Market Garden - Something controversial

I am out of salutes,but,that's the best post of this topic .

 

I only had anecdodal recollection of the Reiter SS, so thought I'd have another shufti.
I see it was the only (?) SS-related organisation specifically excluded from the 'Criminal Organisation' criteria at Nuremberg.
That's interesting, isn't it. Considering so many sites use an association with it to shout NAZI at Bernhard.

So, honorary membership of a Royal European with a known love for Horses into an organisation all about Horses with a certain 'social climbing' aristocratic aura is a surprise or somehow confirms Nazism?
If that's the standard of proof conspiracists rest on (it is), then it's hardly surprising one retains an air of cynicism re. the research quality of their other claims.

But then, obviously, the keyboard-warriors in Icke-land are more diligent and informed than the combined legal and ethical decisions of the tri-partite Nuremberg Lawyers, what with their silly standards of proof, pointless detailed inspections of organisations & associations, mad first-person cross-examinations of personalities & overall loopy 'lets get to the bottom of these bastards' approach.
(Just in case - They're not, obviously. Though oh-so-many of them would doubtless assert the opposite.)

 

The men who made the decision how fast and what risks to take in the advance weren't going to consult him either. As an airborne officer he would have been aware that the nature of airborne operations would take him behind enemy lines without any guarantee of rescue if it all went pear shaped. .

It isn't the first time that someone was faced with this situation. In one of the last attacks on the Somme in November 1916 a party of 60 men of the 16th Bn the Highland Light infantry managed to seize a portion of the German second line Trench http://www.glesga.ukpals.com/folk/forces5a.htm The attempts to relieve these men were called off after 300 casualties had been taken over five days in unsuccessful attacks. Were the commanders right or wrong to throw in so many men for a chance of ensuring that the some of the 60 were rescued and 200 m of second line trenches did not fall back into German hands?

The burden of command is taking some very difficult decisions. Fortunately I do not have to take those decisions or live with the consequences. I try to have some sympathy for those that do. .

 

The Conspiracists are people who are that convinced of the superiority of their own side,that they can not (and never will) accept that their forces could be defeated by the enemy :here: the defeat of MG is impossible:there had to be a traitor .

Carrington and Bernhard (a SS !) were conspiring to sabotage MG : proof :later,they were the head of the Bilderberg group(the invisible government of the Illuminati)

And,also King George VI was involved (the brother of the pro nazi Edward VIII):he was giving Bernhard a clearance .

For Conspiracists everything is clear : there was a mass conspiracy (small conspiracies do not exist). by the Establishment (of course): Rockefeller,Bush,etc,.......


Some times ago,on the ACG site, an other conspiracist was claiming that the failure of Jubilee (Dieppe) was caused by the traitor Mountbatten,who was giving the plans to the Germans.

And,the classic one is PH : as it was impossible that these :angry: censored yellow censored could have sunk US (!) warships,it is obvious that it was all the work of a traitor : FDR.

 

It's worth noteing that even on what look to be fairly straight forward issues one or two "old timers" on this board will take a contrary position. The fact that none have done so here is rather telling.

 

He also says on his own blog that the US knew of the attack in advance and allowed it as a pretext for going to war in the middle east. This is known as the "truther" conspiracy.

 

This post (apart from all the other radio rental stuff) shows a staggering disregard for the realities of Tank warfare in WWII (or any war for that matter).

1. One anti-tank gun could easily destroy 4 Shermans in a couple of minutes.
2. According to Jack Pritchard ( A Grenadier who was there)
"This time sergeant Robinson's troop of four tanks were used. Sergeant Pacey led the attack, with Sergeant Robinson's tank following, and Sergeant Knight together with the 4th Sherman of the troop in the rear. The two rearmost tanks were hit and had to be abandoned , but realizing that his vehicle had not caught fire, Sergeant Knight ordered his crew to remount. " So two of the 4 tanks were damaged.
3. Tanks did not generally fight in the dark and certainly not without Infantry support.
4. Even if they had known there was no enemy between them and Arnhem (which they didn't) what difference would 4 Shermans (2 damaged) have really made once they got there.
5. Controversial!

