Magnus
In support of what you have found -
My father served in the British Signal Corps towards the end of WW2 when he became old enough. He has been reluctant to share many details of his service. One thing he has shared repeatedly is that during the Normandy invasion the order was given, "No Prisoners." The order makes sense form some points of view, although I'm sure the Signal Corps didn't appreciate it - new prisoners were often valuable to colloborate intelligence estimates.
But the order for no prisoners on D-Day does fit in well with the Allied acceptance of large civilian casualties as part of their preparations. I do recall several sources saying there were indeed some German prisoners taken that day. But my father absolutely insists that that was against orders.
Fred W
Ok,
Found some more stuff. First of I checked the maps. The train aborted at Luc-sur-Mer was done so for a superb reason. Checking a map will make it 100% obvious why that train did not start at 7.00 Am. It's smack in the middle, only kilometers away from the British invasion beaches, stuck between Juno and Sword. No way the French railroaders woke up that morning and tried to get it through the invasion beaches because their schedule says so. That is ridiculous to even think.
I also found this quote from Rommel him self from the days around the invasion where he describes why not things have gone well since the invasion:
This can be found in: "The Rommel papers", edited by B.H. Lidell-Hart, pages 476-477
"Our operations in Normandy are tremendously hampered, and in some places even rendered impossible, by the following factors:
a) The immensely powerful, at times overwhelming, superiority of the enemy air force. As I and my officers of my staff have repeatedly experienced(and as field commanders), including Obergruppenführer, Sepp Dietrich, have reported) then enemy has total command over the air some 60 miles behind the front. During the day, practically our entire traffic, on roads, TRACKS(emphasize mine) and in open country is pinned down."
I jump forward a bit:
"Every traffic defile in the rear areas is under continual attack and it is very difficult to get essential supplies and ammunition and petrol up to the troops."
"Even the movement of minor formations on the battlefield -artillery going in to position, tanks forming up, etc.- is instantly attacked from the air with devastating effect."
".......powerful bomber formation dropped a very heavy weight of bombs on troops, villages, bridges and crossroads, with complete disregard for CIVILIAN(emphasize mine) casualties"
So what does this prove. Well it proves that rail movements where impossible on D-Day and the days following it. NO source what so ever shows up differently, they all point to the same fact. That all movement by rail during D-day and the days following where impossible. The last quote also points to the fact that the Allies did not accept civilian movements.
You said: "Your previous posts refer to troop movements and the like, but you seem to be ignoring the regular timetabled services that were also being run"
Can you show me any evidence what so ever that the allies allowed normal time scheduled train to move around in Normandy? Opening up the front to let them pass over destroyed bridges and railroad tracks? Not bombing them as they came along?
I can find nothing of that nature, absolutely nothing! I can find many many quotes to the contrary. It's also common sense that you do not let civilian trains run unopposed.
I read a book by Herman Knell called "To destroy a city, strategic bombing and its human consequences in world war II".
This are a few quotes from pages 234 and 235 regarding the aerial campaign against French railroads:
"What followed until June 6th, the date of the Normandy landings, was a successful destruction of the Belgian and French railway systems"
"The campaign was a complete success and is credited with preventing German reinforcements from arriving in time at the Normandy beachheads."
To realize the scale of these bombardment which started April 9th/10th they estimate that 10,000 civilians died. To put that in perspective, 65,000 French civilians died from strategic bombing during the entire war! It should also be mentioned that the 10,000 figure is being disputed as being to low.
At a single attack against Lille 456 people died, many of them civilian railroaders, 2/3 of all freight cars where destroyed in one attack alone.
Every source I check same the exact same thing. The railroads where destroyed before the landings took place. I've not found any shred of evidence for any major or even minor railovements on D-day on the 6th. But as I've said before, it might be possible to fins some extremly small movements but nothing that could be used as a base for a model railroad operations.
marknewton wrote: Magnus, My sources are my admittedly poor translation of the book "Calvados pour les Petits Trains", by A. de Dieuleveult, and a conversation with a couple of ancient cheminots at Pithiviers back in 1995, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of D-Day. They made a number of interesting comments, pointing out to me that not everyone in France was a resistant, and not all the railways in France were under German control. Your previous posts refer to troop movements and the like, but you seem to be ignoring the regular timetabled services that were also being run.Cheers,Mark.
