Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
Mark ClarK
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Monday, 7th July 2008
I've just finished reading Alan Whicker's Whicker's War and he is very critical of Mark Clark (and the general in charge at Anzio, Corn-Cob someone).
So was Mark Clark about the worst allied general of the war whose vainglorious desire to liberate Rome extended the war in Italy by months and at the cost of thousands or extra allied dead? -
Message 2
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Monday, 7th July 2008
Darrenatwork -
Alan Whicker was very close to the truth about Mark Clark as being the worst General in WW2 - no critisism of this man can fully encompass his stiff necked attitude to his role as a Commanding General of anything least of all an Army.
It should be recalled that Patton has been fired for his abuse of his soldiers in Sicily and so when the Invasion of Italy was planned Clark was available and so took on the Salerno
Landings - a near debacle which was saved by the intervention of Gen Alexander.
Clark's hatred of all things British was well known and his treatment of the British Xth Corps in that landing led to the infamous "Salerno Mutiny" where the returning wounded of 8th army had been incorrectly sent to Salerno. Only the intervention of Gen Adams - the Adjutant General saved the ringleaders from execution, after a travesty of British army "Justice" in Phillpville.
Clark then went on towards Cassino with great losses of the British Xth corps at Garigliano- Minturno - the Guards Bde - and his own 36th Division at San Pietro - the film of which Battle is banned from being shown at his Alma Mater of West Point.The first Battle of Cassino has been well reported and so we can avoid that.
Then came his Anzio Landings where he cautioned the Commanding General - John P Lucas to "not stick his neck out" The British 46 & 56th Div Commanders advised him to push onto the high ground but Lucas stuck his neck "in" and the killing began !
Alexander then advised that Lucas be replaced and so Lucian Truscott took over and eventually the condition were timely that they should break out of Anzio - drive towards Valmontone - act as an anvil for the hammer of US 2nd Corp - the French Corps and all of 8th Army driving up the Liri valley and cut off two German armies.
Clark then ordered Truscott - against all orders - to turn left and liberate Rome, he then cut down the signpost for 'Roma' and had it sent to his home in California. Meanwhile two German Armies escaped annhilation- we then went on to the Gothic Line with 14,000 casualties for 8th army.
The tragedy of this man was that he finally took over both 5th US army and the British 8th army after Alex had been promoted Supreme Commander for the Middle East - but it was his hated 8th Army Commander - McCreery(the feather duster) who finished the campaign in Italy at the Argenta gap.
Clark went on to Command in Korea - and we all know what happened there !
So don't get me started on that man -
Message 3
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 8th July 2008
Luckily, by the time he took command in Korea, that war had reached a stalemate which not even Clark could muck up.
-
Message 4
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Tuesday, 8th July 2008
Can I put Gen. Percival of Singapore and several French & Soviet commanders of 1940 & 1941 respectively, up for consideration, please.
-
Message 5
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Tuesday, 8th July 2008
Warsaw Pact -
Of course anyone can be added as the initial question was " was Mark Clark the worst"....he was not alone as it seemed at the time that he was in good company -
Unfortunately the Americans appeared at the time to have a monopoly on incompetance - I say appeared as I have no doubt that I shall be shot down very quickly... someone will come up with percentage rates....
IF I mention Fredendal at Kasserine - Patton and Bradley at Gabes - Patton at Palermo and Falaise -Lucas at Anzio - Brereton at Ahrnem - Collins and Gerow at the Huertgen Forest - Hodges at the Bulge...it's a long list...as well we could throw in Alan Cunningham in the Desert - Mountbatten at Dieppe - Leese at the Gothic Line...it's a long list ! -
Message 6
Posted by Tom Hreben (Ex Raybans13) (U8719631) on Tuesday, 8th July 2008
About the French generals of 1939/40, a highly true and relevant statement. They were all elderly men thinking of fighting the next war like the one that that had fought in as young men. However, when the Free French began to form at about 42 (in any serious size) they were replaced but much better and younger men who understood the nature of the war. Men such as Jean De Lattre De Tassigny and Leclerc. About the Russian generals of the 1941 era, I iknow that theyy were pretty useless but to what extent? who were they?
Tom Hreben -
Message 7
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Tuesday, 8th July 2008
I find it hard to understand how a man who, as you pointed out, had such a hatred and petty view of all things british could be put in charge.
Not a good format to start a war on, I think his manner would rub staff up the wrong way. Surley a poor start.
And Tom Hrebans comment about Leclerc etc: interesting, always thought he must have had a wish to hunt down gerry at all costs. But that would go for all who had lost his homeland. -
Message 8
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Tuesday, 8th July 2008
Wynberglad-
Not too difficult to understand - why Clark was put in charge in Italy - by that time the Americans were in the majority - not in Italy but in NW Europe - the hatred of all things British was not uncommon as it was a "trickle down " effect but most kept it very well hidden...you must remember that on their first meeting, Churchill asked FDR if his intention was to "do away" with the British Empire - the answer came much later in a book by FDR's son " the reason so many Americans are dying in the Pacific area is owing to the greed of the British - French and Dutch Empires in the East - we must not allow that again "
Those Empires were then replaced by the American Empire post war !
Marshal and King felt that the Italian campaign was Churchill's effort to expand the Empire into the Balkans so we had only half hearted support from them with King having the last word on Landing Craft units - we should have been landing all over both coasts instead of slogging up the middle ! -
Message 9
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Tuesday, 8th July 2008
Again I say thank you Trooper Tom. I have always been very shall I say uneasy over American thinking then and now. As a child of the Empire you have given me much to dwell on, for though I saw no war as you did, I did see much blood shed as a child when the brits pulled out from the far east. So sir to bed, and to dwell on more facts.
-
Message 10
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
Clark鈥檚 breakthrough to Rome probably cost the Germans a great deal more losses than they would have suffered had 5th Army fought its way eastward to cut off German forces. Incidentally, doing so would have exposed 5th Army鈥檚 left flank to an unfought enemy 鈥 a very dangerous manoeuvre.
If it was true that Clark鈥檚 decision to turn north and take Rome allowed large numbers of Germans to escape, why did none of his fellow commanders criticise him for it, either publicly or privately? Alex didn鈥檛 even though Clark supposedly disobeyed his orders to do so. Kesselring certainly didn鈥檛 consider it to be a let off, but a disaster 鈥 it collapsed his right flank as well as his left.
Finally, if Clark was so bad, why did Alexander unreservedly recommend him as his replacement when he was promoted? -
Message 11
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
Clankylad -
your posting sounds like you are a games player who hasn't the faintest idea of what went on in those far off days when History goes diametrically opposed to what you have written.
1) - it was NOT 5th Army which was asked to fight Eastwards towards Valmontone - it was US V1 Corps under Lucian Truscott - of which a part was the British X corps of 1st and 5th Divisions - which had been left on the coast to fight northwards.
2) - the dangerous manoeuvre of an exposed left flank of that corps was faced with the "unknown" enemy of Herman Goering Pz Div - it was all that Kesslering had left -rushing down from the Florence area under almost constant air raids - by our superior Air Forces when the Luftwaffe was virtually non existent at that time.
3) "IF IT WAS TRUE" - how dare you sir to call me and hundreds of Historians - Liars !
4) It was not the "form" to criticise - if you were to read a bit of this campaign - you will find that when Harold Macmillan - the future PM of Britain - who was the Political Liason to AFHG and acting as Churchill's eyes and ears - asked Gen Alexander
"what do you intend to do about Clark's disobedience - he reports that for the first time he saw Alex lose his temper and answer - "what can I do !" .....if you can learn anything from History then you must understand that in June '44 - the Americans were finally achieving a majority of troops in Europe- and were not slow in flexing their muscles ! Rome was "liberated" June 4th '44 - D Day in Normandy June 6th '44 !
5) - This "disobedience by Clark " did not bother Kesselring too much and far from collapsing his right or left flanks - 8th army had already pierced his Hitler and Gustav lines - the French Corps was running uninterrupted over the Aurunci Mountains- the US 2nd Corps was making it's way up the West coast- the ONLY thing Kesslering could do was an orderly withdrawel to a better defended area through Valmontone - Narni - Terni and Rieti toward Perugia on his orderly retreat to his newly built Gothic line at Pesaro - Spezia. Granted owing to those escape routes - the action at Valmontone MIGHT NOT have destroyed his TWO armies - but it would have weakened them extensively from further action at the Gothic Line - which it is said - was a greater battle than any of the four at Cassino.
6)- Why didn't his fellow commanders object ? - but they did, if again you would read history - The Gothic line assault was planned by Gen. John Harding - who - I am sure you will recall was instrumental in creating Monty's "corps de chasse" of 1st - 7th and 10th Armoured divisions for the follow up at El Alamein - who was then wounded and sent back to the U.K to recuperate. On full recovery - he was then sent out to Italy by Gen. Alan Brooke to act as Chief of Staff to Gen Alexander - anyway - he planned the Gothic Line battle wherein BOTH 5th and 8th Armies were to punch through at the Florence area - Gen. Oliver Leese - Commander of 8th Army - refused to serve alongside Clark and thus pleaded with both Alex and Harding - on the airfield at Orvieto - to send 8th army along the Eastern coast of the Adriatic and finally join up with 5th army in a pincer movement at Bologna in the Po valley - and the rest is ,of course - History.
7) - Alex had very little to say in the promotion of Clark to command of 15th Army group - Gen Marshall by this time - Nov. '44 had Ike in command of NW Europe forces - which then had an American majority and so an American just HAD to be in command in Italy....besides - it is reported that Clark was Marshall's nephew ! Keep in all in the family perhaps ?
Sorry but your posting is not a very good alternative to History !
Cheers -
Message 12
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
Oh I do apologise. I thought I was entitled to an opinion based on my appreciation of what happened. Clearly I was wrong and this board just exists for you to post your tiresome rants.
Do us all a favour and get stuffed. -
Message 13
Posted by Bashfulsmudger (U11287440) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
Clankylad,
Yes everyone is allowed their opinion. That is, thanks to soldiers like Tom Canning and many others like him, including my late father, thousands of whom gave their lives so that you can participate in free speech, like this message board.
I and perhaps many others who have read your post in message 12, consider it to be insulting.
Go and search the web widely and read books on that man Clark, then you will be better able to understand all the soldiers who were directly and indirectly affected by clarks decisions.
Bashfulsmudger -
Message 14
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
Clankylad -
That is a typical reaction by some people who have been asked to read a subject of which they are obviously in total ignorance - this board does exist for reasoned opinions - and my "tiresome rants" have - in the past - been appreciated by many more people who have some knowledge and are desirous of expanding that knowledge.
Now - if you can fault any of the arguements that I have put forward then possibly we can have a reasonable debate...this is very doubtful as you have asked me the "get stuffed"
by which I would assume that you intend to insult me.
I should however point out that after 40 years in the sales filed - I have been insulted by experts... and therefore your attempt falls very far short of that mark.
Cheers -
Message 15
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
clankylad.
From your title I take it you are younger than me.
First lesson I did learn, mainly at the hands of my father. was to listen to those who had experience of war, HISTORY and records should be looked at with an open mind read both sides an then form a fair view to the past.
I even in my advanceing years would not dare to speak in that manner, My dads fist made sure that i did not argue. Lesson Listen Read Mark & Learn. -
Message 16
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
"First lesson I did learn, mainly at the hands of my father. was to listen to those who had experience of war, HISTORY and records should be looked at with an open mind read both sides an then form a fair view to the past."
Really? Well, I don't take kindly to being patronised. I just thought it might be worth introducing an element of debate to the smug 'oh weren't the yanks incompetent!' circle-jerk of received opinion that this thread was deteriorating into. Clearly I was mistaken and we're here to be lectured, not for a discussion. -
Message 17
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
Clankylad -
Have to give you full marks for persistence - my most humble apologies if you feel that I was patronising you in my response to your posting. I thought I was puttng you on the track of the true facts of the subject rather than your perceived outcome.
If you feel that this web was descending into an "oh weren't the Americans incompetent" web then you obviously have not read any further back to my posting where I wrote that we British also had incompetents - and I quoted Alan Cunningham - not for his actions in Ethiopia but rather his guidance of 8th Army in the desert - Mountbatten in his rush to Dieppe when others - much more experienced in warfare had already cancelled that operation - and also Gen Oliver Leese - not for his handling of XXX corps in the desert from El Alamein to Sicily - but his actions at the Gothic line - when we had enough problems owing to the incompetence of US Gen. Mark Clark.
If perhaps you can put up with another tiresome rant from me then do please have a look at US Gen Fredendal at Kasserine and the others mentioned in that particular rant. You will perhaps understand that the US had more of them than many other nationalities - of course the other side of that particular rant is that they had more Generals than many others - to be fair!
Cheers -
Message 18
Posted by Tom Hreben (Ex Raybans13) (U8719631) on Wednesday, 9th July 2008
Clankylad,
a small thing that I feel makes history and its study worthwhile:
The past has shaped the present, the present will shape the future and it is instudying the past that we will be better able to avoid the mistakes of the pas or replicas thereof.
Tom Hreben -
Message 19
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 10th July 2008
Tom Hreben,
Do you really think we learn from the past?
I rather think not.
If we had learned from the past we would not now be axle deep in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our troops would not be using inadequate supplies, poorly paid and families living in what could be called slum dwellings.
I would not be reading that half the forces want to leave, morale is so low.
Nothing seems to have changed from my time in the forces, governments still want a first class job for minimum cost.
As for useless Yanks I well remember our thoughts on it all. The French knocked off for long lunches, the Dutch could not see to shoot for their long hair, the Italians were good runners and the Yanks could not be seen for the smoke haze from their whiffs. I guess that left us as the only ones available had the Russians come.
All hooy of course but we all percieve things in different ways and in my experience never learn from the past, well at government level.
Frank. -
Message 20
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Thursday, 10th July 2008
To be fair to the 'Yanks', in the years prior to WW2 their army was even smaller than ours (I may be wrong here) so in the rapid expansion of the 40's there were bound to be a few duffers found wanting. Look at our experiences in the early years, we had a few crocks of our own, but I would expect by 1943 these would have been weeded out through exposure to Operations, which is something the US didn't get (in yoorope) until November 42 in North Africa, so it's understandable that some of their leaders might have been less than capable in the early years of the war (for them) - how could it be otherwise?
It's a similair situation today with the 'Blue on Blue' problems, since there's gazillions more American fingers on triggers and buttons, the law of averages are going to say those from the Land of Sam will be involved more than say.. the Japanese (as an example). Of course their rules of engagement might be a little more elastic than ours, but that's a seperate issue... -
Message 21
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Thursday, 10th July 2008
This is lifted from the ever reliable Wikipedia
on the liberation of Rome
On the evening of May 25 Truscott received new orders from Clark via his Operations Officer, Brigadier Don Brand. These were鈥 turn the main line of attack ninety degrees to the left. Most importantly, although the attack towards Valmontone and Route 6 would continue, 1st Armored were to withdraw to prepare to exploit the planned breakthrough along the new line of attack leaving 3rd Division to continue towards Valmontone with 1st Special Service Force in support. Clark informed Alexander of these developments late in the morning of May 26 by which time the change of orders was a fait accompli. <>
At the time, Truscott was shocked, writing later "...I was dumbfounded. This was no time to drive to the north-west where the enemy was still strong; we should pour our maximum power into the Valmontone Gap to insure the destruction of the retreating German Army. I would not comply with the order without first talking to General Clark in person. ...[However] he was not on the beachhead and could not be reached even by radio*....such was the order that turned the main effort of the beachhead forces from the Valmontone Gap and prevented destruction of the German Tenth Army. On the 26th the order was put into effect.". He went on to write "There has never been any doubt in my mind that had General Clark held loyally to General Alexander's instructions, had he not changed the direction of my attack to the north-west on May 26, the strategic objectives of Anzio would have been accomplished in full. To be first in Rome was a poor compensation for this lost opportunity.
From my reading of Whicker's War it seems that Clark's decision to disobey his orders was for himself, at the head of US forces, to liberate Rome and personally receive the attendant glory**. Whilst I'm not acquanted with the stories of the other allied generals on the "worst of" list above so this may be incorrect; but I can't think of any that were bad persuing their own glory rather than just through incompetent/cowardly/over-cautious leadership.
*According to Alan Whicker this unavailability was deliberate on Clark鈥檚 part.
**Apparently Clark had Military Police stationed to keep none US military personnel out of Rome.
PS how does one do bold and italic text (if possible)? I tried using HTML code ... but didn't work in the preview pane. -
Message 22
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Thursday, 10th July 2008
Darrenatwork -
Your posting appears to sum up the whole arguement very well - it is also held in conventional wisdom that Clark issued an order which stated that his troops should "fire on any British Troops who tried to enter Rome".....
Regarding others on the "worst" list - see Patton's rush to Messina - which gave us a few giggles - in the course of which he made three beach landings to face the enemy - well no - he was met on all the beaches by the troops of Bradley's 2nd corps and Walker's 36th Division...but that was just a giggle - Rome was serious !
Cheers -
Message 23
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 11th July 2008
I脮m definitely not the person who would criticize Americans simply because they脮re Americans - in fact, that脮s the last thing I脮d do. But I was in Korea, and while I never actually met Clark, I talked with several officers (mainly field grade ) who had talked with him.
I have my own opinion of MacArthur, and we脮ll not go into that here. I was able to attend several group briefings conducted by Ridgeway, and he was IMO, an insightful, very competent general. Those who met Clark said simply that the man was an idiot. Like MacArthur, they said, he was a glory-hound and had a monumental ego, but unlike MacArthur, he was not a brilliant man. MacArthur was a remarkably intelligent man, they continued, but he had some huge failings. First of all, he was afflicted with megalomania, but lots of generals have that problem. His worst one was surrounding himself with toadies who ran interference for him and would tell him only things that they knew he wanted to hear. Contradicting him was simply anathema. They wouldn脮t do it, and they wouldn脮t let anyone who would anywhere near him. Unfortunately, his sycophantic advisers lacked his foresight and abilities, and he listened to them far too often.
Trooper, you say by the time Clark got to Korea he couldn脮t screw it up. Well, you脮re wrong. He not only could screw up, he did - repeatedly. Clark wouldn脮t listen to anyone. Orders from higher up (all the way to Marshall and/or Truman) were ignored if he didn脮t like them. Often, I was told, he simply didn脮t bother reading them. His tactical intellect didn脮t exist, or if it did, it was never used. The Chinese communists had a technique that they had used all through their civil war and used repeatedly in Korea. They脮d fight until they were exhausted or had run out of front-line troops, and they脮d agree to a temporary cease-fire and agree to negotiate. They脮d talk. They脮d say nothing important, just rattle on, the idea being that they used the time to regroup and rebuild their forces with new hordes of Chinese recruits. When they were all set to go again, they脮d leave the negotiations and another attack would begin.
The first time they did that, I guess it MIGHT be excusable. The second time, a good commander should be suspicious enough to let his command know that there was a potential danger. Not Clark. He went back to Japan and rested. The third time, you脮d think a commander with the I.Q. of a tire iron would assume it was going to happen again and either stop the talking or let it go on, but would alert his subordinate commanders that they could probably expect another attack shortly and bolster his lines. Mark never seemed to catch on, and we were caught with our pants down every damned time. Why he was not relieved, I don脮t know, but the fact that he rose through the ranks to General so rapidly suggests that he had some very powerful political friends.
His performance at Salerno was disgraceful, and why he was given a command at Anzio is absolutely unbelievable. His self-aggrandizing insubordination cost so many allied lives there that imo he should have been court- martialed and dismissed from the army in disgrace. -
Message 24
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Saturday, 12th July 2008
Erik Lidsay/Trooper Tom & Darrenatwork.
My God I am left in a state of shock, sorry to say from my dealings with American officers I found them to be very patronizing and often very ill mannered. One is left wondering how in a country like the USA he could have got that far, in fact allowed to continue.
Thank God I did not get sent to Korea. -
Message 25
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 12th July 2008
Wynberglad -
I share your relief at being rejected for the Korean fiasco....
Erik 鈥
As always 鈥 your comments invariably lead me to chuckle 鈥 love the comparison Clark 鈥 Tire Iron 鈥 however most Tire Irons can be very useful !
A small correction though as I did not claim that Clark screwed up in Korea 鈥 that was 鈥 White Camry in message # 3 - who felt that the situation was all screwed up before Clark got there 鈥 would tend to disagree with him though for as far as I can understand the situation鈥idgeway took a parallel course to Monty in the Desert when he took a dispirited US 8th Army 鈥 fired a few negative chiefs 鈥 then brought some aggression back into their ranks. Then Clark took over !
Would agree with Ridgeway being a good head but was led astray at the 鈥淏ulge鈥 by Collins who had been 鈥渁sked鈥 by Monty to retire from the battle and create a four division corps for the inevitable counter attack 鈥 Collins a la Clark dis-obeyed and coerced Ridgeway to join him to combat all the way 鈥 鈥 they wuz whupped鈥 鈥 and Monty had to start again leading to more invective for being too slow.
MacArthur I always felt was a dictator 鈥 but a brilliant strategist 鈥 and about the only one along with Nimitz , Alanbrooke obviously felt the same as he acknowledged in his Diaries and was the ONLY member of the Joint Chiefs to ever visit Mac immediately after the war in Japan ended 鈥 he would not listen to anyone under him鈥hereas Clark did 鈥 now and again 鈥 and made sure it was all their fault for everything that went wrong as it usually did !
The nearest Clark came to being reprimanded was at the Congressional Enquiry into the fiasco at San Pietro 鈥 near Cassino - when his own 36th (Texas) division were slaughtered and lost something like 2000 men inside 24 hours 鈥 strangely it was Lucien Truscott who stood up for him and he was cleared 鈥 but that film by John Huston of that battle is never shown at West Point.
It has been said that Clark was a relative of George Marshal therefore
Eisenhower would have protected Clark after both Salerno and Anzio and as Alexander- admitted to MacMillan when asked about the dis-obedience 鈥 鈥淲hat can I do ?鈥 鈥 had the same question been posed to Alanbrooke 鈥 the answer might have been the same as by that time Marshall was cracking the whip with the American majority in the field.
Blood is thicker than water ! -
Message 26
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Saturday, 12th July 2008
Hi wynberglad:
I don't blame you for not wanting to have been part of that Korean mess. A lot of the fighting and probably most of the casualties that were incurred were unnecessary. IMO the war was prolonged beyond what was necessary and beyond what the U.N. resolution ordered.
I believe also that the position that we lost that war is due almost exclusively to MacAthur's post-war rantings. After he returned to the U.S., MacArthur insisted that we had lost that war because he wasn't permitted to do what he wanted to do (invade Manchuria and probably instigate a war with China and maybe Russia). He's the primary reason so many people are convinced that we, the allies, lost the Korean war.
We didn't - at least not in my opinion. We did what we were sent there to do. According to the U.N. resolution, our job was to drive the NK back where it belonged, and to free the South Koreans from North Korean (read communist) occupation. That's what we did. If MacArthur had stopped the U.N. troops at the 38th parallel, I believe the war would have been over before the end of 1950 and a lot of lives would have been saved.
The ROK troops were pretty good by the time the fighting around Seoul was finished, and the NK troops were broken and in retreat everywhere. The ROK troops were mad as hell and they might have been able to unify the country. An invasion of NK by South Korean troops probably wouldn't have upset the Chinese, but it certainly would have been a set-back for Stalin. I wonder what he'd have done?
In any case, we'd have been out of there.
As for U.S. officers being arrogant, I personally never found them to be so. Some were, of course, but most were extremely cooperative and more than generous. Generally speaking, I got more pomposity from the British officers than from the U.S. ones.
I've often wondered if an overwhelming ego and a desire for adoration isn't a sine qua non for promotion to general officer rank. D'ya think it's possible that it simply develops as the officer climbs upward? So many WW1 and WW2 general officers seem to have required crowds of hero-worshippers and to have had such enormously-inflated egos that you can't help but be curious. -
Message 27
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Generals,Desire for adoration!! hero worship! oh yes thats so true. Pomposity from Brit Offices yes I did come accross that as well but mainly from the officer college type though my C.Os were not all pompous Bar one who was in charge of a T.R. at Catterick.
But Back to Clark he cut down a signpost and sent it home now thats vanity, his order to fire on any british troops who tried to enter Rome? was he on our side?
(Trooper Tom) Also find it hard to swallow, comment greed of the British French & Dutch Empires causing the death of Americans.
The Japs were Fighting in China a very nasty war, this caused the League of Nations to block Trade with Japan and America was the main leader in that action.
Thanks to you And Erick, Darren, Bashfulsmudder Also Tom Hrebans we are able to keep truth alive. -
Message 28
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Wyngerblad / Erik...
Pomposity from British Officers ? - of course - it was ingrained in many after hundreds of years of lower ranks tugging their forelocks to the "Squire"...which was difficult for many not raised in that atmosphere to grasp...- impossible for Australians - most British just shrugged their shoulders...the other problem was the armchair Generals sitting at Editors desks demanding "news" from the front - see Ingersoll and Haskins - both newspaper men and PA's - treatment of Bradley after the "Bulge" and the "need" for an American hero and the condemnation of Monty at that time!
Empire's "greed" in the Far East - it was quoted in a book by Elliott Rooseveldt - can't lay my hand on it at this time as he was a "front" for his Mother's output of murder mysteries..but it was quoted !
Truth is always the first casualty in war but appears commonplace to-day when we have a Cardinal of the RC Church lecturing graduates of a leading College that "Unity is more important than Truth" - OUCH !
Cheers -
Message 29
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Thanks Tom.
I was going to carry on but had an iterruption from my son wanting the computer,move over old man.
I was very keen to follow on with comparison of Clark with others of the same times, and the view I am forming Monty got all the brick bats and he was the opposite of Clark or Patton he seem to be a far more forward thinking and careful commander. Patton was far to pushy and seemed reckless in going forward and not preparing for the follow up.
Clark WELL!!!! do I get the view that he was vain as well as nuts. -
Message 30
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 13th July 2008
Gents, Good day all...
Interesting byplays in this thread.
Trooper, there seems little doubt that MacArthur was a brilliant man altho' he was human and did make some egregious mistakes early in WW2. I think they were due mainly to his conceit and personal ego. Yet I cannot imagine a more perfect man to install as military governor of Japan after war's end. I cannot identify a single error he made during his tenure there as the country's leader, and he did many highly praiseworthy things indeed. (But I still don't like him).
Patton was another egomaniac that war seems to bring to the fore. Naetheless, I have to admit that his handling of 3rd army in Europe was masterful. He's been criticized many times by historians for just charging wildly ahead and failing to properly guard his flanks, and that certainly was true. A determined assault by a well-equipped foe might easily have cut off his spearheads and could have been catastrophic. However, I think we have to acknowledge that he knew what the German army was capable of at that time, and also what allied air power could do. We had an absolutely fabulous control of the air during Patton's drive through France, and I think he knew he could depend on the air forces to interdict any serious flank attack by the Germans - which is, in fact, exactly what happened. It took a couple of days and a huge number of sorties by allied a/c to scuttle von Kluge's attack on his flank, but scuttle it they did. -
Message 31
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Monday, 14th July 2008
wynberglad:
This is a messageboard, not the village pub or porch step. There we know a bit about the speaker by reputation. None of us know anything about anyone posting here but what they claim about themselves and that they have an internet connection. We don't know if we are listening to the hero of Guadacanal or 16 year old teenager who claims to be so. We don't know if we are reading the posts of a retired professor of history or a someone on the hospital ward of prison with access to a computer.
Every comment stands on it's own in terms of it's reasonable and it's connection to verifiable or at least plausible claimed facts.
No opinion is entitled to deference based on who the speaker is (or claims to be). If someone is in the habit of being deferred to based on age or experience, they will be happier confining their comments to a venue where people know of that age and experience other than on their own testimony.
Here, a pompous rant is just a pompous rant. Those who blow a gasket at being questioned, who overreact with "how dare you call me a liar" soon find their own fine evaluation of their wisdom confirmed because people who do actually come here to learn and listen just go on to other threads without bothering to even read when they see the name.
I had an uncle who fought in North Africa, Sicily, and then from June 6 until the end in Europe. He never ranted about the strategic issues of the war because he knew that he didn't know anything personally about that. He knew what he saw and experienced with his own eyes and when he spoke with authority, he confined his remarks to those matters. He offered up his opinions about generals and strategy at times but never offered it as anything but his or his fellows opinion.
He had the wisdom to see that being in a foxhole in the Ardennes forest made him an expert on being in a foxhole in the Ardennes forest, not on what was happening at headquarters.
When I wrote a paper for school on the Battle of the Bulge, he told me of his experiences, of what he heard happened elsewhere with the appropriate disclaimer of second hand information, and then asked ME what I had learned in my readings that authors were saying about it. (And yes, some of his experiences contradicted what I found then but conform to more recent accounts of what happened in his sector).
Was he entitled to sound off as the WW2 all around expert of the family? Sure he was. Would we have treated his with respect and not argued? Sure. But we would have eventually come to see him as an old fool. Instead, those of us who lived near and spent a lot of time with him saw him as a wise man who rose inestimably in our eyes when only upon his death, did my aunt display his two bronze stars and one silver star which he had always forbid her to speak of, even to his children. -
Message 32
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Hey, Kurt:
Everything you say here is certainly true, but may I (respectfully) inquire as to what brought on this outburst? I have found your posts to be authoritative and based on an obviously substantial knowledge of that subject which you address, expressed in excellent literary style. I suggest, based on this, that you generally have considerable knowledge, both background and surface, of that which you speak. It's usually pretty easy to tell whether or not the person writing has a handle on what they're talking about.
So which one of us are you slamming? -
Message 33
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Kurt.
Well Thank You, so as Erik said what brought on this outburst. Every comment stands on its own terms True.
So Did I blow a Gasket and Call Anyone A Liar.
NO WAY Please go back and check who did.
As for making out that I am some sort of Hero go back again see MY comment re Korea.
I give all due RESPECT to those who served no matter what Nation they came from.
BUT as a person who is well past the big 70,I to had relatives who gave much to our freedom, yes their lives as well. So Sir I do take offence at your rant.
Wynberglad -
Message 34
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Erik -
Kurt and I - "the pompous old fool" had a run in some time ago when I dared to criticise yet another American hero-and I haven't heard from him in a few weeks - but now we have been criticising Both Clark, Patton along with MacArthur.
Like the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster - Kurt - who is noted on these boards as being most erudite on very many subjects - obviously believes the "Unity is more important than Truth "!
While it is true that I am old at 84 years - it is also true - like his "old fool" of an uncle - served in North Africa - Italy where I shed some blood - and finally Austria.
At that time it is also true that while serving in a Churchill tank with limited vision - I did NOT know what was going on at headquarters
but like many thousands of others - including Kurt - read quite a few books in order to learn just what had happened.
Consequent to that very long study - formed opinions of who did what - and why - and how many Generals and others failed their charges.
An unfortumnate result of this is my belief that many Americans were boosted into these positions without too much background education in the art of war. Their 90 day wonders failed them no less than their Generals.
This is why Kurt has taken exception to myself - so now I do believe that he would be much happier if we went along with the popular Hollywood stories of the invincibility of the US forces ans so we can expect further blasts.
I gave on Kurt a long time agao - and he agreed that it would be a good thing - but here he goes again ! My "pompous rant" - the words of an obvious pimply 15 year old who suggested that I "get stuffed" must have really stung him !
Cheers -
Message 35
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Erik Lindsay & Trooper Tom.
Many thanks again gentlemen, the fact that Kurt had addressed me,I took the view that I was in his sights. Trooper Tom I would not call you a liar, and the point I was trying to make is that I am Forming The View of certain facts. I think those were my words.
Can I just point out that in 1952(national service time) I joined the R.C.S.Due to the fact that I was over heard flirting with a NAFFI girl in French by my troop officer (being a Yorkshire Lass she did not understand a word spoken) for this reason I belive I got my posting to France.
Just thought I'put that in for a laugh.
Others were not so lucky Korea Malaya Kenya etc: -
Message 36
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Wynberglad / Erik
While it is true that Kurt addressed you the message was very clear to me - what I found surprising - coming from a well educated and most erudite person - was the fact that he took my statement - "how dare you call me a liar" - out of context!
Clanklylad had written - "if it were true" - thus challenging my veracity - to which I responded - " how dare you call me a liar Sir - along with thousands of Historians"- see messages #'s 10 - 11.
You were lucky indeed with your knowledge of the French language - mine only went as far as "la route per la toilette svp"
didn't get me too far - but enough and in time !
Cheers -
Message 37
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Trooper Tom.
Yes I Hope that served you well, my school boy french got me two things, a posting to France and a smack. Thats Life!!! -
Message 38
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Monday, 14th July 2008
Erik 鈥
Couldn鈥檛 agree more on MacArthur 鈥 both he and Nimitz were the only two who had any strategic capability and his handling of the Japanese of all ranks was an exercise in faultless diplomacy.
Patton - I still have reservations as I recall too well his take over from Fredendal after Kasserine and his failure at Gabes 鈥 which is perhaps not too well known鈥ut after the Medenine fiasco when all three Panzer Divisions 鈥 i.e 10th - 15th and 21st of the Afrika corps were badly mauled by Monty 鈥 they went back to El Hamma above the Mareth Line for a partial re-fit. Shortly thereafter Monty designed the 鈥渓eft hook鈥 around the Mareth with the Kiwis鈥 and 1st armoured and the first DAF 鈥楥ab rank鈥 Air support 鈥 all under Brian Horrocks - the first British Blitzkreig.
Pattons task was to come over from the Western Hills in an almost straight line towards the coastal town of Gabes 鈥 and hold off the understrength 10th Pz Div 鈥 and seal the escape of the 15th and 21st鈥.. he 鈥渨uz whupped鈥 and the Afrika Corps escaped to fight on.
Now to bring that up-to-date we can see the similarities in 鈥 Desert Storm鈥 whereby the French Divison held off the fleeing Iragi Guards from escaping to Baghdad and the Iraqi Guards were annihilated before they reached the French Lines ! That should have happened in March 鈥43 to the Africa Corps BUT we had to do it all again from Medjez el Bab 鈥 Tunis 鈥 Cap Bon 鈥 in May 鈥43 with a combined force of 1st and 8th armies 鈥 again under Brian Horrocks !
Then of course there was Palermo 鈥 three landings on the coast without an enemy 鈥 then the race to Messina 鈥 instead of fighting Germans around Catania
But the biggest song and dance was at Bastogne when he turned his army 鈥 or was it just one division..corps ? - left inside 48 hours to help the besieged paratroops there., this was in the 21st December am I right in saying ??? The German 7th Army was not too impressed ! Lets look at a few facts here.
It was around 10 am 鈥 16th December when Monty was alerted to the German breakthrough with what appeared to be two German Panzer armies and an Infantry army - the 7th !
Before noon of that same day 鈥 Monty had alerted Brian Horrocks to get his XXX corps ready to move to the Meuse as that seemed to be where the enemy was heading.
Now Horrocks and his XXX corps were on the coast鈥iles away鈥.so that meant he had to cross the administrative tails of the Canadian Corps of Five Divisions 鈥 3 Cdn and 2 Polish 鈥 the 2nd Army鈥檚 tails of V111 and X11 corps or six divisions鈥.and he was in position at the Meuse by the 22nd December ready for all comers with his own three divs plus an enlarged 51st Highland 鈥 the 6th Paras and two tank brigades. Each bridge over the Meuse was protected by a battalion of 57 Tanks 鈥 from ONE tank bde, the other in reserve - some with 17 pounders and a few of the old 3.7 AA guns finally converted to Anti-tank capability ! THAT was Monty !
Monty was called many things for firing so many Colonels鈥 but what do you expect when a Colonel is asked 鈥渨ho does the training in this Battalion鈥 and the answer is that the task is that of the 2 i/c 鈥 when later on meeting the 2 i/c 鈥 the same question is posed - to be informed that the Colonel looks after all training 鈥 someone has to be fired 鈥 to-day !
Sorry Kurt 鈥 but them鈥檚 the facts 鈥 as I see them of course, but Hollywood will never agree !
Cheers -
Message 39
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 15th July 2008
"Oh dear" dont like the message shoot the mesenger.
Tom a good friend told our group years ago he came out of Italy with no idea what happened most of the time, why they had to fight with out of date weapons and were badly reduced in numbers to boost the invasion of the south of France? They were still fighting some of the best German troops and sometimes the Americans who seemed to have a different agenda to every one else.
He set to finding out the why and wherefor of the whole Campaign reading everything he could get his hands on and becoming very erudite in the history of the Italian campaign with spin offs into other areas of the war because of that reading.
I too had the same experience in not knowing what we were doing or why. When I did get the chance to study I went into every detail I could find until I managed to be let loose in a University library that gave me a lead on other reading of the subject. I became very well read in those events.
This is how we learn history by delving, reading obscure papers and the less popular dry papers on the subject. From those readings I would hope we get a balanced view of the events we are reading.
I would assume that most people who post on here leave clues as to their experience plus others know them from old.
For an old well tried soldier to be lambasted for his views on a campaign he fought in then studied for years is a bit off the board. If it were me I would expect an apology.
Frank. -
Message 40
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Tuesday, 15th July 2008
remefrankme.
Yes I do agree with you, I think sorry I was out of order, is due to Tom. For it is for me a wonderful learning curve to meet a person who has put so much into his work. One who has so much to give.
The problem I have why was I picked out to be miss quoted. I am trying to form a view of history, and the events of when I was a young lad.Things that I read about and heard.
Whats True whats fiction? Who better than the likes of Trooper Tom.
By the way I hardly ever go to a Pub,unles it with my lads for a birthday bash. Does Kurt have a view that we got to the pub and talk war.
Oh come on. And when I stand on the front porch
I see the young girls go past and I wish I was young again. Talk War never. -
Message 41
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 15th July 2008
2295wynberglad,
How true, I came back from the desert and Palestine as we knew it on leave, my mates from school days did not want to hear. The war was over, there is no war, one problem no one told the lads involved in the none wars?
We shut up as did the wartime lads, if the war was mentioned someone would shout "swing the lamps" and it was enough to close the speaker down.
The public were sick of war, six long years plus four more of shortage and more rationing was enough.
So we all kept our mouths shut until the aniversaries began 50-60 years after and those of us left were encouraged to write about it.
In the meantime many of us needed to know why we were there, what we were suposedly doing and in the case of Palestine it is still going on 60 years after, why?
In my case I read evrything I could get my hands on from the start of Christianity, the history of Judaism, the Qua'ren and its effect on Middle East politics.
It all made me realise our efforts from the beginning were totally pointless, government policy changes with the tides and soldiers are the pawns in a huge game they play.
One problem is they never learn do they, the same mistakes are still being made and still costing the lives of young men.
Frank. -
Message 42
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Tuesday, 15th July 2008
2295wynberglad,
How true, I came back from the middle east as we knew it on leave, my mates from school days did not want to hear. The war was over, there is no war, one problem no one told the lads involved in the none wars?
We shut up as did the wartime lads, if the war was mentioned someone would shout "swing the lamps" and it was enough to close the speaker down.
The public were sick of war, six long years plus four more of shortage and more rationing was enough.
So we all kept our mouths shut until the aniversaries began 50-60 years after and those of us left were encouraged to write about it.
In the meantime many of us needed to know why we were there, what we were suposedly doing and in the case of the middle east it is still going on 60 years after, why?
In my case I read evrything I could get my hands on and it made very interesting reading.
It all made me realise our efforts from the beginning were totally pointless, government policy changes with the tides and soldiers are the pawns in a huge game they play.
One problem is they never learn do they, the same mistakes are still being made and still costing the lives of young men.
Frank. -
Message 43
Posted by Bashfulsmudger (U11287440) on Wednesday, 16th July 2008
Wynberglad,Erik,remefrankmee,
Your last postings on the message board have been a real breath of fresh air to read.
I personally am very glad to have have become aquainted with Trooper Tom Canning.
As a result of my early postings it transpired that Toms Tanks, were at times, supported by my fathers unit. 4th Reconnaissance regt, 4th Army,(later RAC).
Like many veterans my father never much spoke of his times in Italy or Greece.
As I was born after the war, the only way I could find things out was to read, read and read.
It is only by reading several accounts of the same engagements or battles that one can come to a reasonable assessment.
I could not agree more with remefrankmee regarding Palestine.
My fathers younger brother was in the RE just prior to end of WW2 and ended up in the middle east, mainly on mine clearance duties.
He was caught up in the Palastine troubles and ended up being bitter and twisted against the Israelies.
I once asked him why and he replied that he had to recover many colleagues bodies that had been mutilated and hung, by barbed wire, in olive groves, boobytrapped and with mines laid on the approaches.
At the risk of repeating myself, politicians just do not seem able to learn from past mistakes.
It is always the members of the armed forces who then take the brunt of these mistakes and all too often now pay the ultimate price.
I am thankful that there are WW2 veterans about like Tom that can give an authorative point of view. -
Message 44
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Wednesday, 16th July 2008
Trooper, remefrankmee, Wynberglad, etc.,
IMO you're quite correct in your assumptions that one gleans most of his information about wars and individual battles from readings compiled and written down after the event. No one man can, during the fighting or immediately afterward, know everything about what happened - the battlefields are just too big, and there are too many variables. I believe it's true that in most cases even the most carefully laid battle plans go wrong once the fighting begins, and that many times those plans are promptly discarded by field commanders.
Those writers of repute who pen their histories do so (usually) after conferring with not merely the commanders at army and corps hg's but also those at battalion, company, and platoon level, as well as the men on the front lines. What they assemble is a compilation of that information from which they, themselves, note the results, summarize, and draw conclusions. Those conclusions, while often accurate and worthy of deliberation by the readers, need also to be critically evaluated in the light of other histories written by other, equally-reputable people, who have drawn possibly different conclusions of their own.
What the reader (in this case, you and me) then does is draw his own conclusions and proceeds to present his personal opinions and interpretations.
What I'm saying is that most of the people on this board have read a good deal of the wars discussed here, hence are reasonably well informed. Also, what they are writing down are their opinions - informed opinions to be sure, but still, personal opinions. But there's frequently something more involved because these opinions often are fleshed out to some extent by firsthand experience, and whether it's merely derived from a week in a foxhole with a highly-restricted view of the war, or from an a/c flying above the battlefields, these distinctive experiences represent worthwhile addenda to their readings. They can't be brushed aside just because their perspective at the time was restricted.
Kurt, I've personally never known you to be overbearing or chauvinistic about American commanders, and if that's what brought on your rather uncalled-for and somewhat derogatory flare-up, I must confess surprise. We all know there was more than one worthless general/admiral in the armies involved in WW2, and even the best of them made serious errors.
But (and this is my personal belief) the most important thing to keep in mind is that we're all expressing personal opinions - many of them educated personal opinions, but still just personal opinions, to which each of us is entitled. That's what this board is for.
I don't think any of them warrants an insult. -
Message 45
Posted by Palaisglide (U3102587) on Thursday, 17th July 2008
Eric,
You said it all, I cannot fault your reasoning or your summing up.
When the world you know suddenly goes mad your own idea of events is limited to what you can see over a battle sight and that is not very much.
You hear shouted orders, do what you are told because your body obey's orders even if your mind thinks them crazy. When it comes to an end and the shock sets in you are not capable of making any balanced judgement at that time and even young memory plays tricks on you.
I too had a hatred of a nation, each time we left the guard room we saw a list of names and photo's with a shoot on sight notice, one of those people later became President of his country.
I was sorted by a lovely Jewish lady married to a friend of the family. She spent hours showing me how to research the history without trying to justify her own, she let me make my own mind up.
Many years later after reading everything I could get my hands on and coming to the realisation that you cannot hate an entire people, I apologised to her.
Meanwhile I saw that history like a Diamond has many facets. Depending on the writer and his own influences you got various versions of the same event. You need to read them all then make up your own mind and as you say it is then only your own opinion.
There will always be dispute (discussion) about wars, Commanders, Politicions because we are individuals seeing our own images of those events.
I have seen in my own case and memory of wartime events where the official history is not correct in every way, so there is always some room for doubt.
At least we can discuss it all on here and as you say we do not need those posters to be insulted for their input.
Frank. -
Message 46
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Thursday, 17th July 2008
Trooper Tom Remefrankme Bashfulsmuddger Erik Lindsay.
Gentlemen through these pages I feel I am getting to know you all, as an ex soldier who thinks of himself as one the LUCKY ones so from this point of view I wish to learn facts from Hollywood fiction. Now if I upset Kurt this in turn seemed to have upset others, but not clankylad messages 10 & 16, I say Iam truly sorry
To quote bashfulsmuddger it is only by reading several accounts of the same arguments can we come to a reasoanble assessment of history.
That is all I wish for and thanks to you all for that.
I too saw blood shed as a child of the empire this did make me twisted for a while against Hindu & muslim. -
Message 47
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 17th July 2008
Hi 2295wynberglad,
I enjoy reading - amongst many others - yours and Tom's posts, but this seems to go back to Tom's reply to what I thought was ClankyLad's pretty reasonable query in message 10.
Clankylad -
your posting sounds like you are a games player who hasn't the faintest idea of what went on in those far off days when History goes diametrically opposed to what you have written...聽
The written word can often be misinterpreted, but to be honest, I'd say that that looks like a pretty aggressive and insulting response, and one that in turn would be likely to generate an equally aggressive and insulting response itself. It's really not like Tom to attack someone like that, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt that his intentions in writing it weren't to be as aggressive or as insulting as ClankyLad interpreted them. However, you must surely see how ClankyLad could have interpreted and reacted to Tom's reply the way he did.
Anyway, that's my tuppence worth, and I think that from there a misunderstanding just pretty much snowballed. It's a bit like one Archduke gets shot, and before you know it you're up to your knees in water in a trench in Flanders...
Oh and bad generals? The Romans had plenty of them - especially during the Second Punic War. Where's the logic in letting two generals (consuls in this case) lead the same army but on alternate days? No wonder Cannae was a disater...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 48
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Thursday, 17th July 2008
Rainbow -
many thanks for your tuppence worth - all are entitled of course as we have been trying to point out.
you may also be right in concluding that my initial response to Clankylad was both agressive and insulting - there may be some truth in that as I thought that his "appreciation" was typical of the games players who often inject their findings after some war game had a different outcome to the actual fact of history - and put it forward as some revaluation.
In that case I would have no reservations in apologising to Clankylad as I find that life is way too short to get into those kind of hassles.
As Remefrank also says history is a bit like a diamond of many facets and none of us know them all.....it's just that those of us who have been knee deep in it and have taken the time to study what actually happened appear to have learned more than games players.
Now that can't be too insulting ..can it ?
Cheers -
Message 49
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Thursday, 17th July 2008
Erik-
Once again I thank you for your most insightful analysis of the situation vis - vis Kurt and his outburst directed at myself. I have tried to think of that last time he became a bit obnoxious toward me but I can鈥檛 put my finger on it 鈥ut I was all set to 鈥渇orgive and forget鈥 by just giving up on the posts.
As you rightly point out 鈥 we neither know the others鈥 circumstance and so I shall advance the thought that perhaps he was just having a bad day 鈥 as he obviously had the time previously.
I have re-read all of the postings under this heading and it is possible that he took exception to my 鈥榣ecturing鈥 Clankylad 鈥 who did not appreciate my efforts of 鈥榩atronising鈥 him 鈥 and so suggested that I 鈥渄id us all a favour and get stuffed 鈥 which I thought was a much less erudite submission to any of Kurt鈥檚 postings. Kurt then had a 鈥榬edmist鈥 by addressing wynberglad !
It would appear that 鈥淩ainbow鈥 also points out that my 鈥榣ecture鈥 inadvertently started the fracas鈥..
All in all I still rate Kurt as being a most valuable member of these boards with many contributions for the benefit of all with his very wide expanse of knowledge in many subjects and trust that we shall continue to benefit from that wisdom.
Cheers -
Message 50
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 17th July 2008
Hi Tom,
Blimey - I'm impressed. And top marks for not taking my post the wrong way!
ClankyLad is a decent bloke, he probably just got rubbed up the wrong way. This is his infamous reply to a kid expecting the board to do their home work for them. First the question (which was asked late on a Tuesday night)...
Does anyone know the answer to theses question!!!!!
1. What is The Balkans?
2. What are The Alliances?
3. what is The Arms Race?
4. Who needed an empire?
this is al to do with the world war 1
get back to me as soon as possible please i need to know by wednesday night聽
Then ClankyLad's reply...
Stop being silly! He asked nicely, so we should answer seriously.
1. What is The Balkans?
A group of European countries, comprising of Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and (after the 1905 'Muttleburg incident') Czechoslovakia. They declared war on France, precipitating the conflict.
2. What are The Alliances?
The core alliances that went to war: England, Scotland and Wales and the Holy Roman Irish Palatinate, who fought against the Balkans, the Schleswig-Holstein league and Germany.
3. what is The Arms Race?
This was the race to get arms to the Swiss border when the war broke out. The famous railwaymen's strike at Vuurtzen prevented Markgraf Alexander-Georgi's Czech army reaching Berne before those sent from Britain and the Irish Palatinate.
4. Who needed an empire?
The so-called 'Grand Balkan Alliance' (see above), were in collusion with the Schleswig-Holstein league (a significant naval power at that time) to gain an empire by annexing the British protectorates of Wasutoland and Rumbabaland (in the horn of Africa), this would have given them a stranglehold on British trade with India.聽
Cheers,
RF
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.