Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amen-Moses · 03-11-2003, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seanie
I've read General Slim as being regarded as the best British General in WWII, although I don't know much about him.

Any comment?

Well he did have the distinct advantage of Mounbatten being his boss rather than Eisenhower!

The problem with comparisons between the European and Asian theatres is that they were completely different wars and it is really difficult to judge how good the opposition command really was, it would have been interesting to see how Slim would have faired against Rommel, Kesselring and Godel!

There again Monty may have faired worse against the Japanese as it is far more difficult to have set-piece battles in the middle of a jungle.

Maybe all we could really say is that the right people were in the right arenas?

Oh and I second Sabine with regard to the free French forces part in Overlord, they were an integral part of Monty's plan and always had been although it must be admitted that noone expected De Gaulle to pull a fast one and set up a French government in the middle of supposedly German held territory so soon after the landings!

Amen-Moses

sullster · 03-11-2003, 04:03 PM

A few points:

Sabine,
I do not say that the French Resistance was ineffective. They were operating on the Western front of the Reich so they faced military concentrations. I have read in the past that some historians feel that much smaller occupied countries caused the Krauts more problems than France did, after allowing for the discrepancies in size. This is open to interpretation.

Amen-moses,
Cheap shot there about Hollywood. No Hollywood movie would bring up such a thing, even "Patton" didn't. The quote did piss off Monty and other generals who didn't appreciate Patton's crass humor.

MacArthur is your favorite US general? This is the guy who failed to launch an attack on the Japanese after hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He had many B-17s which were destroyed on the ground.

MacArthur was a politically dangerous guy to FDR and that is why he was saved from Corregidor. Any other US general would have been a Japanese prisoner or dead by May 1942 when the Japanese took over the Philippines.

Your comments about US military tactics as being overly aggressive and similar to the Red Army's', beg the point. The point is notice how the Red Army destroyed the Krauts and pushed them out of Russia, notice that US forces advanced faster and further than British. A lot of casualties, but a defeated Germany. Wars are not won by generals who take months moving little pieces over maps and making sure everything is just so.

I doubt that the British would have assaulted the heavily defended Japanese islands the way the US did. The US suffered high losses but managed to go in and kill every stinking one of the defenders on Saipan, Iwo, Pelelui, Okinawa. Then again, you could have sent in the Canadians or the Aussies.

Amen-Moses · 03-11-2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by sullster
Cheap shot there about Hollywood. No Hollywood movie would bring up such a thing, even "Patton" didn't. The quote did piss off Monty and other generals who didn't appreciate Patton's crass humor.

Humour? The guy was a psychopath so whether it was humour is debatable! This is the same guy that supposedly told one of his subordinates on the phone that he was planning to use SS troops to push the "mongols" back to Moscow!

The problem I have with the quote is that even though it is reported in many places the only two witnesses to it were Bradley and Patton, Patton died long before the quote first surfaced, there is no evidence that Monty ever knew about the supposed quote at the time (if he did he made no comment about it that is recorded) and at the time of the supposed quote Patton was still smarting that Bradley had been promoted above him so the two were not exactly on the best of terms.

Having read the book I referenced it is feasible that he may have made a comment similar to the one you mentioned but if he did then it is definitely evidence that he had far more than just a few screws loose!

I doubt that the British would have assaulted the heavily defended Japanese islands the way the US did.

I doubt it too as it was not neccessary for victory, even MacArthur slated Nimitz for the actions. The Japanese troops could not get supplies so a simple containment policy would have worked just as well.

Tell you what, read the book and get back to me on specific details!

Amen-Moses

Nozferatu · 03-11-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
At least the British tried to defend someone else's home.

They defended someone else's home because they knew they were next. They had to so as to survive.

If it wasn't for Pearl Harbor the American's who not have lifted a finger to join WWII. Nice to know.

I'd love to see the Queen of England on US dollar bills if the French hadn't helped during the US battles with GB. Now that would be a great joke.

Americans usually make fun of people and countries that stand up to the Imperialistic and egotistical attitude of the Americans. It makes them feel stupid and threatened. Poor babies...

People who think the French are pompous probably have never even been to France and if you have been to France, you'll know people in Los Angeles or New York make French people look charming and pleasant in comparison.

Everytime I go to Europe I can spot an American from a mile away...loud, obnoxious, rude, self-righteous....all the qualities a "rude French bastard" would have.

Vorkosigan · 03-12-2003, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sullster
A few points:
I doubt that the British would have assaulted the heavily defended Japanese islands the way the US did. The US suffered high losses but managed to go in and kill every stinking one of the defenders on Saipan, Iwo, Pelelui, Okinawa.

Containment wouldn't have worked on Iwo -- it was too small. But certainly on Okinawa the final offensives were a waste.

Then again, you could have sent in the Canadians or the Aussies.

