Talk:Operation Overlord/Archive 2

Help needed please
Please help. I am working on building up the article for Battle for Caen, which was obviously part of Overlord. I started on the controversy about the fact that Montgomery failed to achieve some D-Day objectives, specifically capturing Caen, and then pretended that everything went according to his “real” original plan after all. Another editor is fiercely defending Montgomery, ruling that actual correspondence from Eisenhower and other commanders of the time are “primary sources” that must take second place to the secondary sources, even though the actual correspondence from Eisenhower and other commanders are presented in secondary sources, and that all the secondary sources which criticize Montgomery were written by people who simply failed to understand Monty’s genius plans, and who were part of a 1970’s conspiracy. It’s getting to be a bit of an alt-truth situation. Please could some other editors who are knowledgeable on the subject, assist on the Battle for Caen article? Wdford (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The original COSSAC plan for Overlord called for a breakout in the East but Montgomery hadn't liked that plan so he had changed it.


 * Perhaps his critics ought to have taken the time and trouble - as Bradley did (see quote below) - to update their knowledge of what was actually planned and not rely on one what had been made long obsolete by 6th June.


 * Montgomery's British and Canadian forces were between the German panzer reserves and Bradley's US forces. To get to Bradley the German armour had to pass through Caen first. How difficult is that to grasp. Montgomery knew where the panzer reserves were stationed, as he had access before D-Day to ULTRA reports telling him exactly where the reserves were before D-Day even started. So he planned what happened.


 * Because of Operation Bodyguard Hitler was unsure of where the invasion forces would actually land. Because of this, as a compromise he had ordered the panzer reserves to be stationed mid-way between the two expected invasion areas; Pas-de-Calais and Normandy. He also ordered that on no account would the panzer reserves be moved without his own express authorization. Montgomery knew all this, due to ULTRA.


 * Montgomery also knew that for the Germans Caen was too important for them to give up, it was the main road and rail hub for the whole area and the route by which German reinforcements from other areas would arrive, and so they would fight for it. This he wanted, as they would keep pouring their panzer reserves in to the area around Caen rather than sending them on to face Bradley. In the fighting in and around Caen these panzer reserves were slowly being destroyed.


 * In order for the Germans to think they were doing the correct thing in tenaciously holding on to Caen - and to keep them sending their armour there - Montgomery could not be seen to be disinterested in taking Caen. It had to look like he wanted it. That's called Psychology.


 * Some 70 years on and his critics still can't see what Montgomery did, the simplicity of it, the cleverness. That doesn't say much about the critics, does it.


 * BTW, in military staff colleges it is usually reckoned to require a superiority in numbers of 300% in order to successfully carry out a land invasion. Montgomery did an amphibious one - far more difficult - with a numerical superiority of only 25%.


 * I nearly forgot. In the period immediately after the war, before the founding of NATO, the British asked the remnants of the German high command, including the surviving senior officers who had fought the Allies, who they would prefer to be in command of the British forces responsible for defending Germany against the looming threat from the Soviets. They unanimously asked for Montgomery. Not for one of his critics.

"'The containment mission that had been assigned Monty was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishment of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realize that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. By the end of June, Rommel had concentrated seven panzer divisions against Monty’s British Sector. One was all the enemy could spare for the US front.' - Omar Bradley."


 * These 'seven panzer divisions' were mostly Waffen SS ones, including the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend, the 9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen, the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, the 10th SS Panzer Division Frundsberg, the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, etc. The non-SS panzer division was the Panzer Lehr. These panzer divisions were pretty much destroyed around Caen, the 12th SS Hitlerjugend losing around 80% of its strength there, the 9th SS Hohenstaufen losing 50% of its personnel, figures typical for the others as well.


 * FYI the only US commanders in Europe aware of ULTRA in 1944 were Marshall and Eisenhower, together with a few US personnel stationed at Bletchley Park. The existence of ULTRA itself was only officially admitted/revealed by the British government under the thirty-year rule in 1973-75.


 * IIRC, the only commanders on the British side who knew were Montgomery and, if my memory serves me correctly, Alan Brooke.


 * None of these officer's subordinates (except for those liaison officers who's job it was to distribute its information) in either army knew anything about ULTRA. And neither did any of the published authors writing before 1973. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.249 (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why aren’t the lower German casualty estimates shown
I honestly suspect this article of bias. It currently shows the absolute highest estimates of German casualties but doesn’t show the lower estimates too, which are in most cases below 300,000. This should be reflected on here. Roddy the roadkill (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
 * Oh, I see that you did provide a figure. The source says that it's the casualties for the Westheer, so may not include the casualties suffered by German air force and navy units. I note also that the work given as a reference isn't about the Battle of Normandy: it's a specialist work on the German response to Operation Market Garden. What other sources provide figures under 300,000? Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "What other sources provide figures under 300,000?" The Imperial War Museum, for one. --Roddy the roadkill (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Tamelander and Zetterling provide a figure under 300,000. However, their book on Operation Overlord is written in Swedish, but I have a copy and can provide quotations. Kindest /EriFr (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Those two chappies are already used in the article: "German forces in France reported losses of 158,930 men between D-Day and 14 August, just before the start of Operation Dragoon in Southern France.[202]"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been reading Niklas Letterling's book "Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness". On page 77, he points out that in British literature German casualties in Normandy are often put at 450,000 (210,000 prisoner and 240,000 killed/wounded) and that this seems to come from Montgomery and his book "From Normandy to the Baltic". Zetterling states:"Probably they are nothing more than wartime estimates, a notoriously unreliable source"(frankly, Monty was notoriously self-important anyways)"There are, however, German documents that provide a better picture. The following casualties were recorded during the summer of 1944 for OB West:
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

!Date !Killed in Action !Wounded !Missing
 * June
 * 4,975
 * 14,631
 * 15,848
 * July
 * 10,839
 * 38,824
 * 55,135
 * August
 * 7,205
 * 13,605
 * 127,633
 * Total
 * 23,019
 * 67,060
 * 198,616
 * }
 * These figures have been compared to by-name lists of killed soldiers and found to be very reliable." To add, he says these figures include the entire western theater to August 31, and so they include losses from Operation Dragoon. So total German casualties in the west were 288,695(the number of missing obviously includes captured as the Germans wouldn't know the whereabouts of those soldiers) in this period. Admittedly, I haven't read either of the currently cited books for the absurd estimate of German casualties in Normandy. But considering that they are named "D-Day in Photographs" and "Eyewitness D-Day: Firsthand Accounts from the Landing at Normandy to the Liberation of Paris" respectively, does anyone actually think that they should be favored over a specialized history on German forces in Normandy when it comes to German casualties in Operation Overlord? As far as I'm concerned, the two former books are discredited in this regard, and the estimate should be replaced with 288,000. That's the same number I cited from a different source and just like I suspected it was in Zetterling's book too.--Roddy the roadkill (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing, off-topic from German casualties. Zetterling states on page 34 of this same book: “Clearly the method used here to calculate German overall strength in Normandy is approximate. However, since the vast majority of German manpower was employed in divisions and GHQ combat units, there is no room for significant errors. Thus it seems safe to conclude that not many more than 640,000 Germans may have fought in Normandy or supported those operations.” Read the entirety of “4 — Number of Soldiers Employed in Normandy”(its only 8 pages) to see how he got to that estimate of German strength in Normandy. Does anyone think the second number given for German manpower should be changed, at least to include this as a lower-end figure for the total estimate of German forces in Normandy?—Roddy the roadkill (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "The argument in previous edits and on the talkpage was for the inclusion of the lower figure in the infobox; no consensus for removing the overall higher figures that include captured etc......Likewise, concensus is needed on the talkpage to remove all other estimates and soley rely on one source" — Can there at least be someone who'll actually respond to the previous two posts I've written so we can see what the actual consensus is? While you are correct that the initial argument was about including the lower casualty estimate, I feel after reading Zetterling's book that I put forth a convincing argument as to why there is a high probability of unreliability in the two other sources; the two books in question are a visual history of D-Day and an Eye witness account of Operation Overlord respectively. In other words, they are books stooped in memoirs and photographs(and about the allies) rather than the specific analysis and records that would bare actual merit to such claims. Considering I had to do a lot of extra research after supplying an initial source just to have the "lower" (in actuality the most common as has been stated several times citing several examples through this discussion) estimate included, the other estimates should be held to the same standard. While my initial source was a book primarily about Operation Market Garden, which apparently disavowed it from being included, that is no more mitigating than one source being from a book about first person perspectives of allied soldiers in Normandy, nothing to do with the examination of the overall forces, and the other being only about D-Day. Hopefully, I'm not out of line for saying all this.--Roddy the roadkill (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I sympathize, I do. Yes, we should get more editors involved to look at the additional information you have highlighted and reexamine current sources; completely agree. However, the higher figures are not just from questionable sources. For example, I consulted the American, British, and Canadian official histories of the campaign. I do not have access to the German official history. The British one does not appear to have overall German casualty information, only Allied. The others:
 * Blumenson (Martin Blumenson, Breakout and Pursuit, p. 700) does not provide exact figures, but places German losses for 6 June until 11 September at over 400,000: "Excluding the forces in southern France, where losses were light, Allied casualties from 6 June to 11 September numbered almost 40,000 killed, 164,000 wounded, and 20,000 missing-a total of 224,000, which was less than half the German casualties in the west." and "During June, July, and August the Germans had lost a minimum of 1,200,000 troops killed, wounded, missing, and captured, casualties of which approximately two thirds had been incurred in the east" He sources his statements to SHAEF G-3 War Room Summary pp. 99-102.
 * He further notes that "The OB WEST staff later estimated that the campaign in the west, from the invasion to the West Wall, and including southern France, had cost Germany about 500,000 troops, of which about 200,000 had been lost in the coastal fortresses." That statement is sourced to OB WEST, a Study in Command, pp. 192ff. Granted, both of these points include events and dates outside the scope of this article.
 * Stacey (Charles Stacey, The Victory Campaign, p. 270) is more specific, stating that "By 25 August the enemy had lost, in round numbers, 400,000 killed, wounded, or captured, of which total 200,000 were prisoners of war. One hundred and thirty-five thousand of these prisoners had been taken since the beginning of our breakthrough on 25 July. Thirteen hundred tanks, 20,000 vehicles, 500 assault guns, and 1500 field guns and heavier artillery pieces had been captured or destroyed, apart from the destruction inflicted upon the Normandy coast defenses." His citation for these figures is "the statement in General Eisenhower's report, covering the whole period since 6 June, is certainly generally accurate".
 * Sourcing information from Army Group "B" Weekly Reports, C.R.S. 75145/5. Schramm, Der Westen, 150, Stacey comments that "Completely satisfactory statistics are not available from the German records. Army Group "B" reported that its casualties from 6 June until 13 August were 158,930 in all categories. The next weekly report, that for the week ending 20 August, remarks, not surprisingly, "Figures not yet computed"; and the reports for the succeeding period are not to be found. However, on 29 September the Commander-in-Chief West stated that army casualties for the period since 6 June had risen to 371,400, while naval and air force losses increased the grand total to 460,900." While I respect, and have used Zetterling in the past, Stacey attacks - albeit several decades in advance - the position he seems to have taken. Zetterling, per the above summary provided by you, calls the German records more accurate than Allied estimates, yet Stacey appears to come up the opposite conclusion; they are flawed and not accurate. Either way, I feel that the reader should be provided with the broadest ranges - high and low - to reflect the varying sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to all the sources I once had on the campaign, but a few other sources from the wealth of Normandy literature out there:
 * Carlo D'Este, who could not be described as a "British" source considering his rampant bias, places German losses at 200,000 killed and wounded, and a further 200,000 captured. He also notes that German graveyards in Normandy are home to 77,866 graves. He sources his information to (D'Este, Decision in Normandy, p. 517) the 'Supreme Commander's Report, p. 62. He notes "Figures are an approximation in-asmuch as an exact county was impossible to obtain."(D'Este, p. 518)
 * Canadian historian Terry Copp comments "On 29 September the [OB WEST] reported losses of 371,400 soldiers and total losses of 460,900 when naval and air elements were included." He appears to source this to Stacey. Copp further comments "Zetterling, argues that losses in Normandy were just over 200,000 to 22 August. He does not calculate further losses. Army Group B placed its losses at 158,930 up to 14 August and 75,000 1 to 25 September, but did not report losses for 15 to 31 August." No exact reference is provided for the latter. (Copp, Fields of Fire, p. 319)
 * Chester Wilmot, a very "British source", comments that between 6 June and July 23rd, "Seventh Army and Panzer Group West lost 116,863 killed, wounded or missing". His citation is after a comment in regards to replacements, so I am not sure if these figures are pulled from "Weekly Report of Army Group B, July 24th, 1944 (Tempelhof Papers.)" (Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe, p. 386) He later notes that "...the culmination of ten weeks' heavy fighting which had cost the Germans half a million casualties of whom 210,000 had been taken prisoners."(Wilmot, p. 434)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hitting up Google Books, with no idea on the quality or reliability of the below sources, one again finds varying estimates:
 * I do not have access to all the sources I once had on the campaign, but a few other sources from the wealth of Normandy literature out there:
 * Carlo D'Este, who could not be described as a "British" source considering his rampant bias, places German losses at 200,000 killed and wounded, and a further 200,000 captured. He also notes that German graveyards in Normandy are home to 77,866 graves. He sources his information to (D'Este, Decision in Normandy, p. 517) the 'Supreme Commander's Report, p. 62. He notes "Figures are an approximation in-asmuch as an exact county was impossible to obtain."(D'Este, p. 518)
 * Canadian historian Terry Copp comments "On 29 September the [OB WEST] reported losses of 371,400 soldiers and total losses of 460,900 when naval and air elements were included." He appears to source this to Stacey. Copp further comments "Zetterling, argues that losses in Normandy were just over 200,000 to 22 August. He does not calculate further losses. Army Group B placed its losses at 158,930 up to 14 August and 75,000 1 to 25 September, but did not report losses for 15 to 31 August." No exact reference is provided for the latter. (Copp, Fields of Fire, p. 319)
 * Chester Wilmot, a very "British source", comments that between 6 June and July 23rd, "Seventh Army and Panzer Group West lost 116,863 killed, wounded or missing". His citation is after a comment in regards to replacements, so I am not sure if these figures are pulled from "Weekly Report of Army Group B, July 24th, 1944 (Tempelhof Papers.)" (Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe, p. 386) He later notes that "...the culmination of ten weeks' heavy fighting which had cost the Germans half a million casualties of whom 210,000 had been taken prisoners."(Wilmot, p. 434)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hitting up Google Books, with no idea on the quality or reliability of the below sources, one again finds varying estimates:


 * 210,000 killed, wounded, or missing out of a total of 640,000 men committed 1
 * 300,000: 2
 * 400,000: 3
 * 450,000: 4, 5, 6
 * ranging from 210,000 men to 393,689 and 450,000 men 7
 * Just to clarify: I am not saying Zetterling is wrong. His computation of the German statistics could be very well the most precise and accurate figures there will ever be. However, this is the wiki. Per policy, we are suppose to show what the sources reflect. They reflect broad differences. I would argue for an infobox showing the lowest and highest estimates, and the main text to be slightly expanded to show how the various sources have arrived at their conclusions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding in-depth. The infobox sounds like a good idea. Other than that; perhaps, similar to the article on the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria dealing with Soviet estimates on Japanese losses, there could be "allied claim" written next to the estimates from sources that cite SHAEF, George Marshall etc. As a response to that historian Terry Copp, as mentioned earlier OB West according to Zetterling reported collective casualties in the entire western theater from June 6 to August 31 as being 288,695, of which at least some portion came from Dragoon. So regardless of the losses of Army Group B in particular, there is an obvious roof to German losses in Normandy, and him mentioning a report that includes losses up to September 29, nearly a month after Overlord ended, while not addressing the total losses of OB West to August 31 mentioned by Zetterling, makes me suspicious of him.--Roddy the roadkill (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Based off the information at hand, and the wording used by the historians, I would oppose using terms like "Allied claim"/"German claim" etc. Trying to adhere by the polices of WP:Truth and WP:NPOV, I feel a brief explanation within the main text should be sufficient to provide all points of views (and remove the weaker sources) while also detailing how each have arrived at each figure; this will allow an explanation of Zetterling's lower figures, and careful wording can indicate where the higher figures come from.
 * To establish broader consensus, we can ping the other main editors of this article who may not have seen the debate above?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Was just suggesting that cause of the way the "Soviet Invasion of Manchuria" article handled it.--Roddy the roadkill (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the above discussion, pinging users who have been active on the talkpage or the article page in the last little while:, , , , and EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. No arguments here. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 6:50 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Sorry for not being able to offer any useful input into the above discussion; I do not have access to all of the sources you are discussing. Most are not available locally and only some are available via inter-library loan in my area (Alberta). I have no objection to both upper and casualty estimates and their sources being provided in the infobox or explanatory prose being added to the body. High quality data is always welcome, and every article has room for improvement. I agree with EnigmaMcmxc that wording such as "Allied claim"/"German claim" should be avoided; better to say "Historian A says X; source B says Y" or the like. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the casualty estimates provided by reliable sources vary considerably, one option is to present them to readers as a table. I found this to be the best solution in the Air raids on Japan article (please see Air raids on Japan). Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the input; so in agreement with the lowest to highest casualty estimates in the infobox (based off better quality sources), and not introducing "Allied/German estimates" verbiage.
 * In regards to the actual wording in the article, I propose the following (very rough) draft:

Battle map needed
This article needs a detailed, phased battle map very badly. It needs one similar to the maps found at Battle of Sirte (2016) and Battle of al-Bab. Without a clear, overall campaign map, its difficult for readers to determine the exact gains that the Allies had made by the end of the campaign.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This site should be a good place to start.  Light and Dark2000  (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There already is such a map in the 'Breakout from the beachhead' section. File:Expanding the beachhead.jpg covers the earlier stages of the campaign, and could potentially be added. There are probably other maps in the Commons Maps of the Battle of Normandy category Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Overlord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160907063752/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/57267-1/Stephen+Ambrose.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/57267-1/Stephen+Ambrose.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Pas de Calais deception -obituary of Windows dropping pilot
Dont't know if this is useful Presumably it's a part of Operation Fortitude South JRPG (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * See Operation Glimmer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks 95.149.173.52 for that JRPG (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Chinese involvement
I have removed China from the infobox as a participant. The source quoted names one individual on HMS Searcher and he says he was one of twenty individuals who served with the RN some of whom were directly involved. Firstly Searcher was not involved in Overlord at all, she was escorting convoys from the UK to the Med at that time so we are left with hearsay as to other Chinese nationals. Secondly I feel that for a nation to be regarded as a participant it should have an organised body of troops or unit under its direct command involved not merely some individuals serving in another nations forces Lyndaship (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna disagree with the removal, just want to note that the Chinese naval cadets were officially sent by the Chinese government to serve on RN ships so that they could be trained, so technically they were not individual foreign volunteers but members of the Chinese military. That said, if HMS Searcher didn't participate, then China was not a participant in this battle anyway. Tree2sprig (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Content I removed
I investigated further regarding the content I removed as unsuitable/unsourced, and it turns out it's a shorter version of the same material that was removed on April 13 as a violation of our copyright policy. Posting here for clarity's sake, because I've just performed revision deletion and the copyright issue was not mentioned in my edit summary when I removed it, because I did not yet realise that it was a copyright policy violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent problomatic edit
""for a total of 29,204 American killed, 24,173 British Commonwealth killed and 53,454 combined allied killed.""

An Anon has added the above to the article, totaling from the sourced information that states:

""Between 6 June and the end of August, the American armies suffered 124,394 casualties, of whom 20,668 were killed.[f] Casualties within the First Canadian and Second British Armies are placed at 83,045: 15,995 killed, 57,996 wounded, and 9,054 missing.[g] Of these, Canadian losses amounted to 18,444, with 5,021 killed in action.[198] The Allied air forces, having flown 480,317 sorties in support of the invasion, lost 4,101 aircraft and 16,714 airmen (8,536 members of the USAAF, and 8,178 flying under the command of the RAF).""

I have reverted the edit as there are, in my opinion, several critical problems with it:
 * 1) It does not make sense the way it is tagged onto the end of the sentence about air losses.
 * 2) "Casualties within the First Canadian and Second British Armies" does not provide a total for "British Commonwealth killed"; French commandos landed on Sword, and Belgian, Czech, and Dutch forces all landed and briefly operated in Normandy under these two armies. These personnel were not British, Canadian, or people of the Commonwealth and the source states army losses not national losses.
 * 3) "American armies" - Likewise. For example, the French 1st Arm Div was part of the US thrust during the final stages of the campaign.
 * 4) The source does not specify if the "8,178 flying under the command of the RAF" were purely members of the Commonwealth. Belgian, Czech, Dutch, French, Norwegian, and Polish squadrons and personnel flew over the battlezone and operated out of Normandy air strips. The source does not provide a breakdown for these various nationalities, who I do not believe can be "considered the equivalent of foreign raised Waffen SS forces not being distinguished from "German" forces".

Additional editor input required.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right that it was sloppy to slap it at the end of a sentence about Airmen losses, but the citation for the dead amongst 'American Armies' states that it came from "a final report on US casualties", the wording used is obvious, as is the statement of "members of USAAF" as opposed to "under the command of the RAF". I'll grant you the British Commonwealth, I suppose I had the Belgian troops serving in the Guards Armoured Division in mind, apologies for the ignorant statement. --107.77.218.40 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Belgian, Czech, Dutch, French, Norwegian, and Polish squadrons and personnel flew over the battlezone and operated out of Normandy air strips" - these people where all "flying under the" operational "command of the RAF".


 * Allowing un-co-ordinated to-ing-and-fro-ing over Britain and the British area of responsibility on the continent by all-and-sundry would have made for a UK air defence nightmare. The only people doing that by 1944 were the Luftwaffe and they were liable to be attacked and shot down.


 * Contemporary published RAF casualty figures from the period are likely to include all these "Free" air forces with any distinctions by nationality being collated post-war as many of these aircrew still had families and friends in occupied countries who might get a surprise visit from the Gestapo, and so these aircrew were treated by the UK for administrative purposes as 'RAF'.


 * Contemporary Flight RAF/RAAF/RCAF/RNZAF/SAAF aircrew casualties ("Roll of Honour") for 27th July 1944 here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland
Why have WikiProject Poland, when many other nations were included, with major or minor forces. Either Poland should be excluded, or all nations included.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was added by Yobot in 2015. I think we can remove it.— Diannaa (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Colonies
A variety of British Colonies are mentioned as separate combatants. India, Canada, New Zealand and few others should either be removed from the infobox or put under British Empire. Kommune12 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? 🍁🍁— Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)🍁🍁
 * I think the criteria here is that the participation requires a formed unit under the command of its own national government. Furthermore I would suggest it should be a land unit. The Indians seem to be individuals who served in British Army and Royal Air Force formations, the Luxemburgers served in a Belgian unit which if I read the source correctly did not arrive until August, many of the other nations mentioned I suspect only contributed naval units. Lyndaship (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bit a difference between Empire (India) and Commonwealth (Canada, New Zealand). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Canada and New Zealand both had their own national governments at the time. — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again I have to ask why. Why would you remove countries that only arrived in August? Why should only land units be included? — Diannaa (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I see that the end of the campaign is given as 30 August and Overlord includes the naval forces in Operation Neptune but I still hold that the Luxemburgers were part of the Belgian forces and not a national contingent. On British India the source given (which I doubt could be considered a RS) mentions three individuals in RAF units and a rather vague assertion that Indians served in many British formations, none of which were under the control of the British administration in India. As with the removal of China discussed above I think British India should be removed Lyndaship (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The source given for India doesn't seem reliable at all, so I've removed it. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur about reliability: no sources etc. I did google some of the names:
 * Mohinder Singh Pujji, seems to be well documented not being involved in Normandy.
 * Karun Krishna Majumdar was apparently part of 268 Squadron RAF during the Normandy campaign, although I am not sure of the sources quoted.
 * Daffadar Puran Singh, who was a member of the 11th Prince Albert Victor's Own Cavalry, was killed and is buried in France The PAVO did not take part, as a unit, in the NW Europe campaign.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. It's entirely possible that a significant number of Indians were involved in this campaign (with this not being noted in the current standard works on the topic), but this would need to be supported by a strong reference. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In my limited search yesterday, I could not find mention of Indian troops being in the 6th Airborne. I recently read a good portion of the "official" history for the 3rd Div in the 1944-45 campaign, and I don't recall mention of it. There is nothing in the index to go off either. Likewise, for the campaign official history by Ellis.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't recall seeing this in any of the many works on the campaign I've read. But there's been some interesting and important work over recent years which has uncovered the extraordinary lack of coverage accorded to the huge numbers of non-white personnel in the Allied forces in France in World War I, so I'm entirely prepared to be convinced that India played a significant role in this battle if reliable sources to support this can be provided. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The largest colonial contingent would have been with the RAF, viz RAF Bomber Command, which had aircrew personnel from all over the world, including from such diverse colonies as Fiji, Trinidad, etc., as well as from India, Malaysia, Burma, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, et al.


 * IIRC, with the end of the North African campaign Indian Army units fighting there with the 8th Army were re-deployed with the rest of the 8th Army for the invasion of Sicily and Italy, the bulk of the Indian Army being retained at home for the defence of India and the liberation of Singapore, Malaya, and Burma as part of the XIV Army. Thus IIRC no Indian Army units participated in the invasion, but there were numerous Indian personnel taking part, as well as those from other colonies, via their membership of the RAF, which someone at the time had described as 'the most cosmopolitan organisation on Earth'.

Drawing forces away from the Eastern Front?
"Campaign close" says that the Normandy landings "hastened the end of the war in Europe, drawing large forces away from the Eastern Front that might otherwise have slowed the Soviet advance". There doesn't seem to be a source for this statement. What forces were moved from the Eastern Front?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The content was added back in 2010, and you are correct, it does not have a source. I will remove it.— Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Most of the 8 to 9 1/2 panzer divisions eventually fighting in Normandy had been withdrawn from the Eastern front, either to re-equip - e.g., with the brand new Tiger II - or as a 'fire brigade' force once the invasion had started.


 * The actual invasion may not have drawn forces away as such, but the opening of a second Front, which the invasion caused, most certainly did.

