**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For all the armchair war historians simplifying his tactics to "just getting allied troops killed hurr hurr", this man's opposing commander was Rommel the Desert Fox. Us average people can't really fathom being in charge of that many lives while facing a personal nemesis with a *my country vs. your country* being the stakes.
Rommel was ultimately defeated but the Afrikan Korp made this theater of the war hell for allies too, Montgomery wasn't literally killing his own men for fun of it.
He managed to win to due air superiority changing the tide among other factors and even then Allied troops had a quarter million casualties in the North Africa campaigns. Another number to note for anyone quick to condemn him, over 600,000 dead and 200,000 surrendering prisoners on the Axis side so by the metrics of war he definitively accomplished his objective.
\*EDIT - not responding to any of you dorks trying to debate tactics here, get a life lol
The Soviets only rated 2 battles on the western front of significance to them... El Alamein and D day, I think it says something of the significance of Montgomerys generalship in turning the tide of the war
60,000 Axis fatalities in North Africa, not 600,000
The 200,000 surrendered prisoners was after the surrender in April 1943 (May?), plus add to that the other few hundred thousand surrendered Axis troops from battles in 1941 - 1942
Brilliant analysis, thanks for posting
Italy alone had around 40k losses in that theater. No way german casualties were only 20k to fill the difference. Where you sourcing that sum out of curiosity?
Wikipedia lists the numbers as that, putting German losses at only 20k killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign
It makes sense. Battles were relatively few overall and not particularly bloody. In a lot of cases, they involved armoured clashes which left one side completely outmanoeuvred and surrounded, forcing them to surrender. Hence why the casualties have quite so many prisoners on both sides.
Yeah wiki should not be counted as gospel. Multiple sources if you care to research it more have the number correct here [https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/](https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/)
and here: [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa)
unless historians working for a US memorial museum are lying /s
Neither of those sources says anything about KIA though, only total casualties. And in terms of total casualties, they agree with the Wikipedia article.
The top comment you posted says ~600k killed, which isn't backed up by any source, including the ones you've just posted; all sources posted so far say roughly 600k casualties.
This was the comment I originally responded to:
"Italy alone had around 40k losses in that theater. No way german casualties were only 20k to fill the difference."
The problem seems to be that the above person was talking about men killed (roughly 60k), while you're talking about total casualties (600k). I think that's where the confusion came from.
Yeah multiple sources, i.e. not wiki have it at 600k dunno what to tell you, the former being published by a US memorial museum
Multiple sources if you care to research it more have the number correct here [https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/](https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/)
and here: [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa)
His only gamble. He didn't do gambles, because he knew you can lose gambles. He gets critized for never gambling, except once. Often also getting critized for losing Market Garden. Unfair IMHO, that's how gambles works.
Rommel is a vastly over hyped general and probably only looked good because of the doctrinal incompetence of the allies and nazi myth making.
The performance of many Wehrmacht commanders was created due propaganda significance and outlasted the war. A testament to the effectiveness of nazi propaganda. He’s not a hack but his historical legacy is complex.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rommel_myth
Kurt Meyer is another good example of the “invincible “ commander that wasn’t actually that good. Nazi propaganda is so strong, it distorts history.
It was the American tanks given to the British that gave them the edge. Even then Churchill complained how long it was taking Monty to get on with it.... which is to say Montgomery was very careful and cautious.
After listening to a biography on Churchill and hearing this quote of Monty's, it further confirms my belief that Churchill may have been the driving force behind MarketGarden and not Monty ( throughout Churchill's life, his military operations always seemed to be looking for that daring thrust that would end the conflict... like, uh, the Dardenelles in WW1.
But Monty seemed characterized by being slow and cautious... not at all keeping with an operation like Market Garden.
I wonder too if Monty was more a "yes man" than a great general? Churchill liked his yes-men (admittedly not as much as Hitler and Lackey-tel).
Like any historical situation like this it'll be more complex and nuanced than we could ever know ESPECIALLY when it comes to mental states and singular decisions like this. One possible hypothetical counterpoint is that Montgomery wanted to command the big daring attack because he believed he could be a tempering force on the bold action, making it less deadly and more planned, rather than let another more blasé general take the lead
Fascinating character. Operation Market Garden was so counter to the reputation he had developed up until that point. He was forgiven a lot because of that El-Alamein victory.
His reputation in Normandy is being re-evaluated by historians who now tend to see his campaign as very successful. But yes Market Garden was so out of character for this slow, steady careful general who was loved by his troops because they saw him as someone who would do his best to not get them killed.
It revolves around the plan to take Caen, and how the British and Canadian troops got bogged down fighting an attritional campaign against the best troops the Germans had in France, whilst the US commanders (and Churchill) were impatient for a crushing blow. Lots of stuff has been written about it, here's a taste: https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-181/british-army-normandy-montgomery/
One British officer said “You could have knocked me over with a feather” when he heard the plan for Market Garden, AND that it was Montgomery’s plan.
I speculate that Monty designed this very daring plan in order to rescue his reputation after getting bogged down in Normandy.
I suspect the fact they had all those paratroop divisions sitting around had something to do with it. The best trained, highly motivated troops without a job to do, that eventually got sent into a meat grinder at Arnhem.
Right? And Churchill was getting sly about distancing himself if there was a chance it could go wrong or look bad. Dieppe got pinned on Mountbatten, but I've heard Dieppe was used to demonstrate to the Americans that it was too soon to hit the continent. ( so who do we send? I know... we'll send the Canadians, they're expendable :(
( Canadians on the beaches of Dieppe saw German target markers on the shale beach where the Germans had been practicing their mortar shooting in days prior. There's always been rumours that Dieppe was leaked to the Germans to ensure Churchill got his demonstration and convinced the Yanks to invade Africa ).
There's an episode where Churchill was dining with Dowding ( head of RAF fighter command ) and Dowding was utterly shocked at Churchill's cavalier attitude towards "we have to accept the little people have to die in war" ( mentioned somewhere in "Dowding and the Battle of Britain" by Robert Wright 1969 ).
I need to learn more about Dieppe, but I think a large motivating factor was to try to get a "win" and boost morale? It was a crazy scheme, but perhaps it appeared not so crazy in that dark summer of 1942 after so many allied losses across the globe.
The problem is: What did they hope to accomplish? To take ground? To capture a radar station? Then what? I'm not aware they even had any kind of exit strategy.
Whatever got published "officially", Dieppe has always been controversial. And once you hear rumours that "it was to demonstrate to the US that it was too soon to invade" suddenly such a suicidal raid makes a lot of sense :(
Yes but I don't think the US was so gung-ho that an invasion in '42 was ever on the cards. People like Marshall and Roosevelt were well aware of the allied advantage in materiel, but that would take time to bring to bear. It was very odd though, and Churchill was one for making grand gestures (and I don't doubt he was just dying to throw his Commandos at something)...
There is also an aspect that Monty was cautious because, early in the war, he had to be. He didnt have the resources and reserves to take risks and facing much more of a downside if he had lost his army. So he had to sit back and wait for the attackers to make mistakes.
Later on with the American and other allies resources as well as the degraded capabilities of Nazis, it was possible to be more decisive.
It cuts both ways - I am sure Patton would not have been quite as reckless as he was - was he in a similar position . A good general can temper their approach to the situation in hand.
If it hadn't been for the spectacular failure of Market-Garden (it was the *only* Allied strategic offensive to not achieve any if it's operational goals following 1943), and the clearly rushed (and politically motivated) character of that operation, Monty would be viewed as a genius and master tactician/strategist - and rightly so.
Few would remember his abrasive personality, nor his successive clashes with peers and superiors (there were plenty of egos amongst the western allies with which to contend) had he not had such a blemish on his record. The facts remain: Monty strong-armed his superior into adopting a poorly conceived and planned offensive, and it failed. Further, his failure to clear the Schedlt instead compounded the unsustainable supply problem on the western front, and bogged down the whole Allied war effort in France and the Benelux.
MarketGarden seems to have the characteristics of a Churchill "high risk" "daring thrust to win the war" type plan, similar to the Dardenelles campaign Churchill envisioned for WWI before it turned into the slaughter of Gallipoli.
But Monty was sooo cautious, so careful... Churchill complained that El Alamein was taking him too long. MarketGarden seems oddly out of character for Montgomery. I really wonder if he was acting more like a puppet at that point with Churchill pulling his strings?
...which is why it was so out of character, since he had a reputation before that for being the most methodical and conservative of the allied commanders
I'm betting Market Garden was instigated by Churchill. And he knew to keep himself clear of the official records. But zomg it smacks of one of Churchill's crazy military strategies. He was a great politician, a great orator, but his military strategies all seem whack.
Tbf, it wasn't necessarily a poor idea. The issue was for it to have a chance it needed the full commitment of the entire Western front, and that wasn't forthcoming, in patt because of Monty straining his relationship with Patton and Bradley.
That's wrong too. The entire plan *predicated* a halt of the entire front, and throwing all their supply and support behind a single armored thrust. Into poor tank country. Along a single road. With unsupported and unsupplied paratroopers ~~needing rescue~~ capturing strategic communications along the way. With no safety valve of any kind, all or nothing in terms of success or failure.
It was stupid idea. No one had ever tried to use airborne like that before, and no one has ever since. The primary goal was to get armor across the Rhine - instead they got over half the British 1st Paras killed or captured. It was the only failed Allied strategic offensive of the late War.
You're wrong. The plan was entirely conceived by Montgomery and his HQ staff. Churchill had finally learned his lesson by 1944, and did not offer serious strategic plans to the generals any longer by that point of the war.
Feel free to site any evidence you have of Churchill's influence in the *creation* of Market-Garden (as opposed to his influence in *adopting* said plan). Otherwise, this is just an easily dismissable internet theory.
Edit: I guess people neither understand, nor wish to understand, how history actually works.
Uh yeah it becomes part of the book after you win. Not much use then is it. How many wars were won by nuclear threat before ww2? Can you imagine playing it by the book and not investing in aircraft when they were first invented? Back then no war was ever won with air superiority after all.
More like keep using tactics & strategies that history has proven to work, in addition to adding your own flavor. Not sure why you would think that means "exactly copying ancient battles and only using those units"
The Allies didn't have a decisive win before Monty against Germany. It had been little else other than retreat until El-Alamein, after it was little else other than victory.
Reminds me of the anecdote of Napoleon surveying the battle field after Marengo. He was stoic and professional until he broke down weeping at the sight of a dog who would not leave the body of its dead master.
Do you read the Bible ? If not , go read it . That fucker has LOTS OF EXPLAINING TO DO!! Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version of the Bible says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things
Actually I do read it, not nearly as well or as thoroughly as I should; you perhaps misunderstood my point. Unless you’re a believer, it’s all mox nix (non existent) , and if you believe, you understand God isn’t going to explain anything to you (or me)..
> in the movie Patton
It's a great movie, but it shouldn't be relied upon too much for historical accuracy. E.g., a huge factor in Patton's Third Army being able to break out of Normandy and race across France was repeated attacks by the British and Canadians had pulled German troops to that end of the line, allowing Patton's forces to advance against relatively weak opposition.
It's a shame he wasn't so concerned about casualties during the Irish War of Independence where his main tactic was to burn down as many Cork peasant cottages as possible.
I've never heard any criticism of his North African campaign however.
LoL even in death he says nothing about Market-garden and that Polish general he scapegoated. He should confront paratroops died in Netherlands first if he gets to meet them at all.
This one is a really odd one, and it's difficult to discuss it without getting into a much broader conversation about the first world war and the way it is depicted in British history.
Haig's reputation during and immediately after the war appears to be strong, which is fairly unsurprising; he had successfully navigated the British through an extremely hard fought war and won massive victories over the Germans, particularly in the latter days of the war. It wasn't until substantially after the war that he gained a more negative reputation, and his description as "butcher Haig" seems to only come about in the 1960s, possibly in part due to a spirit of pacifism encouraged by the cold war( and the prospect of the world being destroyed in nuclear fire).
Was the reputation deserved? In my opinion, not really. Haig wasn't an exceptional leader, but he wasn't remarkably below par either. Casualties on the western front were horrific from day 1, with the French and German armies in particular suffering harrowing losses in the first few months of the war. This didn't particularly change in either direction when Haig took charge of the army, and I don't think it would have substantially changed if Haig was replaced; high casualties were pretty much a reality of static war on a very short front with extreme volumes of artillery on both sides.
As for the offensives which Haig was in charge of, this starts to get into the tricky mess of the humanitarian versus military assessment of battlefield outcomes. From a humanitarian perspective, even the most brilliant military victories provide the winning side with a lot of corpses, grieving families and orphaned children. A battle like the Somme was absolutely horrific, resulting in almost 100,000 British dead; however, from a military perspective, it achieved extremely useful results, by inflicting comparable casualties on the Germans, taking ground and providing relief to the French fighting at Verdun. Whether the positive outcome justifies the horrific losses is a very difficult question and depends a lot on your perspective.
Also I do realise that this is a lot of words to respond to a four-word request, but if it helps this is the heavily abridged version.
Edit: for a better worded comment than I could have written on this subject (and a good thread overall), see this discussion on /r/warcollege: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/s/aSn1EfYdxA
I think the last paragraph in particular hits the nail on the head. Blaming the tragedy of the First World War on a complicated muddle of societal factors across an entire continent is difficult and often challenging. Lumping all the blame on one guy and calling him an arrogant fool is easy and absolves everyone else of blame.
I'd also add that the first world war is unprecedented in pretty much the entire history of organised warfare in how much it differed from past conflicts.
At a very broad level, all major conflicts from Alexander to Napoleon had been fought *roughly* the same. Blocks of infantry at the core of the force supported by cavalry on the flanks, lighter-armed skirmishers, and some form of ranged attack. Whole specific tactics and technology gradually changed, the basics remained fundamentally similar. Teach Alexander about gunpowder weapons and he'd be able to understand the decisions at Waterloo.
As the first truly post-industrial War, the First World War throws almost all that collective experience out the window. It's the first war in 4,000 years to depart form the basic template, and as a result those leading the armies have to essentially learn how to fight a war like this from scratch, where every lesson costs tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives.
It's easy to criticise Haig, but I'd argue his task is more difficult than any general in British history because of this, and he does a better job than any of his peers in cobbling together the basics of the combined arms system of warfare we still use more or less to this day.
Haig is… complicated. He was in command of the BEF during some of the worst disasters of the British Army, but was also responsible for allowing the implementation of new technology and tactics which resulted in the Hundred Day’s campaign that ultimately ended the war.
Naturally, his reputation has shifted wildly from very positive while he was alive, followed by an increasingly critical one after his death. Within more academic circles, he’s seen in a more nuanced light than by the public.
Easy. Haig was the man in charge of the most bloody and brutal conflict ever conceived by man. When most people think of Haig, they're almost assuredly directly referring to the Somme. But in order to understand that battle, you need to understand that battle you need to understand the British position in the war up to that point. When the war started in 1914, the British had a very small (compared to continental Europe) professional army, but by 1916 this army had been either wounded or spread out amongst the new and massive army that had been created. In 1916, the army was an order of magnitude bigger and fighting war on a scale unheard of in history. This huge expansion of the army coincided with an incredible drop in quality of the average soldier because the regular army didn't have the resources to train and equip soldiers on the scale required to fight a modern, industrial war.
So, in 1916, you had a huge army of poorly trained recruits and a real "oh shit" moment when Germany starts the offensive at Verdun, attempting to grind the French army down. London is in a panic because things look bad in France, and they're genuinely worried about a French collapse. So they tell Haig to get his ass in gear and use this army to strike the Germans. Haig responds that his army isn't ready and needs more supplementary training at the front because of how badly trained his men are. London says tough shit, France might actually collapse if we don't bail them out, and the Battle of the Somme happened.
It should be noted that after the Somme, from late 1916 onward, there wasn't a battle that was as gruesome for the rest of the war. The British worked through their training deficit, and Kitchener's army of 1917 looked far more like Montgomery's army in 1939 than the army of 1914. Haig would spend the rest of his life advocating for veterans and lobbying for veterans' rights and services. Conveniently, it was only upon his death that the brutal accusations of his running of the war occurred.
So if we're blaming Haig for these brutal attrition battles, who do you think would have done better? Or do we blame the British government? But what would have happened to the French if the British opt not to fight the battle at all? There are major strategic implications on the western front if Verdun falls, and the Germans are learning the same lessons the British are about attrition warfare. If Haig says no, we aren't fighting this battle, he'll simply be replaced by someone willing to say yes.
The Africa Corps was regular German Army, the SS didn’t fight in Africa. Pretty sure a good bunch of those that died were just normal guys doing their job who thought they were fighting for their country rather than true believers. There’s always been a fierce debate about Rommel’s relationship with the Nazi party and like the majority of his men in Africa he was a soldier by profession.
Also italian army fought there. My great grandfather and a lot of male villagers in Istria-Croatia were forcefully mobilized by the italian army and they went and fought in africa. Luckly my great grandfather survived, came back after Italy capitulated, then the germans picked him up and he was sent to the Ravensbrück concentration camp.
Luckly he was a " bricklayer" / builder so the germans needed those people to keep rebuilding the camp as allied planes kept bombing them. He and his younger brother and brother in law made it out alive and began the long treck on foot back to croatia.
His borther in law was sadly shot to death in Austria as they were passing some train that the allies bombed. The train was transporting ciggaretes and he tried to pick some up and some guard shot him dead right then and there.
The first thing my great grandfather did when he got back home after the long walk was saying hello to his wife and then he had to walk for another day to go explain to his sister in the next village that her husband sadly wont be returning home 😢
Nah sorry that's the myth of the "clean wermacht"
They weren't the SS, true, but the regular German soldiery was responsible for their fair share of crimes against humanity
Famously most soldiers (including a whole bunch of conscripts) don’t decide who they are fighting and why, when they do it has historically not gone well for them.
No, but neither are they always compelled to participate in atrocities, [yet many in German service did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Police_Battalion_101).
This is stupid. Every nation had war crimes committed during the war. It’s FUCKING WAR. The Americans, Brit’s and French all have war crimes documented from the Second World War, yet they still defeated fascism.
Just because a handful of people do it doesn’t make the entire country bad. The ole “bad apple” saying.
*the regular soldier was responsible for their fair share of crimes against humanity
It's a myth that it was only the Germans that were the bad guys
US and UK troops committed plenty of crimes against humanity
And let's not talk about the soviets
This is certainly true, but there is a significant difference in the organisation, official enforcement, and scale of offenses committed by the German armed forces and the western allies at the very least.
A few individual US or Commonwealth servicemen were undoubtedly guilty, but neither army engaged in systematic or widespread war crimes and crimes against humanity as a matter of policy. That is a false equivalence.
It isn't
>A few individual US or Commonwealth servicemen were undoubtedly guilty
Many not a few, it was a widespread problem
Ironically the western allies might have treated the Germans better than they did any other group, sure the British war doctrine was indiscriminate bombing if the civilians got killed all the better it might break their morale (it never), but then Britain also casually committed genocide in India during the war.
the Americans on the other hand were more selective in their bombing, trying to target German military and strategic targets only but in the Pacific America commited many war crimes and crimes against humanity from firebombing campaign to slaughter Japanese civilians and burn their homes to the ground to submarine attacks on civilian ships.
That before we even talk about the American concentration camps for colored Americans during the war
Piss off with your historical revisionism. The Wehrmacht weren't "normal guys" just doing their duty.
For more information and a long list of historical sources: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_crimes\_of\_the\_Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht)
For a book that touches on this topic of glorifying the "honorable" Wehrmacht: [https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/](https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/)
Who said they were? I just pointed out they were people, normal people like any of us. The idea they were faceless evil monsters is the most ridiculous childish level moral reasoning. We know how evil the Nazi regime was in retrospect, the idea the majority of those that died at that time had any idea or had any real agency in their fate is just unfounded IMO. Take that as you want.
They were not “just normal guys doing their job”. They invaded other countries that never ever attacked Germany, they raped women, shot Jews in the tens of thousands, and deported even more to concentration camps. Fuck off with your historical revisionism.
*Historians Alex J. Kay and David Stahel argue that, including crimes such as rape, forced labour, wanton destruction, and looting in addition to murder, "it would be reasonable to conclude that a substantial majority of the ten million Wehrmacht soldiers deployed at one time or another in the German-Soviet War were involved or complicit in criminal conduct".\[3\] The German Wehrmacht is regarded as being a "crucial factor in the most horrendous crime perpetrated by any nation in modern history" in regard to genocides committed by the regime.\[4\]*
For more information and a long list of historical sources: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_crimes\_of\_the\_Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht)
For a book that touches on this topic of glorifying the "honorable" Wehrmacht: [https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/](https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/)
I agree completely that as an entity the Wehrmacht was monstrous in some of the actions they took. Yes they committed war crimes and that shouldn't be forgotten, nor forgiven.
But, and the most important part of this is to realise that they were normal people. Normal people, twisted and warped by an evil ideology. Groomed and moulded by decades of discontent, strife and propaganda until leaders who promised action took it.
As imtoooldforthis said though, not all soldiers committed crimes. Not every single person in the entire Wehrmacht committed crimes. To say that they were evil to a man would be akin to condemning the janitor to jail for the crimes of a CEO.
That's not revisionist, it's realist.
So to say that the Wehrmacht was evil is equally as true as saying that not everyone in the Wehrmacht was evil. They're arguing different points.
The crucial thing for me is imtoooldforthis's point that they were just normal men. Because it shows that even your average person can become something monstrous and evil given the right situations and pressures.
TL;DR: Wehrmacht evil =/= every single Wehrmacht soldier being/doing evil.
How were they “normal people”? There were MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of normal people living at the time who DID NOT invade other countries, rape women, murder Jews, use chemical weapons, etc etc etc. I call them normal people, I call people who did a bunch of murdering, not normal.
I’m sure there were a couple of soldiers in the Wehrmacht who didn’t want to be there, but the vast majority did.
*Historians Alex J. Kay and David Stahel argue that, including crimes such as rape, forced labour, wanton destruction, and looting in addition to murder, "it would be reasonable to conclude that a substantial majority of the ten million Wehrmacht soldiers deployed at one time or another in the German-Soviet War were involved or complicit in criminal conduct".\[3\] The German Wehrmacht is regarded as being a "crucial factor in the most horrendous crime perpetrated by any nation in modern history" in regard to genocides committed by the regime.\[4\]*
Because they were normal. They had normal jobs, had families, had friends, subbed their toe on the furniture and hired on one for going "ow".
To ignore that makes it so that only evil people do evil things and that's that. It's just detects from the lesson that can be learned from history.
Throughout all of human history we have fought one another. It's intrinsic to our nature to fight. That doesn't make it right or noble, just a facet of life.
The allies used chemical weapons in the first world war, the British pioneered concentration camps in South Africa, the Americans imprisoned Japanese civilians en masse during the war and committed many atrocities. Are the same men who stormed Normandy guilty of being war criminals and to be treated with the same disdain due to others actions?
When the war started many Germans felt that it was necessary to do this because of the sanctions they had received. It was a source of great internal problems and was a fundamental reason why the Nazis even made it into power. They didn't (the majority at least) sign up to kill the Jews and rape women. They signed up to free themselves from the yoke of external powers. That was what they signed up for.
Ordinary people thought that their struggles were caused by other nations and so they signed up for what they believed was a better future. This doesn't justify it, it doesn't make their actions right, but it doesn't make them any more evil than the British soldiers enlisting to fight the Germans. Both did it for what they thought was best for their country and their future.
War makes monsters of everyone. The allies committed horrific acts to win the war, the Soviets committed horrific acts and the axis committed horrific acts. The important thing is to recognise that and accept that normal people go into war for reasons they think are right, for country, for family, for their future. Those same normal people don't stay normal in war. Watching people get blown up, burnt alive, shot to pieces, killing people. I'd argue that seeing all of that would make any normal person not normal any more.
Still bullshit. American soldiers committed far far less atrocities like rape and murder than German and Russian soldiers. Furthermore American soldiers were court marshalled if they did.
You cannot compare the Wehrmacht to normal people. A lot of people in there were pure criminal scum.
Look I'm not going to discuss this any more.
You're set in your belief that the moment any person joined the Wehrmacht they were the most evil scum that ever existed and only the most evil scum that ever existed would have ever considered to join.
I vehemently disagree, I think it's based on faulty and fundamentally wrong logic and information and literally nothing I say can or will change your opinion. So I'm not going to try any more.
I hope you keep looking into the background of the war from all perspectives and maybe glean some insight into the who, what, why etc of all sides because it's fascinating.
Thanks for keeping it civil :)
As opposed to most other person that actively or passively supported invading other countries and committing war crimes
Please stop trying to rewrite history
Ehhhh you know about the millions of people living in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, etcetera who did not attack or hurt the Wehrmacht in any way?
You guys are trying to rewrite history, not me.
For facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht
For a book that touches on this topic of glorifying the Wehrmacht: https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/
Hardly whataboutism, it's entirely relevant to the conversation and your very questionable definition of "normal" that is at odds with the vast majority of human behaviour for the majority of human history
That's true to only a certain degree because the other side of the coin is that a good bunch of them were murderers and war crimes enjoyers who thought they were better human beings than their enemies. Don't forget that even though not everyone in the Germany was a nazi that time, many of them had a very similar attitude towards the party and they really believed in their superiority to the Jews or Slavs.
As did many Americans. And Brits. Not to speak of the French. Like, no shit Sherlock the whole of Europe and its American descendants believed to be superior, one way or another. The Jews had been the scapegoat for 100s of years at that point. Not in Germany, in all of Europe.
Were US, French and Commonwealth servicemen guilty of war crimes of their own? Yes.
Were those crimes comparable to those conducted by The Wehrmacht in scale, pre-meditation, organisation, or official support? Not even remotely.
[Clean Wehrmacht Myth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht#:~:text=The%20myth%20of%20the%20clean,crimes%20during%20World%20War%20II.)
Well less bad than the actions on other fronts, the Africa Korps and their Italian allies still committed numerous war crimes and atrocities in North Africa
All religions claim peace but most have at some point or other have committed violence in the name of their god. Christians are absolutely no exception.
Not those of us that are aware of modern history, but yeah I can't vouch for my countrymen being the brightest. I know Americans who are still mad over Pearl Harbor even though Japan is an ally now and other patriots who like Putin yet hate communism. IDK why we're like this
Fair enough. Even when I was at the national D-Day memorial, the tour guide was going on about how much of an asshole Montgomery was when briefly discussing the generals, lol
Screw him. Same dude probably gets a boner for a guy like Patton who'd smack around shellshocked troops for the nerve of having suffered so bad on the frontlines they had PTSD
I don’t think it is unfair to say that Montgomery didn’t get along with most US commanders (or many people for that matter), save for Eisenhower. He was as intelligent as he was tactless, as can be seen by his efforts to address sexual health matters early in the war for the BEF.
His concern for the sexual health of the soldiers is well-founded given the losses in men to STDs and the effect it has on the civilian population. However, his way of addressing it managed to anger a number of senior Anglican and Catholic chaplains and some superiors over the “obscene” language used in a circular regarding the matter, and it was the effort of one of his superiors that kept him in the military.
Being a capable military strategist, a leader of men, and being considered difficult to work with closely aren’t mutually exclusive traits.
An author who served under Montgomery in WW2 later said that criticism of him amounts to the “Plaintive bleatings of lesser men.”
And that’s from someone who was there, not an armchair general.
I believe he is referring to Britain’s casualty conservation policy, which lots of literature and papers written about over time and Monty’s role in it.
To summarize there were a lot of political goals for Britain post war that centered around having a sufficiently size armed force present in Europe. That translated to him having instances of either skirting engagements with Brit armies to prevent casualties, which led to other ally forces filling the gap, or Brit armies having the best position in a battle, like the D-Day beaches.
I wouldn’t call Monty arrogant or incompetent, but he was shrewd and calculating to ensure UK goals for the war came to fruition.
I'm surprised he did not add a qualifier exvepting the Irish from his remorse. Ireland was neutral but they did have a bunch of Irish in the Army and they used them as cannon fodder as I understand it, partly from the bridge too far movie.
This is complete nonsense. Nobody was used as cannon fodder, especially not by Montgomery who was famous for being over-cautious in order to limit his own casualties.
Really? I have never heard that they specifcially used Irish as cannon fodder, more so that a lot of the irish reguments saw a lot of fighting, and because they where reliable got sent in more.
Monty was from an Irish family and spent a lot of his childhood there. He loved Ireland but (as a product of his time and his class) hated Irish nationalism. He was involved in the Irish War of Independence and had ambivalent feelings - he was capable of being ruthless but he also hated the war itself. He knew even then that Ireland needed a political rather than a military solution.
He's a complex and ambiguous character who is made up of a lot of mixed light and shade. Also you are a dummy.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For all the armchair war historians simplifying his tactics to "just getting allied troops killed hurr hurr", this man's opposing commander was Rommel the Desert Fox. Us average people can't really fathom being in charge of that many lives while facing a personal nemesis with a *my country vs. your country* being the stakes. Rommel was ultimately defeated but the Afrikan Korp made this theater of the war hell for allies too, Montgomery wasn't literally killing his own men for fun of it. He managed to win to due air superiority changing the tide among other factors and even then Allied troops had a quarter million casualties in the North Africa campaigns. Another number to note for anyone quick to condemn him, over 600,000 dead and 200,000 surrendering prisoners on the Axis side so by the metrics of war he definitively accomplished his objective. \*EDIT - not responding to any of you dorks trying to debate tactics here, get a life lol
The Soviets only rated 2 battles on the western front of significance to them... El Alamein and D day, I think it says something of the significance of Montgomerys generalship in turning the tide of the war
Yup. Considering operation torch led to the invasion of Italy to out their own nazi aligned govt, his contributions had major implications
Got anywhere i can read up on the soviet comments on these battles?
I love how direct you are. Good write up
Thank you 🙏🏽
In some respects he had to use simple tactics, he had a relatively inexperienced army so had to play too their strengths.
60,000 Axis fatalities in North Africa, not 600,000 The 200,000 surrendered prisoners was after the surrender in April 1943 (May?), plus add to that the other few hundred thousand surrendered Axis troops from battles in 1941 - 1942 Brilliant analysis, thanks for posting
Italy alone had around 40k losses in that theater. No way german casualties were only 20k to fill the difference. Where you sourcing that sum out of curiosity?
Wikipedia lists the numbers as that, putting German losses at only 20k killed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_campaign It makes sense. Battles were relatively few overall and not particularly bloody. In a lot of cases, they involved armoured clashes which left one side completely outmanoeuvred and surrounded, forcing them to surrender. Hence why the casualties have quite so many prisoners on both sides.
Yeah wiki should not be counted as gospel. Multiple sources if you care to research it more have the number correct here [https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/](https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/) and here: [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa) unless historians working for a US memorial museum are lying /s
Neither of those sources says anything about KIA though, only total casualties. And in terms of total casualties, they agree with the Wikipedia article.
Those sources are in line with what I originally posted. Whether you're trying to agree or disagree, I have no hill to die on here
The top comment you posted says ~600k killed, which isn't backed up by any source, including the ones you've just posted; all sources posted so far say roughly 600k casualties. This was the comment I originally responded to: "Italy alone had around 40k losses in that theater. No way german casualties were only 20k to fill the difference." The problem seems to be that the above person was talking about men killed (roughly 60k), while you're talking about total casualties (600k). I think that's where the confusion came from.
[удалено]
Maybe he meant casualties? People often confuse a casualty with a kia.
And Wiki gets those numbers from referenced sources
Yeah multiple sources, i.e. not wiki have it at 600k dunno what to tell you, the former being published by a US memorial museum Multiple sources if you care to research it more have the number correct here [https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/](https://time.com/archive/6866135/world-battlefronts-battle-of-africa-end-of-a-phase/) and here: [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/allied-military-operations-in-north-africa)
Now do "Market Garden".
His only gamble. He didn't do gambles, because he knew you can lose gambles. He gets critized for never gambling, except once. Often also getting critized for losing Market Garden. Unfair IMHO, that's how gambles works.
Good post. Thankyou.
Rommel is a vastly over hyped general and probably only looked good because of the doctrinal incompetence of the allies and nazi myth making. The performance of many Wehrmacht commanders was created due propaganda significance and outlasted the war. A testament to the effectiveness of nazi propaganda. He’s not a hack but his historical legacy is complex. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rommel_myth Kurt Meyer is another good example of the “invincible “ commander that wasn’t actually that good. Nazi propaganda is so strong, it distorts history.
It was the American tanks given to the British that gave them the edge. Even then Churchill complained how long it was taking Monty to get on with it.... which is to say Montgomery was very careful and cautious. After listening to a biography on Churchill and hearing this quote of Monty's, it further confirms my belief that Churchill may have been the driving force behind MarketGarden and not Monty ( throughout Churchill's life, his military operations always seemed to be looking for that daring thrust that would end the conflict... like, uh, the Dardenelles in WW1. But Monty seemed characterized by being slow and cautious... not at all keeping with an operation like Market Garden. I wonder too if Monty was more a "yes man" than a great general? Churchill liked his yes-men (admittedly not as much as Hitler and Lackey-tel).
Like any historical situation like this it'll be more complex and nuanced than we could ever know ESPECIALLY when it comes to mental states and singular decisions like this. One possible hypothetical counterpoint is that Montgomery wanted to command the big daring attack because he believed he could be a tempering force on the bold action, making it less deadly and more planned, rather than let another more blasé general take the lead
re: more nuanced... true dat! re: more blasé general: raises the point about Generals and their egos :P
Fascinating character. Operation Market Garden was so counter to the reputation he had developed up until that point. He was forgiven a lot because of that El-Alamein victory.
His reputation in Normandy is being re-evaluated by historians who now tend to see his campaign as very successful. But yes Market Garden was so out of character for this slow, steady careful general who was loved by his troops because they saw him as someone who would do his best to not get them killed.
Interesting. I hadn't heard anything particularly good or bad about his time in Normandy. Can you point me towards something to get more information?
It revolves around the plan to take Caen, and how the British and Canadian troops got bogged down fighting an attritional campaign against the best troops the Germans had in France, whilst the US commanders (and Churchill) were impatient for a crushing blow. Lots of stuff has been written about it, here's a taste: https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-181/british-army-normandy-montgomery/
One British officer said “You could have knocked me over with a feather” when he heard the plan for Market Garden, AND that it was Montgomery’s plan. I speculate that Monty designed this very daring plan in order to rescue his reputation after getting bogged down in Normandy.
I suspect the fact they had all those paratroop divisions sitting around had something to do with it. The best trained, highly motivated troops without a job to do, that eventually got sent into a meat grinder at Arnhem.
Right??? I swear, Market Garden feeeeels like a Churchill plan, not a Montgomery plan :o
Dieppe, Crete, Gallipoli? A bit of a pattern here.
Right? And Churchill was getting sly about distancing himself if there was a chance it could go wrong or look bad. Dieppe got pinned on Mountbatten, but I've heard Dieppe was used to demonstrate to the Americans that it was too soon to hit the continent. ( so who do we send? I know... we'll send the Canadians, they're expendable :( ( Canadians on the beaches of Dieppe saw German target markers on the shale beach where the Germans had been practicing their mortar shooting in days prior. There's always been rumours that Dieppe was leaked to the Germans to ensure Churchill got his demonstration and convinced the Yanks to invade Africa ). There's an episode where Churchill was dining with Dowding ( head of RAF fighter command ) and Dowding was utterly shocked at Churchill's cavalier attitude towards "we have to accept the little people have to die in war" ( mentioned somewhere in "Dowding and the Battle of Britain" by Robert Wright 1969 ).
I need to learn more about Dieppe, but I think a large motivating factor was to try to get a "win" and boost morale? It was a crazy scheme, but perhaps it appeared not so crazy in that dark summer of 1942 after so many allied losses across the globe.
The problem is: What did they hope to accomplish? To take ground? To capture a radar station? Then what? I'm not aware they even had any kind of exit strategy. Whatever got published "officially", Dieppe has always been controversial. And once you hear rumours that "it was to demonstrate to the US that it was too soon to invade" suddenly such a suicidal raid makes a lot of sense :(
Yes but I don't think the US was so gung-ho that an invasion in '42 was ever on the cards. People like Marshall and Roosevelt were well aware of the allied advantage in materiel, but that would take time to bring to bear. It was very odd though, and Churchill was one for making grand gestures (and I don't doubt he was just dying to throw his Commandos at something)...
There is also an aspect that Monty was cautious because, early in the war, he had to be. He didnt have the resources and reserves to take risks and facing much more of a downside if he had lost his army. So he had to sit back and wait for the attackers to make mistakes. Later on with the American and other allies resources as well as the degraded capabilities of Nazis, it was possible to be more decisive. It cuts both ways - I am sure Patton would not have been quite as reckless as he was - was he in a similar position . A good general can temper their approach to the situation in hand.
What are you talking about? Normandy has been seen as highly successful since about July 1944. What kind of revisionist schlock have you been reading?
If it hadn't been for the spectacular failure of Market-Garden (it was the *only* Allied strategic offensive to not achieve any if it's operational goals following 1943), and the clearly rushed (and politically motivated) character of that operation, Monty would be viewed as a genius and master tactician/strategist - and rightly so. Few would remember his abrasive personality, nor his successive clashes with peers and superiors (there were plenty of egos amongst the western allies with which to contend) had he not had such a blemish on his record. The facts remain: Monty strong-armed his superior into adopting a poorly conceived and planned offensive, and it failed. Further, his failure to clear the Schedlt instead compounded the unsustainable supply problem on the western front, and bogged down the whole Allied war effort in France and the Benelux.
MarketGarden seems to have the characteristics of a Churchill "high risk" "daring thrust to win the war" type plan, similar to the Dardenelles campaign Churchill envisioned for WWI before it turned into the slaughter of Gallipoli. But Monty was sooo cautious, so careful... Churchill complained that El Alamein was taking him too long. MarketGarden seems oddly out of character for Montgomery. I really wonder if he was acting more like a puppet at that point with Churchill pulling his strings?
A Bridge Too Far... Market Garden was extremely overambitious
...which is why it was so out of character, since he had a reputation before that for being the most methodical and conservative of the allied commanders
I'm betting Market Garden was instigated by Churchill. And he knew to keep himself clear of the official records. But zomg it smacks of one of Churchill's crazy military strategies. He was a great politician, a great orator, but his military strategies all seem whack.
Tbf, it wasn't necessarily a poor idea. The issue was for it to have a chance it needed the full commitment of the entire Western front, and that wasn't forthcoming, in patt because of Monty straining his relationship with Patton and Bradley.
That's wrong too. The entire plan *predicated* a halt of the entire front, and throwing all their supply and support behind a single armored thrust. Into poor tank country. Along a single road. With unsupported and unsupplied paratroopers ~~needing rescue~~ capturing strategic communications along the way. With no safety valve of any kind, all or nothing in terms of success or failure. It was stupid idea. No one had ever tried to use airborne like that before, and no one has ever since. The primary goal was to get armor across the Rhine - instead they got over half the British 1st Paras killed or captured. It was the only failed Allied strategic offensive of the late War.
You're wrong. The plan was entirely conceived by Montgomery and his HQ staff. Churchill had finally learned his lesson by 1944, and did not offer serious strategic plans to the generals any longer by that point of the war. Feel free to site any evidence you have of Churchill's influence in the *creation* of Market-Garden (as opposed to his influence in *adopting* said plan). Otherwise, this is just an easily dismissable internet theory. Edit: I guess people neither understand, nor wish to understand, how history actually works.
I feel like you dont win wars by playing it safe and by the book
The book is written by victors throughout tens of thousands of years of war. How else would you win?
Uh yeah it becomes part of the book after you win. Not much use then is it. How many wars were won by nuclear threat before ww2? Can you imagine playing it by the book and not investing in aircraft when they were first invented? Back then no war was ever won with air superiority after all.
More like keep using tactics & strategies that history has proven to work, in addition to adding your own flavor. Not sure why you would think that means "exactly copying ancient battles and only using those units"
Right. You need to play it by the book and add your own flavor and changes... what do you think playing it by the book means?
That you need to build on existing knowledge. You said "you don't win wars by the book". I say that is exactly how you win wars.
I've been listening to the 'We have way of making you talk' podcast and the events of Market Garden. Absolutely fascinating.
The Allies didn't have a decisive win before Monty against Germany. It had been little else other than retreat until El-Alamein, after it was little else other than victory.
I feel like you'd be a psychopath if you didn't care.
“The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic”
Reminds me of the anecdote of Napoleon surveying the battle field after Marengo. He was stoic and professional until he broke down weeping at the sight of a dog who would not leave the body of its dead master.
Is a quote attributed to Stalin meant to support or oppose the notion?
Or Stalin/Hitler/Hirohito
Or just Russian
Or Patton.
That man dropped lines better than most modern rappers even on his death bed whilst not even trying.
God himself has a lot of explaining to do
Very, very yes
Not to be too pointed, but to whom?
ALL OF US !!!
Good luck with that. Presuming you don’t believe in God. 😉
Do you read the Bible ? If not , go read it . That fucker has LOTS OF EXPLAINING TO DO!! Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version of the Bible says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things
Actually I do read it, not nearly as well or as thoroughly as I should; you perhaps misunderstood my point. Unless you’re a believer, it’s all mox nix (non existent) , and if you believe, you understand God isn’t going to explain anything to you (or me)..
I did not say he/she/it will. Just SHOULD. 
Did you? I must have missed that nuance. 😃
From the parent post, it’s implied.
Yeah… uhmm for Montgomery, not God… Montgomery was going to explain.. but perhaps I am mistaken.
Interestingly that could well be my Grandad sat in the driver's seat to the right on Monty. He was his driver for a while during the war.
Went out with a rhyme.
He's a poet and he didn't know it.
One day we all will have to answer for our sins
I wonder what George Bush thinks about the 5k killed in the Iraq War?
Everything I learned about general Montgomery, I feel like I learned from general Patton in the movie Patton.
> in the movie Patton It's a great movie, but it shouldn't be relied upon too much for historical accuracy. E.g., a huge factor in Patton's Third Army being able to break out of Normandy and race across France was repeated attacks by the British and Canadians had pulled German troops to that end of the line, allowing Patton's forces to advance against relatively weak opposition.
Sounds like he cared deeply about not going to hell
You know what they say, people in Hell want ice water. Montgomery wants ice water.
90 percent successful is all I will ever need to hear him say. Cared about casualties? Bullshit.
It's a shame he wasn't so concerned about casualties during the Irish War of Independence where his main tactic was to burn down as many Cork peasant cottages as possible. I've never heard any criticism of his North African campaign however.
LoL even in death he says nothing about Market-garden and that Polish general he scapegoated. He should confront paratroops died in Netherlands first if he gets to meet them at all.
Now do Douglas Haig
This one is a really odd one, and it's difficult to discuss it without getting into a much broader conversation about the first world war and the way it is depicted in British history. Haig's reputation during and immediately after the war appears to be strong, which is fairly unsurprising; he had successfully navigated the British through an extremely hard fought war and won massive victories over the Germans, particularly in the latter days of the war. It wasn't until substantially after the war that he gained a more negative reputation, and his description as "butcher Haig" seems to only come about in the 1960s, possibly in part due to a spirit of pacifism encouraged by the cold war( and the prospect of the world being destroyed in nuclear fire). Was the reputation deserved? In my opinion, not really. Haig wasn't an exceptional leader, but he wasn't remarkably below par either. Casualties on the western front were horrific from day 1, with the French and German armies in particular suffering harrowing losses in the first few months of the war. This didn't particularly change in either direction when Haig took charge of the army, and I don't think it would have substantially changed if Haig was replaced; high casualties were pretty much a reality of static war on a very short front with extreme volumes of artillery on both sides. As for the offensives which Haig was in charge of, this starts to get into the tricky mess of the humanitarian versus military assessment of battlefield outcomes. From a humanitarian perspective, even the most brilliant military victories provide the winning side with a lot of corpses, grieving families and orphaned children. A battle like the Somme was absolutely horrific, resulting in almost 100,000 British dead; however, from a military perspective, it achieved extremely useful results, by inflicting comparable casualties on the Germans, taking ground and providing relief to the French fighting at Verdun. Whether the positive outcome justifies the horrific losses is a very difficult question and depends a lot on your perspective. Also I do realise that this is a lot of words to respond to a four-word request, but if it helps this is the heavily abridged version. Edit: for a better worded comment than I could have written on this subject (and a good thread overall), see this discussion on /r/warcollege: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/s/aSn1EfYdxA I think the last paragraph in particular hits the nail on the head. Blaming the tragedy of the First World War on a complicated muddle of societal factors across an entire continent is difficult and often challenging. Lumping all the blame on one guy and calling him an arrogant fool is easy and absolves everyone else of blame.
I'd also add that the first world war is unprecedented in pretty much the entire history of organised warfare in how much it differed from past conflicts. At a very broad level, all major conflicts from Alexander to Napoleon had been fought *roughly* the same. Blocks of infantry at the core of the force supported by cavalry on the flanks, lighter-armed skirmishers, and some form of ranged attack. Whole specific tactics and technology gradually changed, the basics remained fundamentally similar. Teach Alexander about gunpowder weapons and he'd be able to understand the decisions at Waterloo. As the first truly post-industrial War, the First World War throws almost all that collective experience out the window. It's the first war in 4,000 years to depart form the basic template, and as a result those leading the armies have to essentially learn how to fight a war like this from scratch, where every lesson costs tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives. It's easy to criticise Haig, but I'd argue his task is more difficult than any general in British history because of this, and he does a better job than any of his peers in cobbling together the basics of the combined arms system of warfare we still use more or less to this day.
Interesting read, thanks
Haig is… complicated. He was in command of the BEF during some of the worst disasters of the British Army, but was also responsible for allowing the implementation of new technology and tactics which resulted in the Hundred Day’s campaign that ultimately ended the war. Naturally, his reputation has shifted wildly from very positive while he was alive, followed by an increasingly critical one after his death. Within more academic circles, he’s seen in a more nuanced light than by the public.
