Max Hastings slanders 1 Canadian Army

[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, suggesting it is solely his own. His book contains at least one example of indigestion, which is unsurprising given its immense scope and the speed with which it was written. (Page 501; "Charles Farrell, a Scots Guards squadron commander, thought as he drove his Sherman across Germany..." Farrell in fact commanded a Churchill and not a Sherman, as anyone who has read his book 'Reflections' could not help knowing. It even includes a picture of Ike discussing the thickness of the Churchill's frontal armour with Farrell. I will not bother to explain that although Hastings condemns Allied tanks and drove some of them at Bovington, he shows little understanding of the problem or the causes.)

2. I know of no example of a Canloan officer who was not regarded with respect by his British peers, and usually with admiration. Therefore "some Canadian officers" should be replaced by "almost all Canadian officers".

3. The serious manning problems referred to were not unique, as Hastings implies, to 1 Canadian Army, which may have been better off than others in this regard. Shortage of infantry was endemic everywhere including in the US Army. The British disbanded two divisions, including a D-Day assault division, in order to maintain infantry numbers, and ignored the hundreds of thousands of surplus RAF wallahs and trained aircrew doing almost nothing in Britain, and only a tiny number of whom were transferred. Complaints of being sent untrained recruits were commonplace in the British infantry, as they were in the Russian and German armies also chronically short of men.

4. The Canadian Army abroad was unique in being comprised of volunteers. It has always been said, and I believe it strongly, that this resulted in Canadians being man for man more effective than any other troops in any army with the exception of some elite volunteer units like commandos. I do not include the airborne in this comparison since there are serious reservations about their abilities referred to by Hastings, and of course lacking heavy weapons they could not be effective.

In conclusion, I would take issue with Hastings not because he calls the Canadian army flawed but in suggesting that any other army was better. 2 British Army was certainly worse. The German name for Canadians was 'Tommy SS'. This reflected favourably on their skills and commitment even though it also implied a reputation for killing prisoners.

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.

If you would like to read a good book about the 1st Canadian Army read "Fields of Fire" by Terry Copp. He debunks Max Hasings and some of those of similar ilk and exposes them for what they are.

[TColvin]

I have Copp's book, thank you Art, and plan to read it after Christmas.

'Fields of Fire' is recent (2003) and came out long after Hastings' 'Overlord' in 1984.

So you're saying Hastings might have pleaded ignorance in 1984 about the performance of 1 Canadian Army, but can't now. All the more reason why he should be asked to state his reasons. 'Armageddon', published by Macmillan, is being sold widely in the UK and has received good reviews. I believe it's possible no one has told Hastings that his views on 1 Canadian Army are up the spout.

[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”.

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.

[Colin Williams]

I find Hastings' characterization difficult to understand except as a rather sloppy statement by someone who hasn't done any detailed reading or research. To my mind, if one wanted to criticize the Canadian Army in NW Europe it would be to characterize it as an army with excellent raw material, with enthusiastic and effective junior leadership, led by inexperienced, and in some cases incompetent, senior officers. Even those with talent, such as Simonds, climbed the learning curve over the dead bodies of their soldiers.

[servicepub (RIP)]

Many Canadians are constantly incredulous to discover that, of the five D-Day beaches, one was a Canadian show. This is our own fault. Although members of this forum are knowledgeable of Canada's war-time contributions, and most Canadians knew that we did well overseas, we have not won (or even fought) the propaganda war that the UK and US have. This can be partially blamed on our lack of movie productions detailing the "Canadian Story".
When the world is bombarded with Private Ryan and with bridges too far in their corner theatre but nothing about Dieppe, Caen, The Netherlands, Canloan, RCAF Group 6, RCN in the North Atlantic, Canadian MTBs in the Med, Cdn Engineers in Gibraltar, RCAF fighter squadrons in Europe, and many other great stories then we can only blame ourselves.

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by servicepub
Many Canadians are constantly incredulous to discover that, of the five D-Day beaches, one was a Canadian show. This is our own fault. Although members of this forum are knowledgeable of Canada's war-time contributions, and most Canadians knew that we did well overseas, we have not won (or even fought) the propaganda war that the UK and US have. This can be partially blamed on our lack of movie productions detailing the "Canadian Story".
When the world is bombarded with Private Ryan and with bridges too far in their corner theatre but nothing about Dieppe, Caen, The Netherlands, Canloan, RCAF Group 6, RCN in the North Atlantic, Canadian MTBs in the Med, Cdn Engineers in Gibraltar, RCAF fighter squadrons in Europe, and many other great stories then we can only blame ourselves.

Well said Clive.

