"Sacred Cows of Military History" Topic

I was chatting to a workmate the other night. He is Australian, but has lived all over the world and was telling me that any discussion of the 'established story' (ie. pretty much the Mel Gibson version) of the Gallipoli Campaign is considered 'un-Australian' and highly offensive.

I would suggest that this sort of thing should be deeply troubling to we enthusiasts of military history – surely it is in everyone's interest to learn realities, not myths? I imagine every nation has such myths though – are there other examples of historical 'sacred cows' which are best left undiscussed / unchallenged?

Hmmmm – well, I am not sure what went wrong there, but it seems I was unable to cross-post this to any other boards… so please do not point out to me that Gallipoli was in the First World War, not the Second!

I think we had a discussion about this recently in connection with the Boer War.

I agree that revisiting and reviewing what we 'know' about the past is essential to a proper understanding of history.

I've always been interested by myths and how they are often just remnants of the propaganda churned out at the time.

But most of what I think I said on the other thread already…

Much as I despise the man, I believe Gibson was still relatively unknown when "Gallipoli" was made and had little or no input into the final product.

My experience of Australian wargamers is that they are generally much better informed and well-read than the general public, and tend to be aware of the myths and only too willing to point them out.

I think it's about who you are talking to and when, in Australia. Gallipoli is held on to as a central myth in nation building coming 14 years after Federation. The Centenary is brining out some reasonable journalism that will help to keep the myth builders in check! link

I think another interesting myth is that of the Australian troops were the best on on the Western Front – yes, some argue that – significant contributions were made, Monash was a thorough and forward thinking generaL. The Australians fought very well – but we were a small part of a huge effort.

Don't get me wrong, I'm the proud grandson of a Western Front veteran (39th) and grand-nephew of a Gallipoli veteran (Jacka's Mob). But, its a proper can of worms to discuss, though!

I think another interesting myth is that of the Australian troops were the best on on the Western Front – yes, some argue that – significant contributions were made, Monash was a thorough and forward thinking generaL. The Australians fought very well – but we were a small part of a huge effort.

I think you're paying too much attention to the size of the forces deployed and not enough to the quality of the forces deployed.

Where I sit, it's a pretty solid tie between Canadians, ANZACs, and Americans for the best troops on the Western Front.

Canadians have an outstanding reputation as assault infantry. If you needed a position taken, send in the Canucks.

Americans are almost as highly thought of on the attack, and damn near unbreakable on the defense. When the Kaiser's best troops broke against the US 3rd Infantry Division like the sea against a rock, well, 3ID still carries that nickname a hundred years later: "The Rock of the Marne". But that reputation on the offense came from being unwilling to take casualties for no gain in the attack. Americans were (and generally still ARE) unwilling to retreat from a position short of their objectives. "Retreat, hell, we just got here!"

And the ANZACs, well, do I need to go into their exploits?

Were there British or French units of similar quality? Almost certainly. I'm sure someone of greater familiarity with the period could name several units. But that's not the same as naming EVERY unit under that flag, which is what happened with the ANZACs, Canadians, and Americans.

We could feed the world if the sacred cows were real. But I really think that there aren't that many in the field of war games and military history.

Sacred cows usually hang out at the intersection of the personal and the unpleasant. Gramps fought for the South in the Civil War and we don't like it that he might be considered a defender of slavery, so the sacred cow of the happy life of the slave.

Americans like to trot out the sacred cow that they didn't shoot prisoners, rape or do atrocity in war. Well, they did, but the instances and cases were vanishingly small compared to others and it was never a government policy or stated aim of war, and well-- we all know that in war things can get out of hand real quick. But again, it depends on cow the cow is and how sacred it is.

To take an example from outside the military the narrative of Fergueson MO., has its own sacred cow, that any blame whatsoever attaches to Michael Brown.

As I said, sacred cows hang out at the Junction of The Personal and the Unpleasant.

[ref U.S. troops in WW1] "But that reputation on the offense came from being unwilling to take casualties for no gain in the attack. "

Very interesting that your reading of history is so different from my own. I was under the impression (and could well be wrong!) that the U.S. success on the offensive in WW1 was precisely because we took very high casualties in the attack, but didn't break overall. Because we hadn't been war-wearied through four years of unremitting trench warfare, like the other combatants.

We can argue all day about who were the best troops on the Western Front (there are some very interesting thoughts on this in 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' which offer a different take on it), but the Gallipoli 'myth' has little or nothing to do with what happened on the Western Front – indeed, I wonder if the average Australian is even aware that the Aussie fought on the Western Front?

