THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion

Members can debate and discuss any aspect of the Second World War in this area, just ensure all discussions are friendly in nature as differences of opinion are to be expected .

Members can throw in any WW2 topic they wish to discuss here. We have had debates about the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan and about certain leaders and pivot battles so if you have something you want to discuss or debate further post it and let’s see what response you get back :-)

What do members think of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of Guy Sajer's book; The Forgotten Soldier?

by Guy Sajer

For some back ground information check this link out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forg...

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "What do members think of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of Guy Sajer's book; The Forgotten Soldier?

by Guy Sajer..."

Not aware of the controversy until now. Enjoyed this book immensely and probably due for a reread...it's been a very long time since I read it. Even back when I first read it, I imagined that a Frenchman would change some details about his service in the Wehrmacht, not somethng for a Frenchman to brag about.

That's very true Mike, I confess I really enjoyed the book as well when I first read it, rated it in my top ten. I think the issues about its accuracy or authenticity have not been settled one way or the other and may never be. I think people will have to read the book and decide for themselves eh!

One of the rare books I have read more than once.

I read it in the 80s and wasn't aware of the suggestions it was false, and like Mike I assumed some aspects would have been changed or merged especially as at the time understanding for those who served (volunteer or pressed) with German units was very thin in the ground. I recall enjoying the book and reading it at around the same time as I read these by Sven Hassel and Doctor of Stalingrad by Heinz G Konsalik.

I then read the other Hassel novels alongside the fictional SS Wotan series by Leo Kessler.

I must confess that I read nearly all of Sven Hassel's novels and loved them :)

I'm more of a Hans Helmut Kirst fan.

I've not read his books George so I'll have to check them out.

One of the 'what ifs' of WW2 that has always interested me is what if Japan didn't strike at Pearl Harbor in 1941 but waited a bit longer threatening Russia so Stalin couldn't withdraw his troops and other resources to confront the German drive on Moscow. Could Germany have knocked Russia out of the war and then could Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor?

Here is a very informative and interesting link to a discussion on the accuracy of Guy Sajer's book The Forgotten Soldier:


http://www.members.shaw.ca/grossdeuts...

I read Guy Sajer's book years before the controversy before its veracity began. I enjoyed it and categorized it the MEMOIR genre that had poured out of the aftermath of World War Two. I would argue that the MEMOIR books dominated mass thinking about the war in different countries and in different ways until the past thirty years. Works like PANZER LEADER or Manstein's LOST VICTORIES were accepted less critically back then. So the questioning of Sajer's "novel" has been part in parcel of a rethinking of all the general perceptions of World War TWO that these books had laid about tone.

The themes of blaming Hitler , disassociating Nazism from the Wehrmacht's ethos and shifting war guilt from the totality of the German's support of National Socialism to a we versus them attitude to Nazism was the practical effect of these memoirs in terms of popular consciousness.

Granted, memoir literature is essential for a real feeling for what happened..but a great "novel" like FORGOTTEN SOLDIER also misinformed in critical ways our understanding of the relationship of the landser to the war aims of the Third Reich

Some very good comments there Jim, I still rank The Forgotten Soldier in my top ten books on the Eastern Front.

I am still relatively new but I do enjoy being part of this group. I wanted to bring something to your attention that you may find interesting. Most Americans and other westerners who fought in the Pacific theater are not aware that most of the Japanese people were deeply grateful to the allied forces, and American occupation forces, specifically, for ending the war and bringing food, peace, and democracy to their country.

My wife, Reiko, was born in Tokyo just after the war and grew up there, moving to the US as an adult after we married. I had been there for three years in the USAF 1969-1972. She wrote her autobiography and published it last March about her experiences growing up in post-war Japan as well as contrasting of the Japanese and American societies. Since publication, she has realized that one of her key audiences is actually American WWII Veterans, especially those who had served in the Pacific.

She has contacted many of them using Google Alerts and through word of mouth. She has also spoken to WWII Veterans’ groups, including many who have been on Honor Flights www.honorflight.org to the WWII Memorial in Washington DC. She has created a two-minute YouTube video directed to them specifically at www.ThankYouVeterans.net. Her goal is to try to reach as many WWII Veterans and their families as possible with this message before August 15, 2015, the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII.

