Presentations and such

I enjoyed the presentations this week.  Learning about the role photographers played in the war was interesting.  But that sound really cliche, doesn't it?  It was interesting because that is a perspective we are often not privy to.  I suppose that's the goal of the photographer, though.  They take pictures of the soldiers, and of the war, in order to put the spotlight on them and their sacrifice.  The danger that they put themselves in is not meant to be highlighted.  That said, I presentation that gives them their due is appreciated.  The presentation on the battle of Metz was, while different, as enjoyable of a battle presentation as we've had.  That's saying something, considering that the presenter lacked any visual aids.  As an aside, it was funny for me to hear about Metz as a defensive juggernaut.  Why?  Because, unlike most American's, I follow european soccer - and Metz is downright awful.  Last place in Ligue 1, with a goal differential of -34.  To put that in perspective, the team in second to last place has a goal differential of -6.  But back on topic... it seemed odd, as has been noted, that the allies became so infatuated with taking such a well fortified city.  

Nobody's perfect:  Growing up, I watched the history channel an awful lot.  Sundays more than any other day, because that was when all the WWII shows would be on.  For whatever reason, I found this all fascinating.  Similarly, I enjoyed all of my history classes through middle and high school.  But having advanced a ways in to this class, I can't help but that I was led, to some extent, astray by this previous indoctrination.  That's not to say that the history channel or my earlier teachers lied to me.  Rather, it's simply noting that they didn't have the time do deal with the greater specificity this class can provide.  Particularly, this has been illuminated by the treatment of various generals.  Patton was an unstoppable force that blew across the western front.  Montgomery was a legend, and deserving of that status.  Rommel was a skilled genius in regards to desert warfare.  And growing up for some years in Abiline, Eisenhower may as well have walked on water.  All of these things are impressions a grade school kid will get from watching the history channel every Sunday.  These notions aren't disproved in the next two levels of education either.  Thankfully, this class has stepped forward and provided a more reasoned look at these commanders, including their flaws.  Patton's obsession with taking Metz was clearly a mistake, so he's not perfect.  Monty and Eisenhower both share in the blame for the monumental failure that was operation market garden.  Rommel, clearly, wasn't invincible, because he was defeated.  But no one is perfect, right?  Though these are all instances in which these legends were proven fallible, that does not make their legend any less justified, even if it is likely inflated.