Totuus Normandian maihinnoususta: Miten liittoutuneiden eripura uhkasi muuttaa sodan kulun

by Edward E. Gordon, David Ramsay

Amerikkalaisen ja englantilaisen historioitsijan yhteinen selvitys siitä, miten liittoutuneiden sodanjohdossa vallinnut eripura, keskinäinen kilpailu ja henkilökohtaiset konfliktit vaikuttivat Normandian maihinnousun suunnitteluun, toteutukseen ja sodan kulkuun sen jälkeen.

Teos osoittaa, että puutteellinen yhteistyö ja huonot päätökset pidensivät sodan kestoa, kasvattivat kuolonuhrien määrää ja lopulta mahdollistivat Neuvostoliiton sodan jälkeisen valta-aseman Itä-Euroopassa.

Aihepiiriin liittyvä kirjallisia lähteitä, silminnäkijäkertomuksia ja arkistomateriaaleja analysoimalla teoksen kirjoittajat etsivät vastauksia liittoutuneiden suuroperaatioon liittyviin kiistanalaisiin kysymyksiin. Mikä aiheutti kahden kuukauden viivytyksen liittoutuneiden etenemiseen Normandian sillanpääasemasta? Miten Saksan armeija onnistui pakenemaan Falaisen motista? Kuka pysäytti Pattonin etenemisen Saksaan elokuussa 1944? Miksi kesti niin kauan avata liittoutuneiden varustetäydennyksille välttämätön Antwerpenin satama?

Tekijöiden esittämien todisteiden valossa on selvää, että monet liittoutuneiden kohtaamat vaikeudet olisivat olleet estettävissä, jos sodanjohto ei olisi ollut niin riitainen. Ison-Britannian ja Yhdysvaltain joukkojen keskinäinen kilpailu ja henkilökohtaiset arvovaltakiistat johtivat paikoin katastrofaalisiin tilanteisiin rintamalla.

Teos sisältää myös runsaasti operaation etenemistä esittäviä karttoja, jotka havainnollistavat toisen maailmansodan käännekohtaa ohjanneiden päätösten syntyä.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

423 pages, Hardcover

First published September 19, 2017

Reviews

[Tim Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great detail on the little known issues of DDay

Most all of what Americans have been taught about the DDay invasion is the greatness of its daring and success. This book shows what could have been and why. Giants of history are shown to be the men that they were. A sometimes difficult read, due to the detail of armies, groups, forces, commands, etc. Overall, however, a great book.

[Barbara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes reading history can be dry. Not this read. I learned so much about D-Day: the invasion, the military leaders, the logistics, the cracks in the plans. You begin to see how much hangs in the balance during a battle and a war. And now I know what a 'bocage' is.

[Peggy Maniates · Rating 5 out of 5]

As an historian and Director of a Military museum I highly recommend this book. It is well researched and documented. This book now sits on my desk for easy access.

[Simon Mee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Divided on D-Day is an operational summary of secondary sources with a dose of Monday morning quarterbacking. It’s fun enough without being especially revelationary.

The strongest element of Divided on D-Day is when the authors set out the individuals and their ability to get on with others. It is a strong explanatory factor for the disputes that arose. The availability of key players is also a factor, such as Ramsay being absent when Arnhem was prioritised over Antwerp. Mongomery’s difficulties within the chain of command are reasonably well documented - I am open to opposing views but that does appear to be a major problem. Another part dealt with early in the book is how the different strategic visions of the United States and Britain were incompletely resolved, which had flow on effects to the conduct of the operations.

On the operational/tactical commentary, I am constrained to shrug my shoulders. The overview is light and breezy, primarily relying on secondary sources. Further, such is the movement of time that one of their primary sources, being Patton’s diary, has now had its veracity questioned (it appears his wife granted Patton a posthumous omniscience when editing his entries). Divided by D-Day also includes commentary by participants on each side that if things had been done differently, the results would have been more favourable for the Allies. I would be careful on relying on commentary made from a distance, even by commanders whose own perspectives are actually narrower than it may appear, but feel free to make your own judgements.

While the book does try to spread the credit/blame between the high command, the core of the book are the competing plans and demands of Patton and Montgomery. Divided on D-Day is a big fan of the former. I am not going to argue the point one way or the other, more note that is something to be aware of when considering this book

It is also fair to mention that the swing of opinion post publication of Divided on D-Day is that British forces faced significantly more well armoured opposition, which they pinned and wore down to allow the Americans to eventually break out. Perhaps with a dose of their own omniscience, the authors do pre-empt this by arguing that (a) the key fulcrum was Caen; and (b) if Montgomery had provided sufficient forces to take it on D-Day, the subsequent campaign would have unfolded very differently. The authors do have a good case that it was a D-Day objective, thus any suggestions by Montgomery to suggest that battle unfolded to his plans should be viewed with scepticism. Regardless of that, was Caen ever achievable though? I consider that is a tough row to hoe in a book that is written was a 30,000 feet perspective and would see that point as a conversation starter for more detailed analysis.

This is a perfectly fine book, and the relatively low rating is my standard World War II history discount.

[Suzanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent summary of the D-Day leaders (Eisenhower, Ramsey, Bradley, Patton, Montgomery, etc.) and how the personalities, egos, and politics got in the way of ending the war in late 1944. The 30 maps are wonderful additions and aided understanding the various tactics and maneuvers that were planned and succeeded - or didn't succeed (think Arnhem: "A Bridge Too Far"). The authors didn't drill down (i.e. unit C, Co A, Battalion D, XXX Division, etc.) in detail but the excellent photos added depth to a terrific read on D-Day and why it almost failed. For the history buff, this is a must read.

[Catherine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting take on D-Day; can see how it all unraveled.