German Overlord casualties
A recent edit stated that Zetterling's casualty figure includes losses from Dragoon. Can this be double checked? Is Zetterling only considering killed and wounded? Is he including captured in his stats? I ask, as if Dragoon was included in his figures, is he saying Germany losses were only around 130,000 for the campaign (current figure in the info box minus the killed, wounded, and captured during the course of Dragoon)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * when you added this content back in 2017. Do you still have access to that book by Zetterling? I don't have access at all, no library in Alberta has a copy according to the inter-library loan service. — Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had forgot about that edit. I want to say I was merging or providing a range based off prior content, since it is a book I don't have unfortunately.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the same editor who added that to the infobox was also involved in an extensive discussion in 2017 about these numbers. I did not participate as I don't have access to any of the sources that were being discussed. Talk:Operation Overlord/Archive 2 is the discussion. — Diannaa (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The second edition of the work is available on Google Books currently.
 * The relevant page seems to be 73 and 74 in this edition. On p. 73 and cited to Der Heeresarzt om OKH GenSt D H/GenQu Az 1335 c/d (IIb), personelle blutige Verluste des Feldheeres, Berichtigte Meldung fur die Zet vom 1.6.1944 bis 10.1.1945, T78, R414, F6383234, he notes German losses for the entire western theatre to be 23,019 killed, 67,060 wounded, and 198,616 missing. He specially highlights that this includes losses suffered in southern France.
 * On p. 74, he notes that his later table of divisional losses (divisions in Normandy only) amounts to about 206,000 casualties, but the losses in that time are potentially too high. He latter concedes that the German reports do not include the personnel losses from when airfields or naval bases were overrun as that information was not available. He also provides the weekly report up until 13 August, cited to a couple of reports from August, that German losses amounted to 158,930 casualties, but concedes that they probably underscore the losses at Cherbourg for example.
 * It is interesting to note that the main German cemeteries in Normandy hold just under 57,000 German dead, and more are interned in Allied cemeteries. A common figure for overall burials is usually around 80,000. The German prisoners of war in northwest Europe article includes cites for Allied intel reports and contemporary news reports indicating around 230,000 prisoners taken as a result of the Normandy fighting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the German official history too. Unless I missed it, the authors do not seem to provide German losses for the Normandy campaign. They do note that allied estimated German losses between 4–500,000, but they leave it at that and do not engage. For southern France though, they cite 141,000 dead, wounded, missing, or abandoned in fortified areas due to illness (p.661, vol VII). Those losses are cited to "KTB .Gr G, 1-30 Sept. 1944, BA-MA, RH 19 XII/31, together with app to KTB AOK 19, telex to H.Gr. G, 20 Sept. 1944, ibid., RH 2019/86" in addition to the secondary sources by Ludewig and Vogel.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick re-read of what I wrote, compared to the source and have removed a few lines from my comment that were wrong. I was reading through some things online that pointed to a couple of other sources:
 * Ludewig, 1994, Der deutsche Rückzug aus Frankreich 1944, p. 245: places Allied losses at 220,000 men and and German losses at 289,000 men. Unable to identify the source material for either.
 * Müller-Hillebrand, Das Heer v. III, p. 171 places German losses in the west at 54,754 dead and 338,933 missing. I have been unable to find this online. One work did quote these figures but stated that they were losses from June to September, it did not indicate if this meant August 31 (so up until September) or if it was inclusive so September 30.
 * I also read some comments from historians who noted that Allied POW counts included everyone that was picked up, even if they were not from non-combat formations for example, laborers from the Reich Labour Service etc. Although, we would need a source for that, and it could help - in part - explain the difference between Allied and German figures.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

German casualties
Ok, looking through the talk page I see there was a discussion about this before.

Firstly; There is no basis of accusing me of vandalism, I clearly explained to you why, and your only excuse is “well that’s because you don’t like it.” Uh, why don’t you explain why you don’t agree with it instead of base less accusations? It is not vandalism by any definition, the sources aren’t even “removed” from the article as you falsely claim, just form the infobox, anyone can read. Nobody made you the official arbiter of the Overlord wiki page, my opinion holds just as much weight as yours on Wikipedia.

As you yourself said in previous discussions on this article, the high number is literally an allied estimate. It has no basis in German material. Notice on the battle of the bulge page German “estimates” on allied losses are not used either (Göbbels claimed over 100,000). — Will Tyson for real (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have displayed a recent pattern of removing any source, figures, or outcomes from info boxes that you do not like, as well as not engaging with source material that you do not like. You have, on other talkpages, displayed a willingness to cherry-pick in order to support these edits. Continually removing material from the infobox, which you do not agree with, looks like straight up vandalism. It is that - material cited to sources - that counts, not my opinion and not yours.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you’re lying again. I haven’t removed anything “because I don’t like it”, I believe in preferential treatment of own casualty reports versus estimates by enemy forces yes, but not in outright removing those other estimates from the entire article, and my edits reflect that. I did the same thing recently with the Battle of Okinawa page, where not only did the article blatantly misrepresent the sources actually quoted, but conflicted with the actual casualties reports (the source I used cites the After Action reports of Tenth Army in that case.) with the only explanation being an argument not even used in the quoted source. Another user even thanked me for those edits. Funny, nobody else considered that vandalism or an unwillingness to engage with the sources, only you. It’s not removal of sources either, you keep lying again, they are still featured in the casualties section just like in the Okinawa article, they aren’t featured in the infobox because actual loss reports should and are trusted for own units losses to a greater degree, and that should be reflected somehow. German loss reports give a figure of 288,000 for the entire western front during this period, and yet you’ve decided that the infobox must include both. Somehow, if I gave you a source giving allied losses as 500,000 without basis, I suspect you wouldn’t be as eager to include both in that case.


 * If an author shows why his differs from the casualty reports and why his might be more trustworthy, that’s a different matter, but the 530,000 figure used here doesn’t even try to reconcile the difference, only you with false arguments. Will Tyson for real (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking back through the discussion history; I see you admit that you don’t even own Zetterlings book. If you did maybe you’d agree with me. Will Tyson for real (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "preferential treatment" - right there, you rather have the sources in the infobox that you like rather than engage with what others state. Your edit history over several articles and on this display the same point - your preferred source, rather than presenting that there is not a consensus and information varies depending on source.
 * If you even bothered to read the above discussion in full, you will note that I tracked down and linked to Zetterlings' second edition to verify the figures he stated and ensure his position was accurately displayed in the article. Yes, he is well known for the work that he did on German casualties based off archival review. However, he is not the consensus on the subject and - to the best of my knowledge - no one over the last 20 years has stated all other figures are wrong and is are the only correct ones. The infoboxes are not dedicated to Zetterling. They display the range of information that is available. German historians have even presented conflicting figures compared to Zetterling.
 * Instead of your little spiel about bias at the end, how about you find a source that states there were 500,000 Allied casualties and we can gladly add it in. You will note after your similar edits to the Operation Goodwood article, reinserted the range on British tank losses to reflect the high and low point. You are really barking up the wrong tree.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Except this “tree” happens to make false accusations like vandalism. I’d recommend you actually read what Wikipedia classifies as Vandalism; Vandalism on Wikipedia “Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way” nothing I did is remotely close to that.

'''‘"preferential treatment" - right there, you rather have the sources in the infobox that you like rather than engage with what others state. Your edit history over several articles and on this display the same point - your preferred source, rather than presenting that there is not a consensus and information varies depending on source...Yes, he is well known for the work that he did on German casualties based off archival review. However, he is not the consensus on the subject and - to the best of my knowledge - no one over the last 20 years has stated all other figures are wrong and is are the only correct ones. The infoboxes are not dedicated to Zetterling.’''' Now you’re just being plain obtuse. Leaving aside there is definitely such things as preferred sources on Wikipedia, otherwise reliable and unreliable sources wouldn’t even be differentiated and anybody could post anything here, my point is not that Zetterling should be the sole arbiter, if you pay attention you’d notice I bring up the problem of the other sources because the complete lack of German primary sources used in “Eyewitness D-Day: Firsthand Accounts from the Landing at Normandy to the Liberation of Paris“ and “D-Day in Photographs” or Wilmots book used as sources for 400,000 -530,000 German casualties. I only bring up bias because you insinuated it first. If you want to use higher numbers than 288,000 then fine, but cite an author who gives a reliable primary source for this. “Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.” so that begs the question of the primary source for the higher figures, because they don’t give any German archives as their primary source. Or are you actually saying any number an author claims can be put up on an infobox?

Otherwise, it’s not just German data either that supports low figures. In Charles MacDonalds “Siegfried Line” campaign, part of the ‘green book series’ that comprise the official U.S. military history of WWII, MacDonald notes as of September 11…”Since the landings in Normandy, the Germans had lost approximately 300,000 men, while another 200,000 were pinned in various redoubts.” ‘Various redoubts’ would include cut-off German held Atlantic and Channel areas like St. Nazaire, Bordeaux, Lorient, La Rochelle, Dunkirk, Channel Islands etc that lasted all the way to the end of the war and were not casualties. Other than his figure being near identical to Zetterlings (again, this is the OFFICIAL US military history series we are talking about) I suspect that the 500,000 figures used by other authors is explained by erroneously including those pinned and cut off troops as losses. So yes, I don’t think they are reliable sources, at least not to the point they warrant being in the infobox, although the casualties range where it can be clearly explained is a different matter. Will Tyson for real (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What primary source a book uses has never been the basis for WP:RS, likewise if they engage with primary sources from both sides of a conflict. The 400-530,000 figures have been republished by numerous books from the 50s to present, which largely past the test for WP:RS. Wiki asks what do the sources state, we put that in the infobox. In this case, we have the lowest and the highest estimate and allow the reader to see for themselves. Your argument is simply to remove anything you do not like and to shift the goalposts on what a RS source.
 * OR: Allied reports indicated 235,000 Germans picked up in Normandy alone. There are several German casualty reports for what happened in France in 1944, each contain different figures based on what they are reporting. The number of Germans captured, per Allied reports, do not match with the German reports for those reported missing or known captured. Historians, in unofficial settings, seem to have determined what the German reports state and what the Allied reports state are reporting different statistics; for example, the Allies reporting everyone captured from combat and non-combat units while the Germans were reporting only losses from combat formations. None of the sources have thus far have done the leg work to explain the 80,000 Germans buried in Normandy, to figure out how many died before and after the battle.
 * In sum, there are multiple figures that have been reported over the last almost 80-years, including different figures that are hard to reconcile with each other, and the infobox needs to display that range not just one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Polish losses too low?
Article gives Polish losses as 1,350 casualties, August 1-23 1944, yet the articles on Wikipedia about Operation Totalize (August 8-9) and Operation Tractable (August 14-21), the two biggest Normandy battles with polish involvement, show Polish losses during those two combined as being 2,097. Not to mention the casualties suffered on other days. 72.26.17.219 (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Eisenhower message
Surely there must be a recording of Eisenhower's D-Day message that doesn't have the absurd "movie" music plastered all over it. It is certainly unauthentic and unecyclopedic 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:40A1:CBC8:75B2:255 (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not the only video with such absurd music. Why were these videos accepted with such soundtrack? 74.59.74.76 (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * here's a version of it without the background music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ7IKM-jiJI 74.59.74.76 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)