Comments by "TheVilla Aston" (@thevillaaston7811) on "10,000 men dropped on Arnhem. Only 2,000 returned, here's why" video.

  1. I think you mean the Nijmegen Bridge.
    6
  2. Where is there evidence of 'Monty fans' saying it was a great victory.
    5
  3. It was also arranged by Brigadier Graeme Warrack.
    5
  4.  @davemac1197  A great post.
    4
  5. Eisenhower was ultimately responsible for the plan.
    3
  6. 'The British are terrible at fighting battles, always seem to get beat' And yet Britain, a place about the size of the US State of Oregon, at one point owned about a third of the world...
    3
  7. Not really...
    3
  8. First World War: Those millions of dead and wounded from Britain, France, and Russia from 1914 to 1917 counted for absolutely nothing. The war was won by those tough, no nonsense Americans in just a few weeks. Second World War: Everyone just sat sat on their hands and did nothing until those big, brave yanks, led by John Wayne, Tom Hanks, Ben Affleck, Robert Mitchum, and so came over and did it all for us.
    3
  9.  @Bullet-Tooth-Tony-  And like Montgomery, as a single infantry commander was supposed to be responsible for the allied campaign in 1940.
    3
  10.  @Bullet-Tooth-Tony-  'Except that US forces didn't arrive until Torch.' And even then, things did not seem to go very well for them...
    2
  11. You really think that?..
    2
  12.  @johndawes9337  How about those Second World War US generals we hear so much about?.. Eisenhower, he had zero personal combat experience and was bald. Bradley was quite different; he was bald and zero combat experience. Devers was different again, he had a full head of hair, and zero combat experience. Then there was one of Bradley’s subordinate commanders in North West Europe, Patton. He, who when he was Bradley’s commander in Sicily, left the battlefield during HUSKY to seek personal glory in Palermo, assaulted Sicilian peasants, and assaultd two of his own soldiers. Then there was one Mark Clark, who left British and US forces in the lurch to gain personal glory unoccupied Rome. Or how about Marshall, he was usually right behind his forces, about 2,500 miles behind them. On one of the few occasions that he went within a couple of hundred miles of the enemy, he turned up in London in 1942 with a lunatic plan to invade France during 1942. Or how about the Far East…where, in Alanbrooke’s words, the Americans used sledgehammers to crack walnuts. Example: Iwo Jima, that, with the big US hand on chest moment, flag raising scene. Where 110,000 US servicemen faced up to 21,000 Japanese. Those figures make the allied preponderance of troops at Alamain look like bare bones stuff. And yet there is an almost endless stream of Hollywood films, TV programmes, books, lectures, symposiums and so on that treat those US commanders in an totally uncritical light, using hushed, reverential tones to describe the people, and their actions. In all cases, British commanders involved in the same matters are subjected character assassinations, their actions dissected in in hair-splitting terms, and without any reference to the context for the actions that they took. All this stuff about generals seems to be an American thing. The USA was never in the war during the critical days of 1940 and 1941. They have no Battle of Britain, or Battle of Moscow. The US Second World War story is boring, tedious by comparison, its all about zero threat to the US mainland, the production figures for vomit bags, other countries owing the USA money, histrionic images of US Generals marching around in tin helmets, US leaders elbowing their way to front when the time came for the surrender ceremonies. Perhaps they think that all these attacks Montgomery, Alexander, and so on, somehow evens up the score? Who can say?..
    2
  13.  @nickdanger3802  Who cares?
    2