60th Anniversary of D-Day

andrew12g

I hope everyone will recognise this and pay the respects to all 9000 of those who died on sunday 60 years ago and through out the normandy campgain . They certainly were the bravest of the bravest and hero's with out a doubt! I hope everyone will at some stage in their life get to go to the beaches in Normandy.

bizmark

Great and brave men who died protecting the freedom we all take for granted

may we never forget them or what they did

mike65

I suspect many here wont give today too much thought except to wonder why theres so much of it on the telly.

This year is proberly the last "big" anniversery. In 10 years time almost all those connected with Operation Overlord will be dead.

I was watching a Channel 4 discussion yesterday, Niall Fergerson made a good point about the use of "we" when it was mainly our grandfathers generation that fought and died.

My granddad (mothers side) fought in the North Africa and Italy campiagns, its not something that gets mentioned much but I feel I should know a bit more about his time in the army. She and my uncle did'nt know him for the 1st 3/4 years of thier lives.

Mike.

andrew12g

I was talking ot one of my friends and I said happy d-day to her. She goes 'what the hell are you on , you know how i feel about Iraq' it makes you sad to think how ignorant or ileducated people have become on the matter. Was anybody listning to Gey Ryan on the 4th June? Sky News are very good for the coverage on the memorial.

Hairy Homer

I'm all for remembering the facts of history. I'm not at all happy about a single point of view (with all its contradictions and tactical omissions) being accepted as orthodoxy.

For example, the British reckon they were the victors of World War II ("Who won the bloody war anyway?") They didn't. They went to war to protect their empire and ended up losing it over the following 25 years.

The Americans think they won it. Well, they probably did, by proxy. They provided a minority of soldiers to the Allied Cause, supported the Europeans in slaughtering each other and then moved in to mop up the mess and capture European markets for its goods with the 'aid' of the Marshall Plan.

The people who really won the war for the Allies were the Soviets. That's because the war was essentially a fight to the death between the German and Soviet empires. The size of the German armies on the Eastern Front dwarfed the numbers fighting the combined might of the British Empire and the Americans on the West.

The Western Front was a sideshow.

How should we remember the fallen of D-Day? With horror. With a determination not to repeat it. Not with some great pride in something that we as an Irish nation had no official part in. Nowithstanding the fact that many of us here (myself included) had grandads, great grandads and/or great uncles who fought and died with the British Army in that war.

Our country was neutral. Most other countries in Europe would have liked to remain so and only entered the war when they were invaded. (Belgium Denmark, Holland Norway by the Axis; Finland by the Allies) Their enthusiasm to go to war for other nations was markedly lacking. As indeed was America's.

Let's not kid ourselves that WWII was a righteous free-market crusade against a crackpot dictator, although Hitler certainly was that. It was a war in which the energy of the Left Wing was the crucial popular force that eventually did for the Nazis. This was most notably the case in the Soviet Union but it is also true that the resistance movements of most of the countries under Hitler's yoke were dominated by Socialists/Communists. And don't forget that Churchill was dumped out of power in favour of the most socialist government in British history even before the war with Japan was over.

It is this left-wing involvement and support which has allowed the war to remain largely free of criticism in the popular consciousness in a way that the First World War has not, notwithstanding the fact that some cynical globalists now try to merge the causes of both WWI and WWII together to portray both as a fight agains the evils of Nazism.

Maybe Bush, Blair and the other neocon nitwits have some consistency on their side when they say that war against the Arabs is a similar cause to what war against the Nazis. In each case there are a number of big countries trying to gain hegemony over changing world markets. But inasmuch as the populations of the participating countries are hopelessly polarised, even in the US of A, in terms of their response to this war, the comparison between now and 60 years ago is limited.

mike65

If ever a post deserved a :rolleyes: ...

Mike.

Hairy Homer

Whaddya want?

Orthodoxy!!!!!

Ever stop to think what your grandfather was doing in North Africa? Why North Africa? What the hell were Irish people doing in British army uniforms fighting Italians in North bloody Africa? Where does freedom for small nations come into that one?

And I'm not being personal. As it happens, my old man was born in Egypt while Grandpa was out there defending the Empire from those who thought they had more right to it than the Crown.

Ironic, huh?

bizmark

Ever stop to think what your grandfather was doing in North Africa?

Might have something to do with mike being english

mike65

Actaully it has little to do my nationality, only a certain dispair at the looney leftish revisonism of HH. Where to start? I pick up on points as I spot them!

The British entered WW2 along with the French when Nazi Germany invaded Poland (you may have heard about this) as the three had a mutual defence pact war was inevitiable. They did'nt do it to protect empire and more than Poland did.

The United States - they had little intention of giving Europe a dig out until the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbour (the Japanese and Nazi Germany had a pact of thier own). Many in the States were quite ambivelent
about events in Europe indeed in the North-East/ Mid-West where US-Germans lived there was a level of support for Hilter though it never reach a critical mass.

http://www.shoaheducation.com/secret.html

It would surprize most people in the US to think that in the United States in the thirties and early 40's, before we entered the war, the swastika was a frequent symbol here, among German Americans, often denoting their ancestral ties and allegiances. Across Europe and American, German-Americans often participated and had membership in 'bunds' or fellowships that were more than just ethnic fellowships but also promoted Volkische thought mysticism, and often Nazi Ideology. These bunds were strong alliances and often also hotbeds of political support for Hitler during the war years both in the US and abroad. Fritz Kuhn headed the German American Bund in those years and was known for his advocacy of Nazism an Anti-Semitism as well as keeping the US neutral in the war (which aided Hitler). He was in alliance with Coughlin, the Catholic Priest outspoken in his support for Hitler and reknown as an Anti-Semite. Both were broadcasters who promoted anti-semitism; Kuhn promoted volkish ideals. The Bund in American, often family oriented, trained their youth groups in much the same manner and often with the same material and hymns as the hitlerjugend in Germany. One newspaper article dated July 22.1936 reports a Bund activity including a parade of 5000 which notes,
"the day was spent in various forms of entertainment including speeches attacking the Jews".

Of 25,000 known members of the Bund, over 8000 were avowed SA members,2and the Bund was a facilitator of German espionage during the war. Tens of thousands were addressed in a Hitler-like rally in Madison Square Gardens in New York by Kuhn, in which he espoused and open hatred of the Jews and support for the Third Reich. While the Bunds were not "secret" in the sense of some of the included societies, they were supportive of the Third Reich in the training of youth, the establishment of volkish mysticism and ideology, of the politics of Adolf Hitler and in the general promotion of the concepts, beliefs and imperialism of the Reich.

The idea that the USA joined in to create a market for export is tosh. They stayed in Europe (after the Soviets
declared they had the bomb) to do that! The US had intended a quick exit for Europe with a delibertaly weakened Germany (Versaille Mk2) but the Cold Wars sudden arrival scupperd that and the Marshall Plan came into action.

"The Marshall Plan ... is not a philanthropic enterprise ... It is based on our views of the requirements of American security ... This is the only peaceful avenue now open to us which may answer the communist challenge to our way of life and our national security."
(Allen W. Dulles, The Marshall Plan)

The Soviet masses did decide who won thats true but it needed all parties to be sure I'd say after all if D-Day had'nt happened then the Nazis would have been able to spend more resorces on the Eastern Front. (if you ever get the chance watch a brilliant documentary TV series about that war was made in the late 70s/early 80s I cant recall its name or find it via google)

North Africa - The Sahara was part of the war for strategic reasons ,the Axis soft underbelly was Italy who began the war in Nth Africa with the invasion of Egypt from Lybia which was an Italian colony.

Netruality - Ah where would Ireland be without this tired, sacred cow? I'm sure Hitler would have left this Sceptered Isle well alone if he had triumphed...(yeah right).

WW2 and Iraq - Blair has'nt made that comparion and would'nt, Bush has cos he's an idiot.

Mike.

Mike.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by mike65
Actaully it has little to do my nationality, only a certain dispair at the looney leftish revisonism of HH. Where to start? I pick up on points as I spot them!

Apologies for presuming you were Irish. Clearly your grandfather had no choice about fighting in the war, unlike my own who was Irish. And I may be a looney but I'm no lefty. Well, maybe by modern standards, given that the prevailing mood is so far to the right now.

