Was the D-Day invasion necessary?
374127
Yes.  It was necessary to open another front against Germany.  The Soviet Union and Germany were basically slugging it out on the Eastern Front, but the introduction of American and British troops into Western Europe drew resources away from the Eastern Front, allowing the Soviet Army to advance farther.  The war would have lasted about two to three years longer without the D-Day invasion and probably cost 2-3 million more lives (not counting more lives lost in Nazi death camps)
974419
There is no one name for the allied invasion of France through the liberation of Paris.The allies invaded Normandy (France) on June 6, 1944 and didn't liberate Paris until months later, after fighting hard across France. The invasion was called D-Day; there was no specific name for the liberation of Paris, which occured on Aug 25, 1944.\n\nBelow is the Wikipedia entry for World War II.
140767
one of their allies had the atomic bomb and were prepared to use it. also, Germany was the main foe, being so close to taking over Europe, they had to worry about them first. military strategy throughout history warns about fighting a battle on 2 fronts. depletes your resourses and manpower. Germany was the main concern then take on Japan.
22753
In my opinion unfortunately yes.  Not that it isn't worth note but it was just overshadowed by the Normandy invasion.
803456
I think the media and public would have a hard time dealing with the news after D-Day or Tarawa.  Today we can look back and say "because of D-Day we did this, or because of the battle of Tarawa or Iwa Jima we did that."  But the day after the battles all we knew was that there were a ton of dead americans.\n\n\nI dont think the public could handle that.
236036
Absolutely.  Military analysts predicted a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland would have costed the lives of 1 million Americans, .5 million British, and 3 million Japanese.  All those lives were saved by dropping the bombs.  Plus, the war got over sooner and the hard-ships faced by citizens of all the countries sitll involved were reduced significantly and they could go back to leading normal lives.
950530
No.  The Germans weren't responsible for it in the first place.  The Nazis were.  Big difference.
1094157
Well it depends on the category you are talking about.... But D-Day was June 6th, 1944.... that was the day Allied Forces executed Operation Overlord.... the invasion into France during WWII.  It consisted of both sea and air assaults onto the northern coast of France and airborne and glider assaults behind the German front lines.
63000
Iwo Jima and Okinawa were two major battles in the Pacific. The landing on the beaches in Normandy,  France (D-Day) was a major battle in Europe.
188954
I once had a 6th grade teacher that said that nobody could rule the world because it would spread them to thin. I subscribe to that theory because it sounds reasonable to me. Just because Germany or Japan took over France there was still a resistance that contributed to the victory by the allies. If it was here there would also have been an underground that would have made it tough to keep us in line. So the answer to this is no I think that English will always be the language of the land regardless if we pass on a war or not.
187536
The purpose of the airborne troops was to seize key transportation junctions to stop the arrival of reinforcements and confuse the higher command. In that way, the German defenses along the coast could be better isolated and destroyed by the landing troops.\n\nThe destruction of pillboxes, which are hardened targets, require lots of specialized equipment such as shaped charges and engineering equipment. A paratrooper is extremely limited in the amount of equipment he can carry when he jumps. If he is too heavy, he will fall too fast and will be break a leg or even his neck when he hits the ground. Because the Allies were landing in extremely bad weather so the Germans would believe there would be no landing that day, any heavy equipment either would be blown off course in the wind, or would have to go in the gliders which turned out to be very fragile.\n\nI hope this helps.
37752
I think through time, moving to the Euro is a possibility. It may be an ego blow to red blooded Americans, but not particularly damaging to the economy.\n\nWith regard to invade, I not sure that is a practical necessity, more likely they will attempt to destroy facilities perceived to be active in nuclear work, while applying external pressure through sanctions.
