PDA

View Full Version : Sixty-four-years-ago Today


thedrifter
06-06-08, 09:39 AM
Sixty-four-years-ago Today
W. Thomas Smith Jr.
06 Jun 2008

Sixty-four years ago, today, Allied forces kicked down the front door of Fortress Europe in perhaps what will forever be the most celebrated, memorialized amphibious (and airborne) invasion in all of history.

I’ve written quite a bit about it over the years.

Here’s what I wrote at NRO in 2004 on the 60th anniversary of the landings:

RIVALRY AT NORMANDY
U.S. Marines barred from the June 6, 1944 landings
By W. Thomas Smith Jr.

Sixty-years-ago, along a 60-mile stretch of France’s Normandy coastline, a combined force of American, British, and Canadian soldiers began streaming ashore as German artillery, mortar, machine-gun, and rifle fire ripped into their ranks. The mission of the Allied force was to kick down the door of Nazi Germany’s Fortress Europe, and then launch a drive toward the heart of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich.

Overseen by American Gen. Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower, the operation was—and remains to this day—the largest amphibious assault in history.

Since then, the question has often been raised as to why the U.S. Marine Corps did not play a leading role in the landings. After all, the Corps’s raison d’être was amphibious warfare. Marines had been perfecting the art of the amphibious assault since the 1920’s, and between 1942 and 1944, they had put their skills to practical use at places like Guadalcanal, Makin, Bougainville, and Tarawa, in the Pacific.

In the Atlantic, Marines had trained Army forces for seaborne landings prior to the North African campaign in 1942, and then made landings during the same. Marines trained Army forces for the Sicilian-Italian landings in 1943. Marine Corps amphibious experts were on Ike’s staff. And most Normandy-bound Army units were in fact instructed by Marines prior to the 1944 invasion.

So why didn’t U.S. Marines storm the French coast with their Army counterparts?

First, the Marine Corps was then—as it has always been—much smaller than the Army. During World War II, the Corps swelled to a force comprising six divisions, whereas the Army expanded to 89 divisions. The Corps’ resources were stretched thin, and much of its efforts were focused on the fighting in the Pacific.

Second, a deep-seeded rivalry between the Army and Marines was in full bloom: Its origins stretching back to World War I; the defining period of the modern Marine Corps.

Following the 1918 Battle of Belleau Wood (France), in which Marines played a leading role, newspapers in the U.S. credited much of the success of the American Expeditionary Force to the Marines. This occurred at the expense of deserving Army units even when referring to actions in which Marines did not participate.

In one instance, a number of newspapers covering the fighting at the Marne River bridges at Chateau-Thierry (a few days prior to the Battle of Belleau Wood) published headlines that read “Germans stopped at Chateau-Thierry with help of God and a few Marines.” The headlines contributed to the Corps’ already legendary reputation, and the Army was justifiably incensed. The Germans in fact had been stopped at Chateau-Thierry by the U.S. Army’s 7th machinegun battalion.

Army leaders—including Generals George C. Marshall, Eisenhower, and Omar N. Bradley—were determined not to be upstaged by Marines, again. Thus, when America entered World War II in late 1941, the Marine Corps was deliberately excluded from large-scale participation in the European theater. And when the largest amphibious operation in history was launched, it was for all intents and purposes an Army show.

In the wee hours of June 6, 1944, paratroopers from the American 82nd, 101st, and British 6th Airborne divisions began jumping over France. Hours later, the first assault waves of the initial 175,000-man seaborne force began hitting the Normandy beaches at the Bay of Seine. Five beaches comprised the landing areas: Sword, Juno, and Gold Beaches were struck by Lt. Gen. Miles Christopher Dempsey’s Second British Army. Omaha and Utah Beaches were stormed by Gen. Bradley’s First U.S. Army.

Between Omaha and Utah, 225 men of the U.S. 2nd Ranger Battalion were tasked with scaling the 100-foot cliffs of Pointe du Hoc. There, five 155-millimeter guns were emplaced in reinforced concrete bunkers. As such the position encompassed “the most dangerous battery in France.” It had to be knocked out to protect the landings.

When the Rangers began suffering heavy losses, brief consideration was given to sending-in the Marines from one of the offshore ships’ detachments.

Those slated to go were leathernecks from the 84-man Marine Detachment aboard the battleship U.S.S. Texas.

On the morning of June 7 (D-plus-one), the Texas’s Marines began making last minute preparations: Wiping down weapons, distributing grenades, waterproofing field packs, and sharpening K-Bar fighting knives. Others were on the mess decks eating the traditional pre-landing breakfast of steak and eggs: A fact that concerned the Navy’s medical corpsmen who feared they would be treating stomach wounds later in the day. Those anxious to go ashore, watched the ongoing action from the ship’s railings.

In his book, Spearheading D-Day, Jonathan Gawne writes, “Most of these Marines had no combat experience and had only been in the Corps for a few months [the same could have been said of many of the soldiers who had just landed]. One of them [the Marines] commented: ‘This is going to be the biggest slaughter since Custer got his at the Little Big Horn.’”

At the last minute, word was passed down through the Army chain of command that no Marines would be allowed to go ashore, not even riding shotgun on landing craft ferrying Army troops or supplies. Rumors quickly spread that the Army leadership feared a repeat of the media gaffes in 1918. They did not want to see headlines that read, Marines save Rangers at Normandy. Consequently, the Marines were ordered to “stand down.”

Though little-known outside of special-operations circles, Marines did however play a few combat roles in the invasion.