The British entered WW2 along with the French when Nazi Germany invaded Poland (you may have heard about this) as the three had a mutual defence pact war was inevitiable. They did'nt do it to protect empire and more than Poland did.

Mutual self interest. Britain's foreign policy has traditionally been to maintain a balance of power in Europe while concentrating on an Empire in Africa and Asia. If any one country threatens to dominate Europe, Britain joins alliances against it. As she did against Napoleon and the Spanish before that. Once Hitler looked like being the dominant force in Europe, Britain joined France in opposing him forcefully. Not that they did all that much for the first 6 months of the war.

It's also, I suspect, the reason that the Tory party ties itself in knots over the EU. It doesn't want a dominant force in Europe, even if Britain is an integral part of that force. Old instincts die hard.

The United States - they had little intention of giving Europe a dig out until the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbour (the Japanese and Nazi Germany had a pact of thier own). Many in the States were quite ambivelent
about events in Europe indeed in the North-East/ Mid-West where US-Germans lived there was a level of support for Hilter though it never reach a critical mass.

http://www.shoaheducation.com/secret.html

Quite.
You know, some people might regard the dragging up of those titbits as 'looney revisionism' :-)

The idea that the USA joined in to create a market for export is tosh.

As is the idea that they joined to liberate small nations, which is what one might think if one watched Sky News at all over the weekend. I didn't suggest that is why they joined, but it became their long-term strategic interest.

They stayed in Europe (after the Soviets
declared they had the bomb) to do that! The US had intended a quick exit for Europe with a delibertaly weakened Germany (Versaille Mk2)

Ah yes. Versailles. What a good idea that was. 'Squeeze Germany till the pips squeak'. That really worked, didn't it? Europe was lucky in the aftermath of WWII that it had visionary leaders who knew how to make a peace rather than emphasise the importance of winning a war. In this they were helped by the general good sense of the British electorate who said to Churchill: 'Good war, Winston. Well done. Now **** off you imperialist, eugenicist, manic depressive Tory bastard drunk'

This swept Labour into power and brought to prominence people like Lord Longford, often regarded as a looney because of his later support for the release of Myra Hindley and his opposition to pornography. Longford insisted on keeping Britain on rations for years in order to feed the Germans who had been rendered destititute by the wholesale mass murder and destruction of the RAF. Might have sounded looney at the time but it helped to make a peace.

So too the efforts of people like Schuman in France who helped start what became the EU. John Hume is very good on how post war Europe is one of the best examples of conflict resolution in human history. And, to paraphrase him, that has more to do with the likes of Longord and Schuman spilling their sweat than marines and paratroopers spilling their (and other people's) blood on D Day.

I fully agree with the link you put in about the Marshall Plan. What are we arguing about?

The Soviet masses did decide who won thats true but it needed all parties to be sure I'd say after all if D-Day had'nt happened then the Nazis would have been able to spend more resorces on the Eastern Front.

That was where the Germans saw the real war as taking place. Lebensraum was to be sought in the East. And not even the most moderate German politician between the wars, including the Nobel Peace Prize winner Stresseman, ever conceded to the eastern boundaries imposed on Germany by Versailles

(if you ever get the chance watch a brilliant documentary TV series about that war was made in the late 70s/early 80s I cant recall its name or find it via google)

Wasn't called the World at War, narrated by Laurence Olivier, was it? I remember watching it in the 1970s

North Africa - The Sahara was part of the war for strategic reasons ,the Axis soft underbelly was Italy who began the war in Nth Africa with the invasion of Egypt from Lybia which was an Italian colony.

North Africa featured in the war because the Italian and British Empires came up against each other there. Libya, Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia confronting British Egypt, Somaliliand and Sudan/Kenya. That's the only reason. And the vast majority of the armies the British fought in the Sahara were Italian. The Afrika Korps was very much in the minority numerically.

Netruality - Ah where would Ireland be without this tired, sacred cow? I'm sure Hitler would have left this Sceptered Isle well alone if he had triumphed...(yeah right).

I'm sure he would. As stated earlier, his interests were further east.

WW2 and Iraq - Blair has'nt made that comparion and would'nt, Bush has cos he's an idiot.

Well, that's one thing we can agree on. :-)

quote:

---

North Africa - The Sahara was part of the war for strategic reasons ,the Axis soft underbelly was Italy who began the war in Nth Africa with the invasion of Egypt from Lybia which was an Italian colony.

---

North Africa featured in the war because the Italian and British Empires came up against each other there. Libya, Italian Somaliland and Abyssinia confronting British Egypt, Somaliliand and Sudan/Kenya. That's the only reason. And the vast majority of the armies the British fought in the Sahara were Italian. The Afrika Korps was very much in the minority numerically.

North Africa became a major conflict because Germany wanted to put the British resources flowing from the Suez canal under threat. The majority of the oil for the war effort came through the canal, and Hitler wanted to put a stop to it. He also wanted to create an empire to rival Alexander the Great, and only by taking over north Africa could he do this.

Hairy Homer

A secondary strategic aim maybe. The truth is that the war in North Africa didn't start until Italy joined in, seeing that Britain and France had been defeated in Europe and fancying that they could grab a share of the spoils.

The Italians invaded and overran British Somaliland, from their own colony there, and attacked the British in Egypt from Libya. The Afrika Korps didn't get involved until the Italians were pushed out of Egypt and back into Libya.

The majority of Axis forces in the desert war were Italian. For all the hype about Rommel he wasn't even the overall commander. He was supposed to defer to his Italian allies. (He didn't, but that's another story)

Neither side had any right to be there in the first place.

And we wonder why some Arabs have a problem with the West.

Rew

I went over to Normandy for the anniversary. It was an amazing experience and I have the utmost respect for everyone involved (even the Germans). It was scary to walk through the cemeteries (German, English, Canadian, French) and see the number of 18 and 19 year old soldiers buried there.

The Vets get treated with the utmost respect and most are in impresivly good health for 80+ and 90+ year olds. The 70th Anniversary will still have a fair few at it I reckon.

Seeing places like Point du Hoc, Pegsus Bridge and the various artillery batteries that were pounding the beaches and ships make you appricate how dificult those first 24 hours were.

The French set a side todays politics and cover the palce in the various allied Flags (I actually saw a few German flags as well).

What comes across about the success of D-Day is that it came down to the actions of small groups achiveing their objectives despite the odds against them and in the face of disastrous landings by sea and air. Merville is a good example.

Id recomend going over to anyone, there are hundreds of reenactors going around in uniform with weapons (most didnt cary em coz GW Bush was around and they had been told not to) and vehicles. WW1 sites are also highly recomended.

(had to drop the image quality to get it to upload)

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by Rew
I went over to Normandy for the anniversary. It was an amazing experience and I have the utmost respect for everyone involved (even the Germans).

Well that's fair enough.

It was scary to walk through the cemeteries (German, English, Canadian, French) and see the number of 18 and 19 year old soldiers buried there.

Beat you to it. I got taken to Omaha Beach by my folks in 1969. (I was very young). Can't say that I remember too much about it. There were 25th anniversary commemorations at the time but I don't remember them having the same razzamatazz as the 50th and 60th. What sticks in my mind was the extreme youth of so many of the victims (19-21 most of them) and the number of graves of soldiers 'known but to God'

The French set a side todays politics and cover the palce in the various allied Flags (I actually saw a few German flags as well).

And why not? The German defence of Normandy and indeed the rest of France against overwhelming numbers was one of the most remarkable examples of military skill and courage ever witnessed. And that's in the opinion of the author of a book called Overlord, one Max Hastings. A former editor of the Daily Telegraph and not noted for being a loony lefty revisionist.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Hairy Homer


And why not? The German defence of Normandy and indeed the rest of France against overwhelming numbers was one of the most remarkable examples of military skill and courage ever witnessed. And that's in the opinion of the author of a book called Overlord, one Max Hastings. A former editor of the Daily Telegraph and not noted for being a loony lefty revisionist.

I wonder was there many Union Jacks flying on the 60th anniversary of the Easter Rising?

Just to highlight how remarkable it is that the occupying troops (German) are given the same respect as the liberators, even after 60 years.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by therecklessone
I wonder was there many Union Jacks flying on the 60th anniversary of the Easter Rising?

Just to highlight how remarkable it is that the occupying troops (German) are given the same respect as the liberators, even after 60 years.

Well, in another 12 years we will have the centenary of the 1916 rising. We can judge then how the commemorations compare.

Do you remember a couple of years ago when Kevin Barry and a few other executed Republicans from 1919-21 were reburied? There were VERY divided opinions in the Press as to whether we should be glorifying such an episode from our past. Our people are deeply divided on the issue of comemorating the means by which we achieved independence.

If similar attitudes to today are to the fore in 2016 we will probably have some Unionist representatives at the commemoration; we will probably be talking up the success of the Peace Process and conflict resolution; decrying the tragedy of communal violence and looking forward to a pluralistic, tolerant future based on mutual respect for each other's traditions.

However, if the North becomes even more polarised between DUP and Shinner (or Yummie as I intend calling them from now on) if Gerry Adams or (shudder) Mary Lou McDonald is in power as part of a coalition then no doubt the conflict itself, rather than the way it was ended will be the focus of the commemorations.

We'll wait and see.

How many negative comments about D-Day commemorations did you read in the British press this year?

regeneration

Germany's presence, a subtle and understated one in reality as opposed to the press it received, is a natural progession of realising Germany's own sacrafice of youth. There's a growing opinion in Germany of separating the army from the Nazis, and the sacrafice of the former in the name of the latter. Revisionist history at work I guess.

I think D-Day should be celebrated; the notion that somehow Britain (and US, but leaving them aside) were part of not only a repsonse to a rival colonial power, but a defence of territory abroad, is very cynical.
British aggression was non-existent from a European perspective. There was a concerted political effort made in the late 30s to appease the Germans rather than aggressively clamp down on Germany's expanses - indeed, Poland's military build up was delibrately sat on by the French/British because they didn't want Germany interpretting that as aggression from Poland and thus invade - clearly still believing Germany would sit back and be satisified with the "liberation" of German citizens in Austria et al. It can also be suggested that there was a large palpable fear of entering another war, the death tolls in France and her army giving strong credence to that, which goes some way to explaining her early surrender in 1940. And even then, Britain's politicians were feverishly pressing Churchil to sue for peace. Both Britain and France didn't have a fully mobilised army by '39, so even if aggression was an issue, it was not a realistic prospect. '40-41 were disasterous for Britain, from Narvik to Dunkirque - to the Battle of Britain; Britain didn't want to go to war, and when she did properly (defending Norway and Belgium), it was lacklustre. If cynicism be the flavour, direct it towards sloppy, half hearted attempts to appease the Germans.

But D-Day is important for us as a whole; The Russians and her front may have paid the price in terms of it's nationals; caught between two brutal dictators, and certainly doesn't commemorate D-Day, but taken as a single event, it gave democracy back to many hundred million people.

(re: ireland)...I'm sure he would. As stated earlier, his interests were further east.

Not quite true, Nazi Germany had plans to invade Ireland, and many attempts to undermine Irish military and politcal machinations were made with the help of the IRA, but the IRA as a force was useless, and most of the plans failed to see reality.

Germany's presence, a subtle and understated one in reality as opposed to the press it received, is a natural progession of realising Germany's own sacrafice of youth. There's a growing opinion in Germany of separating the army from the Nazis, and the sacrafice of the former in the name of the latter. Revisionist history at work I guess.

Not that far from reality. Remember that prior to the change in the oath of allegience the German army owed its allegience to the state. It was controlled by the "Generals" (mostly prussian leaders). Prior to the change of the oath, German forces were no different than other armies out there. It was only when the oath changed, and the Generals lost the majority of their power that the Wehrmacht became "nazi'fied". Also remember that it was the specialist forces, and the Waffen SS groups that performed most acts of slaughter.

Grand the Army stood by when the Waffen SS and the spec groups were performing mass murder, but by German eyes it wasn't the Wehrmacht that was doing it.

When I spent some time in germany abt ten years ago, the general feeling from people that I knew well, was that the Wehrmacht from WW2 acted with honour. The Spec groups didn't. There was a clear diistinction in their eyes.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by regeneration
the notion that somehow Britain (and US, but leaving them aside) were part of not only a repsonse to a rival colonial power, but a defence of territory abroad, is very cynical.

Interesting article appeared in the Irish Times on July 2nd written by the historian Eoin Neeson. You need a sub to Ireland.com to read it but I've pinched the following snippet.

there was never a high-minded, moral leap by Britain to oppose Nazism (quite the opposite). When de Valera opposed the march of fascism in the League of Nations Britain was one of the countries that refused to support him.

There were then in Britain powerful and influential groups believing that its interests were best served in alliance with Nazi Germany - a matter..... of serious cabinet consideration.

To seek to varnish Britain's involvement in the second World War with improbable idealism is historically nonsensical. Even the "exact science" of hindsight itself has no absolutes. Britain went to war only when it felt threatened.

The established governing principle of British foreign policy that "Britain has neither friends nor enemies, only interests" was - then as now - neither shelved nor replaced by some species of geopolitical moral superiority.

When Britain - finally and reluctantly - did go to war with Germany it wasn't until its French allies forced the issue and its economic self-interest was threatened.

Nazi Germany had plans to invade Ireland, and many attempts to undermine Irish military and politcal machinations were made with the help of the IRA, but the IRA as a force was useless, and most of the plans failed to see reality.

Of course they had plans. I bet that every county in the world 'has plans' to invade Ireland should they ever feel the need might arise. I'll bet there's a plan somewhere in the Pentagon, only to be used as a contingency of course.

BTW. I'm not Eoin Neeson.

regeneration

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Interesting article appeared in the Irish Times on July 2nd written by the historian Eoin Neeson. You need a sub to Ireland.com to read it but I've pinched the following snippet.

Sorry to ramble on ... but! ...
Indeed I read the same article. It was interesting, and the evidence is compelling to point to British self-interest - but I think that Britain's attempts to ... "sooth" the Nazi regime was more to do with political naivety rather than an attempt to protect what was in their economic interest.
Chamberlain genuinely believed Germany's aggression was a result of the Versailles issue, and needed to be addressed peacefully - hence his governement's non-intervention policy, and conceeding to the Germans Austria (the union between Germany and Austria was forbidden under that treaty) and (then) Czechoslovakia.
Plus there is also the small point that even the Times article doesn't allude to - both Britain and France wanted above all to avoid another damaging European war, even if it meant giving Germany some gains to what it saw was preww1 territory (looking at a map from 1914, "Germany" stretched all the way up to the border of Lithuania, and well into Eastern Europe).
I don't need to tell you the losses Britain/France endured over ww1; there was palpable fear another one, with the same enemy, could destroy europe totally. Again, political naivety, coupled with an insiduous belief a right-wing, fascist Germany was better than a Communist one governed appeasement - let sleeping dogs lie seems an appropriate phrase.
With the invasion of Poland and Scandanavia, it was then clear that German expansion and development would not be satisfied with giving it it's German-speaking neighbours, and thus started the actual conflict, with British/French intervention in Norway (I think they must have known France would be a legitimate target, with Chamberlain's belief German aggression was born from the Versailles treaty)
I do agree that Britain's ww2 history isn't as heroic as they would like us to believe, but I don't think they're actions (or lack of them) were born from self-interest, if of course you discount their protection of their very sovereignty self-interest They were born from naivety towards a new politcal ideal coupled with fear of a previous war.

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Of course they had plans. I bet that every county in the world 'has plans' to invade Ireland should they ever feel the need might arise. I'll bet there's a plan somewhere in the Pentagon, only to be used as a contingency of course.

BTW. I'm not Eoin Neeson.

Well these were plans that were put into operation. TG4 ran a repeat of their program on the subject - "shamrocks and swastikas" a few weeks back; which merely confirms what was pretty much publicly known anyway - the IRA worked with the Nazis (or perhaps it was the other way around) to devise ways to undermine and bring down the security forces and governmenal forces of Ireland. The chief Nazi agent (who's name escapes me) noted that the main obstacle was always the IRA's patheticly amateurish setup - pretty much yokels with pistols, thus negating any real possibility of proper collusion to "good" effect.
Also of course note the famous ferrying of IRA chiefs; who were smuggled from America back to Ireland via a German U-boat.