D-Day. Antony Beevor (p1)
The Monthly
61,717 views
Part 1 | Part 2 Internationally acclaimed historian Antony Beevor talks at the Melbourne Writers Festival about his vivid and engaging opus, D-Day: The Battle For Normandy, the...
20 Comments
@3BALL4 11 years ago
I love this guys books,
@funkyalfonso 11 years ago
I think it would be illuminating if this superb historian wrote about the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially the hapless performance of the politicians involved.
@oldprof9330 9 years ago
"The Normandy landings were the first successful opposed landings across the English Channel in over eight centuries. They were costly in terms of men, but the defeat inflicted on the Germans was one of the largest of the war. Strategically, the campaign led to the loss of the German position in most of France and the secure establishment of a new major front. In larger context the Normandy landings helped the Soviets on the Eastern Front, who were facing the bulk of the German forces and, to a certain extent, contributed to the shortening of the conflict there." From Wikipedia.
@davidsabillon5182 7 years ago
To be honest, I probably would have been one of those that committed suicide. I didn't even know that happened.
@bob-qz9ey 2 years ago (edited)
Am proud that Canada landed on one Beach, Juneau, while The US and Britain each landed on two. Canada had one million in uniform; the 4th largest Navy; trained Commonwealth Airmen; 'Intepid', a Canuck, oversaw the formation of US Intelligence, The OAS, forerunner to CIA; and so much else. Gotta give lots of praise to Australia in Asia, where Canada was first to face Japanese
at Hong Kong.
at Hong Kong.
@MegaBloggs1 5 years ago (edited)
he doesnt explain five things-why the american pre landing bombardment -both sea and air was so ineffective at omaha and why the bombardment pre operation goodwood was not deep enough-7km not 14km, why the allies were so unprepared to fight effectively in the bocage, why development of allied armour was so far behind german armour after seeing tigers and panthers in italy and tunisia in 1943 and why infantry particularly english were still doing frontal assaults in daylight without armoured protection-it took the canadians to show the use of kangaroos(m7 priests without their 105mm howitzers) as armoured transports at night to break the german lines.there were too many english infantry casualties during the early assaults that were repelled with just a few 88mm guns, the first appearance of 12ss hitlerjugend was a revelation because of its motivation and size. the allied use of stop gap tank destroyers was only a partial solution to their tank inadequacy
@johnburns4017 8 years ago (edited)
The Germans at Operation Goodwood in Normandy had five lines of defence with dug in 88mm's and heavy Tiger and fast Panther tanks for mobility. Operation Goodwood was mostly 'not' bocage but open ground more suitable for tank battles, where the German long range 88mm's would be at an advantage.
Monty's plan was not for British forces to take territory. He specifically wanted to draw in German armour onto British forces to grind them up keeping them away from the US forces for them to break out (Operation Cobra). That was even stated at St.Paul's school in Fulham prior to the landings. To do that he was confident British armour could match German armour - US armour would struggle or most likely be overwhelmed. A 12 mile sector around Caen saw more concentrated German armour in all of WW2. Operation Goodwood was not British forces taking territory, as the plan was for the US forces to do that, Monty specifically states this here in this link in an interview with Edward R Murrow. Transcript....
"The acquisition of territory on the eastern flank of the beachhead in the Caen sector was not really important. What was important there was to draw the maximum number of German divisions, and especially the armour, into that flank. The acquisition of territory was important on the western flank [the US sector]." ...."an accusation drawn at me, that I ought to have taken Caen in the programme on D-Day! And we didn't. I didn't mind about that because....The air force would get very het up because I didn't go further down towards Falaise and get the ground suitable for airfields. I didn't bother about that, it would have meant enormous casualties in doing it and it wasn't necessary."
"I could reply to that criticism that on the American front the line from which the breakout was finally launched was a line the St.Lo-Periers road, should have been captured in the initial plan by the American 1st Army on D-Day plus 5, that was the 11th June. But they didn't actually capture it until the 18th July. But I have never returned the charge with that accusation. ...until now"
"I have never understood why Ike said in his dispatches that, when the British failed to break out towards Paris on the eastern flank. The Americans were able [to break out], because of our flexibility, to take it on, on our western flank. I have always thought that was an unfair criticism of Dempsey and the 2nd British Army."
- Field Marshall Montgomery (1959)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_TB9wHRRSw
The RAF chief Tedder, wanted Monty fired wanting open territory to the south towards Falaise to setup his airfields saying Monty was not pursing territory aggressively enough. Monty would have none of it. Operation Goodwood was engaging the massed armoured German defences drawing them in to British lines, grinding them up moving slowly. Here is a 1970s objective British Army Sandhurst internal video analysing Operation Goodwood, with even German commanders who were there taking part. At the beginning it specifically states Monty told Generals O'Connor and Dempsey not to run south to Falaise, not to take territory. Look at 6 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udW1UvSHXfY
Monty was not too concerned with Caen as it would consume too many resources to take. Cities always do. He was more concerned with grinding up German armour in the field. Although by the time of Operation Goodwood only the southern suburbs were in German hands.
Monty was in charge of all of Operation Overlord. He wanted the German armour away from US forces, to allow them to break out. It worked. That is what he wanted and planned. Monty never saw Caen as important but never criticised US forces..... until 1959 when they were snidely at him about Caen to hide their inadequacies. He criticised them for taking St.Lo a month late - with little German armour around for a month. The Germans did send some armour to St.Lo with the US forces making it worse for themselves to capture the place.
Even US General Bradley agreed with Monty. Bradley wrote that:
"The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus, while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we (the Americans)were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride, this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for while we tramped around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded".
Monty's plan was not for British forces to take territory. He specifically wanted to draw in German armour onto British forces to grind them up keeping them away from the US forces for them to break out (Operation Cobra). That was even stated at St.Paul's school in Fulham prior to the landings. To do that he was confident British armour could match German armour - US armour would struggle or most likely be overwhelmed. A 12 mile sector around Caen saw more concentrated German armour in all of WW2. Operation Goodwood was not British forces taking territory, as the plan was for the US forces to do that, Monty specifically states this here in this link in an interview with Edward R Murrow. Transcript....
"The acquisition of territory on the eastern flank of the beachhead in the Caen sector was not really important. What was important there was to draw the maximum number of German divisions, and especially the armour, into that flank. The acquisition of territory was important on the western flank [the US sector]." ...."an accusation drawn at me, that I ought to have taken Caen in the programme on D-Day! And we didn't. I didn't mind about that because....The air force would get very het up because I didn't go further down towards Falaise and get the ground suitable for airfields. I didn't bother about that, it would have meant enormous casualties in doing it and it wasn't necessary."
"I could reply to that criticism that on the American front the line from which the breakout was finally launched was a line the St.Lo-Periers road, should have been captured in the initial plan by the American 1st Army on D-Day plus 5, that was the 11th June. But they didn't actually capture it until the 18th July. But I have never returned the charge with that accusation. ...until now"
"I have never understood why Ike said in his dispatches that, when the British failed to break out towards Paris on the eastern flank. The Americans were able [to break out], because of our flexibility, to take it on, on our western flank. I have always thought that was an unfair criticism of Dempsey and the 2nd British Army."
- Field Marshall Montgomery (1959)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_TB9wHRRSw
The RAF chief Tedder, wanted Monty fired wanting open territory to the south towards Falaise to setup his airfields saying Monty was not pursing territory aggressively enough. Monty would have none of it. Operation Goodwood was engaging the massed armoured German defences drawing them in to British lines, grinding them up moving slowly. Here is a 1970s objective British Army Sandhurst internal video analysing Operation Goodwood, with even German commanders who were there taking part. At the beginning it specifically states Monty told Generals O'Connor and Dempsey not to run south to Falaise, not to take territory. Look at 6 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udW1UvSHXfY
Monty was not too concerned with Caen as it would consume too many resources to take. Cities always do. He was more concerned with grinding up German armour in the field. Although by the time of Operation Goodwood only the southern suburbs were in German hands.
Monty was in charge of all of Operation Overlord. He wanted the German armour away from US forces, to allow them to break out. It worked. That is what he wanted and planned. Monty never saw Caen as important but never criticised US forces..... until 1959 when they were snidely at him about Caen to hide their inadequacies. He criticised them for taking St.Lo a month late - with little German armour around for a month. The Germans did send some armour to St.Lo with the US forces making it worse for themselves to capture the place.
Even US General Bradley agreed with Monty. Bradley wrote that:
"The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus, while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we (the Americans)were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride, this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for while we tramped around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded".
@pelontorjunta 8 years ago (edited)
Beevor has always undermined primary German sources in his studies. That's why he has blundered both Market Garden and Ardennes unlike much better military Swedish historian Christer Bergström and Dutch R.G.Poulussen. I have never appreciated Beevor much. He is flattering too much his American readers which became painfully obvious in his fiasco to not understand how terrible blunder US General Gavin made in Nijmegen (Market Garden).
@parrot849 5 years ago
That introduction from the politician was a bit long winded…. Not to take anything at all away from Mr. Beevor’s magnificent genius, only his valuable speaking time for us….
D-Day. Antony Beevor (p1)
The Monthly
61,717 views
Part 1 | Part 2 Internationally acclaimed historian Antony Beevor talks at the Melbourne Writers Festival about his vivid and engaging opus, D-Day: The Battle For Normandy, the...