D Day, most overrated day in history?

The amount of planning and preparation that went into it is amazing, the transport of so many troops, machines and materials to the UK. The deception plan to keep the Nazi's guessing and looking at Calais. The resistance and their training, coded messages and plans. The ingenuity of dummy airdrops, airborne assaults, gliders...

The Nazi's had dug themselves in and prepared impressive fortifications, it was a big win for the west and cruel blow to the Nazi's & Stalin

There's no doubt the Russians had already defeated Nazi Germany by that stage, Stalingrad was the turning point, Kursk was the killer blow.. By then Berlin was always going to fall regardless if the allies won in Normandy or not!

My Granddad would have gone nuts at the title of the thread.
No I don't think it was overrated at all, it was the last just war one where we had to destroy the nazi ideology.
Brave buggers I tell you that I have respect for all who helped that day and it is a great pity that kids nowadays can't chat with many people who lived through that time like many of us have done.
Humbling talking to that now near gone generation.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seagull
Not sure how you can even begin to think "overrated" in regards to the importance of D-Day.

It lead directly to the liberation of western Europe--France, Belgium, the Low Countries, etc... It also aided greatly the Soviet reconquest of their own lands, and then added eastern Europe to the Eastern Bloc.

Without D-day the Germans may have ultimately stopped the Soviet army short of Berlin, probably well short.

But we'll never know.

Over rated? No.

Wow, Germany may have stopped the Russians, do you think?

D day was always going to happen but when it did, the war was over for the Nazis, they had lost the momentum, their manufacturing and countless men.

I am not saying it was over rated at all, just don't think it was as pivotal to defeating the Nazis as people think.
Stopping the USSR and Stalinism, that's a different question, obvious answer though

The Germans had 55 infantry divisions, 11 armored divisions tied up in the west long before D-day in preparation for the invasion.

A significant percentage 'could' have been used on the eastern front without the fear and fact of D-day.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
Overhyped? No.. D-Day was significant for many reasons. It was the largest seaborne invasion in history. The scale of the operation was massive. America isn't in western Europe, in case you forgot.. yet as seagull pointed out, it led to the liberation if western Europe. It was an operation pivotal in ending the war. It didn't necessarily lay the ground work, but like I said, the US isn't in western Europe. I want that to really sink in. Troops can't just appear behind enemy lines through some physical internet-like series of tubes. So again, no... Not overhyped. But without the resistance of European fighters it'd have amounted to nothing, of course, but why would that be surprising to anyone?

Yeah but who cares, if the allies waited and waited the Germans would have been sent to the Russian front and the Atlantic wall would have been even less defended.
It was not a pivotal event in ending the war at all, it was forced on the allies by the Russians who had already done all the heavy lifting

Well that's the argument anyway

Troops appear in tubes, what?
Those troops were not needed and their lives lost to appease Russia

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: seagull
Not sure how you can even begin to think "overrated" in regards to the importance of D-Day.

It lead directly to the liberation of western Europe--France, Belgium, the Low Countries, etc... It also aided greatly the Soviet reconquest of their own lands, and then added eastern Europe to the Eastern Bloc.

Without D-day the Germans may have ultimately stopped the Soviet army short of Berlin, probably well short.

But we'll never know.

Over rated? No.

Wow, Germany may have stopped the Russians, do you think?

D day was always going to happen but when it did, the war was over for the Nazis, they had lost the momentum, their manufacturing and countless men.

I am not saying it was over rated at all, just don't think it was as pivotal to defeating the Nazis as people think.
Stopping the USSR and Stalinism, that's a different question, obvious answer though

The Germans had 55 infantry divisions, 11 armored divisions tied up in the west long before D-day in preparation for the invasion.

A significant percentage 'could' have been used on the eastern front without the fear and fact of D-day.

Yeah that's irrelevant to the value of DDay and its importance
If they didn't invade then the Nazis would still have 55 and 11 tied up waiting
If the allies hadn't invaded, Germany would have probably still lost
The war was drawing to a conclusion, Russia had defeated the Nazis and had them on the run

Did DDay really change anything, except get boots on the ground in France.
DDay may have ended the war sooner but, was it a pivotal day in history?

originally posted by: testingtesting
My Granddad would have gone nuts at the title of the thread.
No I don't think it was overrated at all, it was the last just war one where we had to destroy the nazi ideology.
Brave buggers I tell you that I have respect for all who helped that day and it is a great pity that kids nowadays can't chat with many people who lived through that time like many of us have done.
Humbling talking to that now near gone generation.

8 out of 10 German soldiers died fighting the Russians
With all due respect to all grandfathers, the Russians done the work, sacrificed much more than those in the West did

a reply to: Raggedyman

You are making a huge assumption that nothing would have been shifted east, heck even just the build up of troops helped tie down potential reinforcements for the east.

I do not understand the fascination with Russia saved the world, and No I am not saying America saved the world either (the next comment is such a cliche sorry) it was a team effort. (and yes Hitlers incompetence was part of the effort)

Without the UK resisting, with out US manufacturing shipping weapons, ammo, and equipment to the UK and other allies around the globe,without the resistance groups keeping more men and equipment tied up searching for them, the odds of Russia defeating Germany across the entirety of Europe start to look pretty bleak.

I am certain I am missing many more parts that had to play out just right for the outcome we got.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are making a huge assumption that nothing would have been shifted east, heck even just the build up of troops helped tie down potential reinforcements for the east.

