Jump to content

Talk:Normandy landings/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"Decisive Victory"

Writing Decisive victory is no longer Neutral point of view. People must decide themselves if it was decisive or not. We must remove "Decisive" from this article, later in other articles as well. Writing "Decisive Victory" is no longer neutral. Wikipedia:NPOV --Obitauri (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Give normal point and bring proof its nonsense --Obitauri (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If you do not demonstrate that historians share your view then the article will continue to say "decisive victory". Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Every pro-allied historian will say decisive victory, so British and American historians say its decisive, also about 2nd Kharkov battle, if this is decisive, then it is as well decisive. No point what historians say, but this breaks Neutral point of view to write decisive. Biased historian will write decisive. --Obitauri (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
OK then, Decisive Nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
If this stays as decisive still after I will bring even one source which does not says it was decisive, I will bring source of 2nd battle of Kharkov supporting decisive Axis victory which I already found --Obitauri (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have added a source for the information that the operation was a decisive Allied victory. Ford and Zaloga say on page 342 that the operation was "a complete and spectacular victory." Obitauri has removed it because I did not provide a Google link, but I don't feel that's necessary, as I have the book right here in my hand and can confirm it that way. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, he says on my talk page that we can't say "decisive" as it is not neutral. I disagree; we can say decisive if reliable sources say so. Also, he says actual books are not reliable sources unless a Google link can be provided. I disagree. Books are very good to use as sources, and a Google link is not required. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Bring argument why it is not breaking NPOV when you write Decisive. Not everyone agrees it was decisive victory, also single book source is not enough to write if this was decisive or not, investigate operation timeline, investigate numbers and casualties of both sides. I request to bring normal argument why you think its not breaking NPOV when you write decisive here. Allied bias is around wikipedia, I saw 90% of allied battles won are "decisive" with no source and normal research or have single source. 90% of axis battles are wrote as not decisive when they are decisive. Still NPOV here and no of battles won must have said if its decisive or not, users must decide themselves from reading article if it was decisive or not. One more thing, most of editors here have allied ancestors... This does something as well. --Obitauri (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken when you say the reader must decide for themselves if the battle was decisive or not. If reliable sources say it was a decisive victory, then it's not POV to put it in the article. Accusing individual editors of bias based on your assumptions about their heritage is not a good idea, as it borders on a personal attack, which is against the Wikipedia civility policy. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
In this conditions, single source is not enough to say it was decisive. This source needs to be reviewed and checked, put with historical facts and also timeline of battle. Trusting single source is not enough, also we are not sure if its reliable, to check if it is, check timeline of battle. --Obitauri (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
One source is entirely sufficient for a non-contentious assertion. If you believe that this is contentious then, as a first step, you will need to provide a source which says that the landings were not a decisive victory. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Most authors describe this battle as utterly decisive. The Allies attained their goals and the Germans failed in theirs.

  • John Prados, a war historian with the NSA, wrote a book called Normandy Crucible: The Decisive Battle that Shaped World War II in Europe. The title says "decisive". Inside, Prados says that General Montgomery called the battle a definite victory, complete, and decisive in a communique he issued on 21 August 1944.
  • Military expert John Buckley (historian) edited a book titled The Normandy Campaign 1944: Sixty Years On. In it, chapter 3 by Marc Hansen discusses whether the battle can be considered decisive today in the knowledge that by 1941 the German Army was already losing on the Eastern Front.[1] Hansen argues that everybody in 1944, Allies and Axis, thought that the expected Allied invasion of France was going to be decisive, whatever its outcome. He goes into detail about the thoughts and actions of the top German commanders in Normandy and overall. Hansen concludes that by D+3 the chance for German success had passed, and that the Allies quickly took advantage of their lodgement to push the defenders back. Hansen asserts that the battle was a decisive victory.
  • D-Day expert Joseph Balkoski writes that D-Day was "one of the most decisive military operations in history."[2]
  • Military expert Paul K. Davis (historian) investigates the mainstream literature about D-Day and concludes that it was a decisive battle, "the point beyond which Hitler's dream of a German-dominated Europe could not be revived."[3] He cites John Keegan, a highly respected British military historian, and S.L.A. Marshall, the top American combat historian for the US Army. See 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present, pages 402–407, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195143663.
  • Canadian military historian Mark Zuehlke describes the D-Day invasion as decisive, a "winner-take-all" battle that could not be assessed in shades of gray—the result could never be a draw. Zuehlke's opinion is shared by all the authors I have ever read on the subject. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
All of those listed above are from UK/USA. American or British will write Decisive of its own nation victory. Check German sources and historian point of views. Also this is not still enough if this does not fits historical facts. Compare number of strenght, also if plan was done as planned 100% or most part (Which was not done as planned totally), also compare casualties.

So I can write book as well bringing proof that it was not decisive and I can be historian, so I am reliable as I am historian? --Obitauri (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think its clear English is not his/her first language. I would agree day one (6 June) was not a decisive victory which is what I am presuming they mean. However there is no doubt by the end of the campaign it was decisive. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
So in the context of this article the Normandy Landings were not decisive but Operation Overlord was? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 21:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
His/Her no, His*. SO you know now I am Male. About this article, Allies were almost 10X more than Axis powers (Mainly Germans and SS-Waffengruppe Georgien or Georgian Legion Wehrmacht troops). Also still casualties of allies were more than Axis. Plan did not go as it was planned as well. --Obitauri (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Obitauri, you still have not shown us even one strong source written by a respected historian (German or anybody else) who says that the Normany landings were not a decisive victory. The goal of the Allies was to establish a working beachhead—this task was done by 9 June, according to Marc Hansen. The goal of the Germans was various, with Rommel insisting on repelling the invader at the waterline. Some others argued that the beachhead could be allowed but then destroyed by counterattack. Germany was unable to complete either of these goals. The Luftwaffe put only two aircraft over the invasion beaches during the invasion. The armored units were unable to wipe out the beachhead as planned. Complete failure on one side, complete success on the other. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
To summarise we have a very new user with a history of blocks who cannot provide references to support his POV. Let's not get excited by this or go to extra effort to find sources to support the obvious - just revert unless/until contrary RS are provided. This is not a discussion forum about the landings. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
With same logic, I can totally write Decisive in 2nd battle of Kharkov article. So one user removed my source with reason as it was "primary", I brought encyclopedia but he asked me page, I provided page now. Also if one reliable source says something was decisive, then if here is no source saying it was not decisive, if its enough, then in Kharkov I can write it was decisive as no source says it was not decisive.

No source will say about Normandy it was not decisive cause no one wrote something about it which talks about it was not decisive and its nonsense to ask source which says something was not decisive. Source saying decisive is primary here, I ask to bring tretiary and secondary sources, otherwise I have permission to remove decisive from article as in Kharkov article this user had to remove decisive as of I had only primary but now I have tretiary and secondary as well. Now I ask you to bring secondary and tretiary sources here about Normandy landings. --Obitauri (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not interested in the problems you have with another article. Take it to the talk page for that article. If you don't have a source and we have lots (as above) then there is no discussion to be had on this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, the source used for the "decisive" assertion in this article is secondary. Check WP:RS if you don't understand the difference and why Wikipedia prefers secondary to tertiary or primary sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I brought all needed sources, even secondary and tretiary but they still say not enough and I know why, I checked location of one of biased editors --Obitauri (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
You have no support here for your proposal—none. Stop wasting everyone's time. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I dont need anyones support. If you dont like my talking, then do not read what I say and logic and facts are with me --Obitauri (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@Obitauri: Wikipedia is not only the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's also the encyclopedia that we all edit together. You do indeed need support for changes to the article. If there's no consensus to make the changes, then they do not get implemented. Insisting that your changes get implemented, especially when you have presented no sources to back up your claim and consensus is strongly against you, is disruptive and could get you blocked. Please read up on Wikipedia:Consensus, an official Wikipedia policy governing how editorial decisions are made on this wiki. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So wikipedia is place when if even blinded mindless person does not agrees something, we have to wait for 1 week for this nonsense "consesus" when we still have no sources enough. I can tell you that the source you provided is not enough, you need to bring Primary, Secondary and Tretiary sources. --Obitauri (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
No, we are not waiting for one week. Consensus has already formed—in fact it was pre-existing—that the battle was decisive. Your wish to remove "decisive" will not be enacted. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I see that Obitauri, a self-proclaimed Nazi, has been blocked indefinitely. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Quelle surprise. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Allies's intention was to land on the continent and remain there. The German defenders' intention was to push them back into the sea. The former occurred, not the latter.

