Product Description

What happened to the Allied armies in Normandy in the months after D-Day, 1944? Why, after the initial success of the landings, did their advance stall a few miles inland from the beaches? Why did the British take so long to capture Caen? Why did the US infantry struggle so much in the bocage south of Omaha beach? Who was right about the conduct of the land campaign - Eisenhower or Montgomery? How did the Germans, deprived of air support, manage to hold off such a massive Allied force for more than two months? And if Enigma was allowing the Allies to read German battleplans, why did things go wrong as often as they did? THE BATTLE OF NORMANDY 1944 re-examines the demands and difficulties of the campaign and sheds new light on both with the aid of accounts from veterans on both sides. (Oral history forms a large part of the book.) It also analyses in detail the plans and performance of the commanders involved: Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, Montgomery, Crerar and, of course, Rommel. Controversial and at times catastrophic, the Battle of Normandy was the last great set-piece battle in history and is long overdue for reassessment.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #728660 in Books
• Published on: 2002-09-26
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 352 pages

Review
THE BATTLE OF NORMANDY got a very big review in the NEW STATESMAN on 6th February 2003: '... certain American historians - not to mention screenwriters -have long offered an alternative explanation: that the British preferred to sit tight in their foxholes drinking endless cups of tea rather than do theirshare of the fighting. This myth receives a witting and efficient rebuttal in Robin Neillands's book. He writes with an urgency because, as he notes, "itcannot be too long before some American academic reveals how the US contingent played a decisive part in beating the French at the Battle of Agincourt in1415 while the 'cautious' and 'timid' British archers looked on in 'watchful

About the Author
Robin Neillands served in 45 Commando, Royal Marines, in the 1950s. He was a journalist and travel writer before becoming a writer of military history. He is the author of more than forty books; subjects he has covered include the myths surrounding the Great War generals, and Arthur Harris and the Allied bombing offensive of the Second World War. A regular contributor to military magazines and the national press, he also conducts battlefield tours in Europe and the USA and is a member of the British Commission for Military History.

Customer Reviews

Spirited defence of Monty and the Brits
Robin Neillands has set out to examine the 'myth' of Normandy - ie that the Britsh were tardy in getting forward and, consequently, the Americans had to get us out of trouble by breaking out using their superior fighting elan - and he does a good, though at times, pedantic job.

Neillands makes the point - repeatedly - that it was always the plan for the British and Canadians to suck in (or 'write down') the armoured reserves of the German army on the East of the battlefield, ie around Caen, while the Americans punched through to travel first West to take the Brittany ports and then East to the Seine.

At first blush it is easy to see why American commentators (in particular) have questioned the fighties qualities of the British as the rapid advances were made by American troops. To my mind, this is so blindingly simple it is surprising that the 'controversy' has raged as long as it has. There were six panzer divisions in front of the British and Canadians and one in front of the Americans (until the mess of the Mortain counter-attack, by which time the Americans were well into the break-out and even then the actual strength of German armour is questionable.) It's not tough to work out who is going to have the tougher job breaking through.

Monty has been criticised for failing to take Caen on D-Day. Yes it was in the plan, but so what. On D-Day itself, the Americans themselves were having one or two problems at Omaha and were lucky to get any kind of lodgement. For American historians to get shirty with the British for not taking a major town on June 6th is a bit ridiculous. There should be some understanding that plans can be over-ambitious. No one really knew how far anyone was going to progress on the first day; the war in the West was effectively won because brave troops - American, British and Canadian - got onto the beaches and would not be shoved off. This is not to denigrate American troops. The performance of the 29th and First divisions on Omaha was superb. Go to the place and you'll see why it's a hard place to land. Its hard enough to get up the bluffs now with paths, let alone with dug-in Germans shooting at you.

Having got that off my chest, I can say that Neillands book is thorough, but, at times, confusing. This is a huge battle and difficult to follow even if you know all the place names off by heart. (Errr...like I do.) It doesn't flow as well as Max Hastings' Overlord, though its conclusions are fairer as Hastings was heavily influenced by Carlo D'este's 'Decision in Normandy', a work Mr Neillands takes to task more than once.

At the end, Mr Neillands makes the point that whatever the arguments, we should honour the troops and not dwell on the petty arguments which, I felt, was a tad disingenuous as he had just spent 500-odd pages doing exactly that, but the points well made. The Normandy battle showed Britain and America at their best. We should always remember who they were fighting and why.

I would certainly recommend this work. Particularly if you're American.

A balanced view of the Normandy Battle
The author examines in detail all the myths which have accumulated around the Normandy Battle and destroys them by a detailed research of and examination of the FACTS. The Hollywood treatment of mainly fictitious events is exposed by examination of what really happened including the tensions between the different nationalities and generals. This is a non partisan account of what really happened and, to me, is unique in that it acknowledges the fighting spirit if not only the Allies but also the enemy. Where necessary there is criticism of all commanders and events and no sign of nationalistic chauvinism. A must for anyone who really wants an unbiased view of what really occurred.

How the British and Canadians won the war
In his introduction Robin Neillands states his intention to destroy the myths and give an even-handed account of the Battle for Normandy. In this he falls woefully short of this aim as indicated by the fact that his book contains only nineteen quotes taken from US veterans and seventy one quotes from British and Canadian veterans. He goes to great lengths throughout the book to point out that the US forces faced not only smaller numbers of Germans but the were of a poorer quality than those facing the British and the Canadians. Furthermore although he writes that there were a great number of friendly fire incidents in giving specific examples of these incidents, the Americans cause three, 1 by the Canadians and none by the British. I could give many more examples of where the author is anything but even-handed but I shall move on.

Mr Neillands also seems to have forgotten what he had included in his book by the time he came to writing the epilogue, in which he writes of never having heard a Canadian or British veteran disparage their American comrades, well there are at least three occasions in the book when they do just that unless comments like "What side will the Americans be fighting on today" is supposed to be praise.

Then there are the contradictions i.e. at the start of the book he states that Eisenhower was the best man for the position of Supreme Commander, however he then goes on in the rest of the book to portray him as a feeble-minded buffoon who did not understand what was happening until the battle was nearly over two months later.

As a Britain and an ex-serviceman I get annoyed when I read books that give all the credit to the Americans and their commanders whilst either denigrating or ignoring the contributions made by their allies and was looking forward to reading a balanced account of this campaign unfortunately Mr Neillands book falls woefully short of balanced. His claim that the works of other historians are offensive to British and Canadian veterans is undoable true but if he thinks that is work is going to be any less offensive to the US veterans then I believe he is just being naive. He is also claims that other national historians (he does not give names) go to great pains to disparage the efforts of the British and Canadians, well I have read some of Stephen Ambrose's views on Normandy and lines such as "It wasn't fair to charge Monty with excessive caution or a refusal to make a full commitment" or "the trouble with Goodwood was not a lack of commitment by the British and certainly not lack of courage" do not seen to me to disparage British efforts and Stephen Ambrose certainly tends to build up the American contribution.

Overall a disappointingly biased book but it does provide a counter balance to some of the equally biased American retelling of the events.