Introduction
On June 6, 1944, the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Normandy marked one of the most pivotal moments in modern history. Eighty-one years later, the world once again turned its attention to the windswept beaches of France as surviving veterans of the Second World War returned to pay homage to the fallen. Among them were nearly 30 American veterans who, supported by the Best Defense Foundation and Delta Air Lines, made the transatlantic journey back to the sands where they fought, bled, and watched history turn.
This year’s ceremonies are perhaps more poignant than ever. With most veterans now approaching or surpassing the age of 100, their physical presence serves as both testimony and warning: we are witnessing the last generation of direct D-Day participants. The events, including parades, memorials, and reenactments, provided a space for collective remembrance and reflection—not just for the courage of the Allied forces, but for the enduring values they fought to preserve.
Legally and politically, these commemorations invite deeper analysis. They raise questions about the role of the state in honoring military service, the preservation of historical memory, and the responsibilities that liberal democracies bear toward their veterans and their pasts. Furthermore, the invocation of international cooperation and military alliance through the lens of D-Day serves as a mirror reflecting current global dynamics, particularly the value of multinationalism under the strain of nationalism and geopolitical division.
“D-Day remains not just a day of liberation, but a touchstone for understanding the fragility and necessity of democratic alliances,” said Dr. Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University.
Thus, the 81st anniversary of D-Day is more than ceremony—it is a politically resonant moment, embedded within layers of legal memory, international solidarity, and the moral weight of history. As we honor the heroes of 1944, we are reminded that history is not static. It is an ongoing struggle to retain democratic principles in the face of authoritarian resurgence and historical amnesia.
Legal and Historical Background
The D-Day invasion, code-named Operation Overlord, unfolded on the morning of June 6, 1944, with a vast coalition of Allied forces storming five heavily fortified beachheads along the Normandy coast. It was, and remains, the largest amphibious military operation in history. It involved over 150,000 troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and other Allied nations, supported by over 5,000 ships and 11,000 aircraft. But its legal and historical significance transcends its scale.
The international law context of World War II, and specifically D-Day, was shaped largely by the earlier failures of collective security under the League of Nations and the growing imperative to create a rules-based international order. While the United Nations Charter had not yet been signed—it would come a year later—the foundations for lawful collective military action were already in formation. The Allied actions on D-Day, framed as a liberation effort rather than conquest, prefigured the legal principles that would be enshrined in the Charter’s Article 51, concerning the inherent right of collective self-defense.
Moreover, the invasion was guided by legal norms concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians, notably the Geneva Convention of 1929, which set standards for the humane treatment of combatants. Though enforcement of such norms was uneven during the war, D-Day planning consciously incorporated legal advice to reduce civilian casualties and safeguard prisoners, according to archival documents now housed at the U.S. National Archives.
“The legal groundwork laid during and after D-Day fundamentally reshaped how the world thinks about war, accountability, and international cooperation,” observes Professor Mary Dudziak, a legal historian at Emory University School of Law.
The subsequent Nuremberg Trials—authorized under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal—further codified the idea that aggressive war-making and crimes against humanity were punishable under international law. In many ways, D-Day’s success made such accountability feasible, providing the military and moral high ground necessary for postwar legal restructuring.
In the United States, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944—commonly known as the GI Bill—was passed just days after the invasion, offering education and housing benefits to veterans. This transformative legislation, now part of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, reinforced the reciprocal bond between the state and those who serve.
“Without D-Day, the legal and institutional infrastructure that supports global justice today—like the International Criminal Court—might not exist in its current form,” writes Dr. Philippe Sands, QC, professor of law at University College London.
Thus, D-Day’s historical importance is not limited to battlefield heroism. It catalyzed a transformation in international law, domestic legal policy, and the moral architecture of global governance.
Case Status and Legal Proceedings
Although the D-Day landings themselves are not the subject of any ongoing legal proceedings, the anniversary raises pertinent legal questions about how states treat their veterans and preserve collective memory. In the United States, these concerns are embedded in a series of statutes, executive actions, and agency obligations, particularly under the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Title 38 of the U.S. Code outlines the framework for federal veterans’ benefits, encompassing health care, disability compensation, memorial affairs, and pension services. For World War II veterans—of whom fewer than 120,000 are estimated to be alive in 2025—access to these services has become more urgent as they face advanced age, declining health, and dwindling peer support.
The most recent legislative response to veterans’ issues is the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022, which significantly expanded VA health care eligibility, particularly for those exposed to toxic substances during their service. While this law primarily addressed veterans of more recent conflicts, advocates have argued that it reflects a renewed commitment to honoring all service members, including the World War II generation.
“We owe it to our veterans not only to remember their sacrifices but to ensure they live their final years with dignity and support,” stated Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough in a recent public address.
Beyond the United States, European governments have also enacted policies to honor D-Day veterans. France, for example, grants honorary citizenship and public commendation to veterans who participated in the liberation of the country. Special immigration and travel waivers are often provided for commemorative events.
From a legal standpoint, international agreements like the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954) also come into focus during D-Day commemorations. The preservation of historical sites like Omaha Beach, Pointe du Hoc, and the Normandy cemeteries is protected under such statutes.
As veteran populations dwindle, the question remains: what legal obligations do states have to ensure these commemorations are not forgotten? Some legal scholars have proposed codifying commemorative responsibilities into national law, ensuring that future generations are educated on the legal and moral implications of historical military actions.
“Commemoration is not merely ceremonial—it is a form of legal recognition of historical fact,” argues Dr. Noah Feldman, constitutional scholar at Harvard Law School.
Viewpoints and Commentary
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Progressive commentators often view the D-Day commemorations as a platform for reinforcing the ethical imperatives of anti-fascism, collective memory, and veterans’ rights. For them, these ceremonies are not just about honoring the past, but interrogating the present—specifically, the gap between rhetorical praise of veterans and tangible policy outcomes that affect their lives.
Liberal scholars and policymakers often cite the dissonance between symbolic gestures and underfunded veterans’ programs. While acknowledging the power of historical memory, many advocate for legislative reforms to modernize the VA system, improve long-term care for elderly veterans, and fund educational campaigns that accurately convey the stakes of fascism and democratic defense.
“D-Day represents the highest ideals of international solidarity. To honor that legacy today means defending democratic values from new threats—both foreign and domestic,” argues Dr. Samantha Power, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Civil rights advocates also draw connections between the inclusive multinational composition of the Allied forces and current debates on immigration, asylum, and racial equity within the military. African-American, Indigenous, and immigrant soldiers served crucial roles in Operation Overlord, yet their contributions are often minimized in mainstream narratives.
Liberal institutions such as the Brennan Center for Justice argue that national commemoration efforts must do more to include these marginalized voices and teach a more holistic account of American involvement in the war. They emphasize the need for inclusive curricula and federally funded museum exhibits to correct historical omissions.
“We should not whitewash World War II history for comfort. We should confront it honestly to draw meaningful lessons for today,” writes Dr. Carol Anderson, professor of African American Studies at Emory University.
Finally, progressives often criticize the use of military memory to justify present-day militarism. They caution against what historian Andrew Bacevich calls “the weaponization of World War II nostalgia” to support contemporary interventions that lack moral or legal legitimacy. For these scholars, the spirit of D-Day should inform peacebuilding and restraint, not uncritical celebration of martial valor.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
From a conservative standpoint, D-Day commemorations are moments of solemn national pride and affirmation of enduring values—sacrifice, patriotism, and duty. Right-leaning commentators emphasize the importance of military strength, national sovereignty, and American exceptionalism, often viewing the invasion as a touchstone for both military policy and cultural identity.
“The boys who hit the beach at Normandy were part of the greatest generation—not just because they fought, but because they believed in moral clarity,” said Senator Tom Cotton, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
For many conservatives, D-Day validates a foreign policy grounded in strength and resolve. They argue that the success of the invasion was possible due to clear moral purpose, well-defined national interests, and unified command structures—qualities they feel are sometimes lacking in contemporary multilateral institutions.
Think tanks like the Heritage Foundation often frame D-Day as a justification for robust defense spending and skepticism of international entanglements. They advocate for a military policy that prioritizes American security over global consensus, suggesting that the Allied victory in 1944 was driven by resolve rather than reliance on fragile international bodies.
“D-Day reminds us that peace comes through strength—not through appeasement or international abstraction,” asserts James Carafano, Vice President for Foreign Policy at Heritage.
Conservative legal analysts also emphasize the sanctity of honoring veterans through formal ritual and fiscal stewardship. For them, government initiatives should focus on reinforcing traditional values in historical education and preserving monuments and battlefield sites from what they term “revisionist erasure.”
In recent years, some conservative voices have expressed concern over perceived “politicization” of D-Day commemorations, suggesting that introducing contemporary social issues—such as systemic racism or climate change—into historical remembrances dilutes the singular valor of those who served.
“The heroism of our veterans should be remembered on their own terms—not filtered through today’s ideological agendas,” stated retired Gen. Jack Keane during a Fox News appearance on the 81st anniversary.
Comparable or Historical Cases
The memory and legal context of D-Day resonate with several other historical commemorations and battlefield remembrances across both U.S. and international history. Among the most comparable are the annual Pearl Harbor ceremonies, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial services, and Holocaust remembrance efforts.
The 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor similarly catalyzed a legal and political response that reverberated across decades. Both events spurred major legislative action—the Selective Training and Service Act and later, the GI Bill—and provoked enduring debates about isolationism, interventionism, and national security.
“D-Day and Pearl Harbor serve as bookends in the American understanding of World War II—one a moment of devastation, the other of redemption,” notes Dr. John Meacham, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian.
Vietnam veterans’ commemorations, in contrast, highlight the sociopolitical divisions that can arise from warfare and the treatment of returning soldiers. While D-Day is often associated with unity and moral clarity, the Vietnam War reveals the complexities of remembrance in a democratic society. The disparities in veteran support, mental health care, and public reception offer legal lessons on how state policy must adapt to different historical contexts.
