D-Day 65 Years on .... Lest We Forget

The Longest Day

Only a few hundred veterans still alive now, and all in their 80's ......

And the single thing that - IMHO - sums up our rancid political classes is the shambles surrounding the last visit to Normandy by the vets, and the abscence of Her Majesty to be with them.

The Queen and Prince Philip both served so are veterans in their own right - and while I'm not surprised that Sarkozi wanted to suck up to Barack Obama & leave the Queen out, I think it's disgusting that our government did nothing to secure an official invite.

Prince Charles will be there but only after a public outcry.

The footage from Saving Private Ryan can hardly begin to convey what the landings must really have been like.

Tom Hanks wasn't there, for a start.

I don't think anyone who didn't fight in the war has any real grasp of quite what it was like.

My Grandfather was a POW in Germany for much of the war. He never spoke about it for the rest of his life, the things he saw and had to endure.

But the young man who went off to fight came back, as people noted, a totally different person. A person who had lost his spark. He was never the same.

The defining moments of his life came at a time when the majority of us in this day and age are going out partying and being twats. It's hard to get your head around it.

Growler wrote:And the single thing that - IMHO - sums up our rancid political classes is the shambles surrounding the last visit to Normandy by the vets, and the abscence of Her Majesty to be with them.

Prince Charles will be there but only after a public outcry.

The Gaullist elite of France hate les Anglais that's why - they resent the fact they surrendered and we didn't.

Did Rene from 'Allo 'Allo get an invite?

Dunno, but there was no way he was plinking that bit of totty... no way.

JK - very true, but that doesn't excuse our governments attitude towards it - up until two months ago they weren't even prepared to recognise the 65th anniversary as having any significance. The same shower of s**te who sent todays young men into an illegal war on a downright lie. I'd be surprised if a single veteran has anything good to say at all about any of todays politicians.

JD - so very true also. The only thing I can imagine as being worse was to be a POW in the Far East. Since the Japanese considered it the ultimate humiliation to surrender, they viewed all allied POWs as sub-humans who could be treated worse than dogs.

That whole generation lived through times we can't concieve of today - both the civilian population and the fighting forces and merchant seamen. I've nothing but admiration for every one of them - but especially the bomber crews.

As an ardent Australian republican (albiet one who still carries a British passport for convenience) I'd like to say I'm disgusted at this snub by the French.

It would seem that the only nation state with more more ingrained long term memories and total amnesia short term would be The Vatican.

And the French qunts are rapidly catching up.

There was a piece on Newsnight last week with the heading 'Is the British WWII contribution being erased from history'

I know we've always been told by the yanks they 'saved our asses'

I looked up the forces involved on D-Day a while back and was amazed to see more British & Commonwealth personnel were involved than US.

JKLever wrote:There was a piece on Newsnight last week with the heading 'Is the British WWII contribution being erased from history'

I know we've always been told by the yanks they 'saved our asses'

Hmmm. What a load of shit. It was the Russians, and Hitler's own stupidity; and thank Fark for both.

Britain's role in 1940 and 1941 was crucial to the outcome of the war. A treaty with Hitler in the summer of 1940 would certainly have resulted in a German victory.

Russia in 1941 came within an inch of defeat. Without Britain to contend with, Germany would have invaded two months earlier and had far more troops available. It would not have had to devote large amounts of its airforce and artillery to the defence of its cities against bombing. Significant amounts of war material were supplied to Russia by Britain and the US. It is highly unlikely that the US would have joined the European war if Britain was neutral. Also, had Russia been only slightly more weakened it is likely that the Japanese would have invaded in the East.

Britain could have enabled Nazi victory therefore, but was incapable of inflicting defeat without US and Soviet help. Even the victory over Italy would have been out of question.

Well our own government are certainly trying to rewrite history.

The simple fact is that for so long Britain stood alone against the Nazis - with assistance from our then colonies & dominions, and not forgetting the few Free French and Free Poles.

It's generally overlooked that up until D-Day, the only offensive operations of any significance we were able to mount against Germany was the bombing campaign.

No matter what our thoughts of the rights & wrongs of it, I feel it wrong to judge wartime leaders like Arthur Harris by 21st century morality and attitudes. They were men of their time with the attitudes of their time. To this day I'm disgusted that Bomber Command were not recognised with a campaign medal.

A tour of duty was 30 ops.

The life expectancy of a tail gunner was 11 trips. What must it have been like to complete a tour knowing that 19 others never made it to their twelfth mission?

Over 55,000 men didn't return - that's more than the whole of today's RAF being lost in combat between now and 2014.

TYA, just to be clear, I'm not playing down England's role ... not a bit.

Just saying Russia's efforts were more important than America's, to Germany's defeat ... and Russia's efforts were more timely than America's, in terms of 'saving Britain's arse'.

The Americans have very inflated opinions of their own importance in that theatre of war.

Agreed Lardy, i didn't think your post was downplaying Scotland's role in the war.

Russia suffered more and contributed more than all of the other countries but couldn't have done it without Western help from 1941 to mid 1943. From then onwards they were capabable of winning on their own.

The significance of D-Day is often misplaced. It was not a crucial event in the defeat of Hitler as he was already beaten. Had it failed or not been attempted (as Churchill wished) then the western allies would have invaded France and Germany via Italy. The Russians would still have taken Berlin but that would probably not quite have ended the war. Russia may have ended up occupying most of Germany. Also, the US may have had the bomb before Germany surrendered - an interesting possibility.

D-Day was, therefore, not all that important in the defeat of Hitler but incredibly important in the shaping of post war Europe.

Well geo politics of the time aside. The Brits did more to free France than the French ever did themselves. Thus my disgust at the snub.

And no-one bothering to wake Hitler up to ask to put a couple of Panzwer divisions into action.

The absolute blame for Lizzie's snub lies equally and squarely with Brown and Sarkozi. Charlie's intervention was a soft balled attempt at reconciliation - when it should have been Brown's balls on the rack for not kick-arsing the Frogs.

The only recognition France ought to take out of all this is the fact that history dictated that the D-Day landings take place on French soil. That is all.

Other than that one single fact, it is the Frenchies 'contribution' to their own country's liberation from Naziism that should be airbrushed out of the history books. The Gaullist's have never forgiven the British for causing them so much self-imposed anguish and embarrassment at their having to take refuge here and thereafter watching a generation of other nations' men combined together to give their lives in the liberation of France and Europe back then.

During all this time - where were the majority of French males?

Even today one senses the embarrassment felt by many French people when discussion comes around to the matter regarding French participation in WW2. They never seem to have a definitive answer. Not surprising ... that!

French participation

Paricipation. They actually participated.

Never underestimate French capacity to re-write history.

There is, in Normandy (I forget precisely where) a museum dedicated to D day - one of many I suppose. The caption against one of the photographs says something along the lines of "General Leclerc (The French C in C) storming ashore". That would be fine except the photo was apparently taken in August 1944, some 2 months after the invasion, and he looked as though he was going for a leisurely Sunday morning stroll.

Anyway, enough of the French. Today is the day to commemorate the real heroes of D Day - the lads who did not come back.

And there were a shedload. Spielburg's film even got it correct when the company went ashore as part of the second wave. 'Coz there weren't no first wave left (formation wise).

Growler wrote:Well our own government are certainly trying to rewrite history.

The simple fact is that for so long Britain stood alone against the Nazis - with assistance from our then colonies & dominions, and not forgetting the few Free French and Free Poles.

It's generally overlooked that up until D-Day, the only offensive operations of any significance we were able to mount against Germany was the bombing campaign.

No matter what our thoughts of the rights & wrongs of it, I feel it wrong to judge wartime leaders like Arthur Harris by 21st century morality and attitudes. They were men of their time with the attitudes of their time. To this day I'm disgusted that Bomber Command were not recognised with a campaign medal.

A tour of duty was 30 ops.

The life expectancy of a tail gunner was 11 trips. What must it have been like to complete a tour knowing that 19 others never made it to their twelfth mission?

Over 55,000 men didn't return - that's more than the whole of today's RAF being lost in combat between now and 2014.

It has been often said that Russia, Britain and the US all paid significantly to win the war . . . the US paid in cash, the Russians paid in blood and Britain bought the both of them time with her stubborn defense in 1940-41 . . .

It's called the 'morality of altitude' Growler. But it is generally thought that Bomber Command 'strategically' fought a little bit dirtier than the the Nazis. Justified though it may have been.

Why do you think Rader and Doenitz escaped the rope after Nuremburg but a lot of Army officers did the hemp dance.

The prosecuters were pulled discreetly aside and told "Ahh Chaps. Don't go to hard on them our chaps might have to answer some ugly questions if you do.

ten years after wrote:
The significance of D-Day is often misplaced. It was not a crucial event in the defeat of Hitler as he was already beaten. Had it failed or not been attempted (as Churchill wished) then the western allies would have invaded France and Germany via Italy. The Russians would still have taken Berlin but that would probably not quite have ended the war. Russia may have ended up occupying most of Germany. Also, the US may have had the bomb before Germany surrendered - an interesting possibility.

D-Day was, therefore, not all that important in the defeat of Hitler but incredibly important in the shaping of post war Europe.

Overlord might have shortened the war by six months. I wonder if Heisenberg could have made a working fission bomb by the end of 1945. Did they have enough fissiles? They had a ballistic missile to deliver such a weapon.

Just a thought.

Rob I wrote:

ten years after wrote:
The significance of D-Day is often misplaced. It was not a crucial event in the defeat of Hitler as he was already beaten. Had it failed or not been attempted (as Churchill wished) then the western allies would have invaded France and Germany via Italy. The Russians would still have taken Berlin but that would probably not quite have ended the war. Russia may have ended up occupying most of Germany. Also, the US may have had the bomb before Germany surrendered - an interesting possibility.

D-Day was, therefore, not all that important in the defeat of Hitler but incredibly important in the shaping of post war Europe.

Overlord might have shortened the war by six months. I wonder if Heisenberg could have made a working fission bomb by the end of 1945. Did they have enough fissiles? They had a ballistic missile to deliver such a weapon.

Just a thought.

It seems the German work on fission had ended in the middle part of the war.

Had the war stretched into August would the Americans have used the A-bomb on German cities? I somehow doubt it as, given the way the bombing campaign was going, there would not have been any cities left to bomb. Certainly no pristine targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

My take on the bombing is that it shortened the war in both theatres and almost certainly saved lives. Anyway, that was what it was intended to do and so is morally justified. The cities bombed in early February 1945 are the only ones which are hard to justify since they were too close to the end of the war to have much impact on shortening it.