95 replies to this topic

[Vollketten]

Schleicher, on May 15 2012 - 00:20, said:

1) Much of the problem with Monty comes in the immediate aftermath, where he did alot to overplay his - and England's - role in winning the war. Whether this was national pride and ego speaking, or a rather desperate attempt to get the British more aid following the war is up for debate.
2) Monty and Auchinleck were good commanders, factually, but were, basically, over-careful.
3) Calling Market-Garden a "success" is wrong. It was not successful in and of itself - it's consequences were positive, but none of the goals which it aimed to meet were met.

I don't think it is really possibly to 'overplay' it. France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark all under Nazi Control and only Britain (with its Commonwealth) stood against the vast might of the Nazi military machine from 1939 until 1941. (and effectively 1942) stood alone. It could have easily had a peace with Hitler (how long for is a different topic) but under Churchill it chose to fight on and suffered appaling losses in doing so. The blitz on London, Coventry and other cities claimed tens of thousands of lives (over 40,000 by May 1941 alone). The sacrifice paid by these people is easy to underestimate especially if you have not had your cities razed to the ground like Coventry was. I think that if anything post-war the British did not state strongly enough their part in victory and allowed the US to to claim the lions share of success. (I mean most people forget that there were 5 invasion beaches at D-Day, only two of which were American) If I remember correctly the German Army North surrended to Monty on May 4th 1945. I think there is a reason for that.

I dont think that Market Garden could be described as anything but daring. I dont think they were over-cautious at all. Patton can be seen as showing a disregard for the safety of his men, I dont think the same can be said of Monty. Without Auckinleck General Slims forces in Burma could not have defeated the Japanese prolonging the Pacific War. (Yes-its true the British and Commonwelth also fought the Japanese but are all but forgotten by history especially here in the US) Auckinleck was a stalwart and solid general with a strong background and like Monty had experienced WW1 at first hand and the slaughter involved. If both chose not to repeat it with 'over-caution' it is understandable. Careful yes, 'over-cautious' implying that they were dilly-dallying definately not. There was simply too much at stake at El-Alamein for Monty to gamble. It was a close thing which proves why he was right to build his forces prior to battle.
Rommels WW1 experience showed him that he had to strike hard and fast to acheive tactical victory and favored smaller more nimble forces to do so. When he was stopped and confronted as Monty did his forces were destroyed effectively ending the N.African war by taking away Rommels ability to wage war. Defeating your enemy by pushing them back does not mean you win, you have to remove their war-fighting ability as well.

Schleicher, on May 15 2012 - 00:20, said:

They had a fantastic leader in Winnie Churchill, if one who was a bit too anglophile and one who had no (or next to no) tactical ability. It is argued that the reason behind the (nation-building-ly) disastrous Gallipolli campaign was Churchill's (he was First Lord of the Sea) desire to get the Royal Navy into the War (because sailing Dreadnoughts into mines is FUN!).

Winston Churchill did have tactical ability, experiences in the Boer War and leading the 'Battle of Sidney Street' he was very pro-British....what is wrong with beleiving in what you fight for? or being anglophile for that matter?
Yes, Gallipoli was his idea-it didn't work. (I think the Mel-gibson-Gallipoli-British-tea-drinking-on-the-beach-version-of-history idea should be viewed carefully, there were more than just Australians involved. Mel-Gibson and history do not mix very well-just look at the appaling movie 'The Patriot'.) Yes-The Gallipoli campaign was unsuccessful and it certainly did help build the nations of Australia and New Zealand but not because of the 'poor-British-control-let-the-Aussies-do-all-the-work' that people like Mel-Gibson might like to think but because they were brought together in national grief and unity by the slalughter. the losses at Gallippoli (I had a family member die there) were comparable to losses on the Western front (at least 6 family members died there and still counting)
The reason by the way that Australians and other troops from the Commonwealth were used was not because they were viewed as 'expendable' but becuase they were held in very high regard by the British and later by Rommel for that matter because of their physical toughness and fighting tenacity.