A third case—the global effort to memorialize the Holocaust—underscores how international legal regimes evolved in the postwar period. The United Nations’ establishment of January 27 as International Holocaust Remembrance Day is codified through General Assembly resolutions and supported by domestic laws in dozens of countries. These practices demonstrate how memory becomes formalized in legal instruments, transcending symbolic observance.
“The legal framework for memory is a crucial part of democratic society. Without it, remembrance risks becoming either politicized or forgotten,” argues Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism.
Finally, post-9/11 commemorations—especially the annual events at Ground Zero—illustrate how the state constructs collective memory to promote national unity, justify security policy, and support international coalitions. Yet unlike D-Day, which enjoys near-universal praise, more recent commemorative acts often reveal deep political divides.
These examples show that memory is not inert. It is produced, shaped, and legally endorsed—or denied—through complex interactions of law, politics, and culture.
Policy Implications and Forecasting
The commemoration of D-Day’s 81st anniversary is more than a tribute to heroism; it is a prism through which policy and legal scholars examine evolving societal obligations. Central among these is how modern states construct policies around remembrance, veterans’ welfare, historical education, and international alliance maintenance.
Veterans’ care stands at the forefront of policy analysis. As noted in VA and Congressional Budget Office reports, the financial and logistical strain of caring for aging World War II veterans has prompted calls for expanded services and revised eligibility criteria. Legal scholars argue for the creation of a permanent federal commission to oversee veteran commemorations, modeled on the independent bodies that manage national monuments and war cemeteries.
“Veterans are not symbols. They are citizens entitled to justice, care, and remembrance through law,” states Professor Michael Wishnie, Yale Law School, who has written extensively on veterans’ legal rights.
Forecasting the future of remembrance policy, think tanks like the Brookings Institution have proposed bipartisan initiatives to institutionalize national memory beyond political swings. These include federal funding for historical documentaries, compulsory civics curricula incorporating military history, and preservation of oral histories through institutions like the Library of Congress Veterans History Project.
On the international front, the D-Day commemorations remind global leaders of the fragile nature of military alliances. In an era of renewed authoritarianism, NATO’s relevance—anchored in Article 5 of its founding treaty, which provides for collective defense—is being reconsidered. The participation of NATO leaders in the 81st-anniversary events signaled reaffirmation, yet policy analysts warn of growing isolationist pressures.
“D-Day was the genesis of modern multilateralism. Letting those alliances fray would betray that legacy,” cautions Constanze Stelzenmüller, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Additionally, policymakers must grapple with how to protect historical truth amid misinformation. Laws criminalizing Holocaust denial exist in multiple jurisdictions; some have proposed extending such protections to other historically verified atrocities and military campaigns, though this remains contentious in First Amendment contexts.
Technological advances also impact the memorial landscape. The digitization of archives and emergence of AI-generated historical reconstructions offer new tools for education, but they also invite ethical scrutiny.
“We are entering a new frontier of digital memory. How we regulate this space will shape public consciousness for decades,” says Dr. Joan Donovan, a media scholar at Boston University.
Looking forward, policy proposals must navigate the tension between reverence and relevance—ensuring that D-Day is not fossilized as distant history, but actively engaged as a lesson in democratic resilience.
Conclusion
The 81st anniversary of D-Day is more than a ritualized look back; it is an opportunity to examine the enduring interplay between memory, law, and democratic responsibility. As the last living veterans return to Normandy, the world faces a reckoning: how do we continue to honor the past while upholding its values in the present?
At the heart of this dilemma lies a fundamental legal and political tension—between memory as heritage and memory as mandate. The ceremonies and reenactments are important, but insufficient. The real challenge lies in shaping policies that uphold the ideals of D-Day: international cooperation, respect for human dignity, and the protection of democratic institutions through lawful means.
“Commemoration without commitment is mere nostalgia,” writes Professor Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School.
Balanced viewpoints enrich this conversation. Progressives call for inclusivity and honesty in historical retellings, demanding that memory serve justice. Conservatives emphasize moral clarity, institutional pride, and the preservation of legacy. Both perspectives contribute to a robust democratic dialogue, provided they are anchored in fact, law, and mutual respect.
Ultimately, the question is not whether we will remember D-Day, but how. Will we remember it through performative acts, or through sustained civic and legal engagement? Will the memory serve peace, or be wielded in service of new conflicts?
As the world prepares for future anniversaries absent of living witnesses, the torch of memory passes not only to educators and lawmakers—but to each citizen.
“History does not end. It echoes. And it is our responsibility to ensure that echo resounds with clarity, courage, and truth,” concludes Dr. Margaret MacMillan.
For Further Reading
- Highlights from the 80th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy
- 81st Anniversary of D-Day and the Battle of Normandy
- Commemorating D-Day: Commonwealth Secretary-General reflects on sacrifice, unity, and enduring values
- WWII veterans speak of sacrifice and freedom on D-Day battlefields after 81 years
- 81th anniversary of the D-Day
