Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: beckett
I like Johnson and on the whole I liked the column. But it contained a few revisionist screamers, perhaps second hand Monty spin (since clearly he was one former source for Johnson).

The article portrays the eventual broad front push into Germany as (1) responsible for the Russians reaching central Europe first and (2) the result of Eisenhower's caution against Monty's advice to push hard on a narrow front.

Market-Garden. Ike gave Monty his shot. Pulled all the supplies from Patton and the rest to let him try to win the war early in exactly such a narrow front operation. It failed. Many causes may be cited, but if you ask an American paratrooper the number one reason will be the failure of the British armor portion to push hard enough. Their paras died while the tankers dithered.

Then there is the fact that Monty stumped for that shot because he had been striving for breakout (not as the article has it "to destroy German armor") from a week after D-Day. And failing half a dozen times. The Americans finally did, and Patton took France. The article present Monty as calling for such operations - but overlooks that his MG proposal took away Patton's gas while Patton was already doing it.

Leaving aside the old rivalry between them, there is a more basic problem with the tale. The eventual broad front wasn't a mistake. The truth is that allies could not supply 50 divisions at the German border over open beaches, with the supplies and facilities available at the end of July. It took time to open and repair ports, land stuff, set up pipelines, etc.

The logistic limits were tight. Unless the Germans just gave up, the force that could be thrust deep into Germany early would have been too weak, whoever commanded it. (Patton would have done a better job. But it is doubtful even he could have done it). Also, the only reason is was even thinkable that summer and early fall, is because the Russians were doing things at least as nasty to the Germans in white Russia, as the western allies were doing to them in France.

Also, it was not up to the western allies which side would win the race. The Germans could throw reserves either way, at will. If they had sent their winter counterattack force (Bulge and Alsace) east instead (on defense), the western allies would have been the first into all of Germany. If a narrow front thrust threatened in the fall of 1944, they could still have stopped it by stripping the east of reinforcements - letting the Russians into SE Europe faster, and perhaps putting Austria under their control at the war's end. In short, too much was up to the Germans to pin the post war configuration on western allied choices in the fall of 1944.

Other than that, it is a fine article.

2 posted on 06/03/2004 9:23:52 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: JasonC

I have never failed to enjoy reading your comments and analysis.

Do you have favorite WW2, American Civil War, American Revolutionary War, and Franco-Prussian war books you like to recommend?


3 posted on 06/03/2004 9:33:53 PM PDT by GretchenM (No military in the history of the world has fought so hard and so often for the freedom of others.-W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: JasonC
Yes you've said it just right. Johnson did skip too easily over the whole "bridge too far" debacle, didn't he? And, as you say, Ike had it right about the broad front. Other options weren't feasible logistically. There was nothing "cautious" about that. Just good common sense. Well, perhaps the uncommon good sense of exceptional generalship.

Speaking of Ike I saw him last night on a gem of program produced by CBS in August 1963. Walter Cronkite walked the Normandy battlefied with him and put together a fascinating two hour program. Eisenhower's very sharp mind came shining through. I was floored by how incisive and really interesting and reflective he was in his commentary. He was another guy the Dems liked to denigrate as an intellectual lightweight, a bumbler in off-the-cuff speechifying much like you know who. And yet there was a formidable mind at work in Eisenhower. Even though GWB will never match Ike's accomplishments, and even though he may have even greater speechifying shortcomings than Ike had, I believe there's a formidable mind at work in Bush too.

Also it was interesting to reflect about the date of the program. August 1963. You could see in Cronkite's demeanor and in the tenor of his questions that the whole 60s thing hadn't happened yet, and that Vietnam was just a rumble on a distant horizon. Kennedy lived and Camelot was in full swing.

Really it's a gem of a program as I said, and I find it almost impossible to believe that it has languished in the CBS vaults all these years. It should long ago have become a staple on Public Television and/or the History channel.

5 posted on 06/03/2004 10:07:27 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson