I went by motorbike from Paris to Arromanche via Mt Ormell and Falaise…..the year Obama was present. All the flags were flying from Mt Ormell onwards which I found impressive. The reenactors I found initially very uncomfortable, but I camped among them in the Municipal campsite at Arromanche, and then I realised it was a celebration of their liberation, and not in bad taste, but the reverse. I discovered Crépon and the Green Howards/Stan Hollis memorial, and was invited to a service a week later , by the Mayor. I was very impressed by the dignity and respect shown by the very many local people who attended.

The 17 stone Wehrmacht re-enactors - the Internet has coined "Pizzagrenadiers" for them.

I think it fortunate that the Allies basically gave the Germans an impossible tactical/strategic problem set. Because their air and naval power gave them the ability to attack almost anywhere in Europe, the Germans had to defend everywhere and hence were always going to be relatively weak in most places. The rational course for the Germans after mid-43, with the setback at Kursk and the loss of Sicily, was to read the writing on the wall and sue for peace. But the Germans, had they been rational, would never have started the war in the first place.

I have always wondered why no follow up was considered for Normandy. Getting ashore and getting a foothold is objective one. But did no one seriously consider what comes after? The more I read about the post-Normandy battle is a bit of an improvised plan, it would make sense to after an after plan for driving to Germany.

@steveholmes11

24 күн бұрын

I understand there was insufficient intelligence to plot 2 weeks breakout fighting after the beaches. The actual follow-up seems pretty successful. * Massive aerial interdiction, putting an end to German rail capacity. * Constant enemy contact, sucking in reserves for piecemeal destruction. * Sufficient land behind to bring up supplies reserves replacements and all the gubbins of modern war fighting.