logo
What is D-Day? How the Normandy landings led to Germany's defeat in World War II

What is D-Day? How the Normandy landings led to Germany's defeat in World War II

Yahoo2 days ago

Friday marks 81 years since D-Day, the first day of the Normandy landings that laid the foundations for the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.
The invasion – codenamed Operation Overlord – saw of tens of thousands of troops from countries including the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada landing on five stretches of the coastline of Normandy, France – codenamed Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword beaches.
Planning for D-Day began more than a year in advance, and the Allies carried out substantial military deception to confuse the Germans as to when and where the invasion would take place.
The operation was originally scheduled to begin on June 5, 1944, when a full moon and low tides were expected to coincide with good weather, but storms forced a 24-hour delay. Allied divisions began landing on the five beaches at 6:30 a.m. on June 6.
The term 'D-Day' was military code for the beginning of an important operation, with the first 'D' being short for 'Day.' This means that D-Day actually stands for 'Day-Day.'
According to the Royal British Legion, the phrase 'D-Day' was used fairly often before the Allied invasion in June 1944. After this, however, the two became synonymous, and now D-Day is commonly understood to refer to the beginning of Operation Overlord.
D-Day saw unprecedented cooperation between international armed forces, with more than 2 million troops in the UK in preparation for the invasion, according to the Imperial War Museums (IWM).
Most of these troops were American, British and Canadian, the IWM reports, but troops also came from Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Poland to participate in Operation Overlord.
The Allied troops' invasion was coordinated across air, land and sea, in what can be described as amphibious landings.
These were preceded by an extensive bombing campaign to damage German defenses, as well as the employment of deception tactics.
Operation Bodyguard was an umbrella term for the deception strategy leading up to the Allies' invasion of Europe in June 1944. Operation Fortitude was a tactic under this umbrella specifically related to the Normandy invasion, and was intended to make Nazi Germany believe that the initial Normandy attacks were merely a diversion and that the true invasion would take place elsewhere.
According to the IWM, Fortitude North intended to trick the Germans into believing that the Allies would attack Norway, and Fortitude South was designed to convince the Germans that the Allies were going to invade Pas de Calais, a French department northeast of Normandy that is closer to the UK.
The US troops were assigned to Utah beach at the base of the Cotentin Peninsular and Omaha Beach at the northern end of the Normandy coast. The British subsequently landed on Gold Beach, followed by the Canadians at Juno, and finally the British at Sword, the easternmost point of the invasion.
By midnight, the troops had secured their beachheads and moved further inland from Utah, Gold, Juno and Sword.
However, not all the landings were successful; US forces suffered substantial losses at Omaha Beach, where strong currents forced many landing craft away from their intended positions, delaying and hampering the invasion strategy.
Heavy fire from German positions on the steep cliffs, which had not been effectively destroyed by Allied bombing before the invasion, also caused casualties.
According to the IWM, Germany's reaction to Operation Overlord was 'slow and confused.'
Weather conditions on June 6 were still poor, many senior commanders were not at their posts, and Operation Fortitude convinced Adolf Hitler that the Normandy invasion was a feint before a bigger attack at Pas de Calais.
Germany's air force was in action elsewhere, countering American bombing operations over Germany. Its navy ships were docked in ports or already destroyed by the Allies. This left only the German army to defend against Operation Overlord, according to the IWM.
On top of this, the success of Operation Fortitude meant that many army units were kept away from the Normandy battlefield until July, as an attack in Pas de Calais was still expected.
German troops manning coastal defenses 'did as much as they could have been expected to,' the IWM says, before eventually being 'silenced' and Allied units advanced inland.
On D-Day alone, around 4,440 Allied troops were confirmed dead, according to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC), with more than 5,800 troops wounded or missing.
Because Omaha Beach was the bloodiest landing beach, the US Army lost the most men in the amphibious landings. Some 2,500 American troops died in the beach assault and airborne operations on D-Day, according to the CWGC.
The precise number of German casualties on the day is unknown, but they are estimated to be between 4,000 and 9,000.
Of the tens of thousands of troops that stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, 44 were soldiers, sailors and airmen from Bedford, Virginia, in the US.
Within minutes of reaching Omaha Beach, 16 of these men were killed and four were wounded. Another Bedford soldier was killed elsewhere on Omaha Beach, and three others were presumed killed in action, bringing Bedford's D-Day fatality figure to 20 men.
According to the National D-Day Memorial Foundation, Bedford suffered the highest known per capita D-Day loss in the US.
Despite securing a stronghold on the French coast on D-Day, the Allied forces faced the risk that German bombardment could push them back into the sea.
They needed to build up troop numbers and equipment in Normandy faster than the Germans, allowing for a continued invasion into mainland Europe.
The Allies used their air power to slow the German advance toward Normandy by blowing up bridges, railways and roads across the region. This allowed the Allies to gain total control of Normandy 77 days later and move on toward Paris, which they liberated in August 1944.
The US Department of Defense calls D-Day the 'successful beginning of the end of Hitler's tyrannical regime.' The IWM calls it the 'most significant victory of the Western Allies in the Second World War.'
By being able to get forces into Normandy, the Allies were able to begin their advance into northwest Europe. Though World War II lasted nearly another year in Europe, the success of Operation Overlord led to the liberation of France and allowed the Allies to fight the Germans in Nazi-occupied Europe.
The US' National World War II Museum says that a good way to appreciate the significance of D-Day is to imagine what would have happened if the operation had failed. According to the museum, another landing would have not been possible for at least a year.
In this time, Hitler could have strengthened Nazi-occupied Europe's coastal defenses, developed aircraft and weapons, bombed the UK even more heavily and continued his killing campaign, the museum says.
Fighting by the Allies on the western front and Russian soldiers on the eastern front eventually led to the defeat of the German Nazi forces.
On May 7, 1945, the German Third Reich signed an unconditional surrender at Reims, France. Victory in Europe (V-E) Day is celebrated the following day as that's when the armistice went into effect.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers

UPI

time21 minutes ago

  • UPI

Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers

President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."

British lawyers for Hamas investigated by watchdog
British lawyers for Hamas investigated by watchdog

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

British lawyers for Hamas investigated by watchdog

The law firm trying to remove Hamas from the UK's list of proscribed terrorist groups is being investigated by a solicitors' watchdog, The Telegraph understands. Riverway Law made headlines in April when it launched an appeal to have Hamas taken off Britain's list of proscribed groups. The firm made a submission to Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, arguing that Hamas posed 'no threat to the UK people' and should be allowed to operate here on free speech grounds. Just days after submitting its appeal to the Home Office, the firm was reported to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary. Mr Jenrick argued that Riverway's appeal potentially breached UK sanctions rules on terror groups. He also drew attention to apparent social media posts about the war in Gaza by Fahad Ansari, the leading lawyer in the case and the director of Riverway. The posts included claims that Hamas is a 'legitimate resistance movement' protecting Palestinians from 'UK-sponsored Israeli genocide'. The SRA is understood to be at an early phase of its investigation and no conclusions have yet been reached. In a letter to the watchdog sent in April, Mr Jenrick said there was 'a clear need to uphold public confidence in the legal profession and to ensure rigorous enforcement of the UK sanctions regime'. He said that there were 'significant questions as to whether Riverway have complied with their obligations under the UK sanctions regime, the SRA's own published guidance and broader professional standards expected of solicitors'. Mr Ansari has defended his firm's actions. In response to Mr Jenrick's complaint he said: 'We were in contact with OFSI [the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation], external counsel and others who had represented sanctioned organisation[s], to ensure that we did not breach our duties under the sanctions regime.' Riverway submitted a 106-page application to the Home Office in April, accompanied by a video which was posted to its social media channels. The application argued the proscription of Hamas in the UK should be lifted in line with European Convention of Human Rights protections in the interest of freedom of speech. It also claimed the ban is disproportionate and that Hamas poses 'no threat to the UK people'. The ongoing appeal, believed to be the first of its kind, is being fronted by Mousa Abu Marzouk, Hamas's head of international relations and its legal office. Mr Jenrick welcomed the SRA's investigation on Saturday, telling The Telegraph: 'Our sanctions regime is pointless if it isn't enforced. 'Ansari is a shameless apologist who argues Hamas poses no threat to the British people. What nonsense. This evil death cult threatens free people everywhere.' Mr Ansari has previously appeared to make a series of controversial social media posts related to the ongoing Israel-Gaza war. In posts dating from last year he appeared to praise fighters of the 'courageous Palestinian mujahideen', wrote 'you should view Hamas as an army of angels' and dismissed international courts as 'hopeless', saying that 'only armed resistance' would help Palestinians. In April last year, a post on his X account said: 'Eid Mubarak to everyone celebrating especially the courageous Palestinian mujahideen who continue to resist the Western-backed Israeli genocide entirely on their own. You are the pride of this Ummah. May you celebrate Eid one day in a fully liberated Palestine.' Another comment posted in June said: 'If you believe genocidal Israel is the most moral army in the world, then you should view Hamas as an army of angels.' The SRA declined to comment. Mr Ansari and Riverway Law were approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Britain's debt is a threat to national security
Britain's debt is a threat to national security

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Britain's debt is a threat to national security

Our sky high debt is a threat to our national security. This year, the cost of servicing our debt will be almost double what we are spending on defence. And in today's turbulent world, the fiscal buffer to cushion us from shocks is paper thin. The smallest tap could shatter our economic credibility. The Prime Minister has made defence and security the organising principle of his government. Given that, putting our debt on a downward path should be his government's priority. It isn't. Debt will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today. And with global government debt already around $100 trillion, and Donald Trump about to increase that by a further $2.4 trillion, who will buy our debt – and at what price? Last year, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee raised a red flag that UK debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament. We set out a choice: taxes would have to rise, or the state would have to do less. Being cross-party, we did not opine on which option was best. The Government has taken tough decisions – but in my mind the wrong ones. Taxes are rising to record highs. The Chancellor said last year that her strategy would deliver growth, and that she would not come back for more tax. But the growth forecast has been halved, and further tax hikes are on the cards. Meanwhile, pressure to spend more on defence is going to increase. At the upcoming Nato summit, nations are likely to be asked to commit to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence – double Labour's current commitment. So what is to be done? We need to confront the other option: the state should do less. The Government rightly says that the relentless rise in welfare spending is 'unsustainable'. Spending on disability and incapacity benefits alone is more than on defence. But having announced that action would be taken to curb the growth in the welfare budget, the Prime Minister is now blinking in the face of opposition. The Government – and the nation – cannot afford ministers losing their nerve to keep a lid on spending. The bond vigilantes have saddled up and are on the prowl. Nor can the Chancellor tax her way out of the debt quagmire: to do so would risk us entering into a doom loop of ever lower growth and ever higher debt. If defence and security is the organising principle of government, the Chancellor must set out a credible plan to stop debt's relentless rise and bring it down from today's giddying heights. Not doing so risks economic catastrophe – and our national security. Lord Bridges of Headley is a former Government minister; he was Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee between January 2022 and January 2025 Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store