Effects of a wanked Ardennes Offensive

The Marble Man

It Took me 3 years to read it would put me to sleep before I finished 2 pages a night .:rolleyes::D
Unfortunately Ward, unless you are an immigrant, well, I see your address as Western Michigan. That means the silence from across the pond is as thunderous as ever. People in the UK, it seems, will state that MEMOIRS, in general, are very biased, but that is as far as they will go. When Monty's name comes up, it's like saying Robert E. Lee to a white southerner in 1900, or Custer to a white northerner in 1880. Thou Shalt Not...:eek:


P.S. I'm not comparing Monty's record with them. Compared to those two, his record is unimpeachable. I only compare what appears to be a "Marble Man" complex that all three had/have in their own countries/regions. Custer's wasn't broken until the 1960's, Lee the 1970's. But Monty? Hmm...
 

burmafrd

Banned
Most Generals autobiographies are not worth the paper they were printed on. Did like Swartzkofs.

It wasn't until the 60's and 70's that really good books came out about WW2. And with the truly ridiculous secrecy limitations on a lot of US records (to call it ridiculous in some respects is being too kind) its not been until the last 20 years that a lot has come out. THe best book about Guadalcanal that had a lot of recently declassified data that changed a lot did not come out until the late 80's; and also a lot of Japanese records that no one had bothered to translate until then (that is Richard Franks Guadalcanal)
 

Cook

Banned
Most Generals autobiographies are not worth the paper they were printed on.

Agreed.

Autobiographies are generally someone’s efforts “To set the record straight” and are extremely dubious record of events. And that is doubly so when it comes to the autobiographies of Politicians and Generals. Especially the general with aspirations for politics, a particularly unreliable creature.

And they are usually badly written since the people concerned are not professional writers.

For someone to be silly enough to boast about wading through various people’s autobiographies just seems rather sad.
 
I honestly can't see the Allies nuking Germany.

Since this is a mega=wank of the offensive, I will throw in my ASB filled scenario...


1. Like Hitler wanted, the offensive suceeds, capturing vital towns, and cutting the Allies in two.

2. The Western Allies, all of a sudden realizing the threat of the Communist hordes band together with the Germans to fight the Soviet Union.

3. The Allies nuke Moscow, a German-Allied Parade in Washington, London, Berlin, and Rome.

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
 
What is meant by stopping the Allies cold, them not launching a counter offensive and getting moving again? That seems psychotically pessimistic. The best the Germans could hope for is to cut the Allies in half and hold until the situation is reversed. In the East Soviet offensives will run out of steam, as all offensives do and that will be the situation when the WAllies get moving again.

Most interesting to me is a situation where the Soviets occupy Berlin and their occupation zone, where their offensives have petered out, but the WAllies are stalled somewhere in western Germany. Does Hitler still live by moving west into free Germany, or does he die in Berlin? Does he get knocked on the head when Berlin falls and the new govt negotiates surrender without having western Germany fought over and destroyed?
 
What would be the effects of an Ardennes Offensive successful enough to keep the Western Allies out of Germany until the Summer of 1945? Would the Soviets push on after capturing Berlin and their occupation zone? If they did would they give Western Germany up?

Having launched the Ardennes offensive, I don't believe it is possible for the Germans to be successful in any meaningful way. Possibly better:

1. Germany DOESN'T launch the offensive at all AND
2. Uses those forces it would've used to hold the Western Allies for longer (rather than transferring them to the East as they should have done).

I can see Stalin perhaps sticking to the Yalta agreement with respect to Germany, but I also think he may see fair game in taking other countries not properly defined (Denmark especially... and maybe even Austria?) and bringing them into the Soviet sphere eventually.
 
My idea was that the Wallies would take so much time dealing with the Ardennes offensive and then slugging their way through Alsace-Lorraine, the Low Countries, and the Eifel in the Spring that they aren't able to cross the Rhine until late May or early June (let's also assume, for our purposes, that the Germans are able to destroy all of the Rhine crossings and defend it more easily than OTL) by which time the Soviets are moving into Western Germany against crippled German opposition.
 
Unfortunately Ward, unless you are an immigrant, well, I see your address as Western Michigan. That means the silence from across the pond is as thunderous as ever. People in the UK, it seems, will state that MEMOIRS, in general, are very biased, but that is as far as they will go. When Monty's name comes up, it's like saying Robert E. Lee to a white southerner in 1900, or Custer to a white northerner in 1880. Thou Shalt Not...:eek:


P.S. I'm not comparing Monty's record with them. Compared to those two, his record is unimpeachable. I only compare what appears to be a "Marble Man" complex that all three had/have in their own countries/regions. Custer's wasn't broken until the 1960's, Lee the 1970's. But Monty? Hmm...

Usertron2020,
I write this in all seriousness. You need to stop this obsessive line of argument, flamebaiting, or whatever people may see it as. You are likely in danger of being kicked from the board, and working your way to a banning.

I do agree with some of your views about this matter of generals. But I don't share your obsession with it.
 
It just occurred to me, do you think that in such an event that the germans manage to stop the WAllies cold at Ardennes that Stalin would simply stop after successfully occupying his allocated zones of Germany and let the western allies clean up the rest all by themselves as a big "Fuck you" to them for not creating a second front sooner? It does strike me as odd that everyone automatically assumes that Stalin would automatically crap all over Tehran at the drop of a hat, considering that for at least the late 40's he had no intention of openly confronting the west, it would be counter to that for him to start breaking promises before Hitlers body is even cold.

Dan,

An interesting view, one I haven't thought of before. Everybody automatically assumes that Stalin will go as far west as he can. Is that really true though? Once the Soviet armies take Berlin and reach their agreed-upon post-war borders, will they be able to keep driving? I assume that the Soviet armies will need to stop and regroup first.

For that matter, the western allied armies could have gone farther east if they wanted to. In the alternate world of the OP, we may still have a situation where the western allies are a good distance inside Germany, perhaps moving as fast as in real life, but at a later date than historical.

Most of Germany's strength will still be in the east. My thought is that we'll see a reversal of the speeds of the western allied and Soviet drives through Germany.
 

Markus

Banned
No American General (In Europe) could fight his way out of a whorehouse, ...

That would reflect well on the judgement of the US generals or quality of european whorehouses, ´cause if both is fine there is no need to try get OUT of one. :D
 
After The Bunker...

Dan,

An interesting view, one I haven't thought of before. Everybody automatically assumes that Stalin will go as far west as he can. Is that really true though? Once the Soviet armies take Berlin and reach their agreed-upon post-war borders, will they be able to keep driving? I assume that the Soviet armies will need to stop and regroup first.

For that matter, the western allied armies could have gone farther east if they wanted to. In the alternate world of the OP, we may still have a situation where the western allies are a good distance inside Germany, perhaps moving as fast as in real life, but at a later date than historical.

Most of Germany's strength will still be in the east. My thought is that we'll see a reversal of the speeds of the western allied and Soviet drives through Germany.
There are a few points worth noting on the "Battle of Germany". Hitler refused absolutely to leave Berlin. As the supreme leader of the National Socialist State he was determined to die in his capital city, not in some vacation palace. Plus he had to think about what had happened to Mussolini. The Soviets were very angry about how bitterly the Germans were resisting every foot of ground in the east when in the west the Germans couldn't surrender fast enough. The Soviets were on the Vistula in great strength during the Ardennes, and took advantage near the end of the battle to launch their long planned offensive to close to the Oder River. How long would an Atdennes offensive continue steaming on in the face of the Soviets closing on Berlin? After all, the Oder is the last barrier. Once it is crossed, the approaches to Berlin are open. When Berlin falls, Hitler is dead. When Hitler is dead, EVERY LAST GERMAN IS FREED FROM THE FUEHRER OATH. Free will comes into play again, and resistance, at least in the west, vanishes. Wherever the frontlines are in the west, the German army will melt away.
 
When Monty's name comes up, it's like saying Robert E. Lee to a white southerner in 1900, or Custer to a white northerner in 1880. Thou Shalt Not...:eek:


P.S. I'm not comparing Monty's record with them. Compared to those two, his record is unimpeachable. I only compare what appears to be a "Marble Man" complex that all three had/have in their own countries/regions. Custer's wasn't broken until the 1960's, Lee the 1970's. But Monty? Hmm...

Monty? A Marble Man? That's a ridiculous statement to make.

There are far more people in the world willing to bash and castigate Montgomery than there are willing to defend him. Ever since the end of the Normandy Campaign he's come in for heavy criticism from Americans, Canadians, British and more.

If you search the web for forums discussing Montgomery I can guarentee that the vast majority of thread involving Monty are all started by someone saying "Monty's over-rated" or "Monty was bad, Patton/Rommel was better" or "Monty was incompetitant and should have been sacked" or "Monty was an egomanic who never accomplished anything and took credit for other peoples work" or "Monty had not talent, he was just lucky".

The vast majority of books are also heavilly critical of him. Almost every movie you see Montgomery in he is portrayed in the worst possible light with some even going out of their way to take shots at him (such as a Bridge too Far and Saving Private Ryan).

I dont think there a need to bust a "marble man" myth as far as Monty goes because, as far as I can see, he never had one.
 
Monty? A Marble Man? That's a ridiculous statement to make.

There are far more people in the world willing to bash and castigate Montgomery than there are willing to defend him. Ever since the end of the Normandy Campaign he's come in for heavy criticism from Americans, Canadians, British and more.

If you search the web for forums discussing Montgomery I can guarentee that the vast majority of thread involving Monty are all started by someone saying "Monty's over-rated" or "Monty was bad, Patton/Rommel was better" or "Monty was incompetitant and should have been sacked" or "Monty was an egomanic who never accomplished anything and took credit for other peoples work" or "Monty had not talent, he was just lucky".

The vast majority of books are also heavilly critical of him. Almost every movie you see Montgomery in he is portrayed in the worst possible light with some even going out of their way to take shots at him (such as a Bridge too Far and Saving Private Ryan).

I dont think there a need to bust a "marble man" myth as far as Monty goes because, as far as I can see, he never had one.

Agreed Americans do seem to be obsessed by Monty and Monty bashing is almost an American national sport. There is no doubt he was a good organiser but as far as generalship goes most people in Britain would rate him behind Generals Slim and O'Connor. As for Montys autobiography well who takes a blind bit of notice of an autobiography or even a contemporary biography. It takes at least 20 years after the death of a famous person for the true facts to come out and for a decent biography that doesnt descend into hagiography.
 
Top