Why Was V-E Day In 1945 And Not 1944?

[jyl]

A question for the WW2 experts here.

I read a book (well, it was in the bathroom of our cabin, so I read little bits of it) about history as it might have been.

One chapter posited that after the D-Day landings, when the German defenses in Normandy had been broken, the Allies had the German Army on the run. Patton and Montgomery were advancing rapidly through France, the Shermans were covering hundreds of miles a day, German armies were being cut off and bypassed, and the German command was in disarray. The author claimed that, had Allied Supreme Command been more daring, more fully comprehended the potential of their breakout, or been less solicitous of the British desire to have a fair share of the resources and fight, the Allies could have given their commanders the reins and Allied armies could have cut large parts of Germany off from Hitler's control in 1944. At that point, so the claim goes, the German generals would have surrendered because they knew an early defeat on the Western Front was the only way to save the Fatherland from a brutal occupation by the Russians. The author concluded that Eisenhower, Churchill, and Roosevelt's mistakes caused the war to continue deep into 1945 with all the suffering that resulted - millions more Jews and Germans incinerated in concentration camps and firebombings, countless battle deaths, and half of Germany under Soviet occupation for decades. According to this book, we don't talk about this because history is written by the victors, especially the victors who go on to become two-term Presidents.

I had always read that the initial advances in France bogged down not because of strategic blunders by the Allied top command, but because Montgomery was too cautious, Patton's tanks ran too far beyond their supply lines, and the Germans fought harder as they were pressed back toward their homeland.

What do you guys think? I know some of you know a very great deal about WW2 history.

[red-beard]

If Market Garden had occurred something like 1 week later, a big chunk of the German army wouldn't have been there, and it might have succeeded.

I think the initial intention was to be in Berlin by Christmas, but breaking out of Normandy was tougher than they thought it would be. The Germans had well thought out defenses that worked, on the cheap.

There are so many what ifs. What if Hitler had sued for peace with the Brits after invading France, instead of planning to invade England? What if Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR, and concentrated on England? So many mistakes on both sides, that could have made huge differences.

[imcarthur]

But I imagine at the time that it was supply lines. It's in Army Commander 101 Lesson 1. If your army can't eat & you can't re-arm it, you will lose.

Ian

[Rick Lee]

If the Allies had been making hundreds of miles per day, they'd have liberated Paris in under a week after D-Day. And that didn't happen. Hitler was never going to surrender. Maybe, had the Valkyrie plot succeeded, 1944 would have been it. But it's all mental masturbation.

[RPKESQ]

There were many reasons, but the main reason was lack of supplies for the ground combat troops. The Allies could not supply two large army groups with enough for full-out continuous attack at the same time. The reason for this was that the Germans still controlled the ports, so all Allied supplies had to come through the Normandy beach-head.

This supply problem was so great that even after the Normandy breakout, Eisenhower had to continually switch who was going to get the majority of supplies from the Northern Army Group (run by Montgomery) to the Southern group (run by Bradley).

This supply problem was not fully resolved until after the war. Many Atlantic ports were held by the Germans until the final German surrender. Those that did surrender earlier were so destroyed by the Germans as to be mostly unusable.

In retrospect they should have given Patton what he repeatedly asked for, which was all the supplies. By letting Monty be a holding position (the anvil), Patton could have run amok through the Germans as the hammer. But, inter-Allied politics would not have let that happen and at the time it was not as clear to the Allies which was the best strategy. Thats why Eisenhower decided on a "broad front" strategy.

Which might have lengthen the war. Another deciding factor was how fast the Russians could advance. I see no evidence that Germany would have surrendered any faster unless the Russians were able to advance faster (the had their own supply problems).

[Jim Sims]

Wasted men, resources and time in the North African, Sicily and Italian campaigns. Some "soft underbelly" that was.

[emcon5]

20/20 Hindsight is a cold SOB. Things that seem quite obvious now were not at the time.

Most people don't realize that if not for a few key bad decisions by Hitler, it could be a very different world. It has been a few years since I did any reading on this topic, but here is a partial list:

1: Pact with Japan. If he could have kept the US out of it longer, Britain may have fallen. Without this pact, the US would have focused on the Pacific post Dec 7, instead of Europe.

