Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
breaker44

If D-Day was today

Recommended Posts

I'm not certain who wrote it, but it wasn't me, tho I'm damn sure I wish I did.

If Normandy Happened Today

Good Morning. It is June 4, 1944. Welcome to The Mullings Cable Network's continuing coverage of: "Operation Overlord: What's Taking So Long?" I'm Rich Rundling. Let's go first to MCN's White House reporter, Greg Smith for the latest.

SMITH: Thank you, Rich. Hill Leaders have told MCN news that an invasion of Europe is, in their words, "very, very imminent." These sources, who have been privy to briefings by the Roosevelt War Cabinet, tell us that "the number of troops, the number of ships, and the sheer size of war materiel shipments" clearly point to an invasion, possibly within the next 24 hours. Rich?

RUNDLING: Thank you, Greg. Now to the War Department and our reporter there Jim Smith. Jim? What are your sources there saying about a possible attack point?

SMITH: Well, Rich. Advisors to General Marshall are hinting at a strike at Pas de Calais, perhaps as early as tomorrow. However we believe this might well be disinformation and the real point of attack will be at Normandy. We have learned that Ranger and Airborne elements have been, in effect, rehearsing for the kind of terrain they are likely to encounter on the Normandy beaches and that Airborne units might be dropped in as early as tonight.

RUNDLING: So, Winston Churchill's famous phrase: "We shall fight on the beaches..." now must be considered as a clearly coded message to the French Resistance. For more on invasion plans, let's switch to London and our MCN reporter Eric Smith. Eric what are you hearing about where these troops may be going and when they might be going there?

SMITH: Rich, as you can see, the weather here is not good. Military meteorologists have advised SHAEF Command to stand down for at least the next 24 hours. If we can zoom in on this map behind me, you can clearly see that the combination of time and tides is most favorable for only the next 48 hours for a landing in France. Senior advisors to General Eisenhower are aware of, and very concerned with, the reports of growing impatience among many Americans with the amount of time it has taken to mount this invasion.

RUNDLING: Indeed, many here are asking why it has taken two-and-a-half years from the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 to June 1944 to reach this point. Eric, if they can't go within that window, what are Eisenhower's options?

SMITH: No good ones, Rich. Intelligence officers here in Britain are worried that if this operation has to be delayed for as long as two weeks, word will almost certainly leak to the German high command allowing them to move their defensive forces from their current location at Pas de Calais to behind the Atlantic Wall above Normandy.

RUNDLING: That would be unfortunate. Let's turn now to our MCN military analyst retired General Theodore "Teddy" Smith, the famous "Senior Seńor of Santiago Bay." General, you helped design the invasion of Cuba in 1898 -- just 43 years ago -- during the Spanish-American war, what do you make of this?

SMITH: Well, Rich, I'll use this map to illustrate. Assuming our troops will try to cross these beaches here ... and ... here. And assault these cliffs... here, then they will have to be supported by a naval bombardment from... here. So, we expect the Hun is flying air reconnaissance and will bring to bear their air assets to disrupt any pre-invasion shelling as soon as Allied ships are detected in this area ... here.

RUNDLING: What about tanks, General - the Panzer Divisions of General Rommel?

SMITH: Rommel is almost certainly moving his Panzer Divisions behind the Atlantic Wall ... here ... for use in a counterattack if and when the Allied forces breach those lines.

RUNDLING: Now, to Christianne Smith on a satellite phone in the French countryside. Christianne, what can you tell us?

SMITH: Rich, there is a growing sense of apprehension here about 40 miles away from what we assume will be the point of attack on the beaches of Normandy either tomorrow or the next day. Mayor Jacques Capituler is with me. Mayor, tell our viewers how you feel about the coming invasion.

CAPITULER: We don't want to be liberated. We don't need to be liberated. The Germans have established a perfectly workable government, here. The Americans should go liberate someone else, somewhere else.

RUNDLING: The thorny issue of civilian casualties and collateral damage brought onto our living room screens from right there in France, Thank you Christianne. To ... where? Ok, to Edward Smith with the forces of General George Patton in Britain. Edward.

SMITH: Rich, I am here in Kent, England opposite the Pas de Calais just across the English Channel which, if the weather were better, you could see behind me. MCN can now confirm that the activity here in Kent, which has been named "Operation Fortitude" is, for want of a better phrase: A complete fake.

RUNDLING: Fake? Explain, please, for our viewers.

SMITH: MCN can now report that Patton has constructed, literally, a phony army here. The tanks are cardboard. The planes are rubber. The radio traffic is faked. Reports of troop movements are completely fabricated. This operation, clearly, is designed to fool the Germans in Europe and Americans back home into falsely believing that the attack -- which we now think will come tomorrow if the weather lets up -- will be aimed at Pas de Calais instead of Normandy.

RUNDLING: Excellent reporting, Edward. Joining me, now, in the studio is MCN's Senior Ethics Advisor Emma Smith. Emma? What does it mean to the American way of life when their very own government engages in this kind of deliberately false and misleading information?

SMITH: The academic community has been warning for years that the American government would too easily sacrifice the truth on the altar of some alleged short-term military so-called advantage. "If the people can't trust the word of their government," many of us are asking, "then what we are fighting for in the first place?"

RUNDLING: Thank you, Emma Smith. And good luck with your exciting new book: "The Soviet Experience; Success, Solidarity, and Stalin." We have received a few e-mails from viewers expressing discomfort with General Theodore Smith's use of a word to describe our German adversaries, which, in some minds, is derogatory. MCN apologizes for the use of the "H" word on our air.

So, there you have it. The Allied Expeditionary Forces will, in fact, invade Europe not at Pas de Calais as the American public had been lead to believe, but at Normandy. And, that attack will take place either tomorrow or the next day, depending upon the weather.

This is Rich Rundling, MCN News. Now back to Imus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this thread is a flamebait (and not even a very original one) but does'nt posting the same shit (and getting it locked ultimately) over and over again get tiresome? icon_rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was hilarious it's spot on. (eizei, you have to admit it's true, deep down you know it.)

You left out polls though. They would also include...

Reporter: We asked our viewers in a non scientific poll the following question, Has operation fortitude changed your opinion on the war?

Can you imagine a real war like world war two today though? The death toll during the Normandy invasion was over 6,000 dead. That was just one operation in the war. Today the American people have given up because of 1,600 dead over a three year period. Today's America and Europe never could have won the second world war. Westerners are very weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was hilarious it's spot on. (eizei, you have to admit it's true, deep down you know it.)

It was just plain stupid. As an American might put it: "Swing and a miss."

Quote[/b] ] Today the American people have given up because of 1,600 dead over a three year period. Today's America and Europe never could have won the second world war. Westerners are very weak.

How do you even compare something as insignificant as the situation in Iraq to WWII? How do you think the west would react if one western country suddenly marched across Europe crushing every army in its way? Get some perspective.

If the American people have given up, it's because of the official reason they are fighting, which happens to be the second lamest excuse ever used. Had somebody suggested 65 years ago that "an Iraq" should be invaded, he would have gotten the 1940's version of "Fuck off." Come on, how long didn't it take for the US to get involved when somebody like Hitler was on the loose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Today's America and Europe never could have won the second world war.

Nah, we could if it was necessary  wink_o.gif

We had no choice but to take Europe back by force, Iraq however doesn't pose such a threat to us, so there's less acceptance of such a sacrifice.  confused_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flame Bait methinks.

Anyway how do you figure today's western world Not winning the second world war? Better tanks, equipment, training, aircraft...and nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on, how long didn't it take for the US to get involved when somebody like Hitler was on the loose?

To be correct, two years, three months and six days officially. Of course, President Roosevelt did a great many things to assist the cause of freedom before Hitler declared war on the U.S.A., but the fact of the matter was that America never went to war with Germany and never had a desire to; Germany went to war with you, and lost.

The United States' greatest enemy had always been considered Japan, and her Governments and Military had planned accordingly. Roosevelt, however eager to bring Germany into the war, was unwilling to do so himself.

However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten, and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten,  and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.

Western Europe, and they sure did screw the rest over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was hilarious it's spot on. (eizei, you have to admit it's true, deep down you know it.)

Assuming this was actually funny (which it is not) it has already been posted - twice.

If there had been proper oversight by the media back then we might have avoided such glorious moments like reducing Dresden to smouldering pile of rubble, letting off monsters who commited atrocious experiments in concentration camps, letting big corporations trade with the nazis or interning everybody with japanese ancestry. mad_o.gif

Yeah, go ahead, just blame it all on media just like every other wacko.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harley, thanks.

I'm glad you saw the point.

-Breaker Out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Flame Bait methinks.

Oh sorry, didn't think it would be seen like that. Just used it as an example. huh.gifsmile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten, and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.

Western Europe, and they sure did screw the rest over.

I'd blame the Soviets on that one... not the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[CAS] Daniel-

Quote[/b] ]Oh sorry, didn't think it would be seen like that. Just used it as an example.

I believe he was referring to the article.

Anyway whilst it might be an amusing conceit to imagine how various moments in history would have panned out had there been a global 24 hour news media (if you can call much of the inane waffle on 24 hour broadcasting services news), the Second World War is vastly different from any situation in the present which someone might seek to draw parrallels to.

Besides which, there were international news organisations in the second world war (notably the BBC) and once the war got underway they all became involved in broadcasting a greater or lesser degree of propaganda, misinformation and other services to the various governments(yes even such luminaries as George Orwell for the Allies! ). If a similar such situation really emerged today im sure they would come under immense pressure to do so again. (There is a case to be made that they have come under some such pressure over Iraq).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allied Forces (in order of entry into the war)

Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)

China 450m 1.3 million 1.8 million 3.1 million 9 million

Poland 35m 130,000 200,000 330,000 2.5million

U.K. 48m 400,000 300,000 700,000 60,000

France 42m 250,000 350,000 600,000 270,000

Australia 7m 30,000 40,000 70,000 --

India 360m 36,000 64,000 100,000 --

New Zealand 2m 10,000 20,000 30,000 --

So. Africa 10m 9,000 14,000 23,000 --

Canada 11m 42,000 50,000 92,000 --

Denmark 4m 2,000 ? ? 1,000

Norway 3m 10,000 ? ? 6,000

Belgium 8m 12,000 16,000 28,000 100,000

Holland 9m 14,000 7,000 21,000 250,000

Greece 7m 90,000 ? ? 400,000

Yugoslavia 15m 320,000 ? ? 1.3million

U.S.S.R. 194m 9 million 18 million 27 million 19 million

U.S.A. 129m 300,000 300,000 600,000 --

Yeah we give up with 1,600. Please don't get me started. You don't even know the US plan. This war isn't a 5 year plan. It is a 20 year plan. You think we are stopping at Iraq. I don't think so. We don't know which country but there are a couple more.

cough cough Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia. That is some that maybe next in the near future.

This war is not for oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Todat World War Two will never happen.. if it does it will have more deaths... because on biological/nuclear/chemical warfare  icon_rolleyes.gif Who would land soldiers on beach with  modern technology? Why people care more about casulties today, baceuse it possible to keep it low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah we give up with 1,600. Please don't get me started. You don't even know the US plan. This war isn't a 5 year plan. It is a 20 year plan. You think we are stopping at Iraq. I don't think so.

It took less time to get western europe and japan up 'n running than some 3rd world shithole? yay.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objection your honour. I would like it on the record that i think Iraq is a damned interesting place and a fine country (all things being relative). Its only the extreme fear of death or horrible mutilation that would stop me going on holiday there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]If there had been proper oversight by the media back then we might have avoided such glorious moments like reducing Dresden to smouldering pile of rubble, letting off monsters who commited atrocious experiments in concentration camps, letting big corporations trade with the nazis or interning everybody with japanese ancestry.

