Brand New Sentence

Fair enough. I just think that our line should be slightly more reserved. Its enough to point out that the US was motivated primarily by self-interest and that the Soviets made the greatest contribution to the war effort (although I generally find that sort of "glory hounding" distasteful regardless of who's doing it, it is good to set the record straight). Those two things have very firm backing, and I don't think there's any narrative that should require going further than that. Imo, that only weakens otherwise solid criticism by getting into more disputable territory and gives fuel to accusations that we're just knee-jerk anti-American regardless of anything it does or doesn't do.

Whether it would have been possible (or strategically advisable) to do D-Day sooner is not a concrete fact. The US needed time to mobilize. If you want to present some form of hard evidence or academic work that proves otherwise, be my guest. But until then, I think your argument rests on shaky ground and again I just don't see any reason to push that far.

What exactly is the harm in just saying, "Yes, the US stumbled into doing something good one time, and it's been exaggerating about that for the past 80 years and using it to justify themselves while conducting imperialistic campaigns of terror and brutality ever since?" Do we really need that one good thing to actually be bad? Why?