2: Invading the USSR in general was a bad idea, but there were a couple other bad decisions that compounded it:

2a: treating the Soviet people horribly. At first many welcomed the Germans as liberators from Stalin. If Hitler would have played up that role, resistance would likely have been much less, and Stalin may have even been removed by whatever was left of the Red Army (post purges) and the people. The Russian people got rid of one government not too long before this.

2b: Spending a month screwing around in the Balkans and Greece bailing out Mussolini, and diverting troops to these areas as well as Africa. Had the invasion of Russia started a month earlier as initially planned, Moscow may have fallen before winter hit.

3: At the beginning of the war, forbidding any long term weapons development. Hitler believed that any research that would not produce a workable weapon within 12 months(IIRC) was a waste of effort, as the war would be over by then. The ME 262 jet fighter had been in development a year when the war started, but didn't enter service for another 6 years. Other innovations like guided anti-ship missiles also came too late to have any effect on the outcome.

4: Changing the focus of air attacks in the Battle of Britain from RAF airfields to civilian centers. The happened largely by accident, some German bombers dropped their bombs over a darkened London. Attacks on civilian centers were something which had been specifically banned by Hitler. After Nazi bombs hit London the RAF (who didn't know it wasn't planed) retaliated by attacking Berlin. Hitler ordered a change of targets to Industry and cities, and gave the RAF the break they needed to repair airfields and radar stations. The rest is as they say, History.

If any of these things had been done differently the outcome may have been entirely different, and the world would be a much different, much uglier place.

Another big "what if":

I saw a show on the History Channel (I think) on the "Secrets of Pearl Harbor" that made an interesting point, that with the forces involved a surprise attack inside Pearl Harbor was about the best possible outcome for the United States.

Had the US Navy had adequate warning and sortied to meet the Japanese fleet, they probably would have lost, and instead of having the damaged ships in nice shallow water of Pearl Harbor, they would have been out in the open ocean. The majority of the damaged and sunk ships were raised or repaired.

For example, the Battleship California was sunk in the attack. She had a crew of around 1100, and lost only 100 in the with 62 wounded. Had the California sunk in open water, the losses almost certainly would have been worse, and the ship never would have been re-floated in 3 months, and seen action before the end of the war.

Originally Posted by Jim Sims

Wasted men, resources and time in the North African, Sicily and Italian campaigns. Some "soft underbelly" that was.

Well North Africa, Sicily and Italy wasted a lot of Axis men and resources as well, and quite frankly, the Allies had a lot more of both. Three Panzer divisions were largely destroyed in Africa, (15th, 21st, Herman Göring). The Italian campaign was less decisive, but still ate up a lot of men and resources that would have served Germany better elsewhere.

[tabs]

The mistake Hitler made was declaring war on the USA after Pearl, that solved FDR and Churchills problem of how to get the USA into the war with Germany.

Montys line of attack was the shorter route to Berlin.

Hitler knew that if Germany surrendered it would be the end of him, so why surrender?
Keitle told Guderian in 1943 that Germany had 150,000 casualities a month without fighting any major battles and that they could only replace 75,000 men a month.

Hitler also said that if he knew the Russians had 10,000 tanks he would never have invaded Russia.

Guderian also said in so many words that the assination plot to kill Hitler with a bomb in 44was a joke, as all the officers were allowed to carry their pistols with them to the briefings up to that point.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

There were many reasons, but the main reason was lack of supplies for the ground combat troops. The Allies could not supply two large army groups with enough for full-out continuous attack at the same time. The reason for this was that the Germans still controlled the ports, so all Allied supplies had to come through the Normandy beach-head.

This supply problem was so great that even after the Normandy breakout, Eisenhower had to continually switch who was going to get the majority of supplies from the Northern Army Group (run by Montgomery) to the Southern group (run by Bradley).

This supply problem was not fully resolved until after the war. Many Atlantic ports were held by the Germans until the final German surrender. Those that did surrender earlier were so destroyed by the Germans as to be mostly unusable.

In retrospect they should have given Patton what he repeatedly asked for, which was all the supplies. By letting Monty be a holding position (the anvil), Patton could have run amok through the Germans as the hammer. But, inter-Allied politics would not have let that happen and at the time it was not as clear to the Allies which was the best strategy. Thats why Eisenhower decided on a "broad front" strategy.

Which might have lengthen the war. Another deciding factor was how fast the Russians could advance. I see no evidence that Germany would have surrendered any faster unless the Russians were able to advance faster (the had their own supply problems).

