I'm doing a paper on why there were so many casualties at Omaha Beach and I know the factors that American and British historians claim were the reasons e.g. rough seas, strong German defences, lack of proper equipment etc. But I need a conflicting opinion from a historian who thinks differently?? I'm finding it hard to research as everyone believes the same thing.
Well, Historymad, there might be a good reason the historians all agree! But welcome aboard and good luck with your quest.
Hello historymad, This topic was discussed not to long ago here. Here is a link to the thread: http://www.ww2talk.com/index.php?showtopic=586&hl=Omaha Welcome to the forums.
Originally posted by historymad@Jul 18 2005, 06:56 PM I'm doing a paper on why there were so many casualties at Omaha Beach and I know the factors that American and British historians claim were the reasons e.g. rough seas, strong German defences, lack of proper equipment etc. But I need a conflicting opinion from a historian who thinks differently?? I'm finding it hard to research as everyone believes the same thing. [post=36596]Quoted post[/post] i think the reason they had a lot of casualties was they diddent send planes over to take photos of the beach to see what kind of defence the germans had and they should of bombed the beach first with the bomber crew's first then send the men in they might not have lost all the men they did
We have, of course, discussed Omaha Beach on the forum before and my views are third down on this thread: http://www.ww2talk.com/index.php?showtopic=586 This will disappoint you, histroymad, because I hold dead conventional views on the subject which do not contradict the accepted view. It is not good practice to simply decide to take a contrary view of some aspect of history for the sake of being controversial and Omaha Beach is a case in point. Key historians do not disagree on the essentials, because the evidence is pretty clear cut. There is some discussion about whether greater American use of specialised armour and more enginners in the early waves would have helped, but nobody pretends this would have turned Omaha into a pushover. Unfortunatly D-day was not a pushover and many brave men died and were wounded because it was an incredibly hard thing to carry out. And finally, by all the accepted standards of the time, the casulties at Omaha Beach were actually within the range considered acceptable for the operation by the generals. My advice, therefore, is to pick a different historical subject where there is more genuine controversy, examine the evidence on both sides critically and decide which view most closely matches your own. Having done all this, you can start to write your paper.
Thanks Angie I see what you mean. I was just so interested in this particular subject that I kind of overlooked the fact that I needed a more controversial topic! Sorry to be annoying but does anyone have any ideas of a more controversial topic that is around this time, any WWII campaigns or similar things??? Any help much appreciated.
I did my high school term paper on the decision to drop the atomic bomb. This was pre-internet so there will probably be a lot more research material out ther now than there was when I wrote the paper.
I did my high school term paper on the decision to drop the atomic bomb. This was pre-internet so there will probably be a lot more research material out ther now than there was when I wrote the paper. I spent time and money gathering many rare books concerning Warfare, especially documents concerning the political side of things and now all i need to do is go to certain websites and they are there! Takes the fun out of research!! :angry: :angry:
As for me,.. i still prefer do browsing through Kinokuniya or boders (the two biggest bookshops in singapore), perhaps i can be assured on the references or resources. Cheers
Originally posted by morse1001@Jul 19 2005, 06:29 PM I spent time and money gathering many rare books concerning Warfare, especially documents concerning the political side of things and now all i need to do is go to certain websites and they are there![post=36626]Quoted post[/post] Don't worry. The vast majority of privately owned websites lack the provenance to be quoted as a source.
Originally posted by historymad@Jul 19 2005, 10:45 AM Thanks Angie I see what you mean. I was just so interested in this particular subject that I kind of overlooked the fact that I needed a more controversial topic! Sorry to be annoying but does anyone have any ideas of a more controversial topic that is around this time, any WWII campaigns or similar things??? Any help much appreciated. [post=36624]Quoted post[/post] The amphibious raid on Dieppe in 1942 was controvesial. It ended in disaster for the Canadian troops involved. One book, Brian Loring Villa's Unathorized Action questions whether it was even officialy authorized by the British Imperial Staff.
Originally posted by GUMALANGI+Jul 20 2005, 04:33 PM-->(GUMALANGI @ Jul 20 2005, 04:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>As for me,.. i still prefer do browsing through Kinokuniya or boders (the two biggest bookshops in singapore), perhaps i can be assured on the references or resources. Cheers [post=36679]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Originally posted by angie999@Jul 21 2005, 08:11 AM <!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Jul 19 2005, 06:29 PM I spent time and money gathering many rare books concerning Warfare, especially documents concerning the political side of things and now all i need to do is go to certain websites and they are there![post=36626]Quoted post[/post] Don't worry. The vast majority of privately owned websites lack the provenance to be quoted as a source. [post=36689]Quoted post[/post] I am talking about the vast amount of official government archive websites
Historymad, I hope you havent over looked Utah, Juno, Sword, and gold they played a key part in the invasion also. Goodluck with your paper.
The geography of the beack, itself, was enough to turn Omaha into a meatgrinder... For the most part, everything that could have went wrong on Omaha, did. Amphibious tanks all sank except for one. German veterans from the Eastern Front that weren't supposed to be there. etc.
