May none of these brave souls be forgotten.

The whole build up was ludicrus. Wodden tanks on the coast of England to fool the Germans. Brilliant.

D-Day was essentially about outnumbering the enemy on the selected coastlines and overpowering them at a heavy loss. The opening scene to Saving Private Ryan depicts this better than any other film could hopw to.

To be fair, not all of them were brave. Lot's of them were drafted and forced into the war. They were probably hiding in the back while the real patriots defended our country.

To be fair, whether they were drafted or volunteered, they still charged up those beaches, still drove the amphib vehicles, and still took part in the largest seaborne assault in history.

The germans had no chance, at all, of defending ANY point in the entire coast. It was mid 44. The germans were already defeated, all they could put in the beaches were un trained, un skilled, under supplied reserves, in such a low number that most of the fortifications were un manned, and had a resistance behind them. They had no airforce whatsoever.

Bombing the living shit of an enemy for years while waiting for them to get weaker and weaker, and then strike at their paper-thin defenses with every single drop of firepower you have is FAR from heroic. It's embarrassing for a superpower.

Quite the contrary, I think all of the efforts to smash the third reich should be considered heroic.

Yes, the germans had been bombed for years, and their industrial base had been seriously damaged.

But THEY had started the war and they were the agggressors, so their defeat was a good thing.

Now, whether defeat was inevitable or not, the germans did not lay down and quit. They fought tooth and nail against the Allied forces.

The idea that, since the germans were on their heels, the fighting was less heroic is nonsense. Until they surrendered they were a threat, if not to the world then to each and every allied soldier.

The following breakdown of allied casualties can be found at :http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm

"“Casualties” refers to all losses suffered by the armed forces: killed, wounded, missing in action (meaning that their bodies were not found) and prisoners of war. There is no "official" casualty figure for D-Day. Under the circumstances, accurate record keeping was very difficult. For example, some troops who were listed as missing may actually have landed in the wrong place, and have rejoined their parent unit only later.

In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).

Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.

The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach."

Now, you make it sound as though the invasion was against a small force. Somehow 10,000 causalties with 2700 dead sounds as though the germans managed some defense.

"Bombing the living sh1t of an enemy for years while waiting for them to get weaker and weaker, and then strike at their paper-thin defenses with every single drop of firepower you have is FAR from heroic. It's embarrassing for a superpower."

I am curious, you say its embarrassing, which makes me wonder about what you think is embarrassing. In order to NOT be embarrassing, should the allies have only attacked with PART of their forces? Should we have bombed less, so that the germans could be more prepared and the fight more fair?

In war the idea is to destroy the enemy's ability to fight back, not to satisfy some movie induced idea of what is "fair".

The idea that, since the germans were on their heels, the fighting was less heroic is nonsense. Until they surrendered they were a threat, if not to the world then to each and every allied soldier.

Nope, because the Russian were moving in.

Now, you make it sound as though the invasion was against a small force. Somehow 10,000 causalties with 2700 dead sounds as though the germans managed some defense.

Casualties in the 10,000's is normal in WW2 terms. The Germans lost several times that number invading Poland, and that invasion is usually considered to have been one of the effective and successful invasions ever.

It was a small force indeed, because it couldn't man properly the fortifications it had, it was low on supplies, had no air cover, etc.

I'm not saying the allies should have lost. I'm saying it's a mistake to call "honorable" to wait until the enemy is with his face to the floor to strike. You say that any effort to fight nazism is honorable, but no, you are wrong. Even if you are fighting the most evil regime in the history of time, attacking cowardly takes away all the honor.

"Honorable" should apply to events like the Warsaw Uprising, the Warsaw ghetto uprising (not the same battle) the revolt at Auschwitz, the siege of Leningrad, the "Yelta stare", the Finnish effort during the Winter War, etc.

Which means, a more aggressive attitude, that shows how much you actually care about the assets you are fighting for. It shows that you are actually prepared to sacrifice everything to protect that one thing you want to save, and not that you are merely waiting for a more proper time because higher casualties can harm your political career.

To attack after years of bombing means fewer allied casualties, which is a good thing.

I posted this thread as a reminder of a sacrifice made by tens of thousands of people to fight an evil.

Each soldier who stormed the beach has my respect for his part in the assault. Having ridden thru heavy seas in boats that make the seas feel worse, they faced heavy machinegun fire, they drowned, they lost friends, and they risked all in the name of a cause that I agree with.

I see honor in that.

"I'm saying it's a mistake to call "honorable" to wait until the enemy is with his face to the floor to strike."

In a wartime situation, the honor is in the overall struggle and in the victory.

And striking the enemy when his face is in the floor, in wartime, is fine with me. In fact, that is exactly WHY you put his face in the floor in the first place. D-Day was not the entire war, but was a part of the overall effort that helped secure our victory.

In stopping a mad dictator bent on domination, I see much honor.

The way, the effort done is what matters. There's no effort at all in waiting for the enemy to weaken and for your allies to reach his doorstep on the other front to attack. Obviously you never heard about the efforts I consider honorable and listed.

Indeed I have heard of the things you mentioned.

I don't think the allies were sitting idly by waiting for the axis powers to weaken. In fact, they were largely responsible for that weakening.

In a war such as WWII, there are a multitude of factors that cause the decline and fall of the enemy. The bombing of the industrial facilities, the fighting on multiple fronts (including the battles in North Africa), the resources wasted on programs inside germany, and more.

But the weakened state did not mean that the axis powers had folded.

I still say that none of that changes the fact that D-day should be remembered and those who fought to gain the beachheads should be honored.

If you wish to post information about the finnish efforts, the warsaw uprising and the seige at Leningrad, by all means do so. That one set of soldiers withstood a long siege does not diminish the efforts of those who landed at Normandy. Nor does the fact that Soviet Army attacked Finland.

This idea of grading battles and sacrifices is nonsense.

the men from Leningrad had little or no choice in whether they fought. They fought because their home was invaded and their government would shoot them down if they did not charge the germans when ordered.

Men from the USA could have avoided being part of the D-Day invasion in a number of ways.

But both groups charged headlong into the battle.

Both groups should be remembered and honored.

But, being an american, I tend to have studied my own nation's contributions more. I have also talked with several veterans of the D-Day invasion. Not many veterans of the warsaw Uprising in Alabama when I was growing up.

Why is posting a reminder of a sacrifice by soldiers always greeted with someone saying something negative about the men who died for a cause? Why can there not simply be a post and a few "I agree" or "May none of these brave souls be forgotten." posts?

I believe the soldiers who died in the bloody sands of Omaha beach should not be forgotten. I also believe those who baked in the sun chasing Rommel, or making the death march to Bataan, or flying bombing missions over germany, or standing watch on the deck of an shipping escort looking for U-boats, or providing secret intelligence in France or landing on the beaches in the south pacific should ALL be remembered and honored.

All made the effort to stop an evil. All left their loved ones behind to go and meet the challenge.

Someone needs to jump off their horse of mightiness. Please, don't think you need to impress anyone by trying to sound like some sort of expert and saying something like

"In a war such as WWII, there are a multitude of factors that cause the decline and fall of the enemy. The bombing of the industrial facilities, the fighting on multiple fronts (including the battles in North Africa), the resources wasted on programs inside germany, and more."

Because, first, I know that, and second, we're indeed talking about grading battles and sacrifices; we're talking about honor.

But, I'll answer your point anyway; no, D-day contributed absolutely nothing, because Germany had already been defeated. If D DAY never happened and on June 5 Germany moved ALL it's troops, down the most useless cook, from France, to the Western Front, it would have prolonged the war, for like, 3 weeks at most.

Honor is in the bravery you need to face a battle where a lot is at risk, and where the odds are against you. Where is the risk in bombing a country for years, waiting till it has been crushed on another front, and then throwing everything at a poorly defended beach.

There's also very little honor in landing in a not-belligerent country (Vichy regime in N. Africa) where there's no risk at all of defeat, because the germans were retreating from egypt at that time, although, it was necessary to secure a staging point for the invasion of italy, so I won't criticize it.

Also, it's pretty embarrassing to, while undergoing such a easy straight forward operation, be smashed by a counter attack by a enemy exhausted after 3 years of fighting, extremely outnumbered, with barely enough fuel to keep it's lights on, who has been crushed at El alamein.

I already explained what military honor is, and, in my opinion, there was no honor in doing D DAY, apart from individual acts of courage that must have occurred there as they always do.

You know what would have required real balls? Invading Japan and defeating it's 28+ million soldiers. I'd be proud to make an anniversary post of that.

Eastern front instead of Western*

I am on no horse, of whatever type.

But your method of grading is nonsense. If you want to tell someone who watched almost everyone in their landing boat get shot that the enemy was already defeated be my guest. I am thinking they'd disagree.

Where is the risk? I think risking your life is pretty much risking everything you have. If you think there is no honor unless you are outnumbered, then we have a different definition of honor.

But I think we see things differently anyway.

Perhaps you are the one on the horse? I have read plenty of historical accounts, not only by americans, who hold the opinion that the soldiers of D-Day showed bravery and honor.

I made the post to make note of the anniversary of the date of the largest seaborne invasion in history. If you want to think it was embarrassing, then think that. I have known a few veterans of that invasion and I hold them in high esteem.