askchapo

22767 readers

448 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

Posts must ask a question.
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net

quartz242@hexbear.net

replaceable@hexbear.net

VILenin@hexbear.net

EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net

InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net

Why did the US bother sending troops to Europe during the Second World War? (hexbear.net)

submitted 9 months ago by LarsAdultsen@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

AFAIK, their war lay primarily in the Pacific, and beyond supporting the Brits and Russians materially, I’m not really sure why the US would want to involve themselves physically in the European theatre. I do feel fear of Germans beating them to the bomb might have something to do with it, but that’s just conjecture.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The campaign in Sicily and Italy started 5 months after the conclusion of the battle of Stalingrad.

What would Europe have looked like at the end of the war if American troops hadn't poured in?

[–] LarsAdultsen@hexbear.net 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Weren’t the Germans completely routed on the Eastern front post-Stalingrad?

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 4 points 9 months ago

Yes, and especially post-Kursk.

Why do you send in an army to win a war that your ally is already winning?