Eisenhower and Patton: Their Motives, and Their Rewards

[Wyatt earp]

1.Does either one need any introduction?
But there were significant differences between the two.....and life had different rewards for each.
If we can assume that the job description, the careers they chose, had to do with service, and the practice of soldiering......which one was the superior in said endeavor?

Which one deserved the lion's share of rewards?


What should be the Litmus Test? If one decides on a realpolitik definition, based on a system of principles of practical, rather than moral or ideological considerations of the job, well then, the determination may change.

Time to compare the lives, and the actions, of Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton.




2. Patton, five years Eisenhower's senior, was rich, and didn't need his army salary. Eisenhower, a poor boy from a working class family, was the very opposite.


"Eisenhower (known as "Ike" by his friends and allies) and Patton first met in 1918 at Camp Colt in Pennsylvania. The two met again at Camp Meade [Maryland] in 1919. When Patton was transferred to Meade he moved next door to where Eisenhower and his wife, Mamie, lived.[7] During this time, Eisenhower encountered Patton's beliefs and ideas. Eisenhower described Patton as, "tall, straight, and soldierly looking… high, squeaking voice… with two passions, the military service and polo."


The two formed a bond, because they were both men of tanks. They loved how tanks worked and how they were used during wartime. Then in mid-April of that year, Patton was transferred from Meade, to go to Washington DC. Eisenhower was the man that replaced Patton as the head of the Tank Corps at Meade. Later that year, Patton returned to Meade and took his position over Eisenhower again. Patton's rank was higher than Eisenhower's, however, this never affected their relationship." Military History Online



3. The man who propelled Dwight Eisenhower to the uppermost levels in the military was George Marshall. He saw things in Eisenhower that inspired trust....most especially, the unhesitating ability....and desire.... to follow orders.

This was a somewhat.....variable.... ability with Patton.

When George Marshall was a colonel in the early years of the Roosevelt administration, Marshall ingratiated himself with the New Dealers by his efforts in behalf of Civilian Conservation Corps. In 1936, Marshall became a brigadier general and in 1938 Roosevelt made him Chief of Staff, jumping him over the heads of twenty major generals and fourteen senior brigadier generals.

Sherwood ["Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,"byRobert E. Sherwood] reports that Harry Hopkins "strongly recommended" Marshall's appointment as Chief of Staff.


Once one understands who Hopkins was, it sheds new light on George Marshall's actions....

a. Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling Harry Hopkins a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
LIFE

b. Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins



Harry Hopkins picked George Marshall...

..George Marshall picked Dwight Eisenhower.


Military mastery, warrior greatness, picked George Patton.

Lol I am watching George C. Scott in the movie Patton right now.

One of the greatest generals we ever had.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I want to thank you for rushing to your Magic 8-Ball for help in constructing that response. It is so much less messy than the way your formerly came up with your....'knowledge'....slicing open a goat and 'reading' its entrails.

It's easily as valid as anything you've said. War is messy and seldon the slam dunk some pretend it to be. How about telling me what was wrong with my analysis? I find it strange that you didn't engage in your usually extensive "proofs". Makes me think you're the one that really doesn't know what they're talking about.

Actually, it isn't.

Mine is fact-based.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Patton saw emself as the reincarnation of a Roman legionnaire...and acted accordingly.

Eisenhower saw his role more as an employee of the administration and less as a military tactician. That means that his decisions were dictated, rather than based on what was the best combat decisions.


His changing opinion of the site of the 'second front' is a telling example. Did he find the Adriatic/Italy attack better....or the Normandy/Channel invasion?


a. Eisenhower told Marshall that he favored a limited operation on the northwest coast of France in the fall of 1942 to capture an area which later would serve as a bridgehead for a large-scale invasion. ( "Crusade in Europe," by Dwight D. Eisenhower) He further states that in June, 1942, "the great bulk of the fighting equipment, naval, air and ground, needed for the invasion did not exist."

Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."



b. How about Eisenhower's assessment at the time?

"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would becloser to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....



Now....what could have made him change his mind, and agree with Stalin/Roosevelt?

