Talk:Normandy landings

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Normandy landings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Military history: Maritime / South Pacific / British / Canadian / Dutch / European / French / German / North America / Polish / United States / World War II C‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force North American military history task force Polish military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

Normandy C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 6, 2010, June 6, 2011, and June 6, 2012.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Normandy landings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Naval activity

Large landing craft convoy crosses the English Channel on 6 June 1944

Operation Neptune, as the naval part of the D-Day invasion was known, was a primarily Royal Navy affair, both in planning and execution. This is widely considered ‘a never surpassed masterpiece of planning’.[29] In overall command was Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay RN, who as Flag Officer Dover had controlled the evacuation of over 300,000 soldiers from Dunkirk four years earlier. He had also been responsible for the naval planning of the invasion of North Africa in 1942 and one of the two fleets carrying troops for the invasion of Sicily the following year.

The invasion fleet was drawn from eight different navies, comprising 6,939 vessels: 1,213 warships, 4,126 transport vessels (landing ships and landing craft), and 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Out of the 2,468 major landing vessels in the two task forces deployed on 6 June 1944 only 346 were American. Of the 23 cruisers covering the landings, 17 were British. Of the 16 warships covering the American Western beaches (Utah and Omaha) 50% were British and Allied ships. There were 195,700 naval personnel involved; 112,824 (58%) of them were British; 52,889 (30%) were from the US and 4,988 from Allied countries.[15]

The Allied Naval Expeditionary Force was divided into two Naval Task Forces: Western (Rear-Admiral Alan G Kirk USN) and Eastern (Rear-Admiral Sir Philip Vian RN – another veteran of the Italian landings).

The warships provided cover for the transports against any enemy surface warships, submarines or aerial attack, and supported the landings with shore bombardment. These ships included the Allied Task Force "O". A small part of the naval operation was Operation Gambit, when British midget submarines supplied navigation beacons to guide landing craf
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.10.59 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to follow with the above who made the ships should be pointed out also being that for LST's and LCVP's most were made in the USA. the LST wiki page states that 92.5% were american made and 100% of the LCVP's, 20,000, were made in the USA 97.115.170.98 (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I doubt that i need to comment beyond my minutes-old ed-summ which reads

Clean up punctuation salad: the ungrammatical use of semic is just confusing, and parens already serve to mark paren sent as commenting on what precedes it

re my rewriting a supposed sentence with that had had this bizarre syntax and punc'n:

<independent clause>; (<independent clause>.).

But further, the "was" would most smoothly with least astonishment be read as implicitly saying he was (already) famous for it at the timeframe of the first clause, i. e. at the time of the landings and/or discovery of the error; actually, it's unlikely he was immediately "famous" outside his immediate subordinates, and in fact he surely became progressively more famous for it in the day or two after the utterance; hence my shift to "became".
   Nonetheless, closer attention to the latter clause is still warranted. One states, as a rule, facts (or what one is purporting to be facts), while saying establishes the fact of utterance, without commitment (by our writer) as to the veracity or other status(es) of the content uttered. I don't mean to suggest uncertainty about truth, but one goes further and declares something that becomes true by virtue of the utterance in question.
   To be more explicit, i expect Rosie was regarded by the immediate audience as having issued an order and simultaneously made a very short inspirational speech: the substance of the order was

don't do anything on the assumption that we're going to move back to our assigned place, (and then just proceed as if we had been delivered late), tho of course we'll all pay attention to what our options are re planned events whose effect will be different from expected bcz we were expected to be elsewhere.

and the substance of the speech was

plans are never cast in concrete bcz you're never sure what the enemy will do, so the need to improvise is something we've been anticipating all along; let's get to work.

   Thus IMO something stronger than my "said" ("declared", "pronounced", "announced"?) may be called for; IMO the tone it's given in sources is relevant.
--Jerzy•t 03:05 & 03:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Was Operation Overlord delayed by two weeks? According to the Stephen Ambrose book, "Band of Brothers" (which was the basis for the cable miniseries), Operation Overlord was to have originally taken place two weeks earlier but was delayed due to bad weather. This conflicts with the statement in the entry stating that the weather in May was "fine". In addition, the 1962 movie "The Longest Day", A US military leader states that, "this operation has already been delayed once". Perhaps some clarification is needed here? 76.105.145.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations of rape against US servicemen has been placed in the "See also" section, but its reference is a review of a book by Mary Louise Roberts in a German newspaper "Der Spiegel". A second review of the same book in the "Daily Mail's" webpage cannot be accessed. These two citations are from tertiary sources. This sort of "sound bite" reference is frowned upon under Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources, if the secondary source (Professor Roberts's book) is available. I note for example, that the specific allegation in "Der Spiegel's" review refers to GIs who were being repatriated through Le Havre in the summer of 1945, after VE Day, not part of the Normandy campaign at all. If the claim is to be substantiated, the secondary source ought to be cited, with page numbers. HLGallon (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "Daily Mail's" webpage cannot be accessed? Your personal network condition is no relation to wikipedia. And according to HLGallon's logic, only allowed allegation of rapes are on the day and before rapists eyes. It's nonsense, who could allege before the rapists eyes.--Syngmung (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link does work [1] - sources (Der Spiegel, for example) are fine. However, your link, is a failed proposal → [2]--77.181.236.141 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, if a book is to be used as a source, it is both more accurate and good manners to obtain a copy, read it and cite it, rather than its publicity blurb in a newspaper. Citing potentially sensationalist reviews has resulted in badly skewed POV slants in articles such as the Bengal famine of 1943. HLGallon (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel is a WP:RS, that is used hundreds, if not thousands of times, in almost as many WP articles. It is not a "newspaper", and its content is not "publicity blurb". --77.181.236.141 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess to being unhappy at this inclusion. It does not seem to refer to the Normandy landings, but during the campaign itself - if true? The original editor seems to have an obsession with "rape" in wartime. I would prefer much better sources before these allegations are left in the article. David J Johnson (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The see also links and sources don't mention the "Normandy landings" so the inclusion in the "See also" section doesn't seem relevant to the article topic. They may be relevant to a broader article. I have boldly removed them once, but have been reverted - I can't make sense of the edit comment used. "Undid revision 558021548 by Hohum (talk) The article take up women in Normandy". (Hohum ^@) 11:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's choplogic word play. The Normandy landing forces occupied Normandy and raped women, before they returned home or marched to smash other area Nazi forces. The incidents are the very related this article.--Syngmung (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hohum. Syngmung appears to be making a point that rape was common during the campaign in France. The point should therefore be made in a higher level article: Invasion of Normandy or more likely, Operation Overlord. Normandy Landings focuses on the action during one day, the rapes cover a longer period. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points made by Stephen and Hohum. The landings basically only refer to one day. The one source is a newly promoted book, the Daily Mail feature is only a review of same. I would prefer more reliable sources and I'm concerned that the promoting "editor" seems to be obsessed with rape and cannot supply a readable summary of their edits. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This does seem WP:undue for this particular article and would be better suited to a more general article on the invasion as a whole. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think inadequate sources, but Dennis Brown commnet is good answer.--Syngmung (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are fast reaching a point, Syngmung, where no one cares what you think. You clearly have not read WP:OR, in particularly the section WP:SYNTH in enough detail. If you continue posting this original research on all of these articles, then you are almost certainly going to get either blocked or topic-banned very soon. Please acknowledge the fact that you cannot in good conscience attribute a claim to a particular author if you have not read that author's book and can only cite book reviews. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ANI. A topic ban has been proposed for Syngmung. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the bias has been removed, but there are still some rather pointed statements that read like it was a competition between British and US forces. I'll have a think and try and come up with some alternative wording over the next day or two. For the sake of clarity, I'm British myself but I'm not really interested in flag waving. The various allies had their strengths and weaknesses, but this article isn't the place to have a contest. I'll also reword anything that seems to be pro-american (or for that matter, pro-canadian, pro-norwegian, pro-italian, ad-nausium!) bias if I find it. If anyone's got anything to suggest, obviously feel free to comment. OneCatch (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive allied victory - The greatest bias in almost every article, when its rare to see Decisive Axis victory but Axis had more decisive victories, but writing decisive is no longer neutral --Obitauri (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the section entitled "Weather" it states: "...a day near the full moon was needed both for illumination during the hours of darkness and to take advantage of the spring tides, the former to illuminate navigational landmarks for the crews of aircraft, gliders and landing craft, the latter to provide the deepest possible water to help in navigating over defensive obstacles placed by the German forces in the surf on the seaward approaches to the beaches." This would seem to conflict with information in the section entitled "Atlantic Wall" which states: "The attacks were timed for low tide because it minimized the effectiveness of landing obstacles that were likely to have resulted in drowned troops; many landing craft would have been holed and sunk during the final approach." One section indicates the invasion was planned for high tide, the other indicates it was planned for low tide. Is this a true discrepancy? CookDing (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give normal point and bring proof its nonsense --Obitauri (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK then, Decisive Nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[3] 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."[4]
• 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."[5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]