World War II D-Day: A History From Beginning to End

by Hourly History

D-Day, the 6th of June, is one of the most significant dates in the calendar. The twentieth century’s fate hung in the balance, as Nazi Germany had marched across Europe, bringing the blitzkrieg, the Holocaust, and the mad dreams of Adolf Hitler across the bloodied landscape of Europe. France had fallen, and until the Americans joined the battle in December 1941, the balance of power was securely in the hands of the Third Reich. But even as the Allied forces joined together under the leadership of Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Germany continued to win battles. In order for the Nazis to be stopped, the Allies had to invade occupied Europe. And invade they did, launching the most massive amphibious landing the world had ever seen.
- Countdown to D-Day
- Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower
- The Invasion Planning is Underway
- A Day in June
- The German Response
- The Invasion
- End Game
And much more!

The pantheon of heroes of the Normandy invasion includes soldiers who are unknown except for the crosses that bear their names in the cemeteries where they were buried, but all, those who died and those who survived, played their part in the liberation of Europe.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Military History, Historical, Military Fiction, World War II

45 pages, Paperback

Published October 13, 2017

About the author

At Hourly History, we focus on publishing history books that are concise, straightforward and take no longer than one hour to read.

Receive our new eBooks for free every Friday.
Sign up at: www.hourlyhistory.com/free

Reviews

[Dr.J.G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

First couple of chapters can be skipped by a reader interested in D-Day and not in general background written up with several, severe mistakes coupled with bad writing.

An example of colonial attitude of severe racism comes at the end.

" ... Today, the swastika stands as a despised symbol of hatred and oppression. ... "

That assertion not only underestimates the antisemitism prevalent through west but far more.

To begin with, Swastika is a word from Sanskrit and literally means Symbol of Well-Being, and the Swastika is drawn before every traditional home on floor, every morning and more especially on festive occasions, as inviting good fortune.

Not taking origin of Swastika into account is racist. As is identifying it with nazis, who misused it by putting it on a flag for war and destruction.

It's an ancient occult symbol, and misuse thereof destroyed Germany.

" ... Germany is a progressive and influential force for freedom in Europe, a nation committed to preventing a recurrence of that bitter episode in its past. ... "

If you discount or hush up the racist reality, certainly.
****

"“A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.”

"—General Dwight D. Eisenhower"
***

"But the preparation was not yet finished. The soldiers received their order of the day for June 6, 1944, from General Eisenhower. “The eyes of the world are upon you,” he told them. “The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.” Their mission, he said, was to bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for Americans in a free world. Eisenhower did not pretend that the mission would be easy. Acknowledging the training and experience of the Germany military, Eisenhower reminded them that the Allies had turned the tide of war and reduced the ability of the Nazis to overcome superior forces. The Allies, he said, would accept nothing less than full victory; he had complete confidence in their courage, their devotion to duty, and their skill in battle.

"Despite his confidence in his forces, Eisenhower knew that victory was not guaranteed. With that in mind, he had a second message ready in case the invasion failed; the letter explained his decision to attack, based on the information that was available at the time. In this second prepared message, he praised the troops for their bravery and devotion to duty. If the mission failed, Eisenhower shouldered the onus. “If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”"

Noble person, Ike!
***


"D-Day, arguably the most significant military invasion of the twentieth century, doesn’t have an authentic linguistic meaning. As Army jargon, D-Day was a term that first came into use in World War I on September 20, 1918, with the instructions that the First Army would attack at H-Hour on D-Day with the objective of forcing the evacuation of the salient at St. Mihiel. The days after a D-Day were indicated with a plus sign to indicate the precise day. That’s the historical explanation of the term."

That's unlikely. Facts come later, for this author, likely one of the students from one of those US educational institutions where one is allowed to opt for cinema or rock music, as an alternative to good old "math", in high school curriculum. Mathematics is too long a word for them, and a half bring one divided by two is too hard a concept to grasp because the pupils are allowed to not exercise the top organ.

"But not everyone agrees with that explanation.... "

Who would, in their right minds, and why should anyone? Because it comes from US majority from what passes as their thinking?

" ... According to the French, the “D” stood for disembarkation or debarkation. ... "

What French have to fo with it is unclear, since they weren't part of planning D-Day, much less of naming it, however vital the resistance to its success.

So the idiot who wishes to appear journalistic in compiling this volume has gone around asking a few French what they thought it meant, for a bit of diversion! Why not Serbs? Turks, Finns or Manchurians?

Now author comes, finally, to reality.

" ... Years later, when General Eisenhower’s period of command and his two terms as president were over, his executive assistant responded to a letter asking the meaning of D-Day by writing that “any amphibious landing has a departure date; therefore, the shortened term D-Day is used.” Furthermore, all the amphibious landings, whether at Sicily, North Africa, or the Pacific, had their own D-Day."

And that's the easiest explanation. Even better ones, of course, can be thought of - D for decisive, for example, is a medium level one.
***

"Whatever its origins, for most people, there is only one D-Day, and that’s the one that took place on June 6, 1944, in Normandy. The invasion represented the first successful opposed landings to happen across the English Channel in more than eight centuries. But a lot had happened during the hundreds of years since that first invasion, and the players had changed significantly."

This diversion tactic, making one associate D-Day with something nearly a millennium old rather than the obvious, the nazi attempted takeover of the world beginning with invasion and several years of occupation of Europe, smacks of a nazi, or at the very least, German ancestry of the author if the said author is of US origins.

At the very least it's an attempt you make D-Day seem, not a rescue of Europe by Allied forces, but an invasion of France by England, and make German occupation seem rightful, or at least forgotten.
***

The next bit proves that it indeed must be a descendent of nazis involved in invasion, occupation and looting of Europe during those years, that's written this volume of the Hourly History.

"The attack would require a massive network of coordination of forces and supplies. There were a number of military leaders among the Allies who were men of the highest caliber of skill, men who had proven their mettle under fire in battle. Yet, when the time came to choose the one who would be the Supreme Allied Commander, the assignment was given to General Dwight David Eisenhower, a man who had served in the military for decades but had never fought in battle. He seemed, until World War II, to serve without distinction and as his career was winding down, there appeared little opportunity for advancement."

Well, now - it's not enough that author terms it 'attack', which is unusual, but that then author goes on to leap discredit on a very respected subsequent president of US, generally acknowledged across political divides to be righteous more than right-wing, that is telling.
***

Next it gets worse.

"But just as World War II incubated people like Hitler, whose capacity for evil was enhanced by the centrifuge of war, ... "

No, he had had all of his qualities and "capacity for evil" before becoming dictator of Germany - by a sleight rather than by being elected by majority - and the war was planned well in advance by him, even executed to the date, as far as beginning- and most likely even invasion of Russia - goes.

" ... so did it nurture men like Eisenhower, whose organizational talents, humble nature, and dedication to serve surfaced at a time when the world needed him. ... "

That's deliberate attempt to make him seem like a mere desk planner, to bring him fown in mind of an ignorant reader who is likely to not comprehend that soldiers go to war, but their generals must do the planning and organising of various parts of the campaign, so it's not a chance ruled butchering-fest, but a well executed successful takeover with minimal possible damage.

" ... His skills had not been honed in hatred and vilification of other peoples, nor in arrogance of his own capacity, but in the routine duties of an officer in a peacetime army. He didn’t have George Patton’s fiery temperament or Bernard Montgomery’s brilliance, but he was able to deal with them both, as well as with the churning developments that would take the Allied forces of freedom onto the shores of occupied Europe, to do battle against a menace that had brought the world into a long, dark night."

Wasn't Monty involved chiefly in planning the disaster that was Nijmegen, a campaign shown well in A Bridge Too Far?

As for Patton, it's not acknowledged that he may have caused Cold War single-handedly, but its quite likely, after the stunt he pulled in Bavaria.
***

Throwing confusion is continued by author.

"The planning required for such a campaign, almost cosmic in its duality of good and evil, was monumental. ... "

It wasn't the campaign that had anything to do with "duality of good and evil", since evil was all occupation of Europe by nazis, and good was allies coming to rescue.

One begins to more than suspect that such confusion via sentence and phrase construction by author usnt accidental or attributable to a less than literate person selected by the series for writing this volume, but quite deliberately engineered an attempt.

