If you have read <u> (I know it doesn’t work, but what the hell) Citizen Soldier </u>, by Steven Ambrose, then you probably know what I’m talking about.
Anyway, the debate in question is the actions of General Eisenhower and Patton in the days after the break through at St Lo. Basically, the planned called for Patton to take Brittany. Patton wanted to get to the German border, and cut everyone (all of the western army) off.
Instead, Eisenhower proposed a compromise: Patton would take Brittany with 2/3 of his force, and use the 3rd (not its designation, the 3rd in a numerical sequence) corps to close to the river Seine (actually, Falaise) and meet the Poles there, thus creating a huge pocket in which to trap the Germans, and so the whole German army in Normandy would be eliminated.
The plan didn’t work quite so well. The poles were held back by very impressive German defence, and so most of the german personel escaped, though nearly all the tanks and artillery were abandoned.
So, here’s the question: If you didn’t know the consequences, which plan would you have chosen? Did Eisenhower make the right choice? Was there a fourth, better alternative?
~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”
I haven’t read Citizen Soldier by Steven Ambrose. But his name is maddingly familiar. Maybe you could help me out by listing some of his other works.
BTW- Welcome to the SDMB. You seem to have a lot to offer.
(If you click that box with a red arrow at the top of this post, then you can reply with quotes. This will allow you to look at my post and learn the codes that you want.)
I have never heard of this problem, but I will give it a stab.
I would go with Patton. After checking a map, I assume my forces are at St. Lo.
I would keep my options open as I drove south down the Vire River. If resistance was not unexpectedly high, I would continue south at Vire proper and attempt to flank the German western army. If I moved fast enough, and that is what Patton is known for, I might be able to get far enough south to turn east behind the Germans. I am assuming that the Jerrys were attacking the beachhead and left few reserves held back far enough to stop me. If I could turn the corner then I would assume that it would be a race to Verdun. If I won, bingo, I have executed a turning movement. The German western army is cut off.
If resistance were high on the way to Vire, I would abort and head west to Brittany. If, after I continued south at Vire, the Germans had substatial reserves held back, I would attack them and forget about Verdun. After all, I allready have them enveloped.
I am not an expert on the history of this century, but I do know something about strategy. And logisticly speaking, capturing the enemies armor and artillery is no small victory.
Let’s look at the issue in the larger context. By 1943 at the latest, Germany (and the other Axis powers) no longer had the ability to win the war. The only hope for the Axis was that the Allies might, by mischance, lose the war. The grand strategy of the United States and United Kingdom could be boiled down to this question: “Should we take risks which might end the war sooner but might also lead to a decisive defeat, or should we pursue a strategy of minimizing risks and win the war by incremental steps?” The two issues which most influenced this debate was the relative loss of life each might entail and the competition with the Soviet Union to dictate the eventual aftermath of Germany’s defeat.
The strategy chosen, of course, was the incremental plan. I’d suggest that rather than debate whether this strategy was applicable in one particular operation, you’d be better off questioning whether it was sound as a whole. In my opinion, while we can now recognize the opportunities that were missed and the future Soviet threat, the planners at the time are easily excused for not being clairvoyent and justifiably chose a strategy that was more certain of eventual victory.
At that point in time, the War was already won. Ike was interested more in saving American lives (by letting the russians die), than brilliant moves… Pattons stategy was better, but there was no need for it. Later, as Berlin was in sight, we realized the Russians were’nt such good comrades after all, and began the race to Berlin. So, at that point in time, with the political/strategic goals Ike had, his plan was better. Patton’s plan was brilliant, and might have helped in the upcoming Cold war.
(books by ambrose include: Undaunted Courage, DDay, and many others whose names escape me-I can tell you more tonight, if you want)
You basically got Patton’s angle down, but other people have said other wise-that it made more sense to take the patient plan here. I can see two things wrong wtih your plan though-
First off, you leave yourself with very weak flanks, which could put you in trouble if the Germans lear of your plan. Second, it’s not so easy to turn around 300,000 men (or more) men. Besides, Brittany is not a valuable target in this case. See, Ike wanted it for the ports, because he thought that bringing supplies over the beatch could not supply his forces, which was not true- with the help of Cherbourg and Le Harve, the beaches would be enough.
So, there’s your rebuttal, now I speak for those who say it made sense to do what he did, the compromise. Here, I must disagree. Had more effective measures been taken, and if they had succeeded, we would not have had the Ardennes campaign. Had they failed, the result would not have been at all catastrophic; Germany would merely gain a few extra companies of troops (those that were killed escpaping-nothing else would be able to escape, because there was virtually no gas.)
But something later in the war doesn’t add up- Market Garden. I trust you all know what it is, so I won’t go into details. In any event, it was a risky plan, and there was a far safer alternativ: take Antwerp. Clearly, the high command erred on more than one occasion.
Of course, there is no correct answer; we won the war, and (I beleive) had the lowest ratio of casulties:army size that there was.
For anyone who wants to know, the actual quote from Citizen Soldier is something like “So now there was this option, which could be compared to a boxing match. The US had sent Germany reeling, and just needed a killing Upcut to finish him off (it might have been roundhouse) Eisenhower wanted to throw a strong right hook to send him reeling, but he already was.” And that sounds redundent, so it probably wasn’t that…
~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”
Argeable,When asked when he knew the war was lost, one German general, after some thought, replied,“Moscow”. That was the winter of 1941-42. If not then, the war was certainly lost in the next summer, 1942-42 at Stalingrad. After Kursk, the largest tank battle of all time in July, 1943, it was a rout. This was a year before D-Day.
The Allies only landed there to keep the Soviets from sweeping all the way to Portugal. The War would have been won by the Red Army even if the US expeditionary forces had never left England.
If Hitler makes a separate piece with Britain, allowing him to free up a lot of his forces in western Europe, is he able to hold off the Russian invasion?
Probably not. When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, the invasion force was 150 divisions. They were really going for broke, as it represented a much hire ratio of active to reserves than military planners considered prudent. In other words, they shot the works in a gamble that they could defeat the Soviets in about six weeks. It was understood by all sides that if the offensive bogged down, the Germans were in real trouble. The Red Army counteroffensive at Moscow, as I pointed out in an earlier post, did, in retrospect, seal the fate of Nazi Germany.
By 1943, the Soviets were outproducing Nazi occupied Europe in war Materiel, especially in tanks, planes and artillery, helped no doubt by the Allied bombing of German factories.
A separate peace with Britian would have been helpful to Hitler, of course, but the meatgrinder on the eastern front had already ground up the cream of his army.
Probably not. When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, the invasion force was 150 divisions. They were really going for broke, as it represented a much hire ratio of active to reserves than military planners considered prudent. In other words, they shot the works in a gamble that they could defeat the Soviets in about six weeks. It was understood by all sides that if the offensive bogged down, the Germans were in real trouble. The Red Army counteroffensive at Moscow, as I pointed out in an earlier post, did, in retrospect, seal the fate of Nazi Germany.
By 1943, the Soviets were outproducing Nazi occupied Europe in war Materiel, especially in tanks, planes and artillery, helped no doubt by the Allied bombing of German factories.
A separate peace with Britian would have been helpful to Hitler, of course, but the meatgrinder on the eastern front had already ground up the cream of his army.
I’m far from familiar with WWII history, and the reasons Germany invaded Soviet territory in the first place isn’t clear to me.
Isn’t that the same mistake Bonaparte made?
Why do people keep trying to invade such a large, cold, hostile land with poor roads? Aren’t they asking for it?
Could Germany have ignored Russia and focused on defeating Britain, then counted on the Americains covering their asses and ignoring Europe?
Ok, well this is totally off topic from the thread I started, but I’ll say it anyway.
Hitler was completely correct in invading the Soviet Union, at least from a military stand point. It’s winter of 1940. You have 60 million people. You’re immediate neighbor to the east has 200 million. You’re army is far smaller, but obviously superior. You have two options: charge now or die later. So he charged. It was immensely succesful. Russia (and Europe) would have been totally lost, except Hitler really didn’t know what he was doing. Army Group Central, which was tasked with taking Moscow, was stopped in mid July to send Panzers to Army Group North. If Moscow had fallen, Russia would have too. I really don’t want to make a huge post, so just go read Hitler’s Panzer’s East by RHS Stolfi. It explains everything.
As to the second part, Napolean had none of the advantages that Hitler did. Inferior troops. No real reconaisance. He started in late summer. No rapid movement. It just didn’t add up.
Now, why not concentrate on England? You’ve got a sword. To your left is a rabbid dog, and to your right a man with a unloaded gun and a full bandolier. Now, which do you kill?
~Dan
Basically Hitler’s entire foreign policy was based on an eventual conquest of Russia. The main reason he attacked France and Britain was to keep them from attacking him while he conducted what he considered his real war.
As for his chances, the Russo-German war was a very near run. German defeat was certainly not inevitable as some people now claim in hindsight. Argeable points out that the Germans made mistakes in diverting forces from an early attack on Moscow. In my opinion, Hitler’s biggest mistake was putting his occupation plans into effect before he had completed his conquest. By showing the Soviet people how brutal the German regime would be if victorious, Hitler immensely stiffened Soviet resistance and squashed Soviet defection.
As for the historical precedents, it’s true that Napoleon had ultimately failed in his invasion. But other invaders, including the Germans in WWI, had conducted successful operations in Russia and knew it was not impossible.
Germany begin to lose the war after it lost the Battle of Britain.
The Battle of Britain was the most decisive battle ever to be fought.
As winston churchill put it, “never has so much been owed bo so many to so few”
The many is the entire human race, the few is the Royal Airforce.
If Britain had lost the Battle of Britain, germany would of invaded using paratroopers and the luftwaffe to keep Royal Navy ships out of the Channel.
After capturing Britannia, Hitler could of turned his military giant full circle and defeated the ruske’s. Then he could pull of his plan of driving through Asia to meet the Japanese in India. Of course the British and Chinese would resist all the way.
I think the final stand of the Allies would of been in South Africa, South America, or in the US.
“Never has so much been owed by so many to so few”
A long time ago, The Sip’n Fly invented velcro, and there was much rejoicing, then he invented cheese, and there was even more rejoicing!
Actually operation sealion was a sham, and had no chance of succeeding. However, after the Nazis had command of the air, they might have got thr brits to remove churchill & ask for a separate peace. But, I will agree the Battle of Britain was a decisive battle.
I think I did all right. Never had a lesson.