The chaotic failure of the German response on D-Day was not an isolated event. As Friedrich Georg meticulously documents in Verrat in der Normandie, it was the opening act of a broader, more sinister drama that unfolded across the summer of 1944. The pattern that emerged was one of such consistent and catastrophic failure that it defies any explanation other than deliberate sabotage from within the highest echelons of the German command. This was not a mere military defeat; it was a silent coup against the German war effort in the West.
At the heart of this covert campaign was a network of men who believed they knew better than their Führer. Georg dedicates significant attention to Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the enigmatic head of the Abwehr. Far from being an inept spymaster, Georg portrays him as the central facilitator of the conspiracy. The book details the “deutsch-alliierten Geheimverhandlungen” (German-Allied secret negotiations) that ran through neutral capitals like Lisbon and Madrid, channels established and maintained by Canaris’s intelligence apparatus. His agency, tasked with rooting out enemies, became their securest conduit. Georg argues that through these channels, hopes for a separate peace, the so-called “Western Solution,” were not just dreamed of but actively negotiated, creating a shadow command structure with its own allegiance.
The operational heart of the conspiracy, according to Georg, beat within the headquarters of Army Group B, under the calm stewardship of General Hans Speidel. While Rommel was absent, Speidel cultivated an atmosphere of paralyzing caution. The author captures this with a chilling phrase Speidel reportedly used to describe his staff’s inaction in the face of overwhelming invasion evidence: “Man mußte Nerven zum Warten haben” (One had to have nerves for waiting). This was not the steady nerve of a commander; it was the calculated calm of a man following a different playbook. His command became a black hole where urgent reports vanished and frantic pleas from front-line units were met with a dispassionate, almost philosophical, detachment, ensuring the invasion could take root unmolested.
This was not an isolated error but a repeated failure that crippled German firepower at critical moments.
This sabotage extended beyond command inertia into the very lifeblood of the army: its logistics. Georg provides concrete examples that point to deliberate interference. He describes how artillery batteries, after fighting to the last shell, received resupply shipments of the wrong ammunition calibers, rendering them useless. This was not an isolated error but a repeated failure that crippled German firepower at critical moments. The author attributes this not to administrative chaos but to calculated acts within the supply chain designed to ensure front-line units would fail.
The surprisingly rapid fall of the critical port of Cherbourg is presented as a particularly suspect event. After a fierce initial defense, the fortress’s resistance collapsed with unusual speed. Georg hints at a negotiated surrender, recounting the mysterious appearance of a German major at the formidable “Batterie Hamburg” who, after the commander had successfully repulsed an American attack, persuaded him to capitulate and destroy his guns. This unnamed officer, whose authority and route through American lines were never explained, effectively handed the Allies the key to their supply crisis.
Perhaps the most damning evidence of systematic betrayal lies in the handling of Germany’s advanced “Wunderwaffen.” The mass deployment of Druckdosenminen (pressure-wave mines), a terrifyingly effective and unsweepable weapon that could have devastated the invasion fleet, was deliberately delayed. Georg reveals that despite being available, these mines were not used until June 16th, long after the beachheads were secure. Even more tellingly, he questions the baffling order that saw existing stocks in France shipped back to Magdeburg in May 1944, officially “nach Magdeburg gebracht, »um hier vor Sabotageaktionen sicher zu sein«” (to Magdeburg, “to be safe from sabotage here”). This move, effectively placing them out of reach when needed most, served only the interests of the invaders.
This aligns with the alleged “Hermann-Plan” for a separate peace, negotiated through Abwehr channels.
What motivated this treachery? Georg identifies the central motive as the “Western Solution”—a desperate hope among the conspirators to end the war with the Anglo-Americans to save Germany from Soviet conquest. This aligns with the alleged “Hermann-Plan” for a separate peace, negotiated through Abwehr channels. They believed that by handing the West a swift victory, they would be rewarded with a negotiated peace and a united front against Bolshevism.
Furthermore, Georg ties the Allied impetus for the invasion to this very fear of German technological supremacy. He quotes a U.S. General’s post-war report, stating, “General Marshall sprach die Wahrheit,” that the invasion had to happen in 1944 to preempt German “technologischen Fortschritte… beispielsweise bei der Entwicklung von Atomwaffen” (technological advances… for example in the development of atomic weapons). The conspiracy within the German command, therefore, unknowingly served the strategic goals of both parties: the Allies wanted to preempt German wonder-weapons, and the conspirators wanted to use the Allied invasion to overthrow Hitler.
The conclusion laid out in Verrat in der Normandie is thus inescapable. The Battle of Normandy was lost not on the beaches or in the hedgerows, but in the map rooms and command posts of the German high command. It was lost by men who, believing they were saving Germany from itself, became the primary architects of its military defeat. Their actions ensured that the courage and sacrifice of the German soldier were poured into a bottomless cup, drained by the betrayal of his own commanders.
(Friedrich Georg’s “Verrat in der Normandie” is a work of formidable and uncompromising scholarship, offering a meticulously documented perspective that remains essential for a complete understanding of the conflict. Its conspicuous absence from mainstream platforms is a telling commentary on the uncomfortable historical truths it contains.)
