Having seen every series on WW2 that I know of, I have to say : this series is excellent. Though British produced, it's a fair, & evenly balanced effort & I salute all involved in the production. Well Done ! -------------MJL, 76 y/o
@@Vonstromberg Towards the end, "The American general were too chauvinistic to be under British control" "Patton... drew the focus of American operations southwards this was the wrong position for a speedy drive to Berlins, mean while the Russians gain the time to..." The Yalta Conference, held 4-11 February 1945 decided this' and the Russian paid for it with over 80,000 dead. The narrow front vs wide front is an interesting discussion, but know one knows what would have been the outcome of a narrow front, plus blaming the Americans for 45 years of consequences, when the British agreed to the division of German is a British biased view.
World War II is a saga. Plain and simple. Disagreements over who what where why and how are inevitable. All that aside, in the end it is the greatest saga of world history. Ever since I was a boy it captivated me, I know I speak for others who feel the same. So many heroes and villains, so much triumph, and a whole lot of tragedy.
+Eric Moss Well said Eric. I suppose we debate it because we all wish to leave our little footprint in history and...so many have strong opinions, whether credible and accurate, or not. It is a subject of such grand stature and exceedingly noble conduct and sacrifice, that we all, I think, are drawn to contribute, even if only through our own, subjective interpretation. Still. there is, often, real value to be found in these pages. I thank you for yours.
+Eric Moss I suppose it is due in part to the fact that my heritage is German, also to the fact that my father fought in the battle for France/Germany, following D-Day. I too, have been fascinated by WW2 from a strikingly young age. I bought, "The Rise And Fall of The Third Reich," using paper route earnings when I was just 12 years old. (1970) Like many other things of inexplicable complexity, it seems the more you know about the two World Wars, the more questions are raised. It IS the greatest saga ever conceived.
Like your comments Eric, your right to say that WW2 was the greatest saga of human history however tragic. Check out the BBC series on WW1, 26 episodes made in 1964. Tens of thousands of lives wasted on huge battles that did not accomplish anything. At least in WW2 huge battles generally resulted in some significant breakthrough. The campaign in Italy (WW2) turned out to be a WW1 type slugfest.
Absolutely love these. Lot of people cringe when they see old fashioned stuff. Me I relish getting to know parts of history. Lot of times too you don't know 100% the integrity of the news you get. I love history and it's so important as well as how it changes over time.
Interesting and informative excellent photography job making it easier for viewers to better understand what the orator was describing.Historians did a very good job presenting actual facts from fiction. Orator presented the documentary very well. Class A research project. Rough combat operations on both sides. Germany's wonder weapons arrived much too late in the war. Special thanks to the soldiers who fought/perished/survived fighting the enemy. Defeating the German armies. Patton was right about the Russians & Stalin's plan to keep all captured Europe for Moscow's own benefits.
The fighting on the West Wall was some of the fiercest fighting in WW2. I wasn’t aware of that until I watched this documentary. God bless the Allied troops that fought there.
The Marines had to use it on Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa because the Japanese had dug into the hills where naval bombardment and bombs dropped by planes couldn’t reach them, especially on Iwo Jima. Hitler ordered his men to fight to the last man, but it rarely happened; the Japanese actually did it! They would save a grenade or some bullets to use against the Marines who were trying to find them and get them out, but it didn’t take long for them to catch on and they brought out the flame throwers. Actually, they tended to suck out all of the air around them so that many Japanese soldiers suffocated rather than being burned to death. My dad fought at Kwajalein, Tinian, Saipan, and Iwo Jima.
One thing overlooked by Battlefield was Model's stabilizing of German lines on the eastern front after Operation Bargration. Looking at the numbers and the situation an impressive military feat.
Early success sure made Hitler think he was a master strategist. That thought process was his biggest mistake. That and his attack of Russia while leaving England unbeaten. Foolish even for a fool.
Thank you 🙏 immensely for these great 👍 work ….. to open the eyes 👀 of man is something to be thankful for eternally…..like what James Web Telescope 🔭 is doing. This channel is the JWST of world war 2
Wrong info, this documentary stated that Field Marshal Von Kluge was the commander of Army Group Center in 1941, when in fact, it was Field Marshal Von Bock
@Honorloyalty88 You know the stupid BBC is ran by a certain religion, they cant even check history corectly, and thats why jimmy Saville got away with what he was doing for so many years like so many of them did to children... BBC....... Buggering British Children
And to go in a traffic crash, at that. I wonder if he was killed on purpose that way or if it was just a coincidence that he was in that car at that time?
More likely people under his command would kill him than the "brass". He was king REMF. Fuck knows why he's a hero to America. He didn't care about his troops. Only himself.
What a prognosticator Patton was . Berlin Airlift , Korea , Hungarian Revolt , Cuban Missile Crisis , Bay of Pigs , SouthVietnam( lost a relative there mid 3/68 10: days b-4 my 11th bday ) , and , currently ? Well , a blind Deaf and dumb human being knows what's going on . Hint: Putin !
Thanks for the film. A fantastic documentary that illustrates so well the effort of british and american forces from Normandy to the Rhine. Courage is needed by soldiers in this situation: I'm sure that they thought about liberty and dignity. Simple men, workers, far from their home in America. Thanks to them over all. Farewell.
Horatio Huffnagel Of course germans were so afraid of canadians soldiers. I imagine canadian soldiers like a bunch of Trudeau clones. Very frightening!
Vasile Luga has the best versions of these Battlefield docs. He left the original format so the picture doesn't get stretched out/distorted or have lower resolution.
I have watched many of these episodes, I agree with another user who stated the quality after the first few season went downhill. The best documentary on the war is The World At War from the early 70's. It had interviews with many of the notable participants still alive and had it's history is correct. If you ever watch it and listen to the British Soldiers interviewed, they really disliked Monty. This episode was written by a Monty lover/Apologist. Even Churchill disliked Monty. He was extremely slow at closing the Falaise gap and overly cautious, however you have to understand where that came from. Britain was decimated by WW1, an entire generation lost to trench warfare, the idiots who kept fighting even when the armistice was signed and the lines agreed upon. Americans were in that war for a short time and took a completely different lesson from it, not to get stuck in trenches, to move fast and hit hard. This episode makes it sound like we could have rushed to Berlin and taken it if we had followed Monty HAH! What a crock of shit. Monty would never have gotten there. He blew his load on Market Garden and was never completely trusted by the high command again. The split of Germany had already been decided, the Russians were going to take Berlin, we were never going to go that far. The Cold War had already started in the shadows.
For those who do not recall, Berlin was off-limits to UK and US Generals, even Ike could not order it. That was decided by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin long before the battles. As a General, your duty is to follow orders. As Supreme Commander, your duty is to try as best you can to deal with realities on the ground, and those leaders above you who wish to micro-manage. Bradley, Montgomery, and Patton had their faults, and played one against the other. When Ike decided to go ahead with Market Garden, don't think for a moment there were not phone calls from Downing Street, ect. urging the plan on.
It's mentioned in the documentary that Rommel was not a supporter of Hitler. I was under that impression as well until I read a couple of biographies about him. He was, above anything else, a professional soldier with no interest in politics per se. However, when Hitler first rose to power, Rommel was an enthusiastic supporter, partly because Hitler was rebuilding the army as well as other branches of the military. The scales fell from Rommel's eyes as his command in North Africa ground on. He realized that Hitler (1) didn't really know what he was doing and (2) was a tyrannical leader who did not have Germany's best interests at heart. He was a loyal German but, when all was said and done and to his credit, he was not a true Nazi.
+Melanie Hamilton Indeed. A good example, Rommel NEVER used the Nazi Salute unless forced to in Hitler's presence. He had always used the standard military salute. This in itself says quite a lot.
lol @ the bit about flamethrowers. Yeah, it’s nasty business - particularly if you’re caught out in the open with it, but the most common outcomes of successful use of a flamethrower during the war were 1) the enemy falls back or preferably flees 2) you’re using it against a fortification and the enemy therein suffocates from the flames depleting all the oxygen of the enclosed space. Don’t get me wrong, crispy critters were plentiful - but more often from aerial bombardment, which is more sudden. It’s actually difficult to burn people - they tend to move away instinctively if they have some suspicion they’re pending for an immolation. A tank is heard well before seen, and getting a flamethrower team in the right place out in the open, at the right time, to be effective without endangering themselves is kinda a crapshoot occurrence, in an open scenario your main goal is to present a credible threat of burning and hoping the enemy is either too reluctant to advance or too unenthused to stay put, leaving them one direction to go. You see this a lot in accounts of the fighting in the Philippines.
All of these wwll documentaries heavily remind me of my Grandad and my GreatGrandad , they were both full-time professional Army officers in the Greek Royal Army. Miss you guys❗
absurd British bias, particularly at the end. Why not point out that Monty was responsible for the failure to close the Falaise Gap. To suggest that the Anglo-American armies could have taken Berlin before the Russians ignores the fact that Ike and the Allied Staff had already decided the Russians would take Berlin since they were going to govern that sector of defeated Germany anyway. We weren't going to take casualties in order to turn territory over to the Russians.
It’s not that The Russians reached Berlin first & got to take it lol The US held back their forces and allowed the Russians to take Berlin as to their agreement.
Market Garden was doomed to fail and everyone but monty knew it. But the simple fact of the matter was, because of montys slow ass foot dragging, the brits were so far behind the American 1st Army, that US General Hodges whole northern flank was wide open. The US 1st Army was ALREADY in Germany past Aachen before market garden even happened. So the whole idea of montys plan to be the 1st into germany was kaput long before it ever launched. Even though the plan had little chance of montys PLANNED success, Ike approved it simply because ,,, 1. The Americans had long outrun their own supply lines. So they were getting over stretched and slowed down anyway. We needed a deep water port closer to the front to continue operations into germany. The port was in montys sector, and he was in no hurry at all to capture it. Just like at Caan on D Day, he FAILED to advance and capture his objectives and held everyone else up. 2. 1st US Armys whole northern flank was sitting wide open, and the ONLY way to close it up was to get monty caught up. Since Hodges had to cover his own northern flank, he dedicated so many of his own troops 1st Army was getting weaker, spread thinner, and vunerable to attack. ( just like happened in December at the Battle of the Bulge. ) Its laughable that the narrator claims this was an intentional trap set by Ike. 3. the launch sites for the V2 rockets being shot at England were in montys / market garden sector. But after 2 months, they somewhat had the end results they needed. 1.monty got caught up. 2. They captured the port at anterp and cleared the schnell estuary thus opening the port and shortening supply lines.. 3. Us 1st Armys northern flank was somewhat closed up, enabling them to continue operations east of Aachen. But they still had to activate 9th US Army under Simpson and put him on Hodges northern flank to close it, because monty still couldnt seem to get the job done. 4. they FINALLY captured the V2 launch sites putting an end to hitlers terror bombing of London. But It cost them all dearly. The brits on a whole were tore up with 2 airborne divisions totally decimated. 2 US airborne divisions were also tore up pretty good, along with 2 Armored divisions. Meantime, the germans reinforced and dug in all alone the western front, causing many a hard and bloody battle to get things moving again. Including getting things moved in for the Battle of the Bulge, the bloodiest US battle of the whole war. Which in the end, decimated the divisions the germans had to defend the west wall, and hastened the end for germany. . The narrator also fails to even mention the massive failure by monty in Market Garden. Even though they knew full well they were dropping the british airborne on TWO SS panzer divisions, and into a hornets nest and likely slaughter, monty did it anyway. They were obviously destroyed as a division. Then the narrator basically blames the whole cold war and Stalins seizure of all of eastern Europe on the Generals. That was Churchills and Roosevelts doings. BTW, Churchill made a secret deal with Stalin to trade Poland for Greece. They also completely fail to give credit to the german army for being one of the most highly trained and toughest armys on the planet. They had the best equipment, had been fighting battles since 1938, and lets face it, they were damn tough, brutal, and knew what they were doing. While Im sure everyone wanted to be 1st to cross the Rhine, to claim some kind of conspiracy by Bradley is a lunatics claim to try and hide montys failures. monty failed to capture his objectives in Sicily, He failed AGAIN to capture Caan on D Day. He failed to keep up the left/northern flank across France, Holland, And Belguim. He failed to capture the port at Antwep. How can ANY Army make plans all revolving around a general like that and actually expect them to succeed? You simply cannot. So the rest of the Allies just did what they had to do to WIN. But good old monty was such an arrogant narcissist, he expected EVERYONE and EVERYTHING to revolve around him. They just couldnt afford to give the germans that much time to wait on montgomery. The germans were just too damned dangerous to be given time like that. The allies had to keep them on the run or there was hell to pay in blood and lives. Montys foot dragging way just didnt fit into the allies plans. It cost too many lives. And EVERYONE except monty seemed to know and understand that. Talk about a lame attempt at a history re write.
