Aragorn2002
-
Posts
6,279 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Posts posted by Aragorn2002
-
-
Hahaha...well, In the mean time I already ordered my copy...me and my big mouthOriginally posted by MikeyD:Its amazing how often people threaten to turn up their noses at the game that's within reach because it doesn't exactly match the game of their dreams. As the old saying goes a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Discounting the stuff that *isn't* in the game, there's a growing list of stuff that *is* in th game that sounds very very tempting. ...and "tempting" to me not only means buying the CD but shelling out a grand on a PC to run it on! And I'm VERY close to doing just that.
-
Here is another interesting quote from 'It never snows in September', by Robert J.Kershaw, excellent read by the way (translated out of the German language, since I have the German language version of this book)"
"The Americans didn't behave in a different fashion as we were already used to. They threw our wounded from the bridge in the Waal (river at Nijmegen, the book handles operation Market Garden) and shot the few prisoners among the Heeres-Ersatzleuten (probably troops from the replacement battalion, not entirely sure).
Another quote:
"The wounded lying on the bridge were brutally mutilated. Accourding to statements from Leutnant Schulz and Von Albrecht they had stab wounds on the head, neck and heart area."
I've read quite a few accounts like these in the past years.
It puts Malmedy in a rather different light. It doesn't make the German war crimes any less disgusting, but it puts it more in perspective, I guess.
[ July 17, 2005, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]
-
Yes, I must admit I was rather surprised so few people reacted upon this post...I've read it some time ago and after playing CMETO I noticed how Italian the landscape still looked. So I searched for this post. Another example of a mod which is downloaded quite a few times, but people don't bother to thank the person who made it...Anyway, I like it, Gurra, thanks again.
-
-
Their determination and toughness was remarkable. But I'm not going to argue about that any longer. I respect your point of view, but do not agree with it.Originally posted by JasonC:They were not "remarkable soldiers", there wasn't the slightest thing elite about them, they were simply well equipped recruits.[/QB]
-
QUOTE "Evidence in German publications indicates that the purpose of these mass executions was to scare the rest of the Canadian prisoners into giving information. It didn’t work. The purpose of these atrocities was confirmed in a news story in the London Daily Herald as early as August the 3rd of 1944. It stated: "…The executions were ordered by an officer, said to be a major, apparently because he was infuriated at the Canadians for refusing to talk when interrogated... Hitler’s Last General, "a member of the 12th SS Reconnaissance Battalion stated that his company was given secret orders, the relevant part of which reads:"...the attitude at the front: SS troops shall take no prisoners. Prisoners are to be executed after having been interrogated..." QUOTE
"We have the testimony of the German soldiers themselves that is was deliberate policy"
Not very convincing. But again, I don't doubt the Germans did it AS WELL. German sources also mention Canadian secret orders...But I feel like an advocate for the devil now and that is not my intention. I think shooting POW's was pretty common practice throughout the whole war in the west and in the east (and the Pacific).
[ July 16, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]
-
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
They didn't - what is your source for this? Ralph Allen quoted a Royal Winnipeg Rifleman as saying something like "any SS man we see, we give him the works regardless now" and there is the oft told story of the British sailor turning away "sick as a parrot" after finding German troops with their throats cut on Juno on 6 June. I've not seen any hard analysis of Canadian conduct in Normandy that suggests prisoners were killed routinely, or even at all. Care to elaborate?
All quotes from Reynolds Steel Inferno:Hastings Overlord, points out that almost every one of the Allied witnesss he interviewed for his book had direct knowledge or experience of the shooting of German prisoners and that many British and American units shot Waffen-SS prisoners as a matter of routine.
Reynolds also mentions Tony Foster's Meeting of Generals (haven't read it myself). On page 334 a Canadian sergeant describes how French Canadian soldiers 'slit the throats of most German soldiers they found, wounded as well as dead' during the fighting for Carpiquet airfield. Read also what Reynold has to say on war crimes. There is also a number of German accounts on the Canadians shooting POW's. Meyer himself claimed to have seen a group of German soldiers lying beside a road near the railway at Rots on 9th June, all shot through the head. They didn't? I'm trully amazed.
Fire support from a battle ship might not be necessary, but it sure give you a good feeling to see the enemy taking a good beating before you have to cross an open field. And I also don't deny that the 12th SS in some cases did show poor tactical handling, they did.
I don't argue about the fact that they did shoot Canadian POW's, it is very well possible, but as Reynolds says 'the anger of battle' is never restricted to one side of the opponents.
I haven't read CONDUCT UNBECOMING, I've checked it at Amazon.com, but found it too expensive, especially since I order quite a lot of books and have other books on my list with greater priority. If I find it for a reasonable price though, I would love to read it. Can you tell me a bit more about this book? Perhaps I will change my mind and buy it anyway.
-
Got it. You're right, looks very good. Thanks for mentioning it.
-
QUOTE "Evidence in German publications indicates that the purpose of these mass executions was to scare the rest of the Canadian prisoners into giving information. It didn’t work. The purpose of these atrocities was confirmed in a news story in the London Daily Herald as early as August the 3rd of 1944. It stated: "…The executions were ordered by an officer, said to be a major, apparently because he was infuriated at the Canadians for refusing to talk when interrogated... Hitler’s Last General, "a member of the 12th SS Reconnaissance Battalion stated that his company was given secret orders, the relevant part of which reads:"...the attitude at the front: SS troops shall take no prisoners. Prisoners are to be executed after having been interrogated..." QUOTE
I don't feel the need to defend shooting of POW's by anyone and utterly despise it, but I have the impression that it was so common on both sides (including the Canadians) that it is hardly justified to accuse only the Germans of shooting prisoners. I hope this won't end up in an endless discussion on war crimes, but I'm pretty sure the Canadians gave as good as they got. And like I said I'm not defending anyone, including the Waffen-SS, who no doubt had their share of ruthless thugs among their ranks. Shooting prisoners sadly enough is part of what makes war so cruel. It happens...even today.
QUOTE Green SS units proved no better man for man than the western Allies, when attacking QUOTE
Given the fact that they lacked the enormous fire support from artillery and air force the allies had I think their greatest merit lies in the fact that they (especially the 12th SS) attacked at all. And their training had been thorough, but they didn't have the almost limitless fuel resources and ammo for their training allied units had, which was a great disadvantage in making them ready. Apart from that part of their heavy equipment arrived shortly before the invasion. It won't do to belittle the performance of these German troops. They were remarkable soldiers.
-
The ETO terrain was quite nice, but reminded me of Italy too much.
-
Very nice, Gurra! Thank you. Much more European now.
-
Yes, I must agree with that. I always try to read between the lines, but you mention the plain facts and it sounds logical and convincing.Originally posted by Andreas:I do not think that view is correct, since it presumes that the Allies knew of the disagreement between German commanders. Did they?
If you get the opportunity in war to take out an enemy army HQ, I would think that anyone would jump at it, regardless of short-/long-term considerations. That it was there, and the Allies knew where 'there' was strikes me as the most likely reason for the attack.
-
Yes, but no doubt the Germans would have made them pay dearly, so it might have taken a lot longer for the Brits to get their act together again. But that isn't the point. The point is that Montgomery would benefit more from a delay of a German counterattack than the Germans. And that might have been a reason for the allies to go for Geyr von Schweppenburg and endanger the ULTRA-secret. For me this can be seen as a strong indication that they tried to postpone the German offensive as long as possible. And the best reason I can think of is that they considered themselves to be not ready yet.
-
I agree. The allies could have survived a super-Buron, the Germans probably not a super-Bretteville-Norrey. But in that first week no one knew which way it would turn out. Not even Montgomery. Both sides had a large amount of relatively green troops and I think that Montgomery would have welcomed a delay in the German response as long as needed to be able to give his green troops some time to get used to battle conditions. I guess the Germans felt the same way, but they could not afford such a delay.Originally posted by Kingfish:I'm not saying that the allies hoped for an early counterattack, but that they had planned for it, and had it gone off it might have worked out to their benefit in the long run.
There was certainly a possibility that an early counterattack would have gone both ways. Think the 12th SS counterattack near Buron only 5 times worse for the allies
-or-
Think the battle for Bretteville and Norrey only 5 times worse for the Germans.
If it were the latter, what would have been the result? My guess, the Germans would have pulled back behind the Orne initially, and more than likely behind the Seine within a month.
Whether such a German defeat would have resulted in pulling back as long as Hitler was around is something I doubt, but perhaps it would have hastened the attempt to get rid of him.
[ July 12, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]
-
No, total tank strength. No doubt perhaps two-third or so would have been runners, but the rest would have become available in the following days to replace losses. Anyway, it wouldn't have got them to the beaches, but they most certainly could have given Montgomery some sleepless nights. I don't see any possibility for a decisive German victory in Normandy, but like I said before, Montgomery simply couldn't afford to take the risk of an early German counterattack if he had the choice.Originally posted by Andreas:Are those 426 runners? Also, while there may have been tank parity, the allies could also field hundreds of AT guns, each of which was capable of dealing with any German tank, including Tigers.
-
The combined tank force of the 21st Panzer, the 12th SS and Panzer Lehr on the 10th of June was 462 tanks or so, according to Jentz. And allied airpower simply wasn't as effective in a tactical sense as one would expect. Naval gunfire support was effective, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that time was on the side of Montgomery and an early German counterattack wasn't what he wanted. And why would they destroy Geyr von Schweppenburgs HQ if a German counterattack was exactly what they wanted? Anticipating and planning for it is a different matter than hoping for it.
-
Ah,yes, forgive me, my mistake. I meant the destruction of his HQ. Not a good idea to cook and post at the same time...Originally posted by Andreas:Geyr von Schweppenburg survived the attack and lived to old age, 92. He died in 1974.
-
Again, perhaps or even probably...but it wouldn't have been the first time the a German offensive would beat all odds and Montgomery, Eisenhower and many others were very well aware of that. It was a risk they simply could not take in the first weeks of the fighting in Normandy. Delaying such an offensive might have been a high priority.Originally posted by Andreas:Had they attacked with all those nice Panzers it would have been over that much quicker.
-
Perhaps Montgomery would have welcomed it after the build-up of his armies, but most certainly not as early as the 10th of June.Originally posted by Kingfish:[QB] Also consider that a German counterattack may have been to the allies benefit. Monty certainly planned for such an attack, and had ordered Crocker to concentrate his armor in anticipation of it. Had it gone off it may have caused grevious damage to the allies -or- to the better part of the German armor reserves in the west./QB]
-
I must admit it sounds unlikely. Partly because I can't imagine a German staff officier commiting such betrayel on his own comrades and partly because I think Speidel wanted peace in the West, but on German conditions, that is no unconditional surrender, to be able to stop the Soviets from reaching the eastern provinces of Germany. His reason for not wanting an offensive could have been that he, same as Rommel, did see no hope for success after realizing the overwhelming numerical superiority of the western allies and knew it would only end up in heavy casualties and little gain. On the other hand it did not stop Speidel and his fellow consipirators to prevent strong units such as the 2nd and 116th Panzer Divisions to intervene in the fighting in an earlier stage and that way no doubt causing the death of many German soldiers. Having said this I realize men like Speidel knew how to seperate emotions from ratio.Originally posted by Dandelion:In this particular case, I fail to see the gain of treason. If it was the counter-attack as such that he wished to abort, he will in his position have had information enough to know he needed to do nothing at all. Counter-attack with what three divisions? It was just another impulse of Rommels, a spur of the moment idea that he himself discarded before the passing of eight glasses.
That's leaving aside the practical problems of contacting the enemy, leaving this kind of information, being believed and trusted and so on.
What does Speidel himself say in his book on the Normandy invasion?
His book doesn't mention the death of Geyr von Schweppenburg (at least I could not find it in a brief examination of the book, which I almost could not find in my private library among the hundreds of books on WW 2) and is more an analysis of defeat than an account on the fighting itself.
So, after giving it some more thought I think you are right that treason in the way of giving information to the allies by Speidel is very unlikely. He and the circle he was part of, had their own agenda. Speidel clearly describes what kind of Germany he had in mind after the war and it certainly wasn't what the allies inflicted upon the defeated Germans.
-
And what if the revisionist theory of treason at the general staff of Heeresgruppe B is correct? What if Speidel, Rommels chief of staff (known for his suspicious behaviour in the handling of the 21st Panzer Division in the first hours of the invasion), did advise the allies to take out Geyr von Schweppenburg and to insure that way that the only person who could convince others that a German counterattack was necessary, was removed out of the game? Far-fetched as it may sound, Speidel could even have informed the allies about the location of Geyr von Schweppenburgs HQ. He knew exactly about his intentions and his whereabouts. "Take him out, just to be on the safe side"...Originally posted by aco4bn187inf:John keegan, in Six Armies in Normandy, seems to indicate that the air attack itself was prompted simply by the volume and character of radio traffic coming from the HQ, not by the eventually decoded content of the traffic.
(pp.150 to 152 of that book.)
'A by-product of the 'Sigint' which had prompted the air attack on Panzer Group West, however, was the warning, extracted by the Bletchley 'Ultra' apparatus, of its impending offensive.' (p.152)
Dandelion, your view on this matter please. I rely on your open mind. Personally I think it is very well possible there WAS treason during the Normandy campaign. Perhaps a lot of treason has been camouflaged by the ULTRA story. And Speidel, among others, is a strong candidate for this role. Of course this is mere speculation, but if considered it explains a lot of events and things that went wrong on the German side during the Normandy campaign.
By the way, great reading, people, especially your analysis about the emotional effect of the failing of the German counterattacks on the German commanders in the field, Dandelion.
[ July 11, 2005, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]
-
I've just ordered my copy...Don't know what to expect, but want to give support so one day we will have a decent WW 2 tanksim
-
Quite nice, Dey! I must admit I never use the Romanians or Hungarians, but it is an interesting looking tank.
Dandelion, can you expound on this?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted