Talk:Invasion of Normandy/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 older entries 2 Article Split 3 Combatants List 4 Delete a picture from the Omaha section 5 German Casualties 6 Degree of victory? 7 German Defenses 8 Canadian Flag incorrectly portrayed 9 Dramatisations 10 Stauffenberg 11 Too Long 12 Chanson d'automne: Verlaine & Trenet 13 Normandy & the Eastern Front Section 14 axis allies missings 15 Wargames 16 Removal of Games etc. 17 Marines? 18 Battle vs campaign 19 Just a question 20 Proposed structure 21 A word of caution 22 Pic with two candians holding Nazi german flag 23 recent additions 24 Date format 25 External links section 26 Order of combatants in infobox 27 Use of the word liberation 28 Falaise - Anon repeatedly posting fantasy German figures

older entries

Someone wrote without citation that Hitler's forces of western front could prevent USSR from advancing in ot Europe. Thanks for a good laugh on that one, really funny. I deleted the nonsense. After war, even USA and Britain, taken together, were afraid to attack USSR (read Operation Unthinkable), and 20% of hitler's forces, and 20% least capable forces could stop soviet Union?

Also, It is possible to argue against Ribbentropp's view that Lend-lease help, since when really needed it was delivered in quaitities that were delivered by end of 1941 (that is when soviet factories were moved to east and started working) that is, the time in which they were really needed (because soviets had half of their factories working) wre so small, that they could not influence even a single battle. After soviets installed their factories in place, help was not really needed. In fact, Lend-lease, compared to soviet production numbers and to wat soviets allready had, was in very tiny numbers, especiallly considering that a lot of ships were sunk by german U-boats and only a part of those numbers that are listed as lend-lease items shipped have actually reached soviet soil. Serious historians do not like to mention things like winter or Lend-lease among things that had critical impact on Eastern Front. Surely LKend-lease helped save lives, but it was in no way anything critical and saving. USA also helped Germany with oil by the end of war, and before the war, investments of USA in to German economy can not really be compared to puny lend-lease.

I don't know why, but in US and Britain, not so much in Germany or Russia or Europe in general, there is this unhealthy drive to attempt to show lend-lease as something that saved USSR from imminent death and destruction. Why is that happening in the west? Why is west trying ot exaggerate the importance of this lend-lease? It is not mentioned by any serious historian, because it was pretty insignificant in the general course of events. It will not change the fact that USSR took on about 80-90% of European Axis power and defeated them, while Allies took on only 10-20% and the fact that USSR played by far the most important role in defeating european Axis armies than any other country in the WW2.

It is true that Lend Lease did not save the Soviet Union in the crisis of December 1941 (when we now know Stalin seriously considered surrender). It is also true that Lend Lease was less effective than it could have been, largely because of Stalinist paranoia, which prevented the Soviet government from telling the allies what they actually needed, which resulted in such silliness that they ended up shipping the Soviets oil of all things. It is, however, true, that Lend Lease did help considerably in a variety of areas that were critical to the Soviet offensive capability, particularly in supplying trucks (2/3s of the Red Army fleet in 1945 were US built) and trains (the SU produced 92 locomotives during the war, and received 1981 through Lend Lease) without which the advance across Eastern Europe would have been unsupportable (to say nothing of 15 million pairs of boots), and with raw materials that the Soviet Union simply did not have access to (unless there were rubber plantations in the Urals that I have not heard about).

The dispute about percentages and so on is old and stupid; what was true in 1944 was not true in 1945 or 1946; the 20% claim let alone the estimations of quality are all highly problematic. In any case, the Soviet logistics and supply line in 1945 would have made any further advance highly problematic; the condition of the Soviet economy and civilian morale would also have made continuation of the advance questionable; and the size of the Allied army in Europe at war's end was approaching that of the Soviet, but with a much better logistical base. To say nothing of nukes. But getting into arguments about what if scenarios is inherently pointless, and does not belong on wikipedia.

And please, no more of this "stupid Americans/Englishers, us sophisticated Europeans know this or that" crap. There is plenty of stupidity and propaganda to go around in all countries, it is getting pretty tired.

Article Split

It seems that this article, entitled Battle of Normandy, goes too far beyond the scope of the battle. It seems clear in most histories of the early days in Northwest Europe that the battle for Normandy began June 6 and ended July 24. After that period the difference in the nature of the fight was distinct, a clear separation between different battles. Indeed, this is briefly acknowledged in the article, but the article should be changed. Specifically, it should be split to have a "Battle of Normandy" article, and an article entitled the "Battle of France" which is what most historians call the time from July 25 to the drive to the Seine before the Allies began to disperse their efforts with operations such as Market-Garden. Furthermore, after July 25 the fighting, at least entirely in the American Sector, was in Brittany, NOT Normandy. Although the British continued to fight in the Norman countryside, it was still the beginning of a distinctly different phase in the efforts of the Allied forces. This issue must be addressed, especially since the article is already designated as "featured." This status should not be given to an article with a mistake of that magniutude, even though the subject matter is critical history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Benjaminrobertfield (talk • contribs)

At least one of the official histories (I believe Victory in the West (I have neither this nor ETO on hand right now)) gives the battle of Normandy from June to the end of August. The same applies to any histories looking at the entire campaign rather then just an American contribution or POV. So this does not appear to be a mistake.--Caranorn 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also take a look at talk:Battle of Normandy#Start and End Dates Of This Campaign bellow.--Caranorn 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Combatants List

I had listed Vichy France as an enemy combatant during the Battle of Normandy in the infobox, but it has been deleted. The Vichy French government did participate in the fighting in Normandy, if only in supportive roles as an occupation government and supplying some manpower to the Wehrmacht. If I am mistaken, feel free to take it back down... Nf utvol 16:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You definitely have to add a source for that I will once again remove it for now. As a note, all others listed as participants fielded at least a division (Norway only provided some naval support iirc, so I will delete that too particularly as Belgium and the Netherlands probably fielded more troops and are not listed).--Caranorn 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, I'll try to dig up the book I originally read that in, otherwise I'll search for an internet source. Nf utvol 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree

Delete a picture from the Omaha section

There are three there, pretty much side by side, and it breaks up the article. Since I am by no means an expert on the subject, and I'm sure others will know which ones to keep, its best if one or two are deleted. Three is overboard, and a second image would best be made either smaller, or moved down the article, or deleted. Disinclination 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

German Casualties

Just to explain my revert. Strength given in the Campaign Box is for July 23-25. The campaign/battle lasted another month. The casualties given are for the whole campaign. If you look at the reference for the July 23 German strength you will note that at that time there were already 116,863 casualties (deduced from that date's strength). So the total casualties of 400,000 could be correct (considering another month of battle including one pocket). Though I will try to find more precise numbers and a reference.--Caranorn 13:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Found a source and added it (along with the detailed numbers). Zetterling also cites "British litterature" which he assumes is using wartime estimates. It is notable that the major deviation is for KIA and WIA, which the allies could indeed only estimate.--Caranorn 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the number of German dead are too low. According to a website which lists cemeteries in Normandy, there are 6 German Cemeteries in Normandy:

1)Huisnes-sur-Mer, near Pontorson, 11 956 burials

2)La Cambe, between Bayeux and lsigny, 21 160 burials

3)Saint-Desir-de-Lisieux, near Lisieux, 3 735 burials

4)Marigny - La Chapelle-en-Juger, near Saint-Lo, 11 169 burials

5)Orglandes, near Valognes, 10 152 burials

6)Champigny-St-Andre-de-I'Eure, 19 794 burials

Plus 2 329 German soldiers who are buried on British cemeteries in Bayeux, Cheux-St. Manvieu, Douvres-la-Delivrande, Fontenay-le-Pesnel, Hottot-les-Bagues, Ranville, Ryes-Bazenville, Sequeville-en-Bessin, Tilly-sur-Seulles and Tourgeville. The Grave Commission of the British Commonwealth cares for their graves.

