different points of view

Roosevelt had very little interest in North Africa and US intervention was secured after much hard work by Churchill, who persuaded them to do so against strong public opposition. Did the US retain control of these 'colonies' after the war ?

But I don't really know why I'm replying .....

 

It would really be a boon if you read some decent history books, or failing that, seriously browsing what we have been writing in this forum for the last few years... You have to learn how to distinguish History from Propaganda.

May I ask where you are from?

Well, Martin, it could be argued that the US did retain a lot of colonies under the Neo-Colonialism form but that would be a long discussion that would end with me floating on the river belly down

 

Probably, he wouldn't be back. He recommended me to come, and i heard about this site from my other friend. Very interesting.)))
I,d say smth but first i'll do cite the book of person mentioned by Andurf:

Mr. Golovushkin V.I. “The Second World War. The Battle for the North Africa. The View from Russia”. That is that person.​

He cited Werner M., “Attack can win in 1943”: “Up to the end of 1942 there were 70 divisions on the British islands”.​

According to Soviet estimates, he cited: “In the autumn of 1942 against 138 USA and UK divisions in the Western Europe there was only 35 German (crossing to British historian J.Grigg - ?). Only the USA had 6900 desant vehicles and were planning to have 12000 up to the end of that year. The US and UK transport meanings in Mediterrian and Atlantic areas could provide more than 63000 soldiers and 2300 tanks be carried in first invasion division”. Than he says that G.Raybern (“The Canadians in Dieppe”) pointed out the fact that 20 English and US reporters were on convoy ships while Dieppe landing attempt. And also is citing Raybern saying that the desant troops had no stationary machine guns and artillery while Dieppe was on of the most strong defense points.​

Than Mr.Golovushkin found out that the operations of the US-UK troops in North Feance in June of 1944 showed that the strong Atlantic defense line of Nazis was a myth (what does he mean I wonder). And cites German field Marshall fon Rudshtetdt who said that the Atlantic defense line was an illusion and propaganda myth (according to L.Heart “On the Other Side of the Hill”).​

However, I don’t know does Mr.Golovushkin take to mind the Pacific and others operational theaters while concerning the amount of US-UK divisions.​

But the truth is that one Eastern front which was the only one for the USSR, destructed the main power of Nazy Ally. The amount of troops and victims, the scape of military operations – are the proof. While that war Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower confirmed that fact – the East Front was the main in that War.​

​

​

​

​

Probably there is much more interesting questions. More global I would say.​

For ex, the history of Atomic Weapon, the reasons of the Cold War, the difference between talin's USSR and Hitler's Germany...
​

I think people all over understand simple things – the Nazy ideology was evil. As one American guy said – “I was brought up with saying that we came to Europe to help people and that is the way I should bring up my children”. ​

But it is looking like true that politics isn’t so simple.​

A lot of Propaganda in our rich for manipulating technologies days.​

And even from this thread which started to concern Korea, Iraq, Vietnam etc that is evident that some politic questions of the Past are very actual. Being native Caucasian, seeing how the blood hood has been inspirited at my own place, I understand that in globalizing world the questions of history using by today politicians are the questions of everybody’s concern because politicians could bring not only prosperity but an evil to our homes.​

And we, people, nowday have the opportunities of communication we didn’t have before – for example, Internet.​

And such communication between us like here can be some chance for better future.​

I just write some my understandings. ​

​

 

Ahhh....selective use of sources.....great fun when you have the original book to hand, which I do ( Liddell Hart, The Other Side Of The Hill, revised and enlarged, Cassell, London 1951 ).

Perhaps it may also be helpful to this discussion to use the direct quote from von Rundstedt on p.383 : -

' I was surprised that you did not attempt an invasion in 1941....but at that time I was on the Eastern Front and out of touch with the situation in the West. When I came there, and knew the situation better, I did not expect an early invasion, for I realized that your resources were insufficient....I expected an invasion in 1943...'

As I said, selective use of sources to support a hobby-horse ( David Irvingski ? )

 

In any case, at the time the Allies were launching Overlord the Red Army was tooling up for Operation Bagration, that also had the more photogenic name of Destruction of Army Group Centre, and that's what it was.

So from a Soviet point of view at that time the question might be asked "If you took so long to launch your 2nd. Front and we are already winning by ourselves, why bother now, eh?"

http://www.historynet.com/operation-bagration-soviet-offensive-of-1944.htm
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=5719
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/10464-importance-operation-bagration-operation-cobra.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_3-88_histp.htm

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf (114pg pdf)