Military Review

The anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy for the first time passed without veterans

196
The anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy for the first time passed without veterans

On the Normandy coast, a ceremony was held to mark the 76th anniversary of the Allied troops landing in Normandy, which in the West is known as “Day D”. This year, for the first time, the event was held without the participation of veterans.


This is reported by the regional publication Quest-France.

June 6th is considered a memorial day in France and the United States. Usually, delegations from countries whose troops took part in the allied landing on the Normandy coast, and World War II veterans come to northern France on this day.

This year the event was more modest, due to the pandemic that erupted in the world. This time, delegations of nine countries attended the wreath-laying ceremony, and decided to refrain from inviting veterans and a large number of foreign guests.


In addition, an air show was held, in which the Patrol de France aerobatic team took part. Then in the evening at the same time, at 18:44, bells in the cathedrals of France, the USA, Great Britain, Belgium and Canada rang in honor of those who died in World War II. The soldiers of these countries landed in Normandy in the summer of 1944 and opened the long-awaited Second Front against Nazi Germany. Moreover, the question of why the Allies dragged on for so long with the opening of the Second Front against Nazi Germany is still being discussed.
196 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Potomac
    Potomac 7 June 2020 09: 19 New
    30
    What can I add here ?! Eternal memory, and unlimited thanks, to all the soldiers who fought the brown plague.
  2. knn54
    knn54 7 June 2020 09: 22 New
    0
    Why did the Allies drag out so long with the opening of the Second Front?
    They landed. When they realized that Soviet tanks could reach the English Channel.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 7 June 2020 09: 25 New
      20
      In the USA, at the beginning of WWII, the army was worse than that of the Bulgarians.
      It took time to build up. The United States conducted successive operations with a buildup of forces. 1942 strike and the cleansing of Africa from the Nazis.
      1943 Landing in Italy and its surrender.
      1944 is already a landing in France.
      1. Tuzik
        Tuzik 7 June 2020 09: 29 New
        15
        Plus a nick with a Japs on the second half of the ball. I also don't quite understand these Yankee raids.
        1. LiSiCyn
          LiSiCyn 7 June 2020 09: 41 New
          +4
          Quote: Tuzik
          Plus a nick with a Japs on the second half of the ball.

          Well, let's be honest, in the Pacific, the fleet is mostly + ILC.
          1. Tuzik
            Tuzik 7 June 2020 09: 45 New
            +5
            Well, then the resources are in half, plus without an ILC, they probably had to carry out landings in Europe. These even the French in Africa scared
          2. aglet
            aglet 7 June 2020 12: 01 New
            -5
            conquered useless islets, if only to take the personnel
            1. LiSiCyn
              LiSiCyn 7 June 2020 12: 41 New
              +7
              Quote: aglet
              worthless islets

              Well, how useless ... "Strategists" had to take off from somewhere. And the Yapas, after the loss of aircraft carriers, needed airfields for communications.
              But I agree with you that the number of infantry formations is not comparable to the "European" theater of operations.
              1. aglet
                aglet 7 June 2020 12: 48 New
                -3
                "Strategists had to take off from somewhere."
                and where did they fly from? with peleliu7
                1. LiSiCyn
                  LiSiCyn 7 June 2020 13: 16 New
                  +6
                  Quote: aglet
                  where did they fly from? with peleliu7

                  Saipan, Guam.
                  1. aglet
                    aglet 7 June 2020 13: 38 New
                    +3
                    "Saipan, Guam."
                    "Guam surrendered to Japanese forces on December 10, 1941, was recaptured by the Americans on July 21, 1944. The 314th Bomber Aviation Regiment as part of B-29 bombers. It arrived in Guam on January 16, 1945."
                    as bae already, too late. "American troops began to build a military airfield on Saipan." - in July 1944, too, quite late, the results of the Second World War were not influenced either there or here
                    1. LiSiCyn
                      LiSiCyn 7 June 2020 13: 56 New
                      +7
                      Quote: aglet
                      on the results of the second world war, neither there nor here, did not affect

                      Did I write that this affected the results of 2 MB? what
                      Although, why not? The blows with "lighters" did their bit. And "Enola Gay" took off from Tinian.
                      1. aglet
                        aglet 7 June 2020 14: 56 New
                        -4
                        "Although, why not? The blows with the lighters did their bit."
                        they burned Tokyo paper and paper, and so Germany surrendered. capitulated to the red army, all the rest, anointed themselves like the French.
                      2. LiSiCyn
                        LiSiCyn 7 June 2020 16: 32 New
                        +6
                        Quote: aglet
                        they burned Tokyo paper and paper, and so Germany surrendered.

                        Stop stop
                        You, ascribe to me other people's thoughts and words. We talked about Tikh.TVD. Why are you, dragged Germany, I do not know. request
                        Quote: aglet
                        burned wood paper Tokyo

                        And also factories, shipyards, etc. The attacks of the "strategists" showed the Japanese that they had no chance of winning.
                      3. aglet
                        aglet 7 June 2020 16: 39 New
                        -3
                        "You, you attribute to me other people's thoughts and words. We talked about Tikh.TVD."
                        I'm just saying that the role of Tikh.TVD in the Second World War was more than modest. "According to Japanese data, 50 people died and 400 were injured on the ground. A major fire broke out at one of the weapons factories" - this is 1942. "On the night of March 9-10, 334 bombers flew from the Mariana Islands. After a two-hour bombing raid in the city (Tokyo), a fire tornado, similar to the one that was during the bombing of Dresden, was formed. The fire destroyed 41 km2 of the city's area, burned 330 thousand houses, 40% of the total housing stock was destroyed. " this is 1945 about factories, shipyards, etc. there was no talk
                      4. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 8 June 2020 18: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: aglet
                        "On the night of March 9-10, 334 bombers flew from the Mariana Islands. After a two-hour bombing raid in the city (Tokyo), a fire tornado, similar to the one that was during the bombing of Dresden, was formed. The fire destroyed 41 km2 of the city's area, burned 330 thousand houses, 40% of the total housing stock was destroyed. " this is 1945 about factories, shipyards, etc. there was no talk

                        It’s just that usually we don’t translate everything.
                        In English-language sources (United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Summary Report (Pacific War)) it is reported that by 1945, Japan’s industry was based on numerous small enterprises with up to 250 employees, subcontracting components of equipment and weapons (industry dispersal). 50% of industrial production in Tokyo accounted for just such companies. They were located, as a rule, right in a residential building. And with it, they burned down in Tokyo, leaving the same radio industry without components.
                  2. Revolver
                    Revolver 7 June 2020 18: 23 New
                    0
                    Quote: aglet
                    burned wood paper Tokyo

                    And they also completely burnt brick-stone Hamburg and Dresden. Well, the truth is basically the idea of ​​mass bombing with the lighters of cities in Germany was mostly pushed by England, and America, let's say, did not strongly resist this idea.
                  3. Normal ok
                    Normal ok 7 June 2020 23: 21 New
                    -1
                    Quote: Nagan
                    Quote: aglet
                    burned wood paper Tokyo

                    And they also completely burnt brick-stone Hamburg and Dresden. Well, the truth is basically the idea of ​​mass bombing with the lighters of cities in Germany was mostly pushed by England, and America, let's say, did not strongly resist this idea.

                    At first, the Germans did this in England. Then, in the course of revenge.
                  4. Revolver
                    Revolver 8 June 2020 00: 15 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Normal ok
                    Then, in the course of revenge.

                    The Germans did not organize a fiery tornado. Not because they were all so white and fluffy. Either they didn’t think of it, or the power of the Heinkels and Junkers was not enough, they were still up to the “Fortresses” and “Lancaster” as to China in a certain position, and the number was also smaller. But Fau, that 1, that 2, also did not seem a little, and they did not throw them aimingly at military targets, but aimed at London wherever they had to, and then not everyone got there. During a war, war crimes are committed by everyone, and the defeated are judged. However, the Germans deserve it.
  3. Nikolai Miracles
    Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 13: 08 New
    -6
    Soviet intelligence Iskhak Akhmerov staged Pearl Harbor.
    https://russian7.ru/post/iskhak-akhmerov-kak-sovetskiy-razvedchi/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com
  4. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 June 2020 18: 40 New
    0
    Quote: aglet
    conquered useless islets, if only to take the personnel

    Do you propose attacking without your bases and having Japanese bases operating in the rear? wink
    "Frog Jumping" is the gradual transfer of the forward basing and supply points of your fleet to the Japanese Metropolis. Plus, isolation or seizure of the same enemy bases - just remember the fate of Rabaul or "Gibraltar of the Pacific" - Truk. These well-equipped and well-defended Japanese bases, instead of a bloody assault, were blocked and simply "turned off" from the war, turning into "Captive camps".
    Before the war, the Americans decided not to rush anywhere, but instead to concentrate forces superior to the enemy and go down the mountain slowly .... smile
    And wide strides across the ocean like "and let's rely on Pruk Harbor based on Truk and the Metropolis"are only in crazy alternatives.
    1. aglet
      aglet 9 June 2020 17: 01 New
      0
      "Before the war, the Americans decided not to rush anywhere"
      and what am I talking about? They won the worthless islets if only to take the personnel.
      Pearl Harbor - his role was extremely shallow, well, perhaps, the reason for the war
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 June 2020 18: 39 New
        0
        Quote: aglet
        and what am I talking about? They won the worthless islets if only to take the personnel.

        Again: do not hurry - means to slowly and systematically advance. Without overcoming and covering up staff miscalculations with personal heroism.
        The conquest of the "worthless islets" made it possible to start each next stage of the offensive based on the forward base of the fleet and air force created on the island taken at the previous stage.
        No, of course a frontal assault on Truk or Rabaul would have looked much more advantageous in terms of PR ... but why? Why show weak-mindedness and courage, storming the enemy's fortifications head-on - if the fortress can simply be bypassed and blocked from those "worthless islets"? Moreover, the US industry was able to do the almost impossible: to provide the fleet with full-fledged mobile bases that could be deployed in any suitable harbor or lagoon. And now it was not necessary to take away equipped bases from the enemy to base its own forces - you could simply build your own nearby, and then, if necessary, roll it up and unfold it elsewhere.
        1. aglet
          aglet 9 June 2020 20: 28 New
          0
          "The conquest of" worthless islets "made it possible to start each next stage of the offensive with the support of the forward base of the fleet and air force, created on the island taken in the previous stage."
          these islands, for the most part, were so small that no base could be built on them, nor a fleet, nor an air force and could be built on every island in the Pacific Ocean, of which there were millions — a fleet base, a thousand miles from the United States, why ? and how to supply it, and again, why?
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 7 June 2020 16: 02 New
    +4
    Quote: LiSiCyn
    Quote: Tuzik
    Plus a nick with a Japs on the second half of the ball.

    Well, let's be honest, in the Pacific, the fleet is mostly + ILC.

    Greetings, Stas!
    Plus a lot of aviation))
    1. LiSiCyn
      LiSiCyn 7 June 2020 16: 21 New
      +4
      Hi Albert! hi
      Quote: Krasnodar
      Plus a lot of aviation)

      You can’t argue with that. wink
      But I originally meant infantry units. Capture the islands, a lot of infantry is not necessary. Division, maximum two. But in Europe, I had to participate in armies.
      1. Liam
        Liam 7 June 2020 16: 26 New
        +4
        Quote: LiSiCyn
        Hi Albert! hi
        Quote: Krasnodar
        Plus a lot of aviation)

        You can’t argue with that. wink
        But I originally meant infantry units. Capture the islands, a lot of infantry is not necessary. Division, maximum two. But in Europe, I had to participate in armies.

        The battle for Guadalcanal is 60.000 Amer infantry. This is more than many Soviet armies. And Okinawa is 180.000. A full-fledged Soviet front. The Philippines is 600.000. Several Soviet fronts.
        1. aglet
          aglet 7 June 2020 16: 56 New
          -2
          "Battle of Guadalcanal -60.000 American infantry"
          Japanese - 15 thousand, also everywhere - crushed by the masses, artillery and aviation. Which is right. only why did such losses suffer, maybe their commanders could not fight? it's me about amers, yapi behaved better
          1. Normal ok
            Normal ok 7 June 2020 23: 23 New
            -1
            Quote: aglet
            "Battle of Guadalcanal -60.000 American infantry"
            Japanese - 15 thousand, also everywhere - crushed by the masses, artillery and aviation. Which is right. only why did such losses suffer, maybe their commanders could not fight? it's me about amers, yapi behaved better

            Initially, the question was in quantity. The man in quantity and answered.
            PS. Attackers must have superiority.
        2. LiSiCyn
          LiSiCyn 7 June 2020 17: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: Liam
          Battle of Guadalcanal -60.000 Amer infantry.

          From 07.08.42/09.02.43/60 to XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX. XNUMX thousand is the total number for the specified period.
          Okinawa - 01.04.45/3/6. The end of the war, complete domination in the air and on the water. XNUMX-fold superiority in the infantry (and planned XNUMX-fold).
          For comparison ... Konigsberg assault, spacecraft ~ 130 thousand, Wehrmacht ~ 120 thousand. The area is not comparable, the operation time, too.
      2. aglet
        aglet 7 June 2020 16: 42 New
        0
        "To capture the islands, you don't need a lot of infantry. A division, maximum two."
        especially if they are protected by a platoon or company. or none at all
      3. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 7 June 2020 16: 51 New
        +3
        Well this is understandable - another kind of database, not continental)).
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 June 2020 18: 24 New
    0
    Quote: LiSiCyn
    Well, let's be honest, in the Pacific, the fleet is mostly + ILC.

    The division of labor was initially planned there: the ILC stormed the bridgeheads by storm, the army, in more or less calm conditions, landed behind the marines, replaced them and cleared the Japanese. And then purely army landing operations began (Philippines), purely Marines (Iwo Jima), and the fleet and army landed on Okinawa together. smile
  • novel66
    novel66 7 June 2020 10: 07 New
    -1
    poor fellow .. just right to pity them .. crying
  • Gato
    Gato 7 June 2020 16: 52 New
    +4
    In the USA, at the beginning of WWII, the army was worse than that of the Bulgarians

    Why do they need a strong ground army? To fight with the Mexicans or Canadians? Sitting in North America, it is enough to have a powerful fleet and aviation, and of an industry capable of stamping equipment of any type in homeric quantities at the signal of a red whistle. Plus a huge human resource. The beauty...
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 June 2020 19: 05 New
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    In the USA, at the beginning of WWII, the army was worse than that of the Bulgarians.

    EMNIP, three or four divisions. Of these, two are outside the Metropolis: one defended Hawaii, the second - the Philippines. EMNIP, half of the number of ground forces in the interwar period accounted for coastal artillery. smile
    And on the basis of two "continental" divisions and a reserve prepared by four divisions, the Yankees had to make fifty new divisions in two years. "Overseas" formations practically did not participate in this process - the 24th Infantry Division on Oahu only split in two, "giving birth" to the 25th Infantry Division.
    Quote: BlackMokona
    1942 strike and the cleansing of Africa from the Nazis.

    In which participated all trained and unoccupied formations of the US Army. The rest either fought with the Japanese in Southeast Asia, or it was just scary to send them into battle. smile
  • Yezhov
    Yezhov 7 June 2020 09: 43 New
    -8
    Quote: knn54
    Why did the Allies drag out so long with the opening of the Second Front?
    They landed. When they realized that Soviet tanks could reach the English Channel.

    It was with fright that the Germans landed, and they gave them good there .. !!!! They even asked for help from Stalin, so that the offensive would begin earlier than planned .. Otherwise, the Fritzes would throw them back into the ocean ..
    Anglo-Saxons. What to take from them .. Insidious people. Loving heat to rake in the wrong hands .. In fact, they unleashed this second world war .. Well, let's admit it!
    1. novel66
      novel66 7 June 2020 10: 08 New
      -15
      and also vowed that Aloizych would not be disturbed until 44
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 7 June 2020 10: 38 New
        12
        When and who? Could you tell?
        1. novel66
          novel66 7 June 2020 10: 44 New
          -14
          Well, read Mukhina or Martirosyan. self-education is a great thing
      2. Yezhov
        Yezhov 7 June 2020 10: 46 New
        -4
        Quote: novel xnumx
        and also vowed that Aloizych would not be disturbed until 44

        They were waiting, hoping to exhaust both countries, and then slam both ..
        1. novel66
          novel66 7 June 2020 10: 52 New
          +1
          but seeing this beauty

          very thoughtful .. lol
          1. Tuzik
            Tuzik 7 June 2020 11: 35 New
            +2
            After the royal Tiger, they were no longer afraid.
            1. novel66
              novel66 7 June 2020 11: 42 New
              -6
              oh, ok ... the royal tigers burned out of 34-ok
              In battle, the crew of the T-34-85 A.P. Oskina (driver Aleksandr Andreyevich Stetsenko, gun commander Abubakir Yusupovich Merkhaydarov, gunner-gunner Alexander Ivanovich Grudinin and loader Aleksey Potapovich Khalchev [1]) destroyed three newest German tanks from an ambush “ Royal Tiger "(T-VIB" Tiger-II ") of the 501st heavy tank battalion, and one tank damaged [2
              1. Tuzik
                Tuzik 7 June 2020 12: 08 New
                +1
                Well, after all, from an ambush. In this case, our German intelligence broke.
            2. aglet
              aglet 7 June 2020 13: 20 New
              -2
              "After the Royal Tiger, they were no longer afraid."
              in the sense, scared for life? and the tiger, though royal, against is-3, like a carpenter against a joiner
              1. Tuzik
                Tuzik 7 June 2020 13: 22 New
                +1
                I think it’s good that they didn’t have to fight against each other
    2. Dr. Frankenstucker
      Dr. Frankenstucker 7 June 2020 22: 44 New
      +4
      Quote: Yezhov
      and the Germans gave them good there .. !!!!


      Where? In Normandy or what? The model barely got out of the Falez bag. Garden? This is not a German success, but a puncture of Allied planning. The Ardennes? C'mon, everything was exactly there, by Christmas it became clear that the Rhine shift.

      Quote: Yezhov
      They even asked for help from Stalin.


      they didn’t ask for a damn, enough to procrastinate this hardened myth, tired of it. Reread the correspondence and Church. and details of Tedder's mission.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Dr. Frankenstucker
          Dr. Frankenstucker 8 June 2020 19: 29 New
          0
          yeah, when coordination proposals and questions about plans are betrayed as Churchill's panic pleas for help to uncle Joe - this, you know, cretinism.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 June 2020 19: 13 New
      +1
      Quote: Yezhov
      They even asked for help from Stalin, so that the offensive would begin earlier than planned .. Otherwise, the Fritzes would throw them back into the ocean ..

      Uh-huh .. moreover, the mysterious Allies requested "help" 10 days after the Germans curtailed the offensive, and the Allies themselves began to squeeze the wedge in an attempt to surround the Germans. laughing
      And Stalin, whose advance of tank armies to the initial ones began as early as a week before Churchill's letter, also delayed the offensive for three days - he was waiting for a favorable weather. But then in Yalta he said that the date of the offensive was postponed to an earlier one in order to help the Allies. For in the division of post-war Europe, each side needed all the arguments. And for Stalin's version "early onset"became canonical for both historical works and memoirs - for no one wanted to contradict the leader and the honored marshals. smile
      1. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 8 June 2020 19: 31 New
        0
        I am afraid that it will not be possible to convince the adherents of the version "Stalin is the savior of the allies in the Ardennes". Blessed for ...
  • Nikolai Miracles
    Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 12: 16 New
    +3
    Quote: knn54
    Why did the Allies drag out so long with the opening of the Second Front?
    They landed. When they realized that Soviet tanks could reach the English Channel.

    Soviet tanks could not reach the English Channel under any circumstances. Firstly, German aviation dominated the air, and only the Allied landing on June 6, 1944 led to a massive transfer of the Luftwaffe to the Western Front, which allowed Soviet aviation to finally seize air supremacy, thanks to this, Operation Bagration, which began on June 23, 1944, became the most successful and effective operation of the Red Army on its territory. Secondly, it would be necessary to receive under Lend-Lease all the Allied aviation that actually fought on the Western Front, and all the tanks; the tankers would have been recruited somehow, but there is nowhere to take the pilots. Are Americans, British, Canadians enrolled in the Red Army?
    1. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 12: 50 New
      -1
      "First, German aviation dominated the air!"
      German aviation ceases to dominate in the air after the storm of the blue line
      1. Nikolai Miracles
        Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 13: 04 New
        +3
        Do not exaggerate. A radical turning point in the air came when the Allied fighter and tactical aircraft crossed the continent.
        1. aglet
          aglet 7 June 2020 13: 08 New
          -3
          "The radical change in the air came when the Allied fighter and tactical aircraft crossed over to the continent."
          maybe they have there, but ours, then. And when did the Allied aircraft cross the continent?
          1. Nikolai Miracles
            Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 13: 11 New
            +3
            June 6, 1944. And not with them, but with us at the front there is less Luftwaffe. Flew to the West.
            1. aglet
              aglet 7 June 2020 13: 29 New
              -2
              "June 6, 1944. And not with them, but with us at the front, there was less Luftwaffe. We flew to the West."
              On which continent airport was the allied aviation based on June 6, 1944?
              1. Nikolai Miracles
                Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 13: 32 New
                +1
                After this date, after. Not from London fighters flew to the front.
                1. aglet
                  aglet 7 June 2020 14: 43 New
                  -2
                  "After this date, after. Not from London fighters flew to the front."
                  so don’t torment, tell me. not in 1945, around the month of April, and from Dublin?
                  1. Nikolai Miracles
                    Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 16: 55 New
                    +2
                    Did you watch movies about the war? Field airfields are created temporarily and relocated following the advance of the front.
      2. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 7 June 2020 16: 06 New
        +2
        After the start of the massive bombing of Germany, half of the fighter aircraft from the Eastern Front was transferred to the territory of the Reich.
        1. aglet
          aglet 7 June 2020 16: 23 New
          -2
          "After the start of the massive bombing of Germany, half of the fighter aviation from the Eastern Front was transferred to the territory of the Reich."
          were they based on the territory of the Reich? and if not, what prevented them from launching the massive bombing of the Reich earlier? from Berlin to London - 930 km, but by the way
          1. Krasnodar
            Krasnodar 7 June 2020 16: 50 New
            +2
            The British began to bombard the cities only in 1942, before that they tried to bomb pointly without much success. Some kind of distinct progress in this was achieved only in the 43rd, with the improvement of both the means of the population and the bombs - by bombing the Ruhr Dam. Well, a large air fleet, truly powerful bombs, effective American fighter escort appeared only in the 44th - they bombed from the island. Then the Germans began to massively transfer aircraft from the Eastern Front. And ineffective attacks on Berlin were also carried out in 1940 - in particular, during the visit of Molotov, who told Ribentrop: "If you have such a close victory over Britain, why are we sitting in a bomb shelter?"
    2. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 13: 24 New
      -3
      "Soviet tanks could not reach the English Channel under any circumstances"
      from Berlin to Kale - 900 km, two gas stations for tanks, the roads are good, the enemy is not, the allies are on the alert. why not get there?
      1. Liam
        Liam 7 June 2020 13: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: aglet
        from Berlin to Kale - 900 km, two gas stations for tanks, the roads are good, the enemy is not, the allies are on the alert. why not get there?

        Well, of course. A hike, with little blood and on foreign territory. This has always been famous for the Red Army
      2. Nikolai Miracles
        Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 13: 30 New
        +1
        So to Berlin from Smolensk under the bombs of the Junkers that did not fly to the west, with the resistance of the Wehrmacht troops, replenished with reserves from France. In this situation, the effectiveness of Operation Bagration is much lower, and the Vistula-Oder region is generally questionable. By the way, Army Group North will not be defeated, but will retreat.
        1. aglet
          aglet 7 June 2020 14: 33 New
          -2
          "So to Berlin from Smolensk under the bombs of the" Junkers "that did not fly to the west with the resistance of the Wehrmacht troops"
          so there was no one to fly away - only Berlin air defense remained, and in Normandy there were only reservists and people with disabilities. all the others are on the eastern front. how many divisions were transferred from the eastern front to Normandy, why did I forget?
          1. Nikolai Miracles
            Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 17: 03 New
            -1
            Enough to pile in the Ardennes. Have you heard about the failure of the Allied operation "Vegetable Garden" in Holland? This is back in September 1944.
          2. Nikolai Miracles
            Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 17: 22 New
            +3
            2nd SS Panzer Corps.
            From February to May 1943 - fighting in the Kharkov region.

            Since July 1943 - battles on the southern front of the Kursk Bulge (including in the Prokhorovka area) and during the Miuss operation, in which, according to the estimates of a number of authors, suffered more losses than Prokhorovka.

            Since August 1943 - the headquarters of the corps and the Leibstandart Adolf Hitler division were transferred to Northern Italy.

            In April-May 1944 - the corps (in the new composition) in battles in the Lviv region.

            Since July 1944 - battles in Normandy, against the landed troops of the Western Allies.

            In 1945, the corps retreated to Germany, in May 1945 to Austria. After the surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945, he surrendered to American troops.
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-%D0%B9_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81_%D0%A1%D0%A1
            1. aglet
              aglet 8 June 2020 18: 33 New
              0
              "From July 1944 - battles in Normandy, against the landed troops of the Western allies"
              but from the eastern front its remnants were transferred much earlier.
              1. Nikolai Miracles
                Nikolai Miracles 8 June 2020 20: 34 New
                0
                TANK Pogrom of Nazi Germany in the West
                FRONT IN THE LIGHT OF SOME ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS
                G. G. Popov
                Moscow Technological Institute
                [quoteBefore the Battle of Ardennes, German troops lost many tanks in France. Until the end of November 1944
                Western allies kept pace high
                according to German forces, almost giving them no rest.
                Ahead of Operation Overlord and
                July 31, 1944 the German command was forced to send 1347 medium and heavy tanks to France, as well as 337 self-propelled guns. Of them completely
                406 tanks and 75 self-propelled guns were destroyed, 353 tanks and 117 self-propelled guns were seriously damaged [13, S. 330], the remaining
                the technique was also mostly destroyed in
                August battles. According to OKW, the loss of the West
                Allies from the day of landing until August 13, 1944 were 3370 tanks in Normandy [Ibid.], but this
                the figure hardly looks plausible, however, the losses of the tank alliances of the Western Allies were
                really big. For comparison, we give
                the figure given in the encyclopedic work on the Eastern Front of Steve Crawford, GA "Center" on
                the start of Operation Bagration had
                at the disposal of 900 tanks [14, p. 243] (it is not said about self-propelled guns, but, most likely, they are ranked
                S. Crawford to the tanks). According to S. Crawford, everyone
                tanks and self-propelled guns of GA Center were lost during
                Soviet offensive. According to C. Bishop, the loss of the German side during Operation Bagration in
                tanks amounted to 2000 units (here, most likely,
                self-propelled guns were included), the Soviet army lost in
                during the offensive in Belarus 2957 tanks [10,
                with. 124] (slightly less than a third of those involved
                operations). Thus, during the Soviet offensive in Belarus, GA Center received tanks,
                including from his group in Ukraine. However, shortly before the start of Operation Bagration, Hitler
                ordered the transfer of the SS Panzer Corps II (9th and
                SS 10th Panzer Divisions to France [13, S. 349],
                which to a large extent weakened the defense of the German
                troops on the Eastern Front.] [/ quote]
                http://www.vestnik.vsu.ru/pdf/history/2017/02/2017-02-14.pdf
                1. aglet
                  aglet 9 June 2020 16: 55 New
                  0
                  "which significantly weakened the defense of the German
                  troops on the Eastern Front. "
                  but, in February 1945, the corps was transferred to Hungary against the Soviet troops. it is clear that the allies in France did not interfere much with the Germans
                  1. Nikolai Miracles
                    Nikolai Miracles 9 June 2020 17: 43 New
                    0
                    The allies were already in Germany. The 2nd SS Panzer Corps was still on the march on March 6, 1945, when the Germans launched an offensive at Balaton. And the next day, on March 7, on the Rhine, the Allies captured the long-suffering Remagen Bridge, the Allies managed to ferry several divisions to the right bank of the Rhine before the bridge collapsed.
                    https://tass.ru/obschestvo/1814024
      3. aglet
        aglet 7 June 2020 13: 31 New
        -3
        Nikolai Miracles, but there are no arguments besides the minus?
        1. Nikolai Miracles
          Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 13: 35 New
          +1
          Take your time while I type. Read above.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 7 June 2020 18: 45 New
      +2
      Quote: Nikolay Chudov
      the Allied landing on June 6, 1944 led to a massive transfer of the Luftwaffe to the Western Front, which allowed Soviet aviation to finally seize air supremacy

      Even during the Battle of Kursk, July 24, 1943, an air raid on Hamburg caused a fire storm, 50000 dead, mostly civilians. Hitler raped Goering like never before. As a result, most of the fighter units, and the best, were thrown from the Eastern Front to German air defense, even during the battles near Kursk. Moreover, shortly after Hitler personally ordered the construction of the bombers to cease, and all capacities put under fighter jets. And without the support of strike aircraft, the Germans were not very able to fight, and did not learn until the end of the war.
      So it was not just that the Battle of Kursk began with the domination of the Germans in the air, but ended with the domination of the Red Army Air Force.
  • u123uuu
    u123uuu 8 June 2020 05: 45 New
    0
    They needed 100% certainty that they would not lose, in principle, the Yankees wage all wars in this way - they beat the weak, they finish off with allied forces in order to be in time for a divide.
  • sabakina
    sabakina 7 June 2020 09: 23 New
    -4
    Moreover, the question of why the Allies dragged on for so long with the opening of the Second Front against Nazi Germany is still being discussed.
    What is there to discuss? Just the West was waiting, who whom. And no more...
    1. Yezhov
      Yezhov 7 June 2020 09: 46 New
      -12
      Quote: sabakina
      What is there to discuss? Just the West was waiting, who whom. And no more...

      Churchill said in plain text "If the Germans win, we will help the Russians, if the Russians, then the Germans .. Let them kill each other .."
      1. GRIGORIY76
        GRIGORIY76 7 June 2020 10: 39 New
        14
        His country is at war with Germany, but was he going to help her? Is this probably after the next bombing of London such an idea occurred to him?
        1. Yezhov
          Yezhov 7 June 2020 10: 44 New
          -10
          Quote: GRIGORIY76
          His country is at war with Germany, but was he going to help her? Is this probably after the next bombing of London such an idea occurred to him?

          His idea, and even the West was to incite Hitler against the USSR! For this, they surrendered both Czechoslovakia and Poland .. Remember Chamberlain boastfully declared, I brought the world to you. That's the same ..
          1. GRIGORIY76
            GRIGORIY76 7 June 2020 11: 26 New
            +6
            I don't understand what Churchill has to do with it, but I know one of his words: "if Hitler invades hell, I will make an alliance with the devil."
      2. Free wind
        Free wind 7 June 2020 10: 48 New
        +6
        When and where did Churchill say this?
      3. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 7 June 2020 11: 02 New
        11
        Quote: Yezhov

        Churchill said in plain text "If the Germans win, we will help the Russians, if the Russians, then the Germans .. Let them kill each other .."

        Damn the victim of the exam. fool
        1. alone
          alone 7 June 2020 11: 22 New
          10
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Damn the victim of the exam.

          As I understand it, this is Mikhan .. EGE is not necessary here .. This is already incurable wassat wassat
        2. Revolver
          Revolver 7 June 2020 18: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          Damn the victim of the exam

          Rather, the victim of contraception failure.
      4. aglet
        aglet 7 June 2020 12: 04 New
        +2
        this, actually, Truman spoke. Churchill was more decent, though, too, big
        1. Tuzik
          Tuzik 7 June 2020 12: 17 New
          -3
          It is interesting that Aron and the Lonely know this, but instead of correcting the guy, they began to insult. And to which of them three minus to put?
        2. Yezhov
          Yezhov 7 June 2020 13: 37 New
          -6
          Quote: aglet
          this, actually, Truman spoke. Churchill was more decent, though, too, big

          Most likely .. All of them are of the same field. .. Already in this, then Russophobes agree with me above ..? And the exam was introduced in Russia by fans of Soros, etc.
      5. Avior
        Avior 7 June 2020 13: 32 New
        +4
        Not Churchill, but Truman, in 1941 after the Germans attacked the USSR.
        It is not surprising, by the way, that he said this, two days before these words the USSR and Germany had friendly relations, officially formalized by a treaty of friendship.
        For the United States, such a policy would be very appropriate.
        And thank God that Roosevelt thought differently and help went from 1941 to September 1945 .....
        1. Yezhov
          Yezhov 7 June 2020 13: 39 New
          -8
          Quote: Avior
          Not Churchill, but Truman, in 1941 after the Germans attacked the USSR.

          That's right, I sensed that I was wrong in the surname (one hell))), but I’m too in a hurry to answer everyone .. We ran here, as always hi
          1. Avior
            Avior 7 June 2020 13: 42 New
            +4
            Truman in 1941 was nobody, an ordinary senator, such a car in the States, he did not decide anything
            1. aglet
              aglet 7 June 2020 15: 02 New
              -2
              "Truman in 1941 was nobody, an ordinary senator, such a wagon in the States, he did not decide anything!"
              but then he became president, and did not change his beliefs
      6. edmed
        edmed 7 June 2020 14: 43 New
        +2
        Quote: Yezhov
        Churchill said in plain text "If the Germans win, we will help the Russians, if the Russians, then the Germans .. Let them kill each other .."

        No need to drive on Cherchel, he was smart enough not to say such things aloud, and Senator Truman does not.
      7. Revolver
        Revolver 7 June 2020 18: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Yezhov
        Churchill said in plain text "If the Germans win, we will help the Russians, if the Russians, then the Germans .. Let them kill each other .."

        First, not Churchill but Truman. Secondly, at that time he was just a senator, one of 92, and foreign policy was not and is not within the competence of the Senate, so his opinion did not mean much more than the opinion of any private person. Thirdly, during the landing in Normandy, he was just the vice president, and the job of the vice president, apart from the PR show, is to pick his nose, waiting for the president to die or resign. Truman was one of the few who waited, but in 1945 this did not change anything in the layout of the war.
        1. Mitroha
          Mitroha 7 June 2020 20: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Nagan
          and foreign policy was not and is not within the competence of the Senate

          And here let me disagree. Senators vyingly pour offers to punish Russia or other countries
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 8 June 2020 00: 31 New
            +2
            Quote: Mitroha
            Senators vyingly pour offers to punish Russia or other countries

            Everything is more complicated here. Foreign policy, according to the Constitution, is the prerogative of the president. But the allocation of budget money is the prerogative of the Congress. Therefore, if the president wants money for his projects, he has to bargain with the Congress, and especially the Senate, on the principle "you are me, I am you," including paying with foreign policy. Moreover, in this matter, senators often support senators of another party against the president of their own, because this is their influence on what is happening in the country and, especially, in their constituencies. That is why in America there was no intelligible and sane foreign policy, no, and never will be.
            1. Mitroha
              Mitroha 8 June 2020 11: 35 New
              0
              Thank you for the detailed answer. But all the same, it is confirmed that the Senate in general and senators in particular more than influence, albeit indirectly, on US foreign policy. And the President has to take into account the opinion and mood in the Senate.
      8. Dr. Frankenstucker
        Dr. Frankenstucker 7 June 2020 19: 26 New
        +1
        This was said by one Congressman Truman, and not Churchill, dear. To ascribe Churchill, who was at war with the Reich, the words that he will help Hitler in the war with the USSR is, you know, cretinism.
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 8 June 2020 00: 35 New
          +1
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          It was said by one Congressman Truman

          Not a congressman, but a senator. And so everything is true.
          Quote: Dr. Frankenshtuzer
          To ascribe Churchill, who was at war with the Reich, the words that he will help Hitler in the war with the USSR is, you know, cretinism.
          True, he told his General Staff to plan Operation Unthinkable. So, just in case.
          1. Dr. Frankenstucker
            Dr. Frankenstucker 8 June 2020 10: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Nagan
            True, he told his General Staff to plan Operation Unthinkable.


            So what? Why is everyone running around with this "unthinkable"? What's so exciting? After the collapse of the Reich, our relations with the British objectively returned to the beta version - that is, to irresistible antagonism, the struggle of systems and the positioning of each other as eventual adversaries. We lost exactly in the "thinkable", which started at Fulton.
  • The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 7 June 2020 09: 25 New
    10
    Well, at least the "mummers" were not exhibited for the anniversary. And then, thank God. Thanks for their help. And eternal memory to those who remained in those lands and water.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 7 June 2020 09: 28 New
    -8
    the question of why the Allies dragged on for so long with the opening of the Second Front against Nazi Germany is still being discussed.

    own shirt closer to the body ... only Russia sacrificed its people in the interests of the anti-Hitler coalition ...
  • sabakina
    sabakina 7 June 2020 09: 30 New
    -2
    I'm stupidly interested, and they reconstruct the battle "at the Ardennes"? winked
    1. Yezhov
      Yezhov 7 June 2020 09: 47 New
      -11
      Quote: sabakina
      I'm stupidly interested, and they reconstruct the battle "at the Ardennes"? winked

      It is a shame to them to remember it .. hi
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 7 June 2020 11: 04 New
      +7
      Quote: sabakina
      I'm stupidly interested, and they reconstruct the battle "at the Ardennes"? winked

      No, it's a pity. By 31 / 12.44 the Germans in the Ardennes were almost defeated.
      1. aglet
        aglet 7 June 2020 12: 10 New
        -2
        "No, it's a pity. By 31 / 12.44 the Germans in the Ardennes were practically defeated."
        it was a very interesting battle - the Americans without aircraft, the weather was bad, the Germans without tanks, there was no fuel. but the Germans broke into the amers by nowhere, and without tanks. and then the sun came out
        1. Yezhov
          Yezhov 7 June 2020 13: 48 New
          -6
          Quote: aglet
          Germans without tanks, there was no fuel. but the Germans broke into the amers by nowhere, and without tanks. and then the sun came out

          They broke it, at the very reluctance .. the Anglo-Saxons screeched all over Europe! I had to bail them out of the USSR and advance ahead of schedule with losses .. Damn it!
          It was necessary to wait .. The pads were bastards and remained!
          No wonder the German field marshal, nodding at the Anglo-Saxons and the French, contemptuously threw the phrase "These are also" winners? "
          And he was right .. They took our real VICTORY!
          1. Revolver
            Revolver 7 June 2020 19: 07 New
            +1
            Quote: Yezhov
            No wonder the German field marshal, nodding at the Anglo-Saxons and the French, contemptuously threw the phrase "These are also" winners? "

            Finally Keitel had in mind specifically the French, and no one else.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 8 June 2020 19: 32 New
            0
            Quote: Yezhov
            They broke it, at the very reluctance .. the Anglo-Saxons screeched all over Europe!

            Yeah ... so squealed that already at Christmas, von Rundstedt had to turn upstairs with a proposal to stop the operation. And 6 TA SS after Ardennes was restored for so long that it did not have time to Budapest, only to Balaton.
            Quote: Yezhov
            I had to bail them out of the USSR and advance ahead of schedule with losses .. Damn it!
            It was necessary to wait ..

            So ours waited. They moved the deadlines by three days against the planned ones - they waited for good weather.
            Churchill wrote his letter on January 6, 1945. And our armies began to advance to the baseline a week before. Already at the beginning of January 1945, five armies, including a tank army, were packed on a bridgehead of 20x50 km.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 7 June 2020 19: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: sabakina
      I'm stupidly interested, and they reconstruct the battle "at the Ardennes"? winked

      So far, it is being remodeled by War Thunder. You can ride a tank in the Ardennes, at least for the Americans, at least for the Germans, at least even for the USSR, although in the real life of the USSR he participated there only indirectly, accelerating the Vistula-Oder operation.
  • Tuzik
    Tuzik 7 June 2020 09: 40 New
    0
    "..a ceremony dedicated to the 76th anniversary of the landing of the Allied forces in Normandy, which is known in the West as" D-Day ""
    D is probably a long one, because the film about this "longest day" is called))
    By the way, I advise who did not watch, the shooting for the 62nd year is amazing, probably one of Spielberg’s favorites, who then added this story with an excellent Ryan.
    1. Asad
      Asad 7 June 2020 10: 56 New
      0
      Thanks, be sure to watch!
      1. Tuzik
        Tuzik 7 June 2020 11: 26 New
        -1
        You are welcome. If you haven't watched "Tora, Tora, Tora", be sure to take a look, the wrong film was called "Pearl Harbor", in contrast to the modern love film, that purely historical one, without snot, jointly shot with the Japanese, so there are no obvious bad ones there. The creators tried to explain how it happened truncated, without grunting.
    2. Gato
      Gato 7 June 2020 16: 37 New
      +1
      D is long probably

      No, it's just "day", day. By analogy with our "D-day" and "H-hour", adopted in planning without reference to a specific date. And the film is really worth it.
      1. Tuzik
        Tuzik 7 June 2020 23: 50 New
        +1
        I drew a smile there. And in the film when I watched, I unexpectedly met Bond (Connori) young. Intelligence also helped to storm the beaches))
        1. Gato
          Gato 8 June 2020 06: 03 New
          +1
          unexpectedly met Bond (Connori) young

          Yes. And one of the German officers suspiciously reminded Tikhonov bully
          1. aglet
            aglet 9 June 2020 17: 08 New
            0
            "Yes. And one of the German officers suspiciously resembled Tikhonov."
            so that shtirlits was
  • bubalik
    bubalik 7 June 2020 10: 02 New
    +8
    the Allies have dragged on for so long with the opening of the Second Front against Nazi Germany, debated to this day.

    ,,, there was no strength and opportunity.
    In 1942. carried out the unsuccessful Operation Jubilee: the amphibious assault of the armed forces of Great Britain and Canada on the French coast of the English Channel and an attack on the German-occupied port of Dieppe in northern France.
    American forces did not participate.
    The operation ended in complete failure.
    1. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 12: 13 New
      0
      "The operation ended in complete failure"
      nothing surprising. she was designed for this
      1. bubalik
        bubalik 7 June 2020 12: 19 New
        +2
        Of course, the operation "Jubilee" was adventurous in nature, including under the carpet games planning and carrying out the operation.
  • Engineer Schukin
    Engineer Schukin 7 June 2020 10: 18 New
    17
    How stinking and petty "news" began to appear on VO.
    Any news is served immediately with comments from a faceless but maximally engaged author. Thus, the throw is immediately set for the future srach in the comments.
    VO has already turned into a copy of the Censor, only with reverse polarity.
    1. Ravil_Asnafovich
      Ravil_Asnafovich 7 June 2020 10: 30 New
      -1
      I agree, especially when it's true.
  • Ravil_Asnafovich
    Ravil_Asnafovich 7 June 2020 10: 23 New
    +1
    A soldier does not start a war. The same Hitler, he began it as a politician, now the same thing.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 7 June 2020 10: 42 New
    -1
    It was the USSR that helped the Allies to land in Normandy and open a second front .. Since during this period, large-scale offensive operations began on the Eastern Front ..
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 7 June 2020 11: 05 New
      0
      Quote: parusnik
      It was the USSR that helped the Allies to land in Normandy and open a second front .. Since during this period, large-scale offensive operations began on the Eastern Front ..

      Um. And not vice versa?
      1. aglet
        aglet 7 June 2020 12: 15 New
        -1
        "Operation Bagration" was carried out in conjunction with the landing of the Allies in Normandy on June 6, 1944 and the opening of a second front. The offensive on the Eastern Front was supposed to pin down the German forces and prevent them from transferring troops from east to west (it is worth remembering that on the Eastern Front 235, and 65 enemy divisions were concentrated in the West (Source of information - Istoriya.RF portal, https://histrf.ru/biblioteka/b/kratkii-kurs-istorii-opieratsiia-baghration "
        something like
    2. Nikolai Miracles
      Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 11: 39 New
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      It was the USSR that helped the Allies to land in Normandy and open a second front .. Since during this period, large-scale offensive operations began on the Eastern Front ..