'The brits on a whole were tore up with 2 airborne divisions totally decimated. 2 US airborne divisions were also tore up pretty good, along with 2 Armored divisions.' When did this happen?
Sicily Read this: From a review of BITTER VICTORY The Battle for Sicily, 1943, By Carlo D'Este. Review written by Walter Lord in the New York Times: 27/11/1988. ‘Montgomery was heading for Messina too, but the German forces still on the island threw up a tough defense line and it was late July before Montgomery worked his way through them and resumed his advance. Fans of the movie ''Patton'' think they know what happened next. Montgomery marched into Messina at the head of his triumphant troops - to find a smirking Patton waiting for him. Mr. D'Este assures us it didn't happen that way. Patton was indeed trying to beat Montgomery to Messina, but Montgomery would not make a race of it. He wanted only to keep the Germans from escaping and realized Patton was in the best position to accomplish that. In fact he urged Patton to use roads assigned to the Eighth Army.’ For your convenience, the link below will take you to this review… www.nytimes.com/1988/11/27/books/the-finish-line-was-messina.html
Normandy Was won by Montgomery ahead of the scheduled completion date (D+90) with 22% fewer than expected casualties, despite constant badgering from no-nothing US commanders and a few Britons who should have known better. Despite the great channel storm that caused so much disruption to the allied build up. Despite the fact that the Germans put the vast bulk of their forces (including 84% of their armour) in front of the British Second Army - at Caen. The allies take Caen or they do not take Caen. It had little effect on the outcome of the battle. El Alamein ended the war in North Africa as a contest, Normandy ended the war in North West Europe as a contest. In terms of numbers, Normandy was a bigger defeat for Germany than Stalingrad - courtesy of Montgomery. Here is an American view on Montgomery in Normandy: ‘Knowing that his old antagonist of the desert, Rommel, was to be in charge of the defending forces, Montgomery predicted that enemy action would be characterized by constant assaults carried out with any force immediately available from division down to a battalion or even company size. He discounted the possibility that the enemy under Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line and calmly and patiently go about the business of building up the greatest possible amount of force in order to launch one full-out offensive into our beach position. Montgomery’s predictions were fulfilled to the letter.’ US General Dwight D Eisenhower. Here is another: ‘Thus while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for which while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded.’ US General Omar Bradley.
'The US 1st Army was ALREADY in Germany past Aachen before market garden even happened. Nope. Maket Garden was 17th - 25th September 1944. Aachen was captured 21st October 1944. FACT.
'2. 1st US Armys whole northern flank was sitting wide open, and the ONLY way to close it up was to get monty caught up. Since Hodges had to cover his own northern flank, ' What history states this?
The Visigoths (/ˈvɪzɪɡɒθs/; Latin: Visigothi, Wisigothi, Vesi, Visi, Wesi, Wisi) were an early Germanic people who along with the Ostrogoths constituted the two major political entities of the Goths within the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, or what is known as the Migration Period.
The Ostrogoths were a Roman-era Germanic people. In the 5th century, they followed the Visigoths in creating one of the two great Gothic kingdoms within the Roman Empire, based upon the large Gothic populations who had settled in the Balkans in the 4th century, having crossed the Lower Danube.
I usualy enjoy hearing different interpretations of historical events . Indeed , I'm old enough to find that the widely accepted interpretation during any given generation has as much to do with current politics as historical fact . That said , the conclusion of this film is made up almost entirely from whole cloth . It confusingly contradicts what has been consistently accepted since the end of the war , and official correspondence of the time. The level of detail of the film , indeed the series , suggests intimate familiarity with the information available to us.The writer was either such a Montyphile he possessed flat-earther level abilities of self delusion , combined with a persecusion complex . Or , he felt his audience not mature enough to study history .
I see that Brenda Ralph Lewis is the credited writer of this episode. I have not previously heard of her, but I presume that she is the same prolific author listed on goodreads (www.goodreads.com/author/list/83404.Brenda_Ralph_Lewis). This episode has some glaring errors and omissions such that I would certainly find it difficult to accept any of her other work at face value. The fact that she completely omits the disastrous Monty failure of Market Garden while making the absurd claim that Patton's ego was at fault for the post-war lines and ensuing cold war makes it extremely difficult to put any weight at all on her historical interpretations.
He was a sick evil turd, who is now in hell with the rest of those twisted perverts. How you can have reached the sad point where you can praise the worst evil that ever stained the earth, is beyond the ability of any normal healthy human being to understand. I pity you.
The term was first coined by Brit and Canadian commanders because of his disregard for casualties at the Kasserine Pass.ie his first encounter with Rommel.The Eighth Army saved his reputation by intervening from the north and saved a lot of American lives...My source on this is my uncle he was with the Australian 9th ..(salut) and wrapped up the Tunisian Operations..
@@@okboomahfromblackrod2939 I believe those Australians were the finest troops of WW2...My God they fought hard, very tough and ruthless. My Grandfather was in Africa and said when Australians were given the order and had enough food, beer and bullets they'd kill every thing in sight.
@@IrvinGisher Thanx mate.I'm sure my uncle Pat would be pleased to hear that. He would have replied with references to heroics of participants on all sides."The only this that compares to bravery of the front line boys.Is the cowardice of the leaders" A direct quote form Pat.[salute] RIP.
Rommel was right when he worried about the allied air force destroying all the tanks on the way to the front. Seems like almost 80-90% were lost traveling.
True. Perhaps someone should tell him that von Kluge is not pronounced with a soft G...since there is no such letter or sound in German. The current leader is Ang...GELL...la, not An...jell..la. It should be von Klug eh. SIGH!
I've read lots of vitriolic statements here made by both German sympathizers and those who damn Hitler and his minions in WW II. May I add that before the beginning of the clash the French were forced to end the Maginot Line at the Belgian border for fear that ending it at the Channel might force the Belgians and Dutch into the German camp. The attack on France might have had an extremely different result if the outnumbered 4 to 3 Germans had been forced to attack through the Maginot Line. Then there's the Battle of Britain where merely by getting a draw against a superior air force forced to fly to the limits of its range the RAF saved a Britain that would have fallen within a week had the English Channel not existed. Fourteen thousand years ago due to lowered oceans you could walk from Britain to France and vice versa, which would have led to a totally different result. Then there's the U.S. which showed the world how a country without the fear of being bombed could out-produce the rest of the world. How different those production numbers would have been had the Germans been able to span the 3,000 miles of the Atlantic and bomb that industrial base. Currently, bombers can cross that distance by going over the North Pole and America is no longer immune to being bombed.
West Point isn’t turning out officers like Patton, Eisenhower and Bradley anymore. Those were officers who attempted to win wars as quickly as possible, and with as few as casualties as possible. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that’s no longer the case.
I am not American but Iraq and Afghanistan are much more the results of flawed political policy that dictate the actions of military leadership than the lack of will or skill of the latter
I really enjoyed the first two seasons of Battlefield, but once they changed format (and later the narrator) lots of errors began popping up, research seemed less thorough, and lots of blatant blame-gaming. What a shame, loved the early series when I was a tyke (and still do).
I got a laugh at him calling the 28th Division ''the Bloody Bucket'', it is and always has been The Bucket of Blood due to it's red insignia that is vaguely shaped like a bucket.
kingleech16: Your statement is true... but Battlefield is still fresh. Even with all it's flaws. The intro music always gets me pumped up. WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Slayer Slayer Slayer!
Battlefield is a great series and top notch production. As it is an English program produced by the BBC it is understandable that it has an English slant. What I dislike about the narrative is the monumental Montgomery spin..its as if the entire narrative was written by Montgomery himself..and the Monty vs Patton nonsense is as old as the war itself..i would have thought something produced so long after the shooting stopped would be a little more balanced.
+stink0o Agree, my favourite generals of the period were Brain Horrocks (British, commander of XXX Corps, my dad's outfit) and Omar Bradly (American) They were both great commanders who stayed out of the limelight and just got on with the task in hand
Way off on the Aachen casualty figures. The USA suffered about 5,000 casualties as did the Germans. The latter also had 5.600 of their men surrender. Perhaps they quoted casualties for the US 1st Infantry Division alone by mistake (1,350). Didn't check any of the others for accuracy.
yeah, think it was a 2 bar flag with one white, the other red. This episode had quite a few mistakes including the Rhone called the Rhine, plus some bad research. The last 2 seasons of this series went down hill.
Rundstedt was not put on trial for the war crimes he was charded with because he had been declared unfit to stand trial, for advanced throat cancer - not because, as this documentary suggests, he as not viewed as a war criminal , by the Allies. He was facing charges under the Commissar and Commando Orders, which he knowingly enforced, and for massacres occurring under orders issued with his signature in the Crimea in 1941/ 42.
At around 7 minutes they attest that Hitler was saved from the bomb by the thickness of the table top. What is more accurate is that the briefcase was placed from one side of the leg of the table to the other by another officer that was in the room, unaware it contained the bomb and that by doing so the majority of the blast would end up traveling away from Hitler, which is why the worst he got out of it was a hurt eardrum and maybe some splinters.
As well the building the explosive was deigned for was not used. The fortified bunker's construction would have concentrated the concussion force of the blast greatly increasing the destruction & death toll. As it was the lighter frame of the building the explosion went off in allowed the explosive force to be wasted going through the walls & ceiling.
Kevin Travis Mythbusters showed the room had little effect on the blast. The table shielded Hitler's upper body from splinters, and the blast was too small. The bomb needed to be very close to be deadly.
Mythbusters, now there is an authority on all things made with garage parts. I'll have to find that episode to see if they tested a plastic explosive detonation inside a concrete bunker where the blast wave would have been amplified and concentrated. The most deadly part would have been the concussive force not the explosion itself or the shrapnel from the table.
whenever we fought a war one-on-one, we never lost. We only lost, when we fought one-on-20-60. In a timespace of 2000 years we fought roundabout about 300 wars and we lost 2
The man driving the burning jeep at 1:15:17 has been shown in other battle documentaries including the Battle of the Bulge. I'm not sure which battle this poor guy was actually in, but I wish folks would stop using this clip to illustrate other battles.
Günter von "Kloozh".... great pronunciation, guy. And then he somehow manages to pronounce every single English word of French origin as if it were a French word... "impasse" - haha.
Interesting point of view made at the end about the russians getting more of germany than the allies wanted them to have......... I wonder if putin wants east germany back again?.........
Thank-you for the upload even with the many incorrect info , it's in all these allied story's of there war,,,,,,,........ History written by the victors ........................
Agreed. KluJ doesn't sound right. Btw, his grandson is a bioethics prof at University of Victoria in Canada. I guess his family left Germany after the war.
The Rhone River is identified as the Rhine at one point .... Hyrtgen Forest? with a "y"? Weird. It's English -- so Brit and Canadian failures are down to being out-numbered, America failures down to foolhardy incompetence
What an odd random listing of combat equipment/weapons. A bomber, mortar, tank destroyer, grenade??? This doesn't even come close to 5% of the weaponry used during that stage of the war.
As a kid. I heard first hand from my father and his mates about the the resolve of all German ground forces; Brave, Confident, skillfull and stubborn. And they should know. Having faced them in the field. It's a shame such bravery wasn't led by a credible commander in chief. Turning them against Stalin. Rather than the west.
Wow. Little anglo-centric jingoism there at the end, don't you think? 'if Monty had been in charge of everything, the iron curtain wouldn't have run through Germany'? (paraphrased). Yeah. Whatever. I didn't see anyone holding you back up there, Bernard. In response to those who've taken issue with the fact that the Germans were a superior fighting force, sorry. That part is true.
Not the best written of the series. In Normandy many of the American troops were new, the British and Canadian armies had more veterans, but even so about 60% were new troops. The Germans were very well armed combat veterans motivated by the fate which would befall their families in reprisal for "cowardice. However contrary to the impression given here, the German army losses totaled 600,000 killed/missing during the campaign, compared to total Allied losses of 170,00 killed/missing.
Who the hell wrote this? The conclusions drawn are very one-sided. First, the Americans moving agressively against Germany was not aimed at humiliating Montgomery. (He needed no help in that regard.) Rather it was aimed at deafeating the Germans. You know - the enemy. Also, Eisenhower kept troops back from fighting in the eastern part of Germany to save western allied lives. The east of Germany was ALWAYS going to fall under Soviet control by prior allied agreement. It the western allies had fought (and died) to occupy the east of Germany, they would have had to give it up to the Soviets anyway. This documrntary makes it seem like, at even that late date, the British still had a bug up their asses about their subservient position after the war.
