It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

D Day, most overrated day in history?

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: crazyewok

Hahaha, ohhh get those fish and chips off your shoulder, mate.


Adults are talking on this thread.

I Suggest you go do your History homework.




posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Lab4Us
OP, if you think hitting a beach like the US did on D Day


US AND UK!


For # sake D-day was not a US operation or even a US lead operation.

UK had equal imput and had equal number or men and equipment deployed.


Even canada took one beach.


Point taken, though I see nowhere in my post where I stated or implied the operations were US led or US only? Unlike many here on ATS, I don’t jump to conclusions on countries I don’t live in or whose rules I don’t live with...


My apologies then. I am just used to people like the poster 2 above you that seems to get his history from Hollywood.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Hey there,

What have I stated about History that is a lie?


All I did was # a little on you haha.


and you took the bait. hahahaha

All that emotional pride was irresistible.

edit on 10-7-2017 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Ok, so this is a question
Was D Day overrated
The Russians were tearing up the Nazis in the east and had been in conflict since 1941, pushing them back towards Germany in mid 43, Hitlers didn't help, didn't regroup his armies and they were left to die or surrender in the east

1944 was nearing the end of the war when DDay was launched, Germany had wasted so many of their best soldiers on the eastern front, those soldiers in the West could at least surrender and live. Russians were not known for taking prisoners
Many Germans chose to surrender than fight, they could see the war was over

I guess what bothers me is that if the Russian front wasn't so detrimental to Germany, d day would have never happened. The allies waited till Russia had a good deal of control before invading
Sure there were some casualties, but not as many as in other theatres.

Considering many think the Nazis were overhyped, obviously that would mean DDay was a picnic, and it was for many . If it didn't happen, Russia would have wiped out Germany on its own, probably?

and just to clarify, this is a question with assumptions, not a statement


Have you seen the squalor that anyone under the USSR lived post WW2? Great Britain declare war on the Germans when they invaded Poland, I think it was a travesty that we could not free Poland from the Russians.

Repatriation has cost "West" Germany a fortune because Russia is a third world disaster.

If we had sat on our ass and let the Russians "do it" we would be living in a different world right now.

As to the suggestion you are asking a question rather than making a statement, nonsense, your thread title says it all. You are click bait trying to downplay human lives, people who put themselves in the line of a bullet for the freedom of others.

Those men who ran out of those landing boats on D-Day deserve their own utopia for the sacrifice they made. The same for every man and woman that put their lives on the line for the freedom of Europe.

Yes, we could also celebrate Russia's effort however, if you took time to look at the Russian effort, it isn't quite nice reading and worth celebrating, forcing hundreds of thousands of men to certain death is a lot different to the planning, arming, logistics, rules of engagement, prisoner of war and everything else we did right.

Russia raping and pillaging its way across Europe isn't worth celebrating.

Are you a troll?



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:18 AM
link   
An interesting factoid I got from the web regarding the disposition of German units.
The upshot seems to be that armoured divisions were diverted from the Eastern front to the newly opened Western front following D day.

So perhaps it had more of an effect than you might have thought.

The Eastern Front is also a bit fanciful in this regard. Although some German units started each campaign season at or near full strength, for most of the war the vast majority of divisions on both German and Russian sides were perhaps the equivalent of a Western Brigade or Regiment. Many were far weaker (particularly those of Germany’s ‘allies’). As a rule a Soviet Corps might match a weak German division, but you would probably need a small Soviet Army to match a fully mechanised Western division in combat power.

So talk of the Germans having 200+ divisions on the Eastern Front compared to only 80 facing the West tends to hide the fact that a large majority of the Eastern Front units were undermanned infantry, and a far more significant percentage of the units facing West were mechanised, and often at or near full strength. In sheer combat power, the removal of ten percent of divisions (say 20 divisions) from the Eastern Front to face the Western Allies (happened 3 times – Tunisia/Mediterranean 1942, Sicily/Italy 1943, and France 1944) looks a lot more significant if it involves moving 50% of the available Panzers and 70 or 80% of the high quality, full strength, specially equipped, Paratroop or Mountain or Waffen SS divisions. (Though far more Germans – and their Axis Hungarian, Rumanian, Finnish, etc allies – died on the Eastern front than in the west. See my post here for a discussion of the numbers fallacy on the Eastern Front.)

sauce



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
An interesting factoid I got from the web regarding the disposition of German units.
The upshot seems to be that armoured divisions were diverted from the Eastern front to the newly opened Western front following D day.

So perhaps it had more of an effect than you might have thought.

The Eastern Front is also a bit fanciful in this regard. Although some German units started each campaign season at or near full strength, for most of the war the vast majority of divisions on both German and Russian sides were perhaps the equivalent of a Western Brigade or Regiment. Many were far weaker (particularly those of Germany’s ‘allies’). As a rule a Soviet Corps might match a weak German division, but you would probably need a small Soviet Army to match a fully mechanised Western division in combat power.

So talk of the Germans having 200+ divisions on the Eastern Front compared to only 80 facing the West tends to hide the fact that a large majority of the Eastern Front units were undermanned infantry, and a far more significant percentage of the units facing West were mechanised, and often at or near full strength. In sheer combat power, the removal of ten percent of divisions (say 20 divisions) from the Eastern Front to face the Western Allies (happened 3 times – Tunisia/Mediterranean 1942, Sicily/Italy 1943, and France 1944) looks a lot more significant if it involves moving 50% of the available Panzers and 70 or 80% of the high quality, full strength, specially equipped, Paratroop or Mountain or Waffen SS divisions. (Though far more Germans – and their Axis Hungarian, Rumanian, Finnish, etc allies – died on the Eastern front than in the west. See my post here for a discussion of the numbers fallacy on the Eastern Front.)

sauce


Yeah the problem was due to the huge rate of attrition on equipment Russian conditions inflicted on both sides.
Tanks, planes, Artillery and even hand weapons would not last long under those conditions.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Again what have I stated that is a lie?

Only thing I said was yes yes we are all the best, and it set your ass a blaze.


Hahaha.

What a chump.
edit on 10-7-2017 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Ok, so this is a question
Was D Day overrated
The Russians were tearing up the Nazis in the east and had been in conflict since 1941, pushing them back towards Germany in mid 43, Hitlers didn't help, didn't regroup his armies and they were left to die or surrender in the east

1944 was nearing the end of the war when DDay was launched, Germany had wasted so many of their best soldiers on the eastern front, those soldiers in the West could at least surrender and live. Russians were not known for taking prisoners
Many Germans chose to surrender than fight, they could see the war was over

I guess what bothers me is that if the Russian front wasn't so detrimental to Germany, d day would have never happened. The allies waited till Russia had a good deal of control before invading
Sure there were some casualties, but not as many as in other theatres.

Considering many think the Nazis were overhyped, obviously that would mean DDay was a picnic, and it was for many . If it didn't happen, Russia would have wiped out Germany on its own, probably?

and just to clarify, this is a question with assumptions, not a statement


Have you seen the squalor that anyone under the USSR lived post WW2? Great Britain declare war on the Germans when they invaded Poland, I think it was a travesty that we could not free Poland from the Russians.

Repatriation has cost "West" Germany a fortune because Russia is a third world disaster.

If we had sat on our ass and let the Russians "do it" we would be living in a different world right now.

As to the suggestion you are asking a question rather than making a statement, nonsense, your thread title says it all. You are click bait trying to downplay human lives, people who put themselves in the line of a bullet for the freedom of others.

Those men who ran out of those landing boats on D-Day deserve their own utopia for the sacrifice they made. The same for every man and woman that put their lives on the line for the freedom of Europe.

Yes, we could also celebrate Russia's effort however, if you took time to look at the Russian effort, it isn't quite nice reading and worth celebrating, forcing hundreds of thousands of men to certain death is a lot different to the planning, arming, logistics, rules of engagement, prisoner of war and everything else we did right.

