piefed.nullspace"Why didn't Eisenhower have a triumph in 1945? Was he stupid?"
PugJesushttps://media.piefed.social/posts/lc/wf/lcwfMLcRE2fWTW0.webp
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp4 Comments
Comments from other communities
Explanation: A triumph, in Ancient Rome, was accorded to a general who had defeated a major foe in a war, not just a single battle. In a triumph, the conquering general would ride through Rome on a chariot with his army, to the acclaim of the crowds.
During WW2, IKE WON THE WAR IN EUROPE. ROME ITSELF WAS IN ALLIED HANDS. IT WAS RIGHT THERE, RIPE FOR THE TAKING!
Ontario Canuck 🇨🇦🏳️🌈Why didn't he have a triumph? That question betrays a total ignorance of Eisenhower's character.
Aw, we’re just having fun with this, it’s not serious. XD
Ike was probably the one major Allied general who wasn’t enough of a diva to ever even consider such a move, you are correct.
And Richard Nixon would have stood behind Eisenhower and whisper “Remember you are mortal” over and over.
Would have loved to see his train of soldiers, tanks and weapons ….. and the long lines of Nazi officers and imprisoned German army that were captured.
Normally I’m not in favor of public executions, but damn if I wouldn’t support Hitler getting strangled at the end of that. AS IS TRADITION
Explanation: A triumph, in Ancient Rome, was accorded to a general who had defeated a major foe in a war, not just a single battle. In a triumph, the conquering general would ride through Rome on a chariot with his army, to the acclaim of the crowds.
During WW2, IKE WON THE WAR IN EUROPE. ROME ITSELF WAS IN ALLIED HANDS. IT WAS RIGHT THERE, RIPE FOR THE TAKING!