1. If the media would have been able to convince the the citizens of the allied nations to prevent the Dresden bombing then I'm sure all of the strategic bombing campaign would have been deemed "inhumane" and aborted. If that were the case it could be argued that the allies may have lost the war. It doesn't even need to be argured the fact that thousands if not millions more of the allied nations would have died with out the bomber campaign.  Carpet bombing sure killed a hell of a lot of civilians but at the time there was no other way, they didn't have smart bombs. Despite the massive air campaign the German military industry managed to grow durring the entire war. Think about that for a moment, now imagine how German industry would of faired had it not been bombed day and night.

2. As to letting off monsters I agree with you on that one. There were quite a few bastards who got off scot free after the war, including nearly all of the Japanese war criminals. That was after the war though.

3. Letting big corporations trade with the nazis? This isn't a Michael Moore allegation is it?

4. Not every one of Japanese ancestry was interned. The internment of Japanese Americans only took place on the west coast.  Surprisingly enough, there was no internment camps in Hawaii.

   The whole internment thing came about be cause of an incident that happened in Hawaii where a Japanese pilot crash landed and was aided by a sympathizer. Were the internment camps just? No, but you have to keep in mind that at the time fear of invasion was high and many Japanese were very clanish. Couple that with the bigotry of the time and well you can see why it happened. Doesn't excuse it though. My biggest complaint about the internment camps was the fact that they took their homes and belonging away.

Quote[/b] ]If there had been proper oversight by the media back then...

     The media has no place in war planning or operations period. Sherman was right, the media are spies. Media oversight, pfft, sounds like disinformation and sabotage to me. Media oversight can only harm the war effort and prolong the conflict or even lead to defeat. Sorry but defeat is not a acceptable alternative.  

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, go ahead, just blame it all on media just like every other wacko.

   I'm not putting all the blame on the media. The citizens of the western nations are equally to blame, they are the ones who gobble the shit up.

   You go ahead though and blame the nasty military. Just like every other naive soft westerner.  

Quote[/b] ]How do you even compare something as insignificant as the situation in Iraq to WWII? How do you think the west would react if one western country suddenly marched across Europe crushing every army in its way? Get some perspective.

   I compare it because if the west today can't cope with an "insignificant" skirmish like Iraq, then they sure as hell can't cope with a real war with a nation like North Korea.

How do I think the west would react? I'm sure they would place sanctions for over a decade which the offending nation would ignore, then a few nations would step up and go to war and promptly sue for peace after just one day of batte in which thousands of troops died.

Quote[/b] ]Flame Bait methinks.

Anyway how do you figure today's western world Not winning the second world war? Better tanks, equipment, training, aircraft...and nukes.

    It's not flame bait. It's an interesting discussion, how would the west deal with a real war in present times?

    As for better equipment, that's not the issue the issue is heart and fiber to see a struggle through to victory. The war in Iraq was lost partly because it was a "massive" blood bath that claimed the lives of 1,600 troops so far over 3 years. A conflict on the Korean peninsula could lead to 1,600 dead in one day. To me it appears the west would capitulate within a week if not less.

Quote[/b] ]It took less time to get western europe and japan up 'n running than some 3rd world shithole?

    It took longer than that. The Japanese and Europeans were indeed actually interested in moving forward though. Something the Iraqi's seem to have no interest in. It's up to them to decide when the bloodshed ends.

    Even though I'm pessimistic about the Iraqi people ever deciding to move on, I still strongly disagree with you referring to them as a third world shit hole. They have every opportunity to pull them selves up and become a productive nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this thread it's sad to say some of [uS] throw casualty numbers around like their are no people behind each digit. However I do realize the point that some of you are trying to reach.

In my opinion the media does more harm than good to any war effort. They speculate over live television over possible attack plans and attack points and with less censorship even at times help the enemy spread their message to more people.

Although most either don't know or can't admit it, the media as a whole (not just specific reporters) like it when soldiers die. It helps thier ratings. Since Fallujah the number of American deaths have fallen and so has the coverage of the Iraq war. The only thing we ever hear about are bambings and Americans being wounded or killed.