I do not understand the fascination with Russia saved the world, and No I am not saying America saved the world either (the next comment is such a cliche sorry) it was a team effort. (and yes Hitlers incompetence was part of the effort)

Without the UK resisting, with out US manufacturing shipping weapons, ammo, and equipment to the UK and other allies around the globe,without the resistance groups keeping more men and equipment tied up searching for them, the odds of Russia defeating Germany across the entirety of Europe start to look pretty bleak.

I am certain I am missing many more parts that had to play out just right for the outcome we got.

It took two hands to clap, not saying it didn't

i stated that DDay meant troops were not sent to the Russian front
I thought I made that clear in my last post
Nothing in the east went west after the invasion, the east was the main conflict zone

I just read something that suggested the invasion was not as pivotal to Germaine's defeat as we have been lead to believe

Maybe, maybe not, just asked the question

Short answer is: "No. D Day was not over-rated".

The war in Europe had been fought for many years prior to 1944, and even when the Soviets were allied to the Nazi's and busy invading and occupying the Baltic states, half of Poland and so on.

WW2 was necessary to completely defeat the Nazi regime AND prevent Stalin from rolling up the whole of Western Europe into his Communist "revolution". Bear in mind that the Soviets did not allow the lands they "liberated" to return to freedom and sovereignty. The Soviets also made a land grab in the Far East, which is why Korea is what it is today, but that's another topic.

Also, while the Soviets were advancing in the East, there was no guarantee they would prevail without D Day, the liberation of Italy, and the destruction of Nazi industry and infrastructure that was prosecuted by the RAF and USAAF et al.

Let us hop into my time machine and travel back.
You can then form a personal opinion based on experience.
Those guys went face first into a nasty situation.
Many died.

a reply to: paraphi

The allies won the war against Japan, also the battl for the Atlantic, now that sea war was pivotal, the U Boats were formidable, I think Russia would have been defeated without lend lease
Normandy, it was important to release the pressure on the Russians, stop Soviet advancements after the victory over Nazis and save millions of Jews probably
But was it over rated, did it change history

It's a question

originally posted by: skunkape23
Let us hop into my time machine and travel back.
You can then form a personal opinion based on experience.
Those guys went face first into a nasty situation.
Many died.

How about we go to the battle of the bulge, experience that, go face first as Nazis into that nasty situation and see how useless that battle was
Overhyped, the last breath of the Nazi army, destined to fail

It's not about how nasty the situation is or was, just how pivotal it was to the final outcome

with out the U.S. the USSR would not have been able to even move it troops or supplies. their advances would have likely stopped at their boarders or in the baltic states just far enough to push the germans out and give them a safty zone in case of a counter offensive.

if the germans hadn't have expected the D-Day invasion and used those resources, and those 55 infantry divisions, 11 armored divisions for the Atlantic Wall those would have been used on the eastern front, and i dare say that the USSR would have been toast.

two quick sources. first from the wiki cause as i always say it's fast.

The United States sold to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil) or 57.8 percent of the High-octane aviation fuel,[24] 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,911 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. Provided ordnance goods (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives) amounted to 53 percent of total domestic production.[24] One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.[45]
Lend-Lease

hell did you notice they couldn't even put tires on their vehicles, the U.S. had to ship a whole plant to them.
and remember all those rocket launchers vehicles most were amercain made by studabaker and the reo speedwagon.

The Studebaker US6 (G630) was a series of 2½-ton 6x6 and 5-ton 6x4 trucks manufactured by the Studebaker Corporation and REO Motor Car Company during World War II. The basic cargo version was designed to transport a 5,000 lb (2,300 kg) cargo load over all types of terrain in all kinds of weather. Most of these were exported to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease by the USA during World War II.
Studebaker US6 2½-ton 6x6 truck

this one is supposed to be on display in moscow




and here is a chart that shows the economic might the the USSR had during the war. it shows that just about all of the the combatants in europe spending nearly the same except for france. at best with out the D-Day invasion and germany's exception of it and the spending and preparation it, all the resource spent for would have been spent on the west.
and the outcome would have more than likely would have been a stalemate with each holding what ground that had been acquired.


so no D-Day was defiantly not overrated, it is a known fact that without the aid and preoccupation of the germans for the invasion, they would have been focused on the eastern front.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Hard to argue.
Tip of the hat to Russia for giving those bastards some what fer.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
with out the U.S. the USSR

US AND UK

a reply to: crazyewokThe Brits stood hard ground. Credit where credit is due.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It's interesting and informative but you are talking about lend lease, not Normandy
As I stated, the battle of the Atlantic was pivotal, of the utmost importance.
Supplying Russia was a primary concern for the west

What does your post do to push the need for the Normandy invasion
DDay or no DDay, German troops would have still been stationed in France, waiting

a reply to: skunkape23

If we had been beaten the Nazis would have had the biggest naval fleet in the world. Churchill reminded the USA of this helping change the minds of people who did not want to enter the war.

a reply to: Raggedyman

If they didn't invade then the Nazis would still have 55 and 11 tied up waiting If the allies hadn't invaded, Germany would have probably still lost

This is what I was referring to.

Also while admittedly the Russians were willing to depopulate their country to hold off the germans, lets not read to much into that. The Russian winter deserves every bit as much credit as anything the russian military did.

a reply to: crazyewok

What about the French 🏳