It occurred to me that being in this group indicates that you have an interest in WWII and related topics. Therefore, you may find this of interest and possibly even know some WWII Veterans personally. We would like to ask your help in getting this message out to as many WWII Veterans and their families as possible. When Reiko speaks to Veterans, a lot of them come up afterwards to tell her that they have hated the Japanese ever since the war but, after listening to her, they were finally able to find closure and let it go. Usually, these are quite emotional events as you may imagine. She has even ended up with a few pen pals through her efforts.

Oh, and if you are curious, her book, “To America – With Profound Gratitude: My Journey to Freedom and Independence,” is on GoodReads and more information, including excerpts and how she worked through the self-publishing maze, is available on her website at www.ReikoMcKendry.com. Of course, some book sales would be appreciated but we are not getting rich from that and helping WWII Veterans know that what they did, again, specifically in the Pacific and in Japan after the war, was truly appreciated by most Japanese. She heard that message loud and clear from her parents and their generation as she grew up in Japan and wants to get that message to the Veterans. She was surprised to learn that this appreciation by the Japanese people was little known by American WWII Veterans (or other allied Veterans as well).

We would greatly appreciate any help you can provide to get this word out to WWII Veterans while they are still with us.
Thanks,

Dave

Interesting article on the repatriation of first edition books rescued from Austria in 1938: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/bo...

That's an interesting story! Thanks for posting the link Geevee

David wrote: "I am still relatively new but I do enjoy being part of this group. I wanted to bring something to your attention that you may find interesting. Most Americans and other westerners who fought in the..."

I've heard a bit about this. Japanese involvement in the second world war is arguably the more Greek tragedy of Germany, Italy, Japan itself. Between the peace movements within the cabinets squelched by nationalists, the 'mocked up' trials of the assassin's ( strangely foreshadowing the trumped up tribunals following the dismissal of Blomberg and Fritsch in the Third Reich. )

As you suggest, for good reasons American vets had/do hate the Japanese. It's hard to not want to hate someone that's done something to you or to your buddies ( pretty much WORSE than something happening to YOU in a military unit.)

Closure is fairly important - for healing. Moving on is never a simple thing in any walk a life, much less a combat vet's or a civilian who grew up to the reality of Americans dropping bombs on them.

You know, since my area of 'expertise' is the Eastern Front ( broadly speaking) the thought has crossed my mind a number of times about what Erich Von Manstein called " The Mediterranean Possibility" in

Manstein's argument -in a nutshell- was that even if Germany had not opted to directly settle the issue with Russia and forced Britain's hand in the Mediterranean and finishing her off there and closing the Suez Canal, Germany would still have been in an untenable position and Britain could still very well have carried on the war. For awhile I had disagreed with him on multiple fronts, but I realized I had been unnecessarily influenced by Churchill's emphatic frenzy over the condition of Britain in 40-43 and through patently avoiding the fall into the "German syndrome".

Now i'm actually thinking Manstein was RIGHT. With lack of planning for Sealion, Hitler had shot his bolt after the invasion of the lowlands. While it's easy to look at history in hindsight and cast what-ifs, i'm curious what you guys think of the matter.

I think Manstein's strategic ideas had some legs and Churchill was very worried about the oil in present day Iraq/Iran and the security of the Suez Canal for access/supplies and the threat to India. People sometimes forget Churchill's using and keeping the Australians in theatre because of his concerns (keeping them against the Australian government's wishes too, which clouded relations thereafter).

For me 1941 was the key year and the only chance to achieve what Manstein suggested in the theatre as Germany decided to deploy troops to North Africa because the Italians were not as effective as Mussolini (and Hitler) had hoped, and they were in the ascendant in the Med area: Greece, Crete, Rommel's offensives, siege of Tobruk etc, and of course elsewhere in November the Germans were just 40 miles from Moscow...and that campaign as we know then saw the focus and Hitler's interest move.

Hi Bracken, I found your thoughts on Manstein's "Mediterranean Possibility" quite interesting and I will have to go dig up my copy of the book which I last read in 1988 and re-read parts of it.

I also enjoyed your response Geevee and figured you two might get a kick out of this site that offers some interesting alternative to history:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discu...

I've always wondered what could have happened in the Med if Germany struck Malta instead of Crete or managed to draw Franco's Spain into the Axis and closed off the Mediterranean with a strike against Gibraltar, did they have the resources to do that, would it have made any difference to the outcome in North Africa, etc.