+1

In the final analysis even if the Allies in France were better supplied it would be doubtfull that they could have finished the Germans before 1945. The closer to German soil the harder they fought, and they were a tenacious lot.

[charleskieffner]

the truth? you guys cant handle the truth!

because we were fighting vets from the russian front and one of the worlds greatest armies ever built up to that time. we were not fighting a bunch of old men and kids yet.

the SS battalions were hardcore nazi *******s who would die for the vaterland and make damn sure regular grunts fought or they were executed.

some 25000 krauts were killed by their own army for desertion or failure to fight the enemy. thats a damn strong message to the regular grunt.

also once we roared thru france until patton ran out of fuel and monkeyboy montgomery needed some stage time, the krauts were fighting for their own lives families country. you fight much different when your country/family is at stake.

the scarey thang is those goofy ass freeking nazi war mongerers had some POO up their sleeves that could very easily changed the final outcome.

ex. tanks- complicated production but nothing we had equaled them.

jets- nuff said there. a few 1000 would have wiped out the bomber forces

ships-bizmark/tirpitz/prince eugen-not exactly lil row boats

das boots-nuff said look at the late model circumnavigate the globe models and the japs huge subs in 1944-45.

sturmgewehers- full auto assault rifles. short production numbers due to goofball hitler but none the less lethal

panzerfausts/panzershreks-god am i glad i wasnt in a "tommy cooker" sherman POS

rockets-V-1/V-2-nuff said there

stealth-watch history channel

kubelwagons und swimmelwagons............without those we wouldnt be here. think about it.

nuklar technology.........had they had more time.


all important ideas that made the allies look like "romper room". we bought time by cranking out umpteen gazzilion shermans/jeeps/planes etc. our mfg capability was bigger and thats what kicked the nazis ass in the end.

ex. 16 shermans surround 1 ferdinand panzer. end result: no panzer and only 3 shermans left. no brainer.

manufacturing won the war.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by tabs

Guderian also said in so many words that the assination plot to kill Hitler with a bomb in 44was a joke, as all the officers were allowed to carry their pistols with them to the briefings up to that point.

Too bad von Stauffenberg wanted to survive to complete the coup. Otherwise, he might have gotten it done with a gun.

[charleskieffner]

do most of you realize HOW INEPT MONTGOMERY WAS?????


rommel kicked his ASS beaucoup times.

do you realize HOW INEPT MARK CLARK AND BRADLEY WERE? anzio and salerno come to mind.

we are damn lucky we did have PATTON!

present day example. we had hussein on the run and bush sr. calls off going into bagdad. bush jr has to go in and clean the mess up.


if a general doesnt exhibit patton like patterns FIRE HIS ASS!

the only good general is juan that wants toe tags on every single stinking bad guy!

every single stinking war we find ourselves in we have some panzy ass generals that want to be kinder gentleer to the enemy.

its war for christ sake! bomb/burn/nuke/vaporize every single juan of the enemy until we either win their hearts and minds or they no longer have the will to fight.

curtis lemay comes to mind also. once lemay started bombing the living snot out of the japs, things gained momentum. lemay killed more japs burning their asses fire bombing cities than both nukes killed!


WE SHOULD ALL THANK GOD HITLER WAS A FEEKING IDIOT! had they had a sane uber fuhrer we may all be speaking german today.

had the stinking krauts had 4-5 more years of weapons production capability.............we would have been TOAST!

we were very very very lucky in many many instances. and it sure as hell isnt rocket science to figure it all out.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by charleskieffner

do most of you realize HOW INEPT MONTGOMERY WAS?????


rommel kicked his ASS beaucoup times.

do you realize HOW INEPT MARK CLARK AND BRADLEY WERE? anzio and salerno come to mind.

we are damn lucky we did have PATTON!

present day example. we had hussein on the run and bush sr. calls off going into bagdad. bush jr has to go in and clean the mess up.


if a general doesnt exhibit patton like patterns FIRE HIS ASS!

the only good general is juan that wants toe tags on every single stinking bad guy!

every single stinking war we find ourselves in we have some panzy ass generals that want to be kinder gentleer to the enemy.

its war for christ sake! bomb/burn/nuke/vaporize every single juan of the enemy until we either win their hearts and minds or they no longer have the will to fight.

curtis lemay comes to mind also. once lemay started bombing the living snot out of the japs, things gained momentum. lemay killed more japs burning their asses fire bombing cities than both nukes killed!


