new (to me) info on the liberation of Paris in WWII
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2201106.ece
The data on Allied morale immediately following D-Day does not surprise me, nor do I find it particularly worrisome under the circumstances. But I am struck by the reports of battle racism in the Allied High Command, how it attained prominence over who would liberate Paris and when, and the Rube Goldberg efforts to make it so. Despite the documentation listed, I still find it improbable and wonder if we are getting the whole story, or rather a cover for a much more accurate tale. The implication that the French had NO choice as to what any of their units were doing at any given time and could be shipped* around with impunity by the Anglo Americans like so many dumb chess pieces doesn't sound right at all to me.
I wonder if someone owed someone else a favor, or wanted to get back at someone else, maybe even for the pettiest of reasons. It's well known that the Anglo Americans didn't think much of De Gaulle, nor he of them. Different folks had different "favorite generals" on the French side whom they'd promote for power, etc. (the Free French were riven with factions, some of them murderous competitors). I think there's more to this story, and a tidy racism was seen as a nice explanation for more personal or political purposes.
*Allied transport and logistics isn't generally considered the most romantic or dramatic aspect of the war - but it's how we won! And troop transport was ALWAYS a big concern and everyone always demanded more, and there was never enough to go around etc. etc. So the idea that an entire armored division is going to be shipped to a new theatre of operations just to make sure some Senegalese doesn't get to see the Eiffel Tower sounds VERY weak to me. Access to shipping was like GOLD.
The data on Allied morale immediately following D-Day does not surprise me, nor do I find it particularly worrisome under the circumstances. But I am struck by the reports of battle racism in the Allied High Command, how it attained prominence over who would liberate Paris and when, and the Rube Goldberg efforts to make it so. Despite the documentation listed, I still find it improbable and wonder if we are getting the whole story, or rather a cover for a much more accurate tale. The implication that the French had NO choice as to what any of their units were doing at any given time and could be shipped* around with impunity by the Anglo Americans like so many dumb chess pieces doesn't sound right at all to me.
I wonder if someone owed someone else a favor, or wanted to get back at someone else, maybe even for the pettiest of reasons. It's well known that the Anglo Americans didn't think much of De Gaulle, nor he of them. Different folks had different "favorite generals" on the French side whom they'd promote for power, etc. (the Free French were riven with factions, some of them murderous competitors). I think there's more to this story, and a tidy racism was seen as a nice explanation for more personal or political purposes.
*Allied transport and logistics isn't generally considered the most romantic or dramatic aspect of the war - but it's how we won! And troop transport was ALWAYS a big concern and everyone always demanded more, and there was never enough to go around etc. etc. So the idea that an entire armored division is going to be shipped to a new theatre of operations just to make sure some Senegalese doesn't get to see the Eiffel Tower sounds VERY weak to me. Access to shipping was like GOLD.
posted by mendip at
11:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home