Tanks were also part of his 'area of influence' as First Sea Lord. I think they proved to be successful. He was a big proponent of amphibious landings as a way of breaking defensive lines and landing troops. Without the experiences of Gallipoli, and Dieppe and others D-Day would not have been the success it was.

I think we should all be careful and mindful that hindsight is a wonderful thing and that it is easy to judge Churchill, Monty and others harshly. Being negative is easy and they lack the hollywood machine to sell them to the movie going public. The reality as always is slightly harder to fathom. Yes they made mistakes but WW2 would have been a lot harder to fight or may have been lost without them and others like them.

I think you are being too judgmental on both Monty and Churchill.

[Sealteam6]

Vollketten, on May 15 2012 - 14:43, said:

I don't think it is really possibly to 'overplay' it. France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark all under Nazi Control and only Britain (with its Commonwealth) stood against the vast might of the Nazi military machine from 1939 until 1941. (and effectively 1942) stood alone. It could have easily had a peace with Hitler (how long for is a different topic) but under Churchill it chose to fight on and suffered appaling losses in doing so. The blitz on London, Coventry and other cities claimed tens of thousands of lives (over 40,000 by May 1941 alone). The sacrifice paid by these people is easy to underestimate especially if you have not had your cities razed to the ground like Coventry was. I think that if anything post-war the British did not state strongly enough their part in victory and allowed the US to to claim the lions share of success. (I mean most people forget that there were 5 invasion beaches at D-Day, only two of which were American) If I remember correctly the German Army North surrended to Monty on May 4th 1945. I think there is a reason for that.

I dont think that Market Garden could be described as anything but daring. I dont think they were over-cautious at all. Patton can be seen as showing a disregard for the safety of his men, I dont think the same can be said of Monty. Without Auckinleck General Slims forces in Burma could not have defeated the Japanese prolonging the Pacific War. (Yes-its true the British and Commonwelth also fought the Japanese but are all but forgotten by history especially here in the US) Auckinleck was a stalwart and solid general with a strong background and like Monty had experienced WW1 at first hand and the slaughter involved. If both chose not to repeat it with 'over-caution' it is understandable. Careful yes, 'over-cautious' implying that they were dilly-dallying definately not. There was simply too much at stake at El-Alamein for Monty to gamble. It was a close thing which proves why he was right to build his forces prior to battle.
Rommels WW1 experience showed him that he had to strike hard and fast to acheive tactical victory and favored smaller more nimble forces to do so. When he was stopped and confronted as Monty did his forces were destroyed effectively ending the N.African war by taking away Rommels ability to wage war. Defeating your enemy by pushing them back does not mean you win, you have to remove their war-fighting ability as well.


Winston Churchill did have tactical ability, experiences in the Boer War and leading the 'Battle of Sidney Street' he was very pro-British....what is wrong with beleiving in what you fight for? or being anglophile for that matter?
Yes, Gallipoli was his idea-it didn't work. (I think the Mel-gibson-Gallipoli-British-tea-drinking-on-the-beach-version-of-history idea should be viewed carefully, there were more than just Australians involved. Mel-Gibson and history do not mix very well-just look at the appaling movie 'The Patriot'.) Yes-The Gallipoli campaign was unsuccessful and it certainly did help build the nations of Australia and New Zealand but not because of the 'poor-British-control-let-the-Aussies-do-all-the-work' that people like Mel-Gibson might like to think but because they were brought together in national grief and unity by the slalughter. the losses at Gallippoli (I had a family member die there) were comparable to losses on the Western front (at least 6 family members died there and still counting)
The reason by the way that Australians and other troops from the Commonwealth were used was not because they were viewed as 'expendable' but becuase they were held in very high regard by the British and later by Rommel for that matter because of their physical toughness and fighting tenacity.

Tanks were also part of his 'area of influence' as First Sea Lord. I think they proved to be successful. He was a big proponent of amphibious landings as a way of breaking defensive lines and landing troops. Without the experiences of Gallipoli, and Dieppe and others D-Day would not have been the success it was.

I think we should all be careful and mindful that hindsight is a wonderful thing and that it is easy to judge Churchill, Monty and others harshly. Being negative is easy and they lack the hollywood machine to sell them to the movie going public. The reality as always is slightly harder to fathom. Yes they made mistakes but WW2 would have been a lot harder to fight or may have been lost without them and others like them.

I think you are being too judgmental on both Monty and Churchill.

This post is 10 out of 10, your knowledge of True history & not Hollywood's version of events is commendable.

+1

[_Freddy_]

Schleicher, on May 15 2012 - 00:20, said:

This might sound very defensive of the Poms. It's really not.
They had a fantastic leader in Winnie Churchill, if one who was a bit too anglophile and one who had no (or next to no) tactical ability. It is argued that the reason behind the (nation-building-ly) disastrous Gallipolli campaign was Churchill's (he was First Lord of the Sea) desire to get the Royal Navy into the War (because sailing Dreadnoughts into mines is FUN!).

Political leaders don't need a tactical ability, now a strategic one may be very useful, tactics and details you leave to your minions, its those that have to be good.

Gallipoli was originally a Royal Navy and French Navy operation to capture Constantinople and knock Turkey out of the war in a single blow, worth risking the older battlewagons quite possibly,  the minesweepers failed to clear the minefields due to the civilian crews being unwilling to face the Turkish guns, at the time it was not known that the British and French navy had all but effectively s defeated the Turkish batteries (alot were destroyed and the rest nearly out of munitions).

The popular myth about the ANZAC's being the only ones at Gallipoli on the ground offensive (note Churchills original idea was forcing the straits with the older battleships, not a ground campaign at the entrance) is just a myth, more British and French Troops were involved than ANZACS the British and French suffered more dead and wounded but they are rarely remembered when people wish to discuss Gallipoli.

[Tank_Buster_]

great reading!!!

[The_Chieftain]

Keep the Monty conversation in mind for about a week... I'll be mentioning that subject in the next Hatch. (After today's museum one)

[max_output]

Actually that would be a really good battlefield for here...El Alamein or the battle of Tobrouk.

[Sealteam6]

Tank_Buster_, on May 15 2012 - 19:38, said:

great reading!!!

I agree, Freddys post above is also inspiring, another member who researches fact & not base his assumptions on a Movie he saw. + Freddy

Keep the great thread going

[JakeEDogge]

the_moidart, on Oct 23 2011 - 05:47, said:

That would be Midway (fairly equal forces both of which were trying to have the element of surprise, and in the end came down to luck in spotting).

El Alamein was bound to be a German defeat. Look at the number and quality disparity. Rommel was at then end of his supply chain. With all due respect to the British forces, it would have taken massive allied blunders for Rommel to win. .

Not sure I'd agree with you there. There were cases on the eastern front where German forces were able to halt Russian advances despite being outnumbered ten to one. I'm not saying they didn't have to give ground to achieve it but they did achieve it. Rommels mistake was in following orders not to withdraw until it was far too late.

[Marcus1870]

None of these battles mattered after Germany failed to take Moscow-Gorki space. This area contained a majority of the industrial areas (most weren't completely moved), the majority of the conscript-ready population (for the limited reserves, yes there was a limit), the communication nexus (rail, road, and telephone exchange), and political legitimacy of the regime.

Germany had the initiative and numerical and moral superiority at the time to win then.

After that, nothing cold have changed the combined might of the allies.

[Teuen101]

So much "U.S hate" seems like the more I read the forums the more I see it, they word Hollywood propaganda pops up more and more, before I go into the facts of WW2 we can agree the war was over in 1940-41 without U.S help

I'm going to copy and past this from a site that gives the facts. would the Allies won in ww2 without U.S help.

As usual, It Depends. Assuming that the United States avoided direct declared war with the Axis powers somehow, there are two major scenarios:

(1) The U.S. continues its behavior similar to that in 1940 - i.e. continue Lend-Lease loans and equipment sales to the Allies, and continues to use diplomatic means to hamper the Axis.

Under this scenario, Great Britain likely would have survived further German attacks. However, it is highly unlikely that they would have retained any Asian territories, as Japan would have been able to capture and hold all such territory with little effective opposition (especially not having to contend with the U.S. Navy). The North African campaign would likely ended up as a stalemate, with the U.K. retaining Egypt but little else. Similarly, the U.S.S.R. would almost certainly have continued resistance, and it's successful relocation of industry to the Urals would have provided it with sufficient output to continue resistance.

The likely outcome in this scenario is a negotiated peace between Great Britain and German/Japan, leaving the British Empire smaller but still intact. Such a peace treaty would likely have been signed in 1942 or 1943, at the latest.

A protracted war between the U.S.S.R. and Germany seems most likely, probably ending with a negotiated peace with Germany retaining all of Poland (and, depending on how long the war lasted, some of the Ukraine/Baltic states). Given increasing Soviet industrial capacities, it is highly unlikely that the mis-managed German war industry could have produced enough material to overwhelm the U.S.S.R. Japanese reluctance to engage the U.S.S.R. would have left only a single conflict in Western Russia. Enormous manpower reserves and sufficient (though not by much) equipment would have allowed the Soviets to push the Germans slowly out of their country, though at an enormous cost. The likely result would have been a significant increase in Russian casualties from a protracted war. Japan would have retained all of its conquests, and possibly added India.



In this scenario, the Axis wins on points - retaining most of Europe and Eastern Asia, but the death toll (mostly due to continued Soviet/Russian conflict) would likely have been even greater than actual WW2 figures.

(2) The U.S. reverts to true neutrality, aiding neither side.

In this case, the U.K. almost certainly would sue for peace by 1941, to avoid being starved out by the U-boat attacks. A peace treaty would have been favored by Hitler, stripping the U.K. of most of the British Empire - thus, Germany would have ended up with practically all of British possessions in Africa (most critically, Egypt and the Suez, plus the Arabian oil fields), while Japan takes all of British Asia and likely India (though probably not Australia).

With the added material resources of the former British Empire, and a "winner's" glow, several other (formerly neutral) countries would likely have thrown in on the Axis side, in what would have become labeled a "anti-Bolshevik" crusade. Russia is unlikely to have been able to survive a multi-front war (assuming the Japanese would now enter the war against the U.S.S.R.), and a bolstered Wehrmacht would almost certainly have been able to retain all of Western Russia.

The result here would be a clear Axis victory, with the end of the British Empire, the partition of Russia, and an expansive German and Japanese empires.

------

The critical contribution of the U.S.A. in 1941-42 is a continued modest stream of equipment to both Russia and Great Britain, plus the morale boost of "help is on the way". This leads to the main contribution of the U.S.A. in both 1943 and 1944 of vast quantities of war material (and significant, though not overwhelming, manpower), and critical technological support. Essentially, the U.S.A. provides a lifeline to allow both Russia and the U.K. to continue to fight in 1941-42, which in turn enables the Allies to stall for time while bringing on-line their vastly superior industrial and technological advantages. WW2 as an "attrition" war heavily favors the Allies, while WW2 as a "fast" war heavily favors the Axis. Keeping the U.S.A. out of WW2 is the critical factor in deciding whether WW2 would be an "attrition" or "blitzkrieg" war.

[Vollketten]

Teuen 101 its a little off-topic for discussion on El-Alamein but...

Teuen101, on May 28 2012 - 12:27, said:

...before I go into the facts of WW2 we can agree the war was over in 1940-41 without U.S help

and No we can't agree because it isn't true.

Teuen101, on May 28 2012 - 12:27, said:

Under this scenario, Great Britain likely would have survived further German attacks. However, it is highly unlikely that they would have retained any Asian territories, as Japan would have been able to capture and hold all such territory with little effective opposition (especially not having to contend with the U.S. Navy). The North African campaign would likely ended up as a stalemate, with the U.K. retaining Egypt but little else. Similarly, the U.S.S.R. would almost certainly have continued resistance, and it's successful relocation of industry to the Urals would have provided it with sufficient output to continue resistance.

Absolutely not. The Japanese unlike as many beleive were not invincible, well led, well organised, well trained or well equipped. Their early success such as Singapore were as much to do with the gross incompetance of Generals such as Percy disgracefully surrendering Singapore than to do with their superior military might. Their invasion of Burma succeeded temporarily until Gen. Slim took over because the British army was totally unprepared for Jungle warfare, it was too mechanised and tied to the roads. As soon as Slim took over and moved back to India he de-mechanised and demanded 100,000 mules to get off the roads. He then attacked the Japanese forcing them to attack him on his terms and annihilated them on masse. The idea that without help the British would have lost India and could not have retaken Burma is wrong and owes more to 'Operation Burma' (Yes-Hollywood lies) than to reality. The Japanese were badly led and appalingly trained and equipped. The native populations of Burma would never accept the brutal Japanese regimes and were very pro-British. The campaign in Burma is basically forgotten because the British don't like to remember the humiliation of Singapore and the Americans don't like to acknowledge that they had significant help in defeating Japan. Japan was so busy fighting an unwinnable war in China it could never devout its full attention, or limited resources to a single enemy. Pearl Harbor was always going to be a disaster for them and they knew it. The Japanese could barely hold on to what they had let alone take more.
The North African campaign was a disaster for the Germans who expended vast resources to support forces so far away when Britain had more easier supply choices to fight in North Africa. It wasn't going to end as a satlemate because the meditteranean sea is full of sunken Italian and German shipping from land based ships, and British subs and warships. The N.African campaign was intended to be a quick victory to break a key British supply route, as soon as they realised it was failure the Germans should have left, unfortunately they couldn't abandon Mussolinis troops who couldn't even defat the tribes of Ethiopia no matter how brutally they tried to.

Teuen101, on May 28 2012 - 12:27, said:

In this case, the U.K. almost certainly would sue for peace by 1941, to avoid being starved out by the U-boat attacks. A peace treaty would have been favored by Hitler, stripping the U.K. of most of the British Empire - thus, Germany would have ended up with practically all of British possessions in Africa (most critically, Egypt and the Suez, plus the Arabian oil fields), while Japan takes all of British Asia and likely India (though probably not Australia).

With the added material resources of the former British Empire, and a "winner's" glow, several other (formerly neutral) countries would likely have thrown in on the Axis side, in what would have become labeled a "anti-Bolshevik" crusade. Russia is unlikely to have been able to survive a multi-front war (assuming the Japanese would now enter the war against the U.S.S.R.), and a bolstered Wehrmacht would almost certainly have been able to retain all of Western Russia.

The result here would be a clear Axis victory, with the end of the British Empire, the partition of Russia, and an expansive German and Japanese empires.

Britain under Churhill would never had signed a worthless (look at Hitlers record on keeping treaties-it is second only to the number of promises made to the American Indians in terms of broken treaties) treaty. Until the blitz there certainly were some British politicians who wanted peace but after the blitz started they shut up and peace without victory was not an option. It was not going to be starved out any more than the people of Leningrad were starved out. The U-boat campaign was ceratinly success ful initially oweing more to poor coordination and communication among allied shipping than anything else. Once convoys started the U-Boat threat started to wane, along with ASDIC, the breaking of Enigma and active measure such as hedgehog (all British by the way) The U-boat campaign was as much a drain on Germany as it was on Britian (80% death threat for U-Boat crews)
Do you really beleive the former British subjects of Kenya, Uganda, South Africa or Nigeria and others would have accepted Nazi Rule any more readily than say Canada or New Zealand? Of course not. The Empire was more than a car to sign over to a new owner. And as I pointed out Japan would not have taken India and couldn't even hold Burma effectively against the tribes there.
I simply do not agree that Germany could have held Russia even with the help of previosuly neutral countries (which you dont mention but presumably you are thinking of Spain, Sweden and Turkey) The USSR simply was too big and had too many resources and of course had a leader for whom casualties were not an issue in the form of Stalin. Japan could barely keep what it had and couldn't take on more. It; the Government didn't want to but wasn't in control of the army, command of Japanese military policy was at field level with commanders bringing the country to wars it didn't want. (Read: 'Road of Bones' you might like it) Japanese governmental control of its military was poor.

Teuen101, on May 28 2012 - 12:27, said:

The critical contribution of the U.S.A. in 1941-42 is a continued modest stream of equipment to both Russia and Great Britain, plus the morale boost of "help is on the way". This leads to the main contribution of the U.S.A. in both 1943 and 1944 of vast quantities of war material (and significant, though not overwhelming, manpower), and critical technological support. Essentially, the U.S.A. provides a lifeline to allow both Russia and the U.K. to continue to fight in 1941-42, which in turn enables the Allies to stall for time while bringing on-line their vastly superior industrial and technological advantages. WW2 as an "attrition" war heavily favors the Allies, while WW2 as a "fast" war heavily favors the Axis. Keeping the U.S.A. out of WW2 is the critical factor in deciding whether WW2 would be an "attrition" or "blitzkrieg" war.

Yes, the help of the US was crucial in winning WW2, only a fool could argue otherwise. I don't agree that without the US that Germany and Japan could not have been defeated though. It would have taken a very long time and probably the war with Japan would have to ended with a treaty because the Allies without the US (and lets face it without the atomic bomb) could not face an invasion of Japan.

[Teuen101]

So now that the U.S was never needed who would lead the Allies Monty ? Eisenhower was picked by Chruchill ..for a reason, was it because of Eisenhower even leadership? mind you Monty had more combat exp then Eisenhower so why was he picked over him ? If things were well in hand as you say why not just go with Monty ? you're facts are way off you need to do some home work..

Edited by Teuen101, May 31 2012 - 22:01.

[Lagometer]

Countries can win or lose wars, soldiers can only win or lose battles.

[Vollketten]

Teuen101, on May 31 2012 - 21:59, said:

So now that the U.S was never needed who would lead the Allies Monty ? Eisenhower was picked by Chruchill ..for a reason, was it because of Eisenhower even leadership? mind you Monty had more combat exp then Eisenhower so why was he picked over him ? If things were well in hand as you say why not just go with Monty ? you're facts are way off you need to do some home work..

I NEVER said that US wasn't needed in WW2. The US was instrumental in the victory achieved. The slection of supreme commanders of forces is often politically based but I don't have a crystal ball to gaze into the see what Churchills reasoning for slection of overall commander were. Probably because he wanted an Amercian to lead it because Monty already had enough to do and it was a good way of bringing a fresh perspective to the campaign with fresh troops.
If my FACTS are way off please select the ones which are wrong and explain why they are wrong. I dont claim to be right. I was trying to put perspective on Monty and the wider war which underestimated/misunderstood/not understood/unknown  by people. But don't just say 'you're wrong' without clarification...thats not how a discussion is conducted.

[_Freddy_]

El Alamein 1943, shows the real cost at the end.

http://www.britishpa...ery/El+Alamaine

In a speech in 1949 Montgomery stated the most defining sight in the desert was the tow rope. He also mentions the Americans who were present there in person (American Volunteer Ambulance Corps).

Edited by _Freddy_, Jul 10 2012 - 13:03.

[philjd]

_Freddy_, on May 15 2012 - 15:58, said:

Gallipoli was originally a Royal Navy and French Navy operation to capture Constantinople and knock Turkey out of the war in a single blow, worth risking the older battlewagons quite possibly,  the minesweepers failed to clear the minefields due to the civilian crews being unwilling to face the Turkish guns, at the time it was not known that the British and French navy had all but effectively s defeated the Turkish batteries (alot were destroyed and the rest nearly out of munitions).

The original intent was for a combined naval/army campaign to take Istanbul - but the army refused to provide the troops saying that they had none to spare - the troops currently in theatre were committed to the defence of Egypt against the Turkish forces in Palestine.
The later allocation of the ANZAC forces was due to them being in Egypt, Gallipolli was to be their baptism of fire and began the recognition of them being superior to 'ordinary' British divisions (I hate that word 'ordinary' especially when used to describe the people who sacrificed so much during any war).