Talk:Battle of Normandy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Battle of Normandy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 1, 2004.
Article Milestones Date Process Result June 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been selected for use on the War Portal. Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Canadian military history task force French military history task force Polish military history task force United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details. The citation is in: "The truth about the Second World War: Part One.", In Defence of Marxism, July 21, 2004.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 6 selected anniversary.

Archives Archive Index /Archive 1 2003 - February 2006 /Archive 2 March 2006 - December 2006

Contents 1 Article Split 2 "After the 1941 German people ate the pie " 3 Combatants List 4 Delete a picture from the Omaha section 5 German Casualties 6 Degree of victory? 7 German Defenses 8 Canadian Flag incorrectly portrayed

[edit] Article Split

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

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

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

[edit] "After the 1941 German people ate the pie "

This article is a mess! It should be closed to further editing and corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.14.172.51 (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Combatants List

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

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

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

[edit] Delete a picture from the Omaha section

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

[edit] German Casualties

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

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

[edit] Degree of victory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] German Defenses

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Canadian Flag incorrectly portrayed

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

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

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

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