True Leadership and Responsibly: Eisenhower’s Letter in Case D-Day Failed

Friends of Padre Steve’s World,

The great Prussian military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz noted: “It is now quite clear how greatly the objective of war makes it a matter of assessing probabilities. Only one more element is needed to make war a gamble – chance: the very last thing that war lacks. No other human activity is so continuously or universally bound up with chance. And through through the element of guesswork and luck come to play a great part in war…. If we now consider briefly the subjective nature of war – the means by which war has to be fought – it will look more like a gamble. The highest of all moral qualities in time of danger is certainly courage.”

For a year General Dwight D. Eisenhower had worked to marshal the largest force possible to launch the long awaited invasion of Nazi Occupied France. Eisenhower surrounded himself with an exceptional staff, but had to fight for what he would need for the coming invasion. He had to struggle with Admiral Ernest King for the landing ships and crafts he needed, against the competing needs of Admiral Nimitz, and General MacArthur’s Forces in the Pacific Theatre of operations. He had to battle the Allied bomber commands, Air Marshal Arthur “Bomber” Harris’s British Bomber Command, and 8th Air Force and Lieutenant General Carl Spaatz, Commander of Strategic Air Forces for bombers to support the invasion. This meant taking them away from the strategic bombing command against the heart of German industry; and finally he had to battle Winston Churchill to be in overall command of the multi-national force being assembled to attack.

The invasion was his baby. He had the ultimate responsibility for its success or failure. He knew the dangers. In 1942 the British launched a raid using Canadian troops on the English Channel port of Dieppe. It was a disaster. With all the work he had done to get his forces ready for the invasion, Eisenhower knew that he owned the result regardless of the outcome.

Eisenhower understood that everything in war is a gamble and that success is not guaranteed. The weather conditions of the English Channel are unpredictable. They only  offer a few month window of opportunity to successfully mount a cross channel invasion. The Germans found that out in 1940 when after their failure to clear the skies of the Royal Air Force during the Battle of Britain by early September, that the a favorable opportunity for Operation Sea Lion had passed and would never come again.

The Allied invasion required a full moon for a massive three division nighttime paratroop drop, and favorable weather for the landing craft to get ashore. Unfortunately, the weather was not cooperating. High winds, seas, and rain forced a cancellation of the planned June 5th invasion, the open question was whether conditions would be on the 6th would be favorable. If not the next opportunity would not be for at least two more weeks, in which the Germans would continue to strengthen their defensive positions along the Atlantic Wall. 

The German weather forecasters, had lost lost the ability to observe weather in the western and mid-Atlantic due to the allies sweeping the ships that relayed weather information from the Atlantic. Blind to oncoming weather systems, the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe meteorologists anticipated that the bad weather would continue to be unfavorable for an invasion. With this in mind, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, Commander of Army Group B which had operational control over the potential landing beaches, decided to make a visit to his wife for her birthday and a trip to Berlin to plead for more resources. Other Senior German Commanders departed to inland areas to conduct war games and were not with their units on the night of June 5th.

Meanwhile, the forecasters at Eisenhower’s headquarters had access to weather data from the mid-Atlantic unavailable to the Germans, predicted a brief lull in the storm, not perfect weather, but acceptable. Eisenhower met with his staff and made the decision to go ahead with the invasion in the night of June 5th and June 6th with the American 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, and the British 6th Airborne Division landing behind the German coastal fortifications.

But the weather was just one factor, the Allies did not know the latest German deployments, including the movement of the crack 352nd Infantry Division to Omaha Beach. Likewise, a prompt German response with heavy Panzer units could throw the invaders back into the sea if they moved fast enough. One threat was already deployed, but the other was a real probability knowing German doctrine.

However, neither Eisenhower or his staff knew of the conflict in the German High Command and Hitler regarding the deployment of the Panzer Divisions in France. Rommel argued that the Panzer Divisions should be deployed near the potential invasion beaches. However, traditionalists in the German command and Hitler decided that most of the Panzer Divisions should be held back awaiting a point that they could make a massive and decisive counterattack that would drive the Allies out of Europe. However, most of these men had commanded Panzers in Poland in 1939, France and the Low Countries in 1940, and the Soviet Union. In all of those campaigns the Germans always enjoyed air superiority or parity. But Rommel, a veteran of Africa and the West knew the power of allied tactical air assets, and the havoc they could inflict on the Panzers. Rommel believed that the invasion had to be defeated on the beachheads and the allies not given the chance to advance inland, in which case he knew that there would be no chance of defeating the invasion.

Eisenhower also knew that the success of the invasion depended on the success of the landings. A disaster at any of the landing beaches could doom the it. In light of this and so many other ways that could cause the invasion to fail, Eisenhower, wrote a letter to his troops and the world when the invasion commenced. It read:

“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 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 Nations1 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, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory.

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

However, prepared for any eventuality he also also wrote a letter in case the invasion failed, as it nearly did on Omaha Beach. That letter noted:

“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 upon 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 the attempt it is mine alone.”

It was dated July 5th, not June 5th, the mistake obviously due to the pressure of what he was feeling for his soldiers, and the mission. Likewise, there was very real threat to his own career if the mission failed. He knew that his adversaries in the United States military and in Britain would have seen that would see that he was relieved and sent back to the United States in disgrace. As Eisenhower’s successor as President, John F. Kennedy said: “Victory has a hundred fathers, defeat is an orphan.”

Likewise, defeat could embolden those in the United States and Britain willing to make peace with Germany at any price. Such an outcome could have destroyed the allied alliance that ended up defeating Germany, rebuilding a democratic Western Europe, establishing NATO, the United Nations, and many other international organizations that have done much good for America and the world.

In a sense Eisenhower was in a similar situation to Grant and Sherman in the Summer of 1864, if they failed, Abraham Lincoln could have been defeated by the anti-war pro-Confederacy Copperheads, who would have settled leaving the South independent, the country divided, and slavery in place. Defeat would have ended the American experiment. Defeat in Normandy could easily have destroyed the Allied alliance, and given the Germans  the time they needed to turn defeat into victory. The whole course of the war and history could have changed, for the worse, with Hitler’s Nazi Regime controlling most of Europe, continuing its genocidal policies, and developing weapons far in advance of the Allies.

Eisenhower would not make excuses if the invasion failed. He was ready to take full responsibility if Overlord failed, regardless of how it happened. The buck stopped with him.

Likewise, he knew that the failure of the invasion would have made it possible for the Nazis to divert needed forces to the Eastern Front, where they might have been able to turn back the Soviet Operation Bagration which destroyed the German Army Group Center. Likewise, the success of the invasion opened the way for the Soviets to drive the Nazis from Soviet territory, advance to Warsaw, and knock key German allies out of the war. Before long, Hungary, Romania, and Finland had abandoned the Germans.

The fact that the invasion succeeded was as much as luck as it was the careful planning, and the exceptional courage, and dogged determination of the Allied troops. The American 4th Infantry Division landed on the wrong beach. Had they landed on the correct beach they could have faced slaughter. The Allied Airborne Divisions were scattered over much of Normandy and had to improvise to capture the targets needed to assist the invasion forces. Had Hitler’s lackeys the courage to wake him when the invasion was in its early stages , he might have released Panzer Divisions sooner than he did. Had Rommel not gone back to Germany for his wife’s birthday and to plead with Hitler for more troops, and been on the ground to coordinate the German response; or the number of realistic “might have beens” that could of defeated the the invasion, and Eisenhower was well aware of them.

Eisenhower’s willingness to take responsibility for defeat as well as give his troops credit for the eventual victory over the Nazis sets him apart from so many others then, and now who would deflect blame for a failed operation to their subordinates and lie about the results achieved.

In the age where the American President blatantly refuses to take responsibility for his actions, blames subordinates and allies for his failures, and who abdicates the duties of his office on an hourly basis, the ability for Eisenhower to be ready to acceptance of failure is an example that we must emulate. Donald Trump would have surrendered to Germany, given Hitler a platform to proclaim his defiance of human rights and international law, and the rights of American citizens at home. Interestingly enough over the past week many highly respected Generals and Admirals, active and retired, have warned against the dangers posed by President Trump.

History and humanity are always the product of character, integrity, and responsibility, or their opposites. All qualities Eisenhower had, and Trump does not, and as many well respected American military commanders are now speaking out about. But I was doing this as early as 2015 and 2016.

Peace,

Padre Steve+

5 Comments

Filed under civil war, ethics, History, holocaust, leadership, Military, national security, nazi germany, News and current events, Political Commentary, us army, US Navy, US Presidents, world war two in europe

5 responses to “True Leadership and Responsibly: Eisenhower’s Letter in Case D-Day Failed

  1. Pierre Lagacé

    The signs were on the walls back in 2015 and 2016 for all to see Padre. The walls are now even full of other signs that 40% of Americans don’t even see.

