June 6, 1944

Subject: June 6, 1944
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 07:22 PM

A day To Remember

June 6, 1944 Normandy:   

August 25, 1944 LocationNormandy,

FranceResultDecisive Allied victory
Combatants United Kingdom
 United States
 Canada
 Free France
 Poland Germany

Commanders Dwight Eisenhower
(Supreme Allied Commander)
Bernard Montgomery (land)
Bertram Ramsay (sea)
Trafford Leigh-Mallory (air)
Omar Bradley (US 1st Army)
Miles Dempsey (UK 2nd Army)
Harry Crerar (Canadian 1st Army) Gerd von Rundstedt (OB WEST) Erwin Rommel (Heeresgruppe B)
Friedrich Dollmann (7.Armee Oberkommando) Strength1,452,000 (by July 25)[1]380,000 (by July 23)[2]

CasualtiesUnited States: 29,000 dead, 106,000 wounded and missing; United Kingdom: 11,000 dead, 54,000 wounded and missing; Canada: 5,000 dead; 13,000 wounded and missing;

France: 12,200 civilian dead and missing   23,019 KIA , 67,060 wounded,
198,616 missing & captured[3]
Battle of Normandy

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 07:46 PM

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be         achieved by understanding."
                                  ALBERT EINSTEIN

Subject: RE: June 6, 1944
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 08:05 PM

In 2004 my wife and I visited Normandy Beach and the American cemetery. It astounded us that even one GI could make it up the cliffs in the face of the German troops and armaments entrenched there. Visiting the cemetery, with its row after row of heroic dead, was emotional beyond belief.
Thank you, Mickey191, for reminding us here at Mudcat of their sacrifice for American and world freedom.
John

Subject: RE: June 6, 1944
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 08:08 PM

Lest we forget.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 08:10 PM

Lest we forget.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 09:18 PM

It is quite possible, Mickey, that one of those people you mention was a relative of mine.

What is certain is that my late father-in-law was there on D+21. At that time he had an 18 month old daughter he'd never seen. They met when she was more three years old.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 09:23 PM

Some Canadians were the actual individuals who got Mom out of her particular concentration camp, but it was the Allied Invasion that sent them there. (Mom reports poor teenagers reeling about helplessly in shock and distressed disgust, quite appropriate.) I've visited those beaches - and am grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 10:23 PM

My dad was in England in the RAAF at that time. He did not cross the channel - but remember that skilled multi-engined pilots were needed 'behind the lines' to support others at the front. Also he was stationed in Scotland. The experts may guess why.

There were many others like him, who just did what they were told and were supposedly 'safe from the front lines'.

After VE Day, he was brought back to Australia to keep obeying orders here in Australia.

My mum's father walked thru Flanders in WWI, and was a 'POW guard' during WWII - he was considered too old to send overseas.

We should not forget those who did not come back - but we should also remember those who did - most of whom have now passed on too.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Beer
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 10:48 PM

Cannot be said enough. "Lest We forget".
Adrien

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Peace
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 10:53 PM

Thank you all.

The best memorial we could give these people is an end to war.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Mickey191
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 11:21 PM

A sad rembrance of Edward Brown of Mount Vernon, NY.

He was a POW in a stalag for a long time. When he was freed he was in hospital for over a year. When he came back to our street he was still so underweight he was unrecognizeable. He had a lung disease. The first thing he did to cheer himself was to buy a little car with a rumble seat. He'd take my brother and I out for a ride every Sunday. I was five or six and this was the greatest treat ever!

Eddy lived just another year.

Damn War.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 03:39 AM

Peace can only be achieved by understanding?

Understanding Hitler would not, sadly, have changed his plans.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 08:23 AM

No, but if Hitler had understood the world and other people and himself much better than he did, he would not have formulated such destructive plans in the first place.

And that is why peace can only be achieved through understanding. It's not just about you or your country. It's about all people.

Wars are THE most spectacular example of a lack of understanding that one can possibly find in human affairs. The fact that they are the dominant feature in all accounts of human history shows just how far out of touch we are, and how fragmentary our understanding is. Powerful countries spend all their time preparing for the next war. They spend incredible amounts of money doing so. Should it be surprising that this results in further wars?

"Lest we forget" - Hmmm. What if everyone decided to "forget" all the wars that have ever happened, all the disagreements and tragedies of the past few thousand years, and decided to focus on something else much more constructive instead? What then? What then could we achieve?

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: alanabit
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 08:33 AM

Hitler was actually a mediocre little crackpot, the like of whom can be found in most villages to this day. What needed understanding was the fact that Europe at the time had potentially explosive demographics and a political imbalance - and that at least one of the major leaders was quite determined to go to war. Had France and Britain have gone to war in 1939, instead of merely declaring it, they might have occupied a virtually undefended Germany and ended the war by Christmas. Understanding Hitler might not have caused him to change his plans, but Britain and France were in a position, from which they might have changed the bastard's plans for him.
I hope I do not sidetrack this thread, as I am quite happy to pursue this aspect of the discussion elsewhere. I would just like to add my voice to those who feel gratitude for the heroism and sacrifice of those D-day soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 08:56 AM

"a virtually undefended Germany"
germany was militarily very strong in 1939. In 1940 the combined forces of Britain and France were unable to stop them, never mind defeat them.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 09:02 AM

While we are remembering, let's also remember those who were fighting in the Pacific Islands, in the air around the world, in Eastern Europe, on the Asian mainland, and on or under the seas.

Let's remember the "comfort women" and the slave laborers, those experimented upon in the name of "science", and the civilians who endured.

People in the US forget (or don't know) that Japanese troops invaded, captured, and held part of what was then a US Territory and what is now a State and that it had to be retaken by military action.

Let's remember ALL of those who died, and ALL of those who lived -- some so physically or mentally scarred that they still reside in hospitals.

You can't pay them back but you can pay it forwards, which is what they did for us.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: The PA
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 09:29 AM

My uncle had his toe nails pulled out for not working fast enough on the Burma railway. Then got beaten because he could not walk ??

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 01:39 PM

My Uncle was in the Navy assigned to a landing craft in the first wave on Omaha Beach. He did not make it back.

Subject: RE: June 6, 1944
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 06:10 PM

Lest we remember.

If we did, we'd stop enlisting for new wars. (I'm speaking of the human race collectively when I say "we".)

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 07 Jun 07 - 07:26 PM

"a virtually undefended Germany"
I think what alan's referring to is the state of affairs on the French-German frontier in 1939 when the main body of Hitler's Wehrmacht was occupied in subjugating Poland. Instead of adopting an attack posture against the scattered German units in the West, the French reinforced their defenses, positioned the most effective part of their troops and the British troops near Flanders, awaited the outcome, and hoped Germany wouldn't move on them.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 12:33 AM

Same thought here, LEJ. The Germans were potentially quite vulnerable to a French attack in the West during the Polish campaign. France had an army quite strong enough to do it, had the best tanks in western Europe by a wide margin, had the biggest army, and could have done it, had they shown the will to do it. And the British could have assisted them rather handily, I'm sure.

The French and British appear to have simply had a temper tantrum in '39 when Hitler attacked Poland ("You rotten bastard, you shouldn't have done that! Well, we'll show you! We'll declare war! Whaddya think of that, Mister tough guy?!!")...but they do not appear to have had the presence of mind to follow it up with any effective military action whatsoever. They completely missed the boat.

By the spring of 1940 the situation had changed radically. The Germans were by then very much ready to fight in the west and win...and they did so, spectacularly. Only the English Channel and the British Navy saved England from rapidly going the way of France that spring. Then the RAF saved them again in the late summer and fall of that year...aided greatly by the Luftwaffe's eventual decision to stop bombing British airfields and go after London instead. That error cost the Germans the campaign, and it was their first real reverse in WWII. As Churchill said, it was not the beginning of the end, but it was "the end of the beginning".

Stalingrad was the beginning of the end.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Gurney
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 12:53 AM

Churchill considered El Alamain to be the beginning of the end.

A point I've noticed throughout my adult life is that a leader who is perceived to be strong is quickly surrounded by sycophants. Then the leader begins to think that, since the only people he meets are incompetants, then the whole human race must be like that! The bully-boys are attracted to the power, and then it takes a lot of good men to stop the bastards.

I haven't thought of an answer to the problem, though. Perhaps the postwar series 'The Seven Just Men' is the only one.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 01:48 AM

El Alamain was the beginning of the end in the west, that's for sure. The Allies were on the offensive and the Germans on the defensive from that point on. That could only end in an inevitable German defeat, because they were heavily outnumbered in every way...men, weapons, and war material. It was kind of the same situation Napoleon eventually found himself in, fighting all of Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 03:13 AM

Not the beginning of the end but, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

In 1939 the interwar years of disarmament had left Britain weak and needing a pause to catch up. We wanted a delay and Chamberlain memorably said that Hitler had missed the bus when he did not immediately follow up his victory over Poland.
Unfortunately Germany got stronger too.

Subject: RE: BS: June 6, 1944
From: alanabit
Date: 08 Jun 07 - 04:21 AM

Lonesome EJ and Little Hawk have both rightly surmised the way I was thinking. In fact, the idea was not my own, of course, it had already been broadcast widely in Mark Arnold Foster's epic series,"The World At War". I am sure other historians were aware of it.
Obviously Keith is right to say that Britain wanted a delay. It certainly felt weak and did not feel that it had the means to fight a global war with its own resources. That assumption was correct, of course. Once the Axis powers had reached a certain size and momentum, it took the two superpowers Russia and the USA to crush them.
I know it is easy to be wise with hindsight. The obvious move would have been for France to attack across the Eiffel. However, the country there would have favoured the defenders, who may possibly have been able to slow up the advance long enough for troops to return from the East. A better military plan would have been to attack through Belgium and Holland and gone straight for the Ruhrgebiet. It could well have fallen before the Germans knew what had hit it. That would have violated Belgian and Dutch neutrality, of course, so it would have been a political problem. At the time, Belgium and Holland had no reason to believe that they would be overrun within a year.
What is certain, is that allowing Germany to control several thousand   miles of Atlantic coastline, when the Royal Navy was geared up mainly for surface to surface warfare, was about the worst strategic scenario Britain could find itself in. Like I said, we have the benefit of hindsight.