Jump to content

Talk:John P. Lucas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relief of command

[edit]

The reason for the relief of Lucas by Truscott was not, repeat not, his alleged failure to push inland to the Alban Hills immediately on landing at Anzio. All the American commanders, including Mark W. Clark and Lucas's successor, Lucian Truscott, were agreed that to sned part of his force (only two divisions) up to the Alban Hills without consolidating the beachhead would have been suicide.

Opinions on this subject break down somewhat along national lines. Though the Americans supported Lucas, the British, alomst to a man, condemn him for consolidating the beachhead before driving inland. Harold Alexander was one of those holding this view. But it must be remembered that SHINGLE was Churchill's project, and it was a bad idea to start with. Lucas was a scapegoat for them. They all fell in line behind Churchill's views.

Lucas was, in the final analysis, removed because of his chronic pessimism, which was picked up by his staff. Replacing him with Truscott was the right move.

It cannot be taken away from Lucas, however, that he was in command all the time the Beachhead was in danger from Kesselring's and von Mackensen's armies. Lucas deserves better from history than he has received. 

                               John SD Eisenhower
                               author, THEY FOUGHT AT ANZIO
                               to be published in the spring of 2007
The above sounds like OR, NPOV and self-published material. All contraventions of WP policy.

Relieved of Command

[edit]

This section is terrible. It seems like revisionist history.

I note the editor above made some comment that blame comes down to nationalist lines, the British condemn Lucas, the Americans condone.

Well considering the undeniable facts, that the landings went largely unopposed, that the road to Rome (if a reconnoitring force had been sent out) lay open , the resulting failure to drive inland created, arguably, 43,000 unnecessary combat casualties (7,000 killed, 36, 000 wounded or missing).

Compare Anzio to the Normandy Landings. Breakout was the key, and Eisenhower knew that (hence the fear of the Panzer Korps in the Pas de Calais)

Maybe Lucas was combat weary, but that does not excuse the fiasco that followed, while he was in command.

The Americans got hemmed in by Kesselring's forces and were shelled and strafed for weeks on the beaches.

In the end, Lucas had to go.

I note that the editor who has written the apologist peace makes no allusions to Patton for instance, if he hadn't have been relieved himself for striking a soldier, Anzio would have been so, so different.

Why? Patton was an attacking general not a defensive officer sitting in his dugout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.104.160 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tags, Sep 4

[edit]
While I do not disagree with the intent of the tags added on 9/4/09, there were so many that it made the section almost impossible to read. Surely the section tags are enough to make the point that the section needs referencing an containsa lot of uncited POV.
The notion that Patton or anyone else could have taken and held Rome with a two-division force is plain silly; the differences between Anzio and Normandy are far too numerous to mention.
regards, DMorpheus (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John P. Lucas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_P._Lucas&oldid=1206064435"