Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why WWII Didn't End Sooner
Townhall.com ^ | June 11, 2015 | Victor Davis Hanson

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: dday; eisenhower; hitler; normandy; patton; worldwarii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last
To: FlipWilson
Patton detested Montgomery because he considered him incompetent ...

On D-Day, Americans forces were hammered at Omaha and Utah beaches. The Brits had far less resistance and made their landings with a relative amount of ease. Instead of hot footing it to Caen, ten miles away, and taking the town, Montgomery decided that the British Army would take the day off and have tea. Hitler, believing that the Normandy invasion was a diversion,thought the real invasion would be led by Patton at Calais. Hitler withheld deployment of the Panzers. Yet, by the time Montgomery did get to Caen, the Panzers were deployed and dug in waiting for him.

41 posted on 06/11/2015 7:28:11 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson

Ike became to political with the Europeans. Became an ally instead of being an American.


42 posted on 06/11/2015 7:41:41 AM PDT by Busko (The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

WE should never have given Iwo back to the Japanese. We paid too high a price for it.


43 posted on 06/11/2015 7:42:00 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Busko

Quote; “Ike Became an ally instead of being an American.”

I know that is a quote from “Patton” but it was not quite true. Ike and his commanders did disagree but were of a like mind when it came to Montgomery. I suspect that legacy vis-à-vis the American view of the British military has lasted until this day.


44 posted on 06/11/2015 7:45:36 AM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Spinning hypotheticals regarding alternative WWII event-sequences has long been a favorite activity of both myself, as well as many of my oldest friends. General Montgomery has long been regarded as insufferably vain, as well as limited in military acumen. Eisenhower's position as Supreme Commander is better understood in terms of him being the in loco parentis, or the European proxy for the President of the United States. As such, many of Ike's decisions turned on political, rather than merely military factors.

Ever since Abraham Lincoln starting changing his top generals as often as he changed his socks during the US Civil War, every United States President expects a commensurate prerogative to micro-manage ongoing military operations. FDR was not about to let a mere 4,000 miles of Atlantic Ocean keep him from having a major say in how Germany was to be defeated. Eisenhower was NOT selected for either his strategic or tactical genius (geniuses being a dime a dozen); instead, Eisenhower was selected because he could be TRUSTED to enact the political will of Washington DC without letting his ego get in the way. Say what you will about Ike, when it came to being a personality, he was essentially EGO-LESS in comparison to Patton, Montgomery, and even Omar Bradley.

45 posted on 06/11/2015 7:55:41 AM PDT by Trentamj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Tonnage.


46 posted on 06/11/2015 7:55:45 AM PDT by wordsofearnest (Proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs it. C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricmc2175
That was not MacArthur's, remember there was divided command between the Navy and the Army in the Pacific. Each had their zones of responsibility.

It wasn't that clear cut. Technically Halsey's third fleet at Leyte took direct orders from Nimitz, nevertheless US losses in the Phillipines were 13,973 KIA, to say nothing of Australian, New Zealand, Phillipine losses which were technically under MacArthurs command.

As to the "political charge" in a total war, often unfortunately, the final word is with the politicians and generals have to live with that.

Patton actually captured a large chunk of what would become Eastern Germany, the Czech republic and Austria. As another poster noted the politicians gave it away at Yalta, probably the work of Harry Hopkins.

47 posted on 06/11/2015 7:56:26 AM PDT by Timocrat (Ingnorantia non excusat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ricmc2175; Timocrat
D-Day was one day. Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the bloodiest battles of the Pacific lasted nearly a month. A fair comparison is to count total losses, territory and time, not just Day #1.

The fact of the matter is that the Pacific War consumed only 30% of our war resources, involved mainly U.S. troops and Navies (with some commendable help from the Australians), was fought against a far more determined opponent and still saddled us with far fewer losses.

Our blunders in the Pacific were limited to a few places like Tarawa and Pelielu. Those in Europe/Africa range from Kasserine Pass to Market Garden to the final conquest of Berlin, and scores of examples in between (Anzio, Monte Cassino, etc.).

And, yes, Ike, Mark Clark, George Marshall, Montgomery and others were political generals. The more capable (Patton, Omar Bradley) ranked further down. My father fought in that war and had little respect for the political general class.

MacArthur, OTOH, not only learned from is mistakes but became a capable postwar administrator and a hero to the people he conquered. Until another mediocre politician fired him.

48 posted on 06/11/2015 8:02:43 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Trentamj
Lincoln did try to micro-manage the Northern side in the Civil War. However, he achieved what he wanted by firing incompetent generals, through arguably he waited too long in the case of McClellan. On the other hand, Bush 43 did not micro-manage enough, and it took the Republican electoral disaster of 2006 to get him to get rid of Rumsfeld and initiate the surge. Both he and Lyndon Johnson were poorly advised by appeasers, as was Truman with respect to Korea. In the case of Vietnam, Nixon only intensified the war in 1971 when the 1972 election campaign was approaching.

FDR and Lincoln's micro-managing was successful. Both were committed to victory and unconditional surrender of the enemy. No president since V-J Day has been so committed, and we have not won a war since then.

49 posted on 06/11/2015 8:09:12 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS; Timocrat

“Iwo Jima was not under MacArthur but under Nimitz”

Which was exactly Timocrat’s point...


50 posted on 06/11/2015 8:11:03 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

The United States Army lost the same amount of men fighting in the Pacific, as the Navy and Marines lost, in the entire war combined.


51 posted on 06/11/2015 8:11:42 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

Ike was still an idiot. He didn’t do many favours for the country. Not many have.


52 posted on 06/11/2015 8:14:50 AM PDT by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gusty

“The port facilities in Normandy were not big enough to handle the logistics for a quick win.”

Nor close enough when the push east toward Germany was in full swing.


53 posted on 06/11/2015 8:15:47 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
WE should never have given Iwo back to the Japanese.

President Johnson did it in 1968 so blame him. To be fair Nixon returned Okinawa in 1972.

54 posted on 06/11/2015 8:16:43 AM PDT by Timocrat (Ingnorantia non excusat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I posted this elsewhere, but think it is appropriate here. While there is a request for a donation, you can watch this fascinating graphic 18-minute display for free.

The graphics for Russian losses were horrific, and the disparity of American casualties between the Pacific and European campaigns were a surprise - to me anyway.

Check out http://www.fallen.io/ww2/


55 posted on 06/11/2015 8:21:58 AM PDT by Oatka (This is America. Assimilate or evaporate. [URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/currencyjunkie/me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

The Allies decided on unconditional surrender before they had gotten to the concentration camps. So it was just as well they took their time grinding the Germans down and not letting them have “stabbed in the back” excuse they conjured up after WW1. As it was, we would have probably nuked them before the Japanese if the war had still been active in Aug 45.


56 posted on 06/11/2015 8:25:24 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ricmc2175
MacArthor in just the Philippine campaign of 44/45 had over 62,000 casualties with over 12,000 KIA. That was about three times the KIA for D day.
57 posted on 06/11/2015 8:28:31 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

News Flash!!! General Eisenhower wasn’t President and therefor not Commander in Chief until 1953, eight years after the war


58 posted on 06/11/2015 8:34:33 AM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

OK “Supreme Allied commander and Operation Overlord”, I stand “corrected”.


59 posted on 06/11/2015 8:36:45 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower


60 posted on 06/11/2015 8:37:19 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-126 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson