Danielmellbin
Airman 1st Class
- 122
- Jun 22, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Churchill had very poor strategic sense, he often ignored good advice from the Generals.
In fact {IIRC} Metaxas was quite old, it was only after he passed away that the UK convinced the Greeks to allow their troops in. And I disagree, the arrival of the Brits made Hitler send a much larger force, he didn't want to allow them to get set up on the continent.
Brooke had the smartest approach to this question, the Brits simply were not ready or properly equipped for this operation, and it was foolish to "let up" on a beaten enemy {the Italians in N.Africa} to switch to a different front. This would only allow the beaten Italians time to rebuild, and would probably result in both operations failing. {Which is exactly what happened}
Agreed - it was a foolish undertaking. And IMO a curoius echo of Gallipoli (luckily not with the same amount of wasted life). And yes Churchill was no strategic genius - and in many ways very old fashioned. But the same stubborness and foolhardy decisions that led to Greece, Gallipoli, Singapore etc.. - also led to the defiance of Hitler after Dunkirk, during the blitz and laid the ground for the alliance that would ultimately destroy the Japanese and Germans.
Well, in the sense of the larger unit commanders, I dont think Skorzeny could reasonably be included, any more than the great british commando leaders, like Stirling or Bagnold could be included.
Well, in the sense of the larger unit commanders, I dont think Skorzeny could reasonably be included, any more than the great british commando leaders, like Stirling or Bagnold could be included.
For the record, however, I do think that Skorzeny was one of the most effective commandoes of his time, and certainly deserves a great ddeal of respect
I know it has been chewed over many times, but how an efficient commander like Montgomery allowed such a stupendous coke-up as Market Garden puzzles me endlessly.
.
Monty has been harshly critisized for the plan, but overall it was not a bad plan, and even with all the "****-ups" very nearly succeeded, as they almost captured the Arnhem bridge.
It was a big gamble, which {they supposed} if it succeeded would prevent a long nasty slog similar to the Italian campaign.
If it failed, it would cost about 10,000 paratroops, which could be replaced. They decided it was worth the gamble.
To be fair, things like the wrong crystals or the poor para DZ's are not Monty's responsibility, a lot of leaders dropped the ball on this one
I think the forerunners of Dowding should get more acclaim then him. It was guys like Freeman and Ellington that got the Spits and Hurricanes and radar , they had foresight to make sure the Merlins were 100 octane capable in 37 and also were the people that got the Mosquito on line , Dowding had all the weapons he needed thanks to Freeman and Ellington and Newell
I think the forerunners of Dowding should get more acclaim then him. It was guys like Freeman and Ellington that got the Spits and Hurricanes and radar , they had foresight to make sure the Merlins were 100 octane capable in 37 and also were the people that got the Mosquito on line , Dowding had all the weapons he needed thanks to Freeman and Ellington and Newell
While that is all true and great, Dowding is the one who organized the fierce resistance in the air, facing several challenges from his own goverment as well as the pesky huns. If Dowding wasn't so resolute then Churchill might have used up all the Spitfires in the Battle of France, etc etc.