That makes for a total of at least 80 295 dead for Normand. God knows there are probably more since they are still finding the a few bodies each year.

If you want to find the information, just type each individual cemetery into google to find info on them. The numbers are generally the same, give or take 1000 depending on the web site.

Wokelly 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that would definitelly be original research. In any case, you changed the numbers provided by a source, if you read the reference you will notice Zetterling also cites British sources giving higher, undocumented casualties. If you can come up with another reference go ahead and replace the entire casualties.

Just speculating now, I'd hazard to say that a large number of the German troops buried in Normandy may have fallen in other parts of France (Bretagne, Ile de France etc.), some almost certainly already figure among the number of missing (particularly those you say are still being found today).--Caranorn 10:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This article states the battle of Normandy started on June 6th 1944 and ended with Falaise and the liberation of Paris. Thus even if the dead are from the dead from Bretagne and Ile de France they would qualify as those who died in the battle of Normandy because those areas were liberated before the fall of Paris, which is the end of the battle of Normandy according to this article. While there is debate of when the battle actually ended (some believe operation cobra was the end), this article chronicles the battle of Normandy from June 6th to Aug 25th when Paris was liberated. Somewhere between then 80,000 german bodies were left either burried or unburried.

As for sourcing, well its from several WWII cemetery websites, and I did the calculations myself. I dont see how I can source it unless I give a breakdown somewhere of how I came to the grand total. On top of that I have no clue how to cite info. I have limited knowledge of the commands in wiki. I dont know what kind of [blah-blah] command I would have to do.74.12.234.63 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)wokelly

The battlebox shows the number of german KIA, not the total number of dead, for example if 50 or more germans get killed by bombing run in a position or a undetermined number of platoons are lost, for the german army thats soldiers , dead but not buried by germans, are considered missing. In other words some german dead are possible included as missing or captures, the same with the allies ones. But some thing is clear most of that missing are POW, U.S and allies took a lot of Prissioners in Operation Cobra, Cherbourg and Caen.

best wishes Miguel

Degree of victory?

Kurt has recently changed the infobox from "decisive victory" to "victory". Are there any views on this? Mine is that, since the outcome was such that the German army was unable to resist the Allies until logistics came into play, the outcome was nothing less than decisive. It was hard fought, and the Wehrmacht were skillful, but the Allies retained the strategic initiative and broke through. Folks at 137 17:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Normandy campaign wasn't decisive I'd be hard-pressed to think of a campaign that was. One need only imagine the opposite outcome (German defensive success and the failure to maintain any lodgment) to see that.

If OTOH someone wants to argue whether the term 'decisive victory' is inherently POV, that's another issue. DMorpheus 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Webster defines "decisive" as "Having the power or quality of deciding a question or controversy; putting an end to contest or controversy; final; conclusive." Normandy was hardly conclusive of the entire war. Yes, it was a major step towards victory, and victory may have never come if the outcome had been reversed, but victory was hardly assured by Normandy alone. One simply has to look to the Ardennes Offensive to see how precarious the Allied position continued to be after Normandy. If Normandy should be defined as decisive, shouldn't Ardennes as well? I think most would agree that "decisive" is not an appropriate term to apply to Ardennes. Unless it can be reliably sourced that some significant group of historians consider it as such, I don't think we should be declaring the victory to be "decisive". —Krellis 06:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not changing it back to just "victory", but I think we need a better definition for our decisive and non-decisive victory concepts. --Taraborn 18:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't answer the overall question of defining "decisive", but how about a compromise of "Pivotal Allied victory" instead of "Decisive"? Pivotal is, in my opinion, a much better word to describe what others have said earlier in the discussion, and continues to assert some added significance. Thoughts? —Krellis 21:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no horse in this argument--let consensus decide the wording. But the notion that Normandy was not a decisive victory is absurd. German forces in the west were not only utterly incapable of winning after Normandy, but were completely unable to prevent Eisenhower's forces from entering and occupying Germany. Its veteran troops became massive casualties. The timetable was tied to the rate that the Allies replaced their own casualties and supplied its troops. The crises in this regard reflected priorities among the nations and military services, not the effectiveness of the Wehrmacht. Anything else is playing with words.--Buckboard 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing to do might be to get away from pat phrases and describe what happened e.g "Successful Allied occupation of northern France"; however, "decisive victory" is ok: it was decisive in exactly the same way that the Battle of France was decisive- decisive victories in battles or campaigns do not necessarily mean that they are decisive in terms of wars. MAG1 21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your argument here. Are you saying that any battle that ends with a specific victor is, by definition, decisive? Because that seems to be the definition of decisive that you are using, and that really doesn't make sense to me. Another definition of decisive that I think applies in this context is "determining or having the power to determine an outcome", and, again, I really do not believe this applies to this battle. Yes, it was critical, or, per my suggestion above, pivotal, but I really do not believe "decisive" is the most accurate word to use. —Krellis (Talk) 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Decisive sounds a bit off. A decisive victory, would be something with no doubt of victory. This battle had it's ties and wins in different areas. —The preceding 72.204.83.132 23:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo was a decisive victory as it ended a war. Yorktown was a decisive victory for the same reason as were Hastings, Argincourt, Leporanto etc. Normandy was a clear Allied victory but not decisive as the war rolled on for another year. We don't have a whole lot of decisive victories in modern war.--Lepeu1999 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

True, although that was the first start toward victory. That battle generally turned around the entire war, as it was the first time the Allies came back. That was when America had its first foothold on foreign soil. It forced Germany to retreat far back, and I'd say it was one of the most decisive battles of the war. It was a major Allied offensive and concluded in great success. That gave life to the Allies as they had took back France and got their first base to attack the enemy and take back Europe.Redsox7897 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Normandy did not decide the war, even the war in the west. Had the German generals fought as they wished (phased orderly withdrawals to prepared lines), then we would probably have various major battles across northern France and Belgium to discuss. This didn't happen. Normandy wrote down German forces, so that defence of northern France could not be organised let alone be effective. I'd argue, therefore, that Normandy was decisive in terms of France (and that it depleted German resouces overall to a dangerous level). One author points out that German losses exceeded any other battle - east or west - during the war. BTW, the Battle of the Bulge did not show the allied position to be "precarious". It was a last, violent throw, lacking sufficient reserves or supplies for exploitation, reliant upon poor weather and it assumed that the Americans would crumble. As soon as the Americans held out and exerted their logistical clout, as they would, it was doomed - at whatever point it reached. Thereafter the Germans had little left to hold off their enemies. Folks at 137 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Normandy was nowhere near the decisive battle of the War, i'd toss that over to the Battle of Kursk on the Eastern Front which signaled basically the end of the German hopes to conquer the USSR, and resulted in a massive devastation of the Wehrmacht, and allowed the Russians to go on the offensive in the spring and summer months —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.22.53.86 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure how Normandy cannot be considered decisive. You guys act as if there can only be two or three decisive battles in a war. Normandy was indisputably the most decisive battle of the western front. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.236.208.61 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

