Hi. My name is Damian. I am 14 years old. I am a freshman at Western Dubuque Highschool in Epwoth, IA. I am doing an 18 week in-depth report on d-day for my advanced learning class. I need peoples opinion on the significance of D-Day. For example:What effect did D-Day have on the war, what might have happened if D-Day had failed for the allied force, and why it had to occur. Now dont be thinking im just a dumb teenager and start talking about to me about the events and all that basic stuff on d-day cause i know a large quantity of info. on D-Day. I just want YOUR opinion on what i am asking. Im sorry i had to say that but thats how i get treated on alot of sites. Thank you for taking the time to read this and if you do, thank you for helping me.
Hi Damian. Here is my view of D-day: D-day the invasion of Western Europe by the allies had been thought about by Winston Churchill as early as a few weeks after Dunkirk, but only really started getting planned in 1942 with the setting up of SHAEF. D-day was the western allies reponse to Stalin's demand for a second front in Europe (although it was actually the third if you count Italy). In my opinion it was necessary to ensure the destruction of Hitler's Germany would happen a few years (at least) earlier than if the Russians had done all the fighting themselves. It was also in my opinion a poltical operation as well because the allied invasion of Western Europe stopped almost certainly communist domination of mainland Europe which in hindsight properly wouldnt have been a good thing to have with all the tension surrounding the Cold War. So there is my opinion for you D-day was a neccesary venture which shortened the war and prevented Communist domination of mainland Europe. If D-day had failed it would have a disaster for the allies who wouldnt have been able to mount another operation of the same scale for another 2 years or so whilst they build up supplies and equipment as well as men for another attempt which would have happened in late 1945 at the earliest by which time the Soviets would have been nearer Berlin but Hitler would have been able to relocate some of his troops troops from the West to the East which would have put more pressure on the Russians. Although if D-day had failed the allies would have properly put more effort in the Italian campaign and try to reach Germany that way. I have already stated why I feel D-day was neccesary: to stop Communist domination of Continental Europe and to please Stalin by opening a second front as well as getting Hitler into exactly the war on two fronts the Blitzrieg tactics were meant to avoid, this led to his downfall quicker than it would have otherwise occured with only the Russians to face. As a result of this when Berlin fell Hitler would have been able to move West or set a up a resistance movement like the Alpine Redoubt that was feared after the defeat of Germany in May 1945 but that never materialised. Sorry for being longwinded but theres my opinion I hope it helps you in your project. Gnomey
Hello Damian You might be interested in a couple of Alternative History sites that ponder the implications of an unsuccessful D-Day. However, as long as you take their facts and conjecture with a mountain of salt, for there are an awful lot of meandering untruths and unfounded suppositions on such sites, it should give you food for thought so you will be able to explore these possibilities for yourself. Had D-Day failed due to, for example, the invasion armada being hit by V1 rockets whilst concentrating on the S. coast of England, or perhaps the timely and better positioned Panzer reserves: Political instability in the UK: Possibility that Churchill could have been forced from officer. Perhaps not withdrawing from the War, such a landing probably could not have been recreated until the Russians had reached (crossed?) the French border as 'valiant liberators'. Thus, any desire to attempt once again open up a third front (second was in Italy) could be rendered academic. The British were suffering from severe economic problems by 1944 and would find continuation most difficult: After losing a large chunk of their wealth in WW1 and subsequently financing virtually the entire Allied war effort 1939-41, buying arms from the USA and with their economy and shipping used to fight the war rather than maintain a buoyany economy , they (we) were almost bankrupt. It would have been torturous for the War to have dragged on for perhaps a further year or so whilst the Russians steamrollered into Europe. The British were also short of manpower, particularly in the Combat Arms, and most especially in the infantry: After 4.5 years of global conflict and the need to maintain significant garrisons in the UK, around the Empire and in conquered territories (M.E. & N.Africa etc.), whilst maintaining significant land campaigns in Burma and Italy, the British Army was overextended and, although still very much fighting fit, many of our soldiers begrudged fighting in maybe their third high-intensity campaign in as many years. Failure would have had a colossal effect on morale and a significant effect - depending on outcome - of the fighting ability of the British Army for quite a while. Thus, had D-Day failed with heavy casualties it would have been particularly difficult for the British to manage another attempt alongside the USA within the near future. Perhaps even the political desire to undertake such an offensive - but rather let the Russians take the losses in their ultimate victory even though it would lead to post-war problems - could have been snuffed out. If, after years of preparation, with air & sea superiority and with millions of men at their disposal, they had failed, the effect on Allied morale would have been immense. (The tough fighting against stubborn resistance in Normandy did impact heavily upon Allied soldiers.) Stalin would also have been somewhat miffed by the failure of his supposed allies. Just a few thoughts that might help. Richard
thank you to those who have answered. to those who r reading this and havent answered, please if u can try to answer. i only need 3 more peoples opinion. thanks you p.s. even after i get 3 more peoples u can still voice your opinion, if it would work i wanna try to get people to debate upon wat they think d-day did for history and its significance. oh yeah, and if you havent seen it yet then please look for my other post, which is a poll, on the wat would have happened if d-day had failed. Thanks for all your time and help
I think your teacher has assigned you a Master's Thesis, but here goes: D-Day had a lot of significance in a variety of ways. One of the points I like is Cornelius Ryan's: after D-Day, Germany had less than a year to live. John Keegan sums up many of the points of the Allied triumph in France very well. The invasion swept thousands upon thousands of German troops and all their equipment off the chessboard permanently, either as POWs, wounded, or dead men, or bottled up uselessly in holes like St. Nazaire, Dunkirk, and the Channel Islands. Among those Germans dead: Friedrich Dollman, Erich Marcks, and Erwin Rommel. It also denied the German Navy its most important U-Boat bases, as they were either liberated or cut off. The Germans also lost a huge chunk of their economic strength in the French factories and farmlands, as well as those resources. The French population that had been sidelined or fighting as guerrillas was quickly rearmed and retrained, and France was able to hurl a two-corps army into the final campaigns, and provide a lot of FFI to handle line-of-communications work, like besieging St. Nazaire. The Vichy government was completely discredited. Laval and Petain had to flee to Germany. The Luftwaffe lost vast amounts of aircraft as well, which drove them back behind the Rhine. The Allies in turn were able to move their air bases further forward. By December, they were able to carry out tactical air strikes on German railways, adding to the German troubles. The invasion of Europe also accelerated anti-Nazi plotters' plans, which led to the Bomb Plot. While that coup failed, it had an interesting backlash in that Hitler's revenge against his Wehrmacht weakened the general staff even further. Hitler sent dozens of important Germans to their deaths, among them "Clever Hans" Von Kluge, replacing them with politically obedient stooges, who did as they were told and launched the Ardennes, Nordwind, and Fruhlungserwachen Offensives. With vast tracts of German troops dead and out of the game, Hitler had fewer and fewer reserves to slow down the Soviets. When the Soviets hit Army Group Center on June 22nd, 1944, there was almost nothing to stop them. Again and again, German generals would plead with Hitler to send reserves East to stop the Russians, and Hitler would not or could not, because of the assaults in the West. The invasion of Europe gave hope to struggling resistance movements all across Europe and empowered them to put more pressure on the Germans, tying up more German troops that simply did not exist. As I've said before, had D-Day failed, the Germans would have gained valuable time to complete their V-weapons and perhaps their atomic weapons. A second invasion of Europe would have included far less British troops and been probably greeted by scores of jet fighters and bombers as well as V-1 and V-2 missiles. How's that?
I agree with you Kiwiwriter about the possibilty of more V-1 and V-2 attacks but I believe it is doubtuful that Germany would have been able to create an atomic bomb as I believe that the science behind Germany's 'Heavy Water' plans to build a bomb at the Norsk Hydro plant near Vemork in Norway has been discreditied. The Red Army by June 1944 has pushed the Germans back considerably and I doubt had the men and materials used for the offensive in the Ardennes been used on the Eastern Front would have created such an impact on a highly developed Red Army which had enough resources to push on to final victory although it would have taken longer. The troops and civilians of the Soviet Union would have taken carried on fulled by their eagerness to repay the Germans for invading the Soviet Union itself.
oh, this is great, if you two could, please debate upon your differnet opinions on this matter, this is exactly what ive been looking and waiting for! thank you, thank you very much!!!!!
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Oct 11 2004, 11:40 PM As I've said before, had D-Day failed, the Germans would have gained valuable time to complete their V-weapons and perhaps their atomic weapons. A second invasion of Europe would have included far less British troops and been probably greeted by scores of jet fighters and bombers as well as V-1 and V-2 missiles. How's that? [post=28672]Quoted post[/post] IMO unrealistic! V-1 and V-2 were a waste of resources –building conventional weapons could have done a lot more damage –and the atomic bomb was totally out of reach. Germany did not even have a nuclear reactor running by 1945. Nukes had a very low priority in Germany during the war. And a second invasion would hardly be needed, because by 1944 the USSR could have easily won without an actual invasion. Just look at the casualties they inflicted during there summer offensive -28 german divisions gone in two weeks. The only help they needed was the American and British division remaining ready for a possible invasion and thereby diverting numerous german units from the East. By the way: THX for saving us from the Russians!
Originally posted by Markus@Oct 13 2004, 10:58 PM IMO unrealistic! V-1 and V-2 were a waste of resources –building conventional weapons could have done a lot more damage –and the atomic bomb was totally out of reach. Germany did not even have a nuclear reactor running by 1945. Nukes had a very low priority in Germany during the war. And a second invasion would hardly be needed, because by 1944 the USSR could have easily won without an actual invasion. Just look at the casualties they inflicted during there summer offensive -28 german divisions gone in two weeks. The only help they needed was the American and British division remaining ready for a possible invasion and thereby diverting numerous german units from the East. By the way: THX for saving us from the Russians! [post=28702]Quoted post[/post] It was also found out at the end of the war that the Germans where still 2-3 years away from producing a nuclear weapon and Hitler could have chosen to plough the resources used for the V-1 and V-2 projects (and numerous others which where a waste of time) to proven successes such as the Panther and Tiger tanks aswell as aircraft such as the ME-262 and FW-190. With these extra resources the allies would have found quite a bit harder to defeat the Germans as they would have been able to recover from losses in equipment better as well as provide a more effective defence to the allied bombers which where pounding the reich and the synthetic oil plants which drastically cutting of Germany's amount of fuel (down a maximum of 75% at times), this problem was compounded when the Russians captured the Ploetsi oil fields in late 1944. Agreed a second invasion would not be needed for the reasons you have stated. The Russians sure did save us
