I have heard by some friends, speaking of military history, that Allied commanders were well known for being, at best, mediocre in their performance of fight. They were not able to give precise sources, such as an historian or contemporary people of those generals.
However I got the details below:
- The usual period for this saying is 1944-1945, so at a time when the Allies were close to victory.
- Those generals did not hamper the victory, however they managed poorly the campaign for liberating Europa, and lost time and efforts in vain actions such as the battle of Eselborn Ridge, the attack on Arnehm or the closing to the German border.
- Those generals are usually American and British, mainly army commanders: Montgomery, Patton, Bradley, etc...
- Those generals got advantage from the huge logistics and the tactical capacities of their armies to avoid defeat or heavy losses.
From my own research, I can't sustain those assumptions:
- The Allied progression in France during Autumn 1944 was very fast, encircle or killed a lot of German in Falaise and in the North of France.
- The fights on the german border were overall hampered by logistics issues, and some great moves such as the Arracourt battles were done.
So the question: Does anyone have any information on those assumptions, especially:
- Arguments in favour of those assumptions?
- Any link to an author who defends this theory?