you are fucking delusional dude, read Marx
Hey...
Grayson Wilson
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
Any sources for that? Not doubting just curious.
Mason Gonzalez
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
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
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
That's a load of horse shit.
to cite from nationstates.net
"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
- ctvnews.ca
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.
Luis Roberts
???
The goal of that mission was to steal Nazi radar tech, not to liberate France.
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
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.