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

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16.  @nickdanger3802  'The broad front versus narrow front controversy in World War II wiki'... would have done well to have included this: P512 'Montgomery had no opportunity of discussing the problem with Eisenhower until August 23rd when they met for the first time in a week. Montgomery then put the issue bluntly. " Administratively," he said, " we haven't the resources to maintain both Army Groups at full pressure. The only policy is to halt the right and strike with the left, or halt the left and strike with the right. We must decide on one thrust and put all the maintenance to support that. If we split the maintenance and advance on a broad front, we shall be so weak everywhere that we will have no chance of success." Hardly the words of someone who was 'wanting to beat Patten to Berlin'. Meanwhile, what sort of tit head would post this on a thread about MARKET GARDEN: 'Almost daily in the Desert bernard wouldn't confront the DAK,letting them escape,not chancing a black eye after every one else propped him up,Air Corp/ULTRA/RN,the USA with massive influx of men.artillery/armor/food/fuel' Firstly, no sensible commander would have risked the fruits of the victory at Alamein during a 1,400 mile plus advance across the desert by taking chances against an enemy that, when the odds were even, proved itself to be better than the British army, and much better than the Red Army, and much better than the US army, when it eventually joined in the fight. Secondly, as far as the war in the desert was concerned, the US provided almost zero fuel (that came from the Persian Gulf), almost zero food, because the modest amount of US suplies went to the civillian population, and all the military were already well provided with food throught the SIX year conflict. The only US artillery there were 90 'Priest self propelled howitzers, which were converted to use the British 25 pounder gun asap. The US Stuart and Lee/Grant tanks were mainly bought and paid for. The Shermans were an improvement on what went before, but not much, and they seem not have been liked by the crews. In any case, the key weapon in the desert was the anti-tank gun: the German 88, and the British 6 and 17 pounder weapons. Anyone care to state what US troops took part in the desert campaign?...
    2
  17. WINSTON S CHURCHILL. THE SECOND WORLD WAR. CASSELL & CO LTD VOLUME II THEIR FINEST HOUR REVISED EDITION NOVEMBER 1950. P486 ‘On November 9 Mr. Neville Chamberlain died at his country home in Hampshire. I had obtained the King’s permission to have him supplied with the cabinet papers, and until a few days before the end he followed our affairs with keenness, interest, and tenacity. He met the approach of death with a steady eye. I think he died with the comfort of at least knowing that his country had at least turned the WINSTON S CHURCHILL. THE SECOND WORLD WAR. CASSELL & CO LTD VOLUME III THE GRAND ALLIANCE 1950. P352 ‘Without in the slightest degree challenging the conclusion which history will affirm that the Russian resistance broke the power of the German armies and inflicted mortal injury upon the life-energies of the German nation, it is right to make it clear that for more than a year after Russia was involved in the war she presented herself to our minds as a burden and not as a help. None the less we rejoiced to have this mighty ally in the battle with us, and we all felt that even if the Soviet armies were driven back to the Ural Mountains Russia would still exert an immense, and if she persevered in the war, an ultimately decisive force.’ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Western bourgeois political and military historians are trying to prove that the Red Army only achieved its superiority in material thanks to the material assistance rendered by the USA and Britain. I do not wish to deny this completely and make out that this aid did not exist. It did help the Red Army and the war industry to a certain extent, but, all the same, it should not be regarded as more significant than it actually was. Our material superiority over the enemy was gained thanks to the advantages of the Soviet social system, the heroic struggle of the Soviet people, guided by the party, at the front as well as in the rear. Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 196-197 Nevertheless, for years after the war bourgeois historiography has asserted that it was the Allied deliveries of armaments, materials, and foodstuffs that had played a decisive role for our victory over the enemy. As for the armaments, what I would like to say is that we received under Lend-Lease from the United States and Britain about 18,000 aircraft and over 11,000 tanks. That comprised of a mere 4% of the total amount of armaments that the Soviet people produced to equip its army during the war. Consequently, there is no ground for talk about the decisive role of the deliveries under Lend-Lease. As for the tanks and aircraft supplied to us by the British and US governments, they, to be frank, did not display a high fighting qualities; especially tanks which, running on petrol, would burn like torches. Zhukov, Georgi. Reminiscences and Reflections Vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Pub., c1985, p. 460
    2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36.  @Bialy_1  'Fact that gen. Sosabowski during planing of the operation pointed most of the big flaws of this plan and was not only ignored by Mountgomery but he was happy to blame him for his own faults and lie that gen. Sosabowski and his soldiers were fighting badly... gen.' There is no evidence that Montgomery and Sosabowski met during the planning for Market Garden. Why would they have? Sosabowski reported to Browning and Brereton. on 17 October 1944 Montgomery wrote to Field Marshall Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, referring to Arnhem: ‘Polish Para Brigade fought very badly and the men showed no keenness to fight if it meant risking their own lives. I do not want this brigade here and possibly you might like to send them to join the other Poles in Italy.' Right or wrong, Montgomery was entitled to his opinion, but seemingly he made no specific mention of Sosabowski. Perhaps Sosabowski might have helped his cause if he had not declined the offer to lead an airborne division, ruling his troops out of taking part in D-Day and then held out for the totally unrealistic aspiration of his brigade being dropped into the Warsaw during the up-rising there. 'Sosabowski died in poverty because of all that lies and British was doing everything to hide truth about him and his men in this whole operation.' Not really, Sosabowski, like thousands of Poles, was given a home in Britain under terms of the Polish Resettlement Act 1947. The British government was under no obligation to do so. There was camp full of them in my area until they were allowed settle here. There were so many of them, they had, and still have, Polish language services in the local Roman Catholic Church. And all this before a million of them came over in the early 2000s like a plague, driving down wages , not queing at bus stop and so on. The sooner they fuck off home the better. 'Dutch TV showed document about it and ofc noone in Britain saw it or is interested in facts but because of that document Dutch made decision to ignore British wishes and made recognition of Gen. Sosabowski and his man actions...' What British wishes? The Dutch award was postumous. Britain had already made him an Honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire.
    2
  37. 2
  38. Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill The Chamberlain government ended its policy of appeasement in March 1939, when Hitler broke the Munich agreement of September1938, by occupying the whole of Czechoslovakia, leading to Britain and France giving a undertaking to Poland go to war if Poland was attacked by Germany. Britain and France declared war on Germany on the 3rd September 1939, two days after Germany had attacked Poland. Winston Churchill took up the post of Prime Minister on the 10th May 1940. The period 1938 to the Summer of 1940 saw Britain create the then most formidable air defence system in the world. It worked. That, along with the then world’s largest Navy and Merchant Marine, the fortitude of the British people, and Winston Churchill’s leadership ensured that we are not ‘speaking German today’. ‘I have to believe that having already breeched the Atlantic wall at Normandy at great cost, the allies would have been better served by applying what they'd learned and strategically attacking the Siegfried Line at key locations head on than by "going around their butt to get to their elbow"’. Your words. In that case you are in agreement with Montgomery, who went into Normandy with a clear plan: hold on the left (British 2nd Army), break-out on the right (US First Army). Charged with getting the allies to the Seine by D+90, he got there by D+78, and with 22% fewer than expected casualties. Eisenhower took over as land forces commander on 1st September 1944 with no plan, and the allies went nowhere. ‘the 101st and the 82nd bore the brunt of Market Garden's casualties’ Airborne forces casualties 1st Polish Parachute Brigade 378 US 82nd Airborne Divison 1,430 Us 101st Airborne Division 2,118 British 1st Airborne 6,462
    2
  39. ‘Maybe the American commander did make a wrong (and crucial decision) but the British were habitually obsequious when dealing with the Americans and also myopic to the point of total blindness by any fault on thier own part.’ There no sense in that. If the British were ‘habitually obsequious when dealing with the Americans’ then surely they would not have not found any fault with the actions of the US forces. And if the British are ‘myopic to the point of total blindness by any fault on thier own part', why is there a succession of documentaries about the likes of Market Garden on YouTube, most of them British. This was evident by their refusal to learn from tactics or weapons used successfully against them. How was it evident? As Britain created a much larger modern army between 1940 and 1942/3 many of the lessons from earlier in the war were applied, particularly the concentration of firepower, as at Alamein and in Normandy. As far as the management of the war was concerned, Britain with its marked emphasis on air and sea power judged matters far better than Germany, which had started wars with Britain, Russia and the USA without acquiring the means to defeat them. ‘The poles were the obvious choice as scapegoats.’ Not really, they were criticised for their performance at Market Garden not for iits sccess or failure. And their argumentative sod of a leader Sosabowski, had refused to integrate his airborne force with the rest of the allied forces. ‘Of course I may be biased.’ Yes you are, and you are uninformed. As a kiwi living in England in the early 2000s when a memorial to NZ losses in WW2 was finally erected, a question I was often asked by English colleagues. "Was NZ in the war?" Often asked? I doubt it. In any case, Anzac day has been commemorated in Britain since 1916. "Lest we forget" is clearly not a part of thier culture. Nor in other countries, about 90% of Americans do not know that anyone else fought the Nazis, including New Zealand. ‘Claiming credit for the achievements of others and blaming failure upon thier allies was also habitual even when dealing with Commonwealth troops;’ Like when? ‘Whatever else, the defence was a brilliant example of German improvisation (a supposed weakness) and the battle an example of almost unbelievable courage by all the allied airborne troops. Great docco.’ What supposed weakness? I will point out that this Big Woody, who has previously used the YouTube name ‘Para Dave’ is a 16 year old from Cleveland, Ohio, USA who suffers from acute Anglophobia, calls all and sundry Britons cowards and claims that the USA saved Australia and New Zealand from invasion by Japan. Btw. Its their, not thier
    2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49.  @davemac1197  From Para Dave (aka Big Woody) '"Triumph in the West, by Arthur Bryant, From the diary of Field Marshal Lord Alan Brooke, entry for 5 October 1944:p.525 Alan Brooke wrote about Monty in his diary "He requires a lot of educating to make him see the whole situation and the war as a whole outside of the 8th Army orbit. A difficult mixture to handle a commander in action and trainer of men,but liable to commit untold errors,due to lack of tact, lack of appreciation of other people's outlook.' This is what Alnbrooke wrote in his diary for the 5th October, 1944, in the edition that I have: 'October 5th. A conference by Ike at 11.30 of his Army Group commanders. Ike ran the conference very well. It consisted first of all of statements by Army Group commanders, followed by the Air and Navy. Ike then explained his future strategy which consisted of the capture of Antwerp, an advance to the Rhine in the north and south, forcing the Rhine north and south of the Ruhr, capture of Ruhr, followed by an advance on Berlin either from Ruhr or from Frankfurt, depending on which proved most promising. Meanwhile Devers in the south to threaten Munich as a cover plan. During the whole discussion one fact stood out clearly, that (access to) Antwerp must be captured with the least possible delay." " I feel that Monty's strategy for once is at fault. Instead of carrying out the advance on Arnhem he ought to have made certain of Antwerp in the first place. Ramsay brought this out well in the discussion and criticized Monty freely. Ike nobly took all blame on as he had approved Monty's suggestion to operate on Arnhem.¹ The atmosphere was good and friendly in spite of some candid criticisms of the administrative situation." " After lunch I flew back, doing the journey Paris-London in one hour and ten minutes. Found Gammell in the office and had a long interview with him to discuss plans for Istrian operations." " After dinner called up by P.M. to go round to him. All he wanted was to discuss with me my visit to Eisenhower and to hear the gossip. I found Portal there fixing up final details for the trip to Moscow which are now settled." ' ARTHUR BRYANT TRIUMPH IN THE WEST 1943-46 COLLINS, ST JAMES’S PLACE, LONDON 1959 Pags 291-292 I shall 'examine' the rest of Para Dave's 'stuff' in due course...
    2
  50. 2