This article posits that the action at Arnhem by the 2nd Bn Parachute Regiment was Britain's equivalent of the Battle of the Alamo: Action at Arnhem: Britain’s Alamo. I don't know enough about either to form an opinion, what do other member's think? In fact it's not until the penultimate paragraph that the Alamo gets a mention: Mark
Bloke who wrote that article, David H. Lippman, used to be a member on here when I first joined. He left a few years ago. http://ww2talk.com/index.php?members/kiwiwriter.237/
He was subjected to a sustained trolling and stalking by a very well known nut-case who used to post on the old History Channel Forums. This idiot went after him big-time in real life and was instrumental in getting a lot of Kiwi Writers online articles deleted. You would not believe the way he was harassed. The stalker became a member here for a while. Our sister site - WW2Forum message: site may harm your computer?
Not a particularly good comparison in my opinion. His argument that 2 Para never surrendered "as an organised body" is particularly dodgy. The German Army in 1945 surrendered in groups also - doesn't mean it wasn't defeated and didn't capitulate. Also, the fact many were captured makes the Alamo/Arnhem comparison weak. Gandamak or Isandlwana would be more accurate, but even then there was no choice involved as to whether to make a last stand like there was at The Alamo. Perhaps someone can come up with a better example? PS - I am not a troll!
I liked Kiwi, though I always found his writing a bit flowery, but it's good to see he 's still at it. As for the other bloke... I'd forgotten about him... I did not like him... To really be an Alamo, wouldn't Arnhem have to be more widely engrained in UK public culture? Most I know would look a bit blank if I used it as a last stand reference outside of military history. The personalities aren't 'historical celebrities' in the same way the Alamo chaps appear to be in the US.