Teletype: This is not a knock against veterans as such, but some of us chair riders do know a thing or two. You can learn something in forty years or more of study, though you never stop learning. And I have heard and read veterans who sounded surprisingly ignorant; a major experience does not always make the man who experiences it intelligent or observant if he is dim and incurious to start with. OC368: Yes, throw your questions to us rather than professors. I have been a prof myself, and they get so much stuff in the mail and email that they can only glance at most of it. Alternatively, if you want to help your son out, suggest that he do his own digging. There are many good books about D-Day and Normandy, and some good websites too. The best of both will have bibliographies. Public and university library reference sections have knowledgeable people who can help your son find and use books and bibliographic search systems.
OC368: I am an author too, as are several others here, and I have written a little on the Normandy campaign. So fire away with your questions.
It would be nice to know what the questions actually are before we go down the often visited WW2talk path of 'who knows what the most' don't you think?
TTH Sorry Chair Rider is a little harsh. Having an Education,knowing how to Research, and knowing how to Write do count. I would rather read a book with soldier stories in it, than one that is just facts taken from war dairies and other books. War dairies are sometimes written after the facts, at times by staff and clerks who were not even in the battle. How can a professor know how it feels to see your best friend/mate standing there one second and the next an unrecognizable piece of flesh? How can a writer know what it feels like to go for a month without a bath, eating almost nothing and sleeping maybe 4 hours out of 24. Day in day out? How can a you know what courage it takes to stand and attack unless you have done it. Who knows what it feels like not the Professor, but the Vet. Now do not get me wrong, we need people who teach and remember facts and stories. People who can catalog records,facts and maps. Folks who can write without having to look up most words before they put it to paper and be grammatically correct. (Myself included.) I would still rather read a writer like Toland, Hastings, Ryan who do include many vets stories. I read most of the Bantam War series in the military. A paperback was easy to carry and share. I know Wars are Won by Combined Arms of Allied forces. TTH if I offended you , please except my apology. I'm sorry for the Chair Rider remark. Still friends OK? Forum member also for going off subject. Regards, Ttyman Gene
Don't worry Teletype, I do not offend easily. We are still pals, as I hope we all are here. It takes all points of view. Sorry OC368. Like any family we have our neurotic little squabbles, but people here can be amazingly helpful. Ask away!
Strange that eh? I must admit I found the question a little strange but would still have offered what I could to the query.
just as I have no real interest in studying the debacle that was 1940. You don't know what you're missing
... just as I have no real interest in studying the debacle that was 1940. Ditto, my French isn't that good. The BEF's skilfully executed withdrawal in contact, with both flanks in the air, and away from their lines of communications on the other hand...
Jeff, Dunkirk was a peculiarly British thing, wouldn't expect you to understand As is The Battle Off Samar is for us. Kurita was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while fighting an inferior US surface force.
Now I am going to have to Google that Jeff. Ah, see it was part of Leyte, didn't recognise the Samar name. I can see parallels with Jutland for the British in WW1. German Imperial Fleet never sailed in strength again even though the battle was probably a 'close loss' for the RN. Dunkirk was a slightly different situation I feel. I can't see America celebrating (too strong a word perhaps) the mass evacuation of an entire Expiditionary Force and loss of the bulk of their machinery in the process. It was just a very 'British' cock-up but improvisation somehow worked and returned about 350,000 troops. Totally off topic of course but how is MacArthur's withdrawl from the Phillipines viewed these days in the US?
Now I am going to have to Google that Jeff. Ah, see it was part of Leyte, didn't recognise the Samar name. I can see parallels with Jutland for the British in WW1. German Imperial Fleet never sailed in strength again even though the battle was probably a 'close loss' for the RN. Dunkirk was a slightly different situation I feel. I can't see America celebrating (too strong a word perhaps) the mass evacuation of an entire Expiditionary Force and loss of the bulk of their machinery in the process. It was just a very 'British' cock-up but improvisation somehow worked and returned about 350,000 troops. Totally off topic of course but how is MacArthur's withdrawl from the Phillipines viewed these days in the US? The BOS was unique in that the Japanese had a large number of heavy caliber surface vessels fighting light carriers and destroyers. Reckon the Navy gamed that one pre-war? Admiral Sprague rose to the occasion and not only saved his command, but made the Japanese turn and run. MacArthur? You mean Dug-out Doug? Mixed. Some like him, some (like me) don't. I think he got off losing the ENTIRE air force in the Philippines in about 15 minutes with a good 8 hour warning that the attack at Pearl Harbor had occured. Then there is the issue of planning on holding nothing but Bataan but never prepostioning supplies there, so the forces that fought there nearly starved to death before they had to surrender. Meanwhile, Short & Kimmel were hung from the yard arm. Then he ignored warnings again in 1950, but that is a different war...
Battle of Jutland, 30th May to 1st June, 1916. Official dispatches with appendixes from# 36 'I can see parallels with Jutland for the British in WW1. German Imperial Fleet never sailed in strength again even though the battle was probably a 'close loss' for the RN'. We put things down to cock ups, when in reality the British army had been used as a colonial police force and had suffered from doctrinal amnesia. Lord Roberts in 1902 laid down - centralized intent with decentralized execution. Yet our commanders in 1939 (with the exception of Montgomery although later he would also do much the same) worked to what could be loosely described as two doctrines the infantry and the armour up against an army fully integrated and mutually supportive. Not some magic unheard of formula that is often suggested - this doctrinal amnesia was not really put right until late 1944 when once again we fielded an army not fully integrated in doctrine. There is one memorable study (Sandhurst) occasional of 1989 or thereabouts. Which shows that the NZ division broke from the accepted British 'doctrine' and executed a text book air,armour and infantry battle. Much admired - until it got to the higher British command who at first ignored the lessons and then started a campaign to suggest that the battle was not to be admired - maybe because it questioned British doctrine? Or lack of! Until 1944 when it became the norm. Post war we went back to confused doctrines until - frankly, Montgomery lost influence we are closer now to Lord Roberts original 1900s doctrine - although once again because of instant communication politicians are forgetting - centralized intent decentralized execution - the circle is squared! To his credit Montgomery fought at times a lone battle in the 1930s to try and get the British army to accept a one army doctrine - perhaps his suspicions of the armour was from this time.
Blimey Wills, including appendices that link is over 600 pages long! Think I will have to pour myself a fresh cup of tea before I get stuck into that! It was the lack of appearance of the German and Japanese fleets post-Jutland and Leyte battles respectively I was referring to. Great read for research though.
