The Canadians in Normandy

[chris talpas]

Michael,

If you get a chance I recommend that you give John English's "Failure in High Command: The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign" a read. [Lt.Col Dr. John English served 35 years with the Queen's Own Rifles and PPCLI. He holds a BA and MA from RMC, an MA from Duke, and a Ph.D. from Queens]. Anyways, his thesis is the at times poor showing by Canadian forces is due not to failure at the company and below level, but rather the inexperience and ineptitude of the high command. Apart from Simmonds, did many other General officers distinguish themselves?

Chris

[Desdichado]

Originally posted by JonS:

Ahh, but they did break through at Caen in the end. Also, remember that they, and the rest of the Allies, got to the Seine well ahead of the pre-invasion schedule.

Yes, I ought to have put a time cap on that point.

[The_Capt]

Here is an interesting article from the other side,

http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/tours/normandy/battle.html

I don't know of the accuracy or the impact on the arguement but it is an interesting read.

Michael, I think you hit the nail on the head and perhaps why I was so flustered when statements were made on the SC board.

The question of Canadian or any Allied performance in an extremely complex one. I would think there is enough there for a Ph D thesis and a series of books.

Each Bn performance (which in turn are only as good as they're coys) would have to be looked at within the context of the Op plan. Then the result compared not only to planned results but realistic ones.

The only benchmark I can use is to look at the results in the face of the conditions and without going much deeper one has to draw the conclusion performance was well done.

Conditions were very tough as has been fairly well established. The plan was carried out, if in a delayed and costly fasion. I do not think the delay (we still got about have of the Germans we wanted too in Falaise..it was a crushing defeat for them) or the cost (The Canadian Divs were not pulled from the line because they could not continue) outweigh the success of actually completing the tasks they did.

And unless one wants to dig very deep and show how it could have been done better..a monumental task, it would be very hard to support a counter decision.

I think we can say the overall performance was not outstanding (even though I think the individual soldier and even some Bns were) due in large part to the cost and delay of the result which do not lend themselves to an "outstanding performance" judgement.

At least that is how I see it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

Here is an interesting article from the other side,

http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/tours/normandy/battle.html

I don't know of the accuracy or the impact on the arguement but it is an interesting read.

Michael, I think you hit the nail on the head and perhaps why I was so flustered when statements were made on the SC board.

The question of Canadian or any Allied performance in an extremely complex one. I would think there is enough there for a Ph D thesis and a series of books.

Exactly; the reason I was flustered was because all I was seeing was a regurgitation of generalizations to the effect of "yeah, the boys were great - they won, right?" It obviously goes way deeper than either one of us might reasonably be able to research short of quitting our real jobs, and the reserves, and digging in to about a year's worth of research. Even then, I kind of doubt a lot of pertinent info has made it into the historical record and is now lost to the ages.

Each Bn performance (which in turn are only as good as they're coys) would have to be looked at within the context of the Op plan. Then the result compared not only to planned results but realistic ones.

The only benchmark I can use is to look at the results in the face of the conditions and without going much deeper one has to draw the conclusion performance was well done.

Yes, I agree on both counts. I guess what I was doing was putting forth the claim that those companies and battalions were not overall performing to a high standard. I had hoped someone might come along and provide an easy quote - "well, if you go to website X, you will see the performance of every company in Normandy laid out in tabular form as a percentage of total possible performance...." Obviously a pipe dream on my part...

Conditions were very tough as has been fairly well established. The plan was carried out, if in a delayed and costly fasion. I do not think the delay (we still got about have of the Germans we wanted too in Falaise..it was a crushing defeat for them) or the cost (The Canadian Divs were not pulled from the line because they could not continue) outweigh the success of actually completing the tasks they did.

I would certainly never dispute that.

And unless one wants to dig very deep and show how it could have been done better..a monumental task, it would be very hard to support a counter decision.

Call me crazy, but I would still like to see someone make the attempt someday. All the battalion size disasters seem well documented, and the travails of the generals has certainly been argued long and hard. Not that the "good" actions by certain battalions hasn't been analyzed, but I'd like to see more. I think Copp did some of this kind of analysis in The Brigade, where he followed the Black Watch, Maissonneuves and Calgary Highlanders throughout the campaign in NW Europe - but I don't think he offered any real alternatives to their tactical failings, either. As you say - if you think they could have done better, you should probably say why.

I think we can say the overall performance was not outstanding (even though I think the individual soldier and even some Bns were) due in large part to the cost and delay of the result which do not lend themselves to an "outstanding performance" judgement.

At least that is how I see it.

Me too. Thanks for helping me clarify some of my own thoughts on all of this. I would be interested, if you get the time, to read an analysis - by you or some of the other posters - of one or two battalion actions in Normandy. Not to prove one way or another the quality of the army as a whole, but solely for interest's sake. Perhaps from the perspective of what they had trained to do in England, and what they found themeselves actually doing in Normandy.

[lassner.1]

Actually, the most current, up-to-date and thorough scholarship on the comparative performance of American, British, Canadian, and German forces in Normandy is: Russell Hart, Clash of Arms: How the Allies Won in Normandy (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001). Dr. Hart (asst. prof. of military history at Hawaii Pacific Univ.) has really done outstanding research and made a cohesive and well structured argument. Do yourselves a favor and give it a read.