64th Anniversay of D-Day
Archived31 replies · 836 views
I had a chap on the phone in work a few years ago, enquiring about the free veterans passports (given out to attend the various commemorations in France). He'd been one of the first chaps onto Juno beach.
We're not meant to get chatty or personal (we're supposed to be irritating call-centre-cuntdroids, but funnily enough I belive that customer service is not synonymous with customer irritation), but I had to thank him. I nearly broke down as I said it to him, because the balls of those guys, coming in on the landers under fire with no prospect ahead but more accurate fire and a total lack of cover, defies my ability to comprehend (and in fairness the septics had it MUCH worse too). I could never have done it, and it all came home to me in a second that my whole life was owed to him and the friends he left on the beach.
It makes me even sadder to see that what they fought to protect us from, we're now marching right into ourselves.
You know I've no respect for just about anything. But the men who sailed that June day in 1944, I hold in untarnished regard.
Last year, my grand father who was still alive, told me about his D-Day. He was in the Navy and remembered how violently the infantery men were got onboard.
He also said how more violent it was for the Provence landing in August. The men knew the slaughtery it had been in Normandy...
We're the last generation that feels any connection to the war, thru our upbringing. I mean we say THE war meaning WW2, while younger generations have to ask what war.
I'm off on a trip to Normandy tomorrow with my father. My grandfather was one of the lucky ones who came back home. Shame he died when I was too young to really know him..
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
But those veterans who at every opportunity said that they fought for us, bastards... I never liked them.
Do you really need to prove how much of a cock you are?
One of the saddest aspects of D-Day was that, while it was successful, the landing was a mess. Unfortunately the Army didn't think highly of the Marine Corps, and disregarded all the tactics learned earlier in the amphibious assualts on Japanese Islands....
On a historical note, WWII had the first successful amphibious landings ever that faced direct fortifications when landing. The Greeks, Persians, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, etc. all failed miserably....
EdelBrock wrote:
On a historical note, WWII had the first successful amphibious landings ever that faced direct fortifications when landing. The Greeks, Persians, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, etc. all failed miserably....
Well of the three beaches the mess was really only one, the other two weren't a great obstacle. That is due to the wrong perception by the German HQ that the attack would be around Pas de Cale and the concentration of the German troops higher up north.
The Americans should have attacked Japan directly in the same way. It's a pity Harry Truman was in charge.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
On a historical note, WWII had the first successful amphibious landings ever that faced direct fortifications when landing. The Greeks, Persians, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, etc. all failed miserably....
Well of the three beaches the mess was really only one, the other two weren't a great obstacle. That is due to the wrong perception by the German HQ that the attack would be around Pas de Cale and the concentration of the German troops higher up north.
The Americans should have attacked Japan directly in the same way. It's a pity Harry Truman was in charge.
Actually one of the worst blunders of D-Day is that they did a naval bombardment for only 4 hours. Compare to revised and final Japanese island, Okinawa, with 8 days of bombardment... The importance of naval bombardment was already a revised part of amphibious doctrine at the time of D-Day planning... this could have saved many lives (granted D-Day was a surprise attack, but still 4 hours is pitiful).
But you need to read up on WWII, Japan couldn't be attacked directly. It simply wasn't feasible. The whole idea of amphibious doctrine is based on one guy, who before the Pearl Harbour attack, everyone thought his idea was crackpot. Col. Ellis, USMC, came up with the idea shortly after WWI, mapped out the best attack, took in tide charts of the areas, and did reconisence of the area... way before the idea of a CIA ever came about (and before most of the US thought Japan was an enemy).
If not for him, the fight against Japan would have been drastically different... and who knows what the outcome would hav been....
So in short, Truman had little to do with the battle plan against Japan....
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
On a historical note, WWII had the first successful amphibious landings ever that faced direct fortifications when landing. The Greeks, Persians, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, etc. all failed miserably....
Well of the three beaches the mess was really only one, the other two weren't a great obstacle. That is due to the wrong perception by the German HQ that the attack would be around Pas de Cale and the concentration of the German troops higher up north.
The Americans should have attacked Japan directly in the same way. It's a pity Harry Truman was in charge.
Many opine that dropping the A-bombs saved many American lives. That is true. How many casualties might result from the Operation Downfall invasion was controversial then and remains so today. The generally accepted figure was that the US would suffer one million casualties. Some even said more.
The truth, thankfully, is no one knows.
D.M. Giangreco prepared a paper on this subject, entitled, "Casualty projections for the US invasion of Japan, 1945-46: Planning and policy implications." He doggedly describes the numerous discussions and papers written on the subject, and then, sums it all up this way:
"Researchers look at the forest of documents created over fifty years ago and almost immediately become lost during their hunt for extreme comments and inconsistencies. The fundamental truth, however, was that the Army and War Department manpower policy of 1945--- in all its aspects--- was established in such a way that the Army could sustain an average of 100,000 casualties per month from November 1945 through the fall of 1946 and still retain relatively fully manned and combat-effective units through its use of new Selective Service inductees and reassigned soldiers from demobilized units. That casualties would be massive was so basic an understanding, that it was functionally a 'self-evident truth' held by decision makers at virtually all levels. Little or no paper discussion was required or conducted within the Army, and events beyond its purview rendered an invasion unnecessary. The Army, as an institution, believed its soldiers would suffer extreme losses during an invasion of Japan, and all its actions in 1945 were based on that assumption."
http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryDownfall.html
This is why we didn't invade Japan.
Not to mention the morale for warfare against Japan by American citizens was wearing thin around the attack of Okinawa... similar to a feeling that we have about Iraq today... Truman needed to end the war fast...
Not only were high casualty rates expected of on the US side, but also the remaining Japanese on the mainland, mostly women and children, that were trained to throw their bodies at US troops if nessicary... a good book to read on the subject is "Japan at War, An Oral Account" by Haruko Taya Cook, a bunch of first hand accounts on the Japanese side compiled together, from all aspects of Japanese culture.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: I wrote a detailed answer and it wasn't saved. Bummer.
So had time to come back to it yet Ian? Hate when you type a long thoughtout discussion, and forget to copy it before sending it... I really wish the time-out portion wasn't there :mad4:
Opera OPERA O P E R A
not fuckin telling yous again!
What? you all thought I was a world class touch-typist or something?
Actually I use Opera (thanks to your recommendation sometime back), but I still get the timeout deal on this website.
EdelBrock wrote: Actually I use Opera (thanks to your recommendation sometime back), but I still get the timeout deal on this website.
Yes, but if you hit "back" your post re-appears, and the timeout has reset so you just click submit again. ;)
(fairly sure that's not limited to the linux version)
Confusion33 wrote: Nothing to do with the fortunes spent on the Manhattan Project then?
This stuff really irks me. I spent a class this semester with girls comparing Hiroshima to the Holocaust. Jesus! The Japanese did far worse than the Americans ever did.
Maybe - but don't try to justify it by saying that it was necessary to end the war when the real reason was to stop Russia helping out...
Confusion33 wrote: Maybe - but don't try to justify it by saying that it was necessary to end the war when the real reason was to stop Russia helping out...
Actually the bomb dropping had nothing to do with whether or not Russia 'helped out' Japan. Russia didn't renew the treaty they had with Japan, because the Allies offered a bigger piece of the pie, then Japan did. We offered to give ALL of China to Russia, where Japan offered only half. Stalin signed a treaty with the Allies (without Japan's knowledge) waaaaay before the bomb dropped in either city...
...the problem with conspericy theorists is that they never have thier history correct....
actually i was referring to the offer of help they were giving to the US. Russia had defeated Germany and were now looking to help the USA by entering the war on August 15th. There were many alternatives to dropping the bomb - a naval blockade, modification of the unconditional surrender terms which were hard for the Japanese to swallow, conventional bombing, and waiting just a little longer to see if the Soviet Union's August 9 entry into the war would prompt the Japanese to surrender. However, Truman could not allow the latter to happen.
This is not conspiracy - just good old fashioned historical argument.
sentamentalises what is just excess testosterone after all. More interested in the fact that it must getting on for 60 years now that the British Empire Collapsed
Collateralised debt obligation wrote:
sentamentalises what is just excess testosterone after all. More interested in the fact that it must getting on for 60 years now that the British Empire Collapsed
I believe a little more respect is required.........
Daily Mail is one of the worst offenders for sentamentalising the macho. But BBC news never wastes an opportunity to wheel out the same old men several times a year
Confusion33 wrote: actually i was referring to the offer of help they were giving to the US. Russia had defeated Germany and were now looking to help the USA by entering the war on August 15th. There were many alternatives to dropping the bomb - a naval blockade, modification of the unconditional surrender terms which were hard for the Japanese to swallow, conventional bombing, and waiting just a little longer to see if the Soviet Union's August 9 entry into the war would prompt the Japanese to surrender. However, Truman could not allow the latter to happen.
This is not conspiracy - just good old fashioned historical argument.
Only an arguement to someone who has half the facts.... Russia wasn't interested in 'helping the US', Stalin was only concerned of the growth of Mother Russia, his help went to the highest bidder. Japan wasn't trying to win the war by obliterating the US, they only hoped they could hold us off long enough, because the morale and spirit of the American citizen back home was getting weary of the war. Naval blockade wouldn't have worked... and if you had yer facts down you would know that conventional bombing on Japan caused far more casualties that the atomic bombings combined.
and to think either of those ideas would work only shows how you get yer history only from a modern western perspective....
Only an arguement to someone who has half the facts.... Russia wasn't interested in 'helping the US', Stalin was only concerned of the growth of Mother Russia, his help went to the highest bidder. Japan wasn't trying to win the war by obliterating the US, they only hoped they could hold us off long enough, because the morale and spirit of the American citizen back home was getting weary of the war. Naval blockade wouldn't have worked... and if you had yer facts down you would know that conventional bombing on Japan caused far more casualties that the atomic bombings combined.
and to think either of those ideas would work only shows how you get yer history only from a modern western perspective....
Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb. The Japanese only wanted to hear that they would be allowed to keep their Emperor.
If you remember your history you would know that FDR and Churchill had asked Stalin at Yalta to help in the war against Japan- but Truman would not follow his predecessor's plans.
Interestingly the Smithsonian ran an exhibition on the Enola Gay which emphasised the deaths and the nuclear fallout which followed. This caused an uproar amongst US veterans however it shows the depth of feeling this topic causes. I merely wanted to point out both sides of the argument.
You are absolutely right about the conventional bombing though- the firebombing carried out by LeMay et al destroyed many Japanese cities- so why use the nukes?
I'd say the atomic bombs were meant at least as much for the Soviet Union's attention as they were for Japan's. We got a twofer there, if anything, with Japan's immediate and unconditional surrender.
