Patton overrated

Yes and now you know why a haven't posted on here.

Oh and by the way the piece here at 10:30 in

Is the British Special Air Service.

 

"How that halted the German advance on Bastogne is anyone's guess."

Nobody has said they did halt the German advance quite the contrary. They did about as much on that score as the 101st Airborne in Bastogne. But like I said, the American public needed a good story.

 

OK since you've all now been rendered speechless, let me sum things up for you.

Firstly personal insults only embolden me. I interpret these as you you having little or no counter arguments. Which of course your recent responses have confirmed to me.

Patton won the Battle of the Bulge? Erm! Nah! He was up against weaker German forces and thanks to the RAF bomber command was free from German counter attacks from the East on his right flank. He rescued Bastogne? BIg deal. The Germans had long since by-passed the town and were fighting on the Meuse. An indication of how much the Germans thought Bastogne important.

The Battle of the Bulge was an American victory? Erm! The area of the battle was mostly in the American sector and did indeed involve 60,000 Americans. That is of course why the Germans chose the area to make an offensive. They considered it the weak point in the allied defenses. What isn't said is that the battle involved 35,000 British and Commonwealth troops who (yes with the help of American units under the command of Montgomery) stopped the Germans in their tracks.

Not enough recognition of the British contribution is forthcoming. I'm still not happy about the American 105mm howitzer units running away and leaving the five British Shermans up against twelve Tigers.

Did you notice the fighting around Bure? British counter attack followed by German counter attack by the Panzer Lehr units. A lot of British graves around Bure.

Oh and you didn't know owing to the bad weather, reconnaissance was done by the British SAS units. Without them the allies would not have known the German positions.

I don't post here much because most on here think that throwing insults is making reasoned arguments. NEWS FLASH! It isn't.

yes I'm only too aware that as Jack Nicholson said - You can't handle the truth.

 

or who gets his history from U-tube videos produced by overly enthusiastic but poor researchers who only deal with the "oh, the breathless excitement of it all". Same guy(s) who tries to claim the Japanese tried to torpedo the Golden Gate Bridge . . . sheesch. If you get your history from videos, you are already behind the curve.

 

You are correct. I've noted how poorly done most are, and riddled with inaccuracies. I swear each time no more, then a catchy title will lure me in and I'll waste more time I'll never get back for poor content.

 

A 15 minute video contains about the same number of words as four pages of text. Videos are for those who would never pick up a book.

 

Yes. its difficult to type while laughing so much.

Well, the evidence is that they actually drive you to go away and sulk for four years but whatever.

Erm, who, pray tell, here ever said "Patton won the Battle of the Bulge"? I am sure you have had the subject of logical fallacies pointed out to you numerous times so I am also sure you know what a straw man argument is.

Erm, BTW, Patton's right flank was secure because the 4th Infantry Division and CCA, 9th Armored Division were able to hold along the Sauer River, not because of any mythical destruction of non-existent bridges by Bomber Command.

Also erm, BTW, the importance placed by the Germans on the road junction at Bastogne is better measured by the priority they assigned to its capture in the planning for HERBSTNEBEL rather than by the modifications to their planning they implemented when they were unable to capture it.

Erm, the area of the battle was entirely in the American sector - the inter army group boundary ran from Geilenkirchen to Brussels after all. About 35 miles to the north.

Erm, BTW, I don't know where your shitty figures come from - oh, wait of course, those got pulled out of you ass - but the total American forces initially engaged of the V and VIII Corps were approximately 102,000. By the end of the battle. approximately 650,000 American troops were committed, compared to about 111,100 Commonwealth troops.

History by random anecdote doesn't help much. Which American "105mm howitzer units"? Which "five British Shermans"? Which twelve Tigers"? When? Where? What evidence do you have of this incident. Erm, BTW, "evidence" is not something some random dude says on his random YouTube program.

Yes, having done the research to generate the strengths and casualties of Allied forces for the ACSDB I rather did notice the fighting around Bure. Without digging I can tell you that British casualties in the 6th Airborne Division for the period 2-16 January 1945 totaled 72 killed, 194 wounded, and 103 missing (most of whom returned). But none are buried around Bure.

Meanwhile, in the same area and fighting similar opponents the 84th Infantry Division suffered 1,556 casualties.