Cheers

[wayne c. petrie]

Hi all,
I'm new to this forum.I agree with servicepub also.Too much hype is put out by the big players,Britan , the U.S.,and Russia.
The U.S. and Britan put out good movies.The true facts, they distort to suit thier own objectives.Both countries contributated emincely to the war, but they leave out the '3rd Parties'.Canada leaves out the 4th parties.
Don't forget the contribution of the Australians,[best desert fighters],Poles,[who took Monte Cassino],the Gurka/Indian Reg'ts.
The 3rd and 4th parties did not contribute on the the scale the the others did,but what they did do, were turning points in the war.
I had an opportunity to talk to a German vet from ww2,while I was with NATO Forces in Germany,[1969].He told me the Brits were the best displined,the U.S. best equipped and the Canadians the best fighters.He had been left for dead twice.He had his left arm shot off by a Canadian tank.I said to him it may have been my fathers tank that shot his arm off.He replied by buying me a beer and said it's possible!No annomosity.
From the excerts of a documentry,shown 3 times on a U.S. P.B.S. station,once on Canadian,[History Channel],at the time,A German SS major says that he cannot understand the rapid advance of the enemy until he saw the Canadians.That was at Ortanio.
BTW Simmons was born in Briton and maybe that is why the Brits listened to him.
I have read that many Canadian Generals were ignored by the U.S. and would only talk to British Generals.
I think I have said enough for now,as I seem to be getting off track.

Wayne

This is the first time I ever saw this thread (unless I forgot reading it, in my old age? : )

If the facts are so little known world wide about Canadian real involvements, actions, and achievements throughout WW2, then the only cure for this general ignorance is more books and movies with the facts and whatever backs the facts up.

This MLU seems to be a resource library of minds and information that is a real search for truth and understanding ... whose main thrust is, "C'mon folks, let's get our facts straight and give honours and credit where credit is due, preserve it all and inform the world, so we can all get "the bigger picture'.

I'd love to see some great new movies covering Canadians during WW2 with all the new "knowledge" come to light "since back then". MLU is a great place to do the research Too bad MLU doesn't have the studio and the dollars to do this!

So ... who has a moving pictures company with a huge budget to really do this up well???

Seriously though, based on my brief exposure to this stuff, I don't know whats out there, and don't know enough to judge if correct or not, as far as information and portarayals go, but I certainly don't hear comments in the general public about great movies they've seen.

Sounds like Australia should make some movies too ...

"More books and more movies please and thank you!"

Ma

[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.

Originally posted by Crewman
Hello Allied friends, my two cents in this discussion…

Best regards and do not shoot at me, friends

C.

Don't worry Crewman, I'd never shoot you. I'd use my cast iron skillet frying pan ... but you're safe from that too as you're way out of my throwing range

I think you're right about "it's up to our generation" and our kids to clean up perceptions, inform, and present things as was, maybe mending some fences through understanding, while not poopslinging? One can only hope.

In any argument/stand off, the only bridge is willingness for objectivity and the ability to see things as actually is/was. Every side had it's role to play, every side won and lost many things, every side feels very strongly.

Passions run deep. Its good to hear about the what's and why's , and hows, of that too. But I do understand depth of feelings and these things, animosities etc, were very much part fof that history, and even carried into our present.

Hmmm ... dammit, I sound like a peacekeeping CANADIAN ... (one who wields a frying pan??? How peaceful is THAT? : )

[JDCAVE]

I threw it out years ago. Filled with incredible errors pertaining to tactics and strategy. As a result his conclusions one takes with a grain of salt.

Hastings draws his conclusions on Canadians in Europe from Montgomery who had low regard for them. However, an excellent read is "Montgomery in Europe" by Richard Lamb. There's a whole chapter dedicated to the Canadian effort called Canadians on the Coast. Lamb details Monty's clash with Crerar. Lamb is quite supportive of the Canadian cause. During the Canadian assault on the Scheldt, they were starved for supplies while Monty squandered it all on the Arnhem debacle. Meanwhile the Germans dug in on the approaches to Antwerp.

For crying out loud people, he's a friggen newspaper editor with no university education in Military History. He left Oxford after a year! Read between the lines! He failed out!

Sorry but when you've read some really good, critical history, and then you run up against newspaper journalism gussied up as history, it turns one's stomach.

Jim

[JackM]

Originally Posted by TColvin

4. The Canadian Army abroad was unique in being comprised of volunteers.

Can't disagree with the general thrust of your thread, I think we too have been lampooned by Hastings - I'd be surer if I bothered to read his books - but you should take care not to add to mythology.

The 1st and 2nd Australian Imperial Force (ie WW1 and WW2) were volunteers to a man/woman/person.


Jack