D-day

[Oaty]

2300 american fatalities right.?.?

1400 U.S. fatalities. 1200 at Omaha and 200 at utah. The other 900 were between the Canadian and British forces.

[master of the puppets]

well rommel was awaiting a so called 'imminent' attack on the alps. and during D-day hitler was sleeping at the time of invasion and his general;s were afraid to wake him even as the beach was taken. the reason that the menuever worked was rommel was'nt there and hitler was to sleepy to dispach the fuhrers personal panzer division which only answered to him. had they rolled in then the invaders would probably never made it.

"Losses were not as great as feared"
what? the losses were greater than feared at the initial assault, the allies were supposed to have tanks to hunker behind but as we all probably know that was a fatal flop.

[Grey_Fox]

From what I've heard, the first wave of American troops on Omaha suffered 90% casualties. Total German casualties in the Invasion of Normandy, no, the whole Western Front, were a drop in the ocean compared to German causalties in the East.

[The Stranger]

20 million russian casualties. they should have as much no more honour for ww2 than america. but hollywood claimed it all for itself.

though to me all were heroes. americans russians british canadian australian, not to forget the polish. a captured country that delivered a million soldiers french marrocan and the rest. those who are to blaim of weaknesses were the goverments.

all the soldiers are heroes in my eyes and i honour them wenever i can. nomatter ally or axis all exept ofcourse the true bastards (most didnt died in combat) get my sympathy

[pezhetairoi]

I stand corrected re: Oppenheimer. He must've misquoted the Bhagavad Gita, then :-P My version of the Gita says 'shatterer'. But that is irrelevant.

I shudder to consider what might have happened had Rommel been given full control of the strategic armoured reserve. But even as it was, he could not have done much since the Allied air power was destroying systematically every single route Rommel's tanks could take to the front. As it was it arrived two days too late.

D-day was actually, militarily quite insignificant if you deal purely in terms of strategy. It was important as it minimised the blood-loss of Russia (20 million dead, any slowdown in death rate would be appreciated). Politically it made all the difference, but yes. I would say D-day was not important in the sense that the military historians seem obliged to make it.

[The Stranger]

I stand corrected re: Oppenheimer. He must've misquoted the Bhagavad Gita, then :-P My version of the Gita says 'shatterer'. But that is irrelevant.

I shudder to consider what might have happened had Rommel been given full control of the strategic armoured reserve. But even as it was, he could not have done much since the Allied air power was destroying systematically every single route Rommel's tanks could take to the front. As it was it arrived two days too late.

D-day was actually, militarily quite insignificant if you deal purely in terms of strategy. It was important as it minimised the blood-loss of Russia (20 million dead, any slowdown in death rate would be appreciated). Politically it made all the difference, but yes. I would say D-day was not important in the sense that the military historians seem obliged to make it.

The mopst important reason was to stop russia from getting west europe i think.

GC

dont forget Tarawa.

[Gemenii XIII]

The D-Day landing was strictly political. the Eastern front was far more decisive then that of the west. The D-Day was a implimented by Winston Churchill political move implimented by Winston Churchill for the purpose of spreading democracy as opposed to communism in Europe. Otherwise it was insignificant. I say this because the eastern front decided the war. If you noticed, the British and Americans landed in normandie (France ) 1 year after the decisive battle of Stalingrad. After the soviets surrounded the german army in the soviet union they were unstoppable. they poured into europe with far greater casualties than the western front. Nonetheless they kept on coming "liberating" europe on the way. That is why the concentration of german forces was far greater on the eastern front than on the western one. In a sense, the Germans wanted to hold the russians back so that the Americans/British/Canadians could capture Berlin, they knew what would happen to Germany if the soviets took it. Yet this failed because the Soviets had to gained momentum from their pyiric victiories and tragically, Berlin was captured by the soviets. This meant that the soviets got their way at Yalta. So in conclusion, the d-day landings were useless from a "nazi liberation" standpoint however were crucial for political purposes. Just like the vietnam war.

[Gemenii XIII]

I apologize for the spelling/grammar errors I posted this really 5:00 AM

[Franconicus]

From what I've heard, the first wave of American troops on Omaha suffered 90% casualties. Total German casualties in the Invasion of Normandy, no, the whole Western Front, were a drop in the ocean compared to German causalties in the East.

Well, after all, Normandy was the grave for the German sumbarines and the German air force.

[CBR]

Well, after all, Normandy was the grave for the German sumbarines and the German air force.

Hm the Atlantic was the grave for the submarines and Luftwaffe died in Germany, and both before D-Day


CBR

[Redleg]

Now this is a good thread - with lots of opinions on the subject.

However all one has to do is read the words from Stalin to determine if the landings in France were important to the war effort for the allies.

It was a matter of politics and wartime necessary. Their were two major Allied Operations going on at the same time - plus several other lesser attacks which were all focused to tie down the German Reinforcements and prevent them from reinforcing either front.

To claim it was for politicial reasons only - discounts the actual events around the invasion of France - Operation Overlord and the Russian Operation in the East - Operation Bagration. Just look at the detail planning and deception around both operations - Operation Bagration is used as a text book model of deception even now.

[RabidGibbon]

I feel I have to make some points to answer some positions being posted in this thread. Russia did a hell of a lot of fighting in the second world war, without russia the allies would have lost/been forced to negotiate.

The same however (In my opinion) is true for russia. Perhaps no german divisons were despatched from the eastern front immedeatly after D-Day, but how many armoured div. never made it to the Eastern front because they were caught up in the battle of the bulge? To say D_Day had no effect on the war except political effects is to ignore the fact that stalin had been calling for just such an attack for 2 years.

[Marquis of Roland]

1400 U.S. fatalities. 1200 at Omaha and 200 at utah. The other 900 were between the Canadian and British forces.

Not bad. Pretty light losses for landing over 100,000 men. I'd take a 2.3% casualty rate in RTW anyday.

[The Stranger]

Not bad. Pretty light losses for landing over 100,000 men. I'd take a 2.3% casualty rate in RTW anyday.

if mine is higher than 3% i consider it a failure

[Grey_Fox]

There may have been only 2.3% overall casualties, but entire units ceased to exist after the landings. Not to mention that in Normandy a battalion bled to death faster than it would have at the Somme.