Gotta Watch: Remembering D-Day
Reinforcements disembarking from a landing barge at Normandy during the allied invasion of France on D-Day
June 6th, 2011
11:48 AM ET

Gotta Watch: Remembering D-Day

On June 6th, 1944, more than 150,000 Allied troops poured onto the heavily fortified beaches of Normandy, France, in one of the most decisive battles of World War II. The D-Day invasion marked a beginning of the end of the war and the defeat of the Nazi regime in Europe. This particular operation was at a high cost to the Allied forces, with nearly 10,000 troops killed or wounded. Today marks the 67th anniversary of that pivotal operation.

'We didn't have time to fear' - World War II veterans recount what it was like to participate in the invasion of Normandy.

D-Day begins - After years of meticulous planning and training for the Allied forces, it all came down to June 6, 1944.

Post by:
Filed under: Adolf Hitler • France • Gotta Watch • History
soundoff (175 Responses)
  1. Yeah

    More gen it al looking soldiers going into a meat grinder. What freedom are they fighting for? The freedom to treat others badly? What can be gained by this?

    June 6, 2011 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
    • RHN

      Try studying a little history, and English, before making a comment like that. Your ignorance is amazing.

      June 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • aggieboy92

      They fought for your freedom to post such garbage. If you can't appreciate it, go somewhere else.

      June 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      Everyone that is saying that D-Day was not that Important has no clue about American History. The Russians did not have the Germans beat when we started the second front in Europe it made Hitler take alot of his troops off of the Eastern front. That and the will and determination of all soldiers helped defeat the Germans. So if you don't know what you are talking about than don't open your trap WWII soldiers went through more than any of us could imagine

      June 6, 2011 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • TheWiz71

      @Chris – no question that Normandy was one of the most important campaigns of the war. Once Paris was taken at the end of that particularly brutal campaign (even by Eastern Front standards), the fate of the Nazis was sealed. However, the Soviets did have the Nazis on the run, the tide had been turned. Initiative and momentum were on their side. It is possible that the Soviets might have been able to stem the tide in the east had Normandy not been pulled off. However, it would have been unlikely. Actually, what Allied victory in Normandy did assure was that Western Europe would not end up in Soviet Hands, and that the Red Army would not be standing on the shores of Normandy when all was said and done.

      June 6, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mister Jones

      Liberty from oppression.

      June 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Jazzzzzz

    Who wants green poop lemonade????

    June 6, 2011 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sarah Palin

      Me. I love that stuff.

      June 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Ahkmed

    That's odd. Muslim history regards the battle for Stalingrad as the war's turning point and the Normandy landing as a turkey shoot. Funny how we look at the same thing so differently.

    June 6, 2011 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Yeah

      It was definitely a turkey shoot, but had a strategic advantage. I guess it depends on how you look at it. It could have been an even worse disaster had the US been unsuccessful in drawing the Germans away from that beach.

      June 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • angrysmell

      stalingrad was the turning point of ww2, huh? here are some battles for you to look up so you can tell all your friends, who've studied the same "muslim" account of history as you have, that its wrong:

      – battle of midway
      – battle of the atlantic
      – battle of britain
      – battle of el alamien
      – battle of kursk
      – operation sealion (hitler's decision not to proceed was at least as important as any single battle that did occur)

      June 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cedar Rapids

      And the Battle for Stalingrad is definately up there as one of the turning points, that cannot be denied.

      June 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • rock

      that is simply because muslims are idiots...look how they treat their own women....like lesser people....think what they really want to do to you!

      June 6, 2011 at 1:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anastrophe

      What garbage! When was this Muslim history assembled? And who put you in charge of it? Where do you come up with this stuff?

      June 6, 2011 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • TheWiz71

      Read Antony Beevor's book "D-Day: The Battle for Normandy". It was, along with Stalingrad, one of the turning points of the war. It was no "turkey shoot". While D-Day was not as bloody for the Allies as they feared it would be, the Normandy Campaign as a whole was one of the bloodiest of the war, experienced either by the western Allies or the Soviets. BTW – which side were most Muslims on? The SS actually had a Muslim brigade, you know. Then again, Muslims fought with the "Free French" forces (snicker – all they did was march into Paris like they had liberated it single-handedly).

      June 6, 2011 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    At the time of D-Day, the USA was a great country. Nobody would have dreamed of publicly beginning a comment about freedom with "yeah," although I know where the first comment is "coming from," and can even partially identify with its motivation.
    I'm not sure that we could ever rebuild our country to be what it was in 1944 and 1945, when we had the pride and guts to win a war.
    The greatness of nations moves.
    Look at China now.
    Look at the Roman Empire. Look what the Aztecs were before something happened. Greece. Persia. Egypt when they built pyramids.
    Look at America, when D-Day occurred, and when Truman knew to bomb Ja-
    pan (without apologies).
    Greatness travels, but it always exists somewhere.

    June 6, 2011 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gaucho420

      The US armed forces in WWI were great, but the nation was not. Let's not forget that the 1940s was a very racist time and that if you had black skin, you were not a free man in many parts of the US. I undestand your sentiment, but its re-writing history. The US, in the 1940s, was NOT a great nation by any means unless you convienently forget how blacks were treated.

