This is why Monty was dropped as overall commander 3 months after the landing, which proves his appointment was for purely political reasons.� Â
Nope.
It was always the case that Eisenhower was to take over command. The time was not fixed and the option was not exercised until September 1st-after Montgomery beat the Germans.
Time for a reality check .
See the numbers and draw your own conclusions.
German armour confronting Allies by sector
Who had the better chance of making a breakthrough.
An Army facing 25% of the german tank force or the one facing 75%?
If you were a German commander  and you concentrated 75% of your tanks on the  right of your line and 25% on the left does that give any indication of where you see the main threat against your army?
_“21st Army Group hurled itself against some of the densest concentrations of high quality opposition in the entire war. The importance of Caen as the fulcrum of events in Normandy was apparent to the German staff, and within days of the Allied landings, 21st Army Group was confronting 21st Panzers, 12th SS and Panzer Lehr around that disputed city. By the time of Epsom on 26 June, Dempsey’s 2nd Army was facing the deepest and most hostile opposition across the theatre, and arguably anywhere in Europe.”  _
and:
" why is it that when Bradley’s First Army took a month to cover the last five miles to St. Lô this is attributed (correctly) to the bocage and the enemy but when the British Second Army took as long to cover the six miles into Caen that is attributed to Monty’s “timidity,” “caution,” and “slowness”? The presence of seven German panzer divisions in front of Caen is usually left out of this equation "
The way Lazarus has acted in this discussion is, unfortunately, fairly typical for him.
Kurt. The man who has complet faith in Wiki and loves it so much he keeps reposting most of it here verbatim.
Take the following example:
Clyde posts this (taken from the Wiki page)about Goodwood;
@Clyde85:
British infantry supporting the operation suffered 4,000 casualties where as the Germans suffered only 2,000
And Kurt is so impressed he chips in:
@KurtGodel7:
It’s unfortunate that no one in this discussion has offered answers to the kinds of questions you’re asking. The closest has been Clyde, whose posts and information about Operation Goodwood have been very informative.
Unfortunately the information is completely wrong. It is not correct. There is no information about German dead and Cylde’s estimate is a simple misreading of the information on the Wiki page. Kurt believes anything that chimes with his uber-panzer mentality!
Anyway I wonder why Kurt reposts the same information that was so comprehensively demolished earlier.
See here for a detailed refutation of all the points in his latest post
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=18537.msg794489#msg794489
If you prefer the short version then briefly:
The Wiki article is referenced to third hand accounts that all are corruptions of the original quote that I gave here
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16779.msg633151#msg633151
All mention of Montgomery had been removed and the quotes from the German Generals made to sound as if they were talking about Patton alone.
I wasn’t leaving out the “+” sign, as 4,000 is greater then 2,000, until you add in the 2,500 prisoners, which would make it closer to an even exchange. You chose to ignore this or didn’t bother to read it at all. That’s fine.
If you look closely at the Wiki page you will find it only gives one number. 2000 to 2500 prisoners. It makes no guess as to the dead.
If you’re not trying to be a Monty fanboy, then why are you so doggedly defending him?
Well that depends if putting right your errors about Montgomery and his actions is now taken to mean you are a fanboy.
I always assumed a fanboy would be more inclined to inflate his beloved hero-something I have never attempted.
I see nothing other than the usual attempt to discredit anyone who challenges the Monty bashing.
@Clyde85:
What other logical conclusion is there?
That I am attempting to educate you in matters that so far seem to have eluded you?
@Clyde85:
what I have a problem with is ignorance.
That depends on several things. The definition of ignorance and the fact that you probably consider yourself free from this vice……
This seems like a clear contraction to me, you accuse me of not citing any sources for the figures on Goodwood and then show the link for the site I referenced the figures on Goodwood from? Wha…?? How dose that make any kind of sense?
I have taken a closer look and the totals on Wiki are actualy just prisoner totals. It says 2000 to 2500 German prisoners. It gives no number for killed. It seems we both misread the information. I checked the source (number 13) and can confirm it only gives POW totals and makes but a single reference to 18 dead.
Case in point Lazarus you aren’t being objective, you’re being extremely pro-Monty, or an Anglophile or something.
I have made no claims that Monty was better /made no mistakes etc. All I am doing is putting the other side of the argument when you give specific examples of any ‘failures’… What is significant is that you inflate this into a ‘pro’ view. Have you a problem with those who do not share your views?
his reputation in the post war era is inflated far beyond the ability and skill shown during the war
Perhaps you can referesh my memory and give examples of where post war era inflated claims are made.
