Normandy and 'Revisionism'

'Revisionist' historians tend to make my hackles rise - and we've had some postings here recently from people saying 'I've read Copp, Buckley and Hart and you lot haven't ; old fools like d'Este and Hastings didn't know what they were talking about' etc.....

I've read a lot of Normandy stuff, from Ellis through Belfield/Essame to Hastings/d'Este and yes, Stephen Ambrose plus all the memoirs. I don't think that any other campaign arouses such partisan feelings : British authors think that Monty was a genius but the RAF really won it while the Americans had it easy, US authors maintain that the British did nothing while Patton won it, everyone ( mainly influenced by Kurt Meyer's book ) reckons that all the Germans were superhuman figures like Wittmann, overwhelmed only by American industrial might. I haven't read any French accounts but they probably think that Leclerc won it.....

OK,OK - I'm exagerrating ; but not by much.

But I'm keen to keep up-to-date so recent discussions have led me to order a clutch of these 'revisionist' works. I've dipped into Buckley and am seriously starting to read Terry Copp's 'Fields Of Fire'.

So far, so good. Unlike has been portrayed on other posts, these authors do not seem to be intent on overturning all that has gone before ; their main thrust is that the achievements of the ground forces have been undervalued whilst the results of other arms ( ie the RAF ) have in the past been overplayed. Copp's book is elegantly written and I am enjoying reading it.

What is refreshing so far is that the author, while trying to make his point as it refers to the Canadian ground forces, is not doing so by denigrating the efforts of others.

Both Copp and Buckley make the often-overlooked point : that to land on a hostile shore and to comprehensively defeat two German Armies, pushing them out of Normandy and over the Seine in 76 days, was a very considerable military achievement.

On with the reading.........

 

Martin I have been waiting for this post for a long time, actually I was going to start something similar, but wasn't ready for it. My point of view is the one you can see at the Caen memorial: all the allied flags are honored in the same way. The Americans could not have won without the British and vice versa and the Canadians did an excellent job, so did the poles, the Resistance, Leclerc and everybody else. Sorry I did not mention all the nations who participated but I should have . Even Luxembourg send a modest participation. It is not who did most, as small and/or occupied countries could not have done the same as free countries, but what matters here is that the free world united and fought tyranny together. If someone says "we won it and we would have done it without you" than he's a fool, a revisionist, or probably both, unless he wants publicity for a book. As the Belgians say : Union makes strenght.

 

I think revisionism became a dirty word to some largely because it's devout exponents in previous decades tended to be a little 'excitable' and disregard what went before, perhaps explained by there being a much firmer establishment view of what was so. Nobody likes having their sacred cows challenged, particularly by a wild-eyed loony.
This has led many people to have knee-jerk reactions and use the term almost as an insult.
What it often means in reality, (leaving aside conspiracy nuts and people that really are just trying to be sensationalist in order to sell books) is 'good history' where some discarded fact, circumstance, document, personal account etc. is brought out into the open and can often skew or challenge the whole accepted view of a given area.
There's a few 'accepted facts' about the second war that deserve challenging, in my area of interest much to do with the perceived invincibility of the panzerwaffe & air-power's direct affect upon it need more serious enquiry to overcome 60 years of accumulated 'legend', slowly but surely they're getting it, and I applaud the effort.
The real problem with a revisionist approach is when its pro-claimant has begun with a controversial hypothesis and then cherry-picks and selectively chooses 'facts' that can support their theory while disregarding evidence that proves more difficult to bend into shape. The only way to introduce a 'new' historical 'idea' is by following a solid trail that eventually leads to a hypothesis which can be easily and well sustained by the evidence, while also referring competently to what's previously been written, whether in refutation or agreement.

