TTC, Tom, That is exactly the kind of story that only a Veteran could recall and whilst it appears funny it could have had fatal repercussions. A great recollection Tom. Regards Tom
Smudger - That didn't seem to bother us at the time as the "fatal repercussions " were all around us at the time - Another bored Alf Goddard of Birmingham who was a gunner in our squadron went up into the attic of the house he was in - we had replaced the Infantry - opened the window - and shot down the chimney of the house opposite which held the Germans - the chimney rolled down the roof and fell onto the front porch - a German came out - inspected his chimney - went back up into his attic - shot down Goddards Chimney- this looked like good fun - so pretty soon ALL the chimneys were on the ground - three days later the Union Jack Newspaper arrived to announce that "heavy fighting " had broken out on the Senio ! Cheers
Smudger - That didn't seem to bother us at the time as the "fatal repercussions " were all around us at the time - Another bored Alf Goddard of Birmingham who was a gunner in our squadron went up into the attic of the house he was in - we had replaced the Infantry - opened the window - and shot down the chimney of the house opposite which held the Germans - the chimney rolled down the roof and fell onto the front porch - a German came out - inspected his chimney - went back up into his attic - shot down Goddards Chimney- this looked like good fun - so pretty soon ALL the chimneys were on the ground - three days later the Union Jack Newspaper arrived to announce that "heavy fighting " had broken out on the Senio ! Cheers TTC, Tom, I can well understand your comment. It was not a healthy time in history. Regards Tom
Daft? Sure is, on the Goodwood operation we captured a Nebelwerfer intact and turned it round to fire on the enemy. The response was violent in the extreme, with comments like "Jolly Good idea But would you desist from using it"
Sapper.... the day after "Smokey" Smith V.C. of the Seaforths of Canada killed off a Panther PzV - and chased another into a ditch while the crew baled out - the Panther was recovered and presented to our squadron and Walter Pollard was given the gunners job to send back to the German's all the special 75mm ammo which we could find - through the 19' long barrel - this went on for a couple of weeks until one day while refuelling Walter stepped on a schu mine - someone at Brigade noted that he was gunner of a Panther ! - so they came along and nicked it - probably had some fun with it as well - rotten lot ! Cheers
I'd still like to know what account about the Coldstream is being refered to & what inconsistances are in it.
Tom. My mate "Spud" and myself captured one of those large staff cars, that the German big wigs were driven in. It was painted in Desert colours. We ran it in the chase across France, until it broke down and was abandoned. In defence of the author of this thread. It has to be said that there is a great many so called service men, that never heard a gun fired, and even sillier, the men that dress up as officers with the campaign medals. Even to reading an account of a Sapper that posted his story. Virtually an exact copy of my experiences.... Some where the coincidences were quite frankly, impossible. Sapper
Brian Tom. My mate "Spud" and myself captured one of those large staff cars, that the German big wigs were driven in. It was painted in Desert colours. We ran it in the chase across France, until it broke down and was abandoned . During the closing stages of the war in Italy, when we were chasing the Jerries trying to escape into Austria we constantly came across vehicles that had been abandoned for lack of fuel or spares. You can see me sprawling against one such vehicle that we "adopted", here on Page 26 of my Album, note that it was also still in it's desert colours
I'd still like to know what account about the Coldstream is being refered to & what inconsistances are in it. I would too
I'd like to reiterate that I'm not talking about veterans not being able to recall events correctly. As I tried to say in my last post, a perspective on history is history. Thinking about its only natural that any veterans reading these posts will be a little defensive, especially if it comes across that i'm having a go at an unlikely story that I don't believe, but to put it simply I'm not; and I'm slightly saddened that i've come across this way. Do I believe the unbelivable happened in ww2? Yep, absolutely, thats not the issue. The problem I have is not with problematic accounts, just with researchers who in some instances, and in may cases who may otherwise write excellent pieces, adopt a perspective for convienience without doing the neccisarry dilligence. This is why I'm not mentioning the particular source, I don't think doing that would do anyone any favours at all. But nether the less poorly resarched accounts do veterans and history a most great diservice. Its like the diplodicous when they first found the bones. They didn't believe a dinosaur could walk that way so they broke its bones to make it walk more like a lizard. For generations, people thought that this type of dinosaur lived in a swamp because there was no other way it could possibly support its weight. My point is that authors have a duty to choose reliable sources for their work, sometimes to make point, other times to get an idea of what things were like. Most of the time we're all well and good; as ron says does it really matter if someone believes or doesn't believe a source, or if someone forgets a detail? Should it even concern the author? No of course not, I don't think they would give two hoots whether I believed them or not. I think the reason there is a debate about my post is an interpretation as to what makes a source reliable and who am I to say otherwise. This question of course would take longer to answer then I have time for here and any history student worth their salt might be able to answer this particular theoretical question better then I can. All I can say is that I have serious reason to believe that one particular source is unreliable and that I have grave concerns about this pieces particular (and widespread) use; which has come about, I believe, because of its accessibility and for no other reason. This is not an issue of the odd wrong name or an "unbelivable" story, just its use. I wrote about this to see if anyone else had had any difficulties with accounts and to see what their oppinion on the subject was. Again I'm not going to name the source but it's no one on here; i've never ever had any reason to doubt anything anyone here has said (with the exception of our "country x won the war, not you, your country sucked" flamers). Its up to individual researchers to come to their own conclusions about their evidence and use it as they see fit, but authors should definitely be a bit more careful about what they use.
