Why D-Day was the British people's greatest day

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
UK troops were support troops for the most part on D-Day.

Canadians were the only ones who accomplished all assigned D-Day objectives.

Once again the Canucks and Yank pulling the limeys butts out of the fire.

So not only was D-Day a mainly British-planned and organised operation, but almost all the equipment used during it was British too.

Eisenhower was in charge of D-Day. Brit officers were subordinate to him.

Meanwhile in the Pacific...

 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
It was the British who insisted on delaying the opening of a Second Front through the invasion of France until 1944 because of the terrible experience at Dieppe. One of the consequences of the British insistence on delaying the invasion of France was America's decision to divert more resources to the Pacific Theater than had originally been planned.

It was also the British who turned down the American request for the assistance of a British aircraft carrier at the Battle of Midway in June 1942. In fact, after the fall of Singapore there was very little British involvement in the Pacific Theater until 1945.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,356
1,800
113
Try to keep up, Walter. I'm just feeding Blackie's fantasy that World War II was an English-only, no-Yank-or-Canuck-or-Russkie-participation, triumph of His Maj and the Great English Peepul.

Cuz I'm a nice guy, and I don't see no harm in Blackie's silly delusion.

The Soviets won the war in Europe.

It's the other way around. Most Yanks think D-Day - an operation in which the British took the lion's share and received the lion's share of the credit - was a Yank-only operation and the British and Canadians were notable for their absence.

I mean, Hollywood would have you believe that it was the Yanks, rather than the brave crew of HMS Bulldog, who boarded U-571 to capture its Enigma machine.

Thank God for historians like Mr Hastings, who tell it as it was. No American, Saving-Private-Ryan-style romantic claptrap from him. Just plain, bare, raw history. And sometimes, this plain, bare, raw history is just too much to bare for North Americans versed in Captain America-style history.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
It's the other way around. Most Yanks think D-Day - an operation in which the British took the lion's share and received the lion's share of the credit - was a Yank-only operation and the British and Canadian were notable for their absence.

Thank God for historians like Mr Hastings, who tell it as it was. No American, Saving-Private-Ryan-style romantic claptrap from him. Just plain, bare, raw history.

Nope... YOU are the one saying it was all Brits which is why you're taking the heat retard.

The brits were subordinate.

And you can't tell the difference between a Hollywood movie and history. Are all Limeys that stupid?

The US and Canada saved your butts once again.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,356
1,800
113
Nope... YOU are the one saying it was all Brits which is why you're taking the heat retard.

You really need to read more carefully. I said - and I'm following what military historian Mr Hastings has said here - that D-Day was an operation that was planned and organised mainly by British personnel using mainly British equipment (it was Royal Navy ships that transported the vast majority of troops - including your lot - across the Channel).

What part of all this - which is supported by overwhelming historical evidence - do you dispute?


For all the critical contribution of the United States, this was the last great operation of the war in which the British took the lion’s share, and earned a lion’s share of the credit.

Think of the myriad British people involved, from the women industrial workers who made the ammunition to the WAAFs who packed parachutes, the WRNS who manned ops rooms.

British workmen built the huge artificial Mulberry harbours which Churchill himself had conceived, to be towed in sections to France and shelter both British and American supply vessels offloading from volatile Channel weather during the first weeks after the landings.

Clever British geeks devised a compound of grease, lime and asbestos fibres to waterproof vehicles. Others designed what were known as ‘the funnies’ — tanks modified to swim, or carry fascines (rolled-up bundles of wood) to bridge ditches, mortars to destroy pillboxes, flame-throwers and flails to explode mines.

Curiously the Americans, usually the most mechanically-minded people on earth, spurned these Limey gadgets — and paid a heavy price for doing so when The Day came on the beaches.

Then there were the high commanders. General Sir Bernard Montgomery had been a celebrity since his victory at El Alamein in November 1942, but he was also intensely controversial — hated by the Americans, who thought him slow in action, unforgivably rude and patronising in speech.

But, under Dwight Eisenhower’s nominal Supreme Command, the operational plan for D-Day was overwhelmingly Monty’s. He directed both the landings and subsequent campaign ashore.


Even most of his critics conceded that nobody else could have done it better, from the moment early in 1944 when he insisted that the number of troops attacking on the first day should be doubled, whatever the difficulties about finding extra shipping to carry them.


The brits were subordinate.
Considering it was the British who planned and organised the whole operation, a Briton who ran it, and it was mainly British ships and equipment used, it doesn't take a Stephen Hawking to work it it was the Yanks and Canucks who were the subordinate, junior partners in the whole affair.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander... the limeys were subordinate.

The US and Canada finished the war the brits started.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
49,356
1,800
113
It was the British who insisted on delaying the opening of a Second Front through the invasion of France until 1944 because of the terrible experience at Dieppe.

Rubbish.

It is more likely that Churchill liked the idea that Hitler and Stalin were administering a major bloodletting to each other on the Eastern Front, and that he believed that London and Washington would benefit from a stalemated war in the East. Since he already had nearly three years of war experience, Churchill had much influence on the Johnny-come-lately Yanks, newcomers to the war in Europe. It is therefore understandable that the opinion of the British leader ultimately prevailed, and that plans for opening a second front in 1942 were quietly discarded.

In fact, after the fall of Singapore there was very little British involvement in the Pacific Theater until 1945.
That's because the British, as you seem to forget, had been busy fighting the Germans since 1939, unlike the Americans, and had already used up a lot of men and resources by the time of the Pacific Theatre, unlike the Americans latecomers who were fresh as daisies. It would be wise to do some research before writing such comments.

Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander... the limeys were subordinate.

Monty - not Eisenhower - was in command of all Allied ground forces during Operation Overlord from the initial landings until after the Battle of Normandy. He then continued in command of the 21st Army Group for the rest of the campaign in North West Europe.

The US and Canada finished the war the brits started.
In a British planned and led organisation using British ships and equipment.

And it was the Germans who started WWII, just as they had started WWI.

Did you learn history at school at all, by any chance, or was your your teacher just useless?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
The Brits were support troops on the Western Front and absolutely non-existent in the Pacific Theater until the Japanese were already beaten.

Without the Commonwealth nations, the US, and the USSR... the Brits lose the war. They could not even win the Battle of Britain without the Commonwealth and US help.

Sad

Monty - not Eisenhower - was in command of all Allied ground forces during Operation Overlord from the initial landings until after the Battle of Normandy. He then continued in command of the 21st Army Group for the rest of the campaign in North West Europe.

Monty was subordinate to Eisenhower. FACT


In a British planned and led organisation using British ships and equipment.

Don't be stupid... the brits were subordinate to the Americans.


And it was the Germans who started WWII, just as they had started WWI.

Did you learn history at school at all, by any chance, or was your your teacher just useless?

Why? Because the Germans invaded Poland? Who else invaded Poland around that time BL?

 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
i thank them all, as i watch the ceremony, it is very emotional, as i remember my brother going off to
war when i was 5 years old, i remember so clearly watchimg him disappear as the train pulled away from
the station in new westminster. he lied about his age, was only 17, they kept him in canada till his
18th birthday, then sent him immediately overseas. he was wounded along the way, then sent home. i thought about him often, then i remember the day
he came home. what a time for our canadian soldiers, and all of the others.

many died, but europe was saved, hitler died, we are free, and the price they paid, although big,
saved all of our futures.

thank you.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
The Brits were support troops on the Western Front and absolutely non-existent in the Pacific Theater until the Japanese were already beaten.

Without the Commonwealth nations, the US, and the USSR... the Brits lose the war. They could not even win the Battle of Britain without the Commonwealth and US help.

Sad



Monty was subordinate to Eisenhower. FACT




Don't be stupid... the brits were subordinate to the Americans.




Why? Because the Germans invaded Poland? Who else invaded Poland around that time BL?





 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
U.S and Britian. :roll:

One reason i NEVER watch The Longest Day is they managed to completely ignore the Canadian contribution.. The Canadian 3rd Division landed on Juno Beach and comprised 1/5 of the invasion force.. making the deepest in roads and taking the brunt of the Counter Attack on that first day. Canada lost 359 KIA on the beach and a total of 5000 in the full Battle of Normandy leading up to the battle of the Falaise Gap.

I'm used to getting this totally self absorbed, chauvinistic, self-adulation from American treatments, to the exclusion of all others.. but i've come to expect something a little more balanced from the British. A forlorn hope apparently.
 
Last edited:

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC

Try to find Canada even mentioned in The Longest Day, supposedly a comprehensive look at the Landing..

I'll give Saving Private Ryan a pass because it was intended to show only the American part of the battle.. and for its vivid portrayal of the carnage on the Beaches (ALL of the Beaches, mind you).
 
Last edited:

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
Rubbish.

It is more likely that Churchill liked the idea that Hitler and Stalin were administering a major bloodletting to each other on the Eastern Front, and that he believed that London and Washington would benefit from a stalemated war in the East.


Blackloaf, let's see your evidence.

Since he already had nearly three years of war experience, Churchill had much influence on the Johnny-come-lately Yanks, newcomers to the war in Europe. It is therefore understandable that the opinion of the British leader ultimately prevailed, and that plans for opening a second front in 1942 were quietly discarded.

The experience of Dunkirk and Dieppe caused the British to insist on Operation Torch in North Africa and the subsequent operations in Sicily and Italy instead of the invasion of France. The British were burned twice in France by the Germans, and had become unwilling to act. The British delayed so long that the allies came to fear that Stalin would react to the delay by making a separate peace with the Germans.



That's because the British, as you seem to forget, had been busy fighting the Germans since 1939, unlike the Americans, and had already used up a lot of men and resources by the time of the Pacific Theatre, unlike the Americans latecomers who were fresh as daisies.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called the ignominious fall of Singapore to the Japanese the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British military history. The British led forces outnumbered the Japanese, but were poorly led, poorly equipped, and suffered from low morale. What happened to the HMS Prince of Wales? It sallied forth without air cover. That demonstrates an inability to quickly adapt to new ways of fighting...even after the earlier experience at the Battle of Taranto in Italy. Today the Prince of Wales is a reef.


It would be wise to do some research before writing such comments.

I have studied the Pacific Theater of WWII for decades. I don't think you have the same level of knowledge and insight into the Pacific War.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Monty - not Eisenhower - was in command of all Allied ground forces during Operation Overlord from the initial landings until after the Battle of Normandy. He then continued in command of the 21st Army Group for the rest of the campaign in North West Europe.
Monty couldn't fit his ego on the boat.

Operation Overlord

I even picked a Brit site so it couldn't possibly be wrong