Did McAuliffe really say "Nuts" at Bastogne?
Jay Goldstein
Gen. Anthony McAuliffe is supposed to have replied "Nuts!" to the demand
that he surrender at Bastogne. I've often wondered whether "Nuts!" is an
expurgated version of what he actually said. I would have thought that he
would have used saltier language (like "F**k you" or some such). Is "Nuts"
what he actually said?
--
Jay Goldstein
Department of Sociology
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB
Canada
Taki Kogoma
"Jay Goldstein" <gol...@cc.UManitoba.CA>, umanit...@cc.UManitoba.CA is
alleged to have submitted message <6bj1sd$r...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> to
soc.history.war.world-war-ii:
>Gen. Anthony McAuliffe is supposed to have replied "Nuts!" to the demand
>that he surrender at Bastogne. I've often wondered whether "Nuts!" is an
>expurgated version of what he actually said. I would have thought that he
>would have used saltier language (like "F**k you" or some such). Is "Nuts"
>what he actually said?
According to interviews with officers on McAuliffe's staff, "Nuts!" is,
indeed, what he first said when informed of the surrender demmand, and
what was later sent back as a reply. One of the officers escorting the
German messenger back to his lines amplified the response with a "That
means 'Go to Hell!'"
Sounces: MacDonald's _A Time for Trumpets_, ABC News special on 50th
anniv. of Bulge, Ambrose's _Citizen Soldiers_.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
Lee Russell
>Gen. Anthony McAuliffe is supposed to have replied "Nuts!" to the demand
>that he surrender at Bastogne. I've often wondered whether "Nuts!" is an
>expurgated version of what he actually said.
I believe that is what he actually said. The story was that when McAuliffe
was called to his headquarters and read the surrender demand he replied
"Aw nuts", meaning more that his time had been wasted than a formal reply
of defiance. Educated people didn't curse so much then. It was considered
a sign of low breeding, especially for an officer.
George F. Hardy
In article <6bj1sd$r...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, "Jay Goldstein"
<gol...@cc.UManitoba.CA>, umanit...@cc.UManitoba.CA says:
>
>
>
>Gen. Anthony McAuliffe is supposed to have replied "Nuts!"
>to the demand that he surrender at Bastogne. I've often
Yes, he said "nuts". And, contrary to some reports, his
answer was understood by the Germans.
GFH
***************************************************************
http://www.ankerstein.org/
The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page
See what makes me tick.
***************************************************************
Zhivan
>Gen. Anthony McAuliffe is supposed to have replied "Nuts!" to the demand
>that he surrender at Bastogne. I've often wondered whether "Nuts!" is an
>expurgated version of what he actually said. I would have thought that he
>would have used saltier language (like "F**k you" or some such). Is "Nuts"
>what he actually said?
Message One :
To the U.S.A commander in the encircled town of Bastogne.
The fortune of war is changing.. there is only one possibility of
saving the encircled U.S.A troops from annhiliation. That is the honorable
surrender of the encircled town ...
The German Commander
Message Two:
To the German Commander
Nuts !
The American Commander
Exact words. No expurgation.
Lee Russell
>Yes, he said "nuts". And, contrary to some reports, his
>answer was understood by the Germans.
No, I don't think so. The story is that when the answer was conveyed to
the German emmissary he looked at the paper and asked: "Is this a negative
or an affirmative reply? If it is affirmitive, I have authority to
negotiatate further."
The American go-between replied: "It is negative. It is strongly negative.
It means "Go to Hell"!"
And the German replied: "That is too bad. Many civilians will die." etc.
Patterson, Dallas
Lee Russell wrote:
>
>Gen. Anthony McAuliffe is supposed to have replied "Nuts!" to the demand
>that he surrender at Bastogne. I've often wondered whether "Nuts!" is an
>expurgated version of what he actually said.
>
Actually, he said, "Aw nuts." John Toland tells the story of the German demand
for the American surrender in his book. The German officers brought the
following surrender demand typed in English and German.
To the U.S.A. Commander of the encircled town of Bastogne.
The fortune of war is changing. This time the U.S.A. forces in
and near Bastogne have been encircled by strong German armored units...
There is only one possibility to save the encircled U.S.A. troops
from total annihilation: that is the honorable surrender of the encircled
town...
If this proposal should be rejected one German Artillery Corps
and six heavy A.A. Battalions are ready to annihilate the U.S.A.
troops in and near Bastogne...
All the serious civilian losses caused by this artillery fire would
not correspond with the well known American humanity.
The German Commander
(Toland, 193)
McAuliffe said, "Aw, nuts." when he briefly looked at the papers with the
German demand for surrender. Ignoring the surrender proposal he dropped the
papers to the floor and walked out of the command post on his way to
congratulate some men at the front. When he returned to the command post later
on, he was reminded that the German officers were still waiting for the answer
to the surrender proposal and demanding a response. McAuliffe was wondering
what to write for a response, so the operations officer, Col. Kinnard,
suggested McAuliffe should just use his original remark. McAuliffe didn't
remember his remark, and Col. Kinnard said, "You said, 'Nuts."" Everyone liked
that response, and McAuliffe wrote the following answer.
To the German Commander:
Nuts!
-The American Commander
(Toland, 193)
While returning the two German officers to the front lines, the German medical
officer asked what the word "Nuts" meant. Colonel Harper lost his temper with
the Germans and said, "in plain English it's the same as 'Go to Hell.' And
I'll tell you something else. If you continue this attack we'll kill every
goddamn German that tries to break into this city!" (Toland, 194) After the
German officers saluted and commented regretfully that many Americans would be
killed, Col. Harper said, "On your way, Bud. And good luck to you." (Toland,
194)
See:
Toland, John Battle: The Story of the Bulge. New York: Random House; 1959.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
JCDrews
As I was told by an ear-witness, McAuliffe's FIRST and SPOKEN reply was indeed
"F---!" That occurred when he was awakened from a dead sleep. Days later, he
said he thought he was dreaming; he flopped back down into his cot after that
single-word utterance. His staff officers then re-awoke him, and once they had
his attention patiently explained the German message, that it wasn't a dream,
etc. He then said he supposed the F-word wouldn't quite do....and substituted
the now-familiar, less-offensive "NUTS!" for the WRITTEN reply.
Allan Goodall
On 6 Feb 1998 16:41:34 GMT, in message <6bj1sd$r...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,wrote:
>Gen. Anthony McAuliffe is supposed to have replied "Nuts!" to the demand
[...]
> Is "Nuts" what he actually said?
I remember seeing something about this; I believe it was the _World at War_
episode about Bastogne. They had McAuliffe, or an aide but I think it was
McAuliffe, talking about this. The man he was responding to was a German
officer sent through the lines to discuss surrender, not the actual German
commander.
When asked if he would surrender, McAuliffe replied, "Nuts!" The German
looked at him perplexed. He may actually have asked what he meant by
"Nuts!" as I'm unclear on that point. But I am clear that McAuliffe further
explained, "Do you know what 'go to Hell' means?" The German indicated in
the positive and returned to his own lines with the message.
So, yes, "Nuts!" was the actual response, though he clarified it as meaning
"Go to Hell."
Allan Goodall all...@kodak.com
Sales and Marketing Systems
Kodak Canada, Inc.
Anthony Staunton
In article <6bteu5$s...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> "Patterson, Dallas" <n...@ns1.fidalgo.net> writes:
>Actually, he said, "Aw nuts." John Toland tells the story of the German demand
>for the American surrender in his book. ...
I have a real problem with Toland version:
>McAuliffe said, "Aw, nuts." when he briefly looked at the papers with the
>German demand for surrender.
This is the only part that sounds reasonable to me.
> Ignoring the surrender proposal he dropped the
>papers to the floor and walked out of the command post on his way to
>congratulate some men at the front.
Short attention span for a commanding officer who is surrounded and
under attack by a superior enemy force. Was reading a paper and
dropping it on the floor his normal mode of operation. Was walking out
on a someone who had come to see him his normal mode of operation.
> When he returned to the command post later on, he was reminded
> that the German officers were still waiting for the answer to
> the surrender proposal and demanding a response.
Does Toland seriously mean that McAuliffe forgot that a German
messanger was sitting in his HQ.
>McAuliffe was wondering what to write for a response,
I can just imagine the scene 'Will I write Yes or No',
>so the operations officer, Col. Kinnard, suggested McAuliffe should just
>use his original remark. McAuliffe didn't remember his remark, and Col.
>Kinnard said, "You said, 'Nuts."" Everyone liked that response, and
>McAuliffe wrote the following answer.
The whole thing is dragged out.
He probably used his favourate four letter expletive that he usually
used. It may have been Nuts or it may have been one of the very
common and very unoriginal boring four letter gutter words.
