OT: Major vanquishes Panzer division with kilt

[DCC63]

Very simular, excerpts from article

"Magill ran up a white flag of truce and Vane drove the jeep ahead toward Issoudun"

"I came here to see you because your cause is hopeless. I know you're trying to get back to Germany, but thousands of troops are in your way now waiting for you to come in range. I thought if I came to talk to you, you would see that you could surrender with honor-and save the lives of your men who will otherwise die unnecessarily."

The German consulted a moment with his staff. "How much strength do you represent?" he asked. Sam was thinking only of his platoon, rather than the division. "I've got my platoon...."

The German turned apoplectic. "What?" he spluttered. "Surrender twenty thousand men to a platoon? Phantastisch!"

Stunned as he was, Magill, who had once thought he wanted to be a minister, turned his seriously honest face to the German general, and repeated that it was not the platoon which was important, but the inevitable clash of arms which awaited the column up ahead. General Eister quieted somewhat. The lieutenant was not so wrong, after all. The column had been sniped at constantly by the Free French and the Communist FTPF (Force Tireur Partisan Franeais)

The Ashtabula lieutenant, at the time I was phoning, was again talking to General Elster. "My general has asked me if you will accept a show of force in the air," he said. Elster was mystified. "I will radio to my division," explained Sam, "asking them to send a group of planes

Then, at 2:47 P.m., sixteen Thunderbolt fighter-bombers came over in formation.

I think this is the staory described above. But very simular to the original poster.

Read the third and forth page for more details.

take Care

Coop

[M Hofbauer]

DCC63/coop,

my fault, I only read the first page which seemed unrelated.

Most interesting, thanks a lot for that story!

now I am wondering if this is indeed the story of that scotsman. My only possible explanation for this is that Macpherson happened upon the same Generalmajor Elster, some week or so prior before Magill came onto the scene. Macpherson might have been involved in the earlier talks between the free french and Elstner which are hinted in the text you have linked, where Elstner eventually refused to surrender to the french.

However, this would mean that the Kilt-surrender-story is completely false, because in fact Macpherson had nothing to do with the actual surrendering.

David, make sure you'll tape and examine the info presented in the TV airing. This is interesting.

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[David Aitken]

Henri wrote:

> why do you feel it necessary to attack Christians on a wargaming forum?

It wasn't an attack, just an observation. There are plenty of Christians who take the Bible with a pinch of salt. I happen to have been brought up as a Christian, and my parents are religious, but I grew sceptical and am not now interested in organised religion.

M Hofbauer wrote:

> Those are all metaphors etc. based maybe remotely on any actual events.

I actually chose the Moses story because some time ago I read (in the newspaper, ironically enough) that scientists had discovered evidence for extremely low water levels in the Red Sea around biblical times. I think it is a fair analogy.

> make sure you'll tape and examine the info presented in the TV airing.

I will do. Unfortunately I am of a pessimistic lending, and I know that even if we were to expose the nonsense that media types / journalists seem to be perpetuating in this instance, the world will still be awash with misinformation. To put a positive slant on it, though, I don't think the world is going to the dogs - I think it has always been going to the dogs, but that doesn't mean it's getting worse. In other words, none of this really matters.

Nevertheless, I'll try to catch the programme and pass on what it's got to say. Thanks for your efforts, and those of your sources.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Henri wrote:

I actually chose the Moses story because some time ago I read (in the newspaper, ironically enough) that scientists had discovered evidence for extremely low water levels in the Red Sea around biblical times. I think it is a fair analogy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Natural explanations for the Red Sea Moses incident are nothing new, and many if not most Bible experts agree that there is a natural phenomenon associated with the crossing. The miracle is not that the water could be crossed but that it helped the Hebrews to escape.

It is also well-known that some scholars even dispute the historical existence of Moses as a single individual, which in no way puts the foundations of Christianity nor of Judaism under question. Our scientific society has programmed us to think that the important question is "how?", when in questions of the spirit it is really "why?" (and I am a scientist myself, in case someone thinks that I am attacking Science).

Henri

[David Aitken]

Henri, I was making no judgement on Christianity. Maybe if I hadn't suggested I might offend Christians, it wouldn't have seemed as though I was saying something offensive. I was simply using a well-known example of a story which seems to have some basis in fact, but which has been somewhat embellished and should not be taken word-for-word. Unfortunately when the story is about the Second World War, people are inclined to take it as fact.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Cardinal Fang]

M Hofbauer sez

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you are missing the point about the bible.

every christian child is taught in elementary school that you are NOT to read the bible

literally. Those are all metaphors etc. based maybe remotely on any actual events.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sez:

Maybe where you're from but around here (in Virginia in the USofA) all elementary school kids aren't taught that unless they're going to Sunday school and even then it depends on the church. There are plenty of churches, primarily the fundamentalists I believe, who do take the Bible to be the literal truth. Living in a state with not one but two well-known evangelists (Pat Robertson and Oral Lambert) I've run into a couple of them myself. I'm not a Christian myself although I was raised that way and I agree that the Bible is best taken metaphorically but, trust me on this I'm a Cardinal after all , not everyone feels the same way.

Cardinal Fang

Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!

[virtualfreak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cardinal Fang:

M Hofbauer sez

you are missing the point about the bible.

every christian child is taught in elementary school that you are NOT to read the bible

literally. Those are all metaphors etc. based maybe remotely on any actual events.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sez:

Maybe where you're from but around here (in Virginia in the USofA) all elementary school kids aren't taught that unless they're going to Sunday school and even then it depends on the church. There are plenty of churches, primarily the fundamentalists I believe, who do take the Bible to be the literal truth. Living in a state with not one but two well-known evangelists (Pat Robertson and Oral Lambert) I've run into a couple of them myself. I'm not a Christian myself although I was raised that way and I agree that the Bible is best taken metaphorically but, trust me on this I'm a Cardinal after all , not everyone feels the same way.

Cardinal Fang

Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!

I agree with cardinal unless your in anouther country I dont recall being taught anything about the bible in elementry school.However i do have friends that went to Chatholic school were they do teach teachings from the bible. If they taught the bible in american public elementry schools It would affend alot of parents whose kids are jewish or Islamic or some other difrent religion.

[M. Bates]

All religions are stupid.

What about some poor old peasant high up in the hills in Eastern Asia, who has never heard of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, will their Gods find space in heaven for him?

------------------

battlefront.com forum: "DO A SEARCH DO A SEARCH DO A SEARCH"

[David Aitken]

Bates, please don't turn this thread into a flame war. You personally choose not to follow a religion, as do I. But everyone has the right to make their own decision, and you do not have the right to insult others for their choice, any more than they have the right to insult you.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[billcarey]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

What about some poor old peasant high up in the hills in Eastern Asia, who has never heard of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, will their Gods find space in heaven for him?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

[Spook]

Thank you, David, for posting just now as to keep the side topic of religious faith (and people's choices on such) in perspective, given that many CM posters here may subscribe to one faith or another.

M Bates, you're entitled to your opinion, but how many others here do you expect to convince with a one-liner calling everyone that follows some religion as "stupid" to do so? No, you didn't DIRECTLY call such people as stupid, but that's exactly the implied essence to your statement.

David, I have no personal problem with the "Red Sea" example you cited, as I am personally ambivalent as to what is or isn't proven as "factual" in Old Testament history. For example, I don't take the stories of Genesis on face value to have happened as written.

But there's a bit of a trap here when you state that an "event" like the parting of the Red Sea is considered unlikely as there is little to no factual or historically recorded evidence to support this event. This event is one such to those of the Judeo-Christian religions to be regarded as an "Act of God" or "divine intervention". Other examples include the plagues on Egypt, Noah's Ark & the attached flood event, the Resurrection, etc.

Now, if one was to find evidence that establishes to all present people that some "Act of God" happened as an absolute historical fact, doesn't that kind of undermine the whole premise of religious faith? That's the inherent trap; to require of a religion's followers that these same people prove what they can't prove personally, but choose to take on "faith" as a "miraculous mystery."

So again, David, it doesn't bother me that you regard the Red Sea event (as related in the Bible) as likely being a myth. I'm just offering this post to state that those taking most issue with you on this side-subject may do so mainly for feeling "trapped" into proving something they likely can't, and never will.

[M. Bates]

You are quite, correct, I am entitled to my opinion.

Religion is stupid.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

You are quite, correct, I am entitled to my opinion.

Religion is stupid.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would argue that non-religion is its own religion.

[David Aitken]

Spook wrote:

> Now, if one was to find evidence that establishes to all present people that some "Act of God" happened as an absolute historical fact, doesn't that kind of undermine the whole premise of religious faith? That's the inherent trap; to require of a religion's followers that these same people prove what they can't prove personally, but choose to take on "faith" as a "miraculous mystery."

This is the whole 'problem' (so to speak) with religion. There are no facts – it is entirely an act of faith. It is difficult, if not impossible, to justify religion, because it has no basis in reality – it is all to do with belief and the invisible human spirit. But of course, religious people do not, or should not, feel the need to justify their beliefs.

It is very easy for me to point out that the beliefs of religious people are inherited – if no-one told you about God, what would you believe in? You would probably end up believing in God anyway, but you would know nothing of the alleged events recorded in the Bible. I can also speculate as to why God seems to have abandoned this world for the past two thousand years. Why have we not seen any miracles lately? Some would argue we have, but they have certainly not been as obvious as those in the Bible.

It is not so easy to counter, but there is no need. I choose to look at the facts, and whereas I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of some kind of a God, I do not wish to follow any organised religion. You choose to believe in the Bible. I have no right to challenge your belief, and you have no need to counter me if I do.

However, there are some elements of Christianity with which I do take issue. Throughout history the Church has sought to suppress the population in the name of God. It has rubbished scientific revelations which suggested that Earth was not the centre of the universe, or that the human race was not put here by God, with all other lifeforms at its mercy. Even now there are prominent figures whose faith in God is purely for their own selfish ends. The grotesque TV evangelists found in America give Christianity a bad name.

That is my only problem with relgion – otherwise, it is of no interest to me what other people believe, and I certainly do not feel threatened by it, as our friend M. Bates seems to.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[jdmorse]

Okay fellows let's agree to disagree. Probably the best take on all of this is Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist and baseball conissieur) His point, that Science, ie provable fact, and religion operate in two distinct spheres. You can't use science to prove or disprove religion, nor religious belief (essentially faith/grace) to prove or disprove science. SO everyone, please back of. No tautologies (or tauntologies here please.

M. Bates, don't get in a huff. Whether "real" or not religion plays a major part in most people's life one way or another. To say that religion is stupid simply falls into the trap of "belief" ie you cannot prove or disprove faith. You may not accept the unsupported belief but as CavScout observed the tightly held, unsupported belief in a dictrine or non doctrine can be classified in some ways as a religion

That being said let's wait to see if there is any further development in this war version of an urban legend or at least what the facts may be, or let it sink out of sight

------------------

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

-- King Henry VI, Part II, Act 4, sc.2, l.86

[David Aitken]

jdmorse wrote:

> SO everyone, please back of.

Huh? Is someone fighting?

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Cav Gunner]

The next person who says ANYTHING about religion will be flogged over the head with a dead catfish until they are unconscious.

For criminey's sake people, get off your high horses. This isn't a religious debate, and this isn't a religious forum. So knock it off!

What *I* see is an old soldier who is trying to get some glory before he dies by exaggerating one of his old war stories.

[David Aitken]

Okay, here it is, transcript of the relevant parts of Secret Agent, BBC 2, Thursday, September 28th. The three bits about Major MacPherson were in between stories about other people. He speaks with a posh English accent, in a slightly disjointed manner, and at times almost sounds like a German (it's a conspiracy!), but he appears to be 'with it'. The narrator has a slightly gravelly, typical English accent and speaks with a low, matter-of-fact tone. The imagery consists of nicely done, abstract re-enactments of some of the events in question, the camera off-centre and out of focus to avoid being too specific – interspersed with vaguely relevant archive footage.

Initial observations; the second story talks about the Das Reich Panzer division, but this is not the one he 'captures'. The relevant, third, story speaks only of an 'enemy column'. The German officer MacPherson mentions is indeed Major-General Elster, so well done Hofbauer and friends. There is not much to suggest that the people at Scotland On Sunday have actually interviewed MacPherson, although they might have read the book which accompanies the TV series (yes a book – arrrgh – no, I have no intention of getting it =) ), so either by error or intention, they seem to have confused two different stories, and misspelt Elster's name. MacPherson's stories do seem quite adventurous, but he sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

Here follows the transcript, make of it what you will.

David

* * * * *

Sixth of June, Nineteen Forty-Four. The largest invasion in history. As the troops landed on the beaches, a fresh wave of SOE agents was parachuting behind enemy lines. They were to link up with the resistance. Everyting the French did now would have to be carefully coordinated with the Allies. SOE had formed a hundred or so special three-man teams, codenamed Jedburgh. One of the youngest was the Quinine team. Major Thomas MacPherson was twenty-three, his radio operator Arthur Brown was nineteen, and his French Lieutenant Michelle de Bourbon was eighteen. Far from being under cover, the Jeds were to remain in uniform. In MacPherson's case, this was a kilt.

"Our job was to create the maximum amount of disruption to give a message to the French that the armies might have been a long time in penetrating the defences in Normandy, but the uniformed help was there on the spot in their own piece of the countryside. The Jeds wanted to draw attention to their presence."

As so often for SOE, MacPherson's first problem was overcoming wrangles amongst the various resistance groups.

"I had no idea, not only of the schism between the Communists and the rest, but the diversity of the rest – they all operated under different alphabetcial names – the AS, which was the Armée Secrête – the ORA, the Organisation of Resistance of the Army – dozens of others – they all had their little agendas and it was one of my tasks to try to concentrate their mind on the war and not the post-war."

MacPherson travelled by car between the various resistance groups, co-ordinating their actions.

"As you drove around, you really never knew what you were going to meet around the next corner. You hoped it was nothing nasty. If we spotted a roadblock first we'd reverse very sharply out of it. There would be an exchange of fire, but it's surprisingly difficult to hit a car moving at reasonable speed. I think most of us were living in an atmosphere of sheer mental terror most of the operation. It sharpens the senses very much. I hadn't been there very long before they put up posters in various towns offering enormous rewards for my apprehension."

On one occasion he was having a celebratory drink with the Mayor of Decazeville, having just sabotaged a German petrol dump, when he was caught by surprise.

"We saw at the far end of the street, two German armoured cards appear. We got back into that car with remarkable speed. They sent one of the armoured cars up to pursue me. There was a long hill out of Decazeville and we were much quicker up the hill so we thought we'd risk a bit of fun, and manufactured a terribly simple device called a Gammon grenade."

MacPherson soon had a big enough lead to hide the car and make his way up onto an overhead footbridge.

"At the appropriate time I leant over the bridge and dropped it. It blew the engine to bits and set the armoured car on fire."

MacPherson and his team spent the following weeks sabotaging telegraph lines, bridges and railways, but his favourite was blowing up the electricity pylons carrying power to the factories of France.

"There is a splendid noise of crumbling metal and sparks flying in every direction as the wires whip about and short and so forth. I used to enjoy that very much indeed."

* * * * *

Meanwhile in central France, MacPherson was becoming bolder in taking the fight to the enemy. He discovered that the crack Das Reich Panzer division was racing through his area on its way to Normandy. It could be crucial for the German defences. MacPherson was going to try to delay it.

"It was obvious that firing a few Sten guns at armoured vehicles was not going to bring the column to a halt. There were trees close to the road and we conceived the idea of blowing these trees in such a way that they fell across the road as an obstacle. In the first area we blew two trees down – quite a formidable barrier."

Before moving down the road, MacPherson left one of his men behind as an added surprise for the Germans.

"The Germans drove up to this barrier. The column was led by a halftrack and the halftrack had some troops in the back. Some of the troops got out, walked up to the barrier, scratched their heads, tried to push it out of the way, and of course couldn't, it was much too heavy."

The Germans were at a loss what to do. Everything stopped while they called up a bulldozer tank.

"With some difficulty it cleared the trees. The whole thing must have taken well over three hours. Then the tank was told to go in the front of the column. At that time the man I'd left behind opened up with his Sten gun. Because it was coming from behind them they had to swivel their guns round, so the chap was able to skip out of cover, down the hill and disappear.

"What I did at the next barrier was to use the same technique, but well camouflaged with dust and gravel, I put our only two anti-tank mines. The tank came along, and this time they paused."

Expecting another ambush, the Germans then spent several hours searching the woods.

"Then they gave the all-clear, and the tank ploughed forward, and I'm happy to say it lost one track. It meant a very long delay while they sent for another heavy vehicle."

MacPherson used the delay to dash ahead and set up his third and final roadblock. He booby-trapped the trees to catch the soldiers he knew would be hunting for anti-tank mines.

"Cumulatively, if you could imagine this in various degrees going on the whole eight-hundred mile length of France, it contributed to a considerable delay in the projected arrival of these heavy reinforcements."

* * * * *

MacPherson's boldest and most dangerous moment came at the end of August.

"We drove in a captured German Red Cross car straight through the German lines at very high speed."

He was heading straight for the German military headquarters. MacPherson knew that an enemy column was heading his way, and that his resistance fighters would be no match. He had decided to bluff the German commander-in-chief.

"We sat down at ten o'clock the following morning on a long table. The plan was that I should appear in full uniform, and make it quite clear to Major-General Elster, the commander of the Germans, that I had my battalion, and a force of tanks, and some guns across the river, and that he was welcome to come. I was very nervous but suddenly I was hyped up for it, this was something that we just had to achieve because if we didn't there was going to be a lot of blood shed, including me I fancy. It must have given the right impression because he agreed to sign surrender documents, and the German General and his Colonel both passed across their personal weapons, and that was the end of the war for twenty-three thousand Germans, and really the end of the resistance operation for most of the centre of France."

MacPherson's audacity had paved the way for the Allies to liberate central France. He and his team were fêted as heroes in Dijon.

"It was quite an emotional scene, as you can imagine – liberation and Vive la France and the Marseillaise and all that. It's a nice thing to remember."

[M Hofbauer]

Thanks David for transcribing it.

Now go get that book! *g*

Well, we have this guy's tale that GM Elster personally handed over his personal weapons to him, but he fails to deliver any date and location for that, and on the other hand we have the very well-documented (see DCC63's link), high-publicity public surrender of Elster to 83 ID with music and parade. Now - whom do you believe?

GAZ would probably say that "nah man McPherson u have some valid points but uhm u need to chill out man"

The fact that those dumbhead journalists never really read that interview for serious, or didn't understand it, is quitze obvious in that they mixed up the PzDiv Das Reich and the "column" the kilt talked about which would result in the spectacular headline "Panzerdivision surrenders to kilt"; well "retreat column of rear area personnel and navy crews surrenders to allies, and McPherson was somehow involved" wouldn't be very spectacular would it? Raises the question of whether the journalist f-up is just a job poor done (which is typical of journalists) or whether this "accidental" mix-up between PzDiv and column maybe was intentional to make it sensational (which is also typical of journalists).

One thing that I do not comprehend is your mentioning of him having a "posh english accent". what are you makign of this / hinting at?

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[M Hofbauer]

David, don't thank me, most all of this was done by others. Therefore, here is a (final?) observation by M.Binazzi, his response to my suggestion of british involvement (I suggested that I neither believe the story but that maybe there is some grain of truth behind it and maybe the scot was somehow involved in the talks or something and that this involvemtn has been inflated or s.th.):

----------

After checking various sources there is nothing to substantiate British intervention in the surrender of the Elster column British agents helped the Resistance, no doubt about that, and there was an important British agent adtive in the Landes, but that was where Elster started to move, not where he stopped!).

Initial negotiations started between the Germans and the French directly, notably after Major von Lahr, Elster's chief of staff, was killed in a skirmish (there were 93 encounters, not 130 as I mentioned elsewhere) which of course Generalmajor Elster found ominous.

The French Resistance reported the presence of the German column to the closest US unit, namely general Macon's 83 Infantry Division.

A first meeting took place under the auspices of the Americans, on September 9, 1944 I believe, and on the subsequent meeting, on September 10, a British officer was present, but as observer only, as his name is not even mentioned.

By the way, there is a large difference between "a crack panzer unit" and Generalmajor Elster's Marschgruppe Süd. You should see the photographs: they looked more like Gypsies with horse-drawn carts and old buses.....

another telltale indication on the whimsical report of the Scotsman in question is that there was no British presence at all at the official surrender ceremony, which has been photographed, and where French, American & German uniforms only are visible.

-------

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-01-2000).]

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He speaks with a posh English accent, in a slightly disjointed manner, and at times almost sounds like a German (it's a conspiracy!), but he appears to be 'with it'. The narrator has a slightly gravelly, typical English accent and speaks with a low, matter-of-fact tone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disapointed that he didn't speak with a Scottish accent perchance? Hehe.

That's the British Army's fault for not being careful about teaming soldiers up with people from their own regions like the Germans did (or used to anyways).

[This message has been edited by M. Bates (edited 10-01-2000).]

[David Aitken]

I'm not suggesting anything by MacPherson's English accent, although with a name like that and a kilt, I'd expect him to be a Scotsman. Maybe he was born here.

The story about Sam Magill's platoon is extremely interesting, both in that it bears certain similarities to MacPherson's version, while making no mention of him. It is ironic that the BBC seem to have had a reporter on the story, and now they're reporting a fanciful new story totally contradictory to their own original. One wonders if things might have worked out differently if the news hadn't coincided with Market Garden – someone is hardly going to come along now, and claim full credit for a major Allied success during the war, if it had been big news at the time.

I may pursue MacPherson's version of events, because his facts do seem to be in order. the SOS article mentions the Allier river (which was not mentioned in the TV programme), and this was indeed in line with Elster's advance. Magill was operating south over the Loire river, and if you follow the Loire east, it loops round to the south, and branches into the Allier. In other words, as Elster marched north-east towards Germany, Magill and the US 83rd were on his left flank, while MacPherson and his French were supposedly up ahead.

It would be quite easy to omit MacPherson's involvement, being only one man – but it's quite bizarre that he basically claims to have done exactly what Magill did. Maybe they're the same person! The plot thickens...

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."