What do you think?
Rate this book
Decision in Normandy
The battle for Normandy was the most complex & daring military operation in the history of modern warfare. Two years of intense, detailed planning reached its successful conclusion when the Allied forces took the beaches on D-Day. But the 76-day campaign that followed, the Allies' crucial bid for a toehold in western Europe, was one of the bloodiest of the war, & its true story has been concealed in myth. Step-by-step the reader is taken through the Normandy campaign from the earliest days after Dunkirk when Churchill first considered the idea of a cross-Channel invasion of France, to the Key battles that determined that outcome, with maps explaining clearly the strategy & logistics of each battle. This is military history at its most dramatic, with a cast of characters that includes Montgomery, Rommel, Patton, Bradley & Eisenhower. Decision in Normandy is destined to become the definitive account of a campaign Rommel described as "a terrible blood-letting" & whose outcome became the decisive turning point for the Allied victory.
555 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
163 people are currently reading
968 people want to read
About the author
Carlo D'Este
20Ìýbooks63ÌýfollowersCarlo D'Este retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant colonel in 1978, having served overseas in Germany, Vietnam, and England. Born in Oakland, California, he received his B.A. from Norwich University and his M.A. from the University of Richmond and an honorary doctorate of Humane Letters from Norwich in 1992.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
May 13, 2022
A great flip side to Ambrose's D Day book. This is HOW ccampaigns are PLANNED and then EXECUTED. But reading a great deal of background material will help enormausly
September 16, 2022
This was a mixed bag for me. The positives are that D'Este is comprehensive in his research, provides a ton of sources to corroborate ideas, and is impartial throughout. These are all important things for providing worthwhile historical accounts of real events. The negatives are that D'Este focuses way too much on strategy rather than actual actions and what the events were like, he gets bogged down in providing a dozen corroborating sources when only three or four are needed, and he manages to strip away all of the emotion and drama of the events. It was informative but I prefer accounts that draw me in.
February 15, 2016
This really should be called Decision About Montgomery. It is a very detailed look at the decision-making and command process during the entire Normandy campaign with a heavy focus on the British sectors, with Montgomery at the center. Interesting at times, but the focus tends to relegate what actually happened to the back seat, particularly in the western areas.
July 23, 2019
This is not a history of the Normandy campaign; rather, it’s an examination of the command decisions and some, not all, of the operations within. Of the landings, only Sword Beach is covered in detail. The taking of Cherbourg is not covered; we just know it happened. I wish the Cobra breakthrough received a more detailed accounting. It may help a reader to look at Wikipedia, or read Hastings� or Beevor’s accounts before to learn more of the whole campaign.
The author critically examines General Montgomery and the British army’s actions during this campaign and finds much to fault. The army suffers from failure of coordination and a lack of manpower at the strategic level. The author takes Monty to task with an in-depth examination of what he claimed to do, or was going to do, and what he actually did. There was a difference! Chapter 26 on the Falaise action (or lack of it) was hard to follow, yet the failure to close the pocket wasn’t fatal.
So what’s the point? The campaign was finally a success, wasn’t it? True, it didn’t enhance Monty’s reputation, but the author gives him points for his overall excellence in training and planning. Readers familiar with Alamein and the action at the Mareth Line know that Monty could flex when he needed to. There were times when I wondered this could be as mean-spirited as David Irving’s The War Between the Generals, yet overall there is enough excellent history of the command decisions that had to be made to make this book well worth reading.
The author critically examines General Montgomery and the British army’s actions during this campaign and finds much to fault. The army suffers from failure of coordination and a lack of manpower at the strategic level. The author takes Monty to task with an in-depth examination of what he claimed to do, or was going to do, and what he actually did. There was a difference! Chapter 26 on the Falaise action (or lack of it) was hard to follow, yet the failure to close the pocket wasn’t fatal.
