"Could World War II Have Ended Sooner than It Did?" Topic

"Seventy-one years ago, the British, Canadians, and Americans landed on the Normandy beaches to open a second ground front against Nazi Germany.

Operation Overlord — the Allied invasion of Western Europe — proved the largest amphibious operation in military history, dwarfing even Xerxes's Persian invasion of Greece in 480 B.C.

Brilliant planning, overwhelming naval support, air superiority, and high morale ensured the successful landing of 160,000 troops on the first day — at a cost of about 4,000 dead.

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Imho the only way to do it was to support 3rd Army and to stop Montgomery failed ofensives.

Amicalement
Armand

The same old bullshine, I'm surprised you believe this rubbish Armand

Any number of coulda, woulda, shouldas exist with WWII. If Valkyrie had worked, if Market Garden had worked, etc

even as an American its clear that with out the sacrafice the British and canadians made on the Caen front the breakout would not have happened..The only differance that might have made a difference might have been if MG had come off ….

Only if the Japanese government had been living in the real world.

Not only is it insulting to the Commonwealth troops it also slights Bradley's Army which made the breakthrough that allowed Patton to claim he 'outflanked' the Germans. Truth be told Pattons men were fed through the gap made by Bradley and were chasing down a broken army.
If the person who wrote this tripe is a real 'historian' then standards have really slipped in recent years!

Was that not the plan? Bradley makes the hole and Patton exploits it to chase down the broken and fleeing German army. And 3rd Army did a quite good job of pressing the pursuit as well.

Perhaps the real operational question is whether better results could have been achieved if Eisenhower had continued to support Patton, rather than halting him and shifting logistical support to Montgomery.

B

Oh, that's VDH riding his favorite hobby horse again.
Epaminondas, Sherman, Patton, citizen soldiers smiting slave holding aristocrats blah blah blah…
He's getting an awful lot of mileage out of the same shoebox full of file cards.

Had eisenhower supported Patton rather than Monty, Market Garden would have happened south, and with much the same result.

Perhaps the real operational question is whether better results could have been achieved if Eisenhower had continued to support Patton, rather than halting him and shifting logistical support to Montgomery,

The old myth that all Patton's failures (see METZ) were caused by big bad Monty stealing his toys. Total fiction. One could make the case that Patton's problems were caused by not carrying out the original CHASTITY plan. The Allied problems in late 1944 were caused by their (much) earlier than expected advance. Have a look at this from Zaloga's latest book.

[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/eyoTJLcnj]

I suspect not one word of the above will impact on those who get their 'facts' from endless re-runs of the film 'Patton'.

mkenny – Thanks for the Zaloga data, but I do not see what relevance it has to the subject at hand – unless it is just to buttress an argument (that no one appears to be having with you) that Montgomery faced much stiffer opposition. The question I posed is very simply whether supporting a thrust by Patton where the Germans were decidedly much weaker on the ground may have produced better (faster) operational results.

There were reasons that did militate in favor of supporting a push by Montgomery: the genuine need to secure Antwerp and/or other ports to ease the logistical crunch, the shortest distance to the Rhine barrier and the north German industrial areas beyond, freeing the Netherlands and so on. But events did not pan out as hoped.

So ….. I again raise the perfectly reasonable query: what if Eisenhower had opted to support Patton instead? Can the Germans scrape up any forces to stop 3rd Army, which was arguably running amok with little or no effectual opposition before it? Does Patton reach the Rhine? Or does he ultimately outrun a logistical tether in spite of all?

I really do find the spasm of unprovoked vituperation directed toward poor George to be rather amusing. I mean, really? METZ? Does all this stem from the fact that Stanley Kubrick chose Patton over Monty as the subject of his movie? Must have been those pearl handled pistols.

B

"boscage (sic) just miles beyond the American beaches"

So the British and Canadians didn't have to contend with bocage…?

"It would take most of June and early July for the stalled Americans to cut through the nearly impassable, well-defended hedgerows."

Again, is the author suggesting that this was a purely American problem?

One can also ask just what then the Americans were doing while training in the near-identical terrain of Devon and west Wales prior to D-Day?

"The stalled Allied armies had given time for the arrival of crack German Panzer reinforcements to bottle up the invaders. "

should read 'The continual British-Canadian attacks had ground down eight panzer divisions and three Tiger battalions, enabling the Americans to break out in the west.'

It always amuses me that these writers of BS presume to elevate Patton (Army commander) to the same command level as Monty (Army GROUP commander) and also ignore the fact that 3rd Army's role as breakout formation was designated by Monty as commander of 21st Army Group, to which they were subordinate.

Skimmed thru the 'article' – utter claptrap. Awash with carefully chosen slights and innuendo and shamelessly political.

Tango01 draws our attention to a lot of interesting stuff and nice eye-candy but this time I'm afraid it is neither.

Better luck next time.

Part of the 'only Americans count' syndrome.

Short answer – No!

"So ….. I again raise the perfectly reasonable query: what if Eisenhower had opted to support Patton instead? Can the Germans scrape up any forces to stop 3rd Army, which was arguably running amok with little or no effectual opposition before it? Does Patton reach the Rhine? Or does he ultimately outrun a logistical tether in spite of all?"

These matters have been debated to death in various books, and the fact is that the 3rd Army was on a run to nowhere, even if it could be supplied. The Saar was peripheral to Germany's war effort, and there was no way that Patton efforts could defeat Germany in 1944. Bradleys Army Group could – if it crossed the Rhine east of Aachen.

Anyway, I shall refer you to chapters 18 and 19 of 'Command Decisions' published by the US Army Center for Military History.

link

link

If the person who wrote this tripe is a real 'historian' then standards have really slipped in recent years!

No worries on that score, as it's Victor Davis Hanson, who only superficially resembles a real 'historian.'

Doug

OFM--you have confirmed something that has been in the back of my mind for a while. I started reading NR Online about 6-7 years ago, and whenever I read VDH on anything I keep thinking "I've seen this movie before." Much like the old adage Vivaldi--he didn't write 400 concerti, he wrote 1 concerto 400 times.

Yes WWII could have been shorter:

The Soviets could have not sided with the nazis for a couple of years just to get their own toe-hold in Poland.

The US could have declared war in '39 when the Brits and French did and not wait for Hitler to declare war on them two years later.

"If ifs and and were pots and pans there'd be no need of tinkers" as my old dad used to say.

In short: So what?

This article is badly researched piffle.

John T

Another and unexpected offensive could had ended the war much sooner in Europe.

According to french maréchal Alphonse Juin memories (worth to be read, … poor Clark …), he offered Eisenhower a, may be too abrupt and unexpected for a Kraut's mind, change of plans in the Madiernanean by the end of july 44.

Rather than beeing withdrawn from the italian front to land in southern France in the following august 15th, he asked the permission for the French 1st Army to press on the German onto the Po and further, claiming that there was a big opportunity to seize as the Germans were in full rout at this very moment … And with no significant reserves behind.

Very few people are still aware of that plan and offer which could had change the course of the war for good just at the moment the Germans were collapsing in Normandy (july 25th) and Bagration was rolling over the eastern front.

The meanest regret of Juin was to give up in Italy, where so many allied soldiers had fallen, just at the moment when Churchill's "soft belly of Europe" was on the very point to be pierced for good.

With the support, or the diversion, caused by Tito's partisans upraising, Juin claims that the road to Vienna and then Munich was just open in the last week of july as the Germans had nothing consistent to oppose …

Tha Gothic line was not already manned as it will be two weeks later …

Of course, many may pretend this plan could'nt had been achieved, or could had failed, no one will ever know!

But just think about it …

A obscure general, with a small army campaigning in northern Italy, disrupting from Dalmatia to the Danube by surprise to force the enemy surrending, when, at the same moment, the main and rich army in France, is still looking for a better strategy.

If I add that Juin's mother came from Corsica, does this remind you someone and, this is the point, something that, at least, already worked once, no????

Cheers to all!

link

VDH has written some interesting stuff on hoplite warfare. Sadly, if you bought one book, you don't have to read the others.

The same thing with his writing on Patton. He's a one trick pony.

I really do find the spasm of unprovoked vituperation directed toward poor George to be rather amusing. I mean, really? METZ? Does all this stem from the fact that Stanley Kubrick chose Patton over Monty as the subject of his movie? Must have been those pearl handled pistols.

Confirmation that the film 'Patton' plays a big part in this farago of lies and invention.
Makes you wonder why Bradley refused to let Patton try and block the retreating Germans in Normandy. Bradley made no bones about the decision. He was convinced that if Patton stood in the way he would simply be flatened and destroyed. That is the opinion of Patton's superior and nothing to do with big bad Monty.

"…I'm surprised you believe this rubbish Armand…"

I don't support the article my friend, I only think imho that if Patton has nothing at his front/right and Montgomery have crack german units at his front… the best oportunity to destroyed the germans till their frontier was to support Patton 3rd Army while Montgomery "fixed" the german units.

Nothing more or less than that.

Amicalement
Armand

I strongly recommend "The Lorraine Campaign" in the US Army Historical Series ("The Green Books"). It explains brilliantly the factors that brought Patton to a halt in the fall of 1944. And lack of supplies was the least of them. Yes, a general lack of supplies in early September brought the entire Allied advance to a stop for a few days, but it was not a matter of robbing George to supply Monty. NO ONE had any supplies and the halt was unavoidable. And even though the situation only lasted a few days, that was all the Germans needed to rebuild a defense line. When Patton started moving again he found himself facing not a fleeing enemy, but one that was dug in behind river lines and supported by formidable concrete defenses that covered every possible crossing site. The next two months saw a slow, grinding advance through strong German defenses, difficult terrain, and awful weather. And if Eisenhower had halted Montgomery to beef up Patton it only would have meant that German reserves could have gone south instead of north.

Frankly, the only "alternate history" of that time period that I could see making any difference would be to cancel Market Garden and use the British 1st Airborne to help open up the port of Antwerp and the Scheldt Estuary and send the 82nd and 101st Airborne to help 1st Army around Aachen.

Everyone has permission to ignore Victor Hanson.

He's a political "historian", a very dangerous type to listen too. Also a big hero worshiper. Its all about the legend; facts are bunk.

He for instance believers US generals should have ignored Commander in Chief G.W. Bush's order to stop and not pursue the Iraqs to Bagdad in the first Gulf War. You'd think a "classic" historian would know something about the dange of losing civilan control of the military.

TomT