In fact the Allies's then went on to liberate the whole of France and Western Europe. I'd suggest that marks the Normandy Landings as a 'decisive victory' in anyone's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My memory may be at fault, but I recall that at some point in the dim distant past this article absorbed Operation Neptune. Since then the naval coverage seems to have shrunk and shrunk until we have a mere three paragraphs covering the largest invasion fleet in history. Virtually no mention of the fleet disposition, tasking, evolving mission etc. Is there a detailed article on the naval component hiding somewhere? If so, it should have a Main-article link; if not then I think we're missing quite a lot of information here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"D-Day" redirects here, so what we need in this article is a general overview of the landing operations. I think that the present article does that, and it quite recently passed GA. You are correct though when you say that some information on the naval side has been lost over time. Looking at the version of the page that existed on February 13, 2008, on that date the article focused almost exclusively on the naval side. However, it was completely unsourced, so it would be damaging to this article to incorporate back in any material present there that is not covered here. My feeling is that a new article on the naval side of the operation could be created, presuming that sources could be found. At the very least, a sourced list of ships that participated could be created. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finding this - that is what I had in my memory. We've had a few ill-advised page moves and/or merges since then - I can't remember exactly how that developed, but the net result has been a loss of content (sourced or not). I agree that a new article on Operation Neptune could be created - there should be more than enough material and finding sources really shouldn't be a problem; organising it all might be more difficult. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


French civilian deaths & success compared to expectations during the first 50 days

I rember a BBC (or ITV ?) TV-documenary about the landing. I believe that 40.000 French civilians, was the figure mentioned, that died in Normandy during its first 24 hours. I don't have it recorded or in wrighting. The figures may be discussed, but the entire topic seems to be lacking here. Further - in "2194 Days of war" by American University authors Salmaggi & Pallavisini (Swedish ISBN 91-582-0426-1) , page 551 (3rd to 5th July -44) there is a map which clearly suggest's to me, that the invasion actually began not at all as expected during the first 50 days. The bridge head 50 days after the landing, covers an area of less than 5% of what the Allied excpected. According to that map, the Allied forces should have reached rivers Seine and Loire but had not reached further south than the cities Caen and St-Lo. 50 days after the invasion, would be the 26th of July. Boeing720 (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the previous statistic on civilian casualties. Your cited source, http://www.crhq.cnrs.fr/1944/Basse-Normandie.php, shows casualties for the "Battle of Normandy", which includes action up until the end of August. It shows civilian casualties of 13,632, Allied casualties of 37,000, and German casualties of 80,000 in the period included in the Battle of Normandy, while this article includes action only on the first day, D-Day. I am confused as to why you would say in your edit summary that the Germans would not know from which areas civilians should be evacuated. They knew for certain that the Allies were planning a cross-channel invasion, and therefore it would be quite obvious to Rommel and the other defensive planners as to which areas would need to be evacuated. If you wish to read the source document yourself, it's available online. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The Germans knew for certain that the Allies were planning a cross-channel invasion, but the main problem from their point of view, was they didn't know where (or when). Flandres, the Pas-de-Calais area [the closest], Normandy, Britanny or even Holland, the German North Sea coast and Jutland were all possible landing areas. So no, the only evacuation of civilians were due to military installations. For instance cities like Caen and Cherbourg were not evacuated, but became actual (not potential) battle zones. Caen was bombed as soon as it wasn't captured, and Cherbourg became an obsticle during several weeks. You made no reply about the slow Allied advance during the first 50 days. Boeing720 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Allied projections were based on the presumption the Germans would withdraw their armour to areas where it would have better mobility. Instead they committed it to combat near the coast which slowed the Allies but resulted in greater attrition of the armoured units.

With regard to French casualties, should we count the Resistance fighters as civilians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.7.215 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources used to prepare the article did not mention any resistance casualties, so I don't know if they are included or not. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below; similar requests in January 2014 and April 2014 also did not result in consensus for such a change. Dekimasuよ! 18:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Normandy landings → D-Day – Per WP:COMMONNAME. 76.105.96.92 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support I asked my mum and she says D-day. This is the cultural reference by which the landings are known. Let's not mess with or rewrite history. That's not our job.
See: http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2004-05/200405288b.jpg
from: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=26385
It's written in stone :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Where does D-day refer to anything else?? Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see D-Day (military term) and D-Day (disambiguation). The term has come to mean 6 June 1944, it's true. But I think leaving the article at "Normandy landings" is a good choice because the article focuses on the events of that day, while the term "D-Day" refers to the day itself. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Free Greece" "Free Norway", "Free Czechoslovakia "Free..." Aside from Free France, those are not the titles of the countries, that is original research

I do not have the ability to edit this article as it is under lock. Please remove all the "Free"s in front of all the countries on the Allied side in the table that were under German occupation during the war. Only Free France is commonly associated with having the title "Free" in front of it. The rest is original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.74.119 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong date

This is a United States commanded and led attack. Dates should be Month Day Year not worth the stupid day first. Should go by United States date rules.68.198.20.98 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also for the Belligerents United States should be first as leaders of the attack. Countries are not alphabetical order Great Britain and than United States first but all others after starting with Canada are alphabetical order. So obviously things being alphabetical order is not a reason because they are not.68.198.20.98 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong on two counts. There were far more British and Canadian troops and the invasion was launched from the United Kingdom (not "Great Britain" a geographical term). Please check your facts before posting. Thanks and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
"Neptune" and "Overlord" were British operations with American participation. If they had been American operations they would have had American code names, as opposed to British ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fought in a vacuum?

Did Allied and German forces fight each other in an uninhabited bare landscape? Did all their bombs, shells and bullets land unerringly on the enemy? Were no French civilians killed or injured and no French livestock, crops or property hurt in any way? Are there no cemeteries or memorials for French dead? --Clifford Mill (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Trouble with internet text is it doesn't show facial expressions or tone of voice so it's hard to know whether your questions are really that, or somewhat more rhetorical in intent, so sorry if I get it wrong. It's a very interesting question and not one on which I am expert but I wondered if the following might be relevant:
  1. Evacuation of civilians from a coastal security strip might have meant there were relatively few ordinary French people in the thick of it; plus as a noncombatant I'd be heading the other way as soon as possible if I was anywhere close to hostilities.
  2. Certainly a family friend who had a house in Houlgate was allowed nowhere near it for most of the war.
  3. I doubt that in most cases there will be separate cemeteries for the civilian dead; the reason (I guess) that we have massive war cemeteries for Allied and German forces is that there was nowhere to put them and they were sadly far from home. I wonder if French civilians killed, though, could not have just been accommodated in the usual local cemeteries, as they presumably would have been sooner or later?
  4. Memorials etc - I've never seen one and there is much focus on the military, but I do wonder in places that were badly hit, for example Caen, if there aren't such memorials? But they would be outside the scope of this article, which is about the landings themselves rather than the aftermath.
  5. Some of the other damage like crops and livestock might be too incidental and/or undocumented to cover here.
Like I say, it's an interesting question and might repay further study, but I do wonder if there's nothing in the article partly because there's relatively little to report. Just my 2p worth - proper historians please comment away! :) best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There's more information about civilian casualties during the first several months of the campaign in our article Operation Overlord. I have not seen any statistics on civilian casualties on D-Day itself, though of course there must have been some. Some of the towns on the coast had been completely occupied by the Germans and converted into coastal defenses. I do not know of any memorials dedicated to civilian war dead in France. Military cemeteries were the responsibility of organisations such as the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and no civilians were buried there. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Without irony on my part, thank you both for your reasoned responses. On the strength of what you have said, could one consider adding text on something like the following lines:“ Although the preliminary bombardments and subsequent battles caused significant loss of life among the French population and extensive damage to French property, on 6 June itself most fighting was limited to the coastal strip which the Germans had largely cleared of civilians and fortified.” --Clifford Mill (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a good wording. But I will have to get the books from the library in order to see if the sources back it up. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally one doesn't want 'foreign' civilians hanging around one's defensive positions as they may be potential spies or saboteurs, so civilians are usually prohibited from the areas concerned. In the UK after the Operation Sea Lion scare of 1940 huge strips of coastal areas were 'out-of-bonds' to civilians for most of the war. In addition, all likely UK beaches were heavily mined, so one didn't just go for a walk on the beach - not if one wanted to remain sound of life and limb. The same applied to the ones in Normandy. As referred to above, most of the civilian casualties would have occurred after the fighting progressed off the beaches, and moved inland.

Unlike earlier battles in North Africa, where one could drive for days and never see a single civilian, the civilians in Normandy were much more of a concern, as from the Allies's POV, they had no control over what happened to these civilians until the areas containing them were taken. From the German's POV, they of course had no idea where the landings would take place until they actually occurred, as of course the Allies's were not about to tell them, so the Germans were not in a position to know which set of civilians in which area were in danger. For the Allies, giving non-specific warnings via the BBC was about all they could do. Generally, both sides tried to minimise civilian casualties - with the possible exception of the Waffen-SS - both for humanitarian, as well practical reasons, but with all that ironmongery and other muck flying around, it was sometimes necessary for civilians to take their chances too. It was their freedom that was being fought-over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My answer is to Clifford, yes there was a lot of collateral damage and during artillery strikes lots of civilians livestock and animals lost their lives. In fact soldiers would use the body of dead cows and horses as cover when they were advancing inward after the initial landings. And no, the bombs did not fall unerringly on the enemy, in fact on the beaches of Omaha and Utah the bombs did not do much damage and the soldiers landing had little cover form MG and mortar positions. - Sincerely Scholar of death — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar of death (talk • contribs) 07:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Evidence and references please - and sign you contributions and place in correct position! David J Johnson (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I movd it as it was doing my head in. DBaK (talk) 10:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2015

there is an error in the text first paragraph first line Cool2700 (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see it. You will have to be more specific. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

suggested changes to intro.

Normandy landing was invasion of northwestern Europe. By Wikipedia's own definition Italy is included in western Europe, and it was already being liberated by June 6. Also it led to liberation of France and the Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.128.230 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Also requirements were for phase of the moon (due to need for late-rising moon to allow paratroops to fall in darkness then have moonlight for their operations on the ground) and timing of the tides (a low tide at daybreak to allow landing craft landing at dawn to avoid mines located in the inter-tidal zone) - time of the day not important except as regards the other two. If June 6 missed, then a week later if miss those then a month later. Two weeks later is not good at all, as I understand it.

Planning for the operation began in 1942, after the disastrous landing by Canadian soldiers at Dieppe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.128.230 (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Western Europe: Italy is considered part of Southern Europe by most definitions. Moons and tide: Waiting two weeks would mean the tide conditions would be favourable at dawn, but the desired full moon would not be present. The time of day was indeed considered critically important. This is covered in the body of the article, but is too much detail for the lead. 1942 vs 1943: While the decision was made in 1942 to launch an cross-channel invasion, planning per se did not begin until 1943. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for response - the problem is that when one clicks on "western Europe" in intro para., one goes to "Western front" entry, not to "western Europe" entry, thus I thought that Italy, included in "western front" was included in western Europe. time of day is not a quality of June 6 (a 24-hour period). Except as regards the time of the tide and the moon-rising, time was not critically important, and should not be included as a separate item from those two.

You are incorrect when you say the time of day was not considered as critically important. Churchill discusses this point in volume 5 (Closing the Ring) on page 591-592. They wished to cross the channel under cover of darkness (many of the German radar stations were destroyed and the remainder were disrupted through the use of metal chaff, so the fleet was hidden in the darkness), preferably by the light of the full moon as a navigation aid to both the ships and the aircraft. To aid the accuracy of the offshore bombardment and the landing of the LCVPs, they wished to have a limited amount of daylight before the run-up to the beach but not so much as to ruin the element of surprise. June 5, 6, and 7 had the desired combination of tide at the correct time of day and desired phase of the moon. Poor weather would mean delaying for "at least a fortnight - indeed, a whole month if we waited for the moon." -- Diannaa (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Southern France and Italy were not part of the Normandy Landings. Those places were the target of other amphibious landings. See Operation Dragoon, which was carried out two months later. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
IP is right. The Western Europe link in the intro goes to Western Front (World War II), which specifically mentions Italy. I think the other article needs to be changed, not this one, but I can't think of any sources off-hand to justify that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
So Italy is included in "Western Front", which does not jibe with the definition of "Western Europe". I've changed the wording in the lede to "began the liberation of German-occupied northwestern Europe from Nazi control, and contributed to the Allied victory on the Western Front." -- Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

june 6th instead of 6 june 108.170.144.81 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, Normandy landings were from the UK, therefore British English. No good reason for Semi-protected edit request. David J Johnson (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Not done: See the top of this page that says that this article is written in British English. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely it's "beachhead" and not "bridgehead" in this context?

I almost went WP:BOLD on this one, it seems so cut and dry, but knowing the reputation of attention to detail on the part of editors working in the area of military history (perhaps the most well-populated and well-organized topic area on all the project), I thought I'd broach it here first. Would not "beachheads" be the more technically accurate term in the clause "and all five bridgeheads were not connected until 12 June", found in the last paragraph of the lead? Snow let's rap 07:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember my formal doctrine on this one, but I think either could potentially be correct, depending on the stage of the operation. It's cited to Horn, whom I haven't read, but it would be worth checking back to that source to see how he uses it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Bridgehead: Oxford says "a strong position secured by an army inside enemy territory"; Webster says "1. a fortified position established by an attacking army on the enemy's side of a bridge, river, defile, etc. 2. Bachhead, sense 2"
Beachhead: Oxford Says: "a defended position on a beach taken from enemy forces"; Webster says "1. a position established by invading troops on an enemy shore 2. a position gained as a secure starting point for any action; foothold". See also beachhead and bridgehead. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I reviewed those articles just to make sure I was remembering the distinction correctly, and they seem consistent with my qualm with the present wording (as indeed do the dictionary definitions you've provided). "Bridgehead" has two distinct meanings: 1) The original definition of a fortified position established at the far end of a bridge as a force advances across it in order to cross a spanable body of water or gully, and 2) a more idiosyncratic usage which evolved from it, of a strong forward position established along a vector of movement during an invasion. Likewise, "beachhead" also has two meanings: 1) the original usage of a secured position on a beach, by an invasion force as it immediately departs from transiting after crossing a body of non-spanable water via vessel, and 2) the more metaphorical usage of a position that has been secured to facilitate a point of invasion, particularly when that position is limited is size and/or is a bit of a "toenail" hold--relative to the scale of the invasion, the defenses beyond the beachhead, and the degree of the obstacles that need to be overcome in transiting the entire invasion force. Considering all of those factors, it seems to me (especially in the context of the sentence in question) that "beacheads" would be the more appropriate term here. Would either of you like to raise an objection before I change the wording? Snow let's rap 03:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

German casualties inconsistency (can't edit due to the article being semi-protected)

I can't edit due to the article being semi-protected. In the opening sections it says "German casualties on D-Day were around 1,000 men." where in the table it says "4,000–9,000 casualties" and backed by a source. Please fix. Rifsek (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Green tickY Fixed. Good catch, thank you for posting. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Denmark

Shouldn't a note be added explaining that the Danes present were in fact volunteers? The prewar government remained in Copenhagen under occupation until 1943 (before its resignation) and declared the country neutral. 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The nationals of the 'other' occupied nations such as the Belgians, Poles, Czechs, Free French, Dutch, Norwegians, Danes etc., were from countries that had formerly (and formally) surrendered to Germany and so these person's countries were not technically at war with Nazi Germany. These persons were therefore acting against the wishes of their own (German puppet) governments back home. That is why they had to be come part of established British forces otherwise they would not have been recognised by the Germans as what are today known as 'legal combatants' and would therefore possibly not come under the protection if-captured of the relevant Geneva Convention. That also BTW is why Jews from occupied countries if captured by German forces while serving in the British Army and RAF were sent to normal POW camps, and not to other less pleasant places.
If they hadn't been part of the recognised (by Germany) British forces, and acting under their overall command, the Germans could have legitimately shot them when captured - the Geneva Convention only protected combatants of countries that are at war. They could also have been tried and possibly shot by their own countries' 'puppet' governments for committing high treason - formal documents of surrender almost always include clauses against the surrendering countries citizens taking up arms against the victor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Chronology convention inconsistency

In most descriptions of the actual military action (as opposed to planning), dates are given as incremental from the landing day, e.g,. "By dawn on D+1" in the Pointe du Hoc section, and "accomplished by D+3" in the Omaha Beach section. Yet the Gold Beach section alone diverges from this convention with "surrendered on 7 June". Obviously this isn't a huge issue, but I found the inconsistency jarring. Was this just a matter of different editors? Beeeej (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We should give both consistently, with one in brackets. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Forces around Caen

On June 6 the 192nd PanzergrenadierRegiment of the 21st Panzer Division was attached to the 716th Division. For consistency it should be listed with that division, as was done for the 726th Regiment listed with the 252nd Division instead of 716th. — B.Bryant (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Date needs changing; refers to 72 years ago, but as of today it is 73.

Date June 6, 1944; 72 years ago should be 73 years ago. 217.37.209.65 (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The date is coming up as 73 years ago for me. It is an automatic date - the only input is the date. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: "73 years ago" is correct (excluding the end date i.e. today). {{Start date and age}} is used in the infobox so there is no scope for miscalculation. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

Change number of German casualty in Intoduction or Aftermath section. Introduction claims 4,000-9,000 while Aftermath claims 1,000, the latter one giving a source, the former none. 2001:67C:10EC:52C7:8000:0:0:693 (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: There is a reliable source provided in the infobox placing the number of casualties (which is not the number of deaths) at 4-9k for the Germans. While it might be reasonable to ensure that reference is also located in the Aftermath section, I don't see a need. Izno (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't lead to Philosophy

You get stuck in Military-Army-Military Branch- Armed Forces- Military etc 47.20.103.124 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The caption for the soldier coming ashore on "Utah Beach" Incorrect

The caption for the soldier that is said to be coming ashore on Utah Beach is incorrect.

This photo is of my grandfather, Richard "Dick" Exline, of the 37th. Engineers of the 1st. Infantry Division coming ashore on Omaha Beach.

He gave the World War II museum an oral history attesting to as much. He passed in 2011. (http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/unionleader/obituary.aspx?pid=149364952)

At a minimum, historically the caption for this photo is incorrect, as it is on Omaha Beach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchrisc (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have some documented proof that it's your grandfather and that it's actually Omaha Beach? It does look like him in the photo but the article would need some sort of citation to prove either. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The source at the US Army Center of Military History describes the photo as "Carrying a full equipment, American assault troops move onto Utah Beach on the norther coast of France. Landing craft, in the background, jams the harbor. 6 June 1944. Photographer: Wall. SC189902" so we do have a reliable source for this being at Utah. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Anthony Beevor

Is a quite outstanding book..a truly outstanding historian of war. Miistermagico (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

What does Dunkirk have to do with this?

When I read the first paragraph of the “Background” section, what immediately struck me was that a reader not knowing anything about the subject matter would ask “What does the Dunkirk evacuation have to do with this article about D-Day?” The Background section should clearly explain to the reader how Dunkirk fits in to the history without the reader having to do further research (like going to the Dunkirk article to read up on it).

At 02:15, 19 February 2018, I changed the first sentence of the “Background” section from

“Between 27 May and 4 June 1940, over 338,000 troops of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and the French Army, trapped along the northern coast of France, were rescued in the Dunkirk evacuation.”

to

“The evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk and the subsequent fall of France on June 25, 1940 left the western Allies without a presence on the European continent.”

My reasons:

1) As written, the first paragraph made no connection between the Dunkirk evacuation (or ANY event for that matter) and the loss of the European mainland by the Allies. The loss of the mainland is why the Allies had to launch the Normandy invasion.

2) On 23:19, 14 May 2014, ‎ Diannaa deleted the sentence linking the Dunkirk evacuation with the need to invade Europe (specifically “Militarily the United Kingdom and its Allies were too weak to attempt a return to the continent…” was deleted) and replaced it with text that jumped a year ahead to the invasion of the Soviet Union, thereby creating a dead end as to why Dunkirk is even mentioned at all.

3) “Between 27 May and 4 June 1940, over 338,000 troops of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and the French Army, trapped along the northern coast of France…” is detail that is not necessary here in an article about D-Day. If the reader wants more detail on Dunkirk, she/he can go to the Dunkirk article. In the 23:19, 14 May 2014 edit, ‎ Diannaa deleted the entire first paragraph EXCEPT for this info on Dunkirk, explaining “…too much detail for the scope of this article.” So this kind of detail about Dunkirk IS necessary?

4) I included both the Dunkirk evacuation and the fall of France in my edit as the last events in the loss of the continent; Dunkirk being the end of the British, and the surrender of France obviously being the end of the French. In reality, Dunkirk shouldn’t even be mentioned here. After their rescue, the British could have theoretically sent their army back to France to try to save the situation; they sent most of the French troops rescued at Dunkirk back. Of course, the British had lost all of their equipment in France, so this would have been foolish, but my point is Dunkirk was not the last event in the loss of the continent; the Allies still had a foothold on the continent until France surrendered.

At 02:44, 19 February 2018‎, Diannaa reverted my edit, explaining “…it's not true there were no Allies left in France when the BEF left. The French army was still there for example.” Which has nothing to do with my stated explanations of too much detail and no connection made of Dunkirk to D-Day. And how is the fall of France not relevant to the loss of the continent? In my opinion, it’s more relevant than Dunkirk.

Any other opinions or suggestions out there?UConnHusky7 (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is written with BrEng date format, so you would need to use "25 June 1940", and being nitpicky I would suggest "mainland European continent" or "continental Europe" as the UK is technically part of the European continent, but otherwise it seems like a reasonable edit to me. Factotem (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
It's just some background information. I don't see any compelling reason to take it out. I think adding the fall of France is a good idea so I have done that. The armistice was signed on 22 June 1940. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
What indeed? That first sentence could be removed altogether - the answer to the question is that it is not sufficiently relevant to merit inclusion. The Allies weren't evicted from mainland Europe until 1941. The fall of Greece is more relevant to the text which follows regarding Stalin's request for a second front. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
True, but I was referring to the western Allies and western Europe, not the Soviets. UConnHusky7 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it's a judgement call, but I don't see the point of cluttering up an article with information that doesn't help the reader understand the subject. Also, while the French-German armistice was signed on 22 June, it did not go into effect until 25 June, making 25 June the official surrender of France. UConnHusky7 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
What background info to include is always going to be a judgement call, but I think we should leave it in. The British leave when the BEF evacuates during the Dunkirk evacuation, and return in the Normandy landings. It sorta bookends events. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Bookends, exactly what I was going to say. A poetic pair of points sandwiching a critical period of time. Our sources are interested in the comparison, which is a good indicator that the reader will be interested. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Bookends for what? There were British forces in Greece in 1941 and in Italy from 1943. There may be some trivia value in stating that D-Day marked a return of British forces specifically to northern France, but in the context of a second European front (which is what this paragraph is aiming for), it's not relevant and comes across as a very Anglocentric interpretation of the conduct of the war. The point this section is trying to make, that the Allies lost western Europe in 1940 doesn't come across clearly, so the reason for Stalin wanting a second front in unclear. It would be better for the first sentence to explain this than to focus specifically on the first evacuation (not the last) of British and French troops from France. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where you got the idea that the point the section is trying to make is that "the Allies lost western Europe in 1940". If that's a point you want to include and have a suggested addition and a source for it I would be interested to hear your proposal. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear, I never suggested taking out Dunkirk altogether, just the details about it (you can see my edit left Dunkirk in). The heading of my comments ("What does Dunkirk have to do with this?") may have been misleading. I meant this to be a rhetorical question, meaning "What is the connection between Dunkirk and D-Day? It's not stated in the article." (It still isn't, by the way). Also, if we're going to state 338,000 troops were rescued at Dunkirk, for consistency shouldn't we state how many Axis troops were lost in North Africa and Stalingrad in the second paragraph? Not that I'm advocating for this, I'm just illustrating my point about too much detail. UConnHusky7 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Your edit changed it to "The evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk and the subsequent fall of France on June 25, 1940 left the western Allies without a presence on the European continent." This edit removed the citation for the Dunkirk Evacuation and did not add one for the statement that "the fall of France left the Allies without a presence on the European continent." Have you got a source for that statement? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The earlier version was factually inaccurate; the current version is misleading. The evacuation at Dunkirk did not mark the end of the allied effort in France (or even specifically northern France); both French and British troops were redeployed. The latter were evacuated again in late June. Major Allied land forces weren't evicted from mainland Europe until an entire year later (i.e. after the fall of Greece). That was when the Germans felt able to attack the Soviets and Stalin's call for a second front came in this context. Dunkirk is part of the sequence of the events, sure, but there's no reason to single it out. A better introductory sentence would read "After the loss of the Low Countries, France and Greece all Allied land operations in mainland Europe ceased. Following the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941..." and continue as before. This covers off the strategic events and doesn't introduce any errors (the earlier text ignores that fact that the Allies did retain a presence in mainland Europe throughout the war - both in terms of resistance forces and the garrison at Gibraltar, as well as in the skies above it). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
We can't add "all Allied land operations in mainland Europe ceased" without a source. Please provide a source for that statement. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually the burden of proof is with you. I can't prove a negative. You need to prove that they continued. But if that's too much trouble the wording could be simply changed to "...all Allied land campaigns in mainland Europe ceased..." That's hardly contentious.Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
True enough Wiki-Ed; I stand corrected. UConnHusky7 (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, since you want to add content to the article, it's up to you to cite it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I want to remove the irrelevant material because it is synthesis, implying a causal relationship between statements which is not supported by the cited sources. I've suggested an alternative form of words, but I'll leave it to you work out how to amend the content and update the sources. But meanwhile the tag will remain there. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why reduction to the US-led invasion of Nazi-German occupied beaches in the Normandy?

Even over 5 years ago we had a definition about D-Day in German Wiki that it is generally something like "Zero Hour" or so, Iwo Jima for example is sometimes called "D-Day Japan", if you want so in March 1965 ~3,000 US-Marines made a Mini "D-Day South Vietnam", as since Korea for the first time (12 years) battle ready ground troops entered asian mainland to solve the problem of US troops in the airfields, checkpoints etc. which were not equipped really good and were not trained to protect air fields, after one light a very heavy sabotage-bomb killing dozens of US troops from the Air Force, Military Police, Medical Units and for Air Fields of course Logistic units as Jets from the mid-60's were thirsty I guess,

Even the soviet soo famous (but not really military important, no major target except the Name/political target) Operation Uranus had a D-Day and this Term with the Hour (19th November). Here some copied things, you will see they are copied because the English must be better^^ but everything until "Zero Hour" link inside Wiki... this is from me than again... here we go:

D-Day is the unnamed day on which an operation commences or is due to commence. This may be the commencement of hostilities or any other operation. The most famous D-Day was June 6, 1944, when "Operation Overlord" began. Contrary to popular belief, the "D" does not stand for any specific word – the most popular being disembark. (NATO). According to http://www.history.army.mil/faq/ddaydef.htm, the "D" stands for "Day".

L-Day (for "Landing Day") was 1 April 1945, the day Operation Iceberg (the invasion of Okinawa) began.

H-Hour is the specific time at which an operation or exercise commences, or is due to commence (this term is used also as a reference for the designation of days/hours before or after the event). (NATO); also known as Zero Hour

For example the Nazis were even lucky if their commander would have had nuts... they knew/thought that the Soviets would start a offensive (not knowing how strong the Allied support via Persia, Alaska and smaller routes was?! Their was a years long airlift to China for Japanese enemys... maybe even some loadings were for the outer Soviet/Mongolian Borders? The Nazis thought Uranus would start at 6 a.m. Berlin/German Time, at least 6 hours in advance from very heavy soviet radio use and some words here and there, put all together and... Hitler was awake or woken up,

but decided to do like nothing except to put the "Reservekorps" (no translation needed I think), in "Bereitschaft"/ready, but not to let them move out? The facts are shown good in a German book from one survivor who was over 10 years POW (like almost every of the quite few survivors, than the death march, than if they reached the first working place they had to watch out, because becoming seriously sick was a death sentence as maybe only through corruption some simple medicine would be available, but which goods? The soviets asked the Germans first for their watches and than for the weapons at capitulation inside the encircled areas... serios lol, "Uhr, Uhr, Uri, Uri...", and than Pistols and few MG's, but it was crazy there... houses... 1st floor soviet, 2nd floor nazi, 3rd floor soviet, 4th floor nazi or so for example.. in the few quite undamaged buildings... Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not forums for general discussion of a topic. If you have concerns or suggestions with respect to content of this article, it would be helpful to explain your concerns more directly and concisely. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2018

it should be 74 years ago Han Su (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It will not be 74 years until the 6th of June. The template will update this automatically. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review (Brett Peters)

This article on the Normandy landings is well written and has a lot of historically correct facts. There is more than enough information on almost every aspect of D-Dday, and has an abundant amount of sources to back up the information given in the article. There are little if any biases in the article and it does not need very much more supplementary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettpeters1993 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes,a marvelous article, but I would like some info about the embarkations from England -- how prepared for, and where they took place. Can any kind person help? Seadowns (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This article only covers the first day of the invasion. There's some information on preparations in Operation Overlord#Invasion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox field needs fixing.

Where I live in New Zealand it is 2000 hours on the night of 6 June. ok. In the UK, it is 0900 hours on the morning of 6 June. As I write this, the infobox on the article says "Date, June 6, 1944; 73 years ago". It's actually 74 years ago. Is that infobox field set to US time? Moriori (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It should use UTC time. Experimenting in the sandbox shows it will flip to 74 years ago at midnight UTC. Obviously the display is wrong so I am changing it to a manual display. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Background

Correct typo in 1st sentence of Background, i.e.:

After the German Army invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin began pressing his now allies for the creation of a second front in western Europe.

changes to:

After the German Army invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin began pressing his new allies for the creation of a second front in western Europe.

--82.33.245.2 (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Ed

 Done Ruslik_Zero 13:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2018

I think there should be a link to Erwin Rommel.

I believe that this line:

should be

 Not done: Because Rommel is linked already earlier on, it is not linked with every mention. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of greek forces

I think there should be more inclusion of the greek naval capacity shelling the germans from the shore and escorting bigger ships to the invasion, as they dont seem to be mentioned. amshpee

Please see edits of 10 August 2018, which refer to your comments. You will need reliable, confirmed, sources; see WP:RS. I cannot think that Greek Naval guns were shelling "Germans from the shore" either. David J Johnson (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

Arxigos10 (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sixth Beach

https://issuu.com/navynews/docs/201406_d-day_70 see page 24.

"Band Beach". East of Sword Beach but never assaulted.

BlueD954 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Content I removed

I investigated further regarding the content I removed as unsuitable/unsourced, and it turns out it's a shorter version of the same material that was removed on April 13 as a violation of our copyright policy. Posting here for clarity's sake, because I've just performed revision deletion and the copyright issue was not mentioned in my edit summary when I removed it, because I did not yet realise that it was a copyright policy violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Beachhead vs bridgehead confusion

In the "Aftermath" section the term bridgehead is used, apparently beachhead was intended. Beachhead is the proper term there and it is also consistent with the overview section. From the overview: all five beachheads were not connected until 12 June From the Aftermath section: The five bridgeheads were not connected until 12 June Bhimasena (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Corrected. Thank you for your good suggestion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pointe du Hoc

Why are these cliffs assaulted by 250 men on the Omaha beach assault, given their own section as if it is a separate beach? 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:A54B:3FE7:7F4B:DECD (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Pointe du Hoc was between Utah Beach and Omaha Beach. Not part of Omaha Beach, it was about 11 km away, and quite far from Utah Beach. Thus sayeth Google Maps — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no source that Omaha beach was the most defended

The order of battle alludes that Omaha beach was not in fact the most well defended. Whilst the most bloody beach, it was also the beach with the least effective bombardment and a lack of armoured support for the majority of the assault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.223.65 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Participation in the Normandy side by side of the Allied Powers and Greece

Participation in the Normandy side by side of the Allied Powers and Greece In the fall of Normandy, Greece participated with two ships from Corvettes (Tombazis and Kriezis) and a military army that had been incorporated into the English army ...

Please add to the flags and Greek (recognizing this small offer of the Greeks in World War II) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arxigos10 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Forget it. This is an English written article. The Greeks are always forgotten. We New Zealanders suffer for that also. Anyway, the Greeks have Achilles and Alexander the Great. Forget D Day - we Kiwis call it the Champagne Campaign. We fought in Greece in 1941 during WW2 alongside the Greeks. My Dad and four uncles were at the Battle of Maleme, which was a real fight, not a victory procession like D Day. Wallie (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Anniversary

This article could point out that there was a lot of coverage of the seventy-fifth anniversary of D-Day in the British media on June 6, 1999. Vorbee (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean 2019 rather than 1999? Also I presume there was also a lot of coverage on other notable anniversaries, e.g. tenth, twentieth, fiftieth etc. which aren't covered here so I don't see why the 75th should be covered. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake - I did mean 2019 rather than 1999. Apologies! Vorbee (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2018

Please add that a small Canadian force tried to raid the French port of Dieppe earlier in the summer, but met heavy losses. This convinced the allies that they could only reclaim France by landing in an open beach. 50.200.57.174 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Coverage of the Dieppe Raid is beyond the scope of what should appear in this article, which is about D-Day itself. There's a brief mention at the top of the Atlantic Wall section, and a bit more extensive coverage at Operation Overlord, which is more of an overview article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)
Actually Operation Jubilee was two years earlier in 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Greece, and New Zealand also participated. So did the french resistance and Danish sailors. You should include these 7. Babymiffy (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is only about the first day. Other countries are included in the article Invasion_of_Normandy RudolfRed (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

According US Department of Defence, 156,115 allied troops landed on D-day. 73,000 Americans; 61,715 British; 21,400 Canadians so change the totals accurately [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromine300 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0516_dday/docs/d-day-fact-sheet-the-beaches.pdf

Speculations on landing area

Whatever one might think about Albert Speer, he was by May 1944 Nazigermany's Minister of Armaments, and as such he ought to know where Germany was most vulnerable geographically. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison at Nuremberg. After his release in 1966, he wrote his memoirs, published in 1969. In his preface to his memoirs he states the book is from the perspective what he now (1966-69) could remember from the Third Reich. And in the beginning of chapter 18 ("Valkyria") he remembers that during an aerial inspection of an Allied precision bombing raid, was so impressed that he thought the Allied were able to destroy all bridges crossing the Rhein. Then he adds that there was no strong enough military units left in Germany that could meet an Allied landing at the German North Sea coast. All they had to do was to capture the airports and harbours of Hamburg and Bremen, destroy all the bridges crossing Rhein (and thereby prevent the armoured forces in France to return to Germany. And he rembemers that if the Allies with their more or less total air supremacy had landed there, Speer remember his worries, that Berlin and entire Germany could fall in a matter of a week.
It think this is of equal encyclopedic interest as the other not chosen landing areas mentioned in this article. The Backgroud-part deals with possible landing areas, and I don't think we should rule out that Speer was right - even if it naturally meant complications for the Allies too. But if anyone knew Germany's weakest spots, it would be Albert Speer. Boeing720 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Background section covers the deliberations of the allies about where to land. Do you have any sources to suggest they considered a North Sea coast landing? Speer only talks of German concerns about the defences on the North Sea coast, and that aspect is rightfully covered in the Atlantic Wall section. Factotem (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I suggest they should have considered it. The Allies could have saved many lives and prevented Stalin from of winning the war in Europe. Which he undoubtedly did, after first having started it, in league with Germany of course. Which actually is true even if Hitler later attacked Stalins' USSR. The subject of the D-day landings should cover all angles, It's not an article limited to Eisenhower's ideas. If the German Minister of Armaments realised his home country (i.o.w Germany itself) would have fallen even faster than France had done four years earlier, that is of a high encyclopedic value within the scope of this article. Although Speer indeed was a Nazi. If the article name was "The US military strategy before the deliberation of France (and Belgium)" it would be different. Boeing720 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It should go in the article if other Reliable Sources on the subject talk about it. Not because it's an interesting topic (The idea was considered in WWI as the Baltic Project but the map alone shows why the Allies wouldn't consider it practicable). GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Speer be reliable ? The German minister of Armaments !? He wrote all of this to OKW-chief of staff, Alfred Jodl in a letter dated in late May. It may well be so that a landing around Bremerhaven had disadvantages. But could they possibly have been larger than any other similar and not carried out operation ? Germany itself was defenseless in June -44. The English title may be "Memories" or "Speer's Memories" (German title is "Erinnerungen"). It's page 300 in the Swedish version, but half a side down from beginning of chapter 18. (I've noticed that pages might differ) Boeing720 (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Speer is not discussing allied plans to land on the North Sea coast, he is discussing German concerns about the vulnerability of that area. The two are completely different, and the fact that the Germans feared a landing there is no proof that the allies planned a landing there. If you want to add something about allied plans to land on the North Sea coast, then you need to find sources that specifically say the allies planned to land on the North Sea coast. As for Speer being a reliable source, see Talk:Albert_Speer#Feature_article_reassessment. Factotem (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

