The D-Day Landings, 6th June 1944 Sources Questions
GCSE History Coursework Assignment Two
The D-Day Landings, 6th June 1944
Question 1
What can you learn from Sources B and C about Churchill's role in the D-Day landings?
From looking at both sources B and C we can infer a few things. Firstly that Winston Churchill was one of, or the main planner of the D-Day landings. From Source B we can infer this because from reading it we notice that Churchill knows a large amount of technical information about the goings on of D-Day. A good example of this is when he says "And the combined employment of land, air, and sea forces in the highest degree of intimacy and in contact with conditions which could not and cannot be fully foreseen". We can infer that Churchill has a main part in planning the D-Day operations by looking at Source C as well. This is because from the cartoon we can clearly see that he is studying maps of France and the rest of Europe and we can also see that he is in deep thought about the subject from the expression on his face and the fact that the smoke from his cigar is forming a question mark.
The second thing that we can clearly infer from studying Source C is that the servicemen see him as their leader. We can infer this from the fact that the cartoon servicemen, portrayed as children, call Churchill "Daddy" and are asking him the begging question, "Daddy, when are you taking us on that outing to Europe?" From this we can also see that it is Churchill's decision when the landings are to take place.
From my own knowledge I know that it was not purely Churchill who planned the D-Day landings, Generals Montgomery and Eisenhower also played a large part in the planning and execution of the landings so even though the source is more reliable than you would expect cartoon propaganda to be it still gives us some useful information.
GCSE History Coursework Assignment Two
The D-Day Landings, 6th June 1944
Question 2
Study Sources B, C, E and F
How do sources C, E and F help you to understand Churchill's description of the operation (Source B)?
Churchill describes the D-Day landings in several different ways. Firstly he describes it as "vast". This can be quite a loose description but from studying Sources C and E we are able to understand this description better. Source C shows Churchill studying maps of different places in Europe, France, Norway and some others. Europe is a very large place many thousands of square kilometres, which many people would call a vast area of land. So Churchill's description of a "vast operation" is partly justified. We can further justify this comment by studying Source E. This map shows us just how much land had to be covered when invading Normandy and also the "vast" number of soldiers, who were involved in the landings.
The second way Churchill describes the D-Day landings is "complicated". When we look at Source C we can see an example of this because people know that Winston Churchill was an intelligent man and from the expression on his face and the metaphorical question mark that is shown coming from his cigar that he is in deep thought. From the children's impatient question we can also infer that he has been there, pondering hard for a long time. Most intelligent people would not have to sit in isolation for a long time in deep thought unless they were thinking about something extremely complicated. If we also look deeply in to Source E we can see that the series of events was also quite complicated. The different countries involved and the different forces all going to different areas is likely to have been a very complicated operation to organise.
I have mentioned before that all of the special services were involved in the landings. Churchill also tells us this in Source B and we can justify this comment by looking at Sources C and E. Source C shows us that all services are involved in the operation when we look at the children, one dressed in army clothing, one in navy clothing and the last in air-force clothing. They are all asking Churchill when they are going to Europe so we assume they are involved in the D-Day landings. When we look at source E we can see the different forces used and their jobs on D-Day. There are arrows going across the sea symbolising boat travel, which was done by the navy. The army were carried by the boats, to land on the beaches and attack from there. The air force, symbolised by parachutes on the map, were dropped deep in to Normandy.
All of this planning had to go on in top secret or "intimacy" as Churchill says in Source B, otherwise the Axis forces would have found out what was going on and thwarted the invasion. In Source C we can see Churchill being very secretive as he is in the room alone planning the attack and the armed forces, which come to visit him do not really know what is going on or what Churchill is planning. From studying Source E we can see a few secret procedures in use, most noticeably that all the beaches are codenamed, the British and Canadian ones were Gold, Juno and Sword, and the American beaches Omaha and Utah. This gave the opposing armies no idea to where the allied forces would be landing because no place in France is called any of those things.
Finally and most difficult to justify from using the provided sources is when Churchill describes unforeseen circumstances. This is almost impossible to plan for yet we see from Source C that Churchill is possibly planning for all eventualities, or at least ones he can think might happen. The map in Source E does not leave room for many unforeseen events because everything is immaculately set out with everyone having their own specific job to do. But from this map we really have no idea of what the soldiers have been trained to do in extreme circumstances, we cannot ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Finally and most difficult to justify from using the provided sources is when Churchill describes unforeseen circumstances. This is almost impossible to plan for yet we see from Source C that Churchill is possibly planning for all eventualities, or at least ones he can think might happen. The map in Source E does not leave room for many unforeseen events because everything is immaculately set out with everyone having their own specific job to do. But from this map we really have no idea of what the soldiers have been trained to do in extreme circumstances, we cannot make solid inferences, we can only say perhaps something may have been planned for this.
