EDITOR’S NOTE: The following piece is adapted from the author’s chapter in The D-Day Companion: Leading Historians Explore History’s Greatest Amphibious Assault.
Embedded in the memories of people of every generation are key events, defining moments that will be remembered for the rest of their lives. For millions of contemporary citizens from the Western nations, the events of September 11, 2001, in New York City will be one such key memory. A previous generation, however, the generation that lived through and fought World War II, witnessed many defining moments. Some of their memories tend to focus on events that have special meaning to a particular nation. For example, few Frenchmen of that generation will ever forget the 1940 Fall of France and the vivid image of German soldiers marching, daily, down the Champs-Elysées to the Place de la Concorde. Citizens of the United Kingdom have an enduring memory of the Blitz of 1940, when London endured merciless pounding by the Luftwaffe. They will not forget the “Miracle of Dunkirk,” the rescue of the British Empire’s soldiers from France. Americans of the wartime generation clearly remember December 7, 1941, when, without warning, the Japanese Navy staged its surprise attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Yet, from the World War II era there is one event, one memory, that transcends national experiences and unites the Western Allies. That event is D-Day, June 6, 1944.
The invasion of German–occupied France by an Allied joint force remains an accomplishment that is undiminished by the passage of well over half a century. As we proceed through the 21st century, what should be remembered and what can be learned from this legendary operation?
Looking back after 65 years, the decision to take this risk was important not only because it would lead to the destruction of Hitler’s regime, but also because it holds significant lessons, particularly for military planners today. D-Day serves as a prime example of the power and synergy that can be created through a strong alliance. In modern military history there are few better examples of a strong alliance than the one that existed between the United States and Great Britain. The strength of the alliance began at the top with the unique chemistry between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston S. Churchill. While each clearly and consistently represented the national interests of his individual country, through their warm mutual respect and their common goal, Churchill and Roosevelt set an excellent example for waging warfare within an alliance.
The strength of alliance warfare can be seen at the highest military levels. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander, had the support and respect of both Roosevelt and Churchill. Roosevelt sensed early on that Eisenhower held unique abilities to work within an alliance structure. Eisenhower validated this trust on numerous occasions, not least of which was working with Churchill. Though Churchill was brilliant, working with the prime minister could at times be challenging, due to the latter’s military background and his own strong opinions on strategy. Still, mutual respect and a common goal allowed these two men to develop a solid working relationship.
As the actual planning for OVERLORD proceeded, the importance of using the talents available through a strong alliance became evident. When Eisenhower was appointed supreme Allied commander and Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery was named the ground component commander for the invasion (as well as Commander of the British 21st Army Group), these two senior officers were able to work closely together to develop a successful plan. In 1943, earlier planners had proposed a modest force of three divisions to invade the Continent and begin the process of unraveling Hitler’s “Thousand-Year Reich.” Eisenhower and Montgomery found the original 1943 plan far too weak and, through their combined efforts, a robust invasion force of five divisions, supported by three airborne divisions, was structured. Though later in the war they would have their differences, in the planning and implementation phases of OVERLORD, the talents of these two senior leaders were decidedly important for the successful invasion.
The solid commitment to use the combined abilities of the two English–speaking nations could be seen throughout Eisenhower’s command structure. Thus, as 1944 began, Eisenhower’s aide was Lt. Col. James Gault, a member of the Scots Guards. The air commander for the Allied Expeditionary Force was Air Chief Marshal Sir Trafford Leigh Mallory, a bona fide British hero from the Battle of Britain. As chief of Allied naval forces for the invasion Eisenhower selected Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay. From the beginning to the end OVERLORD was truly an alliance effort.
The synergy produced by the alliance went beyond that produced by the senior leadership. For example, through its geographical location and a number of excellent ports, Britain offered the prime launching platform for an invasion force. In fact, the British Isles became one immense marshaling yard for British, U.S., and Canadian troops. The combined power of the Royal Navy and U.S. Navy offered the transportation assets for men and supplies, as well as the combined firepower to make the invasion a success. The combined air assets of Britain and the United States, both tactical aircraft and strategic bombers, offered the Allies mastery of the skies, day and night. Through the Allied air and sea fleets the firepower needed to support the landings was available. Fortunately, the same strength in the air and on the seas was conspicuously absent for German forces.
In retrospect, consider what this alliance and the millions of soldiers and support personnel were able to accomplish. On June 5, an armada of some 7,000 Allied ships, consisting among others of 138 warships, 221 escort vessels, 287 minesweepers, 805 cargo vessels, and 495 light coastal vessels proceeded across the Channel and converged on the Normandy peninsula. In the skies above, 1,400 troop transports, 11,590 military aircraft of various types, and 3,700 fighters supported the landings. Even more impressive, on one day, June 6, 1944, Allied naval and air assets put between 150,000 and 175,000 soldiers ashore. The Allied landings were so well planned, so well supported with an admirable deception plan that, together with a little bit of pure luck, they succeeded. Only on Omaha Beach was there a possibility that the landings might fail, and even that was erased before the day was through.
For certain, the Normandy invasion was a tribute to the bravery of Canadian, British, American, Polish, Czechoslovakian, and Free French soldiers who faced the odds and successfully completed an amphibious landing, one of the toughest types of operation for a soldier. It was a tribute to the pilots who flew the transports through a hail of fire to land three airborne divisions in the European continent, and the navy personnel that guided the landing craft toward a well-defended shore. Above all, D-Day marked the initiation of the final chapter of the great crusade to destroy National Socialist Germany, and was a prime example of the might that can be employed through a strong alliance that has mutually agreed goals and excellent leadership. Despite the passage of 60 years, this is an example that should not be ignored in the 21st century.
– Samuel J. Newland is professor of military education at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle, Penn. This is adapted from his chapter in The D-Day Companion: Leading Historians Explore History’s Greatest Amphibious Assault, edited by Jane Penrose (Osprey Publishing, 2009).