As the ignoramus who kicked this off, time for my 2p worth. IMO, "decisive" in this context doesn't describe the effect on the war in its entirety, but refers to the outcome of the battle and and its immediate aftermath. The German forces were "decisively" beaten - there was no comeback, no recovery. Look at the degree of loss - at least one writer points out that the Germans lost more in Normandy than at Stalingrad - although that simply indicates scale, not impact. The Germans had lost the ability to resist until much of France had been liberated. Another effect was that the western allies then had space in which to deploy their logistics and increasing numbers - almost entirely from the US. Yes, there were hard battles in the west, but it was a matter of time; the Bulge was held easily (after the first shock) and Antwerp was never threatened. Folks at 137 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My impression has been that wiki tries to use the term decisive when a theatre changed dramatically. Wich it did. Or when a big and identified part of the opposing army is negated. Wich happened, name only the 12th ss.(and rumour to the remains of german airpower). Battle of the bulge would be decisive in so far from then on armoured operations by the germans would be very limited. Kursk was decisive because the germans could not (ever) anymore advance behind armoured screens much in the east, anzio was decisive for securing the crossing of the mediterenean by armed forces. The berezina was perhaps decisive for Napoleons eastbound ambitions. A recent example would be, the fall of baghdad, wich definetly changed the command structure of the iraki army. Otoh kabul don't count for much as neither the organisational structure nor the organisation of militance was very much altered through it. On a sidenote decisive victorys are more often attributed to the winning party. That is not so very clear. In 1940 the fall of warshau was decisive for warshaw and the polish army for 4 years to come , to name one. I doubt however we call it decisive (is the term 'german' victory?:), although it has meant everything for the polish army until 1987. It would probably be more objective to scrap the whole concept. go for substantial, and instrumental victory's instead (there are also tactical and strategical victorys). Somehow i have to think on the trend of the articles on vietnam, calling things pyric victory's for the US. As i understand it that is farfetched since rarely more then a batallion plus airsupport is involved. I don't see how you can have even a pyrhic victory with one batallion. Such cases do tend to concern isolated units. It might be a "significant strategical incident", or not, in wich case it is presumably a tactical incident or a media event of some historical relevance. It would be way more encyclopedical if that became clear. Perhaps you can consider the sri lankan army's activity's or the current surge in Irak by US pyrhic victory's, but would you do so for the few outpost rifle battaillions before dunkerk? In this case, of 'the invasion' of europe something obviously relevant happened. You may wonder if loosing means having pyrhic victorys untill the surrender. On a sidenote a WW1 soldier would typically know no other then pyrhic warfare.77.248.56.242 13:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of these pages to water down language to meaninglessness is amusing. The German army was decisively defeated in Normandy ( not marginally, not tactically), which sealed the deal of Germany's failure at sea to prevent the massive buildup of US forces in England and the Med. In that sense, the only "decisive" battle in the European war was the Battle of the Atlantic. But after Normandy, the Germans had zip chance of winning. Also, "decisive" does not mean "defeated to the point of being unable to resist". Gettysburg was decisive but the Civil War went on for two years at heavy cost to the Union. (btw a "Pyrrhic victory" is not synonomous with winning battle but losing the war. A Pyrrhic victory is one whose cost in casualties is devastating to the "victor".)--Buckboard 04:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

German Defenses

"The other defending troops included Germans who, usually for medical reasons, were not considered fit for active duty on the Eastern Front, and various other nationalities such as conscripted Poles and former Soviet prisoners of war from the southern USSR who had agreed to fight for the Germans rather than endure the harsh conditions of German POW camps."

I would think that a large reason former Soviet POWs would have defended Nazi Europe against the Allies would have been to help liberate Russia from the Soviets, and prevent the Soviets from conquering Europe. Soviet POWS often did not desire to return to the Soviet Union, to the point where under FDR, the US gassed and shipped back Soviet POWs on a troopship to the Soviet Union, where they were subsequently murdered. - MSTCrow 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether the event you describe actually relates to Soviet POW, it rather sounds like members of the Vlasov army and/or similar formations who were POW of the Allies. And yes, there certainly were opponents of the Soviet Union among those Russians (and other ethnicities/nationalities) who volunteered for service with the German Army. But most did this to escape starvation in the camps. Lastly, your notion and prevent the Soviets from conquering Europe is plain ridiculous. How would the Soviet Union have conquered Europe? Particularly prior to the German invasion of said Soviet Union?

I just noticed the article mentions prisoners of war from the southern USSR which is of course incorrect. Considering how the Ost battalions in Normandy included Asiatic troops these cannot be limited to the southern USSR.--Caranorn 11:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the perception from Nazi Germany at least seemed to be as a bulwark against the Soviets. And then after WWII, the Soviets did of course go on to conquer much of Europe. - MSTCrow 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the Vlasov troops were used only on the Eastern Front. I remember seeing a list of Soviet nationalities and their differing German army paybooks. This suggests that they were integrated into Heer formations. Hiwis - separate from Vlasov - were a frequent feature of the Eastern Front. Folks at 137 11:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I said Vlasov Army or similar..., I assume you are responding to my post. There were a large number of Ost battalions in Normandy and France.--Caranorn 14:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Flag incorrectly portrayed

Just so you know the Canadian Flag shown here is not the flag that was used by Canada during the Second World War. The ensign issued in 1921 was the flag currently used by Canada during 1944. Thanks, somebody fix that... -- Ryan RP

This is bad, that image is used in many WWII articles and I have no clue where to ask for a bot to take care of the changes. For the time being I will only change the image for this article and hope someone else comes along and takes care of the others. Heck, I find it even used for 18th century articles.--Caranorn 12:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not so. According to Canadian Red Ensign, the 1921 ensign (which is the one widely used, including in this article) was used until 1957. even then, the changes were minor - the Irish harp slightly modified and the maple leaves red instead of green. Unless the Canadian Red Ensign article is wrong, we don't have a problem. Folks at 137 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I already replaced the images in this article, so you did indeed find the correct ones, but many other WWII articles still have the 1957 ensign...--Caranorn 17:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dramatisations

I almost feel a fool bringing this up, but this is a great article on a very important topic that is ruined, yet again, by the sprawling list of references in popular culture, or, in this case, the slightly more relevent 'dramatisations'. None of it is referenced, which may sound like I am nitpicking, but I think some of it may be wrong. For instance, I'm not a fan, so I may well be incorrect, but I can not find this music video by Iron Maiden- all I can find are fan videos. I think this section really should be dealt with, as it is damaging an otherwise excellent article. J Milburn 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops I now see the problem. I only checked whether the song existed, no clue whether they made a video clip. I will revert myself and leave your fact tag. Not a fan either, so I have no clue about the video.--Caranorn 22:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Stauffenberg

C. von Stauffenberg's July 20, 1944 assassination attempt may have thrown the German Military Chain of Command into confusion. The Normandy breakout began four days later, on 24 July... might there be a link between an assassination attempt on 20 July and a sudden breakout — after 6 weeks of stalemate — a few days later?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.230 (talk • contribs)

Not really, the Army was in pretty bad shape, I don't quite see how the breakout could have been prevented. In any case the question would be does such speculation belong into the article? Without a reliable source advancing that theory I'd say no.--Caranorn 12:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a discussion in which it was pointed out that the plotters deliberately retained transfers from the replacement army to acquire a take-over force, which would have impacted the replacements shipped both to Normandy and against Bagration.

Too Long

Isnt this article too long only the first half is really about the beaches of Normandy. The rest is about elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.7.56.76 (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The article is about the entire Battle of Normandy, not just the Landing phase.--Caranorn 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Chanson d'automne: Verlaine & Trenet

The article states that the Verlaine poem was "misquoted": it says "Verlaine originally wrote, "Les sanglots lourds", and "Blessent mon coeur". For some unknown reason, the BBC replaced them with slightly different words", i.e. "Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne" "Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone"

Of course this is not correct (Blessent vs. Blessent ?? this does not make sense). In fact both lines are wrong in this article: the one from Verlaine, and the one broadcast on the BBC.

• The original Chanson d'automne poem from Verlaine contained "Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone". Not "sanglots lourds" as the article states.
• This poem had been turned to a song called Verlaine (chanson d'automne) by Charles Trenet, who slightly modified the words. First two lines of this song are: "Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne bercent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone"
• So the BBC broadcast, not the words from the Verlaine poem, but from the song from Trenet. And there was no misquote in Trenet's words. They really said bercent and not blessent.

