RE: 'No Patton' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 3:10:51 AM)

quote:

Von Rom
In the Dietrich thread, you must be in agreement with ID and kev over the fact that they believe those Nazis thugs who murdered hundreds of unarmed American POWs in the Ardennes are innocent. Yes?



It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator. It is particularly offensive. I don't think you are worth it.

Another challenge. Can you quote from that thread (it is locked but you can still browse and copy from it) where Kev or I suggest that the Germans were somehow innocent of the massacre? I seem to remember suggesting there was a possibility the massacre had not been premeditated, but that responsibility still lay with the Germans because they should have taken better steps to secure and care for their prisoners.

So, please quote where I suggested (or Kev for that matter) that the Germans were innocent?

If not, will you retract this?

Ironduke



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 3:27:50 AM)

Lord I missed that one! I think we should let it stand though, unless VR chooses to retract the statement. Since neither of us are known for expounding rabid Nazi views I'm sure that most other forum readers will see the post for what it is.

Difficult though it may be ID, I must request that you 'cease and desist' from debating Patton on my 'No Patton' thread. Despite the fact that I have no power to actually prevent you or anybody else from doing so.[8|] I can then attempt to look into all things Italian in some depth[:)]



Tombstone -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 3:54:56 AM)

All the threads in here are lame talking about talking about things threads. You guys are spending an unhealthy amount of time over arguing idiotic details and getting nasty in the process. It looks like its just a few people... perhaps you guys should start a "wasting time is fun" thread? Not that talking about who the best general in X army isn't a particularly masturbatory thread topic... but at least it has a veneer of something interesting.

That said does anyone have any battalion of regimental commanders of note on the allied side? Along with anecdotes of their actions? An easy one would be the 4th Tank bde, that eventually becomes the 1st Guards Tank bde under Katukov. Perhaps Katukov had some big mistakes once he became a tank army commander, but as a smaller unit commander he did a really good job.

Any others?

Tomo



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 3:56:09 AM)

All things Italian!! I have another link (which admittedly I cribbed from the 'Comando Supremo' site[:D]) which has some good photos of the Italian armed forces - http://www.arditi43.com/index.html



dinsdale -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 3:59:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Well, ID thanks for being so even-handed in your appraisal [8|]

The fact is that the same handful of people seem to follow you around and stick up for you.

Sadly this is as incorrect as any of the numerous accusations you've made in the space of three threads now. I disagreed with your seeming invention of evidence and misuse of a legal term, the fact that Iron Duke happened to be in the same thread had nothing to do with it. Further, prior till now, the only thread I've attempted to discuss anything with you was the Dietrich thread. I use attempt as unfortunately there is no real discussion.

You are a rare example of someone who has a lot of time, plenty of sources, but gets angered and flustered when anyone questions the conclusions you draw from those sources. No doubt you will feel the uncontrollable urge to respond but be reassured that I will not be reading your posts, in fact it's not even worth reading threads that you participate in anymore. They are contaminated by rage and the most verbose sense of self-righteousness I can remember.

Apologies Kevin, but at this stage the thread is pretty much dead anyway and I wished to make it clear that ID has nothing at all to do with my resons for posting.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 4:00:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Lord I missed that one! I think we should let it stand though, unless VR chooses to retract the statement. Since neither of us are known for expounding rabid Nazi views I'm sure that most other forum readers will see the post for what it is.

Difficult though it may be ID, I must request that you 'cease and desist' from debating Patton on my 'No Patton' thread. Despite the fact that I have no power to actually prevent you or anybody else from doing so.[8|] I can then attempt to look into all things Italian in some depth[:)]


Okay, but I reserve the right to reply if he actually answers some of my challenges. Such a rarity could not go unanswered surely? However, it is likely that I'll be able to safely bow to your request, and move this back to the Italian issues. My apologies for getting sidetracked. However, I thought the Kursk straw man to obvious to go unanswered. As I said, keep asking for evidence and he seems to desist eventually.

So, as I challenged earlier, our resident Commando Supremo expert, what can you tell us about these battles a19999577 referred to? Also, I noted the name William Slim. Is it one and the same as the Gentleman you mentioned earlier, here getting defeated by the Italians? Care to comment? [:D]

I checked his autobiography and he doesn't mention this. He goes straight into the Burma campaigns, so I went looking for final confirmation it was him.

It's one of the fascinating things about the war, tracing careers. Monty starts out as 3rd infantry division Commander. Rommel as an aide of Hitler. Balck as a Commander of an Infantry Brigade in an armoured division. AlanBrook as a Corp Commander in France pre Dunkirk. Here Slim commanding troops in a relative back water. It seems from a chapter in a book "Great Commanders" (coffee table to be sure, but nice pictures) that I have that this is THE Slim. He was wounded in this campaign. Shot three times in the backside apparently. He then spent 12 months commanding an infantry division in Iraq before being transferred to Burma. The book is a tad too gleeful for my liking when it reports that one of the bullets that injured him was "a tracer".

Regards,
IronDuke



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 4:04:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

All the threads in here are lame talking about talking about things threads. You guys are spending an unhealthy amount of time over arguing idiotic details and getting nasty in the process. It looks like its just a few people... perhaps you guys should start a "wasting time is fun" thread? Not that talking about who the best general in X army isn't a particularly masturbatory thread topic... but at least it has a veneer of something interesting.

Tomo


Tell me about it[8|] I wish I could point the finger at a single person and say 'he (or she)'s to blame' but I can't. I despair sometimes.

quote:

That said does anyone have any battalion of regimental commanders of note on the allied side? Along with anecdotes of their actions? An easy one would be the 4th Tank bde, that eventually becomes the 1st Guards Tank bde under Katukov. Perhaps Katukov had some big mistakes once he became a tank army commander, but as a smaller unit commander he did a really good job.


I could probably name plenty but off the top of my head I think John Frost has to be up there. He's best known for commanding the Para battalion that reached the Arnhem bridge but he also participated in the Bruneval raid which was instrumental in countering the German radar network. A fine soldier and a brave man.



