Last of Fromelles burials today 94 years on (1 Viewer)

In the case of Haig, he was the commander of the BEF, the highest ranking official from his nation in the chain of command. As I recall, during the fall of France in WWII, Lord Gort, the British commander was "ordered" by his nominal French superiors, Generals Gamelin, Billotte and Blanchard, to make several impossible or foolish attacks, and he wisely told them it was impossible and retreated to Dunkirk, saving several hundred thousand of his troops to fight another day. Gort was nobody's idea of a great general, but he was able to stand up to the pressue under far more difficult circumstances (a complete collapse of the Allied front) than Haig was faced with.

That is one of the differences I see between the BEF in WWI and WW II. In the latter, the British finally told the French, no, we're not going to throw good money after bad.

This is not relevant to this discussion but I have just finished reading James Holland's history of the European War between May 1940 and October 1940 and the bravery of units of the BEF, at the cost of their own lives, in holding off the Germans at the perimeter while the Navy was able to evacuate the BEF can never be over emphasized.
 
Brad, Alan is correct here my friend, you are way off base. The idea of me thinking 'How dare you insult our generals' is frankly plain wrong and I kind of hoped you'd give me credit for a bit more intelligence than that. This discussion has nothing to do with nationality in any way at all, this is about my point of view after studying and visiting the Western front for over thirty years.The trouble is Brad, now you've suggested the nationality thing people will read this, see the Union Jack in my posts and put two and two together,so I'll make this my last post on this.

I don't think me and Louis will agree on this. For me Louis is concentrating on the emotional side of things, with his repeated statements of Haig being happy to slaughter thousands to save his job and not caring about his men. He is looking at the battles from a modern perspective and shrugs off the pressure Haig was under from all sides as if it was 'Bad day at work' type of pressure, we may all be armchair generals but not one of us can have ever been under such pressure. We are talking the pressure of nations,governments,Royalty etc. The idea that Haig could just tell the French our ally in a terrible conflict to get lost in such a glib way is unrealistic.

There is also still the question of if not Paschendaele ridge,where?. And it most certainly is not all about the French either. The allies in their trenches in and around the Ypres Salient were suffering casualties on a daily basis from artillery fire, draining men and morale. The Brits sure as hell wanted the Germans off that bloody ridge.

I think Louis intense dislike of Haig comes from the totally understandable point of view of sympathy for the fallen that we all share, however it can blind one from the facts especially in WW1. He imagines right from the start that Haig had no expectation of success and planned to let tens of thousands die for no reason, this I am afraid is laughable, whatever you think of him Haig was a proffesional soldier with a good deal of experience.His planning and changing of those plans for both the Somme and Passchendaele are well documented.

Also Louis has written off Haig because of his failures and has not mentioned is huge role in the string of victories enjoyed by the British towards the end of the war,this is a glaring hole in his argument,Haig was a human being with many faults and some strengths, to ignore the victories is not to understand the full picture of that war and that era.

Haig made many mistakes and had many faults, but the idea he was some sort of deliberate mass murderer who sent men off to die with no thought or planning is plain wrong and an insult in my view.

I also think we should all be able to post threads without being shouted down,I believe its valid to put another point of view to the 'accepted' one without facing a barrage of critics,this has happened twice in the last twenty four hours to me. .


Rob

Rob,

We are good friends, and it is perfectly all right for good friends to disagree about historical arguments. Perhaps you are correct and Haig learned from his mistakes in 1918, and should be credited for those victories. I believe he was just the fortunate beneficiary of the invention of the Tank, the improved Allied fighters which overcame German air superiority, the arrival of fresh Allied troops, including the Doughboys, and the fact that the Germans had already been bled white.

However, assuming he should be credited for those later victories, I just can't forgive him for Passchendaele. I am very hard on commanders in all conflicts, especially American commanders and Allied commanders. I firmly believe that their decisions should always be analyzed and second guessed - because mistakes which cost human lives must be learned from, and cannot be repeated.

There are a lot of commanders I hold just as culpable as Haig for wasting their men's lives. On this thread we have discussed MacArthur, a man I firmly believed should have been stood up against a wall and shot. In the past on this forum we have discussed my anger at Patton for getting an entire combat command killed or captured on an ill concieved and unauthorized attempt to rescue his son in law from a POW camp. The common thread I see among these commanders is placing personal matters - keeping a command (Haig), getting the glory of total victory (MacArthur), a family member (Patton) over the welfare of the men under their command.