MacArthur did. It was how he kept US casualties down, by handing off the hard stuff to the Allies. As I recall reading, it caused lots of resentment Down Under.

sullster · 03-13-2003, 03:54 PM

Amen-moses,

Don't forget that Patton was happy as a pig in s**t that he was given the command of Third Army in July. He was resentful of Bradley, but then who did he like? He thought Eisenhower was a moron,( sure you agree with Georgie there!) Patton was a nut case, agreed. Anyone who thinks he was a general in a Roman Legion and could recall battles in North Africa from those days is a little loose upstairs.
Patton was a mouthy obnoxious American aristocrat. The aristocrats from your country at the time couldn't take to such a guy. I do recall that some British generals or politicians thought it was insensitve of Patton to mention a hurtful event such as Dunkirk in such a manner. I am sure that Ike sent a profuse apology.

On the US Pacific strategy. I agree that some islands didn't need be taken. Pelelui is a famous example. Yet, a campaign of containment would have prolonged the war for years. It would have overtaxed the navy. The Japanese needed to be shown that their army could not defeat the Americans anywhere. Sometimes you have to accept casualties in order to get in and kill your enemies. Japanese soldiers had to die and just not be starved or cut off. I feel that Nimitz had it right.

Vorkosigan,
You are correct to point out that he used the Aussies for dirty work. When he and his army went off to the Philippines, he left the Aussies in the jungles of the Solomons. MacArthur was an arrogant piece of work.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2003, 04:03 PM	#152
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	A few points: Sabine, I do not say that the French Resistance was ineffective. They were operating on the Western front of the Reich so they faced military concentrations. I have read in the past that some historians feel that much smaller occupied countries caused the Krauts more problems than France did, after allowing for the discrepancies in size. This is open to interpretation. Amen-moses, Cheap shot there about Hollywood. No Hollywood movie would bring up such a thing, even "Patton" didn't. The quote did piss off Monty and other generals who didn't appreciate Patton's crass humor. MacArthur is your favorite US general? This is the guy who failed to launch an attack on the Japanese after hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He had many B-17s which were destroyed on the ground. MacArthur was a politically dangerous guy to FDR and that is why he was saved from Corregidor. Any other US general would have been a Japanese prisoner or dead by May 1942 when the Japanese took over the Philippines. Your comments about US military tactics as being overly aggressive and similar to the Red Army's', beg the point. The point is notice how the Red Army destroyed the Krauts and pushed them out of Russia, notice that US forces advanced faster and further than British. A lot of casualties, but a defeated Germany. Wars are not won by generals who take months moving little pieces over maps and making sure everything is just so. I doubt that the British would have assaulted the heavily defended Japanese islands the way the US did. The US suffered high losses but managed to go in and kill every stinking one of the defenders on Saipan, Iwo, Pelelui, Okinawa. Then again, you could have sent in the Canadians or the Aussies.

03-11-2003, 04:33 PM	#153
Amen-Moses Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, England Posts: 4,652	Originally posted by sullster Cheap shot there about Hollywood. No Hollywood movie would bring up such a thing, even "Patton" didn't. The quote did piss off Monty and other generals who didn't appreciate Patton's crass humor. Humour? The guy was a psychopath so whether it was humour is debatable! This is the same guy that supposedly told one of his subordinates on the phone that he was planning to use SS troops to push the "mongols" back to Moscow! The problem I have with the quote is that even though it is reported in many places the only two witnesses to it were Bradley and Patton, Patton died long before the quote first surfaced, there is no evidence that Monty ever knew about the supposed quote at the time (if he did he made no comment about it that is recorded) and at the time of the supposed quote Patton was still smarting that Bradley had been promoted above him so the two were not exactly on the best of terms. Having read the book I referenced it is feasible that he may have made a comment similar to the one you mentioned but if he did then it is definitely evidence that he had far more than just a few screws loose! I doubt that the British would have assaulted the heavily defended Japanese islands the way the US did. I doubt it too as it was not neccessary for victory, even MacArthur slated Nimitz for the actions. The Japanese troops could not get supplies so a simple containment policy would have worked just as well. Tell you what, read the book and get back to me on specific details! Amen-Moses

03-13-2003, 03:54 PM	#156
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	Amen-moses, Don't forget that Patton was happy as a pig in s**t that he was given the command of Third Army in July. He was resentful of Bradley, but then who did he like? He thought Eisenhower was a moron,( sure you agree with Georgie there!) Patton was a nut case, agreed. Anyone who thinks he was a general in a Roman Legion and could recall battles in North Africa from those days is a little loose upstairs. Patton was a mouthy obnoxious American aristocrat. The aristocrats from your country at the time couldn't take to such a guy. I do recall that some British generals or politicians thought it was insensitve of Patton to mention a hurtful event such as Dunkirk in such a manner. I am sure that Ike sent a profuse apology. On the US Pacific strategy. I agree that some islands didn't need be taken. Pelelui is a famous example. Yet, a campaign of containment would have prolonged the war for years. It would have overtaxed the navy. The Japanese needed to be shown that their army could not defeat the Americans anywhere. Sometimes you have to accept casualties in order to get in and kill your enemies. Japanese soldiers had to die and just not be starved or cut off. I feel that Nimitz had it right. Vorkosigan, You are correct to point out that he used the Aussies for dirty work. When he and his army went off to the Philippines, he left the Aussies in the jungles of the Solomons. MacArthur was an arrogant piece of work.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.