223910
In English military parlance, D-Day is a term often used to denote the day on which a combat attack or operation is to be initiated. Whilst the initial D in D-day is not an abbreviation of anything, it is taken from the word day and represents a variable, designating the day upon which some significant event will or has occurred
116801
WHY WAS IT CALLED D-DAY?\n\n“D” is derived from the word "Day". D-day is the unnamed day on which a particular operation commences or is to commence. (US Dept of Defence, Defence Technical Information Center)\n\nWHY IS D-DAY SO IMPORTANT?\n\nD Day was a fork in the road of history, a role of the dice which could have led the world down one of two paths - if it had failed Germany could have regrouped and secured its territory gains. Some claim Hitler, whose scientists were already demonstrating their achievements in rocketry, could have developed of the atom bomb. \n\nBesides the incredible courage, and brilliant strategy it was arguably only as a result of a combination of coincidences and mistakes that the Germans didn't succeed in resisting the landings. Never had world history had such a pivotal day (arguably the Cuban missile crisis deadline is comparable).\n\n- Rommel, the German commander, returned from his headquarters in Normandy to Germany for his wife's birthday on June 6th, removing the immediacy of a local army commander. He believed the weather conditions to be unsuitable for an invasion\n\n- Hitler, who succeeded early in the war by giving generals initiative, micro mangaged later in the war with-holding key tank forces that could have prevented the beach-head\n\n- Eisenhower needed very specific weather for the invasion - a late rising moon and a low tide. Meteorologistsof the day told Eisenhower these weather conditions would exist on June 5th, 6th, and 7th. Originally, Eisenhower chose June 5th as the invasion day, but due to an unexpected storm, he postponed it for 24 hours. Meteorologists then reported a new weather front that would cause some temporary clearing over the English Channel. The clearer weather conditions would last only until the morning of the 6th and then the weather would get worse. Rather than postpone the invasion, Eisenhower and his commanders decided to go through with the invasion on June 6th.\n\n- a double agent codenamed Garbo told his German coordinators at 3am on the night of June 6th that an invasion was occurring in Normandy, revealing the true invasion intentions. He knew they would be starting to receive reports corroborating this giving his intelligence great creditbility. Then after telling the truth he sold the German intelligence the really big lie - that the Allies were communicating to their forces that there was to be utter secrecy about 'other landings' (leading German intelligence to believe what they wanted to hear - that the Normandy invasion was a bluff and the real attack was in the pas de Calais) a bluff which succesfuly led to Hitler holding back his forces in the believe that the real landings were in Calias.\n\nThe outcome of D-Day was an early end to the war in both Europe and Japan. Had D-Day failed the allies would have needed to wait until 45 or 46 to reattempt the landings. \n\nThere is great debate as to whether if D-Day had failed Hitler could have used the extra time to develop the atom bomb. Some sides say he disputed this Jewish physics pioneered by Einstein, however he did develop heavy water facilities in Normandy. If D-Day had failed with the bomb he might have brokerered a peace securing his territory gains.\n\nIt must be pointed out that even if D-Day had failed the Russians would still have been likely to have succeeded and potentially secured a much larger amount of territory in Europe when peace was secured. Without D-Day the western allies would not have had control of France, Spain and England which might have fallen to communism and the Cold War would have been a very different story.\n\nImagine a world where Europe had been run by a brutal totalitarian state through the 40s and 50s. America would have become isolated. One can only speculate on the outcome but it would be hard not to imagine millions more dying and the implications affecting more than just those countries directly involved in the conflict.\n\nMa
836744
They advised him not to take over Sudetland, Chechoslovakia and other conquests, but he over ruled them and won.  Significant actions that he blew was the order the encirclement of Russian troops at Kharkov in 1941 when Moscow was there for the taking, the advance on Stalingrad (i don't need to detail that blunder), the 'last stand' order in many battles when a shorter line of defence was a better strategy, the decision to stop bombardment of radar and RAF airfields in 1940....instead switching to attacks on London/Coventry (just when he had RAF on its knees), decision to stop tanks long enough to allow BEF to escape with most of their men to Britain, decision to withhold Panzer reserves prior to Normandy (expecting an invasion at Pas de Calais), and i'm sure there are others.  The Germans most likely would've won the war...but who knows for sure?
213033
The key difference is that there was no moral justification for our invasion of Vietnam.  We betrayed ourselves and not unlike Iraq entered into a war of choice based on false evidence. \nIn WWII, there actually was a REAL enemy who declared war on the United States from Asia and Europe .\nWW II was winnable, Vietnam was not. Both were costly, only one war was the US right to be involved in.  It was not Vietnam.
753310
We must be, we saved France in WW2 didn't we?