Comments by "TheVilla Aston" (@thevillaaston7811) on "The Armchair Historian"
channel.
-
11
-
@jpmtlhead39
'AT the time of El Alamein, Rommel wasnt even in África, to have a real command of his forces. He Just left some "directives" how to respond to the brittsh attack, that he knew It was abaut to come.'
The same question applies: Rommel was outnumbered two to one at Alamein. Does defeat there make him a bad general?
Its a simple question, a 14 year old could work it out.
And in Arnhem, the "brilliant" Montgomery, with the famous 4 Victoria crosses awarded (postum), tryed to gained a Moral Victory, on the total hummiliation of Market Garden. The Biggest Paratroopers operation of the war. His total lack of awareness and intelegence, made the perfect storm, for the poor paratroopers. A very real, bridge to far.
A "brilliant" plan, from a "brilliant" general
The MARKET plan was down to the head of the FAAA, US General Lewis Brereton.
Btw. Why is an hispanic like you taking an interest in real countries? Spain was not in the war, apart from helping the Nazis.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@jpmtlhead39
1/10 for effort.
'got to do with everything.
You can only have a proper battle, if you have weapons and logistics to do so.' Your words.
OK. So Urquhart being out gunned, and oiutnumbered , losing at Arnhem made him a bad general?
And Britain dindt had the means, to engage the German army, only by Herself. Everybody knows that.' OK. So how does that make Montgomery 'The most overated general in Military history'?
'You have many examples, of brilliant german generals, Without the means to do what They intended to do.'
OK, so how many of them won when the odds were not in their favour? How many of them won without incurring hefty casualty figures?
Example: At Alam el Halfa, Rommel outnumbered Montgomery by 6 to 4. Yet Montgomery won. Does that make Rommel a bad General?
Example: At Alamein, Rommel was out numbered by 2 to 1, and lost. Does that make Rommel a bad General? Of course not .
For Alamein, allowed himself to be mauvered into a position whereby he had all but outrun his supply lines, and he found himself with the sea on his left, and the Qattara Depression on his right, and thus no room to outflank his opponent. The cardinal sins of warfare in the desert. Does that make Rommel a bad General?
Btw. Montgomery won at Almein with less than 7% casualties. Compare that to US casulty figures in their battles with the Germans...
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jpmtlhead39
'from the lend lease program 80 % was food. Brittain was starving to death. No to mention,oil.
And tanks,airplanes,guns,everything you need to not starve and fighting a War.
If were not for the US Help,maybe the language in brittain,was another today.'
Your words.
Its a definite no.
The food import figures for 1941 are typical:
1941 total food imports: 14.654 million tons
1941 food imports from the USA: 1.073 million tons. (7.3% of the above total).
Oill came from the Middle East, Central America, as well from the USA.
Britons speak English, as Americans do, because Germany had no means of defeating Britain, regardless of anything supplied to Britain from the USA.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@toekneekerching9543
From Big Woody (aka Para Dave):
'Thicko Monty just displayed his single thrust @ OMG.A concept so idiotic that pretty much everyone in Allied HQ blasted it. I mean it ended up like 1940 Norway,the Netherlands,Belgium,France,Dunkirk - complete routes.That's why the GIs had to get it sorted.....AGAIN.Hey tell the board Little Villa how mum took some Gerries prisoner.' His words.
The single thrust:
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, 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. '
Ralph Ingersoll.
The 'GIs' (In particular Eisenhower) gave us [the allies] AACHEN, the HURTGEN FOREST, METZ, an under resourced MARKET GARDEN, and the ARDENNES - the ARDENNES where Montgomery had to postpone VERITABLE and then come down and sort out the Bulge. And damn right Montgomery should have told the world how it was. I can only mavel and the restraint that Montgomery showed in that press conference.
Capturing Gerries...doubtless Americans have stories of US civilians dealing with Germans in the US homeland. It must have been scary, what with the Germans being a mere 3,000 miles away.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jpmtlhead39
And how was Germany going to defeat Britain without a Navy that was capable of taking on the Royal Navy. In the Summer of 1940, Germany had 1 heavy cruiser, 2 light cruisers, and 6 destroyers to face the Royal Navy’s 14 battleships and battle cruisers, 7 aircraft carriers, 58 cruisers, and 120 plus destroyers. By September 1940, the Germans had two prototype landing craft, each capable carrying 45 troops, that was it for the entire war. The rest of any invasion force would have to have been conveyed in barges. Germany had no heavy bomber fleet in 1940, and its air force as a whole was up against the then most powerful air defence system in the world. Britain was routinely reading German armed forces communications, and would go on to read German high command signals.
By the end of August 1940, Britain was able to send half of its tank fleet to the Middle East. By early 1941, Britain had two million fully armed men in Britain.
2
-
2
-
@asmodeus0454
But what does Max Hastings bring to the subject?
All the key information has been in the public domain for decades. All the key people involved had had their say, and are long since dead, there must be virtually no one alive now who was at Arnhem. How many documents and facts are quoted that have not appeared before? How many one on one interviews did Hastings conduct?
As far as the troops at Arnhem are concerned, Martin Middlebrook built his 1994 work: 'Arnhem 1944 The Airborne Battle' around the testimony of those that were there. He interviewed 500 veterans. Even then, nearly thirty ago it was probably almost too late.
Beevor, Buckingham, Barr, Hastings, and so on, have all churned out stuff about MARKET GARDEN. Each in turn is hailed as difinitive, or the last word, or some such . The subject just gets raked over, again and again and again. There is always a dig at Montgomery, Brererton, Browning, Gavin, and so on, with none of them now able to answer back. In many cases these writers state opinion as if it is fact.
Antony bloody Beevor justified his effort by claiming to have unearthed evidence about the suffering of the Dutch people in the Winter of 1944-45. Yea...its only been known about since the newsreels and press coverage in May 1945 of OPERATION MANNA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Its a definite no.
Britain (and France), went to war on behalf of Poland, in spite of multiple offers of a peace deal by Hitler. The treaty with Poland only covered an attack on Poland by Germany, not an attack by any other country. The British Government went into this undertaking in 1939 despite being aware that the country could not be ready for a general war until 1941.
2,936 Fighter Command pilots took part in the Battle of Britain, 145 of them were Polish. The Polish squadrons only took part in the second half of the battle. The idea that Polish saved our ‘butts’ in the Battle of Britain is absurd.
The governments of Britain and the USA were no position to be able to condemn the massacre of Polish soldiers at Katyn by the Russians, when he news came out in 1943. Such a condemnation would have meant agreeing with the Nazis at a time when Russia was bearing the brunt of the war on land.
There is no evidence that Władysław Sikorski was murdered. Why would anyone risk trying to murder him in a plane crash? He was not important enough to warrant such treatment.
General Sosabowski was not blamed for the failure at Arnhem. Rightly or wrongly he was criticized from his performance, and the performance of his troops at Arnhem. But that is quite a different matter from blame for overall operation.
Churchill tried repeatedly to get help from Russia and the USA for assistance in airlifting supplies to the Polish Home Army during the Warsaw up-rising, without success until the very end.
Poland was not betrayed at the Yalta conference. By the time of the conference, Poland was almost wholly in Russian hands, and Britain and the USA had zero leverage on Russian actions.
The omission of a Polish squadron from the 1946 victory parade in London, while other Polish military units were invited to take part was a regrettable mis-judgement on the part of the government of the day, but this was more than made up for the 1947 Polish Resettlement Act.
Britain fed, clothed, and housed many thousands of Polish people during the war. It is surely not unreasonable that those Poles that were able should have joined in with the fighting where they could.
WINSTON S CHURCHILL.
THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
CASSELL & CO LTD
VOLUME VI TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY
1954.
P563
The burden lay on British shoulders. When their homeland had been overrun and they had been driven from France many Poles had sheltered upon our shores. There was no worth-while property belonging to the Polish Government in London. I said I believed there was about .£20,000,000 in gold in London and Canada. This had been frozen by us, since it was an asset of the Central Bank of Poland. Unfreezing and moving it to a Central Polish Bank must follow the normal channels for such transfers. It was not the property of the Polish Government in London and they had no power to draw upon it. There was of course the Polish Embassy in London, which was open and available for a Polish Ambassador as soon as the new Polish Government cared to send one—and the sooner the better.
In view of this one might well ask how the Polish Government had been financed during its five and a half years in the United Kingdom. The answer was that it had been supported by the British Government; we had paid the Poles about .£120,000,000 to finance their Army and diplomatic service, and to enable them to look after Poles who had sought refuge on our shores from the
German scourge. When we had disavowed the Polish Government in London and recognised the new Provisional Polish Government it was arranged that three months' salary should be paid to all employees and that they should then be dismissed. It would have been improper to have dismissed them without this payment, and the expense had fallen upon Great Britain.
All clear now?..
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Dod o
Big Woody is a liar, and this is why:
Big Woody’s forgery can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2obwt4n1G0&lc=UgyXsiASB8pi_JS_WfV4AaABAg.9Afuv3FHaYc9BMmj0JXY2u&feature=emcomments
Lead comment:
John Cornell
3 weeks ago (as of 31 07 2020)
Patton should have kept his mouth shut and concentrated on achieving his task of taking Metz, which had been his objective two weeks before Market Garden and yet still hadn't done it 8 weeks after Market Garden.
The 25th reply is the lie:
Big Woody
1 week ago (as of 31 07 2020)
Das Deutsches Afrika-korps: Siege und Niederlage. By Hanns-Gert von Esebeck, page 188 Returning from North Africa with an inflated ego after the comparatively easy defeat of the German Africa Corps, he considered himself to be the greatest commander ever. Later information has revealed that he inflated the number of German casualties to improve his image. At El Alamein he claimed that there were more German casualties than there were German troops all together on the actual front!
This is were Big Woody unwisely took it from:
http://ww2f.com/threads/what-went-wrong-with-operation-market-garden.28468/page-5#post-389603
What went wrong with Operation Market Garden?
Discussion in 'Western Europe 1943 - 1945' started by tovarisch, Feb 2, 2010.
Page 5 of 14 < Prev1←34567→14Next >
RAM
Member
Joined:Dec 11, 2007
Messages:507
Likes Received:9
...
'Returning from North Africa with an inflated ego after the comparatively easy defeat of the German Africa Corps, he considered himself to be the greatest commander ever. Later information has revealed that he inflated the number of German casualties to improve his image.
At El Alamein he claimed that there were more German casualties than there were German troops all together on the actual front!' ...
RAM, July 28 2010
...From another opnion in a hack forum, not from 'Das Deutsches Afrika-korps: Siege und Niederlage. By Hanns-Gert von Esebeck' as Big Woody claimed.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1