General Montgomery

Discussion in 'General' started by Joe Perkowski, Dec 30, 2005.

  1. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:07 AM) [post=43926]
    And I think the majority of the readers here would be more willing to listen to what D'Este or Weigley can tell us about the merits and flaws of Monty and Patton than say someone who still has to prove that Rundstedt was involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge.
    [/b]
    You can't be serious about that can you? Oh, I get it, you are just being facetious...good one Exx.
     
  2. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 04:35 PM) [post=43929](Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:07 AM) [post=43926]
    And I think the majority of the readers here would be more willing to listen to what D'Este or Weigley can tell us about the merits and flaws of Monty and Patton than say someone who still has to prove that Rundstedt was involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge.
    [/b]
    You can't be serious about that can you? Oh, I get it, you are just being facetious...good one Exx.
    [/b]
    Im still waiting for any proof/order/mention of Rundstedt having been involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge. Im not really holding my breath though.
     
  3. Steen Ammentorp

    Steen Ammentorp Senior Member

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    I guess this is directed at me. I can't list every book I have ever read nor every show I have watched on the History Channel nor every post of people I do have a little authoritative respect for like Angie.
    [/b]

    My above question wasn't directed at you in particular. I was just interested knowing what books or articles people have read on the subject, and mind you I didn't ask for every book or article that people have read only those which have concentrated on the military careers of both Patton and Montgomery.

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    You could say are beliefs are an "amalgum" (sorry Adam!) of our exposure to history. More importantly you can't put all your eggs in one basket and believe any single author.[/b]

    Absolute true!

    </div><div class='quotemain'>
    I think the conclusions of "Historians" have little or no more weight on a given issue versus the conclusions of those of us "lay people" who have looked at both the same general evidence they have. I get more out of a debate with Angie than the monologue of the "great historians".
    [/b]

    Well – I think that the difference between us "lay people" and "Historians" is that they generally look at more "general evidence" than we do. They usually research their subject in debt and form their opinion based on their interpretations of the "general evidence" (and perhaps evidence that is not generally known). Not that they reach the same conclusions – far from it – yet they must be acknowledged to have obtained an expert status having research the subject in debt. So I still find it relevant to know what works people have read. This is not to say that one have agree with their findings but reading different in dept studies makes one's opinions more balanced. In this way it is not the monologue of the "great historians" but a dialog between them and us (mentally).

    So I still find my question valid.

    Kind Regards
    Steen Ammentorp
    The Generals of World War II
     
  4. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    From my point of view, Steen, historians are historians whether they publish or not. Publishing is generally not to invoke dialog but to display one's self-assumed knowledge and prowess on a given subject. Rarely do historians write books just to document events dates times and components of say a battle, but they want others to know and respect their own unique view or to sell books. Publications that state conclusions are virtually never a noble pursuit or it would be submitted to an area where it can be scrutinized and debated by more than just "elite" peers. Historians typically tell you "how it was", not just "how they see it". They speak in authoritative and definitive terms, not in the proposal of an idea invoking intellectual discourse.

    Part of publishing is creating an image of authority which is more of a lust, rather than a noble act. Let others praise you, not your own lips. Rarely is there humility in a historical book, it is viewed as a weakness rather than a strength by those that believe themselves to be the history elites. The nice thing about a forum (like the one we are on) is that ideas are subject to universal scrutiny not just by "confirmed" and "esteemed" fellows. Here, anyone can challenge your idea, and boy do they ever. But that's good. If forces you back up your ideas with logic and specifics rather than subjected only to like-minded individuals.

    Anyone can publish a book. All it takes is money. Egocentricism and truth are entirely unrelated.

    The rumors of "gods" walking amongst the mortals is completely unconfirmed in my book. Give me the "dog-face" historians (sorry spidge, Angie, Rev, its just a metaphor) anytime. I like ideas that are not protected by the unchallengable medium of book.

    (Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:37 AM) [post=43930](jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 04:35 PM) [post=43929](Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:07 AM) [post=43926]
    And I think the majority of the readers here would be more willing to listen to what D'Este or Weigley can tell us about the merits and flaws of Monty and Patton than say someone who still has to prove that Rundstedt was involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge.
    [/b]
    You can't be serious about that can you? Oh, I get it, you are just being facetious...good one Exx.
    [/b]
    Im still waiting for any proof/order/mention of Rundstedt having been involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge. Im not really holding my breath though.
    [/b] Did I not state that he "LED" the friggen offensive itself? What part of that do you not understand? It isn't a question of whether or not he was involved it is a question of is there a part of it he WASN'T involved in? Here is the link to the wikipedia history on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_von_Rundstedt Please read it before you post anything about him to me again. It's getting very hard to take you serious.
     
  5. adamcotton

    adamcotton Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=43936]From my point of view, Steen, historians are historians whether they publish or not. Publishing is generally not to invoke dialog but to display one's self-assumed knowledge and prowess on a given subject. Rarely do historians write books just to document events dates times and components of say a battle, but they want others to know and respect their own unique view or to sell books. Publications that state conclusions are virtually never a noble pursuit or it would be submitted to an area where it can be scrutinized and debated by more than just "elite" peers. Historians typically tell you "how it was", not just "how they see it". They speak in authoritative and definitive terms, not in the proposal of an idea invoking intellectual discourse.

    Part of publishing is creating an image of authority which is more of a lust, rather than a noble act. Let others praise you, not your own lips. Rarely is there humility in a historical book, it is viewed as a weakness rather than a strength by those that believe themselves to be the history elites. The nice thing about a forum (like the one we are on) is that ideas are subject to universal scrutiny not just by "confirmed" and "esteemed" fellows. Here, anyone can challenge your idea, and boy do they ever. But that's good. If forces you back up your ideas with logic and specifics rather than subjected only to like-minded individuals.

    Anyone can publish a book. All it takes is money. Egocentricism and truth are entirely unrelated.

    The rumors of "gods" walking amongst the mortals is completely unconfirmed in my book. Give me the "dog-face" historians (sorry spidge, Angie, Rev, its just a metaphor) anytime. I like ideas that are not protected by the unchallengable medium of book.

    (Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:37 AM) [post=43930](jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 04:35 PM) [post=43929](Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:07 AM) [post=43926]
    And I think the majority of the readers here would be more willing to listen to what D'Este or Weigley can tell us about the merits and flaws of Monty and Patton than say someone who still has to prove that Rundstedt was involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge.
    [/b]
    You can't be serious about that can you? Oh, I get it, you are just being facetious...good one Exx.
    [/b]
    Im still waiting for any proof/order/mention of Rundstedt having been involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge. Im not really holding my breath though.
    [/b] Did I not state that he "LED" the friggen offensive itself? What part of that do you not understand? It isn't a question of whether or not he was involved it is a question of is there a part of it he WASN'T involved in? Here is the link to the wikipedia history on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_von_Rundstedt Please read it before you post anything about him to me again. It's getting very hard to take you serious.
    [/b]

    Jimbo - whilst some of what you say may apply to some authors some of the time (sorry to paraphrase Abe Lincoln), your blanket assertions about authors in general and historians in particular, really cannot go unremarked upon!

    If we were all to adopt your own attitude then none of us would ever read any book, and as a consequence we'd have not even a scintilla of knowledge about our subject on which to lay the foundation of any argument we might otherwise care to make! You obviously don't know a whole lot about publishing - the only authors that make real money from writing books are the peddlers of Jackie Collins' style fiction or those that put together sensational style exposes of the rich and famous! One only has to look at the output of British author and Royal biographer, Andrew Morton, to understand that. That sort of pulp "literaure", with its emphasis on sex, scandal, intrigue and violence, has mass appeal and is a garaunteed seller. That's why publishers love them.

