With few infantry divisions to relieve them, the panzer divisions were forced to remain in the front line rather than disengaging to recover. Stephen Hart wrote in 2007 that post-war memoirs by Allied generals led to disputes along national lines during the 1950s and 1960s, with American historians generally critical of Montgomery and the actions of the Anglo-Canadian forces, while "pro-Montgomery" historians set out to refute them. Also published during this period were the national official campaign histories, which were thoroughly-researched but avoided detailed critical analysis of the controversies. During the 1980s, revisionist writers concentrated on the perceived deficiencies of the Allies and since the late 1990s, two schools of thought have been revising the revisionists, some expanding on revisionist work by providing a more detailed campaign analysis and those who have tried to show that the techniques employed by the Anglo-Canadian forces were realistic for the circumstances encountered Normandy. In 1983, Carlo D’Este wrote that the most logical place for a British attack would have been out of the Orne bridgehead, on the extreme eastern flank of the Allied lodgement. An attack from the eastern flank had been rejected by Montgomery, Dempsey and O’Connor as unrealistic. Some writers described the intent of Epsom as an attack to gain ground but in 2004, Andrew Williams wrote that through Ultra decodes, Montgomery knew of Rommel's plan to attack towards Bayeux and that Epsom was intended to forestall it. Chester Wilmot wrote in 1952 that the operation was intended to draw the I SS Panzer Corps and the newly arrived II SS Panzer Corps into battle around Caen. Hart wrote that Montgomery wanted to keep the initiative and prevent German armoured forces from moving from to the west against the US First Army or being relieved and forming a reserve. The arrival of the II SS Panzer Corps was a catalyst for Operation Epsom, which retaining the initiative by forcing the German command to use the Corps against VIII Corps. Max Hastings wrote in 1985 that "no sane commander" would mount an attack as big as Epsom without "every hope of breaking through the German defences, or at least of causing the enemy to make substantial withdrawals". Carlo D’Este wrote that "No amount of pretence can conceal that the real object had been a short pincer movement to outflank Caen". Lloyd Clark wrote, "On the battlefield, Epsom ended, rather ignominiously, in a