On the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, Wapoo prints a denigration of the soldiers - the Democrats’ way of remembrance.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/one-of-d-days-most-famous-heroic-assaults-may-have-been-unnecessary/ar-AACi2Lq?ocid=spartandhp
Maybe you should have read what you posted, the Washington post is simply reporting the news, and from your link, this is the news…
His startling conclusion: The assault was unnecessary, the commander of the U.S. Army Ranger unit failed to follow orders, putting his men directly in harm’s way, and U.S. military leaders should have targeted Maisy and its battery of heavy artillery guns instead of Pointe du Hoc, which the Germans had largely abandoned by the time of the Normandy invasion.
“I have nothing but respect for the Rangers and what they did at Pointe du Hoc,” Sterne said in a recent interview from his home in England. “It was truly heroic. But the facts are the facts.”
In other words, a D-Day version of Bowe Bergdahl would have likely refused the mission. Fortunately, FDR didnt welcome traitors back home.
1 Like
This might have been an interesting article three months ago, but they printed it today, particularly with the word “unnecessary” in the headline for a reason. It is the timing of such an article, and the headline’s wording that shows the disdain Wapoo’s people have for anything other than some traitorous tranny, or a deserter.
You are either unwilling or unable to see the intent of the article and more importantly, its timing.
Unnecessary is in the article title because of the evidence recently uncovered demonstrating so…
The guns in question were moved but the Rangers moved out to their secondary mission which was to set up a road block to prevent reinforcement at Omaha in that process the Rangers found the guns and destroyed them. They were still in position to fire on Omaha Beach. The Washington Post guy is full of it.
Agreed. And likewise for the morons here who think they even know what “unnecessary” means in that context.
Just want to point out that lots of news outlets are picking up this story.
The story itself peripherally mentions that historians disagree with this guy. But you really need to parse that out of the rest of the article which is overwhelmingly critical of the assault.
It’s one guy’s interpretation of things, 75 years after the fact.
War is hell. Lots of things happen in the fog of war. (A term the story uses.)
Yes, the timing of this article is suspect. The guy has been out there pushing this idea for years. Decades. But now, on the bring of the D-Day anniversary, this is what our media are CHOOSING to pick up and propagate.
Sterne is not a WaPo guy. He also exposes Klein as a charlatan giving lectures on the assault as having participated in it without having even been there the day of the assault.
The Normandy invasion was staged to increase the US deaths.
Just like the street fights on Okinawa.
It doesn’t matter which invasion was bigger.
Get more Americans killed. That’s the spirit.
Derailing the thread?
The OP has nothing to do with battles staged to increase our deaths. Nor does it have anything to do with okinawa.
If yours isn’t a troll post, I don’t know what is.
Lol and Stern was a dip shit that never served a day in his life… but hes knows better than career Operations Planners that actually served lol…then he spins it into a laughable conspiracy…then the Washington Compost prints it on the eve of the Historical Battle… Just another couple of lilliputians trying to tear down folks who really mattered and earning a few bucks while they are at it.
And if the Army was going to cover something up it would be Cisterna not a little cf on D-Day.
Neither has Trump, what’s the relevance
Yours is …Non sequitur trollish bs…lol