Sorry, I do not think I can change the article myself, as English is not my first language. Guess what it is ?

Costock 20:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph and footnote modified. Apologies for taking three attempts before getting it right. I was going to go further, as I feel there is nothing especially famous about carrots being cooked, and nobody has provided any context for the quote apart from a reference to a(presumably) French language publication, which is not readily available to many English readers of Wikipedia. But, I'll await any further information on this quote. HLGallon 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the paragraph, as there were still a couple of mistakes. But thank you HLGallon for making a first edit. This helped me a lot.

About the carrots: les carottes sont cuites is a familiar expression meaning "over for them" or "no hope any more". So it's funny in this context. It's also one of the BBC "personal messages" that French people can remind today. However, I have not found the hidden meaning of that one, after a quick search on the net. And It seems also that the sentence les dés sont jetés should be les dés sont la table (The dice are are on the table). This last sentence has been said on the BBC in June 1944. Cf. this page in French [[1]] and others. But I agree that this sentence ("Among the stream...") could probably be removed. By the way, Images Doc is a French publication... for children. Costock 23:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Normandy & the Eastern Front Section

This should probably be dropped entirely, as it is still a highly contentious issue. The current version is not neutral at all, and quotes very unsubstantiated figures (93% died on the eastern front?).

I have added (not taken away anything) some stuff to try and even it out a bit, but I don't want to get into a reversion war. It is a FACT that over 40% of the panzer divisions were on fronts facing the Western Allies (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=6474). It is NOT a fact that 93% of German casualities were on the Eastern front, it is a guess by a particular school of historians, and not generally accepted.

Hitler's disposition of SS panzer divisions was 50:50, this is a FACT (same source). The nazis treated the Waffen SS as an elite unit, as a matter of FACT, and armed them accordingly (also a FACT) whether they were or not is a matter of opinion. You don't like the word elite, fine, say over-armed over-resourced thugs or whatever.

But the strategic relationship between events on both fronts is a matter of opinion and conjecture, and perhaps should not be treated as FACT, and hence the whole section should go or be substantially re-written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norm and Al (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Lets put things straight. Your numbers were clearly off, if the numbers are indeed from the source you gave that means that source is unreliable. Concerning the 50/50 ratio for SS on east and west front you are also wrong, every single one of the SS Panzer Divisions to serve in Normandy also served time on the eastern front. The same applies to most Wehrmacht Panzer Divisions. Concerning the element that 40% of Panzer Divisions were on fronts facing the Allies, you seem to forget that most were in the West to refit, to rebuilt etc. The West was the place these units were sent to to rest before they could be sent back East. Concerning the supposed Elite status of Waffen SS units, if Hitler and his cronies had said the world was flat we still wouldn't call it flat today, even if he succeeded in temporarily conquering part of it. The theory of SS Elite status has long been disproven, even their equipment dotations have been put in doubt recently (Zetterling, though I don't fully agree with his arguments).

I haven't looked at your recent changes yet, I will take a look, if the numbers are still off and misguiding I will once again revert, if they look correct and take into consideration refit time spent in the West I will leave them be.--Caranorn 10:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay to explain my renewed reversion. 10 German Panzer Divisions served in Normandy (2nd, 9th, 21st, 116, Lehr, 1st SS, 2nd SS, 9th SS, 10th SS and 12th SS), there were far more then 27 Panzer Division in service throughout the war (Tessin lists at least 41 Wehrmacht, 1 Luftwaffe and 10 SS, though a few of these were not yet formed by the June-August 1944 period, some no longer existed in that form (15th and 18th for instance)). Concerning the SS 50% ratio it is based on two major errors, 1) by this date only 7 Panzer Divisions were in service (so actually a higher ratio) and 2) all the SS Panzer Divisions in Normandy also served on the Eastern Front (while none of the other 2 served in the West). The source you provided is an order of battle for all German Forces on June 15 1944, it does not deal with Normandy specifically (note you are indeed talking of the French and Italian fronts, so did the previous sentence by another author, neither is really appropriate for this article), it also gives an inaccurate image as some of the units listed in that OOB were indeed preparing for transfer East and did not fight against the western Allies after this date (for instance 19th Panzer). Anyhow, your additions are at best muddling up the matter.

I should note that i was considering to retain your mention of Liddell Hart, but considering how that was not sourced I had to delete it with the rest.--Caranorn 11:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is not about numbers, I was just using the numbers to point out that the section was hardly NPV. On the numbers however, what counts is where the Germans had available formations distributed in the summer of 44, not how many panzer divisions they had in total during the war nor that formations had moved between fronts. Similarly, the quality of SS formations is irrelevant, the point is that the Nazis thought and equipped them as if they were higher quality formations. And formations on the East were often paper or resting formations too, so the claim that the ones in the West were "resting" doesn't amount to much either, as Monty found out at Arnhem. But none of that is the point.

The point is that the specific section is making strong controversial claims, stating as facts what are matters of opinion, and in order to maintain NPV status, this must be acknowledged, or the whole section has to go. A whole page on the various schools of thought and arguments on the matter might be good? But as it stands right now, one particular point of view is being presented as a matter of fact.

I don't want to get into a reversion war, so what can we come up with that deals with this? Otherwise, the whole section has to go, the article is too long anyway, particularly if the battle was pretty insignificant in the great scheme of things, as this section currently maintains. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norm and Al (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It seems to me that NPOV is met in that section. As I said, if you can find a reference for Liddell Hart I think that would fit as well. The part you seem to object to explains the position of some historians, it is even in part countered in the second paragraph where substantial aid is attributed to the western Allies for the victory in the East. One problem with that section seems to be references, even the bit from Richard Overy is not properly sourced. The only reference in that entire section is used to back up the Ribbentrop explanations. While some of the material is common knowledge (for instance movement of German Units and elements West to East throughout 1943 and 1944) and as such does not require individual referencing, others, particularly claims like for instances percentages of forces, or casualties should be verifiable.--Caranorn 15:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I am going to have to do some research, and write a mini-essay on the historiography. It is NOT NPV to quote just one historical school of thought in an area where the debate has been fairly heated for many years.

You are entirely right, on reflection, the whole article needs better sourcing & referencing, for example the boxed number of Germans at the top does not agree with the cited footnote. And I just checked two other sources, which disagree sharply over casualties. Zetterling is being used pretty much as the sole source.

I thought one thing that might be illustrative would be to compare Normandy with Operation Bagration, they were on about the same scale in terms of numbers and date, so the reader can deal with facts instead of unsourced opinions, but the numbers there are even worse, with both sides' claims being wildly incompatible.

In any case, can we get rid of the 93%? It is such a high figure as to be unbelievable, and really should be sourced pretty strongly, if true. In any case, it seems a bit far off-topic. Norm and Al 18:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, found the source of the 93%, it is one "Dr." (? no-one knows where he went to school) Valentin Mikhailovich Falin quoted in the BBC story cited in reference 13. "Dr" Falin is an apparatchik, one-time Soviet ambassador to West Germany and Central Committee member and well known crank in current Russian discourse. Apparently there is an entry on him in German Wikipedia, but I don't read German. To get a good sense of his approach to history, check out http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20050322_nov_conversation_on_history.php, he apparently thinks Churchill was seriously thinking about making peace and joining the Germans against Russia after Kursk.... That 93% is so gone.Norm and Al 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just read through the German language article about Falin, I see no problem with him as a reliable source, though an interview might not always be accurate (the few interviews I've given I never cited from notes, always from memory, and that's an easy way to make a mistake...). In any case, he's much more then just a one time ambassador to Germany. Oh and his biography doesn't sound like an apparatchik, rather like a politicaian (apparatchik is a bureaucrat, not someone on the Central Comitee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union like Falin).