There can be little doubt that the Australian Corps and the Canadian Corps were effective shock troops in the latter stages of the war, and were a key part of the "British" effort in the Battle of the Hundred Days which shattered the Germans. A key part, but by no means the only part.

Such things do tend to be over-blown though – many South Africans will tell you that the South African Brigade at Delville Wood 'won the war' or 'saved the British' or 'were sacrficed to protect the British' or whatever. There is no doubt they fought hard and bravely, but the contribution of a single brigade in a war involving many hundreds of Divisions needs to be looked at rationally.

It's certainly not widely known among Australians that the man who forged the ANZAC corps into such a splendid formation was the archetypal "stuck-up Englishman" that modern Australians are taught to despise – William Birdwood. Ex-Indian Army, Birdwood commanded a division at Gallipoli and then took over the entire ANZAC set-up when it shifted to France. After the war, "Birdie" and his wife toured Australia to enthusiastic receptions everywhere (at one commemorative dinner, over 700 "Diggers" queued for hours to have him sign their menu cards). Like Byng with the Canadians, he was a popular choice as a candidate for Governor-General, but missed out when the public mood swung in favour of having a native-born Aussie for the first time.

In his book "The Great War Generals on the Western Front" Robin Neillands makes the vital point that, unlike many crack British and Irish divisions, ANZAC and Canadian formations remained part of homogenous corps throughout the war and were not frequently shifted from one corps to another, they were reinforced with volunteers rather than diluted with conscripts, and their TO&E was not reduced/re-organised (eg to provide cadres to create new formations for other theatres).

As far as the entire American Expeditionary Force being "elite" is concerned, whilst there were certainly creditable actions, I would suggest that the losses the AEF as a whole suffered (twice the death toll of Vietnam in just six months) despite having the benefit of the three years'hard-earned experience of the British and French, indicates it had a lot more to do at certain levels.

Hmmmph! everyone know the best troops at Gallipoli were the Newfoundland Regiment! We later let hem become Canadians!

[ref U.S. troops in WW1] "But that reputation on the offense came from being unwilling to take casualties for no gain in the attack. "

Very interesting that your reading of history is so different from my own. I was under the impression (and could well be wrong!) that the U.S. success on the offensive in WW1 was precisely because we took very high casualties in the attack, but didn't break overall. Because we hadn't been war-wearied through four years of unremitting trench warfare, like the other combatants.

My read is that the Americans were unwilling to stop short of their assigned objectives after getting shot to hell in the process. If you lost 25% of your force on the way there, I'd expect to lose about that many more trying to fall back across No-Man's Land. So the Americans kept pushing on in the face of casualties rather than falling back and taking (huge) casualties for no gain.

I have to say that my reading is similar to Tuscaloosa, that effectively the US Army was similar to the British Army on the first day of the Somme, full of self confidence and willing to take casualties. Only by the time the Americans started fighting, the Germans were no longer of the same quality as they had been (thanks to the Somme).

Also, regarding Imperial troops on the Western Front, it was the Canadians who were held in the highest regard and part of that seems to be down to the fact that the Canadian Corps was much stronger than a British one..

I don't know if it is really a sacred cow, but I have been led to believe that some of the "other" landing beaches during D-Day were almost as tough as Omaha beach was. I have always woundered why more attention is not paid to these other landings. Does anyone know of some good Books / Movies concerning Gold, Sword, and Juno that show what actually happened there? I think that the Canadians should probably be given more credit with the difficulties they faced during their landings. This from an American.

'We can argue all day about who were the best troops on the Western Front (there are some very interesting thoughts on this in 'Mud, Blood and Poppycock' which offer a different take on it), but the Gallipoli 'myth' has little or nothing to do with what happened on the Western Front – indeed, I wonder if the average Australian is even aware that the Aussie fought on the Western Front?'

Isn't that the point of this thread, to discuss other examples of sacred cows?

I tend to disagree about (average) Australians* being unaware of Australia's involvement on the Western Front, I think the focus on Fromelles recently and the simple fact that so many Australian families had grandparents that served in that theatre, has a big impact on awareness. I feel Passchendaele, looms large in the Australian psyche, for instance. But much depends on individual family histories as well.

*ABS note that, despite Australia's cultural diversity and long history of immigration, the average Australian was born in Australia, and so were both of their parents. link

That said, the demographic changes in Australia since the mid 20th century means that there is still a fair proportion of the population with little connection to this part of our history. This population of 'newer' Australian residents have little to connect them to this except the nation building myths, I guess.

