No, Monty didn't make a "Blunder" during the Battle of the Bulge (with the 82nd Airborne)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- During the Battle of the Bulge, Bernard Montgomery pulled back the 82nd Airborne Division in what has been described as "one of the worst blunders of the battle". But is this really the case? By reading through a bunch of sources, we can discover what really happened, and see who was right - Monty, Eisenhower, Bradley or Ridgway? Let's find out.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need awesome graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
- - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Source list for this video docs.google.co...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from UA-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
My Dad was in B company 509th of the 82nd. He was a BAR man who had made 5 combat jumps from North Africa, Sicily, DDay, Holland and at the Rhine. He always said he never thought he would survive at the Bulge. Lying in the snow using bed sheets as camouflage taking out German
Infantry while bazooka men were firing at the tanks. He got frostbite and his fourth purple heart, but they held the line.
Your Dad is a legend.
@@AK-hi7mg oh yeah cause frace was never a sovereign nation. It was all Germany
@AK 464 there's always one idiot on a post and you're it.
@@thomashynd2291 baffles my mind how someone could say that and I'm an anti war libertarian.
@@AK-hi7mg And the Nazi's where.........??
Tik is a legend, nobody works harder then this guy to produce consumable historical documentaries
I was up until 3am last night working on this
@@TheImperatorKnight Presentation is fantastic, with the graphics you almost don't need to do a future (full) repeat video. Also a shame that youtube policy supports history deniers.
Top bloke💪
mad respect to this bloke! cheers
I totally agree with you! Long live to TIK!...
Tik, you've made my day. Although saddened to hear you're burned out from Stalingrad, different battles in the same format of Battlestorm in Bitesize Chunks is fantastic. More of this, and would specifically request the Dunkirk evacuation!
Dunkirk would require me to do the entire Fall of France first, which I'm happy to do, but that would definitely have to be after Stalingrad
@@TheImperatorKnight I'd love to have you do the fall of France, its all a bit glossed over in most histories and it would be great to get a detailed analysis of what happened and why it happened.
I'll take whatever comes. It's all excellent content.
I'd love a video going in depth on the "Was Dunkirk a British Success or Failure," debate. It seems like one of those battles (like Antietam/Sharpsburg in the American Civil War or Oriskany in the American Revolution being other examples) where the exact definition of Victory or Defeat is convoluted and subject to interpretation.
@@TheImperatorKnight Do a Dan Carlin style Blitz on the subject with minimal lead into the siege and starting from the retreat
Your return to the Western Front means I gotta rewatch your Operation Market Garden series, for the fourth time!
So true
I would (eventually) like to redo the Market Garden documentary. The quality of the animations could be improved, and I'd love to put even more details in it, especially in the Nijmegen sector
@@TheImperatorKnight So we all gotta rewatch your Operation Market Garden one more time, to compare it to the new version.
@@TheImperatorKnight I think you need a vacation tik. Fly to Malta relax, or go anywhere you feel like. Just take a break buddy.
I was in 3rd Armored Division in the 1980s. We studied this campaign extensively as it has obvious parallels to the cold war scenario in the Fulda Gap. The consensus at that time was that delay in withdrawing from St Vith denied 3AD the opportunity to mass and attack as a unified force (not to mention delaying the reorg of the 82d).
30 some years later I am still not sure this is the case, but heavy divisions tend to think in terms of offensive opportunity in order to bring their combined arms power to bear on a decisive point rather than spreading it over a defensive front. This makes sense when you understand that the primary strength of heavy divisions is mobility, not armor. Defense normally deprives the commander of mobility both at the tactical and operational levels. It is the operational level that matters, frankly.
Also, the logistical requirements of heavy division are simply not supportable via airhead.
Can you explain what you just said in English not military speak? Eg What do you mean you are ‘still not sure this is the case’, but you said it was ‘a consensus’.
@@rogerpattube Hi! I'm not in the military, but a civilian studying defense and although your question was directed at someone else, I believe I can "translate" some of the words in the previous comment.
First, when he talks about the parallel between the Ardennes Offensive and the Fulda Gap, I believe he is talking about a famous geographic gap in Germany that NATO commanders thought Soviet tank columns could pass through after accumulating a large number of tanks, armored vehicles and artillery. A weak point that could be exploited by heavy and mostly mobile forces, just as happened in the German Offensive.
Second, large units have different types of weapon systems in their subunits that perform different missions at the tactical level, but support each other at the operational level, functioning like one big machine. Thus, when a "grand unit" is deprived of one of its "subunits", for example when it is forced to remain in some sector rather than join the formation of the large unit, the ability to fight is impaired: "The consensus at that time was that delay in withdrawing from St Vith denied 3AD the opportunity to mass and attack as a unified force (not to mention delaying the reorg of the 82d). "
As he wrote: "heavy divisions tend to think in terms of offensive opportunity in order to bring their combined arms power to bear on a decisive point rather than spreading it over a defensive front. This makes sense when you understand that the primary strength of heavy divisions is mobility, not armor. Defense normally deprives the commander of mobility both at the tactical and operational levels."
Key terms are "opportunity", "combined arms power" and "mobility". For a brief moment, that's what the Germans did on the weakest sector of the Allied front.
Furthermore, these large units need a lot of equipment to sustain combat effectiveness, hence the initial difficulties in resupplying the units responsible for the weakest sector, as he says: "Furthermore, the logistical requirements of the heavy division are simply not supportable via wind head."
Hope this helps.
@@rogerpattube He's not sure that the majority opinion ("consensus") is the CORRECT opinion.
He mentioned that most of the people (in the 80s) were of the opinion that they should have massed (regrouped) and attacked, INSTEAD of withdrawing (retreating).
HE thinks that they might have been wrong, and that a retreat was the RIGHT choice... MAYBE. (He's allowing that either option could be right.)
He said, "heavy divisions tend to think in terms of offensive opportunity..."
What he's talking about here, is common "group-think"... applicable in any area. People tend to get used to thinking of solving problems in certain ways... and most especially in ways which they have used or seen used in the past, and even MORE in ways which they were TRAINED to solve a particular problem.
That's fine, when those ways work... but it's ALSO the reason that you see people looking for those who CAN "think outside the box"... or, in other words, innovate.
Yet an entire Combat Command of the 10th Armored Division and a tank destroyer battalion were surrounded with the 101st Airborne at Bastogne and retained their mobility throughout the battle, acting as General McAuliffe's fire brigade, racing around to counter German attacks.
@@josephahner3031 CCB of the 10th Armored Division was isolated from 21st to 26th of December. The only place they went during this time is from one part of the city to another. They were limited to short tactical movements. The kind of mobility that is being talked about here is operational mobility which CCB 10th Arm. did not have once they were surrounded.
As a Veteran of the 82nd Airborne Division from 1990 to 92 and then 2005-2009... C/1/325 Airborne inf regiment, and D/313th MI (Lrsd) I approve of this message... Sometimes the truth hurts and without the truth in history we are screwed... Well done TIK and dont let the Dirty nasty legs bring you down.
Truth is, It's the PBI whoever they may be are really at the sharp end. The 'personalities' look at maps. The average soldier is the warrior, the generals, the worriers. The warriors have their oppos to worry about, the generals, their reputations.
I was in B/2/508 in the 80s. Always good to see a fellow trooper! AATW FFTS!
3/504 from 2002-2005.
Did a tour in Afghanistan and Iraq
I was C/1/325AIR at the same time!
@@robertmoran7024 Im ex 3 para and worked with the 505th in 05 in Bragg. then again in 2014 with the red falcon 325, good bunch of lads.
It appears to me that the Allies response to the Bulge attack by the Germans was actually very good. The British established strong defensive positions in the planned path of the German attack while the Americans launched a powerful counter attack into the Southern flank of the German offensive. The relatively weak US forces in the Ardennes were able to delay the German offensive with a minimum loss of lives giving time for both the British and American responses to the attack to be effectively implemented.
Relatively weak,The British had 1400 casualties and 200 killed absolutely smashing. Big Boys got it sorted after traveling 3500 miles to pull your chestnuts out of the fire. Go to Mark Felton's Board GIs even thru Monty into their cage - that's some funny shyt whiney waif screamed like a cat in a fan belt
Patton's response was so quick because he was the only General to recognize the possibility of the attack. "Brad could get himself in a lot of trouble up there." Nobody else, including Eisenhower, could believe that the Germans could attack through the Ardennes. Patton remembered that they ha already done it twice. WWI and beginning of WWII. Patton had his staff draw up 3 plans of response, just in case.
When the Germans attacked, Eisenhower called his Generals together and told them he wanted a plan of response in 3 days. Patton dropped his three plans on the table. Patton told Eisenhower "I can have 2 corps on the move in 48 hours, and 2 more right behind it. Eisenhower responded, "Don't mess with me, George." (Eisenhower didn't like Patton. Patton was a bit of a loose cannon.) Patton responded, "I'm not." The rest is history.
@@seventhson27 Exactly some of todays revisionists and unread slappies all think they deserve participation trophies
@@seventhson27 Rubbish. Montgomery warned Eisnehowever back in November 44 of the weakness in the allied front in the Ardenne area and had suggested moving Pattons 3rd army north at the time.
@@bigwoody4704 Revision is a good thing. You need to revise the narrative so it gets closer to what actually happened. Patton is still a beast though. Shame he was killed off by the secret services.
Really nice video, TIK. The back and forth between commanders and the analysis of their "palace intrigues" and how accurate their memoirs were bring these events to life and make then more "human" and relatable, if this makes sense.
"Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according t o a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough" (Hugo von Manteuffel; 6th Panzer Army).(UK)
Um no monty wanted to fall back and was going to get sacked for lying to the Press.Then he wrote an apology to IKE,Even the the American MPs threw him into the cage as an imposter at one of the Check Points . Ike got a good laugh out of that - it was covered by Mark Felton
Yep, and the commander of US 7th Armored Division General Hasbrouck said Montgomery saved his division from annihilation with his decision to pull back from St Vith, while Gavin of the 82nd Airborne agreed that a withdrawal was very much in order and his division were able to do much better in the new defensive positions.
Montgomery literally saved thousands of American lives with his handling of the Battle of the Bulge.
I think you did probably the best analysis I have ever heard on the Battle of the Bulge. I have been fascinated by this battle ever since I saw the old Henry Fonda movie as a kid. I have read everything I could find on it. And you answered the last few minor questions that I had, thank you.
Oh wow, thank you! I'm glad you liked the video because I was worried I had missed something. If a lot of people think Monty made this terrible blunder, then I was thinking: why can't I see it? And why aren't the books really talking about it? I assumed I had missed something, but it appears that I didn't, it genuinely is all to do with Bradley and the US reputation
well he just make a new serie og when He det tired og it he stop just like Stalingrad..
@@TheImperatorKnight what are the things that I believe might have been a factor is that Monty did not have a very good reputation with American officers. It's widely known that Patton detested him but a feeling I've gotten from their writings is Patton was definitely not the only one nor was he the most prejudiced against him. Marshall hated him, Bradley hated him, Mark Clark hated him, Eisenhower distrusted him, the list goes on very few American generals had even one nice thing to say about Monty. And those were only for their memoirs and official reports.
@@michaeljensen3376 when it comes to the Stalingrad series, the amount of sheer detail that he puts in every episode. Coupled with the editing and the animation of the maps, the finding and the transposing of the quotes and then the footnote to indicate where it comes from takes a massive amount of time. And by the time he gets done with it I think it will be one of the most comprehensive accounts of the Battle of Stalingrad one of the most complex battles of the second World War.
@@charlesentrekin140 I dont say it not hard to do,,BUT You dont stop i the midtle of it all,,,when you start something you go to the end,,not stop ½ way from goal,,,
Excellent presentation TIK 👍
Excellent piece which I enjoyed very much. I’ve never understood the level of dislike for Monty, I just can’t wrap my head around it. Any Vet will tell you that 99.9% of the upper echelon commanders are narcissistic wankers, that are more interested in their own legacy than they are the well-being of the men they command. Monty was indeed a narcissist, and probably a bit of a wanker too, but he cared for his men, he wanted them to go home to loved ones. That was SOOOOO rare back then, it genuinely bothers me that it’s not mentioned enough (glad you touched on it).
As part of the great unwashed, in the blink of an eye could I tell you who I’d have preferred to fight under should it have been me back then.
And his soldiers adored him for it. They knew that if he sent them into battle everything possible had been done to help them survive.
There are other aspects of his very human and rational command that get missed, his tolerance (and support with medical services) for well run brothels in towns behind the lines ensured that British and Canadian forces never suffered from veneral disease to the extent that US troops did. He realised it was going to happen anyway so made sure that it was clean and hygienic at the least....in contrast the more puritanical US commanders did not want to be seen 'promoting' brothels and prostitution. The VD infection rates (and it has to be said, incidences of rape) in US rear areas were far, far higher than behind the British and Canadian's in 21 AG.
There's also his very modern, and scientifically based, support for treatment of 'shell shock' and 'battle fatigue'. With compassionate treatment being available in the rear that enabled large numbers of troops to recover and be eventually returned to their units. Contrast that with Patton's attitude to his mens suffering....
That's why the soldiers of the 1st and 9th army respected him, because he didn't waste their lives needlessly, Monty used artillery a lot.
@@dogsnads5634 --It is suspected Patton had PTSD. Do not discount Patton's love of his soldiers. This is why he wanted battles to be as short as possible. The longer the battle the more casualties.
@@dogsnads5634 What was "Patton's attitude to his mens suffering"? The fiction you picked up from the Patton movie? The guy tried to end battles before they started and tried to avoid attacking prepared defenses precisely because he was trying to minimize casualties.
Excellent job, as usual, laying out your case. As a trial lawyer with 30 years and hundreds of jury trials under my belt, I would venture to say you would make a great trial lawyer.
I've read about these topics for decades, but with your research into the facts and insight into human behavior, you make so many things so much easier to comprehend. Excellent work, my friend.
I came into this waiting to hear about how somebody I don't like, Montgomery screwed up. And then you wound up convincing me that somebody I really like, Bradley, really screwed up. I like that. It's really good to challenge all of us
I can tell you watched this on x2 speed! I don't necessarily think Bradley screwed up, but I do think he misunderstood what was going on and tried to protect his own reputation.
@@TheImperatorKnight I was commenting on the beginning. Finally saw it all the way through the end. Brilliant is always. But I did have to take away that part from the beginning
It is justified to "not like" Monty because of His attitude & demeanour, but not because of his actions
@@chrislambert9435 it's interesting when someone who "dislikes Generals for wasting Soldiers' lives" becomes a General and sees those faults in his peers and subordinates, but refuses to see those faults in himself (Market Garden)
@@MisterW0lfe I believe that "market garden" failed because of the Ground commanders, not the Field Marshall's or General's
Now that Stalingrad is off your back, I wonder how you will structure the battle of the Bulge series? If you ever want to try, I can
atleast give an advise of the episodial roadmap of how it goes.
Part 1: Overview (from D-day to post Market Garden)
Part 2: Allied Order of Battle (and what little cameo poor O'Connor can get)
Part 3: Axis Order of Battle
Part 4: Germany's plan and any other pre-operation events
Part 5: The full battle
Part 6: conclusion and post-battle assessments
As for how much videos for Part 5, it's up to you how long this goes on.
I'm not doing a Battlestorm Bulge yet (although this video turned into a mini-Battlestorm). I'm not willing to jump ahead because of the way that the British and American commanders interacted from the start. That's why I want to go through the North African Campaign, then Sicily, Italy and Normandy before Market Garden 2.0 and the Bulge. If we don't get the full context and background with the rivalries then I think it won't be as good, if that makes sense.
You're suggestion is neat. However, we need to focus on the North Africa campaign first off. Then D-Day and the subsequent takeover of France and then the bulge since we already have Battlestorm Market Garden
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks for the road map. I'm looking forward to Alexander and then Monty.
@@TheImperatorKnight Though far off in the future, does that mean a proper look at operation goodwood is on the horizon?
I assure you. Every history project is at least 50% longer than you anticipate.
I like your view of the way the battle transpired and decisions that were made by Ike, and Montgomery. As an American, I studied the Bastone part of the battle for years before turning attention to the area near St. Vith. I allowed myself to think of Monty as arrogant, too meticulous, and cautious. After studying the northern portion of the German attack, I had to agree that Monty made a solid decision to pull the American units west and north. He may have "withdrawn" them, and in effect "tidied" up the lines, but he did, in effect establish a contiguous front to halt any further German advance. Most likely, he saved many American lives.
Enough experience with Germans breaking through where forces are weak and encircling the stronger positions. He gave up ground the Germans couldn't use to deny the Germans the ability to breakthrough and outmaneuver.
Let the Germans break themselves a bit against the line, tiring themselves out, and then counterattack.
Play to your strengths. Fight smarter, not harder. And benefit of not having some "supreme infallible leader" telling you that you cannot retreat a single step.
Here is what General James Gavin said about Monty's new defensive positions west of St.Vith:
_"Obviously, in the situation confronting the XVIII Corps, a withdrawal was very much in order. It shortened the section allocated to the 82nd by about 50 per cent, thus enabling us to do much better on the defensive. The new defensive position was far superior in terms of fields of fire and cover for the defenders than the old position. Finally, we would be in a much better position to launch a counter attack when the moment for that came"_
Truth. When on the defensive you cannot just dig-in and hold your ground. Hitler tried that after the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. And that is when the Wehrmacht sustained most of their casualties in men and equipment. Hitler’s order to dig-in and hold ground after 6th Army was surrounded guaranteed the loss of 6th army and the war. You must maneuver your forces on to ground best suited for defensive-offensive operations. You defend in order to build up your reserves so you can attack.
@@williampaz2092
Yes, what Monty did.
Yes it's in Gavin's book On To Berlin.
Gavin was positive about Montgomery. He liked him.
@@lyndoncmp5751
General James Gavin of the US 82nd Airborne:
_" I took a liking to Montgomery which has not diminished over the years"_
Captain Richard Winters of the US 101st Airborne:
_"Montgomery was the real deal, an example to follow"._
General Robert Hasbrouck of the US 7th Armored Division:
_"Montgomery saved the 7th Armored Division" (at St.Vith in the Bulge)._
he never said that Burns you've done it again re arranged the content so it say what you weak minded such as yourself.The put it into italics so these revisionist slappies eat it up.
What BOOK? What PAGE? You lying hound your shuffle the sentences like a Vegas card shark shuffles a deck,only the're much sharper and better at it than you
CONVERSATIONS WITH GENERAL J. LAWTON COLLINS,Transcribed By Major Gary Wade "Monty was a fine defensive fighter up to a certain point. But Monty's basic trouble was that he was a set-piece fighter, in contrast to George S. Patton. This was epitomized in the crossing of the Rhine.Monty was always waiting, waiting until he got everything in line. *He wanted a great deal of artillery,American artillery mostly--American tanks* also. Then, when he got everything all set, he would pounce. *But he always waited until he had "tidied up the battlefield"--his expression--which was his excuse for not doing anything* Monty was a good General, I've always said, but never a great one.
For his faults, Montgomery well understood the merits and techniques of fighting withdrawal. While most of the BEF sat bored in early 1940, his Div was training fie such eventualities, which definitely helped in surviving the later shitshow
Excellent video! I am a critic of Omar Bradley. He spent summer and fall of 1944 convincing himself and subordinates that Nazi Germany was done. The Ardennes Offensive should have opened his eyes; instead he blamed Montgomery for Monty’s response.
It is also pretty weird to me how Bradley managed to hide behind the flamboyant displays of Patton until eventually becoming his boss, and *then* its things like this. And *then* he wants to be the guy to produce the film... about General George S. Patton. #Shenanigans
@@jamespfp I think GP OB and myself would be happy to review the record...he was never hiding behind Patton and was one of many including DDE that were surprised by the German offensive...
Don't discount how absolutely horrible Hodges was as 1st Army commander. He was a terrible commander. Although Tik uses "A Soldier's Story" when discussing Bradley, "A General's Life" by Bradley and Blair is a much better book, finished by Blair just after Bradley's death. I think Bradley is more honest in this biography... and he drags himself to admit that he probably should have relieved Hodges.
I completely agree. The US commanders consistently underestimated the skills of the German commanders and the professionalism of the German troops. The sensitivity of the US commanders must have cost thousands of lives!
It was Montgomerys fault! That’s an undisputed fact
Montgomery's experience in the Great War with its tragic and unnecessary waste of human life gave him an outlook and attitude that differed from the American commanders. He was not a perfect commander and made his share of mistakes, but he should be judged by his battlefield record rather than on his difficult personality and impolitic public (and private ) statements. Great Britain was fortunate to have such a man at hand in its time of need.
Just make sure that discussion of Monty's "battlefield record" also includes how difficult Monty made life for his allies, as well as how "brilliant" the planning for Market Garden turned out. Monty was never as bad as believed but never as good as believed either.
As a (slightly) Anglophillic Yank (love Twiggy), I take exception to calling Monty Upper class... he was shot in the lung in WW1, and learned to care for his infantry. He was a megalo, not a snob. There's a diff. As a kid in USA in 1960s, was a big, weird, popular documentary about Bat of Bulge, about 82nd AB and St. Vith. As a kid in USA in 1990s, finally had a doc (Brothers) about Bastone
You can be upper class and look after your men (and serve on the front)
Do what you gotta do to stay motivated man. I'm here for any series you decide to make
Your comment on Montgomery's first world war battlefield experience shaped his future attitude against useless slaughter was correct.
Its easy to talk tough when your ass isn't on the line. After this presentation I have more respect for Monty than all the clap trap and chest beating that has gone on for decades. Well done TIK.
My father in law was in the 504th. He was at Chenaux and lost his best friend Lt Smith who led on off the charges on the farmhouse. He got shot there and carried the bullet with him for the rest of his life. He was also at Market Garden and was one of the soldiers who crossed the Waal River.
Thank you for your sacrifice ✌️
The problem with Monty was that he was Conservative and Risk-Averse, say his critics. But HE HAD TO BE! Quality of subordinate commanders, lack of infantry reserves dictated his actions.
Monty cared about preserving the lives of his men; his men knew this. A lot of worse generals; he was actually highly competent, if not "the Great Commander." See "Colassal Cracks."
As for me, I LIKE a Commander who prefers great odds in his favor. That's the guy I'd like to serve, if I was a conscript, in a conscript army.
Monty replanned and served as Allied Ground Forces Commander for the largest amphibious invasion in history, bringing it in ahead schedule and with fewer casualties than predicted.
If that doesn’t make him a great commander I don’t know what would.
I read Bradley's book, " A Soldier's Story" a few years ago. I was surprised by his fragile ego, wanting to resign when Eisenhower wanted to reassign his armies. I would have expected that reaction from Patton, not Bradley. The more I have learned about Bradley, the less I think of him as a good General. He was just popular because of his Missouri "aw shucks" persona. But I think it was the right decision to have him as an Army Group commander behind the lines and have Patton out in the field as a tactical General. Good job as always, TIK! Your historical documentaries are the best.
While Bradley could be a thin skinned, petty man, just as bad, he was an intellectual plodder. Patton had the greatest military knowledge of any senior commander in the American army and like Napoleon understood grand strategy. He was the only officer who recognized the opportunity the Ardennes offensive provided. He knew the Germans could not sustain such an operation and wanted to see them permitted to expend their resources and combat strength attempting to get to the Meuse or beyond and then crushing their weakened units with artillery and airpower while the allies caved in the shoulders of the offensive and trying to cut off all the forces within the pocket. He even considered it wasteful of a specialist division to use the 101st Airborne as a speed bump at Bastogne which he saw as a valueless position. He would have been a superior army group commander, but was not like Bradley, COMPLIANT.
@@jamesdiaz793patton? lmao loool no
The bit with Peiper surprised me, I heard about the minefield, and the callous use of halftracks to lead the way for his tanks, but I did not know it was a German minefield that they rank into. To think, all that time surreptitiously gathering supplies, men, tanks, fuel, aircraft... and they forget to ask "hey, where did we lay our own mines again?"
@@gupler tis the little things that make life interesting XD
@@gupler Not really that surprised. I've said for a long time that you meet the same nincompoops in war as everywhere else in life. It's just that the consequences of their mistakes are much more serious.
He ran through the mine fields on purpose. I've heard 2 reasons. 1. The half tracks had basically run out of fuel and 2. They got slowed down and got impatient and decided to sacrifice the tracks to save time. But it was definitely on purpose.
As an American, it was an allied victory. I also don't think Monty was a bad commander, he made mistakes, but so did all the others. My father was awarded the silver star during the battle and I asked him what it was like, he said "It was cold, that is what I remember the most." You have to sympathize with General Eisenhower, dealing with all these egos.
_" I also don't think Monty was a bad commander"_
He was brilliant. No one comes close to his record.
@@johnburns4017 What stands out here is that Monty's system of liaison officers gave him a better grasp of the situation of Ridgeway's corps than Ridgeway had himself.
@@AndyM_323YYY
He knew more about the US First army than Eisenhower and Bradley.
Eisenhower was the best man for that ego problem
@@monza1002000
He was not. He could not get a grip on the egos of his own American men.
This content that is genuinely enthralling and Tik over a video is so depth and throughout it pulls you in as if you were reading a fantasy you read for the first time. Great stuff I hope doing non stalingrad videos really helps you out. We will watch any content purely on how you create videos whatever the topic.
Eisenhower’s great skill was keeping such prima donnas as Bradley, Montgomery, and Patton from fighting each other, and fighting the Germans instead.
Eisenhower was the right man for the job. He's a much underrated historical figure, and I'm including his Presidency in this. He understood the military so they couldn't BS him like they do many Presidents. His farewell warning about the military-industrial complex proved prescient about the broader deep state today. A real American, he was wary of the concentration of power, and when he had it, he wasn't corrupted by it-- a quality that seems all too rare today.
On that basis, and seems plausible to me, this must rank Eisenhower as one of the greatest military leaders in history.
@@andymoore9977 he was also under HUGE pressure from Marshall to get the European war wrapped up without excessive casualties so he could transfer desperately needed Infantry Divisions to the Pacific theater to fight what most Americans viewed as their primary( revenge minded) opponents in the war, the Empire of Japan.
@@adamjaquay4279 Which all goes to show that Eisenhower is a truly great military leader.
One of the other important characteristics of Eisenhower is that his presence and ability kept Churchill from interfering in military affairs where his interventions had mostly proved utterly disastrous. Churchill's blunders alone probably added considerable wasted time and thousands of unnecessary lives lost in lots of places like Greece, Crete, the thrown away results of Compass and Crusader.
No surprise that Eisenhower was so central to winning WW2. He was an expert in logistics, and WW2 was a war about supply and support for success.
You always show a new and interesting angle to the battles Ive read about.
Love your stuff!
Tik thank for ur hard work i think that what u made today was a wonderfull video, and u seemed better without the burden u had
Thanks for crediting the 82nd AB for what they did during the battle. My father was severely wounded on January 3rd 1945 with the 325 GIR. He came in as a replacement for Market Garden. Most of my readings do not mention the 82nd much. I am very proud of his service. He suffered a great deal from his wounds long after this battle. Airborne all the Way!
My uncle and namesake was KIA with the 508th , 82nd airborne outside of St.Vith on the 25th of Dec. His name was John Payet and I've tried to live my life in honor of his sacrifice. Although I lost a lung as a corpsman in Vietnam at least I made it home.
Thank you your all heroes
When you do get to that Battlestorm, check out where Monty sends the few British divisions he can spare: into roles with more danger than glory to offer. He was really cool about how he handled things, proving himself the best of allies in the end.
I don't know a great deal about the Northern side of the bulge and the Ardennes offensive. Would you be able to enlighten me in regards to said British divisions?
Excellent, I think your strength is in historical argument rather than narrative, and that's no criticism but a compliment. For me, who is pretty familiar with the outline and chronology of the events, this revisionist (not a dirty word in history!) style is much more interesting and engaging to me. Arguments are the lifeblood of history which give it relevance and vitality - the why is much more intriguing than the what.
Good to see you landing on your feet so strongly after looking a bit wearied last time I saw you.
One thing I'd love to see if you ever got the chance would be an in-depth look at some of the lesser known Axis allies battles like Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, or Finnish Battles
I've tried to include the Italians as much as possible in the North African Campaign videos, but it's difficult because I can't read their primary sources and few historians have written books on them, so they are definitely sidelined. I would love to see UA-camrs from those countries doing in-depth videos on them because I think that would be a massive help to everyone.
@TIKhistory Oh yeah, you've done a beautiful job covering the Italians in North Africa. It's far better than most I've seen. I was just talking about things like invasion of Greece, Yugoslavia, and USSR from the perspective of the Axis allies
Hey TIK Great video again. Keep them coming but don't burn yourself out.
The arrogance of some American commanders was not limited to the European campaign, nor can it be cast as a reaction to Montgomery.
In Australia, we were on the receiving end of a very similar level of pomposity from MacArthur. Despite the fact that the first defeats of the Japanese on land were by Australian troops under Australian commanders, MacArthur refused to listen to those officers, preferring to believe that there were no difficulties that could not be explained by “lack of aggression”.
Reports on terrain and Japanese numbers and capability were dismissed. Units were ordered to attack without regard to intelligence, logistics or the need for preparatory work. Far too many men died because MacArthur felt a political need to be seen as “doing something”.
This video leaves one with the impression that there was a belief amongst American commanders that they, and only they, knew how to win wars…. and that “foreigners” with far more experience were not worth listening to.
In the South West Pacific War Australians were the first to ever stop the Japs as they did the same in the Middle East against the Germans, ie allowed the german tanks to drive through them then attack the following up troops, thus inflicting the first defeat on the Germans. Getting back to McArthur, when the Aussies first defeated the Japs it was an Allied victory as were all the rest of the many Aussie successes. When the American Army eventually started to succed it was an American victory rather then an Allied one
Good old Dugout Doug. You know he actually tried to stop a medal honor for General Wainwright.
This still applies.
@@barrettcarr1413 Yes Tobruk and Milne Bay.
The US Navy despised MacArthur. Admiral Hart was in charge of the south Pacific navy. MacArthur had received a message to inform the Admiral that Manila would be declared an open port. He 'forgot' leaving thousands of Navy and Marines to be prisoners. Admiral Hart was furious. He had order subs and surface ships to other ports for maintenance. Those ships and subs could have taken passengers to safety.
Can't wait for your Battle of the Bulge Battlestorm. The events of that campaign have fascinated me since I watched Band of Brothers as a child. Cheers
Hi Tik love your work.My Dad was in the 6 th Airborne Division.There is generally never any mention of them at the Bulge .Just a shout out to the 6 th .A detailed video of the battle with all the units involved would be great cheers all the best .👍🏻
So, basically, having a British general give the order for a retreat to Americans saved the American commanders from the shame of ordering their men to retreat(and the lives of the men under their command).
Looks that way
Another excellent piece of historical analysis. Well done. I for one can’t wait for the future Battlestorm vids. Bravo Tik. Thanks.
Thank you! More to come
That's an excellent analysis. As usual. Well done TIK.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
Fascinating. This is totally unlike anything I understood of Montgomery's handling of the northern area of this battle. I haven't thought much of Bradley to this point in the war for various unrelated reasons. After North Africa, I look forward to your analysis of the parties involved along the way back here. This is the second positive thing I have heard of Montgomery, I communicated the other one some time ago via Subscribe Star. I look forward to the evidence I don't now know. Thank you TIK for all your work. My favorite campaign - that of North Africa, I now see differently due to the evidence you presented that I had never seen or heard before your Battlestorms. My best to you.
TIK, if you're going to go in depth on the Ardennes you have to read T.N. Dupuy's "Hitler's Last Gamble" - probably the most detailed day-by-day analysis of the campaign ever made. It includes comprehensive maps, tables, and lists of personnel and equipment at various points, as well as addressing some brief counterfactuals in the appendices. With regard to Montgomery, Dupuy concluded that it was probably for the best that he was given command over the northern flank for command and control purposes, and that furthermore his recognition of the vulnerability of the St. Vith salient and subsequent demand for its evacuation probably saved the US 7th Armored Division from destruction. A companion piece to "Hitler's Last Gamble" is the Ardennes Campaign Simulation Database, a truly mammoth (free to download) document created in the late 80s and early 90s that ran through literally the entire battle from start to finish for every unit from both sides.
He also uses the available German primary sources... which is sort of an anomaly in the BoB literature.
Eisenhower and Monty really had their work cut out for them. It's too bad other American generals forgot that this wasn't an American war, it was a World War.
Monty’s plan was to lure the German spearhead northwards from the Marche area up to the Meuse between Namur and Huy, the Meuse being defended by the Guards Armoured Division. The Germans would be hammered on both sides, from Horrocks’ 30 British Corps attacking from the west, Collins’ 7 US Corps from the east - as well as from the air Monty gave Collins orders not to commit his reserve corps to battle yet, so it would remain concentrated and available, but swing back his right flank if attacked in strength. But Collins disobeyed the order locking his 2nd US Armoured Division in combat with 2nd Panzer Division, which dissipated VII Corps and weakened the potential effectiveness of the four-divisional corps offensive Monty had in mind . This meant that any counter-attack would have to be delayed.
Monty always gets a bad rap, when he was probably the best general you could serve under as a private in WWII.
I tend to agree. Monty trained and fought his troops hard, and some probably resented him for that. I doubt many troops who served in his command ever thought he would waste their efforts though.
Monty had very poor social skills, I've seen some speculation that he was on the autistic spectrum. That's why the American senior staff didn't like him, not because of his battlefield decisions, which by and large were very competent.
The recent series from The Operations Room on the battle was outstanding, in case any viewer hasn't seen it yet
44:30 Ridgway sounds to me like Patton here... only the "yellow-belly's" remark is missing...
FWIW: This seems a pretty reasonable 'preliminary' analysis to me.
It's funny to think TIK's 'quick look' in to this subject prior to a 'proper' investigation is more detailed than the 'complete' work of most others. Well done old chap, and many thanks.
Looking forward to this! Do you think you’ll ever cover Kasserine Pass, or Operation Torch?
Yes, that's why I want to get through the North African Campaign series first. My American (and British/Canadian/Austrialian etc) viewers should be begging for more North African Campaign videos if you want to see Battlestorms on Torch, Kasserine, Sicily, Italy, Normandy or the Bulge
@@TheImperatorKnight you’re an inspiration, and I appreciate all that you do!
Many many years ago I was told an analogy by a ww2 soldier and he likened British and American generals dealing with germans to dealing with wasps nests. Americans run in and punch the nest untill everything is dead no matter the stings whereas the brits, especially monty would poke the nest and when the wasps angrily attack monty is stood there with a flamethrowers.
Tik, would you ever consider doing a video on the Korean War?
Love your videos, best military history on youtube!
I second this. In my opinion there isn’t enough material out there on that conflict. It’s consequences continue to be felt to this very day.
This was pretty crazy. Montgomery certainly had issues, but they were mainly his tendency to shoot his mouth off way too much, but his military leadership itself and battlefield tactics were solid. He made the correct decisions here, and Bradley was definitely sounding off based on his feelings toward Montgomery himself.
Montgomery didn't actually shoot his mouth off way too much, he just didn't suffer fools lightly and lacked any form of tact. If he was assessed these days, he'd almost certainly be classed as being a high-functioning Aspergers sufferer.
General James Gavin of the US 82nd Airborne:
_"I took a liking to Montgomery which has not diminished over the years"_
Captain Richard Winters of the US 101st Airborne:
_"Montgomery was the real deal, an example to follow"._
General Robert Hasbrouck of the US 7th Armored Division:
_"Montgomery saved the 7th Armored Division" [at St.Vith in the Bulge]._
Interesting anecdotes from lower commanders who had been under monty's command.
@@Destroyer_V0
*Eisenhower:*
_‘General Montgomery is a very able, dynamic type of army commander’._
*Eisenhower on D-Day and Normandy:*
_'He got us there and he kept us there'._
*General Günther Blumentritt:*
_‘Field Marshall Montgomery was the one general who never suffered a reverse’_
*Genral Hasso von Manteuffel on the Bulge:*
_‘The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough’._
*Patton on Monty:*
_'small,very alert, wonderfully conceited, and the best soldier - or so it seems - I have met in this war’._
*Major General Matt Ridgway, commander of the US XVIII Airborne Corps, 17 Jan 1945*
_"It has been an honored privilege and a very great personal pleasure to have served, even so briefly, under your distinguished leadership [Montgomery]. To the gifted professional guidance you at once gave me, was added to your own consummate courtesy and consideration. I am deeply grateful for both. My warm and sincere good wishes will follow you and with them the hope of again serving with you in pursuit of a common goal"._
A WW2 tanker veteran of the 4th armored div told me that the Germans could have been beaten sooner if we had first obliterated the British units in France so as not to be slowed down by them or having to share fuel with them. Every WW2 American ETO vet I've ever met had low regard for Monte and his slow moving armed circus.
@@jim99west46 Perhaps they forgot to mention that all of the best of the best German SS Panzer divisions were in Monty's sector in France, moving slowly? More like fighting through resistance.