" ... The land forces who came to invade were Americans, British, Canadians, and Free French. Later, there would be Poles, Belgians, Czechs, Greeks, New Zealanders, Norwegians, Australians, and Dutch who would provide ground troops, along with air and naval support."

Is that a sneaky attempt to make sympathy of a reader veer to the sole force of occupation, German forces under regime by nazis, by listing the dozen or so nationals participating in D-Day invasion?

And the author certainly is racist, not mentioning Indians.
***

"On the initial day of the invasion, over 160,000 Allied troops arrived along 50 miles of the French coastline; there were 5,000 ships and 13,000 aircraft. Their purpose was to bring the land war to Germany, to defeat the Nazis and liberate Europe from the evil that had conquered the continent under the twisted vision of Adolf Hitler."

The very order of those objectives listed is suspect, making liberation of Europe beginning with France seem like an afterthought instead of the first objective, and forcing the "bring the land war to Germany" ahead of others, as if it was the first, not final, aim. Besides, "bring the land war to Germany" is not merely minimising it - Berlin had been bombed by RAF since very beginning, so German population wasn't unaware of travails - but confusion and falsification, since Germany itself was warring chiefly on land against others, and anything on ocean was war by Germany against Britain for most part.
***


"“This is no war of chieftains or of princes, of dynasties or national ambition; it is a war of peoples and of causes. There are vast numbers, not only in this Island but in every land, who will render faithful service in this war, but whose names will never be known, whose deeds will never be recorded. This is a War of the Unknown Warriors.”

"—Winston Churchill"
***

"The Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe was a long time coming, and civilians and soldiers alike could be forgiven for wondering if the day would ever come when the scales of victory would begin to weigh in favor of the forces who found themselves in a global conflict against Germany. But despite the similarities in combatants and the brief intermission between World War I and World War II, the two confrontations were not the same."

One, why divert from D-Day to WWI, when a reader is eager to know about the former, and not the stray similarities or vital differences between the two wars? Because author, being descendent of nazis, finds D-Day difficult to handle, emotionally?

Two, that last sentence is very badly written - making it seem as if the duration of intervening years between the two wars were confused by anyone at all with the two wars being similar.
***

"That being said, many of the cast of characters remained the same. The War to End all Wars, as the First World War was idealistically titled, ended in 1918; the Second World War began on the calendar in 1939, although the sequence of victories and defeats, capitulation and genocide were not identical. In the eyes of many, the small number of years separating the end of World War I and the onset of World War II was no more than an intermission which indicated that World War II was not a separate war at all."

Here comes nazi justification of perpetration and infliction of the latter war, single-handedly, on the world, based in fraudulent claims of claimed injustice, of reparations demanded by France for havoc wreaked by Germany’s army of occupation.
***

"In Germany, which was still paying for its culpability in starting World War I, the effects of Germany’s disgrace, combined with its financial privations, inspired an unsuccessful Austrian artist to rebuild Aryan pride by tossing aside the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and dedicating himself to the restoration of German militarism and might. ... "

Artist? Isn't he known to have failed, been rejected by most places he attempted?

Obviously a cheap effort to make him a sympathetic character!

" ... The rest of the world, consumed with its own problems, chose to ignore him. The boundaries of Germany increased with the annexation of the Austrian Anschluss, a region which Adolf Hitler, once a failed painter and now chancellor of Germany, claimed belonged to Germany because so many Germans lived there. As Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and the handicapped were attacked, deprived of their rights and property, and finally taken away in railroad cars, never to be seen again, the world closed its eyes. Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” announcement was later accused of appeasing Hitler, but in truth, Chamberlain likely realized that by accepting the Nazi annexation of the Anschluss, he had bought time for nations which needed to prepare for all-out war against an aggressive, advanced military power that has risen out of the ashes of the Treaty of Versailles."

That paragraph is a huge muddle of much in need of correction.

Unless, of course, someone prefers those lies, as author does.
***

"By September 1939, the world could no longer close its eyes. Germany invaded Poland, swiftly conquering the unprepared country and beginning its conquest of Europe. France and Great Britain declared war on Germany. The United States chose neutrality, as it had at the beginning of World War I although President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood, as President Woodrow Wilson had not, that the United States would not be able to stay neutral in a world at war."

This is really badly written, stuffing in a short paragraph all the travails of those years.

And the reader is still waiting for a detailed description of the D-Day!

"The so-called Phoney War ended in May 1940, as the German blitzkrieg invaded and defeated France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark, adding these countries like trophies to the national mantel."

No, that's for too benefic sounding for an occupation that intended, and executed, a loot on scales only wreaked by Europe on other continents.
***

"With France occupied by the Nazis, Great Britain was on its own. Hitler was convinced that he would overpower the British with his Luftwaffe as the Battle of Britain commenced, but the Royal Air Force was able to prevent Hitler from invading the island nation. Hitler then invaded the Soviet Union, creating a two-front war which would, ultimately, be his undoing. Germany’s roll call of conquest seemed likely to continue, but then, in December 1941, Germany gained an unexpected ally when the Empire of Japan attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor."

This is excruciatingly bad writing. Could the series publishers not afford a better writer or compiler than a junior high dropout, or, at least, an editor who didn't let such mistakes slip through?

Fact - "in December 1941", when the Empire of Japan attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor", it wasn't "Germany" that "gained an unexpected ally", but Britain.

Germany, Italy and Japan were already together in a treaty, before Japan attacked US naval bases in Pearl Harbor; it was US, on the contrary, that did not join until Pearl Harbor, despite wishes of FDR who knew better but had to carry his nation with him before he could help UK, the nation standing alone upto the moment Germany turned on Russia in June 1941.
***

"The sides had lined up: Germany, Italy, and Japan were the Axis Powers at war against the British, French, and the Americans and their allies. Although the United States had abstained from war until the Japanese attack, the agreed-upon strategy was “Europe First”; the first goal was the defeat of Germany. With that decision, the road to D-Day was marked."

Again the subtle lie by the manner of construction of the sentence!

Axis powers were together with Germany long before US joined; Russia was with Germany although not attacking any other nation west of Poland, until June 1941 when Russia was attacked by Germany.

US only joined after December 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

In short, allies only came together between June to December 1941, each because of being attacked by an axis power. Until then, Britain was alone, unless one takes into account the governments-in-exile of several nations occupied by Germany, operating from London, beginning with Free French led by Charles de Gaulle, and including a large contingent from Poland.
***

"Beginning in April 1942, Operation Bolero got underway as American forces headed to Great Britain for the preliminary stages of what would eventually be an invasion of Europe. At this stage, such an attempt would have been folly, as was evidenced by the deadly results when the Allies attacked Dieppe, France, suffering enormous casualties that indicated the carnage that the invasion would suffer. The effort was defeated by the Germans. Early in the war, the Germans seemed unstoppable."

Author has been remiss in doing minimal research and thus failed in reporting even known facts. For example perhaps most famous work by William Shirer, Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich - or perhaps another work, on life and work of the intelligence officer that Bond was modeled on - mentions the fact, perhaps not universally publicised, that Dieppe raid was taken up as a dual exercise - overtly, to see the possibilities and judge situation on ground; but there was another, hidden intention behind the raid, successfully conducted as far as that part went.
***

[Thom Swennes · Rating 3 out of 5]

D-Day has many connotations, as it has been used in many invasions, in many places and times, during the twentieth century. During World War I, it was used on September 20, 1916, to force an evacuation at St. Mihiel, a German-held town in France. D was the French connotation of “disembarkation” or “debarkation.” When asked, years after the fact, one of General Dwight Eisenhower’s senior staff officers said that the D was to indicate “departure” and was used in many other amphibious landings in the European and Pacific Theaters of Operation. For most people the D-Day they know or remember, took place on June 6, 1944, on the beaches of Normandy in France, marking the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.
The sheer size of the invasion and the organization required to supply and execute such an operation is mind-boggling. It involved 160,000 troops, 5,000 ships, and 13,000 aircraft and encompassed a beachhead of 50 miles. All of this was accomplished in total secrecy from the enemy; the allies were truly blessed that summer’s day.
The ultimate success of the D-Day landings and Operation Overlord can’t only be attributed to careful planning and secrecy. The German forces knew that an invasion was imminent but had no idea of when or where. Initial reports of inclement weather conditions found many high ranking officers far from their commands. Hitler’s mistrust of his field commanders and his insistence of sole control over the panzer divisions caused a catastrophic reaction delay.
Operation Overlord was a success, but at what cost? The allied invasion of Europe cost 9,000 lives but marks a new chapter in history. Those and the multitude that joined them did not die in vain. Less than a year later, Hitler was dead and the war in Europe was at an end.
This is a short history of a great day for freedom and a landmark date in history. The reader is served an aperitif, the perfect prelude to whet your desire to explore deeper and learn more about this monumental day in history.

[Young Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Described in "American textbook" point of view, but fairly an easy read even for the beginners of the topic..

...D-Day was not yet a date on the calendar, but it was a date with destiny...

Some typos and weird sentences are found, but over all it is well-written in simple and plain English, while sometimes you can also enjoy some eloquent lines like reading a little piece of classic literature. I liked it.

The key information told in this short read is surprisingly detailed, while the chronological stor'y with lots of information is not really boring, but well-told like an easy-fun storytelling with an awesome conclusion: I finished the read in total 4 hours or something.

It is still a "textbook" hi-story described in "American" point of view, but again, it is fairly an easy read even for the readers not familiar with the subject, so I do recommend this book "both" to those who want to take some rest from intense hard-reading for your own researches in the topic "and" to those who want to start learning the subject.

[Ashwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

D- Day! Invasion of Nazi occupied Europe.

The role of Dwight Eisenhower during the largest invasion of the twentieth century was commendable. He was a master organiser and strategist. Departure date or D day was on June 6th 1944 when the landings of the allied forces took place in Normandy.

[Julian Orozco, Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

D-Day. The Beginning of New Beginnings

This is a very insightful and knowledgeable reading here. Some type-is and grammatical mistakes but still has great information and notes about the D-Day Invasion and the military leaders and strategists that orchestrated the plans for the Allied Forces.

[Anthony Siebert · Rating 4 out of 5]

Risking all on the Beach

A great read. Reading in context is such an awesome picture to behold of planning, organising, suffering and dieing. War is not pretty but ruthless. It is "either you or me" type attitude towards survival. And survival it was , at a price. One can loose a battle but ultimately you need o win the war.

[Neil Brunton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whet your appetite ?

I find the 1 hour history books a good place to start finding out about different aspects of history and a great way to make you want to know more about whichever subject matter that you think " I want more " .

[Nelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Memorable

A refresher course. I don’t remember any of my history classes from high school or college. These short books provide all the details and no fear of failing an exam afterwards.

[William O. Robertson · Rating 4 out of 5]

An informative read. As World War II fades in the memories of many and of those that never studied the
this war, this book highlights the major turning point in the war's conclusion although nearly a year would pass before the final treaties were signed officially ending the Second World War.

[Thordur · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good overview

This is a good overview about D-Day. It does not go in depth here and there are few inucceracies but this is anyways such of a big story and hard to put it in words using 44 pages to do so.

[Janet C · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good review.....

.....of the history, planning, & leadership leading up to D-Day. Some of the what's & whys are clearly answered, with lots of numbers thrown in. An easy, quick read.,

[Bruce K. Beyer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overlord!

This book summarized the preparations and considerations in the planning and execution of D-Day that ultimately lead to Germany's defeat in WWII. It was an engaging and informative story.

[Ameya · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brief and quick history leading upto the battle of stalingrad

[Terri's Dangerous When Reading · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short summary, meant to be read in less than an hour, but I learned a lot. The basic facts, dates, and numbers are here. Worth the read.

[Jerry White · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good outline of D-Day.

[George Polansky · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good review of D-Day.

[coli james campbell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Freedom

Great book I did enjoy this history lesson the amount of work to write this book must have taken many months well done

[F · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short, succinct, and somehow very interesting.

[Bob Cantrell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing feat

When you read this book it will amaze you by what happened. This book shows just a hint of the responsibility that fell on Eisenhower. Well worth the read.

[MR PAUL SPENCER · Rating 4 out of 5]

Her Informative for a reader with no knowledge of the battle

Of you are looking to learn a little about the battle this book will do that for you covers the concept of the battle without masses of detail and just enough to give you a picture of the efforts undertaken.