This is really interesting, I had never thought about the fact that the Marines weren't involved.
1 posted on
06/05/2004 9:07:49 PM PDT by
wagglebee
To: wagglebee
Normandy was more of a massive, blunt-force invasion. You don't grind up your sharpest spear-tip on such an operation.
2 posted on
06/05/2004 9:21:11 PM PDT by
Prince Caspian
(Don't ask if it's risky... Ask if the reward is worth the risk)
To: wagglebee
I just thought they were very busy in the Pacific....
3 posted on
06/05/2004 9:23:08 PM PDT by
MEG33
(John Kerry's been AWOL for two decades on issues of National Security)
To: wagglebee
Those "wee hours" when parachustists jumped by stealth were happening right about now . . . 60 years ago.
To: wagglebee
This is revisionisim. The Marines were busy in the Pacific as was the bulk of the navy. The Pacific was exactly where the Marines needed to be - they were not cut out of the European theater by any inter service rivalry.
7 posted on
06/05/2004 11:09:28 PM PDT by
Destro
(Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorism by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
To: wagglebee
The ooh-rah chorus will probably get hot at me saying this, but there has always been strong resentment by many in the army at the Marine Corps PR successes (Truman: "the Marines have better propaganda than Stalin." Did you hear that the Marines had to stop their advance to wait for resupply? Their cameras ran out of film. A marine rifle squad consists of nine rifleman and one cameraman, etc.).
The greatest victories in the history of our nation (Yorktown, Gettysburg, Bastogne) belong to the army, but my experience is that you would have some difficulty getting a Marine to admit it-or even acknowledge it.
8 posted on
06/06/2004 7:36:26 AM PDT by
91B
(God made man, Sam Colt made men equal.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson