Huertgenforest
Ron Kayser
their lives ( every 5th U.S soldier died there) . They are still finding
dead soldiers and bury them on a soldier cementaries. After studying a bit
of material the U.S. could of left that piece of area the germans and move
around them toward cologne. The fighting in the huertgenforest held them up
for at least 3 months. The U.S. Army could have met the russians way before
berlin. Has anybody Info about the fighting in the huertgen forest?
anker...@my-deja.com
"Ron Kayser" <ron.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Has anybody Info about the fighting in the huertgen forest?
Charles Whiting, The Battle of Hurtgen Forest (forget the misspelling)
is about as good as "first books" get. You will find just about all
of the information you want. Why? (So Ike could say that the Germans
never defeated him.) Why the problem? (The battle was a WWI style
battle, with all of the deaths per mile we know about.) The original
reason. (To protect the flank of a 'real' battle.) Who died?
(Pennsylvanians.)
Yes, there are books with more detail, but Whiting is the place to
start. IMHO, it will give you all the information you want. And
the book is easy to find and cheap.
GFH
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jim Powers
<<Has anybody Info about the fighting in the huertgen forest?>>
A very thorough account of the Hurtgen campaign can be found in "Follow
Me and Die" by Cecil B. Currey, published by Stein and Day.
Iam436
written by Paul Boesch a pertiscipant
G N Can
with you on some of the issues. No doubt the Hurtgen Forest was a blood
bath, but even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I do not believe it
could have been by-passed so easily. Recall that the US Army's
"blitzkrieg" tactics that had worked so well during the Normandy
breakout were becoming less effective as the border of Germany were
reached. Several problems including winter weather, terrain, which
favored the defence, and over-extended supply lines brought the Allied
advance practically to a halt. Patton's 3rd Army was also bogged down
in the Saar region. The days of a Falaise Gap type encirclement were
over by the Fall of '44. Looking at it from the top, Eisenhower's
orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff were to first defeat the German
armed forces. Eisenhower set out to accomplish this by what he dubbed
the "broad-front strategy." In short, (1) advancing on a continuous
front...(2) each allied army protecting the flank of the one next to it,
and (3) do not by-pass any defended strong points that would put a
strong enemy presence in the American's rear areas. This last point
played heavily in Eisenhower's thinking...take the port of Brest
(another controversy) for example. Flank protection was also crucial.
Any attempt to envelope or by-pass the Hurtgen Forest, I believe, would
have had grave consequences for the American units involved...again,
think of weather, terrain and supply. Many will disagree, but from a
tactical standpoint, I believe the "broad front strategy" was sound and
the Hurtgen Forest was just another difficult and unfortunately bloody
obstacle that had to be overcome. Furthermore, the key objectives of
Duren and Cologne could not have been reached until the key road net
stretching from Simmerath to Duren, via the heavily defended villages of
Germeter, Hurtgen, Klienhau, Grosshau and the high ground of the
Brandenburg Ridge beyond were secured first. The only way to do this
was through the Hurtgen Forest. This argument will probably never end
but I am sticking to my guns on this one. I don't see a sound
alternative given the weather, terrain, resources and the staunch German
defense.
"People get the history they deserve." -General Charles de Gaulle,
lecture to army cadets, St Cyr, 1920.
anker...@my-deja.com
His...@webtv.net (G N Can) wrote:
> Eisenhower set out to accomplish this by what he dubbed the
> "broad-front strategy."
Another after-the-fact concept? Neither Monty not Patton was
waiting for the other. In the event, neither was first to cross
the Rhine. All front moved forward as best they could.
Huertgen Wald was not a "salient" for the Germans for exactly
the same reasons it was such a blood-bath for the Americans.
The terrain was not favorable for either attack or transport of
supplies; it was favorable for static defense.
DBSDESIGN
> The Battle of the Huertgenforest (germany) cost about 30,000 U.S.soldiers
> their lives
...No it didn't.
> Has anybody Info about the fighting in the huertgen forest?
Yes. There were about 25,000 casualties, not deaths. And several
thousand noncombat losses, particularly battle fatigue cases.
G N Can
strategy."
In his book, "Crusade in Europe," Eisenhower explains the disadvantages
of advancing in a single thrust towards Germany . "To avoid stalemate
and to attain the position of power and mobility required to destroy the
German forces, we planned, following upon any breakout [from Normandy],
to push forward on a 'broad front' with priority on the left"
[Eisenhower, pg. 226]. With all due respect, is Eisenhower's use of the
term "broad front" when describing the long term strategy of "Overlord"
make this "another after-the-fact-concept?"
DBSDESIGN
"Ron Kayser" <ron.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Has anybody Info about the fighting in the huertgen forest?
>Charles Whiting, The Battle of Hurtgen Forest (forget the misspelling)
> is about as good as "first books" get.
Whiting is a hack. The first warning sign of sensationalist drivel is
a survey of his book titles. He tries to make the Huertgen Forest,
Kasserine Pass and the Schnee Eifel look like another Stalingrad.
Whiting's book on Otto Skorzeny, possibly his favorite Nazi,
is the biggest laugh of all. I read German paratroop officers
thought Skorzeny was an inexperienced, grandstanding fool
who was more lucky than good. They stated that Skorzeny
almost got everyone killed on the Gran Sasso raid, but Otto
still made sure he grabbed all the headlines and photo ops.
Whiting makes a futile attempt to gloss this over to protect
his hero, who was basically a cartoon character.
> the book is easy to find and cheap.
...There's a good reason for that.
> Huertgen Wald was not a "salient" for the Germans for exactly
> the same reasons it was such a blood-bath for the Americans.
...Oh please.
You seem real fixated on the Huertgen Forest. But let's get serious.
A few thousand Americans were killed there, nothing compared to
the incompetence and cowardice of German generals at Stalingrad
in 1942 and Belarus in 1944. Both of which makes the Huertgen
Forest brawl look like a tea party.
A staggering 1,000,000 German troops were lost in those two epic
disasters. Piles and piles of dead landsers spread over endless
acres of real estate. And they lost both battles on top of it.
Why?
Because von Paulus and Ernst Busch didn't have the courage
to ignore Hitler and save their men instead. At least Ike wasn't
a gutless wonder like Paulus, Busch and most of the German
general staff actually.
> Why? (So Ike could say that the Germans never defeated him.)
According to whom?
> Why the problem? (The battle was a WWI style battle, with all
> of the deaths per mile we know about.)
The Huertgen Forest was an attrition style battle. But so were about
90 percent of the other land battles in the East and West.
> The terrain was not favorable for either attack or transport of
> supplies; it was favorable for static defense.
Kursk, Mortain and the Ardennes in 1944 were suitable for static
defense, and not favorable for either attack or transport of supplies,
but that didn't stop the Germans from blundering into these areas
with predictable results and heavy losses. Followed by an equally
inevitable German retreat, unlike the US Army in the Huertgen Forest.
anker...@my-deja.com
"broad-front
> strategy."
> Another after-the-fact concept? Neither Monty...
>
Yes, exactly. It is in the post-war memoirs that one finds
the explanations of errors, showing that all of the author's
decisions were properly though out, took everything into
account, etc.
The title of Ike's book shows his bias. Crusade! He was
carrying the banner of God, in his opinion. Go on. Read
that book and then Bacque's Crimes and Mercies. See just
how Ike whitewashed himself on every front he could. Why
was Ike recalled in December, 1945? Why did he leave
quitely? (Ans to 2nd question -- to preserve his 'national
hero' status.)
Ike was for more of a politician than a general.