2006-12-15 06:35:43 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Yes, he was. He described this as attacking the 'soft underbelly of Europe' and said it would have been preferable to attcaking via France. But he overlooked the logistics problems of the lengthy supply routes - all matériel would have to have come via ships vulnerable to air and submarine attack. No 'PLUTO' (pipe line under the ocean) to supply fuel. Also the terrain would have been far more difficult - fighting through the Alps, rather than across the plains of Northern Europe. I reckon it could have added at least 2 years to the war. Also, it would have given the Soviets carte blanche to continue rolling across the self same plains, rather than stopping at Berlin
2006-12-15 06:51:03 · answer #1 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Allies did attack Germany by way of Normandy, France,
It was called D-DAY
2006-12-15 11:54:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, quit the opposite. It drew forces away from the western wall and entraped them in a no win situation. It weakened the German army for a fast advance accross the southern tier.
2006-12-15 13:23:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does it matter?
2006-12-15 06:38:52 · answer #4 · answered by Leo 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