Posted on 03/31/2011 5:54:49 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Guess that's why I can't think of any British armor commanders.
The tank surges across the battlefield. Its tracks churn up dense and choking plumes of sand. The noise inside is deafening. The 320-horsepower Maybach engine roars and races as the driver shifts up and down through the manual gears. The hot spent-shell cases clatter around the metal deck. The tank stops, the gun barks, and then again, continuing until the enemy is destroyed or the target is lost. Here in the open desert the rules are the same for both sides. Every tank commander instinctively dreads the sight of enemy tanks appearing on his flank. He and his opponent both try to come up behind low rises, “bull down,” so that they can open fire while exposing nothing of their bulk. Both know the penalty of error; entombment in a blazing tank, with the hatch jammed and flames licking toward the ammunition racks.
David Irving-The Trail Of The Fox
Need some help, here, folks. I understand the German and Italian ships being seized on a pretext. The US had pretty much quit pretending to be neutral by this point. But what would be a legal basis for seizing the large number of Danish ships? The Danish king is still on the throne, but hasn’t thrown in with the Germans present in his country.
O’Connor comes to mind, but not many others. And O’Connor will be off the board pretty soon.
O,Connor is a hard one to measure. Sure he showed that he could organize a force that could kick the Italian’s butt, but right now everyone is doing that. Like you said, he is about to go out of circulation and wont be back until he commands the British VIII Corps (not to be confused with Middleton’s American VIII Corps). Even then he will be tied up in things like the attempts to take Caen which were very often stalled while when the breakout after operation COBRA happens, his Corps will be held in reserve so he won’t be utilized. He finishes the war commanding in India, pretty much out of the way.
But one has to admit, his command during operation COMPASS is exceptional and I can’t say for sure, but I’d almost bet that he captured more Italian prisoners than any other single commander in the war.
That’s a good question PAR35. I can only say that perhaps this falls under the “secure such vessels from damage or injury” clause in the law. They could use this as a pretense to board and ensure that there are no Italian or German personnel on the ship. The Danes did readily succumb to the Nazi’s and have been one of their better occupied territories so there is reason to be a bit more suspicious of them.
It’s not so much that he beat the “Eye-Ties”, but the manner in which he did it, especially the cut accross the middle of Eritrea with his armor, and the way he cut off tghe Italians who stayed on the coast road. He seems to have had a feel for armor, and was one of the few who used armor and infantry together in his operations.
As for Caen, that’s Monty’s screw up,and, I think the beginning of Eisenhower’s realization of what a twit Monty was. It was supposed to be taken on D-Day. Didn’t happen, and Monty kept embroidering the truth about the operations there to the point where Ike [and Tedder] didn’t believe him anymore. Aside from that,I study the Caen A/O because it gave Wittmann a chance to let his Tiger play.
I totally agree that was Monty’s screw up. The only time Monty showed any initiative at all was in Operation MARKET GARDEN and that was a poor plan that was poorly implemented getting a lot of men needlessly killed. Other than that the Brit was timid and often too slow to react to the situation around him. I think the only things that kept him around so long was his first success against an over-extended Rommel and the need by the British people to have a hero.
Market Garden is the premiere example of a plan taking on a life of its own. Two SS Pz. Divs in the area? Nah. Drop zone eight miles from the objective? No big deal.The whole concept of a “blitzkrieg on the fly” [conceived in something like a week or two] and “Montgomery” in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
I’ve always thought Market Garden was Monty’s attempt to: [a] get the lion’s share of supplies and assets for his front, and to [b] finesse Ike out of the Supreme Ground Commander’s slot. Still, he was the best World War I commander the Brits had in World War II. And being Alan-Brooke’s protege didn’t hurt. As for his skills, Corelli Barnett summed him up best as the man to “take a sledgehammer to crack a walnut”.
I'd suppose everyone here knows who David Irving is.
In 2005 he was arrested in Austria and "pleaded guilty to the charge of 'trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust' and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment..."Irving claimed in his plea that he changed his opinions on the Holocaust,
'I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now.
The Nazis did murder millions of Jews.'"In December 2006, Irving was released from prison, and banned from ever returning to Austria.
Upon Irving's arrival in the UK he reaffirmed his position, stating that he felt 'no need any longer to show remorse' for his Holocaust views."
Thanks for another great post.
Seems to me this answers the question: where were Kimmel & Short's patrol planes on December 7?
What an odd comment!
The classic 1957 book on Pearl Harbor, Walter Lord's Day of Infamy, makes no mention of Washington's role, or failures.
Gordon Prang's 1981 work, At Dawn We Slept, tries -- "fair and balanced" -- to place as much blame on Washington as on commanders in Hawaii.
Every major book since (i.e., Stinnett, Toland & Victor), having more access to previously secret files, has shifted more of the blame to Washington, and to Franklin Roosevelt.
But here at Free Republic we have a number of posters (ahem), who take the old Walter Lord view that it was all Kimmel and Short's fault.
I don't blame Prange for his views -- he just didn't know everything that's available today.
In spite of his obvious Anti-Semitism, Irving was/is a prolific and to many, a well regarded author on the subject of World War 2. I hadn’t heard that he (finally) admitted his denial of the Holocaust was wrong. In spite of all this his books are well sourced and when it comes to military events of that war, well written.