Crete was closer to Greece, and therefore more easily sustained by air transports and fighter cover. Malta, too far away for fighter cover, also had the largest British fighter baes in the Med Theater, with Royal navy protection. That would have been impossible for Hitler to have taken Malta. The same with Gibraltar.

An interesting discussion on should/could Germany have taken Malta during WW2 here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopi...

Was sitting at a traffic light Sunday evening and a Sherman tank w/WW2 US markings rolled by. It was on a low flat bed, but still, not something you see everyday.

Colin wrote: "Crete was closer to Greece, and therefore more easily sustained by air transports and fighter cover. Malta, too far away for fighter cover, also had the largest British fighter baes in the Med Thea..."

Arguably it was not at all logistically impossible. There were points early in the Mediterranean 'War' where Malta was essentially defenseless. The Wehrmacht by then possessed none of the unity of command as it enjoyed in Poland and the Scandinavian countries though, mostly thanks to intrigues by generals and interference of Goering and Hitler. The separation of the OKW and OKH prior to the invasion of the lowlands and defining them as distinct theaters and units undermined the German war effort more than I think most historians realize.

While it's easy to draw conclusions in hindsight I think it goes without saying that if no command schism had occurred the Allied forces would have had an even more difficult time grinding Germany down. Like late Republican Rome though, intrigue and terror ruled the day. Internal clamoring made the structure as a whole doomed to failure before military reversals revealed the fragility of the system.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Hi Bracken, I found your thoughts on Manstein's "Mediterranean Possibility" quite interesting and I will have to go dig up my copy of the book which I last read in 1988 and re-read parts of it.

I ..."

As I understand it Franco demanded too much for involvement in the war. I don't remember the specifics, but I remember Hitler having remarked that Franco was an impossible man for him to deal with.

Frankly i'm thankful that Franco wasn't charmed by Hitler's personality as so many people were.

You are right Bracken, Franco's demands were more than Hitler could agree too and I think Franco was still consolidating his grip on Spain, the best he would do was to provide the Spanish Legion (Blue Division - División Española de Voluntarios) for use on the Eastern Front.

Bracken wrote: "Colin wrote: "Crete was closer to Greece, and therefore more easily sustained by air transports and fighter cover. Malta, too far away for fighter cover, also had the largest British fighter baes i..."

Once Barbrossa started, and 2/3 of German supplies, forces and weapons/tanks/aircraft were transferred east, it was a non sequitur. Germany would have had a great chance of another invasion on malta, but the cost of Crete forced Hitler to abandon any airborne assault, and he did not have the naval presence in the Med to alter that reality. If he could not invade the UK in 1940, he was unlikely to succeed after June 1941. In my interviews with senior German officers of all branches, this was their assessment.

Once Barbarossa started that certainly would have put paid to any further offensive operations in the Mediterranean but what if Hitler delayed his offensive against Russia and concentrated on securing the Mediterranean? Then he may have had the means to send a pincer into the Caucasus via Iran which was friendly towards Germany as were many of the other countries in the region. So many what if’s in history eh!

I agree, if he had delayed Barbarossa, much more could have been done in the Med, and he could have taken the Persian oil fields and the Suez, in my opinion.

I'm in agreement with you gents and it does make for interesting speculation.

I wonder what other members think would be the crucial battle for their country during WW2. I know in Australia most people, or those who think about WW2 at all, always regard Kokoda during the campaign in New Guinea as being 'the' battle for Australians.

Others suggest Tobruk or Alamein, however many do not realise that over 20% of all combat deaths for Australians in WW2 occurred in RAF Bomber Command in their night campaign against Germany

So what battle in your countries history do you think was the most significant for your nation during the Second World War?

For Britain - The Battle of The Atlantic. Crucial to Britain's survival and the one campaign that Churchill said kept him awake at night; (or words to that effect!).

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I wonder what other members think would be the crucial battle for their country during WW2. I know in Australia most people, or those who think about WW2 at all, always regard Kokoda during the cam..."

Read my book The Star of Africa, where the Aussies and South Africans were well represented.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I wonder what other members think would be the crucial battle for their country during WW2. I know in Australia most people, or those who think about WW2 at all, always regard Kokoda during the cam..."

For America, the two most significant battles that were THE game changers and THE turning points were Midway in the Pacific and D-Day on June 6, 1944 in Europe.