In the case of the above mentioned actions of MacArthur and Patton, I can see no explanation of their actions which is not criminal. You have made an argument which, if credited, could exhonorate Haig. Frankly, I wish that your argument was right, and that Haig really was a good man in impossible circumstances. I would rather believe Haig was facing an impossible decision than that he was a self-centered and prideful man principally concerned with his own position. But if he really was in impossible circumstances, why didn't he try to stop the attack? Why didn't he place his objections to the attack on the record, and state that he was making the attack under protest (like Longstreet did at Gettysburg)?
 
That is one of the differences I see between the BEF in WWI and WW II. In the latter, the British finally told the French, no, we're not going to throw good money after bad.

This is not relevant to this discussion but I have just finished reading James Holland's history of the European War between May 1940 and October 1940 and the bravery of units of the BEF, at the cost of their own lives, in holding off the Germans at the perimeter while the Navy was able to evacuate the BEF can never be over emphasized.

Then perhaps Gort learned from Haig's mistake.

I absolutely agree with you that the herosim of the British and other Allied forces that held the perimeter and allowed the evacuation at Dunkirk to succeed can never be over emphasized.

As you know, I have never been a fan of Bernard Montgomery. However, from what I had read, he was heavily involved in these actions, and deserves much of the credit for holding the perimeter.
 
Rob,

We are good friends, and it is perfectly all right for good friends to disagree about historical arguments. Perhaps you are correct and Haig learned from his mistakes in 1918, and should be credited for those victories. I believe he was just the fortunate beneficiary of the invention of the Tank, the improved Allied fighters which overcame German air superiority, the arrival of fresh Allied troops, including the Doughboys, and the fact that the Germans had already been bled white.

However, assuming he should be credited for those later victories, I just can't forgive him for Passchendaele. I am very hard on commanders in all conflicts, especially American commanders and Allied commanders. I firmly believe that their decisions should always be analyzed and second guessed - because mistakes which cost human lives must be learned from, and cannot be repeated.

There are a lot of commanders I hold just as culpable as Haig for wasting their men's lives. On this thread we have discussed MacArthur, a man I firmly believed should have been stood up against a wall and shot. In the past on this forum we have discussed my anger at Patton for getting an entire combat command killed or captured on an ill concieved and unauthorized attempt to rescue his son in law from a POW camp. The common thread I see among these commanders is placing personal matters - keeping a command (Haig), getting the glory of total victory (MacArthur), a family member (Patton) over the welfare of the men under their command.

In the case of the above mentioned actions of MacArthur and Patton, I can see no explanation of their actions which is not criminal. You have made an argument which, if credited, could exhonorate Haig. Frankly, I wish that your argument was right, and that Haig really was a good man in impossible circumstances. I would rather believe Haig was facing an impossible decision than that he was a self-centered and prideful man principally concerned with his own position. But if he really was in impossible circumstances, why didn't he try to stop the attack? Why didn't he place his objections to the attack on the record, and state that he was making the attack under protest (like Longstreet did at Gettysburg)?

Absolutely my friend, being able to disagree is what friendship and good forum fellowship is all about mate, no problems there.

And don't get me wrong, I don't forgive him for Passchendaele either,especially after the Somme. He should have been put out to pasture after the Somme and I think most of us agree that. What I guess I'm trying to put across in my side of the discussion is that when we judge him we should look at the round before sentencing. My question is, and I honestly do not know the answer is this. Does his victories in the last hundred days forgive him Passchendaele?. I really don't know the answer. My heart wants to say no it does not because of the slaughter of men for such little gain in horrendous conditions. But on the other hand his determination and leadership during first the final German advance and then the last hundred days ended the war and probably saved thousands of lives.

Incompetant,stubborn, outdated and poor at personal communication no doubt about it, does it mean he sat and planned the extermination of thousands of his own men,I'm not sure.

I tell you what is so bloody heartbreaking Louis, is that for years allied troops bled and died all over those sacred battlefields stuck in godforsaken trenches only for the Germans and then the Allies to sweep across them in 1918 at great speed, WW1 was a crime and as you say many generals have to hold their hands up to what went on, Haig has to shoulder his share of the blame with any glory he got.