WE SHOULD ALL THANK GOD HITLER WAS A FEEKING IDIOT! had they had a sane uber fuhrer we may all be speaking german today.

had the stinking krauts had 4-5 more years of weapons production capability.............we would have been TOAST!

we were very very very lucky in many many instances. and it sure as hell isnt rocket science to figure it all out.

Most of these opinions are not based on facts.

Monty was a pretty good general all told.

Patton was not our only decent general, nor was he our best.

Bush jr. did not clean up his fathers mess, he started his own mess which he had to pass on because he was an idiot as far as understanding what he was getting into.

Curtiss Lemay, left to his own devices would have started WWIII in a heartbeat. At least in post WWII he was certifiably insane.

If Germany had "an uber fuhrer" we would have not had WWII. It is never sane to start a war against peaceful neighbors.

With Hitler, another 4 or 5 years would not have changed the outcome. The Germans were very good and fighting battles, but the were very poor in planning and running an extended war. All of Germany's victories in the last few wars were due to short campaigns. They had no general staff expertise in running an extended war, and that weakness it showed repeatedly in both WWI and WWII.

[tcar]

Ike was 'playing politics'. He shunted suppies that needed to go to Patton to Monty, even after Monte's Market Garden fiasco.

Extended the war and the deaths by months.

The Cave Creek guy is pretty right on.

[charleskieffner]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Most of these opinions are not based on facts.

Monty was a pretty good general all told.

Patton was not our only decent general, nor was he our best.

Bush jr. did not clean up his fathers mess, he started his own mess which he had to pass on because he was an idiot as far as understanding what he was getting into.

Curtiss Lemay, left to his own devices would have started WWIII in a heartbeat. At least in post WWII he was certifiably insane.

If Germany had "an uber fuhrer" we would have not had WWII. It is never sane to start a war against peaceful neighbors.

With Hitler, another 4 or 5 years would not have changed the outcome. The Germans were very good and fighting battles, but the were very poor in planning and running an extended war. All of Germany's victories in the last few wars were due to short campaigns. They had no general staff expertise in running an extended war, and that weakness it showed repeatedly in both WWI and WWII.

hmmmmm not based on facts:::

monty was an IDIOT! period. he liked looking in the mirror and being prim and proper ie. pleats pleated,creases creased,shirts/pants pressed,starched despite 122 degree F heat. (TRY TELLING ME HOW TO DRESS IN 115 DEGREE HEAT, I LIVE IN IT! TRY TELLING ME HOW TO FIGHT A WAR IN 115 DEGREE HEAT!) meanwhile his troops were lacking across the board on supplies, his headstrong ways leant itself to head on tank thrusts without supporting infantry and they were slaughtered and then when infantry did arrive, they were slaughtered by the panzers and 88's outflanking them. least of all operation market garden which was a debacle of legendary proportions. rommel ceased to exist as a quality general ONLY when supplies ran short and monty who was supplied by the u.s. had more tanks(back to the 1 panzer vs 16 matildas/shermans angle) to overpower the panzers. tanks/fuel/food/men/ammo/water/planes was the key ingredients to anyones success there. monty won by default NOT battlefield awareness.

kasserine pass is a fine example where we the u.s. had our asses handed to us until patton took over and whipped the u.s. into shape. hard lessons learned there.



mark clark and omar bradley, damn near almost had their ass's handed to them and almost were driven back into the SEA because of lack of correct intelligence, lack of get the hell off the beach and move inland attitude.

do you think patton would have hung out at the anzio beach grabbing some rays/drinking vino and chasing naughty italian girls?????

now we move onto d-day. who achieved their objectives. not the canadians or brits. both got hung up by nasty fierce diehard nazis with panzers and once again montys stupid ass headlong attacks into the hedgerows. im surprised as hell patton didnt just SHOOT THE DUMB SON OF A *****! about 20 times thruout the entire war!

eisenhower was the only person that put up with monty and that was because he was churchills pick and we didnt want any interservice rivalry.

curtis lemay was a GOD! he knew exactly how to win a war and thats what its all ABOUT! cuz if ya aint WINNING..............YER GONNA DIE!

