You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Now I know that the very first landings were made of the 5th June, Pegasus Bridge and the like.
However, the vast majority of the invasion went in on the 6th and in the history books, D Day was always stated as the 6th June 1944.
So why are we doing all the D Day stuff today? Seems a bit strange to me.
Ceremonies as follows: Portsmouth today for the start, Normandy tomorrow for the actual landings
Portsmouth today for the start
Ah Okay. Makes sense now. Just heard all the interviews with veterans and stuff on the Radio this morning.
I think the gliders actually landed just after midnight so they were the 6th as well.Met a man when I was in hospital 20 years ago who'd been on one of them as an 18 year old. But as above it'll all be in Normandy tomorrow.
I would be interested to know why almost no one in the UK knows about the Allied invasion of Southern France on 15 August, less than six weeks after D-Day. I understand that it involved a similar amount of men.
Sure, it wasn't quite as significant as D-Day, but was it really that much less significant that practically no one in the UK should know about it?
A number of reasons:
No UK units; considerably smaller, only three divisions, whereas four divisions were involved in the Utah offensive alone; lower grade German units and far fewer casualties; and no movies!
Mmm, I find the figures confusing. A quick search suggests 50,000 Germans troops on actual D-Day, whilst apparently there were 85,000 Germans on the first day of Operation Dragoon. The figures for Allied Troops on D-Day appear to be 156,000 soldiers and 151,000 soldiers (plus 75,000 French Resistance) on the first day of Operation Dragoon.
I can't seem to find the casualty figures for the first day of Operation Dragoon (10,000+ for D-Day 4,414 confirmed dead) Presumably the lower total causalities for Operation Dragoon was in part at least because it only lasted 1 month as opposed to Operation Overlord which lasted nearly 3 months.
I agree about no films though. And as I say, that it was less significant. I just struggle to believe that was that much less significant that practically no one this side of the Channel has heard of it.
I hate to say it but I suspect the truth is that the preferred narrative in Britain is that France had little to do with the liberation of Europe, despite that fact that by the end of WW2 France had 1,250,000 troops, all of them volunteers, and 212,000 military dead (24,000 in the Resistance). I felt that this narrative was yet again being subliminally suggested this D-Day commemoration. Or is it paranoia on my part?
D Day was about 150,000 troops in total, but nearly a million landed in the first month through the beachheads, including my father. First day casualties were about 10,000 as you suggest, which was far lower than anticipated. Casualties in aftermath were far greater and much less of this aspect is covered in contemporary culture.
Dragoon was about 60,000 troops in the 24 hours, I think your numbers refer to the whole campagin. Casualties were in 100s on the first day.
Resistance figures are very difficult to establish.
As you know, it really depends who is telling the story and we tend to see Britsh and American versions, but I don't think there is conscious airbrushing, it was just a considerably less significant strategic offensive, it was essentially a support operation.
Where were you when the reflective glory faded?
I remember being right here.
I hate to say it but I suspect the truth is that the preferred narrative in Britain is that France had little to do with the liberation of Europe,
Well, to be honest, it was the Russians that did the worst of the fighting and took the most casualties. Eastern Europe was just a meatgrinder with entire armies destroyed, if you were posted there, it was pretty much a death sentence. Check out some of the Eastern front battles - Normandy was just a quiet day's skirmishing in comparison.
I suspect the truth is that the preferred narrative in Britain is that France had little to do with the liberation of Europe
The media isn't driven by a preferred narrative, it's driven by what sells. Not sure there's really a shortage of information about it:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Operation-Dragoon-Allied-Invasion-France/dp/0891416013
https://www.c-span.org/video/?288242-1/operation-dragoon
https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+operation+dragoon&oq=youtube+operation+dragoon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dragoon
I'd never heard of Operation Dragoon and incredibly your post answers a question that popped into my head this very morning. Some years ago I once visited a town in the French Alps that was celebrating it's liberation in late summer. Listening to the Radio this morning I was thinking how the hell did the Allies get there as early as late summer starting from Normandy. Answer: Operation Dragoon. So thanks.
Dragoon was argued to have diverted highly experienced men and much-needed materiel away from the continuing fighting at the Western front that could have been used, instead, to bolster the Italian front or to hasten the advance towards the Rhine by the Overlord forces. The resulting loss of momentum gave Stalin on the Eastern Front a free hand to pursue his offensive efforts with more determination, allowing him to win the race towards Berlin and occupy the Balkans. Dragoon, therefore, had consequences reaching into the Cold War.
🙁
Eastern Europe was just a meatgrinder with entire armies destroyed
It was a completely different war. The Russians used human wave tactics and basically condemned millions of their own men to death.
The Western Allies would of never of fought in the same way.
Normandy was just a quiet day’s skirmishing in comparison.
Yeah right. It wasn't a "day". It lasted months.It had a higher rate of attrition than the Battle of the Somme.
The Western Allies would of never of fought in the same way.
Yup. “metal not flesh”, the Allies achieved far more strategically than the casualty numbers suggest.
None the less the Russian's did the bulk of the work defeating Hitler.
I reflected on this over night and realised that I have spent a lot of time in Saint-Raphael which was one of the main landings sites - I wondered whether I had missed memorials to the landings = whilst I have, they are very low key which does suggest it is not deeply significant to the French, even though their soldiers were a major part of the invasion force.
It did secure two major ports in Toulon and Marseilles which were used to supply the overall Western advance, so it wasn't without strategic importance.
they are very low key which does suggest it is not deeply significant to the French, even though their soldiers were a major part of the invasion force.
I've read about it this morning and it's fairly interesting but not only were there few casualties but the casualties typically came from air attack and artillery with the Osttroop defenders often surrendering almost immediately. The German forces retreated pretty much immediately to points that could sensibly defend.
So it feels to like it was a landing rather than a massive land battle so maybe less interesting to people because of that.
Plus the strategic benefit is debatable.
Lots of incredible battles in WW2 are obscure and unknown. Not really surprising that a landing that was hardly opposed on the ground and can't be said to have been a total strategic success is largely forgotten.
Interesting to read about it though so thanks to Ernie for bringing it up.
That’s a bit like saying why isn’t the invasion of Sicily or the landings at Salerno more we’ll known. Normandy was the biggie.
they are very low key which does suggest it is not deeply significant to the French,
I think the fact that it was an area that was controlled by the Vichy French. Not their proudest moment.
It had a higher rate of attrition than the Battle of the Somme.
How are we measuring this these days? The first stats I can find are that approx. 10,500 Allied troops were killed, missing or wounded on D Day itself, vs almost 20,000 dead British troops on the first day of the Somme. Compared to Cannae (216 BC) they were both skirmishes. Somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 Romans alone, the bulk of their army, died. But then historians love talking up the exploits of their fathers, don't they.
Interesting, I have never heard of Dragoon either.
Can anyone recommend some good podcasts about the battles of world wars 1 or 2? I've searched but some of the ones presented by Americans put me off by being too american!
I would be interested to know why almost no one in the UK knows about the Allied invasion of Southern France on 15 August, less than six weeks after D-Day. I understand that it involved a similar amount of men.
Possibly for the same reason almost no one know the names of the Apollo 12 Astronauts without checking?
@oikeith - not a podcast - but best thing i've seen is the Ken Burns documentary:
https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/70202579
Can anyone recommend some good podcasts about the battles of world wars 1 or 2?
https://history-podcasts.com/the-ww2-podcast-the-history-network
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfZz8F37oSJ2rtcEJHM2kCg
Was interesting watching yesterdays events for me coming from Portsmouth originally and going to school near where they built the D-Day museum in the 90's.
My grandad, no doubt like many, never really talked about the war at all, apart from when i joined up and he gave me a few words of wisdom, and when they opened the museum and he quietly said to me "do you think the museum would like these", whereon he produced a set of Carl Zeiss binoculars given to him by a German officer in the weeks after he had landed on Gold Beach, we then went down there and he was shown around and donated them to them.
He stood there almost in tears where they have the mock-up of the front of a landing craft and realistic soundtrack, and he quietly told me what it was like, how he'd lost a number of his friends from Wiltshire where he grew up and how terrifying it had been, he then when on to tell me how he spent months guarding German POW's and how actually on the whole he found them to be a decent lot telling me how they used to drink a lot of Stroh rum and how they joked it was what they powered the V2 rockets from the strength of it.
He then never mentioned it again, but i was always glad to have had that quiet day with him listening to it all.
Approx 75,000 British troops landed on D Day. By the end of the war 3.5 million had served in the British Army. So only 2% of British servicemen were there for the first day but a million went through Normandy. The majority of these would not have seen combat and would not have seen a combatant enemy. I can't remember the figure that John Keegan (iirc) quotes but only a small fraction of serving soldiers ever fired their weapons.
Not a go at you, scud, but maybe the reason that many of these men remained silent is that they had nothing much to say? They drove lorries. Or guarded things. Or organised the transport. Or did admin.
Possibly for the same reason almost no one know the names of the Apollo 12 Astronauts without checking?
Good analogy!
How are we measuring this these days? The first stats I can find are that approx. 10,500 Allied troops were killed, missing or wounded on D Day itself, vs almost 20,000 dead British troops on the first day of the Somme.
That's just D Day, the original comment (I think) referred to the entire Battle of Normandy which lasted another month until the breakout, and involved the fighting in the bocage.
Surely the number killed on D-Day is irrelevant if you were one of those on a landing craft heading towards the beaches. You didn't know whether 5% or 95% would be killed.Yet you still did it.
I hope I never have to be in that position and, like most people, will be forever thankful that they did what had to be done.
That’s just D Day, the original comment (I think) referred to the entire Battle of Normandy which lasted another month until the breakout, and involved the fighting in the bocage.
209,000 Allied dead, wounded or missing in the Battle of Normandy vs 420,000 British for the Battle of the Somme. (Over a million for both sides!) What point are we trying to make here? Normandy wasn't comparable to the Somme.
The majority of these would not have seen combat and would not have seen a combatant enemy. I can’t remember the figure that John Keegan (iirc) quotes but only a small fraction of serving soldiers ever fired their weapons.
Max Hastings quotes some interesting figures in "All hell let loose". I think he said that a British rifleman who came ashore on D-Day had a one in six chance of becoming a casualty before the end of the war. I can't remember if that was killed or killed/wounded but either way, that's pretty grim. However, most servicemen weren't at the sharp end and if you look at their casualty rates they were roughly similar to comparable occupations in the UK - still dangerous by 21st century peace time standards, but no where near as bad as if you were facing the enemy every day.
As usual the BBC coverage on radio 4 is really good, informative and mostly respectful. If you really want to put D-Day and its place in WW2 in perspective I'd recommend "then all hell broke loose" by Max Hastings. Its a bit of a tome but is very informative on many aspects of WW2, also it does not shy away from pointing out failings of the allies. Give it a go.
From my observations, in southern France the French tend to put the war behind them, especially battles when the free French were fighting Vichy French and there are not so many memorials (they have only recently agreed to a memorial to the 'cockleshell heroes in Bordeaux), whereas in northern France there are a lot more museums and memorials relating to the war. The British visit the Normandy landing beaches and help to keep the memories alive, whereas the in the south it is quietly forgotten.............
^^^^ Putting all these figures of casualties into some kind of perspective of other immense battles during the wars) - in the battle for Stalingrad there were almost 2,000,000 casualties (1.1m Russian, .85m Axis). The Russians weren't allowed to retreat (if they did they were shot by NKVD or even their own comrades). If you did retreat/defect/show any sign of not fighting with honour your family also were liable to be sent to work camps etc.
EDIT
Just seen this
Well, to be honest, it was the Russians that did the worst of the fighting and took the most casualties. Eastern Europe was just a meatgrinder with entire armies destroyed, if you were posted there, it was pretty much a death sentence. Check out some of the Eastern front battles – Normandy was just a quiet day’s skirmishing in comparison.
Agreed
Normandy wasn’t comparable to the Somme.
It was at times. It never had the huge losses of the 1st day but the Bocage fighting had similar daily casualty figures as WW1 battles.
The total casualty figures you are quoting were over the entire battle which lasted a much longer time than the Battle for Normandy.
On the subject of forgotten operations, i'm disappointed the raid on St Naziare hasn't become immortalised in Britain (like dam busters, Norwegian heavy water sabotage etc). It had everything the yanks would have milked to death in Hollywood, crazy idea, so crazy the Germans would never expect it, impossible odds, incredible heroism, mission accomplished, victoria crosses all round.
It never had the huge losses of the 1st day but the Bocage fighting had similar daily casualty figures as WW1 battles.
And there were places and times in the Somme, as in any battle, that we’re far more intense. It’s a pointless comparison - you could pick any large, famous battle and say that bit over there was worse than the Somme. For ten minutes. Except when the Somme was really bad.
you could pick any large, famous battle and say that bit over there was worse than the Somme
I think I worked out once that if you wanted to be present at a really famous battle, the "safest" would be to be British sailor at the battle of Trafalgar. Can't remember the exact figures but it was something like 30,000 seamen present with about 1500 casualties (killed/wounded). Of course, that ignores the fact that a sailors life was so hard they rarely survived into their forties anyway.
I just think they fought against fascism so we can have the freedom.
Now we have nazis and fascist groups.
I think the fact that it was an area that was controlled by the Vichy French. Not their proudest moment.
That sounds fairly insulting. The British Expeditionary Forces were unable to stop the German advance and had to retreat to a country surrounded by sea, I've never heard Dunkirk described as 'not their proudest moment'. On 4 June 1940 Churchill gave a speech to the nation in which he declared "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender". I have never heard the surrender of the Channel Islands 16 days later, without a single shot being fired or any sort of resistance, as 'not their proudest moment'.
Yes France couldn't stop the German advance and it led to the Nazis setting up a Fascist puppet government in Vichy, as they did in other occupied countries. But I see no reason why France should be any more shamed of what happened in WW2 than Britain. I'll remind you once again that by the end of WW2 the Allies included one and a quarter million French troops, which I reckon probably makes that the second largest volunteer army in WW2 after India.
When I lived in France the anniversary of the Allied Invasion of Southern France was a fairly big news item. There was no suggestion that people should feel anything other than pride when it came on the Telly. Of course that was a long time ago and things might well have changed. Perhaps WW2 isn't discussed so much these days. Perhaps WW2 isn't generally discusses much these days right across Europe. That might in part explain the rise of the far-right across Europe.
Only a couple of days ago someone challenged me on whether WW2 was actually a struggle against racism and bigotry. It's unlikely, to say the least, that WW2 would have happened had the Nazis not been totally driven by the belief of their racial superiority and the inferiority of others. To question that fact suggests a lack of understanding concerning WW2.
BTW, on the question of Vichy France, the smug europhiles on here should perhaps remember that they owe a debt of gratitude to Vichy France.
The BEF commander Gort implored the French Marshalls to commit the French aircraft and tanks (biggest army in the world at the time?) but thinking they'd be on a WW1 style war of attrition and underestimating blitzkrieg, they refused. So Gort thought **** it.