I tell people Whiting's words are in bold
I see it now. Sorry. I must have missed it with my tired eyes.
Still, in the future when you post LONGGG posts, it would be very helpful to everyone if you ONLY INCLUDE THE QUOTE IN QUESTION from Whiting, which is only one sentence long, rather than the quote you posted which included several sentences NOT used by Whiting.
The other occasion is when they use someone else's words to describe or highlight something, because they agree with it, and know that the point has been made elsewhere, and by quoting rather than just restating the point, they give it extra weight because they prove other historians agree with them. Alternatively, it may be something outside their sphere of influence and they quote it because the historian is a recognised leader in that field. Did you not know this?
Heheh
D'Este was writing a balanced book about Patton. He presented both sides of the arguments. Unlike some authors who inject their opinions willy-nilly, D'Este tries to present both sides' views.
That is why D'Este's book is a superior work. He gives us the opinions of Patton's supporters as well as his critics.
Didn't you know that?
Tell us what you feel, it will improve your impact in this thread if you show your view is balanced. I've tried as the list above shows.
Heheh
You list a few words that are good about Patton, yet, spend 10 pages on this forum criticizing him. [;)]
Yes, you are a true Patton supporter - heheh
Why would he reference it?
Silly me. Imagine Whiting, claiming to be writing a history book, and not including references for what he writes or claims[8|]
Patton said of the three units he took: "Bradley, my best three divisions are 4th Armoured, the 80th and the 26th." Patton's own words.
The units in 352 Volksgrenadier Divisions Corp were 5th Parachute (which wasn't actually a parachute division anymore as it had been destroyed in Normandy and rebuilt from surplus Luftwaffe ground crew) and 79th Volksgrenadier which certainly wasn't rebuilt from veterans because the previous 79th was destroyed (1 man living to tell the tale). It was formed from the 586th Volksgrenadiers. The sources are Nafziger and Mitcham. The same people I used to illustrate the 352nd contained no combat veterans.
Some of these units actually performed creditably despite their various deficiencies.
Yes they did. They weren't exactly the misfits some might think they were [8|]
You also forgot to mention the counterattack by the 1st S.S. Panzer “Der Fuhrer” Division which was sent south in an attempt to cut-off Patton's relieving forces fighting outside of Bastogne.
In some brutal fighting both sides suffered 16,000 dead with 600 tanks destroyed. Quite the little scrap, eh?
From the history of the 35th Infantry Division:
"We did not know that Hitler had ordered some of his best remaining troops to cut off the Third Army’s relief of Bastogne at all costs. Now across our front from our right came the elite 1st S.S. Panzer “Der Fuhrer” Division, sent down from the German Sixth Army to break us – the 167th Volksgrenadier Division, and the 5th Parachute Division from the Seventh German Army. Fighting see-sawed in and around towns like Lutrebois where we lost two companies of the 134th Regiment, Marvie, where we at last broke through to the 101st Airborne, Surre, Villers La Bonne where the 137th lost companies K and L, cut off and hit by the Germans with flame throwers, the survivors captured and marched into Germany to a prison camp, Boulaide, whose grateful citizens would welcome returning veterans in later years as tour groups, Tarchamps, and Harlange where a single farm, fortified, stopped the 320th Regiment. Frostbite, illness and exhaustion, the freezing waters of the Sure River, waste deep, waded across by the 320th soldiers. Deep snow which slowed attack and bogged down G.I.s who were unable to move fast enough to evade the lethal fire of enemy machine guns, mortars and artillery shells, tree bursts and craters. The fields and woods became graveyards littered with dozens of destroyed tanks and assault guns, half tracks, trucks, equipment, and corpses."
This picture will give readers an idea of what the three Third Army divisions had to march and fight in. Imagine travelling in freezing cold for two days with little sleep or hot food and then, without rest, fight a series of battles:
This is just frustration for me. Unable to admit you are wrong, you decide instead to change the whole line of argument
Where am I wrong when I disagree about the basis of the argument? [&:]
Let me put it to you this way:
The whole basis for the supposed early German BliztKreig during the early years is really just a myth isn't it.
The mighty German war machine attacks little Poland, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, etc, and even France really offers up a poorly led and divided Allied force.
Heck, the Germans couldn't even bag hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers stranded at Dunkirk.
The Germans enjoyed a 3:1 advantage in the Battle of Britain - yet failed miserably.
Even in Russia the German forces surprise-attacked poorly-led, poorly equipped forces with low morale.
What value are these victories? Of what value are Rommel's and Guderian's victories against such weak and inferior troops?
Get my meaning? [;)]
You bring up the 352nd. But I can easily bring up all these German victories and more and compare the quality of soldiers the Germans fought against.
There's more:
In the Ardennes, the Germans had overwhelming superiority and firepower, and had Bastogne surrounded. And yet, they couldn't capture that little town of Bastogne. What poor generalship and leadership [;)]
And Rommel's stunning early successes in North Africa were against weak and scattered British forces. Gone were the British and Australian troops who were transferred to Greece. So Rommel's victories and his legend were made against weaker and inferior forces.
See what I mean?
I wasn't wrong.
The line of debate brought up was simply the wrong thing to be discussing.
. Some campaigns stand the test of time. While you're at it, (because it will be relevant later) try finding someone who criticises the German victory in the west in 1940.
I'll be looking forward to your analysis of the early German BlitzKrieg battles in the west.
I can't force you to admit you are wrong
[X(] Thank goodness you're not standing next to me with a lead pipe
You earlier admitted in your post that these same forces (the German units fighting against Patton) put up quite a fight, so obviously they weren't a bunch of rag-tag misfits as they are being made out to be.
I brought up the opposing American forces because some were inexperienced, especially the 106th which had just newly arrived on the scene.
Some of the men facing Patton didn't know how to fight
Please. . .
This is embarrassing. . .
Yet, earlier you admitted in your post that these same forces put up quite a fight. You contradict yourself.
Which is it?
Third Army suffered 50,000 casualties. . .
The next thing you'll be saying is that Third Army only faced cardboard cut-outs of German troops, and their casualties resulted from driving into trees. [8|]
Oh, and don't forget the 1SS Panzer Division when it counterattacked. . .
Patton thought them his best. 4th Armoured and 80th Inf arrived in Normandy in early August and fought across France, into Lorraine etc. 26th arrived in Early Sept and went into action in early October fighting in october and November before joining the battle in the Ardennes. You can say replacements may have been inexperienced, but the majority had seen combat, in some cases a good deal of combat.
What do you think happens when men are killed in battle? or when they are wounded? or when they get ill?
They get GREEN replacements.
Third Army had been fighting in Europe since Aug/44.
They had fought a brutual battle at Metz.
In the Ardennes, they had to travel for two days and nights in terrible winter weather and without rest, and then engage in battle. . .
Try driving your car for two days without proper sleep in a winter storm and see how you feel at the end of it.
Please. . .
You do a terrible disservice to the memory of those brave men.
In terms of the Bulge, less so for Patton, because some of the things you cite didn't apply to him, but to elsewhere in the Bulge.
I can only shake my head at this type of reasoning, and you wonder why I don't bother to answer some of your posts?
It's just nonsensical. . .
Third Army suffered 50,000 casualties figting the Germans in the Bulge. . .
What the Patton homepage ignores about this battle is that it was completely unnecessary. Think of this. You're facing tough fortified positions, you've limited ammo and gas, the weather is so poor, your soldiers have trenchfoot in massive numbers. The weather is so poor, it's hard for your infantry to move, much less vehicles, and air cover is restricted.
Regarding Metz:
Patton was a mobile warrior as Rommel was.
I'm not saying that everything Patton did was the best.
But this MUST be placed in persepctive of what preceeded it.
As I mentioned previously, the true error resided with the Allied High Command. Patton had shown how fast he could move. With the proper amount of fuel, which you also admit is true, Patton would have taken Metz and then driven onto the Siegfried Line, with a minium of casualties.
Patton would NEVER have sat still under ANY circumstances, and his superiors KNEW it.
Sitting in front of Metz doing NOTHING would have destroyed Third Army morale. Patton knew they had to get out of their situation.
Trench Foot alone was taking a heavy toll - higher casualties in fact than the Germans.
By not giving supplies to Patton, but rather sending them to Monty, the Allied Command caused two bloody situations: Metz and Operation Market Garden.
If your examples are all like this, then I would not post them either, as it does your case no good.
It's called putting a "bad situation" into perspective.
As for bad situations, what about the poor German performance:
1) In Stalingrad?
2) Before the gates of Moscow in 1941?
3) In the siege of Leningrad?
4) In the failure to bag hundred of thousands of Allied soldiers at Dunkirk?
5) In Rommels' failure to take Egypt?
6) In Goering's failure in the Battle of Britain?
7) In the German failure to capture Bastogne?
In other words, every general or army has bad moments.
But it MUST be placed in perspective of the larger circumstances.
