29
"Why didn't Eisenhower have a triumph in 1945? Was he stupid?" (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/noncredibledefense@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] j4k3@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Hard to parade all the way to Nuremberg to strangle some Nazi's in the temple of Jupiter

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

WORTH EVERY STEP

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

They couldn't find a skeleton to wispier "one day you shall die" into his ear. That shit was important to history dudes, IDK why.

[-] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

I'm too stupid to get it

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

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.

IKE WON THE WAR. ROME ITSELF WAS IN ALLIED HANDS. IT WAS RIGHT THERE, RIPE FOR THE TAKING!

this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
29 points (100.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

4272 readers
1 users here now

Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!

Rules:

  1. Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

Related communities:

For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
PugJesus@lemmy.world
PugJesus@lemmy.dbzer0.com