How to use this Page

In the early morning of 6 June 1944, thousands of men stood in Higgins boats off the coast of Normandy. They could not see around them until the bow ramp was lowered — when it was time for them to storm the Gold, Juno, Sword, Utah, and Omaha beaches. Over 10,000 of them would die in the next 24 hours. The largest amphibious invasion the world has ever seen took place seventy years ago today.

In the videos below, Craig L. Symonds, author of Neptune: The Allied Invasion of Europe and the D-Day Landings, discusses the planning and execution of the invasion. Numerous, often contentious, discussions took place behind the scenes between the United States and the United Kingdom regarding the D-Day invasion strategy. And while most people believe that strategy is the key focus on winning a war, this is not often the case. Rather the concept of logistics often plays a key role in victory, and in this instance, in helping forces succeed in the storming of Normandy beach. Symonds also reveals why it’s so important to learn about the personal histories of those involved in and affected by the allied invasions of World War II, and the story of a remarkable lieutenant by the name of Dean Rockwell who played a pivotal role in the D-Day invasion. You can also learn more by entering our giveaway for signed copies of Craig Symonds’ new book.

What was the Anglo-American debate over invasion strategy?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Why did logistics trump strategy on 6 June 1944?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Why are lesser known personal accounts important to understanding the history of D-Day?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Were there any individual accounts that demonstrated the circumstantial pressures of the invasion?

Click here to view the embedded video.

For the 70th anniversary of D-Day, Oxford University Press is giving away 15 signed copies of Neptune: The Allied Invasion of Europe and the D-Day Landings, by Craig L. Symonds. The contest ends on June 6, 2014, at 5:30pm.

Craig L. Symonds is Professor of History Emeritus at the United States Naval Academy. He is the author of many books on American naval history, including Neptune: The Allied Invasion of Europe and the D-Day Landings, The Battle of Midway and Lincoln and His Admirals, co-winner of the Lincoln Prize in 2009.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only American history articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.

The post Reflecting on the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• How did writing begin?
• Politics and cities: looking at the roots of suburban sprawl
• After the storm: failure, fallout, and Farage

 

There are few moments in American history in which the course of events tipped so suddenly and so dramatically as at the Battle of Midway. At dawn of June 4, 1942, a rampaging Japanese navy ruled the Pacific. By sunset, their vaunted carrier force (the Kido Butai) had been sunk and their grip on the Pacific had been loosened forever.

Craig L. Symonds is Professor Emeritus of History at the U.S. Naval Academy and the winner (with James M. McPherson) of the 2009 Lincoln Prize for his book Lincoln and His Admirals: Abraham Lincoln, the U.S. Navy, and the Civil War. In the post below Symonds discusses his experiences at the Lincoln Bicentennial celebrations.

A few Thursdays ago I spent the day with Abraham Lincoln. Of course I had spent most of the last four years with Lincoln while writing my book about him. As Doris Kearns Goodwin said about the many years she spent working on her book Team of Rivals, every day I got up excited about the notion of spending the day with Abe.

February 12th was Abe’s 200th birthday, and everybody, it seemed, wanted to spend the day with him. In the nation’s capital, a number of Lincoln scholars and other dignitaries spoke at a breakfast and a wreath laying at the Lincoln Memorial in the morning; a more formal celebration in the Capitol Rotunda followed at noon with music by the U.S. Army chorus and, of course, more speeches—including one by President Obama; the Library of Congress opened its new Lincoln exhibit at 1:00, an event marked by a luncheon, ribbon cutting, and more speeches; and dinner that night featured, what else, more speeches.

The historic Willard Hotel where Lincoln himself had stayed in as a Congressman in 1847 and again as president-elect in 1861 hosted the dinner. It is not the same building that existed then, but it stands on the same site, and has the same social and political pedigree.

Willard’s was at the very center of the dramatic and pivotal events of the 1860s. Most politicians stayed there when they were in town, and advocates for various causes would hang out in the lobby to buttonhole Congressmen in order to promote their agendas, a practice that created the term “lobbyist.” Many Union generals and admirals stayed at the Willard, too. By 1864, the desk clerk at the Willard had grown blasé about the appearance of yet another brigadier or major general, of whom there were then hundreds. That February, a scruffy looking major general showed up and asked for a room for himself and his son. The clerk assigned him a back room and asked him to sign the desk register. Then, spinning the register around, he read the name: “U.S. Grant and son, Galena, Ill.,” and discovered that he had a much nicer room available after all.

The dinner at the Willard last Thursday began with the usual lengthy acknowledgment of all those who had helped put the evening together. Almost every one of the 160 guests was introduced, some more than once. A string quartet played 19th century music, and of course there were speeches.

I gave one of them. I talked about Lincoln’s early political career that was marked by his opposition to the Mexican War, then at full flood. President James K. Polk had insisted that war with Mexico was justified because American blood had been shed on American soil by Mexican soldiers. Lincoln disputed that assertion. His resolution called for Polk “to establish whether the particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was shed, was, or was not, our own soil.” The gangly western Congressmen made something of a nuisance of himself in these resolutions, called “The Spot Resolutions” at the time, and earning Lincoln the nickname “Spotty Lincoln.”

It is ironic that this man who began his political career as a kind of war protester, subsequently presided over the bloodiest war in our national history. We are fortunate that he did, for he possessed exactly the temperament needed for our country to survive: a willingness to accept expert advice, remarkable patience, and a sensitivity to what public opinion would accept as he moved forward toward union and emancipation.