Outstanding series. I do understand now more than ever, the pickle Ike was in. If he had thrown British and Canadian forces at the west wall the press most certainly would have accused him of feeding commonwealth lives into the meat grinder because they were "not" US forces.
The ending was a lie, it was already decided that the Russians were to enter Berlin first. This depiction of Patton was super critical, and made no mention of "Monte's" bad planning and catastrophic use of not only UK troops but US ones as well, at one point after the "battle of the bulge" he claimed that he saved the US ARMY from total annihilation. It's true Patton was at times reckless, but he didnt fail, but "Monte" did, Operation Market Garden was Monte's idea and it cost more lives then it was worth, they ignored Heavy Armor just so the plan would go ahead. Monte was a real asshole, and fell out of favor many times because of his "grand" ideas that cost so many lives, it was only because of US - UK political peace that this guy got to do what he did, he was a bad commander and cost too many lives. It's a down right lie about Berlin, I have read deeply about the end of WWII and NEVER EVER heard blame be placed on Patton.. Its a lie, Stalin took more then what he was allowed only because he took more then what was agreed on! BS lie, read up on it.
TheVilla Aston Market Garden ....... Yes "Monte" was worse then Patton and the only US General I can compare him to. I know my history, you will not win here. Because of "Monte", systematic reckless behavior took place, this ass kept angling for actions that put UK in "milestones", he was well aware of writing History for the British Empire putting the kingdoms name on well known places and actions, often putting US forces in "Support"... Patton was the same, but didn't have the clout of political relations to get him ahead. "Monte" fell out of favor with command and his mouth disgraced himself and the British uniform! And I will call "Monte" any god dam thing I want!
ramairgto72 Why do you compare Montgomery with Patton? Montgomery was an army group commander who mainly dealt with people of equal or higher rank. During the 1944/5 North West Europe campaign these persons would have included the likes of Alanbrooke, Bradley, Devers and Eisenhower. Patton was passed over for army group command by the United States Army. The reasons for this snub possibly include incidents when he slapped shell shocked US soldiers and then had to apologise to these soldiers for these assaults, had to apologies to those persons who witnessed these assaults and later had to apologise to all of the troops under his command for these assaults. Other reasons may have included his killing of mules, assaults on Sicilian civilians and the defying of orders by occupying Messina and in doing so endangered the lives of many allied soldiers for the sake of personal glory? Far from ‘angling for actions that put UK in "milestones"’ (your words), Montgomery worked extremely hard, often under severe pressure from the British Government to end the war as quickly as possible and to this end advocated that a single thrust strategy be adopted by the Allied Expeditionary Force rather than the broad front strategy which the Supreme Commander favoured. Montgomery felt so strongly about this matter that he even offered to place all of his forces under the command General Bradley provided a single thrust strategy was adopted. Hardly the actions of a man who ‘kept angling for actions that put UK in "milestones",’- your words. As the only British army group commander in the Allied Expeditionary Force, and because he was disliked by certain senior figures in the British government and military, including Tedder, the Deputy Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, Montgomery had little 'clout of political relations to get him ahead' as you put it.
TheVillaAston I admit, I felt like you, on paper things only seems slightly slanted, however when you look at the political nature Monte wanted UK History written, often using allied forces for diversions or protecting his flank. Its not known all to much, but the UK had next no 0 respect for the US command and resented the idea they they were here (again) to bail them out. Rather then good commanders getting sent to the top, like Patton, they were kept out of higher commands because of Political nature. The US was really the only nation upset with what Patton did, and his orders to "say sorry" were only to secure his political ambitions after the war were forever over. Even you have to admit of the "wrong" military maneuvering the last years of the war. Patton won.... thats all he wanted and all he looked forward to and he got it done, nobody likes the ugly side of war, but he did it and did it good. Montgomery used political tools were Patton didnt, debatable on the merits of that in War, and because of that the United Kingdom liked Monte, then again we all should be so lucky to have the people rank ahead of us die in a plane crash. Monty planed a rather strained campaign (Market Garden) and ended up using up some very find people on every side, and people were getting put away that came out about this operation ... Patton, core values... and he "advanced farther, captured more enemy prisoners, and liberated more territory in less time than any other army in history"... And everything he bitched about during the end & after came to be, me born in 74' I got this live some of the crazy stand offs with Russia. And just like another Democrat in office that politically ruined a Solder we got N. Korea.. Based on Political bullshit, we have once again come into heated issues with Russia and N. Korea..
ramairgto72 You state ‘Monte wanted UK History written, often using allied forces for diversions or protecting his flank.’ Where is your evidence? In at least two major campigns, Sicily and Normandy the British and Commonwealth troops faced the bulk of the enemy forces, thus allowing their American allies freedom to move against weaker opposition. Hardly the actions of a commander seeking to use ‘allied forces for diversions or protecting his flank.’ Regarding your words about British attitudes towards the US command, I think that the general view from British commanders was that because almost all American commanders had almost no combat experience, their arrogant, conceited and misplaced view they were here to bail anyone out was wrong and was not to be tolerated. Whether Patton was ‘kept out of higher commands because of Political nature’ (your words) was a purely American matter. Patton was a member of the United States Army his status in that army and had nothing to do Britain. I will not run through the rest of your post which seems to be mainly about General Patton as a lot of it is difficult to understand. Therefore, I will merely note a few points for you to ponder: The view of Patton as a great commander does not really exist that much outside of America. As the United States only joined at a time when Hitler could not win and the overall outcome of war no longer in doubt, Americans have sought to try to show that this or that US decision maker (including Patton) made a difference to events rather than face the less glamorous reality - that their country’s main contribution to the war effort was industrial production - thousands of miles from the combat areas. Much of Patton’s reputation in America is based on his army’s rate of progress across France after the Normandy breakout. This rate of progress was actually no quicker than other American, British and Canadian armies - when they were also free of opposition. As well as this, Patton made no more progress than any other American, British or Canadian army commander when faced with determined opposition such as at Metz where over three months his army suffered 40,000 casualties. In the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) in 1944, Patton did organise three US Third Army divisions to head towards the battle area in three days to in order to seek involvement in the campaign. However, by the time that Patton’s forces joined the battle, the German offensive was petering out. As in Normandy, Patton seems to have made contact with the enemy when the most crucial part of the battle had been fought.
@@TheVillaAston the thing with america is... well.. we supplied england and if not for operation torch in north africa and sherman and grant tanks there also england would have most assuredly lost north africa why? because italy and germany were in the med keeping most english supplies from monte. if not for american fighting men and materials england would never have had a chance to land in france and not be repelled back off into the ocean never mind all the supplies that american industrial machine fed to england and everyone else they supplied. american entered the war in dec 1941 thanks to the japanese and hitler declaring war on america a couple days later.. but even before then we were sending materials and and volunteers to help. if hitler had waited until 43 or 45 to start the war things might have been much different. but in the end i believe that influx of supplies and machines from american industry that you seem to want to believe was nothing is what kept england going becuase i do believe without that help england was doomed. japan was wreaking havoc in the far east and all those rescources the english had there.. there was only two countries any where near ready for war at the beginning of ww2 and that was germany and japan. and i also think without lend lease russia would have fallen also but would have been more like 44 or 45 but still would have fallen.
Man for man, no allied soldier who fought in WW2 could best his German counterpart. It was estimated by Allied planners many times (falsely) in many situations such as Monte Cassino, Metz, Arnhem, etc. that the German divisions they faced were a spent force with no defensive much less offensive capabilities left whatsoever. These intelligence blunders were responsible for most of the casualties the Allied armies faced in the West during 1944-1945. Faulty intel combined with a tenacious enemy who is used to accomplishing the impossible with limited resources is a recipe for disaster. Its such a tragedy that the war happened at all though, all those good lives wasted on both sides for a pointless cause. Such a waste..
I dispute that many times when the British met the Germans on equal terms they fought them to a standstill, example the Norfolks in 1940, outnumbered 5 to 1, attacked with tanks, aircraft, artillery to hold for 3 days against SS troops
Alan Moore While there surely were excellent troops on both sides as well as quite some weak ones - there is certainly a point in the observation that german troops in average were ahead of their counterparts in east and west in many fighting qualities. While many germans still believe it to be a proof of their god given superiority to anything else that crawls upond this planet on two legs it was in fact rather just a result of what comes out if someone trims a whole nation fit for war years ahead of anyone else (this probably because this very person is actually the one who is planning this war). Don't forget that years ahead of the outbreak of the war it was virtually mandatory for german teenager boys to join the hitler youth, which was basically a bootcamp kindergarden. Add to this the general staff who could prepare and act in absence of longterm economic concern the armies in the opposing western countries had to deal with (example: the british infantry markI tank and its origin). According to this and the absence of other political restrictions, they could work out modern fighting tactics and test them in the field in spain - eventually raising a generation of well trained and highly motivated soldiers and subordinate officers who were for the most part (especially at the beginning) free and able to quickly alter their tactics to the given situations.
JosipRadnik1 Germany won its early battle by gaining air superiority and by using their tanks on mass, whereas the allies used theirs to support in the infantry. At Arras, however in 1940, the French and British grouped their tanks together and attacked the Germans, the puny German 3.7mm guns were unable to penetrate the armour of the Matildas Char B1s and Soumas, German troops, including SS units broke and ran in panic, but the Allied counter-attack was too little too late, the Germans brought up their 88s and attacked the British and French tanks with Stukas and medium bombers (JU 88s and Dornier 17s). But it had been a close thing, Arras leaves the students of WW2 wondering what would have happened had the Allies fought like that from the start, it is very possible that the German invasion would have been turned back, we can only speculate. All of Germany's victories, Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway , Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, early USSR, early North Africa where made possible by the Germans gaining control of the air and by attacking with overwhelming armour superiority (At the point of Contact -- though in France the Allies had more tanks than the Germans they were spread out and as previously started used to support the infantry in penny packets) Later in the war when Germany was defending German units hold up enemy formations many times their size, but so too did allied formations in France, I mentioned the Norfolks, an average county regiment holding back the SS from the feared Totonkepft, with no tanks, no artillery and no air support they delayed the German advance for three vital days. At Lille, the remains of the French 1st Army, again not elite troops but ordinary French soldiers, 40,000 men held back 200,000 Germans. As the 1st Army pulled out of Belgium they lost most of their artillery, anti-aircraft guns and tanks and by the time they arrived at Lille the German air force dominated the skies. Subjected to massed artillery fire, air attacks and armoured assault, outnumbered 5 to 1 those 40,000 Frenchmen hold back the German army for over a week, allowing for the rest of the Allied army to pull back to Dunkirk, without the "Gallant Defenders of Lille," (Winston Churchill's own words) the moles and breaches of Dunkirk would have been overrun before the first ships arrived to start picking up the soldiers. When the French, battered and exhausted, out of ammunition finally lay down their arms, the Germans were so impressed that they allowed them to march through the streets of Lille with all their banners flying and they saluted them. One German officer wrote in his diary "The defenders of Lille proved that the French soldier is still among the best in the World," a fine tribute. But it was not just at Lille, again at Brest , defended by French Marines, again subjected to air attack and artillery fire they hold the port, the Germans attacked several times and every time they were beaten back, they never took Brest in 1940. The Port only came into their possession after the Government in Paris signed the surrender of all French fighting units and ordered the men of Brest to cease fighting. Brest's namesake in the USSR, the fortress town of Brest hold back massive superior German forces for over a month before the town fell, the commander knocked unconscioness was taken prisoner and later condemned to prison in Siberia by Stalin for being captured. However on Stalin's death Kruschev, pardoned the man, and issued him the Soviet Union's highest award for gallantry, the Gold Star and title 'Hero of the Soviet Union.' Germans first land defeat in WW2 was inflicted by the Dutch, when the cream of the German elite units, their paratroops descended near Rotterdam in an attempt to capture the Dutch Royal family and got slaughtered by regular Dutch troops with antiquated weaponry. During the second battle of Rotterdam the Germans won but they lost the first battle, the Dutch troops stopped the German assault and the Dutch Royal family escaped to Britain. I agree the German soldier was very good but so too were some of his opponents.