Prior-to, during, and after the landings, Marines assigned to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—the predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency—planned and led sabotage and resistance operations with the French underground against the occupying Germans. On D-Day, Marines helped pave the way for British and American pathfinders and paratroopers who dropped behind enemy lines. Additionally, a handful of Marine Corps observers were attached to Army landing forces.

Offshore, Marines were positioned high in the superstructures of American warships in the English Channel. From their lofty perches, the riflemen fired at and detonated floating mines as the ships moved in close to “bombardment stations” along the French coastline. It was reminiscent of the Old Corps during the age of sail when sharp-shooting Marines climbed the masts and riggings and battled enemy crews from the “fighting tops.”

Normandy was indeed big, but the war itself was far bigger. There was enough action in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters for everyone, and everyone got to play. But that failed to stanch the growing interservice rivalry between the Army and Marines.

The day before the invasion of Normandy, a restless Army Lt. Gen. George S. Patton Jr. addressed his troops (the shorter, less-profane version of that address was made famous by actor George C. Scott, who ironically was a former U.S. Marine).

Publicly, Patton was full of fire and an unsated desire to kill the enemy. Privately, he was disappointed. Neither he nor his 1st U.S. Army Group—a skeleton host formed to deceive the Germans into believing that the Americans would land at Pas de Calais—were going to participate in the landings. But unbeknownst to the general, the coming weeks would see Eisenhower bring Patton off the sidelines, give him command of the U.S. Third Army, and then hurl that force against the reconstituted German defenses beyond the Normandy beachhead. In that capacity, Patton was destined to make headlines of his own.

Outlining his colorful albeit controversial vision of the future, Patton said, “The quicker we clean up this g**damned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple ****ing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the g**damned Marines get all of the credit.”

[Published in NRO, June 6, 2004 — photo of “Ike” talking to U.S. paratroopers hours before the airborne landings]

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Ellie

thedrifter
06-08-08, 10:20 AM
D-Day in Context
by Oliver North (more by this author)
Posted 06/06/2008 ET
Updated 06/06/2008 ET


Sixty-four years ago this week, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt came on the radio and implored Americans to “devote themselves in a continuance of prayer...invoking Thy help to our efforts.” The “effort” of which he spoke was “Operation Overlord,” the “D-Day” landing of 150,000 American and allied troops at Normandy. The risks were so great that Winston Churchill told the people of Britain that, “the invasion has been launched. The result is with God.” FDR described it as “a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.”

Since then, those who fought their way ashore on June 6, 1944 and successfully breached Hitler’s “Atlantic Wall” have been justifiably honored for their participation in the momentous event. On the fortieth anniversary of the operation, Ronald Reagan stood on that “lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France,” and spoke of that “giant undertaking unparalleled in human history,” and praised “the boys of Pointe du Hoc…the heroes who helped end a war.”

But that was then -- and this is now. This year, the anniversary of their achievement received little notice in the so-called mainstream media. Perhaps that’s because it would draw uncomfortable parallels between those who stormed the coast of France in 1944 and those who are now fighting -- and winning -- a war against radical Islam. Unlike those who braved their way into Hitler’s “Fortress Europe,” the young Americans fighting today’s battles reap few accolades from the potentates of the press or the liberal “leadership” in Washington, D.C.

Last month, Congressman Jim McDermott, the Seattle Democrat, described those now serving in our Armed Forces as “mercenaries” and claimed that “we’re buying them now.” Apparently, taking a page from Senator John Kerry’s 2004 “Presidential Campaign Playbook,” Mr. McDermott believes the young Americans winning this generation’s war are those who could not get jobs or get into school. Mr. McDermott you may recall, was once willing to negotiate -- without pre-conditions -- with Saddam Hussein. He is now co-sponsoring legislation to require compulsory military conscription.

Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who has asserted false claims of flying combat missions in Vietnam, routinely denigrates many of those serving in today’s all-volunteer military. Two weeks ago, in attacking Senator John McCain, Mr. Harkin observed that, “It’s one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that’s just how you’re steeped, how you’ve learned, how you’ve grown up.”

All of this amplifies a steady -- and unfortunately unanswered -- chorus from the far left that the U.S. military has been sent on “Mission Impossible” by the Bush administration. It’s a refrain that began when House Majority Whip James Clyburn confessed last year that if the surge turned out to be a success, it would be “a real problem for us.” By December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, had entered the echo chamber and began asserting -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- “the surge hasn’t accomplished its goals.”

Mr. Reid’s unwillingness to acknowledge the success of our troops is amplified by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In a recent interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Ms. Pelosi declared that while “some” progress is being made, it is because of “the goodwill of the Iranians -- they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities -- the Iranians.” Hopefully she had someone on her staff send the theocrats in Tehran a box of chocolates and a “thank-you” note.

Those who persist in spreading a diatribe of disaster, and who insist on denigrating the brightest, best educated, trained, led and equipped military force in the world, have succeeded in building a significant following. The facts on the ground, however, simply don’t support their thesis. In Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, and the Philippines -- the war against radical Islamic terror is being won -- by the finest military force the world has ever seen.

Even the editors of the liberal Washington Post have finally conceded this reality. A recent editorial baldly warned about Iraq: “Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war,” and took to task those who comprise “the ‘this-war-is-lost’ caucus.” And this week, the foreign minister of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates visited the Iraqi capital for discussions on re-opening their embassy in Baghdad.

The victories over Al Qaeda and the Shiite Militias in Iraq, against the Taliban and Osama’s remnant in Afghanistan, and over Muslim terrorists in Somalia and the Philippines have been won by U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines -- and the new allies they have advised and trained in these countries. Those who landed on the beaches of Normandy sixty-four years ago were American heroes. So are those who serve today.

Ellie