never forget

[peanuts]

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hope and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world. Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is will trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely. But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory! I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!
Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking – Gen Dwight Eisenhower.

[Ozexpatriate]

Nice choice to commemorate the event.

 

Since you broke the spell and started a D-Day thread, I am compelled to link to this op ed posted to CNN on June 6 entitled "D-Day: Debunking the Myths of the Normandy Landings".

 

I don't know this author - James Holland. He appears to at least live in England.  While I don't dispute any actual facts he includes in the body of his article, the whole thing kind of feels like internet trolling, rather a serious effort to set the record straight - not that I think that there is a burning need for it to be set straight.

 

The tone of the whole piece felt odd to me and particularly his last conclusion (while again, the details are factually accurate) the premise feels like balderdash.

[Andy Y]

We went to Normandy last year for the 71st anniversary and I was immensely impressed by how the anniversary is marked with huge re-enactment groups, civil and military ceremonies in virtually every village and at every memorial. Several thousand pictures taken over the course of the week recording some very special memories.

 

We sat on the cliffs over Arromanches on the evening of the 6th and I happened to turn around into the evening light and saw a fleeting living memorial to those who won our freedom.

 

 

Last night, to mark the 72nd anniversary, we consumed our last bottle of cidre bouché from our visit.

[t-b-g]

There is an old chap who lives up the road from me. He is pretty solitary and keeps himself to himself but a while ago he was leaning on his gate admiring a Triumph motor bike. I said "I could just see you on something like that a few years ago" and he replied that he had driven everything from a motor bike to a tank. When I asked him where he had driven a tank he just said "Normandy on D-Day".

 

He really didn't want to talk about it any more than that and I didn't press him further. All he said was, "We were not brave and not heroes. If we had a choice, we would have been somewhere else that day".

 

He told me that he has always just wanted to forget what he saw and didn't ever wear his medals or take part in any parades or commemorations.

 

I am not sure that I agree with all that he said and I certainly think that the people involved should be remembered with pride and great honour. Knowing that about him makes me feel just a little prouder and closer to that day now that I know about his involvement.

 

Tony Gee

[jjb1970]

Nice choice to commemorate the event.

 

Since you broke the spell and started a D-Day thread, I am compelled to link to this op ed posted to CNN on June 6 entitled "D-Day: Debunking the Myths of the Normandy Landings".

 

I don't know this author - James Holland. He appears to at least live in England.  While I don't dispute any actual facts he includes in the body of his article, the whole thing kind of feels like internet trolling, rather a serious effort to set the record straight - not that I think that there is a burning need for it to be set straight.

 

The tone of the whole piece felt odd to me and particularly his last conclusion (while again, the details are factually accurate) the premise feels like balderdash.

This is typical of revisionism unfortunately. In fairness his book about the Dambusters was excellent but this article over eggs the pudding a bit as they say. I really don't think that there are myths to be busted, that the heavy fighting in Normandy led to a collapse of the German army in France when the Allies did break out is undoubtedly true, it was also an unintended consequence of the German army's ferocious resistance.

[Arthur]

 

In the summer of 1973 the Eccles Labour Exchange sent me along to Lancashire Steels Irlam works to see about a labouring job.

 

As I approached the lodge at the main gate a uniformed man, clearly of military bearing, slid back the window, and said "Well young man, what can we do for you?"

 

"I'm here to see Mr X", I replied, handing up the envelope containing my letter of introduction.

 

He received them with a hand which had clearly been very badly burned at some time, both of them in fact, such that rather than fingers and thumbs each hand had just two large fleshy digits. His face, too, bore scars.

 

I was quite taken aback "Sorry, I stammered" as I expected him to struggle opening the envelope.

 

"Nothing to worry about Lad" he said as he deftly removed the letter, read it, and gave me instructions as to where I should go.

 

My initial presumption was that he had been involved in an accident on the works but learned later that he had been trapped in a burning tank shortly after D Day. Unable to return to his previous job at the company he'd joined the works police force.

 

He'd carried that terrible affliction for 29 years, suffered in the service of his country probably at about the same age I was when I stood there, and yet had got on with his life seemingly without self pity. I've never forgotten that and it has often focussed my reflections on the sacrifices made by so many.

[t-b-g]

I think the problem is that modern day historians and writers are getting quite desperate to find something new to say. There have been many documentaries "using new insights and techniques" to "uncover the truths" of all sorts of aspects of history.

 

Some are really interesting and worthy of high praise, such as the one about mapping all the D-Day wrecks in the English Channel, even down to showing pretty much intact tanks on the sea bed.

 

Others, like this article, set up their own premise or theory and then set out to prove it.

 

For example, the notion that people regard D-Day as a primarily USA matter is more than likely just apparent in the USA and other places where knowledge of events is based more on TV and film than on any study of history. Things like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" are probably all many people know about D-Day. The USA makes many more films and TV shows than we do and there have been some really good ones about the American involvement in D-Day but it has hardly been touched by British film and TV for many years.

 

Another "myth" that the American troops were unprepared is more likely a reference to the fact that most of them had never seen action rather than a reference to their equipment and training. By comparison, British and allied troops had been in action in various parts of the world. Likewise, by 1944 the German troops were battle hardened but had been weakened by the battle on the Eastern Front, hence the lack of training that is talked about.

 

Also, this is an American website talking about myths that Americans may have. I would hope that those of us on this side of the Atlantic have a more balanced perspective.