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 4:12:29 AM)

Cheers Dins and ID, I do hope we can keep the thread alive and away from the 'nastiness' that seems to pervade these things. Again I have no wish to point the finger since we are all guilty in one way or another. Anyway I'm off to bed! If this thread has died by the time I return to these hallowed portals[:D][:D] I'll probably start a dedicated thread to the Italian armed forces since I appear to have fallen into the role of 'expert' [8D][:D][&o][&o]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 5:15:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]


This post (IMHO) illustrates one of the reasons you get into the arguments you do. Firstly, I asked several questions in my post, which if you wanted to debate with me, you could have answered. However, you seem to have completely ignored all my difficult questions:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


Instead, you've gone back a page or two and pulled out this, or rather the sentiment, not the quote (or context) which you didn't reproduce.

quote:

IronDuke
Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on.


The phrase "It would have looked a bit like Kursk" was comparing the shape of the battlefield. My point was that without an attack from the north, any success Patton had in the south would have been like Kursk where (if you are familiar with this battle) the SS Panzer Corps penetrated in the south as far as Prokhorovka, but Model's troops in the north made no ground, leaving the southern pincer (as Patton's would have been) dangling in the air. This entire piece from you, therefore, seems like a straw man. You seem to have deliberately taken the wrong context for my words, and then argued against something I never said in order to hide the fact you don't want to answer the real points in my post.

This is what frustrates forum users, because you've avoided my valid points, and instead made up an argument about Kursk to insult me with. My real points are above, if you want to continue this debate.

quote:

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.


I took the morning of the 22.12.1944 as day one (let me know if you dispute the dates I'm using). A tenuous link (but a link non-the-less) was established to Bastogne around 17.00 on 26.12.1944. This was day five of the offensive if 22.12.1944 was day one. It's a moot point, but the actual time for the offensive was around 4 and a half days. I suppose it depends on whether you round up or down.

quote:

The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.


In addition to the questions above, I have another. How can you be mobile and be low on fuel? Doesn't having no fuel somewhat restrict the mobility of mechanised forces? In addition, can you tell us which of the forces that faced Patton's drive on Bastogne were mobile (whether with or without fuel?)

quote:

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.


Makes you wonder why it took four or five days to break through, then.

quote:

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.


[&:] Are you suggesting here, that wintery weather meant all German vehicles had to be on the roads, but that Patton's vehicles (his trucks for example) could go cross country quite happily in the weather prevalent at that time? Some of the heavier (and in terms of deployment, statistically small) German tanks (Tiger II for eg) didn't like the Ardennes very much at all. However, all vehicles seems a little harsh. Would Patton have been better off on the roads in these conditions? If so, wouldn't his attack have come across the same problems of bottlenecks that the German attacks did?

quote:

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.


Very tenuous, since my Kursk argument seems to have been manufactured to avoid the following, which I'll ask again:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


IronDuke



What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 5:18:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Excuse me VR but firstly I'm not here 24/7 and the debate moves on even when I'm not here. Thus I respond to what I see. Secondly, if you are going to find slights in posts where there are none intended it makes it very difficult to sustain a discussion. Thirdly, you were the first person to bring up Patton on this thread after I specifically requested that he be avoided. Now I've tried to deal with everything with a modicum of good humour and in a civilised manner but my patience is wearing thin (and not just with you VR). I have no intention of getting myself banned on account of anyone elses sensitivities, just my own thankyou very much[:)]. Now I'm off for an evening out![:D]



Nice try [8|]

So it is quite convenient then that you show up and respond ONLY after I have posted. [;)]

What a coincidence [;)]

As I have continually repeated, address us by NAME or in the PLURAL. This way there is no confusion.

Since over the past month you have continually joined in with a couple of others in arguments against me, do you really expect me to believe that you are NOW going to start to be even-handed with me in THIS thread [8|]

So please drop this feigned approach. . .


Square the above with this from earlier in this thread


quote:

I see you have to have the last word too, so welcome to the club.

Therefore, you are doing EXACTLY what you accuse others of doing

You jumped into the middle of a conversation, expressing highly selective comments, which had absolutely NOTHING to do with you.

If your gratutious comments make you look recalcitrant, then you have only yourself to blame.

And yes, I am a very "happy go lucky guy"

The comments between Kevinugly and myself were all expressed in good fun. We have bantered quite a bit in the past, so we are used to each other.

Have a nice day.


Emphasis added by myself

Makes you very difficult to discuss anything with since I never know quite how you are going to react to anything. Both of these posts refer, more or less, to the same debates. No wonder I'm confused[&:]



Well, remain confused then.

I see since you returned, MY post was the FIRST one you responded to. . . [8|]

Heheh



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 5:20:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Von Rom
In the Dietrich thread, you must be in agreement with ID and kev over the fact that they believe those Nazis thugs who murdered hundreds of unarmed American POWs in the Ardennes are innocent. Yes?



It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator. It is particularly offensive. I don't think you are worth it.

Another challenge. Can you quote from that thread (it is locked but you can still browse and copy from it) where Kev or I suggest that the Germans were somehow innocent of the massacre? I seem to remember suggesting there was a possibility the massacre had not been premeditated, but that responsibility still lay with the Germans because they should have taken better steps to secure and care for their prisoners.

So, please quote where I suggested (or Kev for that matter) that the Germans were innocent?

If not, will you retract this?

Ironduke



Well, after the treatment you and some of the others have dished out me, and you are suddenly sensitive over this?

Any person who shoots down unarmed POWs is a thug.

So?



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 5:23:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Well, ID thanks for being so even-handed in your appraisal [8|]

The fact is that the same handful of people seem to follow you around and stick up for you.

Sadly this is as incorrect as any of the numerous accusations you've made in the space of three threads now. I disagreed with your seeming invention of evidence and misuse of a legal term, the fact that Iron Duke happened to be in the same thread had nothing to do with it. Further, prior till now, the only thread I've attempted to discuss anything with you was the Dietrich thread. I use attempt as unfortunately there is no real discussion.

You are a rare example of someone who has a lot of time, plenty of sources, but gets angered and flustered when anyone questions the conclusions you draw from those sources. No doubt you will feel the uncontrollable urge to respond but be reassured that I will not be reading your posts, in fact it's not even worth reading threads that you participate in anymore. They are contaminated by rage and the most verbose sense of self-righteousness I can remember.

