# Revisionists challenge D-day history



## CougarKing (5 Jun 2009)

> *A revisionist theme seems to have settled on this year's 65th anniversary commemoration of the Normandy landings.*
> 
> The tone was set in Antony's Beevor's new book, D-Day, which tries to debunk certain received ideas about the Allied campaign.
> 
> ...



This is not the way the anniversary of that costly invasion should be observed.   Those revisionists are crazy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8084210.stm


----------



## mariomike (5 Jun 2009)

QUOTE:
"The bombardment of Caen, Mr Beevor said, could almost be considered a war-crime (though he later retracted the comment)."
END QUOTE.

Gen Eisenhower, General Marshall, and finally, the President of the United States, INSISTED that Winston Churchill order Bomber Command divert from the strategic bombing of Germany to tactical bombing in France in support of the Army. "Bomber" Harris strongly opposed this, but obeyed his orders. And his crews obeyed him.
My father's brother bombed Caen.  Bomber Command dropped their bombs on Caen EXACTLY where the army told them to. 
7 July 1944:
CAEN:
Lancaster: ND859 L-2 576 Squadron. 
Up: 1950 Down: 2350
"Cloud was 3/10ths at the base and increased to 5/10ths at the south coast. These conditions persisted to the target and bombed below the cloud. Weather on return was similar. The target was marked by P.F.F. with red and yellow T.I.'s both of which were accurately placed. The Master Bomber instructed crews to bomb the edge of the smoke pall which drifted away towards the north of the target. Bombing was exceptionally well concentrated. Accurate heavy and light flak was encountered in the target area at the outset of the attack. No fighter opposition was in evidence. A message of appreciation was received from the 2nd Army in Normandy."


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Jun 2009)

> But all Allied generals relied in the last analysis on firepower and sheer material superiority to win their battles rather than on any concept of unbalancing the enemy or forcing him to give up ground by threatened moves into his flanks and rear. Time and again the favoured method was simply to shell and bomb him into submission.



Brute Force; Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War, John Ellis, 1990


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Jun 2009)

And there was nothing unfair or tactically inferior about using firepower and brute force. The purists and the apologists for the German army may carp about it, but it frigging well worked. We had a lot of it, and we were able to use it fairly effectively. (Everyone stand up and chant "The guns, thank God the guns" until I tell you to stop.") 

One of the challenges, however, was that the heavy bomber force was not organized, equipped or trained for offensive air support. Bomber Harris was brutally frank in his report on the short bombing of 2nd Canadian Corps on 14 August 1944. Besides discussing the characteristics that made a heavy bomber a quite unsuitable platform for attacking targets close to our own troops, he was insensitive enough to state that the bomb aimers were not the cream of the air crew crop. According to him, the most intelligent became pilots, followed by navigators and then the bomb aimers and air gunners brought up the rear. 

In any case, about 50% of heavy bomber missions in Normandy resulted in casualties to friendly forces. Check the appendix on air support in my book No Holding Back for details.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Jun 2009)

No-one is saying it didn't work.  The underlying question here is whether or not emerging evidence of dissatisfaction among that portion of the French population that was subjected to it is "revisionism".  Or is is a correction to commonly held interpretations?

Or will this be like the bomber campaign, where no disparaging words will be allowed lest they be inferred to cast aspersions upon those who fought?


----------



## Love793 (5 Jun 2009)

If the dissatisfied populace of Normandy want, they can have their former guests return. I'm sure they already have the maps to get there.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Jun 2009)

Love793 said:
			
		

> If the dissatisfied populace of Normandy want, they can have their former guests return. I'm sure they already have the maps to get there.



So, your answer is "suck it up"?

Thank you for that intellectual addition to the debate.

Whether or not the events were considered necessary at the time doesn't mean that the population should bury unpleasant memories so that the liberating heroes don't feel bad about what the local population endured.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jun 2009)

With apologies to Oscar Wilde, there is only one thing worse than being liberated, and that is not being liberated.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Jun 2009)

In Alexander McKee's Caen: Anvil of Victory which was published in the early sixties, there is considerable material that indicates the population of Normandy were not pleased about being in the middle of a really violent two way range. This has been well documented for years. Perhaps one may ask why did they have this attitude compared to the populations of heavily fought over areas of the Channel Ports, Belgium and the Netherlands. Or was it all reported/recorded differently?


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Jun 2009)

I think a large part of the answer lies in this sentence:



> But in general, France has gone along with the accepted version of the landings and their aftermath - that of a joyful liberation for which the country is eternally grateful.



It just wasn't politically correct to speak out against any aspect of the liberation.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jun 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The underlying question here is whether or not emerging evidence of dissatisfaction among that portion of the French population that was subjected to it is "revisionism".



The RCAF did everything humanly possible to avoid civilian casualties. 
As the Luftwaffe slowly but surely appreciated the shift of target from Germany to France, so they moved their night-fighters. Bomber Command's losses mounted accordingly.
Regarding Bomber Command's three operations to Revigny-sur-Ornain in July 1944, to quote "Massacre Over the Marne: there were strict orders not to allow the bombing if if there was the slightest chance of causing unnecessary civilian deaths."
"Nous allons rendre visite a Maginot ce soir." These words, broadcast by the BBC, were enough to tell the inhabitants of Revigny  that they could expect a visit from Bomber Command that night. It was not difficult for the Revigeens to figure out the meaning of the message - Andre Maginot, the French Minister of War who gave his name to to the famous "Maginot Line", had been born in Revigny. 
The question is, if French officials knew that an attack was heading for Revigny, did the German authorities also know?
The target was destroyed. Madame Jeanne Peninguy, age 39, died in hospital of her injuries. Five more bodies were found when the delayed-action bombs permitted recovery: two railway workers, a woman and her son age 7, and old woman. Three others were slightly injured.
Of the 41 Lancasters shot down, only 59 of the 290 airmen survived.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Jun 2009)

Once again:

No-one says that the decisions and actions taken weren't necessitated by the events of the day.

But nothing justifies telling the French they shouldn't be unhappy about the deaths and destruction caused by the Allied strategy and tactics.

I can't put that in any simpler language.  Repeatedly saying the events were justified isn't furthering the conversation.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jun 2009)

Hi Mike. My post wasn't meant to be argumentative with yours.
Harris wanted nothing to do with bombing France: "the best and and indeed the only efficient support which Bomber Command can give to OVERLORD is the intensification of the attacks on suitable industrial centres in Germany. <snip>Though this might give a specious appearance of 'supporting' the Army, in reality it would be the greatest disservice we could do them."
The orders to bomb France came from Washington. Churchill was appalled that French civilians would become "collateral damage" under his bombers. This seemed to Churhill to be an utterly unacceptable way to liberate the French. 
 Even the Americans own air chief - Gen Spaatz - thought it was wrong. That his Fortresses would be reduced to running bomb shuttles for Gen Eisenhower. Spaatz complained to Professor Zuckerman: "He'll ( Harris ) go on bombing Germany and will be given a chance of defeating her before the invasion, while I am put under Leigh-Mallory's command."


----------



## dapaterson (6 Jun 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And there was nothing unfair or tactically inferior about using firepower and brute force. The purists and the apologists for the German army may carp about it, but it frigging well worked. We had a lot of it, and we were able to use it fairly effectively. (Everyone stand up and chant "The guns, thank God the guns" until I tell you to stop.")



But would better tactical and operational acumen have saved friendly lives?  That is the question (to which there will never be a fully satisfactory answer).  "Economy of effort" remains a Canadian principle of war - much like the others, we ignore it regularly.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Jun 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> With apologies to Oscar Wilde, there is only one thing worse than being liberated, and that is not being liberated.



 :rofl:  it's been a long day in the sun, thanks I needed that.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Jun 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Economy of effort" remains a Canadian principle of war - much like the others, we ignore it regularly.



Actually General of Panzer Troops Eberbach, who commanded the German forces facing the British and Canadians in Normandy, commented in his interrogation after capture, that a consistent failing of the Canadian army was to allocate too few troops to a mission. He also was critical of Canadian generalship, however for much of the period he was talking about, our forces were still part of Second British Army. German intelligence had identified elements of First Canadian Army Headquarters in Normandy, but apparently were not aware that it had not yet become operational.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Jun 2009)

Just got the May 2009 issue of BBC History Magazine and I noticed that the June issue will actually have an article by Anthony Beevor on his take on D-Day. Unfortunately, I won't get until next month so we will have to wait to see what he has to say. 

However, not all is lost, there are lots of articles on the internet about Beevor and his books, and the hornets-nest he has a habit of stirring up. TheTines Online has a  write-up  on Beevor and his books.  Apparently, the Russians weren't impressed when Beevor wrote "*that Russian soldiers, most of them drunk, had raped at least 2m German women during the long advance on Berlin*."

