It could be argued that a partial truth is no truth at all. Not to go into the same detail about all participating nationalities, especially in a book entitled 'D-Day', presents little in the way of context. If you are an American then, I'm sure you find this book informative, stirring and an affirmation of all you believe is true about that nation and its role in the 2nd World War. If, on the other hand, you're perhaps French, German, Canadian, Polish, British, Russian, etc., then your interest will not be held as keenly by this book. Though, to be fair, he does give a mention regarding two Korean POW's in German uniforms. I know of Mr Ambrose only from his books and his televised interviews over the years. He appears, and I feel that this book in particular shows, that he has largely set his attitude to the story of the war from anecdotes and Hollywood (as many of us did when younger)He even refers to the film 'The Longest Day' incidentally mentioning that it had been a book first. He has his opinions and holds forth on them using selective evidence to back them up. I feel that this is a job for a commentator rather than a historian. The book is undoubtedly a cracking read but rather in the way of a novel than a history. If the book had been called 'Omaha' or 'D-Day - A US Perspective' then I may have felt that I knew more precisely what I was about to read. Historical research is about the truth in context and I felt that this element was missing in the book. The same broad themes can be taken from this work as they can be with many others ie war is horrific in the extreme and is not to be undertaken lightly; men show their true characters in extremis - and the author has certainly gone to great lengths to get these personal accounts in. However, this book would probably have been more rounded if the author had spent time among non-American participants. But then, I suspect, that non-Americans were not his subject nor his intended audience.

Astonishingly one sided view of D-Day. Written, I believe, with a potential Hollywood film script in mind rather than an accurate historical account.

Ambrose claims interviews with hundreds of veterans - 99% of whom seem to have been American (with a few Canadian - seems he didn't travel outside of North America for his interviews), with the usual ridiculous stereotypes of their allies (stopping to brew tea etc...) Perhaps it might have helped to use the accounts of at least one or two British and German veterans who have a slightly different view to Ambrose on the relative fighting merits of their adversaries.

Ambrose needs to decide whether he is an historian, or fiction writer - this work follows his similarly biased Band of Brothers and seems to follow a pattern of modern day American films and books rewriting history, claiming British heroics as their own and portraying the Second World War as an exclusively US achievement.

Excellent read if you are American looking for an uplifting work of fiction, not an accurate account and very poorly researched.

Exceptional book that makes one feel as if one was storming the beaches of Normandy. The valor and courage of both sides, comes through loud and clear. True there may be a slight anti-English bias, however it doesn't detract from the overall message of the book.

As with many Ambrose books, there is some overlap. Stories that are told in other Ambrose books are repeated here.

A long read but well worth the effort.

A good book, which justifies all accounts about the Americans on D-Day.

One really big problem, is that the author is extrememely anti-English and finds every excuse to make English soldiers (who served and gave their lives for this campaign) look absolutely useless in the D-Day battles.

He has nothing good to say about the English at all.

If I would have known that this book was about the Americans only, I wouldn`t have bought it at all.
The only mention of the English soldiers is at the beginning. Going along through the book, all you get every now and then is `the British beaches`.
No real stories or accounts from English soldiers.

This is a great book, but does not take into account, the whole allied picture of D-Day. There is more mention of Germans than the Allied Forces.

Stephen E ambrose's D-day is extremely bias towards the americans. He is saying that the the americans had better weaponry than the germans this is not true. The german batalions at D-day had not seen action for many years, neither did the americans. but the americans and british outnumbered and outgunned the germans. The King tiger tank needed 4 shermans to knock it out, with onlky the 4th surviving. The Germans had better weapons, but they had outstretched themselves. to much land not enough soldiers.
When Eisenhower is compared to Rommel, it is said that Rommel inflicted heavy casualties on the americans because the americans were badly trained and badly equipped. Thats funny because in the chapter before it is said that the american army way the best trained to walk the face of the earth.
Also rommel was outgunned and outmanned.

I also found it funny when the American army was called the best educated in the world (although this waas not said by ambrose, he still used the quote), because before WW1 the germans had the best education in the western hemishpere, and all the able men who went through that education went to the war. This means that they must have been the best educated.
Also the swiss army has alot of highly inteligent men, as alot of them are in university whilst doing their military. (in switzerland you go for about 9 weeks for rekruten schule, and coming back every year for 4 weeks until 35).

I was surprised when Ambrose said that the german elite was not much better then the allied elite. the SS were brainwashed since little children to become nazi's. only 1 in every 100 men who volunteered foer the SS made it whereas 2/3 of the american volunteers made it to the us army. thats 1 in every 100 to 66 in every 100. also the ss were given amphivitamin to pump them up.the ss were crazy fanatics who would do anything to win