Posted on 06/11/2015 6:12:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Seventy-one years ago, the British, Canadians and Americans landed on the Normandy beaches to open a second ground front against Nazi Germany.
Operation Overlord -- the Allied invasion of Western Europe -- proved the largest amphibious operation in military history, dwarfing even Xerxes' Persian invasion of Greece in 480 B.C.
Brilliant planning, overwhelming naval support, air superiority and high morale ensured the successful landing of 160,000 troops on the first day -- at a cost of about 4,000 dead.
Three weeks after the June 6 landings, nearly a million Allied soldiers were ashore, heading eastward through France. Hitler's once-formidable Third Reich seemed on the verge of collapse. On the Eastern Front, the German army was imploding under the weight of 5 million advancing infantrymen of Russia's Red Army. At the same time, Allied four-engine bombers, with superb long-range fighter escorts, at last were beginning to destroy German transportation and fuel infrastructure.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I though it was getting bogged down in the Russian winter because their forced were diverted first.
After being treated like Shiite by his Senior commanders, it is a good thing that history has been kind to Patton and recognizes him for what he was - The best Allied General of the War. Both of my grandfathers served under Patton and both met him a few times - both thanked God that they served under him.
No fan of Ike, but since his higher ups had already determined that Berlin area would be part of the Soviet occupation zone, Eisenhower correctly decided that American men and materials should not be wasted in taking territory which their political overseers already agreed would be turned over to Stalin.
When has it been otherwise?
Good point of which I overlooked. However, (as someone earlier in this thread stated), with perfect intelligence and hindsight I am easily on par with General Patton, Napoleon, and Genghis Khan when it comes to military strategy. :)
Bergamini laid a very rational argument for Hirohito being chiefly responsible for Japan's aggressive war policies. Naturally, the Allies were eager to have a subdued Japanese population after the war and let Hirohito off the hook.
You see? Arguing already without a subject.
The film covers the final days from late July 1945 until the Emperor's broadcast of the surrender announcement, but focuses on the last 24 hours up to that announcement. It gives you great insight into the utter depravity of a large faction of the general staff and the risks taken by those who opposed them even with the emperor's backing to agree to surrender.
What argument. I merely said Iwo Jima was under Nimitz’ jurisdiction not MacArthur’s.
I love how the Left calls itself “Progressive” to hide their true intent.
Their combined (I refuse to say the other “c” word they love) IQ is too low to realize there’s no progress in their views.
I question the Iwo operation, was it needed? Could another island or Okinawa have served the same purpose? Also the invasion of Peleliu which I can find no reason for not hoping right past this island. MacArthur I always thought was way over rated. His reaction to the surprise at Pearl Harbor is mind blowing, it’s like they knew what was coming and still couldn’t prepare and his movement to the Bataan peninsula trapping his army, I don’t get it.
In Europe Montgomery was a disaster along with Mark Clark on the American side. They prolonged the war, but then again hindsight is 20/20. They did the best they could with what they had.
Hirohito personally ordered the use of Phosgene gas during the battle of Wuhan. He was far more involved than the imperial palace or MacArthur ever acknowledged. Herbert Bix and others, have detailed how Hirohito's, and other members of the Imperial family active involvement in the War was covered up.
Today, we have a strong and loyal ally in Asia
As we do with Germany
Unlike the Germans, the Japanese did not elect the military leadership which led their country to disaster.
The Germans didn't elect the Nazi's to power, they only won 33% of the November 1932 election. It was only after the Nazi's had suppressed a number of the other German parties that they managed to pass the "Enabling Act" which made Hitler a virtual dictator. The Japanese had general elections in 1932,36,37 and 1942, although like the Germans in 1933 by 1942 they effectively had a popular military dictatorship.
Finally, had your bloodthirsty "solution"..
At least my solution would have been endorsed by the USAAF pilots (and their families ) who when captured were the subject of vivisection by the japanese.
I'm glad Abe Lincoln and General Grant didn't have a similar vision.
No but if you're interested try "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert Bix, probably comes to the same conclusion re Hirohito's involvement in the wars of 1930's and 1940's.
Victor Davis Hanson’s cousin Victor Hanson was one of the US Marines killed on Okinawa in May 1945, in the fighting on Sugar Loaf Hill. June 18th will be the 70th anniversary of the death of Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr., on Okinawa (son of the man who surrendered Fort Donelson to U.S. Grant in 1862).
The Japanese have never accepted their guilt in WW II. School text books are purged of any mention of The rape of Nanjing or Japanese atrocities in WW II. The prime minister and members of the cabinet still make pilgrimages ( 2013 and 2014)to the Yasukuni shine where amongst others, over 1,000 war criminals are memorialized. The shrines Museum and website make statements criticizing the US for "forcing" Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. If you visit the Hiroshima peace museum the English guided tour will give you a bunch of pablum about ending war and having eternal peace. If you listen in Japanese you get a completely different story where the US is portrayed as the guilty party.
I'm glad Abe Lincoln and General Grant didn't have a similar vision.
Well at least General Sherman had, and implemented a similar vision.
Wrong. Plus, macarthur did not “retake the south pacific. Time to study some history.
I think you responded to the wrong argument.
Sounds like something out of Monty Python.
It has gotten out of control you may be right. It was initially stated MacArthur had fewer casualties than Ike. Some one posted listing Iwo Juma and stating or inferring Iwo Jima casualties were attributable to MacArtur. I merely pointed out that the over all commander for the Iwo Jima invasion was Nimitz. Earlier MacArthur and Nimitz under Roosevelt had divided up the Pacific Theater.
Iwo was a Marine show.
They would send in the Marines first then let the Army mop up.
The Marines take the cake for bad-ass, especially when you consider how many there were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.