Here is a write-up  on Beevor in the Independent and another in the Telegraph on the infighting between the various Allied generals.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jun 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Bomber Harris was brutally frank in his report on the short bombing of 2nd Canadian Corps on 14 August 1944. Besides discussing the characteristics that made a heavy bomber a quite unsuitable platform for attacking targets close to our own troops, he was insensitive enough to state that the bomb aimers were not the cream of the air crew crop. According to him, the most intelligent became pilots, followed by navigators and then the bomb aimers and air gunners brought up the rear.
> 
> In any case, about 50% of heavy bomber missions in Normandy resulted in casualties to friendly forces. Check the appendix on air support in my book No Holding Back for details.



Harris had this to say about the education of his airmen: "The education of a member of a bomber crew was the most expensive in the world;  it cost some 10,000 pounds for each man, enough to send ten men to Oxford or Cambridge for three years." All aircrew were Flt/Sgt and above. 
Martin Middlebrook reported 14 Aug 1944 as "believed to be the first occasion on which Bomber Command had hit friendly troops during The Battle of Normandy." He reported that The Canadian Artillery Regiment was machine gunned by R.A.F. Spitfires and U.S.A.A.F. Mustangs the following day. 
One statistic seldom - if ever - mentioned this time of the year is that in the first weeks after D-Day, the casualties of Bomber Command were higher than those of the British Second Army in Normandy.
I have ordered a copy of "No Holding Back". It has received high praise from military historians.
Thanks for the post!


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Jun 2009)

Middlebrook is in error, but not by much. The FMR of 5 Bde, 2 Cdn Inf Div were hit by Bomber Command aircraft on the night of 7/8 Aug 44 while waiting to advance in Phase One of Operation Totalize. 

If the truth be known, senior allied army officers in Normandy knew far less about the characteristics and limitations of ground attack aircraft than they believed. Having said that, that knowledge was light years ahead of their understanding of the employment of heavy bombers. This contributed to the friendly fire incidents, although few ever admitted it. The heavy bomber forces however were ultimately responsible, no matter how hard people like Harris tried to obsfucate matters.

Anyway, if you are able, hold the order for No Holding Back for a bit as Stackpole Press in the US is publishing a paperback edition this summer.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jun 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The FMR of 5 Bde, 2 Cdn Inf Div were hit by Bomber Command aircraft on the night of 7/8 Aug 44 while waiting to advance in Phase One of Operation Totalize.
> Anyway, if you are able, hold the order for No Holding Back for a bit as Stackpole Press in the US is publishing a paperback edition this summer.



10 Lancasters were lost that night, on that target. 7 to night-fighters, 2 to Flak and one to an unknown cause. The attacks were carefully controlled, and German strong points and the roads around them were well cratered. 
I buy paperback fiction to read on the subway. I like my history books to be hardcover, because they never leave my den. Thanks to you, and others, Sir, they don't collect much dust, because I have to un shelve them to check my facts! 
I know that after surviving the air war over Germany, that my uncle was proud to be part of the invasion.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 Jun 2009)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> This is not the way the anniversary of that costly invasion should be observed.   Those revisionists are crazy.



I'm not sure a lot of it is revisionism.  As long as I remember, back to the 1960s, the bombing of Caen was questioned.  As for the supposed grim reception by the French populace, I haven't heard that.  I suspect that having the war in their backyard would make anyone leery.  As far as looting went, I've talked to infantrymen who nabbed the odd chicken or the like but I never got the feeling it was general or substantial.

An old post - similar topic:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28246.0


----------



## mariomike (6 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I'm not sure a lot of it is revisionism.  As long as I remember, back to the 1960s, the bombing of Caen was questioned.



Harris noted it had taken 1,000 tons of bombs to get the army forward one mile. “At this rate it will take 600,000 tons to get them to Berlin.”
Eisenhower was heard to remark the same thing.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2009)

IMHO, this is not revisionism at all.  Though people wanted the Germans to leave, I'm pretty sure that the French of 1944 were pretty well the same as people today.  In other words, why not invade somewhere else?  Why in _my_ town?

I recall one book in which the same assertion was made.  I also recall that for every resistance member, there were five collaborators.  Probably pure conjecture; however, there it is.

FWIW.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> I also recall that for every resistance member, there were five collaborators.  Probably pure conjecture; however, there it is.



I am only familiar with the Aube department of France, and the area surrounding. I've never visited Normandy.  
After the war, the RCAF sent my grandparents photographs and letters received from the Mussy-Grancey Maquis.  
Having never lived under German occupation, or witnessed Gestapo police methods, it was hard to imagine that entire families - including small children - were being tortured and put to death for helping our airmen whose misfortune it was to be M.I.A. behind enemy lines. As the U.S. Third Army was liberating the area, there were massacres and entire villages being torched. 
Years later, my father and I made arrangements to visit the Personnel Records Centre at the National Archives in Ottawa to view Missing Research Enquiry Service M.R.E.S. #136 ( Paris ).
My family has learned from pilgrimages to Aube of the wonderful assistance given by the average French family to our airmen who were Missing in Action. 
The Royal ( RCAF airmen were partnered with the RAF in Bomber Command ie: aircrews were combined ) Air Force Association put it this way in a letter dated 23 July 1947 to the people of the Aube area, "We cannot speak highly enough of the great spirit and heroism which was found throughout the entire German occupation."   
This is immediately after all of the surviving aircrew, German PoW's, and local population had been recently interviewed, and the M.R.E.S. ( AKA M.I.A. ) investigations completed.


----------



## OpieRWestmrR (10 Jun 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> IMHO, this is not revisionism at all.  Though people wanted the Germans to leave, I'm pretty sure that the French of 1944 were pretty well the same as people today.  In other words, why not invade somewhere else?  Why in _my_ town?



Spot on. Nobody wanted the war to mark time on their doorstep. I'm sure the same mixed feelings exist in the Netherlands and Belgium. Fair enough, too, that people who survived their homes being obliterated would not join in celebrations. 

The story at the top of the thread is a clumsy beat-up. Every Normandy history I've read mentions civilian suffering; it's hardly news. And does anybody remember how Charles de Gaulle liberated France singlehanded? French gratitude (expressed at national level) has been patchy. The French have not sung Allied praises in harmony for the past 65 years. I don't believe in the 'taboo' the writer claims.

Holding up civilians' immediate reaction to liberation as evidence all of Normandy remains "sullen" today is a big reach. It would be interesting to contrast the attitudes of people living in Norman towns that were liberated quickly - Bayeux, say, or Courseulles - with that of people living in Caen or St Lo. 

I suppose a revisionist element could be that the writer never mentions the German habit of fortifying built-up areas and forcing the Allies to target people's homes. I recall pics of Atlantikwall bunkers built among seaside villas and camouflaged to look like them (can't find the link, dammit!). What happened to real estate values in Tilly-La-Campagne when 1st SS moved in? Where did the residents of Caen go when the Germans kicked them out of their chalk cave air raid shelters?

Failing to mention these little truths, while quoting Beevor, leads a naive modern reader to assume the Allies caused civilian deaths through carelessness and callousness - that there was no need to target fortified urban areas at all. Suggesting this isn't revisionist, however; it has been accepted wisdom for some time.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Oct 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

The Canadians in Normandy... 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/canadians-in-normandy.html



> ...are noticed in a _Washington Post_ book review. Good...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 Oct 2009)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Apparently, the Russians weren't impressed when Beevor wrote "*that Russian soldiers, most of them drunk, had raped at least 2m German women during the long advance on Berlin*."



Did any author ever write a book on the Russian advance and not mention a large number of rapes?  Has anyone written a book on the Russian army and not mentioned that they were fueled by alcohol?


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Did any author ever write a book on the Russian advance and not mention a large number of rapes?  Has anyone written a book on the Russian army and not mentioned that they were fueled by alcohol?


From what I've read on the subject, the mass rapes were conducted largely by the rear-echelon troops.  The conjecture was that the front-line troops had satiated their blood-lust and desire for revenge by killing members of the _Wehrmacht_ and _Waffen-SS_.  Also they had themselves had had enough, given the punishment dealt to their own numbers by those same members of the _Wehrmacht_ and _Waffen-SS_.  The depth echelon troops had yet to personally suffer the horrors of the war up front, less the suffering they had felt under the German Jackboot in the occupied territories, and took it out on the only targets left available: German women and girls.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2009)

They made a movie about it:
http://www.anonyma.film.de/
"Stalin's army of rapists: The  brutal war crime that Russia and Germany tried to ignore" :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080493/Stalins-army-rapists-The-brutal-war-crime-Russia-Germany-tried-ignore.html

I worked with man from Eastern Europe who told me that the only thing worse than the German occupation was the Russian liberation. He said that women were treated as "spoils of war to the victors".


----------