 

Perhaps creating some perceived myths to debunk is a modern historian trick to drum up some interest in them writing about events that have already been covered in great depth but it doesn't impress me much.  

[Ozexpatriate]

Also, this is an American website talking about myths that Americans may have.

Indeed that appears to be the intent. To anyone living in the US who takes an interest in the subject, I submit that those purported myths are exaggerated, or at least a projection of the author's opinion.  It is perhaps fair to say that Americans remember the images of beach landings at Utah and Omaha more than Gold, Juno and Sword, but I do think there is a lot of projection in that article. At the end of the day it was an op-ed piece.

 

I don't intend to try to argue with the author's position here, but I was curious to see what RMwebbers thought of it.

 

More important is the remembrance of those who served.

[peanuts]

heaven help us if the Author of that piece ever turns his attention to the Dieppe raid would rival the warren commission for conspiresy theory's 

[t-b-g]

It is quite natural that any writings or reporting from a particular country focus on the people from that country who have participated in events. Each nation is likely to concentrate on the part it played in a particular event.

 

If a British film was made about D-Day that concentrated on the American part in the event, there would be a bit of an eyebow raised here.

 

In the past, we (ie British) have been a little bit guilty of perhaps overlooking the role that other nations played in events to some extent. Things like the contribution of Polish pilots, as well as those from other countries, in the Battle of Britain for example, or the number of German aircraft destroyed by the French during the invasion of their country, which weakened the Luftwaffe and improved our chances.

 

In the end, it was very much all a joint effort and I am pretty sure that no nation would have defeated the Germans and their colleagues without help from others and without the sacrifices made by many people who did what had to be done whether they wanted to be involved or not.

 

We are, in the main, a generation that has not been forced to pick up weapons and fight for the survival of our way of life.

 

For that, as well as for the people before us who did just that, we should always be thankful. 

[jjb1970]

Indeed, there wouldn't be much work for historians and publishing houses if they were honest and just pointed people to the excellent existing works. There are new archeological discoveries, documents are discovered and new analysis is made so I'm being unfairly harsh there but it is not entirely a groundless statement to say that little of the history which is published actually adds anything to human knowledge. Usually the excited claims to have uncovered startling new facts and evidence is that a book (or TV documentary) presents stuff that hasn't entered the public consciousness yet which has been addressed in history books for many years. Of course sometimes the value of a history book can lie as much in its literary style as its history, some works are a joy to read regardless of whether they add anything to our store of knowledge whilst some genuinely ground breaking books can be truly turgid to read. If this is true of modern history it is even more true of ancient history. I'm a great fan of the late J.B Bury, despite his works on the Roman Empire (and that included the Byzantine Empire, Bury was famously strident in his refusal to see the Eastern half of the Empire as being anything other than the later Roman Empire) being a century or so old they remain the works I return to when I want to read about Rome and I've vread very little on the subject published since that matched Bury's works.

[Ozexpatriate]

... it is not entirely a groundless statement to say that little of the history which is published actually adds anything to human knowledge.

Often true, but there are many notable exceptions.

 

David McCollough's seminal biography by of John Adams (the second President of the United States), published in 2001, thoroughly changed the way Adams' presidency, traditionally excoriated by historians for the Alien and Sedition Acts is now perceived.  He did this by using first hand sources - largely correspondence between Adams and his wife Abigail - that remarkably had not been used by earlier historians.

 

Similarly insights in Richard Frank's "Downfall: The Fall of the Imperial Japanese Empire" were interesting because he had access to declassified MAGIC and ULTRA intelligence reports that earlier historians could not access.

 

There can be a lot of value in looking at well covered subjects if the author, through studies of original sources, can bring a fresh yet relevant perspective. As you say, some authors fail to do this and simply retread old material.

 

Sometimes simply making the material more accessible by using modern English can help though as you suggest, doubtless many topics are exhausted.

 

You would think that a subject like Abraham Lincoln is covered as well as anyone. Who knows how many biographies there must be of him, yet Doris Kearns Goodwin brought a new perspective by focusing on his cabinet in "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln". 

 

I find that biographies are particularly sensitive to the perspective and editorial slant of the author in terms of what they leave in and what they leave out. It's a bit like curating a museum exhibit. An example of such an editorial question is Should a biography of Thomas Jefferson, include Sally Hemmings (a slave owned by Jefferson with whom many believe he had multiple children)?  (Lots of them don't.)

 

Writing non-fiction that captures people's imagination can have valuable unintended consequences in other ways. Stephen Ambrose wrote "D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II". (He also wrote "Band of Brothers".)  Irrespective of the merits of his books, with the interest his books sparked (not to mention the royalties), he was able to found the D-Day Museum, (now The National WWII Museum) in New Orleans, home to Higgins Industries. Higgins of course built the LCVP (the Higgins Boat) that is so emblematic of D-Day along with PT boats.

[RhBBob]

It is quite natural that any writings or reporting from a particular country focus on the people from that country who have participated in events. Each nation is likely to concentrate on the part it played in a particular event.

 

I, like many people, occasionally criticize our Americans cousins but I usually remember the words 'Omaha Beach' and indeed the tragic events at Slapton Sands, which together costs the lives of over 4,400 men who were thousands of miles from their homes and families and who had come here hoping to assist us in the liberation of Europe from the Nazi menace.