Anyhow back to the topic, I was the one to add the Zetterling references, mainly because it provides a good indicator of troop strength on both sides at a given date (July 23 and 25). At a later time I also added the numbers for casualties as there were some inconsistencies in the previous ones given. The footnote in that case was to show that Zetterling also cited different numbers but discarded them for the reasons given. The precise numbers he gives in his tables are: June 4975 KIA, 14631 Wounded, 15848 Missing, July 10839 KIA, 38824 Wounded, 55135 Missing, August 7205 KIA, 13605 Wounded, 127633 Missing, Total 23019 KIA, 67060 Wounded, 198616 Missing. As you will see this adds up, I will just add the pages to the references now so it's easier to verify.--Caranorn 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe 93% of German (and the various Italian, French, Czech, etc forces too) were concentrated on the Eastern front, but 85% of German losses were on the Eastern Front. Go read Stalingrad the Defeat of the German 6m Army: The Defeat of the German 6th Army (Schiffer Military/Aviation History) and LEARN something.

-G

This section reeks of original research and revisionism. The article would be better without it. Haber 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Haber, I very much agree. I think some coverage of the debate is very much worthwhile however, the battle really does need some contextualizing, and I am working on it as much as my time permits, which isn't much. I don't want to do a major piece of surgery without A LOT of extremely well sourced facts, which I am working on. Norm and Al 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a complete lack of citations for information stated as fact. It sounds as if it were written by an old USSR propaganda minister.

I couldn't agree more. It's as though this current international phase of America-bashing has extended to the point of rewriting history (especially WWII history). Nowhere does it manifest itself more that the attempts to colour the defunct USSR as some type of "benevolent saviour of the west". That, regardless of how you feel about the USA, was definitely NOT the case. Stalin and his Red Army were every bit as ruthless and amoral as Hitler and the Nazis. So the poor dears had to withstand a lonely Eastern Front for over a year. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch if you ask me and it serves them right for slicing up Poland with the Nazis in the first place - a deal made between two devils. CanadianMist 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The contributions of the Soviet Union are well known and no one is trying to distort their role in any way, rather these recent comments about this topic seem to tend in the opposite direction, to downplay the decisive role of the Soviet Union. Lastly I'd recommend you reconsider your words comparing Stalin and the Red Army with Hitler and co. Most will agree that Stalin in particular was one of the major criminals of the modern era, but putting him on the same level as Hitler is clearly denying the holocaust and the very fact of WWII. Lastly the citizens of the Soviet Union and or members of the Red Army are not identical to Stalin, so your statements about the first year of the war etc. is at best callous if not stupid. In general I'd recommend reading up on the subject before accusing others of rewriting history.--Caranorn 16:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the personal attack - I'm neither stupid nor am I a revisionist. And I'm sure that Comrade Stalin and company treated their Jews ever so humanely, n'est pas?? No history of anti-semitism there I'm sure... Give me a break. CanadianMist 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain where I am supposed to have made a personal attack? You on the other hand stated: Stalin and his Red Army were every bit as ruthless and amoral as Hitler and the Nazis. So the poor dears had to withstand a lonely Eastern Front for over a year. Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch if you ask me and it serves them right for slicing up Poland with the Nazis in the first place - a deal made between two devils.. Bolding added for emphasis on where you overstepped the boundaries of decency. You equated Stalin to Hitler and the Red Army to Nazis. Then you went on to say that the devastation of the Soviet Union was well deserved because of previous events including the Hitler-Stalin pact (whose history you obviously didn't understand).--Caranorn 18:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have to assume the personal attack comes somewhere along the lines of your statements callous if not stupid and I'd recommend reading up on the subject before accusing others of rewriting history (which, if directed toward me, I would take as an implication I don't have any knowledge of a subject since I don't have your point of view... remember this discussion IS about NPOV). I don't understand why equating Stalin to Hitler is denying the (Jewish) holocaust and/or WWII. Before WWII, Stalin is known to have attempted genocide on Ukraineans, and silenced nearly all those who spoke against him in the USSR. After WWII, his and the US's policies started the Cold War, which definitely lasted longer than Hitler's WWII. The two seem comparable to me. Your next response to him says, in essence, he doesn't understand history since he doesn't see it the same way you do -- whose history you obviously didn't understand. I could be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that just because someone doesn't see things from your point of view doesn't mean they don't understand something... it means he/she disagrees with you. This seems similar to your discussions with Norm and Al where you think someone is a reliable source because he supports your point of view, and that is all that matters. In fact, another source that disputes your numbers should be disregarded since if the numbers are indeed from the source you gave that means that source is unreliable. Perhaps your sources are unreliable and Norm and Al's are correct. Step back and realize just because someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean he is wrong... or doesn't understand history... or is just plain stupid.198.232.29.99 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Lets start with the discussion with Norm and Al. The source I used (Tessin) is internationally recognized and was until the 1990's unsurpassed concerning the German Order of Battle for WWII, since then a few other works have been published of similar scope and quality. The source Norm and Al was using was a website and contradicting information from Tessin

(such basic information that it was not worthwhile considering an error in Tessin). Anyhow, this issue has been solved, it was largely one of interpretation and neither of us was entirely wrong.

Now to the other topic, in many places it is usual to interprete equating Hitler with anyone else with Holocaust denial as no one else has committed atrocities approaching those of Hitler. Concerning Ukraine I've never heard the term genocide applied to what occurred there in the 1910's and 20's, I don't think it's appropriate either. Still, no one has denied the crimes of Stalin and co., putting them on the same level as Hitler's demonstrates ignorance of WWII. Which brings us back to the part about understanding history. This is not about POV or NPOV, this is about hard facts, the Soviet Union contributed far more to the Allied Cause in WWII then anyone else, likewise the German Army had most of it's forces at any time facing east, also incurring a massive share of its casualties out East. These are basic facts of WWII, anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed or acting in bad faith (I assume the former in accordance with wikipedia policy). The exact degree of involvement is indeed at least until we can find a precise and undisputed source dealing with these issues a matter of interpretation and therefore POV, but not the fact that the brunt of the war effort lay on the shoulders of Red Army soldiers. Lastly all combatants against the Nazi regime deserve respect, regardless of the flag they fought under or whether they actually understood what they were fighting for (most East or West didn't understand, at least not at the time when they were simply responding to the call of their respective flags).--Caranorn 11:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate to condradict my friend Caranorn, but I do NOT regard this issue as having been solved. This section is an entirely understandable reaction to the overhype in Western media about the significance of D-Day. The problem is that it is not just a reaction, but an over-reaction. The issue at hand is the significance of the Normany campaign in the ultimate Allied victory, not the relative moral heiniousness of Hitler and Stalin, nor the suffering of Russia, nor anything to do with communism. And frankly, a discussion of relative importance is probably beyond the scope of any kind of 'pedia, it should only be discussed in terms of the various positions various historians and ideologues have taken, which means a LOT more sources than the article currently has. (Rant> Oh, and incidentally, the question of what strength the Nazis put on which front is so complex and involved that I rather doubt it can be easily settled. For a simple example, it is NOT TRUE that the Germans "always" had greater strength on the Eastern Front, what about the Battle of France? Or that by 45 the question of what was on what front gets impossibly muddy. And the German army was a very complex organization, with formations of highly variable worth, which changed dramatically over time, so that counting divisions or even basic manpower or even tanks is highly misleading, even before you get to the timelines of what was where when. Hitler did in fact deploy a rather significant amount of his forces to the West, especially in terms of both the lower and higher quality ones, but I rather doubt that anyone would argue that the East didn't have more, at least after 1940 and before December 44. End Rant>)

Anyway, I strongly favour the idea that this should be a much shorter article, with links to main articles on the major operations, and that while simplified discussions based on original research of the importance of the campaign are almost certainly a bad idea, a discussion of the debate about the importance of the campaign probably is a good idea and probably should have its own page. And finally, I have been thinking about a page listing most of the major battles of the war, with the box-scores added, and all, I might add, sourced from wikipedia. Not only would this be FACTUAL, it would give a pretty good comparison of scale, which would not embarass the Western Allies, but would indeed put things into perspective.Norm and Al 00:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, just two ponts here: Any doubt that the Western Allies had the power to defeat huge, well-trained and equipped German forces were laid finally to rest by the Battle of the Bulge; here US forces faced arguably the best formations at Hitler's disposal at this stage of the war. Hitler, it has been argued (but I forget where) felt he had more land to give in the east than he did in the west. This is a different issue from his famous insistence on defending any and all held positions, rather than accept tactical retreat; it pertains to his priorities. These priorities, in turn, are a significant, if not large, part of the explanation for why the German Central army group in the East collapsed when it did.

My other point: it occurs to me that 'Operation Overlord' should be one article, and 'Battle of Normandy' another, as they were indeed two different operations; one the establishment of a beach head, the breaking out and transforming this into a major front.

The Canadians has been admiring the flag of Nazi Germany for over a month now, think it's time for them to admire something else. :) Changing the caption, surely "admire" is the wrong word. --Hst20 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the 80/20 figure since it's not true. I looked up the actual figures from John Ellis World War II, a Statistical Survey, which are 160 divisions on the eastern front, 55 in France and 23 in Italy. On a similar note Ellis clearly shows German strength peaking in 1944: tanks on the east front peak at 5,202 in 11/44, total aircraft peak at 5,041 in 12/44. The 93% german casualties is similarily a fantasy from Russian chauvinists, Ellis states them as 2.4 millions in the East with 3.2 million total. This figure is however misleading since the survival rate for German POWs differed significantly by captor nation, of the POWs taken at Stalingrad alone, some 200,000 died in captivity the following six months.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.58.224 (talk • contribs)

Could you add the Ellis Reference then where I reintroduced the fact tag, and preferably also the total number of German Divisions (including Balkans and Norway). Among other things I removed was the mention of Shadow Divisions as I'm uncertain what you meant by this, an actual Shadow Division would be a Full Strength Volksgrenadier Division (the 500 numbers) being raised behind the Front in advance to later replace a depleted or destroyed unit (so a shadow to that unit), what you probably meant was depleted Divisions, yet those also existed in the West, worse, depleted Divisions tended to be sent out West to rest and receive replacements. Many Divisions in the West were at a much lower establishment then they should have been (also due to replacement of regular units by Ost battalions). Oh and please leave out the personal attacks next time you come to visit.--Caranorn 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A correction on my post of yesterday: the 2.3 and 3.2 million are KIAs, not casualties. I was tired yesterday. Ellis doesn't mention the Balkans and Norway, though it's known that these forces would be in the vicinity of 50 divisions. By shadow I meant depleted as you surmise. You are however suffering from a misunderstanding when you believe there were depleted divisions in the West in 1944. The West was used as a resting ground prior to 1944. After 1943 and the Sicily landings the Germans deployed more troops to France. You perhaps don't realize that accusing people of being holocaust-deniers is a personal attack. I suggest you cease the practice if you want to be taken seriously.

I reintroduced the fact that the Normandy landings preceded Bagration by 16 days. I strongly object to the deletion of a relevant and uncontested fact. Deleting it is POV, not NPOV.

Thanks for adding the reference. Unfortunately you are mistaken concerning the depleted units, yes the West was reinforced during 1944, but numerous units in France were well understrength in June 1944 so there were depleted units on every front of almost, certainly both East and West. The reason why I deleted mention of Operation Bagration is simple, the relationship between the two is unproven, it takes much more time then 16 days to prepare an offensive so Bagration was in preparation a before D-Day and did not necessarily benefit from events in Normandy. Note if you object to the deletion of Bagration's date you could easily add that to the previous paragraph where preparation of that battle is already mentioned.

I'm not mistaken regarding the depleted units. Its well known, at least in the wargaming community we both belong to, that many of the divisions on the eastern front were reduced to regimental size through casualties in earlier fighting. This was NOT true for the forces in the west. If you want to dispute that, I suggest you find a source supporting your wild claims, and more reputeable one than Falin, who shares both credibility and title with Goebbels.

Since you deleted the entry without offering a source I re-entered it. I also qualified the statement about the 17th SS lacking tanks, as it was phrazed it implied that they lacked AFVs completely, which would be a deeply misleading statement. I also pointed out that the third cycle-borne infantry battalion was an Ersatz unit, not a line unit. While the first error was technically true, the second wasn't.

Lastly, whoever is trying to put Hitler and Stalin (or anybody else) on the same level is indeed denying the holocaust (intentionally or not) to a certain degree. I for one have long sworn not to tolerate such behaviour. Yes Stalin was a butcher of the worst kind, but his actions are dwarfed both in size and intent by those of Hitler.--Caranorn 20:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the Stalinist discourse, that to disapprove of genocide, oppression and aggressive war you must be a Nazi. It's absurd, a blatant lie and an obvious attempt to intimidate the opponent, and thus a breach of Wikipedia policy. The victims of both Hitler and Stalin are counted in the tens of millions. The same applies to intent, several of the minorities that Stalin persecuted suffered losses beyond the 50% level. The Chechens and Crimean Tartars lost more than half their populace and the Volga Germans more than 80%. The Polish minority in Ukraine, the Finns in Leningrad and the Greeks of Odessa were totally exterminated, just like the Jews of Latvia. I'm part Jewish, why the fuck would I deny the Holocaust.

Yesterday I thought long and hard about how belittling the allied victory in Normandy could, in any way, be conceived as countering Holocaust denial. I just couldn't find any angle under which it would serve that purpose, the US is the strongest country involved in maintaining the memory of that crucial event. Weakening its standing could only strengthen the Holocaust deniers. Then I remembered an important psychological fact: that when people slander opponents they will often accuse them of what they are doing themselves. Psychologists call it projection. That connected the dots for me, weakening the international standing of the US will automatically strenghten Iran which for the last twenty years has been the center for Holocaust denial. No wonder the accusation must be levelled first, so that the moral high ground can be seized.

axis allies missings

in the battle box it shows germany only, and in the allies it shows poland and othr stff. i know for a fact there are othres, i would apreicate if someone would as them

Italy and Japan never participated in the battleWardhog 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

what about romania and other countrues near them. (Esskater11 22:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Wargames

I wanted to mention another wargame (board game) which portrays the Normandy Invasion. Advanced Squad Leader (by Avalon Hill, and now Multiman Publishing) has numerous scenarios which allow players to recreate battles within the Normandy Invasions. In addition, there are several historical scenarios for Advanced Squad Leader using maps created from aerial reconnaissance photographs of those battlefields. Since this is a wargame not a published book or journal, what references are required to add this game to the list? Kihmbar 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Kihmbar

I'd tend to say the game should deal with the Battle of Normandy in particular like for instance AH's Longest Day. If ASL has a specific Normandy module (I stopped following the game a while back) it might be worthwhile adding that to the list, but I would not add ASL as such.--Caranorn 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Games etc.

Two of the video games (Killzone and Unreal tournament) mentioned "loosely depict" the invasion so I removed them. That section is not needed anyway and I would be in favour of removing the whole games bit. I would like other opinions. Wardhog 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd disagree to the entire removal, but do agree with removing any material not specifically and more or less seriously treating the Battle of Normandy. In the previous thread I mentioned AH's Longest Day as a good example of a game that fits well at the end of the article as it 1) has the Battle (in it's entirety) as it's subject, 2) is well researched including an excellent bibliography, and is 3) reasonably well known. In short, I'd agree with removing the "loose depictions" but not to removing all games. Note the section could probably be trimmed drastically, I just don't know many of the computer games well enough to tell whether they indeed take a serious look at the battle or just superficially use it...--Caranorn 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Conkers Bad Fur Day, a 2001 Nintendo 64 platform game. The battle was parodied again in the 2005 Xbox remake Conker Live and Reloaded. --- In the interests of listing material that is "more or less seriously treating the Battle of Normandy" i would say this should be removed from the list as well. 12.10.217.50 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Marines?