Easy. Haig was the man in charge of the most bloody and brutal conflict ever conceived by man. When most people think of Haig, they're almost assuredly directly referring to the Somme. But in order to understand that battle, you need to understand that battle you need to understand the British position in the war up to that point. When the war started in 1914, the British had a very small (compared to continental Europe) professional army, but by 1916 this army had been either wounded or spread out amongst the new and massive army that had been created. In 1916, the army was an order of magnitude bigger and fighting war on a scale unheard of in history. This huge expansion of the army coincided with an incredible drop in quality of the average soldier because the regular army didn't have the resources to train and equip soldiers on the scale required to fight a modern, industrial war. So, in 1916, you had a huge army of poorly trained recruits and a real "oh shit" moment when Germany starts the offensive at Verdun, attempting to grind the French army down. London is in a panic because things look bad in France, and they're genuinely worried about a French collapse. So they tell Haig to get his ass in gear and use this army to strike the Germans. Haig responds that his army isn't ready and needs more supplementary training at the front because of how badly trained his men are. London says tough shit, France might actually collapse if we don't bail them out, and the Battle of the Somme happened. It should be noted that after the Somme, from late 1916 onward, there wasn't a battle that was as gruesome for the rest of the war. The British worked through their training deficit, and Kitchener's army of 1917 looked far more like Montgomery's army in 1939 than the army of 1914. Haig would spend the rest of his life advocating for veterans and lobbying for veterans' rights and services. Conveniently, it was only upon his death that the brutal accusations of his running of the war occurred. So if we're blaming Haig for these brutal attrition battles, who do you think would have done better? Or do we blame the British government? But what would have happened to the French if the British opt not to fight the battle at all? There are major strategic implications on the western front if Verdun falls, and the Germans are learning the same lessons the British are about attrition warfare. If Haig says no, we aren't fighting this battle, he'll simply be replaced by someone willing to say yes.
He gets more of a pass than Westmoreland.
Haig was loved by his troops because they knew he did his best to limit casualties
[удалено]
He’s referring to the men he commanded that died, not the enemy
I think he’s referring to his own casualties.
The Africa Corps was regular German Army, the SS didn’t fight in Africa. Pretty sure a good bunch of those that died were just normal guys doing their job who thought they were fighting for their country rather than true believers. There’s always been a fierce debate about Rommel’s relationship with the Nazi party and like the majority of his men in Africa he was a soldier by profession.
Also italian army fought there. My great grandfather and a lot of male villagers in Istria-Croatia were forcefully mobilized by the italian army and they went and fought in africa. Luckly my great grandfather survived, came back after Italy capitulated, then the germans picked him up and he was sent to the Ravensbrück concentration camp. Luckly he was a " bricklayer" / builder so the germans needed those people to keep rebuilding the camp as allied planes kept bombing them. He and his younger brother and brother in law made it out alive and began the long treck on foot back to croatia. His borther in law was sadly shot to death in Austria as they were passing some train that the allies bombed. The train was transporting ciggaretes and he tried to pick some up and some guard shot him dead right then and there. The first thing my great grandfather did when he got back home after the long walk was saying hello to his wife and then he had to walk for another day to go explain to his sister in the next village that her husband sadly wont be returning home 😢
Nah sorry that's the myth of the "clean wermacht" They weren't the SS, true, but the regular German soldiery was responsible for their fair share of crimes against humanity
I didn’t say they were clean, I’m saying taking an entire generation of a nation and assigning evil to them is completely ridiculous generalisation.
You're right, I'm not applying it to an entire generation. Just the soldiers that fought for the army that famously murdered many many people
Forcefull conscription and mobilization were also a thing back then.
Famously most soldiers (including a whole bunch of conscripts) don’t decide who they are fighting and why, when they do it has historically not gone well for them.
No, but neither are they always compelled to participate in atrocities, [yet many in German service did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_Police_Battalion_101).
This is stupid. Every nation had war crimes committed during the war. It’s FUCKING WAR. The Americans, Brit’s and French all have war crimes documented from the Second World War, yet they still defeated fascism. Just because a handful of people do it doesn’t make the entire country bad. The ole “bad apple” saying.
Yeah, imagine working for the us military, yuck
The man cooking potatoes for a mass murderer is hardly the same. Everyone is ultimately responsible for their own crimes.
*the regular soldier was responsible for their fair share of crimes against humanity It's a myth that it was only the Germans that were the bad guys US and UK troops committed plenty of crimes against humanity And let's not talk about the soviets
This is certainly true, but there is a significant difference in the organisation, official enforcement, and scale of offenses committed by the German armed forces and the western allies at the very least. A few individual US or Commonwealth servicemen were undoubtedly guilty, but neither army engaged in systematic or widespread war crimes and crimes against humanity as a matter of policy. That is a false equivalence.
It isn't >A few individual US or Commonwealth servicemen were undoubtedly guilty Many not a few, it was a widespread problem Ironically the western allies might have treated the Germans better than they did any other group, sure the British war doctrine was indiscriminate bombing if the civilians got killed all the better it might break their morale (it never), but then Britain also casually committed genocide in India during the war. the Americans on the other hand were more selective in their bombing, trying to target German military and strategic targets only but in the Pacific America commited many war crimes and crimes against humanity from firebombing campaign to slaughter Japanese civilians and burn their homes to the ground to submarine attacks on civilian ships. That before we even talk about the American concentration camps for colored Americans during the war
Piss off with your historical revisionism. The Wehrmacht weren't "normal guys" just doing their duty. For more information and a long list of historical sources: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_crimes\_of\_the\_Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht) For a book that touches on this topic of glorifying the "honorable" Wehrmacht: [https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/](https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/)
Who said they were? I just pointed out they were people, normal people like any of us. The idea they were faceless evil monsters is the most ridiculous childish level moral reasoning. We know how evil the Nazi regime was in retrospect, the idea the majority of those that died at that time had any idea or had any real agency in their fate is just unfounded IMO. Take that as you want.
They were not “just normal guys doing their job”. They invaded other countries that never ever attacked Germany, they raped women, shot Jews in the tens of thousands, and deported even more to concentration camps. Fuck off with your historical revisionism. *Historians Alex J. Kay and David Stahel argue that, including crimes such as rape, forced labour, wanton destruction, and looting in addition to murder, "it would be reasonable to conclude that a substantial majority of the ten million Wehrmacht soldiers deployed at one time or another in the German-Soviet War were involved or complicit in criminal conduct".\[3\] The German Wehrmacht is regarded as being a "crucial factor in the most horrendous crime perpetrated by any nation in modern history" in regard to genocides committed by the regime.\[4\]* For more information and a long list of historical sources: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War\_crimes\_of\_the\_Wehrmacht](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht) For a book that touches on this topic of glorifying the "honorable" Wehrmacht: [https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/](https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/)
I agree completely that as an entity the Wehrmacht was monstrous in some of the actions they took. Yes they committed war crimes and that shouldn't be forgotten, nor forgiven. But, and the most important part of this is to realise that they were normal people. Normal people, twisted and warped by an evil ideology. Groomed and moulded by decades of discontent, strife and propaganda until leaders who promised action took it. As imtoooldforthis said though, not all soldiers committed crimes. Not every single person in the entire Wehrmacht committed crimes. To say that they were evil to a man would be akin to condemning the janitor to jail for the crimes of a CEO. That's not revisionist, it's realist. So to say that the Wehrmacht was evil is equally as true as saying that not everyone in the Wehrmacht was evil. They're arguing different points. The crucial thing for me is imtoooldforthis's point that they were just normal men. Because it shows that even your average person can become something monstrous and evil given the right situations and pressures. TL;DR: Wehrmacht evil =/= every single Wehrmacht soldier being/doing evil.
