Broad Front versus Narrow Front: Who was Right?

**Triple C** · 09 Oct 09, 10:49

Originally Posted by Chaobam Armour

He was relieved of his Command and almost sacked by Eisenhower, therefore he never took part in the Normandy Landings or Overlord, instead he Commanded the Decoy Mission (Op Quicksilver).

Not due to incompetence but the insanity of striking a citizen soldier in the cheek for being shell-shocked! It was true that he did not command troops during the hardest fought stage of the campaign, but when Third Army was activated he led his command in mobile warfare magnificently.

On black soldiers: "Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at the time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor."

He was a bigot alright. Eisenhower's view on black soldiers and black people in general was more enlightened. However, in Patton's defense, he was not a malicious racist and pragmatic enough to be the first general in the US to send black replacements to white infantry companies.

All in all, he was a good general, but perhaps not the most charitable human being. In many ways, he was a brutish warrior, with a strange concept of martial honor that was in discord with contemporary American ethics.

**Station 22** · 09 Oct 09, 16:04

Originally Posted by Chaobam Armour

He was relieved of his Command and almost sacked by Eisenhower, therefore he never took part in the Normandy Landings or Overlord, instead he Commanded the Decoy Mission (Op Quicksilver).

On black soldiers: "Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at the time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor."[

Originally Posted by Triple C

Not due to incompetence but the insanity of striking a citizen soldier in the cheek for being shell-shocked!

Quite correct. His relief was not due to command decisions

...

He was a bigot alright. Eisenhower's view on black soldiers and black people in general was more enlightened. However, in Patton's defense, he was not a malicious racist and pragmatic enough to be the first general in the US to send black replacements to white infantry companies.

His views as reflected in the above quote were not at all out line with a large portion of the military and civilian leadership of the time.

Here is what Patton had to say after he was given the 761st Armored Battalion (Colored).

“Men, you’re the first Negro tankers to ever fight in the American Army. I would never have asked for you if you weren’t good. I have nothing but the best in my Army. I don’t care what color you are.... Everyone has their eyes on you and is expecting great things from you. Most of all, your race is looking forward to you. Don’t let them down, and damn you, don’t let me down!”

...nothing but the best.... The 761st was mostly paired with the 26th Infantry Division and the two formations formed a lasting relationship throughout the war.

It is true that black soldiers were placed in infantry companies, but not as individual replacements, but as whole platoons, giving the companies so assigned 5 platoons, instead of 4. The 2nd and 99th were two infantry division that received these platoons and can't remember the others.

**clackers** · 13 Oct 09, 07:06

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The other thing you most obviously missed is that regimental histories are written by Captains and Sergeant-Majors.

In other words, what the f_uck do you mean when you don't hold service members' experience against them? Since it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that you have no experience to judge.

I think you should go right ahead and quote from the regimental histories you mention so often, OoE.

Service members and civilians have written both good histories and bad histories, there's nothing anyone can do about that. These could be one, either, or both. Let's find out.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I am not going to waste any further time with you. A book worm has no appreciation of what it means to lug 75lbs a day for 90 days straight, let alone the trust worthiness of a command order.

Well, I don't know how many pounds they lugged and for how long, OoE, but Crerar, Simonds, Vokes, Granatstein and Stacy all served, and would not agree with your assessment.

**Officer of Engineers** · 13 Oct 09, 07:23

Horse Pucky! Montgomery blames the Canadians for not taking the Schelt during Market Garden when he alone was responsible!

**clackers** · 13 Oct 09, 07:34

Originally Posted by Triple C

All in all, he was a good general, but perhaps not the most charitable human being. In many ways, he was a brutish warrior, with a strange concept of martial honor that was in discord with contemporary American ethics.

That he was a strange person, there seems little doubt, Triple C. The 'buffoonery' was often image, though ... there were people close to him who insisted he never swore in conversation, for instance, so there was a lot of showmanship involved in his speeches to the troops and barked orders at slow subordinates. Rather than an anti-intellectual and a blue collar soldier, he was in fact independently wealthy, thoughtful, and very well read, which was quite an achievement given his dyslexia.

