Comments by "TheVilla Aston" (@thevillaaston7811) on "War Stories" channel.

  1. ​ @akgeronimo501  R 'The broad front, by the way, a bone thrown to England, was designed to not allow the Germans to reorganize. They were pushed everywhere.' Your words. Get real. Eisenhower's broad front gave the Germans just what they wanted, time and space to rebuold their forces and defences. 'A bone thrown to England.' You cannot be serious...Montgomery offered to stop British forces and let the USA armies advance together, south of the Ardennes, providing a decision was made to concentrate allied resources. The germans agreed that a concentrated allied thrust would have been the best policy: 'I am in full agreement with Montgomery. I believe General Eisenhower's insistence on spreading the Allied forces out for a broader advance was wrong. The acceptance of Montgomery's plan would have shortened the war considerably. Above all, tens of thousands of lives—on both sides—would have been saved' Hasso von Manteuffel. "The best course of the Allies would have been to concentrate a really strong striking force with which to break through past Aachen to the Ruhr area. Germany's strength is in the north. South Germany was a side issue. He who holds northern Germany holds Germany. Such a break-through, coupled with air domination, would have torn in pieces the weak German front and ended the war. Berlin and Prague would have been occupied ahead of the Russians. There were no German forces behind the Rhine, and at the end of August our front was wide open. There was the possibility of an operational break-through in the Aachen area, in September. This would have facilitated a rapid conquest of the Ruhr and a quicker advance on Berlin. Gunther Blumentritt And also, it seems, at least one American who was there: 'if Eisenhower had not been so "wishy washy" and had backed either Montgomery or Bradley in the fall of 1944, the war would have been over by Christmas. Instead he [Eisenhower] hesitated, then backed Montgomery when it was too late' Ralph Ingersoll.
    3
  2. Which panzer tank? The Mark l, the Mark ll, the Mark lll the Mark lV or what?
    3
  3.  @elik8910  Montgomery was no politician.
    3
  4. You mean, apart from performing with distiction as a single division commander in trying circumstances in France in 1940? Or apart from winning in NBorth Africa, Sicily, Normandy, the Northern half of the Bulge and the Rhine? Apart from having an outstanding record on casualties? Of course, unlike Eisenhower and Bradley, who each had zero combat experience, he was burdened by having fought with distinction in the First World War.
    3
  5. It was the know nothing Eisenhower who should have been 'canned'.
    3
  6. No. The allied intelligence regarding German forces in the Arnhem area was inconclusive.
    3
  7.  @nickdanger3802  Its hardly surprising, given that Britain was landed with a war in 1939 that it could not be ready for until 1941 and that it then had to cope with the collapse of France in a matter of weeks. It is little wonder that the period in tank construction known as the 'rush to production' occurred. Even the Valentine had virtues, that the Russians appreciated, as they asked for its production run time period to be extended. The Cromwell, Churchill and Comet showed the excellent progress that Britain made in tank design and construction. The USA has no such excuse as the 'rush to production' period for their crappy Grants and Shermans. America was 3,000 miles for its nearest enemy , with time and opporunity to buold forces as they chose. Americans do not get tell anyone about tanks production, or anything else in the war.
    3
  8.  @nickdanger3802  If you come on here running down Britain, I will give it back to you, with a ton of bricks attached.
    3
  9.  @nickdanger3802  And your point is...
    3
  10. 'Let's stay serious and objective! Montgomery won El Alamein because the German military situation was busy turning around.' Montgomery won at El Alamein because his previous victory at Alam el Halfa ensured thst the battle be foight where he wished it to be fought. He then reorganized and retrained the Eighth Army to make it fit for battle and then resisted political pressure to attack before everything was in place. for just 13,500 casualties he ended the war in North Africa as a contest. 'The Allied submarines sank the Italian ships responsible for bringing essential supplies to the Afrika Corps while, at the same time, the Allies ensured a predominance in supply and airspace ... these "special" circumstances, everything was in place to obtain victory ...' So what was Monmtgomery supposed to do? Say stop, let the Africa Corps get all of their supplies so that everything is equal and we can ensure that there are no stupid comments on YouTube 79 years later? 'Let us recall that, during the landing of June 6, Montgomery was stuck for a month in front of Caen while the Americans were progressing elsewhere and the same failed miserably in Arnhem.' Montgomery drew the overwhelming bulk of German forces onto his front at Caen, including 84% of German armour. Montgomery delivered victory by D+78, instead of the scheduled completed date of D+90, with 22% fewer than expected casualties and delivered in Normandy, a defeat for the Germans as big as Stalingrad. The failure at Arnhem freed a fifth of the Dutch population, hindered German V2 attacks on Britain, stretched the German defences another 50 miles and gave the allies an excellent starting point for attacking the Rhine in the following months. Other allied operations have failed more miserably than that. What was your country doing while all this was going on?
    3
  11. You met Montgomery when?..
    3
  12.  @hammerthor6441  'His arrogance and stupidity got many people killed' When and where did that happen?
    3
  13. Wall to wall rubbish. If having a prepoderance of men and equipment devalues a general's acgievement then that applies to every single US victory in the war. Montgomery performed with distiction in six years of war, from commandig a single division through to commanding army groups.
    3
  14. Why do you state that?
    3
  15. Murad According to Big Woody (aka Para Dave) the 'poor Tommies' were all cowards.
    3
  16.  @randywise5241  Britain, Canada, Poland, the USA all lost troops in Normany. Overall, 36,976 troops were killed. The losses were a lot less than had been forecast before the campaign began.
    3
  17.  @gabrielcalin4238  Rommel had half the amount of equipment and still lost.
    3
  18. For what reason?
    3
  19. Richard Big Woody also uses the name Para Dave for YouTube comments. Para Dave is teenager from Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
    3
  20.  @rsmithajd  Its a definite no. When did he USA win a war on its own? Hold on a minute...I forgot Grenada, where the USA took on the armed might of that nation...all by itself. Do tell, when did the USA bail out Britain?..
    3
  21. John Fields 'He says in his memoirs, that Arnhem was his biggest mistake of the war.' Where in his memoirs? I have a copy of his memoirs here, where does it state that?
    3
  22. 'Poor Rommel. He was unquestionably the better general' When did Rommel ever show that?
    3
  23.  Gerry Hagen  Err...fraid not. Kasserine Pass was a US fiasco.
    3
  24. Rubbish.
    3
  25. How does the USA defeat the Germans without Britain?
    3
  26.  @schrisdellopoulos9244  'you'd be speaking German if it weren't for the US.' Really? And how is that?
    3
  27. Ray Whitehead Montgomery waited for a number of things including he completion of an extensive training programme for the troops.
    3
  28.  @Bullet-Tooth-Tony-  Big Woody (aka Para Dave) hates Montgomery, and other Britons, including me.
    3
  29. And why would your parents have 'despised "Monty".'?
    3
  30.  @jerrylegion  'Winning by attrition is like winning a football match because the other team didn't show up.' Your words. That would apply to every single US victory in the war in Europe. Which one do you want?
    3
  31. But Patton was not in the battle.
    3
  32.  @robertnymand9889  But Rommel had already left North Africa before Patton eventually joined in the battle.
    3
  33. No.
    3
  34.  @youraveragescotsman7119  My father was in a division that used Churchills and Shermans. None of the troops wanted to be in a Sherman.
    3
  35.  @rsmithajd  Its a definite no. Germany, Italy, and Japan declared war on the USA. That was the USA's war. Old liver spots? So Stalin ran rings around Roosevelt. Deal with it. What came out of Britain was the entire modern world.
    3
  36.  @casperscott8684  The air plan was down to the US General Lewis Brereton, as head of the FAAA.
    2
  37. Really?.. I thought that was Horrocks.
    2
  38. Sir Ridesalot 'Monty succeeded because Rommel couldn't maneuver with the sea on one flank and the great depression on the other.' Montgomery made sure that 'Rommel couldn't maneuver with the sea on one flank and the great depression on the other' by winning the battle of Alam el Halfa in a way that suited him.
    2
  39.  @lyndoncmp5751  Here's one (two actually)... MONTY The Field-Marshal 1944-1976 NIGEL HAMILTON HAMISH HAMILTON LONDON 1986 P 189 'Although later writers would extol Eisenhower's prompt and confident performance in the 'Battle of the Bulge', the truth is that Eisenhower reacted with amazing slowness and indecision for a supposed Land Force Commander. It was to take him three entire days before he convened a meeting of his Army Group Commanders—and five days before he even spoke to Monty on the telephone. By then Eisenhower's headquarters was in a state of extreme apprehension, with the Supreme Commander locked up in his office for fear of assassination.' P259 Monty was therefore somewhat surprised by Eisenhower's royal arrival—as he told `Simbo' Simpson when the latter flew over to Monty's headquarters the following day. 'He said it was most impressive. The train drew into the station and immediately teams of machine-gunners leapt out, placed their machine guns on both platforms at each end of the train, and guards leapt out and took up every possible vantage point. No question of letting any German assassination troops get at the Supreme Commander. Monty commented that he himself felt rather naked just arriving with an armoured car behind him, and he felt much safer with this enormous American guard before he met Ike.' Eisenhower was, however, embarrassed and ashamed, instituting an official investigation after the battle to determine whether there had in fact been due cause for such exaggerated security measures.