Interesting question. For Britain the Battle of the Atlantic as Ian says in terms of sheer survival.

That said I think for other battles have important significance too:
*El Alamein for positive news and morale (Churchill's end of the beginning speech);
*for dread and worry Dunkirk and Singapore (coming after several defeats in 1940 & 1941);
*the Blitz for sheer terror and desperation, helping to shape British people's views on the rightness of Allied bombing strategy and building the legend/myth of Britain can take it;
*the night bomber offensive for morale and the ability for the Government to continue to demonstrate to the public that Britain can give it as well as take it;
* Kohima as the start of the defeat of Japan in Burma
* Malta in helping to maintain a presence and supplies in the Med.

For Canada from a British POV I believe it is also the Battle of the Atlantic whom without their Navy (and their supplies) the RN would have struggled more and the the Bomber offensive as 1/3rd of all crews were Canadian.

For Australia from a British POV: Tobruk or the Bomber offensive as so many crewmen were RAAF.

For New Zealand the Merchant Navy's battle at sea and North Africa, which the country was involved in from start to finish and suffered 10,000 casualties.

I would nominate for the US Midway as it secured the turning point and the day bomber offensive that helped the RAF take the war to Germany whilst the campaign for Normandy was planned and built.

For India I would nominate Monte Cassino; again amongst many candidates.

Excellent response Geevee and some food for thought, thanks :)

For the US I would also include Pearl Harbor - mainly for getting the US into the war and causing all the anti war feeling to evaporate.

Well...India was under British rule during WW-II and maximum battle casualties for Indian Troops happened during Battle of Monte Cassino in Italy

I'd be interested to know how many folks agree with me that the war in Europe could have been shortened significantly and perhaps thousands of lives spared had Eisenhower not shut off Patton's gasoline supply in favor of Montgomery's ill-fated Operation Marketgarden.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "So what battle in your countries history do you think was the most significant for your nation during the Second World War?"

In Winter War: It's probably the battle of Suomussalmi where also the battle of Raate road was fought because winning it meant that Finland was not cut in half and we also captured a huge amount of material. Also it was a boost for a fighting spirit because the enemy was 4-5 times stronger. Also Kollaa was important because it was fought for for the entire war.

In Continuation War: Tali-Ihantala (and the rest of the battles in the summer 1944 in Vuosalmi and Viipuri Bay). This is the largest battle in the Nordic Countries to date and a defensive victory for Finland, even though Soviets had 150.000 and Finland only 50.000 men. The Detachment Kuhlmey has been credited for being the decisive factor in the battle. These battles stopped the Red Army and made possible to sue for peace in less harsh terms.

Slightly OT: When looking for words from the English Wikipedia I found this: "Though the Leningrad Front failed to advance into Finland as ordered by the Stavka, some historians state that the offensive did eventually force Finland from the war." Force?! We had been trying to get out of the war for at least a year or two! The trick was to find a moment when neither the Soviet Union NOR Germany was strong enough to cause us trouble. This was planned all along, from the moment Ryti sacrificed himself for making the personal promise to Hitler to ensure the much needed help. Before the summer battles the Soviet Union demanded an unconditional surrender but not anymore after their major offensive was halted.

In Lapland War: Nothing really major, unless you count the battle of Tornio and other Finnish attacks that were demanded by the Soviet Union and started the real war. Of course Finns also remember the burning of Rovaniemi.

Some excellent information and comments there Tytti especially in regards to the 'Continuation War' and picking the appropriate time to leave the war between Germany & Russia.

I have so many good books to read on the Winter War but I am looking forward to reading this new title once it's been released:

by Gordon F. Sander

I have moved this post from Bill in regards to the book by Alex Kershaw; The Bedford Boys,
to this thread for other members to discuss.

Alex Kershaw

Bill's post below, what do others think?

Scores of D-day are published and so much attention is paid to that battle, more than other battle in World War II. US forces landed on other hostile shores during the war, i.e. Tarawa, Salerno, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. And faced the Germans already in North Africa,Sicily and Italy so why is D-Day so special? The War in the Pacific was a war of self-defense and revenge for Pearl Harbor and Bataan. We fought the Japanese for the most part on islands in the Pacific that most Americans had never heard of that were populated with little or no indigenous culture and certainly without a legacy of Freedom and Liberty. In Italy even though most Italians were grateful for us evicting the Germans we still were fighting a country that had at one point sided with Hitler and had even declared war on the U.S. When we landed in North Africa we were occupying a French colony that had decided to side with the Nazi collaborationist Vichy regime.

