Rating: 
Summary: From the beaches to bocage to Brittany
Review: Carlo D'Este's "Decision in Normandy" is a tour de force of military literature. Well documented and stylishly crafted, "Decision" is an extremely pleasurable read. This book is much more than a re-telling of the Normandy landing and first few days the Allies spent getting a foothold on the Continent. Rather, D'Este's book covers ground prior to D-Day - from a look at the future commanders of the ETO and their exploits in North Africa to initial planning by Lt. Gen. Frederick Morgan and his COSSAC group to development of Monty's Masterplan (that represented a revised COSSAC plan) that would become the OVERLORD plan implemented on 6 June 1944 - as well as considerable time and space post invasion (including the many failed attempts to capture Caen which Monty professed to take by the end of D-Day to the American breakthrough in the Cotentin and subsequent exploitation by Patton's Third US Army and drive across Brittany). There's a lot of information here, all quite expertly presented in a clear enjoyable fashion.
One of strongest threads running through "Decision" is its Monty-centric presentation. This is in many ways completely natural, while also generally a connection missing in most accounts of the ETO prior to Operation Market-Garden. So why is a Monty-centric look at the Normandy campaign a natural approach? First, Monty not only oversaw the development of the final OVERLORD plan but he also served as the C-in-C of Allied ground forces for the invasion. Second, and probably more importantly, Monty's "Masterplan" represents a long debated aspect of the Allied adventure. For example, while it is clear that the both British and Americans made adjustments to Monty's plan as battles developed (though the Americans were generally more adept at it), Monty himself propagated a history of a perfect plan that was followed to the letter. So why is such a Monty-centric vision of the early ETO lacking in most accounts? The most likely reason for a more broad view of the Normandy campaign found in most accounts is two-fold: 1) such an approach is less offensive to other major commanders who made considerable contributions, and 2) Monty is "protected" by broader-based writings. D'Este has not skirted the issue of Monty. However, this is not to say that he is a Monty-basher, nor is he a Monty-phile. D'Este does a very admirable job being fair and balanced in his approach to Monty and his role in Normandy. D'Este presents a story in which Monty plays a major role - without minimizing the role of subordinate commanders - giving him due credit for things the evidence suggest he deserves credit for and attempting to clarify the many confusing (often enhanced by Monty's self-publicity efforts) aspects of Monty's command to place blame for failures where blame is deserved. D'Este has done what most historians are apparently incapable of - he has placed enough distance between himself and the subject to present a picture that appears free of tint from personal beliefs and preferences of the historian.
In the end "Decision in Normandy" offers the reader considerable information that is thoroughly researched and expertly presented. It's a fun read while being simultaneously educational. Carlo D'Este deserves all the praise he gets for this book. Five full hearted stars!
Rating: 
Summary: Informative, well researched, and fun to read
Review: For anyone interested in learning what happened after D-Day, this book is a must. Drawing on original source material (i.e., command maps, SHAEF meeting notes, interviews with the principals, etc.), D'Este gives the reader a terrific behind-the-scenes look at the fighting between D-Day and the breakthrough in Normandy. From Montgomery's repeated failure to take Caen to Bradley's unexpected breakout at St. Lo and the ultimate rout of German forces,we see how the Allied commanders struggled to adjust their original thinking and planning in order to meet actual circumstances. The book reads with some of the same drama and suspense as good fiction, but carries with it a wealth of information about both the strategic thinking and the personalities of the commanders. In addition to providing a clear overview of the Normandy campaign (including some terrific descriptions of the fighting), D'Este also attempts to set the record straight on some of the post-war controversies surrounding the campaign. He puts forth several objective arguments regarding Montgomery's effectiveness as overall commander of the ground troops, with particular emphasis on the battle for Caen and the infamous "Falaise Gap". I believe that even readers with knowledge of the Normandy campaign will both learn from and enjoy this book, and I highly recommend it to all readers.
Rating:
Summary: Very thorough examination of Everything about Normandy
Review: I found the book to be thorough and unbiased. LtC. D'Este does a very good job of covering all the events from all the angles. I would agree that there are simply not enough maps or pictures of the significant players in this event. Additionally, the paperback version takes what maps were available in the hardcover version and does a pathetic job of incorporating them for reuse. I wish the author had seen to paying as much attention to the publishing of his work as he did to the research
Rating: 
Summary: Well Written but Tedious in Places to Read
Review: I found this book to be extremely well researched and documented. It is the most detailed account of D-Day and its aftermath that I have ever read. Most of the text dealt with the foibles of Montgomery as his insistence that the whole D-Day plan went according to his plan when in fact it did not; it was the Americans who broke out of the Cotentin Peninsula that made the difference in the campaign. The author seems justifiably put off with Montgomery for his disingenuousness regarding the whole campaign. Montgomery always seemed to take credit for everything that happened and when things went awry it was "all part of the plan". My beef with the book is that in places it is slow reading making it more of "History" than say a historical narrative in the vane of William Shirer and his writings on Nazi Germany. A must for the WWII history buff, probably not too exciting for those with a cursory attitude about history (they should read Stephen Ambrose's works on D-Day for a fast moving account that is light on the "Real History"). Still a good book loaded with a great deal of information that I had not heard before.
Rating:
Summary: CONFUSSING
Review: I really enjoy this author and his wonderful writing style and I have read his excellent works on Patton and Eisenhower, but frankly this book confuses me. The author spent the entire book commenting on how Montgomery failed in his mission caused mostly by his personality, tactics and inability to take opportunities when presented. Then, he spends the last part of the book defending Montgromery, making excuses for him, etc. The author can't have it both ways. When I first purchased this book I thought it would detail the Normany landings, but instead it was devoted to Montgomery and his failings. In the end, we just don't really understand Monty and the author sets about telling us why. I have yet to read anything that would ever lead me to believe that Montgomery was anything but a pompous, arrogant, self serving Ass, that would do anything to hold a grudge and defend his poor showing as a commander.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD STUFF HERE FOR THE SERIOUS STUDENT - Warts and All
Review: Like all Carlo D'Este's work, this is well researched and quite detailed. It is understandable. I liked the treatment given Montgomery, harshly put at times, but just. Too many historians tend to gloss this aspect over. The book does not move as fast as many "popular histories" but then I don't think it was intended to be as such. As other reviewers have pointed out, there are of course flaws. There are flaws in every single book on this subject (which are many) I have read. No book can address each and ever facet of such a complex situation. This book, when read with several others, will give the reader a fine understanding of the events addressed here.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD STUFF FOR THE SERIOUS STUDENT
Review: Like all Carlo D'Este's work, this is well researched and quite detailed. It us understandable. I liked the treatment given
Montgomery, harshly put at times, but just. Too many historians tend to gloss this aspect over. The book does not move as fast as many "popular histories" but then I don't think it was intended to be as such. I highly recommend for any motivated and interested individual dealing in the era. Well worth adding to your collection.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD STUFF FOR THE SERIOUS STUDENT
Review: Like all Carlo D'Este's work, this is well researched and quite detailed. It us understandable. I liked the treatment given
Montgomery, harshly put at times, but just. Too many historians tend to gloss this aspect over. The book does not move as fast as many "popular histories" but then I don't think it was intended to be as such. I highly recommend for any motivated and interested individual dealing in the era. Well worth adding to your collection.
Rating:
Summary: Very balanced, well-researched
Review: This is an excellent book, and leaves it clear that Montgomery was not a great and able strategist. The whole controversy over the Falaise Gap is an intriguing one, and tho I have read much on D-Day and its aftermath I did not have a good view of the events of the summer of 1944 until I read this excellent book
Rating:
Summary: Should Be "Montgomery in Normandy"
Review: This is NOT the definitive account of the Battle of Normandy. Rather, it's an analysis of Montgomery's actual plan for the battle, how Montgomery conducted the battle, and how M. afterwards perpetuated the "myth" that the battle had, in fact, accorded with his plan. The author does a fine job balancing regret for M.'s negative qualities with appreciation for his positive ones, even if the latter seem a little thin on the ground by the end of the book.
What's most glaringly missing is any account of what the Americans were up to in the Cotentin peninsula; they really come onstage only in the COBRA breakout. Also, as another reviewer here has noted, there's not enough on the Germans.
The book's strengths include a candid appraisal of the British infantry's war-weariness and lack of training, which left Montgomery with a relatively blunt instrument. (This was partly his own fault, since he insisted on using experienced troops.) One problem the author discusses is that many documents remain classified; also, he notes a late discovery that the supposed shortage of British manpower may have been a myth itself, perpetuated by Churchill or others who wanted to retain a "home defense" force.
A good book on the Normandy invasion, but not THE book.
|