GCSE History Coursework Assignment Two
The D-Day Landings, 6th June 1944
Question 3
How useful are Sources A, J and L for an enquiry into the success of the D-Day landings?
At face value Source A tells us that the "massed airborne landings have been successfully effected behind the enemy lines" so that is one point of success. Source A may only say that one thing has been completed successfully but we can infer from the rest of what Churchill says is that the beach landings are going quite successfully as well, because he says that "landings on the beaches are proceeding at various points.... the obstacles that were constructed in the sea have not proved as difficult as we apprehended." I think this is a fairly trustworthy source in Winston Churchill the Prime Minister Of Britain at that time. Also the date is reliable because this could not have been said before D-Day as none of the things Churchill mentions had happened yet. Also he is speaking in the present tense so it is obvious that what he is talking about is currently going on. Churchill must have been speaking before midday however because the deployment on the beaches was finished by around 9AM. There are several things that it does not say in the text, perhaps because Churchill does not know this, or perhaps he is holding back. He does not tell us anything about what the opposition is doing or what the planes and ships providing covering fire are doing, which could be very useful information. The title of this piece allows us to infer several things. It tells us he is speaking to parliament in the House of Commons, from this we can infer that as he is speaking to such a large and important number of people he may not want to mention a few things. He obviously will not criticise his own operation and many people would have been very nervous about what is going on so Churchill may be trying to reassure them by only releasing the good news of the landings.
At face value it is impossible to judge the success of the D-Day landings from studying Source J. But by making careful inferences we can think that it would have been hard to be successful against such strong German coastal defences. We do not know the exact Author of the photos but it was most likely to be the Germans trying to show off their strength and scare anyone away. We are also unsure of the exact date, but it is definitely before D-Day because after D-Day these defences were not left intact. Although the photos reflect different types of defence we do not know where they are or how many of them there are. They may not even be in Normandy. I also know from my own knowledge that these were not the only defences that the Germans had, I know that they also had hidden mines, bunkers with mortars and many other things. It is very difficult to judge if the Allies had any success on D-Day by looking at these photos.
Source L is a very useful Source when trying to judge the success of the D-Day landings. It tells us the amount of men killed wounded and missing from the British Canadian and US forces in the first 15 days of battle. As we are only judging the success of D-Day we need not worry that the figures only count the men killed in the first 15 days of battle because the actual landings had finished within 15 days. This is a reliable source and all the figures are correct because these are according to the allied supreme headquarters, there is no conspiracy theory. There may be a slight error in these figures due to some bodies drowning in the sea and being lost or too mutilated to identify. What it does not tell us is the figures for all the other countries involved in the landings on the Allies side, though they are likely to be quite small. We also are not told how many men actually went into battle so you cannot work out the percentages of men killed, wounded or missing.
It is very difficult to judge the overall success of the landings because it was such a vast operation. Historians tell us however that this was the turning point of the Second war when the allies started fighting back in to German territory so we could say that it must have been a successful operation because the Axis were defeated.
GCSE History Coursework Assignment Two
The D-Day Landings, 6th June 1944
Question 4
"The Allies easily overcame the German defences."
Is this interpretation correct?
Explain your answer using sources D, E, F, G, H and J and your own knowledge.
Overall to answer this question is difficult. This is because it is difficult to define the word "easily". If it means that the allies walked on to the beaches and all the way to Caen, without anyone getting shot at or killed, then no the allies did not easily overcome the German defences. We do know from sources and my own knowledge that the Germans had many forms of defence against invasion. Some examples of these are seen in Source J. Here we can see that the Germans had long-range shells, landmines and several other things, however I do not believe that this was the full extent of their defences. Source E shows us the coast of Normandy, this coast was heavily armed by the forces shown in Source J. When we look at Source H it tells us of the "ferocious reputation" of the "12th SS Panzer Division". This gives the impression that the Germans were superb soldiers, which many of them were. So taking these sources in to account it seems that the Germans had a very good set up in case of attack, almost impenetrable perhaps.
So how did the allies overcome these defences to conquer Normandy? The answer again lies in the sources. Sources D, E and F give great examples of how the German defences were overcome. Source D shows a picture a Mulberry harbour in use. One of the Mulberry harbours was sunk by bad weather so if this had have survived perhaps the Allies would have overcome the German defences more easily. Only one Mulberry harbour when it was planned there would be two must have complicated things. Without this harbour D-Day could not have taken place as we can justify by looking at Source F. It says that Mulberry harbours were the answer to all their docking and unloading problems. Source E is another useful Source in determining how the Allies overcame the German defences. It shows the use of air borne troops who I know did a lot to dispose of inland German defences and set a platform for the ground troops on D-Day. It also shows how far the Allies were into France by the end of D-Day, which could be a measure of how easily they overcame the German defences because if they had been faced with many difficult obstacles it would surely affect the speed at which they were moving. However I do not see the use of source G in answering this question. One could imply that it was an obstacle for the allies or that it was heavily defended at the time but no solid evidence can be extracted.
Not included in the sources are some of the ingenious inventions discovered by the Allies to overcome the German obstacles. Nicknamed "Hobart's Funnies" after their inventor Professor Hobart they included floating tanks, which could be deployed from boats in to the sea. Sadly all but a few of these tanks sunk on the day leaving the Allies with lees covering fire. Another of Hobart's inventions was the flail tank, this tank had spinning mace like objects on the front designed to destroy and hidden landmines that it drove into.
In conclusion, even though the Allies had very many ways of overcoming the Germans defences I am sure no soldier who fought in D-Day will tell you that it was an easy time. If it was indeed an easy task then why did the Americans almost face defeat at Omaha and almost none of the planned times to complete D-Day objectives were conformed with. Almost all of the objectives took longer than planned. Therefore from looking at the strong defences that the Germans had and the struggle I know that the Allies went through I will say that easily was the last way that the Allies overcame the German defences and that the statement "The Allies easily overcame the German defences" is not correct.
GCSE History Coursework Assignment Two
The D-Day Landings, 6th June 1944
Question 5
How far do sources I and K differ in their interpretation of the landings?
Explain your answer using Sources I and K.
Firstly Source I explains the fact that the Germans were better soldiers than was made out. However we cannot compare this comment against Source K, as it does not mention anything about the quality of the German troops, or in fact anything bout the German troops. As Source K says nothing about this subject then it is near impossible to judge how far the two sources differ in their interpretation of the landings.
The next thing Source I describes is that the Allies did not meet their D-Day objectives. There is a similarity to this in Source K in that the author writes, "Things did not go altogether according to plan" but does not say why this is. However, the difference in Source K to what it says in Source I, is that he does mention clearly that the US troops were successful at landing on one beach (Utah), which it does not say in Source I. I do not think that it is possible to judge the differentiation of the two sources on this point as source K does not give us clear information of what happened in his opinion.
Source I also says that the reason that the Allies were unsuccessful at meeting the objectives was that the German troops thwarted them. But in Source K the historian argues that it was through fault of the Allies that they did not fulfil their objectives on time, it does not mention anything about the Germans part in all off this, as I have said before. This is quite an important point to proving how far the two sources differ in their interpretations because what they have said here are two completely different reasons to why the Allies were not as successful as they could have been at completing their objectives. If we agree with Source I it goes far to justify the comment made about the quality of the German troops. If we agree with the author of Source Ks opinion then it means that the Allied soldiers were not as great soldiers as they were made out to be.
Finally the last point that Source I makes is that the US forces came close to defeat at Omaha beach. Source K does mention this but simply says that they disembarked too far out. But if we know the German coastal defences and the weather conditions at Omaha beach then we know that this was a fatal mistake because the weather made the sea difficult to traverse and the German beach defences were able to gun down hundreds of US soldiers before they reached the beach. We have to know this because from Source K we can only infer that this brought them close to failure whereas Source I says his clearly. This is again a case of the historian who wrote source K holding back certain pieces of information and therefore making us have to make inferences from what they say.
Overall I would say that the third point that was raised about whether it was through fault of the Allies or skill of the Germans that the Allies failed to complete their objectives on time is where the two sources differ the most. This is because there are no similarities between the sources when it comes to this point, both historians are quite clear on their opinions about this point.
GCSE History Coursework Assignment Two
The D-Day Landings, 6th June 1944
Question 6
"The allies successfully invaded France in 1944 because their planning was effective."
Do you agree with this view?
Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
I think that effective planning was a very big factor in the Allies successfully invading France in 1944, but I would first consider a few other factors. From my own knowledge I believe that a contributing factor was the fact that the allies had very strong and numerous forces. Regiments such as the 101st airborne division were very skilled and nearly all of the forces involved had been training for the landings for months. I also know that this invasion was the largest beach invasion that had ever taken place and may still be. Though some information contradicts what I have previously said, mainly the inexperienced US soldiers that landed on Omaha. These soldiers caused many problems due to their ineptness and this is the reason many historians give for the Allies almost being defeated at Omaha. However, after studying the sources available I can find no proof in or opinion in them that says the allies had very strong forces. Instead, I have found a couple of sources (K and I) that give opinions that the allies were not in fact very skilled soldiers. In conclusion I believe that there were some very skilled soldiers such as the 101st airborne division, but many were inept and I think that it was just down to sheer numbers and the good planning and deployment that the allies successfully invaded France.
Another factor that could have been involved was that many people say the Germans were poor quality inept soldiers. The reason for this is that there were huge numbers in the German army but only because they were recruited. This meant that many soldiers were not given the proper, or sometimes any training. But an interesting fact is that at Omaha beach when the US invaded was a crack regiment of German soldiers. This regiment almost prevented the US from taking the beach and advancing further into France. It was only due to the sheer numbers of US troops who invaded that this beach was taken. Again I have no proof in the sources of the fact that the German army was inept. But again I do have opinions from Sources I and H that say the Germans were not inept at all but good fighters. So if I take these sources in to consideration I think that the Germans were definitely not as inept as many historians have said. They did put up a very good fight at several places and especially later on in the battle of Normandy they fought bitterly for months. So in conclusion the opinion that the German forces were inept is not a factor at all to why the Allies successfully invaded France in 1944.
A factor that could be involved is that some historians say that the Allies were lucky on D-Day. The weather had been awful for the days coming up to D-Day but when the day came there was a break in the bad weather, which allowed the invasion to take place. Another lucky point was that the Americans at Utah did not in fact land at Utah. They landed a few miles down the coast from Utah beach therefore bypassing all of the German troops at Utah. However, not all the luck the Allies had was good. At Omaha beach the bad weather did not hold off, this caused very poor visibility and made the beaches very difficult to land on, thus allowing the Germans to pick the Americans off easily. However in the sources, no form of luck is mentioned. This, I think, is because historians will always find a reason why it was not any form of luck. For example there are other reasons why the Americans were nearly defeated at Omaha, the blame cannot be laid square at the feet of bad luck. It is too easy to give this as a reason for any type of failure. So as there is not even a mention of luck in any of the sources I think that not much luck was involved on D-Day and it is an almost insignificant factor to why the allies successfully invaded France.
A factor that is often forgotten about is the huge amount of air and sea support that was given to the land troops on D-Day. There was heavy bombing from the air prior to D-Day, which threw the Axis in to disarray. Also during the landings there was heavy bombing from air and sea support. I from my own knowledge I cannot think of any evidence against the fact that the air and sea support was an important factor apart from a certain number of Allied soldiers were unavoidably killed by their own support fire, however many more of the enemy were killed by it. Sources that agree with this view are C, D and E. There are no sources that disagree at all with this factor so in conclusion I think that this was a very important factor. With out sufficient covering fire, wherever it may have came from, the land troops would have been sitting ducks for the German heavy machine guns and would have been stranded otherwise. But in conclusion it was in fact the good planning of the operation that made sure that the Navy and the Air force were there to give such support.
Finally I am going to assess the actual importance of the planning of the Normandy landings. We know that Churchill and the several great Generals including Eisenhower and Montgomery spent months and months planning the invasion and that the invasion went off quite smoothly. So are these two things closely related? All of the objectives were completed, however, some objectives were not met as well as was planned, for example the landing on Omaha beach. This factor also has the most sources that agree with the opinion (A, B, C and E), only one that disagrees with it (Source K). Also I think that good planning was the reason that even the inexperienced soldiers were able to do the job, and the reason why the sea and air support was present. We know that the plan was closely followed on D-Day so we can assume that this is why the Allies successfully invaded France. If they had not stuck to the proposed plan then none of the other important factors would have mattered. In conclusion I agree with the statement "The allies successfully invaded France in 1944 because their planning was effective." And would say that it is the most important factor that contributed to the invasion going swiftly.
Daniel Bloomfield 11NM History Coursework Mr Salt