Think of how we saw the war as kids, then think of how we see it as adult enthusiasts.
Each of those tiny steps of knowledge were a revision to our own personal view, and I've got to salute those that are brave enough not just to challenge their own preconceptions or possible misunderstandings but to stand up and say "is that quite correct?" to an entire historical field.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

first off, well said Skipper!!
secondly, Von Poop, i think i understand what you are saying, i use the term "perception is reality", 3 people can watch the same event and come away with 3 completely different stories of what took place, none of them are incorrect, just telling the story differently. What i dislike is when authors, take these facts and twist them around to fit their theory, as you stated. If i am wrong about your ideas, sorry!

 

Martin, I am also reading Fields of Fire at the moment, as well as Tug of War by Dennis & Shelagh Whitaker, C.P. Stacey's (Canadian Official Historian WWII) The Half-Million. My focus in most of my research lately is reading the Canadian campaigns. I have Copp's Cinderella Army waiting in the wings. Tug of War is written by someone who was there and who had wonderful access to information. In this book he had access to General Simonds unpublished personal papers. Whitaker's book falaise gap: a soldier's story is very readable and like the information in George Blackburn's Guns of Normandy portray information from the soldier's perspective (backed up by research) that correlates to what Copp is proposing in Fields of Fire. Perhaps the controversy with Fields of Fire is that people have idealized their "preferred" army and its leaders and don't like to have something they have believed challenged. There is no doubt in reading C.P. Stacey's history of the Canadian Army that he like most Canadians in the past, understates or criticized the actions of the Canadian Army because it wasn't seemly for a Canadian to be boastful or proud! In other reading, General Brian Horrocks held the Canadians in higher esteem than their own historian or general public. Needless to say, if we didn't hold our own in high esteem why would the people of other countries? I appreciate that author's and individuals are beginning to reevaluate what was generally accepted and really look at the facts.

It is the modern access to documents and information not previously available that makes revisionist histories worthwhile; it is as Adam says a problem when "...chooses 'facts' that can support their theory while disregarding evidence that proves more difficult to bend into shape."

Thanks for letting me offer my "two-cernts"!

Michelle

 

Oops....!

' (Copp) demonstrates that previous accounts exagerrated the prowess of the German army...' ( from the jacket blurb for 'Fields Of Fire' )

'...7th Armoured Division suffered a major reverse and was withdrawn from Villers-Bocage. The humiliation of the 'Desert Rats', who lost more than a score of tanks to a single German Tiger...' ( same book, p.76 ).



OK, I'm being mischievous , but it did make me smile to see that even the 'revisionists' can unwittingly perpetuate one of the very myths that they're keen to disprove. A reliance on 'original sources' can be all very well, but the brotherhood of historians has much to offer from later analysis, in this case of course Daniel Taylor's masterly dissection of V-B in ATB's 'Through The Lens'.

 

A later analysis can be useful. D-Day has much of his legend due to active propaganda with severals myths that are perpetuated until today. This would be acceptable if the myths did not take over reality because this is when revisionism starts. One example: nowadays, who talks about the Provence landing which was also an important event in the liberation of Europe? The youth does not even know there was a landing there too. D-Day is THE legendary battle and so much has been said about it, that from time to time there are some elements that should be read in beween the lines. The problem is that the general public does not do that.

 

I thought the Poles won the BoB and quite surely in Normandy as well...Oh I should not have mentioned that one....Oops!

 

You're quite right, Kai - just like Dowding ; I forgot the Poles !

And I'm quite sure that you'll find books claiming that the Poles won the Normandy campaign at Mont Ormel....

( Although, to be serious, I think that every historian since Keegan in 'Six Armies In Normandy' has given due credit and acknowledgment to their contribution ).

 

Maybe not alone Kai, but the Poles were there too and they did their (fair) share. Same thing for the Dutch who liberated towns in Normandy. As I said earlier it's a shame that some people claim their nationals did the whole job. We all know it was a common thing.

 

Remember D-Day is largely only the legendary battle to those of us who grew up in North West Europe or the USA. There seems to be a growing 'holistic' view of the war as one cohesive whole where every aspect, no matter where geographically,has an impact on every other aspect. This could be termed revisionism over the tired old 'we won the war!' arguments but it's also an attempt to get a deeper understanding of the worldwide cause and effects, Military and political.

I'm not actually sure 'revisionism' really exists... Perhaps just an odd term that the history world gives to any new or contrary to the orthodox suggestion?

Cheers,
Adam.

 

True, the Japanese will pinpoint Okinawa before D-Day and the Russians Stalingrad etc... D-Day was however an international battle with units of many countries involved. (does anyone remember how many by the way, I'm not sure about the 26 figure? Sorry if I'm wrong ). My definition of revisionism is denying facts and make lies come true. If your definition is having a different approach with proven facts and see things with a different light, then fine, but then I would not call it revisionism.

 

So 'revisionism' has to be seen as an insult for you rather than a more general historiographical term?
That seems a little unfair. but maybe the term has acquired so many cultish and negative connotations it really should just be discarded.

 

I think that was the point I was probably trying to make with this thread. Our now-banned friend 'squeeth' seemed to brandish the term 'revisionism' as a new broom to sweep away the 'old guard' of historians, and publishers/the media seem to glory in using the term as denoting something new and hitherto unknown in order to sell a few more books/newspapers.

All of which tends to put me off ; I prefer to see the new wave of Normandy historians as part of a continuum, hopefully adding some new insights to my knowledge of the campaign......

 

As I told earlier it is not something negative, providing it has a an approach based on facts , not something that is jettisoned in the air without evidence. History is not an immobile museum and the "truth" is often different depending the point of view you As long as authentic versions are not distorded , I can agree with that.

 

Exactly how I'd see it.
I suppose, as with any 'ism', one's just got to remain cautious about it's more fanatical adherents.
In a pure sense the term is still valid, but perhaps has been so devalued, or even debased, by controversy over time that it no longer means what it should and therefore hinders, rather than helps, an increase in understanding.
A terminology that means two things depending on the person is not that useful.

 

Gentlemen take into consideration the veteran accounts and how they have changed from the minute to the x-pansive. Many authors today have "secretive" information that they will only release once the veterans have left this earth to be revealed at the wishes of the veteran. I for one have several accounts that are in the promised stage that I will not share with anyone until the sad day is said and done. Lets face it even on a lone air or ground battle there is still so much to be learned, no-one ever has it all and it will continue to be this way until time ends

 

Well said old sage, but these accounts will still be first hand testimonies and you will tell the truth, so of course new elements will be welcome even after centuries, otherwise nobody will be able to write about Ceasar.

 

Well, I've just finished reading Terry Copp's 'Fields Of Fire' ( University of Toronto Press, 2003 ) and a very enjoyable and stimulating read it has been - I was actually sorry to reach the end of it.

As I mentioned above, it is well-written by which I mean it is not another 'dry as dust' history ; remarkable as it focuses on the strategic/regimental/tactical levels with no first-hand accounts at all.

The subtitle of 'The Canadians in Normandy' is almost a misnomer, it could almost be 'The Anglo-Canadians in Normandy'.....the book examines many elements of the campaign and makes some very sensible points.

Copp obviously intends to address previous historians' denigration of the Canadian fighting forces efforts, but he pulls no punches where some Canadian commanders are concerned. Interesting also is his point that Kurt Meyer's memoirs have been accepted very uncritically by some post-war historians - not only is Meyer rather dismissive of his enemies, but he also downplays the contribution of other German units than his own. I also found the 'Falaise' chapter totally engrossing but then - I'm biased !

I highly recommend this book ; it wasn't easy to find and I think it's a shame that it didn't get a wider publication.

Now - on to some of the other 'revisionists'......

 

I held that in my hand in the Juno Beach Centre ready to buy it but money was running short so I didn't.
Rather kicking myself now.