D-Day Remembered 75 Years

@wolfgang59 said
Totally agree.
I can't imagine anyone on those beaches was ever the same again.

How is it you “totally agree” today with FMF’s comments on the movie segment cited by Suzianne, and yet yesterday you ridiculed her for mentioning it?

@chaney3 said
If not for the involvement of the United States, we'd all be speaking German and would be part of the Third Reich.

Your minimizing the role of the U.S. is an insult, and factually incorrect.

Bollocks.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The involvement of the US quickened the end of the war, but victory for the Allied forces would still have been achieved eventually. Russia, for example, would have overwhelmed Germany.

Russia would have overcome Germany how? They were suffering from starvation where the Soviet Union lost an estimated 20 million lives. True bravery which we as kiwis fail to honor.

The USA with it's pirated nuclear technology did save the day.

@wolfgang59 said
Without getting down to decimal places of percentages the US
involvement was not 100% as Hollywood portrays it and some think it.

Remember Naval support was almost entirely British with over
100,000 Royal Navy seamen involved. Perhaps FMF's figures
include naval & air support?

I have no dispute with this.

Even though there were US battleships and some destroyers in support of the landings, the bulk of the ships were indeed British, as were nearly all of the aircraft.

One could say that among those landing on the beach, 2 out of 5 were American, 2 out of 5 were British and 1 out of 5 were Canadian, but as I was trying to say, this is a gross oversimplification. It need not be said that, in order to show an involvement over the Americans, the British and the Canadians had to be counted together.

@suzianne said

the bulk of the ships were indeed British, as were nearly all of the aircraft.

Somebody will probably argue with this ... but

I seem to remember that a surprisingly large number of the pilots
were actually Czech, Polish, Canadian, Kiwi and Australian.

@wolfgang59 said
That was a Hollywood film ...

In no way did I wish to minimize the sacrifice those who were actually there made that day.

Yes, SPR is a Hollywood film, and no film can do that day justice, but the beach scenes in SPR are among the best on film for showing the horror and the tragedy of the day. Life was taken quickly and without warning, some were taken agonizingly slowly, as those who drowned on sunken ships attest. There is no doubt that those beaches were a meat grinder for those sent to take them, and they prevailed with valor and courage.

@suzianne said
It need not be said that, in order to show an involvement over the Americans, the British and the Canadians had to be counted together.

Well, the Canadian units on D-Day fought as part of the British Second Army, so they are counted together in that sense. The British and the Canadians were also both fighting for King George VI. In this discussion, I have not in any way "minimized" the huge and vital contribution of the U.S. to the assault on France on D-Day. I thank and salute the Americans who played their part.

@suzianne said
Even though there were US battleships and some destroyers in support of the landings, the bulk of the ships were indeed British, as were nearly all of the aircraft.

Like I said ~ uncontroversially I think ~ while D-Day was predominantly a British and Canadian operation, I am grateful to the U.S. for their contribution and the part they played, not only in terms of those who landed on the beaches and those who were dropped in by parachute but also the "U.S. battleships and some destroyers in support of the landings" that you mentioned.

@fmf said
Like I said ~ uncontroversially I think ~ while D-Day was predominantly a British and Canadian operation, I am grateful to the U.S. for their contribution and the part they played, not only in terms of those who landed on the beaches and those who were dropped in by parachute but also the "U.S. battleships and some destroyers in support of the landings" that you mentioned.

And don't forget the leadership of Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery.

@handyandy said
And don't forget the leadership of Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery.

I remember their brilliant leadership in accordance with a strict 2 out of 5 and 3 out of 5 split.

@handyandy said
And don't forget the leadership of Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery.

In WW2 as a whole, I think Montgomery may have been a bit overrated, and the gripes of many a U.S. soldier probably had some justification.

But I do thank him for his service and his leadership, nevertheless.

He was, I believe, loved and respected by most of the soldiers under his command.

He very carefully presented himself in a certain way in the post-war years in order to cultivate his image and this sustained the gratitude of a British people that were mostly not interested in the details of his performance during the war.

@wolfgang59 said
My father served in North Africa, then Italy, then France.
He never wanted to talk about any of it.
My sister called him a hero but he dismissed it.

My father was of an age when you did your duty.

My father was US Navy 1939-1959.
He was part of the landings at South France, North Africa, and Sicily.
He was a chief (e-7) who ran a tugboat which towed the landing boats back to the ship to be reloaded with troops.
He was one landing short of a Silver Star.

@fmf said
In WW2 as a whole, I think Montgomery may have been a bit overrated, and the gripes of many a U.S. soldier probably had some justification.

But I do thank him for his service and his leadership, nevertheless.

He was, I believe, loved and respected by most of the soldiers under his command.

He very carefully presented himself in a certain way in the post-war years in o ...[text shortened]... f a British people that were mostly not interested in the details of his performance during the war.

Monty was certainly charismatic and held the respect of Churchil .. but
I've always felt sorry for Auchinleck who had to fight Rommel with
inferior tanks than that which Montgommery had. He was lucky.

@handyandy said
And don't forget the leadership of Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery.

Do you think perhaps sometimes history blow up these leaders bigger than they were in FACT!!! 😉 I think stories end up getting elevated to levels that just didn't exist. How loved were these men by their troops? Have you spoken to anyone who was a soldier under these men? NOTE: The Generals did the planning the soldiers were the ones actually doing everything!!!

-VR