Posted on 09/17/2007 1:50:50 AM PDT by OneHun
First, as you pointed out the French forces in North Africa were under the control of Vichy France, that was technically a neutral country, but Marshal Petan was subject to manipulation by the Germany.
Second, after Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the USA. FDR and Churchill agreed that UK-US forces would focus on defeating Germany first. The reason being that Germany dominated Europe and in 1941 had come very close to Moscow. Should the SU have lost European Russia, Germany could turn its attention back to Great Britain. Even though GB had survived Germany’s air attacks and won “The Battle of Britain,” Germany was a huge threat to GB with its U-Boats and another assault on GB. Should GB have fallen, the Allies would had a very hard time setting up the Western front.
Third, the North African campaign took some pressure off the Eastern front, as did the eventual Italian campaign, which put Italy out of the war.
If Kasserine had happened today, what would the left say?
One of the first major battles of WWII was a debacle, and a slaughter of young, green, American troops. It was frankly a defeat and an embarrassment.
The MSM today would be shouting, Bring them home, the war is lost.
Back then it brought in Patton, and spurred on Americans to push even harder for the Victory.
__________________________________________
Did the writer ever hear of guadalcanal? Geez, basic WW2 History 101. Get it right.
Why? (And, it had nothing to do with the Tri-Partite agreement)
Because of a certain PURPLE message, from Berlin to Toyko, of 29Nov41 ..." ... He (Ribbentrop) also said that if Japan were to go to war with America, Germany would, of course, join in immediately, and Hitler's intention was that there should be absolutely no question of Germany making a separate peace with England. ..."
So it goes ...
Please. Tell. Me. That. You. Don’t. Give. 9/11. Conspiracy. Theories. Any. Credence. Please.
Yeah, I spotted that immediately. Vichy was allied with the Nazis.
American landing forces, that were part of Operation Torch, were not certain if French forces in north Africa would fight or surrender, and come over to the Allied side.
Once securing that beach head in north Africa, the American Allied forces would then turn east to confront the Afrika Corps while the British 8th Army moved against the Nazis from the east.
The author makes a bad comparison here.
The comparison is not a good one.
Minor quibble. Marshall was in favor of landing troops in France in 1943. He was prevented from doing this by Churchill, who wanted to invade Sicily & Salerno (Italy) first, to secure the Mediterranean. Churchill knew from experience (Dieppe 1942) what a tough nut the French coastline would be without overwhelming numbers. Better to commit the resources available to a narrower theater (Italy) than to throw them in the deep end of the European pool & lose them.
Essentially Churchill prevented Marshall from making a mistake.
This is why we rarely agree on what really took place, when, how, and why. The scary thing is what is in today's "history" books in schools. So many things written in these classroom books about our nation's past are twisted, innacurate - or just blatent lies - and usually portray any American military action in a dark light. Try to tell today's youth the truth about something you remember clearly about WWII, the Korean war or Viet Nam...and they will argue the point because what they are learing in school is so opposite, at least when it comes to anything related to national defense.
How kids are being brainwashed by the liberals (who control education) in America to hate US agressive actions (based on emotionally charged writings geared to instill guilt, not patritosm and rather than present facts), is in some aspects, just like the children in the mid-East being spoonfed hatred of our culture in the clutch of Al Queda/terrorist leaders.
Correct. But Guadalcanal was really a defensive maneuver, strategically-speaking, in the sense that the airfield being built there by the Japanese would have allowed landbased aircraft to attack allied shipping & so isolate Australia. The 1st MarDiv was actually diverted to Guadalcanal (it was originally headed to Australia).
After clearing Japanese forces from Tulagi & Henderson Field (the former air base) the Japanese reacted quickly & re-inforced. What looked like an attack on a relatively isolated Japanese garrison became a grinding battle of attrition.
Hardly. Hitler's response to the Torch Landings was to send another entire field army to Tunisia. There were 2 German Armies, not just the Afrika Korps, operating in North Africa.
There were as many Germans captured in Tunisia as were lost at Stalingrad. 1943 was a bad year for the Germans.
_______________________________________________
Omar Bradley wrote in 1946 that FDR & Churchill did not even want to invade Italy, thought that they could let it wither on the vine. But, Overlord could not happen in 1943 and Stalin threatened a seperate peace with Hitler if we did not open a second (and in our mind, unnecessary) front.
No, he didn't. America lost the peace at Potsdam - but FDR didn't, since he was on "Uncle Joe's" side.
Check this out:
“Let us first look at the American position, ably set forth and argued vigorously by General Marshall and his aides and by Harry Hopkins. We Americans had a straightforward view of the war in Europe. The way to beat Hitler was the shortest way - go across the Channel and engage his armies as close to Germany as possible. All resources, all effort should be put to that end. Any other use of those forces was a diversion and might jeopardize the Main Event. This was argued back and forth in the winter and spring of 1943.
The British were against this plan. They argued: (1) a cross- Channel invasion would be a very dangerous undertaking - as indeed it proved to be - and probably could not be mounted until 1944; (2) meanwhile the cream of the British and American armies was in Africa and must be used. We had promised Stalin continued pressure in 1943. What better way than to knock Italy out of the war and move up through the “Soft Underbelly”?
This of course was Churchill’s view. He saw also that this would protect the oil supplies and the other British and Empire interests in the Middle East. Both Hitter and Churchill regarded the Balkans as critical to success.”
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=597
The Italian campaign received more support from Churchill during the war, and he was not happy when resources and troops were diverted for other campaigns.
Try “A Soldier’s Story” by Bradley. It is illuminating.
FDR wasn't at Potsdam. He was dead by then. Harry Truman was at Potsdam.
Yalta was where FDR gave away the store.
I stand corrected. Right idea, wrong conference, Thanks,
barbra ann
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.