Advice Regarding Paper on D-Day

For my US History class (high school, Junior year), I've been assigned a twelve-page history paper due on the 20th. I've been developing my notes and research the past month and a half. I have completed well over one hundred notecards and am almost ready to start the actual writing of the paper. I wanted to ask for some final advice before I start the writing.

For my thesis, I am proving that there were other factors besides the troops assaulting the beaches at Normandy that won the day for the Allies. I'm thinking of concentrating on three main points - Allied technological superiority, Allied deception operations (Fortitude), and Allied airborne drops during the early hours of D-day - and a secondary point about German ineptness and judgmental error (especially Hitler's extreme stubbornness). I'll also fit in a few paragraphs about the Soviets and the French resistance.

Is there any major factor I'm missing that I should be focusing on or something that I should omit? I just wanted to discuss this with someone before diving into the final phase of the project, and I know there are some major history buffs on this board who can help.

I think you're on the wrong forum. This is for Interactive Histories. You'd probably be better off on the main Monestary (sp?) forum.

As for me it looks like you're good to go. Good luck. :2thumbsup:

I think there should be more about the German inability or correlate the facts, or really shift troops around.

MOVE TO MONASTERY

If anything, I'd recommend focusing on any one of those factors; each would be enough for a paper in its own right, particularly if it's only twelve pages long.

Good luck!

Moving this to the monastry will be difficult. I haven't seen Tarrak (Kraxis) in ages, might take a while before he is back

What about the Most Glorious Leader, Benefactor of us Mortals, and Esteemed General Tosa Inu?

Thanks for the advice, it has been noted and is appreciated.:bow: Also, my apologies for posting this in the wrong forum, I definately meant to click on the Monastery.:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowhead418

For my thesis, I am proving that there were other factors besides the troops assaulting the beaches at Normandy that won the day for the Allies. I'm thinking of concentrating on three main points - Allied technological superiority, Allied deception operations (Fortitude), and Allied airborne drops during the early hours of D-day - and a secondary point about German ineptness and judgmental error (especially Hitler's extreme stubbornness). I'll also fit in a few paragraphs about the Soviets and the French resistance.

---

The Soviets - and Italy - were important factors. Had Germany been free to concentrate on the West, D-Day would have been impossible.

I am not sure what technological superiority you are referring to. The Allies did develop some specialised technology for the landings - partly informed by the disaster at Dieppe. The British had a plethora of "funny" engineering tanks; plus the whole Mulberry (sp?) floating harbour was pretty impressive. But I would not say they had technological superiority in general - radar and code-breaking advantages aside. What they did have was air and sea superiority. The Allies always had superiority at sea - at least after the U-boat campaigns were brought under control. Outproduction and attrition of German fighters during bombing had given the Allies air supremacy as well. Both factors were essential for the landings. The sea power provided a lot of firepower to assist in the landings. The air power also delayed Germany reinforcements and could stall major counter-attacks.

On the deceptions, John Keegan makes the point that the Channel meant the Germans were essentially blind about where the Allies were strike; moreover it allowed them to concentrate a large force in a short period of time - more effectively than would be possible by land (imagine all the sealanes as essentially autobahns or motorways to the beaches).

Quote:

---

Is there any major factor I'm missing that I should be focusing on or something that I should omit? I just wanted to discuss this with someone before diving into the final phase of the project, and I know there are some major history buffs on this board who can help.

---

I would query "won the day" - is your focus on D-Day itself or the campaign? The day itself was a success, but the striking thing about the D-Day campaign is how effective the German resistance was until St Lo.

Actually, I do think there are a couple factors you're missing.

The first is Hitler's unwillingness to commit to either Rommel's or Rundstedt's plans for the defense of Europe. Rommel wanted to concentrate German strength on the beaches to prevent a foothold from every being established. Rundstedt wanted to keep a very large mobile armored force available in middle France which could be deployed to the landing area within a day or two of the attack. Hitler chose a middle-ground which put some strength on the beaches, but not enough, and some strength in reserve, but again not enough. The result was that the beach defenses were not sufficient to stop the landings and the counterattack was not strong enough to dislodge the Allies.

The other major factor that played into the Allied victory was the bombing campaign. Prior to D-Day, the Allied air forces in Britain switched their bombing objectives to the transportation network in Germany and France. This was extremely effectively and greatly reduced the speed at which German forces could move about in Europe. As a result, the already insufficient German counter-attack was made totally ineffective by its inability to deploy quickly. This factor alone seems to have validated Rommel's plan for beach deployment, since it did not rely on reinforcements which would have been delayed by the ruined rail and road network.

Also, do not underestimate Allied counter-intelligence. They put a great deal of effort into convincing the Germans that they would land anywhere but Normandy. This largely succeeded. If the Allies had landed at a well-defended area, either because Rommel's plan had prevailed, or the Germans had accurately predicted the landing site, then D-Day could have failed.

I would highlight the achievement of tactical surprise. When you consider what an absolutely enormous exercise D Day was, and how many people had to know long in advance where the landings were going to be (you don't billet troops in Devon to invade Pas de Calais) the fact that (a) the Germans had no idea in advance that the landing would be in Normandy and (b) for sometime thereafter thought that Normandy was a diversion for a landing in the Pas de Calais is a really remarkable achievement.

Just think what a difference even 48 hours notice that there was only one landing, and it was going to be in Normandy, might have made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowhead418

For my US History class (high school, Junior year), I've been assigned a twelve-page history paper due on the 20th. I've been developing my notes and research the past month and a half. I have completed well over one hundred notecards and am almost ready to start the actual writing of the paper. I wanted to ask for some final advice before I start the writing.

For my thesis, I am proving that there were other factors besides the troops assaulting the beaches at Normandy that won the day for the Allies. I'm thinking of concentrating on three main points - Allied technological superiority, Allied deception operations (Fortitude), and Allied airborne drops during the early hours of D-day - and a secondary point about German ineptness and judgmental error (especially Hitler's extreme stubbornness). I'll also fit in a few paragraphs about the Soviets and the French resistance.

Is there any major factor I'm missing that I should be focusing on or something that I should omit? I just wanted to discuss this with someone before diving into the final phase of the project, and I know there are some major history buffs on this board who can help.

---

One quick thing D-Day is usually referred to as the invasion of Normandy but it isn't just that. Just saying... any ways your forgetting it was like sword or juno or something when SF units had to scale a cliff that germans thought they couldnt do and so little guard wasn't as high as it could be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

The Soviets - and Italy - were important factors. Had Germany been free to concentrate on the West, D-Day would have been impossible.

---

I realize this, and am going to include it in my paper. However, as this is a US History class, I'm going to focus more on what the Allies did in the West.

Quote:

---

I am not sure what technological superiority you are referring to. The Allies did develop some specialised technology for the landings - partly informed by the disaster at Dieppe. The British had a plethora of "funny" engineering tanks; plus the whole Mulberry (sp?) floating harbour was pretty impressive. But I would not say they had technological superiority in general - radar and code-breaking advantages aside. What they did have was air and sea superiority. The Allies always had superiority at sea - at least after the U-boat campaigns were brought under control. Outproduction and attrition of German fighters during bombing had given the Allies air supremacy as well. Both factors were essential for the landings. The sea power provided a lot of firepower to assist in the landings. The air power also delayed Germany reinforcements and could stall major counter-attacks.

---

You hit the nail on the head. I'm not saying the Allies had better weapons or inventions (as many German weapons outclassed their Allied counterparts), but that they had almost complete air and naval superiority as well as a huge advantage in the number of supplies such as tanks (though inferior in quality), ammunition, and food, and other factors such as how fast casualties could be replaced.

Quote:

---

I would query "won the day" - is your focus on D-Day itself or the campaign? The day itself was a success, but the striking thing about the D-Day campaign is how effective the German resistance was until St Lo.

---

My focus is on the day itself. I've read up on and am fascinated by the resistance the Germans gave in the months afterwards, but I only have twelve pages and probably too much information to write about anyway.

Quote:

---

The first is Hitler's unwillingness to commit to either Rommel's or Rundstedt's plans for the defense of Europe. Rommel wanted to concentrate German strength on the beaches to prevent a foothold from every being established. Rundstedt wanted to keep a very large mobile armored force available in middle France which could be deployed to the landing area within a day or two of the attack. Hitler chose a middle-ground which put some strength on the beaches, but not enough, and some strength in reserve, but again not enough. The result was that the beach defenses were not sufficient to stop the landings and the counterattack was not strong enough to dislodge the Allies.

---

No worries, I have already noted this and it will be one of my major points in the "German" section of my paper.

Quote:

---

The other major factor that played into the Allied victory was the bombing campaign. Prior to D-Day, the Allied air forces in Britain switched their bombing objectives to the transportation network in Germany and France. This was extremely effectively and greatly reduced the speed at which German forces could move about in Europe. As a result, the already insufficient German counter-attack was made totally ineffective by its inability to deploy quickly. This factor alone seems to have validated Rommel's plan for beach deployment, since it did not rely on reinforcements which would have been delayed by the ruined rail and road network.

---

I've noted this as well, I just didn't articulate my main points well enough. It will be included in my "technological superiority" (a better phrase is probably needed) section.

Quote:

---

I would highlight the achievement of tactical surprise. When you consider what an absolutely enormous exercise D Day was, and how many people had to know long in advance where the landings were going to be (you don't billet troops in Devon to invade Pas de Calais) the fact that (a) the Germans had no idea in advance that the landing would be in Normandy and (b) for sometime thereafter thought that Normandy was a diversion for a landing in the Pas de Calais is a really remarkable achievement.

---

This will all be included in the "deception" section.

Once again, I really appreciate all the advice.:bow:

Yet again it is still considered invasion of normandy not D-Day guys please im like ocd about this stuff there were several D-Days in the pacific please stop refering to this as the "D-Day"

Yes, you are correct that D-Day is a generic term, though if you're going to be OCD about it you should point out that it refers to far more than several Pacific operations. D-Day and H-Hour are terms for designated starting dates and times for almost every single US military operation since WWI.

However, D-Day can also specifically reference Operation Overlord, aka the Invasion of Normandy. It is perfectly acceptable to call Operation Overlord "D-Day." The US National Wold War II Museum in New Orleans was originally called the National D-Day Museum. There is a "D-Day" Museum in Portsmouth, England. The 50th anniversary celebrations of Operation Overlord were officially known as the 50th Anniversary of D-Day, D-Day 50, and D-Day + 50, depending on your source.

If anything, the connection between "D-Day" and Operation Overlord is so overwhelming now that unless the term is said in the context of the start time of another military operation, most people will assume you are specifically referring to Operation Overlord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Yes, you are correct that D-Day is a generic term, though if you're going to be OCD about it you should point out that it refers to far more than several Pacific operations. D-Day and H-Hour are terms for designated starting dates and times for almost every single US military operation since WWI.

However, D-Day can also specifically reference Operation Overlord, aka the Invasion of Normandy. It is perfectly acceptable to call Operation Overlord "D-Day." The US National Wold War II Museum in New Orleans was originally called the National D-Day Museum. There is a "D-Day" Museum in Portsmouth, England. The 50th anniversary celebrations of Operation Overlord were officially known as the 50th Anniversary of D-Day, D-Day 50, and D-Day + 50, depending on your source.

If anything, the connection between "D-Day" and Operation Overlord is so overwhelming now that unless the term is said in the context of the start time of another military operation, most people will assume you are specifically referring to Operation Overlord.

---

yes yes i forget but i assumed most people knew about H-Hour and D-Day as generic terms but i get sent to the schools upper division director a lot from correcting my teachers when they say something wrong. Any ways im a on a mission to get most bay area museums to change their "D-Day' exhibits to operation overlord or to invasion of normandy"

During the months leading up to the invasion of Normandy, the strategic bombing campaign by the US & Brits, especially the deployment of the recently developed P-51 Mustang (enabling full range bomber escort), whittled down the Luftwaffe to the point that they were a non-factor during the landings and afterward. Allied air superiority was a huge factor.

The centralized German Command structure itself was also a big handicap in repelling the invasion. Independent initiative of lower ranking field commanders was a career killer in the German military, senior commanders micro-managed, and were micro-managed themselves by Hitler, few dared to buck the system. Along with the other factors you mentioned, this was a fatal flaw, and guaranteed the best chance to throw the allies back into the sea by immediate counter-attack with their Panzer forces was squandered.

Not to mention, luck or "divine intervention". Having one of the only field commanders (Rommel) with the cajones to defy any blunders issued by Hitler, back in Germany during June 6th landing was providential indeed. I believe he would have reacted very quickly with that Panzer counter-attack, if he had been present.

There is also something to note about the divisive argument among the German command on whether the best defense was to stop them at the sea or inland. The compromise imposed by Hitler did nothing but weaken both schools of thought.

A veteran I talk to often told me he remembers that Hitler was "never supposed to be woken up by 9:00 am". When the allies invaded no one deared to wake up him and he was the final command for moving units around. This had a lot to do with allied movements before Rommels panzers could get into the fray.

I have to go to bed, so I thought I'd add a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowhead418

For my US History class (high school, Junior year), I've been assigned a twelve-page history paper due on the 20th. I've been developing my notes and research the past month and a half. I have completed well over one hundred notecards and am almost ready to start the actual writing of the paper. I wanted to ask for some final advice before I start the writing.

For my thesis, I am proving that there were other factors besides the troops assaulting the beaches at Normandy that won the day for the Allies. I'm thinking of concentrating on three main points - Allied technological superiority, Allied deception operations (Fortitude), and Allied airborne drops during the early hours of D-day - and a secondary point about German ineptness and judgmental error (especially Hitler's extreme stubbornness). I'll also fit in a few paragraphs about the Soviets and the French resistance.

Is there any major factor I'm missing that I should be focusing on or something that I should omit? I just wanted to discuss this with someone before diving into the final phase of the project, and I know there are some major history buffs on this board who can help.

---