    The authors of a book like, for instance, "Britain B.C.", "Henry V", or "Wolfpack Warriors" - to give but three examples of the huge numbers of history books available - are writing for a much more niche (and smaller) readership. I remember speaking with Roger Darlington, the author of "Nighthawk", the biography of nightfighter pilot Karel Kuttlewascher, a number of years ago. He told me the research had taken him over five years, and the publishers had decided to print just 2000 copies - which he thought quite a generous number. On the average, for a book retailing at £12.99 (as I believe Nighthawk then was), Darlington made just 75p a copy (say $1) - or under £2000 in total ($3000?). Hardly a fortune in anyone's currency!

    Ergo, the motivating factor is not money! Many authors have a passion for their subject, and spend years researching in their spare time while holding down day jobs. They actually seek to share a little known series of facts, or to communicate their analysis of past history and, if their work stimulates debate, welcome the attention "their" subject is now receiving. Often, they have personal connections to a subject or individual that acts as the spur to the very real labour of writing a book. Nor should it be assumed that passion for a subject or even a personal involvement precludes objectivity; rather, that passion is necessary to sustain an author through the long and usually solitary process of research and writing.

    I have never written a book, Jimbo - yet! - but as you know I have written magazine articles. My own magnum opus, the story of Jack Charles, took me over five years of research, and let me tell you I certainly didn't do it for the money! I got a shade under £1000 for the two part article, and if you consider the hours I put into the research, not to say the actual writing, I'd be surprised if my hourly rate equates to more than about a penny an hour!!!!

    Maybe AJP Taylor and John Tremmaine, etc, are ego-centric literary demi-gods, but I doubt it. They have earned the respect of their readership for very valid reasons. But it is so much easier to denegrate the achievements of others than it is to produce something of similar worth oneself! Moreover, I would suggest to you, Jimbo, that if you had put years of your life into the production of a book then you, too, might be justifiablty proud of the end result and keen to argue against anyone who sought to find flaw in your analysis and conclusions.

    If you are so cynical of historians, then from where do you draw the knowlwedge that qualifies you to debate on this forum? Unless you were there - and like me, you were not - every scrap of knowledge you have of WW2 has come from books, or films, or documentaries, or some other distillation of another's take on WW2. That is the way it works. Some sources are good; some are not so good. With maturity and experience we learn to discern the difference. We should never assume, however, that we necessarily are better placed to view and analyse history because we are free of the supposed altruism of the established historians...

    Sermon over! :closedeyes:
     
  6. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (adamcotton @ Jan 2 2006, 01:45 PM) [post=43938](jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=43936]From my point of view, Steen, historians are historians whether they publish or not. Publishing is generally not to invoke dialog but to display one's self-assumed knowledge and prowess on a given subject. Rarely do historians write books just to document events dates times and components of say a battle, but they want others to know and respect their own unique view or to sell books. Publications that state conclusions are virtually never a noble pursuit or it would be submitted to an area where it can be scrutinized and debated by more than just "elite" peers. Historians typically tell you "how it was", not just "how they see it". They speak in authoritative and definitive terms, not in the proposal of an idea invoking intellectual discourse.

    Part of publishing is creating an image of authority which is more of a lust, rather than a noble act. Let others praise you, not your own lips. Rarely is there humility in a historical book, it is viewed as a weakness rather than a strength by those that believe themselves to be the history elites. The nice thing about a forum (like the one we are on) is that ideas are subject to universal scrutiny not just by "confirmed" and "esteemed" fellows. Here, anyone can challenge your idea, and boy do they ever. But that's good. If forces you back up your ideas with logic and specifics rather than subjected only to like-minded individuals.

    Anyone can publish a book. All it takes is money. Egocentricism and truth are entirely unrelated.

    The rumors of "gods" walking amongst the mortals is completely unconfirmed in my book. Give me the "dog-face" historians (sorry spidge, Angie, Rev, its just a metaphor) anytime. I like ideas that are not protected by the unchallengable medium of book.

    [/b]

    Jimbo - whilst some of what you say may apply to some authors some of the time (sorry to paraphrase Abe Lincoln), your blanket assertions about authors in general and historians in particular, really cannot go unremarked upon!

    If we were all to adopt your own attitude then none of us would ever read any book, and as a consequence we'd have not even a scintilla of knowledge about our subject on which to lay the foundation of any argument we might otherwise care to make! You obviously don't know a whole lot about publishing - the only authors that make real money from writing books are the peddlers of Jackie Collins' style fiction or those that put together sensational style exposes of the rich and famous! One only has to look at the output of British author and Royal biographer, Andrew Morton, to understand that. That sort of pulp "literaure", with its emphasis on sex, scandal, intrigue and violence, has mass appeal and is a garaunteed seller. That's why publishers love them.

    The authors of a book like, for instance, "Britain B.C.", "Henry V", or "Wolfpack Warriors" - to give but three examples of the huge numbers of history books available - are writing for a much more niche (and smaller) readership. I remember speaking with Roger Darlington, the author of "Nighthawk", the biography of nightfighter pilot Karel Kuttlewascher, a number of years ago. He told me the research had taken him over five years, and the publishers had decided to print just 2000 copies - which he thought quite a generous number. On the average, for a book retailing at £12.99 (as I believe Nighthawk then was), Darlington made just 75p a copy (say $1) - or under £2000 in total ($3000?). Hardly a fortune in anyone's currency!

    Ergo, the motivating factor is not money! Many authors have a passion for their subject, and spend years researching in their spare time while holding down day jobs. They actually seek to share a little known series of facts, or to communicate their analysis of past history and, if their work stimulates debate, welcome the attention "their" subject is now receiving. Often, they have personal connections to a subject or individual that acts as the spur to the very real labour of writing a book. Nor should it be assumed that passion for a subject or even a personal involvement precludes objectivity; rather, that passion is necessary to sustain an author through the long and usually solitary process of research and writing.

    I have never written a book, Jimbo - yet! - but as you know I have written magazine articles. My own magnum opus, the story of Jack Charles, took me over five years of research, and let me tell you I certainly didn't do it for the money! I got a shade under £1000 for the two part article, and if you consider the hours I put into the research, not to say the actual writing, I'd be surprised if my hourly rate equates to more than about a penny an hour!!!!

    Maybe AJP Taylor and John Tremmaine, etc, are ego-centric literary demi-gods, but I doubt it. They have earned the respect of their readership for very valid reasons. But it is so much easier to denegrate the achievements of others than it is to produce something of similar worth oneself! Moreover, I would suggest to you, Jimbo, that if you had put years of your life into the production of a book then you, too, might be justifiablty proud of the end result and keen to argue against anyone who sought to find flaw in your analysis and conclusions.

    If you are so cynical of historians, then from where do you draw the knowlwedge that qualifies you to debate on this forum? Unless you were there - and like me, you were not - every scrap of knowledge you have of WW2 has come from books, or films, or documentaries, or some other distillation of another's take on WW2. That is the way it works. Some sources are good; some are not so good. With maturity and experience we learn to discern the difference. We should never assume, however, that we necessarily are better placed to view and analyse history because we are free of the supposed altruism of the established historians...

    Sermon over! :closedeyes:
    [/b] Don’t see any blanket statements. I used phrase like “Rarely do historians…”, “Publishing is generally not…”, “Part of publishing”, “Rarely is there humility”, “Historians typically”, seems like I went out of my way to say I believe there are exceptions. Sorry if you got caught in my net with large holes, but then again Adam, I have never seen an article published by you that brought “props” to TAC air, what I believe to be the single biggest disservice of historians of WWII. Few WWII fans/pundits know more than the obligatory “oh yeah, there was tactical air, it was pretty good too, now lets get back to our discussion on tank battles…”. In the mean time the great historians are feeding us a line of how the "Tommy cookers" did such a devastating number of the mighty German tanks all the way across France and into Germany. I think most of you published flying historians are asleep at the wheel!