3 will do to start with
You have made numerous claims about Monty that don’t hold up to scrutiny and any time someone brings this up you either accuse them of making things up or discredit their sources.
You gave a German casualty total for Goodwood.
I say that number is totaly unsourced and has no standing.
You have yet to source the numbers although I have asked you to do so.
I gave you the official German 10 day casualty total up to 20 July.
Tell me again who is making claims and who is posting facts?
I don’t know why Col. Von Luck wasn’t good enough, outside of you discrediting him for…… being German?
No for having a rather selective recollection.
I posted details of a man who had access to recce photos taken of the area where Luck says he took over some Flak of 88 guns.
There are no guns to be seen.
Draw your own conclusions.
Here’s a resource I know you’ll discredit too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Goodwood but there are some numbers “pulled out of the air” for you
If you read carefully you can see the following under the German Casualty Total
Unknown total
Further under the estimates you see:
KIA
2000 +
and under captured:
2500+
So those figures are a base line with clear indications that the final total was greater.
However you posted them as the final totals
the Germans suffered only 2,000 (though by the end of the operation 2,500 Germans had also be captured,
You deliberately missed out the ‘+’ at the end of the 2 totals.
So yes I still say your numbers are plucked out of thin air.
While their are a number of point I could pick at there is really only one that bugs me, your assertion that Monty was bold. Montgomery was Not bold, save for one disastrous time. Look at his debut in North Africa against Rommel at the battle of Alam Halfa. Montgomery successfully repulsed Rommel’s attacks but rather then take advantage
This is clear proof of your irrational downer on Montgomery. You are reduced to picking clear victories and then trying to claim they in some way were not as good as could have been achieved. A very churlish way of looking at things.
It is like saying Patton performed badly in the Bulge because he failed to trap all the Germans in the pocket.
Monty’s failure to adapt to changing situations on the ground and break away from his beloved timetables caused him to fail to exploit the initial success of the British landings in Normandy and seize Caen right away, instead waiting and following his time table, which is why operation Cobra became necessary in the first place.
I think you will find every D-Day objective was missed-including the US ones.I can only repeat the words of the British historian Robin Neillands:
For example, why is it that when Bradley’s First Army took a month to cover the last five miles to St. Lô this is attributed (correctly) to the bocage and the enemy but when the British Second Army took as long to cover the six miles into Caen that is attributed to Monty’s “timidity,” “caution,” and “slowness”? The presence of seven German panzer divisions in front of Caen is usually left out of this equation
Now instead of ignoring the valid points in the above please launch yourself into an attack on the US Forces who failed to adapt to changing situations on the ground and break away from timetables
or if you are biased ignore it and plough on with your myopic view of Montgomery.
I have to say Lazarus but I don’t think you’re being very objective in your application of historical evidence.
Is it always the case that people pointing out your errors are ‘not very objective’ but your figures for German losses during Goodwood (that you plucked ouit of thin air) are the height of impariality?
Rather then create an image of a commander based on the evidence, your twisting evidence to fit the image you want
Strange as it seems I think you have a grossly misinformed and very partial view of Montgomery.
Monty was no saint either and a claim could be made that while he was rather efficient, he was also overly cautious and most of his battle plans lacked any strategic boldness.
Yes. The overall ground Commander for Normandy, the man who planned it and the man who brought about the complete collapse of the German Army in France in 1944 lacked any strategic boldness !!!
The only reason British forces even executed operation Goodwood was because Monty’s pre-Normandy plans were disrupted by poor weather preventing his planned landing of additional forces and supplies. I think that really shows how over-rated of a commander Monty was by highlighting his lack of adaptability
Another example of faulty sources.
Montgomery committed to print his ‘overall plan’ long before the first soldier hit the beach. The plan was always to pin the Germans in the east whilst Bradley pivoted and struck into the soft German rear. Countless documents confirm this and yet you still get ill informed complaints that Monty only said this after his ‘master plan’ was disrupted.
His master plan was to be on the Seine in 90 days.
He got there in 80 days.
Goodwood was meant to be a 2 handed assault but Bradley was not prepared enough to carry out his half and thus Monty was hamstrung from day one.
Also, you can’t claim that Monty never suffered a battlefield set back with out mentioning Operation Market Garden,
Another common mistake.
Any attempt to counter the gross distortion of Montgomery and his performance in Normandy is immediatly turned into claims that you are defending his every act. I often wonder what drives otherwise sensible people to invent such an argument. I presume the lack of any real evidence to show Monty’s ‘failure’ compels them to use this straw man to save their blushes.
