Steve Hix wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Lisakbernacchia) wrote:

WW II in Westeren Europe began on D-day Before that it was just a load of
inefffective feints

I would love to see you tell a veteran of Crete/Greece, Italy etc that
the campaigns they were involved in were ineffective feints. Italy
(in particular the Battles of Cassino) drew a large number of crack
German troops away from France etc (some of these troops had served in
Stalingrad, so clearly were experienced by this time), and had the
effect of keeping the Germans occupied. The Allies also learned a lot
from Anzio (ie how to not conduct a seaborne landing), and after Crete
the Allies also learned not to stage an airborne invasion in broad
daylight. Crete was almost a victory for the Allies - they
surrendered because they had lost communications, so were not aware
that they had the upper hand. If the battles in Italy did not take
place, then the Germans would have directed their troops & other
resources elsewhere - to wait for an invasion from England perhaps? I
am not saying that Cassino was not stupid - any person with half a
brain could stand at the various cemeteries around Cassino (all of
which have a view of the monastery) and draw their own conclusions as
to Mark Clark's ability to conduct a military campaign (count the
crosses - 4300 in the Commonwealth Cemetary alone, including my great
uncle and my grandfather's best friend). I just feel that you do The
US 5th Army (which included Poles, Indians, Ghurkas, British, Canadian
& New Zealand soldiers) a great disservice by stating that the Italian
campaign was an ineffective feint - Rome taken before D-Day, 20,000
Germans dead, and the German Army pre-occupied with holding the Gothic
line until the war ended. Furthermore, I haven't even mentioned the
Dambusters Raid (clearly ineffective - the Ruhr dams bombed and
destroyed, German steel production put back 6 months.....), and the
Battle of the Atlantic (to destroy German shipping and U-Boat
activity).