Bomber boys - bbc one

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

You surely must understand the difference between attacking another soverign nation and the systematic extermination of anyone considered undesirable. Definite troll comment.

well of course I do, your judgement is in hindsight though. If they won the war, who would be the hero and who would be the war criminal?

A controversial character like Harris, who caused the unnecessary death of thousands of civilians and RAF aircrew, all of this for a strategy that didn't actually win the war (it was actually argued in the Parliament that the disruption and damage caused by such bombings would have been an enormous problem to deal with once the war was over), is nothing to be celebrated with a statue, it's really in bad taste IMHO. Harris himself wouldn't probably have been too chuffed about it, there's a reason why he moved to South Africa until Churchill gave him the Baronet title, he knew that what he had done wasn't the best of strategies.. Now I'm not judging the man because I'm sure that being in such a position on such hard times must be the toughest role for a man, but in the meantime I think there's not a lot of room to celebrate his actions either.

To use your own usual arguments, nothing you have said is evidence to support your opinions, just generalised comments. There is a theme of inviting arguments in order for them to be countered, but without any rational argument made to support your own views.

Back up your own arguments first and I'll respond, or let the argument die and the thread return to appreciation of a great programme. Your choice.

G'night.

well, you asked for it. As we all know, Monty won El-Alamein because of the favourable odds he had (logistics, troops, exhausted enemy), unfortunately, unlike his predecessors, Monty chose not to follow up on his victory by pushing the Germans out of Africa immediately, waiting until May of 1943 to finally accomplish what should have been done months earlier.

But Egypt wasn’t Monty’s real problem. That came later, first with the over-planned and under-executed landings in Sicily (Patton’s forces beat Monty’s British Army to Messina even though they had twice as far to go), followed by his dismal attempt to capture Caen, France on D-Day(The city was not taken until July 18, 1944, six weeks after the initial landing).

Then there was Operation Markey Garden in September, 1944, the attempt to take three key bridges in Holland that would make a breakout into the Ruhr Valley possible. Great idea; just poorly implemented, the result being the surrender of 6,000 British paratroopers at Arnhem and a temporary stalemate that was to last until that next spring.

Is that "factual" enough for you?

[bongodriver]

Monty won El-Alamein because of the favourable odds he had (logistics, troops, exhausted enemy)

You underestimate the potential even a tired enemy has...remember the Battle of Britain.

Monty chose not to follow up on his victory by pushing the Germans out of Africa immediately

I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...

Then there was Operation Markey Garden in September, 1944, the attempt to take three key bridges in Holland that would make a breakout into the Ruhr Valley possible. Great idea; just poorly implemented, the result being the surrender of 6,000 British paratroopers at Arnhem and a temporary stalemate that was to last until that next spring.

Not strictly Monty's fault that German panzer units werent spotted nearby, it is perfectly forgiveable to have unanticipated results due to intel failiures, and that is the real reason the operation failed, bad implementation happened all the time throughout the war.

You clearly have a particular axe to grind against certain British leaders which seems to bias your contributions somewhat.

I have no particular love for that pompous orifice Monty myself but not everything he achieved can be discredited.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

You underestimate the potential even a tired enemy has...remember the Battle of Britain.

Bongo, I'm afraid you underestimate that soldiers that drink the water from their vehicles' radiators or that let themselves die in the desert are signs of an exhaustion beyond any offensive potential. It was a hard battle, but despite its mobility it became another war of friction, where who has the support and logistics on their back is more likely to win.

[quote]
I thought bad weather started bogging everything down...
[quote]
bad weather in Africa for 6 months.. really? Try and tell that to the guys in the Ardennes..

Not strictly Monty's fault that German panzer units werent spotted nearby, it is perfectly forgiveable to have unanticipated results due to intel failiures, and that is the real reason the operation failed, bad implementation happened all the time throughout the war.

I'm sorry, but NO. First of all, he had the cheek to declare that Market-Garden was "90% successful" (the "10% failure" probably being the fact that they lost the chance to end the war by Xmas, 17k casualties among Allied troops and last but not leasts the thousands of civilians that died in Holland because of the ensuing famine the following winter..), second thing is that the competition with Patton had the best of him: Monty had this thing that when he needed to be cautious he was reckless, and when he could go he was too prudent.

You clearly have a particular axe to grind against certain British leaders which seems to bias your contributions somewhat.

No, I am just talking about controversial generals, the fact that they're both British is coincidental. I can mention you a lot of non British incompetent or controversial generals if you want me to: Adolf Hitler anyone?

I have no particular love for that pompous orifice Monty myself but not everything he achieved can be discredited.

My opinion (which is shared by many, both now and back in the days) is that Montgomery was overrated, that's it. I'm not saying he didn't do what he had to do, but when left to organise important things his stubbornness got in the way and caused enormous damage.

[bongodriver]

Bongo, I'm afraid you underestimate that soldiers that drink the water from their vehicles' radiators or that let themselves die in the desert are signs of an exhaustion beyond any offensive potential. It was a hard battle, but despite its mobility it became another war of friction, where who has the support and logistics on their back is more likely to win.

So how exactly is the fact that the axis were denied supplies and reinforcements and overwhelmed by a superior force testament to Montgomery's total incompetence?

bad weather in Africa for 6 months.. really? Try and tell that to the guys in the Ardennes..

I never said 6 months.....where did I say 6 months? just like in many other conflicts nature sometimes nature throws in a curveball that changes proceedings to a degree, I was just under the impression a window of bad weather bought Rommel some time and in the end there was no need to make a decisive push....the rest of the war was practically on the back foot for the Axis by then.