So what’s the point? The campaign was finally a success, wasn’t it? True, it didn’t enhance Monty’s reputation, but the author gives him points for his overall excellence in training and planning. Readers familiar with Alamein and the action at the Mareth Line know that Monty could flex when he needed to. There were times when I wondered this could be as mean-spirited as David Irving’s The War Between the Generals, yet overall there is enough excellent history of the command decisions that had to be made to make this book well worth reading.
November 30, 2018
A very interesting take on Normandy, basically from D+1 on. This focuses on the decisions and the decision making process of the Allies and the Germans. The big differences between the two sides is glaring. In addition to the 2 sides, there is further delve with the differences between the Brits and the Americans. It is well known that the German leaders sat in Caen for hours after the Allies landed because no one wanted to wake Hitler. This tight reign held throughout the campaign resulting in poor or no decisions. On the Allied side, the difference also was pronounced. Montgomery held tight control over his men and Eisenhower held his reigns loosely. Montgomery did not allow much room, whereas on the US side, Bradley, Patton and others operated much more freely which allowed for better results.
Well written.
Well written.
September 24, 2024
An excellent, in-depth analysis of the Anglo-American campaign in Normandy. D'Este looks at the campaign from an operational rather than a tactical level, thus looks at the decsions of army group and army commanders with some inclusion of how the corps commanders executed the decisions. He especially takes Montgomery to task for his decision making. Yet in doing so, he recognizes Monty's strengths and weaknesses.
Sometimes, you can tell this is D'Este's first book. His later writings are smoother and more eloquent. Still this is the best book on the subject that I've read!
Sometimes, you can tell this is D'Este's first book. His later writings are smoother and more eloquent. Still this is the best book on the subject that I've read!
July 11, 2017
There is detail here and to the extent that the book explores the decision making process that formed a battle plan, and then evaluates how it played out, it is thought provoking for those interested in military strategy. However as others have surely said, there is a repetitive refrain here about how FoS Monty was, that comes back again and again. It would be an interesting if tiresome exercise to pick out how many times we are re-informed in a single-line sentence that Monty was inclined to arrange the facts to fit the story he wished to put forward. As if the reader needed to be reacquainted with the thesis statement periodically, just in case he forgot the thrust of case being built throughout so many sections of the book.
I'm no expert in the field, but there does appear to be a trend in scholarship in harmony with what seemed to be Monty's long lived quest after the war - to rewrite the common evaluation of his generalship more favorably. This book is steadfastly, repetitively on the other side of that argument.
Having said that, no one including D'Este sees Monty as any sort of massive failure as a strategist in what was ultimately a successful invasion and break out. And really, how much fault lies with the commander when the battle plans are implemented in such a way that the objectives are not met, as was the case in many operations aimed at taking Caen? It does seem that Monty was an inveterate fudger, spinner, slanter and credit taker throughout his career and his inconsistencies with facts on the ground appear to be whoppers. Hard not to concede that there was a pattern there. But what we may sometimes fail to appreciate is that his was a thankless job with many factors to balance (Ike-like, if you will) including war weariness at home and on the line, a man power shortage (however you regard the claim/efficacy of the 100k reserve on the British mainland), an incredible ability on the part of the enemy to resist in the face of dwindling resources and unprecedented bombardment and...general heavy sledding as regards of the taking of objectives. Plus, with the end of the war on the horizon, no one above him in the UK establishment would have welcomed boat rocking or anything that would weaken their hand in post war negotiations. What he did do was keep the situation together in a way that bent but did not break - he prevented disaster - so that the inexorable build up of numbers close to the coast where the allies could exercise the key tactical advantages of air superiority/naval and artillery bombardment would eventually reveal the opportunity for a coup de grâce and win the day.
Be that as it may, a good and informative book on the Normandy invasion if you can tolerate the repetitious, unvarying barrage of criticism of the manner of Monty's fighting and, more to the point, characterizing the war.
I'm no expert in the field, but there does appear to be a trend in scholarship in harmony with what seemed to be Monty's long lived quest after the war - to rewrite the common evaluation of his generalship more favorably. This book is steadfastly, repetitively on the other side of that argument.
Having said that, no one including D'Este sees Monty as any sort of massive failure as a strategist in what was ultimately a successful invasion and break out. And really, how much fault lies with the commander when the battle plans are implemented in such a way that the objectives are not met, as was the case in many operations aimed at taking Caen? It does seem that Monty was an inveterate fudger, spinner, slanter and credit taker throughout his career and his inconsistencies with facts on the ground appear to be whoppers. Hard not to concede that there was a pattern there. But what we may sometimes fail to appreciate is that his was a thankless job with many factors to balance (Ike-like, if you will) including war weariness at home and on the line, a man power shortage (however you regard the claim/efficacy of the 100k reserve on the British mainland), an incredible ability on the part of the enemy to resist in the face of dwindling resources and unprecedented bombardment and...general heavy sledding as regards of the taking of objectives. Plus, with the end of the war on the horizon, no one above him in the UK establishment would have welcomed boat rocking or anything that would weaken their hand in post war negotiations. What he did do was keep the situation together in a way that bent but did not break - he prevented disaster - so that the inexorable build up of numbers close to the coast where the allies could exercise the key tactical advantages of air superiority/naval and artillery bombardment would eventually reveal the opportunity for a coup de grâce and win the day.
Be that as it may, a good and informative book on the Normandy invasion if you can tolerate the repetitious, unvarying barrage of criticism of the manner of Monty's fighting and, more to the point, characterizing the war.
April 13, 2018
This book describes the events leading up to D-Day and beyond. It tells how the plans for the invasion were formulated and the buildup and training were conducted. With the appointment of Eisenhower as commander in chief of the Allied invasion, the plan was set. Ike walked a tightrope keeping the allies on good terms with each other. Part of this effort was the appointment of Bernard Montgomery as the commander in chief of the ground forces for the invasion.
The book then follows the landings and the attempt to capture the set objectives and break out of the coast. The main center of the book after the invasion is the efforts of the British and Canadian forces. Montgomery had devised a plan that his forces would quickly capture Caen and then begin to push inland and breakout to capture Falaise. What happened to stall this plan and create almost stalemate becomes the focus of the book. The recriminations between American and British staffs on who was to blame and why severely strained Allied relations and lasted long after the war. This book written from the British perspective is view not often told.
The book then follows the landings and the attempt to capture the set objectives and break out of the coast. The main center of the book after the invasion is the efforts of the British and Canadian forces. Montgomery had devised a plan that his forces would quickly capture Caen and then begin to push inland and breakout to capture Falaise. What happened to stall this plan and create almost stalemate becomes the focus of the book. The recriminations between American and British staffs on who was to blame and why severely strained Allied relations and lasted long after the war. This book written from the British perspective is view not often told.
August 10, 2018
Not a bad book by any means, but really missing a feeling of gritty authenticity that other books offer. I know it focuses on the actions that led to more than the actual day, but it just doesnt keep you hanging on the edge as other books do.
June 11, 2017
Carlo D'Este details the Normandy campaign and the fighting undertaken by all sides, however the work is mired by - in places - sloppy research that has rendered it outdated (even the more recent published editions), and throughout is slanted against Montgomery and the Anglo-Canadian effort.
Stephan Hart's Colossal Cracks deconstructs one of D'Este's arguments that the British did not give 100 per cent, while also providing a detailed analysis of why Montgomery fought the way he did (conscious of the dwindling number of replacements, and the long term political and strategic need for a sizeable post-war British force). Similar works on the training and actions of the army paint a different picture than D'Este does, as do more modern works that detail individual battles or the campaign as a whole.
Stephan Hart's Colossal Cracks deconstructs one of D'Este's arguments that the British did not give 100 per cent, while also providing a detailed analysis of why Montgomery fought the way he did (conscious of the dwindling number of replacements, and the long term political and strategic need for a sizeable post-war British force). Similar works on the training and actions of the army paint a different picture than D'Este does, as do more modern works that detail individual battles or the campaign as a whole.
May 14, 2024
Focuses on mostly the British, and why things went “wrong�
This is a high quality and very well researched book. I did enjoy it, and learned a lot.
I was disappointed with three things.
1. Too focused on British operations, and happenings in the East. Very little about Omaha Beach, and American action until later in the battle.
2. Little detail on pre-invasion preparations. No details about cross channel transportation, naval gunfire support, or logistics.
3. Way too much “Monday morning quarterbacking�. Lots of discussions about what went wrong, and how it should have been done. Much blaming of Monty and other leaders. This is all interesting stuff, but so easy to say after the fact.
All in all a very good book, and worth the read. It just doesn’t tell the whole story.
This is a high quality and very well researched book. I did enjoy it, and learned a lot.
I was disappointed with three things.
1. Too focused on British operations, and happenings in the East. Very little about Omaha Beach, and American action until later in the battle.
2. Little detail on pre-invasion preparations. No details about cross channel transportation, naval gunfire support, or logistics.
3. Way too much “Monday morning quarterbacking�. Lots of discussions about what went wrong, and how it should have been done. Much blaming of Monty and other leaders. This is all interesting stuff, but so easy to say after the fact.
All in all a very good book, and worth the read. It just doesn’t tell the whole story.
January 3, 2018
D'Este concentrates on the course of the Normandy campaign after the 6 June landings, and particularly on the performance of the British and Canadian troops under Montgomery in the bocage. This is not a new book (1983), but the advantage is that the author's sources often come from personal correspondence or interviews with participants in the campaign. The account is scrupulously even-handed and examines in detail the performance of Montgomery's army group in view of his pre-invasion plan. Details about British replacement problems, unit morale and political wrangling all shed new light on this often overlooked campaign of the war in Europe.
December 11, 2019
This is a rather curious account of the Normandy campaign, since, although written by an American, it focuses almost entirely on the actions of the British-Canadian 21 Army Group under Montgomery. The parallel operations of the Americans under Bradley are barely mentioned.
So the book isn’t really about the Decision in Normandy at all since the eventual breakthrough of the Americans through St. Lo that decided the campaign is little discussed. Rather, the book focuses on British problems with manpower reserves and war weariness of their experienced troops after nearly four years of war.
So the book isn’t really about the Decision in Normandy at all since the eventual breakthrough of the Americans through St. Lo that decided the campaign is little discussed. Rather, the book focuses on British problems with manpower reserves and war weariness of their experienced troops after nearly four years of war.
June 6, 2022
Montgomery was the culprit.
If pressed for time, read Chapter 28 which explains the entire Montgomery Controversy. If not pressed for time, start at the beginning. A good read about the Normandy Invasion that differs from the general writings of war authors who marvel at the breadth and width of the invasion. D'Este focuses on what General Montgomery planned and executed, but I'll let the reader figure out what happened. Personally, I think Montgomery of Alamein was a total ass and I'll leave it at that.
If pressed for time, read Chapter 28 which explains the entire Montgomery Controversy. If not pressed for time, start at the beginning. A good read about the Normandy Invasion that differs from the general writings of war authors who marvel at the breadth and width of the invasion. D'Este focuses on what General Montgomery planned and executed, but I'll let the reader figure out what happened. Personally, I think Montgomery of Alamein was a total ass and I'll leave it at that.
May 1, 2023
This may be the best book on the Normandy campaign. Carlo D’este examined every document , conversation , diary, statistic, account published or not regarding the allied campaign in Normandy. If there is a view on any aspect of the campaign and it’s participants, based on and solidly buttressed by facts, he has included it in this book. He describes the strategy , operational art and tactics. If you want D-day from the soldiers point of view, read the longest day by Cornelius Ryan, for everything else, it’s in this book.
July 22, 2023
The subtitle should be “A critical look at Montgomery and his political and generalship shenanigans.�
I haven’t read too many books on the generals view of the campaign. I’m usually zoomed in a bit more. So that part was interesting. But man o man what a focus on Monty.
Seems like it was in reaction to the positive press or lack of accountability is what drove this.
This deserves a reread. I listened on Audibook.
I haven’t read too many books on the generals view of the campaign. I’m usually zoomed in a bit more. So that part was interesting. But man o man what a focus on Monty.
Seems like it was in reaction to the positive press or lack of accountability is what drove this.
This deserves a reread. I listened on Audibook.
July 24, 2019
D'Este provides a balanced account of the Normandy campaign providing a critical (but less negative then usual) view of Monty in particular. It's a bit British-centric at times (which is odd since D'Este is American) and this prevents from being a definitive or comprehensive account but it's a fine read nonetheless.
January 30, 2022
While definitely a repeated flogging of Montgomery's unwillingness to own up to an evolving strategy, it is a very interesting look at how the campaign developed. It is about decisions and outcomes and not blow by blow of the battles themselves. There is some interesting information about the British manpower situation and the tactical limitation of the foothold and the terrain.
September 30, 2023
Odd historical book that felt very invested in rehabilitating Montgomery's reputation. Perhaps the oddness for me came from the fact that I didn't know much about Montgomery at all so the book felt very "my Montgomery Was Not An Useless Egotistical Bastard Commander shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by my shirt" to read. Was still an interesting read though
February 23, 2025
A very good research on all of the decisions related to the Normandy Invasion both leading up to the invasion and those following thru the capture of Normandy. Focuses alot on the conflicts between the generals. Early seemed to be much against Monty. In the end gave equal questioning of decisions of other generals including Bradley, Ike, and others.
September 5, 2021
One of my instructors at the Army War College mentioned he was reading it so I picked it up. Pretty good. Really takes Monty to task for moving slow in the campaign. Well researched and written I recommend this to my planner and mission command friends.
January 23, 2022
This book went much deeper into the details of the Normandy campaign than I, vaguely familiar at best with the events of WWII, was prepared for. In other words, this isn't a beginner's book. Nevertheless it is a great work, very well done, well researched, and well presented.
March 20, 2022
Well researched and marvelously detailed
Much focus on Montgomery, battle strategy and later selfserving books by (almost) all parties. Definitely wakes up any reader who thinks it was a straight shot from the landing craft to Berlin.
Much focus on Montgomery, battle strategy and later selfserving books by (almost) all parties. Definitely wakes up any reader who thinks it was a straight shot from the landing craft to Berlin.
December 13, 2023
Focused on planning and high level decisions. He called out commanders when facts don't match reports and claims made after the fact or in post war memoirs. He does so in a very matter of facts and clear way. I think his aim was to set a clear record not to tear down or build up any one commander.
August 23, 2024
This book gave me what I needed.
No, it is not a novel, historical fiction, all knowing, nor a romcom. It is NOT entertainment! It is a detailed briefing on the invasion of Normandy.
Good maps, but you might want to grab an Atlas.
I am inspired to learn more about WWII.
No, it is not a novel, historical fiction, all knowing, nor a romcom. It is NOT entertainment! It is a detailed briefing on the invasion of Normandy.
Good maps, but you might want to grab an Atlas.
I am inspired to learn more about WWII.
March 25, 2025
captivating
Great atmospheric view of the dynamics between the key leadership on the allied and axis armies especially controversy stemming from Montgomery's key role as head of 21st Army Group and overall ground commander for Normandy campaign.
Great atmospheric view of the dynamics between the key leadership on the allied and axis armies especially controversy stemming from Montgomery's key role as head of 21st Army Group and overall ground commander for Normandy campaign.
August 6, 2019
The most detailed and comprehensive account I have read. Really enjoyed the education!
May 7, 2020
This is a very good book on the Normandy campaign. The author focuses on the roles of Eisenhower, Montgomery, and Bradley and their conflicts and cooperation.
October 6, 2021
Great history of DDay
Great book and record of D-Day well written a new I would highly recommend a summary of all the different Generals and there interactions
Great book and record of D-Day well written a new I would highly recommend a summary of all the different Generals and there interactions
November 20, 2021
Great book on a critical point in world history. Also read D'Este's profile of George Patton.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.