Twentieth century battlefields

Ellis Sharp does not much like Peter and Dan Snow’s latest television series, Twentieth Century Battlefields:

I taped and have now just watched the Snow family show on the 1968 Tet offensive, commonly regarded as a key moment in the Vietnam war (as it is called — though funnily enough the Vietnamese call it ‘the American war’). It was a lazy, reactionary, offensively shallow programme. I guess the BBC is selling it on to American TV networks, since it was hegemonic to an absurd degree. South Vietnam,
Snow senior explained, was run by ‘a military elite’. Euphemising a client dictatorship doesn’t get much blander than that.

[…]

The programme was nauseating in its thrilled-adolescent approach to aerial warfare. The U.S. “deployed…the might of its air force.” Cut to exciting computer models of B-52 bombers zapping hillsides, interspersed with old newsreel footage, all resting on a bed of thumping Wagner-type ersatz classical music. And waddaya know — “some of the targets were near populated areas…inevitably civilians were killed.”

I don’t disagree with any of Sharp’s criticisms, but I think he misses the point of the series. It is after all supposed to be an examination of great battles of the twentieth century, tailored to a lay audience, in which the political context is almost irrelevant, other than to explain briefly why this particular battle happened. This is why the story the Snows tell of how the Tet offensive came about is so reactionary, because it isn’t important to the programme the writers fall back on the stories that need the least work to be explained to the audience, that work with their expectations.

I also agree that the programme is part propaganda for the British Army (the cringeworthy segments in which one of the Snows gets to play soldiers), but on the whole I think the series has been worthwhile despite this and the lazy assumptions about the context of the battles they talk about. Because the heart of the series, the battles themselves, are handled very well and in such a way that it becomes clear why a battle enfolded the way it did, how the strategy and tactics chosen by the combatants played their part in determining the battle’s outcome, how the terrain of the battlefield helped or hindered both sides, etc. S— said that the programme on the Tet Offensive was the first time that this really clicked for her, that she understood how battles work. That makes the series worthwhile to
me.

D-day

Tomorrow it is exactly 60 years ago that the invasion of Normandy started, June 6th 1944, D-Day. That day some 156,000 troops landed on the beaches of northern Normandy: the Americans on Utah and Omaha, the British and Canadians on Sword, Juno and Gold. Over 4,000 of them would die during the landings, with the US forces on Omaha having an especially hard time, thought he Canadians at Juno having not much of a cakewalk either…

But there were not just British, American and Canadian troops involved in D-Day. Also present were French, Chzech, Polish, Greek, Australian, New Zealand, Norwegian and Dutch troops. Even though the bulk of the invasion force was made up of Britsh, American and Canadian troops, it is important not to forget the contributions of other nations, some of which, like the Polish and Czech had been fighting from the start of World War II, first for their own countries, later for the Allied cause.

Therefore I would like to remember the Dutch contribution here. After the Netherlands were overrun by the Nazis in May 1940, quite a lot of people managed to escape to England. Much of the navy crossed the North Sea once it became clear the Netherlands would surrender, including some ships which were still being built in the great naval ship yards of Rotterdam and Vlissingen. The same held true for much of the Netherland’s merchant navy, whose ships would serve with honour in the various convoys to Russia.The airforce had lost most of its planes during the invasion, but several pilots managed to escape anyway and served in the Dutch squadrons of the Royal Air Force during the rest of the war. Finally many soldiers and civilians alike fled to France and from there to England with the retreating French troops, which had reached the southern Netherlands at the time of the Dutch surrender [1].

At D-Day, Dutch B-25’s bombarded targets in Normandy, including the headquarters of a German armoured division; eight of them were lost on operations in June 1944. The Dutch gunboats Hr. Ms. Soemba and Hr. Ms. Flores supported the invasion, targeting German positions on the landing beaches; they were valued so much by the British they gave them the nick name “The Terrible Twins”. To counter the threat of German torpedo boats, the dreaded “Schnellbote”, Dutch motor torpedo boats were active, while Dutch minesweepers were making the Normandy coast safe, one of which, the Hr.Ms. Marken was destroyed while doing so on 20th May 1944, sinking with only one survivor. A Dutch cruiser, the Hr. Ms.Sumatra was deliberately sank as a wave breaker for the two artificial harbours the Allies constructed at the Normandy coast. (Some of the caissons built for the construction of those harbours and not needed for them were later used to mend Dutch dykes damaged by Allied bombardement later in the year, as well as after the 1953 flood.) Finally, a large number of Navy and merchant marine people and ships were of course used to transport Allied soldiers and supplies to the beaches.

The international remembrance of D-day is happening today, at which Dutch veterans will also be present. There will also be a Dutch remembrance tomorrow, at Scheveningen, at which Dutch, British and Canadian veterans will be present.

[1]: When the Netherlands surrender on May 15th 1940, this did not include the province of Zeeland, where French troops where still present and fighting the Germans. This led on May 17th to the bombardement of Middelburg, my hometown, whose historic centre was completely destroyed in it. Fortunately, much of it was restored after the war.

The Pentagon as slumlord

The Mogadishu debacle of 1993, when neighbourhood militias inflicted 60 percent casualties on elite army rangers, forced US strategists to rethink what is known in Pentagonese as ‘Mout: Militarised Operations on Urbanised Terrain’. Ultimately a National Defence Panel review in December 1997 castigated the army as unprepared for protracted combat in the impassable maze-like streets of poor cities. As a result, the four armed services launched crash programmes to master streetfighting under realistic Third World conditions. ‘The future of warfare’, the journal of the Army War College declared, ‘lies in the streets, sewers, high-rise buildings, and sprawl of houses that form the broken cities of the world.’

Socialist Review, May 2004

The results of this are currently on display in Iraq…

Link via Genosse Tabu