    2
  40. Patton and Rommel never met in battle.
    2
  41.  @nickdanger3802  'First to Dunkerque, second on Sicily.' Montgomery was a single division commander in France in 1940. He performed with distiction in trying circumstances. As for Siciliy, Patton deserted the battlefield and had to be enticed back to the war with the promise of Messina, like some kid being bribed with sweets to behave.
    2
  42.  @Bullet-Tooth-Tony-  Be aware, Big Woody is using a copy of my YouTube name to post comments that are critical of Montgomery. Its an infantile thing to do, but there we are. If you need to check, my profile shows me joining in 2013. His version gives the date as August 2020. Its spoils it when people who cannot win resort to this type of thing. He has also done it to John Burns, and others.
    2
  43. What? Including the performances of Bradley and Hodges.
    2
  44.  @richherrera1650  Which previous poster?
    2
  45.  @richherrera1650  Actually it was 252 Shermans and 90 'Priest' self propelled 105 mm Howitzers. They were actually supplied to Alexander, who pased them on to Montgomery. 'He wasn't far off.' He was not close.
    2
  46. It would have been wiser for Germany not to have started the war.
    2
  47. No one is interested in what happened at Sandhurst. What they want to know about is what happened during the war.
    2
  48. Yep.
    2
  49. Yes wimbardi laksono, the Royal Navy performed with distinction throughout the Second World War. British sea power, and the expertise and courage of its men blunted German land victories in Norway, France and Greece by extricating large numbers of troops from those places. The Royal Navy defeated the German surface fleet, almost all of its sub-surface fleet, with 67% of all U-Boats destroyed being accounted for by British forces. It accounted for the Italian Navy, the neutering of the French fleet, and for keeping the Japanese fleet from the western part of the Indian Ocean. Britain supplied the bulk of the naval and merchant shipping for TORCH, HUSKY, AVALANCHE, SHINGLE, OVERLORD, and so on. Even after all this, Britain was still able to put together the British Pacific Fleet. A marvellous effort. And all this, from a nation of just 46 million, a bit more if you rope in the contribution of the Commonwealth and Empire. From a nation that, in addition to the above, had to escort the shipping for its substantial import needs. The nation that, more than any other, had stuck to international naval treaties, and then had to cope with the consequences as so often, ship for ship, it was up against more modern and more powerful adversaries. A marvellous effort. A few points of detail: The loss of the PRINCE OF WALES, and REPULSE took place in the South China Sea, not the Pacific Ocean. The losses took place three days after the Japanese attack on PEARL HARBOUR. The idea that lessons from the PEARL HARBOUR attack could be absorbed in three days is absurd. In any case Pearl Harbour was an attack on ships in a sheltered anchorage. The attack on PRINCE OF WALES, and REPULSE to ok place at sea. If anyone should have been learning lessons, it should have the US Navy from the marvellous Royal Navy attack on the Italian Navy at TARANTO. Battleships sunk in a safe anchorage. The Japanese did, as TARANTO led to PEARL HARBOUR. At the time of the BATTLE OF MIDWAY (June 1942), Britain had the carriers ARGUS, EAGLE, FORMIDABLE, FURIOUS, ILLUSTRIOUS, INDOMITABLE, and VICTORIOUS available. A marvellous effort after nearly three years of war. As for US in the Pacific…it was sledgehammers to crack walnuts. Guam (30 miles x 8 miles), 60,000 US troops v 23,000 Japanese troops. Saipan (14miles x 7 miles), 71,000 US troops v 32,000 Japanese troops. Iwo Jima (5miles x 4 miles), 110,000 US troops v 21,000 Japanese troops. Etc, etc. What is the fuss all about?
    2
  50. Yes wimbardi laksono The RN dealt with the French, German, and Italian Navies. The USN dealt with the Japanese Navy. Britain 3, the USA 1, that'll do nicely.
    2