The question about the D-day beaches is an interesting one – I was having a quick look at casualty figures online to see if that gave me any ideas. I found this:

Another recent study assesses that the figures for casualties (of all types) for each beach were as follows: Utah 589, Omaha 3,686, Gold 1,023, Juno 1,242, Sword 1,304 (quoted in Stephen Zaloga, "The Devil's Garden. Rommel's desperate defence of Omaha Beach on D-Day" p.12). These figures do not include the airborne forces.

Losses amongst the British airborne troops are often quoted as some 600 killed or wounded, and 600 missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. Casualties for the US airborne were 2,499, of which 238 were deaths.

The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated as being between 4,000 and 9,000 men.

Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.
Source: link

Casualty figures alone give us a sense of why Omaha gets a lot of attention – not to diminish the efforts on other beaches.

Sometimes (somewhat cynically) I wonder if we're more affected by film and TV than we imagine: as a lad I probably got my early info about D-Day from the movie the Longest Day. That is very Omaha-centric! But that's just me.

Alan Lauder

Yes, fair point on the Aussies on the Western Front – I guess I just meant that (from what I have seen / heard over the years) to many Aussies, the First World War = Gallipoli.

Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.

I bet very few people (me included) knew we lost 60 ships on D-Day – the image you get is that we had complete mastery of the sea on the day.

The losses are for the whole month of June and include those lost/damaged during the 'Great Storm'. They also include ships supporting the operation and not necessarily in Normandy (such as the US LST that was torpedoed by a U-Boat off West Wales, while on her way from Liverpool to Normandy).

Nevertheless, it's a pretty big list. Here's the butcher's bill for the Western Task Force (not including the Great Storm):

link

I don't know if it is really a sacred cow, but I have been led to believe that some of the "other" landing beaches during D-Day were almost as tough as Omaha beach was.

Not judging by the casualties:

Another recent study assesses that the figures for casualties (of all types) for each beach were as follows: Utah 589, Omaha 3,686, Gold 1,023, Juno 1,242, Sword 1,304

Were Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches tough? Certainly. But Omaha alone accounts for as many casualties as Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches combined. IIRC, each of the beaches had about the same number of troops landing, so that tells me that the fighting was much harder on Omaha.

No, the fighting was equally hard. Omaha casualties were higher because it went on for FAR longer due to the relative inability of the force to break out of the beach. Without exits they were stuck in the killing zone for hours, hence the high casualty rates.

The initial waves on Sword, Juno and Gold suffered just as much as the initial waves on Omaha.

The fact that the Americans on Omaha were able to create exits and fight their way off the beach after sustaining such horror for so long says everything you need to know about the superb quality of low-level leadership and training of the men and units involved.

I vaguely remember reading something 20-odd years ago about the Americans not being interested in 'Hobart's Funnies' and that – had they had such tanks at Omaha – things would have been different. Is there any truth in that at all?

"Sacred cows usually hang out at the intersection of the personal and the unpleasant. Gramps fought for the South in the Civil War and we don't like it that he might be considered a defender of slavery, so the sacred cow of the happy life of the slave."

Here's a glimpse of a sacred cow but not, I think, the one the author intended.

And, of course, we don't refer to our grandparents as "gramps."

Interesting points, Jemima Fawr, that would explain it. I didn't realise the first waves on the other beaches suffered similar casualties, but have not read heavily on D-day – been focussed more on individual accounts.

While the geography of Omaha undoubtedly aided the defence and would have made Omaha the hardest nut to crack regardless, I have little doubt that the presence of armoured engineers on the beach would have helped the US troops to break out of the killing zone considerably more quickly.

The US Army repeatedly requested support from 79th Armoured Division throughout 1944-45 (e.g. Brest & the Rhineland) and made great investments in their own armoured engineering vehicle development after June 1944, so they too must have seen the value.

I don't know if it is really a sacred cow, but I have been led to believe that some of the "other" landing beaches during D-Day were almost as tough as Omaha beach was. I have always woundered why more attention is not paid to these other landings. Does anyone know of some good Books / Movies concerning Gold, Sword, and Juno that show what actually happened there? I think that the Canadians should probably be given more credit with the difficulties they faced during their landings. This from an American.

Juno was particularly savage for the Canadians.

I don't know if it is really a sacred cow, but I have been led to believe that some of the "other" landing beaches during D-Day were almost as tough as Omaha beach was. I have always woundered why more attention is not paid to these other landings. Does anyone know of some good Books / Movies concerning Gold, Sword, and Juno that show what actually happened there? I think that the Canadians should probably be given more credit with the difficulties they faced during their landings.

One very good book is Holding Juno, by Mark Zuehlke.