[Crewman]

Hello Allied friends, my two cents in this discussion…

It is very interesting thread that shows all possible stereotypes in the nation-to-nation relations during WWII UK-based armed forces. I would say that this is my favourite subject. All my life I am trying to fight against such stereotypes and to remind that we were the friends and the Allies both then and now. As it seems to me sometimes there is great need to remind this simple fact permanently.

Let’s look at the inter-Allied relations in Normandy. This is like poor cabaret. Who liked then whom at the highest levels of Allied Command?

The Americans did not like the British. The British did not like the Canadians, the Americans and the Poles. The Canadians maybe liked the Poles before Operation Totalize but never after this operation and I am able to understand why, the Canadians also did not like the British. The Poles did not like the British, and because the British did not like the Canadians the Poles liked the Canadians. Etc., etc., it would be possible to write long who did not like whom then. You are also unable to imagine how much the American and Polish veterans of the Falaise Gap do not like between them today. This is world wide ashaming phenomenon and of course I am not going to defend the Polish authors who write many times similar bullshits, also anti-Canadian bullshits.

Originally posted by TColvin
In his otherwise fine book, 'Armaggedon' (ISBN 0 333 90836 8), Max Hastings dismisses the performance of 1 Canadian Army (page 156);

"Individually, many Canadians made fine and brave contributions to the war. Lt-Gen Guy Simonds was among the outstanding corps commanders in N-W Europe. Some Canadian officers who volunteered for service with British units showed themselves exceptional soldiers. But collectively, the Canadian Army was a weak and flawed instrument because of the chronic manning problems imposed by its nation's politics. Canada's soldiers paid the price of their prime minister's pusillanimity on the flooded battlefield of Holland in the winter of 1944".

I take exception to this on several grounds.

1. Hastings quotes no source for his conclusion,...

I think that inter-Allied tensions and personal animosities between mid- and high level commanders are known. How Gen. B. L. Montgomery treated Canadian Lt.-Col. Donald G. MacLaughlan you may read here http://members.shaw.ca/calgaryhighlanders/mac.htm

What is sad today this kind of emotions removes from ex-battle fields to the cabinets of the historians and writers.

Originally posted by John McGillivray
In Max Hastings' book “Overload” the part played by the Canadians in Normandy was all but ignored. However one time he does mention the Canadians is when he refers to them as “Criminals”.

Is there known why "criminals"? Did he mean what Canadian Maj.-Gen. Harry W. Foster mentions in "Meeting of Generals" book, i.e. executing the German POWs? The Polish troops from Normandy Campaign have the same image on the West -- sometimes deservedly, sometimes not.

Originally posted by John McGillivray
Max Hastings is not very different from most British or American authors in their treatment of the Canadians. The Canadians have been almost written off completely in most histories of both World Wars. In one book I browsed thought in a book store, Vimy Ridge was called a great British Victory with no mention of the Canadians.

Two exceptions to this is Alexander McKee in his book "Caen Anvil of Victory"; and Ken Tout’s books "A Fine Night for Tanks" and "The Bloody Battle for Tilly". Both of these British authors portray the Canadians in Normandy in a very positive light.

I know "Caen. Anvil of Victory" and other McKee's books and, frankly speaking, in my opinion his books present WWII ETO in caricature. According to McKee NW Europe was liberated by the British with a little help of the Canadians. The US Army does not exist in this business, not to mention the French, Poles, Czech, Dutch and all other nations. American historian Stephen E. Ambrose was able to honour in his "Citizen Soldiers" book all nations taking part in the Normandy invasion, even one small Polish Navy ship but I am afraid that "McKee's historic world" is different than Ambrose.

On the other hand I absolutely agree as to Ken Tout's books. He is not professional historian, he is neither professional publicist nor journalist but he represents the highest publicistic culture towards the nations he describes. It would be hard to find more examples of so high culture of writing in the midst of WWII veterans. As for me Tout writes almost like Professor Terry Copp, my favourite historian.

Originally posted by TColvin
I would appreciate it were Max Hastings to join this discussion and either justify his statement or withdraw it. We don't need another myth about WWII, especially in a book that achieves IMHO a balanced judgement on many contentious issues including the British area bombing campaign.

I would love to see Mr. Hastings in this discussion as well, but I would like to see also other Western authors, including the Canadian.

Let’s look at the Canadian image of the Polish soldier, ETO 1944-45.
This soldier does nothing useful and good because:
- he understands literally nothing talked to him (language barrier)
- he is undisciplined
- he is unable to read the map correctly
- he always and everywhere is executing the German POWs

Now I propose one case study. The case study from the book that seems to be very credible and prestigious in Canada. I mean Dominic Graham's "The Price of Command. A Biography of General Guy Simonds".

At first the quotation of Gen. B. L. Montgomery:
"It is absolutely essential that both the armoured Divisions of 2nd Canadian Corps, i.e. 4th Canadian Armoured Division and 1st Polish Armoured Division, close the gap between First Canadian Army and Third US Army. 1st Polish Armoured Division must thrust on past Trun to Chambois 4051 at all costs, and as quickly as it possible."
Source: W.D., G.S. Ops, H.Q. First Cdn Army, August 1944: Appx 85.

Meanwhile what can we read in Dominic Graham's book?:
"As the fighting continued, the Poles, owing to a map-reading error, found themselves in the neck of the bottle from which the retreating Germans were struggling to escape the trap between the Americans and the Second Corps".
Source:
Dominick Graham
The Price of Command. A Biography of General Guy Simonds
Stoddart Publishing Co., Ltd., Toronto 1993
ISBN 0-7737-2692-6
page 154

Good God, the Polish Staff Officers – with their academic degrees, after two Campaigns of 1939 and 1940, after long-term exercises in the UK – are unable to read the maps correctly. Oh yes, the Polish idiots went to war without basic knowledge of the topography, compass and map. What is more they did not know Montgomery’s order for the Poles to capture Chambois as soon as possible and for all costs. Oh yes, yes, the 1st Polish Armoured Division GOC Maj.-Gen. Stanislaw Maczek, WWI veteran highly experienced in mountain fights (he was an officer at the Italian front), a veteran of Polish-Russian War of 1919-1920, the graduate of War Academy, pre-WWII Brigade Commander, a veteran of two WWII campaigns -- he was unable to read the map correctly and he directed Polish troops to Chambois by mistake… against Montgomery's order. Yes.

This time I would appreciate it were Dominic Graham to join this discussion.

Forgive me sarcastic sound but sometimes I cannot avoid laugh when I see such things in the books. Sad to relate but the Polish authors (mainly WWII ETO veterans) are not much better of course when they write their frontline memoirs of the NW Europe. We do have also similar anti-Canadian bullshits unfortunately.

Am I not right? Are we not in poor historic cabaret? That is why we have to be the generation that will be the lobby against nationalistic manner of writing the historic books. Let's laugh at book bullshits but never accept them and explain selected aspects of history in all possible places, also in the Internet forums as a powerful media.


Best regards and do not shoot at me, friends

C.