I liken it to Kurts argument. Anything you say that counters his claims is ‘opinion’ and every thing he claims is 100% cast iron fact and beyond and criticism!
This would be the same Patton who had the brilliant plan of attacking Metz frontaly and ‘on the run’ and who suffered huge casualties when it went wrong. Lorraine proved that when he faced German troops in prepared positions he had no great military skill and no plan other than try and kick in the front door.
The same Patton who sacraficed the lives of his men to try and rescue a relative from a POW Camp?
The reason he was ‘stopped’ from trying to close the Falaise gap was because his own commanders recognised that if he was foolish enough to dash across the neck of the pocket he would have been trampled to death by the retreating Germans. He was stopped to save him from a humiliating defeat. Bradley said he prefered a solid shoulder at Argentan to a broken neck at Falaise.
That is how much confidence his superiors had in his ability!
I assure you that I do not confuse Epsom (26 June) with Goodwood (18 July) and German losses from 10th July can not possibly include Epsom losses.
I could ask you how you managed to get 2000 German losses for Goodwood. I have never seen a credible source that manages to isolate Goodwood casualties and wonder where you got it.
If you want more senior comments on Monty try this:
The Other Side Of The Hill
page 355
_In a reference to the Allied commanders, Rundstedt said:
“Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met. FieldMarshal
Montgomery was very systematic.” He added: “That
is all right if you have sufficient forces, and sufficient time.”
Blumentritt made a similar comment. After paying tribute to
the speed of Patton drive, he added: “Field-Marshal Montgomery
was the one general who never suffered a reverse. He
moved like this”-Blumentritt took a series of very deliberate
and short steps, putting his foot down heavily each time.
Giving his impression of the different qualities of the British
and American troops, Blumentritt said: "The Americans attacked
with zest, and had a keen sense of mobile action, but when
they came under heavy artillery fire they usualJy fell back-even
after they had made a successful penetration. By contrast, once
the British had got their teeth in, and had been in a position
for twenty-four hours, it proved almost impossible to shift them.
To counter-attack the British always cost us very heavy losses.
I had many opportunities to observe this interesting difference
in the autumn of 1944, when the right half of my corps faced
the British, and the left half the American."……
Blumentritt considered that the Allied offensive had been too
widely and evenly spread. He was particularly critical of the
attack towards Metz,[MY EDIT: check who attacked Metz] pointing out that the forces available to
defend this sector along the Moselle were better relatively than
elsewhere. "A direct attack on Metz was unnecessary. The
Metz fortress area could have been masked. In contrast, a
swerve northward in the direction of Luxembourg and Bitburg
would have met with great success and caused the collapse of
the right flank of our 7th Army. By such a flank move to the
north the entire 7th Army could have been cut off before it
could retreat behind the Rhine. Thus the bulk of the defeated
German Army would have been wiped out west of the Rhine.
._
Have you seen the comments on Von Luck in the Daglish book ‘Over The Battlefield: Operation Goodwood’? His views were echoed by Dunphie. In short they opine that Luck greatly overestimates his effect on Goodwood and despite intensive research Daglish has been unable to locate the oft mentioned ‘88’ gun position he says he took over and thus stopped the British advance. Daglish had the recce photos taken of the area von Luck says the guns were sited and found no trace of them. The opinion on Luck is that he has(over the years) used information gathered long after the events to ‘refresh’ his memory of the days events .
I didn’t say anything about the Germans fearing Patton, but that the Germans regarded him as the most competent Allied armoured warfare General, and that after the break out from Normandy several German Generals and members of the General staff tired to keep close track of his 3rd army’s movement.
If you read the linked review I gave you then you could see that this claim is not correct.
However if you would like to continue down this road do you have the names/quotes of the ‘several German Generals and members of the General staff’
British infantry supporting the operation suffered 4,000 casualties where as the Germans suffered only 2,000 (though by the end of the operation 2,500 Germans had also be captutred, so that could be considered more of an even exchange I guess).
  16th LW FD alone lost 3600 men in July, the bulk of which were suffered during Goodwood. Indeed the Division was effectively destroyed on July 18th. In addition intelligence reports note that over 2800 German POW’s were taken (not 2500) Your German figures seem to be a bit too low but balanced reporting has never been a factor when Goodwood is discussed.
German figures for Goodwood are not listed seperately but we know that for 12-20 July they lost 6500 men. I leave it to others to try and chip away at the total to find a figure that best suits their preconceptions.
POW totals for the UK are 325 so the Germans surrendered at a rate 9 times greater. Though some use the tank loss figures to ‘prove’ the Germans ‘won’ they never want to compare the POW totals. I wonder why?