I'm sorry, but NO. First of all, he had the cheek to declare that Market-Garden was "90% successful" (the "10% failure" probably being the fact that they lost the chance to end the war by Xmas, 17k casualties among Allied troops and last but not leasts the thousands of civilians that died in Holland because of the ensuing famine the following winter..), second thing is that the competition with Patton had the best of him: Monty had this thing that when he needed to be cautious he was reckless, and when he could go he was too prudent.

War is hell ain't it........
don't worry Stern...even I am a bit upset that we celebrate an oxygen thief like Monty, I would much prefer we had a more charismatic person in his place of history.

No, I am just talking about controversial generals, the fact that they're both British is coincidental. I can mention you a lot of non British incompetent or controversial generals if you want me to: Adolf Hitler anyone?

Hitler wasn't a general....just a corporal with delusions of grandeur, shame you make little effort to mention some of these 'other' generals, your concentration on the British ones is telling.

My opinion (which is shared by many, both now and back in the days) is that Montgomery was overrated, that's it. I'm not saying he didn't do what he had to do, but when left to organise important things his stubbornness got in the way and caused enormous damage.

Many oppinions are always shared by many others....doesn't make them right or wrong, Montgomery being overrated is one I can share with you but not completely incompetent.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

So how exactly is the fact that the axis were denied supplies and reinforcements and overwhelmed by a superior force testament to Montgomery's total incompetence?

I don't think he was a total incompetent, he knew his stuff (which somehow makes him even worse), but El-Alamein was a bit unbalanced: it's like saying you're gonna play the world cup final against a formidable team who has no football boots and is one legged..

I never said 6 months.....where did I say 6 months? just like in many other conflicts nature sometimes nature throws in a curveball that changes proceedings to a degree, I was just under the impression a window of bad weather bought Rommel some time and in the end there was no need to make a decisive push....the rest of the war was practically on the back foot for the Axis by then.

Well that's how long they sat on their ar$e for. He lived on the glory of El-Alamein and didn't complete his job in North Africa.

War is hell ain't it........
don't worry Stern...even I am a bit upset that we celebrate an oxygen thief like Monty, I would much prefer we had a more charismatic person in his place of history.

I understand your sentiment.

Hitler wasn't a general....just a corporal with delusions of grandeur, shame you make little effort to mention some of these 'other' generals, your concentration on the British ones is telling.

well he was a general indeed unfortunately, and I can mention to you other bad generals: Rommel, Alexander, Gamelin, Graziani, Percival, Fredendall.. we also have the ones who won, but at insane costs in terms of lives (i.e. Stalin, Zhukov..).. if you want details on them let me know

Many oppinions are always shared by many others....doesn't make them right or wrong, Montgomery being overrated is one I can share with you but not completely incompetent.

as I said before, he wan't a complete incompetent, he was a stubborn man with an awful sense of timing and an ego the size of the British empire..

[bongodriver]

I don't think he was a total incompetent, he knew his stuff (which somehow makes him even worse), but El-Alamein was a bit unbalanced: it's like saying you're gonna play the world cup final against a formidable team who has no football boots and is one legged..

No not really...it's just like a regular football match and one side lost, you seem to be emphasising the entire North Africa campaingn on the second half, the first half was a mirror of your description with the allies being completely outclassed, just because Rommel wasn't completely taken out doesn't mean enough wasn't done.

I'm not sure your prejudice against amputees is very nice, Bader had no legs (lost before the war) and he became an Ace.

as I said before, he wan't a complete incompetent, he was a stubborn man with an awful sense of timing and an ego the size of the British empire..

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.

[bongodriver]

with regard to the 'winners write history'.....well duh!

the point is if you take into account why the Allies ever got involved in the War and what was ultimately being fought for then without doubt the Allies were the 'good guys' irrespective of any individuals questionable ethics, we can separate the Allies into 2 groups, the Russians had their own part of the war that just happened to align with the US and Brits, this just defaulted them into being an ally, the West had no influence over how they chose to conduct their war, lend lease was not necessarily an endorsement of any conduct either.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

No not really...it's just like a regular football match and one side lost, you seem to be emphasising the entire North Africa campaingn on the second half, the first half was a mirror of your description with the allies being completely outclassed, just because Rommel wasn't completely taken out doesn't mean enough wasn't done.

well I have a different understanding of the war in Northern Africa: the turning point was at the very beginning, when Vichy France surrendered, leaving a void and space for the Allied invasion to storm in. Other factors like limited or no supplies from Europe, the breaking of the Ultra code and inferior numbers in terms of troops and air support meant that it would only have been a matter of time, especially after the Germans started concentrating their efforts in Barbarossa.

I'm not sure your prejudice against amputees is very nice, Bader had no legs (lost before the war) and he became an Ace.

ah come on man, it was just an example.. my grandpa was a partisan and a war amputee, so I doubt I'm prejudiced about the topic..

Cool then.....same hymn sheet is being sung from.[/QUOTE]

yeah, let's just enjoy the moment

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

...
well he was a general indeed unfortunately, and I can mention to you other bad generals: Rommel, Alexander, Gamelin, .

... if you want details on them let me know
...

Sorry, can't help but ask. Why, in your opinion, was Rommel a bad general?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Hmm..... Also interested in Mr. Sternjaeger's opinion of Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay.

http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/t...-meetinghouse/

Here's another one.

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=217