At first I believed that that was all that happened in Iraq until I met a few soldiers who gave me a totally different perspective on the situation. You would they were talking about a completely different country than the news.

I probably got off topic their but felt it needed to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rjjr you are a way better speaker than I. I suck at putting my feelings into print. I whole heartedly agree with every thing you said.

I don't mean to belittle the sacrifice of any of the dead service men and women of the coalition forces. Each one of them was person with a family and history, a life cut short.

Sadly lives are lost in war though. I try to look at it as only 1,600 have died in three years. When worded that way though it sounds incredibly callous and heartless. I'm just trying to make the comparison between the death toll from other wars in which 1,000 dead a day were not uncommon. In those wars the people of the west steeled them selves and fought on to victory, I don't think the west today could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bringer, Sputnik, Rjjr, I can definitely see from you point of view. Yeah, the war sucks, and whether you agree with it or not, the media is helping more to prolong the war, even if it is just in the hearts and minds of those in service and at home. That's the most important place anyway.

The thing that irks me is the complete ignorance to progress that the media HAS. I am an ROTC cadet and a journalism student, and I can say for sure that the media plays a huge role in the success or "failiure" of something.

Thanks for arguing this in a mature and factual manner.

-Breaker Out

(the west wouldn't capitulate, though...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, that Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe will never be forgotten,  and cannot be overestimated or abused in any way.

Western Europe, and they sure did screw the rest over.

I'd blame the Soviets on that one... not the west.

How do you figure? Sure, the Soviets can be blamed as much as the nazis, but Americans let them do it. What's the point claiming that "Americans did fight and die for freedom and the people of Europe", when in fact they only did so for a very small part of it? Just start calling the part they fought and died for "Western Europe", instead of "Europe". It's more historically accurate that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]How do you even compare something as insignificant as the situation in Iraq to WWII? How do you think the west would react if one western country suddenly marched across Europe crushing every army in its way? Get some perspective.

   I compare it because if the west today can't cope with an "insignificant" skirmish like Iraq, then they sure as hell can't cope with a real war with a nation like North Korea.  

It's not "can't", it's "won't". There's a good reason to not cope with that pathetic crusade, and it has nothing to do with the losses.

Example: Why didn't the US just cope with the losses from the WTC attack? After all, it was just 2,749 casualties.

b_ringer25, there is no plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ares1978, it wasn't the "Americans" who let the Soviets ride rough-shod over Eastern Europe; the blame can be placed squarely on the broad shoulders of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ignored Prime Minister Churchill's repeated warnings about Soviet duplicity and chose instead to make sure that Nazi Germany was defeated by '45. Naturally Stalin didn't want America interfering in Eastern Europe, hence his repeated attempts over the years to discredit and shun Churchill, and consequently the British Empire in favour of America. Stalin never forgot that Churchill had tried to destroy communism back in 1919, and made every attempt to ignore him through the latter stages of World War Two, setting the stage for Roosevelt to blithely ignore the fact that the Soviet Union would throw away every agreement ever made, in favour of a two power standard after the fighting ended. The "Cold War" ensued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ares1978, it wasn't the "Americans" who let the Soviets ride rough-shod over Eastern Europe; the blame can be placed squarely on the broad shoulders of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ignored Prime Minister Churchill's repeated warnings about Soviet duplicity and chose instead to make sure that Nazi Germany was defeated by '45.  Naturally Stalin didn't want America interfering in Eastern Europe, hence his repeated attempts over the years to discredit and shun Churchill, and consequently the British Empire in favour of America.  Stalin never forgot that Churchill had tried to destroy communism back in 1919, and made every attempt to ignore him through the latter stages of World War Two, setting the stage for Roosevelt to blithely ignore the fact that the Soviet Union would throw away every agreement ever made, in favour of a two power standard after the fighting ended.  The "Cold War" ensued.

I do know the reasons why they let it happen, but I won't accept any false claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×