Overlord and D-Day which was its first day however were different. Here we were liberating a proud people with one of the most advanced civilizations in the world who had not wanted war and who had been conquered and brutally subjugated by the Nazis. And although ultimately it was in our best interests to beat the Germans we didn't have to storm the shores so quickly to do so. We could have done what so many wished us to do and bomb Germany into annihilation and peck away at their empire on its fringes while letting the Red Army grind down the Wehrmacht. Instead we flung our soldiers against the Atlantic wall and assaulted Festung [Fortess]Europa.

Therefore the unique significance of D-day is the story of a peaceful enslaved people being liberated by a peace loving bunch of citizens with no direct stake in the oppressed people's fate. And these citizen Soldiers undertook this struggle without complaining and with great heroism. President Franklin Roosevelt summed it up in his prayer address to the nation on D-Day:

"...Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity."

"...For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home."

The cost of that heroism was very high however, especially on Omaha Beach which was one of the biggest bloodbaths in American history. The cemetery above stands in mute testimony. Now many people have seen Saving Private Ryan which is a great movie. The opening scene takes place on a sector of Omaha Beach called Dog Green. That twenty minute scene is one of the most harrowing in the history of film.

These men were not professional, rather they were Citizen Soldiers. They were there because they had been drafted or because they had joined out of a sense of Duty. There were also those who had joined the National Guard before the war because they needed the extra money to survive the Depression and because their friends and brothers had joined also. When the National Guard was inducted into Federal Service in 1940 these men were taken away from their families and their homes and jobs and then eventually sent overseas.

Kershaw takes us from the formation of the company in the 1930s to interviews with the survivors sixty years later. The three years leading up to D-Day earn the most attention. Following the number of men killed makes the story difficult to write and to follow at times. There are so many names, stories, and relationships, and many of the characters are dead and those who remember have fifty- or sixty-year-old memories. Nonetheless, Kershaw brings the people and their stories to life. Kershaw's story and style reminded me of the memorable "Flags of our fathers". The stories of rigorous training, demanding officers (especially Norman Cota and Charles Canham), preparing in England, dying with other heroes had the sepia tone of HBO's Band of Brothers.

Most of the men of Bedford's Company ‘A’ enlisted in the local National Guard unit in the Depression. Sharp uniforms and training pay were attractive alternatives for an impoverished time. Few of the men ever expected to go to war. Some parents resisted letting them join. Now imagine that in reality it was far worse than depicted in the movie and lasted not twenty minutes but five hours. That was the real Dog Green. And one of the units that landed on that beach was Company A of the 116th Infantry Regiment of the 29th infantry division. Out of the 192 men that landed that day less than 10 members of the company could report for evening roll call. The rest had been killed or wounded. 21 of the members of Company A came from the small town of Bedford, Virginia. Within minutes of the beginning of the battle over a dozen of the Bedford Boys were killed and by the end of the day a total of twenty one had been killed. This book is the story of those men and the town they lived in and how they grew up in the Depression and went to war and how the war affected that town.

One of the great strengths of this book was its probing look at how the war affected entire communities. The spirit of the times drew people together in towns and cities all across the nation in the drive to defeat the Axis powers, and Bedford proved to be a great example of this unity. I found Kershaw's book to have some precedence with the masterful documentary of Ken Burns aired on PBS in 2007. Burns was able to draw reality from both internal growth in the US and involvement in international affairs. He did this through focusing on four portions of America (Alabama, Minnesota, California and Connecticut) and the people from certain communities that contributed to the war effort. Kershaw's work (published in 2003) has the same spirit in showing the all-encompassing drive that brought towns together but could also bring great devastation to them. Sacrifices from every state in the country were felt, but perhaps those of Bedford, Virginia were among the most important and heartbreaking to a small farming town in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