most allies did not want hitler killed because ULTRA had revealed his stupid ass ways, and our fear they may get another INTELLIGENT NAZI that might figure things out at a greater cost of life to us. hitler WAS A GODSEND for our war effort. ANY COMPETENT LEADER would have not made multiple thrusts in the east/west/south at one time and fight supply lines and weather. a moron can figure out to fight one battle at a time. hitler/fag boy goering actually HELPED OUR WAR EFFORT BY BEING A DUMBASS!

another 4-5 years of :

panzer mfg.
underseebote mfg
v-1 mfg
v-2 mfg
capital ship mfg
nuklar mfg
stealth mfg(horten 229)
me 163 me 262 und so veiter jet production
bomber production etc.

would have lent itself..................to entire planet as a SCORCHED EARTH POLICY! had the goofy ass nazis been able to perfect a nuke planted into a V-2 or its kinder the planned nazi ICBM!

bush sr. = first gulf war-the kinder/gentleer/we love you man war. now be good/we have spanked you and dont be bad again. this will always historically haunt bush sr. for NOT marching into bagdad and blowing saddam into itty-bitty -lil pieces.

bush jr. goes into bagdad and hangs saddam. meanwhile internet moron insurgents gain power, we get caught in 3-way power vacum with sunnis/****tes/kurds and we get to be police force. hey man who would have thunk it? morons had a bunch of firecrackers and they believed that crap ya get 40 virgins if ya die for allah jive. a fine example of what LACK OF QUALITY EDUCATION can do for a country! or another fine example of HOW RELIGION CAN BECOME DISTORTED TO JUANS VIEWS and GOALS!

trust me...............i aint SEEN NOJUAN WITH 40 VIRGINS EVER IN MY LIFE! alive or dead!

[tabs]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Most of these opinions are not based on facts.

Monty was a pretty good general all told.

Patton was not our only decent general, nor was he our best.

Bush jr. did not clean up his fathers mess, he started his own mess which he had to pass on because he was an idiot as far as understanding what he was getting into.

Curtiss Lemay, left to his own devices would have started WWIII in a heartbeat. At least in post WWII he was certifiably insane.

If Germany had "an uber fuhrer" we would have not had WWII. It is never sane to start a war against peaceful neighbors.

With Hitler, another 4 or 5 years would not have changed the outcome. The Germans were very good and fighting battles, but the were very poor in planning and running an extended war. All of Germany's victories in the last few wars were due to short campaigns. They had no general staff expertise in running an extended war, and that weakness it showed repeatedly in both WWI and WWII.

Now U have gone and done it...

Monty like MacArthur were primadonna egotists. Monty thought he should be running the Big Show and not Ike. Monty made some major guffaws. First at Normandy he played it cautious and didn't move off the beaches quick enough, second was Market Garden. Third he was continually sniping at Patton and Ike. If it weren't for deference to the Brits, he should of been sacked.

Now in Montys defence the British manpower pool was pretty much exhausted by 1943. They couldn't replace the manpower if lost, so to stay in the game they had ot playit more cautiousily.

Patton was bold and had clarity of purpose.

Yes GW was "an idiot as far as understanding the consequences" of Iraq. Bushes problem stems from his lack of curosity, he delegates the fact finding to subordinates who he is like minded with and therefore trusts their judgment. Out of GW's sense of loyalty it has to be painfully proven without a shadow of a doubt that his subordinate has fked up bad. Then Bush will self correct and find another solution to the problem. This he did time and time again, the Surge being the most obvious.

Now the more Liberal members of this audience will not like what I have just stated about GW , but those are the facts.

With the advent of Nuclear weapons in the hands of both parties, Le May was a loose cannon. He was living in the past.

It is not necessarily so that an "uber Fureher" would not have attacked his "peacefull neighbors." That peacefull means are a universal good, this is a moral value judgement on the part of its author. Given the fact that Hitlers agenda was agressive for the sake of the German nation what needs to be looked at are the decisions he made in the conduct of that war.

