Just a quick reminder, had Patton been in pretty much any other army during WWII (besides the Soviet) he would have been executed for incompetence.
It was only the American willingness to allow a general to waste its sons' lives thay let Patton gain the status he did.
By that standard Montgomery should've been whacked for the shitstorm that was Market Garden.
>>29458033
>Gained a foothold onto Belgium
I'm tired of this American meme that market garden didn't achieve its main goal
>>29458029
You are wrong
>>29458044
You are wrong
>>29458042
It achieved its goal with unacceptable losses in personnel and equiptment
>>29458044
>>29458060
All wrong
>>29458033
>le fuck-up-blame-the-poles man
>>29458042
>hurr durr we achieved our objective
>totally ignores the mauling that the airborne forces received
>or how the regular military forces failed to achieve the decisive breakthrough Monty promised, instead being forced to bail out airborne units
>>29458077
Guess whos wrong
>(you)
>>29458083
I'm not blaming the Poles for the Market Garden fuckup.
>>29458095
I know, im making fun of Montgomery for that
>>29458029
I talked with a gentleman recently who was in the 71st infantry division. He had nothing but positive things to say about Patton. Yet everyone I have met that served in the Pacific have nothing but negative things to say about MacArthur.
>>29458070
>Unacceptable
The side that WON the war has no standing to define what "unacceptable losses" means
>>29458108
/thread
>>29458029
what army (beside soviet) executed their generals for incompetence in the first place?
If he'd been with Italy, he'd have been executed on accident.
>>29458108
>>29458117
Kek two idiots
>>29458105
Be me freshman year of college. In honors history class.
First female professor ever at Texas A&M sucking MacArthur's dick
Keeps saying how great he was
Raise my hand and tell only thing about WW2 my grandfather said.
>Mom young girl in school.
>Comes home from school talking about MacArthur.
>Tell how teacher says he was great man and his men loved him.
>Mom realizes Grandad has become silent, isn't saying anything. Neither is Grandma.
>Grandad gets up, take Mom to back of house.
>Tells her "Don't you ever mention that man's name again. He left us there to die."
>Go back in to dinner.
>No on ever mentions MacArthur's name again anywhere near Grandad.
Of course since I didn't bow down and accept everything the "teacher" said as gospel truth she called me a German communist. I took my C (should have been a B, but I knew I would never get that from her) and went on my merry little way.
>>29458227
Well your grandpa lived, didn't he? What a whiny bitch.
>>29458255
Yep, he lived. Even after the nips shoved a bayonet through his chest he was too damn stubborn to die.
>>29458320
Hate to be the one to tell you this, but your grandfather is a habitual liar
Wtf is going on here?
>>29458029
I knew you were a dirty commie faggot Gallagher!
>>29458351
>French
>FRENCH
>FFFRRREEENNNCCCHHH
I'M NO DAMN SURRENDERING FAGGOT I AM AN AMERICAN.
>names everywhere
wtfbbq
>inb4 lurk more
>>29458365
Fuck off Carey, you fucking cunt
>>29458365
What's today's date?
>>29458373
Hey, we don't use those mean terms here.
Wrong US General m8.
>I ACCIDENTALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF US FORCES.
>I ACCIDENTALLY MILES OF MILES OF RETREAT.
>>29458033
>Blaming Montgomery for the failure of Market Garden
It was the Sosabowski's fault that the allies didn't achieve the breakthrough that they so desperately needed.
>>29458551
>le not monty's fault meme
I want this meme to die
>>29458551
I would really, really, like to know how the Polish Paratroopers were what caused Market Garden's failure, considering the main tank column didn't even make it to the area the Poles were supposed to secure.
>>29458088
This. I wish I remembered what the Belgian Prince was quoted at saying about Montgomery's "victory."
>>29458653
>Thank god they let Monty come save my people, rather than let that cunt Patton head straight for Germany and let my people suffer even longer under the Germans
That's what he said
>>29458333
I know I shouldn't reply, but what the hell.
No, you see he was a man, something you will never be. The sad thing is he wasn't anything special for his time. That generation was something else. I look around now and realize America has become a country of soft people who believe they are entitled to everything and not responsible for the consequences of their own actions.
>>29458668
Again, I hope you realize your grandfather was a habitual liar who never even picked up a rifle, let alone served in the Pacific.
What a cunt, I hope he died of cancer.
>>29458551
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Sosabowski#Battle_of_Arnhem
Get fucked, retard.
>>29458675
Not him but
>wow this person disagrees with my certain point of view of a man due to his grandfather's involvement with that man
>I KNOW! I'LL CALL HIS GRANDFATHER A PHONY AND A LIAR! THAT WILL GET HIM
>>29458699
>Wikipedia
Wow
Sure showed me
Can't argue against wikipedia
No sir, not at all
>>29458029
Patton was autally considered the better of the Allied command hell look a the Russians they would have thrown the order lenin his way
>>29458710
I cannot quote Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far,'' because I lent my copy out, and now I am sure you're either a troll, retarded, or both.
>>29458653
>>29458666
Dutch Prince Bernhard responded directly to this to Cornelius Ryan: "My country can never again afford the luxury of another Montgomery success."
>>29458042
If the main goal was failure, than that was achieved along with tying up precious resources when bold action (definitely not Montgomery's forte) was needed with the Wehrmacht in full retreat. Something that Patton did excel at.
>>29458816
Technically, the Wehrmacht was already reogranising and re-establishing prior to Market Garden. There was a slowdown in attacking prior to it because Allied supply lines were getting strained due to the distance won.
There was little chance of keeping up the German retreat due to logistics, although it could have been done.
>>29458029
Patton had forgotten more about warfare by the time WWII came along than you will ever know... that my friend is fact.
ITT: asshurt Germans
>>29458883
Says the boy who'd let Patton sacrifice him for an inch of land
>>29459219
ITT: VERY asshurt Germans
>>29459226
>>29458883
I suspect the eternally salty britbong. Seeing the resolute defense of Monty and the envy of not having an American hero General like Patton. Even in the modern era we have Mathis, Peatrus, Mullen, Powell but they have total nobodies.
>"Remember that time Montgomgery dumped paratroopers on my Waffen-SS Panzer Corps? What a mad man!"
>"What about that American officer who was killed carrying the entire Operational plan on him! Hilarious! Why were we beaten by these chumps?!"
"Mostly Hitler."
"...oh... oh right..."
>>29458551
>guys this area is basically undefended all we have to do is walk up and take it and the war will be over by Christmas
>oh shit there's an entire armor division sitting right where we dropped our paratroopers who have almost no AT weaponry
>it's the Sosabowski's fault!
Not to mention that even without the fact that the entire place was extremely heavily defended, the rapid advance the armor would need to have made was still ridiculous and basically impossible.
Market Garden was proof Monty wasn't half as smart as he thought he was.
>>29459444
Didn't Monty ignore Dutch resistance warnings about the Germans using the region as a reorganization point? The entire offensive jumped right on top of entire divisions of heavily armed, highly pissed off from losing in France Heer and SS men as though that was part of the plan.
>>29459386
>mostly Hitler
>not the fact they produced almost no oil in the entire war
>not the fact they opened a three front war
>not the fact they had a remarkably inefficient industry
>not the fact their training was very good at turning out a few elite troops but very bad at turning out competent replacements
>not the fact they declared war on the US for no reason whatsoever
>not the fact the Germans weren't half as good as they thought they were
Honestly, the only reason they got as far as they did was Hitler.
The original plan to attack France was basically a repeat of 1914. And chances are it would have failed miserably. It was only with Hitler's decision the plans were changed to launch the main attack through the Ardennes. Even then, had an officer not crash landed in Belgium carrying the entire plans for the original attack two weeks before hostilities began the plan would not have been changed at all.
Germany beat France mostly by dumb luck. In actuality, the French plan had pegged the German plan perfectly. It was only a colossal navigational fuckup that saved them from a defeat in 1940.
>>29459502
I'm being facetious.After the war, German General officers loved to use Hitler as a punching bag.
>>29459474
He and the rest of Allied High Command ignored all the reports saying the area was highly defended and crawling with Germans, yes.
Allied Air Command discovered entire collumns of Tiger tanks and Panthers in great number but they were dismissed as dummy tanks because "Germany doesn't have any tanks left" and then after realizing "oh fug they have thousands of tanks left" a few months later Allied High Command once again decided "Germany doesn't have any tanks left" and then the Battle of the Bulge happened.
>never have so many been lost to so few because we thought there were less
All history shows you is that everyone is an idiot, some of them are just luckier than others.
>>29458042
The goal was to end the war prior to 1945, it just lengthened it
>>29458042
Market Garden didn't achieve its main goal. Its main goal was the seizure of key bridges so that Allied armor could continue their exploitation. Further, this would have allowed for the earlier seizure and opening of the absolutely VITAL port of Antwerp. Because of Market Garden's failure, the Allied advance bogged down for about three months, until the Germans sacrificed everything on a fool's errand in the Ardennes. If Market Garden was successful, none of that would have occurred. So no, Market Garden did not succeed in its objectives.
>>29459502
If Belgium would've just built their portion of the Maginot line the war would've stalled out and Germany would've sued for peace in '41.
That PALES in comparison to the disgusting, revolting, conniving cunts the Dutch are.
>WWI
>oh wow, Germany is steamrolling all these neutral countries
>look at Britain! They're over there fighting the good fight to defend poor little Belgium, grug into the war because Germany is too much of a pussy to directly invade France
>I don't want to fight this war, war is hard
>there's a lot of dead people around me.. things are going poorly for the Allies.. they sure could use my men, supplies and money
>nope
>oh look! America, coming in to help the faltering, yet valliant soldiers of the Allies
>wow! With fresh American supplies and troops, it looks like the Allies are steaming towards Berlin! Way to go Allies! Fighters of liberty!
>Germany is getting rekt, they don't have many soldiers, beans, bullets, or bandages left
>I know! I'll supply their armies!
>Nederland you are of genius!
>what? The allies are blockading me?
>WAR CRIMES! W-A-R C-R-I-M-E-S!
>I am so neutral! You cannot do this to me!
>Allies won? Yay go freedom and Allies! I knew you could do it!
>WWII
>Germany building weapons?
>looks like another war
>good thing I'm so neutral
>Germany is invading?!
>ALLIES! LOYAL FRIENDS OF OLD, PLEASE SEND YOUR SON'S TO DIE FOR MY LAND!
>We have lost glorious Nederland, can we crash on your couch, UK?
>hey UK, USA, we need weapons and men to fight disgusting Indon-NIPS, gross nips in the Pacific
>thanks for weapons and men, Allies!
>*these disgusting Indonesian rebels don't stand a chance.. time for genocide!*
>oh Allies won again? GOOD JOB ALLIES! Thanks for my country back, also, I hear there are lots and lots of Nip holdouts on Java and Jakarta, can send men and weapons?
>no? Why? Disgusting Allies, you never help with geno-- I mean Dutch freedoms!
>>29458666
My favorite Montgomery story is when the allies were about to cross the Rhine, Montgomery badgered Eisenhower into having Bradly turn over several of his divisions to his command so he could make the crossing in sufficient force. When Bradley got Eisenhower's orders, the normally calm Bradley called Eisenhower and told him if he gave those divisions he could "have all my God damned divisions, because I resign!" Patton could be heard in the background saying "Tell Ike we all resign."
Montgomery did not get Bradley's divisions.
>>29459811
I just finished reading a book by a Brit author who speculated that Monty might have had high functioning autism, as, among many other things, he just couldn't gauge people's reactions.
>>29458343
Someone with a mental disorder is attempting a troll thread.
>>29458033
A bridge too far -Montgomery
>>29459811
>"He once invited Bradley to Christmas lunch and only gave him an apple. The Americans absolutely loathed him. Senior officers were convinced he just didn't have a clue what the Americans thought."
An apple
Singular
ONE fucking apple, on Christmas, as a meal.
>international tensions were "rising" in 1944 following speeches made by Montgomery which saw him claim Britain had won the Battle of the Bulge which angered Eisenhower and his generals, in another speech he said Britain had "centuries of knowledge" compared to the US having just "decades of knowledge" and that they had "quite a bit to learn".
What. The. Fuck.
>>29459842
That sounds right. Montgomery was said to have "an active internal fantasy life" where things he believed had happened had either not happened or had happened differently from the way he remembered. The British Army had borne the brunt of the war early on and was a shell of its former self by the end of the war. Montgomery continued to act as if it were at its 1940 strength in 1945. That he asked for Bradley's divisions at all shows that he was at least coming to terms with the fact that his army was not what it was. He wouldn't, couldn't, accept that he was no longer the central player by the end of the European campaign, though.
>>29459885
Montgomery rose through the ranks in the interwar period and was part of a British Imperial military that oversaw a world spanning empire. WWII saw the military that Montgomery loved cut to shreds, the empire he served shattered, and here were the Americans, a former colony that had rebelled no less, with industrial might the world had never seen with seemingly endless supplies of men and equipment while the British Army was reduced to begging, BEGGING! These upstart Americans for their cast offs and leftovers.
Try to imagine it. What it must have been like to see everything you loved crumbling, the Army you loved, the Empire you served. And in your heart of hearts, you knew that these shabby G.I.s in olive drab were supplanting you and were including you because you and your army and your empire had broken itself to slow Hitler down. Not stop him, just delay him until those shabby G.I.s could come and save what was left of your army and your empire.
Imagine how you would resent them and wish for your former glory.
>>29458463
twat you mean?
>>29460105
Twat? I cunt hear you. I have an ear infucktion.
>>29460082
The thing is, Monty was wrapped up in his own world. He didn't see how the outside world reacted. It's not so much that he resented the Americans for supplanting him, it's that he simply never realized that they HAD supplanted him.
>>29458033
Shitstorm?
Montgomery's only failure was that he thought that we would be able to pull our own weight: The 101st and 82nd failed to secure their objectives, everything else was achieved (including a entry into Belgium to threaten the Ruhr.)
Honestly, the Patton v Montgomery thing has done was too much of a disservice to Monty. If the 101st and the 82nd had their shit together Market Garden would have been a resounding success and Monty would be hailed as a genius.
>>29458632
Me too.
It was the US that failed.
>>29460331
No.. Market Garden went tits up because of the piss poor planning on Monty's part. You don't drop airborne on top of full armor divisions and expect a resounding victory.
>>29459885
He was pretty much right though:
The US military was essentially non existent in the 30s aside from a naval buildup, and they rapidly expanded for World War Two with a hugely negative teeth to talk ratio and some dubious results for those actually in combat.
>>29460367
... The plan was to have airborne forces reinforced by friendly ground forces via a rapid advance using the secured bridges.
The 82nd and 101st both failed to capture their objectives, both bridges were destroyed, and XXX corps couldn't reinforce.
The entire operation was jeopardized because the US failed to secure their two objectives, and delayed the reinforcements.
>>29460082
I personally think Monty just didn't get it. I don't think he actually understood what was happening.
I think every major allied victory during the war he credited the British because of his predisposition to the idea of British dominance. He wouldn't see anything else because it didn't fit his world view. He viewed the Americans not with resentment, but with a patronizing attitude of "look, Britain's problem child has come home to papa."
Plus, many British people had the opposite idea, they enjoyed the closer cooperation with America and welcomed the American participation in the war. The more American men and equipment involved meant less strain on the already severely stressed British military and economy. I'm all for giving credit to American involvement in WWII, because the Lend Lease alone pumped more equipment into Allied armies than some countries produced the entire duration of the conflict. That being said, the British were by no means a pitiful force. They had a decent sized and professional fighting force throughout the war, especially when looking at the RAF and RN.
>>29460407
Sounds like a planning failure to me. Additional plans should have been prepared for a scenario where various one or more bridges where not captured.
>>29460407
But why did they fail? It couldn't have been from the fact there were entire fucking armored divisions in their way.
>le wasn't Monty's fault
Please stop.
>>29460331
What are you on about, the British airborne not only failed their objective, but they were massacred and almost all of them died.
The same thing would have happened to the 82nd or 101st had they dropped where the British did. Airborne forces are not some kind of supersoldier elite troops like in your video games. They get their shit kicked in and die just like regular men do.
In fact they often have even higher rates of casualty because being dropped from a plane into hostile territory is hazardous to your health. Troops drop in lost, confused, disorganized, unsupported, and have only the munitions and weaponry they dropped with. They don't get access to artillery and generally don't have much in the way of airstrikes either. And then of course they have to make do with the supplies for days without replenishment from anywhere else.
>>29460407
The entire operation was jeopardized because it relied on the Germans being scarce and unable to react to the droppings.
They were able to react, and there were ten times the Germans there with heavy armor, artillery and air support as well as heavy fortifications that were just not expected to be there.
They counterattacked every landing in force and it's a miracle the 82nd and 101st weren't almost annihilated like the British paratroopers were.
Market Garden was one of those things where everything had to go exactly according to plan. Not only does nothing ever go according to plan in war, the plans were created in a scenario that did not exist in the real world.
>>29460371
Everyone had a smaller military cuz loldepression.
American soldiers fought side by side with French and British soldiers, and held their own. American involvement in armed conflict dated back to its inception, with further conflict in 1812, the Mexican American War, Civil War, Spanish American War, etc.
One thing you can't ever say is that America lacks a warrior culture.
>>29460454
They were massacred holding their fucking objective waiting for reinforcements that never arrived because the US airborne divisions, despite being the only airborne units to drop 89% within their intended landing zones and encountering almost no resistance, couldn't secure either of their objectives which prevented the British from being relieved at Arnhem by the armored divisions of XXX corps, which allowed panzer divisions to be moved into position from Germany.
Read a fucking book and study a map you ignorant cunt.
>>29460442
You realize that the armored divisions were moved from Germany after the landings, right?
An entire corps with several armored divisions was intended to reinforce the airborne divisions, they couldn't get there because the US had to hold at least one bridge.
>>29458029
Steven please your arm chair general is showing.
All this Monty bashing from America's, typical..
Based Monty:
>.... and egotistical outlook which prevented him from appreciating other people's feelings".[84] One incident that illustrated this occurred during the North African campaign when Montgomery bet Walter Bedell Smith that he could capture Sfax by the middle of April 1943. Smith jokingly replied that if Montgomery could do it he would give him a Flying Fortress complete with crew.
>Smith promptly forgot all about it, but Montgomery did not, and when Sfax was taken on 10 April he sent a message to Smith "claiming his winnings". Smith tried to laugh it off, but Montgomery was having none of it and insisted on his aircraft. It got as high as Eisenhower who was said to be absolutely furious, but with his renowned skill in diplomacy he ensured Montgomery did get his Flying Fortress, though at a great cost in ill feeling.[85][86]
Bet is a bet. Give the man his fucking plane.
>>29460512
>ignorant cunt
Britcuck confirmed.
Face it, Monty was a literal aspie who got thousands of British and American airborne killed while still managing to have some sense of superiority over the people that had to pick up the slack just to end the fucking war.
Monty was a useless sack of fuck.
British soldiers were brave, fought valiantly, and served their country and freedom abroad admirably, but their general was a chucklefuck.
>>29460512
The only reason the British didn't lose their bridges too is because the Germans were using it to kill all of the British.
Even if the Americans had captured all their bridges intact, which was a pipe dream because there was no way they could have taken them by surprise since they were rigged to blow before they even took off, the ground forces would not have made it to the British in time.
If anything, successfully taking the bridges would have just meant the isolated British would have been slowly pounded to death by artillery while the massive German armor concentration hit the advancing Army troops directly.
There was no way Market Garden would have ever worked. There were too many Germans in place, too many Germans ready to counterattack, and too many bridges covered in explosives to capture.
>it's all America's fault Market Garden failed not poor planning and the complete disregard for intelligence stating the area was heavily defended and had shittons of tanks in the area reeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
No fuck off. Market Garden was a shitfest destined to fail from inception. And despite what some people think Market Garden was not solely Monty's fault. Pretty much all of British Command and most of American Command were all very much behind the idea. So much so they ignored non favorable reports and troop concentration sightings.
It wasn't the fault of the airborne they were dropped into more than they could handle.
Its Commands fault for dropping them there in the first place. Market Garden was a royal fuckup and it is on the heads of the generals that sent their men to die, Monty's included. Stop sucking up to a dead guy who is ultimately responsible for the fiasco. He fucked up. He fucked up big.
>>29460512
You know why the airborne couldn't hold their objectives? Because they landed right on fucking top of SS Panzer units, which Monty knew were there, but still greenlighted the plan.
>>29460543
I bet he's not even British, probably some self-hating American.
>>29460541
>"Indomitable in retreat; invincible in advance; insufferable in victory."
>Churchill on Monty
>>29460541
>Bernard
Fuck off, Monty.
The 1st Polish Parachute Brigade commander, Maj. Gen. Stanislaw Sosabowski, was marginalized by Lt. Gen. Sir Frederick Arthur Montague 'Boy' Browning, commander of the 1st Airborne Division and I Airborne Corps, and his staff for his views on the plan. Sosabowski questioned where the drop zones were placed in relationship to the objectives, pointing out that the airlift of the troops would require several days to complete and that the Germans were not going to sit idle while this was going on and would attack. Sosabowski was essentially told not to “rock the boat” by Browning.Maj. Brian Urquhart, the U.K.'s 1st Airborne Division chief intelligence officer, questioned 1st Airborne’s intelligence estimate of German forces in the area. They said most of the German troops were old men and boys, disorganized and without much tank support. With evidence to the contrary, Urquhart requested a meeting with Browning to discuss his concerns. After meeting with Urquhart, Browning dismissed his claims and had the division's senior medical officer send Urquhart on sick leave. A classic case of what might happen if you disagree with the boss!
The command climate of “don’t rock the boat” was prevalent in the staffs of the Allied headquarters prior to Market Garden. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, there were less than seven days to work out the details, much less question the initial intelligence and assumptions of the plan. There was no time to develop a good “Plan B” in case things didn’t go according to schedule.
>>29458227
>tell shitty pointless story
>expect it to change anything for the positive
>>29460586
There are many reasons for the failure of Operation Market Garden, but I believe the most important is hubris of the Allied leadership in refusing to allow questioning of the plan. The mindset of not “rocking the boat” led to the group think within the staffs of “make it happen”, regardless of the facts staring them straight in the face or their better judgment. If the commander seemed eager about a plan, this staff would also. This enthusiasm needed to be tempered by cool judgment and analytical study of such a complex and risky plan. Yet, this enthusiasm overwhelmed the leadership and clouded their judgment on the viability of the plan. The failure of Operation Market Garden is not an orphan, but has many parents -- the senior Allied leaders who allowed this command climate to exist.
-Dan Fitzpatrick
>>29458402
BUT WHAT YEAR IS IT?!?
>>29460543
>>useless sack of fuck
Holy shit, not getting into the Market Garden thing, but if this is what you honestly believe you're demonstrably ignorant.
Montgomery was a brilliant general, certainly top 5 of the 20th century.
>>29460524
Are you autistic?
Page 460 of wings of war: airborne warfare says that on September 16, ULTRA found that the 9th and 10th Panzer divisions were being moved to the area. Lt. General Smith raised concerns with Monty, but he ignored them. This was before the landings u fuckwit
>>29460611
I'm sure all those dead soldiers, killed by his pride and insatiable lust for glory, would agree with you.
>>29460512
Also, you seem to be leaving out the fact that the US paratroopers managed to take and hold the largest bridge of Nijmegen, it was not their failure to take the major bridges, but rather the smaller bridges before they could be destroyed or damage that made it such an issue.
And even then, what slowed down XXX Corps the most, even more than the loss of bridges, was that they were constantly ambushed. Every single hour of the advance they were fired upon and delayed because all of Belgium was crawling with Germans. Those delays and casualties sustained just trying to make it to the bridges was the biggest factor in keeping the Allies from relieving the British in time.
>>29460611
To be frank, I don't think any member of the British WW2 staff gets that title.
You'd be talking about almost 100% Russians and Germans for the top 5.
>>29460611
Monty didn't provide the support neccessary to clear the Scheldt Estuary in a timely manner. Because of this, the vital port of Antwerp was unusable for MONTHS after it was first seized. This alone probably extended the war by a month.
Next, his whole plan for all support being given to his northern thrust was bollocks, as it would have played into Germany's hands by creating a single area in which they could concentrate their reserves. The Allies at this point needed to keep the Germans spread thin and weak. Further, had this gone through, the German counteroffensive (which by that point was inevitable) would have had to concentrate merely on breaking that advance, something much more probable than the one in reality, as the distributed troops were able to shift and react to the Germans far more readily than had they all been tied up in the fighting from the start.
Next, his arrogance and ignorance caused splinters in the Western Allies which were quite unnecessary. It is in part due to Monty's personality that the Brits and Americans didn't coordinate as well as they should have.
And that's just Northwest Europe, not even counting Market Garden.
>>29460629
>>29460512
By the time XXX Corps actually reached Arnhem they were basically destroyed as a fighting force. They spent an entire week getting shot at, sustaining numerous casualties and losing a large chunk of their armor. This is unrelated to the bridges being lost, this was all due to the ambushes and counterattacks by the Germans of them just attempting to move along the roads.
They reached Arnhem and even if it had still been held by the British, they would have been in no position to defend the city, let alone continue the advance. After they reached Arnhem they stayed only long enough for reserves to be brought up. They were then quickly moved back from the front and reorganized because they had been so battered just to gain a narrow stretch of road.
Market Garden was an utter failure in every single front by every single unit involved. They were thrown up against an opponent they were not properly equipped or deployed to combat and thus failure was the only possible outcome.
>>29460640
I dunno, Slim gets my vote as one of the Top 5.
>>29459685
Wow what dick heads.
>>29459264
>no Stormin Norman
>>29459264
Nice bait, but I just have to bite. I disagree with you on that. Patton had just as many faults as Monty.
>>29460699
We have so many hero generals and admirals I can't even remember them all. All the Birtcucks have is an autism faggot like monty. We should send them that failure Stanley McCystal as he'll feel right at home being on an Island with other faggots and nobodies.
>>29460477
This. In fact one could argue that the United States had an even stronger martial tradition most of the allies. Can you think of another country which actively encouraged individual firearm ownership.
>>29460715
Patton didn't have Autism from being an inbred lslander. Montgomery has no major successes in his book and is a textbook example of a underachieving officer that should have been replaced. If I read a synopsis of his career with his name and the nations omitted, I would have assumed he was an Italian general.
>>29460748
I'd say the Finns the Swiss. I would call them honorary Americans, connected in a mass of shitty cuckold countries.
>>29460477
America had some big issues in the beginning of both world wars. I wouldn't say that warrior culture was an inherent strength of the US back then. they were highly isolationist, and had a pretty outdated and small military.
the strength of the US lied in its ability to mobilise absolutely fucking everything, and overcome their issues. US performance early ww1 and ww2 was pretty bad.
You get a warrior culture from being war torn country, or living next to some crazy motherfuckers (finns)
>>29460748
many european countries not only encouraged weapon ownership, but they funded civillian militias, with cheap ammo and weapns. and saw it as a part of their national defence.
after ww2 the US have just been at constant war, but they've all been across the pond. billy, the liberal cunt, wont adopt a warrior culture that the proffesional armed forces import in.
and if you look at history, nothing beats europe when it comes to wars.
>>29458675
You're calling his grandfather a liar because he said that MacArthur left him to die on some fucking island in the ass end of nowhere? You ARE aware that's precisely what fucking happened right?
Newsflash dumbass: not everyone is going to be happy with a decision especially if it means they're almost assuredly going to be killed. You know how everyone talks about the bravery of the guys who got left behind? That's because it's extraordinary. If they were mindless robots obeying orders nobody would give a shit, these were real men with real emotions.
>>29460769
>>Montgomery has no major successes in his book and is a textbook example of a underachieving officer that should have been replaced. If I read a synopsis of his career with his name and the nations omitted, I would have assumed he was an Italian general.
Oh, so you just have never read a history book or heard of the Second World War.
You can start with El Alamein.
>But really, I know you're just trolling. I have a hard time believing anyone on this board could legitimately be that retarded.
Why does Monty get so much trash for using so long taking caen.
let the man do his thing. while the american killed themselves in the undefended bocages in western normandy
>>29458121
>"Die Fahne Hoch" plays softly...
>>29458029
I'll not disagree that the man was a preening diva, but by God he could fight and did so, very well.
He'd had a reputation for hard-charging ballsiness since his days as a second lieutenant.
And hell, he learned half of what he did best under Blackjack Pershing, and nobody ever called "Nigger Jack" a butcher.
>>29460924
>You can start with El Alamein.
He was a fucking garbage general that needed to have overwhelmingly favorable odds in his favor because he was penetrated by the WWI concept of war from every pore of his greasy bong skin.
>>29460477
No. The US have never experienced a war of annhilation or the sort of wars that you've seen between regions and people in Europe (or asia for that matter). They've never had to experience mass graves of their own, neighbours massacring neighbors, one city laying siege to another. One thing you will note very quickly in european (and western asian) history is the deeply rooted conflict is. You had the civil war, which, sure enough was rather bloody, but it never transformed the US into a wartime society; you had the revolution which was barely even a war. You can tell from american war propaganda and arguments that it's never been about war, rather war as a means to an end.
It's not a bad thing, and its not like anyone thinks you're any less brave for it (though many americans tend to think otherwise). The very conception of the USA was a country free of the ethnic or nationalistic conflicts.
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jqadams.htm
Too bad you fucked it up though.
>>29461016
>overwhelmingly favorable odds
Montgomery didn't even have 2:1 advantage against an entrenched enemy.
>>29460541
That is literally textbook autistic behavior. Not understanding sarcasm and obsessive interests.
>>29460640
I'll take "Who is Orde Charles Wingate?" for 100, Alex
Bradley, maybe, for the Americans
Rokossovsky and Vatutin for the Soviets
Germany... eh, matter of personal preferences. Manstein? Bock?
>>29460791
>irrelevant "muh neutrality" cuckolds
>>29458883
>>29459226
slavaboos pls go
>>29461097
Manstein or Guderian would be my vote, though i would add Kesselring and Rundstedt to your list.
>>29461026
>Half of the axis troops were useless italians
>had over twice the number of tanks
>three times as many aircraft
>fuckhuge advantage in arty
I'd be more impressed if he managed to fuck it up, really.
>>29461026
>H-He was only twice as numerous against an exhausted ennemy with a chronic lack of supply !
>B-But they were heavily fortified in flat wasteland !
>H-He is the greatest general ever !
>>29461132
Guderian, maybe. Kesselring is somewhat of a marginal figure. Rundstedt was a dick, AND sat on the bench a lot.
>>29461102
At least the Swiss can own guns and you don't see somalis beheading their troops in the streets as their police are too busy patrolling facebook for people using the word nigger to do anything about it you salty britbong sand nigger lover. Anyone who would choose to be reborn in the UK over Switzerland has a islam and cuckold fetish
>>29461097
Guderian HAS to be on that list somewhere.
Much as I like Rommel for being a genuinely decent guy, he wasn't the ridiculously nearly perfect commander Guderian was. Guy was scary good.
>>29461150
Kesselring was a solid commander. He performed his job reliably, but without flash. He's the kind of general I would want.
>>29461150
>Kesselring a marginal figure
what, because you don't see him on History Channel during pawn stars breaks?
Rundstedt wasn't a dick, he was a preussian officer, with all of its drawbacks.
>>29461196
Also, you shouldn't judge him by his work 1944. He was 70 years old and had lived a soldiers (pog if you want to be judgemental) for 50 years (joining the army 1892).
>>29461026
He cut his teeth fighting the Italians and that makes him a great general? Thats like bragging about beating fallout 4 with "tgm" toggled on.
>>29461173
I'm just concerned that he didn't see the ass-end of the war
>>29461191
literally meh-tier. the German roster was full of such guys. so was the British, for that matter
>>29461196
because his defense of Italy kept him away from either of the main fronts and before that he was picking targets for planes. a commendable job he did, for sure, but nothing as spectacular, as technically brilliant and flawless, as Manstein could pull off
>>29461267
>but nothing as spectacular, as technically brilliant and flawless, as Manstein could pull off
Such as taking forever and several tries to take an isolated fortress?
>>29461267
>literally meh-tier. the German roster was full of such guys. so was the British, for that matter
If you think that, then you know nothing of what he did, or much of anything at all about the war in Italy.
>>29461267
>for sure, but nothing as spectacular, as technically brilliant and flawless, as Manstein could pull off
Manstein was flashy, but made several key mistakes, such as at Kursk. I mean really. It was fucking obvious what the Russians were going to do. Salients like that get counterattacked at the base. The issue here is that you like Manstein because of the headlines and discount those who don't make them.
>>29461325
Now, now, properly held fortifications are a bitch and a half to crack.
>>29461325
such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sea_of_Azov
vastly outnumbered (the 11th Army was actually an overstrength SS panzer corps, augmented with some Romanians and shit, and it faced two fresh Russian Armies), wins and retakes the offensive
Crimea was not a fucking walk in the fucking park. it was a hard-fought campaign with two major Russian counteroffensives
>>29461330
I know a lot about his defense of Italy. He literally made zero mistakes. He also literally pulled zero miracles out of zero hats. we're talking top five here, it's not the Oscars for supporting roles ffs
>>29461359
Hitler postponed the attack; and either way, as a preussian officer, you obey the chain off command.
>>29461359
he fought constantly with Hitler about Kursk before, during and after (and it got him dismissed)
I like Manstein for the unbelievable shit he pulled off, like his initial drive to the Dvina in Barbarossa
>>29461394
He was so good at what he did that he didnt need to make miracles happen. Whos better, someone that has to rely on throwing the dice or someone who doesnt?
>>29461394
>I know a lot about his defense of Italy. He literally made zero mistakes. He also literally pulled zero miracles out of zero hats. we're talking top five here, it's not the Oscars for supporting roles ffs
He very nearly pushed the Allies off at Salerno. Unfortunately, miracles don't happen, and the counterattack was pushed back due to overwhelming naval gunfire.
>>29461442
>I like Manstein for the unbelievable shit he pulled off, like his initial drive to the Dvina in Barbarossa
Exactly what I just said. You like the flashy headlines more than reliability.
>>29461452
wrong outlook on things
the good commander obtains good results
the great commander also obtains good results, but is creative enough to set up the conditions for fantastic results.
sometimes they get them, sometimes not, but they are way more efficient overall, for a successful throw of the dice brings outsized rewards
>>29461493
Salerno was a major clusterfuck on the Allied side. wrong commander, wrong force composition and size, wrong place, wrong fucking everything
also, I'm not disputing that Kesselring was good, he was, but someone like Rommel would have ended Salerno in two days and someone like Manstein would have had the maturity to just seal it off and let the Allies bleed out on the beaches indefinitely instead of committing to a rash attack in force.
