This is a mini book review I scribbled down for no damn reason, please forgive my wavering writing styles and inability to either spell or edit (WTF do you want for free): I enjoy military history and I enjoy a big book, this one gives me these in spades. Unfortunately what it also gives me is a fistful of contradictions, and an incredibly annoying perspective on the US's contribution*: Fully 1/3rd of the page book is given up to Utah and Omaha whilst the other allies Sword, Juno and Gold get squeezed into 40 pages or so. That's not a huge criticism however as the book is based around eyewitness testimony and that is taken from the Eisenhower Collection where Ambrose used to work. You can't criticize a man for using what is available to him, but making this book a definitive history of D-Day it does not. Hereâs some likes: The what if's are explored. Rare in books and a pity many feel (hence the recent preponderance of 'what if' novels on the shelves) - D-Day tackles many of them most interestingly. Explanations of what happened in the build up to the day are excellent, the type and scope of training are talked about in very good detail. Allowing a modern day soldier to liken the WW2 pre-op experience to their own. It is an interesting and well written book. Good comparisons between the forces on style, training, equipment, situation keep the reader focused on 'what it must have been like' for the two armies facing off. No mention of the Russians really however but then their contribution to D-Day was minimal (or massive depending on your point of view). Excellent and well used quotes from US soldiers, in the vast majority. British and Germans add flavour. And Dislikes: Occasionally references are made to UK units or individuals and then at other times they are not. Only if you happened to know that 8th Bn was British would you realise he wasn't talking about US troops, this wouldn't matter but references to the differences are constant throughout the book. Annoyingly, because of the comparisons, it is difficult to read impartially, because you are looking for the next compliment or slight. And there are many. A useless chapter summing up the similarities (or not) between Eisenhower and Rommel. I would have thought Bradley and Montgomery vs. Rommel might have been slightly more equal but personality wise that would have meant ignoring Eisenhowerâ¦. Or you could have had Eisenhower (SHAEF) vs. Runstedt (WHO?**) That any American tourist visiting London can buy Spam and Jam sandwiches (FFS!) Contradictions, contradictions, contractions: British troops inexperienced - then quotes a Col advising a yank navel captain not to forget that his troops fought BEF to Dunkirk and then all the way across North Africa before being here. US soldiers the finest trained in the war - yet on D-DAY the British Allied troops achieved to great feats of arms and secured all their objectives whilst of the 6000 101st Airborne soldiers, only 500 arrived in the right place on time and by the end of the day there were only 2,500 in the right place. Of the landing forces, all failed to make their objectives but the Brits and Canadians had advanced 8 - 12KM inland where as the US 2-6 KM inland. I wouldn't have mentioned this but Ambrose started itâ¦. Brits failed to make their objectives because they were too busy stopping to make tea.. British discipline was secondary to the yanks - though fights often broke out on US camps and in the British pubs between Southern whites and black soldiers that ended in shots being fired. "Quite a few murders were brushed under the carpet". Perhaps there's a difference to discipline where I come from but shooting each other seems like an disciplinary issue to me.. * Personally I have no issue with this. I read another book by an English historian recently who explained in his foreword that he would, as a Brit, concentrate in his book on the British contribution to the effort. ** As Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the AEF then so Runstedt who commanded the Blitzkrieg invasions of France and Poland (to name two) was the German equivalent. Rommel was one of his Generals on the ground who happened to be commanding some of the coastal region, in much the same way that Bradley and Monty were the Allied Generals on the ground.