      Landing in Normandy on June 6, and Operation Bagration on June 23, 1944.
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 7 June 2020 15: 15 New
        0
        The end of the siege of Leningrad began the offensive on January 27, the liberation of Right-Bank Ukraine in February-March, the liberation of Odessa, Sevastopol and the Crimea - April-May .. Operation Bagration on June 26, and as a result, the final liberation of the USSR. Start of battles in Eastern and Southeast Europe. And there’s no way to transfer troops from East to West .. But from Europe, German divisions were transferred to East .. That is, by landing in Normandy in June 1944, the allies helped the USSR to carry out 10 Stalin attacks since January 1944 ... laughing
        1. Nikolai Miracles
          Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 17: 15 New
          0
          2nd SS Panzer Corps.
          From February to May 1943 - fighting in the Kharkov region.

          Since July 1943 - battles on the southern front of the Kursk Bulge (including in the Prokhorovka area) and during the Miuss operation, in which, according to the estimates of a number of authors, suffered more losses than Prokhorovka.

          Since August 1943 - the headquarters of the corps and the Leibstandart Adolf Hitler division were transferred to Northern Italy.

          In April-May 1944 - the corps (in the new composition) in battles in the Lviv region.

          Since July 1944 - battles in Normandy, against the landed troops of the Western Allies.

          In 1945, the corps retreated to Germany, in May 1945 to Austria. After the surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945, he surrendered to American troops.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-%D0%B9_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81_%D0%A1%D0%A1
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 7 June 2020 19: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: parusnik
      It was the USSR that helped the Allies to land in Normandy and open a second front .. Since during this period, large-scale offensive operations began on the Eastern Front ..

      I don’t like when they begin to share the Victory, on the one, on the other. She was alone at all, and not a single Big Three country alone could stand against the Axis. Better be silent for a minute in memory of those who made their personal contribution to this Victory.
  • Free wind
    Free wind 7 June 2020 10: 46 New
    +7
    That's right, no need to bother people, they have fulfilled their duty to the end. Both ours and their veterans. Glory and respect to you !!!
  • Asad
    Asad 7 June 2020 10: 58 New
    +1
    Well at least remember!
  • rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 7 June 2020 11: 30 New
    -2
    The soldiers of these countries landed in Normandy in the summer of 1944 and opened the long-awaited Second Front
    And before that, for 4 years they watched from the side what was happening on the Eastern Front secretly hoping that the Soviet Union would lose.
    Veterans of course must be remembered and honored, but what sounded on May 8 this year from the "civilized" Western countries cannot be reasonably explained.
  • Nikolai Miracles
    Nikolai Miracles 7 June 2020 11: 30 New
    +1
    SABATON "PRIMO VICTORIA"
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 11: 46 New
    -5
    Another saga "heroic" saga "to save ordinary Ryan" for the anniversary did not think of removing? laughing Why did the Allies last until 1944? What were your goals? Why was the operation carried out so ineptly and with such sensitive losses, with the overwhelming superiority of the allies? When you watch American films like Saving Private Ryan, Call of Duty 2 games or read an article on Wikipedia, it seems that the greatest event of all time is described, and it was here that the whole Second World War was decided ...
    Propaganda has always been the most powerful weapon. .. laughing
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 11: 47 New
    -4
    Personally, I had the impression that the command of the German troops simply did not prevent the Allies from landing. But at the same time, she could not order the troops to raise their hands or go home.
    Why do I think so? Let me remind you, this is the time when the general’s conspiracy is being prepared against Hitler, secret negotiations are underway, the German elite about a separate world, behind the USSR. Allegedly due to bad weather, air reconnaissance was stopped, torpedo boats turned off reconnaissance operations,
    1. Tuzik
      Tuzik 7 June 2020 12: 25 New
      -3
      An interesting hypothesis, but it seems to me that for the great military leaders of great armies this is unthinkable.
    2. Gato
      Gato 8 June 2020 06: 20 New
      +1
      Not that it did not interfere - it was difficult to interfere. The Allies have a strike fist of 3 million in England, absolute supremacy in the air and at sea, and the Germans have about 60 divisions, smeared with a thin layer along the coast of France and only a few of them can be considered a moving reserve - and even they cannot be quickly transferred because the same aviation.
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 11: 48 New
    +1
    I will tell you some interesting points. Landing Point Point du Hoc. It is very famous, there was supposed to be a new coastal battery of Germans, but they installed the old French guns 155 mm, 1917 release. On this very small area, bombs were dropped, 250 pieces of 356 mm shells were fired from the American battleship Texas, as well as a lot of shells of smaller caliber. Two destroyers supported the landing with continuous fire. And then a group of rangers on landing barges approached the shore and climbed the steep cliffs under the command of Colonel James E. Radder, seized the battery and fortifications on the shore. True, the battery turned out to be made of wood, and the sounds of shots simulated explosive packets! The real one was moved when one of the guns was destroyed, during a successful air raid, a few days ago, and it is his photograph that can be seen on the sites under the guise of a gun destroyed by the rangers. There is a statement that the rangers even found this moving battery and ammunition depot, oddly not guarded! Then blew up.
    If you ever find yourself on Pointe du Hoc, you will see what was once a "moon" landscape.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 June 2020 19: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Gennady Fomkin
      there was supposed to be a new coastal battery of Germans, but they installed the old French guns 155 mm, 1917 release.

      Classic doesn’t age! wink
      Moreover, exactly the same guns were used by the Allies: 155-mm mobile guns were in service with the Army Coastal Defense and the Marine Corps Defense Battalions (they worked for the army from prepared positions with a curbstone for circular fire - the so-called Panama Mount). "In girlhood" these American guns were called Canon de 155 Grande Puissance Filloux (GPF) mle. 1917.
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 11: 52 New
    +8
    Omaha Beach, American Landing Area. Here the losses were catastrophic. A lot of drowned paratroopers. When 25-30 kg of equipment is hung on a person, and then forced to land in the water, where 2,5-3 meters to the bottom, fearing to get closer to the shore, instead of a fighter, you get a corpse. In the best case scenario, a demoralized man without weapons ... The commanders of barges carrying amphibious tanks forced them to land inland, being afraid to come close to the coast. Total of 32 tanks ashore 2, plus 3, which, the only captain who did not scare, landed directly ashore. The rest drowned due to unrest at sea and the cowardice of individual commanders. On the shore and in the water there was complete chaos, the soldiers stupidly rushed about the beach. Officers lost control of their subordinates. But still, there were those who were able to organize the survivors and start unsuccessfully opposing the Nazis.
    It was here that Theodore Roosevelt Jr. heroically fought, the son of President Theodore Roosevelt, who, like the deceased Jacob, the son of Stalin, did not want to hide at headquarters in the capital ... (Theodore Roosevelt Jr. died a month later from a heart attack).
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 11: 55 New
    +5
    They dragged on for a long time - it must be understood that until 1943 the Americans were pretty busy with the Yapas (after-less), they and the British until the middle of 1943 stopped the advance of the Germans in North Africa - having achieved success in which the Germans would be able to "raise" Turkey and be able to Suez to coordinate actions with the Japanese (in 1943 this was no longer relevant, but earlier it was completely) and beat the colonial belly of the British Empire to its fullest. From these events we are separated by a year to 2 fronts - such a scale and sophistication of an amphibious operation, with a level of support, concentration of troops and coordination of actions of allied forces - this is not some kind of crap for you. It was necessary to deliver fuel, ammunition and personnel to Britain, disorient German intelligence as much as possible, take into account the losses from submarines in the logistics, it was necessary to thoroughly reconnoiter the German defense in ALL direction of the strike, check and double-check this, reconnoiter the plans for the location of the German reserve units (and their number ), air forces, to estimate the logistical capabilities of the enemy in terms of delivering long-range reinforcements. Take all this into account in the plan and coordinate your aviation so as to cut off these loopholes in time.
    Otherwise, even in 1944, a massacre could wait for the allies, and I remind you that the Germans already had the experience of a sharp blow on one side from transitions to defense on the other (World War I on the Eastern Front), no one wanted to repeat this with BB2.

    I also remind you that in 1943 the Luftwaffe was still dangerous - German tanks were still better than Western ones - finally the North African fired and experienced forces were freed from the Germans - so there really wasn’t any talk of opening a Second Front, if you could imagine the scale of the necessary training and problems. Could it be before? Perhaps they could, for a month or two, but I do not exclude that there were still weather factors and yes, politics, of course.
    1. bubalik
      bubalik 7 June 2020 12: 06 New
      +4
      About long pulled
      ,,, they generally wanted to cancel.
      During the "Tiger" exercises in April 1944, before landing, several ships were sunk and damaged by "friendly fire" by German submarines. About 749 American servicemen were killed, among them ten high-ranking American officers with plans for the coming D-Day disappeared !!!
      As a result, the operation was almost canceled until the bodies of all ten dead were found.
    2. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 12: 31 New
      -1
      "such a scale and sophistication of an amphibious operation, with a level of support, concentration of troops and coordination of actions of the allied forces - it's not some kind of crap for you"
      see the comment above on the elaboration, support, etc.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 17: 28 New
        +5
        I will not say that everything went smoothly with them - however, it was the largest landing operation in history, against the enemy who knew about the preparation of this operation, given how well this very Omaha Beach shot through - everything could be much worse.
        In general, one should not forget that any amphibious operations or even simply moving significant masses of people / equipment over long distances in and of themselves, it happens, lead to losses. Sanitary, psychological, technical. I can't judge how "well" the allies coped on a five-point or ten-point scale, how much they felt sorry for their people, etc., but the matter burned out in the end, we probably shouldn't judge them for the humanity of the study, given our losses in Berlin or Prussia ..
    3. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 12: 38 New
      -3
      "They were dragging on for a long time - you have to understand that before 1943 the Americans were pretty busy with the Japs (afterwards, less)"
      conquered kysku or Iceland?
    4. Tuzik
      Tuzik 7 June 2020 12: 42 New
      0
      As an option, in the 43rd it was possible not to land in Italy. It is clear that they did not assume that Keselring and his lads would throw them a lyule. But Churchill’s version of the balkans or the same France could be more successful than Italy in the 43rd.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 17: 36 New
        +2
        Knocking out Italy was beneficial for geographic and political reasons - the Italians showed their "highest military spirit" so visibly and regularly, so much they were told by 1943 everything and everywhere that it was quite logical to count on the support of the local population (or at least not opposition). I may be wrong, but due to the relief and terrain, the Germans would not have been able to use their main trump card, the tank troops. With France, everything is much worse - both the terrain and the proximity to German airfields, the population less tired of Nazi tricks (in 1943), an extensive and high-quality road network - all this promised more losses and risks, and listening to Uncle Churchill after the Dardanelles was somehow dumb. ...
        1. Tuzik
          Tuzik 7 June 2020 17: 49 New
          +1
          I agree, the logic was to quickly remove Italy from the war and roll right from the south directly into Germany. But they did not calculate their strength, like ours in the spring of the 42nd. I just say that there were options, and they were probably considered, and if the same cheerful Patton made decisions, he could play differently and the war would end earlier.
          By the way, how do you think the Germans had a chance to win the war? And at what point was the mistake?
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 18: 12 New
            +2
            I don’t know if moderation will be regarded as PR - but I’ll stick a link to my Zen channel where I once drafted a solid article directly on this subject:
            https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5bfaeb4e83ae4500aa3dc23f/mog-li-gitler-vyigrat-vtoruiu-mirovuiu-voinu--5c82637bcc98b700b36ed657

            In short, I think I could. He had a whole year and huge resources to do it. However, instead of investing in stratobombers and corny organizing the fleet of the European Axis, Hitler relies on raw raids, the purpose of which was not to break the industrial sector. the potential of England to influence its population. It was a mistake because the bombings of the type carried out by the United States in Japan or the British themselves later in Germany "affect the population" - what the Luftwaffe did in England was not accurate enough, not massively enough and effectively. They dispersed forces, as a result, England had enough morale and will to fight back.
            Hitler's second mistake was betting on submarines on that scale. A submarine is a good tool, and very effective, but at that level of technology and given the overwhelming forces of the Allied naval fleet at sea - pretty soon they developed the means / tactics of dealing with the excessive threat from submarines - and the Germans had to build and build them, trying to catch up with the outgoing result.
            The shipbuilding capacities of the Allies were also incomparable with the German - and for the most part unattainable for them, so the enthusiasm for the submarines was the second failure of the Germans.
            These two points, which took time and German resources, with the right approach, could play a decisive role in the victory OR at least methodically crushing Britain with peace.
            Hitler's point of no return was at a time somewhat prior to the attack on the USSR (and even more so at the time he attacked). The Germans could win before the start of the active phase of the "Battle of Britain" - better approaching the organization of this battle, just as they were preparing to attack France during the "Strange War".
            1. Tuzik
              Tuzik 7 June 2020 18: 42 New
              0
              Thanks for the interesting answer, I won’t get to the link, they blocked us in the yellow-black Yandex. I was glad that VO was not touched, the guys were great, they did not go too far in due time.
              By the way, Manstein was also outraged that the leadership did not expect a quick victory over France, so there were no plans to continue the war with England and reveled in victory for a month instead of active work. In your opinion, after June 22nd, the 41st there was definitely no chance? And if only two main attacks were the north (connection with the Finns) and the center (Moscow) during the defense in the south?
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 19: 34 New
                +1
                I can not talk about the Eastern Front in isolation from what is happening around. For example, our heroic efforts practically did not affect American-English actions with Africa (at first) / Asia. Our successes were also not particularly influenced by the allied flotation system, as well as by the construction of strategic aviation by them. That is, from the end of the summer of 1942, the Allies in any case would begin strategic bombing of the industry / housing estate in Germany, after 1943 they would in any case begin to drive the Japanese. With North Africa, everything is not so obvious - what happened there influenced us, what happened with us influenced that front. There is food for thought.
                I highlighted all this because, regardless of the success or failure of the Germans in the USSR, these events would most likely have happened in the same way as they had happened, would have worked on an increasing scale, and in 1943+ would have reached very bad dynamics for the Germans.
                What could have happened differently with us? A thousand options. It is definitely possible to say that the Germans were exhausted at the Battle of Moscow at a brisk pace of blitz, uneven advance of the front, bad weather and growing focal resistance. They couldn’t take Moscow exactly at 100% —we still had the strength, a sort of Stalingrad would have come out — when the maximum that they could have captured most of the city — but to possess everything they wouldn’t have the strength and resources, we would have had forces and resources to at least oppose them. Our industry is already beyond the Urals but has not yet developed, the dem. Potential on our side is twofold - I think we would have constrained them at least until the spring with fierce city battles, in the worst of all situations. Further, there would probably be some stalemate in the situation and Hitler would either squeeze Moscow, or Leningrad, or strike in the South — we would already have enough forces to resist it at least more efficiently — and enough space to the Urals to not allow us to break us in the presence of political will and people. In 1942, the Germans began in the rear partisanship + tensions of North Africa + from the summer of the bombing of Germany + I am more than sure that Stalin is not the kind of person who would go to make peace. Thus, I suppose that even assuming that Leningrad fell in 1942 and managed to unite the front with the Finns, we still have a greater dem. potential, inaccessible industry, probably we would not have surrendered oil in 1942 either.
                I suppose that in 1942, in the worst possible scenario, we would still have resisted, holding down the main focus of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe and causing damage to the enemy’s manpower.
                In 1943, the Germans were pushed out of Africa - I think that this would have happened anyway, because the capabilities of the Axis and the allies in that region are incomparable - and suppose that at this moment the Germans, with the liberated forces, are deciding the issue with Moscow (if it still exists) and with Caucasian oil - the summer of 1943 is in the yard. The bombing of Germany intensifies, the dem. potential of Germany + Austria (at the beginning of the war 76 million) had lost ~ 3.5 military and ~ 1 million civilians by that time, but the Germans still need to occupy the Urals and hold the European part of the USSR along huge front. At this time, they need to resolve issues in Italy and Yugoslavia and endure the raids, in the United States, work on the atomic bomb has been going on for half a year, the Allied industry is reaching its peak (as is their propaganda, into which information about the "death camps" has already leaked).
                At this point, Hitler has nothing to cover - the mobilization of various plankton and the replacement of ostarbeiters in Germany is already beginning. Plankton is not fighting as well as before, interruptions with alloying metals begin, partisans clung to the Soviet Union for thousands of kilometers - they don’t even think of signing the world. In general, I will not bore you further - the point is that before 1943 they could not have broken us logically, after 1943 Germany would have fiercely tolerated from the West and would have lost the lion's share of forces in the east by that time - in the worst case, the Germans would have finished It would be in the same 1945 by winter - just banally losing the opportunity to focus on such a large occupied territory and bleeding the army and air force.

                In the worst scenario, we would have lost Msk / Leningrad and Baku oil - more people by ~ 3-4 million, but we would not have left the war, I am more than sure.
                1. Tuzik
                  Tuzik 7 June 2020 19: 56 New
                  0
                  Clear. You don’t consider a variant of the Brest Peace type along the Dnieper or along the Volga in the 41st, 42nd, do you think it was impossible because of Stalin’s conviction of the final victory? Then another option, if Hitler gave the go-ahead for the White Army (ROA +) mixed with his own? After which he could have brought a significant part of his units to the west, and would have managed to take out Mangomery in the same Africa before the approach of the Yankees. Would the Allies slip into the continent risking huge sacrifices and total failure, or would they agree on peace?
                  1. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 20: 54 New
                    +1
                    I think that the years of water in the ears about the beastly grin of fascism were not in vain - considering how many people at one time were cut out of the party and command staff with the wording "fascist agent and accomplice", Joseph would have risked himself getting under such a wording, or at least would be fiercely misunderstood by millions of relatives of the dead / prisoners. Even considering what kind of dodgers were in the Soviet agitprop, it's hard for me to imagine how they would have turned out in this situation. A truce between the ultra-left and the ultra-right is nonsense, whatever you look at it. Hitler hoped to break the "colossus on feet of clay" ideologically, well, negotiating peace or thinking about it would be the shortest path to this. And all the CPSU (b) understood this. And these people also knew what to do with them when a communist or commissar is captured by the Germans. So I think we would have fought to the last. Another question is that it is possible at some point the military could get rid of Stalin - if (if only :-) there were some major surrenders like Moscow time / Leningrad. However, I think this is an extremely unlikely scenario.
                    All ambitious people not affiliated with the party were very well weighed, and dissatisfaction with communism still does not make them a fiery organizer, and all the more difficult to compete with many years of high-quality brainwashing for Soviet people.
                    It doesn’t matter what Stalin was convinced of - only we learned to hold back the German military machine, even tactically - we felt a certain limit of enemy strength - and then took it with pressure until we could take it with pressure and tactics.
                    Our military had very vague ideas about German capabilities - someone ectropolished the Spanish experience, someone else their experience of the First World War and the civil one, intellectual theoreticians were cut off for real and mythical conspiracies and "servility to German" - for the rest it was vitally important in the first months of the war to adapt to a real German and get an idea of ​​his capabilities, which, frankly, were not much advertised in the USSR before the war.

                    The White Army at that time was already +24 (from the moment of the revolution), that is, in general, the killer whales were far from boys, over 45. Many had already grown fat and bad habits, managed to hate each other and crawl along different interpretative currents . Those of them who could be considered standing military theorists were over 60 and for the most part even these people had little sense in the character of World War II, and would be useless to the Germans.

                    ROA is like more than a million bayonets, but the devil is in the details. There was a deidiologized vinaigrette, hidden Socialist-Revolutionaries, hidden monarchists, unkempt fists, national minorities and different religions, mixed with not the most motivated fighters, often cowards and alarmists - all of these people were united only by German supplies and the alternative to rot in the camp. The Germans better approach to the separation of these people on political or other grounds - perhaps it would be good. But they saw in them a proxy rabble for security and punitive functions, and when they realized it was too late.

                    When I read about all these North African ordeals, there was always a feeling that the whole German operation was, I apologize, "pulled by the balls" - starting from the thread through which all these forces were supplied, what poor allies the Italians were, how sad and sparingly in Berlin they perceived this venture, and ending with the frankly useless work of transport aviation and the weak study of the Arabs by German intelligence. Rommel worked contrary to what is called. The strategy cannot be built on hammering in bolts and fart - in order to "shoot" in Africa then it was necessary to solve a bunch of related problems in the Mediterranean, and also to take Mussolini's gills well. The Germans, however, did not dig deep - and got what was to be expected.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 8 June 2020 19: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                      The strategy cannot be built on hammering in bolts and fart - in order to "shoot" in Africa then it was necessary to solve a bunch of related problems in the Mediterranean, and also to take Mussolini's gills well.

                      It was necessary to take Rommel's headquarters for the gills. In order not to carry goods to the front line in the desert with Tripoli-Tobruk or Tunisia-Tobruk shoulder. If you need to advance along the coast, you need to capture ports and organize supplies by sea. And do not drive thousands of trucks that will devour more fuel than they deliver.
                      After all, Romel had already reached the edge - he wanted to pick up trucks from the backlash. Apparently, in order to finally facilitate desert aviation the task of knocking out German supply columns and as a result to get even the least at the front.
                      How much supply was delivered to Africa in Braghadin? 1500-2500 tons per day? Three times more than Paulus’s army needed in winter ...
                      1. Knell wardenheart
                        Knell wardenheart 8 June 2020 20: 58 New
                        0
                        Adolf did not want to build a "world Reich" as it is now fashionable to fantasize in the style of "alternative history". Either he, or his whole gang, on some intuitive level, understood that the piece was too big, even for "super people." Therefore, actions in Africa were largely impromptu, luck and reflection - of course there was a desire to tie the hands of the British, but when I read the chapters of Kesselring's memoirs in the book "Results of the Second World War. Conclusions of the Vanquished" (a good book, by the way, I recommend) - I am not left this feeling that the venture smacked of the adventurous spirit of the beginning of the Second World War.
                        Even if you remove all these Goering intrigues and the usual paper problems between the metropolis and the secondary front of actions, they did not see the potential in Berlin to squeeze the situation itself, they did not see it ..
                  2. Knell wardenheart
                    Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 21: 17 New
                    +1
                    I think the allies would have poked their heads in - in London they were constantly eating the bald patch of the remnants of the Polish Government, "Fighting France", various committees of the Czechs-Belgians, offended European monarchs, the British themselves burned the chair with a stream remembering the bombs over London, all these Fau and Dunkirk. Overseas, Uncle Sam dreamed of getting into post-war Europe with myriads of his goods and services in order to make up for the lost from the Great Depression. The Germans would have held out - they could have quite gotten "Fat Man 2.0" to some Ruhr district (in the worst case, of course). And then do not forget that in the summer of 1944 there was already an attempt on Hitler's life, albeit an unsuccessful one - these were the bells that the generals were extremely dissatisfied with the activities of Adolf Aloizovich and the war without end. Who knows - drag on everything - maybe they would move the old man (Goering, Himmler, who knows ..) - and hand over the entire economy (for example, according to the Japanese scenario or its variations). It is difficult to argue how it could be, there were negotiations in Bern and disgruntled rustling in Berlin, and a pro-German party in Britain - at least I think the allies had a great opportunity to shut down the dem. and industrial potential of Germany and cause fermentation in its political elite. Considering the Ardennes, it is difficult for me to speculate about what "could have been" if the Allies had dealt with the Reich a year before, or if Kursk had not happened. But given the not very healthy state of the top of the Reich (Goering, Hitler, Goebbels), the growing corruption and theft in the SS, the general growing collapse of the supply of materials / fuel and, most importantly, the drop in product quality at all levels due to endless mobilizations and reorganizations of production - as well as the fact that Adolf Aloizovich and his mossy friends, even in 1944, were terrible retrogrades who did not believe in either the atomic bomb or the missile air defense -> well, I think that the Reich was doomed to stagnation in the face of overwhelming quantitative power. No options.
                    1. Tuzik
                      Tuzik 7 June 2020 21: 26 New
                      -1
                      You need to write articles in VO. It was interesting to read.
                      1. Knell wardenheart
                        Knell wardenheart 7 June 2020 21: 33 New
                        +2
                        Thank you) Yes, this is how it happened from the institute, I am still doing this topic, I read memoirs, I myself was always interested in "what would have happened if" or "but they could have done it" etc.
                        I already thought about it) But I can't say that I'm so rummaging, here serious people write: D They'll lift me up a pitchfork heh) Let's see) The topic is really extensive, unfortunately in our country there are many "taboos" and things that cannot be touched, what is not encouraged to think about, what should not be questioned, etc. This saddens me as a person who prefers to call a spade a spade and who appreciates the truth more than a proudly lifted nose.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 8 June 2020 19: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          Knocking out Italy was beneficial for geographical and political reasons.

          Knocking out primarily Italy was provided for by the pre-war plan of action. After the ABC-1 conference in 1941, the United States adopted the following main postulates of its strategic plans for a future war (references to them as the basis are in all plans, even in the Pacific WPO):
          Main theater of operations: European on land, Atlantic at sea.
          The primary goal of the war: to knock out the weakest link of the Axis - Italy.
          The United States is responsible for MOT and the Philippines, for Southeast Asia is Britain.


          In addition, in 1942 the United States had an army only in North Africa, in 1943 - only in Italy.
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 8 June 2020 21: 19 New
            0
            Well, Americans have always loved to build some sort of abstract theoretical plans. I think there wasn’t much value in their calculations in 1941, their society and military machine were very poorly prepared for war in principle, and before Italy they were then before the Caucasus)
            The British thought more practical, the sword of Damocles over Suez did not let them sleep at night))
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 9 June 2020 08: 52 New
              +2
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              Well, Americans have always loved to build some sort of abstract theoretical plans. I think not much value in their calculations in 1941 was

              The Americans carried out the war for maintenance almost according to pre-war plans. "Day of Shame". sure. blurred the picture - but not much. All the same, before the readiness of the Marine Corps divisions, the offensive on TO would not have begun - and this is anyway the second half of 1942.The Marines in 1940-1941 had a hell of a mess caused by the deployment of brigades in the division with the parallel formation of the Marine Defense Battalions - cadres no, the permanent deployment points and training centers are hastily expanding, there is not enough weapons, and the readiness of new orders still needs to wait.
              Quote: Knell Wardenheart
              their society and the military machine were very poorly prepared for war in principle, and before Italy they were then before the Caucasus)

              And this was taken into account: while America is building an army, it helps Britain with its air power - the Army Air Force.
              And the FDR began to prepare for war back in 1938, if not earlier - systematically increasing the army, military and civilian fleet. Sooner or later, this gun should have fired. smile
              1. Knell wardenheart
                Knell wardenheart 9 June 2020 11: 34 New
                0
                Well, for maintenance, I have no doubt that they were planning, it was hard not to notice the painstaking Japanese work from the 1920s under the creation of a fleet that clearly exceeded their need for a purely Asian region.
                I'm talking about Europe and the Mediterranean - you know how it happens, retroactively, they "rule" the story on the topic "and we prepared and were ready", well, like the image of the government, all the things .. here, I always had the feeling that Hitler's success in No one was even close to France, as well as to success in Poland. Then, of course, it was possible to calculate the industrial capacity of the German military machine - through the parameters of the fuel produced, the productivity of shipbuilding and aircraft factories - with a certain degree of error.
                It was possible to calculate the approximate ambitions of the Reich through the possibilities of logistics - but, for example, to calculate that they would refuse to design strategic aircraft to suppress England - it would be difficult to calculate ..
                It was not too logical that Italy would blow off Greece. That the rebellion will not "burn out" in Iraq.
                That Hitler will not be able to "raise" Franco or throw him off, given the help from the Germans in the Civil War .. I will not argue with you in matters of facts, just the question of the "correspondence" of American pre-war (and the initial period of the war) estimates and, in general, the degree of insight of my uncle Sam always caused me a lot of skepticism ..
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 9 June 2020 18: 53 New
                  0
                  Quote: Knell Wardenheart
                  That Hitler will not be able to "raise" Franco or throw him off, given the help from the Germans in the Civil War ..

                  But this was calculated at a time.
                  Although, there was no need to even calculate there: Spain sat tightly on food supplies from America. The Reich could not replace them - in Germany, meat rations were cut exactly at that time, and the grain deficit was planned to be offset by future robbery of the USSR.
                  So Franco had a wide choice: either conditional neutrality and the preservation of power, or to take the side of the Reich - and get hunger, riots and the continuation of the Civil War (the control of caudillo over Spain in 1941 was a ghostly thing).
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 12: 12 New
    -3
    The reality is this: Rommel commanded the troops, who, while still in Africa, seeing what was going on in the USSR, shared with his subordinates his thoughts that the Communists cannot be defeated and that America and others like them must surrender ... As a result, he is excellent about the approaching landing. knew! Not only did he know, but he did everything to make the landing successful! Hence the puzzling facts, both with wooden cannons and in general with a complete lack of resistance! Most likely, he infected his subordinates with the same thoughts. Before D-Day, he himself left for Berlin. In addition, his chief of staff went to Paris! And the troops were given the STRONGest order not to do ANYTHING without a command! And since there was no one to command, they did not undertake)))). Allowed EVEN Allied airborne troops to pass! Only one officer disobeyed the order, and that was the Omaha landing zone! )) laughing
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Courier
    Courier 7 June 2020 14: 09 New
    -2
    Stalin admired the landing, and here his fans mercilessly crap Day D.
    Heh.
    1. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 15: 05 New
      -1
      "Stalin admired the landing"
      Is it when the facts are?
  • Iris
    Iris 7 June 2020 16: 07 New
    +2
    Reading some comments, one cannot stop wondering how their authors have not yet said that there was no Second Front at all, and we fought alone, and the Allies helped the Germans with weapons and money .. They have already been blamed for everything else. And after that we discuss the understatement of the role of the Soviet army in the war! A useful thing is a mirror.
    1. Gennady Fomkin
      Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 16: 30 New
      +1
      Road spoon for dinner laughing
      1. Iris
        Iris 7 June 2020 16: 52 New
        +2
        Road spoon for dinner

        I don’t know how legitimate the rebuke against the Americans is, but he is definitely not fair with respect to Britain, which entered the war before us. London was bombed for eight months. Well, how would all these bombs, as well as fau 1 and 2, along with escort fighters fly not to London, but to our side? .. Plus submarines, plus Rommel with his hull, who did not meet resistance in Africa .. From the side Britain was more than tangible military assistance. Apparently, the Germans also believed that the theater of war immediately received the name of the Western Front.
        1. Gennady Fomkin
          Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 17: 09 New
          -2
          Quote: Iris
          Road spoon for dinner

          I don’t know how legitimate the rebuke against the Americans is, but he is definitely not fair with respect to Britain, which entered the war before us. London was bombed for eight months. Well, how would all these bombs, as well as fau 1 and 2, along with escort fighters fly not to London, but to our side? .. Plus submarines, plus Rommel with his hull, who did not meet resistance in Africa .. From the side Britain was more than tangible military assistance. Apparently, the Germans also believed that the theater of war immediately received the name of the Western Front.

          In Africa, how did they help there? laughing Oh yes, to then compose how in the sands of the Sahara "heroically" rescued the Tuaregs? laughing
          1. Iris
            Iris 7 June 2020 17: 15 New
            0
            In Africa, at the cost of heavy losses, they held and exhausted the Rommel Corps, one of the most talented German generals. As a result, the corps surrendered in the 43rd.
    2. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 17: 11 New
      -5
      "Reading some of the comments, one wonders how their authors have not yet said that there was no Second Front at all, and we fought alone, and the Allies helped the Germans with weapons and money .."
      no, that you, there was a second front, from June 6, 1944, when the Allies realized that Stalin would defeat the Germans even without them and reach the lamb. it was then that they rushed to share the victory. And as for the money, Yusashka delivered gasoline to Spain to their very end, built them an Opel automobile plant in German, in Amersky-GM. communication there, gasoline additives for aviation, a lot of things. and yes, they fought
      1. Iris
        Iris 7 June 2020 20: 03 New
        +2
        The decision in principle to open the Second Front was made at the Tehran Conference, and this is the 43rd year. You can't open the front in two days .. Although, yes - they could have done it faster. But it should be noted that the British fought with the Germans from the 39th year and pulled off large forces. Where would these forces go from the first day of the attack on the Soviet Union? To the Eastern Front. Question: In this case, the Allies would have a chance to understand that "Stalin, and without them, will defeat the Germans and reach the lamb"? And what would this chance cost us?"
        1. aglet
          aglet 8 June 2020 18: 00 New
          -1
          "But it should be noted that the British fought with the Germans from the 39th year and drew on themselves large forces."
          they didn’t draw so much force — in Europe until mid-1944 — they only evacuated, leaving all the equipment and heavy weapons to the Germans, and in Africa they fought a little, with Italians, Germans and French, not in a hurry.
          "In the course of negotiations between the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs VM Molotov with British Prime Minister W. Churchill and US President F. Roosevelt in May-June 1942, an agreement was reached on the creation of a second front in Western Europe in 1942. However, soon after the negotiations Western leaders decided to reconsider their previous commitments and postpone the opening of the second front Only during the Tehran conference in November-December 1943 the question of the timing of the opening of the second front was resolved.The Allies agreed to land their troops in France in May 1944 (Information source - portal History.RF, https://histrf.ru/lenta-vremeni/event/view/otkryt-vtoroi-front) "
          the question of the second front was raised much earlier than the Tehran conference, and the allies even agreed to open it, but then they changed their minds - what if Hitler wins, and we needlessly invest money? and only when the allies realized that "Stalin would defeat the Germans without them and reach the La Manche", they opened a second front.
          "Where would these forces go from the first day of the attack on the Soviet Union? To the Eastern Front"
          not necessarily, Hitler could well have put them on the conquest of England, when he realized that the Angles would not ally with him
      2. Nikolai Miracles
        Nikolai Miracles 8 June 2020 05: 20 New
        +2
        The second front was from December 7, 1941. It was opened by Japan.
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 16: 25 New
    +2
    Quote: Gennady Fomkin
    The reality is this: Rommel commanded the troops, who, while still in Africa, seeing what was going on in the USSR, shared with his subordinates his thoughts that the Communists cannot be defeated and that America and others like them must surrender ... As a result, he is excellent about the approaching landing. knew! Not only did he know, but he did everything to make the landing successful! Hence the puzzling facts, both with wooden cannons and in general with a complete lack of resistance! Most likely, he infected his subordinates with the same thoughts. Before D-Day, he himself left for Berlin. In addition, his chief of staff went to Paris! And the troops were given the STRONGest order not to do ANYTHING without a command! And since there was no one to command, they did not undertake)))). Allowed EVEN Allied airborne troops to pass! Only one officer disobeyed the order, and that was the Omaha landing zone! )) laughing

    Generally littered with corpses
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 16: 26 New
    +3
    Quote: Courier
    Stalin admired the landing, and here his fans mercilessly crap Day D.
    Heh.

    Give me if you can? laughing... A week after the start of the landing, in response to a question from a Pravda correspondent, Stalin said:

    “Summing up the results of the seven-day battles, we can say without hesitation that the wide crossing of the English Channel and the massive landing of the Allied landing forces in northern France were completely successful. This is undoubtedly a brilliant success for our allies.

    It is impossible not to admit that the history of wars does not know any other similar event in terms of breadth of design, grandeur of scale and mastery of execution.

    As you know, the "invincible" Napoleon at one time shamefully failed with his plan to cross the English Channel and seize the British Isles. The hysterical Hitler, who for two years boasted that he would cross the English Channel, did not even dare to make an attempt to carry out his threat. Only British and American troops succeeded in honorably implementing the grandiose plan of crossing the English Channel and mass landing of landing troops.

    History will mark this case as an achievement of the highest order. "

    And all laughing
    1. aglet
      aglet 7 June 2020 17: 14 New
      -2
      "History will mark this case as an achievement of the highest order"
      just a statement of fact and support for the allies, who finally decided. well, so as not to frighten laughing
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 16: 32 New
    +3
    Quote: Gennady Fomkin
    The reality is this: Rommel commanded the troops, who, while still in Africa, seeing what was going on in the USSR, shared with his subordinates his thoughts that the Communists cannot be defeated and that America and others like them must surrender ... As a result, he is excellent about the approaching landing. knew! Not only did he know, but he did everything to make the landing successful! Hence the puzzling facts, both with wooden cannons and in general with a complete lack of resistance! Most likely, he infected his subordinates with the same thoughts. Before D-Day, he himself left for Berlin. In addition, his chief of staff went to Paris! And the troops were given the STRONGest order not to do ANYTHING without a command! And since there was no one to command, they did not undertake)))). Allowed EVEN Allied airborne troops to pass! Only one officer disobeyed the order, and that was the Omaha landing zone! )) laughing

    Connoisseurs of history from Liberda ran laughing
    1. aviator6768
      aviator6768 7 June 2020 17: 51 New
      -2
      Especially the liberda, and EVERYTHING is from the mask (well, apparently, they are more satisfying there), ONE was and was called his Moscow for the entire service, they were always called that ... You know. What military equipment struck me the most in my youth .. .. Steam engine based on Ga3-66 ... After processing pea jacket. And so on. - slept like a baby for the first time month. so lice got ... And tell me about the supply, cola, diapers and so on ... I won’t even laugh - I disdain ...
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 16: 42 New
    0
    It was interesting to read about some facts that were not included in school textbooks in France. This is not in the movie "The longest day" or in the movie about the rescue of soldier Ryan. Namely, schoolchildren are not told that: 1 .Most of the soldiers were under the influence of drugs or drunk (exactly like in 1914) laughing 2. A lot of people urinated and wound themselves up from fear, which made them stink badly. 3 The American troops consisted mostly of blacks (there were about 50 of them), and their name was “the segregated.” 000 They were refused participation in the Elysee Fields in order to "whitewash" the image of the American army; in this war against racism, high-ranking American leaders behaved like ordinary Puppeteers.4 General Leclerc’s second division was also “bleached” at the request of the Americans, who did not want at least one black to participate in the liberation of Paris .5 There were 6 concentration camps in France: but they only talk about Drancy, where something like a museum was created.

    Tens of thousands of Frenchmen were security guards, served as overseers in barracks, castles and sanatoriums where prisoners were located, in barracks built by prisoners.
    The conditions of detention were very difficult: cold in winter, heat in summer, common latrines on the street, lice and fleas, cockroaches, epidemics of all kinds, ill-treatment and malnutrition.
    Prisoners fought for potato husks or cabbage stalks; sometimes baby food consisted of a bucket full of chicken bones. 8 The number of victims of the French civilian population ranges between 20 and 000 according to historians, which is two to three times more deaths than all of the bombing in London, which lasted eight months . 50% of the destruction of the entire Second World War in France happened during the liberation of the country (June 000 - August 65.)

    Compare these figures with a 20% loss during the Battle of France (May-June 1940) when 3 civilians were killed
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 16: 49 New
    0
    - The wives of German soldiers shot at the Americans, as a result of which some French civilians mistaken for snipers were shot on the spot by American soldiers; Hundreds of the Nazis were shot when they left the bunkers with their hands up; but others were given cigarettes or chocolate in exchange for surrender; Some of the soldiers robbed the corpses, for example, pulled off their golden teeth with a bayonet-knife; sometimes the Fritz was still alive when his gums were cut; the Germans, for their part, did not take anyone prisoner (for example, parachutists wounded upon landing just cut their throats); Some particularly fanatical German soldiers pretended to surrender, and then fired with the cries of “Heil Hitler,” after which they were turned into a sieve, of course; many, however, simply committed suicide in bunkers, like the Japanese;
    In the weeks after the landing in Normandy, the German defense often consisted of teenagers 13-17 years old. Surrendering, they wept, and the French beat them to death .- In the Wehrmacht, deserters were rare, because this was followed by the death penalty. In the US Army, only one soldier was executed for desertion - Eddie Slovik. American soldiers mocked (not quite undeservedly, by the way) the French. Strong fighters, these Frenchies. Where do they go when they need to die for their homeland? Do you think they would Let's go die for Arkansas?
    Can you imagine how they land in Miami to save Florida? - Here I am quoting the American "liberators"
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 17: 12 New
    0
    https://topwar.ru/media/ laughing
  • aviator6768
    aviator6768 7 June 2020 17: 44 New
    +1
    Of the 177 infantry divisions (including mountain rifle and light infantry), only I divisions remained in Norway, 23 divisions in Western Europe, 5 divisions in the southeast, one in Africa and one in Germany. The remaining 136 were on the Eastern Front. All 11 motorized infantry divisions were in the East. Of the 25 panzer divisions, 19 were on the Eastern Front and only one division was in Norway, 3 in the West and 2 in Africa. Of the 8 SS and police divisions, 6 were in Germany, and the remaining 2 were in the East. All 12 so-called security divisions were also in the East.
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 18: 14 New
    0
    Quote: Iris
    In Africa, at the cost of heavy losses, they held and exhausted the Rommel Corps, one of the most talented German generals. As a result, the corps surrendered in the 43rd.

    Worn out the case? belay laughing The whole British army? laughing Romel case: Composition:


    5th Light Division (then renamed 21st Panzer Division) (5. Leichte Division, 21. Panzer-Division)
    15th Panzer Division (15. Panzer-Division) - since May 1941
    300th battalion of special purpose "Oasis" (Oasen-Bataillon zbV 300)
    605th anti-tank battalion (Panzerjäger-Abteilung (mot) 605)
    606th Air Defense Battalion (Flak-Abteilung (mot) 606)
    Communications Battalion (Nachrichten-Abteilung (mot) 475)
    supply battalion (Nachschub-Bataillon (mot) 572)
    Water Battalion (Wasserversorgungs Bataillon (mot) 580)
    reconnaissance motorized company (Aufklärungs Kompanie (mot) 580)
    reserve battalion (Feldersatz Bataillon 598)
    reserve battalion (Feldersatz Bataillon 599) laughing Only then did German tanks magically appear at Manstein on the eastern front laughing 40000?
    1. Iris
      Iris 7 June 2020 19: 43 New
      +1
      The whole British army?


      Not "the entire British", of course, but the British 8th Army.
      Composition :
      5th British, 10th British, 13th British, 30th British, 1st Canadian, 2nd Polish Corps.

      Rommel’s formations were the most combat-ready on the Middle East theater, but Rommel wasn’t alone. The Axis forces included two Italian armies - the 5th Army (General Gariboldi, eight Italian divisions and one Libyan) and the 10th Army (General Guidi, one Libyan and four Italian divisions). Total number of troops: 236 thousand people, 1800 guns and 315 aircraft.
      But the main thing is that Rommel was a truly experienced and talented military leader. Here is how the author of the article "Rommel's African Campaign" says about him:
      I can conclude that the German units in North Africa fought against the allies (the British, Scots, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans) very skillfully with the limited resources, supplies, and unreliability of the Italian allies. If we compare the military talents of British generals and Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, then this is a confrontation between administrators who skillfully controlled the superior forces and supply flows with the commander. It’s not in vain that Erwin Rommel was nicknamed “Desert Fox”, it was the general with a capital letter of the word. Not being an expert in the field of tank warfare — and he was an infantryman by profession, he wrote, in particular, the book “Infantry Attacks” about the role of infantry in the First World War — fighting in difficult conditions, the German General confronted the superior forces of the Allies for two years, and barely did not capture Egypt, its tanks were only 100 km from Alexandria.
  • veritas
    veritas 7 June 2020 18: 30 New
    +6
    Thank you allies of course .. but it would have looked more worthy if help had not come at the end of the war, when it was already clear that the Red Army defeated the enemy, but in 42, well, or in '43. How many lives of our soldiers could be saved.
    1. Tuzik
      Tuzik 8 June 2020 00: 08 New
      +1
      So at 43m they landed on the continent, in Italy, they just got stuck there.
    2. Nikolai Miracles
      Nikolai Miracles 8 June 2020 05: 17 New
      +1
      Japan opened a second front on December 7, 1941, attacking Pearl Harbor.
  • Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 7 June 2020 21: 08 New
    0
    Here I became a witness to the conversation, specialists who came to Russia to work: American and German. The American began to rant that it was the United States that freed Europe from Hitler 75 years ago. “Killed” the German’s response: “Yes, you and the British without Russians were not even able to attack Berlin!” It was about the events of January 12, 1945 ... laughing