 

Gentlemen,

I am having some trouble making much sense of this thread as it is all over the place. Bilderburg, Market-Garden, 9-11, Falklands and lord knows what next.

Pick a topic.

Stay on that topic.

Keep your cool and remain polite to your fellow members.

I have never closed a thread or sent somebody to the cooler, but there is always a first time.

For what its worth debating (politely and with class) the possibility of reaching Arnhem seems a reasonable subject, and low and behold, something that actually has something to do with World War Two.

 

With the utmost respect, mate (seriously! not often I say that to anyone), I fail to see where it's gone off-topic?
The original post's premise is a conspiracy-based one.
As far as I can see, that conspiracy is being picked at, and all that picking relates to dismissals of the first premise.
'Something controversial' has led to deeper inspection of a slightly dodgy piece of asserted WW2 history, and seems to be leading to more detailed historical chat like Sheldrake's & Ptimms replies?

Someone's just been mentioning to me that a Guards Lieutenant in '44 would hardly know that his future lay as Foreign Secretary to the UK & associated power/membership of a group, which is sort of an obvious point (sorry 'somebody' ), but is another nugget that undermines this Market Garden conspiracy.
Let's be honest, there are enough Market Garden controversies already - a new one would require stronger legs than this to get it's nose in...

 

Tanks do not generally fight in the dark?

So why make the river assault during daylight?.


It seems to me that everyone is so sure here because nobody has bothered themselves to listen to the testimony of Burriss who'd just watched one of his men take a bullet in the head during the daylight river crossing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oIlDTExMLo

 

The mere mention of the word BILDERBERG seems to trigger a conditioned response.

Fact is we had a Bilderberg meeting here in Watford this year and as a direct result of the protests the Mainstream media was forced kicking and screaming into reporting it for the first time in 60 years.

An elected MP goes to this to offer his view and he gets vilified on here for doing that.

Everyone seems to mention the word Conspiracy here. It's like a mass halucination straight out of Orwell.

Like the bloke in Orwell's 1984 who was so happy that there was not a single piece of meat in his stew.

A mass brainwashed public.

The European Union was formulated at the Bilderberg meetings and it is never reported on. Yes your future is being decided here against everything that is democratic. You only have to look at the type delagates that are there to realise what they're talking about. And nobody seems to care.

 

I've only mentioned Bilderberg. You people aren't ready for the rest of this.

 

WE aren't debating. I mentioned the word BILDERBERG. Everyone thus made the conditioned response and knee jerked.

And now I'm the great unwashed heathen, merely because I dared to make everyone face an unpalatable truth.

We're talking about war here and yet you want a saccarined debate. In my early dotage I'd rather shout at people than shoot at them.

 

There is an edit button if you want to add onto your posts.

 

He means : I am casting pearls before swine

 

This is marvellous, quite piquant.

Conspiratorial piece of 'history' linked quite plainly to the Bilderberg conspiratorial theme (Google Roscoe's little tale) gets rebuffed. Not difficult, as it's so weak in substance.
This triggers a proper 'you people aren't ready for this' response with an implication that we're in the pocket of illuminati masters or sleep-walking through obvious lies.

Not one serious rebuttal of any of the serious points made counter to the original story then, Roscoe?
Anything beyond personal assertion?
Anything that can't be easily picked apart?
Seems unlikely.

 

I'd never even heard of the Bilderberg group until this thread.
Cor, I learn something everyday.
See it never started until 1954 .

 

No, mate, it's obviously older than that, at least as far back as a dark and stormy night in Whitehall during the planning for Market Garden.

Bernhard is an interesting character though. What a time to be born into European Royalty.

 

Or casting swine, which is a complete waste of bacon as far as I'm concerned.

 

Of all the operations in WW2 I do think OMG gets more than it's share of internet time .
I wonder what angle hasn't been covered ?