Apologies Kevin, but at this stage the thread is pretty much dead anyway and I wished to make it clear that ID has nothing at all to do with my resons for posting.


Well as I seem to recall you spent a great deal of time trying to figure out what "hearsay" means.

Have you got a handle on it yet?



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 6:27:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

Von Rom
In the Dietrich thread, you must be in agreement with ID and kev over the fact that they believe those Nazis thugs who murdered hundreds of unarmed American POWs in the Ardennes are innocent. Yes?



It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator. It is particularly offensive. I don't think you are worth it.

So, please quote where I suggested (or Kev for that matter) that the Germans were innocent?

If not, will you retract this?

Ironduke



Well, you fellas don't come out and say "Those Waffen SS soldiers were innocent".

Since some shootings DID take place, you had to acknowledge them. However, your collective comments (some of which appear below) clearly go out of their way to cast doubt on everything surrounding the shootings, the testimony, and the defendents themselves, such that the end result is that a few of those SS might have shot a few US POWs, but because of the circumstances surrounding the trial, they should be set free.

Basically, you state:

1) There was no proof of a terror order.

2) All German soldiers were beaten and forced to sign confessions.

3) Some shootings did occur, but they were isolated and probaly due to escaping American prisoners.

4) Some of the other killings were probably due to the Gestapo wandering through the area.

5) No modern court would convict them under the circumstances, therefore they should have been set free.

6) Therefore, if they are set free, then they are innocent.


Have I missed something?

I have read through some of the books that list the above circumstances.

However, some of those books, just like you fellas, present only one-sided evidence.


Ironduke:

quote:

At the Malmedy trial, Dietrich rescinded all his extra-judicial statements (along with many others) claiming they had been extracted under duress during interrogation.

Dietrich rescinded all his testimony at the Malmedy trial, claiming it had been extracted under duress. We know all the statements were dictated by the interrogators, and merely signed by the defendants. He wasn't alone. Whether heresay or not, given what we know of the circumstances of the arrest and interrogation, no court in the world (I take that back) no court in the democratic world would accept it as evidence today.

I did hear that the Gestapo followed the German forces into some areas to settle old scores. I remember one massacre discovered in a cellar with over a dozen dead, but this was done by the Gestapo. I guess we'd need to discuss on a case by case basis. Do you have links or details to these killings?

The same applies to the POWs. I think we'd need to review the circumstances of the GI murders, to see if we can detect policy. Do you have anything further on these?




Kevinugly:

quote:

Is it also standard practice for police forces to beat confessions out of suspects? Are these then held as evidence in court to achieve convictions?

Well, one does what one can but I can find no evidence of Dietrichs 'testimony' regarding Hitler's 'Terror' order. It's absence leads me to the conclusion that if it existed it was a fabrication produced in the 'mock trials' that occured at Dachau prior to the real trials of Dietrich, Peiper and the other SS men accused over the Malmedy/Baugnez massacre.

Dietrich's 'testimony' is a major bone of contention a) since there is some doubt that it ever existed and b) if it did, then Dietrich withdrew it (incidentally I haven't seen a reference that specifically refers to Dietrich in this matter, only that 'confessions' extracted by dubious methods prior to the Dachau trial were withdrawn).



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 7:24:30 AM)

Ironduke:

quote:

It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator. It is particularly offensive. I don't think you are worth it.



quote:

It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator.


Hmmmm, nothing like collusion, eh? [;)]

Your use of "willfully incorrect" is interesting. I suppose you can read my mind as well?


quote:

It is particularly offensive


Oh? [8|]

After you and some of the others have dumped on me multiple times, you suddenly become squeemish? [8|]


quote:

I don't think you are worth it.


tsk, tsk, tsk. . .

You are soooo judgemental. [:'(]

Instead, shouldn't you spend more time in re-evaluating the ridiculous comparison you made between the Bulge and Kursk?

NEVER, have I ever seen this comparison made before.

Truly, you will turn logic on its head in your attempt to prove something. . .

Oh, and Patton made it to Bastogne in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated. I don't know how you tell time, but a 24 hour day commenced from the time Third Army left for Bastogne. Example: Third Army leaves at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and 24 hours later its 7:00 am Dec 23.

Therefore, FOUR days, NOT FIVE.



Golf33 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 7:48:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I could probably name plenty but off the top of my head I think John Frost has to be up there. He's best known for commanding the Para battalion that reached the Arnhem bridge but he also participated in the Bruneval raid which was instrumental in countering the German radar network. A fine soldier and a brave man.


While we're on the subject of paras, how about Maj Julian Cook, who led the near-impossible yet totally successful crossing of the Waal at Nijmegen, achieving the capture of that bridge intact?

Regards
33



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 10:53:57 AM)

quote:

Instead, shouldn't you spend more time in re-evaluating the ridiculous comparison you made between the Bulge and Kursk?



Sheeee-eeesh....[:(]

I think IronDuke was quite clear in pointing out that he wasn't comparing the differences that you did well to point out [defence in depth, prepared positions, knowledge of enemy plans etc], he was referring to the shape of the battlefield. And here you go again, going out of your way to insult someone...

quote:

Ah, yes, so I think a very clear picture is emerging here. Obviously, you seem to have some connection with Ironduke I am not aware of [;)]

Well, well, well,

Answering ID's replies as well, I see [;)]


I believe I have the right to agree with whomever I see fit without having someone hurl innuendos at me. Or am I wrong?

quote:

If Patton said he could do it - I believe him.


I'd certainly believe that Patton believed he could do it, but him believing that is not proof that it could be done. I lean towards a repeat of what happened in Kursk/Orel in 1943, where once the Soviets started advancing towards Orel after the beginning of Citadel, the northern pincer was called off and sent to contain the enemy advance. I believe that had the German offensive in 1944/45 been threatened by a move to cut off its rear they would have tried to find a way to control it, even if that involved calling off the entire operation.

And I hope that comparing only these aspects of both situations doesn't strike anyone as insulting or offensive as to garner me textual abuse...



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 4:47:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

Instead, shouldn't you spend more time in re-evaluating the ridiculous comparison you made between the Bulge and Kursk?



Sheeee-eeesh....[:(]

I think IronDuke was quite clear in pointing out that he wasn't comparing the differences that you did well to point out [defence in depth, prepared positions, knowledge of enemy plans etc], he was referring to the shape of the battlefield. And here you go again, going out of your way to insult someone...

quote:

Ah, yes, so I think a very clear picture is emerging here. Obviously, you seem to have some connection with Ironduke I am not aware of [;)]

Well, well, well,

Answering ID's replies as well, I see [;)]


I believe I have the right to agree with whomever I see fit without having someone hurl innuendos at me. Or am I wrong?

quote:

If Patton said he could do it - I believe him.


I'd certainly believe that Patton believed he could do it, but him believing that is not proof that it could be done. I lean towards a repeat of what happened in Kursk/Orel in 1943, where once the Soviets started advancing towards Orel after the beginning of Citadel, the northern pincer was called off and sent to contain the enemy advance. I believe that had the German offensive in 1944/45 been threatened by a move to cut off its rear they would have tried to find a way to control it, even if that involved calling off the entire operation.

And I hope that comparing only these aspects of both situations doesn't strike anyone as insulting or offensive as to garner me textual abuse...



Well, well, well,

Look who's back defending Ironduke [8|]

I guess he needs all the help he can get. . . [:D]

Are you also defending Ironduke's logic of claiming that a 24 hour day starts and ends on the SAME day regardless of the hour from which it is measured? [8|]



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 4:54:26 PM)

The quotes I have posted below are from the Dietrich thread.

Collectively, almost everyone in that thread was making the ridiculous assertion, that if I, personally, did not produce Dietrich's testimony from 59 years ago, then it simply did not exist!

How can you argue with logic like that? [8|]


dinsdale


quote:

Where is Dietrich's testimony as that's the issue here.

No possibly not, however when you claimed that stated to be following "hitlers orders" then that is prima facie hearsay as there's no mention of the fact that he claimed to be directly ordered by Hitler. This has been the line I have attempted to follow for this entire waste of time while you continue to butcher terms of which you have little comprehension.

There are exceptions to the rule which may have allowed it into court, that does not mean that it's not hearsay, but hearsay with exception. I predicted about 3 posts before that this would be too subtle for you, and that is indeed the case.

Now, if you have anything other than he claimed to be working under Hitler's orders I will of course accept that it was testimony, but you didn't make the claim earlier in the thread, and now make the claim without any evidence for it.

If you have anything new, other than parrot-style "it's not hearsay, you're all stupid" posts then that would be great, but I fear that you'll simply ignore and move on to something irrelevant and use that as "proof" that this testimony was not hearsay.

Please cite evidence that this is indeed Dietrich's sworn testimony and the issue will not be in doubt. If I believed that this was your line originally I would not have entered the discussion. However, for the fifth or sixth time, I asked you if that was the case in my first or second post, but rather than answer you simply claimed I knew nothing.

Now if this is really the case, and really what you've said all along then why is it so difficult to produce the evidence of Dietrich's statement?




Ironduke:


quote:

But it isn't direct testimony, because he rescinded it. It it was direct testimony, he would have testified at his trial to it's veracity. Instead, at his trial, he said "Sorry, they got all that out of me under duress, and I made it up". How is this direct testimony?

With Von Rom refusing to give us further details of Dietrich's testimony, we're rather stuck with the trial, as Reynolds dosn't carry so much detail he quotes the depositions.




Kevinugly:


quote:

At the moment all we have is conjecture (better than 'hearsay' I feel ) as to a sworn statement (contents unclear) that appears to have been later withdrawn as it was apparently made whilst under duress.

I think you've entirely missed the point Von Rom. I also think that you haven't actually read any books about the Dietrich trial and don't know what his testimony was if it was ever made (which makes it hearsay incidentally). So you are using the 'hearsay' issue as a smokescreen to cover your lack of knowledge. If you can return with a full transcript of the document in question I will, of course, be happy to retract.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that he made a statement or even what was in it, apart from the brief reference in Cole. Therefore, for the sake of this discussion it's hearsay - 'of the nature of or based on reports given by others' (Chambers Dictionary) until we have something more 'concrete'.

Well, one does what one can but I can find no evidence of Dietrichs 'testimony' regarding Hitler's 'Terror' order. It's absence leads me to the conclusion that if it existed it was a fabrication produced in the 'mock trials' that occured at Dachau prior to the real trials of Dietrich, Peiper and the other SS men accused over the Malmedy/Baugnez massacre. I do wonder what books Von Rom has read on the trial of Dietrich (since he used the plural I presume there's more than one ) since he doesn't produce quotes. I suppose he may be partially right about Dietrich's supposed testimony - it's not 'hearsay' evidence, it's no evidence whatsoever!



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 5:13:47 PM)

And I have lots of evidence to counter balance any claims by the above individuals. I have just chosen NOT to post the information.

Why?

Simply because there is NO desire for the search for truth.

However, I will make a couple of exceptions.

I will post some information regarding the false claims that confessions from the SS defendents in the Malmedy Massacre were obtained by torture.



The Malmedy Trial and the Myth of Confessions extracted under Torture

Comradely help and clerical assistance

Holocaust deniers keep maintaining that the confessions of the accused before Allied military tribunals have no validity because they came into being under torture. This is one of the many lies of the extreme right that strive to acquit the perpetrators and to rehabilitate National Socialism.

Soon after the collapse of the National Socialist regime a rather efficient cooperation was formed for this purpose between incorrigible National Socialists, Nazi criminals, representatives of the conservative camp and ecclesiastical circles.

The focus of the allegations were the Dachau trials, 489 procedures held against more than a thousand defendants. The one that especially caught the attention of the public was the so-called Malmedy trial, the subject of which was the shooting of 71 American soldiers by Kampfgruppe Peiper (1st. SS Panzer Division "Adolf Hitler") in December 1944 during the Ardennes Offensive. The wounded soldiers had surrendered near the city of Malmedy, yet been murdered by Peiper’s men. In total, according to American investigations, soldiers of the Kampfgruppe Peiper murdered about 350 American prisoners of war and about 100 Belgian civilians in the time from December 1944 to January 1945.

