You can probably imagine how well Monty reacted to that. But Monty was utterly focused on Market Garden (somewhat understandably) and hadn't spotted how dire the supply situation was.
Luckily Ramsay, the greatest logistician of WW2, did. And realised someone needed to step in.
Eisenhower too realised the danger once it was highlighted, and ordered Monty to divert some focus.
To say Ramsay was off of Monty's Xmas card list after that would be something of an understatement.
The area is worth a visit if you get a chance on a tour today.
The flat, flooded terrain is pretty sobering. The thought of amphibiously land there and having to fight entrenched German positions is beyond frightening.
The men who fought there deserve a greater place in memory.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm fascinated by how military history shapes language in ways we don't spot. Mostly navy in the UK but army too.
E.g.
Stop and ask yourself: why do so many British football clubs have a Kop end?
Let's talk Boer War battles, Jack the Ripper, Gandhi, Churchill and football /1
Let's start where this begins. January 1900. Second Boer War in South Africa.
Britain is fighting the Orange Free State and Transvaal. It's all very 'late Empire'. Grim. Bloody. Atrocities on both sides. "It'll be over by Christmas". Weapons making old tactics outdated. etc.
In fact, one reason the whole "lions led by donkeys"/Blackadder image of WW1 is wrong about THAT conflict is because the army learns from the Boer Wars, which ARE like that.
Lots of bad British generals doing generally bad things, while junior commanders try to save the day.
So the state (rightly) has to decide, in some way, what makes a kid rich and a kid poor.
You'd think that's straight forward in theory. But it turns out that poverty is like that (almost certainly apocryphal) French judicial definition of porn:
"You know it when you see it."
But of course you can't build a grant/loan system based on "know it when you see it". You need written rules. To keep things fair. In theory.
His ability to play Warwick to Boris' boy king was critical to Boris navigating London politics and government early on.
And his tragically early death is really the point at which the shine and functional drive started to come off his mayoralty.
He never replaced Milton IMHO.
Milton is why Boris has been so wedded to Cummings. He's been trying to recreate that power-behind-the-throne model with someone he feels he can trust and delegate the actual thinking of government to, ever since.
Something to remember about Boris: his spectacular laziness is always at war with his fragile ego.
So he hires people to tell him what to do. But eventually gets upset at jokes about him being told what to do. Then fires those people and hires someone ELSE to tell him what to do
There's a couple of stages between the two, but it's relatively easy to see coming.
You just watch for him announcing giant pointless projects. That's normally his last attempt to make people talk about him instead. If they don't get traction, he gets sulky and starts firing.
One of the advantages he had as mayor was that he could just appoint a shitload of deputy mayors to do a lot of the legwork. And they had no political power OUTSIDE of him.
Made binning them as part of temper tantrum nice and easy.