      June 6, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • dtboco3

      Your comparisons make no sense. The societies you mentioned lasted for thousands of years. The US is a baby in comparison. All of those societies had their good times and bad, and despite being successful empires it is pretty tough to argue that they were actually good societies to live in. Winning wars does not make a society good or bad.

      June 6, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • DanoMcRoo

      "The US armed forces in WWI were great, but the nation was not. Let's not forget that the 1940s was a very racist time and that if you had black skin, you were not a free man in many parts of the US. I undestand your sentiment, but its re-writing history. The US, in the 1940s, was NOT a great nation by any means unless you convienently forget how blacks were treated."
      Your assessment must be correct Gaucho420. I don't see a single black face about to meet it's demise anywhere in that photo.

      June 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pete H

      Was the U.S. perfect in the '40's or at any other time? No it was not. Yes, prejudice existed then. It exists now. It is a human failing. WE ALL PREJUDGE. Are things better now? Yes they are. Can they be better still? Yes they can. America is a work in progress. One thing is certain; the U.S. was, and still is worth fighting for. If you don’t think so, fine. I challenge you to find another place on Earth that affords the same freedoms to its people. With freedom though, comes responsibility, and American fighting men and women have shouldered it well. BZ, vets!

      June 6, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Ahkmed

    I see where I should have taken the Golden State Freeway. I thought it said 'Garden State' and knew I didn't want to go to New Jersey. What would I disguise myself as there? A jew?

    June 6, 2011 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Peter

    Its the US Army who stormed the beaches of Normandy, NOT the Marines.

    Europe was the responsbility of the Army.

    Asia was the responsibility of the Marines.

    June 6, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • paulk

      There were 6 Marine divisions & 22 Army divisions fighting in the Pacific. Not to diminish the Marines service & sacrifice, but the Army did a little fighting in the Pacific Theater.

      June 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • James

      The US Army had 2 beaches. The British Army had 2 Beaches and the Canadians had 1 beach. More non US soldiers were involved in D-Day than US. Lets remember all Allies, not just the US.

      June 6, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      >> Its the US Army who stormed the beaches of Normandy, NOT the Marines.
      Europe was the responsbility of the Army.
      Asia was the responsibility of the Marines. <<

      Another History Channel expert, but obviously not someone who knows actual history.

      June 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • TheWiz71

      Funny then, how my grandfather was in the Army, and fighting in the Pacific – New Guinea & the Philippines to be specific.

      June 6, 2011 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Ahkmed

    Or how Arabs were treated. Even though we sided with Hitler, American businessmen began helping us to develop our oilfields. Now look at us.

    June 6, 2011 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • rock

      look at you now....living in a hovel in the sand....nice

      June 6, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    @ Gaucho420,
    Sometimes great nations have major injustices.
    Some of the other great nations I mentioned had slaves: the USA didn't invent slavery.
    We don't have slavery now.
    We don't have segregation in the South, as we did in 1944.
    Nevertheless, we are no longer a great nation: we don't win wars, we don't produce much, and we borrow money from other nations to pay for our citizens' meals, for which many of them do no work.
    You don't think that America was great when we won World War II.
    I don't think it's great now.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pete H

      You can change this, you know. America can't be great by itself. Its people have to MAKE it great. What can YOU do to make it great? ...Yes you can. EVERYONE has something to offer, so offer what you have! We have the greatest and most diverse people on Earth. As a nation, working as one, what CAN'T we do??!!

      June 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
  9. slavery

    Joey? We still take Africa's natural resources! Only now instead of trading glass beads and iron bars for slaves, Halliburton bribes African leaders with cash! Either way, Africa loses precious natural resources to nations struggling with obesity as her own children starve.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • rock

      exactly!!!! finally someone gets it!

      June 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
  10. smanCometh

    What a joke...whay couldn't we take out every darn pill box before our guys hit that beach...? Why...? What a crock...every one of those Kraut machine guns should have been taken out before any of our guys stepped one foot on that beach. Totallt unacceptable...I can't believe this battle plan took years to create...jeeze. Dwight D. must have had an war IQ less than 90. Churchill was no better...running around with that cigar and complaning about Hitler. Stalingrad was the real war turner...not D-Day by any stretch of the imagination.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cory

      I don't know...might have had something to do with anti-aircraft weapons. Or maybe the fact that if they did manage to hit the boxes the beaches would have been full of reinforcements before the troops ever got to the beach. Lets see fight up a beach with machine guns shooting at your or fight up a beach staring down the barrel of tanks and what would have felt like endless supplies of troops....wow....

      June 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • OhioToad

      your lack of knowledge is unforgivable.... anyone who has studied ww2 knows of the many attempts to dislodge a fortified enemy with heavy firepower failed more often than not..... see stalingrad,tarawa,iwo jima, saipan, pelilu ...etc etc etc heavy munitions have and never will replace what finally gets the job done, boots on the ground

      June 6, 2011 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      They actually did try and take out the fortifications. They sent B52's over the beach earlier to bomb the pill boxes. That day was a gloomy day with low clouds, not to mention the fact the bombers were so high up to begin with. When the dropped the bombs, they were directly over the pill boxes. You might say that's good, but don't forget the planes are moving so the speed made the bombs travel about a 1 mile over. So they completely missed the pill boxes.

      June 6, 2011 at 3:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mister Jones

      How do your propose that they should have cleared the pill boxes? Keep in mind that there are no cruise missles (those were developed after studying the V-2 rockets), there are no laser-guided bombs, and air-to-ground ordnance was gravity bombs and/or rockets (forward-firing, no guidance capabilities). The pill boxes were intended to be difficult to remove, that is what a "fortified position" means. Jerry just underestimated our resolve that day, and it became OUR fortified position as we chased their asses back to Berlin.

      June 6, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Anthony's Case Posts

    The fact that the remains were skeletal also prevented authorities from getting definitive answers on toxicology, as well as evidence that Caylee was abused - something her mother is charged with doing. "How do you prove that when you just have skeletal remains?" Casarez said.

    Duct tape was still stuck to the lower facial region of the child's body, authorities have said.

    "(Caylee's) killer prepared some substance in advance that would render her physically unable to resist," prosecutor Jeff Ashton said at a December 2009 hearing, "administered the substance, awaited its effect and then methodically applied three pieces of duct tape to completely cut off the flow of air through her mouth or her nose and let nature take its course."

    Authorities have said that the amount of decomposition would seem to indicate Caylee died shortly after she went missing.

    Anthony initially told police that she had last seen her daughter in the custody of a babysitter named Zenaida Gonzalez. Investigators never tracked down the babysitter; later, a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez filed a defamation suit against Anthony, saying she had never met her and lost her job over the claims. Anthony countersued, accusing Gonzalez of attempting to cash in on the high-profile case.

    Prosecutors allege that after killing her daughter, Anthony stashed her body in the trunk of her Pontiac Sunfire before disposing of it. A cadaver dog has alerted to the scent of human decomposition in the trunk, and testing showed the presence of chloroform. Orange County Superior Court Chief Judge Belvin Perry Jr. ruled last month jurors can hear the chloroform testimony. In addition, investigators have said they found Internet searches of websites mentioning chloroform on Anthony's computer.

    Anthony's high-powered defense team, fighting to save her life, will likely try to cast doubt on prosecutors' scientific evidence. At pretrial hearings, they have argued that evidence regarding a potential odor of decomposition in the trunk, chloroform and other evidence is not reliable enough for jurors to consider.

    Perry has also ruled jurors can hear testimony about a stain in the trunk, as well as the decompositional odor. In March, Baez contended that having jurors look at the stain might have a "prejudicial effect," alleging it could have been caused by a wet bag of garbage or gasoline cans. The stain was negative for DNA, as well as for the presence of blood or other bodily fluids, he said. "There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that this is a biological stain," Baez said.

    Perhaps the biggest hurdle for the defense is the fact that Caylee had been missing for 31 days before authorities were aware of it, and her mother failed to report it, Casarez said.

    In addition, some have alleged that Anthony didn't behave like the worried mother of a missing child during the search for Caylee. She went to nightclubs and sent hundreds of text messages to friends, according to cell phone and text transcripts and investigative reports released by police. Those records show she rarely mentioned her missing daughter.//

    June 6, 2011 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    Not one word that has been said against my statement regarding the USA's greatness in 1944, and its present mediocrity, has altered my opinion.
    BTW, not one rebuttal gave me any information I didn't factor into my initial position.
    Again:
    The USA was a great nation in 1944.
    It no longer is.
    Maybe we can get back to the status that we had in 1944, but I doubt it: our entire mentality would have to change.
    That's what I think.
    The rest of you can think whatever you like.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • MotownsFinest

      Cool story bro. Stop complaining and do something about it.

      June 6, 2011 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Ted C

    Was Normandy really the MOST decisive battle of the war? You could make the case it was as important as Stalingard, but not necessarily more important than Stalingrad.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Skeiron

    Well at the time of D-Day the Wehrmacht had basically already lost (after all the Soviets were inevitably going to crush the Wehrmacht on the eastern front [Army Group Centre of the Wehrmacht was being annihilated during Operation Bagration pretty much at the same time as the Allies landed in Normandy] and the other allies had already landed in Italy...), to call it the most decisive battle is perhaps a lil bit exaggerated, but ok of course it was very important with regard to the aftermath of the war, after all otherwise the Soviets might have "liberated" France and co.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      OMG! A factual reply. Dude, this is the internet. There is no place here for facts. What next, you will say the USSR actually fought bigger battles? Say 'Market Garden' actually had no real chance to end the war? Say Einsenhower was a mediorce general (but a great political/teamwork leader)? You will probably even say something about how Patton's historical footprint is because of a great movie and not for his performance?

      June 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    With all those natural resources that we want, Africa must be an ideal place to live.
    I don't hear about a lot of people who want to move there.

    June 6, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6