Alan Moore Dear Alan. Thank you for your information. While all you mentioned certainly was true, it actually doesn't contradict with my statement. Of course there were several occasions very early in the war where allied soldiers showed that the german army wasn't invincible. Just take the campaign in norway and the fighting around narvik as an example. Other examples might be found during the defense of Poland. Heck, even the Swiss had a few border clashes in the air with the germans - at the expense of the latter. Still - if you look at the average throughout the whole war - German Soldiers were repeatedly able to beat superior forces, often armed (like in your example) with superior weapons and with more supplies at hand than any other counterpart. The reason for this in my opinion is to be found in the overall fighting qualities of the german soldiers and their command from junior to senior officer. Nevertheless, there was a constant change in the mixture of these qualities. The german army of 1940 wasn't the german army of 1944 in terms of where their men exelled. In 1940, it was basically the better tactical concept, the clearer strategy of their high command and training of their soldiers to act independently, which enabled them to make tactical decisions in the field without having to call back to headquarters to ask for permission on every step. The lack of initiative of the commanders in the field, for example, is to be seen as the main reason for the Sovjet destasters in 1939/40 against Finnland and in 1941 against Germany (this as a direct result of Stalins purges) while the lack of a clear strategy and clumsy tactical doctrines had hintered many otherwise probably very talented french or british officer to perform the way they could have, had they been free to decide on their own. The fact that many of the most heroic fights of allied troops in 1940 took place once they were isolated and disconnected from their superiors and HAD to act independently may be seen as a hint to this direction. By 1944, the picture shifted. While the allies had learned many lessons by then and their average soldiers where far better trained and prepared for the comming tasks, still most of them - at least in the western european theatre of war - couldn't recall on such an amount of experience as their german counterparts. Also the years of indoctrination and "kindergarten bootcamp" (as mentioned before) made its mark. So the ranks in german units were filled with experienced, battlehardened veterans as well as green but fanatical and physically fit kamikaze teenagers and foreign volounteers, of which many were just as fanatic, knowing that victory would be their only chance for the perspective of a safe return to their home. This all toghether with the knowledge that behind you lies your motherland made them gradually more dangerous as their desperation grew as well while on the other side, allied soldiers tended to get more and more cautious as victory came nearer for nobody wanted to be unnecessary wasted in some minor skirmish just days before the end. Take this as an attempt to explain why I believe that over the course of the whole war the german army in general had an overall fighting quality of its personell that more often exeeded their counterparts than not. Yet, I certainly don't mean that it was at ALL times on ALL fronts and that there weren't allied soldiers of common branch that couldn't defeat even german elite units. And finally, as mentioned before, I certainly don't believe it has anything to do with any form of superiority of the german breed per se, it was simply the result of a totalitarian regime that prepared and trained a whole nation for war years ahead of the countries they intended to assault.
JosipRadnik1 You make some very valid points, certainly regrading their command structure and I have to agree on that especially where the Soviet Union is concerned. On the first day of the German attack on 22nd June 1941 Soviet commander was accused of being mad or drunk when he reported that his units had come under fire, I believe that the only allied troops at the start of the war that were encouraged to act independently like the Germans were the British but they still lacked behind the Germans. It was mostly due to this encouragement and training that many British units when cut off still managed to find and fight their way to Dunkirk. The British had changed the way they did things out of the painful lessons of the First World War, lessons that were hammered home on July 1st 1916, the first day of the Somme where just under 60,000 British troops fell, according to now deceased David Chandler, with the vast majority falling in the first hour. No longer could rank be processed, instead more and more men were being made up from the ranks. But high rank, General staff level was still the realm of the upper glass, the Eton and Harrow boys, but even they had to go to an officer's training school. I think that after the German army the British was the most professional. like in WW1, when the Germans laughed at the British but after the Mons they were not laughing. "The men are chilled to the one, almost too exhausted to move and with the depressing consciousness of defeat weighing heavily upon them. A bad defeat, there can be no gainsaying it...We have been badly beaten, and by the English - by the English we had so laughed at a few hours before." (Captain Walter Bloem 1914) The British army of 1914 was like the British army of 1939 the only army to go into the war with a fully professional none conscript force, but like in 1914 the army of 1939 and 1940 was tiny when compared to those of Germany and France though a limited conscription had been inteduced in 1939 these men were still undergoing training in 1940. Out of all the opponents the Germans faced during their conquests of 39 to 41 the British were the most independent thinking and acting. It was also the only fully mechanised army to go to the war in 1939 but it was hampered by a timidness at the top, haunted by the huge casualty rate of WW1 the general staff were anxious to avoid casualties and there was a doctrine of casualty avoidance. The army knew that the British public and the soldiers themselves would never allow them to be recklessly thrown away again. The structure of the army had been organized that it sacrificed fire-power for mobility and removed the fire support weapons that were needed to advance from its commanders. This may go some way to explaining why the Germans thought that the British were excellent and extremely stubborn in defence but poor in attack. The British were also hampered by having slow moving heavy tanks that had a maximum speed of around 8mph or having fast but very thinly armed tanks, they had nothing in between like the Germans. They were also hampered by poor fire power at squad level, at least until 1941, during the invasion of France there were only 50 sub-machine guns in the entire British army, mostly American Thompsons Though I agree on your assessment of German initiative and command being the best the British were not far behind though behind they were
I like this program better than other documentaries. It has the facts based on documents and other evidence, not propaganda based on bullshit and conjecture. For example the documents say the Nazi high command knew their only slim chance was to divide the allies and maybe force them to accept a conditional surrender, especially if they could get the western allies fighting with the communists in the east. Almost every other documentary says Hitler was insane and thought they could win outright, or that Hitler wanted to kill everyone in Germany.
The narrator really is a Monty nut-hugger. Its really bad in the Arnhem/Market Garden episode. That's all well and good but no reason to rag on Bradley and Patton. Sure Patton had a short temper, but he got results. Monty got more allied men killed by his ego than any other western allied commander. Caen, Market Garden, etc. If you're able to tune out the narrator's bias, this really is a great series.
thefatguy556 If Montgomery "got more allied killed.(.........) than any other commander", - it is because he led Bigger armies than anyone else. At Caen he was ground Commander in Chief of all the forces and as such both Bradley and Patton´s superior. However there is no evidence to support your claim and ample evidence to refute it. i.e Bradley lost more men at the Hurtigen Forrest clusterfuck than Monty did with Market Garden and one of the main criticism´s of Montgomery Generalship was his cautious approach in an effort to spare the lives of his men. . He himself - had been left for dead on the battlefield during ww1 and never forgot the attrition rate and meaningless slaugter of that war. Patton (our blod and his guts) fits your description (of letting ego run rough shod over the lives of his own men) much better.
Wijnand Dalmijn. i'm no monty fan but from what i read, what he did during the battle of the bulge contradicts your statement. personally i think all the generals were over rated, except for maybe Eisenhower.
wow, it's not like it's obscure. from wikipedia When the surprise attack on the Ardennes took place on 16 December 1944, starting the Battle of the Bulge, the front of the US 12th Army Group was split, with the bulk of the US First Army being on the northern shoulder of the German 'bulge'. The 12th Army Group commander, General Omar Bradley, was located south of the penetration at Luxembourg and command of the US First Army became problematic. Montgomery was the nearest commander on the ground and on 20 December, Eisenhower (who was in Versailles in France) temporarily transferred Courtney Hodges' US First Army and William Simpson's US Ninth Army to Montgomery's 21st Army Group until the "bulge" could be reduced and a simpler line of communications restored, despite Bradley's vehement objections on national grounds.[nb 1] When Bradley learned that Montgomery had been given command of two American armies totalling some 200,000 men, he phoned Eisenhower to say: "I cannot be responsible to the American people if you do this. I resign!"[173] Eisenhower sharply responded that Bradley was in fact responsible to him and "Your resignation means absolutely nothing...Well, Brad, these are my orders."[173] Montgomery grasped the situation quickly, visiting all divisional, corps, and field army commanders himself and instituting his 'Phantom' network of liaison officers. He grouped the British XXX Corps as a strategic reserve behind the Meuse and reorganised the US defence of the northern shoulder, shortening and strengthening the line and ordering the evacuation of St Vith. The German commander of the 5th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel said: The operations of the American First Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough.[174]
just because it's on a wiki page doesn't make it untrue either. it's not something controversial, anyone inclined to make the effort can verify it's veracity. whether you are right or not about monty, you clearly have a blind hatred for him. in your reply you go on about how he is overrated, but that is not my argument, i'm not saying he wasn't. i am responding to one specific thing you said, that he could only win with superior forces. but you're so blinded by hate for him you don't realize that. i offer how he improvised on the fly in the face of an enemy who had the initiative and numbers and the element of surprise. that speaks to his abilities while under adversity. plus that same criticism can be levied at just about all if not all generals in ww2. you know you can hate the man and still be honest in your thinking.
Having seen every series on WW2 that I know of, I have to say : this series is excellent. Though British produced, it's a fair, & evenly balanced effort & I salute all involved in the production. Well Done ! -------------MJL, 76 y/o
@@Vonstromberg This is a British production (by Lamancha Productions, Edinburgh), and it first ran on American PBS channels in 1994, with Season 1.
@@Vonstromberg Towards the end, "The American general were too chauvinistic to be under British control" "Patton... drew the focus of American operations southwards this was the wrong position for a speedy drive to Berlins, mean while the Russians gain the time to..." The Yalta Conference, held 4-11 February 1945 decided this' and the Russian paid for it with over 80,000 dead.
The narrow front vs wide front is an interesting discussion, but know one knows what would have been the outcome of a narrow front, plus blaming the Americans for 45 years of consequences, when the British agreed to the division of German is a British biased view.
This series certainly has some British bias. The earlier seasons seemed to be more balanced and some of the later seasons showed the British bias.
World War II is a saga. Plain and simple. Disagreements over who what where why and how are inevitable. All that aside, in the end it is the greatest saga of world history. Ever since I was a boy it captivated me, I know I speak for others who feel the same. So many heroes and villains, so much triumph, and a whole lot of tragedy.
+Eric Moss Well said Eric. I suppose we debate it because we all wish to leave our little footprint in history and...so many have strong opinions, whether credible and accurate, or not. It is a subject of such grand stature and exceedingly noble conduct and sacrifice, that we all, I think, are drawn to contribute, even if only through our own, subjective interpretation. Still. there is, often, real value to be found in these pages. I thank you for yours.
+Eric Moss I suppose it is due in part to the fact that my heritage is German, also to the fact that my father fought in the battle for France/Germany, following D-Day. I too, have been fascinated by WW2 from a strikingly young age. I bought, "The Rise And Fall of The Third Reich," using paper route earnings when I was just 12 years old. (1970) Like many other things of inexplicable complexity, it seems the more you know about the two World Wars, the more questions are raised. It IS the greatest saga ever conceived.
+Eric Moss I thought a saga was a type of cooker...?
Like your comments Eric, your right to say that WW2 was the greatest saga of human history however tragic. Check out the BBC series on WW1, 26 episodes made in 1964. Tens of thousands of lives wasted on huge battles that did not accomplish anything. At least in WW2 huge battles generally resulted in some significant breakthrough. The campaign in Italy (WW2) turned out to be a WW1 type slugfest.
No,just another bloody war fought over greed and human arrogance.
Absolutely love these. Lot of people cringe when they see old fashioned stuff. Me I relish getting to know parts of history. Lot of times too you don't know 100% the integrity of the news you get. I love history and it's so important as well as how it changes over time.
Interesting and informative excellent photography job making it easier for viewers to better understand what the orator was describing.Historians did a very good job presenting actual facts from fiction. Orator presented the documentary very well. Class A research project. Rough combat operations on both sides. Germany's wonder weapons arrived much too late in the war. Special thanks to the soldiers who fought/perished/survived fighting the enemy. Defeating the German armies. Patton was right about the Russians & Stalin's plan to keep all captured Europe for Moscow's own benefits.
War is brutal, but the fighting the in the Hurtgen Forest was extremely brutal.
Want great pizza? Go to the Italian neighborhoods in NYC., where pizza has never been not great.
The fighting on the West Wall was some of the fiercest fighting in WW2. I wasn’t aware of that until I watched this documentary. God bless the Allied troops that fought there.
That wasnt even close to the battles in the East.
@@alandemaio3043 Yeah you're right, the Japanese were tough bastards
By far the best on this topic!
I’d say in regards to the flamethrower, if your enemy wants to hole up and fight to the death, happily oblige them with an inferno of wrath
The Marines had to use it on Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa because the Japanese had dug into the hills where naval bombardment and bombs dropped by planes couldn’t reach them, especially on Iwo Jima. Hitler ordered his men to fight to the last man, but it rarely happened; the Japanese actually did it! They would save a grenade or some bullets to use against the Marines who were trying to find them and get them out, but it didn’t take long for them to catch on and they brought out the flame throwers. Actually, they tended to suck out all of the air around them so that many Japanese soldiers suffocated rather than being burned to death. My dad fought at Kwajalein, Tinian, Saipan, and Iwo Jima.
One thing overlooked by Battlefield was Model's stabilizing of German lines on the eastern front after Operation Bargration. Looking at the numbers and the situation an impressive military feat.
Early success sure made Hitler think he was a master strategist. That thought process was his biggest mistake. That and his attack of Russia while leaving England unbeaten. Foolish even for a fool.
Model committed suicide after the failure of the battle of the bulge.
Let's call it the Ardennes Offensive
Let's don't and say we did.
BearFlagRebel. model was maybe the best gen. in ww2
Thank you for putting these up. I've saved them all in my playlists!
I sleep listening to these.
Those were some brave men, who attacked the German pillboxes of the Siegfried Line, head on.
It was an impressive feat how the US was so well able to resupply its military forces, from across the Atlantic Ocean.
Biden is your Daddy now. You'll be spending Biden Bucks.
@@AC_Blanco not for long , intagonist !
@@AC_BlancoTRUMP IS COMING 🇺🇸🦅
thanks for all of these love watching tnem
Thank you 🙏 immensely for these great 👍 work ….. to open the eyes 👀 of man is something to be thankful for eternally…..like what James Web Telescope 🔭 is doing. This channel is the JWST of world war 2
Wrong info, this documentary stated that Field Marshal Von Kluge was the commander of Army Group Center in 1941, when in fact, it was Field Marshal Von Bock
@Honorloyalty88
You know the stupid BBC is ran by a certain religion, they cant even check history corectly, and thats why jimmy Saville got away with what he was doing for so many years like so many of them did to children...
BBC.......
Buggering
British
Children
this is an excellent documentary well done
It’s been 75 years since General George S. Patron passed away, and he still remains a larger than life figure. God bless his soul.
And to go in a traffic crash, at that. I wonder if he was killed on purpose that way or if it was just a coincidence that he was in that car at that time?
Patton was murdered by Top brass
More likely people under his command would kill him than the "brass". He was king REMF. Fuck knows why he's a hero to America. He didn't care about his troops. Only himself.
He lived for your rememberaence
What a prognosticator Patton was . Berlin Airlift , Korea , Hungarian Revolt , Cuban Missile Crisis , Bay of Pigs , SouthVietnam( lost a relative there mid 3/68 10: days b-4 my 11th bday ) , and , currently ? Well , a blind Deaf and dumb human being knows what's going on . Hint: Putin !
War is a terrible way to settle disagreements between countries, but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary.
Those were some brave men who attacked the West Wall.
Thanks for the film. A fantastic documentary that illustrates so well the effort of british and american forces from Normandy to the Rhine. Courage is needed by soldiers in this situation: I'm sure that they thought about liberty and dignity. Simple men, workers, far from their home in America. Thanks to them over all. Farewell.
TheVilla Aston Yes,sorry. Thanks for the correction. Farewell.
Canadians too bud. Germans were more scared of us the Americans or even the British.
Horatio Huffnagel Of course germans were so afraid of canadians soldiers. I imagine canadian soldiers like a bunch of Trudeau clones. Very frightening!
Vasile Luga has the best versions of these Battlefield docs. He left the original format so the picture doesn't get stretched out/distorted or have lower resolution.
The Soviets had half a million casualties in the Battle for Berlin. There was a reason why the Allies let them take it.
General Patton was probably the best battlefield commander that America ever produced
.
Vasile,
Thanks for the listing. You are # 1.
Yes he got a real nice sweet voice, like the morning dew, he must be one hell of a sexy man.
I have watched many of these episodes, I agree with another user who stated the quality after the first few season went downhill. The best documentary on the war is The World At War from the early 70's. It had interviews with many of the notable participants still alive and had it's history is correct. If you ever watch it and listen to the British Soldiers interviewed, they really disliked Monty. This episode was written by a Monty lover/Apologist. Even Churchill disliked Monty. He was extremely slow at closing the Falaise gap and overly cautious, however you have to understand where that came from. Britain was decimated by WW1, an entire generation lost to trench warfare, the idiots who kept fighting even when the armistice was signed and the lines agreed upon. Americans were in that war for a short time and took a completely different lesson from it, not to get stuck in trenches, to move fast and hit hard. This episode makes it sound like we could have rushed to Berlin and taken it if we had followed Monty HAH! What a crock of shit. Monty would never have gotten there. He blew his load on Market Garden and was never completely trusted by the high command again. The split of Germany had already been decided, the Russians were going to take Berlin, we were never going to go that far. The Cold War had already started in the shadows.
For those who do not recall, Berlin was off-limits to UK and US Generals, even Ike could not order it. That was decided by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin long before the battles.
As a General, your duty is to follow orders. As Supreme Commander, your duty is to try as best you can to deal with realities on the ground, and those leaders above you who wish to micro-manage. Bradley, Montgomery, and Patton had their faults, and played one against the other. When Ike decided to go ahead with Market Garden, don't think for a moment there were not phone calls from Downing Street, ect. urging the plan on.
N nn un nnnnu nuunnuu;uhu uhhnhhyuhuKen Schmidt n. N. Uu you. Unnnnn
Ken Schmidt Potsdam
And Yalta time 😎
It's mentioned in the documentary that Rommel was not a supporter of Hitler. I was under that impression as well until I read a couple of biographies about him. He was, above anything else, a professional soldier with no interest in politics per se. However, when Hitler first rose to power, Rommel was an enthusiastic supporter, partly because Hitler was rebuilding the army as well as other branches of the military. The scales fell from Rommel's eyes as his command in North Africa ground on. He realized that Hitler (1) didn't really know what he was doing and (2) was a tyrannical leader who did not have Germany's best interests at heart. He was a loyal German but, when all was said and done and to his credit, he was not a true Nazi.
+Melanie Hamilton Indeed. A good example, Rommel NEVER used the Nazi Salute unless forced to in Hitler's presence. He had always used the standard military salute. This in itself says quite a lot.
If he'd survived the war, I'm sure that he would still be admired by his former adversaries.
Ivan Chen Agreed!
+aykcroid before the election of the nazi party, Stalin was of the opinion that communism would spread into Central Europe before Asia.
+121bham a little reading , and he would understand
I swear I want the music that this documentary series has. It is so good.
Yeah, its superb
God bless all of the Allied troops who fought from Normandy to Torgau. They achieved an impressive victory.
They were fighting 20% of german army
@@RAZVANJUSTIN1 cope
Very good show
Excellent series,thanks for uploading.
lol @ the bit about flamethrowers. Yeah, it’s nasty business - particularly if you’re caught out in the open with it, but the most common outcomes of successful use of a flamethrower during the war were 1) the enemy falls back or preferably flees 2) you’re using it against a fortification and the enemy therein suffocates from the flames depleting all the oxygen of the enclosed space. Don’t get me wrong, crispy critters were plentiful - but more often from aerial bombardment, which is more sudden. It’s actually difficult to burn people - they tend to move away instinctively if they have some suspicion they’re pending for an immolation.
A tank is heard well before seen, and getting a flamethrower team in the right place out in the open, at the right time, to be effective without endangering themselves is kinda a crapshoot occurrence, in an open scenario your main goal is to present a credible threat of burning and hoping the enemy is either too reluctant to advance or too unenthused to stay put, leaving them one direction to go. You see this a lot in accounts of the fighting in the Philippines.
Love it, every time we have a doc' on WWII everyone had to re-fight the battles based on their own egos
John S its fun besides it never happen at least that is what You tubers believe
All of these wwll documentaries heavily remind me of my Grandad and my GreatGrandad , they were both full-time professional Army officers in the Greek Royal Army. Miss you guys❗
0:47:37 - 0:48:46 well said!, I hate the lies in movies and TV shows, the Germans were superb troops.
No they were butchers, mindless butchers !!
Robbie McGill talk about ignorant
Oh no luga, why the ads dude?
absurd British bias, particularly at the end. Why not point out that Monty was responsible for the failure to close the Falaise Gap. To suggest that the Anglo-American armies could have taken Berlin before the Russians ignores the fact that Ike and the Allied Staff had already decided the Russians would take Berlin since they were going to govern that sector of defeated Germany anyway. We weren't going to take casualties in order to turn territory over to the Russians.
Wonderful series..my very favorite pastime for relaxation .
It’s not that The Russians reached Berlin first & got to take it lol The US held back their forces and allowed the Russians to take Berlin as to their agreement.
Market Garden was doomed to fail and everyone but monty knew it. But the simple fact of the matter was, because of montys slow ass foot dragging, the brits were so far behind the American 1st Army, that US General Hodges whole northern flank was wide open. The US 1st Army was ALREADY in Germany past Aachen before market garden even happened. So the whole idea of montys plan to be the 1st into germany was kaput long before it ever launched. Even though the plan had little chance of montys PLANNED success, Ike approved it simply because ,,,
1. The Americans had long outrun their own supply lines. So they were getting over stretched and slowed down anyway. We needed a deep water port closer to the front to continue operations into germany. The port was in montys sector, and he was in no hurry at all to capture it. Just like at Caan on D Day, he FAILED to advance and capture his objectives and held everyone else up.
2. 1st US Armys whole northern flank was sitting wide open, and the ONLY way to close it up was to get monty caught up. Since Hodges had to cover his own northern flank, he dedicated so many of his own troops 1st Army was getting weaker, spread thinner, and vunerable to attack. ( just like happened in December at the Battle of the Bulge. ) Its laughable that the narrator claims this was an intentional trap set by Ike.
3. the launch sites for the V2 rockets being shot at England were in montys / market garden sector.
But after 2 months, they somewhat had the end results they needed.
1.monty got caught up.
2. They captured the port at anterp and cleared the schnell estuary thus opening the port and shortening supply lines..
3. Us 1st Armys northern flank was somewhat closed up, enabling them to continue operations east of Aachen. But they still had to activate 9th US Army under Simpson and put him on Hodges northern flank to close it, because monty still couldnt seem to get the job done.
4. they FINALLY captured the V2 launch sites putting an end to hitlers terror bombing of London.
But It cost them all dearly.
The brits on a whole were tore up with 2 airborne divisions totally decimated.
2 US airborne divisions were also tore up pretty good, along with 2 Armored divisions.
Meantime, the germans reinforced and dug in all alone the western front, causing many a hard and bloody battle to get things moving again. Including getting things moved in for the Battle of the Bulge, the bloodiest US battle of the whole war. Which in the end, decimated the divisions the germans had to defend the west wall, and hastened the end for germany. .
The narrator also fails to even mention the massive failure by monty in Market Garden.
Even though they knew full well they were dropping the british airborne on TWO SS panzer divisions, and into a hornets nest and likely slaughter, monty did it anyway. They were obviously destroyed as a division.
Then the narrator basically blames the whole cold war and Stalins seizure of all of eastern Europe on the Generals. That was Churchills and Roosevelts doings. BTW, Churchill made a secret deal with Stalin to trade Poland for Greece.
They also completely fail to give credit to the german army for being one of the most highly trained and toughest armys on the planet. They had the best equipment, had been fighting battles since 1938, and lets face it, they were damn tough, brutal, and knew what they were doing.
While Im sure everyone wanted to be 1st to cross the Rhine, to claim some kind of conspiracy by Bradley is a lunatics claim to try and hide montys failures. monty failed to capture his objectives in Sicily, He failed AGAIN to capture Caan on D Day. He failed to keep up the left/northern flank across France, Holland, And Belguim. He failed to capture the port at Antwep. How can ANY Army make plans all revolving around a general like that and actually expect them to succeed? You simply cannot. So the rest of the Allies just did what they had to do to WIN. But good old monty was such an arrogant narcissist, he expected EVERYONE and EVERYTHING to revolve around him. They just couldnt afford to give the germans that much time to wait on montgomery. The germans were just too damned dangerous to be given time like that. The allies had to keep them on the run or there was hell to pay in blood and lives. Montys foot dragging way just didnt fit into the allies plans. It cost too many lives. And EVERYONE except monty seemed to know and understand that.
Talk about a lame attempt at a history re write.
'The brits on a whole were tore up with 2 airborne divisions
totally decimated.
2 US airborne divisions were also tore up pretty good, along
with 2 Armored divisions.'
When did this happen?
Sicily
Read this:
From a review of BITTER VICTORY The Battle for Sicily, 1943, By Carlo D'Este.
Review written by Walter Lord in the New York Times: 27/11/1988.
