D-Day 70th anniversary thread.

[Henkeman]

In your opinion is there a definitive series to watch that covers it all, at least from a British perspective?

No, unfortunately. World at War is the best, but incomplete. If you want to learn about the Second World War, piecemeal, in-depth learning is a must. If you inhibit your number of sources, you do yourself a disservice. I'd encourage people to watch this James Holland thing on BBC2. I think he's an excellent historian.

I'm not sure it's possible to. The brilliance of the World At War was in the collections of interviews with protagonists and those behind the scenes on either side - not just the obvious ones like Speer, but also relatively junior civil servants such as Traudl Junge and Jock Colville - they are of course, all dead now.

 

[Skashion]

Are there many German sources or documentaries and how do they present it differently from the UK and US productions?

I'm not necessarily talking about British, American, Canadian, German, Italian, Soviet etc. perspectives. I think that's of value but of limited value and something World at War did better than anyone else anyway. I'm talking about a broad range of views from different types of people involved in the war (again something World at War did very well) AND perspectives from different historians. The latter, I think, is only achievable by getting yourself a lot of books I think. I think there's a tendency of documentary series to be fairly genetic.

 

[bluemanc]

some brilliant posts in this thread. well done everyone. nice to see they have been acknowledged by young and old.

Agreed,my last contribution on what was a day to remember a generation that has allowed us to live,nft..

 

[Skashion]

I'm not sure it's possible to. The brilliance of the World At War was in the collections of interviews with protagonists and those behind the scenes on either side - not just the obvious ones like Speer, but also relatively junior civil servants such as Traudl Junge and Jock Colville - they are of course, all dead now.

I agree, hence why I encourage people not to get too stuck in one place, and read as well as watch.

 

[Pam]

Its amazing how the world has changed so much in less than a century. In far less than a century.

 

[Henkeman]

I'm not sure it's possible to. The brilliance of the World At War was in the collections of interviews with protagonists and those behind the scenes on either side - not just the obvious ones like Speer, but also relatively junior civil servants such as Traudl Junge and Jock Colville - they are of course, all dead now.

I agree, hence why I encourage people not to get too stuck in one place, and read as well as watch.

Max Hastings' All Hell Let Loose is an excellent concise history of it trying to take all sides and theatres into account. There are quibbles - he is always a little too biased towards the land war in everything he writes, but as an introductory piece about the whole thing it takes some beating.

 

[80s Shorts]

if anyone wants to get the real flavour of the war, including D day buy, watch borrow or steal the documentary "the world at war". it is awesome. I have the full dvd set and watch parts of it regular. even the music is harrowing.

I have watched this on XBMC over the last couple of months. Highly recommend it.

 

[Clevers]

A few years ago I read a book called "Invasion They're Coming" which described D-Day and the battle for Normandy from a German viewpoint.

I don't know if it's still available.

 

[Skashion]

Well, I thought James Holland's take was pretty good and again I concur mostly. I thought he blamed Monty too much though. It's not just a media thing. It's a view common amongst the American command and the typical soldier too. I have grievance with the maddeningly smug American perception of the British campaign in Normandy. Even in World at War, it fucking pisses me off. They had no understanding of what the British and Canadians were fighting in Caen. We were sucking the Germans in and pinning them down, the Americans got all the glory because they were the ones doing the easy stuff (once the bocage was broken through) of flanking and taking territory against limited and sporadic opposition.

 

[Damocles]

Well, I thought James Holland's take was pretty good and again I concur mostly. I thought he blamed Monty too much though. It's not just a media thing. It's a view common amongst the American command and the typical soldier too. I have grievance with the maddeningly smug American perception of the British campaign in Normandy. Even in World at War, it fucking pisses me off. They had no understanding of what the British and Canadians were fighting in Caen. We were sucking the Germans in and pinning them down, the Americans got all the glory because they were the ones doing the easy stuff (once the bocage was broken through) of flanking and taking territory against limited and sporadic opposition.

This is a totally irrelevant question considering your knowledge in this area but are you a historian?

You seem to have a large knowledge on military history in the 20th century and was just wondering what you do? Again, not a slight on any information you have given or will give, just something intriguing. We've spoken on here and elsewhere for years and it occurred to me that I never actually asked you this.