    Did I denigrate the work of someone? I am currently reading a book by Robert Stinnett that is called “Day of Deceit” claiming an absolute conspiracy of FDR knowing and even invoking Pearl Harbor. He was in the middle of this issue in WWII and studied it his whole life since. But if I look at the “great” historians viscous retorts to his claims I see a lynch mob of “historians” wanting his “liver on a stick”. It's pretty easy for them to denigrate, all you have to do is blast away, the ammo is cheap.

    Adam, I have never objected people being proud of their work, just them representing it as fact and namedropping others as though their credibility is compounded by mentioning someone they respect. That’s circular gratuity.

    You aren’t going to the give me that “what have you published, Jim” thing again are you? Boy, I hope not.

    The skeet pulled here (I didn't pull it, just shot it out of the sky) was if a historian said it, it gets special credence regardless of how irrational a novice thinks it to be. You asked how I get the “knowledge that qualifies me to debate on this forum”…knowledge of what? First of all we do something historians usually don’t do with their publications. That is “debate” in the first place. They are monologue. “Here is what I believe people, if you don’t like it tough noogies, you can’t argue with me in the same public arena I published it in, you must do it privately out of the viewing eyes of most of my audience”. There is nothing “noble” about that. There is nothing “brave” about that. There is nothing “profound” about that. Secondly, you can have true knowledge of someone stating something without having knowledge of what they stated being true or not.

    You talk about researching something for years, what is that supposed to mean to me? If a dog chased his tail for years, would that automatically mean he will catch it? They researched alchemy for centuries and published and published on it but never produced the gold they claimed they could. A truth does not need a society of egocentrics applauding it or big names giving it credence. It can also withstand scrutiny by the unknown and unpublished too. The inference that it can’t and that the “rabble” or unpublished out there are not qualified to debate it, wreaks to high heaven of something dubious. Adam, you need more respect for the common everyday person. They are not as clueless or unable to reach their own conclusions as you imply. This is the very attitude of biased news networks trying to “tell us” what we need to understand about what they choose to “report”.

    Sorry Adam, I only know of one God that walked amongst the mortals and they crucified him. o_O
     
  7. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 06:46 PM) [post=43936]From my point of view, Steen, historians are historians whether they publish or not. Publishing is generally not to invoke dialog but to display one's self-assumed knowledge and prowess on a given subject. Rarely do historians write books just to document events dates times and components of say a battle, but they want others to know and respect their own unique view or to sell books. Publications that state conclusions are virtually never a noble pursuit or it would be submitted to an area where it can be scrutinized and debated by more than just "elite" peers. Historians typically tell you "how it was", not just "how they see it". They speak in authoritative and definitive terms, not in the proposal of an idea invoking intellectual discourse.

    Part of publishing is creating an image of authority which is more of a lust, rather than a noble act. Let others praise you, not your own lips. Rarely is there humility in a historical book, it is viewed as a weakness rather than a strength by those that believe themselves to be the history elites. The nice thing about a forum (like the one we are on) is that ideas are subject to universal scrutiny not just by "confirmed" and "esteemed" fellows. Here, anyone can challenge your idea, and boy do they ever. But that's good. If forces you back up your ideas with logic and specifics rather than subjected only to like-minded individuals.

    Anyone can publish a book. All it takes is money. Egocentricism and truth are entirely unrelated.

    The rumors of "gods" walking amongst the mortals is completely unconfirmed in my book. Give me the "dog-face" historians (sorry spidge, Angie, Rev, its just a metaphor) anytime. I like ideas that are not protected by the unchallengable medium of book.

    (Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:37 AM) [post=43930](jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 04:35 PM) [post=43929](Exxley @ Jan 2 2006, 10:07 AM) [post=43926]
    And I think the majority of the readers here would be more willing to listen to what D'Este or Weigley can tell us about the merits and flaws of Monty and Patton than say someone who still has to prove that Rundstedt was involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge.
    [/b]
    You can't be serious about that can you? Oh, I get it, you are just being facetious...good one Exx.
    [/b]
    Im still waiting for any proof/order/mention of Rundstedt having been involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge. Im not really holding my breath though.
    [/b] Did I not state that he "LED" the friggen offensive itself? What part of that do you not understand? It isn't a question of whether or not he was involved it is a question of is there a part of it he WASN'T involved in? Here is the link to the wikipedia history on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_von_Rundstedt Please read it before you post anything about him to me again. It's getting very hard to take you serious.
    [/b]
    And how exactly is that source telling that von Rundstedt was involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge ?

    from the above link :

    Although he was Commander of the Western forces during the offensive to retake Antwerp, which failed against hopeless odds in what would be known as the Battle of the Bulge, he was opposed to that offensive from its inception and essentially washed his hands of it.

    That doesnt exactly look like he was involved in any way in the operational conduct of that campaign.

    Sounds like you didnt even bother to read it or you have some trouble getting the point.
     
  8. No.9

    No.9 Senior Member

    It's said a frequent ploy used by preachers during sermons when the argument is weak, is to raise their voice. In written debate it appears to be resorting to semantics.

    "For example, the Ardennes offensive was not caused by Monty, it was caused by Ike and/or whoever may have influenced him." "I think that would be Monty because if records are correct he badgered Ike into Market Garden."

    So Monty draws-up and submits a plan for dispositions around the Ardennes, 9 days before the German offensive, then badgers Ike not to adopt it?????? :closedeyes:

    "This placed Bradley south in Luxembourg. With Bradley's 12 Army Group split the resultant gap in-between of some 90 miles (the Ardennes) covered by 8 American Corps which consisted of four Divisions under Middleton. The Ardennes was without question the least likely area for an offensive because as we saw it would be suicide to bring tanks through there. But oh, the beauty of hindsight…"

    May 1940? However, I don't see risk assessment as the main issue here, rather how quickly command and communications disintegrated and the subsequent problems for commanders to co-ordinate and react, including Bradley.

    "I thought they were cussing Monty because he wouldn’t move but chose to “refit” then entire time. Hmmm…are we talking the first time the Germans attacked through the Ardennes in the Battle of France? I am getting confused… "

    Fascinating what you think. Grateful if you could specify which orders on which dates Monty declined to follow. Hmmm.......glad you're aware of Ardennes May 1940, goes well with your previous comments on Ardennes penetration potential. You could also consider 1914?

    "#9 just told me that XXX Corps was not a "small force" but one big enough to stop the German Offensive through the Ardennes and saved the Yanks"

    Well if #9 said that it's different to me. I said; "Monty.....had the whole of British 30 Corps (Horrocks) to cover the route to Brussels/Antwerp in case the Germans continued the breakthrough." Even provided a map to show 30 Corps deployed across the river to stop any German's who got that far from crossing over.

    "And to think that the US had to keep stripping off division after division to send to Monty throughout 1945 just so he could make it to Germany to see the surrender. No wonder the US tore across Germany. They had the wrong approach to war. I've got to get out more..."

    Well if the US had joined the war when it started, the Commonwealth may have had more men available in 1945? Then again, if they sent Patton to Poland we wouldn't have been needed at all.
    [​IMG]

    No.9
     
  9. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952]It's said a frequent ploy used by preachers during sermons when the argument is weak, is to raise their voice. In written debate it appears to be resorting to semantics. [/b]
    And "who" is it that often says it?

    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952]"For example, the Ardennes offensive was not caused by Monty, it was caused by Ike and/or whoever may have influenced him." "I think that would be Monty because if records are correct he badgered Ike into Market Garden."

    So Monty draws-up and submits a plan for dispositions around the Ardennes, 9 days before the German offensive, then badgers Ike not to adopt it?????? :closedeyes: [/b]
    Tell you what, I will type slow so you can keep up. The Americans would not have been in the Ardennes if it was not for your hero. They would be deep into Germany and the German army would be a fraction of what Monty helped them to be in Dec 1944 by shutting down the American juggernaut driving on the doorstep of Germany. Now can you understand if the American army was in Germany four months later there could not have been an Ardennes offensive against them, in fact there is a good probability that the war would be over, or do you need some kind of diagram drawn here with block figures?

    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952]"This placed Bradley south in Luxembourg. With Bradley's 12 Army Group split the resultant gap in-between of some 90 miles (the Ardennes) covered by 8 American Corps which consisted of four Divisions under Middleton. The Ardennes was without question the least likely area for an offensive because as we saw it would be suicide to bring tanks through there. But oh, the beauty of hindsight…" [/b]
    It was suicide. Someone needs to read you the story of the Ardennes Offensive, the last hurrah of Germany.


    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952]May 1940? However, I don't see risk assessment as the main issue here, rather how quickly command and communications disintegrated and the subsequent problems for commanders to co-ordinate and react, including Bradley. [/b]
    Patton was not in the Battle of France in 1940. Of course they would not get stalled and destroyed in the Ardennes. The 101st kept the German armor bogged down at Bastone (you had to have the roads, it's not tank country) and then Patton came and destroyed them. I don't care what happened in 1940, this was not 1940 and there was a new sheriff in town. You need to discuss the 1940 success with those hyping Monty. The American's had to read about it in the paper.

    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952]"I thought they were cussing Monty because he wouldn’t move but chose to “refit” then entire time. Hmmm…are we talking the first time the Germans attacked through the Ardennes in the Battle of France? I am getting confused… " [/b]
    Finally we agree, you are indeed getting confused, but I would say from the response you have been confused all along. Monty was always refitting and perfecting his attacks that he rarely executed. That's the beef with him. That's why they wanted him relieved. He was getting too many British and Canadians killed with his hyper-conservatism.

    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952]Fascinating what you think. Grateful if you could specify which orders on which dates Monty declined to follow. Hmmm.......glad you're aware of Ardennes May 1940, goes well with your previous comments on Ardennes penetration potential. You could also consider 1914?[/b]
    He was told to take Antwerp and he didn’t for months, he was told no to Market Garden but keep badgering Ike, He was told to close the Faliase gap but refused to and kept planning his refused Market Garden campaign. Let’s make the list shorter. Name things he did that in which he was not insubordinate.

    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952] "#9 just told me that XXX Corps was not a "small force" but one big enough to stop the German Offensive through the Ardennes and saved the Yanks"

    Well if #9 said that it's different to me. I said; "Monty.....had the whole of British 30 Corps (Horrocks) to cover the route to Brussels/Antwerp in case the Germans continued the breakthrough." Even provided a map to show 30 Corps deployed across the river to stop any German's who got that far from crossing over. [/b]
    I am not taking your bait. Monty killed Yanks, he never saved them. As Patton said about him "God save us from our friends, our enemies we can handle". If you want to argue the strength/weakness of XXX Corps, take that up with Angie. She knows much more about it than I do. It is her you dispute not me. I mearly pointed out the inconsistency.

    (No.9 @ Jan 2 2006, 10:12 PM) [post=43952]Well if the US had joined the war when it started, the Commonwealth may have had more men available in 1945? Then again, if they sent Patton to Poland we wouldn't have been needed at all.

    No.9
    [/b]
    The US Army cannot declare war neither can a president. You need to address your complaints to the American "Neville Chamberlains" in 1939. They were a little passive from being dragged into the previous World War when your nation decided that ruthless and hard sanctions on a bankrupt Germany from the Treaty of Versailles would insure they never stated another World War. Woodrow Wilson tried to warn the French and British different. Our solution was employeed after WWII, it was called the Marshall Plan and so far it has held. [​IMG]
     
  10. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    No.9
    [/quote] The US Army cannot declare war neither can a president. You need to address your complaints to the American "Neville Chamberlains" in 1939. They were a little passive from being dragged into the previous World War when your nation decided that ruthless and hard sanctions on a bankrupt Germany from the Treaty of Versailles would insure they never stated another World War. Woodrow Wilson tried to warn the French and British different. Our solution was employeed after WWII, it was called the Marshall Plan and so far it has held. [​IMG]
    [/quote] Well actually before we take you up on your version of how "If we'd only listened to the U.S. none of this would have happened" please remember also that it was America's decision to pull out of the League of Nations, an organisation proposed by Wilson that helped to fuel Germany and Japan's ambitions. Knowing they were facing a toothless tiger only made them bolder and more aggressive. Yes , America also has a case to answer for fanning the flames of war. Dont just blame the British and French, it was far more complex than that.
     
  11. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 02:36 PM) [post=43921] Well, Angie, #9 just told me that XXX Corps was not a "small force" but one big enough to stop the German Offensive through the Ardennes and saved the Yanks as well as Exx's comments in a previous post on this thread. You three need to coordinate on this.
    [/b]

    get real. If they had got across at Arnhem, they would have deployed their corps strength. during Market Garden they could not do this because they were advancing up a single road, along which just one division would be stretched out for over 20 miles. I suggest you make sure that your polemical style does not prevent some clear analysis in your clear desire to rubbish everything Montgomery ever did and praise everything Patton ever did.
     
  12. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 03:00 PM) [post=43924](angie999 @ Jan 2 2006, 06:23 AM) [post=43909]I am not disputing your figures, but you need to qualify them a bit. US forces consisted of four US and one French armies. 21st Army Group consited of one British and one Canadian army. [/b]
    What happened to the Poles? [/b]
    They had one armoured division in the theatre, which was part of the Canadian army.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 03:00 PM) [post=43924]I also believe that the "Allies" (Monty did want the US excluded from the victory, you have to admit that) broke the Mareth Line on April 8th, 1943 and in the next five days had 240,000 Italian and German PWs. [/b]

    Mareth was a purely 8th Army affair, which is not to say that US forces did not get through the Axis positions in the north. The Mareth Line only consited of the Axis position north of Medenine.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 03:00 PM) [post=43924]Patton's original breakout would have driven to the Siegfried Line. It was just that he had to execute a pincer move to Argentan because Monty (as usual) was bogged down an not budging at Caen. Had Monty have been moving as he had boasted Patton could have continued to Germany and Monty could have liberated Paris instead. Hope that clarifies my point. [/b]

    The breakout was achieved by US 1st Army before 3rd Army was activated. Originally, 3rd Army was tasked with capturing Brittany, which one corps actually carried out (with great assistance from FFI units). When it was found that German resistance in Brittany was weak, the rest of 3rd Army was used to reinforce American units engaged at the Falaise pocket.

    Paris was liberated by US 1st Army. It was never a British objective. In fact Eisenhower had no desire for its early liberation and would have preferred it bypassed. Once the paris uprising and the risk of widespread loss of life and destruction began, this increasingly ceased to be a tenable policy.

    Patton's advance on a secondary (and dead-end in my opinion) route towards Germany after Falaise was far in excess of his orders.




    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=43936] Did I not state that he "LED" the friggen offensive itself? What part of that do you not understand? It isn't a question of whether or not he was involved it is a question of is there a part of it he WASN'T involved in? Here is the link to the wikipedia history on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_von_Rundstedt Please read it before you post anything about him to me again. It's getting very hard to take you serious.
    [/b]

    Please don't quote wiki. It is not a reliable or respected source source. At best it is a useful reserch tool to point you in reliable directions.

    What part did he play? Apart from the fact that Hitler used his name for it, none. He in fact wanted nothing to do with it and did not support it.
     
