Talk:Normandy landings

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)

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.

• Opppse. "D Day" has been used for many different military operations. Avoiding it here has been done to eliminate confusion. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Commonname might support either, but Normandy landings has a clarity that D day doesn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose. D-Day is a generic term; Normandy landings is specific. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:18, 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)

• Oppose – per Diannaa. Hamish59 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Enough has been said. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 12:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Binksternet and Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Diannaa. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 16:41, 24 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)

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.