I didn’t see any threads on it… so I guess I’ll start one.
I would like to pay homage to D-Day veterans and dead. American, British, Canadian, NZ, Australians, Allied, German and French alike. I am happy that great [ceremonies](http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/05/dday.main/index.html) are happening in France and elsewhere to mark the 60th anniversary.
D-Day was a turning point of WWII. Happy that we still have a lot of veterans around to honor. I hope they enjoy their special day.
( I’m a big fan of Rommel and I’m glad the high german command screwed up his plans to defend Normandy too. )
Ditto. We’re damn lucky he (and many other German officers) were off guard.
Actually, I’ve been trying to think of a D-Day thread topic all week (thanks in part to the History Channel’s bombardment). The only thing I could think of is always quite negative to the invasion: 1) Genius planning, or blind luck? (answer: a bit of both, as usual), and 2) How can it be called “the biggest battle of history” (as the History Channel proudly proclaims), when, while strategically a watershed, it wasn’t all THAT big of a battle, relative to everything else. But both of those topics are a disservice to all of the men in the operation(s) involved.
On Memorial Day, I decided to toast to the Merchant Marine and everyone else in the Transatlantic. Today, I will lift my wine glass to… the various intel divisions.
Perhaps a good topic for debate (this IS GD after all :)) would be: How important was D-Day to defeating the Germans? I’ve seen it bandied about here on the SDMB and elsewhere that the US (and the UK’s) involvement in the European campaign was unnecessary (and irrelevant), as the Russians had things well under control and would have easily defeated the Germans in the end reguardless of what the other allies did. Was it really necessary to open up a second (or 3rd if you count the invasion of Sicily/Itaily) front against the Germans in France if the Russians were just going to win anyway? Or did the allies simply do this to be in on the spoils and cut the valliant Soviets out of the lions share of Western Europe?
Finally, in light of the ease with which the Soviets would have defeated Germany on their own, should America even become involved at all in yet another European squabble…at the price we paid in lives and treasure…after all, it wasn’t OUR fight, was it? Should we have simply focused on our own (minor according to some here) war in the Pacific. After all, it was the Japanese who attacked us, and we diverted considerable effort AWAY from this war to help the Europeans fight the Axis powers (and now its said it was unnecessary)…effort that could have been better spent focusing on the Japanese and shortening the war in the Pacific for us. Sure, Germany declared war on us too, but Germany was doomed anyway and no threat to the US…Russia was handling all that. Oh, we might have beefed up our Navy in the Atlantic to ward off the U-Boat threat, but was it necessary (or desirable from the US perspective) to commit combat troops and spend the kinds of money we spent on the European theater?
First off, Homage to those who gave up their lives and bravely fought in D-Day!
Ever since Stalingrad, the Russians had been pushing back Germany, regaining Russian land and then breaking into Ukrainian territory. Russian generals were learning very quickly how to handle armies, gain initiative, and deal with blitzkrieg tactics ( German Generals, on the other hand, still had to refer to Hitlers word whether or not they could retreat from a position, oftimes wasting days of artillery bombardment while the fuhrer contemplated an answer. Stalin had been stopping this sort of MicroManagement, much to the success of his generals ).
But the main problems facing the Axis in defending Eastern Europe was a lack of Manpower. Hitler had planned to use scorched Earth tactics in key resource areas in the Soviet Union - Mines, PowerPlants, Railyards. But they didnt have the proper personel to destroy more then small fractions of these. They didnt have the forces to turn defensive points like the Dnieper into well manned blocking points that could have stopped Russia. I believe about 45% of The Axis army had been stationed in Western Europe, waiting the eventual Allied invasion. While the Eastern front was too far away for these guys to have done any good in the first half of 44, they could have, at least been used to buffer up Germany a bit if the Russians set foot their. Providing, of course, the invasion of Normandy never happened.
Russia could very well have made it to Berlin on their own, but to call the Normandy invasion unnecessary or Irrelevant should certainly seem a bit harsh. War can be full of unpredictable events and battles that completely reverse the tide, and to go back to 1944 and put all ones eggs in the Russian basket could have had dire results. If nothing else, the Red Army probably wouldnt have been able to reach Berlin so quickly, would have suffered far more casualties, and may have well been stopped cold. Heck, if Russia could hold Stalingrad and turn it into a succesful counterattack, I don’t see a similar upset couldnt have occured in Germany.
Of course, had D-Day not happened, and the Soviet Union made it to Berlin without it, they probably wouldn’t have stopped, and a Soviet controlled Europe would have been a real possibility.
Well, actually I agree. I think that each of the allies played a role in the defeat of Germany, and that each of them was vital in the victory. I’m not one who thinks that the US saved the day and did it all…but I’m also not one who thinks their role was irrelevant. I think a lot of people who make that claim do so based on the relative casualties suffered by each of the combatants, and come to the conclusion that because the US suffered the least, so its role was the least. I didn’t say I was claiming it was ‘unnecessary’ or ‘irrelevant’ btw…just that I’ve heard people on this board make that claim.
I think the folks making the claim that the Soviets could have done it all would tell you that it doesn’t matter…the Soviets would have simply collapsed under their own weight anyway, so why worry about it? The US didn’t have anything to do with the eventual collapse of the Soviets (so I’ve heard), so if they had of marched all the way to the English channel (which I assume they would have done if they had of beaten Germany…they kind of would have had too, as Germany occupied France and several other countries as well), it wouldn’t have made much difference in the long run anyway…
Maybe D-Day was more about how much land was given over to the Soviets and not about the ultimate defeat of Hitler. Still it represents Allied involvement in many ways.
Had Hitler been able to use his divisions in Norway and France… I’m not too sure the Soviets would have handled things as they did.
I am not enough of an historian to argue the points of necessity, but I do want to add my voice to the thread.
When Normandy was invaded by the Allies, I was a few weeks short of my first birthday. So I am 60 now. In April, for the first time, I saw some of the beaches of Normandy. We flew over them on a flight out of Paris.
After half a century of interest, I had only a moment or so to see them. A hundred things went through my mind.
If abstracts could attach themselves and linger in a place, that is one place where courage would live. But Utah Beach looked so clean and quiet in the early afternoon sun – white rollers moving against the sand as if nothing had happened.