Today’s Cracked Photoplasty is "Shocking facts that will change how you picture history. This here slide makes the point “1944, Normandy. The British second army: 83,115 Men. The US First Army: Approx. 73,000 Men”.
What am I supposed to be shocked at?
I had always thought the invasion force was huge. 250,000 at least. There were multiple beachheads Utah, Sword, Omaha, Gold and Juno.
Cracked left out the Canadians. They had a large force too mostly on Juno
Yes, 25K or so of us Canucks. I guess I’m not shocked because those are about the numbers I was expecting.
That they can account for the exact number of Brits but can only estimate the American to the nearest thousand? 
That’s all I can come up with…
I dunno. Maybe most of us Yanks think D-Day was, primarily, an American invasion? We did take the brunt of the causalities and most film I’ve seen shows Americans.
Because a lot of Americans think that we won World War II all by ourselves with John Wayne up there on the front line.
That list is really terrible. One bit has a note that the Roman empire wasn’t that large compared to other, larger empires, and includes Ireland, which was never, ever under Roman control, either de facto or de jure. Other dubious claims start with phrases like “It has been calculated” and “It has been claimed.” That’s lousy even for Cracked.
Ah! Just in the spirit of overcoming ignorance, then, I’ll point out that that John Wayne actually fought in the Pacific, and
. . . he died!
I think you are supposed to be shocked that the British landed more total troops than the Americans did on D-Day. The typical narrative is that it was overwhelming American numbers and firepower that carried the day.
Good summary of the beaches and forces involved.
According to Wiki, the Canadian (also relatively small numbers of French) soldiers were wrapped into the British total. When they were subtracted out, about 62,000 soldiers of the force were, um, … British British.
The Canadian troops were part of the British 2nd army. There were about 10,000 more Americans troops than troops from the UK, but thestrength of the UK and Canadian contingent was greater than the American contingent by about 10,000 troops.
The Nazi numbers are a lot more surprising then the Allied ones. Only 10,000 vs 150,000 for the Allies.
Also I think movies give a somewhat skewed vision of D-Day by focusing on Omaha beach where casulties were really high. I remember looking up casualties for all the landings and being surprised by how low they were.
The Germans were enormously well dug in along the coastline, multiplying their force against the undefended invaders.
Fortunately, the Sardinia deception and the massive Russian efforts in the weeks before (just discussed in another thread) kept them from reinforcing the Normandy line before we dug in ourselves. Besides minimizing the Allied help with the invasion, this is one case where the Russian contribution has all but been forgotten in US histories.
I can tell you what I’m shocked at…
The fact that you’re relying on Cracked for factual information. 
I can tell you what I’m shocked at…
The fact that you’re relying on Cracked for factual information.
This.
Americans also tend to completely ignore that whole other front that was over there. They know the Soviets were involved and did some fighting and stuff but are pretty sure that in the grand scheme of things it didn’t amount to much. The reality is that the U.S. suffered about half a million deaths in WWII. The Soviets, by comparison, suffered somewhere between 9 and 15 million deaths (depending on whose statistics you go by). So while we think John Wayne and Hurrah! and we did everything important, the Soviets are more like it was our war and you stupid Americans just came in for a tiny bit at the end and didn’t really contribute much. While both the typical American view and the typical Soviet view are both a bit biased and skewed due to patriotism, I think it’s safe to say that the Soviet version is probably closer to the truth.
^Yes, I recall one of the dopers in another thread calling WWII a war between Germany and the USSR, with a side skirmish in Western Europe.
And JBD? I heard you the first time!
It is far better to state that this was a massively cooperative affair, the war may well not have been won without any one of the major allies.
US casualties through the whole of this war were less than UK (including colonies), but these are dwarfed in sheer numbers by those of the Chinese and Russians (partly also depends when you decide WWII actually started)
In terms of percentage of populations killed then its likely to be Poland or perhaps one of the Balkan states where the death toll was horrific.
Gregory House, MD: Sorry, you put the queen on your money, you’re British.