To be honest Spider....Shock.... The infantry man was obviously shell shocked and that drives men insane. The trouble with that is...You never know how they will react. Some sit and cry, others act in the most bizarre way, while others turn violent. In the case of the young German. The battle was over, we had taken the village and were getting organised as others had passed through our positions, and had taken up the drive forward. The aftermath of battle is always a bloody awful shambles.. sorting out the casualties... Oddly enough I can recall everything like a picture it was a beautiful Summers day..... While I had no compunction in the use of my Bren ,I could never ill treat a POW, another young men like myself...
Revisionist history, indeed something that has become popular. The name of Alan Clark popped up and he was one of the worst! However,we must not assume that all revisits of events are wrong. Release of documents can contradict long held and cherished beliefs. it can anger and upset, yet it must stand if it is truthful and can be shown as such. I have to use the length of my service and the periods spent in study as the excuse for not attaching emotion to history. That training also dictates that I need to see cross referencing. Every football fan knows when he or she reads the match report in the local rag and asks that old question. 'What match was he at?'
Wills - you may of course be right in your thinking that revisionists have a role to play in objective History - but I can hardly agree with the World Famous Pulitzer Prize Winner who claimed that it was the 17th battalion of the 21st Lancers who captured the village in the Liri Valley in late May of 1944.( Pulmanora ?) My only thought on reading that was that ONE of us - the Author - the Pulitzer Committee or myself - who wasn't all that far away at that time - was losing it ! And can only trust that the Author never reports on any Man Utd games - needless to say - that quite expensive book landed in the shedder as I can appreciate that the spelling of the word ASS/U/ME can make an ASS out of U and ME - but revisionists have NO place in Objective truth telling ! Cheers
Wills - you may of course be right in your thinking that revisionists have a role to play in objective History - but I can hardly agree with the World Famous Pulitzer Prize Winner who claimed that it was the 17th battalion of the 21st Lancers who captured the village in the Liri Valley in late May of 1944.( Pulmanora ?) My only thought on reading that was that ONE of us - the Author - the Pulitzer Committee or myself - who wasn't all that far away at that time - was losing it ! And can only trust that the Author never reports on any Man Utd games - needless to say - that quite expensive book landed in the shedder as I can appreciate that the spelling of the word ASS/U/ME can make an ASS out of U and ME - but revisionists have NO place in Objective truth telling ! Cheers Tom, Wills wasnt advocating revisionism. He made the point that revisionism had become popular. But he also made the point that REVISITING history was not necessarily a bad thing and, as a student of the Eastern Front, I can wholeheartedly agree with him. Decades of prejudices are being challenged with documentation becoming available from former Soviet archives challenging previously held views. Revisionism is generally populist with some agenda at its core, maybe commercial, maybe political. But revisiting history does not necessarily mean changing it, at least not to me!
Gerard thank you for looking before a view is formed- it is all I have ever suggested and as my training dictates - the open mind sees more. Criticism in study periods was for a reason, looking at mistakes in past commands was to teach the current commanders at all levels where the mistakes had been made. The fact that very senior commanders were repeating the same errors in 1944. That there were monumental cock ups does not take anything away from the bravery of allied soldiers.
Gerard - I was fully away of Will's thoughts on the matter- but my point was that even the very best and famous authors fail to do their homework - at times- thus opening the door to revisionists to follow the leader - it is STILL NOT objective Truth- and it has become popular owing to the constant need of Hollywood to maintain the alleged superiority of the American fighting man- which does a dis-service to both the GI and all others. As Objective History points out - the USA has not been involved in war which they have assisted in winning since WW2 - but then I shall no doubt be accused of being Xenophobic Cheers
May I call attention to this thread? http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/historiography/39472-negationism-vs-revisionism-history.html Perhaps we might add to that one instead of side-tracking this one. Bad history is one thing, Revisionism another and I am writing it with a capital initial. Thank goodness for Revisionism, if it weren't for it we would still be telling the tale of Robin Hood and Good King Richard as if it were History and I'm not talking about Errol Flynn (now Mel brooks is another story!)
Prisoners. Just a young man like me. The war in Normandy had by now, become very bitter, there had been talk and rumours that had circulated, about the German SS shooting our prisoners in cold blood. Both Canadian and British prisoners, and that feelings were running very high over this rumour. For the most part we treated Enemy prisoners very well and with some sort of respect, some of the poor devils had been through pure hell, most of them looked pleased to be out of it anyway, give him a fag, and send them back on their own! Nobody wanted the job of escorting prisoners all the way back. Except the fanatics of the SS, they had to be escorted back and watched, they, were a surly lot and one could feel their hate. The cost in lives had now become very heavy indeed, on both sides. So, at this time, there was a persistent idea that prisoners were not to be taken. Some attacks had an air of unreality about them. It was while taking part in the attack on another village in front of Caen that I remember this odd feeling of unreality. We had opened up our assault on this village and the road leading into the village sloped down gently until it was at head level with the surrounding fields. Sat in the middle of a ploughed field on our left was a tall naked infantry man, all by himself, sat bolt upright against his small pack and dead, without a stitch of clothing on him, I can still see him now, as clear as crystal. The pale waxen colour of his body stood out so sharply against the brown of the recently ploughed earth
I know I said I wasn't going to post in this thread again but I found something at Kew yesterday that I thought was worth adding to this thread. Below are two examples of pages from British Army Discpline Registers. The first two pages are from a random Fields Courts Marshal Register and the second are from a Random General Courts Marshal Register. The first register is offences committed by OR's overseas. The later contains offences committed by Officers in the British Army and the more serious offences committed by OR's like Murder, Manslaughter and Rape. You can see two Royal Engineer Sappers within 30 Corps have been charged with Murder, found guilty of Manslaughter and given 7 years each on the last register. What surprised me more than anything is the quantity of offences committed overseas. Each page has around 25 names listed and each register has around 200 pages - Thats 5000 names/offences per register. I looked in 5 registers that covered a 6 ish month period from the back end of 1944 to early 1945 - Thats 25,000 offences and I only looked in 5 registers and I believe there are over 60 registers covering WW2 ! There are a similiar amount of registers for offences committed in the UK.
As Objective History points out - the USA has not been involved in war which they have assisted in winning since WW2 - but then I shall no doubt be accused of being Xenophobic Cheers I usually notice when you throw out a stink bomb, Tom. Generally I ignore them and move on as they often do not merit my consideration. However, I am in an especially jovial mood today, what with the Christmas season and all and the progress my wife is making with her health difficulties. I ask you to define "war" and "winning" so that I will know which way to direct my rebuttal to your comment.
Jeff - you must be celebrating as it didn't you too long to get back at me - trust your dear wife is on the mend and has overcome her illness and is back strong enough to cook your Christmas meal whereas my dear wife is in terminal mode and might even be with us during the festivities as the family gathers. But to your question of war and winning - I do realize that SOMEONE didn't like the word WAR as being too ghastly and thus the name was changed to a "Police Action" and "pushing the reds back from the rest of the world "- and it was no longer necessary to "WIN" as long as enough bodies and munition inventories were expended - and your Industrial /Munitions people had enough work to continue producing the wherewithal yet for other non- winning actions. In these changes of course they have been most successful in places such as Korea - Viet-Nam - Panama - Grenada ( which was bit of a Hoot really) - Iraq 1 and 11 which they are now evacuating - Balkans and now the ten year thing in Afghanistan - and threatening Iran and so it goes on and on- and at the risk of being called a religious nutbar i would refer you to a small town in Portugal called Fatima where some woman forecast that "Russia would spread the error of their ways across the whole world" -this was in 1917 - and only she can help us to a peaceful life - not guns and bombs - so all this killing will go on until we face that fact so by all means have a go at me again - but not before you goggle Fatima 1917 and learn how to win .. meanwhile I wish you and yours the best of the Christmas Season and an even happier year in 2012 Cheers Tom
Thank you Tom, for your kind words directed toward my wife. Yes, she is mending quite well, but is looking at an extended recovery from her injuries, at least probably until Spring. I do hope your wife is able enjoy the Christmas festivities with your family. It is truly sad to read of the coming conclusion of her Earthly existence, but I know you both are comforted by the Promise made on Golgatha. I am not interested in someone else's (Mary's or otherwise) definition on war as she is not the one who made the comment in post 87. I would like your succinct definition. Also, at the risk of being labeled a religious netbar and not wanting to carry this thread further into the realm of Christian theological discussion, seeing that is a WWII forum, I do take exception to this statement: and only she can help us to a peaceful life If you would like to discuss the religious aspect of this thread, please PM as not to rightfully raise the ire of management team for going off subject.
I know I said I wasn't going to post in this thread again but I found something at Kew yesterday that I thought was worth adding to this thread. Below are two examples of pages from British Army Discpline Registers. The first two pages are from a random Fields Courts Marshal Register and the second are from a Random General Courts Marshal Register. The first register is offences committed by OR's overseas. The later contains offences committed by Officers in the British Army and the more serious offences committed by OR's like Murder, Manslaughter and Rape. You can see two Royal Engineer Sappers within 30 Corps have been charged with Murder, found guilty of Manslaughter and given 7 years each on the last register. What surprised me more than anything is the quantity of offences committed overseas. Each page has around 25 names listed and each register has around 200 pages - Thats 5000 names/offences per register. I looked in 5 registers that covered a 6 ish month period from the back end of 1944 to early 1945 - Thats 25,000 offences and I only looked in 5 registers and I believe there are over 60 registers covering WW2 ! There are a similiar amount of registers for offences committed in the UK. With 5 million British in uniform at war's end and using normal civilian crime statistics, you would expect at least 100,000 criminal charges annually from that population. It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a higher rate under wartime conditions and given the average age of the participants. I'm not in a position to know if military police and the military justice system laid charges at a higher rate than their civilian counterparts. It would require a detailed comparison of the number and severity of the offences to draw any relevant conclusions.
Jeff - it is not my intention to make this into a religious dissertation but rather to point out that SOMEONE in your Government /Defence / Foreign depts - whoever - changed the meaning of war to various other titles etc - and further to that is the fact that no longer is it possible to win or even change another countries attitudes with guns or bombs but we have a greater threat in rejecting that Man on Golgotha - Cheers Tom
I'll be moving on then, dear Tom, as the target keeps changing without a cogent answer to my simple question, so that I could then reply appropriately. But then, I nonetheless expected no less ambiguous responses than I have received thus far. I think I'll go paint some air.
so by all means have a go at me again - but not before you goggle Fatima 1917 and learn how to win .. Cheers Tom Tom, hold on a second. You have decided to make sweeping statements about Historical Authors being inaccurate and then tell us that we should use, as evidence, information based on Faith rather than fact. I say Faith because not everyone believes in it. I would like to remind you that Religion is a purely personal thing, you believe in Fatima, thats fine, its your faith and you have the right to do so. You DONT have the right to tell me what to believe or what not to believe. Whether anyone chooses to engage in Marian Devotion or not is no-one else's business but please be mindful that others may not engage in that belief and using that as a basis for an argument does not make it acceptable by all (And it doesnt make them wrong that they disagree with you)
Gerard - I have not - I think - made sweeping statements about ALL historical authors being inaccurate but rather I quoted a world famous pulitzer prize winner as failing to do his simple research to understand that the 17/21st Lancers are one regiment and do not have 17 Battalions which he wrote that the 17th battalion had captured a village in the Liri valley- to quote one author does not - I believe condemn them all - IF you were to re -read my response to Heimbrent ...! I did not ask ALL of the Forum members to believe as I do - but merely pointed out to Jeff that there is a higher power - who does not need guns and bombs to resolve man's problems with each other - no matter what they call it to-day - but who's wrath will be much more devastating - that's all - and I do believe that will happen as the whole world appears to me to have rejected His teachings - and quite frankly I am not responsible for that rejection...as I have approached that time of life when I am fully occupied in ensuring the comfort of my wife of 61 years. So you can go ahead and believe anything you desire as you certainly don't need my permission- nor do I need yours to believe as I do That being as it may - it is obvious to me that both yourself and Jeff do not accept the advice available from Fatima - that is fine by me as you have what is known as "free" will so by all means use it.... Cheers
Isn't the Pulitzer Prize a journalism award? What's that to do with history? Here's the Pulitzers list for 1945, a few good names there. --- added --- Wait! There is a Pulitzer history prize! The Pulitzer Prizes | History 1945 Unfinished Business by Stephen Bonsal (Doubleday) 1944 The Growth of American Thought by Merle Curti (Harper) 1943 Paul Revere and the World He Lived In by Esther Forbes (Houghton) 1942 Reveille in Washington, 1860-1865 by Margaret Leech (Harper) 1941 The Atlantic Migration, 1607-1860 by Marcus Lee Hansen (Harvard Univ. Press) 1940 Abraham Lincoln: The War Years by Carl Sandburg (Harcourt) 1939 A History of American Magazines by Frank Luther Mott (Harvard Univ. Press)
There is not one Pulitzer Prize but many; and although most are related to journalism, a few are not. There's an annual history prize for a book on US history, for instance. I assume the Pulitzer winner being singled out in this thread is Rick Atkinson, author of The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944? (he actually won the Pulitzer for his earlier book An Army at Dawn.) I've never met Atkinson and haven't read any of his work. I will tell you, however, that if he only included a single error in a 781-page book then he's a hell of a better historian than most of us. Best, Alan