Kershaw's book begins with the makeup of the 1st Battalion of the 116th Infantry, a Virginia National Guard unit that was to be the "sacrificial wave" on Omaha Beach. He is able to set the stage in a bittersweet sort of way, showing the simple and honorable roots of the many sons of Bedford that were to die on June 6 (19 were killed). As the 116th joins the 29th Division and heads to England, Kershaw establishes a pattern of alternating chapters between the boys in Europe and the families back home. This forms the essential foundation of the book and Kershaw succeeds in showing a multi-dimensional look at the costliest day in US Army history since the battle of Antietam (where many ancestors of the 116th fought with Robert E. Lee). Kershaw is a writer suited for both the combat and home front aspects of the story, striking a pretty good balance between those two elements. He still hit a few minor false notes of tone by using the phrase "dead and wounded," which as a soldier and war veteran I find an offensively trite and naive lumping of two very different things under one heading--to a man under fire, and to his family, "wounded" and "completely unharmed" are more similar than are "wounded" and "dead." BUT he only did it once, and it really is a legitimate phrase, as it is the commander's way to track effective fighting strength and attrition. I just find it more appropriate for a book about the generals in the headquarters than a book about the men in the experience.

It is a very good book and it’s unnecessary to be a knowledgeable student of military history to get everything from the book. Indeed the author and the editor make quite a few factual errors, some very minor and some substantial. While some of the factual errors in no way detract from the book. (He states twice that the pre-war US army was only 75,000 men. in fact it was about 140,000. He also mentions in one point armor piercing howitzers. Howitzers use indirect fire to lob high explosive, incendiary and smoke rounds; they do not fire armor piercing rounds- anti-tank guns do.) The author shows a complete lack of understanding of the military in general, and his subject matter specifically. Mistakes abound such as referring to the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) as the standard issue "submachine gun" - which in reality was the Cal .45, M3 Submachine Gun (commonly known as the 'Grease Gun"); referring to LTG Leslie J. McNair as "Chief of Staff, HQs, US Army" when at the time of the reference he was Commanding General, Army Ground Forces; stating that the road trip from Camp Blanding, Florida to Bedford, West Virginia would take a day in 1942 - when it is hard to do it in that time in the present using interstate highways.

When discussing the reestablishment of Bedford's National Guard Company after the war, Kershaw states that National Guard units would never again go to war together, but would be broken up throughout the Army before deploying. While there was some truth to this during the Korea War for some units in the Guard and Reserve, the Army policy has always been that National Guard and Reserve units will deploy together as a unit. Look at the deployment of the Reserve and Guard in our present wars to see that Kershaw has no idea what he is talking about.

Kershaw appears to have fallen into the classic trap of a writer who uses personal recollections as a major part of his research: he never follows through to check on the memories of participants. To be honest, most people's memories of events over 40 years ago are usually lacking detail and are focused on their own little small part of the event. Many of Kershaw's writings that are based on these memories are, frankly, historically wrong or lacking understanding of how the individual was fitting into the 'big picture'. I don't want to dismiss the veterans and families who provided the material, but a good writer understands and keeps in context what may be clouded by time or emotion - or at least provides updates.
Other than the interviews Kershaw did with survivors and family members, his bibliography and research is superficial at best. He uses a basket full of biographies and rather insubstantial histories of WWII as his 'research'. The middle third of the book is a simplistic regurgitation of the history of WWII, barely concentrating on the role of the Bedford Boy's Company and the parent Regiment and Division. The story behind the construction and establishment of the national memorial in Bedford, which could have easily been a chapter or two, is covered in a handful of pages and then frankly not terribly well.
These many errors aside, which many will not even notice, this book is a highly emotion packed and other wise well written
Although I have read hundreds of books on WW2 and at least 20 on D-day Dog Green sector at Omaha Beach, D-Day, 6:30 a.m. (Note for those who like visual images: It's the setting for the landing scene in Saving Private Ryan, the scene of the worst carnage on June 6, 1944. Steven Spielberg donated to the Bedford memorial.) The Americans were going to put eleven divisions ashore in Normandy, 10 of which had never seen combat most of them after a stormy crossing of the English Channel, the last 11 miles in small, pitching landing craft. Planners estimated casualties of 25%. For the small town of Bedford, Virginia, population 3,000, things were going to get a lot worse, very fast. By 12, 19 young men from Bedford were dead. More died later; June 1944 was a disproportional tragedy for Bedford. A small town carried too heavy a burden.

Nice analysis
I discovered in the eighties and nineties when I was interviewing scores of WW II veterans that it was essential to do as much HARD research as possible yourself before talking with them.

