In Charge: Eisenhower or Stalin?

[PoliticalChic]

Communism is not rooted in US society. That's pure speculation for shock and awe..

1.

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat

.

There is no proletariat in the USA today..

The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.

2.Private property is allowed in the US.



3

. Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

Private banks abound in the US..

4.

Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation

.

Lots of private enterprises in this industry...in the US, very few for the state..in fact even the military uses private manufacturers for it's needs, unless we buy it from Britain...and even then it's is probably a private contractor..

I could go on for pages, yet I don't think it is necessary to prove my point..

I used some points from this site...

The Principles of Communism

Not only has communism won, taken over the society, but it has done so so definitively that seemingly intelligent folks - yeah, even you- see it but can't process the fact.


I'll show you what I mean:

Here are the views espoused by Liberal Progressive Democrat elites today:

1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.




4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.




7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."




9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."






10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?




I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals from the post-war era...
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals




And that is what we are living under today.

 

[Camp]

PC is motivated by a world view rooted in an end of days theology of Jesus in America coupled to an Opus Dei type of hatred of any type of collectivism, particularly Stalinism. She filters all "evidence" through her filters. Thus, Eisenhower and Marshall were willing dupes of world-wide communist goals.

OK, but that doesn't explain how she figured the allied armies could cross the Alps, with or without elephants.

Post #38....take notes, you moron.

Don't need notes from you. You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing in your uneducated and confused post #38 address's how land troops would move into combat with German troops and an assault on Germany itself. The only plausible option would have been through the narrow corridors, though still mountainous, through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary.

You found an AAC General that claimed he could win the war if only given the chance to fly endless missions over the Alps and bomb Germany into submission. As if flying out of Italy would somehow be of some unknown greater tactical or strategic value than the already operating campaign being conducted out of Britain.

You seemed to have started your thread thinking the invasion of Europe began in France and ignored a southern invasion route because of some nonsence conspiracy theory about Stalin contolling everyone from FDR to Marshall to Eisenhower. You write about military subjects without knowldge of military history, tactics and strategies. You have no concept of the cost in lives of ordering bombing missions that have to travel over the Alps which would prevent any chance of survival for planes and crews that needed to emergency land, crash land or parachute.

You put great importance in the surrender of Italy as if it had some impact on the battles and war in that county, ignoring the fact that the war in Italy was almost entirely against German troops, not Italian troops.

Your idea in this thread is more than a joke. It doesn't deserve to be called a joke. It shows your lame and very sad obsession with a long ago debunked idea about a conspiracy theory. You bare false withness against wonderful heroes who saved our nation so you can promote some warped and twisted agenda's to demonize people who do not share your political beliefs. It's a sickness at best, an evilness at worst, and perhaps a combination of the two.

 

[Moonglow]

Communism is not rooted in US society. That's pure speculation for shock and awe..

1.

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat

.

There is no proletariat in the USA today..



2.Private property is allowed in the US.



3

Private banks abound in the US..

4.

Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation

.

Lots of private enterprises in this industry...in the US, very few for the state..in fact even the military uses private manufacturers for it's needs, unless we buy it from Britain...and even then it's is probably a private contractor..

I could go on for pages, yet I don't think it is necessary to prove my point..

I used some points from this site...

The Principles of Communism

Not only has communism won, taken over the society, but it has done so so definitively that seemingly intelligent folks - yeah, even you- see it but can't process the fact.


I'll show you what I mean:

Here are the views espoused by Liberal Progressive Democrat elites today:

1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.




4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.




7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."




9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."






10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?




I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals from the post-war era...
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals




And that is what we are living under today.

well at last, you finally admit you are a communist also......You want to vote, no sane non-communist would want women to vote...

 

[Camp]

Watch the predictable Coulter/Malkin wannabe but neverwillbe come back and declare everything she has posted is fact, claim victory and call you a name like moron or idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK, but that doesn't explain how she figured the allied armies could cross the Alps, with or without elephants.

Post #38....take notes, you moron.

Don't need notes from you. You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing in your uneducated and confused post #38 address's how land troops would move into combat with German troops and an assault on Germany itself. The only plausible option would have been through the narrow corridors, though still mountainous, through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary.

You found an AAC General that claimed he could win the war if only given the chance to fly endless missions over the Alps and bomb Germany into submission. As if flying out of Italy would somehow be of some unknown greater tactical or strategic value than the already operating campaign being conducted out of Britain.

You seemed to have started your thread thinking the invasion of Europe began in France and ignored a southern invasion route because of some nonsence conspiracy theory about Stalin contolling everyone from FDR to Marshall to Eisenhower. You write about military subjects without knowldge of military history, tactics and strategies. You have no concept of the cost in lives of ordering bombing missions that have to travel over the Alps which would prevent any chance of survival for planes and crews that needed to emergency land, crash land or parachute.

You put great importance in the surrender of Italy as if it had some impact on the battles and war in that county, ignoring the fact that the war in Italy was almost entirely against German troops, not Italian troops.

Your idea in this thread is more than a joke. It doesn't deserve to be called a joke. It shows your lame and very sad obsession with a long ago debunked idea about a conspiracy theory. You bare false withness against wonderful heroes who saved our nation so you can promote some warped and twisted agenda's to demonize people who do not share your political beliefs. It's a sickness at best, an evilness at worst, and perhaps a combination of the two.

So, you are the expert over Spaatz and Eisenhower?

I was correct: you're a moron.

 

[Camp]

Post #38....take notes, you moron.

Don't need notes from you. You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing in your uneducated and confused post #38 address's how land troops would move into combat with German troops and an assault on Germany itself. The only plausible option would have been through the narrow corridors, though still mountainous, through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary.

You found an AAC General that claimed he could win the war if only given the chance to fly endless missions over the Alps and bomb Germany into submission. As if flying out of Italy would somehow be of some unknown greater tactical or strategic value than the already operating campaign being conducted out of Britain.

You seemed to have started your thread thinking the invasion of Europe began in France and ignored a southern invasion route because of some nonsence conspiracy theory about Stalin contolling everyone from FDR to Marshall to Eisenhower. You write about military subjects without knowldge of military history, tactics and strategies. You have no concept of the cost in lives of ordering bombing missions that have to travel over the Alps which would prevent any chance of survival for planes and crews that needed to emergency land, crash land or parachute.

You put great importance in the surrender of Italy as if it had some impact on the battles and war in that county, ignoring the fact that the war in Italy was almost entirely against German troops, not Italian troops.

Your idea in this thread is more than a joke. It doesn't deserve to be called a joke. It shows your lame and very sad obsession with a long ago debunked idea about a conspiracy theory. You bare false withness against wonderful heroes who saved our nation so you can promote some warped and twisted agenda's to demonize people who do not share your political beliefs. It's a sickness at best, an evilness at worst, and perhaps a combination of the two.

So, you are the expert over Spaatz and Eisenhower?

I was correct: you're a moron.

Look up FUSAG you nut job. Neither Spaatz not Eiesenhower had any intention of marching into battle side by side with the Soviet troops through Southern or Eastern Europe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't need notes from you. You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing in your uneducated and confused post #38 address's how land troops would move into combat with German troops and an assault on Germany itself. The only plausible option would have been through the narrow corridors, though still mountainous, through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary.

You found an AAC General that claimed he could win the war if only given the chance to fly endless missions over the Alps and bomb Germany into submission. As if flying out of Italy would somehow be of some unknown greater tactical or strategic value than the already operating campaign being conducted out of Britain.

You seemed to have started your thread thinking the invasion of Europe began in France and ignored a southern invasion route because of some nonsence conspiracy theory about Stalin contolling everyone from FDR to Marshall to Eisenhower. You write about military subjects without knowldge of military history, tactics and strategies. You have no concept of the cost in lives of ordering bombing missions that have to travel over the Alps which would prevent any chance of survival for planes and crews that needed to emergency land, crash land or parachute.

You put great importance in the surrender of Italy as if it had some impact on the battles and war in that county, ignoring the fact that the war in Italy was almost entirely against German troops, not Italian troops.

Your idea in this thread is more than a joke. It doesn't deserve to be called a joke. It shows your lame and very sad obsession with a long ago debunked idea about a conspiracy theory. You bare false withness against wonderful heroes who saved our nation so you can promote some warped and twisted agenda's to demonize people who do not share your political beliefs. It's a sickness at best, an evilness at worst, and perhaps a combination of the two.

So, you are the expert over Spaatz and Eisenhower?

I was correct: you're a moron.

Look up FUSAG you nut job. Neither Spaatz not Eiesenhower had any intention of marching into battle side by side with the Soviet troops through Southern or Eastern Europe.

I must have missed the part where you mentioned how many stars you had.....


....how many was it again?



Or, rather....which do you have more of, military stars or IQ points?

 

[regent]

Be interesting to hear how all this is taught at West Point, or a community college or even in a college text. The problems seems to be the need for some posters to put forth history to meet their political needs, and so Ike becomes a communist, and Stalin, after his stint as a four star general in the American army, gets a pension from same.

 

[Camp]

Military stars

 

[JakeStarkey]

Post #38....take notes, you moron.

Don't need notes from you. You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing in your uneducated and confused post #38 address's how land troops would move into combat with German troops and an assault on Germany itself. The only plausible option would have been through the narrow corridors, though still mountainous, through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary.

You found an AAC General that claimed he could win the war if only given the chance to fly endless missions over the Alps and bomb Germany into submission. As if flying out of Italy would somehow be of some unknown greater tactical or strategic value than the already operating campaign being conducted out of Britain.

You seemed to have started your thread thinking the invasion of Europe began in France and ignored a southern invasion route because of some nonsence conspiracy theory about Stalin contolling everyone from FDR to Marshall to Eisenhower. You write about military subjects without knowldge of military history, tactics and strategies. You have no concept of the cost in lives of ordering bombing missions that have to travel over the Alps which would prevent any chance of survival for planes and crews that needed to emergency land, crash land or parachute.

You put great importance in the surrender of Italy as if it had some impact on the battles and war in that county, ignoring the fact that the war in Italy was almost entirely against German troops, not Italian troops.

Your idea in this thread is more than a joke. It doesn't deserve to be called a joke. It shows your lame and very sad obsession with a long ago debunked idea about a conspiracy theory. You bare false withness against wonderful heroes who saved our nation so you can promote some warped and twisted agenda's to demonize people who do not share your political beliefs. It's a sickness at best, an evilness at worst, and perhaps a combination of the two.

So, you are the expert over Spaatz and Eisenhower?

I was correct: you're a moron.

Spaatz was wrong and Eisenhower was correct in not following his suggestions. British Air Marshall "Bomber" Harris had the same screwy ideas as espoused by General Billy Marshall twenty years earlier.

PC, you truly are a child about these matters, and your philosophical ultrabias makes it all even worse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So, you are the expert over Spaatz and Eisenhower?

I was correct: you're a moron.

Look up FUSAG you nut job. Neither Spaatz not Eiesenhower had any intention of marching into battle side by side with the Soviet troops through Southern or Eastern Europe.

I must have missed the part where you mentioned how many stars you had.........how many was it again?

Or, rather....which do you have more of, military stars or IQ points?

You have neither stars or the objective ability to evaluate your OP

You are controlled by a crazy anti-communist Jesus in America end times belief system.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look up FUSAG you nut job. Neither Spaatz not Eiesenhower had any intention of marching into battle side by side with the Soviet troops through Southern or Eastern Europe.

I must have missed the part where you mentioned how many stars you had.........how many was it again?

Or, rather....which do you have more of, military stars or IQ points?

You have neither stars or the objective ability to evaluate your OP

You are controlled by a crazy anti-communist Jesus in America end times belief system.

Let's be honest, Jakal....


I'm somewhere between you and 'expert.'


Every one of your posts can be boiled down to "Pleeezzzeee...let me be relevant!!!"



You're not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Communism is not rooted in US society. That's pure speculation for shock and awe..

1..

There is no proletariat in the USA today..



2.Private property is allowed in the US.



3

Private banks abound in the US..

4. .

Lots of private enterprises in this industry...in the US, very few for the state..in fact even the military uses private manufacturers for it's needs, unless we buy it from Britain...and even then it's is probably a private contractor..

I could go on for pages, yet I don't think it is necessary to prove my point..

I used some points from this site...

The Principles of Communism

Not only has communism won, taken over the society, but it has done so so definitively that seemingly intelligent folks - yeah, even you- see it but can't process the fact.


I'll show you what I mean:

Here are the views espoused by Liberal Progressive Democrat elites today:

1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.




4. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.




7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."




9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."






10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man." Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?




I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals from the post-war era...
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals




And that is what we are living under today.

well at last, you finally admit you are a communist also......You want to vote, no sane non-communist would want women to vote...

I guess you don't realize that your attempt to side-step the post is, actually, proof that I am spot on.



Communism has accomplished just about all of the goals outlined in my post.....and you are perfectly happy to live under their aegis.


The nation has given up its mission statement in return for material benefits.....

...that is what Marxism is, materialism, and the reason its proponents insist on atheism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Be interesting to hear how all this is taught at West Point, or a community college or even in a college text. The problems seems to be the need for some posters to put forth history to meet their political needs, and so Ike becomes a communist, and Stalin, after his stint as a four star general in the American army, gets a pension from same.

