me 6,1994
i Sox
;xas’ power
Yietory a t
in day, high-
Canseco’s
three days,
three-run
ling.
i feeling,"
1 prediction,
is Sunday
lack to beat
e enough,
rree at Mil-
numbed the
J back like
I could feel
■earn. I did-
1, but I felt
t win,” he
ome guys
well for us
Will Clark
win for us.
us, but we
idversity.”
x/The Battalion
iments and
udder.
ommission-
and A&M
snt through
i him confi-
'bs he did,'
“He never
of all these
1 after him.
person.”
t we had so
dn’t believe
hat.”
ibrance cer-
re, but that
ered now,
know more
>tten.”
*ies on tele-
y tire of D-
L ave served
nportant to
aid. “It al;
or two and
ticularly at
re made in
iteered,” ho
; a job to be
o it.
oday pa use
orget what
Monday • June 6, 1994
Page 5
■mMmSnrSsEhSsmb
D-Day began end of World War II
Extraordinary planning, sacrifice created success of Normandy invasion
MARK
SMITH
Guest Columnist
E arly in the
morning on June
6, 1944, over
4,000 ships set sail
from ports all over
England carrying the
largest invasion force
ever seen in history. It
was unseasonably cold
and the waters in the
English Channel were
choppy and rough. A storm had wrapped
the British Isles in a veil of clouds and rain
for almost a week. But on the night of June
5, the weather cleared.
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the
Supreme Allied Commander for the
European Theater, listened to the report
given by the Royal Air Force meteorological
department before the invasion. They
promised Eisenhower only a brief period of
clear weather. He took
a chance and gave the
order to go.
invasion would be.
The Allies had to
secure a foothold or
be swept out of
Europe. German
Gen. Erwin Rommel,
who commanded
Army Group B
defending the
:>■ Normandy coast, said
it would be “Die
langste Tag.” The Longest Day.
For many of the soldiers on the invasion
beaches, it was the longest day. Omaha
beach, wedged between the other invasion
beaches, saw some of the bloodiest action on
June 6. Instead of a beach where the sand
gradually gave way to small dunes and
scrub brush, Omaha beach was guarded by
a steep cliff and sea wall. Soldiers from the
U.S. 1st and 29th Divisions waded ashore
Three million
soldiers, serving in
every branch of the
military, participated
in what is known as D-
Day. Thousands of
landing craft, 12,000
aircraft, 600 warships
were used. Nine
divisions of Allied
troops along with three
armored brigades formed the majority of
the invasion force. By the end of the first 24
hours, 155,000 Allied soldiers were fighting
in France.
Many of the soldiers were Aggies.
Possibly the most famous was Col. James
Earl Rudder. Rudder was the commanding
officer of the 2nd Ranger Battalion. The 2nd
Rangers were charged with the unenviable
task of securing Pointe-du-Hoc so that the
Germans could not use their artillery there
to shell the invasion beaches. Their
obstacle: scaling 100-foot cliffs while
German soldiers fired down on them from
above. Rudder insisted on personally
leading the attack.
The leaders on both sides of the Channel
knew how important the first day of the
German Gen. Erwin Rom
mel said it would be "Die
langste Tag" — the Longest
Day. The Allies had to se
cure a foothold or be swept
out of Europe.
only to run into a wall guarded by a veteran
unit of German soldiers, the 916th
Regiment.
As the landing craft approached the
shore at Omaha, a current drew them off
course and they landed their troops at the
wrong positions. Some pilots of the landing
craft, scared by the shelling from the
German positions, dropped their ramps too
soon. The GIs waded out and the 50-pound
backpacks they wore dragged them under
the water. Many did not make it to the
beach. By the end of the day, 2,000 U.S.
soldiers who made it to shore were dead.
If the soldiers on Omaha could not get off
the beach, the invasion would almost surely
fail. One US officer was quoted as saying,
“There is only two kinds of people who are
going to stay on this beach: those that are
dead and those that are going to die.”
With such inspiring words urging them
on, the Americans broke through the
German defenses.
With the break-out from Omaha beach,
D-Day succeeded. It did so, in part, through
the cooperation of the Allies. But, there was
another factor that aided their cause. Luck.
Behind the invasion beaches, the
Germans had a strong armored reserve. The
21st Panzer Division was waiting for orders
to wipe the Allies out of Europe. They were
waiting for authorization from Adolf Hitler.
When the German Commander-in-Chief
West von Runstedt phoned Hitler’s
headquarters to receive the authorization
to release the Panzers, he was informed
the Ftihrer had taken a sleeping pill and
was not to be disturbed. So, the German
tanks sat idle.
One interesting
thing afoOUt JU^ 6 IS
that it was not the
only D-Day during
World War II. D-Day
was just a distinction
used by the US Army
to designate the day
for an invasion. Every
operation that
required an
amphibious assault
had a D-Day.
However, June 6
was the D-Day. It has come to symbolize
the war itself in many respects. The
invasion required cooperation between
numerous countries, and the logistics of the
operation was mind-boggling.
But, more importantly, it was the day the
Allies fought back.
For the British and French, it was
revenge for Dunkirk.
For the Americans, D-Day was the
opportunity to join completely the war in
Europe, which they could, for the most part,
only sit by and watch before.
For the Nazis, it was the beginning of
the end.
Mark Smith is a senior English
and journalism major
The Battaeion
Editorial Board
Mark Evans, Editor in chief
William Harrison, Managing editor
lay Robbins, Opinion Editor
Editorials appearing in The
Battalion reflect the views of the
editorial board. They do not
necessarily reflect the opinions of
other Battalion staff members, the
Texas A&M student body, regents,
administration, faculty or staff.
