Well as for the War, Rommel was a far better read, and as for insight and
knowledge I would prefer the Generals and not the politicians! One might
read Clinton for getting head, and LBJ for Vietnam........but still they
offered nothing of value! Try to Remember Churchill was a Military
failure( Battle of Gallipoli ). He for the most part of his military career
was only a war correspondent, had poor tactics and his only claim to fame is
he made great speeches! You read him!

See kid this was about D-Day and the infamy of it~

Just so you know many who served in N.Afrika also fought in Italy. Afrika's
point is that Americas involvement never had anything to do with the people
of Europe, we protected our oil interests first and foremost. America
thought US soldiers should die defending oil, not the people of Europe.
D-Day was NOT a noble deed~ Simply sacrificing US Sodiers for land! Anyone
who claims that it was to "save" Europe..... was way to late for that!

The point is... America jumped into War to protect it's oil, all the time
Hitler ravages Europe (we sit silent) olny then with Russia wining the war,
we wait until Russia heads for Berlin, then jump in and claim We won! D-Day
was a slaughter of US Soldiers 1.4 K killed 6K wounded.... 10K+ Soldiers
died that day.




"dpb" wrote in message ...
sawzdust wrote:
... ... I'd skip Churchill.

Then (as is apparent) you'd miss a great deal of context and oversight
of the prosecution of the war.

What does your reading of a soldier's diaries in N Africa say about the
strategic difficulties of the Allies in having promised Stalin a second
front in '42 but not being able to achieve that until mid '44 while the
Russian army was being hammered on the eastern front? Not much, I would
wager.

--