A particular surprise amongst these is number 6 which deals with casualty rates from WWII versus WW.
6 Popular Myths About D-Day Landings Debunked | Historian James Holland
Printable View
A particular surprise amongst these is number 6 which deals with casualty rates from WWII versus WW.
6 Popular Myths About D-Day Landings Debunked | Historian James Holland
That was eye opening to read. Thanks
Band of Brothers was probably the worst example of Myth #1. Promulgated by Steven Ambrose a well known plagiarist and writer of myths. The first film of the landings came from Canadians. The only unit in the whole shebang to take their D-Day objective was Canadian too. Queen's Own Rifles of Canada.
5,333 Allied ships in total. 110 ships and 10,000 sailors were Canadian. Estimated population of Canada in 1943 was 11.8 million people.
"...Canada was then a British Dominion..." 'Dominion' was just a name that meant nothing.
Once again...wrong information. Read carefully and learn. This is why it pertained to us specifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
do·min·ion
/dəˈminyən/
noun
1.
sovereignty or control.
"man's attempt to establish dominion over nature"
synonyms: supremacy, ascendancy, dominance, domination, superiority, predominance, preeminence, primacy, hegemony, authority, mastery, control, command, direction, power, sway, rule, government, jurisdiction, sovereignty, suzerainty, lordship, overlordship; More
2.
the territory of a sovereign or government.
"the Angevin dominions"
synonyms: dependency, colony, protectorate, territory, province, outpost, satellite, satellite state; holding, possession; historicaltributary, fief; archaicdemesne; realm, kingdom, empire, domain, country, nation, land
"the country was a British dominion for over eighty years"
It is said that this was the biggest sea-borne invasion in history. This is incorrect too. Apparently the invasion of Italy was the biggest - was it at Salerno? Anzio?
Funny growing up with my father generation having been there, I would respond by saying most of that post was BS an straw man arguments.
1) Growing up everyone knew the Brits landings were successful, as was Utah. The focus on Omaha was because it was so difficult. It was not a view that the Brits were not involved. Never heard that statement once, in fact one heard the UK use of funnies and the US ignoring them lead to success on Juno and Gold.
2) Never heard that as well. Did hear a lot of the US units had not been bloodied, and the US replacement system was flawed, and the estimate of infantry replacements needed was undercounted. Few of the enlisted did not view the officer class with distain. But all of the pre summer 1944 soldiers said their training was very through. It was the Vets who were there who said this, not pointy headed modern historians trying to make a name for themselves.
3) No real argument but never heard this either, more the vets felt the Germans were effective opponents.
4) Everybody knew the Germans were sending there B and C team in 1944. That is why folks had respect for the Germans, they were not facing the best and still they fought well.
5) It was the Vets who said the Germans were tactically very good, not official histories of the 1950s and 50s. Both UK and American vets said the same thing, the Jerry fought intelligently and well. It was the vets who lead to the revision of examination of the Germans method of war, compared to the war time projection of Germans being rigid and lacking in small unit leadership.
6) The allies did not get off easy in Normandy, but overall the US and British use of artillery and firepower minimized casualties compared to the Russian method of war.
Frankly that was a pretty poor article, setting up strawman arguments and then debunking them.