Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

June 6th

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 06 Jun 2005, 11:34
61 years ago, today, Western Allies landed on Normandy, France. Battle of Normandy started

Here is short interview of some veterans of D-Day.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=877&type=mov
Last edited by Carius on 24 Sep 2005, 15:06, edited 1 time in total.
Post 23 Sep 2005, 15:46
Well, I am somewhat suprised that no one has replied.
Post 23 Sep 2005, 19:36
Well for your pleaseure I will say that it was a important day when the western allies landed on Normandy, but war pretty much lost for germans at that point if I am not fully wrong.
Post 29 Nov 2005, 05:30
Well, it was a bit late in coming. Stalin pleaded with Churchill years ago for the other front to be openned. While Churchill was afraid of the "large" amount of German forces located in Western Europe.
Post 29 Nov 2005, 16:08
It was called Italy but the Allies got bogged down by all the mountainous terrain and the heavy fortifications. Another plan was needed to help relieve the USSR and that came in the invasion of Normandy not the exactly the time Stalin wanted it but its better late then never and helped speed up the destruction of Nazi Germany.
Post 02 Jul 2006, 23:01
D-day most certainly was a vital moment in the war, saving western europe from Stalinist tyranny. However, it could be reasonably argued that the Allies' most important contribution to the defeat of Hitler was the aid they sent to the USSR- around 10% of the Soviet war effort was funded by the west (by this I mean equipment, resources and basic foodstuffs for the soldiers)
Post 09 Jul 2006, 01:27
D-Day was an important day because it accelerated the Nazi downfall by dividing HItler's attention to two fronts, although he still placed greater importance to the east. Granted, a useful Western front should have been opened earlier when the USSR actually needed the diversion, but on the upside, the Normandy invasion was timed beautifully in conjunction with Operation Bagration later that month, resulting in less casualties and a more overwhelming success.

Quote:
Well, I am somewhat suprised that no one has replied.


Well, it's not really a controversial topic. All of us, except for the Nazi-sympathizers among us, consider D-Day to be a positive part of history.
Post 13 Jul 2006, 19:29
Yay for the Second Front opened.
Post 14 Jul 2006, 03:28
They did try to open a second front in 1942 at Dieppe, but it was quite botched.
Post 14 Jul 2006, 10:42
facist dictator of Poland, Joseph Pilsudski send propositions to France of prevent attack on Germany becase of breking limits of army number and growing militarisation in Germany, it' was just few years after founding nazist goverment. If France or other's from west could agree and smash hitler quiclky and simply- if the war between nations wouldn't start class war would be biggewr and harder- for example in Poland most of the workers's and peasansts fought with soviet's in the beggining of 20th, in the 30th they won't. In that times facist militarism of Poland have murdered houndreds of workers and peasants and repressed communist movement. From 23 ther took place couple of workers or peasant's uprising's so the situation would be different. The same radicalisation of masses under the big crisis happened in other countries like Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia etc. In France and Spain was build big popular front. So reasuming western capitalist countries joining so late the war (and doing bigger operations like for example D-Day) didn't save the peace but save peace between classes=saved capitalist regimes in Europe and USA.
That's all.
Post 06 Sep 2006, 05:42
This war has so many variables that can be taken into consideration.

if the USSR hadn't been able to fend off operation barbarosa.

If the germans had waited until the following year to invade the USSR, then Great britain may have fallen.

If the UK fell, there is no d-day.
Post 07 Mar 2007, 09:14
Quote:
If the germans had waited until the following year to invade the USSR, then Great britain may have fallen.


Yeah that's pretty much what I always thought. If Hitler focused his attention on England instead of Russia after western europe (Holland, Belgium, France), the UK would surely have fallen and Hitler would have a far stronger base. Then it would have been (near) impossible for the Allies (America, if they still had joined without the UK) to start another front in Europe.
Post 07 Mar 2007, 11:37
Quote:
If the germans had waited until the following year to invade the USSR, then Great britain may have fallen.

Only by betrayal. Germans never could seriously harm American aid to Britain which was massive and enough to keep it afloat for the war duration.
Post 07 Mar 2007, 14:18
Quote:
Germans never could seriously harm American aid to Britain which was massive and enough to keep it afloat for the war duration.


Actually, I would say the Germans would have eventually succeeded in conquering Britain, but British resistance would have been a potent force, much like Yugoslav resistance.
Post 07 Mar 2007, 16:00
Quote:
Actually, I would say the Germans would have eventually succeeded in conquering Britain, but British resistance would have been a potent force, much like Yugoslav resistance.

That's debatable. The landscape of Britain, escpecially the South of England, does not lend itself to guerilla operations - no mountains or marshland to speak of, and flat terrain with good infrastructure and communications. Occupation would have been relatively easy. The difficult part is getting to the stage of Occupation. There's a little thing in the way called the 'English Channel'. Oh, and the RAF was still around too. When Hitler lost the Battle of Britain, he had to concede control of the skies to the British. This meant that any attempted invasion of Britain would have been dangerously vulnerable to attack from the air and the sea. As the Germans were crossing the Channel, there would have been a massacre on an unprecedented scale. The Wehrmacht's finest troops would have ended up at the bottom of the sea without ever seeing combat. These were troops which Hitler needed for his future invasion of the Soviet Union; he could not afford to lose them. After the loss of the Battle of Britain, Hitler could not successfully invade both Britain and Russia - he had to choose. He chose Russia. And for ideological reasons as well, he would have preferred to invade Russia - Hitler always admired the British Empire, and regarded the fact that Nazi Germany and Britain were enemies as a terrible tragedy. This is why he lacked the killer instinct towards the British - he allowed our army to escape at Dunkirk, for example, and he called off Operation Sealion. Towards Russia, he felt no such compunction - it would be a war of extermination. Besides, by 1941 Hitler had convinced himself that the British were a spent force anyway. Who cared if they hadn't surrendered? After the Soviet Union was crushed, the British would have no choice but to accept whatever terms Nazi Germany offered. And of course, the Soviet Union would be a pushover....
Post 07 Mar 2007, 16:32
Quote:
After the loss of the Battle of Britain, Hitler could not successfully invade both Britain and Russia - he had to choose.

He could not successfully invade Britain PERIOD. His country's naval capabilities were too pathetic for that. Sealion was a ruse, a sham, a decoy but nothing more. Halder reported that the industry could not even cope with making enough _barges_ for an amphibious force which would have to go over La Manche. Freaking _BARGES_. With the Royal Navy in Britain. Yeah.

Hitler never could, at any point, at all, invade Britain. That's why all his hopes were crushing it's last possible continental ally and thus achieveing dominion over Europe, while crushing and capturing British colonies in Africa (while the Japanese do the same for SEA), and through this process forcing Britain to surrender in political means, not direct assault means.
Post 07 Mar 2007, 17:58
Erempiris wrote:
Then it would have been (near) impossible for the Allies (America, if they still had joined without the UK) to start another front in Europe.


American troops landed in French North Africa. That would've remained unchanged even if Germany defeated Great Britain. Might have been a bigger problem with transportation but it still could have been done.

Potemkin wrote:
That's debatable. The landscape of Britain, escpecially the South of England, does not lend itself to guerilla operations - no mountains or marshland to speak of, and flat terrain with good infrastructure and communications


One sterotype that Britain has is being stubborn. Historically it has been very good at that. Guerrilla warfare would have been much more difficult in England but as Western Europe has shown, there are ways to passively resist an occupying force. Besides that factor, Potemkin said some smart stuff, again.
Post 07 Mar 2007, 18:24
Quote:
American troops landed in French North Africa. That would've remained unchanged even if Germany defeated Great Britain. Might have been a bigger problem with transportation but it still could have been done.

It's more likely that America would have shifted its main effort during WWII to the Pacific theatre, instead of directing most of their effort against Nazi Germany. Japan would have been defeated sooner, and Germany somewhat later than it actually was. Conducting Operation Overlord across the entire Atlantic Ocean instead of across 20-odd miles of the Channel is a pretty daunting prospect. Think of the vulnerable supply lines and the problems of reinforcement. It would have been an enormous, even reckless, gamble, even more than it was in reality.
Post 07 Mar 2007, 22:37
Quote:
It's more likely that America would have shifted its main effort during WWII to the Pacific theatre, instead of directing most of their effort against Nazi Germany.


True. But the Western powers would have saw the need to keep the USSR alive. They were taking the brunt of the fighting and the allies wanted to keep the USSR in the game.

Quote:
Conducting Operation Overlord across the entire Atlantic Ocean instead of across 20-odd miles of the Channel is a pretty daunting prospect. Think of the vulnerable supply lines and the problems of reinforcement. It would have been an enormous, even reckless, gamble, even more than it was in reality.


I don't think the allies would've kept Overlord. I don't know how they would liberate Great Britain. But they would've kept striking at the "weak under belly" of Germany.
Post 08 Mar 2007, 02:53
The US occupied Iceland after its entry into the war, and perhaps Iceland could have been used as a staging point for air and sea raids on the UK in preparation for a greater land invasion.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]