D-day
greyfox5
Join Date: 2002-02-14 Member: 217Members
Join Date: 2002-02-14 Member: 217Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Was it needed, and what went wrong?</div> And when he gets to heaven
To St.Peter He will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I've spent my time in hell.
June 6th, 1944
Ode to Soldiers Lost.
Well...im here to ask your opinions...and show you some of mine. Here are two questions on this topic.
1. Was D-Day needed?
2. What went wrong to cause the catostrophic loss of life?
1. Yes, totally. The assualt of the many nations of the Allied forces was needed to break the wall, and to pound into France and liberate the civilians. I agree with Eisenhower. He couldnt wait. With the V2 rocket and the new jet planes on the horizon, and the imprisoned people of France, and captured allied soldiers, it had to be done.
2. Everything. It was a total and complete disaster, turned into a victory by shere luck. Boats landed off target because of a current by the sandbar, sometimes even 1-4 miles off. The staff boat for A-Company 1st wave was vaporized in a milisecond, directly hit by an 88. Men landed on the beach with to much equipment, some didnt get on the beach, they drowned. The men who got up to the seawall were exausted, and without leadership. It was the first time in history in which medics had to move towards the enemy to treat the wounded.
The bravery of the few, lead to the bravery of the many. Privates kicked scared Lt's into action, some even led whole squads full of other privates. Training soon took over, and the soldiers started to move up the beaches all throughout Normandy, and assault the entrenched positions.
Patton and Ike landed on the beach after a artificial harbor was created. Patton set foot on the beach, and looked up at the posistions at Omaha. He turned to Ike and said "How in the hell did we do this?"
To St.Peter He will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I've spent my time in hell.
June 6th, 1944
Ode to Soldiers Lost.
Well...im here to ask your opinions...and show you some of mine. Here are two questions on this topic.
1. Was D-Day needed?
2. What went wrong to cause the catostrophic loss of life?
1. Yes, totally. The assualt of the many nations of the Allied forces was needed to break the wall, and to pound into France and liberate the civilians. I agree with Eisenhower. He couldnt wait. With the V2 rocket and the new jet planes on the horizon, and the imprisoned people of France, and captured allied soldiers, it had to be done.
2. Everything. It was a total and complete disaster, turned into a victory by shere luck. Boats landed off target because of a current by the sandbar, sometimes even 1-4 miles off. The staff boat for A-Company 1st wave was vaporized in a milisecond, directly hit by an 88. Men landed on the beach with to much equipment, some didnt get on the beach, they drowned. The men who got up to the seawall were exausted, and without leadership. It was the first time in history in which medics had to move towards the enemy to treat the wounded.
The bravery of the few, lead to the bravery of the many. Privates kicked scared Lt's into action, some even led whole squads full of other privates. Training soon took over, and the soldiers started to move up the beaches all throughout Normandy, and assault the entrenched positions.
Patton and Ike landed on the beach after a artificial harbor was created. Patton set foot on the beach, and looked up at the posistions at Omaha. He turned to Ike and said "How in the hell did we do this?"
Comments
To St.Peter He will tell
One more soldier reporting sir
I've spent my time in hell.
June 6th, 1944
Ode to Soldiers Lost.
Well...im here to ask your opinions...and show you some of mine. Here are two questions on this topic.
1. Was D-Day needed?
2. What went wrong to cause the catostrophic loss of life?
1. Yes, totally. The assualt of the many nations of the Allied forces was needed to break the wall, and to pound into France and liberate the civilians. I agree with Eisenhower. He couldnt wait. With the V2 rocket and the new jet planes on the horizon, and the imprisoned people of France, and captured allied soldiers, it had to be done.
2. Everything. It was a total and complete disaster, turned into a victory by shere luck. Boats landed off target because of a current by the sandbar, sometimes even 1-4 miles off. The staff boat for A-Company 1st wave was vaporized in a milisecond, directly hit by an 88. Men landed on the beach with to much equipment, some didnt get on the beach, they drowned. The men who got up to the seawall were exausted, and without leadership. It was the first time in history in which medics had to move towards the enemy to treat the wounded.
The bravery of the few, lead to the bravery of the many. Privates kicked scared Lt's into action, some even led whole squads full of other privates. Training soon took over, and the soldiers started to move up the beaches all throughout Normandy, and assault the entrenched positions.
Patton and Ike landed on the beach after a artificial harbor was created. Patton set foot on the beach, and looked up at the posistions at Omaha. He turned to Ike and said "How in the hell did we do this?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
someone plays a little bit too much frontline..... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes it was needed...where just lucky the Nazi Generlas were tricked into thinking our position of landing was calais (west of noramndy) or else they would have had time to set up more defence and more poeple would have died... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
In war people die <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
They guessed our landing spot wrong. They were unprepared. Most of the soldiers were foreigners pressed into duty AND No. 1 screw-up for the Axis: no back-up.
1. Was D-Day needed?
2. What went wrong to cause the catostrophic loss of life?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, interesting questions. I'll try my best to answer them <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
1. Was D-Day needed?
To win the war? No. To prevent the Soviet Union from taking over all of continental Europe? Yes.
By this stage of the war the German army and air force was a shadow of it's former self. It's capacity to undertake large scale offensives or counter-attacks was approaching nil: with the loss of the Romaniam oil feilds 2 months previously German armour was stalling from lack of fuel.
On the 22nd of June the Russians launched their summer offensive on the eastern front: Soviet forces amount to 124 divisions, 1,200,000 men, 5,200 tanks, 30,000 guns and 6,000 aircraft. Against this, the German can field just 63 divisions, including 900 tanks and 10,000 guns. This shows how much of a distance there was between Russian and German forces in the feild: without Allied attacks in Italy and France Russia would stil have been able to take on the remaining German forces. The eventual attack on Berlin is made by over two million soviet soldiers: this gives an idea of simply how massive the Soviet forces were in the final months of the war. Germany could not stop such a force; the landings simply sped up the process, particularly the disasterous Ardennes offensive which used up most of Germany' remaining stores of fuel, tanks and aircraft.
Also <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->With the V2 rocket and the new jet planes on the horizon,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These were not decisive factors in the war. V1 rocket threats had been mostly neutralized by RAF patrols able to chase and shoot them down, and V2s, whilst almost impossible to stop, were not going to force Britain to surrender. The total amount of munitions dropped on the Allies by V1s and V2s was less than the amount dropped in a single Allied air raid on Munich. Jet planes were a force to be reckoned with, true, but 3 factors prevented the ME-262 from posing a huge threat. Firstly was Hitler's insistance that the 262 be outfitted for ground attack missions instead of what it was designed to do: aerial attack, second was the lack of fuel which was grounding the few German aircraft left, and thirdly was the critical lack of trained pilots (Germany was starting to run critically low on manpower, and Hitler refused to allow women into war industries for much of the war). However, both the American and British airforces were bringing out their own jet aircraft and as such even if the 262 squadrens had been allowed to undertake their aerial missions they would have been quickly countered.
Thus the question is not "if the Allies hadn't landed, would the Germans have won the war?" but rather "if the Allies hadn't landed where would Stalin have stopped?" The answer to this new question is dependant ona few factors. One is the capacity for the German army to have held on for as long as possible, second is whether the Allies would use the atomic bomb in Europe. In response to the first question, the Germans could not have held on for much longer than they did even with troops from the western front. Soviet forces were simply too large and well equipped to be stopped by this stage: Germany's main hopes were pinned on surrendering to the Allies and joining forces with them against the Russians (the factor holding this back was Hitler, he refused to surrender to either side), hence why most of Germany's forces were concentrated on the eastern front. Thus even stripping the western front would have delayed the Soviets by maybe a month or so, no more, at which stage Stalin would have his armies poised to sweep into France virtually unopposed.
Would he have done this? Stalin did not trust his allies, that much is certain, and he was also obbsessed with the idea of capturing as much territory as possible to create a buffer zone against any further invasions, and also to help compensate for the massive loss of life and infrastructure suffered by the USSR during the German invasion. Stalin would have had no reason to stop at Berlin or even at the Ruhr; and if the Allies did not have forces in France Stalin would have had no problem with sending his forces into the occupied nation under pretexts such as "destroying the last remnants of fascism", all the while promising to set up a democratic free government afterwards, exactly the same lie he used with regards to Eastern Europe. After Stalin's forces crushed the remains, if any, of the occupation forces he would have set up an interim government using French socialists and consoldated his forces along the Channel coast. Europe would be effectivly under Soviet control, with only a few holdouts such as Allied Italy remaining.