  13. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (angie999 @ Jan 3 2006, 06:30 AM) [post=43972]Mareth was a purely 8th Army affair, which is not to say that US forces did not get through the Axis positions in the north. The Mareth Line only consited of the Axis position north of Medenine. [/b]
    Angie, I believe you are wrong here. The Americans attacked the Mareth from the west and the British VIII from the east. The Germans sent infantry divisions, 10th Panzer and all their Stuka attacks, almost everything they had to attack and dislodge the Americans that had taken Gafsa in rapid fashion. After the Allen beat off these charges on Gafsa with some pretty killer artillery, Patton crushed the Germans attack on El Guettar which decimated 10th Panzer and drove them in retreat through their own mine fields. The Germans hearing about the disaster of 10th Panzer then rushed 21st Panzer up in desperation because Gafsa was a fuel depot and supply area that supplied Monty’s advance of VIII Army. This disappearance of the enemy’s 10th and 21st the German elite tank forces) is what gave Monty the chance to finally move over the Mareth Line. He still could not get though until he got 25,000 New Zealanders to attack it. Before that Monty was in another stalemate front not able to make progress against the Germans. I think this is what Patton was referring to by saying he won the Mareth Line for Monty. You might disagree that the American’s drawing the Germans away was not why Monty finally got moving but you have to admit, that was a pretty significant objective and it was Patton’s idea.

    (angie999 @ Jan 3 2006, 06:30 AM) [post=43972]The breakout was achieved by US 1st Army before 3rd Army was activated. Originally, 3rd Army was tasked with capturing Brittany, which one corps actually carried out (with great assistance from FFI units). When it was found that German resistance in Brittany was weak, the rest of 3rd Army was used to reinforce American units engaged at the Falaise pocket. [/b]
    Angie, I believe First Army got hung up in the hedge rows. Patton did make like a scalded dog going to Argentan but what you don’t realize is that the Germans shifted all of their reserves over to the American front. They didn’t sit there at Caen in front of Monty playing tiddlywinks. The troops holding Monty at bay had no reserves as they were on the move in hopes of stopping Patton. That would have been an excellent time for Monty to strike at Caen. But it was not Monty, Patton or First Army that caused the surrender in the Falaise gap. Only one general (Patton) has confessed up to how WWII was won:

    View attachment 1453 View attachment 1454

    You look very close at those two pictures picture. They are of the Faliase gap and why Von Kluge surrendered and blew his brains out. Folks, this was not done by tanks. It was not done by Shermans, It was not done by Monty, and it was not done by Patton. This was done by Jugs and Tempests. TACTICAL AIR WON WWII. (you may all be seated now).

    In that book on Ninth Air Tactics talked about this throughout the campaign yet none of the great ground commanders told this story. I am just starting to dig up the evidence I have been preaching that most historians don't know dog crap about what won the war. They are too busy telling you how dashing the generals looked staring through their binoculars to see if any German equipment was left or could they start their "offensive". Like I said, the Sherman was the best tank in WWII because it was the best at killing infantry that had survived the air attacks. Now you know why the phrase "Actung Jabos" became the cry in fear the most terrible allied weapon according to the Germans and its accounts are anything but exaggerated. BTW: I have some tactical air books coming in, including one called Patton's Air Force, yes I am pretty sure will be like a rabid dog when I get done reading them! images/smilies/default/ohmy.gif It might be a good time not to fly the jolly roger of "historian-laurels" during that period, so fair warning! (and no I am not mixing my metaphors, there are just a bunch of them in the comments)


    (angie999 @ Jan 3 2006, 06:30 AM) [post=43972]Paris was liberated by US 1st Army. It was never a British objective. In fact Eisenhower had no desire for its early liberation and would have preferred it bypassed. Once the paris uprising and the risk of widespread loss of life and destruction began, this increasingly ceased to be a tenable policy. [/b]
    Yes and no. Patton was slated to go to Paris and even had the 2nd French with him who were already chosen to lead the liberation. The decision to go around Paris was two fold, first, it had little strategic importance to the war and was shoddily defended. Secondly it would take 3000 tons a day of supplies just to feed the city. He chose to let it be the problem of the Germans for a little longer. The approach of Patton caused the uprising. They wanted to kill the Germans and it was the Germans they rose up against. The Germans requested a truce so they could flee the city or they would begin to bomb the famous historical city which had remained relatively undestroyed up to that point. So liberating Paris was given to First Army since Ike wanted Patton to keep driving to the Seine at Sens and French 2nd Armor was absorbed by First Army for that operation. You don’t put the horse in the stall when it has its stride going. But Angie, make NO mistake. If you think Monty didn’t want to liberate Paris after the first battle of France and didn’t think he had himself into position to do it by the way he organized the beach assaults, you don’t know much about the mind set of general officers. It was an unofficial "high priority" British objective only because they didn’t detail the plan past Caen. (good thing huh!)

    (angie999 @ Jan 3 2006, 06:30 AM) [post=43972]Patton's advance on a secondary (and dead-end in my opinion) route towards Germany after Falaise was far in excess of his orders. [/b]
    Angie, for such a short sentence with so few words, that statement appears to be loaded with antipathy. Up to now, most of your statements about the Monty/Patton arguments have been more apathetic than antipathetic. But, I am curious about one part of that which says “far in excess of his orders” is that like “far in excess of expectation” or “far in excess to a point of insubordination”? The books by Ike, Bradley and Patton that I have all seem to agree Patton had the green light, all the way to the Siegfried Line until his “supplies got cut off for almost three months”. He could go wherever he wanted without supplies (which he did hold a few attacks while waiting for Monty including capturing German supplies and fuel to do even more attacks with). Perhaps you know something I don’t (just please don’t quote wiki!).

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=43936]Please don't quote wiki. It is not a reliable or respected source source. At best it is a useful reserch tool to point you in reliable directions. [/b]
    Would you rather I tear pages out of my books and mail them to him? He had to have some proof, just telling him the obvious did nothing. I have no choice but to find one of the many links on that subject and post them here. And BTW: Is there some kind of Nicene canon here that we can refer to determine what is an reliable/respected source and unreliable/disrespected source? Have you not read my claims that infer that finding the history errors and historian misrepresented opinions as facts are as hard as counting the grains of sand on the world’s beaches? You are bound to miscount one or two grains before you get them all counted. Seems capricious to pick wikipedia out of the ocean of dubious sources. If a person does not have good logic skills and common sense to put the confused pieces of the WWII truth mosaic together and said relies merely on the opinions of "reputable" historians, they are not just screwed but "royally screwed" and condemned to walk the earth with a decent amout of WWII historical ignorance and this ignorance in full bliss.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=43936]What part did he play? Apart from the fact that Hitler used his name for it, none. He in fact wanted nothing to do with it and did not support it.
    [/b]
    Angie, there were few German generals in the Ardennes Offensive that didn’t believe everything was suicide and it was already over but the shouting. Exactly what general do you think would have wanted to make an offensive in the middle of winter through a forest against an enemy that had constantly beaten the tar out of them for the last two years, and without the supplies to get back? (go back and look at those TAC air pictures of the Falaise gap) You might find few takers there. After all, Hitler had the officers at Remagen executed for failing to defend the bridge. By your statement am I to assume there was some morale left in the German army staff to get up in the morning for and Hitler simply chose the one general that had very little of it? Not getting smart with you, just curious…
     
  14. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 04:51 AM) [post=44003](jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=43936]Please don't quote wiki. It is not a reliable or respected source source. At best it is a useful reserch tool to point you in reliable directions. [/b]
    Would you rather I tear pages out of my books and mail them to him? He had to have some proof, just telling him the obvious did nothing. I have no choice but to find one of the many links on that subject and post them here. And BTW: Is there some kind of Nicene canon here that we can refer to determine what is an reliable/respected source and unreliable/disrespected source? Have you not read my claims that infer that finding the history errors and historian misrepresented opinions as facts are as hard as counting the grains of sand on the world’s beaches? You are bound to miscount one or two grains before you get them all counted. Seems capricious to pick wikipedia out of the ocean of dubious sources. If a person does not have good logic skills and common sense to put the confused pieces of the WWII truth mosaic together and said relies merely on the opinions of "reputable" historians, they are not just screwed but "royally screwed" and condemned to walk the earth with a decent amout of WWII historical ignorance and this ignorance in full bliss. [/b]And the obvious here, even in the Wikipedia link, would be that von Rundstedt was in no way involved in the operational conduct of the Battle of the Bulge. Once again, all we have here is some senseless ranting. Note also that its quite funny that someone who urged other people to "quit surfing and start reading some books" can only come with an internet source to backup his claim.
     
