How Enormous D-Day Was

longknife

Diamond Member
Sep 21, 2012
42,221
13,090
2,250
Sin City
d-day-graphic.png



And then, there's no surprise to this: Obama Fails To Recognize D-Day, The Democrats Recognize Day By Quoting…Barack Obama @ Obama Fails To Recognize D-Day The Democrats Recognize Day By Quoting Barack Obama Weasel Zippers
 
When will the racist bastards ever stop...???
A person of color is in command..!! Live with it...and.....:anj_stfu:
 
The first thing they teach in Military leadership school is not to mount a direct attack on an impregnable fortress. The "big secret" of the Normandy invasion was fiction. It was a fabrication by the American media to cover up the incredible casualty numbers. It didn't take long for the Germans to isolate the slim foothold that the Allies held at Normandy. Ike's vow that he would "use every man it took" turned into a math game of how many troops the Germans could afford to lose as opposed to the Allies. The casualty math game played out by the fat asses in the Pentagon indicated that the U.S. could afford to lose more Troops than the smaller country of Germany and that's the way it played out. Any WW2 Vet will tell you that life was cheap during the Big One.
 
The first thing they teach in Military leadership school is not to mount a direct attack on an impregnable fortress. The "big secret" of the Normandy invasion was fiction. It was a fabrication by the American media to cover up the incredible casualty numbers. It didn't take long for the Germans to isolate the slim foothold that the Allies held at Normandy. Ike's vow that he would "use every man it took" turned into a math game of how many troops the Germans could afford to lose as opposed to the Allies. The casualty math game played out by the fat asses in the Pentagon indicated that the U.S. could afford to lose more Troops than the smaller country of Germany and that's the way it played out. Any WW2 Vet will tell you that life was cheap during the Big One.
I don't think WW2 vets would agree with you. If anything, I think casualties were always on the minds of most, from FDR to squad sergeants. If there was a problem I think it was the few egocentric generals that used American troops to storm objectives unnecessarily creating both casualties and names. Many enlisted knew the difference between those generals and the Bradleys. Even today some of those generals are known to the American public and admired.
 
The first thing they teach in Military leadership school is not to mount a direct attack on an impregnable fortress. The "big secret" of the Normandy invasion was fiction. It was a fabrication by the American media to cover up the incredible casualty numbers. It didn't take long for the Germans to isolate the slim foothold that the Allies held at Normandy. Ike's vow that he would "use every man it took" turned into a math game of how many troops the Germans could afford to lose as opposed to the Allies. The casualty math game played out by the fat asses in the Pentagon indicated that the U.S. could afford to lose more Troops than the smaller country of Germany and that's the way it played out. Any WW2 Vet will tell you that life was cheap during the Big One.
I don't think WW2 vets would agree with you. If anything, I think casualties were always on the minds of most, from FDR to squad sergeants. If there was a problem I think it was the few egocentric generals that used American troops to storm objectives unnecessarily creating both casualties and names. Many enlisted knew the difference between those generals and the Bradleys. Even today some of those generals are known to the American public and admired.[/QUOTE

Thank God for generals like Patton who cared about his Troops. Generals like Patton didn't make policy but they were stuck with the agenda created by Marshall (who never commanded a combat unit) and media celebrities like MacArthur who abandoned his Army in the Philippines and Eisenhower who didn't give a shit about how many Privates it took to take a freaking hill.
 
The first thing they teach in Military leadership school is not to mount a direct attack on an impregnable fortress. The "big secret" of the Normandy invasion was fiction. It was a fabrication by the American media to cover up the incredible casualty numbers. It didn't take long for the Germans to isolate the slim foothold that the Allies held at Normandy. Ike's vow that he would "use every man it took" turned into a math game of how many troops the Germans could afford to lose as opposed to the Allies. The casualty math game played out by the fat asses in the Pentagon indicated that the U.S. could afford to lose more Troops than the smaller country of Germany and that's the way it played out. Any WW2 Vet will tell you that life was cheap during the Big One.
I don't think WW2 vets would agree with you. If anything, I think casualties were always on the minds of most, from FDR to squad sergeants. If there was a problem I think it was the few egocentric generals that used American troops to storm objectives unnecessarily creating both casualties and names. Many enlisted knew the difference between those generals and the Bradleys. Even today some of those generals are known to the American public and admired.[/QUOTE

Thank God for generals like Patton who cared about his Troops. Generals like Patton didn't make policy but they were stuck with the agenda created by Marshall (who never commanded a combat unit) and media celebrities like MacArthur who abandoned his Army in the Philippines and Eisenhower who didn't give a shit about how many Privates it took to take a freaking hill.
With some generals their egos come first, then the mission and finally the troops. Patton had to be kept on a leash to be effective and MacArthur should have been left with his Philippine field-marshal rating on Luzon. I wonder how many generals were reassigned to non-combat roles during WWII?
 
No matter how big something is, it is eclipsed by the Narcissism of The Won.

Just sayin'.
 
Why do a bunch of non-military types with absolutely not a single clue as to military history always shoot of their mouths to show their total ignorance?
 
Why do a bunch of non-military types with absolutely not a single clue as to military history always shoot of their mouths to show their total ignorance?
Well, fortunately I'm not a military type. My daughter may have been, however, and retired after her twenty years. It is also possible that some military historians never served a day in service.
 

Forum List

Back
Top