Hitler made both good decisions and terrible blunders.. His invasion of France and Norway turned out to be brilliant. His letting the Brits off at Dunkirk, by not allowing the German Army led by the Panzer diviosns to finish them off. He did this because he held the mistaken belief that he could still make peace with Britain. His turning to bombing London instead of keep after the real prize of air supreamacy over Britain. His turning away from finishing off the job with Britain to take on a larger and tougher foe the Russians. Thus violating the 2 front rule of a land locked nation. His turning his Panzer divisions south to encircle large Russian forces instead of keeping his eyes on the prize of Moscow. A good decision was that in the German piull back during the winter of 1941, he told his army to stand fast. It worked out the Russians spent thier strength. His truning South for the 1942 campaign and his desire to take the resource rich South. He should have consolidated his gains by finishing off Lenningrad and taking Moscow. Lenningrad would have freed manpower that was otherwise tied up, and if you look at a map of Russia, ALL ROADS AND RAIL LINES GO THROUGH MOSCOW. His turning of Russian sentiment from being seen as liberators to mass murderers. His insistance that Stalingrad be held instead of pulling his manpower short nations Armies out of encirclement. His declaring war on the USA, in the mistaken belief that Japan would honor the Pact and declare war on Russia to. His lauching of operation Citadel into the teeth of the lion. His stuborness that the ME 262 be turned into a bomber, which delayed its deplyment till it was too late. This all set the stage for germanys ultimate defeat.

Contrary to popular belief Hitler did think that the invasion would be at Normandy. It was his High Command that thought it would be elsewhere.

Also the popular notion of German effiency and cordination is amyth of Hitlers leadership style. Germany was a fiefdom where the leadership were all vying for power and were prtective of their own spheres of influence. Case in point was the lack of cordination betwen the German Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe in the conduct of the war in the Alantic. The fact that the Luftwaffe fielded Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions. It was only Speer who with the unflappable support of Hitler was able to bring the German industrial might under cordinated effort. To that end Hitlers Germany was doomed to failure from the outset.

[tabs]

The Germans stopped trying to produce an A bomb in 1942.

Hitler was always worried about his health and not being able to accomplish his visions. Germany was planning to go to war by 1945. Hitler felt that if he did not do it, his 1000 year Reich would not see frutiion as he was the will of the nation. It is a good bet that a helath issue with Hitler forced him to speed up his plans. It is likely that he had Parkinsons diesase, and that time was not on his side.

Without Hitler the NAZI movement didn't exist. He was the catalyst, all the others were in his shadow and served at his will.

With another 5 years or so, the West and Russia would have been much stronger to.

[charleskieffner]

if you collate all the VEAPONS der vaterland came up with/R&D'd/prototyped/mfg'd that are in USE TODAY and or their variants..................it is mindboggling and scarey.

back then yer driving yer lil ass sherman or french renault tank and around the corner is konigstiger with an 88mm! YIKES! end result: reactive armour/sloping armour in todays abrahms

you think yer a bad ass and the next thing you run into a WIRBELWHIND! YIKES! "hey man your supposed to use that on planes not infantry!" tell the krauts that juan. end result: todays phlanx platform/dillons mini-gun/ac-130's

yer in piss ant sherman and a kraut whips out a panzershrek/panzerfaust. end result: todays RPG and all the worlds variants.

you come trooping along thru the hedgerows and suddenly yer mincemeat RAT A TAT TAT! by a MG42. end result: todays HK-21/our M-60 all can trace roots back.

go to white sands miss-kill range(i werked there) and watch the evolution of V-1's and V-2's into todays veapons platforms.


in afrika/the atlantic sub war, there still was a battlefield code btwn the brits and the krauts. once one side surrendered or lost they played "nice-nice" relatively speaking.

once we hit sicily the gloves were off and it became a "take no prisoners " real deal!

actually once news of the nazi death camps became common knowledge the SS were dead men even before they were killed and they knew it, hence their fight for every house scorched earth policy.

samo in russia. after all the brutal behavior on the krauts part, once the IVANS gained steam there was also a "take no prisoners" real deal going down , hence the insane fights for nothing let alone a valuable resource or geographic site.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by charleskieffner

hmmmmm not based on facts:::

monty was an IDIOT! period. he liked looking in the mirror and being prim and proper ie. pleats pleated,creases creased,shirts/pants pressed,starched despite 122 degree F heat. (TRY TELLING ME HOW TO DRESS IN 115 DEGREE HEAT, I LIVE IN IT! TRY TELLING ME HOW TO FIGHT A WAR IN 115 DEGREE HEAT!) meanwhile his troops were lacking across the board on supplies, his headstrong ways leant itself to head on tank thrusts without supporting infantry and they were slaughtered and then when infantry did arrive, they were slaughtered by the panzers and 88's outflanking them. least of all operation market garden which was a debacle of legendary proportions. rommel ceased to exist as a quality general ONLY when supplies ran short and monty who was supplied by the u.s. had more tanks(back to the 1 panzer vs 16 matildas/shermans angle) to overpower the panzers. tanks/fuel/food/men/ammo/water/planes was the key ingredients to anyones success there. monty won by default NOT battlefield awareness.

