Hi Peteratwar,peteratwar wrote:Another rant I see. It would seem that you are twisting what went on to try and satisfy some preconceived notions of your own.
Your first comment even if there were a nugget of reason in it totally ignores the fact that Churchill on his own did NOT set up British/Allied Strategy
Your comments re Roosevelt seems to be a tirade against Roosevelt and contains no evidence whatsoever. Granted he trusted Stalin too much.
Your reason with regards to Overlord is of course a total non-starter. Overlord went in because there was a need to defeat Germany. The timing was right in that involved the first time sufficient trained troops and support and supplies and means of transport were available to throw against a much weakened enemy with a good chance of success. Roundup did not meet these criteria for 1943 let alone 1942.
The North African/Italian campaign had of course been successful. If you think it was like Gallipoli then you can't be reading the same books as the rest of the world. Allied strategy was based on what was possible given the circumstances of the war. The Normandy landings were chosen after very careful deliberation and worked well. It fooled the Germans and clearly you as well. It did NOT dismiss the value of having a port, it recognised the difficulty of capturing one big enough and in working order in order to be a supply base. Events proved correct.
No the Allies weren't lucky, they judged well. Your implied threats of V2 and nerve gas in obliterating UK just doesn't stand up to serious consideration
Judging by the fact you almost only post in the what-if forum, and I don't see much depth to any of your points here other than History Channel level history, I don't feel like it would be that constructive to debate your post.
Past that , I 'll leave this topic now. I never wanted to get seriously involved in this "what-if", to begin with.