Some clarifications about Falaise

[army]

Re: Some clarifications about Falaise





Posted by Jules Deschenes from Canada on April 22, 1999 at 07:30:03:


In Reply to: Some clarifications about Falaise posted by Brad Sallows on April 21, 1999 at 13:38:09:



When Rohmer revised his book he couldn‘t get to see Bradley because of age a health reasons. All his papers had been mover to the Smithsonian. He went to see the curator and got to read the notes. It was Monty who told Bradley to stop Patton. Another US field officer General was so pissed off at the order that he threatened to resign on the spot. If you‘e going to correct people please read more than one book and stop believing Brit hype.

 

[army]

Some clarifications about Rohmer





Posted by Brad Sallows from Burnaby BC Canada on April 22, 1999 at 13:05:23:


In Reply to: Re: Some clarifications about Falaise posted by Jules Deschenes on April 22, 1999 at 07:30:03:



D‘Este quotes Bradley from "A General‘s Life" by Bradley:
"Patton, in his diary, blamed Montgomery: ‘I believe that the
order...emanated from the 21st Army Group, and was either due
to [British] jealousy of the Americans or to utter ignorance
of the situation or to a combination of the two.‘ But, in fact,
Montgomery had no part in the decision it was mine and mine
alone. Some writers have suggested that I appealed to Monty
to move the boundary north to Falaise and he refused, but, of
course, that is not true. For all the reasons I have stated, I
was determined to hold Patton at Argentan and had no cause to
ask Monty to shift the boundary. Ike, as he wrote in his memoirs,
‘completed supported‘ me in this decision."

So here we have Bradley claiming sole responsibility for the matter,
and noting that Patton was mistaken in his beliefs. How odd that
Rohmer should omit to mention or take account of this fact.

D‘Este, incidentally, is a retired LCol of the US Army and has no
particular fondness for Montgomery. Neither do I.