Hey, remember that time the United States invaded Europe then set up a sphere...

Dylan Murphy
Dylan Murphy

Hey, remember that time the United States invaded Europe then set up a sphere of influence on the continent with the Marshall Plan?

Yeah, let's fucking celebrate it every year.

Attached: serveimage(41).jpg (11.1 KB, 266x189)

Other urls found in this thread:

historytoday.com/archive/road-d-day
nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=921020
consortiumnews.com/2011/08/18/truth-still-a-casualty-at-dieppe/
ctvnews.ca/canada/we-were-sitting-ducks-100-year-old-veteran-shares-dieppe-raid-memories-1.3671764
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_campaign
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21586520-damning-verdict-bombing-campaign-europe-during-second-world-war-costly
militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/failurestratbombing.aspx

William Rodriguez
William Rodriguez

The NSDAP dindu nuffin

Xavier Anderson
Xavier Anderson

Americans entered the war in June 1944, after it was obvious the Soviets were going to BTFO the Nazis. Americans ran to Europe so that the communists wouldn't liberate Europe.

Kayden Jones
Kayden Jones

Someone post the contribution share to Nazi defeat.

Landon Diaz
Landon Diaz

Americans entered the war in June 1944

Attached: 1fe.png (59.37 KB, 658x662)

Evan Sullivan
Evan Sullivan

The Americans actually wanted to land as early as 1942, but the British kept insisting that they wait. After North Africa was completed they wanted to head straight to France, but once again the British wanted to invade the Balkans to secure the eastern Mediterranean and cut the Soviets off. Invading Italy was a compromise that accomplished nothing. Even still, once the invasion actually did materialize two years after the Americans and Soviets had demanded it, it tied down dozens of German divisions, hastened the defeat of the Nazis, and saved Soviet lives. Only an idiot would demand we not celebrate killing fascists. It’s also important to remember that despite strong anticommunist sentiment in the US government, FDR himself actually liked Stalin quite a bit and laid out plans for extensive postwar cooperation. He also pressured Churchill to open the second front years before D-Day, but he refused. Obviously we should be critical of the Western Allies cynical actions during the war, but not in a way that obscures the facts or cheapens the sacrifice and the anti-fascist struggle of British, American, and Canadian soldiers on the Western Front. If you’re killing fascists then you’re on our side.

Adrian Bailey
Adrian Bailey

The Americans actually wanted to land as early as 1942, but the British kept insisting that they wait.
oh yeah, the great anti-fascist americans (who still had segregation) totally would have attacked Germany earlier and handed Europe over to the Soviets if it weren't for Britain

Henry Moore
Henry Moore

British kept insisting that they wait
And according to Andrei Gromyko, it was Stalin who convinced them to stop waiting.

Attached: D8UYknTUwAA5Sf6.jpg (184.57 KB, 1200x645)
Attached: D8UYknYV4AAztL-.jpg (200.66 KB, 1200x758)

Brody Smith
Brody Smith

we already have a D-day thread m8s

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1.89 MB, 1403x1008)

