Why not?
What made that War Good, if it qualified, was not that it was kinder and gentler. By definition, war is nothing of the sort, no matter how much we might like to pretend it is.
It was Good because it destroyed an evil system that had a quite good chance of taking over the world, which it most certainly would have done if not fought.
It was a damn good war. Nazis didn’t suffer nearly enough.
It was the last war we fought where the enemy was utterly destroyed.
“It was Good because it destroyed an evil system that had a quite good chance of taking over the world, which it most certainly would have done if not fought.”
Kind of ironic that, seventy years after the war ended, we elected our own dictator and gave him wealth and powers Hitler would have envied.
Besides the usual commie revisionist agitprop, the article also reveals the author's ignorance by talking, for example, about the "surprisingly sophisticated" German camouflage.
Yeah, when you have no air cover, you get pretty good at hiding stuff.
Also the stuff about how the Sherman tank's armor was "too thin" and that it caught fire easily (which it did).
The armor wasn't too thin: it was deliberately made of softer steel because a round penetrating softer steel produces less internal spalling (which is what kills the crew). This demoralized the crews, but probably enabled a higher percentage to survive.
The Sherman was also more fire prone because it used a gasoline engine, and it used a gas engine because the Navy had a monopoly on all diesel engine production. Using hydraulics for gun elevation, stabilization and turret rotation (advanced features not possessed by German tanks) probably also made it more flammable.
In other words, US soldiers were not "victimized" by a careless government or corrupt contractors, but suffered because of rational (if flawed) planning decisions made early on in the war.
But I guess this kind of reality is too real for a "realistic" war movie.