One question is though would the Allies have allowed this? Allied armies in Europe even at the end of the war were outnumbered heavily by their Soviet counterparts, so the question of the capacity for the Allies to launch an counter-attack to drive the Soviets back after France had been taken (or even before) is questionable. Stalin though would have been cautious about openly attacking the Allies if they had landed in France at a later date, although his forces probably would have been able to defeat them. One factor which the Allies may have used is the atomic bomb, but whether the Allies wanted to risk an all-out war with the Soviets is questionable. If the Russians had crossed into France the chances of it being used would have risen considerably, as it was not in the intrests of the Allies for Europe to be under complete soviet control. This may have been the only thing that could have stopped Stalin's forces, but with the capture of German scientists and the seizure of processed uranium at the Kaiser Whilhelm institute in Berlin the Soviets would have been not too far from producing their own bomb. The thought of a nuclear war in the heart of war-torn Europe is horrifing at the very least.
Thus in answer to the original question D-Day was nessassary to prevent either a Soviet take-over of Europe or a much greater conflict that could have made the German phase of WWII look like a picnic.
2. What went wrong to cause the catostrophic loss of life?
Well it could have been far worse. If Rommel had been allowed to immedialy counter attack with his panzer divisions the Allies might very well have been driven back into the sea, but Hitler believed that the Normandy landings were mearly a distraction. By the time he realised he was wrong, it was too late. On the Allies' part poor planning contributed to the loss of life that occured, including inadequate bombardments of the coastal defenses that were in place. For the most part though the invasion succeeded due to a poor German response (caused mainly by Hitler), the lack of adequate German re-enforcements and heavy equipment (particularly aircraft), and the concentration of German forces on the other side of the continent. If for example the Russians and Germans hadn't been fighting and never had fought, it seems unlikely that an Allied invasion as risky as Normandy could succeed in the face of German military strength.
Germany was adapting to constant bombing , with underground facilities being built to keep the production of war equipment up. There were still V2 factories , and submarine bases were plain invincible (Normand coastal cities were leveled by carpet bombing because of theses)
The least we can say is that the American soldiers did not die in vain here...
Germany was adapting to constant bombing , with underground facilities being built to keep the production of war equipment up. There were still V2 factories , and submarine bases were plain invincible (Normand coastal cities were leveled by carpet bombing because of theses)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stalin was basically lieing. In 1941 Stalin was worried, and most of the Allied powers didn't expect Russia be survive the year, so pressure for a 2nd front was justified there. By the end of 1942 Stalin wasn't concerned any more about whether the USSR would win; he was more concerned with how much of Europe he could grab. With the Battle of Stalingrad and the relocation of factory complexes behind the Urals mountains Stalin's army was growing more powerful every day whilst the German army and air force was dwindling. After Stalingrad the chances for ermany winning the war were fast appoaching nil: only something like the early construction of an atomic bomb or the intervention of the Allies on the side of the Germans would prevent an eventual Soviet victory. Stalin kept on bugging the Allies for a second front because firstly, it kept the Allies in the dark as to Stalin's true strength, secondly because it would speed the advance of his own armies and lastly because he liked taunting the Allied leaders about how much blood the USSR had spent to stop Hitler compared to the casualties suffered by the Allies.
Yes, Germany was adapting to producing goods, but what was strangling the war economy by June 1944 was lack of raw materials. Germany was running critically low on rubber and particularly oil; with the fall of Romania in April-May the Germans lost the vast bulk of their oil supplies. V2s were being produced but a lot failed to even reach their target and those that did hit caused a fraction of the damage that was daily being inflicted upon German cities. V2s weren't going to win the war nor hurt the war production of the Allies. As for submarines they too were suffering from a critical lack of fuel, and the convoy system developed by the Allies, as well as Atlantic aerial patrols were neutralizing the effect of submarines.
But yes, problably many European lives were saved. Certainly more were saved than if the USSR had advanced unopposed into western Europe and the Allies had resorted to atomic arms to try and drive them back.
Of course unconfirmed rumour <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Of course unconfirmed rumour <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who WOULDN'T be afrad to wake him?
Of course unconfirmed rumour <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For an unconfirmed rumor, it went all the way into D-Day by Stephen Ambrose. Pretty good for a rumor <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And as far as June 6th went, like lots of people are saying, it could have gone much worse. It was a gigantic accomplishment in any case; nothing of that size had ever been done, and hopefully won't have to be done again.
a critical number of made-to-swim sherman tanks SANK in the F*CKING ENGLISH CHANNEL on the way to the beach.
that probably mattered a teensy bit more, wouldn't you say?
Ryo knows his stuff and I have to agree with most of what he said. Russia was powerhousing and Germany was slowling fading away beneath its own shadows, when D-day happenned. I mean, after what effort Germany spent in trying to conquer Russia in the very terrible weather and terrain, which was almost impossible to track across at some points, no it wasn't that necessary, but a boost none the less I tinks.
Thats of course assuming that Stalin just didn't keep on going anyway. Still, the thought of a non divided Germany does make one think.
Now as for a German atomic bomb. Well, that one is quite interesting. It has been estimated that without raids by Allied commandos against heavy water extraction facilities in Norway that in the closing months of the war Germany would have succeeded in the creation of a nuclear device. Certainly they had the personal, techincal knowledge and materials. In fact one of the driving factors in Stalin's desire to seize Berlin was the Kaiser Whilhelm Institute which was one of Germany's central atomic research faculties. Also the fact that the USSR had so far failed to find supplies of uranium within it's own borders drove Stalin to try and secure German supplies instead.
Now what could/would Hitler have done with a nuke. Could and would are of course differant: if Hitler could have, he likely would have obliterated Moscow or Leningrad. Most probable would have been Hitler using the bomb against the massed Russian armies on the Eastern Front, maybe in some last ditch effort to stall the Russian advance. What this may have achieved is a change of policy amongst the western Allies, who may have considered striking ahead and occupying Berlin. This was entirely within their power, but it did not happen. The main reason was that the Allied leaders (Churchill excluded) believed that the remnants of the Nazi armies would retreat to the south of Germany and hold out for years in Alpine fortresses. Hence why the bulk of Allied forces headed into the south. Stalin was delighted to hear this because it ment the Allies weren't going to take the real prize, Berlin. He thus played the "southern fortress" idea up, stating that his forces too were heading south. Only when the massive operation against Berlin was well underway did the Allied leaders realised they had been tricked, and by that stage it was too late.
But if Hitler had dropped a nuke the Allied leaders may have decided that the threat posed by Berlin was greater than any Alpine holdout. With the Russian armies stalled and with the German forces given a few precious days to reconstitute their lines, the Allies could very well have raced ahead and taken Berlin. German generals and soldiers were unwilling to fight against the Allies and as such the Allies would have had virtually a free ride to Berlin. The last obstecle, Hitler, would either be dead or captured. Of course this would have raised the whole problem of Stalin going right ahead and attacking the western Allies, but perhaps with the help of the remaining German forces the Allies could have held Stalin's armies back until their own nukes were ready. Again, the horrifying spectre of nuclear war is raised.
Personally, I think we were lucky that the war went the war it did. It could have been a whole lot worse, and it very nearly was.
This doesn't have much to do with the discussion but I remember one forumgoer from norway stating that it was actually norwegian resistance fighters that did the raids and allies are just trying to grab all the glory <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: And I wonder what would have happened if Hitler would have dropped a nuke to London before D-day? It's interesting to think how WW2 could have gone so many different ways than it did.
The tanks that were supposed to support the infantry landing on the beach ended up drowning in the English Channel.
The tanks that were supposed to support the infantry landing on the beach ended up drowning in the English Channel. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much. I disagree with a 'catastrophic loss of life' considering the only beach the allies had even any problem with was omaha. D-Day was pretty tame elsewhere and would of been far worse had the German tank divisons mobilised faster.