Columns, guest columns,
cartoons and letters express the
opinions of the authors.
Contact the opinion editor for
information on submitting guest
columns.
June 6, 1944
It can be hard for modem stu
dents to understand the hero
ism, daring and legacy of World
War II and the famous begin
nings of D-Day, the final assault
on German-held Europe.
The blood-soaked beaches of
Normandy and the shelling of
landing craft by German
troops are more than just a
symbol of the horrors of
modern warfare. They
are not very different
than hundreds of other
battlefields strewn
across the world and
across the centuries.
The D-Day invasion is a
symbol of faith for the
American people. The
United States proved to
the world that aggres
sion and tyranny are
never tolerated, even at
the cost of thousands of
young men’s lives.
The United States was
not threatened with imme
diate invasion and occupation,
unlike the other Allies. Its sol
diers fought because America’s
goals and ideals demand action
against foreign powers that re
ject peace for the sake of war
and conquest. The United
States would not and cannot al
low such violence.
Few people remember what
it was to fight the Nazis. For a
brief moment in history,
America brought to bear all its
efforts and resources to
achieve a common goal.
Against the most vile and dan
gerous enemy, soldiers — rich
and poor, literate and illiter
ate, vulgar and kind — came
together on one beachhead to
strike at the heart of immoral
ity and hatred.
So many died that there
had been discussion of
canceling the landing.
Parachutists dropped at
the wrong locations, men
failed to break through
the German defenses. Yet
D-Day still succeeded and
initiated the long cam
paign to victory.
Every Aggie has a di
rect link to those who
fought in that war. Men
like Earl Rudder, Class of
’32, led the soldiers who
fought their way up the
beaches and cliffs.
Today marks the 50th an
niversary of the D-Day inva
sion. Every American should
look to the past and remember
that the Normandy invasion ,
served a cause that still
shapes this world.
We can never be so foolish
that we forget to teach our
children about the costs of war
and the American troops who
died valiantly in the service of
world freedom.
//r« r
Americans should demand support for science, research
JOSEF
ELCHANAN
Columnist
/ 'n times of crisis, people are
generally blind to everything
outside their immediate
necessities. For work which is
directly productive of material
wealth, they will pay. But
science, if it is to flourish, must
have no practical end in view.” -
Albert Einstein
People seem to worry quite a
bit about the future. Everybody
wonders if there will be enough food, enough
jobs, and enough happiness for the upcoming
generations. Due to our government’s
overspending, many of the government-
sponsored services we have come to expect may
no longer be available. The Congress can no
longer simply pass a bill that bleeds money like
an open artery. Unfortunately these
circumstances have caused politicians to move
toward a policy of appeasing the American public
with “cost-cutting.” Yet some programs must not
be affected so dramatically by government
cutbacks. One of these is scientific research.
Most people would deny the importance of
research programs to the future needs of this
country. After all, would you rather support
more people on welfare and assist education or
fund the search for quarks and alternative
fuels? The problem with this question is that it
does not recognize the far-reaching effects of
scientific discovery.
The discovery and
subsequent use of
scientific principles
and theories can only
help in every area of
human endeavor.
Science affects art
and literature,
business, education
and every other facet
of our lives.
Sometimes it is simply just a drop; sometimes
science floods the world with new ways of
thought and innovative methods and
technologies that we soon find in our homes
and everyday lives.
Many people working in this field feel that
they have been let down by politicians who
want fancy, high-profile inventions but ignore
long-term goals and needs. Take for instance
the superconducting super collider project. It
was not managed or presented well, but neither
are most government-sponsored projects. Yet it
was going to place America ahead of every
other country in high-energy research.
If this were the Olympics, everyone would be
real agitated if the U.S. did not have the best
basketball team; but a super-collider, who cares?
And what about space? The U.S. cannot,
under any circumstances, allow any country to
gain a lead on us in space research. Space can
provide limitless resources, more room for a
growing population, and simply the opportunity
to gain valuable knowledge. Space also has a
direct affect on national security, from early
warning and detection of possible threats to
the fact that earth’s orbit is the new high
ground for any possible conflicts.
Consider the fields of medicine, psychology
and the like. Can anyone believe that medical
research, at a time when researchers are
saying that India may have 14 million AIDS
patients by the end of the century and the
African continent is dying from disease and
«
If this were the Olympics, everyone
would be real agitated if the U.S. did
not have the best basketball team;
but a super-collider, who cares?
hunger, that the United States government
does not have an absolute obligation to build a
comprehensive plan for assisting the world’s
research communities?
Admittedly, research has sometimes been
overfed. Too many of our universities promote
research over education, and too many
corporations have msed science as a way to fill
their pockets with tax dollars. To throw away
good science, however, cannot be justified by
these arguments.
Government has consistently managed
scientific programs poorly, magnifying costs.
Some critics of such waste say we should leave
research to the private sector. But such a move
would kill the small projects that may uncover
any one of the universe’s deeply-held secrets.
Congress allocated a measly $72,866,000 in
1991 for scientific research, according to the
Federal Funding for Research and
Development study. $42 million of that was
spent on military projects. For a government
that spent $273.3 billion on defense in the same
year, $30 million is not really enough money to
devote to peacetime research.
It is time that Americans demanded more
concern from their government about scientific
grants and government-sponsored projects. A
clear, concise policy, plus a long-term outlook,
would fix many of the problems associated with
research.
America is about discovery. We must
support, as one scientist said, “Balanced
technological development, consisting of long
term, broad investment to the basic
underpinnings [of science] for a much greater
impact that will build for the future. It is crazy
not to prepare.”
Science must move forward.
Josef Elchanan is a set
business management me