PDA

View Full Version : More Americans lost their lives on 9/11 than on D-Day?


pepperlandgirl
10-02-2001, 11:13 AM
I heard Mayor Guillani on SNL say that more Americans died on 9/11 than on D-Day. I really find that hard to believe. Less than 6000 Americans died on D-day? It seems that number is too small. Now, I'm really no WW2 scholar, and I don't know a lot about it, but it just seems that number is too small.

Photog
10-02-2001, 11:22 AM
Google is your friend

The result of the first two weeks of the Normandy invasion was a giant foothold for the Allied forces. Two ports were opened to the Allies providing a way for equipment and soldiers to move into France to back up the original Allied force. 57,000 prisoners were taken with only 4,000 French and 2,700 American lives being lost. This invasion was the beginning of the advance that eventually ended the war with Germany.

RealityChuck
10-02-2001, 11:46 AM
The bloodiest day on American soil (prior to this) was the Battle of Antietam during the Civil War. Estimates on that day were around 5000 dead.

bup
10-02-2001, 11:51 AM
Not that D-Day was on American soil...

SmackFu
10-02-2001, 11:56 AM
For D-Day, it seems to be 2400 casualties for Omaha Beach and 300 casualties for Utah Beach. Can't find figures for the Airborne anywhere. Keep in mind that casualties don't equal deaths. Wounded enough to stop fighting is a casualty as well.

Wumpus
10-02-2001, 12:12 PM
Google is your friend, but getting a straight answer to this one is more difficult than you might expect. Photog's cite is a bit odd because of its mention of 4,000 French casualties -- so far as I know, the Free French had only a token force involved on D-Day. (Maybe it refers to civilian bombing casualties?)

With considerable digging, I found this, which comes from a 1945 War Department publication on the D-Day landing at Omaha Beach:

"In the course of a week’s fighting casualties had mounted to 5,846 of which 1,225 were killed in action; more than half of these casualties came in the first day. Heaviest losses had fallen to the 29th Division, with 2,440 for the period; the 1st Division had 1,744 casualties, and
the 2d Division 855."

Mind you, I think this only includes troops at Omaha Beach. So casualties in, say, the 101st Airborne wouldn't be included; nor would the 210 casualties at Utah Beach.

See: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/wwii/D-Day/omaha.beach/omaha.txt

Jinx
10-02-2001, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by pepperlandgirl
I heard Mayor Guillani on SNL say that more Americans died on 9/11 than on D-Day. I really find that hard to believe...

Don't forget... Hawaii wasn't even a State yet! Not that it should matter, but it's not like it was the vacation spot we know today! Pearl Harbor was a military base - our foothold in the Pacific.

jcgmoi
10-02-2001, 12:46 PM
Hard to say for certain. I guess someone needs to look at the unit records.

From this Brit site: (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdday.htm)

At Omaha, steep cliffs favoured the defenders and the US Army suffered 2,500 casualties.

The Allies also sent in three airborne divisions, two American and one British, to prepare for the main assault by taking certain strategic points and by disrupting German communications. Of the 23,000 airborne troops, 15,500 were Americans and of these, 6,000 were killed or seriously wounded.

This site speaks of Utah beach: (http://txtx.essortment.com/ddaybeaches_rjse.htm)

Of the 23,000 American soldiers, 197 were killed and 60 were listed as missing in action.

So 2500 at Omaha, 250 at Utah and 6000 paratroopers (but how about the less seriously wounded?), plus support losses, plus MIAs.

Re Antietam: This site states (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/1845/antintro.html )
More men were killed or wounded on that day than on any other single day of the Civil War: some 12,400 Federal and 10,300 Confederate troops were casualties in about twelve hours of ferocious combat.

Wumpus
10-02-2001, 01:32 PM
All the numbers we're seeing indicate that the WTC deaths do indeed outnumber American D-Day deaths. 3,393 Americans were killed or missing on D-Day itself, according to the following site:

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/Europe07.html

However, it doesn't indicate whether "missing" includes captured POWs.

That 6000 casualties figure for airborne troops seems a bit off. According to the following site, there were 6035 American casualties on D-Day total:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2001/n06072001_200106072.html

That more-or-less coincides with the numbers given in the first link.

In any case, this demonstrates that the Web is not an all-purpose research tool. I spent about an hour fiddling around with this and still didn't get an acceptable answer. Someone sitting in a research library could get a good answer in about ten minutes by looking in the official military history.

Wumpus
10-02-2001, 03:21 PM
What do you know--the official US Army history of D-Day is online. Here's the chapter about D-Day itself:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_cont.htm

No table of casualties, alas. However, there is casualty information for the airborne units:

82nd Airborne: 156 killed, 756 missing.

101st Airborne: 182 killed, 501 missing.

Note that "missing" includes both MIAs and captured POWs.

The chapter explains the probable source of the 6,000 casualties figure for the airborne units. At the time, the 82nd Airborne reported 4,000 casualties, simply because so many of the paratroopers were dropped off-target and were lost. Of course, many of those lost troops eventually found their way back to the Allies. In August 1944, the figures were revised down to the ones quoted in this post.

Sofa King
10-02-2001, 04:01 PM
As Wumpus has shown, numbers are not necessarily to be trusted.

That having been said, I offer this table (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html) from the Information Please Almanac.

If we accept the current estimates of 6,000 dead and 7,000 injured, combine the two and call them "casualties," we see that the 13,000 victims of the attack on the World Trade Center exceed the total battlefield dead and wounded for

* The Gulf War (approx. 1,000)
* The Spanish American War (approx. 2,000)
* The Mexican War (approx. 5,900, not including those who succumbed to the vomito)
* The Indian Wars (1817-1898) (approx. 1,000)
* The War of 1812 (approx. 6,800)
* The Revolutionary War (approx. 10,500)

Leaving only the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea, and Vietnam with more "casualties," as I am defining it. Not one of those wars above claims more battlefield dead than the 6,000 presumed missing in New York, according to the above cited source.

Please note that these numbers don't include deaths due to illness, exposure, or privation, or civilian deaths, so the comparison is not strictly accurate.

Nevertheless, I think it is a sobering comparison.

HubZilla
10-02-2001, 04:24 PM
Wasn't Iwo Jima our bloodiest battle in WW2, moreso than D-Day? Although I'm not sure that was all in one day.

For the most Americans lost in a day, the hurricane at Galveston, Texas in Sept 1900 cost 7000 (according to my World Almanac).

micco
10-02-2001, 04:48 PM
Not to lessen the tragedy of the WTC attack or the losses in the battles cited, but this might lend some additional perspective.

The site referenced below puts the annual death rate at 9 per 1000 for the US. It also puts the US population at 284.5 million. This works out to about 7000/day.

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Other_reports/2000-2002/sheet1.html

friedo
10-02-2001, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Jinx
Originally posted by pepperlandgirl
I heard Mayor Guillani on SNL say that more Americans died on 9/11 than on D-Day. I really find that hard to believe...

Don't forget... Hawaii wasn't even a State yet! Not that it should matter, but it's not like it was the vacation spot we know today! Pearl Harbor was a military base - our foothold in the Pacific.

:confused: What does that have to do with D-Day?

HubZilla
10-02-2001, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by friedo


:confused: What does that have to do with D-Day?

Because the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Duh.

panamajack
10-02-2001, 06:50 PM
And was it over when they did that? Hell no!


Not to be overly morbid or anything, but what about outside America? What has been, so far, the single bloodiest day in history?

My guess is sometime in WWI (I've heard things like 40,000 total casualties in two days for battles, but I'm not up on my history of it.)

AbbySthrnAccent
10-02-2001, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by HubZilla
Originally posted by friedo


:confused: What does that have to do with D-Day?

Because the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Duh.

1) The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor
2) It's wasn't on D-Day

peepthis
10-02-2001, 07:04 PM
okay I admit it, I'm too lazy (and, um, inebriated) to plod through Google at the moment. But a friend has advised me that the deadliest day prior to the WTC attack was not the Battle of Antietam, as so many news reports lead us to believe. Apparently some hurricane/flood in Texas (Galveston???) long ago was deadlier. Anyone have info on this?

AbbySthrnAccent
10-02-2001, 07:11 PM
The Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 (http://www.mathstat.usouthal.edu/~lynn/hurricanes/galveston.html)

The 1900 Storm: Galveston, Texas (http://www.1900storm.com)

AbbySthrnAccent
10-02-2001, 07:26 PM
The invasion of Normandy (D-Day) took place June 5, 1944 (http://normandy.eb.com/).

The bombing of Pearl Harbor Hawaii by the Japanese took place December 7, 1941 (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/dec07.html).

Wumpus
10-02-2001, 07:38 PM
Nitpicking: The invasion of Normandy took place on June 6, 1944. (The invasion was originally scheduled for June 5, but was postponed a day due to bad weather.)

AbbySthrnAccent
10-02-2001, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Wumpus
Nitpicking: The invasion of Normandy took place on June 6, 1944. (The invasion was originally scheduled for June 5, but was postponed a day due to bad weather.)

I stand corrected, my apologies.

Just Ed
10-02-2001, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by HubZilla
Originally posted by friedo


:confused: What does that have to do with D-Day?

Because the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

Duh.

Leave 'im alone, he's on a roll.

Psst . . . Abby - WHOOSH!

friedo
10-02-2001, 09:20 PM
Abby, Hubzilla's comments were a reference to the classic film Animal House, one of the greatest works of the last century. (It's right up there with Citizen Kane, I swear.)

pepperlandgirl
10-02-2001, 09:23 PM
Wow, I don't think I could have posted a more depressing question. :(
I would have done the google thing myself, but this question occurred to me as I was logging off to go to school. Thank you everybody for doing the legwork, and plodding through all those numbers. The way I'm feeling, I probably wouldn't have been able to handle it. Jesus...

Cartooniverse
10-02-2001, 09:38 PM
Since this IS G.Q. and NOT B.B.Q. Pit, I'll say this as very politely as I can.

Quixotic, how about if you save the scatalogical insultingly immature remarks like " whoosh" for the Pit, where they belong.

AbbySthrnAccent did some fair and good web research, to answer a percieved question. It hardly warranted a snide and insulting retort. Perhaps simply explaining the source of your post might have been a bit more in line with what we usually do here in G.Q..

And, no, I'm not posing as a Moderator. I'm behaving as a Member. I can't imagine you'll apologize, but know that some of us here actually appreciated the effort that went into the research, just as we do for anyone who does legwork on behalf of a query.

And, as a film lover- Citizen Kane has everything, and Animal House has pedophelia, vomiting in public and anarchy. It was fine at the age of 16. It doesn't really hold up IMHO.

Cartooniverse

manhattan
10-02-2001, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Cartooniverse
Quixotic, how about if you save the scatalogical insultingly immature remarks like " whoosh" for the Pit, where they belong.

AbbySthrnAccent did some fair and good web research, to answer a percieved question. It hardly warranted a snide and insulting retort. Perhaps simply explaining the source of your post might have been a bit more in line with what we usually do here in G.Q..
Um, I think Quix was simply observing that Abby did not "get" the fact that Hubzilla was making an Animal House reference.

I'm not seeing any genuine insults here. Am I missing something? And if not, can we please return to the OP?

AbbySthrnAccent
10-02-2001, 09:51 PM
I haven't seen Animal House and did not get the reference. My apologies to everyone.

dtilque
10-03-2001, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by panamajack
Not to be overly morbid or anything, but what about outside America? What has been, so far, the single bloodiest day in history?
The greatest known disaster in terms of loss of life was an earthquake in Tangshan, China, at 3:42 a.m. on July 28, 1976. The (official?) death toll for that quake was 242,419. However, it's unlikely that all of them died the same day.

Originally posted by Cartooniverse
... the scatalogical insultingly immature remarks like " whoosh" ...
Not to beat a ex-equine, but just in case Cartooniverse runs across this again. "Whoosh" is not scatological, nor especially insulting. It's just the sound a joke going over a person's head.

Jeremy's Evil Twin
10-03-2001, 10:56 AM
A quick Google search turned up a death toll for Iwo Jima of 6800-7000, with 17000 injured. But Okinawa was bloodier, with 7600 dead and 55000 injured. That one probably tops the WTC disaster, although I don't think they were all killed in a single day.

Still...on a global scale, that doesn't remotely compare to 70,000 Japanese dead in Nagasaki; 130,000 dead in the bombing of Dresden, Germany; approx. 800,000 dead in the ethnic cleansing of Rwanda; 1.8 million dead in the Cambodian Khmer Rouge; etc. etc. We Americans really do have it easy, you know.

Sofa King
10-03-2001, 01:03 PM
Iwo and Okinawa were also fairly long campaigns, not single-day incidents.

As these boards have shown in the past, there is a slightly different superlative for virtually any major bloody event in U.S. history. The list I offered above was simply to show where this most recent event fits in the overall picture.

As I hope I implied before, the attacks of September 11 are (and hopefully will be) unique, and therefore do not compare easily with any prior events.

Spavined Gelding
10-03-2001, 02:04 PM
Antietam

According to Battles and Leaders, casualties at the battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg in September 1862, conventionally the bloodiest day in American history, were:

Army of the Potomac (Union), 2108 dead, 9549 wounded, 753 missing or captured, total casualties 12,410 out of an army of 87,000, of whom about 60,000 were engaged.

Army of Northern Virginia (Confederate), 1512 dead, 7816 wounded, 1844 missing or captured, total casualties of 11,172 from a force Gen. Lee reported as being less than 40,000.

So, dead on the field for both armies combined of about 3600, as opposed to the approximately 7000 dead at WTC, the Pentagon and the crash in Pennsylvania. The difference, of course is that every one of those killed at Antietam was a soldier and was deliberately in harm’s way, while not one of those killed on Sep.11 was a combatant in any sense of the word.

SenorBeef
10-03-2001, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by pepperlandgirl
I heard Mayor Guillani on SNL say that more Americans died on 9/11 than on D-Day. I really find that hard to believe. Less than 6000 Americans died on D-day? It seems that number is too small. Now, I'm really no WW2 scholar, and I don't know a lot about it, but it just seems that number is too small.

D-Day was actually relative low in casualties, but it serves as our most known, and most romantic battle of the war. The conditions on omaha beach and such give people a false impression that there were massive casualties.

For perspective, more people died in the D-Day rehearsal (off the coast of England) than in the actual invasion. A few german equivelants of PT boats really ruined everyone's day.

Wumpus
10-03-2001, 07:10 PM
Senor: According to the US Army history of D-Day cited above, some 700 people died when the LST landing craft were sunk during the rehearsal. That's far cry from the 1200+ confirmed killed on D-Day itself, not to mention the missing.

Just Ed
10-03-2001, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by manhattan
Um, I think Quix was simply observing that Abby did not "get" the fact that Hubzilla was making an Animal House reference.

I'm not seeing any genuine insults here.

Originally posted by dtilque
Not to beat a ex-equine, but just in case Cartooniverse runs across this again. "Whoosh" is not scatological, nor especially insulting. It's just the sound a joke going over a person's head.

Main Entry: sca·tol·o·gy
Pronunciation: ska-'tä-l&-jE, sk&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek skat-, skOr excrement; akin to Old English scearn dung, Latin muscerdae mouse droppings
Date: 1876
1 : interest in or treatment of obscene matters especially in literature
2 : the biologically oriented study of excrement (as for taxonomic purposes or for the determination of diet)
- scat·o·log·i·cal /"ska-t&l-'ä-ji-k&l/ adjective

No insult implied, intended or imparted. :confused:

ShibbOleth
10-04-2001, 12:26 AM
It should at least be noted that not everyone lost in the WTC was an American, per se. I recall seeing that as many as 500 were British, and there were many other nationalities involved as well. Which may bring the number of U.S. citizens lost to fewer than 6,000.

Still a horrific toll by any measure, to be sure. Just didn't want to lose sight that this tragedy and the unifying response has thus far transcended borders.

BratGirl
10-04-2001, 01:45 AM
According to this site discussing the Battle of the Somme (http://british-forces.com/world_war1/Campaigns/somme1916.htm), over four months of battle both sides "lost" (they don't say whether that means died, or dead and wounded, but "lost" sounds like "died" to me)1.2 million men.

My mind can't even comprehend that large a number of dead.

Northern Piper
10-12-2001, 02:27 AM
The difference, of course is that every one of those killed at Antietam was a soldier and was deliberately in harm’s way, while not one of those killed on Sep.11 was a combatant in any sense of the word.

Wouldn't the military personnel at the Pentagon be considered combatants?