Showing posts with label Memorial Day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Memorial Day. Show all posts

Friday, June 6, 2014

D-Day: The Beginning of the End



"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

"You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty–loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers–in–arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

"Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.

"But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940–41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man–to–man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.

"The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

"I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle.

"We will accept nothing less than full Victory! Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."


Dwight Eisenhower's Order of the Day, June 2, 1944

I thought about writing about those who gave their lives in service to this country last week on Memorial Day — but my thoughts of late have been on today's 70th anniversary of D–Day so I waited.

"Long after they happen," wrote historian William Manchester, "historic events take on an air of inevitability."

He was writing of D–Day, the invasion of Normandy that catapulted the Allies into Nazi territory. It was the beginning of the end of World War II, a conflict that had claimed millions of lives and would claim millions more before the wars in Europe and the Pacific ended.

"[W]e assume that the Germans in France never had a chance — that [Eisenhower's] crusade was as good as won," Manchester wrote. "It wasn't."

Historian Jim Bishop observed, "In the history of man, no force matched the assemblage of ships and men waiting in chaotic order along the south coast of England."

But the outcome was far from certain for those who were about to unleash that force — and all that most of the more than 150,000 Allied soldiers who were about to participate in it knew was that many of them were not expected to return. What they would encounter on those beaches was anyone's guess.

The landings along the French coast that day must have been frightful, a soul–scarring experience for all who survived — and thousands did not.

It inspired the most intense combat sequence ever made in the movies — 14 or 15 disturbing minutes in "Saving Private Ryan," which probably wasn't nearly as intense as the real thing.

And more than a decade before "Saving Private Ryan" was made, it inspired one of the most memorable speeches of Ronald Reagan's presidency, delivered on the 40th anniversary of D–Day.

Perhaps Manchester was right about that "air of inevitability" stuff. In the rearview mirror of history, events always seem to be inevitable, don't they? No matter how lopsided or narrow the outcome turns out to be. They happened, and they're in the history books. It seems to be impossible to imagine a different outcome.

But that is with the benefit of hindsight, which they wisely say is 20/20. On the threshold of D–Day, there was much doubt — as there usually is before a critical mission is launched.

Eisenhower prepared a statement in case the invasion failed. He never had to deliver it, but it reveals the conflict that raged within his mind on the eve of the invasion.
"Our landings in the Cherbourg–Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."

Combat has always struck me as being the closest thing to hell on earth that a human being is likely to endure. A battle isn't neat and orderly. It isn't like a football game or any other competition that is likened to war — because nothing else is like war. It is sure to be chaotic and terrifying.

(Before a battle begins, soldiers can't tell themselves it will all be over in 30 minutes or an hour — as a civilian might say about something he/she has been dreading, like a trip to the dentist or the Department of Motor Vehicles. Battles last as long as someone from each side refuses to give in.)

Even so, the success of D–Day was due to a combination of factors. The absence of any one might have meant the failure that Eisenhower clearly feared.

"Much has been made of the rough weather and how it hampered landing operations," Manchester wrote. "It was really a blessing" because essential German officers, believing the Allies would never invade in such conditions, were absent when the invasion began.

Radio broadcasts from Germany suggested that the Nazis knew an invasion would come, but there was disagreement about where it would be. At one point, Hitler believed the invasion would occur at Normandy and began moving forces and equipment into position there, but he changed his mind and agreed with his advisers, who believed the invasion would happen at Calais, farther north and a shorter trip across the English Channel.

"This was the best possible piece of luck for Eisenhower," Manchester wrote.

Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, who was in charge of defending the French coast against the Allies, also was not present when the invasion began. He had left for Germany to celebrate his wife's birthday with her. There seemed to be no reason for him not to. Historian William Shirer observed, "There were the usual reports from German agents about the possibility of an Allied landing ... but there had been hundreds of these since April and they were not taken seriously."

The Germans had 10 panzer divisions available to repel the invaders; only one saw action, but it managed to drive back the British and force an extended battle for the city of Caen in northwest France. If even two or three additional panzer divisions had participated in the battle, the outcome might well have been different.

In Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt told his wife that the long–awaited invasion would occur in the morning. "She said she wished, in a way, that he had not told her," Bishop wrote, "because she knew she wouldn't sleep."

Roosevelt, "who could will himself to sleep, failed on the night of June 5," Bishop wrote. "[H]e was on and off the phone to the Pentagon until 4 a.m." By that time, FDR knew that the invasion was under way.

And the tide of the war had turned. In Europe, anyway.

Of course, that part wasn't immediately clear — but it became clear in the days and weeks that followed.

By noon the day of the invasion, Winston Churchill notified Roosevelt that the initial landings had been successful, and Roosevelt summoned the press. He was in a jovial mood, but he cautioned the reporters that "[t]he war isn't over by any means.

"You don't just land on a beach and walk through — if you land successfully without breaking your leg — walk through to Berlin. And the quicker this country understands it the better."


The presidency always demands a certain amount of leadership skill, but it required a lot of it from Franklin D. Roosevelt in June 1944. As he was finalizing the plans for the invasion of Normandy, he was contending with the escalating cost of the top–secret Manhattan Project. He had managed to finance the project in the early years, Bishop wrote, by "manag[ing] to squeeze secret funds into the War Department budget,"

That month, the head of the Manhattan Project reported needing $200 million immediately. "[S]omeone would have to take Congress into this most secret of projects," Bishop wrote.