But Eisenhower always thought him something of a one-trick pony, "one-dimensional", the phrase might have been. He could do a pursuit of a beaten enemy, such as a weakened Wehrmacht after Normandy or outclassed Italians in 1943, but had little different results from anyone else when faced with real opposition, including Maknassy Pass in Tunisia, Troina in Sicily, pretty much the entire Lorraine campaign, the slog towards Bastogne, and the post Ardennes battles towards the Rhine.

**Officer of Engineers** · 13 Oct 09, 07:43

Originally Posted by clackers

Service members and civilians have written both good histories and bad histories, there's nothing anyone can do about that. These could be one, either, or both. Let's find out.

You're not here to find out. You're not here to learn how we don't like Montgomery. You're just here to just to lecture you are right.

**Kansas Bear** · 14 Oct 09, 02:42

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The last 10% forced a withdrawal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but that was pretty damn good considering they para'd into a Panzer Division, didn't they??

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 Oct 09, 04:05

That they achieved what they achieved was no less than a Herculean effort but in the end, all the gains were for naught as the Allies had to withdraw to regroup.

**dalem** · 14 Oct 09, 04:39

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You're not here to find out. You're not here to learn how we don't like Montgomery. You're just here to just to lecture you are right.

Aye.

-dale

**Kernow** · 14 Oct 09, 05:39

Hey Clacks, are you enjoying winding up OoE?

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 Oct 09, 06:01

Stupid thing is that I gave him the hint that I saw his google fu and if he was honest, his google fu would told him that Montgomery was WRONG about Crerar and that Montgomery assigned mission impossible to the Canadians and then blame the Canadians for not carrying it out.

Gee, I wonder why the Canadian Regiments were p!ssed off.

Clackers, you are so much an idiot that you don't recognize that despite the fact that Simmonds was a better operational officer than Crerar that he never replaced Crerar despite Monty's support - because Ottawa WANTS the 1st Canadian Army to stay together.

Crerar was no Simmonds, far from it but he was a far better General than Montgomery gave him credit for. Juno Beach was Crerar's highlight and I am extremely p!ssed off that you denied him his due. I don't care for your attitude when the facts speak against you.

I've already noticed your attitude vis-a-vi Kitchener against Sam Hughes. The British are better than the Canadians. Screw you!

**Albany Rifles** · 16 Oct 09, 17:00

Originally Posted by Kansas Bear

Correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but that was pretty damn good considering they para'd into a Panzer Division, didn't they??

Of which they should have been informed...which was the responsibility of higher HQ. Brereton, Browning and Montgomery all shared equal responsibility for that debacle.

**zraver** · 04 Nov 09, 23:28

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

The entire battle plan rested with Pearl Harbour. Had Pearl survived as a fighting force, all these questions would have an extremely different outlook.

Sir, given the surpsie handed to the allies by the range and sophistication of Japanese airpower in late 41- early 42 the survival of the US battle fleet at Pearl would not have made a differance. In fact the survival of the fleet there might only have resulted in them later beign complete losses with even greater loss of life when they got sunk from from home in deep waters not a freindly harbor.

Relying on the US fleet to save the day rested on the premise of European superority and incomplete intelligence. The signs were there in the A5M Claude that Japanese avation technology was at best only a generation behind the west. In fact in many ways the technology was equal too or slightly superior to what the allies had. In rough terms the size of the Japanese fleet was also known and one can only wonder WTF was Churchill thinking in sending jsut 2 battleships and a light carrier to take on the Imperial Navy.

**Station 22** · 08 Nov 09, 04:33

How did Hong Kong get pulled into a thread about the ETO?

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Nov 09, 10:13

Also, Z, I like to emphasized something else here. 28 days. That was how long the British expected the war to last ... and if you look further, that ain't too far from the truth from all sides. The Japanese expected the war to last less than 6 months. They had thought the war was over after Pearl and Midway was the final clincher never expecting the US to fight on even if Midway was lost.

Win or lose, HK was never the deciding battle. It was just a measure who negotiates with what when the shooting stopped.

The only thing that threw this nonsense out the window was that the US was p!ssed off.

Thread: Broad Front versus Narrow Front: Who was Right?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Could Germany have won WWII

NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

qestions for anti-CCPs

Red Storm Rising - Tom Clancy

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions