D-day

[IliaDN]

So do you consider it a major battle in WW II which had mainly affected the result of the war, or just a smart tactical political move not to lose ( or gain ) more influence in Europe?
If the sense of the question is not fully clear tell me for more details.

[clayton ballentine]

i think it was a important battle

[Kagemusha]

I would say that Landing at Normandy was a logigal move for the Western allies.If they would have tryed to punch through Northern Italy and the Alps,it could have turned into catastrophy.They needed more space to deploy their forces and landing in Normandy provided them that space to operate.

[clayton ballentine]

that sounds true also that was our only choice if wanted to win the war.

[IliaDN]

What I want to know is:
was that operation really a neccessity?

[Kagemusha]

What i know,Stalin demanded it.I believe that Western front was the secondary in Europe,but if there would been only Eastern front,i think Soviet Union would have been in trouble.

[IliaDN]

Well it was opened when the eastern front was trouble for Germany.
IMHO that was done not to lose control over Germany after the war.

[master of the puppets]

it was not a true neccesity, we would not have lost without it but it was the smartest move at the time, like they said we already had italy and we could have moved through the alps but we would have encountered fierce resistance. in fact most of the german panzers were waiting for an attack on the alps led by general patton. what d-day did was for all intensive purposes was a very big flanking menuever to get around the brunt of the nazi's forces.

[IliaDN]

it was not a true neccesity, we would not have lost without it but it was the smartest move at the time, like they said we already had italy and we could have moved through the alps but we would have encountered fierce resistance. in fact most of the german panzers were waiting for an attack on the alps led by general patton. what d-day did was for all intensive purposes was a very big flanking menuever to get around the brunt of the nazi's forces.

But loses were terrible ... were they?

[Kagemusha]

It was to support the main Russian summer offensive.To tie up German strategic reserves.It needed to be done.I cant really think what could have been a better alternative for western allies.About the casulties,It was very well co-ordinated ambhibious assault.Ofcourse first actual wawes that took the beaches had many casulties,but Allied airforces halted the German counter offensive effectively.

[Franconicus]

Sorry, double post!

[Franconicus]

It was not necessary. The threat of a landing would have been enough to keep German troops in France. Not landong in France would have given the chance to conquer Germany without fighting all its armies.
Pushing through Italy was not the alternative. Plan B was to land in Yugoslavia and the march towards Poland. That was Churchill's idea. It would have met only weak German forces, taken the full strength of allied navies, cut off German Ostfront and liberated Middle Europe.

The advantages of D Day was that France was liberated earlier and the England did not have to suffer from German attacks that much. Also the backbone of the German airforce was broken. German submarines did not matter much after the landing.

But loses were terrible ... were they?

Losses were not high, ar least on the allied side. They lost a lot at the landinmg, but in total the losses were much less than at a comparable operation of the Red Army.
German losses were desastrous, of course.

[Oaty]

But loses were terrible ... were they?

First of all there are no accurate statistic for d-day. ~2300 fatalities and 10,000 wounded on d-day. 1200 of the fatalities occurred at Omaha beach. Utah beach was in much better shape with only 200 fatalities.

Most of the casualties and fatalities occurred at Omaha beach, due to it recieving the least amount of damage from the infiltration of paratroopers and the preceding bombing raids. Most or all of the big guns were still in tact when the troops were landing there. Also it was probabaly the most natural defensive position out of all the beaches hit.

[pezhetairoi]

D-Day was an operation done as much for political reasons (letting the Allies be seen as liberators instead of fortress-sitters) as for military considerations. It was, I believe, done through a genuine wish to help the Russians in the East. It was necessary from the political sense, and perhaps also from the military perspective as it divided the German forces, though it was less necessary from this point of view. Losses were not as great as feared, and definitely yes, I agree that losses on many Pacific islands were greater perhaps not numerically but at least in terms of proportion of invasion waves. Betio comes to mind as a good example.

Just my two cents. Gelatinous Cube, Oppenheimer actually said 'I am become Death, shatterer of worlds.' His words... Just so your quote is more accurate. I like that quote, incidentally :)

[Oaty]

Just imagine D-day if hitler allowed Rommel to take full control of the situation at d-day.

[CBR]

Just my two cents. Gelatinous Cube, Oppenheimer actually said 'I am become Death, shatterer of worlds.' His words... Just so your quote is more accurate. I like that quote, incidentally :)

GC's quote is actually correct. Here is a video clip: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie8.shtml and some info about it here: http://www.faktoider.nu/oppenheimer_eng.html

D-Day itself was not that important as Germany would have fallen anyway. By 1944 it was a losing struggle and it was only a question of time. Germany's industry was being outproduced as well as disrupted by allied air raids and the fuel supply was reaching critical levels as the synthetic fuel production had been nearly wiped out by early summer '44.

But D-day meant that Stalin didnt get western europe so in that sense it was very important.


CBR

[edyzmedieval]

D-Day was a important battle.

Hitler had his country's economy working at max speed. But the problem was that fuel, necessary for tanks and airplanes, was at critical levels.
At the end of the war, Hitler had the tanks and airplanes, but had no fuel.

Romania, as some might realize, was a very important link in the defeat of Hitler.

[Mikeus Caesar]

As well as all the other reasons stated here, it also prevented Uncle Stalin from rolling through Germany and into the rest of Western Europe.

[The Stranger]

d-day was important, becuz it would divert the attention of hitler. it now had to great treats to watch out for. it was also imrtant to free as much of europe before the russians did. cuz everybody knew that once they'd conquered it they sure werent going to hand it back as america did. Russia was a worthy ally for both sides, but even more a dangerous communist threat.

if d-day wouldnt have taken place, the war would have taken much longer. i dont believe germany would have won. but whe were going to be in syberian death camps.
after berlin had fallen hitler would have evecuated or commited suicide, but russian wouldnt have stopped fighting. maybe steamroling over switzerland as well.

if D-day would have failed but did took place, it would have been even more catastropheus (sp?). it would boost the german morale and maybe crack that of stalin, wich i highly doubt. but atleast england wouldnt have been a threat anymore, and he would underestimate america.

[The Stranger]

Just imagine D-day if hitler allowed Rommel to take full control of the situation at d-day.

it would have been an even bigger masacre, possible defeat. wasnt he in berlin celebrating his wife birthday. D-day was a succes mostly due english inteligence and french resistance, and ofcour germany's arrogance.

[The Stranger]

First of all there are no accurate statistic for d-day. ~2300 fatalities and 10,000 wounded on d-day. 1200 of the fatalities occurred at Omaha beach. Utah beach was in much better shape with only 200 fatalities.

Most of the casualties and fatalities occurred at Omaha beach, due to it recieving the least amount of damage from the infiltration of paratroopers and the preceding bombing raids. Most or all of the big guns were still in tact when the troops were landing there. Also it was probabaly the most natural defensive position out of all the beaches hit.

2300 american fatalities right.?.?

[CBR]

Just so people know what happened on the Eastern front around the time of the fighting in Normandy Operation Bagration


CBR

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.