Leibstandarte Division and Schweppenburg

[tailz]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Was there not a Canadian CO at a very high level that was generally held to be incompetent, but he could not be removed because it was felt necessary not to offend the tender sensibilities of the Canadians?

In fact a very senior, well respected officer was sacked because of the 'tender sensibilities' of the British Army and Government. Evidence would indicate that respect for the Canadian nation from our 'allies' was almost non-existent on most occasions. From the British Government's repeated, continuous efforts to have Canadian troops used as replacements in British divisions, to Monty's refusal to allow the Canadian CinC to pay a field visit to Canadian units in Italy, to the refusal of American units to accept the commands of senior Canadian Headquarters when assigned to joint operations. When Canadian forces liberated Dieppe, old Monty was rather pissed at the delay in the town because Canadian formations wanted to conduct a bit of a memorial to honour their comrades. (let's not forget the lessons in amphib warfare learned in that fiasco, that would greatly facilitate all later Allied seaborne invasions.)

I would submit Germanboy, that Canadian 'sensibilites' were NEVER a consideration in anything. If any general should have got the sack, it should have been Montgomery the press hound, and his oh-so-original war winning strategy of "throw enough materiel at the enemy and he has to retreat." Bet he would have worked marvels on the Russian Front.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by tailz:

I would submit Germanboy, that Canadian 'sensibilites' were NEVER a consideration in anything.

Thanks for the clarification - as I said, I read it somewhere, but could never find it anywhere else, that is why I was asking. I thought it was a divisional or corps CO. I know that Simmonds was in high regard with everybody, so it could not have been him.

Simon, you are right of course that many things need to be looked at to judge an episode like Worthington Force. I guess if he had known where he was, arty could have saved the day, as it so often did for the Allies in Normandy, and the whole thing could have turned around into a success. But if you have two relatively green divisions 4th Canadian AD and 1st Polish) who are left trying to pull victory from the jaws of defeat when they are faced by seasoned if battered opponents, my bet would usually be on the defender to start with.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Forever Babra]

From the article "Reassessing Operation Totalize", Legion Magazine, May/June 1999 by Terry Copp:

On July 30, 1944, Lieutenant-General Guy Simonds summoned the senior officers of 2nd Canadian Corps to his main headquarters at the chateau in Cairon, northwest of Caen. There was complete silence as Simonds described the deeds that had won the Victoria Cross for Major J.K. Mahoney of the Westminster Regiment (Motor) in Italy just a couple of weeks before. Mahoney’s company, with a troop of light recce tanks from the Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians), had seized a bridgehead across the Melfa River and held it against repeated counterattacks.

There was an edge to Simonds’ voice as he spelled out "the points in this episode" that he wanted "all officers to read and think about," and to discuss with their troops. The Westminsters, Simonds noted, were in their first major offensive action but fought like well-tried veterans. "There was no question of giving in because they had lost touch with the rest of their battalion or were cut off or under heavy fire. Under the leadership of Maj. Mahoney they fought, confident that if they did their part the fight would swing in their favour and the rest of the unit would get through to assist them."

The officers assembled at the chateau were unsure how they should react to this lesson. Was Simonds implying that 2 Cdn. Corps units had failed to meet the standard set by the Westminsters in Italy? Did he really believe the units overwhelmed by massive German firepower in operation Spring had simply given in? No one dared ask, and the room remained silent as the general began a review of the progress of the Normandy Campaign to date. Simonds described Spring as successful despite the loss of ground and heavy casualties because the primary aim, holding German panzer divisions in the Caen sector, had been met. "It should be stressed to the troops that their contribution made the American success possible." However, the time had come to prepare for a major operation to deliver a "knockout blow." Simonds warned, "No division will stop until every reserve is employed..."

The BCR had arrived in Normandy on July 25th, so Worthington would have been present for this. One has to wonder what effect it had on his decision-making.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Forever Babra:

The BCR had arrived in Normandy on July 25th, so Worthington would have been present for this. One has to wonder what effect it had on his decision-making.

I still think the keypoint here is 'decision-making'. Worthington never made a conscious decision to move to Hill 140. He lost his way, like I do on a bad day in central London. He probably died believing he was on Hill 195. If he had made a conscious decision to go for Hill140 instead, maybe because of German pressure, he would have called arty for support there, instead of instructing it to plough some new furrows on an empty field in Normandy.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[tailz]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Thanks for the clarification - as I said, I read it somewhere, but could never find it anywhere else, that is why I was asking. I thought it was a divisional or corps CO. I know that Simmonds was in high regard with everybody, so it could not have been him.

The original Canadian CinC (name eludes for the moment... Currie I believe) Built the Canadian Army in Europe and was a fervent Nationalist (and also one of the small handfull of professional soldiers in Canada) It was he who had to blunt British efforts to keep treating the Canadians as "colonials" on a regular basis. He had to resist constant efforts to have the Canadian army sent piecemeal to scattered fronts, and to maintain its cohesion as the Canadian Army... not merely a division or corps. Eventually, for political reasons with the British, he got the chop and was replaced by General Crerar (who had to fight the same battles with the allies, but by that point the Canadian Army was a point of fact in the British Isles.) It was Crerar who was treated rather poorly by Monty in Italy and had the "disagreement" with Monty again in France near Dieppe. Likewise there is at least one instance of US officers showing up at Canadian HQ and demanding to speak to the British officer in charge. Similarly, XXX Corps was at one point placed under Canadian Army HQ and was... 'extremely reluctant' to carry out orders from the Canadians. (Fortunately Monty did step in and tell XXX to get its act together.)