To: colorado tanker; Hurtgen; SAMWolf
I still don't understand why we just didn't bypass Hurtgen, cut it off and wait for the surrender.LOL. Hey, I was asking the same question. Sam, what's your take on it?
Maybe when you are finished reading Rob's book we can redo the Hurtgen Forest and invite Hurtgen to join us for some conversation. If we plan ahead he may be able to give us some time and we can let our readers know well in advance. I pinged him anyway.
108 posted on
02/12/2004 11:38:34 AM PST by
snippy_about_it
(Fall in --> The FReeper Foxhole. America's History. America's Soul.)
To: snippy_about_it
Sam, what's your take on it? IMHO, just part of the overall "Broad Front" strategy with some "the enemy is there so that's where we'll fight" thrown in. I also think that at first that it would be easier than they thought.
111 posted on
02/12/2004 11:40:44 AM PST by
SAMWolf
(Incontinence Hotline, please hold.)
To: snippy_about_it
The Hurtgen would be a good thread, hard to read, but informative and would keep alive the memory of the terrible sacrifices so many made there.
123 posted on
02/12/2004 11:49:25 AM PST by
colorado tanker
("There are but two parties now, Traitors and Patriots")
To: snippy_about_it
Hey, I'm around; and would be happy to participate if I can. AS to why, look at the footnote on page 124, and the comment by German General Von Gersdorff on page 345.
The Hurtgen surely was a terrible fight, one that many wish had not occurred, but in my view had to, else the Battle of the Bulge might have been worse for the US.
190 posted on
02/13/2004 4:21:32 AM PST by
Hurtgen
(Iconoclast and proselytizer for the US Infantryman)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson