How did the D-day become overrated

[buritobr]

The is no doubt that the Normandy landing was ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT battles of the WW2. But the myth that the Normandy landing was THE MOST IMPORTANT battle of the WW2 is just... a myth. This myth was built in such a way that many ordinary people, who don't care too much about history, believe that Germany was winning the war until the June 6th 1944. This is not true. After the battles of Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk, it was clear that the nazis would be defeated in just a matter of time. The Third Reich was still controling a large part of Europe, but it didn't have enough resources to fight for so long time. The western Allies were already controlling the south of Italy.

Brazilian historian Icles Rodrigues, in a book published this year, explained how the myth was built. He researched documents, articles, movies, speeches. According to his research, the beggining of this myth was Reagan's speeches in Normandy in 1984, in the celebration of the 40th anniversary of the battle. These speeches were broadcasted live on TV and had very large audience.

Before 1984, there was no such kind of celebration. Articles about the WW2 didn't portray the D-day as the turning point of the war. There were movies about the D-day, like D-day the Sixth of June (1956), The Longest Day (1962), Overlord (1975), The Big Red One (1980), but these movies didn't promote the narrative that the Normamdy landing was the turning point of the war. And there were movies about many other battles. The Normandy landing didn't receive special coverage from the entertainment industry. Besides, there were no big political events on June 1954, 1964, 1974.

Reagan started the tradition of big events in every June of year ending with 4. Bill Clinton also spoke an important speech in 1994. Bush's speech on June 6th 2004 was overshadowed by Reagan's death one day before. Reagan's speech of 20 years earlier was more broadcasted than Bush's speech.

The movie Saving Private Ryan (1998), the series Band of Brothers and the games Call of Duty and Medal of Honor were also important in the building of the myth.

Unfortunately, the book was still published only in Portuguese. And I found articles and videos about this book only in Portuguese
https://leituraobrigahistoria.com/o-dia-d-como-a-historia-se-tornou-mito/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRYUrdkgPxA

[jaichind]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What a load of smug, postmodern rubbish. The anniversary of D-Day started to become a bigger deal once the survivors of it started to die off: there was simply no need before.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

What a load of smug, postmodern rubbish. The anniversary of D-Day started to become a bigger deal once the survivors of it started to die off: there was simply no need before.

Also, I think there is a strong argument that D-Day was the most important battle of the European theater of WW2. To be sure, it wasn't the most important battle for the defeat of the Nazis. But American/Canadian/British victory that day ensured that Western Europe would be liberated by non-Soviet forces, ensuring that communism was checked at the German internal border. Any other potential battle suggested -- Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk -- has to contend with the fact that Soviet defeat in any of those battles would probably not have changed the outcome of the war, while D-Day did ensure the post war freedom of Western Europe.  

[Yeahsayyeah]

It is basically US-centrism.

In Germany the basic understandig of the general public is, that the turning point (or at least, the point, that made the turning obvious) was Stalingrad and that if/when a second front was established the German military collapse was only a matter of time, anyway (and the landing at Sicilly somehow does ot count).

[Steve from Lambeth]

A better question: why is there a literature about the etymology of Operation Overlord in Portuguese, but not in English nor German?

The Mexican independence movement, the rise and fall of Emperor Maximiliano, and the Brazilian military junta were three of the most important developments in Latin American history (albeit ones I've selected semi-arbitrarily), yet you cannot find a book about any of those events - never mind one that doesn't have a Spanish or Portuguese version - in the average UK bookstore for love nor money. Maybe something about Eva Peron, but then she has the largest cultural footprint of any politician outside Europe and the USA.

[RINO Tom]

It is basically US-centrism.

In Germany the basic understandig of the general public is, that the turning point (or at least, the point, that made the turning obvious) was Stalingrad and that if/when a second front was established the German military collapse was only a matter of time, anyway (and the landing at Sicilly somehow does ot count).

I completely disagree with this.  The Western Allies took a huge risk having such a massive amphibious invasion, and Germany easily could have repelled it if not for some breath-taking incompetence by its high command.  Nobody is saying Germany was going to win by this stage, but the Third Reich simply doesn't collapse like it did without Western Allied troops liberating France.  The German retreat on the Eastern Front was always going to push them out of the USSR, but a defiant stand in East Prussia/other eastern areas was not out of the question ... unless they are being attacked from the west, as well.  The landing at Sicily was not nearly as important, other than it knocked out a relatively worthless Italian ally and led to the incredibly foolish German decision to divert even more troops down to Italy.

[buritobr]

It is basically US-centrism.

In Germany the basic understandig of the general public is, that the turning point (or at least, the point, that made the turning obvious) was Stalingrad and that if/when a second front was established the German military collapse was only a matter of time, anyway (and the landing at Sicilly somehow does ot count).

Yes. I know that in the context of the Cold War, the western media used to highlight the western European front and erase the eastern European front from the collective memory. That's why I used to think that the narrative of the D-day as the biggest event was built in the middle of the Cold War.
What I learned from this new published book is that this narrative of the D-day was not created in the middle of the Cold War, but when the Cold War was close to the end (1984).

Even if you consider only the battles fought by the western allies, you don't need to consider the Normandy landing the top battle.

[wnwnwn]

Well, most people correlate the French Resistance with De Gaulle, who was an ally of US and the UK, and therefore Day-D as the key battle makes action in the lay (non-french) people understanding of the liberation of France.

Outside of that, I think that USA role in WWII is underrated by some people ("tankies" beig only a part of them). WWII was not the Allies vs the nazis, it was the Allies vs the Axis. The USA was the main actor in the defeat of Japan and its role on the defeat of Italy (even if it was the weak link of the Axis) is appreciable. The role of the brittish in the war agaisnt  Germany, specially in 1940, should neither be underrated.

Even if you consider only the battles fought by the western allies, you don't need to consider the Normandy landing the top battle.

Which one would be for you?

[Blue3]

Calling it D-Day was propaganda from the very beginning.

[RINO Tom]

It is basically US-centrism.

In Germany the basic understandig of the general public is, that the turning point (or at least, the point, that made the turning obvious) was Stalingrad and that if/when a second front was established the German military collapse was only a matter of time, anyway (and the landing at Sicilly somehow does ot count).

Yes. I know that in the context of the Cold War, the western media used to highlight the western European front and erase the eastern European front from the collective memory. That's why I used to think that the narrative of the D-day as the biggest event was built in the middle of the Cold War.
What I learned from this new published book is that this narrative of the D-day was not created in the middle of the Cold War, but when the Cold War was close to the end (1984).

Even if you consider only the battles fought by the western allies, you don't need to consider the Normandy landing the top battle.

Exactly what battles fought by the Western Allies would you say are more important to an Allied victory?  I am guessing it will probably be some other battle that was only possible directly BECAUSE of D-Day.

Calling it D-Day was propaganda from the very beginning.

PLEASE do explain.

[RINO Tom]

Well, most people correlate the French Resistance with De Gaulle, who was an ally of US and the UK, and therefore Day-D as the key battle makes action in the lay (non-french) people understanding of the liberation of France.

Outside of that, I think that USA role in WWII is underrated by some people ("tankies" beig only a part of them). WWII was not the Allies vs the nazis, it was the Allies vs the Axis. The USA was the main actor in the defeat of Japan and its role on the defeat of Italy (even if it was the weak link of the Axis) is appreciable. The role of the brittish in the war agaisnt  Germany, specially in 1940, should neither be underrated.

Even if you consider only the battles fought by the western allies, you don't need to consider the Normandy landing the top battle.

Which one would be for you?

Seriously.  There has been a contrarian trend to go too far in the other direction of Western Cold War propaganda and act like the Soviets were these sole good actors responsible for an Allied victory while the Western Allies just sat on their ass.  This conveniently ignores that they literally TRIED TO BE ALLIES WITH NAZI GERMANY before circumstances pushed them to the Allies (automatic loss of any moral high ground), and they only contributed to the fight against Imperial Japan at the 11th hour once it was clearly over so they could greedily gobble up some territory for themselves...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, most people correlate the French Resistance with De Gaulle, who was an ally of US and the UK, and therefore Day-D as the key battle makes action in the lay (non-french) people understanding of the liberation of France.

Outside of that, I think that USA role in WWII is underrated by some people ("tankies" beig only a part of them). WWII was not the Allies vs the nazis, it was the Allies vs the Axis. The USA was the main actor in the defeat of Japan and its role on the defeat of Italy (even if it was the weak link of the Axis) is appreciable. The role of the brittish in the war agaisnt  Germany, specially in 1940, should neither be underrated.

Even if you consider only the battles fought by the western allies, you don't need to consider the Normandy landing the top battle.

Which one would be for you?

Seriously.  There has been a contrarian trend to go too far in the other direction of Western Cold War propaganda and act like the Soviets were these sole good actors responsible for an Allied victory while the Western Allies just sat on their ass.  This conveniently ignores that they literally TRIED TO BE ALLIES WITH NAZI GERMANY before circumstances pushed them to the Allies (automatic loss of any moral high ground), and they only contributed to the fight against Imperial Japan at the 11th hour once it was clearly over so they could greedily gobble up some territory for themselves...

To be fair to our Soviet War Ally, the day they entered the war against Japan was long pre-agreed upon.

[dead0man]

Well, most people correlate the French Resistance with De Gaulle, who was an ally of US and the UK, and therefore Day-D as the key battle makes action in the lay (non-french) people understanding of the liberation of France.

Outside of that, I think that USA role in WWII is underrated by some people ("tankies" beig only a part of them). WWII was not the Allies vs the nazis, it was the Allies vs the Axis. The USA was the main actor in the defeat of Japan and its role on the defeat of Italy (even if it was the weak link of the Axis) is appreciable. The role of the brittish in the war agaisnt  Germany, specially in 1940, should neither be underrated.

Even if you consider only the battles fought by the western allies, you don't need to consider the Normandy landing the top battle.

Which one would be for you?

Seriously.  There has been a contrarian trend to go too far in the other direction of Western Cold War propaganda and act like the Soviets were these sole good actors responsible for an Allied victory while the Western Allies just sat on their ass.  This conveniently ignores that they literally TRIED TO BE ALLIES WITH NAZI GERMANY before circumstances pushed them to the Allies (automatic loss of any moral high ground), and they only contributed to the fight against Imperial Japan at the 11th hour once it was clearly over so they could greedily gobble up some territory for themselves...

not to mention that the Soviet's successes never would have happened without western aid

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Calling it D-Day was propaganda from the very beginning.

Not at all, it was just military slang for an important date that had either not been formally settled and/or for which the date was top secret and could not be written down. In this case it somehow stuck. The official term for whole campaign was Operation Overlord.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes. I know that in the context of the Cold War, the western media used to highlight the western European front and erase the eastern European front from the collective memory.

In Britain at least that is certainly not true. Everyone knew about Stalingrad (to such an extent that it was - and still is - commonly used for certain allusions), everyone knew about Leningrad, everyone knew who Zhukov was, and everyone knew who Hitler was hiding from when he blew his brains out in a bunker under Berlin. The Eastern Front was extensively covered in the massive 1973 British documentary serial The World at War (which shaped multiple generations understanding of the War) despite there being rather few senior people left to interview.

[The Mikado]

Worth pointing out that after years of Stalin begging for a front in the West, and then saying "Italy's not good enough," the Soviets sure as hell felt that the Normandy invasion was a critical part of the war effort.

[Blair]

I mean the actual myth that was created and lived on was that the RAF were the ones who stopped the U.K. from getting invaded; this actually was put across by politicians, in films after the war and it influenced the postwar support for the RAF, when it’s actually more logical that our navy and the lack of a German crossing fleet was the reason we didn’t get invaded. (And the channel to be blunt)

D-Day is just seen broadly as the start of the end; most people with a pop history view of WW2 would say and accept that the most important battle was either the defence of Moscow in 41, or Kursk. Even the stuff cited like Band of Brothers was quite clear that the Allies were fighting at best D tier forces in Normandy with a scattering of skilled and specialist units.

As Al said attitudes towards the USSR are actually so high that people assume USSR=Russia and expected their army to steamroll UKR in 2022…