Anthony Staunton
Eddiejax
>He probably used his favourate four letter expletive that he usually
>used. It may have been Nuts or it may have been one of the very
>common and very unoriginal boring four letter gutter words.
>
>
There is no need to speculate on whether he said anything other than "Nuts!"
If the Army's official historian of the Ardennes campaign reported it in the
official history as "Nuts", and a historian of the stature of Charles B.
MacDonald writes in his history of the Battle of the Bulge "A Time for
Trumpets" that he asked Gen. McAuliffe in 1949 whether he said "nuts" of
something else, and was assured that "nuts" was what he said, your comment that
he may have said something else has no basis in any historical record.
Edward Tannen
Patterson, Dallas W.
Anthony Staunton wrote:
>
>snip<
> I have a real problem with Toland version:
>
> >McAuliffe said, "Aw, nuts." when he briefly looked at the papers with
> >the German demand for surrender.
>
>
> Does Toland seriously mean that McAuliffe forgot that a German
> messanger was sitting in his HQ.
> Anthony Staunton
No, that is not how it happened as reported by Toland and others. The
German "parliamentaires" were kept waiting at another headquarters
location while the written German surrender demands were taken to
McAuliffe at his headquarters. The Germans were not present at
McAuliffe's headquarters. Why he dropped the papers was not reported in
Toland's book, but it is easy to speculate that he considered them to be
unworthy of a response. He may not have understood the German officers
were still present and awaiting a response. Whatever the reason,
McAuliffe's final written response should be a good indication of
Mcauliffe's opinion of the German surrender demand, anything else is
speculation.
McAuliffe's opinion seems to have been shared by one of the German
generals commanding the attack in the area of Bastogne. IIRC, this
German commander expressed the opinion that it was unwise to present the
Americans with a surrender demand falsely claiming an artillery corps
was present and ready to level Bastogne to the ground. He wanted to
bypass Bastogne and move on to the Meuse. The German commander was
proven right after he was overruled by his superiors. The assault on
Bastogne ultimately failed, and the German Ardennes Offensive was
fatally delayed at Bastogne, Elsenborn Ridge, and hundreds of other
places where handfuls of G.I.s stubbornly refused to give up despite the
annihilation staring them in the face.
The German surrender demand was an effort to exploit any panic existing
in the American command and quickly seize control of Bastogne and its
vital crossroads in the heart of the Bulge. The bluff failed.
McAuliffe certainly understood the tactical situation, and he had no
intention of surrendering his blocking position without a fight to the
last possible moment. McAuliffe set an example for his headquarters
staff and his men regardless of whatever true feelings he may have kept
to himself. That example was one of confidence and strong determination.
Consequently, he "probably" viewed the surrender demand as an obvious
sham and arrogant underestimation of the American resolve and fighting
abilities. In any case, there can be little surprise in the fact the
German surrender proposal was refused without serious consideration.
Only a panicked American commander would have given such an order at
that time. It's too bad the German commanders reading the response
failed to appreciate the pride and determination that went into such a
concise answer <g>.
Dallas Patterson
n...@fidalgo.net
the count
Patterson, Dallas W. wrote:
> Anthony Staunton wrote:
> McAuliffe certainly understood the tactical situation, and he had no
> intention of surrendering his blocking position without a fight to the
> last possible moment.
Indeed, the whole reason his troops were there was because they were
the only troops in reserve that could be mobilized quickly enough to
reach the town before the germans overran it.
Had he surrendered, it would have completely defeated the point of
his troops being there in the first place ;)
> McAuliffe set an example for his headquarters staff and his men
> regardless of whatever true feelings he may have kept to himself.
> That example was one of confidence and strong determination.
Still, in Stephen Ambrose's "Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th
Regiment, 101st Airborne: From Normandy to Hitler's Eagle's Nest",
(great book, btw) while he was interviewing soldiers of the company,
he showed a newspaper picture of some officers, reportedly at Bastogne
during the German siege, having christmas dinner with a small turkey
and all the fixings. The response was consistently the same, the most
mild of which was (going from memory here, so the quote isn't exactly
correct, but...) "What division were they from?"
Appearently really riled up these soldiers, as they had to spend
christmas day freezing to death in their fox holes along the perimeter
under however many inches of snow and ice eating the "special christmas"
rations that the quartermaster provided, which sure as heck didn't
include hot roast turkey with gravy and stuffing, etc....
Traveler
When this question arises from time to time, what most people forget is
that the jargon of the day has changed quite a bit since 1944. In 1944
the phrase, "Nuts to you, Mac!" would be the equivalent of saying "Kiss
my a--, Bu--head!" today. Even without all the historical documentation
the likelihood that he said what was reported is quite high.
Traveler
Alan Koenig
Traveler (tvka...@iupui.edu) wrote:
: When this question arises from time to time, what most people forget is
: Traveler
By the way, the German asked if this was an affirmative or negative
response.
Can't remember the title of which book about the Bulge that I read
back in 1969, but I seem to recall that what he initially said was,
"Awwwhhh s***." While this is what he would have liked to have told
the Germans, he didn't deem that such language was appropriate in that
it would soon be picked up by the American press, so the wording was changed to
reflect the intent but not the vulgarity. What a shame more people
today don't have standards such as this. Instead we're left with
Hollyweird setting the standards.
Al Koenig
Univ. of Nebraska--Lincoln
Eddiejax
>Can't remember the title of which book about the Bulge that I read
>back in 1969, but I seem to recall that what he initially said was,
>"Awwwhhh s***."
Sorry, but unless you can give us a citation to a published work so that we can
check out the author's source, this doesn't contribute anything to the debate.
The Army's official history of the Battle of the Bulge doesn't indicate that
there is any question about what Gen. McAuliffe said, and in his history of the
Battle of the Bulge, "A Time for Trumpets", Charles B. MacDonald, who wrote
several of the Army's official histories, notes that he asked Gen. McAuliffe in
1949 whether he said anything other than "Nuts", and was assured that he said
exactly that (p. 676). So even if this unnamed book which you seem to remember
reading nearly 30 years ago quotes an eyewitness who can contradict Gen.
McAuliffe himself, I still wouldn't consider it a definitive account because it
is at variance with at least two well-respected historians of the ETO.
Edward Tannen
Tim Watkins
On February 15 1998 Allan Goodall <agoo...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> When asked if he would surrender, McAuliffe replied, "Nuts!"
> The German looked at him perplexed. He may actually have
> asked what he meant by "Nuts!" as I'm unclear on that point.
> But I am clear that McAuliffe further explained, "Do you know
> what 'go to Hell' means?"...
>
> So, yes, "Nuts!" was the actual response , though he clarified
> it as meaning "Go to Hell."
My references state it a bit differently. On 22 December a white
flag-carrying emissary from the Panzer-Lehr Division, led by Oberleutnant
(1st Lt.) Hellmuth Henke, approached the lines of F Company, 2nd
Battalion, 327th Glider Infantry on the Orlon highway.
Henke, who spoke English well, was in possession of a surrender demand
(in both German and English) from General der Panzertruppe von Luettwitz.
The note was delivered to Captain James McAdams, from McAdams to Major
Alvin Jones, and in turn brought to McAuliffe and his Chief of Staff, Lt.
Col. Ned Moore. The CO of the 327th was also in attendance, Col. Joseph
Harper (one source states the note was delivered to Moore and McAuliffe
by Harper).
When Lt. Col. Moore advised McAuliffe of the contents of the note, which
called for "the honorable surrender of the town", McAuliffe is reported
to have said "aw nuts!". When McAuliffe set out to draft a reply to the
Germans, Harper is reported to have suggested to McAuliffe, "General, why
don't you reply with your original word nuts?" (or words to that effect).
After Col. Harper volunteered to personally deliver the response to the
Germans, McAuliffe agreed to the answer:
"To the German Commander:
Nuts!
The American Commander."
Harper replied to the German emissary. When Henke asked Harper what the
response meant, Harper, seizing his moment in history, replied "in plain
English it is the same thing as 'Go to Hell!' And I will tell you
something else. If you continue to attack we will kill every god damn
German who tries to break into this city!"
Henke reportedly did not have any trouble understanding THAT response.
After a stiff salute, Henke reportedly stated, "we will kill many
Americans. This is war." Henke and the other 3 Panzertruppen of the
emissary then left and delivered McAuliff's now famous response to
Luettwitz.
Sources: 1) "Nuts! The Battle of the Bulge" by Donald Goldstein,
Katherine Dillon, and J. Michael Wenger (ISBN 0-02-881069-4);
2) "Hitler's Last Gamble" by Trevor Dupuy (ISBN
0-06-016627-4).
Tim Watkins
"We shall not capitulate - no, never, we may be destroyed, but if we are,
we shall drag a world with us - a world in flames."
- Adolf Hitler, 1932
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]