Originally Posted by MWM
It's not that I think he was without his strengths, he was just in over his head commanding an entire theatre and has somehow managed to solidfy a reputation in the west a great military commander when he wasn't all that good. He was more famous than he was good, and he never had to command an army on the eastern front, which is another reason he's been able to retain such a reputation. If he was such a great commander, why would he not be used at all in the most important operation in the entire war?
And I'm a huge fan of Omar Bradely, who often gets overlooked by casual WWII observers.
And we're researching and referencing now?
Boy, I'm going have to start doing my homework to participate. I've always had a policy of not doing research for posting on this site. I might have to rethink that now. I'm now in my 30s, my memory isn't as good as it used to be.
I agree with your para 1. That's a fantastic point about the differences of being a great general in the framework of someone else's army, and being incharge of the entire theater yourself. And your question of why he was in what was basically a "backwater" theater as opposed to being a part of Barbarosa is a very good one.
I like Omar too, although he lost some points when he backed operation Cobra which was illadvised and deadly to a lot of US troops.
Nah, no research and referencing needed to participate! I was just in the mood to drag a few books off the shelf and this thread gave me an excuse to do it.