Roosevelt dispatched Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Gen. George C. Marshall and Office of Scientific Research and Development director Vannevar Bush to lobby congressional leaders for huge appropriations with few, if any, questions asked.

"It wasn't an easy assignment," Bishop wrote, "but leaders of both parties worked it out."

And, while few may have realized it at the time, the tide of the war in the Pacific had turned as well.

Monday, May 25, 2009

The Meaning of Memorial Day

CNN.com asks an interesting question of its visitors in today's "Quick Vote:"

"Has the true meaning of Memorial Day been forgotten?"

I'm not sure how long the question has been posted on the site. But, at nearly 12:30 p.m. (Central), about 65,000 people have voted — and nearly 70% say yes, the true meaning of Memorial Day has been forgotten.

I'm inclined to agree. The emphasis I see is on sales and the kickoffs of summer activities — the opening of community swimming pools, promotions of tourist attractions, etc. — and not so much attention given to the people who gave their lives in service to their country.

To be sure, there are some who remember the reason behind this holiday.

The Detroit Free Press reminds us of the words of Abraham Lincoln at the dedication of the cemetery in Gettysburg. The newspaper acknowledges that "we have not as a nation always measured up to our expressed ideals," but it still encourages all Americans to defend freedom "whenever and however we can."

It is, therefore, a timely reminder of what we have and could easily lose — and what millions in this world do not have — that we heard today of North Korea's second nuclear bomb test, which, as CNN.com observes, was conducted "in defiance of multiple international warnings."

President Obama was right in saying that North Korea's actions "pose a grave threat to the peace and stability of the world." He pledged a strong response by the United States and the international community.

Today, you can pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice by pausing at 3 p.m., wherever you are and whatever you're doing, to reflect. Major league baseball games will be interrupted at 3 p.m. local time for everyone in attendance to participate, but you can participate also, even if you're spending the day at home.

That is what is being promoted by the White House Commission on Remembrance.

Have a good holiday. But, please, don't lose sight of the reason for the season.

Monday, May 26, 2008

McCain's Memorial Day Weekend Guests

Sen. John McCain has been spending the Memorial Day weekend at his Arizona ranch -- with three potential running mates.

His guests for the weekend were Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal and Charlie Crist.

All three have been mentioned as prospects for the vice presidency. I don't think any of them fit the bill.

And no clues were forthcoming from the gathering, which apparently wrapped up on Sunday.

"The McCain campaign was tight-lipped about the agenda for the weekend, which aides described as purely social," reports Michael Falcone in the New York Times.

  • It isn't necessary for the candidates on the ticket to get along, but in McCain's case, I think it's pretty important.

    There have been rumblings in the media about problems the senator has with anger management. And it was pretty clear during the Republican campaign that he and Romney don't get along.

    So, although Romney has the economic credentials that McCain lacks -- as well as the ready support of many social conservatives who have been lukewarm to McCain's candidacy and ample financial backing -- I don't think he's right for the spot.

    I just can't see McCain and Romney forging a strong working relationship.

  • Jindal provides the youth (he'll be 37 in about two weeks) to contrast with McCain's age (72 before the GOP convention).

    But the flip side to Jindal's youth is the absence of experience. Jindal was elected to two terms in the House of Representatives before being elected governor of Louisiana last year.

    He's off to a strong start in his efforts to reform the state's government -- but that's a long-term project.

    Jindal's been in office for, what, half an hour?

    He can afford to put any national ambitions he may have on the back burner until he has some solid accomplishments to add to his résumé.

  • Crist (pictured above) is a contradictory sort.

    His support for McCain apparently helped the Arizona senator seal the deal in the Florida primary, which led to Rudy Giuliani's withdrawal from the race in late January.

    And we all learned how vital Florida's support can be during the recount in 2000.

    But, if McCain is going to give serious consideration to Crist as a running mate, he needs to clear the air of the persistent rumors about Crist's sexual orientation.

    As I understand it, there has been talk about Crist being gay for quite awhile.

    Talk that has been reported in journalistic circles.

    Sexual orientation may not work against Crist in state politics, but rumors that he is gay won't help McCain win over the social conservatives who have resisted him, even after clinching the nomination.
    Here's a partial list of some of the sources of things that have been written on the subject of Crist's sexuality:

  1. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, March 2008.

  2. Orlando Sentinel, February 2008.

  3. Broward-Palm Beach New Times, October 2006.

  4. Online Journal, October 2006.

  5. Orlando Weekly, September 2006.

  6. St. Petersburg Times, January 2005.


I've heard a number of intriguing possibilities brought up, and the three men who spent the weekend with McCain haven't been included on hot prospect lists very often.

The most frequently mentioned names that I've heard are people like Condoleezza Rice, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Joe Lieberman.

I think Rice is too intimately connected to the Bush administration's policies. Pawlenty has said he is committed to his work as governor. And, although Lieberman has been a strong supporter of McCain's presidential bid, the only issue on which the two men seem to share the same opinion is the war.

McCain doesn't need another "Me, too!" voice in support of the Iraq War.

Personally, I still think J.C. Watts is McCain's best choice -- for a number of reasons.