Mr Windsor is just great. I watch lots of these WWII museum talks and it’s so nice to have one about the fighting men of my own country. And he’s a great guy to do it, so exciting and energetic with that twinge of an eastern Canadian accent. Even better to hear Edmonton shouted out as a proud Albertan.
As a yank, was feed informed that stopping for tea is why Caen was not taken before it was fortified. As I got older, always remembered hind sight and armchaire generals are full woulda-shoulda and criticizim. They were very brave men in the gravest of extreems. I knew a few Canadians that served and one was POW while his wife built Bren Gun Carriers. A brave tuff lot that are my friends.
The British 50th Division were indeed originally a Territorial Division, but they were highly experienced by this time, and possibly considered Britain's best regular infantry division. At Normandy, General Horrocks said of them: - "I cannot give you higher praise than by saying that the most experienced battle fighting Division in the British Army has once more lived up to its high reputation." He was speaking of the 50th, and indeed it was to be the most highly-decorated British division in WW2.
Thank you for having this presentation made public, as a Canadian veteran, i listened with great interest and was pleasantly surprised by how informed the audience was and the quality of their questions.
Lee Winsor's comments and observations are illuminating and brilliant. He brings expertise and an understanding of the different doctrines of the British, Canadian and American armies that explains much of how the battle for Normandy developed. I shan't share my opinion of the British assignment of the various beaches and areas to the various corps and divisions, but shall tactfully give the stubborn British units their due as well. It took a team to defeat the Germans, and that is what the allies ultimately developed despite their differences. Thank God that they did so.
'I shan't share my opinion of the British assignment of the various beaches and areas to the various corps and divisions' Oh why not?.. What is that opinion?.. The British were all sitting round drinking tea? Montgomery was overrated? Caen was supposed to be taken on D-Day? Montgomery did not allow smoking at his headquarters? Without Lend-Lease Britons would all be speaking German? Montgomery failed to close the Falaise Gap? British Second Army had it easy at GOLD, JUNO, and SWORD beaches? Montgomery rode around Normandy in a Rolls Royce? Am I getting close?..
Excellent show, thanks for including the perspective of your allies. As a Canadian, we feel we are too often overlooked by both American and British historians.
'As a Canadian, we feel we are too often overlooked by both American and British historians.' As a Briton, I feel that Britain and Canada are too often overlooked by American historians. Example: 'D-Day' by one Stephen Ambrose, a 656 page book (If such a term can be used), with about 12 of those pages describing the British and Canadian landings.
Thank you for highlighting the British and Canadian perspective - the British lost 704,000 dead in WW1, and the Canadians 60,000. Hundreds of thousands more injured. That was only twenty-five years previously. British and Canadian society would not tolerate another waste of human life on such a scale. In WW2 the British lost 270,000 dead, and the Canadians 40,000 dead. In the British and Canadian sector at Normandy, 14 British and Canadian divisions faced 14 German divisions and more than 600 German tanks, whilst US's 19 Divisions faced just 9 German divisions and 110 tanks, partly because the hedgerows made it difficult to deploy tanks there. Furthermore, the Anglo-Canadians faced some of the toughest Germans that could be fielded, including 21st Panzer Division who tried to drive a wedge between them, and the equally elite Panzer Lehr, as well as another 5 of 7 Waffen SS Divisions, with only 1 Waffen SS Panzer Division facing the Americans. The Caen sector had more German tanks per mile than Kursk. In just a dozen miles or so right Panzer divisions in a very small area of front. Caen had the highest concentration density of German tanks ever seen in WW2, pitted against British armour. I would disagree that the Canadians were likely to face greater opposition (as implied) than the two British Divisions, though they were given an antitank role as they were equipped with more artillery and anti-tank weapons than the two British divisions. However, the difficulty of each beach was well documented........Strongpoints called 'Wiederstandnest' such as pillboxes were erected within each sector, and on occasion there were min-fortresses with a network of defences called 'Stutzpunkten' such as 'Strongpoint Hillman' and Stutzpunkten 08 that has been referred to as 'Rommels Tower of Death' that had more than 30 turrets. Both were in the British Sword sector, comprising 500 machine guns. Overall, US Omaha sector had 37 strongpoints opposing the landing and within the sector but no 'Stutzpunkten', British Gold sector had 28 German strongpoints and no 'stutzpunkten's, British Sword sector had 27 strongpoints and 2 'Stutzpunkten', US Utah sector had 15 strongpoints and 2 'Stutzpunkten', Canadian sector had just 7 strongpoints and no 'Stutzpunkten' to overcome. But this does not measure every difficulty on each beach, but figures for D-Day would suggest that they perhaps do reflect the D-Day opposition experienced. A 2024 updated war graves commission has now come up with death rates on 6th June 1944 based on graves........a total of 4,631Allied troops died on D-Day. US lost 2.501 dead on D-Day mainly at Omaha, Britain lost 1,760 dead mainly at Sword sector, and Canada lost 370 dead on D-Day.
I believe it was because of the Canadians better preparation, and the ability of Canadian soldiers to adapt and overcome due to their training. I am a former US soldier and I have worked with Canadian units and found them to be excellent soldiers.
wow some actual content about other country's involvement in WW2........Im impressed because most documentaries especially American ones tend to forget the fact that they didnt win ww2 or 1 all on their own.
"we dont get a chance to talk to this at the museum".......you dont get a chance because you purposely leave it out. Us Canadians were well into both ww1 and 2 long before the US was involved.......I've watched pretty much all of Dr. Shaun Faulkners stuff and not once does he mention Canadians in ww1 only british and french, and hes not the only one, its quite common.
I totally agree with Cindy Brown's analogy of the French people's existence with their German occupiers as being similar to the modern comparison of the Taliban and its relationship with the people of Afghanistan. Human shields is what we have seen during these modern conflicts describing the civilian populations. The Germans, IMHO where little better than the Taliban in that they knew that the occupation of cities and towns would require the allied armies to be heavy handed in rooting them out, thereby causing egregious civilian casualties as well as destruction which would slow the allied advance. I believe that they hoped to cause a political rift between liberators and liberated. They traded the lives of Italian and French civilians to delay the advance of the American, British and Canadian armies. The Germans even did the same with their own cities, such as Aachen for example. Then we see what they were capable of in retribution at Our Dur Glane and many other cities and towns during the war, especially by the SS divisions. If that wasn't a precursor of the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, than I can't see another comparison. That the allies were not more aggressive is testimony to their constraint. If I were an allied soldier then I would have probably cheered as well to see legions of bombers attacking ahead of my unit, and no, I am no warmonger in case anyone wonders.
Thank you for your presentations. It seems Normandy's terrain is blamed by both the Americans (bocage in the west) and the Brits/Canadians (flat, open terrain to the east). The geography of Normandy just can't seem to please anyone. Terrain is a fixed and not a changing variable (like weather and opposing troop strength). Features were recognized, mapped, and well known while the presence of urban centers suggested they would become battlegrounds. Outcomes suggest that this knowledge was not incorporated as effectively as possible into tactical planning. For Pete's sake, this wasn't like the contemporaneous Battle of Saipan where the mountainous and densely vegetated cliff-filled terrain was known to US commanders only through aerial recon. Underestimating and misunderstanding German strength and Caen's strategic importance to the Nazis compounded apparent under appreciation of terrain. The horrific military and civilian casualties in and around Caen were far higher than required and reflect allied leadership planning failures. I place the blame with Eisenhower for not adequately assuring that variable terrain challenges were appreciated by tactical commanders. The Supreme Allied Commander did not recognize and correct Montgomery's overly ambitious objectives as Ground Forces Commander for D-Day and seven weeks following. The buck stops at the top. This does not diminish ultimate allied success but it tempers the celebration, much like the muted French welcome the Brits and Canadians received when liberating a devastated Caen.
About time someone took Hollywood to task. The Commonwealth shield so the Americans can Advance. Most of the armour nor the SS Divisions were anywhere near the Americans It's unfortunate most Americans learn history from made for entertainment movies.
While the men who landed at Omaha beach fought the only front line German division that day they were fortunate that the Allied deception planned worked as well as it did. Most of the German heavies were waiting in the Pas de Calais sector.
@@Conn30Mtenor 'the men who landed at Omaha beach fought the only front line German division' The men who landed at OMAHA beach fought part of a front line German division. The men at JUNO and SWORD beaches fought the only major German counter attack on D-Day, by the 21st Panzer Division.
Complains that Ted Danson offends Canadians with stereotypical perceptions of Canadians at Caen then proceeds to caricature stereotypically snooty British officers. Let himself down there in what was otherwise an interesting discussion.
@@rumoursofwar4624 On line, it states that Ted Danson was born: 29.12.1947. If that be true, then this Ted Danson was born more than two years after VJ Day.
@@thevillaaston7811 in the opinion of this poster it is entirely possible he is a time traveller who moonlights between feel good 80s sitcoms and front line combat in the ETO.
Mr Windsor is just great. I watch lots of these WWII museum talks and it’s so nice to have one about the fighting men of my own country. And he’s a great guy to do it, so exciting and energetic with that twinge of an eastern Canadian accent. Even better to hear Edmonton shouted out as a proud Albertan.
Well said by Lee Windsor about the French Canadians. I've tried to tell those stories as best as I can.
As a yank, was feed informed that stopping for tea is why Caen was not taken before it was fortified. As I got older, always remembered hind sight and armchaire generals are full woulda-shoulda and criticizim. They were very brave men in the gravest of extreems. I knew a few Canadians that served and one was POW while his wife built Bren Gun Carriers. A brave tuff lot that are my friends.
The British 50th Division were indeed originally a Territorial Division, but they were highly experienced by this time, and possibly considered Britain's best regular infantry division. At Normandy, General Horrocks said of them: - "I cannot give you higher praise than by saying that the most experienced battle fighting Division in the British Army has once more lived up to its high reputation."
He was speaking of the 50th, and indeed it was to be the most highly-decorated British division in WW2.
Thank you for having this presentation made public, as a Canadian veteran, i listened with great interest and was pleasantly surprised by how informed the audience was and the quality of their questions.
Lee Winsor's comments and observations are illuminating and brilliant. He brings expertise and an understanding of the different doctrines of the British, Canadian and American armies that explains much of how the battle for Normandy developed. I shan't share my opinion of the British assignment of the various beaches and areas to the various corps and divisions, but shall tactfully give the stubborn British units their due as well. It took a team to defeat the Germans, and that is what the allies ultimately developed despite their differences. Thank God that they did so.
'I shan't share my opinion of the British assignment of the various beaches and areas to the various corps and divisions'
Oh why not?..
What is that opinion?..
The British were all sitting round drinking tea?
Montgomery was overrated?
Caen was supposed to be taken on D-Day?
Montgomery did not allow smoking at his headquarters?
Without Lend-Lease Britons would all be speaking German?
Montgomery failed to close the Falaise Gap?
British Second Army had it easy at GOLD, JUNO, and SWORD beaches?
Montgomery rode around Normandy in a Rolls Royce?
Am I getting close?..
Respect to our British and Canadian brothers and sisters in arms!
That would be a first.
This is excellent perspective. Thanks
Excellent show, thanks for including the perspective of your allies. As a Canadian, we feel we are too often overlooked by both American and British historians.
And how!
'As a Canadian, we feel we are too often overlooked by both American and British historians.'
As a Briton, I feel that Britain and Canada are too often overlooked by American historians.
Example:
'D-Day' by one Stephen Ambrose, a 656 page book (If such a term can be used), with about 12 of those pages describing the British and Canadian landings.
Nice to hear that it's not just British people that get upset by Ted Danson!
Definitely not. I did a video on it.
@@OTDMilitaryHistory I know! Loved it!
@@jabonorte Thanks!
This was an excellent program. Please consider supporting OTD Military History as he is doing great work in telling the Canadian story.
@@davidlavigne207 Thanks so much David!
Thank you for covering this episode 😊 cheers
Thank you for highlighting the British and Canadian perspective - the British lost 704,000 dead in WW1, and the Canadians 60,000. Hundreds of thousands more injured. That was only twenty-five years previously. British and Canadian society would not tolerate another waste of human life on such a scale. In WW2 the British lost 270,000 dead, and the Canadians 40,000 dead.
In the British and Canadian sector at Normandy, 14 British and Canadian divisions faced 14 German divisions and more than 600 German tanks, whilst US's 19 Divisions faced just 9 German divisions and 110 tanks, partly because the hedgerows made it difficult to deploy tanks there. Furthermore, the Anglo-Canadians faced some of the toughest Germans that could be fielded, including 21st Panzer Division who tried to drive a wedge between them, and the equally elite Panzer Lehr, as well as another 5 of 7 Waffen SS Divisions, with only 1 Waffen SS Panzer Division facing the Americans. The Caen sector had more German tanks per mile than Kursk. In just a dozen miles or so right Panzer divisions in a very small area of front. Caen had the highest concentration density of German tanks ever seen in WW2, pitted against British armour.
I would disagree that the Canadians were likely to face greater opposition (as implied) than the two British Divisions, though they were given an antitank role as they were equipped with more artillery and anti-tank weapons than the two British divisions. However, the difficulty of each beach was well documented........Strongpoints called 'Wiederstandnest' such as pillboxes were erected within each sector, and on occasion there were min-fortresses with a network of defences called 'Stutzpunkten' such as 'Strongpoint Hillman' and Stutzpunkten 08 that has been referred to as 'Rommels Tower of Death' that had more than 30 turrets. Both were in the British Sword sector, comprising 500 machine guns.
Overall, US Omaha sector had 37 strongpoints opposing the landing and within the sector but no 'Stutzpunkten', British Gold sector had 28 German strongpoints and no 'stutzpunkten's, British Sword sector had 27 strongpoints and 2 'Stutzpunkten', US Utah sector had 15 strongpoints and 2 'Stutzpunkten', Canadian sector had just 7 strongpoints and no 'Stutzpunkten' to overcome. But this does not measure every difficulty on each beach, but figures for D-Day would suggest that they perhaps do reflect the D-Day opposition experienced.
A 2024 updated war graves commission has now come up with death rates on 6th June 1944 based on graves........a total of 4,631Allied troops died on D-Day. US lost 2.501 dead on D-Day mainly at Omaha, Britain lost 1,760 dead mainly at Sword sector, and Canada lost 370 dead on D-Day.
I believe it was because of the Canadians better preparation, and the ability of Canadian soldiers to adapt and overcome due to their training. I am a former US soldier and I have worked with Canadian units and found them to be excellent soldiers.
@@davidlavigne207 They are excellent troops undoubtedly.
Thank you. Excellent presentation and much enjoyed.
Thx great show.
wow some actual content about other country's involvement in WW2........Im impressed because most documentaries especially American ones tend to forget the fact that they didnt win ww2 or 1 all on their own.
"we dont get a chance to talk to this at the museum".......you dont get a chance because you purposely leave it out. Us Canadians were well into both ww1 and 2 long before the US was involved.......I've watched pretty much all of Dr. Shaun Faulkners stuff and not once does he mention Canadians in ww1 only british and french, and hes not the only one, its quite common.
I totally agree with Cindy Brown's analogy of the French people's existence with their German occupiers as being similar to the modern comparison of the Taliban and its relationship with the people of Afghanistan. Human shields is what we have seen during these modern conflicts describing the civilian populations. The Germans, IMHO where little better than the Taliban in that they knew that the occupation of cities and towns would require the allied armies to be heavy handed in rooting them out, thereby causing egregious civilian casualties as well as destruction which would slow the allied advance. I believe that they hoped to cause a political rift between liberators and liberated. They traded the lives of Italian and French civilians to delay the advance of the American, British and Canadian armies. The Germans even did the same with their own cities, such as Aachen for example. Then we see what they were capable of in retribution at Our Dur Glane and many other cities and towns during the war, especially by the SS divisions. If that wasn't a precursor of the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, than I can't see another comparison. That the allies were not more aggressive is testimony to their constraint. If I were an allied soldier then I would have probably cheered as well to see legions of bombers attacking ahead of my unit, and no, I am no warmonger in case anyone wonders.
Thank you for your presentations. It seems Normandy's terrain is blamed by both the Americans (bocage in the west) and the Brits/Canadians (flat, open terrain to the east). The geography of Normandy just can't seem to please anyone.
Terrain is a fixed and not a changing variable (like weather and opposing troop strength). Features were recognized, mapped, and well known while the presence of urban centers suggested they would become battlegrounds. Outcomes suggest that this knowledge was not incorporated as effectively as possible into tactical planning. For Pete's sake, this wasn't like the contemporaneous Battle of Saipan where the mountainous and densely vegetated cliff-filled terrain was known to US commanders only through aerial recon. Underestimating and misunderstanding German strength and Caen's strategic importance to the Nazis compounded apparent under appreciation of terrain. The horrific military and civilian casualties in and around Caen were far higher than required and reflect allied leadership planning failures. I place the blame with Eisenhower for not adequately assuring that variable terrain challenges were appreciated by tactical commanders. The Supreme Allied Commander did not recognize and correct Montgomery's overly ambitious objectives as Ground Forces Commander for D-Day and seven weeks following. The buck stops at the top. This does not diminish ultimate allied success but it tempers the celebration, much like the muted French welcome the Brits and Canadians received when liberating a devastated Caen.
About time someone took Hollywood to task. The Commonwealth shield so the Americans can Advance. Most of the armour nor the SS Divisions were anywhere near the Americans
It's unfortunate most Americans learn history from made for entertainment movies.
While the men who landed at Omaha beach fought the only front line German division that day they were fortunate that the Allied deception planned worked as well as it did. Most of the German heavies were waiting in the Pas de Calais sector.
@@Conn30Mtenor
'the men who landed at Omaha beach fought the only front line German division'
The men who landed at OMAHA beach fought part of a front line German division.
The men at JUNO and SWORD beaches fought the only major German counter attack on D-Day, by the 21st Panzer Division.
Notice that there is no person here to speak for Britain.
Complains that Ted Danson offends Canadians with stereotypical perceptions of Canadians at Caen then proceeds to caricature stereotypically snooty British officers. Let himself down there in what was otherwise an interesting discussion.
Ted Danson was nowhere near the war.
@@thevillaaston7811I thought he was a company commander in the 82nd? 💀
@@rumoursofwar4624
On line, it states that Ted Danson was born: 29.12.1947. If that be true, then this Ted Danson was born more than two years after VJ Day.
@@thevillaaston7811 in the opinion of this poster it is entirely possible he is a time traveller who moonlights between feel good 80s sitcoms and front line combat in the ETO.
1hr, 8 mins, rubbish.
The order of allied beaches was determined by the position of allied forces in Britain.