Rob
 
Absolutely my friend, being able to disagree is what friendship and good forum fellowship is all about mate, no problems there.

And don't get me wrong, I don't forgive him for Passchendaele either,especially after the Somme. He should have been put out to pasture after the Somme and I think most of us agree that. What I guess I'm trying to put across in my side of the discussion is that when we judge him we should look at the round before sentencing. My question is, and I honestly do not know the answer is this. Does his victories in the last hundred days forgive him Passchendaele?. I really don't know the answer. My heart wants to say no it does not because of the slaughter of men for such little gain in horrendous conditions. But on the other hand his determination and leadership during first the final German advance and then the last hundred days ended the war and probably saved thousands of lives.

Incompetant,stubborn, outdated and poor at personal communication no doubt about it, does it mean he sat and planned the extermination of thousands of his own men,I'm not sure.

I tell you what is so bloody heartbreaking Louis, is that for years allied troops bled and died all over those sacred battlefields stuck in godforsaken trenches only for the Germans and then the Allies to sweep across them in 1918 at great speed, WW1 was a crime and as you say many generals have to hold their hands up to what went on, Haig has to shoulder his share of the blame with any glory he got.

Rob

Maybe we are not so far apart in what we believe historically, you may just be a better human being than I am, because you have a greater ability to forgive than I do.

You are also correct that it is not just Haig - there are a lot of generals on both sides in WWI that were unwilling or unable to abandon outdated tactics and develop tactics capable of addressing the horrors of 20th century warfare: the machine gun, barbed wire, the airplane, gas, flamethrowers.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about WWI is that only about a dozen years earlier, a lot of good British and Commonwealth troops died in the Great Anglo Boer War because the Boers had modern weapons, such as Krup artillery and excellent repeating rifles, and their commanders used 19th Century tactics. You would have thought that the Boer War would have taught the British military commanders a lot of lessons which would have been applicable to attacking in WWI.
 
Maybe we are not so far apart in what we believe historically, you may just be a better human being than I am, because you have a greater ability to forgive than I do.

You are also correct that it is not just Haig - there are a lot of generals on both sides in WWI that were unwilling or unable to abandon outdated tactics and develop tactics capable of addressing the horrors of 20th century warfare: the machine gun, barbed wire, the airplane, gas, flamethrowers.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about WWI is that only about a dozen years earlier, a lot of good British and Commonwealth troops died in the Great Anglo Boer War because the Boers had modern weapons, such as Krup artillery and excellent repeating rifles, and their commanders used 19th Century tactics. You would have thought that the Boer War would have taught the British military commanders a lot of lessons which would have been applicable to attacking in WWI.

We most probably do have a very similar outlook Louis,and I sure as hell am not a better human being than you mate, I still have trouble forgiving the Germans for some things done to my country during WW2, but everyone suffered so I am trying to move past it.;)

And yes technology is another big sore point in WW1, indeed Haig himself was rumoured to be indifferent to the machine gun and still confident his cavalry would break through on the Somme. If he did doubt the MG it sure came back to bite him on the arse that sunny bright 1st of July morning.

And yes the adoption of new tactis seems to have been so slow, maybe they just got too comfortable policing the empire and not thinking ahead to major conflicts, and maybe they were just relying too much on the Navy to settle any 'disputes' that arose.

Rob
 
Now that the spirit of the debate has come back to the original post and, the respect those who have done so much to ensure these troops regardless of what, who and why of the military I have a question for our US colleagues that was posed when I was sitting in as a guest in my wife's international law LLM: 'does the politics of the US government during the vietnam war amount to a war crime for the loss of over 50,000 soldiers'????

With the comments about Haig being shot for his murderous role it is as equally a valid question should US generals be shot for their role along with the politicians???
Mitch
 
. You would have thought that the Boer War would have taught the British military commanders a lot of lessons which would have been applicable to attacking in WWI.

The Boer War was primarily a war of movement, a war which Haig as a cavalryman could understand. The trench warfare of WW1 would have been totaly alien and Haig wanted the infantry to break through so that the cavalry could resume that movement. WW2 again was a war of movement and the Allied commanders, initially expecting something similar to WW1 were caught off guard. Montgomery, having experienced the slaughter of 14-18, was very mindful of avoiding casualties and was regarded as over cautious and even timid by some American commanders. Which just goes to show you can't win whatever you do. Ignore casualties you're a murdering monster, be mindful you're a timid little cowardy custard.
 