>>29461506
It is you who has the wrong outlook. A reliable commander is better than the maverick. While the maverick can achieve higher highs, they also achieve lower lows. It is better to consistently do a good job. In addition to everything else, it gives higher command a known variable, around which operations work. While it might not be the most interesting, it is by far the more vital.
>>29461558
Rommel was a maverick. Patton, for all his glory, was a maverick
to accuse Manstein of this is ridiculous. the man was a master of the set piece, a virtuoso of the artillery duel... his brilliance was not erratic, artistic, it was the brilliance of an engineer...
>>29461551
>Rommel would have ended Salerno in two days
Or gotten the entire army captured.
>>29461609
never. he might have let the front collapse and retreated to Northern Italy post haste, but he wasn't incompetent enough to allow himself to get encircled
>>29458029
As opposed to Courtney Hodges? Or Bill Simpson's 9th Army? Remember was an army commander and by definition had to deal with decisions Brad and Ike made. Hell. he was junior to Jake Devers' 6th Army Group which was formed by pretty much gutting US forces in Italy- although Mark Clark pissed off too many people at that point and the French were pushing for their armies to fight in France.
>>29461558
>>29461551
>also, I'm not disputing that Kesselring was good, he was, but someone like Rommel would have ended Salerno in two days and someone like Manstein would have had the maturity to just seal it off and let the Allies bleed out on the beaches indefinitely instead of committing to a rash attack in force.
I think that's a bit of an unfair assessment. Now, alternate histories are imprecise at best, and downright delusional at worst. Still, I'll humor you.
How exactly would Rommel have reacted? Well, we have precedent for that. He was, after all, in a similar position with Operation Overlord. As we saw there, he wanted immediate counterattacks, which were countered by interdiction by air and naval gunfire. This puts aside the point that Rommel should never have gone higher than corps command. Rommel excelled as a tactical mind, not so much a strategic one.
As for counterattack being the incorrect choice, horseshit. While it didn't throw them off Italy, it did cause horrendous damage. It threw off Allied timetables, and caused the airborne to be committed to defend the beachhead instead of their actual job. In addition to that, the counterattack hit the allies when they were at their weakest. If they had been allowed to consolidate their foothold, the Allies superior force would have been more easily brought to the forefront, and the defenders would have surely been overwhelmed. Instead, the counterattack caused heavy casualties. Manstein, being no fool, likely would have counterattacked as well. It's the correct choice.
>>29461591
>Rommel was a maverick. Patton, for all his glory, was a maverick
I'm well aware of this, and I dislike them because of it. Their reputation is overblown. Both committed grave errors with rather high regularity.
>to accuse Manstein of this is ridiculous...
Quit sucking Manstein's cock so hard. Really, he wasn't that good. Not everything was brilliantly planned. His counterattacks during his retreat back to the Dneiper often met with abject failure.
>>29459685
You forgot how the Dutch volunteered to the Waffen-SS in such droves, the SS had to form a division made up almost entirely of them.
>>29462331
It was a division in name only. There weren't ever enough soldiers for more than a brigade.
>>29461609
Unlikely. In fact Rommel would have been a great commander in Italy, owing to his significant experience with mountain warfare.
>>29462415
He did good work on the Romanian Front indeed. However, he did intend to cede Southern Italy without a fight and hold Northern Italy.
>>29458866
Which is good because he started his career specializing in swordplay and horse riding.
Which isn't to say those weren't legitimate disciplines at the time but they were pretty useless by world war two
>>29458095
It was the god damn brits!
>>29462504
Good thing Patton's early career was actually focused on motorized troops and tanks.
>>29458551
go to bed monty
>From a shitposting thread turned into a well constructed and well argued thread
goddamn i love you /k/
>>29459685
What makes a man neutral?
>>29461670
> His counterattacks during his retreat back to the Dneiper often met with abject failure.
he was outnumbered 5:1 by that time, the entire front was in disarray, and still counterattacking and still obtaining local successes and generally giving a hard time to an enemy that should have by all rights steamrolled his force
it's all a matter of interpretation, you see..
>>29462744
he was chasing Zapata across Mexico on horseback ffs
what tanks?!?
>>29458551
ur a fockin idiot m8
>>29458710
ur also a fockin idiot
>>29458227
dear god, how new are you to 4chan?
>>29459685
Not that simple actually. In WW1 it was beneficial to Germany to have Dutch as middleman in trade until embargo hit Dutch too heavily. And if Netherlands would have gotten in war they could have mobilized about 300k troops minimum. Due to embargo Dutch economy dropped 25% and british hate rose.
Interwar period saw heavy anti war movement in Netherlands and budget cuts nearly ended in air force getting shut down. Dutch like many other joined rearming process too late which meant that land forces were inadequate in defense. Greatest contribution of Dutch was pure slaughter of LWs air transport force and capturing of about 1000 air crews which were shipped to england before capitulation.
DEI was shitty case, budget cuts made effective forces not possible. Very aggressive rearming in -40-41 was not enough. Then we add shit show that was ABDA Command and unsuccessful naval battles in Java Sea. Biggest contribution to allied effort was Dutch submarines which were super effective and heavy usage of Dutch merchant marine, especially their liners.
>>29465147
No, you can't fucking say that. You're not allowed to bitch about a blockade, because you disgusting Dutch sacks of shit were singlehandedly responsible for extending WWI.
You got thousands upon thousands of Allied soldiers killed because you bought equipment and sold it to the Germans. You did this even though Germany was the obvious agressor, and was invading your neutral, friendly neighbors.
Then in WWII you begged the Allies for help because the Germans, the ones you tanked your own economy to help 30 years earlier, invaded you. Then you promised help for America and the UK in the Pacific because of the Indies and your Colonial forces, but guess what, you spent the entire war genociding Indonesians to try and use the war effort and Lend Lease equipment to fight YOUR wars of isurrection because YOU wouldn't stop literal genocide.
Let's not even bring up the modern day atrocities where the Dutch got scared of some Serbs so they packed up and left overnight to let thousands of women and children get raped and slaughtered.
Let's not talk about how when Dutch troops were deployed to Afghanistan they struck deals with the Taliban around them basically saying as long as the Taliban didn't come near the base or shoot at them they were cool. Let's not talk about how when the Dutch pulled out and British, Canadian, and American troops took those bases over, Coalition soldiers were killed in numbers not seen since the beginning of the war because you disgusting, filthy, conniving, treacherous scumbags refuse to fight for anything that isn't directly tied to your pointless survival.
I fucking hate the Dutch, the Allies should've divided it up after WWI.
>>29465299
Oh wow you really are buttblasted about Dutch. And I am not even Dutch! So much hate!
Same way you could hate Swedes as they provided heavily needed iron and metals to Germany. Dutch knew that joining land war could mean huge losses and damage to them, being not allied to any side was right choice for them.
Dutch East Indies capitulated in -42 to Japan and during their occupation 4 million Indonesians died. Compared to after war insurgency in which about 200k indonesians died. Japanese were much worse rulers than Dutch during 20th century.
I agree that DUTCHBAT was big shit show due to shitty ROE and dickass domestic politics.
And it was Italians who bribed Taliban. If it was Dutch, gib proofs.
