  spamming  of the thread with Wiki cut and pastes in  reply to my use of book quotes.
You are welcome to call me anything you like but in comparison to you I am  overburdened with references.

@Gargantua:

Actually, she didn’t CHOOSE to fight on. The allies determined that they would only allow unconditional surrender.

That does not stop them accepting terms so no they were not forced into fighting. It was a decision freely entered into and a catastrophe of her own making.

@Gargantua:

Millions of people dying, the country being ravaged, etc, all would have happend anyways.

Over 75% of the total  tonnage of all bombs were  dropped on Germany in 1944-45. For the last 12 months it would be 50%
German cities and infrastructure was devastated and 2 million + of her citizens died needlesly. If she had taken terms in 1944 all that would have been avoided. Indeed if the Generals had succeeded then those same terms would have been grabbed with both hands
I have no time for the  argument that ‘honour’ compelled her to fight on.

@Gargantua:

In fact Lazarus, and this will shock you, the adult death rate in Germany, AFTER the war was over, was 10 times that, as it was when they were at war.

It would shock anyone to learn 30 million Germans died (because of the war) after it was over.
The number is simply too high to have any credibility.
I will accept score settling went on but there is a saying, reap what you sow

@Clyde85:

You are being a troll, and it’s not because I disagree with you, but because you are dragging this thread down in to stupid arguments over Semantical non-sense

I asked a perfectly reasonable question. Your hysterical reaction tells me you are still smarting over earlier reverses.

.@Clyde85:

Also, i’ve noticed that you’ve once again gone back an edited your posts after you someone has challenged what you’ve said as this sentence
It ties in nicely with the 3 milion German POW’s (from a end total of 4 million) taken in the west before the surrender in May 1945.
was not there before. If you can support or stand by your previous statements and need to go back and reword them, then it shows what little faith you have in what you are saying, or that you are just being argumentative for its own sake, ie, being a troll

Reply #152 on: Today at 08:55:31 am » was my original message
I edited it straight away and finished by Last Edit: Today at 09:00:29 am by Lazarus »

Whilst I was doing this you posted Reply #153 on: Today at 08:59:09

Are you seriously claiming that I read your message and took but  30 seconds to rush into edit mode and change the original?
It does not even make any difference to the Russian POW point so what exactly are you saying was the change in meaning the edit introduced?
You are paranoid

@Clyde85:

I did nothing of the sort, I was commenting on your statement that some were shot on the spot, like communist party members and commissars, and that if they were shot on the spot, as you said, then how could they be counted as POW’s if they didn’t live long enough to make it that far?

Please re-read my initial post

Is that counting the millions of POW’s they starved to death or shot on the spot?

You first capture them(where they become POW’s) and then you shoot them.

Oh boy here we go again.

He said EXCHANGE RATE not POW’s

And thank you for confirming the 3 million who died in camps are counted.

It ties in nicely with the 3  milion German POW’s (from a end total of 4 million) taken in the west before the surrender in May 1945.

There are two camps.
One that says she should have fought on until she was totaly defeated.
The other says they recognised the inevitable and  saved their country from untold  destruction and lived to fight another day.

In reality the German losses were mounting and if the fighting had continued they would have had casualty lists of Russian Front proportions. The bulk of the French Army was intact and you can not outflank someone with nowhere left to run. If they had fought it out it would have cost the Germans the bulk of their tank force.
A clue is the terms offered to France. She was not fully occupied and this was the sweetener offered to save German lives.
One can contrast the two methods.
Germany was in the same position in 1944. Defeat was inevitable but she chose to fight on. Because of this 2 million plus of her own population were killed. Her country was totaly ravaged and she gained not a single thing that was not on offer in 1944. The whole last year of the war was nothing but a complete disaster for Germany.
I believe there are those who hold up this  perverse example of insanity as some great military virtue-as if stupidity had any advantages!

@KurtGodel7:

Germany deployed a few jet aircraft in 1944 and '45; but the overwhelming majority of its late war aircraft production continued to consist of piston-driven aircraft.

A wise move considering the jets needed frequent engine changes and the jets needed the cover of these same piston aircraft just to take off and land!
@KurtGodel7:

Had Goering not removed so many engineers from jet development back in 1940, it’s possible that outcome would have been different. Germany’s lack of jets allowed the Allies’ D-Day invasion to be successful, and was also pivotal to the success of their strategic bombing effort against Germany

The problem with that fantasy scenario is it depends on the Allies standing stock still with their technology whilst the game is rigged by allowing every doodle by a german engineer to appear as a fully fledged fault free weapon system that ran on water!
Every new invention is always countered by the enemy. Once you introduce super-dooper weapon X it casues you enemy to build super-dooper enemy weapon-killer Y
The Allies sat on their Jets because they had no  urgent need to use them. The existing aeroplane stock was swatting the Luftwaffe like flies so why  disrupt your quipment chain for no good reason. You can bet if  German jets were seen over England in 1942 then they would have been Allied Jets over Germany in 1943.

@KurtGodel7:

This is a thread about overrated leaders, not a thread about overrated things in general. In order to stay on topic, I’ll add a name for consideration: Herman Goering.

Strange claim because I have never seen any  (considered)opinion other than Goering was an innefective commander.
I have never seen  a debate where anyone gave examples  his successes. Starting in 1940 his is an unbroken line of missed chances and fumbled balls.
Setting him up as something to be knocked down seems odd when history has already firmly put him in the failed category.
I could be wrong though and await the links that show the data that confirms his moments of glory

@KurtGodel7:

1941, the German Army achieved a better than 10:1 exchange ratio against the Red Army.

Is that counting the millions of POW’s they starved to death or shot on the spot?

@Col.:

LOL! THis is good. How about the last 10 posts you sent my way. Do you have multiple personalities and each one happens to visit the axisandallies.org message boards? That would actually make sense.

I presume you are also able to list the many references I am alleged to have made  to Monty as supreme commander (sans scare quotes)?

I can help you.

I re-entered this thread at post 48 (May 03, 2012, 08:17:40 am) and have 23 posts to date.

The word commander is mentioned in 4 posts.  Straight away that nails your last 10 posts you sent my way fabrication

The 4 posts below:
_POST 62
Yes. The overall ground Commander for Normandy, the man who planned it and the man who brought about the complete collapse of the German Army in France in 1944 lacked any strategic boldness !!!

POST  88
The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!

POST  100  
He(Monty) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

POST   114  
It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion_

The 4 terms used:
overall ground Commander/overall Commander/‘supreme commander’/in Command.

Anyway I applaud your decision to stop trying to argue the facts. Totaly trounced in that department you fall back on your only remaining weapons. Falsehood and slander.
Follow Clyde’s lead. Recognise your error and  and bow out gracefully……

@Col.:

I also know you edited your ‘supreme commander’ post at 10:30 this morning to add your scare quotes. :

You actually changed history in a post, just like your trying to do with WWII, just to make yourself look less ignorant.

It didn’t work.

Quite simply untrue
I have not edited the original post.
See here that there are no messages to say  it was edited.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16779.msg956191#msg956191

It is even quoted by another poster and you can clearly see no alterations

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16779.msg956708#msg956708

What seems to have confused you is I assemble my posts in wordpad before posting them here and use a ‘standard’ (note the scare quotes) quote tag.
I am pleased that you have been so traumatised by the drubbing you suffered over  your Monty ‘facts’ that you have to resort to invention to salve some credibility.
Your  original error was a  rather simple one and this inability to admit any error  is troubling…

@Col.:

LOL! THis is good. How about the last 10 posts you sent my way. Do you have multiple personalities and each one happens to visit the axisandallies.org message boards? That would actually make sense.

I presume you are also able to list the many references I am alleged to have made  to Monty as supreme commander (sans scare quotes)?

I can help you.

I re-entered this thread at post 48 (May 03, 2012, 08:17:40 am) and have 23 posts to date.

The word commander is mentioned in 4 posts.  Straight away that nails your last 10 posts you sent my way lie.

The 4 posts below:
_POST 62
Yes. The overall ground Commander for Normandy, the man who planned it and the man who brought about the complete collapse of the German Army in France in 1944 lacked any strategic boldness !!!

POST  88
The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!

POST  100 
He(Monty) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

POST  114 
It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion_

The 4 terms used:
overall ground Commander/overall Commander/‘supreme commander’/in Command.

There you have it. A clear exposure of your distortion of  the record.

test

@Deaths:

I do Believe this is what i stated before, and you told me i was incorrect Lazurus. So you can eat your own post

And you can eat the fact you do not understand commonly used rules of grammar.

The term was clearly signposted and  yet the great and the good completely misunderstood/misread it.

@Deaths:

He commanded all Ground forces, but it in know way makes him a “Supreme” Commander as you have stated he was several times. He still had to answer to Eisenhower

Might have more impact without the  homonym.

Is it possible you could list the ‘several times’ I refered to Monty as ‘Supreme Commander’.

@Col.:

BTW, after you take a crash course in logic, maybe you can eplain to me how someone who has always had supreme command can assume it from someone that didn’t have it.

Until then I’m afraid all you do is take the stance that Eisenhower was always the Supreme Commander, but that Montogmery was the Supreme Commander as well. Quite logical.

I can only tell you to study the term ‘scare quotes’ and everything will be revealed.

Try these for starters:

**_quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning.

quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it should not be taken literally or automatically accepted as true.

quotation marks (=the symbols ’ and ') used before and after a word or phrase to show that the word or phrase is unusual or perhaps not accurate

quotation marks placed round a word or phrase to draw attention to an unusual or arguably inaccurate use

quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase

No need to get snotty with me just because you  did not understand the principle.
.
Consider it part of your education and another example of your supreme (no scare quotes) error in assuming you somehow have a superior intellect._**

@Col.:

And apparently it’s not so simple for you. On May 6 you said Eisenhower was always the supreme commander. He just knew when to delegate authority. But then you come back and say that Monty was in supreme command from June 6 until Sept. 1. You don’t even know what you’re talking about. Please figure out what you actually believe before you try to tell it as fact.

You are correct. I did make a mistake.
The mistake I made was to assume you were  conversant with the nuances of the English language.
After refering to Eisenhower as the Overall Commander here.

**Post 88   08:27:06 pm

@Lazarus:

The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!

I went  on to explain Montgomery’s role in
**Post 114  at  04:40:51
@Lazarus:

It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion

and again in

**Post  100 at  06:19:55

@Lazarus:

He (Montgomery) was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that

Now I suggest you  immerse yourself in a crash course in English and pay attention to the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

In brief:
Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase **to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning.

My use of the quotation marks around the phrase ‘supreme commander’ in post 100 was to make clear my intention that the phrase was not to be taken in its strictly litteral definition,
The error appears to stem from your unfamiliarity with the usuage rather than any confusion on my part.

I can do no better than quote your own words back at you:

It amazes me how many facts you are willing to change to convince yourself you are right!********

I think the link is a perfect anology-fact is discarded in favour of the comfort of  fiction.
The 3 Wise Monkeys are alive and well……