The edited invasion of Normandy

[Catsby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3780381.stm

Catsby hopes you were able to see the documentary on BBC1 just now. Catsby was moved deeply, and hopes that he can appreciate the humility of the veterans, and also appreciate the stability of the world he was born to.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2/

 

[SoWat]

It was a great docu-drama.

I've just finished reading Stephem Amrose's 'D-Day' book. It's taken from the oral history archives of participants, and is both appalling and humbling at the same time.

 

[Ukle]

It was very impressive it hit the exact right tone for me. Not dramatic but factual but telling it in a way that drew you in. Although it got off to a slow start...

Only thing that got me about this D-day weekend was the veiled (and not so veiled) references to Iraq in most of the programming

 

[Athena]

I spent some time in Normandy last year and visited Omaha, Utah and Gold beaches.
However the day I went to American Cemetry and Memorial was extremely moving.

http://www.abmc.gov/no.htm

I think anyone reading this who's been there will understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Ukle]

The thing is all the main empire of a time have committed atrocities. British troops in many conflicts have not exactly done themselves proud same as the French and the Roman. The only difference with the Americans is that there are Cameras to record all the atrocities...

Humans are humans... people seem to think that all because we have advanced technologically that we forget the urges that unbalance what we call civilization. It is human nature to prove that you are the stronger... whether it be on the battlefield, the football pitch, work or at school. It is that which is the common factor behind all atrocities in war and as long as there is war there will be atroctities as we are only human as we are always trying to prove that we are more powerful than each other.

 

[Stazbumpa]

How the hell the Americans got off Omaha beach I will never know, they must've fought like fucking tigers. Thank god those British, American and Canadian men were alive when they were because if the balloon went up again today, I doubt that anyone would have the stomach to stand and fight.
They were a different breed, a better breed I believe. They didn't whinge or complain or hide behind dubious moral or political objections.

They faced death, knew it, but went and did their duty anyway.
Real courage, which most of us don't have now.

 

[leggy]

How the hell the Americans got off Omaha beach I will never know, they must've fought like fucking tigers. Thank god those British, American and Canadian men were alive when they were because if the balloon went up again today, I doubt that anyone would have the stomach to stand and fight.
They were a different breed, a better breed I believe. They didn't whinge or complain or hide behind dubious moral or political objections.

They faced death, knew it, but went and did their duty anyway.
Real courage, which most of us don't have now.

I will tell you again: "you are my hero"

I couldn't agree more.

 

[old.Tohtori]

When we respect the ones who died for their country, do we include the nazis?

Just curious on peoples opinion on that. Are the soldier of one side better then the other?

Personally, life is a life.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Good question. Nice to think of the Nazi's as an entirely evil bunch of people and that everyone was in on it. Not strictly true, but I would say that the majority were, although a lot of Germans hated Hitler and the way Germany was going from the outset. Not sure were I sit on this one now you mention it.

However, Germany was the aggressor, we were liberating Europe, so I suppose one way of looking at it would be to ask should we, the liberators and the liberated, remember German soldiers as we remember our own when the Germans were an occupying army that shouldn't have been in Normandy anyway?

Not entirely fair I'll agree, but if Germany hadn't allowed Hitler into power in the first place then WW2 and D-Day need never have happened. Let us remember and celebrate our soldiers and let Germany mourn their dead in their own way, because at heart Germany's soldiers died for nothing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

because at heart Germany's soldiers died for nothing.

Only thing i'll comment on, otherwise it's your opinion but...

In war, there's noone who died for something. It's always for nothing.

 

[Vae]

Only thing i'll comment on, otherwise it's your opinion but...

In war, there's noone who died for something. It's always for nothing.

I would disagree with this - I think that the pilots in the Battle of Britain died to save Britain from occupation. That the people who died liberating Europe died to restore freedom/freewill to people who would otherwise have lost that freedom or been killed e.g. think about what would have happened to the British Jews if Britain had been conquered. I'm sure most people would agree (especially those who did die).

Ultimately I accept that what the people died for is insignificant in the course of history but it isn't to the people at the time who had their lives saved etc

 

[Stazbumpa]

In war, there's noone who died for something. It's always for nothing.

But that is over simplifying things a bit. Germany's soldiers fought for a homicidal self obsessed dictator (bit like the Russians actually, but they were defending their country) who wanted control of Europe and eradication of any race that didnt fit in with his ideals. They fought as aggressors in a war that their country started for no good reason(s), although rhetoric at the time would have led them to believe otherwise.
That is dying for nothing in my book.

The Allied soldiers fought first as defenders and then as attackers in order to free Europe from Nazi rule and oppression. Not their own countries freedom, but other countries.
Is fighting in the defence of your nation and then for the freedom of your neighbours not something?

Hopefully I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but your post seems to lean towards a non interventionist view, which in the case of WW2 is plain silly.
As food for though I will leave the following 2 quotes:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

If a man has not found something for which he is willing to die, then he is not fit to live.

Martin Luther King

I like to think that the last quote can apply to people you love

 

[old.Tohtori]

Then, we can say, that the nazi soldiers(and the forced soldiers), didn't die for nothing. They strived to make a greater country. Heck, noone is saying that the ones dying in america against the native americans, when it was first conquered, died for nothing. I'm no colaberator, i really don't have any feelings towards nazis or their train of thought. They had a cool dress/armament style but that's it. I'm just looking at the flipside of the coin aswell.

EDIT: Written as Stazbumpa was writing.

 

[SoWat]

A little over-looked fact is that the Allies, apart from liberating Europe, also liberated the Germans. Sure, a goodly portion were whole-hearted Nazis, but a heck of a lot more were not.

 

[Catsby]

A little over-looked fact is that the Allies, apart from liberating Europe, also liberated the Germans. Sure, a goodly portion were whole-hearted Nazis, but a heck of a lot more were not.

Upon Catsby's travels to Normandy two weeks ago, he believes that is the view shared by most in the mainland.

Catsby is glad the main driver is reconciliation and accpetance, rather than (as has been demonstrated in this thread) blind hatred, cynicism, and tarring entire countries with one brush. For, Catsby believes, the latter were in part to blame for the second world war.

 

[Driwen]

Good question. Nice to think of the Nazi's as an entirely evil bunch of people and that everyone was in on it. Not strictly true, but I would say that the majority were, although a lot of Germans hated Hitler and the way Germany was going from the outset. Not sure were I sit on this one now you mention it.

However, Germany was the aggressor, we were liberating Europe, so I suppose one way of looking at it would be to ask should we, the liberators and the liberated, remember German soldiers as we remember our own when the Germans were an occupying army that shouldn't have been in Normandy anyway?

I doubt most germans actually wanted jews to die, but yes most did want a bigger and more important country. However many countries want that, most wont fight to get it though. Also most soldiers werent evil, they were in the army because they got drafted, first believed hitlers promises of a great germany or later on the war because being the army might be safer than living in a big german city or working in a factory.

Not entirely fair I'll agree, but if Germany hadn't allowed Hitler into power in the first place then WW2 and D-Day need never have happened. Let us remember and celebrate our soldiers and let Germany mourn their dead in their own way, because at heart Germany's soldiers died for nothing.

if UK, France and the US hadnt signed such a humiliating treaty in versaille than Hitler wouldnt have had the ability to come to power.
Germany made a mistake with electing Hitler to power, but it isnt uncommon in other countries even now for extreme right to get many votes.
I dont know for sure, but it is very possible that Versaille meant that WW2 was inevitable (that doesnt make it any less wrong for the germans, but it does put some blame to the allied forces aswell).
Besides that without Hitler Germany still couldnt have a reasonable sized army no navy no airforce and wouldnt have control over some part of their own country (in west germany France(+uk??) had over some important industry province as part of the treaty).
You can reason that german soldiers died defending their own country's (honour) aswell, as it was taken 20 years before and now had to attack to get it back. However the reason why germany should be at D-Day is to say that we should stop thinking about who is to blame, but instead just realise what events lead to WW2 so we can prevent it from happening and all mourn that it happened.

Also note that it was a very different time than it is now, as everyone still had colonies at that time and the way of thinking about war was most likely also different (maybe even similar to how people thought about WW1?).

Anyway WW2 happened, we cant change that. The Germans do regret it happened and it does very little good to not want to reconcile with them and both mourn it happening together.

 

[DaGaffer]

Twaddle - beaten the Nazis back ? All we had done is maintained air superiority over the channel so that Hitler decided not to bother invading England and concentrate on the USSR instead. If it hadn't been for all the help the USA had been giving us during that time, even before it formally entered the war, Hitler may well have made a different decision. The US leaders were helping us all the time. They just thought the people wouldn't support the US entering the war until Japan made the first strike for the Axis. If you think we could have done D-Day without the US then you are an idiot.

Britain may have shown a lot of courage but it was the combined might of the US and the USSR which eventually proved too much for the Axis to handle.

/edit: It's times like this you feel the need for Xane.

Its far more complicated than that. The Battle of Britain was as much a psychological and political victory as 'maintaining air superiority'. The Americans hadn't really started to support Britain at this point - Lend-Lease wasn't instigated until Spring '41, so winning the Battle of Britain helped swing public opinion in the States and allow Rooseveldt to get Lend-Lease through (a still very isolationist) Congress. Also, it was the first German defeat of the war, something that not only the British needed after Dunkirk, but also all those people under occupation. The Battle of Britain also had a knock-on effect on the timing of Barbarossa, which ultimately lead to the failure to reach Moscow and Leningrad, buying the Russians some much needed time.

