There was another army which invaded France today - no fewer than 558 journalists accredited to the Allies to cover the Overlord landings. Some had even been dispatched to Scotland as part of the deception plans. But today it was for real: the BBC alone had 48 correspondents, and it was radio which brought the first eye-witness accounts of the landings.
And where there are reporters in this war there will also be censors. Today those could be found on the beaches, checking that reports did not contain "information which might be useful to the enemy". Ever since October 1939, when the first British reporters were permitted to visit Allied soldiers in France, there has been inevitable tension between reporters and censors.
Technically, censorship has been voluntary in Britain, with censors "consulted" about what might be "useful" to the enemy. But editors could be prosecuted and imprisoned for failing to follow such advice. In practice, in a war of national survival, few journalists have questioned the desirability of not giving aid or comfort to the enemy and many see themselves as part of the war effort And also in practice, the services have sought to control information by exercising what the US services call "censorship at source" - denying access either totally or by limiting numbers through accreditation.
Nonetheless the arrival of American correspondents - and, indeed, US generals - improved access to service chiefs and to some extent loosened the stifling and petty censorship of the early days. Alan Moorehead, Ed Murrow, Drew Middleton, Richard Dimbleby and Ross Munro are among many journalists who have reported with courage and distinction, seeking to eliminate propaganda from communiqués and risking their lives without ever being armed.