>>29465299
You do know that swedish iron, steel, ball bearings and anti-air cannons was sold to Britain through the entire war? Part of being neutral is not choosing a side, you know. But if we're talking overall, Sweden assisted the allies more than the germans, which is honestly surprising, considering that they had a very close economic and cultural relationship throughout their history (and never with Britain), while the allies expressly wanted Sweden to become the WW2 battlefield and take all the blame of the war.
Patton was a good zerg general.
Whenever you needed to unleash the hounds in reckless pursuit you'd send him.
>>29465437
https://www.rnw.org/archive/dutch-military-abandon-afghan-helpers
Dutch abandon allied afghans and interpreters
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?referer=
Dutch soldiers literally say "we're not here to fight the Taliban"
I'm not upset about them fighting rebels, that's fine, people were revolting against them, but using the nips as and excuse and using American equipment to kill masses of civilians is unacceptable.
Staying neutral doesn't bother me, but saying you're neutral while providing equipment to the bad guys and then calling getting blockaded actual war crimes is fucking stupid.
As far as DUTCHBAT goes, if you replace the useless Dutch soldiers with Americans or British soldiers, those people would've lived.
Dutch -and wider EU- failings directly led to America having to get involved in the Balkans, because the European community refuses to fight genocide and ethnic cleansing. They apparently didn't learn from the Holocaust.
At least he, and most of the WWII commanders, weren't Luigi Cadorna. You know, the Italian from WWI.
>>29462464
The ally would get their foothold in Italy no matter what to be fair at that point in the war.
Better to fortify the industrial part and not loose too many resource in the rural south.
>>29465737
>industrial
It didn't really matter which part was industrial or not. Life is not like in video games where you hold factory tiles and it magically produces resources for you. In most cases occupied industry is worthless.
>>29465744
Sure, but when you fight against an industrial powerhouse like the USA, most of the time you gotta choose if you go right into the shit sandwich or you go left and crash in a dung hole.
Also I'm pretty sure allied strategic bombing runs would hurt more than italians not liking working for german.
Like I said, shit on the right, dung on the left.
>>29465753
Are you trying to make a point or do you just like to press buttons on your keyboard?
>>29458029
Yeah, I always hated Patton.
signed.
this guy.
>>29465737
Incorrect. By fortifying the Southern part, he kept the Allies stuck with a major troop commitment and less space for airbases. Crucially, had he ceded the South without a fight, there would have been even more airbases for the Allies to bomb important things, such as the the Romanian oilfields. Further, if the Germans had just retreated to the North, the North would have been breached sooner. So overall, retreating to the North would have definitely been the wrong choice. You lose space and time. In a delaying action, that's everything.
>>29465737
You do realize that by fortifying the South he kept them out of the North, right?
>>29458029
I just noticed how Patton looked like Trump in this picture
>>29466520
Patton and trump are related
>>29464573
>he was chasing Zapata across Mexico on horseback ffs
This happened to be the first time when the army experimented with motorized units, Kristine.
>what tanks?!?
Patton was in the tank corps in WW1 and involved with the development of armored warfare in the US since WW1.
>>29467149
Patton actually was the first guy in the US Army to make a motorized attack. It was a driveby on an HQ. But no, for the most part he was doing regular cavalry stuff until WW1.
>>29458105
people don't like blue-eyed shogun because he created the be back by 11:59 pm curfew
>>29458029
All this market garden talk makes me want to start up Band of Brothers again.
>>29459444
>Market Garden was proof Monty wasn't half as smart as he thought he was.
The entire North African campaign is proof Monty wasn't half as smart as he thought he was
>>29468973
>The entire North African campaign is proof Monty wasn't half as smart as he thought he was
Montgomery took command in August of 1942, m8000.
>>29460428
>I personally think Monty just didn't get it. I don't think he actually understood what was happening.
He certainly didn't understand maneuver warfare. Everything to him is just big set-piece frontal assaults.
>>29469044
I personally don't think you understand anything you say, you just think saying those words make you sound knowledgeable when it doesn't.
>>29469085
Britcuck please, Monty's tactics involved throwing men and material straight into enemy lines every single time. He never tried little things like driving around the enemy to operate in their depth, things like flanking maneuvers, nothing. Just straight forward into the Germans. Every single time.
>>29469117
>i will meme this meme so hard i shall become the meme
>>29469167
To be fair, he did toss British troops into a meatgrinder at the Bulge while the Americans more intelligently waged a fighting retreat until significant relief became available.
People argue that Monty "sacrificed" the British and Canadian troops so the Americans could build steam to push the Germans back, but it's bullshit historical whitewashing to preserve the legacy of a war hero.
>>29469117
Nah, horseshit. You need to take a look at Brit interwar doctrine, which was basically how to use deception, preparation, and massive sudden attacks to Win The Great War Without Getting Slaughtered This Time. Which worked in the desert and didn't work so well in the armored high-speed insanity of Europe.
>>29458029
Why are the stars on his helmet not aligned properly?
>>29469697
Oh look, this massive fucking faggot showed up.
Thread's over guys, go home, nothing more to see.
>>29469697
>Which worked in the desert and didn't work so well in the armored high-speed insanity of Europe.
Did you just imply that the desert war was more static than the European war?
>>29469804
Address the argument, not the man. By even noticing his trip, you encourage his faggotry.
>>29469755
because they are attached via a screw that tends to shake loose a bit when a tank cannon fires off nearby.
>>29469840
The way Monty fought it, yes. There was no schedule -- he simply had to win, eventually. And it worked. He kicked Rommel's ass. Eisenhower called him the master of the prepared battlefield for a reason, even though if you read his memoirs he transparently doesn't like the guy.
Then the Allies got into Europe, and all this tidy everything up and prepare and prepare and FUCKING PREPARE bullshit didn't work any more.
>>29469948
>The way Monty fought it, yes. There was no schedule -- he simply had to win, eventually.
Eh no, there was intense pressure to get some shit done before Torch. And Monty BTFO Rommel at Alamein within a couple of months. There was no undue delay or overpreparation.
>>29469968
Duly noted. It's been awhile since I read up on it.
Long story short: Brit doctrine worked well in the open spaces of Africa, and Monty was its exemplar. It didn't work well on the European continent when your allies are going ten miles a day and screaming at you to get your ass in gear.
>The frightful casualties appalled me. The so-called "good fighting generals" of the war appeared to me to be those who had a complete disregard for human life. There were of course exceptions and I suppose one was Plumer; I had only once seen him and I had never spoken to him.
>Monty regarding the generals of the First World War.
Sounds like a man I'd like to serve under.
>>29458088
You can't talk to the English about this sort of shit they're all convinced Monty was fantastic.
>>29469968
You have to admit that Alamein was certainly a VERY prepared battlefield, especially highlighting the use of deception.
>>29470059
Not if you wanted any credit for what you did.
>>29461097
>Bradley
>Hürtgen Forest
>>29458359
>who is philippe leclerc de hauteclocque
>who is charles de gaulle
>who is napoleon
This meme needs to die.
>>29470141
That was more Hodges than anything.
