D-Day "myths". Actually not a bad article at all...

[Berkut]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/opinions/d-day-myth-reality-opinion/index.html

I thought this was going to be a bunch of stupid crap (D-Day was the biggest battle if WW2! The Americans won the war!), like how most of these pop culture "history" articles work, but the "myths" in question are actually ones that I do think a lot of people probably are not really aware of, and the writing is pretty decent as well.

YMMV, of course.

[Malthus]

This one I kinda sorta disagree with:

6. MYTH: America and Britain got off lightly in World War II

REALITY: Allied frontline troops suffered horrifically during World War II. Democracies such as Britain and America tried to achieve victory with as few casualties as possible. For the most part, they did this very successfully using technology and machinery to shield lives wherever they could.

I think the common perception identified as a "myth" here is that the UK and US "got off lightly" only because there was no ground war that rolled over significant US or UK territory: they only "got off lightly" by comparison with places ground between the combatants (or occupied by one - or worse, both - of the Nazis or Soviets). Most everyone these days knows that actual frontline troops suffered horribly. 

[Valmy]

Yeah WWII is our bloodiest war ever not fought against ourselves.

[Berkut]

This one I kinda sorta disagree with:

6. MYTH: America and Britain got off lightly in World War II

REALITY: Allied frontline troops suffered horrifically during World War II. Democracies such as Britain and America tried to achieve victory with as few casualties as possible. For the most part, they did this very successfully using technology and machinery to shield lives wherever they could.

I think the common perception identified as a "myth" here is that the UK and US "got off lightly" only because there was no ground war that rolled over significant US or UK territory: they only "got off lightly" by comparison with places ground between the combatants (or occupied by one - or worse, both - of the Nazis or Soviets). Most everyone these days knows that actual frontline troops suffered horribly. 

Yeah, I would agree with you - although I am not sure how much people are aware of just how bad the casualties were in frontline Allied units.

The problem is that so few soldiers were actually in those frontline units. The Allied armies had a ridiculously large tail wagging the combat dog. For good reason, it turns out (mostly), as the per soldier applied combat power was probably radically greater than anything our opponents could bring to bear, but it still created this perception that 95% of the people in the military were largely immune to the horrors of combat.

So the "myth" here might be

1. Not a myth at all, because in fact for the most part "America and Britain" did get off lightly in WW2, or
2. It is a myth in that many people think that #1 is true but don't realize how untrue it was for the poor guys who actually had to do the fighting, or
3. It is not a myth, and not true, because people do actually realize that while overall we may have gotten off lightly, most people realize that for the actual combatants is was terrible, or
4. It really isn't a myth any way you cut it because even if it was pretty terrible to be a Western combat troop, even *they* actually got off lightly compared to, well, basically everyone else fighting in the war.

I think the fourth might be the closest to actual reality. While being a solider in the Big Red One almost certainly sucked, and the casualty rates were incredible, it still had to be a damn site better than being a frontline soldier in pretty much any other major combatant in the war. USSR? Worse. Japan? Much, much, MUCH worse. Germany? Certainly worse.

Other than finding some guys somewhere who simply were not fighting, I can't think of any other major combatant I would trade places with if I had to be an infantryman or tank crewman on one of the active fighting fronts during WW2.

[Valmy]

Or the poor Chinese. Man did it ever suck to be in that army.

[viper37]

Yeah WWII is our bloodiest war ever not fought against ourselves.

sure, you guys keep fighting among each other, when not trying to invade your canadian cousins.

[Valmy]

sure, you guys keep fighting among each other, when not trying to invade your canadian cousins.

Hey! We only did that twice.

[Brazen]

This one I kinda sorta disagree with:

6. MYTH: America and Britain got off lightly in World War II

REALITY: Allied frontline troops suffered horrifically during World War II. Democracies such as Britain and America tried to achieve victory with as few casualties as possible. For the most part, they did this very successfully using technology and machinery to shield lives wherever they could.

I think the common perception identified as a "myth" here is that the UK and US "got off lightly" only because there was no ground war that rolled over significant US or UK territory: they only "got off lightly" by comparison with places ground between the combatants (or occupied by one - or worse, both - of the Nazis or Soviets). Most everyone these days knows that actual frontline troops suffered horribly.

Let's not also forget that a lot of the UK was bombed to shit too.

[Berkut]

This one I kinda sorta disagree with:

6. MYTH: America and Britain got off lightly in World War II

REALITY: Allied frontline troops suffered horrifically during World War II. Democracies such as Britain and America tried to achieve victory with as few casualties as possible. For the most part, they did this very successfully using technology and machinery to shield lives wherever they could.

I think the common perception identified as a "myth" here is that the UK and US "got off lightly" only because there was no ground war that rolled over significant US or UK territory: they only "got off lightly" by comparison with places ground between the combatants (or occupied by one - or worse, both - of the Nazis or Soviets). Most everyone these days knows that actual frontline troops suffered horribly.

Let's not also forget that a lot of the UK was bombed to shit too.

Was it though, really?

Again, compared to the treatment given to France and Germany (even Italy? although I am not as certain about that) in bombing, I am guessing the UK was pretty lightly scathed. The capability of the Luftwaffe to pound southern Britain in 1940/41 was a tiny slice of what the US and British Air Forces would be able to do to Germany and Italy a couple years later.

And the devastation that Eastern Europe and the USSR saw as the fighting swept across that area was surely of an order of magnitude greater than the damage done to the UK.

My understanding of German bombing of the UK was that it was

A) Largely initially aimed at military targets, and
B) Once they shifted to civilian/industrial targets, they actually could not reach much outside southern England, and it was largely limited to hitting London over and over again. Other British cities were mostly unscathed, with a handful attacks each, at the most.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It was, of course, by far the worst bombing that Britain ever suffered. But "only" 60,000 people were killed, whereas it was more like half a million in Germany.

[Malthus]

This one I kinda sorta disagree with:

6. MYTH: America and Britain got off lightly in World War II

REALITY: Allied frontline troops suffered horrifically during World War II. Democracies such as Britain and America tried to achieve victory with as few casualties as possible. For the most part, they did this very successfully using technology and machinery to shield lives wherever they could.

I think the common perception identified as a "myth" here is that the UK and US "got off lightly" only because there was no ground war that rolled over significant US or UK territory: they only "got off lightly" by comparison with places ground between the combatants (or occupied by one - or worse, both - of the Nazis or Soviets). Most everyone these days knows that actual frontline troops suffered horribly.

Let's not also forget that a lot of the UK was bombed to shit too.

Certainly, the Blitz was terrible. But compared to the other combatants, the UK indeed "got off lightly", bad as it was.

The blitz allegedly killed some 40-50K Britons, ad even more were killed later by buzz bombs etc. The Allies allegedly killed more than that bombing France. That, on top of whatever damage the Germans did to that country, having it invaded first by the Germans and later by the Allies (and even the Italians!), etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_France_during_World_War_II

As is often pointed out, the harms the Germans inflicted paled in comparison to the damage returned by the Allies later in the war through strategic bombing.

[Berkut]

As is often pointed out, the harms the Germans inflicted paled in comparison to the damage returned by the Allies later in the war through strategic bombing.

Yeah, fucking with democracies when it comes to war really didn't turn out well for the 20th century totalitarian regimes.

[derspiess]

I kinda disagree with #3.  The Allies did become bogged down in Normandy.  Obviously they eventually pushed through, but the author really seems to belittle the German defensive efforts.  Sure, they stayed within range of naval guns, but what was the alternative?  Mass retreat from France on D+6??

[Valmy]

I kinda disagree with #3.  The Allies did become bogged down in Normandy.  Obviously they eventually pushed through, but the author really seems to belittle the German defensive efforts.  Sure, they stayed within range of naval guns, but what was the alternative?  Mass retreat from France on D+6??

I think it was Rommel's plan to group a reserve in the center and counter-attack and some historians have been sympathetic to that view. But I think the Germans did it the best way they could. The ONLY chance to win, and it was a slim chance, was to beat them on the beaches.

[Malthus]

I kinda disagree with #3.  The Allies did become bogged down in Normandy.  Obviously they eventually pushed through, but the author really seems to belittle the German defensive efforts.  Sure, they stayed within range of naval guns, but what was the alternative?  Mass retreat from France on D+6??

I think it was Rommel's plan to group a reserve in the center and counter-attack and some historians have been sympathetic to that view. But I think the Germans did it the best way they could. The ONLY chance to win, and it was a slim chance, was to beat them on the beaches.

I agree: holding back a reserve for a big counter-attack would have been difficult to organize and implement effectively, what with the Allied warplanes stalking every road and railway & blowing shit up all over the place. Allied air dominance really made it difficult for the Germans to win, once they had established themselves. Preventing them from establishing themselves was also difficult, given that the Allies could pound any beach they liked with naval gunnery, and the Germans could effectively do nothing about it.

Really, unless the beach defenses fended off the initial landings, the Germans were pretty well screwed, given Allied superiority in the air and at sea. Of course, that leads to the problem of attempting to 'defend everything' with fixed defenses ...

Naturally, the Germans attempted to avoid the 'defend everything = defend nothing" problem by reasoning that the Allies needed a port, therefore what requires the most defense is ports (plus, Dieppe). Only the Allies managed to bring a port with them (well, two, but one got busted). So the Allies could do without a port for a bit, until they were strong enough to take one from the land side.