  2. VERNON PRESCOTT

    If you haven’t already, read Rick Armstrong’s Trilogy on WWII and on America’s Generals, with the focus on Eisenhower, I strongly suggest you do. Start with “An Army at Dawn”. It was awarded the Pulitzer Prize by the way. Bottom line: Eisenhower matured by June 6, 1944 after squandering thousands of American lives in the North African and Italian Campaigns and no direct “at the Front” involvement. From my perspective, all Leaders. civilian and military, are error prone…not prepared for the next great crisis. On a lesser note, Lincoln (In my view, our greatest President) was quick to influence Union battlefield leadership as an amateur armchair general until he recognized Grant’s attributes…. But that’s another story….

    • padresteve

      Vernon, I’ve read all three. And it’s Rick Atkinson, not Armstrong. Ike never took a direct battlefield role. North Africa was our first fight and many of our senior officers as well as junior officers and troops had no direct experience of war, even those that had experience, it was from WWI. The Battle Kasserine Pass was no accident. Our inexperience showed as we went up against hardened German Veterans. The British, who had much better experience against the Germans didn’t do much better, but even the Germans recognized that we could learn from our mistakes. In Sicily George Patton had direct command of the 7th Army, made many mistakes and lost many men. He learned too. In Italy Mark Clarke had direct control of the 5th Army, but the invasion of Italy was the work of Winston Churchill who believed it to be “the soft underbelly of Europe.” The Germans benefited from terrain, experience, and the nature of the campaign. There was no way to maneuver and both the Americans and the British suffered ungodly amounts of casualties as they attack each new German defensive live. When the war ended there were still German troops fighting hard and controlling parts of northern Italy, their commanders negotiated a separate surrender in Italy. Finally in Normandy, Eisenhower was coordinating American and British Army Groups, Bradley’s 12th Army Group and Montgomery’s 21st Army Group. The Germans under Rommel were able to use the hedgerows of Normandy, and the close confines of the Normandy there was no room to maneuver again. The American First Army under Hodges took horrible casualties, mostly due to the inexperience of troops and commanders, many of who were relieved of command. Many infantry units took 100% casualties which were replaced by a constant feed of new and inexperienced troops into the jaws of death, and many of the units continued to make the same mistakes time and time again. It was not until the breakout at St. Lo that the Americans were able to engage in maneuver warfare when Patton was set loose with 3rd Army. Many of his units were also inexperienced, but they were able to learn without the ghastly casualties incurred by Hodges 1st Army in Normandy. Hodges was incompetent to command and he displayed that again in the Hurtgen Forrest, feeding troops against an enemy inferior in numbers, but defending incredibly favorable ground, with weather that limited air support.
      All that being said, a much better reference for Eisenhower and his Generals than Atkinson, who I respect a lot, are Russell Weigley’s “Eisenhower’s Lieutenants” and “The American Way of War.”

      Thank you for your comments.

      Blessings,

      Steve+

      • VERNON PRESCOTT

        I’ve always been a Bozo when it comes to author’s names. Then again, i purchase books, read them and sent them off to my younger brother in Texas. We are both military retirees. Army. My brother: Special Forces. Me? Why Armor of course ! Vietnam Vet. I Corps. ’70-71. 74 years old and slowly falling apart…..

        The sad part about WWII was how the US Armed Forces squandered lives either through intelligence errors. poor training, poor leadership or bad decisions. North Africa, Italy, the ETO, daylight bombing by the 8th Air Force. In the Pacific, Tarawa, Peleliu, New Britain and other Pacific objectives deemed important at the time. Of course, the yardstick of measurement has changed with today’s technology.

        I enjoy your Posts immensely. Particularly your warship articles.

      • padresteve

        Vernon thank you so much. I have to go back often to check names of authors as well. My late father served in Vietnam as a Navy Chief at an emergency airfield during the 1972 siege of An Loc. It seems we don’t learn well from history, and with few exceptions we have had to fight few massive battles since WWII. God help us if we get in one today. We have great soldiers, but many have never been under fire in combat, and none has had to fight an enemy that can match many of our hi-tech weapons systems, and possibly outnumber us as well, with us being a lot farther from our supply bases than them.
        Glad you enjoy what I write. Thank you and your brother for serving, and look for tonight’s D-Day Post.
        Blessings,
        Steve+

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s