Were there no Marines on the beach, or what? --76.201.16.51 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no US Marines. There were lots of British and French marines. DMorpheus 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ive heard accounts of marines being placed on ships as snipers but i dont rember the source i heard this from (Esskater11 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, back in the days of sail, marines were posted in the rigging to snipe at other ships as they fought....back in the days when ship-to-ship fighting was done at pistol-and-sword range with boarding parties and such. In 1944, no. US Marines were present as very small contingents on US ships, but not as part of the landing force. British and French Marines were part of the amphibious landing force. DMorpheus 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

US Marine detachments are aboard every ship of the US Navy in which an admiral flies his flag, and those considered "capital ships". They are functional parts of the ship's company but are not land combat forces.--Buckboard 04:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle vs campaign

J Costello said the ...Battle of Normandy and D-Day are not the same thing. in his/her edit summary to revise my edits. I disagree, every source I've seen calls days after the 6th the Normandy Campaign. I would agree if he/she had said the Normandy Campaign and D-Day were not the same. The Battle of Normandy was decided when the landings were successful on June 6th, the Campaign and fighting in the hedgerows over the next weeks/months was the campaign.

Enough happened June 6th to justify it having an article separate from the fighting after, because so much information is available about both having an articles that includes d-day and the rest of Overlord in one article creates a huge article. Has anyone considered splitting this article? Moving the D-day stuff to the D-day page, and then changing the name of this article to the Normandy Campaign seems like it would make two good sized articles from this huge one. Anynobody 05:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I toally agree, obviouly there should be two seperate articles, but I think before such major surgery someone has to dedicate a whole bunch of hours and do it. Who is up for that?

I would be, but it would be foolish without some strong consensus first on how both articles would be defined. There are quite a number of very good articles on specific aspects of the campaign, such as the articles on Cobra, Goodwood, Epsom, and so forth. I would suggest there be a very high-level "Normandy Campaign" article that gives the general overview, with with short sections describing main topics and individual detailed articles for each phase. "D-Day" would be one such article. DMorpheus 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DMorpheus, you totally have my vote. Norm and Al 01:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an old debate. Originally, there was a discussion about what this article was to be about:

• Operation Overlord (Landings - Liberation of Paris)
• The Normandy Campaign (Landings - Northern France Campaign)
• Invasion of Normandy (Landings)

Originally, I thought we shouldn't even use the term "Battle of Normandy", which is IMO ambiguous, but it was argued that it was a much more common name for Operation Overlord. We also agreed not to use "The Normandy Campaign" as that name is U.S. centric and doesn't contain the highly interlinked actions of the Commonwealth; we chose instead to use neutral names for the Anglo-American campaigns.

If this articles name is causing confusion, then I suggest we disambiguate it and rename it to Operation Overlord. Oberiko 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea i like the idea of a Landing only page, then just a normany campian to liberate paris and such. i think if we did that this artical could get alot more depth without becoming extreamly large(ForeverDEAD 21:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Just a question

Shouldn't Juno Beach go under a seperate header? The current article divides the beaches into the US and British beaches, but in 1944 Canada had already been independent for almost 80 years, although still under obligation to participate in most of Britain's wars. Thus, it is my belief that there should be three divisions (or more if other nations are represented): British, Canadian, and US. Thank you Crisco 1492 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada was only indepedent politically after the Statue of Westminster, so you're wrong on "80 years", and you're wrong on your belief that Canada was obligated to fight in Britain's wars, since the declaration of war came on 10 September 1939, a week after Britain's, due to debate in Canada's Parliament. Nothing compelled Canada to join the war.68.146.200.201 03:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

totaly should be(Esskater11 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

No, Juno Beach is in the British Sector, the Canadian forces belonged to a British Corps (Ist iirc) and British Army (2nd).--Caranorn 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Caranorn. The Canadians, while an independent nation, fought under British command. Oberiko 12:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but "fought under British command" is not the complete picture. Most large "British" formations were amalgams of Empire units. The Canadian Army in Europe was part of 21st Army Group (commanded by Montgomery), but from time to time it included significant British units. Senior RAF officers were "Empire" men: the air defence of London during the Battle of Britain was commanded by Keith Park, a New Zealander and Smuts, a South African, was a member of the War Cabinet and appointed Field Marshal (which implied responsibilities within the British Army). There's no way that the UK could have fought a world war without help at all levels from the Empire. My point is that Canada and Britain were parts of an integrated whole. Folks at 137 17:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is that 3 Cdn Div was part of 2 Brit Corps for D-Day. The rest of your post is irrelevant.68.146.200.201 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind its good how it is.(ForeverDEAD 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

Proposed structure

This article has way to much focus on the initial landings when, in fact, it has to cover all actions up to the liberation of Paris. I would suggest the article use the following structure:

• Prelude
  • Background (quick summary of the war to this point)
  • Plans for Overlord
  • Allied preparations
  • German preparations
  • Allied deception operations
• Operation Overlord
  • The invasion (naval assault, naval landings, airborne landings, etc.)
  • Securing the beachhead
  • The breakout (Goodwood, Cobra, Totalize etc.)
  • The end of Overlord (Falaise, Paris, etc.)
• Analysis (casualties, overall position of forces)
• Aftermath (drive to the Siegfried Line)
• In media and history (films, games, books, museums etc.)

Any comments? Oberiko 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems to make a better artical if it wnt like this i wouldnt oppose. also i really thiunk the invasion part(landings) are extremly distinctive to warrant its own artical(ForeverDEAD 21:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

• I like these suggestions Oberiko, when I looked at this article in the past I always wondered why so little is mentioned about the breakout into France, where most of the brutal combat took place Bleh999 11:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A word of caution

Since this is a featured article, and presumably checked and double-checked, finding a significant error is a bit disconcerting. I corrected three--the operation names of the US airborne landings and the location of a battle--all of which were easily checkable. The names attributed are those used--incorrectly--in a video game which is where I strongly suspect the errors originated (repeated many times in related articles by the same author, and and all the articles leading back to the same video game), and that compounds the egregiousness of the error in my mind (encyclopedia research by video game...). The veracity of the work is at stake here, if that matters to anyone.--Buckboard 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That material seems to have been in the article for a while now, I have very little knowledge of the airborne operations, so I can't comment (or detect errors on the subject).--Caranorn 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pic with two candians holding Nazi german flag

Im having a hard time beliving the picture is true the quality or the color photo looks to good for in the 40's most vietnam pics look worse then that.(ForeverDEAD 03:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

It comes from Archivesnormandie 1939-45, which in turn claims that it comes from the National Archives of Canada. Seem to be reputable sources. --MediaMangler 07:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo does seem very 'clean' and balanced for its age. However, the quality of photograph depends much more on the specifics of the camera/lens/film used to shoot the picture than the age. Also, the storage of the output media will have a great effect on ageing. --Stestagg 17:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Never new that, and they say u wont learn anything from wikipedia(ForeverDEAD 05:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

If I may - I'm not a member, but trying to work that out - I think this is a recreation pic. Apologies if I'm wrong, but... Neither soldier wears insignia, the right hand soldier has no dog tags (could be underneath but his tshirt but the neck is very open), the flag is ridiculously clean, and so is the picture. Also, their boots look wrong for the period, and the field gun behind them appears to be of a desert camoflage pattern. There also seems to have been some text edited out at the bottom, but I can't make it out. Steve

I can confirm the picture is from 1944, I have found it in a book from 1983 with the following caption: In the quarries at Hautmesnil, 8 August, on Falaise-road, these soldiers from HLI of Canada proudly exhibit their trophy. The picture seems to be from the Public Archives of Canada.--Caranorn 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen other B/W photos of the same two soldiers holding the flag, it even mentioned their names, I'll try and find that information Bleh999 07:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

recent additions

Just to explain why I reverted some of the recent additions...

Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin bit: The old text seemed better, I added a fact tag to Churchill unofficially informing the Soviets, this needs to be sourced. 850.000 in Rundstedt's Command: Are you certain the 60.000 Ost troops are for that entire command and not just for those troops actually engaged in Normandy? It's not a good idea to mix sources like that (note I have Keegan's book lying around somewhere, but the french edition, so I'm not sure I can find the reference). The repartition of Divisions: I just standardised the text there, though I fear there could be an overlap concerning troops in Germany and the West.--Caranorn 15:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We can go with Chester Wilmot's figures if you want. They are complete: East Front: 157, Finland: 6, Norway: 12, Denmark: 6, Germany: 9, Balkans: 21, Italy 26, France, Belgium and the Netherlands: 59.

The 60,000 vs 850,000 figure is from the same sentence, pg 61 in the pocket book edition: "of whom there were 60,000 among the 850,000 under Rundstedt's command", third page in the chapter titled "Journey to the Second Front", and subtitled "Rommel". There is a more complete discussion about the discussions regarding the "commitment" to invade in 1942 in pps 38-41 Journey to the Second Front - Molotov, which I'll enter now.

(did the math wrong in my head, the army groups are at 40 + 41 + 41 + 35 = 157 )

Summary of strength comparison made in British memorandum (Wallies vs Germans:

available divisions: 16/27 available aircraft: 1,300/1,500

In addition there were only landing craft for landing 4,000 men at a time. Source is Keegan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.59.251 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I replaced the Ellis numbers by those from Wilmot, I decided to also replace Eastern Front by Soviet Union as all others are countries, if you feel this misrepresents the source go ahead and correct it again. I couldn't find my copy of Keegan this afternoon, I will look once more tomorrow, at worst I will have to get a copy from a library.--Caranorn 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Date format

in the spring of 1944

This is not a correct date format according to the MOS. Please change it to one with neutral wording, per MOS. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All events described are in the Northern Hemysphere, so the when should be clear. If the article were discussing a global event I'd agree.--Caranorn 11:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've kept the original wording since there has been no reply to Caranorn's argument. Also, I believe the fact that it is spring time bears some significance to indicate Germany's strength when it's ready to resume an offensive. Just in case, I'll leave a message at your talk page. --Oshah 13:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not respond in a timely manner as other interests have taken my time of late.

I am not satisfied with the explanation. It does not address the fundamental flaw that the seasonal reference is being used as a time reference, and not as a description of events. In other words, it is being used as a "when" and not a "what". The article does not describe why the season had a bearing on these events. Did German troops suffer losses in the winter? Did they disband for the winter? Did they return home because they could not get supplies through heavy snow? As it is unlikely that the season had a direct bearing on these events, it should be substituted with more neutral wording.

I believe the fact that it is spring time bears some significance... This is speculation, not fact. Such specious speculation is not sufficient grounds for leaving in a seasonal reference that is in need of substitution.

All events described are in the Northern Hemysphere, so the when should be clear. It should not be assumed that it is clear from the perspective of a resident of the southern hemisphere, for whom spring occurs in September to November. Such lack of clarity of seasonal references does cause issues.

It is important not to confuse what with when here. The MOS only eschews seasons used as time references. However, it is acceptable if the season had a material bearing on the events. This criterion is not satisfied here. If a more precise date can be found from primary references (eg: April 1944), it should be substituted. The article would lose nothing by this change.

My recommendation is one or both of:

1. Substitute the seasonal reference used as a date with a more precise date from primary references.
2. Expand the article by adding a paragraph explaining how the seasons caused a reduction in German troops. The seasonal reference can then be reworked into this context. Supplying dates would be helpful.

-- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to allow us to continue this discussion. (my talk page message worked!)

After that accusation of original research, I feel I need to demonstrate my claim. The season may not have been as important for assessing the strength of the German Army, but it damn sure was important for when D-Day occurred. If you read up on any text on D-Day, you'll know that D-Day was postponed from the 5th June to the 6th (and we do mention it in the main article), precisely because the weather conditions were unsuitable. Weather and climate were key to choosing a date for not just Operation Overlord, but the entire European campaign that would follow (winter warfare is never fun). In fact the BBC Weather centre (Met Office) go so far as to claim that D-Day could only occur in the months of May and June[2].

However, you raised a good point of having No Original Research. The statement which mentions the season is sourced to Kurt von Tippelskirch. I move that we use the precise wording that Tippelskirch used (sorry, I don't have the reference to hand). If he mentioned a season, we use a season reference; if he mentions a month, we alter the wording accordingly.--Oshah 19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

External links section

I just trimmed down that section drastically. I mostly removed links that were either not dealing with the Battle in general (some of the links I dropped might belong into sub-articles), in french without translation (I read french easily, most viewers probably don't) etc. There were also a number of duplicates, near duplicates (two different links to the same site) and dead links. If I went too far in trimming feel free to read relevant links or revert my edit.

Now the list still has to be sorted, most important and general links at the top and least important or specialized at the bottom I believe. Some entries also require a better summary. I will try to do these tommorrow, but certainly wouldn't mind if someone else is faster.--Caranorn 21:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of combatants in infobox

Let's try to nip this little edit war in the bud. Those claiming that the combatants should be listed in alphabetical order should please take note this would mean that Canada should be listed first, followed by Free France then Poland. Since that is not the order that has resulted from your edits, clearly you are not basing your edits purely on alphabetical order. While the supreme commander for the allies was Eisenhower, it can be argued that the commander of this battle was Montgomery (and the land and sea supporting commanders were also both British). Using that to justify keeping the United Kingdom first in the list of combatants is defensible, but claiming alphabetical order just makes you look silly. --MediaMangler 10:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, call my revert yesterday a brain fart, can't quite explain how it happened. I'd still prefer UK before US, but I won't be reverting those kinds of changes.--Caranorn 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sorry if I over-reacted. I've just seen a number of edit wars develop with the participants only communicating in edit summaries and hoped to head that off here. I've been looking at infoboxes for other battles, trying to determine if there is an established convention for the order of combatants. Trying for such consistency is probably a lost cause, but I'll keep looking for at least a little while. --MediaMangler 11:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word liberation

Why in the bloody hell, the word "liberated" is used? I'd rather use "bla bla bla was took by the allies". 84.249.216.57 02:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We at wikipedia incorage u to be bold, go ahead and change it. But please do so with regards from the comunity(ForeverDEAD 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Numerous quotes from primary sources (de Gaulle, Pershing, on America's involvement in WWII, taken from Ambrose's D-Day the climactic battle), as well as secondary sources (MRD Foot in the Oxford Companion to World War II, Norman Davies, the title of A Dansette's book on the war: History of the liberation of Paris, John Keegan's history) call it a liberation. And the Wikipedia article on liberation independently lists the French campaign as an example of liberation. Make sure that when you reword the article, that the new wording is verifiable from reliable sources. --Oshah 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Falaise - Anon repeatedly posting fantasy German figures

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falaise_pocket&diff=156691696&oldid=155401005
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falaise_pocket&diff=156707703&oldid=156707652
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falaise_pocket&diff=156724081&oldid=156710751 etc.

Take watch on this. --HanzoHattori 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's been reverted every time so far. Parsecboy 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)