Russia raping and pillaging its way across Europe isn't worth celebrating.

Are you a troll?


Oops, didn't think I would trigger so many bleeding hearts
No one is celebrating anything, all your whole post shows me is you have placed emotion, irrelevant childish emotion before explanation

I am a troll, I have asked a question, you came here and whined about the question, attacking me.
What's the definition of a troll



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The Nazis were overrated



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Ok, so this is a question
Was D Day overrated
The Russians were tearing up the Nazis in the east and had been in conflict since 1941, pushing them back towards Germany in mid 43, Hitlers didn't help, didn't regroup his armies and they were left to die or surrender in the east

1944 was nearing the end of the war when DDay was launched, Germany had wasted so many of their best soldiers on the eastern front, those soldiers in the West could at least surrender and live. Russians were not known for taking prisoners
Many Germans chose to surrender than fight, they could see the war was over

I guess what bothers me is that if the Russian front wasn't so detrimental to Germany, d day would have never happened. The allies waited till Russia had a good deal of control before invading
Sure there were some casualties, but not as many as in other theatres.

Considering many think the Nazis were overhyped, obviously that would mean DDay was a picnic, and it was for many . If it didn't happen, Russia would have wiped out Germany on its own, probably?

and just to clarify, this is a question with assumptions, not a statement


Have you seen the squalor that anyone under the USSR lived post WW2? Great Britain declare war on the Germans when they invaded Poland, I think it was a travesty that we could not free Poland from the Russians.

Repatriation has cost "West" Germany a fortune because Russia is a third world disaster.

If we had sat on our ass and let the Russians "do it" we would be living in a different world right now.

As to the suggestion you are asking a question rather than making a statement, nonsense, your thread title says it all. You are click bait trying to downplay human lives, people who put themselves in the line of a bullet for the freedom of others.

Those men who ran out of those landing boats on D-Day deserve their own utopia for the sacrifice they made. The same for every man and woman that put their lives on the line for the freedom of Europe.

Yes, we could also celebrate Russia's effort however, if you took time to look at the Russian effort, it isn't quite nice reading and worth celebrating, forcing hundreds of thousands of men to certain death is a lot different to the planning, arming, logistics, rules of engagement, prisoner of war and everything else we did right.

Russia raping and pillaging its way across Europe isn't worth celebrating.

Are you a troll?


Oops, didn't think I would trigger so many bleeding hearts
No one is celebrating anything, all your whole post shows me is you have placed emotion, irrelevant childish emotion before explanation

I am a troll, I have asked a question, you came here and whined about the question, attacking me.
What's the definition of a troll


So saying i whined about the question, attacking you and calling my post irrelevant childish emotion before explanation is not trolling?

Shortly this thread will be binned.

In the meantime, you suggested D-Day was overrated because of the Russian advance.

I pointed out why it wasn't, ie. the potential state of the world if Europe was Russian.

It is you who wont accept that position and respond.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: crazyewok

The Nazis were overrated


Economically and politically yes.



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Ok, so this is a question
Was D Day overrated
The Russians were tearing up the Nazis in the east and had been in conflict since 1941, pushing them back towards Germany in mid 43, Hitlers didn't help, didn't regroup his armies and they were left to die or surrender in the east

1944 was nearing the end of the war when DDay was launched, Germany had wasted so many of their best soldiers on the eastern front, those soldiers in the West could at least surrender and live. Russians were not known for taking prisoners
Many Germans chose to surrender than fight, they could see the war was over

I guess what bothers me is that if the Russian front wasn't so detrimental to Germany, d day would have never happened. The allies waited till Russia had a good deal of control before invading
Sure there were some casualties, but not as many as in other theatres.

Considering many think the Nazis were overhyped, obviously that would mean DDay was a picnic, and it was for many . If it didn't happen, Russia would have wiped out Germany on its own, probably?

and just to clarify, this is a question with assumptions, not a statement


Have you seen the squalor that anyone under the USSR lived post WW2? Great Britain declare war on the Germans when they invaded Poland, I think it was a travesty that we could not free Poland from the Russians.

Repatriation has cost "West" Germany a fortune because Russia is a third world disaster.

If we had sat on our ass and let the Russians "do it" we would be living in a different world right now.

As to the suggestion you are asking a question rather than making a statement, nonsense, your thread title says it all. You are click bait trying to downplay human lives, people who put themselves in the line of a bullet for the freedom of others.

Those men who ran out of those landing boats on D-Day deserve their own utopia for the sacrifice they made. The same for every man and woman that put their lives on the line for the freedom of Europe.

Yes, we could also celebrate Russia's effort however, if you took time to look at the Russian effort, it isn't quite nice reading and worth celebrating, forcing hundreds of thousands of men to certain death is a lot different to the planning, arming, logistics, rules of engagement, prisoner of war and everything else we did right.

Russia raping and pillaging its way across Europe isn't worth celebrating.

Are you a troll?


Oops, didn't think I would trigger so many bleeding hearts
No one is celebrating anything, all your whole post shows me is you have placed emotion, irrelevant childish emotion before explanation

I am a troll, I have asked a question, you came here and whined about the question, attacking me.
What's the definition of a troll


So saying i whined about the question, attacking you and calling my post irrelevant childish emotion before explanation is not trolling?

Shortly this thread will be binned.

In the meantime, you suggested D-Day was overrated because of the Russian advance.

I pointed out why it wasn't, ie. the potential state of the world if Europe was Russian.

It is you who wont accept that position and respond.


you are just a peach, well done you

Just for the record, figuring at a guess, I have made that same comment 3 maybe 4 times so far, blunting the Russians overtaking all of Europe
But guess what, it was pointed out by one of our more learned posters, the European continent was divided up between the USSR and the West probably at the Yalta conference or the Tehran conference, either or possibly other conferences before the war ended
How do we know, the US and Brits didn't go into Berlin, at all
But, well done you
anyway, great try

Thanks for your participation.


edit on 10-7-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
No, because those 3 million troops in the west could have been diverted to the east, they would not be surrendering in huge numbers to the Soviets when they knew it meant certain death. This would have given Germany the time to develop the atomic bomb it was working on, which they would have used most likely in eastern Poland, and then on the soviet union itself. If they got a suicide bomber to Moscow and got Stalin then the war would have lasted much much longer. The D-Day invasion demoralized the Germans to such an extent that they surrendered in massive numbers, rather than fight on for Hitler.

D-Day is not overrated, history also shows that it wasn't a sound military choice to push up from Italy given the mountainous terrain and long supply lines.

German POW were treated very well by comparison...in Canada

All POWs were legally protected under the terms of the Geneva Convention, and were adequately provisioned and housed as required by the Convention. Canadians living near the camps believed the POWs received better food than they themselves enjoyed under wartime rationing. Veterans Guards, and later, the Canadian Army soldiers who guarded the camps, had the same provisions but said the POWs had better cooks and more time to prepare meals.

edit on 10-7-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Germany never got close to the atomic bomb.

Hitler hated the project because he viewed it as "Jewish science " ( yes he was that stupid) and # canned the project in 1943 because he thought it diverted to many resources.
edit on 10-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Well that is technically correct they still had a nuclear programs going on, and the western front allowed them to capture that.


Unfortunately for the Soviets, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik (KWIP, Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics) had mostly been moved in 1943 and 1944 to Hechingen and its neighboring town of Haigerloch, on the edge of the Black Forest, which eventually became the French occupation zone. This move allowed the Americans to take into custody a large number of German scientists associated with nuclear research. The only section of the institute which remained in Berlin was the low-temperature physics section, headed by Ludwig Bewilogua, who was in charge of the exponential uranium pile. American Alsos teams carrying out Operation BIG raced through Baden-Wurttemburg near war's end in the spring of 1945, uncovering, collecting, and selectively destroying Uranverein elements, including capturing a prototype reactor at Haigerloch and records, heavy water, and uranium ingots at Tailfingen. These were all shipped back to the United States for study and utilization in the U.S. atomic program.Nine of the prominent German scientists who published reports in Kernphysikalische Forschungsberichte as members of the Uranverein were picked up by Operation Alsos and incarcerated in England under Operation Epsilon: Erich Bagge, Kurt Diebner, Walther Gerlach, Otto Hahn, Paul Harteck, Werner Heisenberg, Horst Korsching, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, and Karl Wirtz. Also, incarcerated was Max von Laue, although he had nothing to do with the nuclear weapon project. Goudsmit, the chief scientific advisor to Operation Alsos, thought von Laue might be beneficial to the postwar rebuilding of Germany and would benefit from the high level contacts he would have in England.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

A lot hinges on the word "overrated".

Was it a critical intervention that hastened the end of the war? Yes.

Was it an awesome display of organisation and power, unparalleled in history? Yes.

Was it the turning point of the war? No. It was A turning point, not THE turning point.

At the time, France was known as the Second Front. The main front was in the East. That was the ideological death struggle. That's where the resources were. That's where each side lost five million men.

If you look at contemporary accounts, primary and secondary, all place the Eastern front way up there. Even Churchill , crusty old anti-communist that he was, said Stalingrad and the death of the German Sixth Army "ripped the guts out of the Wehrmacht".

The fifties saw some disgraceful revisionism in the US. It wasn't just the rewriting of Russia's role by everyone from Hollywood to local school boards. Even Pastor Niemoller's "First they came..." poem was edited to remove any reference to communists.

D-Day became central to this new way of seeing the war and even the Allies were sidelined. On the day itself, British and Commonwealth troops outnumbered the US troops 8:7. In the subsequent weeks, they outnumbered the Americans 3:2.

So back to that word "overrated". Have we a distorted picture of D-Day? Definitely.

Does that distortion mean that some of us overrate it? Definitely.

Is it objectively overrated? Historians will be arguing that for centuries.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

I doubt that historians would be doubting for one second that it was the most overrated day in history
There are sure to be plenty of others days overrated
Was it an important battle, definetly, was it effective, definetly, did it change history, definetly.
Overrated in history, nah, I can think of a few others

Just an interesting discussion



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Russia wasn't doing anything 'on its own'. The need for Nazi troops/provisions/equipment on the western front helped the Russian struggle on the eastern front. And, saying D Day happened near the end of the war is a bit misleading, I think. In June of 1944, nobody had a calendar that said the war in Europe would end in May of 1945. A big part of why the war ended in Europe May of 1945 is because of D Day. There are reports that early in the war the allied powers did engage in what was called a 'bleed white' strategy, in which they, (the allies), did not necessarily provide as much support as they could to the Russians, because, according to the theory, if the Russians and Nazis fight it out, the allies will benefit by the diminished capabilities of both parties. But, but by D-Day, the full weight of the US military was being applied to Europe, which was instrumental in allowing Russia to turn the tide in the east.



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
hahah weird just got a recommendation from Audible for D_Day - The battle for normandy by Antony Beevor



posted on Jul, 11 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: Raggedyman

Russia wasn't doing anything 'on its own'. The need for Nazi troops/provisions/equipment on the western front helped the Russian struggle on the eastern front. And, saying D Day happened near the end of the war is a bit misleading, I think. In June of 1944, nobody had a calendar that said the war in Europe would end in May of 1945. A big part of why the war ended in Europe May of 1945 is because of D Day. There are reports that early in the war the allied powers did engage in what was called a 'bleed white' strategy, in which they, (the allies), did not necessarily provide as much support as they could to the Russians, because, according to the theory, if the Russians and Nazis fight it out, the allies will benefit by the diminished capabilities of both parties. But, but by D-Day, the full weight of the US military was being applied to Europe, which was instrumental in allowing Russia to turn the tide in the east.


The Russians turned the tide in 1943 at Stalingrad
I am going to guess you read the opening post and nothing else

The war was over once the Nazis didn't get the fuel.

Sorry, you missed out on lots




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join