Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

SOUTH ALBERTAS AT WAR - author's notes


Recommended Posts

I had the pleasure today of being in touch with Donald Graves, the author of South Albertas at War - a book that has been heavily quoted here on this forum, and has become a bible of sorts for those interested in the Commonwealth.

For anyone interested, he has agreed to write a short article on how he researched the book; I am including it on my site at http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ Click on BACKGROUND ON BOOKS and the link will be there; looking for feedback both for myself, and also so I can send it to Mr. Graves.

I was so impressed with his book that I reviewed it at Amazon.com - that was how he found my name and email address. So it's sort of like rating the scenarios at the Scenario Depot - people really do read them, and the creator of that which you are rating usually appreciates it!

Direct link - http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/sar.htm

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

C'mon Germanboy, I know you're out there....<hr></blockquote>

Actually, IIRC Nick Chameleon is trudging through the snow in the Ardennes with a couple of cronies. Watch out Belgium - here they come again! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Graves resume appears to consist primarily of histories focusing on the War of 1812. Graves holds only a "co-authorship" status in "Normandy 1944: The Canadian Summer" (this title is seemingly only an illustrated history?). Given this foray by the author into what might be perceived as an area of limited previous expertise, why should someone consider obtaining this book over any of the plethora of unit histories dealing with Commonwealth Armored units that served in Normandy\Northwest Europe? "South Albertas: A Canadian Regiment at War" is after all not cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? The recommendation of those who have read it. The comments by the author on my site indicate how seriously he took the subject; the comments of those of us for whom this book takes pride of place on the bookshelf...I don't know how it compares to British regimental history, but it stands head and shoulders over Canadian ones, both as a regimental document, but also a nuts and bolts look at what an armoured regiment actually did. The value is also in the photos - of key figures, terrain, vehicles and weapons.

Don't take my word for it - ask others who have read it. As the Graves says, once this second printing is sold out, there will be no more. If you live in Canada, you can get it at the local library, but for Americans, Brits, Aussies, Kiwis et al, they may well be out of luck, which would be too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I can understand the reluctance, after looking at Graves' resume. What you don't see is that Graves was an artillery man (many miltiary historians have never served, and it shows - the best military historians have at least served in peacetime). He was also good friends with Jack Summers, who served in WW II and long after, and was a good historian in his own right.

Bercuson, the labour historian, has written some middling military history, but as never served, and is in the first instance a labour historian.

I think Graves has proven his ability to write military history though - so in this case, your well founded suspicion don't lead to well-founded fears.

Of course, not knowing you or anyone personally, I could recommend it til the cows come home, and if you aren't looking to get the same things out of it I got, you will be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

... Graves was an artillery man (many miltiary historians have never served, and it shows - the best military historians have at least served in peacetime). He was also good friends with Jack Summers, who served in WW II and long after, and was a good historian in his own right...<hr></blockquote>

Hehe - this came up a few months ago, and exactly the opposite point was argued: soldiers seldom make good historians because of ... something. Over familiarity with the topic maybe. Keegan is usually held up as a prime example - no military service (clubfoot or sumfink), yet he is a very well regarded historian. Reynolds, on the other hand, reached very high levels in the British Army, yet IMHO 'Steel Inferno' isn't that great. In fact, because of that book I won't be seeking out anything else by him.

Getting back to Keegan though, he did spend a significant portion of his career at Sandhurst(?), surrounded by soldiers in a military environment, so I would say that his experience though not truly 'military' isn't too far off it.

Of course Graves is a former Gunner and therefore, like Graham and Bidwell, clearly beyond reproach :D;):D

Regards

JonS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've never heard of the book but it sounds interesting. thats pretty cool about the author contacting you. i have a question for you dorosh since i don't beleive i know as much about commonwealth forces as you. in your opinion, out of the bunch wich was the best over all fighting force? i assume the top two are canada and australia, though in my opinion i'd take canada or the aussies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunners rock. Most senior commanders in the Canadian Army in WW II were gunners, by the way - Crerar, McNaughton, Simonds, plus many div commanders like Matthews.

There are some pretty good historians who have never served - Ambrose for a (debatable) example. It depends on what you are writing about - you want to write about platoons and companies in battle, you should probably have served in a battery, squadron or company yourself to understand the dynamics. Divisional level history isn't so intimate or require actually having served, IMO.

I hated Steel Inferno and gave it away; it suffered, IIRC, from being written by that type of Brit historian who bases everything he knows about why militaries do things on how the British do it. The Germans were so very different from everyone else that you just can't make those kinds of assumptions. I don't have any specifics to add to that discussion - but why did you dislike it, Jon?

Iron Chef - I don't know much about the Aussies, but I don't think it's fair to compare the CW to the US to the Brits to the Russians. All had very brave soldiers who thank God were able to beat the Krauts and put an end to the Holocaust. Arguing who is better may be fun, and we all do it, but I have no deeply held opinions. The Canadian Army had very serious problems, but so did all the armies that fought WW II. Luckily our problems were not so insurmountable as the Germans'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Gunners rock. <hr></blockquote>

Quite possibly the most perceptive thing you're ever said Mike ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Steel Inferno ... why did you dislike it?<hr></blockquote>

Steel Inferno has had some good reviews on this forum, which was one of the reasons I got hold of a copy.

However IMHO, it seemed gushy, and fawning, and to overly rely on just a few sources. Also it didn't seem balanced, giving only the German perspective of the battles mentioned (it was of course about 1SS Korps, but more balance would have been useful). Also, he arbitrarily cut the narrative of certain battles where they could reasonably carry on a bit. Overall it seemed ... incomplete.

I note that Graves was on a conducted tour of Normandy with Reynolds in the late '90's. I wonder what that was like ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iron Chef, its extremely hard to say which nationality was better than the others. In all armies there were excellent, good and indifferent units. The Canadians tended to be more uniform in their quality, in my opinion, whereas the South Africans tended to be either very good or quite bad. Australian units tended to be very good, while New Zealanders were considered to be uniformly of a high standard. Perhaps the best view is that of a qualified observer, from Hastings' book, "Overlord":

"Outside Portsmouth at 21st Army Group Headquarters, Montgomery's Chief

of Staff, Major-General Francis de Guingand, turned to Brigadier Bill

Williams and recalled the beginning of other , desert battles. "My God,

I wish we had 9th Australian Division with us this morning, don't you?"

he said wryly."

I don't think he'd be saying that if he thought the Australians were bad soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I will review it on Amazon.com later.

Jeff - why buy it? Because it is the best regimental history of a Commonwealth unit that I have seen. It is one of these rare books that make you happy to have parted with the money. Gon, treat yourself to it ;)

Steel Inferno is a funny one - it was a starter into the field for me, and I thought it was quite decent then. Now I think differently - I would only recommend it with some health warning. That tour must have been something interesting.

Ardennes were nice, BTW. Ideal weather, and we found the foxholes overlooking Foy. Still all there, you can even make out what looks like a company CP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Andreas, your review is finally up at amazon.com.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks, seen it - it was difficult to add something after yours anyway, but I copied it through to Amazon.co.uk too too, to help the Pommies get good boks smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...