ORIGINAL: Von Rom
IronDuke:
I do not wish to re-open the Patton debate again. [:)]
I was intrigued by this author and quote you provided though:
I only had to open up another book to find a sixth. Charles Whiting in "The battle of the Bulge".
"Indeed, Patton with three full divisions, one of them armoured, plus overwhelming air and artillery support at his disposal, was stopped by three inferior German divisions, one of which its commander (as we have seen) didn't even wish to take beyond the German border. He wasted his men's lives because he threw them into battle hastily and without enough planning, making up his strategy from day to day. Most important was that Patton, the armoured Commander, who should have known much better attacked on a 25 mile front across countryside that favoured defending infantry on account of its many natural defensive spots. Instead of a massed armour-infantry attack on some concentrated, ole blood and guts , the supposed dashing cavalry General, slogged away like some long in the tooth hidebound first world war infantry commander."
I found it odd that I had never heard about this bit of information because it sounds like some interesting and important information, especially since some people are basing their views about Patton on information such as this.
In this book, Whiting claims it was the British who won the Battle of the Bulge, and of course claims Patton was unskilled and went up against inferior German units.
So I did a little digging.
This what I found out about Charles Whiting - the "military historian":
Charles Whiting is a popular and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form.
Charles WHITING is a pseudonym for:
* Duncan Harding
* John Kerrigan
* Leo Kessler
Who is the REAL Charles Whiting?
Is he a German named Leo Kessler?
As Leo Kessler, he is the author of WW2 pulp novels that glorify the virtues of the Waffen SS!
Did you know that?
Here is a list of those books:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/autho ... essler.htm
He has also written a novel entitled "Kill Patton!"
Why would a serious "historian" (which he is not) need to use pseudonyms?
Here are some opinions about "Charles Whiting's" writings:
*******************************************************************
The Other Battle of the Bulge: Operation Northwind (West Wall Series) > Customer Review #1:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Whiting
Reading the other posts about this book compels me to say a few things about the author. Charles Whiting is a popular, readable and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form. If you have read more than one of his books you will recognize the following:
1) lack of any kind of endnotes and few footnotes: where is this material coming from?
2) quotes from interviews with the author, which are not in any way anotated at the end of the book
3) praise of the common US soldier but uniformly harsh criticism of all senior U.S. leadership, especially Eisenhower
4) comparisons with Vietnam which, while occasionally interesting (he points out that William Westmorland fought in the Huertgen Forest without learning its lessons) usually border on the ridiculous
5) plagarism from his own works, including entire chapters, some of which have not even been re-written, but simply included whole in different books
6) where are the @and*#and! maps?
This book, like his "Ardennes: The Secret War" posits that Operation Nordwind was a bigger threat than the Battle of the Bulge to the Allies because it nearly defeated the Alliance politically at a time when they had already won the war militarily. It is an interesting conjecture, but it is tainted by the half-hidden glee that Whiting seems to feel over any disaster involving American troops and particularly their leadership. Everything he writes is written through that distoring lens. In any endeavour, if you want to find fault, you will, and in war this is particularly easy. Eisenhower was an armchair warrior and a true mediocrity as a strategist, but he was a superb military politician, maybe the only man who could have kept such a contentious alliance together until final victory. He deserves credit for holding it all together.
I have read five of Whitings books and found most of them to be very entertaining, especially because he tends to focus on American disasters which naturally have not gotten much press since the war, and thus have not been written about extensively. He puts books together like a novel, and is far from a dry writer. But his scholarship would not have met the standards of my high school history teacher, much less those of a true historian. He seems to write about what interest him only, is careless with his statistics and dates, includes facts that suit his opinions, states his opinions as facts, and constantly recycles his own material. You could probably file his books under historical fiction before you could file them under history."
************************************************************
Whiting, Charles. The Battle for Twelveland: An Account of Anglo-American Intelligence Operations Within Nazi Germany, 1939-1945. London, Leo Cooper, 1975. The Spymasters: The True Story of Anglo-American Intelligence Operations Within Nazi Germany, 1939-1945. New York: Dutton, 1976.
Constantinides says this is "a potpourri of fact and fiction, actuality and myth, assumptions, sketchy versions of certain events, contrived tie-ins, and a certain confusion." Nevertheless, the author is "sometimes so accurate as to indicate access to well-informed sources or successful combining of certain versions." There is also "a good segment on SIS's role and the basis of its intelligence successes against Germany."
Whiting, Charles. Gehlen: Germany's Master Spy. New York: Ballantine, 1972.
NameBase: "Charles Whiting's book is somewhat sensational in tone and doesn't cite sources.... There are altogether too many exclamation points, along with direct quotes that appear to be added for effect rather than accuracy. Most of the book concerns Gehlen's career in Germany, particularly after the war, rather than his associations with U.S. intelligence."
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_fol ... f-whz.html
************************************************************
I really did not expect to find this info about Whiting as I truly wanted to learn more about what he had discovered about Patton.
However, his scholarship seems highly suspect. This may be why no serious historians in North America have considered his "evidence".
What sources does he cite for your quote above about Patton?
What are your thoughts?
Am I way off base here?
I think our friends in Britain should be made aware of this, though.
Cheers!
Aha, now to specifics, exellent.
I was intrigued by this author and quote you provided though:
Only one of the authors I have quoted, I am disappointed that only one quote (who I stated was the sixth provided) elicited this response, but never mind.
In this book, Whiting claims it was the British who won the Battle of the Bulge, and of course claims Patton was unskilled and went up against inferior German units.
Indeed. He is wrong in the first assumption (I believe) but correct in the second.
This what I found out about Charles Whiting - the "military historian":
Charles Whiting is a popular and prolific writer of WWII stories, but he is not a historian in any way, shape or form.
Charles WHITING is a pseudonym for:
* Duncan Harding
* John Kerrigan
* Leo Kessler
Who is the REAL Charles Whiting?
Is he a German named Leo Kessler?
As Leo Kessler, he is the author of WW2 pulp novels that glorify the virtues of the Waffen SS!
Did you know that?
Here is a list of those books:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/autho ... essler.htm
He has also written a novel entitled "Kill Patton!"
Why would a serious "historian" (which he is not) need to use pseudonyms?
You make this sound as if it is some great revelation. May I read from the dust jacket of the Bulge book?
"...joined the British Army at 16 serving with the 52nd Lowland Divisional recconaissance Regiment...Charles studied at the Universities of Leeds and Cologne...he has been published under a number of different nomes de plume besides his own, which include Leo Kessler, Klaud Konrad (You missed this one!) and John Kerrigan."
He is also listed as the most profilic writer of WWII books. I do not consider him as serious a historian as D'Este or even Hastings (who'm you have so far not criticised despite these gentlemen agreeing with me) but neither are his works completely without merit. He does have an axe to grind with the US, frequently looking at the more difficult moments for them (which US scholars do not always do anyway) .
As for
pseudonyms, this is a standard literary device used by authors. Separate types of work will be written under different names so people know what sort of book it is. There is nothing suspicious or particularly exiting about it, Whiting has these other names written on his dustjacket, so he's clearly hiding nothing. He uses Whiting when he is writing a history book, and Kessler when he wrote "pulp" novels. It is so people do not not buy a Whiting book hoping for a story about SS men in Normandy.
It is nothing to get exited about. Are you suggesting he is trying to hide something. If so, please write to his publishers and point out they are giving the game away on the dustjacket of his books.
As for your reviews, the most damning seems to be a customer review? This is not a peer review from a professional, but the opinion of someone like you or I who happens to buy his books at Amazon or wherever. We have no idea how much this person knows, or how he learnt it, yet you present it as evidence. [:-] It could have been written by someone from the George Patton home page you keep quoting.
His criticisms about notes are a little off, there were over 30 for the chapter I quoted from, but never mind.
As for:
I found it odd that I had never heard about this bit of information because it sounds like some interesting and important information,
I really did not expect to find this info about Whiting as I truly wanted to learn more about what he had discovered about Patton.
The basic information of Patton's attack is on the record. Can you tell us which history book you got the information from? The criticisms of Patton are Whiting's interpretation, rather like Rohmer criticising Monty, and the George S Patton fansite claiming their man was a good General. All history is interpretation.
However, if you have a hang up about this source, then replace it with this: Talking about the same operation as the Whiting quote.
"Patton forsook the advantages of a concentration...in favour of
yet another broad front effort to go forward everywhere. In the end, Patton accepted Eisenhower's adjurations to attack on a large scale that undermined all ideas of going like hell....He substitued breadth for depth...and so wide was the front that, far from advancing in column of regiments, the divisions were hard put to keep their regiments in touch with each other's flanks. The outcome was
another slugging match in which the breadth of the front dissipated American strength enough to compensate considerably for German weakness."
This was written by Russell F Weigley in
Eisenhower's Lieutenants. I include a little biography of this gentleman who is the Distinguished University Professor of History at Pennsylvania University.
Professor Weigley was awarded a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship, 1969-70. He received the Athenaeum of Philadelphia Award for Non-Fiction in 1983 and the Samuel Eliot Morison Prize of the American Military Institute in 1989. His Age of Battles received the Distinguished Book Award of the Society for Military History for 1992 for a work in non-American military history. He has served as President of the Pennsylvania Historical Society and the American Military Institute. In recognition of his scholarly achievements, Dr. Weigley was named Distinguished University Professor in 1985.
What is noticeable about the words of Weigley and Whiting, are that their analysis is the same (although Whiting is a little more colourful). Clearly, if Whiting came to the same conclusion as the "President of the Pennsylvania Historical Society and the American Military Institute" he can't be all bad can he? Unless you think Dr Weigley is another dodgy source?
If not Weigley, how about Ellis, a well regarded British historian whose work on Cassino remains required reading on the subject.
Although Patton was facing an "outnumbered, outgunned, out armoured force holding a hopelessly overextended line" it took him "five days to advance one armoured column, the westernmost, into Bastogne, another week to push the germans away from the southern perimeter, and a further two weeks to drive through to Houffalize." How long he might have taken without the benefit of massive superiority in ground and airborne firepower can only be guessed. But certainly rather too long for a genius.
Perhaps you could do some digging on these gentlemen and report back to the forum on their abilities?At the same time, you could investigate D'Este and Hastings who I have already shown agree with my interpretation of Patton's gap that it was understandable, and perhaps even correct, for Bradley to halt Patton at Argentan. We can assess their worth based on your results?
If not these august Gentlemen, then how about the most recent history of the Campaign, Robin Neillands "The battle of Normandy". He points out that advance elements of Patton's lead Corp entered Argentan but were ejected by a German counterattack. He also points out that they attempted to skirt north of the town before being stopped by German guns, a fact confirmed by the US official history. Elements of 1st and 2nd SS Panzer had joined the town's defenders. Neillands concludes that it was unlikely Patton's men could have taken the town, but that Bradley's reasons for stopping Patton were sound and if any one was in a position to know what was happening around Argentan, it was Bradley.
Finally, Neillands adds strength to his argument by referencing the US official history (which I confess I have not read). "The US history...eventually concludes that Bradley stopped Patton's advance and he was right to do so.To do otherwise would have meant sticking Patton's neck out against a German thrust from the west and the resistance mounted by Panzergruppe Eberback astride Argentan to the north."
I'm not sure how many serious historians it is going to take to convince you. If you don't like Whiting, fair enough, I'll withdraw him and just use comments from D'Este, Hastings, Ellis, Weigley, Neillands and the official US history.
You talked earlier about the big picture. It is this that the Patton home page and Rohmer have completely missed. In seeking to show their man could have taken Argentan, they have completely missed the point that even if he could, it was not the right thing to do so since he would have been overextended, without support, and facing desparate German troops attacking from either flank. The bigger picture demanded Patton stop at Argentan. Bradley made the call, and instead ordered Patton's troops to head for the Seine to make an even bigger envelopment (the big picture again) of German troops. I repeat, why take 75000 at Falaise when you could try and take 150000 along the seine.
Your hero saw this, Patton supported a move to the Seine initially, only becoming besotted with Falaise when he reached Argentan.
Regards,
IronDuke