>>29470187
Only living memory counts desu
>>29470277
>living memory
Nigga dafuq does that have to do with anything?
>>29465786
Great counter argument
>>29470353
>someone calls you an idiot
>think of a come back 12 hours later
>it is "Great counter argument"
anon....
>>29465299
>Germany
>Instigator of WW1
Come now, anon.
>Belgium
>Friendly neighbor
Anon, be serious.
>>29470388
I'm not that guy, I was reading their argumant and then saw him cop out at the end
>>29470427
Because the anon's argument went full retard.
>>29470411
Germany wasn't the instigator, but they were fighting on the same side as the instigator.
Belgium wasn't necessarily a friendly neighbor, but they both shared pretty decent relations with the British and Belgium was still a neutral country.
The Dutch definitely had better ties to Allies than the Germans.
>>29471714
Belgium deserved it though. They were practically asking to be invaded, did you see how they managed their foreign affairs?
>>29471897
They were an easier target than France directly. Regardless of whether or not they deserved it, the Dutch shouldn't have supported Germany.
>>29458713
If the Soviets were willing to hand the keys to a man as incompetent as Zhukov, Patton would have been seen as a gift from god.
>>29460578
Truth.
Also, say what you will about Churchill, but I will forever envy his command of the English language.
>>29473165
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0rjckCTl4
>>29460640
Dude, not even. The Germans, sure, but Soviet officers were terrible. There was the odd guy who managed a respectable degree of competency, but by and large they were fuckwits. Zhukov included. And almost none of them were on the level of their western counterparts.
>>29461022
You know, I'd say you're actually pretty close to the mark there. If there's a warrior culture of any kind in this country, it must be fairly recent. Throughout our history, we've taken a very pragmatic stance on war, from what we think about it to how we fight it. Arguably, that's part of what makes us good at it in the first place.
>>29458029
Patton invaded Italy and succeeded with minamal non-british acceptable casualties. You can go shut the fuck up now.
>>29461097
Guderian has to be there somewhere for sure. I don't know about Brad though. He was a competent administrator and a solid commander, but he left much to be desired as a leader, and his reputation as the G.I. General was overblown by Ernie Pyle. Some might even say it was fabricated.
>>29461191
So, basically the German equivalent to Ridgway? If I can be forgiven for mixing time periods here.
>>29464573
Patton was a big part of the reason we adopted tanks at all. More or less anyway. He also, along with Guderian, was one of the originators of modern armored warfare tactics.
>>29458029
Well, without the American and Soviets' tactics, the war would be loss, so there.
Besides, compared to the latter, what the Americans lost was a drop in the bucket.
>>29470231
Bradley's reputation is definitely overblown though.
>>29473333
You aren't thinking broadly enough anon. There was a good chance that the war would have been lost early on without US logistical support. Lend-Lease played a huge part, and the Soviets acknowledged that fact readily. This is to say nothing of the effects of our direct involvement later on. Measuring the contributions of one nation in terms of lives lost gets you nowhere. Matter of fact, doing that at all gets you nowhere. It was a team effort, start to finish.
>>29458029
The difference between your Patton and your average general was that he could kick as much ass as he was one, and the dude had all sorts of /k/-tier side skills to boot: pictured here is a sword he designed. It is agreed by many to be one of the best designs in the world.
He may have lost many men, but many of those many men gladly died for him.
What country are you from that all those small-fries failing the trial by fire offends you, anyway? The Bongs understood it, the Canadians understood it, and the Russians especially understood that much blood would need to be spilled for better or worse.
>>29458029
Patton was a hell of a great soldier.
most definitely /k/ approved by this /k/ommando
was not without his failings, but who the hell is?
that is all
Could have been worse.
Could have been any Soviet general with exception to Chuikov.
>>29473580
Being a good soldier doesn't excuse you from being an incompetent general.
>>29473287
I'd probably agree, yeah. His performance is similar to Ridway's in Korea, albeit less successful due to a lack of resources.
>>29473353
No doubt. That isn't to say that he wasn't great most of the time.
>>29473405
>It is agreed by many to be one of the best designs in the world.
Oh really ? I mean, it's good for thrusting when you're on a horse, but really that's about it. It's not because it's one of the last sword designed that it's the best, sword designs don't evolved through time in linear progress. Besides, How should we judge a sword in a time were they were largely archaic and used in a very limited way ?
This sword is optimized and very good for ONE thing, which is something many swords can't even say, but it's certainly not the best design in the world, far from it. It's pretty much just a short rapier with good hand protection, nothing to shy away from, but as a pure thrusting weapon, it has nothing on 17th century rapiers really.
>>29476423
It fits the environment and usage.
>>29476423
>but as a pure thrusting weapon, it has nothing on 17th century rapiers really.
>using 1 meter+ rapier on horseback
This is why they don't let you design swords.
>>29476556
>It fits the environment and usage.
Which is why I said it's optimized and good at ONE thing, it hardly makes it "one of the best designs in the world", especially since it's just a sorta diminished cavalry rapier.
Smallswords fitted the environment and usage too, yet they are (certainly wrongfully) laughed at and are called "one of the best sword designs in the world" by not a lot of people really.
Fitting your environment and usage is pretty much what you can expect of any sword really. Patton's sword was a product of a certain ideology of a certain time and like many other thing in WW1, was overall dragging behind a century or more of military history. A sword works in every century, but trying to design the bestest sword in the 1910's is really having a warped sense of priorities, especially when you don't even consider your sword worth of making parries and proper fighting.
>>29458029
You mean MacArthur. That guy was a pompous piece of shit.
>>29460541
Im austrian and think Montys a giant fucking tool, whats even your argument?
"But murca dumb and burgers"?
>>29474574
But he wasn't. Read the thread. He wasn't incompetent. He was just more aggressive and took more chances. That sort of behavior tends to be high risk, high reward. The resources at his disposal made it possible, and when it payed off, it payed off big time.
>>29476586
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz
Come again ?
And then I appear to find out that the guy who said that the M1913 is "agreed by many to be one of the best designs in the world." was a light fantasy writer... so I'm going to pass on this one, especially since he spouted so many bullshit in the same article this sentence comes from.
>>29458551
F. U. dickhead
>>29477109
So you are posting a sword that became obsolete as proof that 1.6 meter rapier on horseback is practical?
>>29477473
Every sword is to be obsolete at some point, the fact is some people who had very extensive use of the cavalry, thought at some point, that a long estoc was a valid cavalry weapon, disputing the former sentenced that says that such a weapon would be or have been stupid. It clearly wasn't true for the polish at some point in their military history, not to say that a 5ft long estoc is always the ideal choice of cavalry weapon.
Anyway, I stand by the fact that the Patton sabre is not in any way some sort of "best sword", and that's really my point.
>>29458121
Soviets executed their generals for being too competent.
>>29459502
hitler has a confirmed history of meddling, poor decision making and mental instability. He shouldn't be used as a scapegoat, but he should be included in the massive list of why Germany lost
>>29458710
>le Wikipedia is unreliable meme
>>29458029
Post obviously by a bong. Patton had a lower casualty rate per enemy captured or killed and wounded than any other WW II allied general.
