No, Monty didn't make a "Blunder" during the Battle of the Bulge (with the 82nd Airborne)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 янв 2023
- 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.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Source list for this video docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from RUclips 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.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
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!...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
Excellent presentation TIK 👍
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 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.
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.
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.
Your comment on Montgomery's first world war battlefield experience shaped his future attitude against useless slaughter was correct.
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,,,
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
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?
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!
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.
I love how you take one big " Who,when,what,where and why" and break it down into the many " who,when,what,where, and why's" and then connect them all together for a better understanding.
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.
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
Can I just say (& I apologize if I've wrote this on another video) how much I love that you put the sources on the screen as you go through the video. It is simply so professional. Further, your willingness to go in depth and to maintain as much as possible an unbiased review of the material (there's those sources again) is simply fantastic. Thank you so much.
You always show a new and interesting angle to the battles Ive read about.
Love your stuff!
Do what you gotta do to stay motivated man. I'm here for any series you decide to make
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 .👍🏻
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.
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.
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.
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.
Looking forward to your further coverage of this Battle and the antecedents such as Hürtgen. Thank you.
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
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.
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 ✌️
Tik great work !!!
I always learn something new from your video's because they are so detailed and Ive learned more from your videos than what i learned from school or books i have read in the past, thanks Tik 😀😃👍👍👍
Very enjoyable commentary and the research is amazing, and additionally, so very knowledgeable and amazingly reported! Thank 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 RUclipsrs 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
Thank you for an excellent video. I have a special interest in Market Garden and have 82nd Airborne historian Phil Nordyke's combat histories on the 505th (Four Stars Of Valor, 2006) and 508th Parachute Infantry Regiments (Put Us Down In Hell, 2012) on my shelves as a result, so I'm familiar with their actions during the Bulge at Nordyke's forensic granular level. The conflict between Ridgway and Montgomery was enlightening, as the command problems in the 508th that led to the failure of Market Garden at Nijmegen had their origins in Normandy, and the resolution of those problems seems to have fallen between two stools as command of the 82nd passed from Ridgway (promoted to XVIII Airborne Corps in August 1944) to Assistant Divisional Commander Gavin, who failed to appoint a replacement for himself and ran himself ragged doing both jobs. I really wished Ridgway had taken the commander of the 508th (who was a gifted administrator) with him as his S-1 (Admin Officer) to XVIII Corps, as Market Garden may have succeeded with another CO in the 508th. Once again, as a deep study of Market Garden demonstrates, the Americans seem to need Montgomery as a scapegoat for their own failings. I call it Montgomery Derangement Syndrome!
And yet, on January 17th 1945 Montgomery received this letter by Ridgway himself :
"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
@@lyndoncmp5751 John Cornell are you back?
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
Kudos on another excellent video. Understanding the terrain (Elsenborn Ridge and the road hubs of St Vith and Bastogne) is essential in helping to understand Commander's thinking on both sides of this battle, IMO.
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 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
Another excellent video. Your exceptional hard work is very much appreciated.
Great video and, with basicly every video you publish, teaches me so many new things abt this time I knewer knew. Your in-dept knowledge is realy impressive.
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.
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.
Impressive work, thank you for a very interesting in-depth video!
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...
Great video. I enjoy the overview and insight given here. I haven't really the attention to or retention of the detail you give in your Battle Storm series (my short comings). But I greatly enjoyed the one on Crusader, Stalingrad must be a huge undertaking in comparison.
The recent series from The Operations Room on the battle was outstanding, in case any viewer hasn't seen it yet
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
2 thumbs up from a 58 y/o American WW2 history buff. You explained a few nuances I wasn't aware of.
An uncle of mine was in the 106th, trapped behind the lines 3 days then taken POW. Kept a diary while held.
Anyway, appreciated the good, the bad, and the ugly of your work.
Great video. You really lay out the context & nuance to these different generals relationships.
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.
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.
Another brilliant video, TIK! Just reading about this battle and looking at static maps doesn't compare with your videos!
As always, a solid assessment, and presentation! Thanks, Tik!
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.
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.
The first of your videos I have seen. Subscribed as a result. Outstanding analysis. Thank you.
Interesting analysis, well done. Also exposes affect of personality rivalries and concerns over "reputations" on military operations and consequences. Thank you.
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 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.
Hear hear the old TIK is back with new vigor, good for you dear sir! Amazing to see how you are able to produce such quality so shortly after meeting "your own Stalingrad". Take care and please accept my deepest respect for you and your work
This was great. Love your work. Stay healthy so you can share more of your work with us.
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.
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.
Monte definitely carried a good deal of 1st War mentality into the 2nd. Thanks for the video. Seems like you're more fresh this Monday. Challah
TIK you need to link up with The Operations Room and do some guest narration for them if you haven't already been approached. Your content is so goddammed informative. I love it.
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.
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 RUclips 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.
TIK thank you for all your efforts.and your hard work. I really appreciate it.
Hey TIK Great video again. Keep them coming but don't burn yourself out.
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.
This was great! I learned more about the European theater in this hour than in my 62 years on earth.
Seeing this in my suggested section made my day. I was expecting you to take a couple weeks break.
Pretty cool video dude! Keep up the great content!
Credit to Monty and Horrocks for deploying 30Corps along the river Meuse, ensuring a strong stop line between the Germans and Antwerp.
44:54 "Sometimes attacking head-on against machine guns isn't the best thing to do." -TIK 2023
Another great job TIK looking forward to your next one
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
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!
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
Respect to TIK for pausing Stalingrad. You're not letting anyone down. It was a decision you had to make
good video and topic, can't wait for the rest !
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.
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.
@@nyetzdyec3391
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.
Thank you for this video. Great discussion of some not-often-considered perspectives.
That's an excellent analysis. As usual. Well done TIK.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
An excellent presentation, it was interesting to learn that Monty had better communication with American front line troops that these troops had with Bradley. Probably because Monty was at the front with his men, Bradley was always well to the rear. The American senior commanders were indeed more concerned about pride and reputation than their men, eager to blame others for their mistakes. By the end of the war 12th Army, of 1.4 Million men, had runout of riflemen due to the horrendous casualties.
Monty had liaison officers constantly moving between all HQs
No sources johnny,how is the land of make believe? Johnny ya Monty said lets get out of here but the GIs finished the scrum for the royal rubes who couldn't even provide trucks. I here your uncles even out ran monty in France - that's pretty damn fast
5:05 I think you meant 1944 and not 1942. Thanks for your work. Love your videos!!
Yeah, I messed up because I've got Stalingrad living rent-free in my head
@@TheImperatorKnight Stalingrad syndrome no doubt ;-)
@@TheImperatorKnight Well start charging it rent then!
Great video thanks. It would be awesome to see you do something on CBI, and Slim in Burma in particular.
If you feel really down call your local Sudoku hot line.