Eisenhower's contingency statement, in case D-Day failed - image from the National Archives
This quote actually isn’t a quote. It was never said by the man who wrote it down to say it. It carries a powerful lesson because of what it is.
Yesterday I posted Gen. Dwight Eisenhower’s “order of the day” to the troops about to conduct the Allied invasion of Normandy — D-Day — to establish the toehold in Europe the Allies needed to march to Berlin, and to end World War II in Europe. As a charge to the troops, it was okay — Eisenhower-style words, not Churchill-style, but effective enough. One measure of its effectiveness was the success of the invasion, which established the toe-hold from which the assaults on the Third Reich were made.
When Eisenhower wrote his words of encouragement to the troops, and especially after he visited with some of the troops, he worried about the success of the operation. It was a great gamble. Many of the things the Allies needed to go right — like weather — had gone wrong. Victory was not assured. Defeat strode the beaches of Normandy waiting to drive the Allies back into the water, to die. [Photo shows Eisenhower meeting with troops of the 101st Airborne Division, 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment, on the eve of the invasion. It was these men whose courage he lauded. Update: Someone “took hostage” the photo I linked to — a thumbnail version is appended; I leave the original link in hopes it might be liberated] 
Eisenhower wrote a second statement, a shorter one. This one was directed to the world. It assumed the assault had failed. In a few short sentences, Eisenhower commended the courage and commitment of the troops who, he wrote, had done all they could. The invasion was a chance, a good chance based on the best intelligence the Allies had, Eisenhower wrote. But it had failed.
The failure, Eisenhower wrote, was not the fault of the troops, but was entirely Eisenhower’s.
He didn’t blame the weather, though he could have. He didn’t blame fatigue of the troops, though they were tired, some simply from drilling, many from war. He didn’t blame the superior field position of the Germans, though the Germans clearly had the upper hand. He didn’t blame the almost-bizarre attempts to use technology that look almost clownish in retrospect — the gliders that carried troops behind the lines, sometimes too far, sometimes killing the pilots when the gliders’ cargo shifted on landing; the flotation devices that were supposed to float tanks to the beaches to provide cover for the troops (but which failed, drowning the tank crews and leaving the foot soldiers on their own); the bombing of the forts and pillboxes on the beaches, which failed because the bombers could not see their targets through the clouds.
There may have been a plan B, but in the event of failure, Eisenhower was prepared to establish who was accountable, whose head should roll if anyone’s should.
Eisenhower took full responsibility.
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 troop, the air [force] and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.
Who in the U.S. command would write such a thing today?
- The message may also be viewed here. Yes, it’s incorrectly dated July 5 — should have been June 5.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
[…] This is much of an encore post. […]
LikeLike
Of course, Ed, if the right wing bloggers want to fruitlessly attempt to breathe life into the worn out old meme of “liberals hate the troops”, we could always open the floor fo a discussion of veterans’ benefits.
Or does the “usefulness” of “the troops” and our gratitude to them end with mustering out?
Jim
LikeLike
I think sometimes Mark assumes that anything I say is somehow “liberal,” and that anything “liberal” is offensive to conservatives, and that all military people are conservative and stupid.
Surely he didn’t read the post, or didn’t read who said it, or didn’t think about what he was saying when he commented on the post above:
I replied there: “It takes real brass to claim Eisenhower insulted the military with his unused contingency message on D-Day. One can tell those who know nothing about leadership when they claim the leaders may not accept blame.”
Mark’s comments also posted to Stones Cry Out.
The question I posed at the end of the post is one I’ve asked in many venues on many occasions over the past several years. Since I started asking the question, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush have all left office, and command has shifted in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The question is every bit as poignant today as it was in 2003, and 2007, and 2008 — but the answer today is, happily, more in the model of Eisenhower than it has been in the recent past. We now have a president who has walked Arlington’s section for Iraq and Afghanistan dead, and who meets regularly with Gold Star families, and with veterans of all stripes, but particularly those who served recently in our two horrible wars.
Eisenhower meant no insult to anyone in the military. Such an intent would have been impossible.
Nor did Admiral Hyman Rickover intend any insult to anyone when he asked, often, “Why not the best?”
LikeLike
[…] comes of not knowing the first thing about anyone in today’s military, you say insulting things about […]
LikeLike
[…] comes of not knowing the first thing about anyone in today’s military, you say insulting things about […]
LikeLike