After all the events at that time were sharp and clear but still 40-50 years in the past...most of them had been junior officers or enlisted men in the actions they had experienced. When you interviewed a unit historian from when of the many U.S units these guys were really clear about what happened. In all cases the question of people incorporating what they read since the war into their memory and subconscious was something all the people I talked to back then were VERY aware of ...

I found with one battalion I looked at closely it was necessary to get the morning reports of the unit in the ETO...

I found when I first interviewed some of the men and then when back to the morning reports and shared them with them..details would pop out they had not remembered ...one fascinating story from a black GI in a tank battalion was his encountering a racially mixed family in 1945 whose son had been sucked into the local Volkstrum..we went over and over it but he understood the racial implications of that but the woman he saw in Munich in 1945 has her racially mixed kid killed by the U.S in 1945...amazing story and one that I have not been able to completely verify but who knows??

The 29th Infantry Division is a particularly well researched unit and is the subject of several modern works by Joe Balkoski.

I find the intense focus of American popular culture on D Day understandable but quite myopic. I do not say that pejoratively because I had relatives and friends ( most deceased) who fought in Normandy. But our exclusive focus on it as the major event that we see our participation in WW II always is to me a interesting part of how we collectively form our memory of WW II.

WOW..an impressive review no doubt....my knowledge of D Day is restricted to Ryan's "The Longest Day", the movie by the same name, Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan and "Band of Brothers" series of HBO"
I always like books which lay emphasis on the human angle of war and it seems Mr Kershaw has done justice to the sacrifice of the Bedford Boys".
Near my ancestral village in the state of Himachal in India there is a small monument erected by the British after WW-I. If I remember correctly it goes something like this "18 men from this village went to war and did the supreme sacrifice by laying down their lives".
When I was a kid I could not fathom the loss their family members would have felt, I felt war was like a Rambo type of mission...but now I know and now I feel for those parents, those widowed wives, those orphaned sons and daughters....the unnamed casualties of war.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Bill's post below, what do others think?

Scores of D-day are published and so much attention is paid to that battle, more than other battle in World War II. US forces landed on other hostile shore..."

Not read the Kershaw book but from a European point of view leaving the Red Army to grind the German forces down might well have ended the war with the Russians on the Atlantic coast, which would have been a bigger problem for the post-war world than having them on the Elbe. I have always marvelled at the Germany First policy post-Pearl Harbour - it seems counter-intuitive, but something for which Europe was grateful - even if that gratitude was not always shown.

I'm always a little worried about history from films and "Private Ryan" is a case in point. There were 5 invasion beaches on D-Day - Omaha and Utah (US) & Sword Juno and Gold (British, Canadian and others). I haven't had time to look up the numbers but I believe that the US/Allies split of numbers on D-Day was about 40/60, although US troops became the majority as time passed. "Private Ryan" and other films often portray D-Day as a primarily US affair, a portrayal which used to anger my father and his generation of British WWII veterans. US films made primarily, I suppose, for US market - but even so!

Regards

Ian

I do remember some of the controversy, though I was unclear as to the details. The passage of time is a funny thing. It sharpens some memories and dulls others. Veterans will seems to remember the events of a certain day in the most intricate and exquisite detail and research will show that the events happened in a wholly different place and/or sequence than they have indicated.

How and why does this happen? Well I have a theory; first of all combat is an incredibly distorting event. You experience an adrenaline surge of unprecedented proportions, more often than not you are very hungry, fatigued and sleep deprived. The days do melt together. yet at the same time it seems that all your senses are amazingly sharpened and attuned.

Is Guy Sajer being 100% truthful and accurate? Perhaps not but the nature of memory, especially intense ones, can be quite elusive and pliant, they often take the shape we'd like either consciously or subconsciously. That's my two cents.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "What do members think of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of Guy Sajer's book; The Forgotten Soldier?

by Guy Sajer

For some back ground inform..."

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "That's very true Mike, I confess I really enjoyed the book as well when I first read it, rated it in my top ten. I think the issues about its accuracy or authenticity have not been settled one way ..."

Some good points there Bill, I think in the end most historians now accept that The Forgotten Soldier is a historical account of one man's war.

I wonder if it's time for a re-read :)

Does anyone know if (and which) US elements ever fought in Russia during WW2? Especially any Cavalry units?