A nuanced attempt by Sen. Linsey Graham (R-SC) to assert that the U.S. should never have been in the position to have to launch the Normandy invasion 80 years ago fell with a thud on Sunday morning after he told a CBS host that D-Day was a "failure."Discussing battling Russian President Vladimir Put...
  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    71·
    5 months ago

    Right. Like, by what he appears to be suggesting, we should have actively joined the war in Europe earlier, instead of just supplying aid and intel to the Allies for so long before committing troops. Like somehow squash Hitler before he got very far.

    So it seems like he’s advocating for us going to war with Russia immediately.

    But in reality, he’s a Putin bitch boy, so that’s obviously not what he’s suggesting.

    Edit - Re-reading, I can’t come to any other conclusion than he thinks we shouldn’t have joined the fight at all. But we joined only when forced by Pearl Harbor, which was a result of our aid to the Allies. And IIRC, the US wasn’t really ready to mobilize our military for a campaign in Europe for we did anyway, which is why we were sending aid in the meantime.

    So the only logical conclusion I can draw is that he thinks the US should have stayed neutral. That it was out participation that was unnecessary. Particularly when he says we shouldn’t be sending Ukraine aid.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        2·
        5 months ago

        Well, I explained my reasoning in great detail. Do you disagree with any specific point?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          5 months ago

          It’s clear that what he’s saying is that reaching the point where D-Day was necessary is a failure on our part because Hitler should have been stopped much sooner and that what’s happening now in Russia has nothing to do with NATO’s expansion and is all because of Putin that would have pushed to expand Russia’s territory no matter what because he dreams of recreating the Russian Empire.

          What he’s implying is that the lessons from WW2 should apply here and we shouldn’t wait for a second D-day to be necessary before acting on that front.

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            11·
            5 months ago

            I’m not a WW2 buff, but I painted my understanding of the USA’s pre-D day readiness and why we didn’t jump in directly until forced.

            If that’s inaccurate, I’m interested in hearing a counter argument.

            So if your interpretation of his words are correct, it seems like it’s counter to what historians believe WRT to US’s readiness to mobilize our forces at the time. At least as I understand it.

            So either I understand this history here in correctly (very possible), or Lindsay is talking out his ass in a surprisingly specific way (also very possible), or he’s dog whistling for Nazis in that the US should have stayed out of it.

            Given the rewriting of Nazi history that the GOP has been practicing for years, I’m going with dog whistling.

            Edit - Just wanted to address the NATO point. I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with that. No one but Russian propagandists even claim that Russia attacked because of the NATO application.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              11·
              5 months ago

              Did you read the quote?

              “We celebrated the 80th anniversary of D-Day. It was a failure. It was the 'unnecessary war, ’ described by Winston Churchill. We had a dozen chances to stop Hitler. It’s not about NATO. It’s not about American weapons in Ukraine. It’s about a megalomaniac wanting to create the Russian Empire by force of arms.”

              Churchill didn’t think the war was unnecessary because the Germans should have been allowed to do what they wanted

              https://scottmanning.com/content/what-did-churchill-mean-by-unnecessary-war/

              The “we” in the quote isn’t the USA only either.