Nicholas Carter
Nicholas Carter

oh yeah, the great anti-fascist americans (who still had segregation) totally would have attacked Germany earlier and handed Europe over to the Soviets if it weren't for Britain
The Americans were insisting on the opening of a second front as soon as possible. Remember that at this time imperialism played a far smaller role in US foreign policy priorities than later on. They were first and foremost concerned about stopping threats to American security, which at this time was Germany, not the USSR. Besides, the fact that the US wanted to land in France in 1942 is well documented.
”The Americans were never happy with this strategy. They felt that a cross-Channel invasion was the only effective way of beating the Germans and that the sooner it was mounted the better. Britain's advocacy of operations in the Mediterranean, they believed, was largely motivated by its political interests in the Middle East. In April 1942 the US army persuaded President Franklin D. Roosevelt to adopt a three-part plan for a cross-Channel attack. The first part, codenamed BOLERO, was for a build-up of American forces in the British Isles. The second, code-named ROUNDUP, was for a large-scale invasion of France in the spring of 1943, while the third, codenamed SLEDGEHAMMER, was for an emergency landing in France in September 1942 in the event of a sudden German collapse or, more likely, a crisis on the Russian front. Apart from the strategic considerations mentioned above, there were a number of reasons why this plan appealed to the President and the US army. On grounds of domestic politics it was important to find a means of involving American troops in the war against Germany as soon as possible. There was also a strong desire to do something to help the Russians, not only to prevent a possible military collapse on their part, but also to offset American unwillingness at this early stage in the war to agree to the Soviet Union's request for certain post-war territorial changes in Eastern Europe. Finally, there was a need to forestall the US navy's incessant pressure in favour of shifting the emphasis of American effort to the Pacific.”
historytoday.com/archive/road-d-day
Rosevelt himself was also highly distasteful of fascism, having almost been the victim of a fascist coup. During the Spanish Civil War he attempted to bypass the US ban on arms sales to both sides and ship aircraft and other supplies to the Republicans. He also sent humanitarian aid almost exclusively to the Republicans and almost none to the Nationalists. Furthermore the US had already begun to intervene on Britain and the USSR’s side in the war even before Pearl Harbour, sending supplies to the Allies. The US for all it’s problems did have some redeeming qualities, and FDR’s actual commitment to anti-fascism was one of them.

Grayson Wilson
Grayson Wilson

you are fucking delusional dude, read Marx

Aiden Diaz
Aiden Diaz

Delusional about what exactly? Have I said anything that’s historically innacurate? If so please provide contrary sources. Also I’m not sure what reading Marx would accomplish here since he never wrote about fascism and it’s relationship to liberalism.

Jace Gomez
Jace Gomez

Roosevelt attempted to bypass the ban on arms sales to Spain and aid the Republicans

Any sources for that? Not doubting just curious.

Mason Gonzalez
Mason Gonzalez

read Marx
1) How is Marx relevant to WW-2 when he was dead long before that
2) At least say Lenin or Stalin who actually predicted conflicts like WW-2 occurring.
Roosevelt generally supported the Republic but congressional isolation policy made anything past the voluntary Abraham Lincoln Brigade impossible.

Colton Gutierrez
Colton Gutierrez

The Soviets were begging the West for 2+ years to invade Europe to take some pressure off them lol. If anything it's more shameful that it took so long.

Noah Clark
Noah Clark

The men and material to invade France couldn't just be conjured out of thin air. The invasion of Normandy was a stalemate for weeks until the breakout, and they were struggling in Italy at the time as well. If they'd tried it earlier it would have been a disaster.

Oliver Green
Oliver Green

That's a load of horse shit.
to cite from nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=921020

"Churchill did his best to delay any landing. The D-day landings were intentionally post-poned by Churchill citing an inability to do so and using a failed attempt, (set up to fail) as an example of it. This failed attempt had been to send in Canadian troops onto a heavily defended cliff-side in broad daylight with little support. Calling it a set up would be an understatement.
- consortiumnews.com/2011/08/18/truth-still-a-casualty-at-dieppe/
- ctvnews.ca/canada/we-were-sitting-ducks-100-year-old-veteran-shares-dieppe-raid-memories-1.3671764

When he couldn't stall any longer, divert the first landings to Italy, which he called 'the soft belly of Europe'. Nothing soft about it of course, Alps create a natural barrier, towards central Europe, impossible to pass. In WW1 Italians and Austrians fought there for 4-5 years and couldn't move an inch. Not to mention naturally hilly nature of northern Italy. As a result many people got massacred trying to take over Italy, easily defended by Germans. In Monte Casino and many other major engagements, allied troops got butchered like WW-1, storming fortified and defended positions. Churchill wasn't stupid. His staff wasn't stupid. The only reason why they did this would be to delay landings in mainland Europe. Which they did."
End citation

The UK may not have had the forces needed for a landing but the USA certainly did, but it was the UKs refusal to have the landing that led to the USA delaying it, letting Germany build up its forces in Normandy, for a while before D-Day the coasts of Europe were poorly defended, there was no Atlantic Wall to speak of and most of the military was diverted East.

if they tried it earlier it would have been a disaster
If it weren't for the sheer number of troops the invasion was practically a disaster, and much of it wasn't even because of the Germans. Naval artillery failed to do much about German artillery and Allied paratroopers drowned in the reservoirs in Normandy.
Read the book D-Day Exposed: A Bad Combat Plan Saved by Good Men, June 6, 1944 - The Tragedy of the Missing LVTs
it details how D-Day losses were caused by sheer incompetence by higher command.

Luis Roberts
Luis Roberts

Americans entered the war in June 1944
The Pacific theater didn’t exist
???
Dieppe
The goal of that mission was to steal Nazi radar tech, not to liberate France.

Jose Perry
Jose Perry

Churchill was not a great strategist and his obsession with South Europe was retarded, but I think British officers were generally wiser than their American counterparts to wait until the 1944. The debacles at Kasserine and Anzio demonstrated the U.S. Army wasn't ready to fight the Wehrmacht in large numbers yet, especially seeing as how the Allies didn't have crucial air superiority until 1944. Can you imagine how bad Normandy would have been if they'd tried it in 42' or 43' when the Luftwaffe was still intact?

Anyway you kind of go into too much detail in this post that isn't necessary. I have no interest in defending every little mistake made by the Anglo-American alliance, only pointing out that a landing before 1944 would have been a bad idea.

Nicholas Long
Nicholas Long

The goal of that mission was to steal Nazi radar tech, not to liberate France.
It's failure was used as a pretext to claim that a Western Front was an impossibility.
Pacific theatre
Obviously they're referring to actual army action in the European war idiot.

Churchill was not a great strategist
He was a military commander in many areas and had both front-line experience and experience in strategy. He was well aware of what he was doing and how.
Kasserine
I'll give you that
Anzio
Bullshit. The Italian campaign was pointless losses. It was neither a priority region nor easy terrain to take.
if they'd tried it in 42' or 43' when the Luftwaffe was still intact?
The Luftwaffe WAS still intact in 1944 it simply couldn't get to the main action. That was the only competently executed part - heavy AAA cover as well as heavy fighter cover prevented any bombers from being properly deployed.

The Anglo alliance could have done it earlier and if they were more focused on beating the nazis and not off-setting the USSR they could have done it.

But whatever, what's done is done.

Thomas Phillips
Thomas Phillips

It's failure was used as a pretext to claim that a Western Front was an impossibility.
Yeah, but when it was executed it wasn’t meant to liberate France.
He was a military commander
Not a very good one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_campaign

Xavier King
Xavier King

This is wrong in so many different ways. At least skim the Wikipedia article before you start making shit up.

Luke Torres
Luke Torres

gallipoli
That was designed to fail m8. The entire reason Churchill fucked up there was precisely because he wanted to deny the Russian Empire ease of passage in spite of their alliance.
when it was executed it wasn't meant to liberate France
And my source never claimed that, only that they were used as a force to emulate the possible results.
Its right in every way but one, rather than saying the Americans entered the war in 1944, it should say they entered the European land war in 1944. The rest is correct.

Parker Clark
Parker Clark

That was designed to fail m8. The entire reason Churchill fucked up there was precisely because he wanted to deny the Russian Empire ease of passage in spite of their alliance.
it should say they entered the European land war in 1944
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_campaign_(World_War_II)

Attached: BrainletBike.jpg (26.64 KB, 326x294)

Brayden Torres
Brayden Torres

don't forget the bombing runs

James Long
James Long

Except the Americans didn’t land specifically to stop the Russians. If that was their goal then they would have gone with the British plan of invading the Balkans and cutting the Red Army off before they even got to Germany.

Jordan Roberts
Jordan Roberts

The main goal of America during WW2 was defeating Japan.

Grayson Smith
Grayson Smith

This picture would make a great postcard

Nolan Edwards
Nolan Edwards

ad hominum
LOL
Muh Italy
If you actually paid attention to the rest of the thread you'd realize why I omitted that, projecting brainlet.
invading the Balkans
Except that would have been a terrible plan due to the terrain which would make it a bloodbath as they fought through German defences there and they would have failed at achieving that, the Red Army would easily outpace them before they got out of that mess and would be on Germany's borders. Moreover the Balkans weren't the important goal to be secured, France and West Germany were. East Germany was mostly Polish territory anyway and the West wasn't interested in that as much.

Julian Lee
Julian Lee

Except that would have been a terrible plan due to the terrain which would make it a bloodbath as they fought through German defences
And yet the British thought it would be worth it for the express purpose of cutting the Soviets off from the rest of Europe, which is why they proposed and insisted upon the plan so vehemently.
Moreover the Balkans weren't the important goal to be secured, France and West Germany were.
The hope was to land in the Balkans and sweep up to central Europe, thus cutting off the Red Army from advancing further. The American specifically rejected this plan because they knew landing in France would bring about a swifter German defeat.

Jaxson Moore
Jaxson Moore

Roosevelt himself was also highly distasteful of fascism

lol

Attached: NRA1.gif (142.65 KB, 513x437)

Landon Harris
Landon Harris

muh bombing runs
Inefficient and insufficient. The first large-scale bomber raid was in May 1942 on Cologne and it took months to repeat that and only by 1943 were they in any way regular. Even then the losses were high and results mediocre until 1944

“In the first half of 1944, battle casualty rates for every 1,000 bomber crewmen serving six months in combat included 712 killed or missing and 175 wounded: 89 percent. By one calculation, barely one in four U.S. airmen completed twenty-five missions over Germany, a minimum quota that was soon raised to thirty and then thirty-five on the assumption that the liberation of France and Belgium and the attenuation of German airpower made flying less lethal.” ― Rick Atkinson, The Guns at Last Night: The War in Western Europe 1944-1945

“Allied air forces flying from England lost twenty bombers a day in March; another three thousand Eighth Air Force bombers were damaged that month. Morale problems could be seen in the decision of nearly ninety U.S. crews in March and April to fly to neutral countries, usually Sweden or Switzerland, to be interned for the duration.” ― Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944

economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21586520-damning-verdict-bombing-campaign-europe-during-second-world-war-costly
militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/failurestratbombing.aspx

The only reason they got even a modicum of success was because the Luftwaffe diverted the majority of its best forces to the Eastern Front, up to 80% at one point. The US forces less experienced as they may have been had the productive superiority and size necessary to launch a full scale invasion prior to 1944 and would have had success - the Atlantic Wall was still being finished and only the men that could be spared were left to defend the Western side as the Eastern front sucked up more and more forces.

Michael Jones
Michael Jones

the British thought it would be worth it for the express purpose of cutting the Soviets off from the rest of Europe
The British were fucking gits who were still stuck on the 1930s political idea of sticking it to the Russians, while the USA was being pragmatic in wanting to stick it to them after the war was won. The Balkans would have been a catastrophe because the terrain gave the German defenders all the advantages and the closeness to Germany would give them ample supplies to do so.
hope was to land in the Balkans and sweep up to central Europe, thus cutting off the Red Army from advancing further.
And as I said, it would have been a failure
The American specifically rejected this plan because they knew landing in France would bring about a swifter German defeat.
True but it would also deny France and Western Germany from Soviet influence or rather further Soviet influence. If I must remind you, after the war the most positive attitude to the liberators of Europe was to the USSR even in France. This has changed but only through the concentrated propaganda of NATO.

Joseph Hernandez
Joseph Hernandez

We dont celebrate that shit here.

Andrew Harris
Andrew Harris

Stalin should've joined the axis

William Nelson
William Nelson

The accomplishments of Mussolini and his Fascist Party were widely admired and was looked upon as having saved Italy from a communist dictatorship of the type that developed in the Russian Empire. An American admirer was Hugh Johnson, the man who managed government policy during World War I. Franklin Roosevelt chose Hugh Johnson to design his program called The New Deal for coping with the problems of the Great Depression. There was not much faith in a purely market economy at the time. Johnson adopted some of the policies of Mussolini for the Roosevelt New Deal. He also adopted programs of other corporatist leaders in Europe such as Miguel Primo de Rivera in Spain. This was the origin of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

Hugh Johnson, architect of Roosevelt's New
Deal and an admirer of Mussolini's system

Attached: Johnson.jpg (23.55 KB, 250x330)

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit