You are not logged in.

#1 15-Apr-2017 20:04:37

cartfc
Lieutenant
Registered: 25-Mar-2012
Posts: 219

El Alamein

Lots of  hooha on TMP about a Daily Mail article claiming El Alamein was a massive blunder and totally unneccessary! I usually stay out of such threads as they bring out the worst in the rabid Monty haters. What is the opinion of the more sober members here?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … dbath.html

Offline

#2 16-Apr-2017 00:43:59

bannockburn bhoy
General
From: Glasgow
Registered: 16-Mar-2012
Posts: 2,036

Re: El Alamein

Cant say im a big fan of Monty , as to the battle being a mistake ,obviously I don't know how they qualify this ,but I remember the build up to the actual battle being somewhat laborious  but very deliberate. Some recent revisions have proved to be well founded Ie Dieppe ,so the evidence will need to be scrutinised. Ive no doubt some of our western desert bods will do just that.  cheers John

Online

#3 16-Apr-2017 10:11:08

cartfc
Lieutenant
Registered: 25-Mar-2012
Posts: 219

Re: El Alamein

Some revisionist history is plausible, but not all. Whiting's revisionist view of the Battle of the Bulge being a deliberate ploy by Eisenhower to leave the Ardennes very weakly defended to tempt the Germans out of the West Wall has been thoroughly debunked, mainly by not having a shred of evidence to support it! I find much of the Monty bashing inconsistent and he seems to get blamed for things he was not even responsible for - like Dieppe, when his involvement ended long before the fatal decisions around naval and air support had been taken.

Offline

#4 16-Apr-2017 10:42:27

sandsmodels
Major
From: somerset uk
Registered: 02-Apr-2012
Posts: 434
Website

Re: El Alamein

easy to be wise after the event, some historions are there just to make a fuss imho!


sandsmodelshop.com

Offline

#5 16-Apr-2017 11:14:08

cartfc
Lieutenant
Registered: 25-Mar-2012
Posts: 219

Re: El Alamein

I guess in order to sell a book it has to be different. Probably not much point producing a book that says it happened like all the other history books said!

Offline

#6 16-Apr-2017 17:37:29

bannockburn bhoy
General
From: Glasgow
Registered: 16-Mar-2012
Posts: 2,036

Re: El Alamein

Fred  My Dieppe reference was not meant in relation to any involvement Monty may or may not have had in it. But as an example of how new information can completely change perspective on the matter.

I was referring to the Canadian documentary Dieppe Uncovered from 2012 ,that showed although the raid was meant to gather information on the practicalities of an amphibious landing ,moral ,booster etc. It was revealed the underlying reason was a top secret mission within the mission to gather info on the new 4 wheel Enigma cipher.

This was never revealed to the veterans that took part , and most of them died not knowing that the mission was not just a futile gesture. Although this also ultimately failed , at least it lent a credible reason for the sacrifice. The Canadians took nearly a thousand casualties ,and had two thousand men captured . Bletchley cracked the new code some weeks later. ( I previously posted on this when the documentary was shown here in 2013 )   cheers  John

Last edited by bannockburn bhoy (16-Apr-2017 17:37:44)

Online

#7 16-Apr-2017 17:52:06

granty101
Lieutenant General
From: Durham
Registered: 26-Mar-2015
Posts: 1,647

Re: El Alamein

bannockburn bhoy wrote:

I was referring to the Canadian documentary Dieppe Uncovered from 2012 ,that showed although the raid was meant to gather information on the practicalities of an amphibious landing ,moral ,booster etc. It was revealed the underlying reason was a top secret mission within the mission to gather info on the new 4 wheel Enigma cipher.

This was never revealed to the veterans that took part , and most of them died not knowing that the mission was not just a futile gesture.

Sometimes the 'bigger' picture has to be viewed before we can pass judgement. Yes Dieppe was a military disaster, but the information gleaned about the Enigma machine went on to help save more lives.

So, as for El Alamein, being a 'blunder', I think the overall bigger picture has to be taken into account...and as you stated Fred, you won't sell a (military) history book that says the same things as the rest of them.

I think some authors just try to be controversial in order to sell copies!!! mad

Grant


Vot is your Name? Don't tell him Pike!!!

Offline

#8 16-Apr-2017 18:59:15

hammurabi70
Major
Registered: 01-Aug-2014
Posts: 307

Re: El Alamein

Very interesting that people are getting wound up about an article from 2012 and most seem not to have read it because it ends by indicating that it WAS a necessary battle but more for political than military reasons; a not unreasonable conclusion given that TORCH would ensure Rommel's supply line became untenable.

I usually stay out of such threads as they bring out the worst in the rabid Monty haters.

Yes, at El Alamein Monty does a good job of winning a battle he is ordered to fight but it does not stop his detractors using it against him.  Churchill was content that Monty started the battle before TORCH and concluded with a victory that gave Churchill the prestige he need at the conferences.


If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB