Thoughts on "Raid!: The Untold Story of Patton's Secret Mission"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
a425couple - 05 Jul 2008 07:03 GMT I'll post some of my thoughts on the most recent WWII book I've finished. (no way will I set myself up by calling it a "review" just a few of IMHO thoughts on this book)
This is a 'niche' book, subject was of special interest to me, but probably few others,
"Raid!: The Untold Story of Patton's Secret Mission" by Richard Baron, Abe Baum, Richard Goldhurst - History - 1981 - 283 pages. By pure chance I found this in a thrift story for $2.00 (and had a special interest in this raid, and had to have it). But now I see there are 5 used versions on Amazon that you can get shipped to your door for under $5.00 total!
A quite worthwhile book if interested in one "little raid" with plenty of individual stories - heroic, fatalistic, sad & luck.
This is the story of Patton on 25 March 1945 sending 300 soldiers and bout 30 vehicles on a raid 50 miles behind Allied lines to 'rescue' the POWs at Hammelburg (where he knew his son in law was being kept!). Turned into quite a disaster. Very good list of references/sources used, and final results for many involved. Fairly easy read, not real professional.
Anyone else read? Or care to offer thoughts?
(not worth rewritting to make perfect sense, but will cut and paste here what thanks I wrote to someone on another newsgroup) Going semi-OT, We were talking about WEB Griffin, "The Lieutenants", and you pointed out to me the 'real life' model for that raid to free POWs (on wiki). Thanks again for that. Since then I've gotten and read the 1981 book "The Raid, the untold story of Patton's secret mission" by Richard Baron, Maj Abe Baum, and Richard Goldhurst. It is VERY clear to me, that Griffin had read this before writting his 1982 book. The concept, and way many individual incidents/inspirations (maybe later add more?).
In many ways Griffin's fiction made more sense than the reality. The basic premise of risking forces for a daring raid to free POWs from Russian control makes more sense than the real case of risking forces (and certainly some risk to POWs themselves) to 'advance' the liberation by 2 weeks ---- ??
And, although Griffin kept the 'force' small, he gave it greatly enhanced chance of success by giving it adequate air recon / eyes.
I was struck by one of the great ironys / bad luck of the real raid. Here this task force is struggling with totally lacking inteligence/maps, and in the dark they keep getting hemmed in, and settle down to await daylight --- Where? - right on the range that was being used by Germany for their tank/anti-tank training and firing. They knew the land, the distances, and had training. Perfect 'training opportunity!!' Pull the 'kids' out of the OCS at night, give them equipment, briefing, orders, and have them do a real life "training opportunity"! "Sweet" for one side, "Ahh sh.t" for the other.
William Black - 05 Jul 2008 17:42 GMT > In many ways Griffin's fiction made more sense than the reality. The > basic premise of risking forces for a daring raid to free POWs from > Russian control makes more sense than the real case of risking forces (and > certainly some risk to POWs themselves) > to 'advance' the liberation by 2 weeks ---- ?? Why?
Is there any evidence that the Russians were up to something sinister with Allied PoWs who fell into their hands?
 Signature William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea.
David H Thornley - 07 Jul 2008 03:49 GMT > Is there any evidence that the Russians were up to something sinister with > Allied PoWs who fell into their hands? I don't think anything sinister did happen, in general, but at that time who knew? The Allies were feeling increasingly suspicious from about the Warsaw uprising on, and nobody really wanted to take chances.
Of course, the Nazis distrusted the Soviets even more; Dad was marched away from his prison camp, ostensibly to keep him from the Soviets, but he always referred to it as a death march.
 Signature David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask. david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee. http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
a425couple - 07 Jul 2008 16:23 GMT "David H Thornley" <david@thornley.net> wrote
> William Black wrote: >> Is there any evidence that the Russians were up to something >> sinister with Allied PoWs who fell into their hands? (I'm working on that - delayed)
> --- Dad was marched > away from his prison camp, ostensibly to keep him from the Soviets, > but he always referred to it as a death march. Wow! Was he one of the 1,600 who were put in the Szubin oflag (oflag 64) (aka Alt Bergund) (middle of Poland)?
On 21 January 1945 with the temp. at -20, Germans began to march 1,400 back towards Germany. (200 sick & wounded left behind) Very tough and epic march - but mostly 'humane'. 1,200 reached Parchim in central Germany (200 had escaped or killed, or to hospitals--) Of these 400 shipped by train to Hammelburg. And 400 shipped by train to oflag east of Berlin. Last 400 were marched all the way to Hammelburg.
narrledudh@hotmail.com - 07 Jul 2008 16:53 GMT On Jul 5, 11:42 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > In many ways Griffin's fiction made more sense than the reality. The > > basic premise of risking forces for a daring raid to free POWs from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is there any evidence that the Russians were up to something sinister with > Allied PoWs who fell into their hands? There was a flurry of reports about the Sovs detaining some Western PoWs that came out after the demise of the USSR, but I don't know if anything has been done since to confirm or deny them. In one specific case-- the (as far as I know unique) airlift of US and UK/C PoWs who had been held in Stalag Luft I at Barth-- there may have been a high- level political deal made in connection with the prompt repatriation of Vlasov and his men to Soviet hands. Or maybe not . . .
Narr
William Black - 07 Jul 2008 19:08 GMT > On Jul 5, 11:42 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > level political deal made in connection with the prompt repatriation > of Vlasov and his men to Soviet hands. Or maybe not . . . As far as I'm aware the exchange of traitors was by agreement.
We got ours back, they got theirs back.
 Signature William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea.
narrledudh@hotmail.com - 07 Jul 2008 21:05 GMT On Jul 7, 1:08 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> <narrled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > As far as I'm aware the exchange of traitors was by agreement. Indeed, but apparently there was some glitch or hiccup over Vlasov, and the Sovs had to hint about not being in any big hurry to release the Stalag Luft 1 group. As I mentioned, they (uniquely as far as I know) were allowed to leave by RAF and USAAF air transport from Soviet- occupied territory.
Narr
a425couple - 07 Jul 2008 21:05 GMT > "a425couple" <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote >> In many ways Griffin's fiction made more sense than the reality. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why? "Why does the fiction make more sense than reality?" I think that most who read both books, would accept this. I am quite sure I could explain it, but doing so in economical use of time and words - - ? ((PS note - I blew that one!)) (This will teach me, what I already pretty much follow, to never even mention a rare "fiction read" on this ng.!! I try to avoid creating false memories, in myself and others.)
Perhaps quickest way is to just ask you to explain a good logical reason ("sense") for the 'real life' raid that "was the first total loss of such a large task force from the 4th Armored" ((Div.)) ((slight correction to this statement from the book - at least one person managed to evade capture and sneak back and safely enter Allied lines)).
The best defense Patton could come up with for it, given total hindsight, after main facts were in, -was it was a "diversionary raid". Well, sorta OK, after the fact, , , turns out it did really seem to divert German attention, -- however, completely lost the US force (294 men, 53 vehicles, plus some POWs ((Patton's s-i-l was shot in the hip, nearly fatal / perminent, but he got badly wounded by this attempt to free him early.)) )
In general, the priority of US and UK fighting forces was placed on attacking the remaining German military strength and on siezing important objectives to win the whole war quickly. When that accomplished quickly, everything else would sort out quickly. This diviated. Seems like nowhere else, was a priority placed on getting to a POW camp.
I think it's also worth noting, from another source ("Patton, Ordeal and Triumph" by Ladislas Farago) Ike "was becoming increasingly exasperated with Patton's recurring antics. --- baffling change had come over Patton. Something was driving him into callous and arbitrary acts: he was arrogating undue privledges to himself -- reckless arrogance." "The latest cycle ((in Patton's decline)) had begun on April 18th, ((long after raid, even long after s-i-l liberated)) when Patton fired a SHAEF censor (over whom he had no authority) for having passed a story about the ill-starred Hammelburg raid." Clearly Patton did many things to quash the spread of knowledge of this raid. He clearly either greatly danced with semantics, or lied about it. In the end of it all, he got relieved, got a command way down.
> Is there any evidence that the Russians were up to something > sinister with Allied PoWs who fell into their hands? Well, first off Mr. Black, note that the word "sinister" is your creation, not mine. However, In some regards (esp. see the part 2), I think one could make a defense of that word - that I did not use.
1. First, the risk of going from area controled by Germany into official/documented Russian control. The Russian assault troops did not have the same general attitude and leadership offered by US products of Academies and OCS. The Russian front line assault troops on the push through Poland and eastern Germany, were -- well, rather callous about lives and nicety. Plenty of evidence of them, when in doubt killing. Plenty of evidence of even clearly non combatants being abused.
2. Then the issue of being returned by the ally USSR, to US control. (Schucks, disgusted with myself, thought refinding a quote and a clear source I read recently would be easy, take 10 min. now I've wasted many hours in 3 books, this from "Raid".) 2A. General John R. Deane was the head of the US Military Mission in Moscow. He was "deeply annoyed" by the Russians delaying and NKVD interrogating and interning returning Americans. (You might read Deane's "Strange Alliance", 1973.) Four US POWs slipped away from the march from the Szubin oflag to the Hammelburg oflag. They headed east. They were able to safely enter Russian control, and "were packed off to a displaced persons camp near Warsaw where conditions were more intolerable than the Szubin oflag. The Americans shared unheated barraks with Jews, Italians, Poles, - every one of whom had dysentery, tapeworm or pneumonia. The food was soup; there was no bread --. Eventually the Americans were crammed into boxcars and transported to Odessa, where Gen Deane claimed them. By now the general was less than amazed to learn --- that there were not 350 unclaimed Americans in Poland and Russia, but 3,600."
2B. Specific & related, from a book by Harclerode, "three British officers, Col Marko Hudson, Maj. Kemp & Solly-Flood, ---- In mid-January 1945 (they) made their way to the nearest Soviet headquarters where they were promptly placed under house arrest and kept on a diet of bread and water, being interrogated by the Soviets --. On 12 Feb they were dispatched to Moscow, -- subsequently -- returned to Britian."
Certainly there were plenty of cases of individuals 'disappearing' into NKVD control. Some for years, some forever. Many were total 'unknowns'. Some like Wallenburg, had people in the US/UK caring about them. There have been concerns, that some US/UK citizens also disappeared.
Seemingly unrelated to above true story, a separate true story fact: After the Germans found the evidence at the Katyn Forest, (the Soviets after conquering 'their half' of Poland, separated out the officers/inteligencia and masacured over 20,000 of them) they did get at least two senior US officers from their POW camps (attempt to get credibility and impartiality) to view the 'impartial/neutral' forensic investigation. During the war the Allies all put up a united front, in officially sticking to the line, that this was all a German propaganda lie, and refused to acknowledge that the Soviets very intentionally killed these thousands of POWs. Of course, it turns out, that: 1. Not everything your enemy says - is a lie. 2. Not everything your ally says - is the truth. 3. In certain cases - your enemy can show some honor. 4. In certain cases - your ally can do horrible things. After the war, we now know, the Soviets after consideration, did intentionally kill a great number of the future Polish leading class (including like 14 year old Polish military cadets & doctors).
In conclusion, the wisdom of the great majority at the time, was it was better to fall into US/UK control on the West, rather than USSR control on the Eastern Front.
brandon - 06 Jul 2008 20:50 GMT > This is the story of Patton on 25 March 1945 sending > 300 soldiers and bout 30 vehicles on a raid 50 miles > behind Allied lines to 'rescue' the POWs at Hammelburg > (where he knew his son in law was being kept!). > Turned into quite a disaster. This is very exciting. Was Pattons son-in-law rescued? or was he executed by the Nazis after the botched attempt? why not give those details.
David H Thornley - 07 Jul 2008 03:51 GMT > This is very exciting. > Was Pattons son-in-law rescued? Temporarily, but the rescue column was ambushed on the way back and he was seriously wounded. He survived.
or was he executed by the Nazis after
> the botched attempt? No, although I'm not thoroughly familiar with the details I know of no illegal German actions.
> why not give those details. Any decent biography of Patton will cover this, and we had a discussion in this newsgroup not too long ago.
 Signature David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask. david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee. http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
a425couple - 07 Jul 2008 21:27 GMT "brandon" <brandon_z2003@yahoo.com> wrote
>> This is the story of Patton on 25 March 1945 sending >> 294 soldiers and 53 vehicles on a raid 50 miles (more accurate numbers inserted above)
>> behind Allied lines to 'rescue' the POWs at Hammelburg >> (where he knew his son in law was being kept!). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Was Pattons son-in-law rescued? > why not give those details. "Why?" I was not sure many interested, also limited time.
What happened? It twists with lots of details. In short, Col John Waters (the s-i-l) got shot in the hip as the TF descended on the oflag. Taken to the POW hospital, saved his life, and luckily - much later - totally healed. So, he never got to try for freedom with the small TF (note - "try", they ((TF & the few POWs who went with them)) were very soon captured/recaptured). Waters was still there when the camp was liberated on 6 April. Special attention - Patton's personal physician Major Odom was present, within hours 2 piper cubs flew Odom and Waters out. The rest were left for quite a while, and the "speedy evacuation" "did not sit well with -- the other patients" (included the TF commander).
(For many that were not in the hospital, they were earlier moved to a POW compound at Moosburg - and this book does not give a date for it's liberation. ((But, google - wiki Moosburg, gives 29 April 45.)) )
As to the part I snipped, I'll make a broad statement: Especially at this stage of the war, the majority of German commanders and troops understood the reality, and the implications, and tried to treat US/UK POWs decently and keep them safe.
|
|
|