Magnus,
My sources are my admittedly poor translation of the book "Calvados pour les Petits Trains", by A. de Dieuleveult, and a conversation with a couple of ancient cheminots at Pithiviers back in 1995, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of D-Day. They made a number of interesting comments, pointing out to me that not everyone in France was a resistant, and not all the railways in France were under German control. Your previous posts refer to troop movements and the like, but you seem to be ignoring the regular timetabled services that were also being run.
Cheers,
Mark.
Hi again, I will see if I can find that book.
What train are you referring to as having moved on the 6th? Because as I've understood that was not an army transport but rather a normal scheduled train. Considering the fact that the railroad in question hardly had many trains I was wondering what train you are referring to as having moved?
The aerial bombardment struck the infrastructure of the railroads, bridges where out and so where yards and so on. Normal scheduled trains would not have been able to move in Normandy after D-Day regardless if they where of military nature or not. The allies would not have cared and taken a chance letting civilian railroad transports gone through plus it would have been impossible to make it 100% non military so I'm not quite sure what you mean by that? Because you can not possible mean that civilian train traffic continued in Normandy?
As I did say in my previous post, the allies did target civilian railroad targets as a mean to stop the military movements of the Germans. I'm not sure how the civilian railroads could have made it across destroyed bridges and occupied territory.
Now, as I've also said in a previous post. You will be able to find small scale activities, but not any large scale movements. To find that a switcher moved a freight car into a shelter is hardly worth considering. So I would like to know what train you are referring to and how far it moved. Because the only train that I've found a reference for is the cancelled no.10 which did not continue it's journey from the day before.
I'm not sure why you are stating that not all Frenchmen where in the resistance, of course they where not. There was plenty of collaborators.
The point I'm trying to make is this. You can probably find small movements, but no large scale movements by rails around the Normandy beaches on D-Day.
Thanks for the info Mark. I think you are one of the people in this forum that have a among the most knowledge so I apreciate that you are providing me with info.
Lillen wrote: Hi again Mark, I must say you have transformed a little known subject of mine to something very interesting. So I had an idea. As you might know I study at the university and have a degree in history. This gives me that possibility to order just about any book I want that exist. Even from the surrounding countries. If the book exists in Europe I can get it. So I would love it if you could give me your sources so that I can lend them in and read them and maybe write a short historical paper on it.It's not a problem if it's in French since I can read it OK and my wife lived there for ten years or so. Page numbers would be great since I can then have them copy it(legally) and have them sent to me.Thank you very much for your help, I really apreciate it.
Hi again Mark,
I must say you have transformed a little known subject of mine to something very interesting. So I had an idea. As you might know I study at the university and have a degree in history. This gives me that possibility to order just about any book I want that exist. Even from the surrounding countries. If the book exists in Europe I can get it. So I would love it if you could give me your sources so that I can lend them in and read them and maybe write a short historical paper on it.
It's not a problem if it's in French since I can read it OK and my wife lived there for ten years or so. Page numbers would be great since I can then have them copy it(legally) and have them sent to me.
Thank you very much for your help, I really apreciate it.
Rotorranch wrote: Lillen wrote: I agree, the one thing that I think is important to ad is that when people watch Jerry Springer they do think it's hard facts. History channel and other "documentary" channels and programs should have a larger responsibility since a lot of people will take these things as facts. MagnusHEY...I resemble that remark! I watch Springer...sometimes 3 times a day! I watch Springer for pure entertainment value, just as I would The 3 Stooges, or the Marx Brothers. Jerry just hasn't reached the level of the others yet. Rotor
Lillen wrote: I agree, the one thing that I think is important to ad is that when people watch Jerry Springer they do think it's hard facts. History channel and other "documentary" channels and programs should have a larger responsibility since a lot of people will take these things as facts. Magnus
HEY...I resemble that remark!
I watch Springer...sometimes 3 times a day!
I watch Springer for pure entertainment value, just as I would The 3 Stooges, or the Marx Brothers. Jerry just hasn't reached the level of the others yet.
Rotor
Thanks for catching that! It should of course have been a don't instead of a do. I've changed it now.
Jake: How often does the train go by? Elwood: So often you won't even notice ...
cregil wrote: The HC knows they are airing crackpots, the producers seek them out. Some of their programs are entertainment, not education. I do not appreciate programs which exploit persons with mental issues like Jerry Springer and that series of History Channel shows. I think it is immoral.Crews
The HC knows they are airing crackpots, the producers seek them out. Some of their programs are entertainment, not education. I do not appreciate programs which exploit persons with mental issues like Jerry Springer and that series of History Channel shows. I think it is immoral.
Crews
I agree, the one thing that I think is important to ad is that when people watch Jerry Springer they don't think it's hard facts. History channel and other "documentary" channels and programs should have a larger responsibility since a lot of people will take these things as facts.
I found some info about the aerial attacks on the railroads in Normandy before D-Day.
Since I'm damaged from my education I like to give sources, so here it is:
D-Day, From the Normandy beaches to the liberation of France, Tiger Books, London, Printed in Italy 1994, pages 38-39
So now anyone can check the info if they want to and not just take it for some random statement.
Anyways, the allies assumed that the most important way to move reinforcements en mass to the beachheads would be my rail. So the Allies decided that any civilian casualties, which where expected to be heavy would be worth it and necessary. So thanks to Montgomery the railroads where made targets of the allied bombing campaign. The goal and it was achieved, was to make any rail movements impossible within 150 miles of Normandy. To accomplish this the allies flew 22,000 sorties and dropped 66,000 tons of bombs on 80 chosen railroad targets. The goal was also that no rail movements would be possible from D-day +4. According to this book there was a severe paralysis on the railroads in the Normandy region on D-day.
On topic:
Classic Trains Special Edition No. 6: Railroads and World War II, 2006. I bought, and love it-- very interesting and very well written.
I am interested, also, in modeling the domestic railroad during the war. Rather than running trains of flatbeds carrying tanks, my interest was in a more subtle busyness of passenger and troop trains, with critical freights-- all with a sense of urgency in getting it done both fast and right.
On the spin-off-topic:
By-the-way, I used to work with a professor used by the History Channel for one of their programs as an expert. He really was a PhD and expert in the field. That the show was on crackpot ideas and that that expert sounded like a crackpot was only caused by the fact the man, is, in fact, a cracked pot. The poor man, as bright as he truly is, actually thinks he is one of the legendary creatures featured in that program-- of course, the producers would have cut any segment in which he said so.
"Could this ancient underground structure really have been the secret civilization of aliens from Mars?" If the show starts with something like that, you can watch for an hour if you want to, but the answer is still going to be what you knew it to be at the start: No!
I like to suggest this book it has some of the best pictures Ive ever seen showing Soldier-railroaders using all types of euro and american trains and rolling stock along with a few maps showing routes this could be the foundation for a new layout . Being a WWII history buff and gamer Its not often you find a book filled with never before seen photos it was a real treat.
Also are Three books by Wolfgang Sawodny on German armoured trains and full of great photos.
wjstix wrote: A couple of quick things:1. Re Quentin Aanenson and the German "decoy train" I would say if one of us is remembering wrong it would be me. Given the amount of detail in the program he prepared, and the obvious attention to detail he had, I'm sure if he did mention it as I believe it was either something he saw firsthand, or that he heard about from reliable sources like other pilots and intelligence people. I know as part of the program there were several examples of film footage taken from US planes during strafing runs, I think one showed a train shooting back but like I say I could be wrong. I'll have to see if I can find any more online about it.
A couple of quick things:
1. Re Quentin Aanenson and the German "decoy train" I would say if one of us is remembering wrong it would be me. Given the amount of detail in the program he prepared, and the obvious attention to detail he had, I'm sure if he did mention it as I believe it was either something he saw firsthand, or that he heard about from reliable sources like other pilots and intelligence people. I know as part of the program there were several examples of film footage taken from US planes during strafing runs, I think one showed a train shooting back but like I say I could be wrong. I'll have to see if I can find any more online about it.
I'm going to try to find about this since i find it interesting. As I've said before the Germans did try pretty much anything so it might have happened. My guess on what you have seen in the films is FLAK cars that the Germans did assign to trains. I posted some links to such earlier in the thread. I would be very happy if you could tell me if you found some information. I would love it if you found something like that decoy train.
I'm going to place an order on a book about German FLAK and see if it have some info.
This site is probably the most informative and has the most accurate information on the Waldorf-Astoria "station".
http://www.serranoscholars.net/~brennan/abandoned/gct61.html
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
2. Re the History Channel - as I recall the Waldorf-Astoria / Grand Central / FDR thing came up a couple of times. One was maybe five years ago in one of their programs about railroads. In that one, they didn't talk about it so much as being a WW2 issue as having to do with the secrecy surrounding FDR's handicap. They said that it was much easier for FDR to be able to stay in his wheelchair and be taken out of the car underground and put right in an elevator up to the hotel, rather than putting on his leg braces and trying to "walk" him thru Grand Central to the hotel. Since his home at Hyde Park wasn't too far from New York, he went thru Grand Central frequently going between there and Washington DC.
I think the passenger car sitting there was mentioned, but just as a side note saying that no one now could remember just why the car was sitting there, but that it was a heavyweight car that would have been in use during FDR's term.
Recently, the "Underground New York" show discussed the issue, and they made a much bigger deal about the secrecy and about this car that could hold all sorts of secret info or the contents of Al Capone's vault or whatever.
marknewton wrote: ndbprr wrote: I seriously doubt that any trains in the area (even if they existed) ran on that day.The railway closest to the landing beaches was the Chemins de Fer du Calvados. The railway closed on D-day due to damage sustained during the initial assault. The first train scheduled to run that day was abandoned after it started its run by the crew after being attacked.Mark.
ndbprr wrote: I seriously doubt that any trains in the area (even if they existed) ran on that day.
The railway closest to the landing beaches was the Chemins de Fer du Calvados. The railway closed on D-day due to damage sustained during the initial assault. The first train scheduled to run that day was abandoned after it started its run by the crew after being attacked.
Mark,
As I understand it after having read a few things about this I have come to the conclusion that the train was abandoned after starting. But it started on the 5th, paused at Luc-sur-Mer on the evening of the 5th(around 19.00) then never resumed it's journey on the morning afterwards when it was meant to complete it's trip.
Now, I'm more then willing to admit that I do not have many sources so perhaps you have a more in depth info about this?
marknewton wrote: Lillen wrote: All railroad activity was out on D-day for a couple of reason.Not true. See my previous post.Mark.
Lillen wrote: All railroad activity was out on D-day for a couple of reason.
Not true. See my previous post.
Mark, here are som info that I found:
"At the start of WW2, an all-year-round service was reinstated with, typically, two return journeys on working days and one on dimanches et fêtes. The unplanned end came out of the blue. Some time around 1900 hours on 5 June 1944, the crew of Weidknecht No 10, having arrived at Luc-sur-Mer, put their charge 'to bed', leaving it ready to take out the 07.00 to Caen the following morning... For the CFCN, that day never came. General Eisenhower having other plans, its activities ceased forthwith."
Source: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/peclegg/sncf/article_2006_07.html
Now, they might be wrong. But acording to that document the train did not move on June 6th. It was preperad to run in the morning but didn't. Do you have any more info?
I think you know what I meant.
One abandoned run that was cancelled after an attack is hardly a basis for railroad operations. How far did it get and what time did it run? Where did go from and where was it going? I'm really interested and would like to know. The point I was trying to make was that all attempts to move things by rail was aborted or failed. Nothing made it to the beaches in tact. Even individual groups of soldiers and vehicles where attacked.
Of course there was train movements in western France on D-Day. You will probably be able to fins all kinds of small switcher movements and so on. But not many and no big ones. Pretty much everything was stopped. Just check the statistics for troop movements on D-day and the days following. But you can probably find small scale activity. But no major movements.
Another interesting thing would be to check the bridges on D-Day, it would be hard to move a train in Normandy very long due to the bridges.
I would love to have some more info since these are a among my passions. So I would greatly apreciate any more info Mark.
Thanks,
DSchmitt wrote: The show was long on speculation and short on facts.
The show was long on speculation and short on facts.
This is typical of history programs on most channels. They take some small fact and blow it out of proportions and claim it to be real, It really irritates me because it makes people know less then they did before the show. Then someone comes along and trouts it out like they are experts after having seen one show and claim that real experts like historians are not quick enough to react and can not tell the truth like the cool TV shows.
The popularity of historical programs have led to a complete void of facts. I think it is a shame when they say something like "we can not be certain but this is what could have happened" and suddenly Hitler and Elvis where lovers since Elvis did visit Germany(a couple of years after old Adolfs death but who cares)
Please note that I'm not in any way implying that anyone in this thread have done so. I do not want to come across like that.
tomikawaTT wrote: TheK4Kid wrote: Did anyone see the special program on I believe the "History Channel" about the huge underground station built in New York City under the Grand central Station during WW2 by FDR for his use. I believe they caled it "M21"TheK4Kid Huge? One short track and a two-car platform under the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel doesn't strike me as huge, especially when compared with the two-level fan of tracks for full-length passenger trains immediately adjacent.After watching a fair cross-section of their offerings, I think the History Channel should be re-named the Melodrama Channel.Chuck (native New Yorker modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
TheK4Kid wrote: Did anyone see the special program on I believe the "History Channel" about the huge underground station built in New York City under the Grand central Station during WW2 by FDR for his use. I believe they caled it "M21"TheK4Kid
Did anyone see the special program on I believe the "History Channel" about the huge underground station built in New York City under the Grand central Station during WW2 by FDR for his use. I believe they caled it "M21"
TheK4Kid
Huge? One short track and a two-car platform under the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel doesn't strike me as huge, especially when compared with the two-level fan of tracks for full-length passenger trains immediately adjacent.
After watching a fair cross-section of their offerings, I think the History Channel should be re-named the Melodrama Channel.
Chuck (native New Yorker modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
The show was long on speculation and short on facts. There have been several threads on the "station". There were links to several web sites with information and mis-information. One site has a plan of showing the location of the track. It was originally built to serve a steam plant that was torn down to make way for the hotel. It was probably never used by Roosevelt. One story says General Pershing used it once. The car has been identified, by some, as a baggage car downgraded to maintenance of way service and parked there because the location is out of the way. The "military color" is probably Pullman Green or some similar railroad color.
bobyar2001 wrote:If it were me, I'd prefer to build a WWII themed layout for public display rather than my own home use. Is there a military museum near you? That might be a good location. With all the available European equipment and structures, it shouldn't be too difficult, and could be made modular if necessary. I think I'd build a bomb-damaged German railyard, that was still barely functioning among the chaos. Having spent some military time in the early 1970s in Germany, I often wondered what the roundhouses and railyards I visited had been like 30 years before. And it was impressive to see the very same Kriegsloks in use that had been operating then.Bob Yarger
If it were me, I'd prefer to build a WWII themed layout for public display rather than my own home use. Is there a military museum near you? That might be a good location. With all the available European equipment and structures, it shouldn't be too difficult, and could be made modular if necessary. I think I'd build a bomb-damaged German railyard, that was still barely functioning among the chaos. Having spent some military time in the early 1970s in Germany, I often wondered what the roundhouses and railyards I visited had been like 30 years before. And it was impressive to see the very same Kriegsloks in use that had been operating then.
Bob Yarger
If you lived in Auburn Indiana or near it, there is the "Kruse World War Two Victory Museum there just west of exit 126 and Interstate 69 with lots of room left yet inside. Also located nearby is the Hoosier Warbirds Museum with a lot of interesting WW2 aircraft and relics in it, including my friend Bill Jones Nagasaki and Hiroshima display, he was the first combat photographer to take pictures of both cities after they were bombed with atomic weapons.
It was cool, and its exact location and how to gain entrance to it is still CLASSIFIED.
They made the History Channel people turn off their cameras as they went there through the classified entrance way.
YES! That was a very cool show I thought it interesting that one of the Rail cars used by FDR was still parked down there that's a cool piece of history that should be on display someplace!