# Col. Stacey‘s Official History of the Cdn Army in WW2



## army (21 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Martin Schenkel <martins@smartt.com>* on *Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:36:27 -0800*
Hi,
I‘m wondering as to how much the volumes can be counted on as an
‘objective‘ source. Being published by the authority of the ministry of
national defence, I would think that somewhere, somebody would have
wanted to make sure it was portraying the army in the ‘proper‘ image.
Any opinions?
Martin
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (21 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Robert H Kennedy <rhk@interlog.com>* on *Thu, 17 Feb 2000 01:57:32 -0500*
At 09:36 PM 16/02/00 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I‘m wondering as to how much the volumes can be counted on as an
>‘objective‘ source. Being published by the authority of the ministry of
>national defence, I would think that somewhere, somebody would have
>wanted to make sure it was portraying the army in the ‘proper‘ image.
>Any opinions?
>
>Martin
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
>
>
Col Stacey‘s history is excellent such constraint as exists owes as much
to his own upbringing - in a time and a family where manners mattered - as
to the army command. During the war, when his job was to gather up the
documents and the interviews for the subsequent history, he was very much
aware of the tension between his reponsibility to collect the truth and the
absolute resistence of those who had it. Many of them, of course, had their
own reputations to protect, the truth be damned, and that‘s a state secret
anyway.
In his autobiography, Stacey writes about the struggle he had in the
aftermath of Dieppe you‘ll find it in "A Date with History" from Deneau,
1982 or 1983. You can judge his integrity from this.
My favourite rule of his was that he never gave much credence to stories
soldiers told him about a battle they‘d been in if that battle had been
more than five or six days before. The gaps were beginning to be filled in
by then, he believed, after much experience. 
Finally, compare what Stacey says about Verrieres Ridge to what the McKenna
brothers claimed - especially, what they claimed we‘d never been told.
Stacey explains more of what happened than those lightweights could ever
have imagined he understood what he called "the military probabilities."
If he didn‘t ever actually say that any particular general was a fool, he
was skillful and honest enough to tell you enough to let you draw your own
conclusions. The man had some discretion.
Although Stacey‘s work is thorough, a great deal has been added to the
record since his time. Whenever I want to dig into something, I check what
Stacey said, and then I read the rest. So, if anybody‘s got a CP Stacey fan
club out there, I‘ll join!
Bob Kennedy
Curator
Regimental Museum of The Queen‘s York Rangers
Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (21 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Lawson" <kplawson@csolve.net>* on *Thu, 17 Feb 2000 11:58:36 -0800*
Bob Kennedy
Ref. Your Comments on Col Stacy.
Right on an extremely good explanation of a man of integrity and personal
ability. How many other countries wish they had some one of Col Stacy‘s
stature employed on the so important task he so competently preformed.
Before the days of political correctness, and the current crop of arm chair
warriors attempts to rewrite and degrade.  In passing have your been
following the claymore story?
Keith Lawson
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert H Kennedy 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Col. Stacey‘s Official History of the Cdn Army in WW2
> At 09:36 PM 16/02/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I‘m wondering as to how much the volumes can be counted on as an
> >‘objective‘ source. Being published by the authority of the ministry of
> >national defence, I would think that somewhere, somebody would have
> >wanted to make sure it was portraying the army in the ‘proper‘ image.
> >Any opinions?
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> >to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> >to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> >message body.
> >
> >
>
> Col Stacey‘s history is excellent such constraint as exists owes as much
> to his own upbringing - in a time and a family where manners mattered - as
> to the army command. During the war, when his job was to gather up the
> documents and the interviews for the subsequent history, he was very much
> aware of the tension between his reponsibility to collect the truth and
the
> absolute resistence of those who had it. Many of them, of course, had
their
> own reputations to protect, the truth be damned, and that‘s a state secret
> anyway.
>
> In his autobiography, Stacey writes about the struggle he had in the
> aftermath of Dieppe you‘ll find it in "A Date with History" from Deneau,
> 1982 or 1983. You can judge his integrity from this.
>
> My favourite rule of his was that he never gave much credence to stories
> soldiers told him about a battle they‘d been in if that battle had been
> more than five or six days before. The gaps were beginning to be filled in
> by then, he believed, after much experience.
>
> Finally, compare what Stacey says about Verrieres Ridge to what the
McKenna
> brothers claimed - especially, what they claimed we‘d never been told.
> Stacey explains more of what happened than those lightweights could ever
> have imagined he understood what he called "the military probabilities."
> If he didn‘t ever actually say that any particular general was a fool, he
> was skillful and honest enough to tell you enough to let you draw your own
> conclusions. The man had some discretion.
>
> Although Stacey‘s work is thorough, a great deal has been added to the
> record since his time. Whenever I want to dig into something, I check what
> Stacey said, and then I read the rest. So, if anybody‘s got a CP Stacey
fan
> club out there, I‘ll join!
>
> Bob Kennedy
> Curator
> Regimental Museum of The Queen‘s York Rangers
> Toronto
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (21 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:47:51 -0800*
Carlo D‘Este, whom I think most would respect, in "Decision in Normandy" writes
to the effect that he considers Stacey‘s work to be among the best, if not the
best, of the official histories with regard to candour.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (21 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Robert Dehon" <robert.dehon@skynet.be>* on *Thu, 17 Feb 2000 21:22:07  0100*
Hello Martin,
This is live field recce: Operation Wellhit represents only a small portion
in Stacey‘s " Victory Campaign" vol. 2. This kind of reading is a must in
our bizz The La Creche Project and if Major Ellis "Victory in the West"
quoted Stacey so much, it‘s because Stacey is just bright !
I understand your question well. We checked a huge amount of sources on the
Boulogne area France: no way, Martin, Stacey‘s work is a marvellous
compendium moreover, just check the sources he mentionned. Speaking about
Wellhit, I have now the SIR copies concerning Lt-Gen. Heim.  Thanks to
Stacey‘s honnesty. Stacey gave his sources to everybody I won‘t comment on
other authors.
Hoping this will contribute to your search.
Robert
-----Message d‘origine-----
De : Martin Schenkel 
 : Cdn Army Mailing List 
Date : jeudi 17 fvrier 2000 7:00
Objet : Col. Stacey‘s Official History of the Cdn Army in WW2
>Hi,
>
>I‘m wondering as to how much the volumes can be counted on as an
>‘objective‘ source. Being published by the authority of the ministry of
>national defence, I would think that somewhere, somebody would have
>wanted to make sure it was portraying the army in the ‘proper‘ image.
>Any opinions?
>
>Martin
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (21 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Martin Schenkel <martins@smartt.com>* on *Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:55:36 -0800*
Thank you all for your comments. I have always enjoyed the deatil of Stacey‘s
volumes, but have always wondered as to how objective he was. Thank you for
your reassuring comments.
Martin
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

