Hey...

you are fucking delusional dude, read Marx

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.

Any sources for that? Not doubting just curious.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

???

The goal of that mission was to steal Nazi radar tech, not to liberate France.

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.

It's failure was used as a pretext to claim that a Western Front was an impossibility.

Obviously they're referring to actual army action in the European war idiot.

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.
I'll give you that
Bullshit. The Italian campaign was pointless losses. It was neither a priority region nor easy terrain to take.
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.

Yeah, but when it was executed it wasn’t meant to liberate France.

Not a very good one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_campaign

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

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.
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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_campaign_(World_War_II)

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

don't forget the bombing runs

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.

The main goal of America during WW2 was defeating Japan.

This picture would make a great postcard

LOL
If you actually paid attention to the rest of the thread you'd realize why I omitted that, projecting brainlet.

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.

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.
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.

lol

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

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.

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.
And as I said, it would have been a failure
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.

We dont celebrate that shit here.

Stalin should've joined the axis

Deal and an admirer of Mussolini's system

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