Talk:Normandy landings

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2022

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

"If We Have Failed" Dwight D. Eisenhower

FlammableReal (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done; there's no image under that file name. — Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Normandy landings → D-Day – D-Day is the WP:COMMONNAME of this topic, not the "Normandy landings". D-Day is also a generic millitary term, and that article can keep existing under its current name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural close/opposed. Where is your prior discussion of this, before raising an Rfc about it? Rfc's are expensive (in volunteer time), and you should discuss this first, to see if there's some support for your position, before raising it as an Rfc. In addition, I'm opposed on the merits, because en-wiki is not only used by native English speakers, but by many ESL users, and Normandy landings is a naturally descriptive title which everybody can understand, while "D-Day" is more of a jargon accessible to native English speakers. Finally, there's this ngrams chart, which compares the terms, and shows which one is more common. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Mathglot Looking at the previous discussion about this, there is surely some support for my position. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose: Per above Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "Normandy landings" (or more precisely "June 1944 Normandy landings") is less ambiguous. I would be very cautious about ngrams, since it will include other D-Days and therefore show a higher proportion of D-Days than is justified. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Since it gives zero hits for D-Day, I think ngram is broken for words that include dashes. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ngrams process the "-" character as minus. To obtain ngrams for hyphenated phrases we need to insert a space character either side of the the "-" character, and this greatly changes the results:

• English D-Day is the most common.
• British English Until about 2000 there was no clear winner between Normandy landings and D-Day, but currently D-Day is most common.
• American English D-Day is the most common.
• English fiction D-Day is currently the most common, though in the past D Day or Normandy landings have been close rivals.

Except for English fiction, we cannot be sure that all the D-Day and D Day hits are for Normandy - some will be for other operations such as Salerno. Ngrams are useful but other factors need to be taken into account. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose less ambiguous per WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as D-Day is a generic term, and the current title is more specific. Here are links to the previous move discussions: Talk:Normandy landings/Archive 1#Proposed move?, Talk:Normandy landings/Archive 1#Proposed rename of article, Talk:Normandy landings/Archive 2#Requested move 19 October 2014. Consensus has consistently been against a title change to D-Day. — Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but that is not an argument per WP:CCC. Those are 9 years ago and Wikipedia policy is not stable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's not intended as an argument; it's links to previous discussions and my summary of what the consensus was at that time. I am aware that consensus can change. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Okay! Though the last discussion (which you did not linked) resulted in a no consensus, so it's not completely true that it has been consistent consensus against a title change. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. "D-Day" alone is probably a little too ambiguous, but something like "D-Day invasion" would probably be fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. Although the evidence proffered by Toddy1 convinces me that D-Day is likely the most common name for this operation, WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not based wholly on the commonness of a name; I think that Mathglot's point about "Normandy landings" being understandable to a wider audience is also worth considering. The potential ambiguities with other D-Days, and the more colloquial nature of the term "D-Day" in contrast to "Normandy landings", also incline me to lean in favor of the status quo. I think you could make a reasonably strong case for "D-Day landings" as a title, as it circumvents some of the concerns I have about "D-Day" alone. However, on the whole, I think retaining the status quo ("Normandy landings" as title, "D-Day" as redirect) is ultimately the best solution. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, clear COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and sources, clearly the most COMMONNAME since the 90s. Tellingly, the article itself only refers to Normandy landings 13 times, but D-Day 60. D-Day is listed in 18 of the article sources, Normandy landings only 1. If "the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it." WP:EN Tom B (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per @Diannaa Estar8806 (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like the previous RM discussions, I am concerned that "D-Day" by itself is still not a precise term. It is just best to error on retaining the current article title that has been stable enough for all these years. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. D-Day is not precise enough and most serious historians refer to the landings as the Normandy landings. Nobody is denying that "D-Day landings" is commonly used, but the current title is also common and far more precise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose For all the reasons discussed here, and the last time, and the time before that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

Hi I am George P III, and I want to edit this article as I am an expert in my field. Also, just to let you know I've been studying this specific subject for about 5 years so it would be great if I can edit and give some extra but important information. Besides being an expert, I am a scientist and archiologist with 30 years of experience in science and 28 years in archiology. So if you want any additional information on the Normandy landings and what the Germans did to defend the French land they forcefully took over. AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

^OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ok AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

OK AnonymousSushiMan (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Size of force

"The Normandy landings were the largest seaborne invasion in history" Beevor 2009 p74. Only that is not what the reference states on p74. It states the largest sea force assembled in history, then lists the number of ships. Earlier on p72 Beevor states that it was the largest amphibious assault attempted - whether that attempt relates to WW2 or in history is not clarified. The two relevant pages need to be correctly cited, else we have the current POV. Additionally, other secondary sources should be used to support such a key statement in the article. Also, a comparison should be drawn with the invasion of Sicily, which had a similar number of troops in the initial assault (according to WP Sicily had 4,000 more troops) with more tanks, artillery etc during the landing. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

What Beevor says is "Many wondered what the Germans would think when they caught sight of this armada, which was by far the largest fleet that had ever put to sea." My opinion is that it supports the included content. Here's a second source: CNN says "largest sea invasion". — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Diannaa. The issue is not the number of ships in the naval flotilla supporting the landing. The issue is that this was an amphibious invasion i.e. the focus is on what landed from the sea and onto the beach. We need to confirm that it was the largest in history, else we should be saying that it had the largest naval support in history - we need to be accurate. I have little faith in an opinion piece hosted on CNN - regardless of who it is - because it has not been peer reviewed and therefore not open to challenge by the writer's peers. Surely there are reliable secondary sources (history books) that support this statement? I note that the article is GA-rated and refers to many historical works already. 182.239.146.143 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If you are going to do comparisons with other amphibious landings, you need to look at more than the first day - otherwise it all looks misleadingly tiny compared with Soviet operations at the same time. Counting ships does not mean a lot either - many of the vessels that crossed the English Channel were very small. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Beevor, the size of the invasion fleet was the largest in history. Do we need to amend it to say that instead? Something like "The invasion fleet was the largest in history." But this might not be necessary, as we also have sourced content elsewhere in the article that says "The official British history gives an estimated figure of 156,115 men landed on D-Day." Was this not the largest one-day troop landing in history? Do you know of one that was bigger? — Diannaa (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"The millionth Allied solider crossed the beach on 4 July." Ruppenthal Logistical Support of the Armies Volume 1, page 457.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Negative tone re Allied first day achievements

Whilst factually correct, the tone of this is overly negative. A reader could well think this had been a disaster or a German victory; it was not!

“The Allies failed to achieve any of their major goals beyond the establishment of the beachheads on the first day. Carentan, Saint-Lô, and Bayeux remained in German hands, and Caen, a major objective, was not captured until 21 July. Only two of the beaches (Juno and Gold) were linked on the first day, and all five beachheads were not connected until 12 June; however, the operation gained a foothold that the Allies gradually expanded over the coming months.”

It reads as though D Day was a failure. It was a resounding success! The allies established a beachhead which the Germans never reversed - never even looked like reversing - and so the Germans lost the war; this was the main aim. It is not to be an aside following ‘however’!

Caen was not captured until 21 July because the Germans didn’t do the sensible thing and withdraw to a more-easily defended position. Hitler’s military training was as a corporal on the Western Front - never yield an inch of land; he lost endless men and materiél through failure to withdraw. As a result of a month’s intense fighting near the coast the German army in France was effectively defeated in Normandy and the liberation of Paris and then arriving at the Rhine followed quickly after.

The objective was the liberation of France, which was achieved spectacularly quickly - e.g. the supply lines became over-extended as the Germans collapsed too quickly. The reason for this collapse was that they defended every inch of Normandy and were defeated there.

In terms of choosing objectives, simple psychology requires the setting of objectives that are unachievable. That way productivity is higher than if achievable objectives are set. Failure to achieve impossible targets does not amount to failure.

The Allies do not deserve this negativity; D-Day was an overwhelming victory. Elements of this article read as though they were written by Goebbels! D-Day was not essentially a success for the Germans. Quincefish (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What about: “The Allies succeeded in establishing beachheads on the first day that the Germans were unable to reverse; the Germans failed in their aim to throw the Allies back into the sea. Other goals beyond the establishment of the beachheads proved to be unachievable on the first day. Carentan, Saint-Lô, and Bayeux remained in German hands, and Caen, a major objective, was not captured until 21 July. Two of the beaches (Juno and Gold) were linked on the first day, all five beachheads were not connected until 12 June; however, the operation gained an irreversible foothold that the Allies gradually expanded over the coming months.” Quincefish (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the "Aftermath" section of the article, you can see that the Allies failed to attain any of their major objectives and suffered ten times more casualties than the Germans (10,000 vs 1,000). It was certainly not a failure, and we don't say that it is. But it reflects what the sources have to say about the first day of the invasion.

The lead is a summary of the article, and must not contain content not present in the article. The article for example does not state a German aim as being to throw the Allies back into the sea; and it does not say that the foothold the Allies attained was irreversible. So we can't include those additions.

To sum up, my opinion is that the content you suggest changing gives a realistic assessment of D-Day and does not need to be beefed up the make things look more positive. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)