Something tells me you have no idea what the weather was actually like and when or when Allied air reconnaissance sorties were flown. Or that the principal SAS unit involved with 30 Corps, 5 SAS, was BELGIAN rather than BRITISH.

NEWS FLASH - straw man arguments aren't reasonable either. Neither is refusing to provide evidence for your opinions that are other than random YouTube videos.

Are you also aware that was fiction? As are your arguments? Truth is found through evidence and analysis - the Jack Nicholson character you are quoting was being unintentionally ironic because he had been lying constantly up until then - but if that shoe fits you I suggest you wear it.

 

I think you’re nuts. Didn’t an American general say that too.

 

Funny, this feller (who cites an "actual source") seems to think Churchill's speech was in January. I have found it helpful in establishing my own credibility to make a special effort to get the month correct (after that, it's all downhill). Those who read his article (sorry, no YouTube version available), will also see something called "context" surrounding the remarks.

A Closer Look at Churchill’s Battle of the Bulge Quote

A message board is not a doctoral thesis, but there is a reason why some of us insist on seeing some kind of factual basis before hurtling headlong towards the conclusions phase.

 

Not me Gungadin.
Over Christmas and January so far has been a quiet period for me with my book reading.

I've only read four books.

Oh wait! not true. I listened to one whilst decorating my bedroom. Before that it' usually averages about five a week.

Got to admit that reading Ulysses was a mistake.

I have stopped reading the N + 1 "War historian" books. where the authors all quote each other so much they go around in circles all daisy changing their "information" where they eventually disappear up each other's rhetoric.

No I read the break-out-books having realized long ago that the WWII propaganda didn't finish with the surrender of the axis forces.

You'll find out which books soon. Got them ready for the next onslaught on here.

 

I will be sure to bate my breath in anticipation.

 

Methinks you've noticed that these QUOTE " inaccuracies" UNQUOTE are really in the 'please stop disturbing my fluffy bunny rabbit world' category. The kind of 'please don't tell me things I cannot handle' gambit. The sort of 'I cannot handle this therefore it cannot be true' meme. The 'don't bother checking out the new info because I may have to change my world view. '

Seen it many times. They even have a Psychological name for it.

 

By the way Patton's right flank was secure because the Germans were unable to cross the river. Thanks to the RAF.

They planned that much they were fighting beyond Bastogne on the Meuse. Yes you need to see how they coped with 'pockets of resistance' in 1940. They by-passed them.

Yes well it is agreed that the Ardennes area was chosen by the Germans because of the weak resistance there.

Montgomery did have American troops under his command, who fought well when led by a good commander. The figures depend on where you place the fighting old boy and when the battle was agreed to finish. I could play with the figures too.

The incidence is recorded in a book I read. It is no surprise that the incident was suppressed. The "American observer" said that the US unit "scuttled away" .

Someone who doesn't know that another name for a British Reconnaissance unit is Special Air Service. 3 of them were killed by the way. Their names are recorded at Hereford.

My strategy is not giving the books names. We both know that as soon as I say the name the author (i.e. the messenger not the content) will be attacked. Done this many times and I know your Modus Operandi. All will be revealed when I eventually pull out of this particular thread realizing that you're not worth spending part of my life casting pearls before swine on this subject. I'll move on and hit you with something really controversial. This is a mild introduction for you right now.

Like I said. I realised some time ago that when it comes to history and WWII history in particular about 30% of what we've been told is true. The propaganda never stopped.

What was it Churchill said "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

The problem is, the war never stopped it just went cold and moved into proxy wars.

 

Erm, the Germans did cross the Sauer. You live in a fantasyland.

Erm, Bastogne was planned to be seized, bypassing "pockets of resistance" only works until the road-net gets overloaded, as it did in this case. In 1940, the Germans did not bypass pockets of resistance in the Ardennes because then, like later in 1944, they needed the road network cleared. In 1940 though the resistance was weaker and the Belgian Army made the mistake of withdrawing the Chasseuers Ardennais north on the French assurance that the situation was well in hand. The other, more minor resistance they overwhelmed.

No, it is agreed that Hitler chose the Ardennes because he anticipated weak resistance there. He didn;t get it.

After the 12th Army Group was activated on 1 August 1944, The American troops under 21st Army Group were the 82d and 101st Airborne Divisions during MARKET (17 September-13 November and 17 September-9 November respectively) and the Ninth US Army 11-23 November. Following the German attack, both First US and Ninth US Army were attached to 21st Army Group.

That is the response of a paranoid child. Which American "105mm howitzer units"? Which "five British Shermans"? Which twelve Tigers"? When? Where? What evidence do you have of this incident?

Try to get your story straight. And try to understand what you read. The principle SAS unit involved with 30 Corps, 5 SAS, was BELGIAN rather than BRITISH. It was the SAS unit engaged at Bure.

Erm, no, the Special Air Service Regiment is not another name for a British Reconnaissance unit. The SAS was formed as a specialized raiding unit. BTW, what are the names of the three recorded at Hereford? The CWGC does not record any SAS deaths for January 1945.

That isn't strategy but is rather childishness.

Man that's really deep, I mean like, you aren't paranoid if they're really after you.

Yeah, I don;t think you quite understand what Winnie was alluding to.

Is it all because there is a secret cabal of lizard men from Teegeeack that pull the strings?

 

BTW, I forgot to reply to this poppycock.

Special Intelligence, which was what ULTRA was usually referred to (it was also often referred to as "he" apparently to make it seem that it was a HUMINT asset) did track the refurbishment of various units and especially the 6. Panzerarmee but placed its location as forward of the line Bonn-Cologne initially. Later intercepts located it much further north than it actually was thus leading to the assumption that Aachen was the target.

The actual myth making is that "Patton had asked his chief of intelligence to make a study of what would happen if the Germans attacked Hodges' US !st Army, FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE GERMAN OFFENSIVE THROUGH THE ARDENNES and make a study of what the 3rd Army under Patton would do in such scenario. Basically Patton knew something was up on the 12th December."

In fact, there is little real evidence for this other than Patton's diary, which was rewritten multiple times after the fact as Patton shaped his reputation. In fact, the TUSA G-2 ISUMs during the period were all focused on the possibility of a German spoiling attack, but not on the VIII Corps, rather on the V and VII Corps in the Aachen-Duren sector. The contingency planning ordered by Patton was based upon that assumption rather than on presciently anticipating a German counteroffensive directed at the VIII Corps in the Ardennes.

BTW, the order for radio silence issued on 10 December (and decrypted at Bletchley on 12 December) was for SS formations only. Various other Luftwaffe and Heer units continued to chatter on.

See, Memorandum for Major General Clayton Bissel, HMOC/2122, Indications of German Offensive, British Joint Staff Mission, Offices of the Combined Chiefs of Staff, 13 January 1945.

 

Let me give you some personal information.

During the lockdown of 2020 and some of 2021 my daughter came over and stayed with me.

My daughter works as a paid researcher. She speaks French and German and some Dutch.

She has access to manuscripts in the course of her research for an author writing about WWII (she is under contract not to divulge who she researched for).. She showed me one manuscript she had translated for an author and my response was "My God"!

When she showed this to the author he showed it to the publisher. Not only did the publisher say that it cannot be published but my daughter had a visit saying that she should hand over the manuscript immediately, which she did. However she did not hand over her translation which she showed to me.

The manuscript, all I can say here is that it is a record of the Nazi conversations with western allied leaders made at the end of WWII, as far as I can tell will never be published. This is how we know that what we are told about WWII is a mere vestige of what really went on.

Basically no amount of your mickey mouse interpretations of WWII and your insults will change my views.

Sometimes you can know too much.

oh and PS for the record her translation is now "lost"

 

Firstly let me thank you for the intelligent response for a change. references to lizards only make me smile and I realise I dealing with idiots who have no reasoned argument.

Well My Avatar is a clue. I used to lecture on the Enigma machine and SIGINT in general. It is a specialist subject of mine.

Luftwaffe units were a Godsend for Bletchley Park. Their arrogance was their downfall. A bit like here.

For the phrase little real evidence read smoke with fire. You have really no concept of how much information was suppressed, nae destroyed, after WWII. Bletchley Park burned 90% of their signal intercepts after the Axis surrenders. Why?

Anyone who continually trots out the official narrative has little or no interest to me.