After I finished, the second speaker came to the podium. It was George McGovern, looking remarkably fit and dignified at age 86. McGovern, too, had spent the last several years with Abe, writing a book of his own on Lincoln. Assessing history comes second nature to McGovern who earned a Ph.D. in History at Northwestern University back in 1953 and subsequently taught at his alma mater, Dakota Wesleyan University. After his political career, he returned to teaching, succeeding Stephen Ambrose at the University of New Orleans.

Listening to George McGovern talk about Abraham Lincoln in the Age of Obama was fascinating, even a bit disorienting, but also reassuring, clear evidence that Lincoln’s legacy reaches across the generations. That very day I had heard President Obama acknowledge his own debt to Lincoln: “I owe a special gratitude to this figure that made my position possible.” Now I listened as McGovern acknowledged his admiration of, and obligation to, Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln would no doubt have been surprised by the attention he still attracts. He knew he was not history’s prime mover. Late in his presidency he famously said, “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.” He was not being modest. He was acknowledging that History is a force we can only influence, not control. All of us who study history eventually become humbled by the appreciation of how complex it is, and that it has many fathers. Lincoln was great because he was confident enough to be humble, wise enough to be patient, and responsible enough to honor the opinion of the public he served.

Editor’s Note: We are giving away one signed copy of Lincoln and His Admirals. The first person to email blog.us(at)oup.com will win.

It is my pleasure to announce that Craig L. Symonds is one of two winners of the 2009 Lincoln Prize for his book Lincoln and His Admirals!  Congratulations are also in order to James M. McPherson who won for Tried By War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief.  Each received a generous cash award and a bronze cast of Augustus St. Gaudens‘ portrait sculpture of Abraham Lincoln (I saw the bronze cast, it is truly beautiful.)  Below is an original post from Symonds about Lincoln and Obama.  Be sure to read our other bicentennial Lincoln posts here.

The media took much notice of the fact that Barack Obama was intent on duplicating much of Abraham Lincoln’s behavior as President-Elect. Doris Kearns Goodwin’s superb book Team of Rivals is said to be one of the books Obama has read with great interest, and he has chosen a “Team of Rivals” for his Cabinet. Similarly, President Obama took a train from Philadelphia to Washington, duplicating part of Lincoln’s journey from Springfield to the capital in 1861. For this, Obama might have consulted Harold Holzer’s new book on Lincoln, President Elect. Others have noted that Obama has inherited what is arguably the worst national and international circumstance for a new president since Lincoln, with the possible exception of Franklin Roosevelt. How will he apply Lincoln’s style or outlook to the problems he has inherited?

My own recent study of Lincoln has confirmed in my mind several aspects of Lincoln’s leadership style that already seem to be part of Obama’s world view, which should stand him in good stead as he considers how to manage (or end) two wars, and stabilize and then revitalize a collapsing economy.

The most obvious of these is a serenity fueled by patience and a habit of thoughtfulness. Though we tend to assume that strong presidents are proactive, controlling a situation rather than responding to it after it has happened, the fact is that Lincoln was almost never proactive. Instead he took the time to consult with his advisers often making them present their positions in short memos. He also took up the pen himself, writing down options in order to clarify them, then writing down possible solutions. Many of these “Memos to Self” were never made public and were found among his papers only after his death. He also waited to see what public opinion would tolerate, reading many newspapers, especially opposition newspapers, before making a decision. He was so patient that it sometimes looked as if the momentum of history was about to take the decision out of his hands before he acted.

Indeed, his very first crisis—what to do about Fort Sumter—found him waiting until it was almost too late. It is even possible to argue that he waited until is WAS too late. On his very first day in office he received a report from the beleaguered commander of Fort Sumter, Major Robert Anderson, that the garrison was running out of food and that it must evacuate soon if not re-supplied. Moreover, Anderson reported that it would take twenty thousand men to re-supply him. Well, here was a conundrum. Lincoln had just promised in his inaugural address to “hold, occupy and possess” all Federal property in the South—a clear and specific reference to Fort Sumter, but there were not twenty thousand soldiers in all of the U.S. military in 1861. Like no-drama Obama, Lincoln did not panic. He met with his Cabinet and his military advisers, listened to all their input, sent scouts to Charleston to assess the situation there, and waited. By the time he sent an expedition there, Anderson’s supplies were all but exhausted. Lincoln’s patience was not a product of passivity, however. His decision to notify South Carolina State authorities that the expedition was en route deftly threw the ball into the South’s court and, when Fort Sumter was attacked, allowed the North to emerge as the aggrieved party.

Similarly, during the Trent affair, Lincoln was a master of forbearance. After Captain Charles Wilkes captured two Confederate ambassadors on the high seas, Britain responded with an ultimatum that gave the U.S. just seven days to release them and offer a public apology or face war. Again Lincoln waited, and his patience let the emotions of the moment ease allowing a solution that was both diplomatically acceptable, and politically benign. Had he responded to the ultimatum with the kind of fist-shaking defiance that would have been popular at home, it might indeed have led to war and the U.S. might be two countries today.

Even in dealing with emancipation, the most difficult problem of his administration—indeed, of American history—Lincoln showed remarkable composure which in the end led to a permanent solution. Some thought he was too patient. The abolitionists, including free blacks like Frederick Douglass, could not understand why he moved so slowly. But Lincoln knew what he was about. He moved as fast, and as efficiently, as public opinion, and the war news, would allow him to do.

Barack Obama, who has already demonstrated his patience and his pragmatism in his “no-drama” campaign, seems now to be echoing not only Lincoln’s cabinet choices and his travel route, but also his characteristic style. This bodes well for the future.