Slitherine

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?

quote:

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

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

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. I can then attempt to look into all things Italian in some depth

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

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.

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.


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

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!

Nice try

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

quote:

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

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.

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

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?

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).

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.

quote:

It is particularly offensive

quote:

I don't think you are worth it.

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.

Steve Golf33 Long

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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...

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?

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.

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!

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?

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.


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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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