Reminds me of some online articles re: a certain S Ambrose versus US Dakota Pilots and British LCA coxswains... Cornelius Ryan is supposed to have restricted himself to corroborated accounts but that leaves out an awul lot of interesting history that is probably substantially accurate. I think that approach is unrealistic given the nature of the events we're talking about and our distance from them. Authors should be careful but the line has to be drawn somewhere or nothing would ever get published. The plus side to all this is that those downstream of the **** account (is he actually mentioned in Mailed Fist as he's not in the index or bibliography?) have referenced him so there is a trail. If the account is being used just to add a bit of colour, how much checking is appropriate? Does it matter as long as it's referenced? Assuming that the account has been, shall we say, contextualised by a third party, the real issue is that it becomes impossible to separate the veteran's memories from the 'embellishments'. I'm sure the editor did the best he could but we don't know which bits he did. Though it's easy to decry 'voices of...' type books as cheap/easy history, they usually let you hear the veteran' own words and draw your own conclusions. In my [limited] experience, the best sources I've come across have been those that are a small window on events, just telling part of a story. If the scope of the tale grows or turns into a yarn, I start to worry that the source has read around the subject and contextualised or contaminated his own account. Perhaps the rule is to be wary of accounts that seem too good to be true. In this case (not knowing the details) I might be tempted to include a substantial note or even an appendix to explain why/how the suspect account was/wasn't used. The motivation is a little selfish: if it is likely to be the first thing used against my version of events, why not pull the rug out from under the critics?
I know an American Iraq war Vet, He is a Senior NCO in the army He served in Tal Afar in Iraq, he has PTSD so bad he canot remeber anything about the 17 months he was theyre, and hes like 32
Ron or Tom. Did you try some of those German cigars? I Thought they were cabbage leaves with a cigar leaf on the outside... Bloody Awful Sapper
Sapper - never smoked being a runner at the quarter mile, until I was wounded then a sergeant at the RAP stuck a lighted Canadian Caporal in my mouth - I was hooked but didn't fancy any foreign stuff as it smelled appallingly...hence my need for new lungs to-day ! Cheers
Vetrans memories like anyones memories suffer from timescales. The personal involvement i an area of activity is generally that, personal, and does not always take into account the leisurely recoursces and time historians and writers with their access to official documentation and such that give the overall picture of the same action with related events. I personally will take the vetrans memories even if sometimes flawed, mostly due to the fact that being involved or related closely to the action the memories will be of a different course and plainly more personal. I can forgive errors of geography, memories of who stood were when the thing went off and who we faced over the river etc...What matters is what the vet saw. Its for history to correct, its easily done, but I wont hold that against any vetran that mixes a few things up....Maybe they were a bit busier than us and future historians. Did I ever tell anyone abouit me and Bill on the Berlin Wall..we stopped the Ruskies..Well me Bill and I think Steve was there too
Tell me...Do Ron Tom and the other Vets recall the German "Stick Grenade" Its odd, but we never found any made of steel. They all had serrated Concrete heads. What about you lads??? While I am about it ... What about German snipers? Odd countryside shapes that did not "look right" would get a burst. But what I could never understand was the taking prisoner of Snipers that stayed behind as the front moved forward, and still killed.. That for me, was just not on and none of them should be entitled to surrender. How do our friends here feel about that? Sapper Sapper
Phaethon asked in post #1... I was wondering if anyone else had any experience with skewed sources...
Phaethon asked in post #1... Dont use hompride in your curry ones....wont get skewed then. Use real spices. Gothard is now gunning for me I suppose...Well he said sauces....
