History questions not worth their own thread IV

[ParkCungHee]

God, was that really a thing?

We had to threaten to cancel D-Day, take our toys to the pacific, and leave them to their own devices to talk the British out of it. Since they insisted at first that if the Americans didn't want to come, it would be a British operation.
And yeah, Privatehudson has the idea. It was in 1943, and they wanted to follow up the, ahem, success of the Italian campaign with a landing in Greece.

 

[Quackers]

As i understand it, we hadn't looted all of Greece at that point. We coulda completed the set!
Anyway your mocking of Churchill's strategy of a death by 1000 cuts at the underbelly of Europe is unfounded. It may have won the war quicker then D-day and all that nonsense

 

[Cutlass]

Well, the problem is that the "soft underbelly" was actually much more defensible terrain than most of France is. So it wouldn't have been easy under the best of circumstances.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, the problem is that the "soft underbelly" was actually much more defensible terrain than most of France is. So it wouldn't have been easy under the best of circumstances.

I don't know, that can cut both ways. It would also be easier to defend the beachheads after the initial landing. And if the allies landed in several places (which they could controlling the Mediterranean and the air) the germans would have a hell of a time to dislodge them. If they sent large forces to oppose landings in Greece they'd risk having them cut off by new landing on their backs - Greece being a peninsula and all. Also, partisans in the southern balkans were strong enough to hamper their communication lines.

The landing in France had a greater potential payoff, but also carried a bigger risk, as the germans could move their forces more easily against the bridgeheads. By 1943 it was probably too risky, even if the allies had all their stuff ready. By 1944 the germans were weaker, of course.

I don't know any details, of course. But it doesn't look like outright folly.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That would actually have been a good reason for the brit nobs to go with representation of the colonials in parliament.

Except it would still create the same problems and Colonial governments would demand more autonomy and greater control over their representatives (I could see them paying the salary for their MPs as a method to keep them beholden to their colonial legislatures similar to how many governors were treated).

 

[Cutlass]

I don't know, that can cut both ways. It would also be easier to defend the beachheads after the initial landing. And if the allies landed in several places (which they could controlling the Mediterranean and the air) the germans would have a hell of a time to dislodge them. If they sent large forces to oppose landings in Greece they'd risk having them cut off by new landing on their backs - Greece being a peninsula and all. Also, partisans in the southern balkans were strong enough to hamper their communication lines.

The landing in France had a greater potential payoff, but also carried a bigger risk, as the germans could move their forces more easily against the bridgeheads. By 1943 it was probably too risky, even if the allies had all their stuff ready. By 1944 the germans were weaker, of course.

I don't know any details, of course. But it doesn't look like outright folly.

One thing to keep in mind is that the US Army was not prepared for a major land war in 1942. And was only marginally so in 1943. So a lot of what Churchill and Stalin wanted the US to do, we were not ready for.

 

[overkill9]

One thing to keep in mind is that the US Army was not prepared for a major land war in 1942. And was only marginally so in 1943. So a lot of what Churchill and Stalin wanted the US to do, we were not ready for.

Funny how army was like that while marines were already kicking out japs from guadacanal from the middle of 1942 with much more diminished resources.

Also, 'Invade' Greece? Wrong word used in flimsy hopes of portraying a clearly better side as evil. Typical cheap words of those who love the revisionist history that suits their own need to insult a nation so that their confused identity has a measure of meaning

 

[ParkCungHee]

Your opposition to using words to actually mean things has already been noted. If the English language is a sore spot for you, I suggest you find a forum with less words.

 

[Bowsling]

Well, "liberate" is usually the term used when applied to the victorious side.

 

[overkill9]

Your opposition to using words to actually mean things has already been noted. If the English language is a sore spot for you, I suggest you find a forum with less words.

You sure you are not talking about yourself? Do try more one liners thinking they mean anything like an attempt a snappy backtalk. You general attitude in that regard is very interesting. Care to find more excuses to back up your attitude with that mouth of yours?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, "liberate" is usually the term used when applied to the victorious side.

No it's not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_North_Africa

Even if we were to commit to the idea that "invasions are only when the 'bad guys' do it," that would be completely absurd for most history. Outside of nationalist wanking, are we really going to pick a side for the Bruce Invasion? The Rough Wooings? The Gojoseon–Han War? The Fenian Raids?

 

[say1988]

Funny how army was like that while marines were already kicking out japs from guadacanal from the middle of 1942 with much more diminished resources.

An invasion of Europe would be on a greater scale than Guadalcanal or various other islands. The planned 1943 landing on the continent would have involved 48 divisions (there were around 5 or 6 on Guadalcanal).

And there is also the issue that there were significant numbers of US Army troops fighting throughout the Pacific Theatre, including 2 divisions on Guadalcanal.

 

[Bowsling]

No it's not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Italy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_Sicily
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_invasion_of_North_Africa

Even if we were to commit to the idea that "invasions are only when the 'bad guys' do it," that would be completely absurd for most history. Outside of nationalist wanking, are we really going to pick a side for the Bruce Invasion? The Rough Wooings? The Gojoseon–Han War? The Fenian Raids?

I guess I forgot the smilie at the end of my post. Sorry, chief.

 

[overkill9]

Wikipedia, always the source of 'reliable and credible' citation for the lazy and ignorant.

You really gotta laugh whenever someone cites that website as if it is somehow credible in the least. Prime indication of the level of debate anywhere.

 

[Bowsling]

Well, the four examples listed are almost universally called "invasions".

 

[overkill9]

Well, the four examples listed are almost universally called "invasions".

'Campaign' would be a word better fit for the task. Invasion is a loaded term, certainly satisfying to have the enemy being on the receiving end for one but provide opportunistic revisionists a pathetic excuse for crying 'INVASION' as they love to latch onto slimmest of tangents for painting false portrayals. Campaign would be much more neutral and militarily correct term.

Besides, universality does not equal credibility or right decision. If anyone had to list all the universality by 'professionals' that have been debunked over the course of history this forum server would go into overload.

 

[ParkCungHee]

When people complain about wikipedia articles, rather than point out what's wrong with the articles, it shows they don't know how to actually critically evaluate a source.

 

[Bowsling]

The forum overloads on a regular basis. Any connection between posting your "list" and issues with the server would be superficial.

 

[overkill9]

Really? Wikipedia, the credible? It was a website that started out as an open-edit open source. Internet wiki is not the most secure of mediums nor most credible due to its lack of comparative oversight.

Let's see, the articles contain many of their citations from only several sources. It is as if someone took a few books than wrote paraphrased summaries of them on subjects that hundreds of books and thousands of research papers have been written on at least. You call this a credible source? This is at best a tertiary references filled by those who are willing, not necessarily those who are qualified.

That answer your little question about 'complaining'? Some things are self evident enough without you making cheap comments dragging on every little pathetic excuses to try to buttress your lack of motivation or insight. Have some dignity for f's sake.

 

[History_Buff]

Funny how army was like that while marines were already kicking out japs from guadacanal from the middle of 1942 with much more diminished resources.

Guadalcanal wasn't really a major land campaign like there was in North Africa and Europe. It was really more of a fleet action, and while the Marines played a critical part, had the Japanese not been deprived of damn near all their supplies, it's unlikely they would have held.

Such a complete shut down of German supply lines was simply not going to happen, especially not in '43.