D-Day Commemoration

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
D-Day: 17 stunning photos from 1944 show how hard the Normandy invasion really was

One of the photos included was this one.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/06/05/21/14421748-7109427-image-a-63_1559768184674.jpg
With this caption:
Paratroopers of the Allied Army land on La Manche, on the coast of France on June 6, 1944, after Allied forces stormed the Normandy beaches during D-Day.

I'm not sure that caption is accurate. The paratroopers landed in the dark. The airborne divisions' glider regiments landed at sundown of June 6th, but I do not think any Allied paratroopers landed in daylight on June 6th. I think that photo may be from Holland (where the paratroopers did jump in daylight), or maybe Operation Varsity (Montie's crossing of the Rhine in March 1945).
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
And then Russia chimes in.
Russia to West: D-Day wasn't decisive in ending World War Two

I have read that 8 of every 11 German soldiers killed in WW II was killed by the Red Army, but 3 out of 11 does not equal zero. By June 1944, the majority of the Wehrmacht was in Russia, but the German forces in the West were significant. The east-west imbalance of German deployment was much reduced from 1942.
And the western Allies, especially the United States, provided megatons of military aid to the Soviets during the war to keep them in the fight.
And the Allied bomber offensive against Nazi Germany complicated German production, destroyed resources, tied down Luftwaffe fighters which otherwise would have been challenging the Red Air Force for air superiority over the Eastern Front and the Soviets contributed nothing to that effort until 1945.
And, it is debatable whether Hitler would have started the war in 1939 if not for the Nazi-Soviet Pact (aka the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) in August 1939.

Zakharova should just keep her mouth shut.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
The US accounted for an astonishing HALF of all war production once we geared up and got behind the war effort.

The Soviets were so poorly managed they couldn't even arm each of their infantrymen with a rifle, instead dumping them into battle with orders to acquire rifles from their dead comrades.

The Soviets were also so poorly equipped that all they really could do in the face of the German attack in the summer of '41 was tuck tail and run, continuing to retreat (run away) until the German supply lines could no longer keep up. Yeah it worked, but at its own massive cost of life.

The Soviets like to talk about how many of theirs were killed in WWII, as if their stupidity somehow equals a badge of courage.

The Allies would have won the war with or without the Soviets - it would have taken longer and cost us much more, but we would have done it. the Soviets cannot say the same.

So yeah, they did their part, in the most ham-fisted, inelegant was possible, so congrats.

Can you tell that I hate commies almost as much as nazis? :)
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Can you tell that I hate commies almost as much as nazis? :)
I'm not exactly communists' biggest fan myself.

At the National D-Day memorial in Bedford Virginia, they erected a statue to FDR (appropriate), Churchill (also appropriate) and then Joe Stalin (wildly inappropriate, in my view). If you want to put up monument to the common Soviet soldier, okay, but Stalin? Bad call, in my view.
 
Last edited:

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
13,786
14,082
187
16outa17essee
I’m pretty sure the French, Belgians, Dutch, liberated Jews, and others would strongly disagree with the Russian opinion.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
I’m pretty sure the French, Belgians, Dutch, liberated Jews, and others would strongly disagree with the Russian opinion.
As would the Polish, Finnish, the people of the Baltic states, Bessarabia, and Northern Bukovina - all were invaded by the Soviets before Barbarossa put them on their heels...
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
Re: 75th anniversary of D-Day...

Found a list of US & British Lend Lease 1941-45 to the Soviets.
18,700 Aircraft
10,800 Tanks
9,600 Artillery tubes
2,600,000 tons POL
427,000 motor vehicle
1900 Locomotive engines
4 million tons of foodstuff
6 million tons of raw materials
15 million pairs of boots
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,552
39,658
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Re: 75th anniversary of D-Day...

Found a list of US & British Lend Lease 1941-45 to the Soviets.
18,700 Aircraft
10,800 Tanks
9,600 Artillery tubes
2,600,000 tons POL
427,000 motor vehicle
1900 Locomotive engines
4 million tons of foodstuff
6 million tons of raw materials
15 million pairs of boots
I knew Britain was a recipient under the 1941 Act. I wasn't aware that Britain had anything to send to the USSR...
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
The Soviets were also so poorly equipped that all they really could do in the face of the German attack in the summer of '41 was tuck tail and run, continuing to retreat (run away) until the German supply lines could no longer keep up. Yeah it worked, but at its own massive cost of life.
1 death a tragedy, a million a statistic. The Battle of Moscow probably ended any chance of the Nazis winning the war, and more or less was the turning point of the war. The US involvement at that point was minimal. Even a victory at Stalingrad, the Nazis were probably looking at best a draw.





The Soviets like to talk about how many of theirs were killed in WWII, as if their stupidity somehow equals a badge of courage.



[/QUOTE]
Its kinda hard to ignore that Hitler's Wehrmact lost 3/4ths of its force in Russia, or that if you separate the western and eastern fronts into two different wars that the eastern front becomes the deadliest war in human history. It also becomes the most brutal in human history as well because the Germans often pointed out that the Russians weren't at the Hauge convention so freezing bodies for road is fair game. You didn't see that level of atrocities in the Western Front. Everyone tries to say that the Battle of the Bulge is this "great" battle. It was the bloodiest battle in the west with just north of 180k casualties. But compare it to battles that folks have never heard of in the Eastern Front... Battle of Minsk 360k, Smolensk 996k, and Kharakov 230k. The battle of the Bulge isn't that bloody compared to what happened on the Eastern front. That's not even addressing that over 1.5 MILLION folks were killed in Stalingrad.

So I think its pretty courageous to fight for the Russian side against the Nazi genocide marching its way. Choosing between Hitler and Stalin is the worst choice in human history, and the Soviet high command started seeing that. Its no coincidence that the propaganda started to change from "Protectors of Communism" to "Warriors for Mother Russia" very quick. So I think its safe to say that most weren't fighting for communism.

http://www.allworldwars.com/Russian%20WWII%20Propaganda%20Posters.html











The Allies would have won the war with or without the Soviets - it would have taken longer and cost us much more, but we would have done it. the Soviets cannot say the same.


[/QUOTE]


Without Barbarossa its hard to say. Yes, no, maybe. The thing to remember is that the Wehrmact didn't have the overall fortitude that the Kaiseriech did in that it could effectively extend countries while holding a strong defense line to Germany. The Wehrmact was most effective closer to Germany, more than it ever was away from it. Hitler's biggest mistake was Barbarossa and his second was getting the US involved when he had no business doing so. The Wehrmact had a small window to win in Russia while the Kaiseriech could do it without a sweat. Point is an overextended German line played a huge role in how easy it was for the USA to swoop in and win the Western Front. Had Germany had all of their veteran soldiers that they lost on the Ostfront its more likely that we maybe looking at a war that drags on so far that we pursue an armistice. Democracies don't do well in long wars, and if it extends further into the Truman era I think we have a general feeling as to what he would do had we made little to no progress in liberating France by 1945. A bomb in Europe or an armistice...

We needed the Russians as much as they needed us. D-Day wasn't the decisive moment in the war, that happened on the 2nd of February 1943 or technically December 11th, 1941. What D-day accomplished was 2 things 1) it brought a swifter end to the war and 2) It ensured France wouldn't be a communist state because the avalanche was coming after Kursk. Russia would've been in Berlin with or without the D-day landing after it totally destroyed Germany's armor at Kursk in 1943.
 
Last edited:

Leeroy

All-SEC
Dec 27, 2005
1,279
335
107
68
I have the same dislike for the Soviets that Patton had in WWII. If I could describe them in one word, it would be Katyn.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
It's easy to get caught up in numbers of lives lost on the western front, but it was the RAF and USAF air power that caused the Nazi manufacturing to crumble - once that happened, they began losing on both fronts. The Soviets weren't going to out-manufacture the Germans, nor were they going to gain the air superiority the US did. Once the US and UK started destroying the German infrastructure, the battle was won - it was just a matter of how long the Nazis attempted to hold out to avoid the impossible.

That'a why say the Soviets could not have won without the US/UK, and the US/UK would have won without the Soviets. We out manufactured EVERYONE else one war, equalling everyone else combined in total output. Once you reach that point and win the air, the infantry and artillery are just numbers.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
It's easy to get caught up in numbers of lives lost on the western front, but it was the RAF and USAF air power that caused the Nazi manufacturing to crumble - once that happened, they began losing on both fronts. The Soviets weren't going to out-manufacture the Germans, nor were they going to gain the air superiority the US did. Once the US and UK started destroying the German infrastructure, the battle was won - it was just a matter of how long the Nazis attempted to hold out to avoid the impossible.

That'a why say the Soviets could not have won without the US/UK, and the US/UK would have won without the Soviets. We out manufactured EVERYONE else one war, equalling everyone else combined in total output. Once you reach that point and win the air, the infantry and artillery are just numbers.
The Battle of Moscow (1941) was won because of reserves from Siberia not the significant aid from the US. The only reason the British were still relevant was because Hitler attacked Russia instead of aiding Rommel in Africa and wipe Monty from the face of the Earth. Yes the US tremendously aided the Soviet war effort the next year, but even if the Germans were to break through at Stalingrad its highly unlikely that they wouldve been able to win the war. The Battle of Moscow was the beginning of the end of the Third Reich, Stalingrad and Kursk were the end of it. After 1943 the fall of Berlin was inevitable.

The Russians defeated 10 million German veterans. Hitlers best generals, best soldiers, and best mechanized units were in the east. The Allies never saw 10 million Germans in the entire war. Numbers and experience are huge factor, and diplomacy as well. If the war dragged into the Truman era with little movement, then its highly likely Truman ends the war by the pen or the bomb. Democracies are weak during long wars because they arent designed to have points of prolonged centralization of power. I think 10 million more troops and experienced generals could make a long drawn out war.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.