  15. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (angie999 @ Jan 3 2006, 06:07 AM) [post=43971](jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 02:36 PM) [post=43921] Well, Angie, #9 just told me that XXX Corps was not a "small force" but one big enough to stop the German Offensive through the Ardennes and saved the Yanks as well as Exx's comments in a previous post on this thread. You three need to coordinate on this.
    [/b]

    get real. If they had got across at Arnhem, they would have deployed their corps strength. during Market Garden they could not do this because they were advancing up a single road, along which just one division would be stretched out for over 20 miles. I suggest you make sure that your polemical style does not prevent some clear analysis in your clear desire to rubbish everything Montgomery ever did and praise everything Patton ever did.
    [/b] Angie, Monty could have deployed the strength of XXX Corp on any side of any bridge at any time of his choosing. Germany was to the right of Nijmegan and Eindhoven too. He chose not to take 82nd Airborne and retake the Arnhem bridge and move his Corps across it. His getting his 2nd Paratroops wiped out took what little confidence he had and destroyed it. There was no chance he was going to keep fighting for Holland. But even if he did, there was a big bog down coming. There were few places Monty didn't get bogged down You have to admit that. There were few places that Patton got bogged down. You have to admit that too. Patton ran across the Siegfried line in three different spots at the same time, in the fashion he promised the press like "sh** through a goose". It was only Monty that sold the idea that his "plan" would be faster than Patton who was closer to Germany at the Metz than Monty would have been in Holland. It was only Monty trying to cover up his incompetence that wanted all troops under him because he said the Rhine could only be crossed at Cologne. Monty wanted to be the first to Berlin just as he wanted the Americans to be moved in his reserve at Tunisia and wanted Patton stopped from taking Messina. It is the braggadocio of Monty that insisted it would be faster and such tremendous and grossly underestimated risk would be justified by it. Monty would have no supply unless he had kept the Americans totally paralyzed and on the defensive for the rest of the war (which would have suited him fine). He had not opened Antwerp which was his objective. His mission was doomed to be a bigger failure had he succeeded at Arnhem. He would have been bogged down in Holland, while Patton would be tearing through Germany (just as he did) and Patton would have called back to help get Monty moving by either calling all of Third Army or continually stripping him and Devers of divisions and sending them to help Monty. It happened over and over and over. This was the knock on Monty and you know it. So why are you turning this on me? Maybe it's me that is biased here at all...

    Monty boasted just as much as Patton. Patton backed up his boasts. Monty didn't. I have detailed the reasons for everything I stated. You act as if I haven't. There is nothing controversial about what I have stated, uncomfortable, maybe, but controversial? I think I have stated, pretty much, facts in evidence. I believe what you don't like are my conclusions which to me seem very objective, based on the facts. Your ad hominem rhetoric is a poor substitute for counterargument and very unlike you.


    (Gotthard Heinrici @ Jan 3 2006, 04:21 AM) [post=43966]Well actually before we take you up on your version of how "If we'd only listened to the U.S. none of this would have happened" please remember also that it was America's decision to pull out of the League of Nations, an organisation proposed by Wilson that helped to fuel Germany and Japan's ambitions. Knowing they were facing a toothless tiger only made them bolder and more aggressive. Yes , America also has a case to answer for fanning the flames of war. Dont just blame the British and French, it was far more complex than that.
    [/b]
    Why do you think they wanted to pull out? We started the UN too and we need to get out of it as it has become a haven for the ruthless and wicked to make fools out of those that stand for freedom. You folks want to move it to London? Alright by 90% of the Americans. We will pay the freight. The League of Nations did not represent the values of Woodrow Wilson why should he have stayed in it?
     
  16. No.9

    No.9 Senior Member

    "And "who" is it that often says it?"
    Ah sorry, quite so. Appreciate there are those who find four letter words easier.

    "They would be deep into Germany and the German army would be a fraction of what Monty helped them to be in Dec 1944 by shutting down the American juggernaut driving on the doorstep of Germany." - Patton I presume, a 'juggernaut' of what, 6 Divisions in Dec 44? "Now can you understand if the American army was in Germany four months later there could not have been an Ardennes offensive against them," - again please, "Now can you understand if the American army was in Germany four months later" - when? "four months later, in fact there is a good probability that the war would be over, or do you need some kind of diagram drawn here with block figures?" ???????? January, February, March, April, four months later. The American Army, American First Army, was in Germany from 7th March? And yes, I would appreciate a diagram with block figures, dates, geographical references, size and disposition of forces and legend advising if same is actual or Hollywood. And you're quite right, if the war had been over it is probable there could not have been an Ardennes Offensive against them.

    "It was suicide. Someone needs to read you the story of the Ardennes Offensive, the last hurrah of Germany."
    Thank you, but someone has read me the story of the Ardennes Offensive as I'm sure it was read to you. The only difference appears to be I understood what was being said.

    "I don't care what happened in 1940" - apparently neither did Eisenhower - "this was not 1940 and there was a new sheriff in town."
    [​IMG]
    "Say thare you varmits, there's a stage leavin' at noon and I'd like you to be under it."

    </div><div class='quotemain'>(jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006)
    "I thought they were cussing Monty because he wouldn’t move but chose to “refit” then entire time. Hmmm…are we talking the first time the Germans attacked through the Ardennes in the Battle of France? I am getting confused… "
    (jimbotosome @ Jan 3 2006)
    "Finally we agree, you are indeed getting confused, but I would say from the response you have been confused all along. Monty was always refitting and perfecting his attacks that he rarely executed. That's the beef with him. That's why they wanted him relieved. He was getting too many British and Canadians killed with his hyper-conservatism." [/b]
    Ahem......you're debating your own comment, not mine????? Perhaps not unusual to argue with yourself, however, it is unusual to argue with yourself and lose.

    "He was told to take Antwerp and he didn’t for months, he was told no to Market Garden but keep badgering Ike, He was told to close the Faliase gap but refused to and kept planning his refused Market Garden campaign. Let’s make the list shorter. Name things he did that in which he was not insubordinate."
    I asked for which orders on which dates, which I still ask for - not incessant unsupported rhetoric.

    "Monty killed Yanks, he never saved them."
    No, American public opinion fanned by the American press, Ike's 'Broad Front' battle plans, an often superior enemy and a psychopathic home General were the reasons.

    "If you want to argue the strength/weakness of XXX Corps, take that up with Angie."
    ???? I'm not arguing the strengths or weaknesses of 30 Corps, and I can't see angie is either??? It's your own tail you're chasing.

    "Tell you what, I will type slow so you can keep up."
    If you want to type slower then by all means go right ahead and do so. If it helps improve context and syntax, so much the better. I'm not having a pop by the way, actually I admire your proficiency with a foreign language.

    No.9
     
  17. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Jimbo, this is getting boring. You seem like to Bourbon kings of France who, it is said, learned nothing and forgot nothing. If you have any hope that we are going to suddenly switch to your wrong opinions, you face a long wait. You may be enjoying this, but I am getting fed up with what is largely a load of nonsense from you.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM) [post=44003]I think this is what Patton was referring to by saying he won the Mareth Line for Monty. You might disagree that the American’s drawing the Germans away was not why Monty finally got moving but you have to admit, that was a pretty significant objective and it was Patton’s idea. [/b]

    Yes, I disagree and I do not much care what Patton (or Montgomery for that matter) said, as they are both totally unreliable sources. Of course the plan at Mareth had to be recast in the middle of the battle, which also happened at el Alamein and in Normandy. Battles rarely go according to plan, but Montgomery usually insisted that they did, thus depriving himself of credit for flexibility in winning battles in spite of setbacks.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM) [post=44003]Angie, I believe First Army got hung up in the hedge rows. [/b]

    Well, you believe wrong Cobra was a purely 1st Army affair and 3rd Army was not activated until they were through the German position and just about ready to turn the corner at Avranches.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM) [post=44003]You look very close at those two pictures picture. They are of the Faliase gap and why Von Kluge surrendered and blew his brains out. [/b]

    There was no large scale German surrender at Falaise as such and von Kluge committed suicide because it looked like he had been implicated in the 20th July plot.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM) [post=44003]Patton was slated to go to Paris and even had the 2nd French with him who were already chosen to lead the liberation. The decision to go around Paris was two fold, first, it had little strategic importance to the war and was shoddily defended. Secondly it would take 3000 tons a day of supplies just to feed the city. He chose to let it be the problem of the Germans for a little longer. The approach of Patton caused the uprising. They wanted to kill the Germans and it was the Germans they rose up against. The Germans requested a truce so they could flee the city or they would begin to bomb the famous historical city which had remained relatively undestroyed up to that point. So liberating Paris was given to First Army since Ike wanted Patton to keep driving to the Seine at Sens and French 2nd Armor was absorbed by First Army for that operation. You don’t put the horse in the stall when it has its stride going. But Angie, make NO mistake. If you think Monty didn’t want to liberate Paris after the first battle of France and didn’t think he had himself into position to do it by the way he organized the beach assaults, you don’t know much about the mind set of general officers. It was an unofficial "high priority" British objective only because they didn’t detail the plan past Caen. (good thing huh!) [/b]

    Of course Montgomery wanted Paris and in a sense he got it. At the date Paris was liberated, he was still overall ground force commander, which meant that he was still Bradley's boss.

    I do think you have some serious reading to do, notably on French politics, the organisation of the FFI in Paris and the actions of the German garrison before you say too much about Paris. As far as the 2e DB was concerned, they were going to Paris with or without orders from the military chain of command, because they had other orders from de Gaulle, who needed to establish his government in the city before the Communist Party could take control. No US or French forces were designated to liberate Paris in advance of the start of the uprising. Please do not adopt a condescending tone with me when you clearly do not know your subject.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM) [post=44003]The books by Ike, Bradley and Patton that I have all seem to agree Patton had the green light, all the way to the Siegfried Line until his “supplies got cut off for almost three months”. [/b]

    Well, if you want to rely on the ex-post facto writings of generals and ignore the actual events, off you go. If you want to plough this furrow, please do it without me.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM) [post=44003]I have no choice but to find one of the many links on that subject and post them here. [/b]

    Yes you do, you can cite sources and it is then up to us to look them up for ourselves. You can even include brief quaotations without breaking the established copyright conventions. Just about the worst sources, apart from History Channel shows maybe, are internet sources.


    (jimbotosome @ Jan 4 2006, 03:51 AM) [post=44003]Seems capricious to pick wikipedia out of the ocean of dubious sources. [/b]

    Not at all, because just about any idiot can add material to wiki with a fair chance of errors or even deliberate mischief not being picked up. And you never know who wrote the article. Wiki is a noted bad source as widely recognised as such.

    (jimbotosome @ Jan 2 2006, 05:46 PM) [post=43936]Angie, there were few German generals in the Ardennes Offensive that didn’t believe everything was suicide and it was already over but the shouting. [/b]

    But Runstedt actually did just about nothing to contribute to the battle, whereas some ogf the other did, under OKW direction.
     
  18. Max (UK)

    Max (UK) Member

    I haven't joined in with this because I learned previously that there's no point in arguing with Jimbob.

    There are many cases of American "history" books, films and documentaries to sing the praises of everything American, and often to put down the British efforts.

    It is SO tiresome. And Jimbob seems to have read/watched these quite frankly ridiculous books/films/documentaries and taken them as gospel.

    His loss.
     
  19. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    (Gotthard Heinrici @ Jan 3 2006, 04:21 AM) [post=43966]Well actually before we take you up on your version of how "If we'd only listened to the U.S. none of this would have happened" please remember also that it was America's decision to pull out of the League of Nations, an organisation proposed by Wilson that helped to fuel Germany and Japan's ambitions. Knowing they were facing a toothless tiger only made them bolder and more aggressive. Yes , America also has a case to answer for fanning the flames of war. Dont just blame the British and French, it was far more complex than that.[/b]
    </div><div class='quotemain'> Why do you think they wanted to pull out? We started the UN too and we need to get out of it as it has become a haven for the ruthless and wicked to make fools out of those that stand for freedom. You folks want to move it to London? Alright by 90% of the Americans. We will pay the freight. The League of Nations did not represent the values of Woodrow Wilson why should he have stayed in it?
    [/b]
    I'm sure there were valid reasons for pulling out but that doesnt mean that it didnt have an effect on the causes of the second world war. You claimed that the harshness of Versailles caused the Second world War, I'm merely saying that there were more reasons than that and its more than a bit arrogant for someone to heap blame on other countries when their own wasnt willing to back up the one organisation that Hitler and the Japanese initially feared. As I said, America stands as guilty as anyone else for their part in the lead up to the war.
     
  20. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]Jimbo, this is getting boring. You seem like to Bourbon kings of France who, it is said, learned nothing and forgot nothing. If you have any hope that we are going to suddenly switch to your wrong opinions, you face a long wait. You may be enjoying this, but I am getting fed up with what is largely a load of nonsense from you. [/b]
    Angie, it is your prerogative to be bored with me just as it is my prerogative to get bored with you. A load of nonsense is a matter of your opinion, did it ever occur to you that I feel the same way when you post something absurd that you don’t back up? To say that Patton and Rommel are unreliable sources is to say that unreliable sources are things Angie deems as unreliable. The constant inference that a man automatically lies to himself about technical details his personal thoughts and experiences that he documents in his own private library and conveniently proclaiming them to be unreliable, is in no wise an intelligent discourse.

    The day to day details of Patton’s accounts in his diary are to me very factual even if I don’t agree with his conclusions or opinions on the hows and whys of things, and implying that these men to lie to themselves just because you have a de facto disdain for first hand accounts, is biased and baseless. Then to turn around and laud the “hearsay” of historians as though these men are impervious to bias and gross error having never been there but having simple “heard” what someone said to someone else about what somebody else believed does not intimate the slighted fiber of being objective on your behalf. So you can get bored with me, you can attack me with personal comments, you can assail what I say with rhetoric but the one thing you can’t do is make logical arguments based on what we do agree as facts. That’s ok to have an opinion of your own, I choose to welcome others to state their opinions rather than be intolerant of them whether I agree with them or not. Your getting indignant at me for stating mine seems a tad condescending.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]Yes, I disagree and I do not much care what Patton (or Montgomery for that matter) said, as they are both totally unreliable sources. Of course the plan at Mareth had to be recast in the middle of the battle, which also happened at el Alamein and in Normandy. Battles rarely go according to plan, but Montgomery usually insisted that they did, thus depriving himself of credit for flexibility in winning battles in spite of setbacks. [/b]
    But this is quite a different argument from your first proclamation that the Mareth Line was a “purely 8th Army affair”. Perhaps this was not an attempt by “bourbon king Jim” to “switch” your to his wrong opinions but maybe to get you to correct yours.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]Well, you believe wrong Cobra was a purely 1st Army affair and 3rd Army was not activated until they were through the German position and just about ready to turn the corner at Avranches. [/b]
    COBRA was won by the decimation of Panzer Lehr by the USAAF where they describe the 45 ton tanks were destroyed like children’s toys. It did not matter who broke out. It was the counterattack on Third Army trying to stop their breakout at Mortain that shifted the balance of the German forces to the west when they needed to retreat to the east that enabled the encirclement of the Falaise pocket in the first place. But your claim that Patton had nothing to do with the creation of the Falaise gap is absurd and appears to be a personal attack on Patton’s contribution to the pincer movement that does not give me the impression that you are ambivalent toward him at all. How you can find fault with how all of the American armies rapidly flooded the south and east of Normandy is astonishing to me. You keep throwing up this tired old argument that the British were the only ones opposed by any German strength and the Americans simply went through France without opposition. That’s not only nonsense, its insulting.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]There was no large scale German surrender at Falaise as such and von Kluge committed suicide because it looked like he had been implicated in the 20th July plot. [/b]
    Maybe I should correct myself, those that didn’t escape through the area that should have been known as “Monty’s gap”, surrendered. Perhaps you are right about Von Kluge’s suicide that it had more to do with the plot on Hitler than it did the imminent surrender of an entire army (though I believe that is a speculative view). I will concede that, especially since it was a comment that was not material to the discussion.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]Of course Montgomery wanted Paris and in a sense he got it. At the date Paris was liberated, he was still overall ground force commander, which meant that he was still Bradley's boss. [/b]
    The ground command was transferred back to SHAEF’s (August 15th) BEFORE the liberation of Paris (August 25th). Not only that but you should never ever in your life bring up Monty’s command of the ground forces as it was nothing but a ficticious role given because of the out of control ego demands of an insubordinate general. It was an affront to the US Army and Bradley in particular. If Ike had a backbone Monty (of all people) would never have had even the “on-paper title” as he was not even able to command his own troops (evidenced by Caen) much less those of the American armies. If you think Monty was ever calling the shots you know far less about WWII than you are letting on. In fact, Monty’s own operation GOODWOOD had to be sold and cleared through SHAEF. Even Tedder was calling for Monty to be relieved during this period because of his incompetence and insubordination. Monty had a guardian angel called Winston that keep his humility in WWII limited to the results of his operations. To me it is the single biggest disservice that WSC did to the war effort to facilitate Monty’s rebellion and insubordination by winking at his discretions. Dempsey should have been over the British forces in WWII. Please don’t bring up Monty’s “ground command” of American forces again. The only times Americans suffered battle defeats in WWII was when they were under British command, so its obviously not going to go over well.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]I do think you have some serious reading to do, notably on French politics, the organisation of the FFI in Paris and the actions of the German garrison before you say too much about Paris. As far as the 2e DB was concerned, they were going to Paris with or without orders from the military chain of command, because they had other orders from de Gaulle, who needed to establish his government in the city before the Communist Party could take control. No US or French forces were designated to liberate Paris in advance of the start of the uprising. Please do not adopt a condescending tone with me when you clearly do not know your subject. [/b]
    Le Clerc came to Patton and demanded be allowed to lead the liberation of Paris. Patton rebuked him for telling his superiors what the will or will not do and told Le Clerc to get back to the objectives he had been assigned. Patton stated in his diary that SHAEF had already decided that Le Clerc was to lead the liberation but he did not want another subordinate to be insubordinate in the Allied armies. I never said that the US forces were designated to liberate France but you are dead wrong if you think the uprising was not generated by the approach of Patton, with Le Clerc attached to his Thrid Army, to Paris to which they thought was the liberation drive itself. The people in Paris were not aware of SHAEFs plan to bypass Paris for military and logistical reasons and defer the liberation. They thought Patton was coming for them and both they and Le Clerc protested that Paris was bypassed and allowed to simmer a little longer. And BTW: First Army did not liberate Paris. Le Clerc was attached to Patton’s Third Army. First Army’s 28th Division showed up in France for a second liberation parade. By then all the Germans that we in France were snipers.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]Well, if you want to rely on the ex-post facto writings of generals and ignore the actual events, off you go. If you want to plough this furrow, please do it without me. [/b]
    Yes, I suppose it is beneath you to take the words of those that actually made the decisions as to what decisions were made rather than those who feel they are “better qualified” to determine what decisions these generals had actually made. I forget the eminence of historians some times. I am still new to this man-worship of historians thing. Having lived only 44 years, this “gods walking among us” concept you and others are constantly espousing throwing in my face is a little hard to accept. Perhaps I am just too unenlightened.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]Yes you do, you can cite sources and it is then up to us to look them up for ourselves. You can even include brief quaotations without breaking the established copyright conventions. Just about the worst sources, apart from History Channel shows maybe, are internet sources. [/b]
    I don’t think that sources of history are all correct but there are no pristine history accounts anywhere and for trite things, any link addressing the ridiculous argument of claiming that Von Rundstedt was never involved in the Ardennes Offensive, are certainly sufficient. Beware of purism, it is often a subtle form of bigotry.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]Not at all, because just about any idiot can add material to wiki with a fair chance of errors or even deliberate mischief not being picked up. And you never know who wrote the article. Wiki is a noted bad source as widely recognised as such. [/b]
    Any idiot can publish a book, write an article or post something on a web site too. Peer review can also be a liability as it is often the case of the blind leading the blind. Case and point, books that make the Sherman look like a Panzer killing tank and the crapload of dribble published in books and exalted by the "pundits" on that subject.

    (angie999 @ Jan 4 2006, 05:54 AM) [post=44015]But Runstedt actually did just about nothing to contribute to the battle, whereas some ogf the other did, under OKW direction.
    [/b]
    Hitler called the shots on the Ardennes Offensive. You should know he called the shots on from reading Rommel’s books that not only were the strategic decisions but also an ever-growing number of tactical decisions as well, especially as the situation got more and more dire. And this so much so that many people wrap up the reason for Germany’s demise in the simple expression of “Hitler’s interference in the military”. But since I know your disrepect for the notes of certain generals, I will say that few military historians would deny Hitler’s propensity to micromanage.

    Angie, I have often stated, publicly and privately on this forum, that I have a great deal of respect for you and your impressive collection of knowledge facts and details. But I notice that when you attempt to set me straight, as in how you believe me to be in error, you do so in a manner that is highly intolerant and very condescending to me as though I am a babbling idiot. This hardly nourishes the respect I have for you. I may often disagree with you but I have never tried to put myself above you as I always figured that would be disrespectful of what you have learned and accomplished in your life, as you have been at this a lot longer than I. But, just because I tip my hat in honor of your superior knowledge does not mean I am here to “lick your boots” nor that I am incapable of reaching rational conclusions from sketchy information, information where historians have themselves filled in the blanks with their own personal conclusions. Respect is far more significant when it is mutual. That might not be asking too much for you but you do need to temper the way you assault my opinions no matter how much you may disagree with them. What you post here is usually far more esteemed than that of what I post, for more reasons than just the obvious. It would be tragic for you to erode my respect for you simply by your impatience or intolerance for me. Someone of your reputation should be even more careful of how they say something. Someone like Max or Exxley can make all the sophomoric comments about me all they want as these simply fall off me like water on a duck’s feathers, but yours often hit their target because I do care about what you say. Just something I feel you ought to think about.
     

Share This Page