After the SS men who had been under the orders of SS-Standartenführer Joachim Peiper had been tracked down, they were first interned in Zuffenhausen and Schwäbisch-Hall in Bavaria and sent from there to Dachau in April 1946. One of the accused was Peiper’s superior Sepp Dietrich, supreme commander of the 6th. SS Panzer Army and a leading participant in the murder of Ernst Röhm.

The verdict of the American military tribunal on 16 July 1946: Of 73 members of the 1st. SS-Panzer Division "Adolf Hitler", 43 were sentenced to death, 22 to lifetime imprisonment and the others to temporary imprisonment.

Even before the beginning of the trial the defense attorney Rudolf Aschenauer raised the claim that the prisoners had been forced to make incriminating statements. He maintained that there had been “bogus trials”, that the prisoners had been beaten and pushed on the way from one cell to another, that they had received nothing other than water for weeks or in other cases only dry bread and nothing to drink. There was still no talk of torture at this time. The allegations were investigated by a commission of the US Army in November 1947.

The investigation report, prepared jointly by the Inspector General and the CIC (Counter Intelligence Corps) , showed statements so contradictory that the accusations were rejected as not sustainable. The investigation mainly focused on the question whether the actions of the defense and their background constituted an organized activity directed against the criminal prosecution of National Socialist crimes by the Allies.

This the investigation commission considered not to be so. The consequence was that the campaigns to discredit the military tribunals could continue unhindered. At a later stage the claim of tortures was added, which extended to all Dachau trials. There was talk about “broken teeth” and “squeezed testicles”. At this time, however, it became apparent that all the accused had made identical statements. The texts of the affidavits were identical in every word.

The many activities of Princess Isenburg, which were not limited to humanitarian aid to the prisoners but also aimed at the juridical and moral acquittal of the accused, were showing their effect. From the beginning she pursued the aim of defaming the war crimes trials as “victors’ justice” and thus to protect the accused and convicted from the execution of the death penalty. The influence that the princess could apply for this purpose was considerable. The campaign included not only conservative circles but also Protestant and Catholic bishops, namely the bishop of Württemberg Theophil Wurm and bishop Johannes Neuhäusler from Munich. Both had a key role in the campaign in their capacity as representatives of the church, a moral instance. Neuhäuslers voice especially had weight with the public because he had been not only in Gestapo detention but also in Dachau concentration camp. The motivations of the church representatives were not so much sympathy for the Nazi henchmen as reconciliation with the past and a new beginning for German postwar society. The other connections made by Princess Isenburg and Attorney at Law Aschenauer, howeve, went as far as the SS underground organization "Bruderschaft", which had formed unopposed in British prisoner of war camps. The coordination of the actions becomes apparent from timely parallels of the events. Princess Isenburg used a number of institutions for her campaign, for example the "Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Rettung der Landsberger Häftlinge" (“Committee for the Salvation of the Landsberg Prisoners) , which also acted under the name "Arbeitsausschuß für Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit" (“Commission for Truth and Justice”) and was largely financed by the churches.

Together with bishop Wurm she founded in 1951 the society "Stille Hilfe für Kriegsgefangene und Internierte" (“”Quiet Help for Prisoners of War and Internees”) , which the public recently took notice of again in 1998 in connection with the Anton Malloth case (Malloth is suspected of having been responsible for the death of many inmates of Theresienstadt Gestapo prison). In extensive press campaigns containing personal letters and petitions the Nazi criminals were presented as innocent victims. Aschenauer’s connections to the "Bruderschaft" became known when the British uncovered the neo-Nazi conspiracy around Goebbels’ former personal referent Werner Naumann in January 1953.


The Investigation Commissions

In the summer of 1948 the so-called "Simpson-Commission" was established, named after its president, Gordon Simpson, Judge at the Texas Supreme Court. The Simpson Commission was very open to accusations and petitions from clerical circles. Again the defense (Aschenauer) skillfully spread rumors. In the final report to war minister Royall of 15.9.1948 it was stated that the Dachau trials had on the whole been fair and legitimate, even if certain interrogation practices had met with criticism. The interrogators had on occasion left the accused under the impression that fellow prisoners had made wholesale confessions and compromised others. However, no indications of any physical damages caused though mistreatment by the members of the War Crimes Group could be found. The commission recommended, however, to transform 29 of the 139 death sentences issued into prison sentences.

As the allegations continued even after this report, an investigation commission of the US Senate for the armed forces was formed in 1949. The president of this commission was Raymond E. Baldwin, Connecticut. The statements of the Malmedy war criminals before this commission again revealed considerable contradictions. In the commission’s final report to the US Senate the accusations of torture and the use of illegal methods in the interrogation of the accused were rejected. The accusations against William R. Perl, Chief Interrogator of the War Crimes Group and a key figure in the investigations against the SS men, could not be upheld either.

Perl and the other "Thirty-Niners", as Senator Joseph McCarthy used to call the Jews who had immigrated to America in 1939, were fully rehabilitated by this investigation commission. This was vehemently opposed by McCarthy, who at first had seen in his activity as member of the commission a chance for working his political image but then turned most members of the commission against himself by his attitude towards Perl. This native of Vienna had been made the central figure of the attacks by the circles around McCarthy, who had gone as far as requesting the interrogation of Perl by the commission with the help of a lie detector. McCarthy’s request was rejected by the majority of the commission. Nevertheless the report contained the recommendation not to use Jews as interrogators in the future to eliminate pretexts for criticism against the procedures.


In the final report the following was stated:

"Already at the beginning of the investigations the investigation commission noted an extraordinary activity of certain organizations [...] Credible witness testimonials increase the suspicion that interest groups inside Germany want to use the understandable efforts of the church and the defense to discredit the American occupation troops in general. A concentrated attempt in this direction was made through attacks on the war crimes trials in general and the Malmedy trial in particular. The investigation commission is convinced that this is an organized attempt to revive the National Socialist spirit in Germany which uses all means at its disposal."