About the map. It's not a too long distance from Scapa Flow or Portsmouth and Southampton, not with the Allied air supremacy and the fact that no larger defense units could be moved from France if the bridges were destroyed. To move German units from the East was totally out of the question (until Stalin decided to stop the 1944 summer offensive just outside Warsaw, in August). Boeing720 (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

As the article I hope makes clear, the Allied air supremacy in terms of fighter cover and the ground support is projected from airfields in the South of England just across the Channel and the capture of land to establish airfields behind the frontline is a necessary part of the plan. If it's not clear the text should be revistited.. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Well it is missing the point when referring to a discussion on our article Albert Speer status as featured or not. All I did was quoting Speer from his Memoirs or Memories. And in that form too. I still think it belongs in a section dealing with possible landings. As a quote at least. Boeing720 (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The quote you added is still in the article. It's at the bottom of the section on German preparations (Normandy landings#Atlantic Wall) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
That's better than nothing, thanks. But as a final question, doesn't this belong better in the part of possible landing areas ? On the other hand, Speer actually writes something about providing some of the bridges with stock for reconstruction in case of these feared bridge precision bombings (feared from his point of view, not mine, that is). Boeing720 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand involvement

Interesting that the French article credits New Zealand as being involved with the planning and operation of D Day. The English article ignores New Zealand (as usual). Wallie (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't see a source in the French article for the involvement of NZ, can you add it here if there is one? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is based on sources. If you know something about NZ being involved, and have a source, please add. There is no conspiracy, mate. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Freedom is a single word but very meaning full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.33.51 (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ok good, now change the text to the text you want to see, and put in your source and people can evaluate the change and see if they support it.

Boynamedsue (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Try this [4] [5] Does air and sea count? Army noticeably not included.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

video games - Day of Defeat , very popular A half life mod which grew into it own game has some excellent Omaha Beach maps as well of many other towns near by 195.99.217.188 (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

Request to Add Greece in the allies section, since they contributed with two Greek warships, the “Flower” class corvettes Tobazis and Kriezis, which had just completed missions escorting convoys in the Atlantic. Drec8 (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done; you haven't supplied us with any sources for the proposed addition. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine

The commanders should be mentioned. There was an air and sea battle as well. Dapi89 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Then why aren't they mentioned in the main body of the article? And if they're not mentioned in the main body, why should they have a place in the infobox? Factotem (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Please put the correct Canadian flag you have used the Ontario provincial flag. Not the maple leaf. 24.68.66.156 (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: In 1944, the Flag looked different from today's, see here TheImaCow (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: 'No consensus (non-admin closure) Red Slash 23:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


Normandy landings → D-Day – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The number of Google search results, terms quoted, for "Normandy landings" (655,000) are vastly outnumbered by the results for "D-Day" (33,300,000), and seeing as that term's a bit vague "D-Day" "normandy" (9,780,000), and still even completely narrowing it down "D-Day" "France" "world war" "Normandy" (2,230,000). I think it is clear which name is the most common. Yes, there can be some ambiguity, but that's why we have {{For}}. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 06:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: Just searching D-Day up on Google, every single article on the first two pages of the results is about the Normandy landings, not the military term. D-Day isn't a disambiguation page, but a redirect to this one. We have {{For}}, and it seems that the 1944 landings are the most common usage of "D-Day". If you're wondering, "D-Day" "military term" returns 7,440 results, and about half of those results on the first page mention the landings at Normandy somewhere within the "preview" with the first two sentences that Google puts below the name of the page. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 20:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Rebuttal. I have always deemed this confusion argument to be fallacious. If the confusion was important enough for Wikipedia to disambiguate, it would have made "D-Day" redirect to the D-Day (military term) page. Wikipedia doesn't do that. It redirects D-Day to this page. Therefore, it will not be confusing to have this article be called D-Day (and the disambig page remain as D-Day (military term)). --Oshah (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: I've been trying to confirm your assertion that "Normandy landings" is more common by checking against my literature, but I'm having trouble confirming it.
Of this list, Keegan exclusively uses D-Day, Gilbert exclusively uses D-Day, Ambrose exclusively uses D-Day, Dear/Foot uses neither term (instead preferring to use Overlord), Roberts uses both (but uses D-Day more often than Normandy Landings, and his discussion of the "Normandy Landings" includes the breakout phase), Tucker uses "Normandy Invasion (D-Day, June 6, 1944)" with his article also covering the breakout phase. Do you have examples of historians who primarily use the term "Normandy landings"?--Oshah (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay @Necrothesp:, I'm going to need you to elaborate on your methodology (e.g. how you assess reliability, your list of publications, or a citation if you're relying on someone else's meta-analysis).
I have now done a wider meta-analysis on the literature (this time on all the books & articles listed in the references section).
Survey of bibliographic sources used by Wikipedia for the subject of D-Day, analysing the usage of the term "D-Day" vs "Normandy Landings"
Source Type # of type # Using primarily D-Day # Using primarily Normandy Landings # using Both D-Day and Normandy Landings # Unavailable
Bibliography 39 25 3 5 6
External Links 10 8 1 0 0
Further Reading 15 9 3 3 0
Memoirs 7 4 1 0 2
Bibliography of World War II 14 5 1 4 0
Misc 10 7 0 3 10
Google Scholar 364,000 15,400 1,870
Google Scholar (100+ cites only) 495 16 18
Totals [Raw data] 95 58 9 15 18
According to this analysis, Necrothesp's argument is invalidated by a factor of 6-to-1.--Oshah (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
But you only used the sources in those named articles, not the larger body of works in let alone outside wikipedia. Eg you didn't chedck if there was anything else in the Operation Overlord, Western Front (World War II) and European theatre of World War II articles. And you gave Primary sources (the memoirs) equal value to secondary sources? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@GraemeLeggett: That's why I did the Google Scholar searches. Google Scholar does search the wider literature, and to filter out the unreliable entries, I filtered out the results which didn't have more than 100 citations (the citation count makes for a good discriminator between highly reliable publications and the armchair historian partisan blog articles).
If there is a new book referenced in the Operation Overlord/Western Front (World War II)/European theatre of World War II, it needs to be added to Bibliography of World War II. --Oshah (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed: The previous discussions failed because of only two reasons:
  1. Potential for confusion
  2. Dead links
Unlike past discussions, both these arguments now have compelling rebuttals. sam1370 has rebutted the dead links argument, and both sam1370 and I have rebuttals for the argument that it's confusing. Why do you disagree with the rebuttals?--Oshah (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see any rebuttal of the confusion point. This article was originally named "Operation Neptune" - the assault phase of Overlord - which extended beyond 6 June up to the end of June. Somehow it has become more focused on 6 June itself, although it mentions strategic activities before and after that date (i.e. which rightly belong in an article with a wider time frame). So either the title or the first few lines are wrong. The proposed change does not fix the confused scope. "Normandy Landings" implies landing of troops (by sea and air), which is not quite the same as Operation Neptune (which included application of air power, deception and sabotage) and both go beyond a single day's activity (i.e. "D-Day"). Exacerbating the current unsatifactory situation by narrowing the focus to D-Day would mean excluding content relating to those who 'landed' and fought as part of the wider 'landings' (i.e. the other 9/10ths of the invasion force). I'd suggest a bit more thinking is required about which content goes under which title. User:Oshah's analysis of numbers need to consider the context in which those authors are using different terms, and whether they do so (erroneously) interchangeably and, more importantly, where the relevant content is currently on WP. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm not following you. Other than the background section, this article does focus exclusively on the first day. The companion article Operation Overlord focuses on activities till 30 August 1944. It's wider in scope with a lengthier background section and a brief outline of D-Day. — Diannaa (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I think he's referring to the point that this article *used* to cover more than just D-Day. It used to include naval events from 7 to 30 June 1944, which are arguably part of Operation Neptune. But in Feb 2008, we rescoped the article to just include the events of D-Day, and he's questioning that decision we made 12 years ago. Per WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS, we can't just dismiss User:Wiki-Ed's argument. However, this is overlapping with the merge discussion going on in the Invasion of Normandy talk page. PS. I see, for that proposal, consensus is converging around having two articles: one on the D-Day landings, and one for the rest of Operation Overlord. -- Oshah (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Most of the comments in the merge discussion at Talk:Invasion of Normandy are really old - there's been only 3 comments in the last 2.5 years. — Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't find a single record of the decision in 2008 to "rescope" the article - there are lots of similar discussions in different places but not sure where/how agreement was reached - and I'd observe that it hasn't worked out because people are still confused and arguing over it. I also wasn't aware of the merge discussion User:Oshah refers to elsewhere. I think the scope of all the articles needs to be decided together before assigning titles and making changes. I don't know what the answer might be and to save space I won't speculate - but we can make some assumptions: regardless of how other discussions go, we can be certain a precise, clearly limited title will be important here (stating the obvious). To that end I would support User:Necrothesp with something like "D-Day: Normandy Landings" so that (a) we capture common usage, (b) we provide geographic specificity (to partially offset the argument that D-Day is a military term, not a single event), and (c) we avoid potentially contentious language (e.g. 'invasion'). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed: FYI the "rescope" discussions are here and here --Oshah (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Those comments falls somewhat short of my definition of the word 'discussion'! They also disagree with one another. It appears someone decided to narrow the scope from Operation Nepture to D-Day only between Feb and Aug 2008, but it's not clear there was community consensus for that. My personal view is that article size limits seem to have been relaxed over the years, so Overlord/Neptune/DDay are all part of the same thing and disambiguation page could point to the relevant section of an overarching article. If we don't/can't do that then we need to justify the scope of each of these interlinked articles more carefully so the title matches the content (as per the proposal above) and to ensure we don't omit material that is too high level for one article or too detailed for another. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
The current split is: this article covers the first day of the invasion, for people who want to learn more about that one day; and for folks who want more, Operation Overlord is the article with additional background information and coverage of events up to the arrival of the Allies at the Seine and the liberation of Paris. Discussions from twelve years ago are not very relevant now in my opinion, as Wikipedia has changed a lot since then, as have both articles, which are now both at the Good Article level.— Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving the page to D-Day. The term has come to mean 6 June 1944, it's true. But I think leaving the article at "Normandy landings" is a good choice because the article focuses on the events of that day, while the term "D-Day" refers to the day itself. — Diannaa (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The Normandy Landings took place over several days. Are we not confusing everyone by having a single-day article named with a title for a multi-day event? --Oshah (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You've already given your opinion multiple times; there's no need to repeat it again.— Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Can this move discussion stay open? I'm trying to build consensus with User:Necrothesp and User:Wiki-Ed--Oshah (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Despite what my edits show, I don't have any strong opinions on choosing a title. For me, it was more important that we get WP:CONSENSUS (but it's unlikely we're going to get that, to my eternal disappointment - we're all just too stubborn). I'm willing to keep the existing title, but will be eternally regretful if the RfM gets restarted by a different contributor, at which point we all need to ask ourselves, #arewethebaddies --Oshah (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've given this a lot of thought, and I don't think "D-day" alone is enough for a proper title here. "D-day invasion" would be a much better choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "D-day" is not WP:PRECISE for non-western English speakers as it can mean a lot of other things. May be "D-day invasion" as suggested above.--Ab207 (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
France uses Jour-J, Germany sometimes uses Tag-X, Japan uses D-デイ, China has D日, Russia uses Час Ч, Ireland uses Lá L, Slovenia uses Dan D, Romania uses Ziua-Z, and so on. All translate to "D-Day", which is in keeping with WP:EN conventions. If you're referring to Australia/New Zealand, they also use "D-Day" to refer to this event. Per this discussion it was also agreed that the Normandy landings were the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for D-Day. --Oshah (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose D-Day is more broad than the Normandy landings, and "D-Day" means more than just the Normandy landings anyway. PrussianOwl (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support D-Day is defined by the Oxford Dict. as "the day (June 6, 1944) in World War II on which Allied forces invaded northern France by means of beach landings in Normandy"; therefore, it is not more broad nor more specfic than "Normandy Landings"

Google searchs also yield more results if you search "D-Day" and Wikipedia could be at the top of that search page if this article was named D-Day.

I also think that is the D-Day is more common name of two. The British use "D-Day", also: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/48456573.

In addition, the term "Normandy Landings" implies it was just an air based mission -- it wasn't.

Lets not forget "D-Day" is shorter, as well.

D-Day Normandy Landings Notes
Results (Google) c.11,610,000,000 c.11,800,000 There is a difference between the amount of search results yielded by the two of about 99.8%.
Primier Website on Google https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/d-day This wikipedia article
Definition by Oxford Dictionary? Yes No
What does the US Army call it? www.army.mil/d-day/ Yes No
How many webpages pull up when you search "D-Day" on www.historians.org 5206 717 Not all search results are relevant -- but the more search results you have, the more likely you will find relevant sources.
Results (Bing) 32,300,000 3,610,000 Again a difference of about 99.8%.
When looking at the Google Books n-gram viewer, how much is each used in various Google Books (as of 2008)? books.google.com/ngrams/ 0.000067% 0.00000074% Obviously, "D-Day" is used much more frequently.

P,TO 19104 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment decisions should be considered in light of policy - while Commonname applies, there is also WP:Criteria which says "A good Wikipedia article title" meets the five criteria of Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency.
For both "D-day" and "Normandy landings" there is no real difference in terms of Naturalness or Conciseness between the two. Recognizability for someone with an inkling of the subject there's not much between them though possibly a more naive reader faced with the two titles might read "D-Day" a notable date though it lacks clues as to why it's notable whereas "Normandy landings" conveys a bit more information. On Consistency, we have a variety of styles of military activities for amphibious assaults "landings", "invasion of" "operation ..." "battle of" but also activities in general are known by the date "Big Week" "Eagle Day" "The Hardest Day". Which leaves Precision - of which anything other than D-Day is probably more precise - whether "Operation Neptune", "Normandy landings", or which I incline towards D-Day landings.
Also importantly the Commonname policy also states "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" [my emphasis]. Are either "D-Day" or Normandy landings ambiguous? - they both seem to be singular. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Rebuttal How could the word "D-Day" be more ambiguous or be less precise than "Normandy Landings" if it is defined by the dictionary, and the latter isn't? I find it hard to believe that anything could be more precise than a word in the dictionary (and far more commonplace). P,TO 19104 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not a court of law, and that reads like rhetoric more than a rebuttal to me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't deny that "Normandy Landings" is not as common as "D-Day" in general speech but given D-Days other usage I feel that it would be wrong to use it here. D-Day started and remains a term for the day that an operation starts and while today many just think of Normony they might not in the future. The learners dictionary defines D-Day: a date on which something important is expected to happen. The invasion of Normandy is mentioned in the word origin. Merriam-Webster echoes this that it notes that it is often used for the June 6,1944 Allied invasion of Normandy. In this case since major dictionaries disagree on the definition,it would be less precise since it could refer to two things while "Normandy Landings" refers to just one. Elithanathile (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
This article *is* restricted to just the first day of the invasion. Subsequent operations are covered in Operation Overlord and Invasion of Normandy. The hatnotes to Operation Overlord & Invasion of Normandy make this clear. An older version of this article [6] also made this explicit. --Oshah (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020 (Battle of Hastening)

Please replace 

to speed the capture of Cherbourg.

with 

to hasten the capture of Cherbourg.

Thank you. 31.4.156.143 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. A good suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to make this an edit request, but if someone wants to expand the section, please note the Hogan's Heroes episode "D-Day at Stalag 13" which makes direct reference to the events of D-Day being planned (and the characters of the series being engaged in espionage related to the invasion). 70.73.90.119 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't normally include pop culture material in our military history articles. Please see WP:MILPOP. — Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I see we do have a small pop culture section, but regardless, I am opposed to including the Hogan's Heroes episode as being too trivial to mention.— Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Greece as an Allied Belligerent

Hi, I'm just wondering about including Greece as an allied belligerent to the Normandy landings. Greece and the Royal Hellenic Navy had two corvettes that escorted the landings; the RHN Kriezis and the RHN Tombazis. Both are included in List of Allied warships in the Normandy landings Wikipedia page, so it is my belief that Greece should be included in the belligerent list of Allied forces. I am asking here before editing the page itself to see if there is any valid reason not to include Greece as an Allied belligerent in the landings. 21Helios12 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

We would have to have citations in order to include these ships.— Diannaa (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
At the time in 1944 Greece was no longer a 'belligerent' having been occupied by Germany and Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.228 (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Nevertheless they sent two corvettes to D-Day.[1]
If by 'they' you mean the Greek government-in-exile then by all means include them, if however you mean Greece the country then as stated above, Greece was occupied and no longer a 'belligerent'.

References

  1. ^ Garner, Tom (4 June 2019). "D-Day's forgotten Greeks". www.historyanswers.co.uk. All About History. Retrieved 26 March 2021.

Recent edit to the info box

User:Eastfarthingan reduced the content of the infobox, apparently in the interests of tidying up. This edit had the unfortunate result of removing Canadian participation from Juno Beach. I object to the edit for that reason, and restored the previous version of the infobox. Discussion is welcome.— Diannaa (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I see your point - will leave it as it is. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.— Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

In the 'Strength' Section of the Infobox at the top of the page, change "50,350+" to "50,350+ soldiers". SonataOfTheEclipse (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The Strength includes not merely Wehrmacht soldiers but also Waffen-SS, Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe personnel. "Soldiers" would be incorrect. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a very good point, Mr./Ms. Egg, thank you for enlightening me. I shall keep watch for other potential edits and keep that point in mind will going forwards. SonataOfTheEclipse (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A music section can be added to the Popular Culture section to feature the song "Primo Victoria" from Swedish Metal band Sabaton. Sources are as Follows:

-Link to song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ-Fb90GBhE -Link to Sabaton's page on the Lyrics & Story: https://www.sabaton.net/discography/primo-victoria/primo-victoria/

DocSparks216 (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry no. We are not going to add that, per WP:MILPOP. — Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

weather report that changed the timing of D-Day landings

Maureen Flavin Sweeney (now 98 years old), as a young woman at Blacksod lighthouse in Co Mayo in 1944, forecast an impending storm which changed the timing of the D-Day landings. She was honoured recently in the US House of Representatives for her role in the landings.

From the Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/us-honour-for-98-year-old-woman-whose-mayo-weather-report-changed-d-day-landing-1.4598678

Could this information be included in this article? The article talks a lot about weather and weather forecasting, but Maureen Flavin Sweeney's contribution is not mentioned.

[1]

Brendamaryb (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

There were likely many weather stations that contributed to the weather reports used to plan the invasion, so in my opinion it's undue weight to mention only this one person.— Diannaa (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/us-honour-for-98-year-old-woman-whose-mayo-weather-report-changed-d-day-landing-1.4598678

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

Spelling mistake: "buildup" should be "build up" PropertyTaxAccountant (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: [7] Buildup is a word. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

British Control

The landings were certainly not "under overall British Control" - Eisenhower was commander. So I'm surprised that my removal of that error was promptly reverted. The article continues to assert that gross error. I shall take no further action, but am sad to see nonsense. John Wheater (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I will remove it for now. I can't check this out properly until I get home from vacation in a couple of days. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk)
The ground forces which is the subject of the sentence in question were all together in 21 Army Group under Montgomery until some time between July and September 1944. The source given is authoritative but maybe the interpretation of "thirty-nine Allied divisions" is incorrect. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly Montgomery was in command of the land forces, as stated a few lines above. But 'overall British' implies more than this, and is jingoistic and wrong.John Wheater (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

2001:1970:49A7:AA00:ACC6:ABF1:AD68:ABFD (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)why is Canada not listed my grandfather landed in Normandy France on d day from the north nova Scotia highlanders

from Canada out flag should be here.

 Not done: Canada is included. Melmann 21:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021

Change thirty-seven destroyers to 37 destroyers 77.168.37.50 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done; in fact I changed 28 destroyers → twenty-eight destroyers to match the rest of the paragraph.— Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

Add the Commando Kieffer (Free France) who were involved during the D-Day. 2A01:CB08:8D4D:8E00:9804:1C7:1C1D:3EB7 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

2603:7000:CD40:3BFB:3C9E:6101:5D70:AEB5 (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Operation Fortitude was the code name for a World War II military deception employed by the Allied nations as part of an overall deception strategy (code named Bodyguard) during the build-up to the 1944 Normandy landings.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland

I propose to link the Causes of World War II and Soviet invasion of Poland into background. Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Eisenhower

Ike was NOT a Major General (2-star) for Normandy. He was the theater commander, a full General (4-star), and later received his 5th star. 47.156.218.197 (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.
"If We Have Failed" Dwight D. Eisenhower

FlammableReal (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done; there's no image under that file name. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Normandy landings → D-Day – D-Day is the WP:COMMONNAME of this topic, not the "Normandy landings". D-Day is also a generic millitary term, and that article can keep existing under its current name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ngrams process the "-" character as minus. To obtain ngrams for hyphenated phrases we need to insert a space character either side of the the "-" character, and this greatly changes the results:
  • English D-Day is the most common.
  • British English Until about 2000 there was no clear winner between Normandy landings and D-Day, but currently D-Day is most common.
  • American English D-Day is the most common.
  • English fiction D-Day is currently the most common, though in the past D Day or Normandy landings have been close rivals.
Except for English fiction, we cannot be sure that all the D-Day and D Day hits are for Normandy - some will be for other operations such as Salerno. Ngrams are useful but other factors need to be taken into account. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per @Diannaa Estar8806 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like the previous RM discussions, I am concerned that "D-Day" by itself is still not a precise term. It is just best to error on retaining the current article title that has been stable enough for all these years. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. D-Day is not precise enough and most serious historians refer to the landings as the Normandy landings. Nobody is denying that "D-Day landings" is commonly used, but the current title is also common and far more precise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons discussed here, and the last time, and the time before that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Hi I am George P III, and I want to edit this article as I am an expert in my field. Also, just to let you know I've been studying this specific subject for about 5 years so it would be great if I can edit and give some extra but important information. Besides being an expert, I am a scientist and archiologist with 30 years of experience in science and 28 years in archiology. So if you want any additional information on the Normandy landings and what the Germans did to defend the French land they forcefully took over. AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
ok AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Size of force

"The Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history" Beevor 2009 p74. Only that is not what the reference states on p74. It states the largest sea force assembled in history, then lists the number of ships. Earlier on p72 Beevor states that it was the largest amphibious assault attempted - whether that attempt relates to WW2 or in history is not clarified. The two relevant pages need to be correctly cited, else we have the current POV. Additionally, other secondary sources should be used to support such a key statement in the article. Also, a comparison should be drawn with the invasion of Sicily, which had a similar number of troops in the initial assault (according to WP Sicily had 4,000 more troops) with more tanks, artillery etc during the landing. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

What Beevor says is "Many wondered what the Germans would think when they caught sight of this armada, which was by far the largest fleet that had ever put to sea." My opinion is that it supports the included content. Here's a second source: CNN says "largest sea invasion". — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello Diannaa. The issue is not the number of ships in the naval flotilla supporting the landing. The issue is that this was an amphibious invasion i.e. the focus is on what landed from the sea and onto the beach. We need to confirm that it was the largest in history, else we should be saying that it had the largest naval support in history - we need to be accurate. I have little faith in an opinion piece hosted on CNN - regardless of who it is - because it has not been peer reviewed and therefore not open to challenge by the writer's peers. Surely there are reliable secondary sources (history books) that support this statement? I note that the article is GA-rated and refers to many historical works already. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
If you are going to do comparisons with other amphibious landings, you need to look at more than the first day - otherwise it all looks misleadingly tiny compared with Soviet operations at the same time. Counting ships does not mean a lot either - many of the vessels that crossed the English Channel were very small. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
It was not the largest if you are talking forces put ashore on the first day (which is how it should be worded). Husky (the invasion of Sicily) was the largest in terms of men landed on the first day. Obviously, in terms of overall effort and number, D-Day was the largest. The simplest is to mention it was the overall largest, and 2nd largest next to Sicily in terms of men landed on the first day.
According to Beevor, the size of the invasion fleet was the largest in history. Do we need to amend it to say that instead? Something like "The invasion fleet was the largest in history." But this might not be necessary, as we also have sourced content elsewhere in the article that says "The official British history gives an estimated figure of 156,115 men landed on D-Day." Was this not the largest one-day troop landing in history? Do you know of one that was bigger? — Diannaa (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
"The millionth Allied solider crossed the beach on 4 July." Ruppenthal Logistical Support of the Armies Volume 1, page 457.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Dubious: German losses on D-Day

In the 'Aftermath' section the article refers to 1,000 German casualties which is clearly wrong; within this article both in the summary and in the "casualties and losses" part of the summary table the generally accepted range of 4,000-9,000 is used. I have ordered a copy of the book referenced, Ford and Zaloga, to check. Quincefish (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that the book will say that there were 1,000 men killed and that total casualties were 4,000–9,000 (includes killed, wounded, missing, and captured). I have changed the body to match the infobox. I also had to remove some of your recent addition, because it is too closely paraphrased/copied from the source. — Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Ford/Zaloga page 335 says "1,000 men" so I am changing the citation back to the one that was there when the article passed GA. Somebody changed it at some point — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 15:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the Ford/Zaloga reference!
The Portsmouth Museum site linked - the citation you have reverted to - doesn't exist any longer (or, at least, I cannot make the link work). They seem to have become https://theddaystory.com/discover/what-is-d-day/
The problem is that the Germans were in such disarray as a result of the surprise attack that their normally very accurate records do not exist. Most sources on the internet I suspect are using this Wikipedia article as their source anyway.
These people suggest 6,000 German deaths https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/d-day-casualties-by-country/ against 4,400 Allied. And these suggest 10,000 German casualties https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/d-day/figures Quincefish (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The Portsmouth Museum link works if you use the archived link, here. The Wayback Machine was down for a while today and the archive url would not jhave worked during that outage. So I thinkl we are okay to leave it as-is until/unless a more definitive source is found. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Normandy_landings/Archive_2&oldid=1244005697"