D Day through German Eyes: How the Wehrmacht Lost France, by Jonathan Trigg

[Sheldrake]

Its a book about France 1944.

Anyone read it? If so what did you think?

[jpz4]

There's quite a bit of it available on books.google.com. Haven't taken a serious look at it but the fact he uses information from the fictitious Eckhertz books and uses much the same title does not help.....

[Sheldrake]

It isn't often I feel I have wasted money on a book purchase.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Jonathan Trigg is an author I have avoided like the plague since I reviewed his first book, Hitler's Gauls, here on AHF in 2008:

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=140292&p=1220561&h ... s#p1220561

What jpz4 observes above about this book conforms well with my opening paragraph of that review:

"Judging by its text, bibliography and foreword, Hitler's Gauls is essentially a shallowly researched and incomplete plundering of a handful of French books of often questionable historical detachment, set against a background reading on the Waffen-SS that could have been found in bargain bookshops over the last decade and an exchange of letters with a couple of veterans. When derivative Rupert Butler and Osprey books are cited as authorities in a short bibliography, one knows a book has shallow roots. The author offers a nod towards research in the Bundesarchiv in his acknowledgements, but there is absolutely no trace of original documentary material in the text."

Cheers,

Sid

[Leros87]

I have a copy of David C Isby’s book “The German Army at D Day. Fighting the Invasion”, published in 2004. I felt that this was well researched.

I am intrigued by the similarities in the offensive and defensive plans and outcome compared to the planned invasion of Britain in 1940.

[jpz4]

Is there any original research in Isby? (First published in 2000 I think)
I thought it was just a collection of accounts from the Foreign Military Studies. Not bad, but nothing that adds much to what we know.

[Sheldrake]

Is there any original research in Isby? (First published in 2000 I think)
I thought it was just a collection of accounts from the Foreign Military Studies. Not bad, but nothing that adds much to what we know.

Isby compiled and published selections from FMS studies in English. Much easier than accessing the originals or wrestling with Fold 3. Not enough people have read them either. Jonathan Trigg would have avoided some howlers if he had.

[jpz4]

Being able to read German I prefer the German originals of the FMS, but Isby did in fact inspire me to look at those and I'm sure the books have helped spread the content of the FMS and people knowing of them.

However, some of the translations are awful. In an account I had questions about some 10 different things, after checking the German texts I found that 9 of those were caused by poor translations.
It would be great if the Sturmpanzer website would include the German texts as well, but for 'logistic' reasons I do understand why they stick to the English versions.

Any way, back to Trigg…

Trigg.jpg

If you dare to write this about a book with no author, no sources, no publisher, no German original which it supposedly was translated from, no veterans, etc. and ludicrous war porn stories your standards are not high enough. I've not found anything in them to 'ring true'. According to books.google Trigg uses it at least 13 times in his first two chapters, on a total of 63 endnotes…

Sheldrake, could you post the Bibliography of the book (and any other sources he may list)? I can only find two pages of it on google and none of it is impressive.

[T. A. Gardner]

Does it include the ludicrous claims of Heinrich Severloh the self-proclaimed "Beast of Omaha Beach?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Severloh

This guy claims he single-handedly killed and wounded more US troops on Omaha beach than were actually killed and wounded...

[Sheldrake]

Trigg's bibliography. Cobbled together from secondary sources.

Trigg Sources.jpg

[jpz4]

Thanks for posting Sheldrake. If that list reflects the effort put into the book I guess we'll know what to expect in regards to new information, quality and depth…..

[Mori]

So the good book on Germans in Normandy is still to be written. Many elementary questions are still left unanswered, such as:

- German intelligence: pre D-Day, how could they fail to see the invasion even after ships left the British shore ? during the campaign: what did they understand of the build up? After break-out: what did they see of TUSA (and did they actually lost sight)?
- German operations: what operational possibilities at each stage (ie: going further than the panzer-near-the-beaches controversy)? How much their defensive build really was deferred by disruption of the communications?
- German effectiveness: how could they adapt to bocage defense so effectively and consistently across units? What role did the German artillery play?
- Allied effectiveness: what was the actual impact of Allied air superiority (going beyond all army men stating they lost the battle because they did not have any Luftwaffe support)?

Bits and pieces can be found in various books, but I am yet to see a comprehensive analysis from the German point of view.

And these are just the few ideas coming to my mind.

[Gorque]

I found this video to be informative regarding the German perspective on the D-Day landings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3UHrnTUgZE&t=27s

[Cult Icon]

I agree with Mori, there seems to be no definitive book on Normandy. It seems like one has to read more than 50 different books (campaign, battle, unit,document dump, memoir, etc.) to piece together a personal analysis of it. It would be much easier if one historian or group of historians made a multi-volume series (like Glantz did for Stalingrad) that could be read in one shot.

[Sheldrake]

I agree with Mori, there seems to be no definitive book on Normandy. It seems like one has to read more than 50 different books (campaign, battle, unit,document dump, memoir, etc.) to piece together a personal analysis of it. It would be much easier if one historian or group of historians made a multi-volume series (like Glantz did for Stalingrad) that could be read in one shot.

That is the great thing about history. There is no "definitive history or facts" There are sources and interpretations. If you write a book, I may not agree with every idea or interpretation, but it is up to me to put together an alternative.