The usual lies and distortion peddled by those who can never forgive the fact Monty saw off the golden boy Rommel (twice) and in 12 weeks planned and executed the complete destruction of the German Army in France.
Anyone wishing to find the facts about the claims the German’s 'feared ’ Patton should get Yeid’s new book.
http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Patton-George-Through-Enemies/dp/0760341281/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Review here
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/106656
It demolished the claim that Patton’s reputation was responsible for keeping German troops away fron the beachead.
The claim Monty suffered dispropotionate casualties when fighting the German is a pure invention.
The usual lies and distortion peddled by those who can never forgive the fact Monty saw off the golden boy Rommel (twice) and in 12 weeks planned and executed the complete destruction of the German Army in France.
Anyone wishing to find the facts about the claims the German’s 'feared ’ Patton should get Yeid’s new book.
http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Patton-George-Through-Enemies/dp/0760341281/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Review here
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/106656
It demolished the claim that Patton’s reputation was responsible for keeping German troops away fron the beachead.
The claim Monty suffered dispropotionate casualties when fighting the German is a pure invention.
Listen to the boss……
Never far from the front lines
I see my play on the word ‘wingers’ (made into ‘whingers’ because they are always whining) went right over your head.
I can almost see the tears in your eyes as you wargame scenarios where fleets of Nazi Jet fighters join hordes of Maus tanks to batter down the walls of Moscow.
The eternal cry of the whiners-if only the war had lasted a few months longer we would have won-complaining they wuz (deliberate spelling, no need for you to be ‘sic’) robbed and it wasn’t a fair fight.
You are just a bad loser who has never gotten over the fact the sub-human Reds bested the SS and wiped the floor with them.
You lost, get over it.
Yet another attempt to rehabilitate Hitler.
A pathetic re-write of history and make Hitler out to be a victim.
I guess the rabid right whingers will never forgive the Soviets for bringing down the disgusting Hitler regime.
The British and French pledged that Poland would be preserved as a nation state and it was. They even got a good chunk of the former Germany-they deserved it!
‘Might’, ‘possibly’, ‘could have’ etc. We must not forget there are still many unreconstructed 'Cold War Warriors ’ out there who have a pathological hatred of the Soviets. A hatred made more intense by the fct the Soviets were the main players in the downfall of the insane Hitler and his evil system.
These people spend their lives trying to ‘prove’ Stalin was worse that Hitler.
Let them howl at the moon.
As for ‘Danzig’ and any other questions about the start of WW2 I only have to point out Hitler broke every promise/Treaty he made and anyone who for a second places any store on the pledge of a lunatic is a fool.
War was the aim of the game and by hook or by crook the madman Hitler was going to have one.
There is however no DOUBT that Rydz-Smigly did promise to “hack” the german army into pieces! Lol.
In much the same way the SS said they would ‘fight to the death’ and yet millions ended up as POW’s……
In much the same way Hitler promised to destroy the Soviet Union…
And of course post war Poland got a big chunk of Germany and still has it today.
I call BS Lazarus, but I’m looking into it.
You may ‘call’ it anything you like but just in case there is any doubt I repeat:
The article does not exist.
It is pure fabrication/a lie/invention or whatever you wish to call it.
The quote is a staple on revisionist sites but that does not change the simple fact fact it does not exist
According to one source, Nikolay Nikolevitch Poliakov, Stalin purportedly created a special “Deportation Commission” to plan the deportation of Jews to these camps.[29][30][31] Poliakov, the purported secretary of the Commission, stated years later that, according to Stalin’s initial plan, the deportation was to begin in the middle of February 1953, but the monumental tasks of completing lists of Jews had not yet been completed.[29][31] “Pure blooded” Jews were to be deported first, followed by “half breeds” (polukrovki).[29] . . .
Four large camps were built shortly before Stalin’s death in 1953 in southern and western Russia, with rumors swirling that they were purportedly for Jews, but no directive exists that the camps were to be used for any such effort.[36]
Stalin died in 1953. Whatever plans he may or may not have had for exterminating the Jews, or launching WWIII, remained unfinished. Stalin’s replacements proved to be more cautious men, and did not move forward with either of the two main prongs of Stalin’s apparent plans.
Rumour and unsourced ‘reports’ with no other aim than to confuse and try and prove Hitler was ‘right’ all along.
The Wiki article has the clear headline:
Speculation about a planned deportation of Jews
Pure speculation without any evidence at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors’_plot
“Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.” (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)
A much used quote but a complete fabrication.
There is no such quote. It is completely made up.
What do I hope to gain?
Possibly inject a bit of reality into your dreams?