No, we couldn't have won the war without American material help, but we probably wouldn't have lost either. The nearest we came to losing the war after the Battle of Britain was in the Battle of The Atlantic, and most of the reasons we won the U-boat war was because of Royal Navy tactics and British inventions.

And always bear in mind that D-Day itself was under British tactical command, and that more British and Empire troops took part than Americans, and part of the reason the Americans got so badly mauled at Omaha was because they refused to follow British doctrine; no 'funny' tanks, and a much shorter artillery barrage (40 mins instead of 2 hours) than the British used on their beaches.

The allied war effort was a balance of forces, and you can't take one element out and say 'oh if it wasn't for...x..y would have lost. It took all three to beat the Axis; and any one of the three probably wouldn't have prevailed without the others (even in the Pacific, the Japanese would have held on much longer if they weren't threatened by the Australians in the south and Anglo-Indians in the west).

 

[Catsby]

From the BBC
American soldiers also managed to land on the westernmost beach - Utah - without major casualties.

But at nearby Omaha, they suffered severe losses as they encountered a crack division of German troops.

Infantry conducting a frontal assault against a deliberate defense in daylight won the battle for Omaha Beach. The cost of this improvisation was high. Why did the plan fail? Russell Weigley provided the orthodox answer: "The American attack thus stalled throughout D-Day morning, to oblige General Bradley to ponder evacuation. It was painful pondering, in which he might not have had to engage had he himself and all the American planners not so blandly accepted the translation of head-on, power drive strategy into tactics of head-on infantry assault."[9] British historian Max Hastings observed: "V Corps's plan for Omaha eschewed tactical subtleties, the use of British specialized armour, and any attempt to seize the five vital beach exits by manoeuvre. Instead, General Gerow committed his men to hurling themselves frontally against the most strongly defended areas in the assault zone. This was an act of hubris compounded by the collapse amidst the rough weather."[

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/lewis_omaha.html

Catsby thinks that historians may disagree with your reasoning for the casualties suffered at Omaha beach

 

[Wij]

The allied war effort was a balance of forces, and you can't take one element out and say 'oh if it wasn't for...x..y would have lost. It took all three to beat the Axis; and any one of the three probably wouldn't have prevailed without the others (even in the Pacific, the Japanese would have held on much longer if they weren't threatened by the Australians in the south and Anglo-Indians in the west).

That's what I was saying.

 

[Stazbumpa]

DaGaffer speaketh the truth, for we did inflict Hitlers first defeat, after which Hitler did a Napolean and marched on Moscow, which just isn't the done thing. That is were he lost the war in my opinion, because fighting front and rear at the same time is NEVER a good plan.
Point is that we had averted an invasion of Britain and so for us at least, the war was not lost. More like a stalemate.

Europe would never have been liberated without the combined effort of the USA, Britain and Canada this is painfully obvious. Maybe my "they died for nothing" statement was a tad harsh, certainly the German soldiers fighting against the Russians had no illusions of what would happen to their families if the Russian troops got hold of them.
So it might not be unwise to say that at this stage of the war they were'nt exactly fighting for Hitler anymore, but to defend their families from a very nasty bunch of people. The Hitler vs Stalin war was not nice by any means.

I'm not sure that the Allies can be partly blamed for WW2 via the Treaty of Versailles though, because although it was harsh, I think it was designed to stop Germany getting anymore ideas about using their military might. At the end of the day, Germany was on the losing side of WW1 and it had cost millions of lives, so I think being harsh wasn't totally unjustifiable.

Just my tuppence and I could be wrong

 

[Tinky]

Sigurd points out Britain had already beaten the Nazis back before america bothered to turn up... nothing against those who died but the politicians leading them? Our.. cousins have a lot to answer for, both then and now. ​

Nice bit of revisionist history there. Forgetting the effort Russia was putting in ? Forgetting the help the USA was giving the UK before Germany declared war on them ? How far back had Britain pushed the Nazis before the USA turned up by the way ?

 

[DaGaffer]

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/lewis_omaha.html

Catsby thinks that historians may disagree with your reasoning for the casualties suffered at Omaha beach

Read it again - frontal assault, no maneuver. You just don't do that without artillery and armour, the Americans used little of the first and next to none of the second (the tanks they did use sank), the British did, and they did advised the Americans to do the same, but the US Army had made a point of ignoring British advice since WWI (often with very good justification - we weren't blessed with many good generals), hence, carnage. They were also unfortunate with reconnaisance and other factors, but I don't think historians disagree with what I said at all, which is hardly surprising since I read it in various books, you know, not, actually being there and all that...

 

[Driwen]

I'm not sure that the Allies can be partly blamed for WW2 via the Treaty of Versailles though, because although it was harsh, I think it was designed to stop Germany getting anymore ideas about using their military might. At the end of the day, Germany was on the losing side of WW1 and it had cost millions of lives, so I think being harsh wasn't totally unjustifiable.

thing is WW1 was something everyone had started not just germany/austria. It was just an escalation and it started with a dead austrian prince and Austra wanting to take Servia (as Servia supported/did the assassination)(and then russia joined, so germany joined in, then france and then UK and you got WW1).
Versaille wasnt needed, the democrats didnt want war. However because of a tactical error (not invading germany, so the german army was never really defeated (atleast that what (some) of the army thought later)) and because of Versaille there was the humiliation and the story that the democrats sold Germany out. This and the crisis of '32 meant that Hitler could get to power. Had germany been allowed to grow as a country and not pay off debts to France and UK, have no control over an important industries province and no real army and instead helped and improved relationships (like after ww2) than ww2 might not have happened.

About battle of britain, Hitler knew he needed airsuppority to succesfully invade Britain and as he didnt have that. He knew he couldnt do that. Now if I read it in this thread correctly, the americans really started helping(maybe some american pilots were in the airforce) after the battle had been won, so Britain saved themself on their own. However as many said the americans were needed to take back europe(and africa?).

 

[Catsby]

Catsby has read it again, but has not changed his original point.
Catsby hopes that this may further clarify the point: Utah was a sucess, whereas Omaha was a more costly sucess.
Catsby acknoleges that the tanks they used sank, but that is hardly their fault, as it was due to the size of the waves and the angle of Omaha compared to the other beaches. In Catsby's opinion, the significant failure point was the generals tactics *combined* with the fact Omaha was significantly more dug in than the other beaches, and has SS troops on it. Catsby believes that these two points would have made any assualt upon this beach a very costly one indeed.

 

[Mofo8]

The whole war thing? Yes we were pushed to the very limit but we still beat Hitler's Nazis back pretty much alone, to the point that he'd prefer to attack Russia than our tiny island. The whole debate americans give doesn't cut it anyway, as humans they had a moral responsibility to stop Hitler, and yet they didn't even enter the war until Pearl Harbour. Bad show.

Erm... I'm as anti-Bush as the next man, and view their current overseas "adventures" as nothing short of diabolical, BUT.....

What age are you? Is this what they're teaching at school these days? Britain did not "beat Hitler's Nazis back pretty much alone, to the point that he'd prefer to attack Russia than our tiny island". We got our ass handed to us in the Battle of France, managed to save a lot of men by a miracle at Dunkirk, and by the skin of our teeth put them off invading by denying them air superiority/supremacy over the skies of England during the Battle of Britain. In the years that followed supplies and material from the USA where vital in keeping our country going. Britain didn't declare war on Germany because of some kind of moral responsibility, they did so because of a political and military pact with Poland, France and others.

As for the yanks winning the war... well, they didn't, but neither did we... or the Russians. It took the combined might of all the Allies, both on the Eastern Front, the Western Front and Italy to beat Germany and her allies.

 

[Jupitus]

Ok, the original went so far off-topic it was irretrievable, but as one of those who lost relatives during the conflict I think it is right and fitting that a respectful thread remains. Sigurd and others can flame to their hearts' content elsewhere, this thread is for thoughts, sensible discussion and tributes to the bravery of the forces of all sides concerned.

 

[Catsby]

Catsby thanks Jups.


Catsby was impressed with the his visit to normany, his favourite places to visit was a battery of german artillery on the coast (still in pretty good order) and the musem that took tanks and ships from the sea, long after the date. Catsby enjoyed looking at the aquatic tanks (of the 30 odd launched, only two made it safely to fight on the beaches...) and torpedos that they have on display.

For anyone thinking of a nice place to visit, Catsby thought that Normandy was very much like England countryside wise, lots of nice villages to visit, and friendly frenchmen.

 

[Vae]

One thing about the Battle of Britain was that we were slowly losing it - we couldn't keep up against the pressure being applied by the Luftwaffe bombing the airfields. Hitlers decision to switch to bombing cities i.e.the dreadful coventry bombings removed the pressure allowing the Allied air force (mainly Biritish but also involved the Polish pilots and others) to draw breath and eventually to establish air supremacy (admittedly radar helped too ).

 

[Stazbumpa]

True, it was becoming a battle of attrition that we could only lose. Thats why Air Marshall Dowding was only sending small groups of planes into the air at a time so we didnt get mauled in one big engagement. Hitler bombing London was a tragic godsend.

The few really were a FEW.