"Yes, and besides that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
"Scum of the earth" is an appropriate metaphor for David Irving's ilk.
Of course, even scum has its useful qualities, for example in the manufacture of bio-fuels...
Oh, dear, did I say something insensitive?
You sound like you expect me to apologize to you for using Irving as a source. If you don’t like what I post, don’t read it. Just because someone uses someone like Irving to post excerpts from his books doesn’t mean they have to agree with his philosophy. You don’t like the guys ideas, fine, write him a letter and tell him-don’t bother me with it.
I was not referring to any Washington v. Hawaii blame game but rather comments like: “Bellinger was not a profound thinker” and “did not appreciate” the “vital difference” between “carrier” and “carriers.””
To be fair, these remarks may be from Prange’s posthumous co-authors.
Again, I presume that most people reading here know a bit about who David Irving is, and something about his checkered past.
I can summarize it by saying: Irving is the most pro-Nazi apologist you can find this side of the Institute for Historical Review.
In fact, Irving is a major star at I.H.R.
Like others there (i.e., Ernst Zundel), he has been in and out of trouble with various countries' laws for decades.
Indeed, it's his notoriety gained from such encounters which makes him so popular amongst (ahem) certain groups.
But is Irving a real historian, or is he simply a writer of dramatic pro-Nazi fiction?
Here is what a real historian, Richard Evans, said about Irving at the trial of the libel case Irving brought against Deborah Lipstadt:
"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject."All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."
Irving is not a credible source, he is simply a pro-Nazi apologist.
So, if you continue quoting his drivel here, then you just tell us more about yourself than most people really want to know, pal.
First I find it curious that you mention Stinnet, Victor, and Toland, but fail to mention Clausin/Lee. His was written after Toland and I'm currently finishing it up now. I find it is very well written by one of the men who actually was an investigator into the attacks. Lee is an editor who also edited Prange's book as well as Layton's. I recommend this book if you want to get some perspective. I will be writing a review on it as well which you will be able to read.
The question I have though is this, which Freeper has said that it was "all Kimmel and Short's fault"? I have not seen a Freeper make this claim and would be willing to debate with them on the subject if that's what they think.
I'm aware of the Institute For Historical Review just as I'm aware that its a neo-nazi site. So what! I don't visit it although it seems you're pretty familiar with it. By bringing up this site along with the name of noted Holocaust Denier, Zundel, while complaining about a source I used-you are taking this in a dark, personal direction.
In the course of many posts on the subject of World War 2 I also happen to use books by former German, and British and American generals and soldiers-is that allowed or are you somehow also offended by this? You have the same rights as me so when I post something that offends you, point out where it's wrong or untrue without making it personal-unless your just the type of person that lurks about sites just waiting to be offended by something.
Just as I wouldn't stand for anyone denigrating my patriotism, I'm not about to stand for some invisible poster calling me an anti-Semite even if it's just implied, especially when I don't know what your agenda is and you know nothing at all about me. I could recount things I've done that show my support for the state of Israel, and Jews in particular-but why should I?-it's none of your business.
As to your original post about Irving, I agree. He's an anti-Semite but so what. People use all kinds of bad guys as sources whether they're Nazis, Commies, Racists or Liberals. But most people don't attempt to blacken someones reputation for using them. I'll be damned if every time I post some historical citations I have to be worried that some person might be insulted by it. Now if you want to use some common sense and drop the personal attacks maybe we can have a conversation. So, just to recap-yeah Irvings an anti-Semite but you're telling me unless I stop using him as a source-I'm one too? That kind of thought process would be right at home in Nazi Germany!
Ha! Well, now that you put it that way, I guess it is "by design," but then the question becomes, by whose design?
Well, not entirely by mine, except that I do make a point whenever possible to pick up with my daily newspaper reading where ever I left off -- before having been so rudely interrupted by, shall we say, necessities of life. ;-)
But I do make a point to add your name on most posts which I think might interest you.
I'll take your comments here to imply you'd like me to be more consistent in that.
CougarGA7: "First I find it curious that you mention Stinnet, Victor, and Toland, but fail to mention Clausin/Lee."
Henry Clausen and Bruce Lee are favorites of poster LS, who recommended them to me several threads back.
Major Clausen's vigorous, if not heavy-handed investigative work as defense council for General Marshall is discussed by Prange, Stinnett and Victor.
Prange's account is very complimentary towards Major Clausen.
Both Stinnett and Victor focus on the heavy handedness of Clausen's approach, in "persuading" career officers to change their testimony and support General Marshall's version of events.
So the validity of Clausen's views rests on whether those officers were lying before their encounter with Clausen, or after he got them to change their testimonies.
My opinion is that Major Clausen did whatever he believed was necessary to defend his client, General Marshall.
Finally, I should mention that Clausen & Lee's book is not to be found in any of the book stores I've checked out, so I'd consider them not to be a major factor in the current public discussion over Pearl Harbor.
CougarGA7: "The question I have though is this, which Freeper has said that it was "all Kimmel and Short's fault"?
I have not seen a Freeper make this claim and would be willing to debate with them on the subject if that's what they think."
Then you did not follow LS's arguments very carefully.
As best I can tell, that is precisely his view -- it was all Kimmel and Short's fault.
He has never given me any indication otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.