All allegations of torture eventually turned out to be untrue. The medical assessments in this respect are clear. There were neither "broken teeth" nor "squeezed testicles". The accounts of tortures were far-fetched products of fantasy, aimed at protecting the accused from due punishment, rehabilitating them and discrediting their prosecutors and judges.


Clemency Decrees

The death sentences issued at the Malmedy Trial were eventually all converted into prison sentences. Most of the accused were free by 1953, the last were released in 1958. The decisions of the clemency commission were severely criticized by American public opinion, which led to the firing of the president. Senator Joseph McCarthy went down in history as a fanatical communist hunter. William R. Perl died in December 1998 at the age of 92 in Beltsville, Maryland.


http://www.idgr.de/texte-1/legenden/folter/folter.html



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 5:29:09 PM)

When speaking of the Malmedy Massacre, most apologists like to concentrate on just the one incident involving the 71-80 murdered Americans at the crossroads at Baugnez.

However, these people ignore the fact that the term "Malmedy Massacre" was a general descriptive term for 11 separate incidents involving units of the 1st SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler," which were charged with war crimes by an American military tribunal. These war crimes charges involved the killings of:

(1) 86 captured American soldiers on the road from Baugnez , Belgium on 17 Dec 1944

(2) 50 captured American soldiers around Bullingen 17 Dec 1944

(3) 19 other American POWs at Honnsfeld, Belgium 17 Dec 1944

(4) 93 civilians at Stavelot, Belgium 18 Dec 1944

(5) 31 captured American soldiers at Cheneux, Belgium 18 Dec 1944

(6) 8 other American POWs at Stavelot 19 Dec 1944

(7) 44 American POWs at Stoumont on 19 Dec 1944

(8) 5 Belgian civilians around Wanne, Belgium 20 Dec 1944

(9) over 100 American POWs at La Gleize, Belgium on 18 Dec, 21 Dec and 22 Dec 1944


There were 11 separate massacre incidents involving the same Waffen-SS units in a period of only six days. These killings were not a "mistake," nor did they result from a misunderstanding. The commanders of those SS units gave or transmitted "no prisoner" orders, resulting in the deliberate murder of a large number of American POWs and Belgian civilians.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 5:42:17 PM)

The Statements Made By Peiper:

"'I can remember that in the material, among other things, was an order of the Sixth SS Panzer Army, with the content that, considering the desperate situation of the German people, a wave of terror and fright should precede our troops. Also, this order pointed out that the German soldier should, in this offensive, recall the innumerable German victims of the bombing terror.

"'Furthermore, it was stated in this order that German resistance had to be broken by terror. Also, I am nearly certain that in this order was expressly stated that prisoners of war must be shot where local conditions should so require it. This order was incorporated into the Regimental Order. . .' and that the order had been signed by Sepp Dietrich" (Messenger, Charles, Hitler's Gladiator, Brassey's Defence Publishers, 1988, pp.178-9).



a19999577 -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 7:39:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Are you also defending Ironduke's logic of claiming that a 24 hour day starts and ends on the SAME day regardless of the hour from which it is measured? [8|]


What is wrong with you? Here I am trying to explore the counterfactuals of a Patton counterstroke on the Bulge with you and this is the reply I get? I am not in collusion with IronDuke, nor Kevinugly, nor Dinsdale (with whom I've had a strong disagreement in the "Von Paulus" thread), nor do I think a day should be measured in a certain way or another, nor that Dietrich said or believed this or that.

All I'm doing again, and very politely is to ask you and the rest of the forum, what you guys believe the German response would have been to a Patton counterstroke at the base of the Bulge.



Kevinugly -> RE: 'No Patton' (8/31/2004 9:18:06 PM)

a19999577, I would love to deal with your question about the 'Bulge but to do so would break my own rules (how can I discuss P****n on a thread I started that was intended to not be about him[:D])

I do enjoy reading VR's lengthy posts particularly the ones where he cuts and pastes from my posts on a seperate thread and then selectively edits them to make it look as though I took up a different position to that which I actually did. An interesting, if futile attempt to maliciously smear myself (and Iron Duke on the way) on a public forum. All I can do is repost the link from the original thread which deals predominantly with the Malmedy massacre and the subsequent trial at Dachau.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/malmedy2.html

I recommend anyone to read the 'Sepp Dietrich' thread to see the full posts made by myself, Iron Duke, Von Rom and others in order to gain a true picture of the context in which the posts were made and the full texts that latterly have been edited. I need say no more on this matter.



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/1/2004 12:57:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

quote:

ORIGINAL: IronDuke



[EDITED FOR SPACE]

Please don't ask me to do my own research, because I don't believe this was possible, so I do not believe there is anything to research. You keep telling us this what he wanted, please explain how. I would not want to move the conversation forward without this information from yourself, so suspect this will be our last post.

Regards,
IronDuke


Well ID,

Thanks for keeping this thread derailed. [8|]


As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.

2) You compared kursk to the Bulge.

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of these two battles, knows how foolish that comparison is. Yet, you persist in it.



KURSK:

1) One of the most heavily entrenched Soviet positions in the war.

2) It was summer and the conditions were fine.

3) The Soviets KNEW the Germans were attacking at the salient and stopped them cold.


The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.

4) No one, not even the Allied commanders expected that Patton could attack from the south. The Germans didn't expect it either. With total surprise Patton could have cut off the German salient. This was te KEY to the entire Battle of the Bulge. Just as the Falaise Gap was te KEY to bagging all the Germans in the pocket.

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.

BTW, thanks again for hijacking this thread.

Although, I seriously doubt "Kev" will say anything to you about it [;)]


This post (IMHO) illustrates one of the reasons you get into the arguments you do. Firstly, I asked several questions in my post, which if you wanted to debate with me, you could have answered. However, you seem to have completely ignored all my difficult questions:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


Instead, you've gone back a page or two and pulled out this, or rather the sentiment, not the quote (or context) which you didn't reproduce.

quote:

IronDuke
Any offensive further east with just the three divisions used would have failed, bearing in mind how much trouble they got in the drive on Bastogne. Also, without any corresponding attack from the north (which wasn't about to come) then any drive further east would have had to go right across the base of the Bulge from north to south. It would have looked a bit like Kursk, and such a drive wasn't on.


The phrase "It would have looked a bit like Kursk" was comparing the shape of the battlefield. My point was that without an attack from the north, any success Patton had in the south would have been like Kursk where (if you are familiar with this battle) the SS Panzer Corps penetrated in the south as far as Prokhorovka, but Model's troops in the north made no ground, leaving the southern pincer (as Patton's would have been) dangling in the air. This entire piece from you, therefore, seems like a straw man. You seem to have deliberately taken the wrong context for my words, and then argued against something I never said in order to hide the fact you don't want to answer the real points in my post.

This is what frustrates forum users, because you've avoided my valid points, and instead made up an argument about Kursk to insult me with. My real points are above, if you want to continue this debate.

quote:

As to Bastogne:

1) Patton broke through to it in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated.


I took the morning of the 22.12.1944 as day one (let me know if you dispute the dates I'm using). A tenuous link (but a link non-the-less) was established to Bastogne around 17.00 on 26.12.1944. This was day five of the offensive if 22.12.1944 was day one. It's a moot point, but the actual time for the offensive was around 4 and a half days. I suppose it depends on whether you round up or down.

quote:

The Bulge:

1) The Germans were mobile, low on fuel and on supplies.


In addition to the questions above, I have another. How can you be mobile and be low on fuel? Doesn't having no fuel somewhat restrict the mobility of mechanised forces? In addition, can you tell us which of the forces that faced Patton's drive on Bastogne were mobile (whether with or without fuel?)

quote:

2) They were over-extended, with no defense in depth.


Makes you wonder why it took four or five days to break through, then.

quote:

3) The severe wintery conditions meant that ALL German vehicles HAD to remain on the roads, thus allowing Patton to cut them off easier behind the salient.


[&:] Are you suggesting here, that wintery weather meant all German vehicles had to be on the roads, but that Patton's vehicles (his trucks for example) could go cross country quite happily in the weather prevalent at that time? Some of the heavier (and in terms of deployment, statistically small) German tanks (Tiger II for eg) didn't like the Ardennes very much at all. However, all vehicles seems a little harsh. Would Patton have been better off on the roads in these conditions? If so, wouldn't his attack have come across the same problems of bottlenecks that the German attacks did?

quote:

Well, I could go on and on, but I think this indicates how tenuous your analysis of Bastogne and its comparison with Kursk is.


Very tenuous, since my Kursk argument seems to have been manufactured to avoid the following, which I'll ask again:

quote:

Ironduke
Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke


IronDuke



What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.


Which translates as I'd rather keep up this Kursk straw man rather than answer your real points, because I have no answers to your real points. Fair enough, I should have known better after the Dietrich thread, but never mind. I present lots of valid arguments (and questions) you just find it easier to say I have no argument, because then you don't have to answer it.


PLEASE look and quote my comparison with Kursk (I dare you), as others have pointed out (yet another forum poster seems to have joined my side, I get a new friend every week arguing with you, yet no one seems to take your side...strange, that) I never went on about specifics, I merely said that Pattons strike would have looked like Mansteins, one arm of a pincer stretching northwards with nothing to link with, I never talked about fixed defences, mobile units (you no longer seem to mention the low on fuel comment, you seem to have dropped it rather than answer it) or anything specific. As I said, Forum posters should be in no doubt that this straw man is a tactic designed to hide the fact you have no answer sto my real questions. Your subsequent detour on to Dietrich again, is another attempt to hide this. This topic was locked, why drag it all up again and upset the moderator?

I repeat:

quote:

Can I ask for the following facts/opinions/evidence.

Do you think encircling two Panzer Armees and an Infantry Armee was on with the three Divisions Patton wheeled northwards in 48 hours? If so, please explain reasoning. Where would they have attacked, for example, what do you think the german response would have been?

Do you think Patton could have achieved this pincer without a companion pincer being launched from the northern shoulder of the Bulge. If not, please outline which formations you feel would have been capable of launching this.

If you think he could have done it, please give a little more detail on how. How flanks would have been covered given the troop numbers he employed; how the German counterattacks across his lines of communication from east and west would have been handled etc. Some information on where he would have made the assault (near what town, how wide a frontage etc)and what objectives he would have set along the way would also be helpful to us in visualising this masterstroke

For you to reply to very detailed questions like this with the superficiality of this is astounding.

quote:

What are you trying to say ID?

Soviet defenses at Kursk were mostly STATIC. In the Bulge, the German forces were all mobile, with the main muscle of the Germans being north with 6th SS Panzer and Peiper pushing for the Meuse.

You prsent NO valid argument.

Hence, Patton's plan to cut-off the Germans at the salient was the CORRECT one.

Ike was too timid at the Bulge, just as he was at Falaise.

The Allied High Command was the best friend the German army had in Europe.


Your comments about Kursk indicate one thing.

1. You're hiding from my real points.

You can keep going on about the Kursk straw man if you wish, but ultimately we both know you concentrate on this because you have nowhere else to go. It is very sad.

Ironduke



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/1/2004 1:02:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

Instead, shouldn't you spend more time in re-evaluating the ridiculous comparison you made between the Bulge and Kursk?



Sheeee-eeesh....[:(]

I think IronDuke was quite clear in pointing out that he wasn't comparing the differences that you did well to point out [defence in depth, prepared positions, knowledge of enemy plans etc], he was referring to the shape of the battlefield. And here you go again, going out of your way to insult someone...

quote:

Ah, yes, so I think a very clear picture is emerging here. Obviously, you seem to have some connection with Ironduke I am not aware of [;)]

Well, well, well,

Answering ID's replies as well, I see [;)]


I believe I have the right to agree with whomever I see fit without having someone hurl innuendos at me. Or am I wrong?

quote:

If Patton said he could do it - I believe him.


I'd certainly believe that Patton believed he could do it, but him believing that is not proof that it could be done. I lean towards a repeat of what happened in Kursk/Orel in 1943, where once the Soviets started advancing towards Orel after the beginning of Citadel, the northern pincer was called off and sent to contain the enemy advance. I believe that had the German offensive in 1944/45 been threatened by a move to cut off its rear they would have tried to find a way to control it, even if that involved calling off the entire operation.

And I hope that comparing only these aspects of both situations doesn't strike anyone as insulting or offensive as to garner me textual abuse...


I would save yourself the time, he knows that the Kursk comparison was a very light one designed to illustrate what would have happened, not how the battle would have been fought, or what sorts of fighting would have been involved. However, it is easier for him to fight this straw man than answer the real questions. It is a debating tactic. The forum has noticed it, I am going to move on, I would respectifully suggest you do the same. My list of real questions has been reprinted several times, if Von Rom decides he wants a proper debate. They stand as a challenge.

Regards,
IronDuke



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/1/2004 1:07:38 AM)

quote:

It may be that Kev chooses to report this wilfully incorrect statement to the moderator.



quote:

Von Rom
Your use of "willfully incorrect" is interesting. I suppose you can read my mind as well?


No, I don't think anyone could read your mind. I merely surmised that deliberately making a statement that clearly wasn't true, made the statement wilfully incorrect. Do you have a better word for it?


quote:

Von Rom
Instead, shouldn't you spend more time in re-evaluating the ridiculous comparison you made between the Bulge and Kursk?

NEVER, have I ever seen this comparison made before.


Why re-evaluate, it is a straw man invented by yourself to avoid answering my challenges, because you couldn't answer them. This is not my problem.

quote:

Oh, and Patton made it to Bastogne in FOUR days, not FIVE as you indicated. I don't know how you tell time, but a 24 hour day commenced from the time Third Army left for Bastogne. Example: Third Army leaves at 7:00 am on Dec 22, and 24 hours later its 7:00 am Dec 23.

Therefore, FOUR days, NOT FIVE.


Dec 22, Dec 23, Dec 24, Dec 25, Dec 26.

How many days do you see?

IronDuke



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/1/2004 1:14:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Are you also defending Ironduke's logic of claiming that a 24 hour day starts and ends on the SAME day regardless of the hour from which it is measured? [8|]


What is wrong with you? Here I am trying to explore the counterfactuals of a Patton counterstroke on the Bulge with you and this is the reply I get? I am not in collusion with IronDuke, nor Kevinugly, nor Dinsdale (with whom I've had a strong disagreement in the "Von Paulus" thread), nor do I think a day should be measured in a certain way or another, nor that Dietrich said or believed this or that.

All I'm doing again, and very politely is to ask you and the rest of the forum, what you guys believe the German response would have been to a Patton counterstroke at the base of the Bulge.


A point of view most memorably put by Sosabowski. He was the Polish General in charge of the Polish airborne at Arnhem. He would watch the wonderful plans unveiled in front of him (much like these Patton fantasies) and he would say

"But the Germans, General, what about the Germans".

In essence, he was reminding us that plans are lovely, but if they take no heed of the likely enemy response, then they are fantasy.

Regards,
IronDuke



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/1/2004 1:29:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577

quote:

ORIGINAL: Von Rom


Are you also defending Ironduke's logic of claiming that a 24 hour day starts and ends on the SAME day regardless of the hour from which it is measured? [8|]


What is wrong with you? Here I am trying to explore the counterfactuals of a Patton counterstroke on the Bulge with you and this is the reply I get? I am not in collusion with IronDuke, nor Kevinugly, nor Dinsdale (with whom I've had a strong disagreement in the "Von Paulus" thread), nor do I think a day should be measured in a certain way or another, nor that Dietrich said or believed this or that.

All I'm doing again, and very politely is to ask you and the rest of the forum, what you guys believe the German response would have been to a Patton counterstroke at the base of the Bulge.



Well, you always seem to have a desire to answer ID's posts. [:D]

Maybe I should get a secretary myself, to answer all the other posts here.

OK, to be fair:

You do ask a legitimate question.

I would suggest reading a bit of info of where 6th Army and 5th Army were positioned. After a few days, say by 26th-27th Dec, many German lead units, and a lot of German armour were well into the "bulge" itself.

The winter weather, the restricted road network, and surpise, all would have worked in Patton's favour. It would not have been easy for German units to turn around to counter Allied units in their REAR, in the SOUTH and in the FRONT.



Von Rom -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/1/2004 1:33:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

a19999577, I would love to deal with your question about the 'Bulge but to do so would break my own rules (how can I discuss P****n on a thread I started that was intended to not be about him[:D])

I do enjoy reading VR's lengthy posts particularly the ones where he cuts and pastes from my posts on a seperate thread and then selectively edits them to make it look as though I took up a different position to that which I actually did. An interesting, if futile attempt to maliciously smear myself (and Iron Duke on the way) on a public forum. All I can do is repost the link from the original thread which deals predominantly with the Malmedy massacre and the subsequent trial at Dachau.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/malmedy2.html

I recommend anyone to read the 'Sepp Dietrich' thread to see the full posts made by myself, Iron Duke, Von Rom and others in order to gain a true picture of the context in which the posts were made and the full texts that latterly have been edited. I need say no more on this matter.



"Malicious?"

It's nothing of the sort.

I could have included far more quotes.

People should be careful what they wish for [;)]

You wanted evidence and proof?

I provided just a small sampling here. . .

All you fellas were tripping over yourselves, post after post in the Dietrich thread not only in attempting to prove those SS defendents didn't receive a fair trial (and thus should be set free), but you also dumped on me for NOT making Dietrich's transcript available for your immediate edification.

I have far more material with this came from. . .



IronDuke_slith -> RE: 'No Patton' (9/1/2004 1:38:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Golf33

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I could probably name plenty but off the top of my head I think John Frost has to be up there. He's best known for commanding the Para battalion that reached the Arnhem bridge but he also participated in the Bruneval raid which was instrumental in countering the German radar network. A fine soldier and a brave man.


While we're on the subject of paras, how about Maj Julian Cook, who led the near-impossible yet totally successful crossing of the Waal at Nijmegen, achieving the capture of that bridge intact?

Regards
33


Good choice. Most memorabaly played by Robert Redford in the movie (I bet he was happy about that). 50 per cent casualties crossing the river if memory serves, and they still took their objective.

There were a lot of brave actions during that battle.

Regards,
IronDuke



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375