@@johnburns4017 Thanks for the Patton quote! Monte has is faults. However, if Patton gave him praise, it isn't for me to look to harshly upon him.
The anti British attitude is not really a surprise. We tend to think that WWI and suddenly the US and UK were great friends. In reality these men were prepping *"War Plan Red" **_in the 1920's_* . Further, even FDR would cast the way we fought the war as needing to not be about allowing the UK or any other European power to keep its empire. In a way the USA looked at this war as the best most peaceful way to supplant the UK as a global hegemon and also capture them as an ally. As for giving the heartland of Eurasia to the USSR...there is the strange fact that Americans never had a visceral reason to hate or fear Russians to that point. I guess because they never burned our capitol. (Shrug) To Americans who don't even know US history this can seem surprising. history as taught in our schools jumps from Yorktown to Appomattox to Pearl harbor in a lot of places.
??? Thought burning our Capital was one of the popular actions by the British Empire. (think they could do it again if we ask nice?)
Seeing this in my suggested section made my day. I was expecting you to take a couple weeks break.
I completely forgot that Monty was even involved in the Bulge.
Most the focus, quite understandably, tends to look to the south or toward Bastogne.
Which is what I point out in the video, even though the focus should be on the north because that's where the Germans were heading. It's very strange.
Also, we did get to the point where the US entered the war in North Africa.
Yes, I know, I'm being technical, we only got to the war declaration.
Omar Bradley proved himself to be quite parochial in his outlook in his future career. As Chief of Staff he proposed the dissolution of the Marine Corps and its absorption into the Army and disapproved any Navy proposal to improve/modernize. He believed that the next war would be nuclear so the Air Force rather than the Navy needed the resources. He was disproved only at the outset of the Korean War. Truman was shocked when he tried to order a blockade of N. Korea and the Navy informed him that they lacked sufficient ships to do so.
the americans will always blame someone else for their mistakes usualy britain
Another super-video. I think you just can't do it other way... Looking forward for the Battlestorm series on the Bulge. This preliminary discussion and battle graphs really make me eager to see the complete picture. Please continue being waht you are. This is historiography at its best. Thank very very much for making our lives richer!
Brilliant to see you back, and do love your work (Sorry, Stalingrad don't interest me much, horror.) on North Africa, and am dying to see more - Sicily, Italy and Normandy! Also nice to seeing some balance being brought to the generally VERY American view of WW2. So, thanks again.
I do appreciate this video. Being an American, I think my opinion of Montgomery was biased. Thanks for helping me see this differently.
Ridgeway seems to have learned that Montgomery’s strategy of trading space for time by conducting a strategic withdrawal was effective because my understanding is that he employed it against the Chinese in Korea.
Nice observation.
Just another kudo for insightful analysis and masterful exposition.
I'm not sure the Germans shared that opinion
"The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough"
Yeah, if that's what the German assessment was for the Bulge, then I largely agree with it.
I largely agree with this. Montgomery's personality fit the situation better, but more importantly, the lack of understanding of the situation on the part of the US commanders played a real role in all the drama. Bradley's opinions make sense overall only if it is a spoiling attack. It seems that only Patton of the US commanders actually saw this offensive as a serious effort by the Germans.
I've seen the petty squabbles first hand during our curent "Forever Wars" era. No army is immune, but the US Army surely has its share of it.
C B,
Well even Patton said that even on the second day of the German attack he told the commander of his XII Corps to get his 4th Armored Division engaged in the Lorraine in case it got moved north to the Ardennes by a higher authority admitting "how little I appreciated the seriousness of the (German) attack.
From Patton, War as I Knew It page 180.
Save your bullshit Monty wanted to retreat biggest battle in the West and the poof wanted to fall back.He lied at Caen,the Desert,falaise market garden and here.If IKE hadn't given the wisp 16 divisions already we wouldn't have got caught But that's alright the british boys lost a hole 200 KIA while the American Army got things sorted
Woehoew! Finally! The Bulge, thanks TIK! And thanks for the subtitles, as per usual you're the only one who puts them directly into the released content... Take an example here folks!
Regards,
Thomas
_The British 2nd Tactical Air Force in the Bulge took control of the IX and XXIX Tactical Air Commands from Vandenberg’s Ninth Air Force._
_The First Army’s hasty defense had been one of hole-plugging, last stands, and counterattacks to buy time. Although some were successful, these tactics had created organizational havoc within Hodges’ forces as divisional units had been committed piecemeal and badly jumbled._
_Ridgway wanted St. Vith’s defenders to stay east of the Salm, but Montgomery ruled otherwise. The 7th Armored Division, its ammunition and fuel in short supply and perhaps two-thirds of its tanks destroyed, and the battered elements of the 9th Armored, 106th, and 28th Divisions could not hold the extended perimeter in the rolling and wooded terrain. Meanwhile, Dietrich’s second wave of tanks entered the fray. The II SS Panzer Corps immediately threatened the Salm River line north and west of St. Vith, as did the LVIII Panzer Corps circling to the south, adding the 2d SS Panzer Division to its drive. Ordering the St. Vith defenders to withdraw through the 82d Airborne Division line to prevent another Schnee Eifel disaster, Montgomery signaled them that “they come back with all honor.”_
- Ardennes-Alsace by Roger Cirillo. US Army Center of Military History
“I find it difficult to refrain from expressing my indignation at Hodges and Ridgeway and my appreciation of Montgomery whenever I talk about St. Vith. It is my firm opinion that if it hadn't been for Montgomery, the First US Army, and especially the troops in the St. Vith salient, would have ended in a debacle that would have gone down in history.”_
_“I'm sure you remember how First Army HQ fled from Spa leaving food cooking on the stoves, officers' Christmas presents from home on their beds and, worst of all, top secret maps still on the walls... First Army HQ never contacted us with their new location and I had to send an officer to find them. He did and they knew nothing about us...[Montgomery] was at First Army HQ when my officer arrived. A liaison officer from Montgomery arrived at my HQ within 24 hrs. His report to Montgomery is what saved us...”_
- General Hasbrouck of 7th Armor - _“Generals of the Bulge”_ by Jerry D. Morelock, page 298.
Probably the best break down of the battle I've ever seen, I learnt a lot of the wider strategy and a greater understanding of the politics involved. The way you approached the subject as a student was excellent. Montgomery was a flawed man but an excellent commander in that he knew preparation and planning wins battles. It was definitely a US/Allied victory by the sheer fact that it decimated the Germans best men and material and prevented further counter attacks and weakened their ability to fight a holding action. In my opinion most senior officers on the Allied side at this point in the war had one eye on what jobs they'd be offered after the war ended. Montgomery on the other hand knew with nearly 30 years service that he'd be honourably retired shortly after the cessation of hostilities. Brilliantly done TIK and another subscriber for you. 🏴
Funnily enough, Monty didn't get to retire shortly after the cessation of hostilities. His role of Deputy at NATO took him into a whole new world for him.
@@sean640307 I never really understood why they chose him, probably the worst politician and fairly unlikeable in himself. I don't know much about that period, I'll look it up. Thanks
@@vonsprague7913 despite al of the usual stuff that gets thrown around about Montgomery, he was actually very capable. He lacked tact and had no qualms in stepping on toes of those that deserved it, but he was always the consummate professional soldier. NATO was in need of someone with serious military knowledge, as much as political nous - so the "head" was always someone like Eisenhower, who could tackle the political implications and Montgomery could then be left with the strategic aims to work on
Your Assessment is correct. There are people who do not want the truth because it is usually as nuanced as you've pointed out. Command rivalries, the lack of Sheaf paying attention to intelligence reports before the battle, a bit of arrogance on both sides, plus operational doctrine that was too rigid in some cases, all contribute to the confusion. Sorting this out was a massive and intense effort that you should be commended for!
Another excellent video. Your exceptional hard work is very much appreciated.
Americans just hate Monty tbh and American historians and even British historians have tarnished his reputation for decades. These same historians will put unlimited amounts of praise on Patton or Rommel with nowhere near as much criticism. Many of the blunders attributed to Monty weren't actually his fault.
The same was done to Haig in WW1. There is a lot of political history out there.
@@dulls8475 spot on mate. Haig played a major role in winning the war. And yet he’s disrespected. He was respected at the time and until his death. That’s when the haters come out when you can no longer defend yourself.
@@commando4481 With the release of the archives we are seeing a side to Haig that was hidden by dodgy historians who got the public ear.
@@commando4481 If you don't you need to follow the Western front organisation on U tube. Great Historians trying to show the true story of the Western front.
Very enjoyable commentary and the research is amazing, and additionally, so very knowledgeable and amazingly reported! Thank you!
My grandfather was apart of the 106th division that was captured in first few days of the bulge outside st vith. He spent the rest of war in a POW CAMP in bad orb germany eating pine needle soup he would always tell us
Pretty cool video dude! Keep up the great content!
As an American, I have no problem at all with the British involvement in the battle, in fact, I'm sad that they have been, for the most part, left out of it. So, I'm glad TIK and others in recent years have been correcting that. I'm happy they were able to help. And Montgomery, from what I've heard from TIK, did the right things. So in the end, an American victory, with some good British help.
Do a UA-cam search on: _"Britain's Battle of the Bulge - A Christmas Special"_
Anglo-American relations on a citizen level have improved significantly since the mid 20th century.
@@josephahner3031
How the UK had any relations with the USA after WW2 is beyond me.
@@johnburns4017 What do you mean?
Reneged on the A-bomb after the British told them how to make it. Asking for territory and demanded gold for supplies which was mainly raw materials, etc, etc.
Steve Zaloga did a talk about Elsenborn ridge (he wrote a book on it recently) which is on youtube. He also says he figures the lack of attention the Northern part of the bulge has traditionally gotten was largely due to Montgomery being in charge. Even though the North was the main thrust, where the majority of well equipped German units and Panzer Divisions (especially the SS ones, which Hitler favored at this point), the fact a British general was in overall command meant it was downplayed in favor of the battles in the south. This was largely due to the sway American commanders like Bradley had after the war to shape the initial historiography of the American experience in WWII, and especially since Bradley was in command in the South so this attention reflected well on him.
Unfortunately for the American soldiers and commanders who fought at places like Elsenborn Ridge and St. Vith, the importance of their stands were overshadowed by this pettiness. In reality the stand of the outnumbered US units there basically permanently derailed the German offensive within days of its opening. Much of what happened in the south wasn't that important, the Germans were aiming to go North to Antwerp.
Yes, someone else has just recommended that book to me too. I pretty much already agree with him though. You can tell by just looking at the map that the 6th Panzer Army was basically half of the offensive force, and barely went anywhere. If you look at this map images.app.goo.gl/1fseLBxGjqDwco218 you can see that the offensive was stopped at and around Elsenborn.
And I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only one to conclude that the north was neglected because Monty was in charge and because it was more complicated than the south. It's a shame because the north was more important.
@@TheImperatorKnight Yeah it is nice when there are other people who have come to similar conclusions as you. Quiets that little voice in your head going "I'm not crazy for thinking this right?"
@@TheImperatorKnight - my understanding of the 6.Panzerarmee's poor performance compared with the 5.Panzerarmee to the south was at least partly because the SS units in the former tended to use their reconnaissance battalions as additonal battlegroups, while their army counterparts in the south used them more effectively to recon the best routes. The 2.Panzer and Panzer Lehr (130.) Divisions penetrated much further, having by-passed Bastogne to almost within sight of the Meuse, and were stopped by essentially running out of fuel. The implication being that if army units had been on the northern routes they would have better exploited the open southern flank of 82nd Airborne instead of trying to batter it into submission on the Salm.
A good example of Ridgeway's disregard for the lives of the US troops under his command was the Battle of Hurtgen Forest which preceded the Battle of the Bulge and covered the German staging area for this battle. The US generals lost between 33,000 and 55,000 men against German losses of 28,000 and did not gain their objective, the Rur dam, and river. The US forces advanced into a forest where the tracks were difficult for tanks to give them support and were faced with German troops in prepared entrenched positions. The objective was to take the dam and prevent the Germans from flooding the ground the US army needed to cross to take Aachen. It is no wonder the Ukraine forces are losing so many troops by throwing them against fixed Russian positions if this is the same tactic taught them by USA trainers as they employed in WWII.
David Jarkeld
"Not one step back!" - Stalin .. no wait Ridgway ... or Bradley lol
Montgomery immediately assessed what the Germans were doing and their aims. This would have been passed to US high command. Bradley saying he never knew the Germans ultimate aim until after WW2 is hogwash.
Bastogne was on the German's extreme left flank. They bypassed the town leaving a light containment force at Bastogne, with focus towards the west where bigger fish were to fry, being stopped by Montgomery's 21st Army Group at Dinant.
The 18,000 inside Bastogne said themselves they were not relieved by Patton. They just walked out. The German commander of the containment force was scared stiff of the 18,000 attacking him, as he would have been overwhelmed. The 18,000 made no attempt to break out. The 18,000 in the town did not effect the course of the battle or its outcome, as they just stayed inside in warm buildings, while the smaller German containment force were outside in sub zero temperatures.
Bastogne had 18,000 inside, with artillery and armoured units. Bastogne was a crossroads to where? Bastogne was on the extreme left flank of the German advance. Much further left then you are in US lines. The Germans by-passed the town once they found resistance, as it was not worth holding up troops over. The Germans were going *west.* West was were their objectives where. The Meuse and Antwerp.
I have argued this point for a long time - Bastogne, for all the emotional crap that it carries, was a mere side show and is overblown in importance specifically to allow Bradley (and to a much lesser extent, Patton, but he really doesn't deserve any criticism as it wasn't his sector in the first place) to hide the colossal failure of the US chain of command. The forces facing off against Bastogne and that sector were little more than a security blanket to protect the left flank of the German push. It is also overplayed because of the "heroic" work of the 101st who needed "rescuing" by Patton. The truth is very different, but it's the only good news story that Bradley had so played it for all it was worth!
@@sean640307
Montgomery cabled Field Marshal Alan Brooke, chief of staff in London, that Patton’s attack _“went off half-cock”_ and predicted that the Germans would be able to keep going. In his diary on December 22, Brooke wrote:
_“German offensive appears to be held in the north”_ - now under Montgomery - _“but I am a little more doubtful about the south. Patton is reported to have put in a counter attack. This could only have been a half baked affair and I doubt it’s doing much good.”_
Decades later, Eisenhower recalled how Patton would telephone with progress reports, saying:
_“General, I apologize for my slowness. This snow is God-awful. I’m sorry.”_
Patton the master of movement the American say.
I think we were all getting ground down by Stalingrad as well. This is a great change of pace. I find that Monty's care and concern for the welfare of his men makes up for a lot of his defects and makes him a much more likable commander than most of the others once one understands that.
Interestingly, a lot of people are denying that aspect of his character, saying he was only doing it for selfish reasons.
@@TheImperatorKnight Then they really need to study Monty starting in World War 1.
@@TheImperatorKnight I find it interesting that Monty and MacArthur get criticized for their egos, while Patton usually (almost always?) gets a free pass on HIS ego...
I think it's largely because both Monty and Mac lost, sometimes, while most people seem to be of the opinion that Patton was "never wrong"... not to mention the fact that Patton never faced the kind of situations that both Monty and Mac had to face.
@@Nyet-Zdyes
Where did Monty lose?
Monty lost on the battlefield of public opinion. His autobiography is not regarded well at all.
One can also assert he lost Market-Garden (He blamed subordinates)
And should we consider Caen one of his victories? If so, it was pyrrhic, at best.
When one considers the (Ultra/Enigma) data/intelligence he had at his disposal during the second battle of El Alamein, one can assert all he did there was not screw up.
Battle of the Rhine by Robin Neillands covers this well. A great read. Although he is obviously a Monty fan he doesn't paper up his many faults - mainly social. He was great dealing with people under his command but a right pain to his peers and superiors. As Alanbrook said Monty needed dealing with firmly. Eisenhower let him (and patton and Bradley) get away with a lot before putting his foot down which he should have done more often.
Montgomery was right however that a desk man like Eisenhower should NEVER have taken over command of ground strategy and told him so. Eisenhower wouldn't listen, and the broad front failure was the result.
"No ground gained is ever relinquished "
Is this right? I can only find "was ever"
If correct, this would be an extraordinaryly stupid military motto
This was great! I learned more about the European theater in this hour than in my 62 years on earth.
Nice one TIK. The point to be borne in mind is that American Generals are political Generals. They often consider themselves as apprentice Presidents or at least Chiefs of Staff. This colours their reactions in the case of situations such as the Bulge. It’s what looks good to the US public.
By the way, my father was in the 6th BRITISH Airborne Division which was involved in the battle.
Spot on. American Generals love war because it furthers their career by being able to pin more shiny medals on their uniforms. If thousands of grunts have to die unnecessarily to get to the next stepping stone in their career well, that's not a problem.
@@bufordghoons9981 Nonsense
The US Army has many flaws but that is not one of them. Most US Army officers have, frankly, a contempt for elected officials and certainly no desire to become that themselves. Eisenhower was a huge exception.
Credit to Monty and Horrocks for deploying 30Corps along the river Meuse, ensuring a strong stop line between the Germans and Antwerp.
An overlooked aspect of the battle on the right flank of 6 Panzeearmee was that a couple of Volksgrenadier Divisions were to secure a hard shoulder projecting westward from Monschau on day 1 of the offensive.
Hodges didn't know it at the time but his attack towards the Roer Dams just before the Germans attacked. It really messed up the German plan here and KG Peiper's right flank was exposed when it should've been protected by this hard shoulder. Therefore. Nothing was preventing US forces from using the roads to Peiper's right flank effectively hemming his Kampfgruppe in as US forces weren't hindered in this sector.
Therefore. The battle was lost before it began.
I have to say. In the course of this video. I don't like Ridgway. Bradley as well. But I didn't have a high opinion of him from what I've heard of him in other documentary stuff he pops up in.
The Americans desperate need for prestige in this battle certainly doesn't help there case. And the idea this battle was a draw? That's interesting and a bold claim to make. Like to know more on this certainly. I would say in my opinion it was an allied victory. At some cost & embarrassment certainly but the Germans came off worse (lost good units, men & material) and failed to achieve their objectives.
I look forward to more on this TIK. And more on your Bank Wars series as well. See you around again soon. Take Care.
Yeah I'm not sure on the "draw" thing. I agree with Neillands on his assessment on Market Garden, but I'm not so certain about the Bulge.
And don't worry, I intend to do more BankWars stuff shortly.
In my (humble?) opinion any commander who goes to war thinking his forces will never need to retreat is a fool. Any commander whose subordinate is saying they cant hold the line but refuses to authorise a retreat is a fool. This is exactly the kind of thing that led to the Afrika Korp being shattered at El Alamein and ceasing to be an effective fighting force. How many American service men owed Monty their lives by ordering the withdrawl from St Vith and how many lost unnecessarily because of their superiors seeing them as nothing more than a chess piece on a board..
Ridgway can't have been too upset with Montgomery because Ridgway wrote this letter to Monty on January 17th 1945:
"It has been an honor and a privilege and a very great personal pleasure to have served, even so briefly, under your distinguished leadership. To the gifted professional guidance you at once gave me, was added your own consummate courtesy and consideration. I am deeply grateful for both. My warm and sincere good wishes will follow you and with them the hope of again serving with you in pursuit of a common goal"
Sourced from Monty and Patton, Two Paths To Victory by Michael Reynolds page 241.
Hi TIK, I know off subject. But I have been recently learning about Chinese contribution in far East. Against Japan and Thailand. Maybe a battle storm, especially around Changsha. I know you are choc-a-bloc. But maybe anyone from your Chinese viewership?
If you feel really down call your local Sudoku hot line.
many thanks, TIK, keep up the splendid work. And, sorry in advance, but taking advantage of your bringing up the Ardennes issue, I'd like to suggest that once you're done with Stalingrad... a sufficiently "different" issue would be the beginnings of the war and in the West: Fall Gelb would be an excellent battle for to a Battlestorm. I think especially from May 10 to 21. They are not many days (comparatively), but they are probably the most decisive moments of the whole war, since Germany could have been stuck in Sedan, and that would probably have changed everything quite a lot. The troop movements and the strategic decisions behind them, on the German, French and British sides, are truly fascinating.
44:54 "Sometimes attacking head-on against machine guns isn't the best thing to do." -TIK 2023
my boyfriend and i were in the Ardennes last week...
obviously we visited st Vith and Bastogne/Bastenaken (can't help myself, i'm Dutch!) and the wide surroundings. we also went to Luxembourg and visited various old battlefields throughout the Ardennes.
thank you TIK for this fine documentary on the topic of the battle of the bulge.
i already was aware of the role "monty" plaid in this fight and was delighted with your explanations...
Having visited this region on two occasions, one is left with little doubt the US forces put up a courageous fight. Bastogne itself (‘ Nuts’cafe) is a living US army museum and testimony including the’ star ‘monument and museum, to the 30000 odd troops who gave their lives. The Belgians however have a more balanced view of the battle and it’s enormous complexity within the museum at the monument. Sadly in the post war era our British version of history has without doubt been both subordinated and diminished to the US view . Even sometimes the conflict itself ; 39-45 (not as so oft quoted 41/2 -45) . Exploits weaponry … historians even ! etc all seem to be fair game, written out , or just simply lies, sadly sometimes transmitted to the big screen eg, (U 517 ??).
If you visit the superb museum at Roch en Ardenne and the beautifully maintained British cemetery at Hotton, the 3000 British soldiers lying there, though far fewer are testimony to the valuable role in-stopping the flight of the Germans to the north. Excellent photo at the Roch museum of the 51st Highlanders greeting the American units in Roche , explaining
Monty sent them south knowing thier ability to get the job done albeit in the last phases, in order to join with the brave US forces holding the battered town .
For the Germans despite being a highly capable foe , this was always a last throw of the dice , and without air superiority doomed at the outset.
I find it astonishing that Bradley did not expect the attack though the Ardennes, especially after 1940 and (even 1914 come to that) .Seems it was fairly well trodden path by late 1944 ( not 1942 ???? .Thanks for your excellent piece here.
1- american generals dont make mistakes
2- if they do it is monty's fault
Shhh, Don't tell the Americans about Patton at Metz, or about Clarkes failure to obey orders and letting the German 10th army escape all for a photo opportunity in Rome... Shhhh *wispers* Monty did it