Decision in Normandy

~Decision in Normandy~ is a striking account of the D-Day invasion on 6 June 1944, and the subsequent engagements. The Battle of Normandy, codenamed Operation Overlord, was the long awaited Allied invasion of France. To this date, Overlord represents the largest staged amphibious assault in history. Over 156,000 Allied troops (mostly American, Canadian, and British) crossed the English Channel from the United Kingdom to Normandy. The Germans had anticipated the narrow Straits of Dover as being the most likely beachhead of any allied assault, and prepared accordingly. The Allies deployed a massive deception, and projected their forces for beaches of Normandy between Cherbourg and La Havre. The initial phase was Operation Neptune. The Western task force were the Americans. The Eastern task force were the Canadians and British. On that overcast stormy day, the Western Allies breached Hitler's vaunted Atlantic Wall, and it marked the turning point of World War II. After the success of Operation Neptune, the Airborne divisions began parachuting all across Normandy. This book is where historian Carlo D'Este tells the story. All things considered, this is an excellent read. If one wants to have a more personalized account of the soldier's lives, after they get the technical details down pat, then I recommend reading The Bedford Boys: One American Town's Ultimate D-Day Sacrifice by Alex Kershaw.

Read the other reviews for details, characters, and examples. As an historian and anthropologist, a veteran and a compulsive reader of histories - military and otherwise - I will state from that perspective that this is the best, most compreshensive and readable account of the Normandy campaign I have come across. This is solidly researched, well-reasoned and excellently written history. Read it now before some idiot tries to make it into a feature length motion picture.

Carlo D'Este's "Decision in Normandy" is a tour de force of military literature. Well documented and stylishly crafted, "Decision" is an extremely pleasurable read. This book is much more than a re-telling of the Normandy landing and first few days the Allies spent getting a foothold on the Continent. Rather, D'Este's book covers ground prior to D-Day - from a look at the future commanders of the ETO and their exploits in North Africa to initial planning by Lt. Gen. Frederick Morgan and his COSSAC group to development of Monty's Masterplan (that represented a revised COSSAC plan) that would become the OVERLORD plan implemented on 6 June 1944 - as well as considerable time and space post invasion (including the many failed attempts to capture Caen which Monty professed to take by the end of D-Day to the American breakthrough in the Cotentin and subsequent exploitation by Patton's Third US Army and drive across Brittany). There's a lot of information here, all quite expertly presented in a clear enjoyable fashion. One of strongest threads running through "Decision" is its Monty-centric presentation. This is in many ways completely natural, while also generally a connection missing in most accounts of the ETO prior to Operation Market-Garden. So why is a Monty-centric look at the Normandy campaign a natural approach? First, Monty not only oversaw the development of the final OVERLORD plan but he also served as the C-in-C of Allied ground forces for the invasion. Second, and probably more importantly, Monty's "Masterplan" represents a long debated aspect of the Allied adventure. For example, while it is clear that the both British and Americans made adjustments to Monty's plan as battles developed (though the Americans were generally more adept at it), Monty himself propagated a history of a perfect plan that was followed to the letter. So why is such a Monty-centric vision of the early ETO lacking in most accounts? The most likely reason for a more broad view of the Normandy campaign found in most accounts is two-fold: 1) such an approach is less offensive to other major commanders who made considerable contributions, and 2) Monty is "protected" by broader-based writings. D'Este has not skirted the issue of Monty. However, this is not to say that he is a Monty-basher, nor is he a Monty-phile. D'Este does a very admirable job being fair and balanced in his approach to Monty and his role in Normandy. D'Este presents a story in which Monty plays a major role - without minimizing the role of subordinate commanders - giving him due credit for things the evidence suggest he deserves credit for and attempting to clarify the many confusing (often enhanced by Monty's self-publicity efforts) aspects of Monty's command to place blame for failures where blame is deserved. D'Este has done what most historians are apparently incapable of - he has placed enough distance between himself and the subject to present a picture that appears free of tint

Like all Carlo D'Este's work, this is well researched and quite detailed. It is understandable. I liked the treatment given Montgomery, harshly put at times, but just. Too many historians tend to gloss this aspect over. The book does not move as fast as many "popular histories" but then I don't think it was intended to be as such. As other reviewers have pointed out, there are of course flaws. There are flaws in every single book on this subject (which are many) I have read. No book can address each and ever facet of such a complex situation. This book, when read with several others, will give the reader a fine understanding of the events addressed here.

I found the book to be thorough and unbiased. LtC. D'Este does a very good job of covering all the events from all the angles. I would agree that there are simply not enough maps or pictures of the significant players in this event. Additionally, the paperback version takes what maps were available in the hardcover version and does a pathetic job of incorporating them for reuse. I wish the author had seen to paying as much attention to the publishing of his work as he did to the research