Posted on 05/16/2004 3:26:48 PM PDT by plato99
The scale of devestation in regards to the Normandy Invasion operation are mind blowing.
are = is
I read a book on that incident a number of years ago, Smalls' book was published in 1988, but I thought I had read a book around 1980 on the topic. At the time they had to cover it up because of preparations for Overlord. But in subsequent years there was no reason not to come clean on the tragedy.
I've known about it for over thirty years now...and my knowledge came from published material that anyone could read.
That was my recollection as well . . . I just did some Google searches, and here's one comment relating to why the disaster was covered up almost immediately:
"Nobody knows for certain how many U.S. soldiers and sailors died in the so-called Battle of Slapton Sands. It was a top-secret operation. General Eisenhower feared that if German intelligence learned the details of the mock invasion, he might have to postpone or even cancel D-Day."
The English press does tend to be overly dramatic at times...as well as their military historians. Montgomery is a case in point.
We tend to be a bit over zelous sticking with our 50 and 60 and 100 year 'offical secrets' rules. That said the slapton sands incident has been the subject of many TV documentaries even in the absence of official acknowledgement up to know. There were that many witnesses there is little doubt it happened.
Tragic - but that's war. My own grandfather told me he saw more men lost in training accidents than he did in combat.
Imagine this in the modern media.
>>...US serviceman Harold McAulley, who tells of dragging dead soldiers off the sands and later helping to bury corpses - the faces black with oil and burning ...<<
Consistent with an explosion on a ship.
Please forward to William Jefferson Clinton. :)
And I once read that in World War One, 25% of planes were downed due to mid-air collisions during dogfights, as often with friendly planes was with the enemy.
If true it was worse than any recent "friendly fire" incident. Common sense has told me that the phenomenon was not exclusive to today's forces.
Perhaps they thought the soldiers had been directed to "play dead."
The other day, I was watching a film on the Battle of Bastogne, a mere crucial town on the road to Belgium's pivotal port during the last German push called the Battle of the Bulge.
The 82nd and 101st Airborne units were sent in on foot, as some days were required to get the 4th Armored under Patton the 175 miles they had to traverse in icy conditions.
The infantry, with little food, heavy weapons or ammo went in in high spirits to face the German Panzer advance. A Sgt recounts how one of his men didn't have a weapon, let alone ammo. He in its stead, found a good stick, a cudgel if you will and went along repeating as he swung it, "I'll have me a rifle tonight."
In that battle of a few days for one town, ten times our entire KIAs in Iraq were incurred and shrugged off as what it took.
Like they said at Ground Zero to Bush: "...Whatever it takes!"
In my mind, the media has no stomach to defend and represent freedom and just order. They are a cancer in the body of a fighting nation.
Can anybody verify that there was blue-on-blue small arms fire with live rounds? I had never heard this alleged before.
How could they not tell that they were firing live ammo? Why and the hell wouldnt they stop firing when they saw people falling over and blood spraying everywhere.
This IS in the modern media and they're doing the "now it can be told" spiel in order to taint the military in general in peoples' minds as inept when they're not busy being inhumane (ala the prison abuse story, for example).
See?
In that time period men on all sides did what they were told and our moron officers kept ordering them to fire.
Does this pass the smell test?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.