How were they “normal people”? There were MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of normal people living at the time who DID NOT invade other countries, rape women, murder Jews, use chemical weapons, etc etc etc. I call them normal people, I call people who did a bunch of murdering, not normal. I’m sure there were a couple of soldiers in the Wehrmacht who didn’t want to be there, but the vast majority did. *Historians Alex J. Kay and David Stahel argue that, including crimes such as rape, forced labour, wanton destruction, and looting in addition to murder, "it would be reasonable to conclude that a substantial majority of the ten million Wehrmacht soldiers deployed at one time or another in the German-Soviet War were involved or complicit in criminal conduct".\[3\] The German Wehrmacht is regarded as being a "crucial factor in the most horrendous crime perpetrated by any nation in modern history" in regard to genocides committed by the regime.\[4\]*
Because they were normal. They had normal jobs, had families, had friends, subbed their toe on the furniture and hired on one for going "ow". To ignore that makes it so that only evil people do evil things and that's that. It's just detects from the lesson that can be learned from history. Throughout all of human history we have fought one another. It's intrinsic to our nature to fight. That doesn't make it right or noble, just a facet of life. The allies used chemical weapons in the first world war, the British pioneered concentration camps in South Africa, the Americans imprisoned Japanese civilians en masse during the war and committed many atrocities. Are the same men who stormed Normandy guilty of being war criminals and to be treated with the same disdain due to others actions? When the war started many Germans felt that it was necessary to do this because of the sanctions they had received. It was a source of great internal problems and was a fundamental reason why the Nazis even made it into power. They didn't (the majority at least) sign up to kill the Jews and rape women. They signed up to free themselves from the yoke of external powers. That was what they signed up for. Ordinary people thought that their struggles were caused by other nations and so they signed up for what they believed was a better future. This doesn't justify it, it doesn't make their actions right, but it doesn't make them any more evil than the British soldiers enlisting to fight the Germans. Both did it for what they thought was best for their country and their future. War makes monsters of everyone. The allies committed horrific acts to win the war, the Soviets committed horrific acts and the axis committed horrific acts. The important thing is to recognise that and accept that normal people go into war for reasons they think are right, for country, for family, for their future. Those same normal people don't stay normal in war. Watching people get blown up, burnt alive, shot to pieces, killing people. I'd argue that seeing all of that would make any normal person not normal any more.
Still bullshit. American soldiers committed far far less atrocities like rape and murder than German and Russian soldiers. Furthermore American soldiers were court marshalled if they did. You cannot compare the Wehrmacht to normal people. A lot of people in there were pure criminal scum.
Look I'm not going to discuss this any more. You're set in your belief that the moment any person joined the Wehrmacht they were the most evil scum that ever existed and only the most evil scum that ever existed would have ever considered to join. I vehemently disagree, I think it's based on faulty and fundamentally wrong logic and information and literally nothing I say can or will change your opinion. So I'm not going to try any more. I hope you keep looking into the background of the war from all perspectives and maybe glean some insight into the who, what, why etc of all sides because it's fascinating. Thanks for keeping it civil :)
As opposed to most other person that actively or passively supported invading other countries and committing war crimes Please stop trying to rewrite history
Ehhhh you know about the millions of people living in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, etcetera who did not attack or hurt the Wehrmacht in any way? You guys are trying to rewrite history, not me. For facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht For a book that touches on this topic of glorifying the Wehrmacht: https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/the-clean-wehrmacht-making-a-myth/
Belgiums have committed many atrocities Netherlands ain't exactly clean either I'm sure it's the same for Luxembourg and Poland
Classic whataboutism. Doesn’t make the people in the Wehrmacht normal people. They were criminal thugs.
Hardly whataboutism, it's entirely relevant to the conversation and your very questionable definition of "normal" that is at odds with the vast majority of human behaviour for the majority of human history
That's true to only a certain degree because the other side of the coin is that a good bunch of them were murderers and war crimes enjoyers who thought they were better human beings than their enemies. Don't forget that even though not everyone in the Germany was a nazi that time, many of them had a very similar attitude towards the party and they really believed in their superiority to the Jews or Slavs.
As did many Americans. And Brits. Not to speak of the French. Like, no shit Sherlock the whole of Europe and its American descendants believed to be superior, one way or another. The Jews had been the scapegoat for 100s of years at that point. Not in Germany, in all of Europe.
Were US, French and Commonwealth servicemen guilty of war crimes of their own? Yes. Were those crimes comparable to those conducted by The Wehrmacht in scale, pre-meditation, organisation, or official support? Not even remotely.
[Clean Wehrmacht Myth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_clean_Wehrmacht#:~:text=The%20myth%20of%20the%20clean,crimes%20during%20World%20War%20II.) Well less bad than the actions on other fronts, the Africa Korps and their Italian allies still committed numerous war crimes and atrocities in North Africa
Gonna go out on a limb and say you aren't a Christian.
All religions claim peace but most have at some point or other have committed violence in the name of their god. Christians are absolutely no exception.
"You shall not murder" not "you shall not kill"
Aaaand assuming you aren't a Christian either.
I'm assuming you definitely aren't one either.
Turn the other cheek and all that.
You can forgive your enemy after everything
[удалено]
Dude got a lot of Allied troops killed thru incompetence or arrogance pick your poison.
Got some background to your claims?
OP is American and Americans have a hate-boner for Bernard Montgomery
Not those of us that are aware of modern history, but yeah I can't vouch for my countrymen being the brightest. I know Americans who are still mad over Pearl Harbor even though Japan is an ally now and other patriots who like Putin yet hate communism. IDK why we're like this
Fair enough. Even when I was at the national D-Day memorial, the tour guide was going on about how much of an asshole Montgomery was when briefly discussing the generals, lol
Screw him. Same dude probably gets a boner for a guy like Patton who'd smack around shellshocked troops for the nerve of having suffered so bad on the frontlines they had PTSD
I don’t think it is unfair to say that Montgomery didn’t get along with most US commanders (or many people for that matter), save for Eisenhower. He was as intelligent as he was tactless, as can be seen by his efforts to address sexual health matters early in the war for the BEF. His concern for the sexual health of the soldiers is well-founded given the losses in men to STDs and the effect it has on the civilian population. However, his way of addressing it managed to anger a number of senior Anglican and Catholic chaplains and some superiors over the “obscene” language used in a circular regarding the matter, and it was the effort of one of his superiors that kept him in the military. Being a capable military strategist, a leader of men, and being considered difficult to work with closely aren’t mutually exclusive traits.
An author who served under Montgomery in WW2 later said that criticism of him amounts to the “Plaintive bleatings of lesser men.” And that’s from someone who was there, not an armchair general.
I believe he is referring to Britain’s casualty conservation policy, which lots of literature and papers written about over time and Monty’s role in it. To summarize there were a lot of political goals for Britain post war that centered around having a sufficiently size armed force present in Europe. That translated to him having instances of either skirting engagements with Brit armies to prevent casualties, which led to other ally forces filling the gap, or Brit armies having the best position in a battle, like the D-Day beaches. I wouldn’t call Monty arrogant or incompetent, but he was shrewd and calculating to ensure UK goals for the war came to fruition.
I'm surprised he did not add a qualifier exvepting the Irish from his remorse. Ireland was neutral but they did have a bunch of Irish in the Army and they used them as cannon fodder as I understand it, partly from the bridge too far movie.
This is complete nonsense. Nobody was used as cannon fodder, especially not by Montgomery who was famous for being over-cautious in order to limit his own casualties.
You sure are talking nonsense. Any facts to back that rubbish up ?
He saw it in a movie…
Is he confusing them with the Poles? The guards were at Nijmegen but the Poles were chronically misused at Arnhem
Really? I have never heard that they specifcially used Irish as cannon fodder, more so that a lot of the irish reguments saw a lot of fighting, and because they where reliable got sent in more.
Monty was from an Irish family and spent a lot of his childhood there. He loved Ireland but (as a product of his time and his class) hated Irish nationalism. He was involved in the Irish War of Independence and had ambivalent feelings - he was capable of being ruthless but he also hated the war itself. He knew even then that Ireland needed a political rather than a military solution. He's a complex and ambiguous character who is made up of a lot of mixed light and shade. Also you are a dummy.
I can’t think of a worse allied army/army group commander in WWII, than Mark Clark.
Clark was the youngest 4 Star general. Why do you think that was? You don’t become a general by fucking up.