kasserine pass is a fine example where we the u.s. had our asses handed to us until patton took over and whipped the u.s. into shape. hard lessons learned there.



mark clark and omar bradley, damn near almost had their ass's handed to them and almost were driven back into the SEA because of lack of correct intelligence, lack of get the hell off the beach and move inland attitude.

do you think patton would have hung out at the anzio beach grabbing some rays/drinking vino and chasing naughty italian girls?????

now we move onto d-day. who achieved their objectives. not the canadians or brits. both got hung up by nasty fierce diehard nazis with panzers and once again montys stupid ass headlong attacks into the hedgerows. im surprised as hell patton didnt just SHOOT THE DUMB SON OF A *****! about 20 times thruout the entire war!

eisenhower was the only person that put up with monty and that was because he was churchills pick and we didnt want any interservice rivalry.

curtis lemay was a GOD! he knew exactly how to win a war and thats what its all ABOUT! cuz if ya aint WINNING..............YER GONNA DIE!

most allies did not want hitler killed because ULTRA had revealed his stupid ass ways, and our fear they may get another INTELLIGENT NAZI that might figure things out at a greater cost of life to us. hitler WAS A GODSEND for our war effort. ANY COMPETENT LEADER would have not made multiple thrusts in the east/west/south at one time and fight supply lines and weather. a moron can figure out to fight one battle at a time. hitler/fag boy goering actually HELPED OUR WAR EFFORT BY BEING A DUMBASS!

another 4-5 years of :

panzer mfg.
underseebote mfg
v-1 mfg
v-2 mfg
capital ship mfg
nuklar mfg
stealth mfg(horten 229)
me 163 me 262 und so veiter jet production
bomber production etc.

would have lent itself..................to entire planet as a SCORCHED EARTH POLICY! had the goofy ass nazis been able to perfect a nuke planted into a V-2 or its kinder the planned nazi ICBM!

bush sr. = first gulf war-the kinder/gentleer/we love you man war. now be good/we have spanked you and dont be bad again. this will always historically haunt bush sr. for NOT marching into bagdad and blowing saddam into itty-bitty -lil pieces.

bush jr. goes into bagdad and hangs saddam. meanwhile internet moron insurgents gain power, we get caught in 3-way power vacum with sunnis/****tes/kurds and we get to be police force. hey man who would have thunk it? morons had a bunch of firecrackers and they believed that crap ya get 40 virgins if ya die for allah jive. a fine example of what LACK OF QUALITY EDUCATION can do for a country! or another fine example of HOW RELIGION CAN BECOME DISTORTED TO JUANS VIEWS and GOALS!

trust me...............i aint SEEN NOJUAN WITH 40 VIRGINS EVER IN MY LIFE! alive or dead!

Sorry, this diatribe is typical from someone who has learned about WWII from the History Channel.

History does not back up your opinions. Common misconceptions and urban myths are the basis for your opinions. Reality seemingly has no bearing on your worldview. It would be interesting to review the history education and study you have engaged in and accomplished. Care to share?

[tabs]

Those Wiberwindys were copies of Stalin's Organs...
In 1940 those Renault's were superior to Panzer Mk1 and MK2s which were the backbone of der panzer divisions. The Germans beat the Frogs with mass tanks instead of the piecemeal French and Brit approach.

When Hitler hit the IVANS in 1941 the MK 3's etc were out matched by the T-34's and KV1's. It was quality of leadership, training, moral and organization that served the Krauts so well in 41. A puny 37 was not going to penetrate the armour of a T34. Only the improved MK4 was able to hold their own against the Russkies.

One of the reasons the German offensive ground to a halt in the autumn of 41 was that the German tanks had NARROW treads and the IVANS tanks had wide treads which allowed them to slog through the mud. It was only when the ground froze that the Germans were able to restart their offensive.


Later Kraut panzer's had heavier guns and wider treads.