‘Montgomery was heading for Messina too, but the German forces still on the island threw up a tough defense line and it was late July before Montgomery worked his way through them and resumed his advance. Fans of the movie ''Patton'' think they know what happened next. Montgomery marched into Messina at the head of his triumphant troops - to find a smirking Patton waiting for him. Mr. D'Este assures us it didn't happen that way. Patton was indeed trying to beat Montgomery to Messina, but Montgomery would not make a race of it. He wanted only to keep the Germans from escaping and realized Patton was in the best position to accomplish that. In fact he urged Patton to use roads assigned to the Eighth Army.’
For your convenience, the link below will take you to this review…
www.nytimes.com/1988/11/27/books/the-finish-line-was-messina.html
Normandy
Was won by Montgomery ahead of the scheduled completion date (D+90) with 22% fewer than expected casualties, despite constant badgering from no-nothing US commanders and a few Britons who should have known better. Despite the great channel storm that caused so much disruption to the allied build up. Despite the fact that the Germans put the vast bulk of their forces (including 84% of their armour) in front of the British Second Army - at Caen. The allies take Caen or they do not take Caen. It had little effect on the outcome of the battle. El Alamein ended the war in North Africa as a contest, Normandy ended the war in North West Europe as a contest. In terms of numbers, Normandy was a bigger defeat for Germany than Stalingrad - courtesy of Montgomery.
Here is an American view on Montgomery in Normandy:
‘Knowing that his old antagonist of the desert, Rommel, was to be in charge of the defending forces, Montgomery predicted that enemy action would be characterized by constant assaults carried out with any force immediately available from division down to a battalion or even company size. He discounted the possibility that the enemy under Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line and calmly and patiently go about the business of building up the greatest possible amount of force in order to launch one full-out offensive into our beach position. Montgomery’s predictions were fulfilled to the letter.’
US General Dwight D Eisenhower.
Here is another:
‘Thus while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for which while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded.’
US General Omar Bradley.
'The US 1st Army was ALREADY in Germany past Aachen before market garden even happened.
Nope.
Maket Garden was 17th - 25th September 1944. Aachen was captured 21st October 1944. FACT.
'2. 1st US Armys whole northern flank was sitting wide open, and the ONLY way to close it up was to get monty caught up. Since Hodges had to cover his own northern flank, '
What history states this?
These docu series is worth it's weight in gold compared to the dramatised crap that is so abundant
Richard Jongepier Watch Soviet Storm
Such a shitty analysis of the reasons for slow success.
"The Gothic Line" so the germans had a vampire army in the field defending Italy. Interesting!
***** lol, I actually got dragged to a "Goth" bar once...lemme tell ya, there were some weirdo's in there living in a complete fantasy land lol.
They might as well have, glad you were there to help...........
The Visigoths (/ˈvɪzɪɡɒθs/; Latin: Visigothi, Wisigothi, Vesi, Visi, Wesi, Wisi) were an early Germanic people who along with the Ostrogoths constituted the two major political entities of the Goths within the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, or what is known as the Migration Period.
The Ostrogoths were a Roman-era Germanic people. In the 5th century, they followed the Visigoths in creating one of the two great Gothic kingdoms within the Roman Empire, based upon the large Gothic populations who had settled in the Balkans in the 4th century, having crossed the Lower Danube.
Some of these Battlefield show were on Military Channel. These I see her do not seem to be of the same quality, if memory serves.
I usualy enjoy hearing different interpretations of historical events . Indeed , I'm old enough to find that the widely accepted interpretation during any given generation has as much to do with current politics as historical fact . That said , the conclusion of this film is made up almost entirely from whole cloth . It confusingly contradicts what has been consistently accepted since the end of the war , and official correspondence of the time. The level of detail of the film , indeed the series , suggests intimate familiarity with the information available to us.The writer was either such a Montyphile he possessed flat-earther level abilities of self delusion , combined with a persecusion complex . Or , he felt his audience not mature enough to study history .
I see that Brenda Ralph Lewis is the credited writer of this episode. I have not previously heard of her, but I presume that she is the same prolific author listed on goodreads (www.goodreads.com/author/list/83404.Brenda_Ralph_Lewis). This episode has some glaring errors and omissions such that I would certainly find it difficult to accept any of her other work at face value.
The fact that she completely omits the disastrous Monty failure of Market Garden while making the absurd claim that Patton's ego was at fault for the post-war lines and ensuing cold war makes it extremely difficult to put any weight at all on her historical interpretations.
Brenda Ralph Lewis is clearly Pro-British, and subtly denigrating to the US. I too found the conclusion of this episode preposterous.
I made it 10 minutes in, already i found four facts that are just plain wrong.
I've never seen so many words utilized to say so little.
The whole series seems to have a pro-Brit bend to it.
@ 24:52 the narrator says "PAK43" but the graphic says PAK34
Rest in peace GFM Walter Model. You were a brilliant general with no fear of death.
He was a NAZI, he is burning in hell
He was a sick evil turd, who is now in hell with the rest of those twisted perverts. How you can have reached the sad point where you can praise the worst evil that ever stained the earth, is beyond the ability of any normal healthy human being to understand. I pity you.
Montgomery's failures are out of all proportion to any other senior general. How did he keep his job?
zog zog nepotism
As his own men would call General Patton - "Ol' Blood and Guts" Translation: Their blood, his guts.
The term was first coined by Brit and Canadian commanders because of his disregard for casualties at the Kasserine Pass.ie his first encounter with Rommel.The Eighth Army saved his reputation by intervening from the north and saved a lot of American lives...My source on this is my uncle he was with the Australian 9th ..(salut) and wrapped up the Tunisian Operations..
One of history's most bloodthirsty men right there.
@@@okboomahfromblackrod2939
I believe those Australians were the finest troops of WW2...My God they fought hard, very tough and ruthless. My Grandfather was in Africa and said when Australians were given the order and had enough food, beer and bullets they'd kill every thing in sight.
@@IrvinGisher Thanx mate.I'm sure my uncle Pat would be pleased to hear that. He would have replied with references to heroics of participants on all sides."The only this that compares to bravery of the front line boys.Is the cowardice of the leaders" A direct quote form Pat.[salute] RIP.
Rommel was right when he worried about the allied air force destroying all the tanks on the way to the front. Seems like almost 80-90% were lost traveling.
Not quite that many. But the jabos were fearsome that's for sure
It's interesting to see German infantry still carrying the gas-mask container. I wonder how many of them were using it for gas-masks.
I have read in books about late war it was used for so many other things...food, ammo, keeping the Zeltbahn dry, even water !
True. Perhaps someone should tell him that von Kluge is not pronounced with a soft G...since there is no such letter or sound in German. The current leader is Ang...GELL...la, not An...jell..la. It should be von Klug eh. SIGH!
Not sure who you'd tell. I'm sure the narrator is long dead given this was made for TV 25+ years ago😂
It took a lot of courage to charge those German machine guns. God bless the Allied troops that did.
I'm like soooo woke x 🏳️🌈🌈🏳️🌈🌈🏳️🌈👄
I've read lots of vitriolic statements here made by both German sympathizers and those who damn Hitler and his minions in WW II. May I add that before the beginning of the clash the French were forced to end the Maginot Line at the Belgian border for fear that ending it at the Channel might force the Belgians and Dutch into the German camp. The attack on France might have had an extremely different result if the outnumbered 4 to 3 Germans had been forced to attack through the Maginot Line. Then there's the Battle of Britain where merely by getting a draw against a superior air force forced to fly to the limits of its range the RAF saved a Britain that would have fallen within a week had the English Channel not existed. Fourteen thousand years ago due to lowered oceans you could walk from Britain to France and vice versa, which would have led to a totally different result. Then there's the U.S. which showed the world how a country without the fear of being bombed could out-produce the rest of the world. How different those production numbers would have been had the Germans been able to span the 3,000 miles of the Atlantic and bomb that industrial base. Currently, bombers can cross that distance by going over the North Pole and America is no longer immune to being bombed.
West Point isn’t turning out officers like Patton, Eisenhower and Bradley anymore. Those were officers who attempted to win wars as quickly as possible, and with as few as casualties as possible. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that’s no longer the case.
I am not American but Iraq and Afghanistan are much more the results of flawed political policy that dictate the actions of military leadership than the lack of will or skill of the latter
well we cant exactly compare iraq/afghanistan with ww2 , the insurgency is a mess for everyone trying to fight against it
so why all of a sudden are most of the battlefields video now blocked in the US
+Brian Zulauf because "Eagle Rock Entertainment" is a bunch of card carrying commies. I would LOVE to be able to just buy the whole series.
+Brian Zulauf look up on internet "how to watch youtube videos blocked in your country"
+RevToddBodysnachr lol ur comment made my day
Awesome soundtrack.
/bow, thank you sir for post this documentary!
I really enjoyed the first two seasons of Battlefield, but once they changed format (and later the narrator) lots of errors began popping up, research seemed less thorough, and lots of blatant blame-gaming. What a shame, loved the early series when I was a tyke (and still do).
I got a laugh at him calling the 28th Division ''the Bloody Bucket'', it is and always has been The Bucket of Blood due to it's red insignia that is vaguely shaped like a bucket.
kingleech16: Your statement is true... but Battlefield is still fresh. Even with all it's flaws. The intro music always gets me pumped up. WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Slayer Slayer Slayer!
What a crock , Eisenhower wasn’t bright enough to set a trap, sounds like someones trying to change History again
ya like monty is claimed to a great general.
Battlefield is a great series and top notch production. As it is an English program produced by the BBC it is understandable that it has an English slant. What I dislike about the narrative is the monumental Montgomery spin..its as if the entire narrative was written by Montgomery himself..and the Monty vs Patton nonsense is as old as the war itself..i would have thought something produced so long after the shooting stopped would be a little more balanced.
+stink0o Agree, my favourite generals of the period were Brain Horrocks (British, commander of XXX Corps, my dad's outfit) and Omar Bradly (American) They were both great commanders who stayed out of the limelight and just got on with the task in hand
It was an American series. It was nothing to do with the BBC.
Way off on the Aachen casualty figures. The USA suffered about 5,000 casualties as did the Germans. The latter also had 5.600 of their men surrender. Perhaps they quoted casualties for the US 1st Infantry Division alone by mistake (1,350). Didn't check any of the others for accuracy.
why is there austrian flag denoting polish troops at 47:17
Because you touch yourself at night
for the win!
yeah, think it was a 2 bar flag with one white, the other red. This episode had quite a few mistakes including the Rhone called the Rhine, plus some bad research. The last 2 seasons of this series went down hill.
m
Peorhum a
Rundstedt was not put on trial for the war crimes he was charded with because he had been declared unfit to stand trial, for advanced throat cancer - not because, as this documentary suggests, he as not viewed as a war criminal , by the Allies. He was facing charges under the Commissar and Commando Orders, which he knowingly enforced, and for massacres occurring under orders issued with his signature in the Crimea in 1941/ 42.
me0000443 It was his son that had throat cancer. Not Rundstedt himself.
The Rhone River is mislabeled as the Rhine.
The B-17, a mortar and a rocket launcher??? WTF??? Did the US not have a FEW more weapons at their disposal?
bill enright I’m sure they mentioned the flame thrower too lol
Can only put so much into a 1 hr TV show. So why not pick a variety?
At around 7 minutes they attest that Hitler was saved from the bomb by the thickness of the table top.
What is more accurate is that the briefcase was placed from one side of the leg of the table to the other by another officer that was in the room, unaware it contained the bomb and that by doing so the majority of the blast would end up traveling away from Hitler, which is why the worst he got out of it was a hurt eardrum and maybe some splinters.
As well the building the explosive was deigned for was not used. The fortified bunker's construction would have concentrated the concussion force of the blast greatly increasing the destruction & death toll. As it was the lighter frame of the building the explosion went off in allowed the explosive force to be wasted going through the walls & ceiling.
Kevin Travis
Mythbusters showed the room had little effect on the blast. The table shielded Hitler's upper body from splinters, and the blast was too small. The bomb needed to be very close to be deadly.
Mythbusters, now there is an authority on all things made with garage parts. I'll have to find that episode to see if they tested a plastic explosive detonation inside a concrete bunker where the blast wave would have been amplified and concentrated. The most deadly part would have been the concussive force not the explosion itself or the shrapnel from the table.
whenever we fought a war one-on-one, we never lost. We only lost, when we fought one-on-20-60.
In a timespace of 2000 years we fought roundabout about 300 wars and we lost 2
MrPHAELAN who are we?
At last, a British voice over that can be understood!
Thicko
yeah ,if you can get away from all the bullshit !
8:36 I got one thing to say: Your mouthwash ain't cutting it.
The man driving the burning jeep at 1:15:17 has been shown in other battle documentaries including the Battle of the Bulge. I'm not sure which battle this poor guy was actually in, but I wish folks would stop using this clip to illustrate other battles.
Nuancolar that was at midway
Very often throughout the series Monty is criticised just have a look at Market Garden.
Günter von "Kloozh".... great pronunciation, guy. And then he somehow manages to pronounce every single English word of French origin as if it were a French word... "impasse" - haha.
Interesting point of view made at the end about the russians getting more of germany than the allies wanted them to have.........
I wonder if putin wants east germany back again?.........
There is something that I should mention it's wrong : Romania DID NOT capitulate;Romania changed sides to fight against it's former nazi ally.
I'm guessing you have no idea about this people's history and our efforts to reunite our country...
Vasile,
Thanks for the great uplaod.
You are THE MAN!
The ego of Generals cost so many lives.
Thank-you for the upload even with the many incorrect info , it's in all these allied story's of there war,,,,,,,........ History written by the victors ........................
Please, learn a little bit german, it's Von KluGe not Von KluJ!!!!!
Staffan Goldschmidt who cares?
Let’s not get bogged down in semantics buddy
Agreed. KluJ doesn't sound right. Btw, his grandson is a bioethics prof at University of Victoria in Canada. I guess his family left Germany after the war.
The Rhone River is identified as the Rhine at one point .... Hyrtgen Forest? with a "y"? Weird. It's English -- so Brit and Canadian failures are down to being out-numbered, America failures down to foolhardy incompetence
19:00 The B-24 was the most used bomber by the US between 1942-1945.
What is the vehicle pictured at 34:44?
It's a tank chassis with out the turret
What an odd random listing of combat equipment/weapons. A bomber, mortar, tank destroyer, grenade???
This doesn't even come close to 5% of the weaponry used during that stage of the war.
It seemed more bizarre to list the flame thrower then go on to talk about how more practical it was in the pacific with Japanese pill boxes lol
As a kid. I heard first hand from my father and his mates about the the resolve of all German ground forces; Brave, Confident, skillfull and stubborn. And they should know. Having faced them in the field. It's a shame such bravery wasn't led by a credible commander in chief. Turning them against Stalin. Rather than the west.
Wow. Little anglo-centric jingoism there at the end, don't you think? 'if Monty had been in charge of everything, the iron curtain wouldn't have run through Germany'? (paraphrased). Yeah. Whatever. I didn't see anyone holding you back up there, Bernard.
In response to those who've taken issue with the fact that the Germans were a superior fighting force, sorry. That part is true.
How would a splitarse know that get back to the sink and be silent.
Not the best written of the series. In Normandy many of the American troops were new, the British and Canadian armies had more veterans, but even so about 60% were new troops. The Germans were very well armed combat veterans motivated by the fate which would befall their families in reprisal for "cowardice. However contrary to the impression given here, the German army losses totaled 600,000 killed/missing during the campaign, compared to total Allied losses of 170,00 killed/missing.
Who the hell wrote this? The conclusions drawn are very one-sided. First, the Americans moving agressively against Germany was not aimed at humiliating Montgomery. (He needed no help in that regard.) Rather it was aimed at deafeating the Germans. You know - the enemy. Also, Eisenhower kept troops back from fighting in the eastern part of Germany to save western allied lives. The east of Germany was ALWAYS going to fall under Soviet control by prior allied agreement. It the western allies had fought (and died) to occupy the east of Germany, they would have had to give it up to the Soviets anyway. This documrntary makes it seem like, at even that late date, the British still had a bug up their asses about their subservient position after the war.
Total rubbish.
they were subservient , British power had been eroded for decades before all this , you vote for what you want and get lies
Pbs wrote it
Is it possible to unblock some of you're videos. It says blocked for US
im in NY and i dont use VPN or any special stuff.
"Hyrtgen Forest". Ugh - what were the editors thinking? It is called Hürtgenwald.
S P: Actually the English translation is: Hurtgen Forest.
Outstanding series. I do understand now more than ever, the pickle Ike was in. If he had thrown British and Canadian forces at the west wall the press most certainly would have accused him of feeding commonwealth lives into the meat grinder because they were "not" US forces.
The ending was a lie, it was already decided that the Russians were to enter Berlin first.
This depiction of Patton was super critical, and made no mention of "Monte's" bad planning and catastrophic use of not only UK troops but US ones as well, at one point after the "battle of the bulge" he claimed that he saved the US ARMY from total annihilation.
It's true Patton was at times reckless, but he didnt fail, but "Monte" did, Operation Market Garden was Monte's idea and it cost more lives then it was worth, they ignored Heavy Armor just so the plan would go ahead.
Monte was a real asshole, and fell out of favor many times because of his "grand" ideas that cost so many lives, it was only because of US - UK political peace that this guy got to do what he did, he was a bad commander and cost too many lives.
It's a down right lie about Berlin, I have read deeply about the end of WWII and NEVER EVER heard blame be placed on Patton.. Its a lie, Stalin took more then what he was allowed only because he took more then what was agreed on!
BS lie, read up on it.
TheVilla Aston
Market Garden .......
Yes "Monte" was worse then Patton and the only US General I can compare him to.
I know my history, you will not win here.
Because of "Monte", systematic reckless behavior took place, this ass kept angling for actions that put UK in "milestones", he was well aware of writing History for the British Empire putting the kingdoms name on well known places and actions, often putting US forces in "Support"...
Patton was the same, but didn't have the clout of political relations to get him ahead. "Monte" fell out of favor with command and his mouth disgraced himself and the British uniform!
And I will call "Monte" any god dam thing I want!
ramairgto72 Why do you compare Montgomery with Patton? Montgomery was an army group commander who mainly dealt with people of equal or higher rank. During the 1944/5 North West Europe campaign these persons would have included the likes of Alanbrooke, Bradley, Devers and Eisenhower.
Patton was passed over for army group command by the United States Army. The reasons for this snub possibly include incidents when he slapped shell shocked US soldiers and then had to apologise to these soldiers for these assaults, had to apologies to those persons who witnessed these assaults and later had to apologise to all of the troops under his command for these assaults. Other reasons may have included his killing of mules, assaults on Sicilian civilians and the defying of orders by occupying Messina and in doing so endangered the lives of many allied soldiers for the sake of personal glory?
Far from ‘angling for actions that put UK in "milestones"’ (your words), Montgomery worked extremely hard, often under severe pressure from the British Government to end the war as quickly as possible and to this end advocated that a single thrust strategy be adopted by the Allied Expeditionary Force rather than the broad front strategy which the Supreme Commander favoured. Montgomery felt so strongly about this matter that he even offered to place all of his forces under the command General Bradley provided a single thrust strategy was adopted. Hardly the actions of a man who ‘kept angling for actions that put UK in "milestones",’- your words.
As the only British army group commander in the Allied Expeditionary Force, and because he was disliked by certain senior figures in the British government and military, including Tedder, the Deputy Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, Montgomery had little 'clout of political relations to get him ahead' as you put it.
TheVillaAston
I admit, I felt like you, on paper things only seems slightly slanted, however when you look at the political nature Monte wanted UK History written, often using allied forces for diversions or protecting his flank.
Its not known all to much, but the UK had next no 0 respect for the US command and resented the idea they they were here (again) to bail them out.
Rather then good commanders getting sent to the top, like Patton, they were kept out of higher commands because of Political nature.
The US was really the only nation upset with what Patton did, and his orders to "say sorry" were only to secure his political ambitions after the war were forever over.
Even you have to admit of the "wrong" military maneuvering the last years of the war. Patton won.... thats all he wanted and all he looked forward to and he got it done, nobody likes the ugly side of war, but he did it and did it good.
Montgomery used political tools were Patton didnt, debatable on the merits of that in War, and because of that the United Kingdom liked Monte, then again we all should be so lucky to have the people rank ahead of us die in a plane crash.
Monty planed a rather strained campaign (Market Garden) and ended up using up some very find people on every side, and people were getting put away that came out about this operation ...
Patton, core values... and he "advanced farther, captured more enemy prisoners, and liberated more territory in less time than any other army in history"...
And everything he bitched about during the end & after came to be, me born in 74' I got this live some of the crazy stand offs with Russia.
And just like another Democrat in office that politically ruined a Solder we got N. Korea..
Based on Political bullshit, we have once again come into heated issues with Russia and N. Korea..
ramairgto72 You state ‘Monte wanted UK History written, often using allied forces for diversions or protecting his flank.’ Where is your evidence? In at least two major campigns, Sicily and Normandy the British and Commonwealth troops faced the bulk of the enemy forces, thus allowing their American allies freedom to move against weaker opposition. Hardly the actions of a commander seeking to use ‘allied forces for diversions or protecting his flank.’
Regarding your words about British attitudes towards the US command, I think that the general view from British commanders was that because almost all American commanders had almost no combat experience, their arrogant, conceited and misplaced view they were here to bail anyone out was wrong and was not to be tolerated. Whether Patton was ‘kept out of higher commands because of Political nature’ (your words) was a purely American matter. Patton was a member of the United States Army his status in that army and had nothing to do Britain.
I will not run through the rest of your post which seems to be mainly about General Patton as a lot of it is difficult to understand. Therefore, I will merely note a few points for you to ponder:
The view of Patton as a great commander does not really exist that much outside of America. As the United States only joined at a time when Hitler could not win and the overall outcome of war no longer in doubt, Americans have sought to try to show that this or that US decision maker (including Patton) made a difference to events rather than face the less glamorous reality - that their country’s main contribution to the war effort was industrial production - thousands of miles from the combat areas.
Much of Patton’s reputation in America is based on his army’s rate of progress across France after the Normandy breakout. This rate of progress was actually no quicker than other American, British and Canadian armies - when they were also free of opposition. As well as this, Patton made no more progress than any other American, British or Canadian army commander when faced with determined opposition such as at Metz where over three months his army suffered 40,000 casualties.
In the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge) in 1944, Patton did organise three US Third Army divisions to head towards the battle area in three days to in order to seek involvement in the campaign. However, by the time that Patton’s forces joined the battle, the German offensive was petering out. As in Normandy, Patton seems to have made contact with the enemy when the most crucial part of the battle had been fought.
@@TheVillaAston the thing with america is... well.. we supplied england and if not for operation torch in north africa and sherman and grant tanks there also england would have most assuredly lost north africa why? because italy and germany were in the med keeping most english supplies from monte. if not for american fighting men and materials england would never have had a chance to land in france and not be repelled back off into the ocean never mind all the supplies that american industrial machine fed to england and everyone else they supplied. american entered the war in dec 1941 thanks to the japanese and hitler declaring war on america a couple days later.. but even before then we were sending materials and and volunteers to help. if hitler had waited until 43 or 45 to start the war things might have been much different. but in the end i believe that influx of supplies and machines from american industry that you seem to want to believe was nothing is what kept england going becuase i do believe without that help england was doomed. japan was wreaking havoc in the far east and all those rescources the english had there.. there was only two countries any where near ready for war at the beginning of ww2 and that was germany and japan. and i also think without lend lease russia would have fallen also but would have been more like 44 or 45 but still would have fallen.
240p in 2020 come on please re upload in atleast 360p or 480p.
Man for man, no allied soldier who fought in WW2 could best his German counterpart. It was estimated by Allied planners many times (falsely) in many situations such as Monte Cassino, Metz, Arnhem, etc. that the German divisions they faced were a spent force with no defensive much less offensive capabilities left whatsoever. These intelligence blunders were responsible for most of the casualties the Allied armies faced in the West during 1944-1945. Faulty intel combined with a tenacious enemy who is used to accomplishing the impossible with limited resources is a recipe for disaster. Its such a tragedy that the war happened at all though, all those good lives wasted on both sides for a pointless cause. Such a waste..
I dispute that many times when the British met the Germans on equal terms they fought them to a standstill, example the Norfolks in 1940, outnumbered 5 to 1, attacked with tanks, aircraft, artillery to hold for 3 days against SS troops
Alan Moore
While there surely were excellent troops on both sides as well as quite some weak ones - there is certainly a point in the observation that german troops in average were ahead of their counterparts in east and west in many fighting qualities. While many germans still believe it to be a proof of their god given superiority to anything else that crawls upond this planet on two legs it was in fact rather just a result of what comes out if someone trims a whole nation fit for war years ahead of anyone else (this probably because this very person is actually the one who is planning this war). Don't forget that years ahead of the outbreak of the war it was virtually mandatory for german teenager boys to join the hitler youth, which was basically a bootcamp kindergarden. Add to this the general staff who could prepare and act in absence of longterm economic concern the armies in the opposing western countries had to deal with (example: the british infantry markI tank and its origin). According to this and the absence of other political restrictions, they could work out modern fighting tactics and test them in the field in spain - eventually raising a generation of well trained and highly motivated soldiers and subordinate officers who were for the most part (especially at the beginning) free and able to quickly alter their tactics to the given situations.
JosipRadnik1 Germany won its early battle by gaining air superiority and by using their tanks on mass, whereas the allies used theirs to support in the infantry. At Arras, however in 1940, the French and British grouped their tanks together and attacked the Germans, the puny German 3.7mm guns were unable to penetrate the armour of the Matildas Char B1s and Soumas, German troops, including SS units broke and ran in panic, but the Allied counter-attack was too little too late, the Germans brought up their 88s and attacked the British and French tanks with Stukas and medium bombers (JU 88s and Dornier 17s). But it had been a close thing, Arras leaves the students of WW2 wondering what would have happened had the Allies fought like that from the start, it is very possible that the German invasion would have been turned back, we can only speculate. All of Germany's victories, Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway , Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, early USSR, early North Africa where made possible by the Germans gaining control of the air and by attacking with overwhelming armour superiority (At the point of Contact -- though in France the Allies had more tanks than the Germans they were spread out and as previously started used to support the infantry in penny packets)
Later in the war when Germany was defending German units hold up enemy formations many times their size, but so too did allied formations in France, I mentioned the Norfolks, an average county regiment holding back the SS from the feared Totonkepft, with no tanks, no artillery and no air support they delayed the German advance for three vital days.
At Lille, the remains of the French 1st Army, again not elite troops but ordinary French soldiers, 40,000 men held back 200,000 Germans. As the 1st Army pulled out of Belgium they lost most of their artillery, anti-aircraft guns and tanks and by the time they arrived at Lille the German air force dominated the skies. Subjected to massed artillery fire, air attacks and armoured assault, outnumbered 5 to 1 those 40,000 Frenchmen hold back the German army for over a week, allowing for the rest of the Allied army to pull back to Dunkirk, without the "Gallant Defenders of Lille," (Winston Churchill's own words) the moles and breaches of Dunkirk would have been overrun before the first ships arrived to start picking up the soldiers. When the French, battered and exhausted, out of ammunition finally lay down their arms, the Germans were so impressed that they allowed them to march through the streets of Lille with all their banners flying and they saluted them. One German officer wrote in his diary "The defenders of Lille proved that the French soldier is still among the best in the World," a fine tribute.
But it was not just at Lille, again at Brest , defended by French Marines, again subjected to air attack and artillery fire they hold the port, the Germans attacked several times and every time they were beaten back, they never took Brest in 1940. The Port only came into their possession after the Government in Paris signed the surrender of all French fighting units and ordered the men of Brest to cease fighting.
Brest's namesake in the USSR, the fortress town of Brest hold back massive superior German forces for over a month before the town fell, the commander knocked unconscioness was taken prisoner and later condemned to prison in Siberia by Stalin for being captured. However on Stalin's death Kruschev, pardoned the man, and issued him the Soviet Union's highest award for gallantry, the Gold Star and title 'Hero of the Soviet Union.'
Germans first land defeat in WW2 was inflicted by the Dutch, when the cream of the German elite units, their paratroops descended near Rotterdam in an attempt to capture the Dutch Royal family and got slaughtered by regular Dutch troops with antiquated weaponry. During the second battle of Rotterdam the Germans won but they lost the first battle, the Dutch troops stopped the German assault and the Dutch Royal family escaped to Britain.
I agree the German soldier was very good but so too were some of his opponents.
Alan Moore
Dear Alan. Thank you for your information. While all you mentioned certainly was true, it actually doesn't contradict with my statement. Of course there were several occasions very early in the war where allied soldiers showed that the german army wasn't invincible. Just take the campaign in norway and the fighting around narvik as an example. Other examples might be found during the defense of Poland. Heck, even the Swiss had a few border clashes in the air with the germans - at the expense of the latter.
Still - if you look at the average throughout the whole war - German Soldiers were repeatedly able to beat superior forces, often armed (like in your example) with superior weapons and with more supplies at hand than any other counterpart. The reason for this in my opinion is to be found in the overall fighting qualities of the german soldiers and their command from junior to senior officer. Nevertheless, there was a constant change in the mixture of these qualities. The german army of 1940 wasn't the german army of 1944 in terms of where their men exelled. In 1940, it was basically the better tactical concept, the clearer strategy of their high command and training of their soldiers to act independently, which enabled them to make tactical decisions in the field without having to call back to headquarters to ask for permission on every step. The lack of initiative of the commanders in the field, for example, is to be seen as the main reason for the Sovjet destasters in 1939/40 against Finnland and in 1941 against Germany (this as a direct result of Stalins purges) while the lack of a clear strategy and clumsy tactical doctrines had hintered many otherwise probably very talented french or british officer to perform the way they could have, had they been free to decide on their own. The fact that many of the most heroic fights of allied troops in 1940 took place once they were isolated and disconnected from their superiors and HAD to act independently may be seen as a hint to this direction.
By 1944, the picture shifted. While the allies had learned many lessons by then and their average soldiers where far better trained and prepared for the comming tasks, still most of them - at least in the western european theatre of war - couldn't recall on such an amount of experience as their german counterparts. Also the years of indoctrination and "kindergarten bootcamp" (as mentioned before) made its mark. So the ranks in german units were filled with experienced, battlehardened veterans as well as green but fanatical and physically fit kamikaze teenagers and foreign volounteers, of which many were just as fanatic, knowing that victory would be their only chance for the perspective of a safe return to their home. This all toghether with the knowledge that behind you lies your motherland made them gradually more dangerous as their desperation grew as well while on the other side, allied soldiers tended to get more and more cautious as victory came nearer for nobody wanted to be unnecessary wasted in some minor skirmish just days before the end.
Take this as an attempt to explain why I believe that over the course of the whole war the german army in general had an overall fighting quality of its personell that more often exeeded their counterparts than not. Yet, I certainly don't mean that it was at ALL times on ALL fronts and that there weren't allied soldiers of common branch that couldn't defeat even german elite units. And finally, as mentioned before, I certainly don't believe it has anything to do with any form of superiority of the german breed per se, it was simply the result of a totalitarian regime that prepared and trained a whole nation for war years ahead of the countries they intended to assault.
JosipRadnik1 You make some very valid points, certainly regrading their command structure and I have to agree on that especially where the Soviet Union is concerned. On the first day of the German attack on 22nd June 1941 Soviet commander was accused of being mad or drunk when he reported that his units had come under fire,
I believe that the only allied troops at the start of the war that were encouraged to act independently like the Germans were the British but they still lacked behind the Germans. It was mostly due to this encouragement and training that many British units when cut off still managed to find and fight their way to Dunkirk. The British had changed the way they did things out of the painful lessons of the First World War, lessons that were hammered home on July 1st 1916, the first day of the Somme where just under 60,000 British troops fell, according to now deceased David Chandler, with the vast majority falling in the first hour. No longer could rank be processed, instead more and more men were being made up from the ranks. But high rank, General staff level was still the realm of the upper glass, the Eton and Harrow boys, but even they had to go to an officer's training school. I think that after the German army the British was the most professional. like in WW1, when the Germans laughed at the British but after the Mons they were not laughing.
"The men are chilled to the one, almost too exhausted to move and with the depressing consciousness of defeat weighing heavily upon them. A bad defeat, there can be no gainsaying it...We have been badly beaten, and by the English - by the English we had so laughed at a few hours before."
(Captain Walter Bloem 1914)
The British army of 1914 was like the British army of 1939 the only army to go into the war with a fully professional none conscript force, but like in 1914 the army of 1939 and 1940 was tiny when compared to those of Germany and France though a limited conscription had been inteduced in 1939 these men were still undergoing training in 1940. Out of all the opponents the Germans faced during their conquests of 39 to 41 the British were the most independent thinking and acting. It was also the only fully mechanised army to go to the war in 1939 but it was hampered by a timidness at the top, haunted by the huge casualty rate of WW1 the general staff were anxious to avoid casualties and there was a doctrine of casualty avoidance. The army knew that the British public and the soldiers themselves would never allow them to be recklessly thrown away again. The structure of the army had been organized that it sacrificed fire-power for mobility and removed the fire support weapons that were needed to advance from its commanders. This may go some way to explaining why the Germans thought that the British were excellent and extremely stubborn in defence but poor in attack. The British were also hampered by having slow moving heavy tanks that had a maximum speed of around 8mph or having fast but very thinly armed tanks, they had nothing in between like the Germans. They were also hampered by poor fire power at squad level, at least until 1941, during the invasion of France there were only 50 sub-machine guns in the entire British army, mostly American Thompsons
Though I agree on your assessment of German initiative and command being the best the British were not far behind though behind they were
Why are these vids posted if you cannot watch them?
Some of the comments here are completely idiotic.
It's a history doc on TH-cam you betcha!
Von Clunge was the best general
I like this program better than other documentaries. It has the facts based on documents and other evidence, not propaganda based on bullshit and conjecture.
For example the documents say the Nazi high command knew their only slim chance was to divide the allies and maybe force them to accept a conditional surrender, especially if they could get the western allies fighting with the communists in the east. Almost every other documentary says Hitler was insane and thought they could win outright, or that Hitler wanted to kill everyone in Germany.
there is alot of opinion interjected into this "documentary" ...
What happened to the original dude?
The narrator really is a Monty nut-hugger. Its really bad in the Arnhem/Market Garden episode. That's all well and good but no reason to rag on Bradley and Patton. Sure Patton had a short temper, but he got results. Monty got more allied men killed by his ego than any other western allied commander. Caen, Market Garden, etc. If you're able to tune out the narrator's bias, this really is a great series.
thefatguy556 If Montgomery "got more allied killed.(.........) than any other commander", - it is because he led Bigger armies than anyone else. At Caen he was ground Commander in Chief of all the forces and as such both Bradley and Patton´s superior. However there is no evidence to support your claim and ample evidence to refute it. i.e Bradley lost more men at the Hurtigen Forrest clusterfuck than Monty did with Market Garden and one of the main criticism´s of Montgomery Generalship was his cautious approach in an effort to spare the lives of his men. . He himself - had been left for dead on the battlefield during ww1 and never forgot the attrition rate and meaningless slaugter of that war.
Patton (our blod and his guts) fits your description (of letting ego run rough shod over the lives of his own men) much better.
Wijnand Dalmijn what a load of baloney.
Wijnand Dalmijn. i'm no monty fan but from what i read, what he did during the battle of the bulge contradicts your statement. personally i think all the generals were over rated, except for maybe Eisenhower.
wow, it's not like it's obscure. from wikipedia
When the surprise attack on the Ardennes took place on 16 December 1944, starting the Battle of the Bulge, the front of the US 12th Army Group was split, with the bulk of the US First Army being on the northern shoulder of the German 'bulge'. The 12th Army Group commander, General Omar Bradley,
was located south of the penetration at Luxembourg and command of the
US First Army became problematic. Montgomery was the nearest commander
on the ground and on 20 December, Eisenhower (who was in Versailles in France) temporarily transferred Courtney Hodges' US First Army and William Simpson's US Ninth Army
to Montgomery's 21st Army Group until the "bulge" could be reduced and a
simpler line of communications restored, despite Bradley's vehement
objections on national grounds.[nb 1]
When Bradley learned that Montgomery had been given command of two
American armies totalling some 200,000 men, he phoned Eisenhower to say:
"I cannot be responsible to the American people if you do this. I
resign!"[173]
Eisenhower sharply responded that Bradley was in fact responsible to
him and "Your resignation means absolutely nothing...Well, Brad, these
are my orders."[173] Montgomery grasped the situation quickly, visiting all divisional, corps, and field army commanders himself and instituting his 'Phantom' network of liaison officers. He grouped the British XXX Corps
as a strategic reserve behind the Meuse and reorganised the US defence
of the northern shoulder, shortening and strengthening the line and
ordering the evacuation of St Vith. The German commander of the 5th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel said:
The operations of the American First Army had developed into a series
of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring
the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a
coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was
his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which
enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German
attempts to extend their breakthrough.[174]
just because it's on a wiki page doesn't make it untrue either. it's not something controversial, anyone inclined to make the effort can verify it's veracity. whether you are right or not about monty, you clearly have a blind hatred for him. in your reply you go on about how he is overrated, but that is not my argument, i'm not saying he wasn't. i am responding to one specific thing you said, that he could only win with superior forces. but you're so blinded by hate for him you don't realize that.
i offer how he improvised on the fly in the face of an enemy who had the initiative and numbers and the element of surprise. that speaks to his abilities while under adversity. plus that same criticism can be levied at just about all if not all generals in ww2.
you know you can hate the man and still be honest in your thinking.
Victory for the Allied Forces.