9. Even a careful reading of Eisenhower's memoire, "Crusade in Europe." doesn't offer any real explanation of his change of heart, and doesn't say that he was leaned on or offered command and another star to champion Normandy over Italy....but, remember that George Marshall was in charge of Eisenhower's promotions....

...and the following insight comes from Marshall's response to General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "
Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Eaker stated that it would be "easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France. The bases, he pointed out, had already been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica.

After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




Seems logical, even evident, that Eisenhower received the same treatment from his boss, Marshall.





10. BTW....Eisenhower halted US forces before they could liberate Berlin, Prague, and Vienna.
Who told him to do that?......And why do you suppose?





The purpose of this thread was to show that Joseph Stalin dictated the course of Allied military actions during WWII.
He did so with the intention of taking over half of Europe.
He accomplished all he planed on.




I believe that requirement has been satisfied.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

they were both in charge or murdering thousands of women and children.thats one thing they were in charge of.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Who Else Liked Ike? Stalin; That's Who!

what a great world we live in,FDR,churchill and Ike all buddie buddie with a dictater.

 

[westwall]

Who determined the war plans of the Allies...Eisenhower or Stalin?
Who ran the show?




1. The American soldiers who fought in WWII, correctly known as " The Greatest Generation," were true believers in America and the values of the Founders. How ironic, how truly pathetic, that just a few generations later, 65 million Americans would be convinced to vote for the representative of every desire that communism endorsed.

But, back to that war....here is a glimpse into the power that sociopath Joseph Stalin had during that war itself.....
Stalin actually delivered the orders that were followed in pursuit of WWII.




2. Stalin demanded 'a second front' be opened in Europe, to hinder Hitler's attacks on Russia....and a major question was whether it would be via Italy, or from northern France, i.e., Normandy.

Since Stalin's agenda had always been to occupy Eastern Europe, he ordered that it be via France, leaving the middle of Europe to the occupation by the Red Army.








3. It is unlikely that historians ever will be able to determine the proportionate share of responsibility which must be attributed collectively to Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins and George Marshall.... Roosevelt had the power, but he was influenced by Hopkins and Marshall. Hopkins also influenced Marshall, and therefore was the dominant member of the triumvirate.

Of the three, Marshall's record is the most tragic and incomprehensible. Throughout World War II and the postwar years, down to 1951, when he was largely responsible for the removal of General MacArthur from command in the Far East and for the strategy of appeasement which resulted in our defeat in the Korean War.... The record of his service to the communist cause, however innocent, is appalling, and hardly could have been worse if he had consciously acted on instructions from the Kremlin.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.118





4. The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Henry Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").

The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119



As we will prove, Eisenhower changed his view to accord with Marshall's.




a. Churchill strongly opposed the cross channel invasion both on military and political grounds. He was thinking about the future of Europe and the world, with Germany destroyed and triumphant communism dominating the Eurasian heartland. This prompted a difficulty for American "Russia First" strategists." A major factor in all American thinking of that time," writes General Eisenhower, "was a lively suspicion that the British contemplated the agreed-upon cross-channel concept with distaste and with considerable mental reservations. . . ."

b. Eisenhower told Marshall that he favored a limited operation on the northwest coast of France in the fall of 1942 to capture an area which later would serve as a bridgehead for a large-scale invasion. ( "Crusade in Europe," by Dwight D. Eisenhower) He further states that in June, 1942, "the great bulk of the fighting equipment, naval, air and ground, needed for the invasion did not exist."

Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."





Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.

But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.





So, why was the invasion through France, rather than Italy?

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer; Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent; George Marshall, a willing accomplice.

Joseph Stalin dictated the Allies invasion plans.

There's no doubt that FDR was an Uncle Joe lover. I don't know enough about Hopkins to make a determination on him, but Marshall was responsible for saving what little military we had prior to WWII. It was his policies that guaranteed money to develop new aircraft that would otherwise never have seen the light of day were it not for his efforts.

As far as invading up through Italy instead of across France, I am glad we didn't. Italy is terribly easy for the defender. One battle as an example would be Cassino. It was held by a reinforced German Para regiment (the 3rd) and we bombed them first, dropping over 700 tons of bombs, then fired 196,000 artillery shells into what was left of the city.
The survivors , now numbering around a reinforced company held off repeated attacks from two different divisions.

They finally left when we landed at Anzio and turned their flank that way. Italy would have seen us take terrible losses. France had a much better terrain for a mechanized army (which we were) and once Operation Cobra blew the hole in the German lines and Patton made his dash it was over for the Germans. They never recovered from that, nor could they.