[1 of 9]

Back to the Battle of the Bulge.

He's late.

Thursday, December 28, 1944, ~ 2:30 PM.

Delayed by fog and snowbanks, Eisenhower's command train pulls into a rail siding in the Belgian town of Hasselt three hours behind schedule.

[2 of 9]

Ike is there to meet with Monty.

Ike needs to get the bellicose Brit on board with this plan [we're calling it the "middle option" plan] we showed you yesterday.
[3 of 9]

Monty is good with the plan, but he believes it's too early to counterattack.

Monty makes his case: intel suggests another (final) impending German attack, so we should build up our defenses & wait rather than attack.
[4 of 9]

Monty recommends a strategy of patience. He wants more divisions, he wants to set conditions before a strike. Wait for the moment to present itself, then pour it on.

[if you get the point of this GIF, we appreciate you]
[5 of 9]

Ike counters: If we remain stagnant, we may lose our gains. If we lose momentum, we allow the Panzers to slink back over the West Wall and this war might go on for years.
[6 of 9]

The meeting ends ~ 30 minutes after it began. Monty gets out of the car. Ike's train pulls out.
[7 of 9]

As often with Monty, there is confusion. You see, Ike believed he was clear and that Monty consented: the attack will start on January 1st, four days from now.
[8 of 9]

Monty, however, returned to his headquarters in this house in Zonhoven, Belgium. He tells his staff that he won Ike over, that they have more time. There is no set date for attack.
[END]

Monty continued: In speaking with the Great General (Monty, that is, of course), Eisenhower saw the limits of his own abilities of command.

Ike, meanwhile, thinks the attack will launch in less than 90 hours.

More from XVIII Airborne Corps🐉

More from All

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?