Wasn't it also a case of the British having finite resources in men due to what happened in WW I?
 
Now that the spirit of the debate has come back to the original post and, the respect those who have done so much to ensure these troops regardless of what, who and why of the military I have a question for our US colleagues that was posed when I was sitting in as a guest in my wife's international law LLM: 'does the politics of the US government during the vietnam war amount to a war crime for the loss of over 50,000 soldiers'????

With the comments about Haig being shot for his murderous role it is as equally a valid question should US generals be shot for their role along with the politicians???
Mitch

Mitch,

As my posts have made clear, I have no problem with MacArthur and Patton facing justice for their crimes (MacArthur's disobeying Truman's direct order and bombing China, a capital crime in wartime and Patton's dispatch of an entire combat command outside of his area of operation and more than 30 miles behind enemy lines to attempt to rescue his son-in-law from a POW camp, resulting in the entire combat command being killed or captured), and have stated that their guilt is even more clear than Haig's, so I think I have made clear that I hold generals from my nation as culpable as those from elsewhere.
 
The Boer War was primarily a war of movement, a war which Haig as a cavalryman could understand. The trench warfare of WW1 would have been totaly alien and Haig wanted the infantry to break through so that the cavalry could resume that movement. WW2 again was a war of movement and the Allied commanders, initially expecting something similar to WW1 were caught off guard. Montgomery, having experienced the slaughter of 14-18, was very mindful of avoiding casualties and was regarded as over cautious and even timid by some American commanders. Which just goes to show you can't win whatever you do. Ignore casualties you're a murdering monster, be mindful you're a timid little cowardy custard.

The worst disaster the British suffered fighting the Boers was an attack on a Boer encampment on top of a steep hill (Spionkop?). The British sent frontal assault after frontal assault up the hill into the teeth of Boer repeating rifle fire, and sustained appalling casualties.

Another British disaster fighting the Boers resulted from exposing artillery to Boer snipers, and then getting a bunch of soldiers (including Frederick Sleigh Robert's son) killed trying to advance to relieve the guns.

Advancing British infantry also sustained severe casualties advancing across exposed ground in the face of rapid fire Krup "pom-pom" guns.

It was these types of experiences in modern warfare during the Boer Wars that I was referring to in terms of learning experiences that should have taught the British high command that its tactics in going over the top into the face of machine guns, repeating rifles, and rapid fire artillery were not going to work.
 
Louis...

Obliged as I have not seen previous debates mentioned I accept what you say but, it is a very interesting debate as what can be viewed as a war crime is very contentious especially, when certain countries were against ratifying the ICC. To me, all war is aggressive and, hindsight is always a great thing to have as I said last evening not only, do we have to consider the actions but, and, its an important but the times the actions were taken in

Its a debate, which, I have great interest in and look forward to many more posts on these subjects
Mitch
 
Gentlemen,
May I congratulate all concern on this thread for an interesting exchange of ideas across the globe. Good mates can debate a subject of military history without getting into a personal slinging match.
To the original post. I have watched all the TV footage of the ceromonies at Fromelles, slightly teary eyed and wish to salute the brave fallen allied soldiers. To the members of the Forum who took part in this debate I also salute you. It is a pity we cannot now all ajourn to the Mess and enjoy a refreshing ale or two.
Cheers Howard
 
Did MacArthur actually bomb China before they entered the war or just advocate it and against orders, make inflammatory statements about bombing them with nuclear bombs.

Wasn't it his advance to the Yalu river that brought China into the war? Was that against orders?

And don't forget his landing at Inchon which saved South Korea.

Terry
 
Did MacArthur actually bomb China before they entered the war or just advocate it and against orders, make inflammatory statements about bombing them with nuclear bombs.

Wasn't it his advance to the Yalu river that brought China into the war? Was that against orders?

And don't forget his landing at Inchon which saved South Korea.

Terry

Here is a quote from a Constitutional Website setting forth exactly what MacArthur did, both good and bad, in Korea:

By the fall of 1950, the war was going badly for South Korea and its allies. The North Korean Army had cornered American, South Korean, and other U.N. troops in a small area around the southern port of Pusan. Defeat seemed inevitable.

But General MacArthur devised a bold and risky plan. The North Koreans had taken most of the Korean peninsula. He proposed landing troops from the sea at the port of Inchon far behind enemy lines. The troops would cut off enemy communications and supply lines, retake Seoul (the capital), and "hammer and destroy the North Koreans."

But Inchon seemed an improbable site. The approach was narrow and could be easily mined. The currents ran swift and made it hazardous for landing troops. Mud flats prevented any amphibious landing. The landing would have to be made on one of the three days each month when the tide covered the mud flats. Once ashore, the troops would have to climb sea walls and cliffs. The enemy could defend the port from the heights surrounding it. For all these reasons, many of the high command opposed an Inchon landing and proposed other sites.

But MacArthur believed that because Inchon was such an awful place for a landing, his troops would take the enemy by surprise, which they did on September 15. At the same time, the besieged U.N. troops in the south around Pusan also attacked. The combined forces drove the North Koreans above the 38th parallel in 15 days.

Next came perhaps the most fateful decisions of the Korean War. Pressed by MacArthur, Truman authorized him to pursue the North Korean troops north of the 38th parallel. The United States succeeded in getting a new U.N. resolution. It called for the destruction of the North Korean Army and the reunification of Korea under a democratic government.

American troops led the offensive beyond the 38th parallel, pushing the North Koreans toward the Yalu River, which separated Korea from Communist China. Despite assurances by the United States that U.N. troops would stop at the Yalu, the Chinese government warned that any foreign forces north of the 38th parallel posed a threat to China's security.

China Enters the War

Over the weekend of October 15-17, President Truman flew to Wake Island in the Pacific to meet General MacArthur for the first time. The most important question that Truman asked MacArthur was whether he thought China would enter the war. The general confidently replied that the Chinese would not enter the fighting, and the war would be over by Christmas.

Anxious to wrap up the war, MacArthur ordered American and other U.N. troops to press on to the Yalu River. In doing this, he ignored the warnings of the Communist Chinese as well as a directive by military planners in Washington to send only South Korean troops into the provinces bordering China.

On November 25, 1950, nearly 200,000 Chinese soldiers poured across the Yalu River, forcing U.N. forces into a full retreat to the south.
 
Here is a quote from a Constitutional Website setting forth exactly what MacArthur did, both good and bad, in Korea:

By the fall of 1950, the war was going badly for South Korea and its allies. The North Korean Army had cornered American, South Korean, and other U.N. troops in a small area around the southern port of Pusan. Defeat seemed inevitable.

But General MacArthur devised a bold and risky plan. The North Koreans had taken most of the Korean peninsula. He proposed landing troops from the sea at the port of Inchon far behind enemy lines. The troops would cut off enemy communications and supply lines, retake Seoul (the capital), and "hammer and destroy the North Koreans."

But Inchon seemed an improbable site. The approach was narrow and could be easily mined. The currents ran swift and made it hazardous for landing troops. Mud flats prevented any amphibious landing. The landing would have to be made on one of the three days each month when the tide covered the mud flats. Once ashore, the troops would have to climb sea walls and cliffs. The enemy could defend the port from the heights surrounding it. For all these reasons, many of the high command opposed an Inchon landing and proposed other sites.

But MacArthur believed that because Inchon was such an awful place for a landing, his troops would take the enemy by surprise, which they did on September 15. At the same time, the besieged U.N. troops in the south around Pusan also attacked. The combined forces drove the North Koreans above the 38th parallel in 15 days.

Next came perhaps the most fateful decisions of the Korean War. Pressed by MacArthur, Truman authorized him to pursue the North Korean troops north of the 38th parallel. The United States succeeded in getting a new U.N. resolution. It called for the destruction of the North Korean Army and the reunification of Korea under a democratic government.

American troops led the offensive beyond the 38th parallel, pushing the North Koreans toward the Yalu River, which separated Korea from Communist China. Despite assurances by the United States that U.N. troops would stop at the Yalu, the Chinese government warned that any foreign forces north of the 38th parallel posed a threat to China's security.

China Enters the War

Over the weekend of October 15-17, President Truman flew to Wake Island in the Pacific to meet General MacArthur for the first time. The most important question that Truman asked MacArthur was whether he thought China would enter the war. The general confidently replied that the Chinese would not enter the fighting, and the war would be over by Christmas.

Anxious to wrap up the war, MacArthur ordered American and other U.N. troops to press on to the Yalu River. In doing this, he ignored the warnings of the Communist Chinese as well as a directive by military planners in Washington to send only South Korean troops into the provinces bordering China.

On November 25, 1950, nearly 200,000 Chinese soldiers poured across the Yalu River, forcing U.N. forces into a full retreat to the south.

Was the directive by military planners an order or a recommendation? Did MacArthur disobey an order not not send US troops north of the 38th parallel, or did he just mistakenly take the Chinese warning as a bluff. He gambled on Inchon and won big. He gambled on the 38th to end the war fast and lost. And there is no guarantee China would have stayed out of the war if only South Korean troops went north of the 38th parallel.

I just don't think MacArthur's actions are comparable to those of Haig or Patton, and I am no fan of MacArthur.

Terry.
 
Was the directive by military planners an order or a recommendation? Did MacArthur disobey an order not not send US troops north of the 38th parallel, or did he just mistakenly take the Chinese warning as a bluff. He gambled on Inchon and won big. He gambled on the 38th to end the war fast and lost. And there is no guarantee China would have stayed out of the war if only South Korean troops went north of the 38th parallel.

I just don't think MacArthur's actions are comparable to those of Haig or Patton, and I am no fan of MacArthur.

Terry.

From that website, and a couple of others, he disobeyed a direct order not to use American troops along the border with China. Then, after he was directly ordered not to bomb China (during peace talks between Truman and the Chinese) he repeatedly threatened to do so, and after he was ordered not to make any further comments about what should and should not be done to the Chinese, continued to do, including in a letter sent to his Republican supporters in China, which stated that the Civilian authorities had no right to tell him how to proceed. That was when Truman dismissed him from the armed forces.

I don't know how comparable his actions are to Haig and Patton, but his actions in putting American Troops on the Chinese border, which directly disobeyed an order, and his subsequent challenge to Truman's right to command him, was certainly insubordination during wartime. What would have happened if a Colonel had directly disobeyed MacArthur's orders, resulting in a large loss of life? I can only assume he would be court martialled.
 
From that website, and a couple of others, he disobeyed a direct order not to use American troops along the border with China. Then, after he was directly ordered not to bomb China (during peace talks between Truman and the Chinese) he repeatedly threatened to do so, and after he was ordered not to make any further comments about what should and should not be done to the Chinese, continued to do, including in a letter sent to his Republican supporters in China, which stated that the Civilian authorities had no right to tell him how to proceed. That was when Truman dismissed him from the armed forces.

I don't know how comparable his actions are to Haig and Patton, but his actions in putting American Troops on the Chinese border, which directly disobeyed an order, and his subsequent challenge to Truman's right to command him, was certainly insubordination during wartime. What would have happened if a Colonel had directly disobeyed MacArthur's orders, resulting in a large loss of life? I can only assume he would be court martialled.

Well that is different - he actually disobeyed a direct order not to use US troops along the Chinese border.

Terry
 
Gentlemen,
May I congratulate all concern on this thread for an interesting exchange of ideas across the globe. Good mates can debate a subject of military history without getting into a personal slinging match.
To the original post. I have watched all the TV footage of the ceromonies at Fromelles, slightly teary eyed and wish to salute the brave fallen allied soldiers. To the members of the Forum who took part in this debate I also salute you. It is a pity we cannot now all ajourn to the Mess and enjoy a refreshing ale or two.
Cheers Howard

Yes, let's all ajourn for that ale, and I do believe it's your shout Howard ;) :D

Btw guys, as several of you like a good discussion I have just resurected an old thread from 2005 (World War Two Politics and Command) which resulted in some interesting discussions at the time. Maybe some member(s) would like to continue one of the many topics that arose from it: http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1010&page=3
 
All military plans are made with the assumption of success despite the risks involved. When they succeed, as MacArthur at Inchon, they are hailed as brilliant. When they fail the organisers are blamed as incompetent. But the plans are made with a purpose, capture or recapture and hold a position, pinch out a salient, prevent the enemies access to a target etc. The only cases I am aware of where this wasn't applied was in Vietnam where hundreds of brave young Americans, God rest them all, were sent repeatedly to capture a hill or position only to abandon it as soon as it was taken, allowing the NVA or VC to re-occupy it with no effort. That truly was futile.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top