" In December1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suddenly, the Roosevelt/Stalin choice, Normandy, became exemplary.




The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé,who was in charge of the planning (according to Henry Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").




c. "The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general. "
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119


Military decision...or political?
Right.....political.

 

[konradv]

Military decision...or political? Right.....political.

It's not really an either/or question. There were political and military components to the decision to invade. What kind of invasion plan would have be conceived, if a total warrior like Patton has been in charge. Gallipoli? Dieppe II? Great field commander, lousy political general.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Military decision...or political? Right.....political.

It's not really an either/or question. There were political and military components to the decision to invade. What kind of invasion plan would have be conceived, if a total warrior like Patton has been in charge. Gallipoli? Dieppe II? Great field commander, lousy political general.

Why hypothesize about what Patton would have done?

The proof...provided by me....is that Eisenhower opposed the Normandy approach until the Roosevelt/Stalin/Hopkins/Marshall gang leaned on him.


Eisenhower saw his role more as an employee of the administration and less as a military tactician. That means that his decisions were dictated, rather than based on what was the best combat decisions.


His changing opinion of the site of the 'second front' is a telling example. Did he find the Adriatic/Italy attack better....or the Normandy/Channel invasion?


a. Eisenhower told Marshall that he favored a limited operation on the northwest coast of France in the fall of 1942 to capture an area which later would serve as a bridgehead for a large-scale invasion. ( "Crusade in Europe," by Dwight D. Eisenhower) He further states that in June, 1942, "the great bulk of the fighting equipment, naval, air and ground, needed for the invasion did not exist."

Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."



b. How about Eisenhower's assessment at the time?

"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would becloser to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....



Now....what could have made him change his mind, and agree with Stalin/Roosevelt?

" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suddenly, the Roosevelt/Stalin choice, Normandy, became exemplary.




The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé,who was in charge of the planning (according to Henry Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").




c. "The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general. "
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119


Military decision...or political?


Totally political.
And determined by none other than Joseph 'Koba' Stalin

 

[PoliticalChic]

Military decision...or political? Right.....political.

It's not really an either/or question. There were political and military components to the decision to invade. What kind of invasion plan would have be conceived, if a total warrior like Patton has been in charge. Gallipoli? Dieppe II? Great field commander, lousy political general.

Now....spoiler alert!
Don't read this post unless you are a die-hard masochist in search of ...discipline.

Or...get the antacids and watch me destroy you:

Eisenhower wasn't selected because of his military skills, or his vast combat experience....he had none.

No...he was selected because he passed the big test: he was OK'd by Stalin. He was a company man who'd follow orders.



Now, let me prove.....again.....that all of my posts and conclusions are documented and confirmed. The following from famed military historian, and WWII expert, Carlo D'Este.



9. "Most telling of all during his first few months as commander in chief was that Eisenhower was not his own man. His debt to Marshall was so huge he was unable or unwilling to carve out his independence. Being a commander in name and actually being in command are vastly different. In 1942, and early 1943, Eisenhower rarely showed glances of having his hand firmly on the tiller.


North Africa was hardly the place for the indoctrination of an inexperienced supreme commander, a serious issue with the British, who believed that war was no place for amateurs.....



The inescapable conclusion, however, is that on the basis of Eisenhower's early performance in North Africa, they had every right to question the political decision that resulted in the appointment of an inexperienced American general to command the all-important first Allied effort against the Axis.

The plan to utilize Patton thus died when Marshall cabled Eisenhower; 'ALEXANDER WILL BE YOUR MAN WHEN BRITISH EIGHTH ARMY JOINS YOU AFTER CAPTURING TRIPOLI.'"
"Eisenhower: A Soldier's Life," By Carlo D'Este, P.384-385

(Patton was sent to Sicily to plan the invasion there.)



".....the political decision that resulted in the appointment of an inexperienced American general...."




Stalin picked Harry Hopkins....Hopkins picked George Marshall.....Marshall picked Eisenhower.

Military excellence should have selected George Patton.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Here is the very worst notation on Dwight Eisenhower's resume:

For Eisenhower, following orders was more important than either swiftly winning the war, or even preserving the lives of his troops.


.... he was selected because he passed the big test: he was OK'd by Stalin. Evidence here:


" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945.

When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the [25,000] hostage American POWs.

On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control."

http://www.nationalalliance.org/wwii/wwii.htm

National Alliance of Families



This is not idle conversation.....this is 20,000 American boys left to die in Stalin's gulags.

Left by Roosevelt, Hopkins, Marshall.....

....and Eisenhower.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What happens when an administration hires an untested general to run things, simply based on political determinations?

This:

For Eisenhower, following orders was more important than either swiftly winning the war, or even preserving the lives of his troops.



And....this resulted in the loss of far, far more American soldiers:

11. What was the effect of Stalin's demand that no surrender by Germany be allowed?
First, the Allied command was not allowed to support or associate itself with the anti-Nazi resistance. Following the Soviet orders, only unconditional surrender would be considered....an order which prolonged the war by several years: the army which would have overthrown Hitler and surrendered to the Allies would not be allowed to expect any hand in determining conditions of their post-war treatment.


a. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime.
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet America used former Nazis as their post-war CIA.


b. On May 10, 1945, shortly after the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, General Dwight Eisenhower saluted and gave credit to Europe's resistance forces. He mentioned them by name, as follows: France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. 'You fought on,' he said in a speech carried by the BBC, "regardless of the disappointments you suffered and the danger you have undergone."
NYTimes, May 11, 1945, "Eisenhower Praises Anti-Nazi Resistance."

Who is missing from Eisenhower's list of national anti-Nazi resistance?

That's right: German anti-Nazis, of whom thousands were executed by the Reich.
"The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945, Third Edition," by Peter Hoffman




12. Why did Eisenhower aid every resistance movement but those in Germany?
Just following orders......
....Stalin's orders.



To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributable to 'unconditional surrender.'



Roosevelt, Hopkins, Marshall,......and Eisenhower.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Eisenhower and Patton: Their Motives, and Their Rewards


13. Patton....a military genius. Eisenhower....a military politician, good at taking orders.
Patton slapped a soldier for crying.
Eisenhower followed Stalin's orders....and cost 100 thousand American lives.

" In many ways, Eisenhower is a victim of his own success. Even though he has never once fought in battle, he has risen through the ranks and accrued power through intellect, shrewd diplomacy, and, most of all, finding ingenious ways of turning the outrageous demands of men such as George Marshall into reality."

" Eisenhower endures a daily barrage of worries. If anything, his life since becoming supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe has been one headache after another, punctuated by moments of world changing success. But new expectations torment Ike. His boss, the four-star general George Marshall, has set in stone New Year's Eve as the last day of the war. Ike believes that the proposed deadline will be impossible. Hence the deep frown lines on his high forehead.

Marshall is back in Washington, thirty- five hundred miles from the front. He is chief of staff of the army and chief military adviser to President Roosevelt. No other officer in the combined Allied armies has more power and influence than this lean, tough-talking Pennsylvanian.

Eisenhower must find a way. Orders are orders, and his success has been largely based on obeying them — unlike George Patton's.

.... Eisenhower's greatest strength and his greatest weakness: compromise. He wants to make everyone happy, and believes that "public opinion wins wars." Very often it seems Eisenhower would rather make the popular decision than the right one. This is the manner in which he has behaved throughout his entire army career, and it has served him well.

At the start of the war he was a colonel, leading training exercises at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. Now his penchant for compromise and diplomacy has allowed him to rise to prominence and power despite the glaring fact that he has never fought in battle, or even commanded troops in combat."
"Killing Patton :THE STRANGE DEATH OF WORLD WAR II S MOST AUDACIOUS GENERAL ," chapter three, Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard



".... he has never fought in battle, or even commanded troops in combat."

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. This was General George S. Patton:
Shortly after the conquest of Trier on March 1, Patton received a message from Allied headquarters.
"Bypass Trier. It will take four divisions to capture it," read the order.
"Have taken Trier with two divisions," an acerbic Patton responded. "What do you want me to do? Give it back?"

Patton's barbed sense of humor is not accidental. He is weary of the ineffectual leadership of General Eisenhower, who he believes consistently sabotages his success. He feels the same way about Omar Bradley, his immediate superior. "
"Killing Patton THE STRANGE DEATH OF WORLD WAR II S MOST AUDACIOUS GENERAL," byBill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard, p. 200


He showed his military genius and success on the battlefield, but he could not defeat the will of the triumvirate, who played Brutus, Cassius and Casca to Patton's Julius Caesar.


15. "It is unlikely that historians ever will be able to determine the proportionate share of responsibility which must be attributed collectively to Roosevelt, Hopkins and Marshall.... Roosevelt had the. power, but he was influenced by Hopkins and Marshall. Hopkins also influenced Marshall, and therefore was the dominant member of the triumvirate. [Harry Hopkins: the Soviet spy who lived in the White House.]

Of the three, Marshall's record is the most tragic and incomprehensible. Throughout World War II and the postwar years, down to 1951, when he was largely responsible for the removal of General MacArthur from command in the Far East and for the strategy of appeasement which resulted in our defeat in the Korean War....

The record of his service to the communist cause, however innocent, is appalling, and hardly could have been worse if he had consciously acted on instructions from the Kremlin." Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.118

 

[regent]

I could never understand why MacArthur was not left on Bataan. Probably FDR's biggest mistake was bringing him back. MacArthur's obsession with retaking the Philippines so he could wade ashore telling the Filipino people, "I have returned," was only to satisfy his ego.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Patton, making enemies of Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall, because he would not accept Stalin and Soviet Communism, wound up with a very different, tragic, "reward."



16. " On December 8, 1945, Patton's chief of staff, Major General Hobart Gay, invited him on a pheasant hunting trip near Speyer to lift his spirits. At 11:45 on December 9, Patton and Gay were riding in Patton's1938 Cadillac Model 75 staff car driven by Private First Class Horace L. Woodring when they stopped at a railroad intersection inMannheim-Käfertalto allow a train to pass....



Woodring glanced away from the road when a 2½ ton GMC truck driven by Technical Sergeant Robert L. Thompson, who was en route to a quartermaster depot, suddenly made a left turn in front of the car. Woodring slammed the brakes and turned sharply to the left, colliding with the truck at a low speed.



Taken to a hospital in Heidelberg, Patton was discovered to have a compression fracture and dislocation of the third and fourth vertebrae, resulting in a broken neck and cervical spinal cord injury which rendered him paralyzed from the neck down. He spent most of the next 12 days in spinal traction to decrease spinal pressure. Although in some pain from this procedure, he reportedly never complained about it. All non-medical visitors, except for Patton's wife, who had flown from the U.S., were forbidden. Patton, who had been told he had no chance to ever again ride a horse or resume normal life, at one point commented, "This is a hell of a way to die." He died in his sleep of pulmonary edema and congestive heart failure at about 18:00 on December 21, 1945."

"Patton: A Biography (Great Generals)," by Alan Axelrod and Wesley K. Clark, p. 167-169


a. " The official causes of death, as listed in the army adjutant general's report, are "traumatic myelitis, transverse fourth cervical segment, pulmonary infarction, and myocardial failure, acute. There is no autopsy."
O'Reilly, Op.Cit.

b. "Patton was the only passenger hurt that cold day in what essentially was described as a "fender-bender." Two others in the car with him were uninjured, as were those in the truck that suddenly turned and caused the crash....
Where are the records of their visit -- and of the accident itself? All reports and investigations have inexplicably disappeared."
Articles The Mysterious Death of Gen. George S. Patton

General George S. Patton

"fender-bender".....
"There is no autopsy."

"All reports and investigations have inexplicably disappeared."

 

[PoliticalChic]

After the war, and based on the revelations in this thread, it would seem to behoove Eisenhower to keep the parts of his record that show Stalin's influence....a secret.

Certainly not to stir it up.

And that's what his record shows.

17. His post-war record was simply one more example of incredible lack of concern, about the communist conspiracy on the part of executive agencies, and it continued under the Eisenhower administration.
The danger to Eisenhower was brought out by Senator McCarthy's permanent investigating subcommittee.



Eisenhower became President in January of 1953. In August, 1953, McCarthy disclosed that Communists had penetrated and still were active in the huge government printing office, which prints thousands of secret documents for the army and navy, atomic energy commission, and other government agencies.

In testimony before the subcommittee and in reports by the FBI, Edward Rothschild, an employee of the printing office, was identified as a member of the Communist Party and accused of stealing a secret United States merchant marine code book during the war, in 1943. When called before the subcommittee, Rothschild refused, on the ground of self-incrimination, to say whether he was a Communist or was engaged in espionage against the United States.



Testimony disclosed that the loyalty board of the printing office cleared Rothschild in 1948, despite an FBI report stating that he was a Communist and had stolen secret documents. S. Preston Hipsley, personnel security officer of the printing office, testified that "mere membership in the Communist party" was not a ground for dismissal from the government service.


WHAT?????



And.... even that wasn't true!

In 1951, Truman had signed an executive order authorizing the dismissal of employees in case of "reasonable doubt" as to their loyalty.

Although a second FBI report on Rothschild was received by the printing office in 1951, there was no action against him. Nothing was done by the new public printer, Raymond Brattenberger, appointed by Eisenhower in April, 1953, until Senator McCarthy's committee began its inquiry.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."

In 1953, President Eisenhower appointed veteran diplomat Charles E. "Chip" Bohlen (a protégé of Soviet spy Harry Hopkins) to become US ambassador to Moscow. The appointment was unsuccessfully contested by Senate anti-Communists as a continuation of Rooseveltian appeasement policies.
Evans, "Blacklisted By History," p. 478-490.



How did President Eisenhower respond to Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove communists from sensitive positions in our government?
"As President, Eisenhower tried to shut down McCarthy's investigations."
"American Betrayal," West, p. 63.



So, no one, right up to the President, cared if Stalin had agents funneling secrets back to the Soviet Union.

"Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice."
Coulter


Based on how Soviet espionage was treated- including by Republican Eisenhower, any surprise as to the power and influence of the Left in America today?

Could explain why the Democrat Party today is indistinguishable from the Communist Party post-war.

 

[regent]

After the war, and based on the revelations in this thread, it would seem to behoove Eisenhower to keep the parts of his record that show Stalin's influence....a secret.

Certainly not to stir it up.

And that's what his record shows.

17. His post-war record was simply one more example of incredible lack of concern, about the communist conspiracy on the part of executive agencies, and it continued under the Eisenhower administration.
The danger to Eisenhower was brought out by Senator McCarthy's permanent investigating subcommittee.



Eisenhower became President in January of 1953. In August, 1953, McCarthy disclosed that Communists had penetrated and still were active in the huge government printing office, which prints thousands of secret documents for the army and navy, atomic energy commission, and other government agencies.

In testimony before the subcommittee and in reports by the FBI, Edward Rothschild, an employee of the printing office, was identified as a member of the Communist Party and accused of stealing a secret United States merchant marine code book during the war, in 1943. When called before the subcommittee, Rothschild refused, on the ground of self-incrimination, to say whether he was a Communist or was engaged in espionage against the United States.



Testimony disclosed that the loyalty board of the printing office cleared Rothschild in 1948, despite an FBI report stating that he was a Communist and had stolen secret documents. S. Preston Hipsley, personnel security officer of the printing office, testified that "mere membership in the Communist party" was not a ground for dismissal from the government service.


WHAT?????



And.... even that wasn't true!

In 1951, Truman had signed an executive order authorizing the dismissal of employees in case of "reasonable doubt" as to their loyalty.

Although a second FBI report on Rothschild was received by the printing office in 1951, there was no action against him. Nothing was done by the new public printer, Raymond Brattenberger, appointed by Eisenhower in April, 1953, until Senator McCarthy's committee began its inquiry.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."

In 1953, President Eisenhower appointed veteran diplomat Charles E. "Chip" Bohlen (a protégé of Soviet spy Harry Hopkins) to become US ambassador to Moscow. The appointment was unsuccessfully contested by Senate anti-Communists as a continuation of Rooseveltian appeasement policies.
Evans, "Blacklisted By History," p. 478-490.



How did President Eisenhower respond to Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove communists from sensitive positions in our government?
"As President, Eisenhower tried to shut down McCarthy's investigations."
"American Betrayal," West, p. 63.



So, no one, right up to the President, cared if Stalin had agents funneling secrets back to the Soviet Union.

"Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice."
Coulter


Based on how Soviet espionage was treated- including by Republican Eisenhower, any surprise as to the power and influence of the Left in America today?

Could explain why the Democrat Party today is indistinguishable from the Communist Party post-war.

Sounds like it is the Republican Party that has to be watched for communists. Has the Republican Party made any effort to remove communists since McCarthy made such an ass of himself taking on the army to get David Shine a commission?

 

[PoliticalChic]

After the war, and based on the revelations in this thread, it would seem to behoove Eisenhower to keep the parts of his record that show Stalin's influence....a secret.

Certainly not to stir it up.

And that's what his record shows.

17. His post-war record was simply one more example of incredible lack of concern, about the communist conspiracy on the part of executive agencies, and it continued under the Eisenhower administration.
The danger to Eisenhower was brought out by Senator McCarthy's permanent investigating subcommittee.



Eisenhower became President in January of 1953. In August, 1953, McCarthy disclosed that Communists had penetrated and still were active in the huge government printing office, which prints thousands of secret documents for the army and navy, atomic energy commission, and other government agencies.

In testimony before the subcommittee and in reports by the FBI, Edward Rothschild, an employee of the printing office, was identified as a member of the Communist Party and accused of stealing a secret United States merchant marine code book during the war, in 1943. When called before the subcommittee, Rothschild refused, on the ground of self-incrimination, to say whether he was a Communist or was engaged in espionage against the United States.



Testimony disclosed that the loyalty board of the printing office cleared Rothschild in 1948, despite an FBI report stating that he was a Communist and had stolen secret documents. S. Preston Hipsley, personnel security officer of the printing office, testified that "mere membership in the Communist party" was not a ground for dismissal from the government service.


WHAT?????



And.... even that wasn't true!

In 1951, Truman had signed an executive order authorizing the dismissal of employees in case of "reasonable doubt" as to their loyalty.

Although a second FBI report on Rothschild was received by the printing office in 1951, there was no action against him. Nothing was done by the new public printer, Raymond Brattenberger, appointed by Eisenhower in April, 1953, until Senator McCarthy's committee began its inquiry.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."

In 1953, President Eisenhower appointed veteran diplomat Charles E. "Chip" Bohlen (a protégé of Soviet spy Harry Hopkins) to become US ambassador to Moscow. The appointment was unsuccessfully contested by Senate anti-Communists as a continuation of Rooseveltian appeasement policies.
Evans, "Blacklisted By History," p. 478-490.



How did President Eisenhower respond to Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove communists from sensitive positions in our government?
"As President, Eisenhower tried to shut down McCarthy's investigations."
"American Betrayal," West, p. 63.



So, no one, right up to the President, cared if Stalin had agents funneling secrets back to the Soviet Union.

"Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice."
Coulter


Based on how Soviet espionage was treated- including by Republican Eisenhower, any surprise as to the power and influence of the Left in America today?

Could explain why the Democrat Party today is indistinguishable from the Communist Party post-war.

Sounds like it is the Republican Party that has to be watched for communists. Has the Republican Party made any effort to remove communists since McCarthy made such an ass of himself taking on the army to get David Shine a commission?

As a rule, one puts his best argument forward.

That seems to indicate that you haven't a single objection to anything in my posts.

And that is the pattern, isn't it: you show up, wishing for some way to blunt the real history that I provide.....and, really, come up short every time.


My favorite was forcing you to admit that there isn't a single innocent American whose life was ruined by allegations by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
I'm still chuckling about that.

 

[regent]

After the war, and based on the revelations in this thread, it would seem to behoove Eisenhower to keep the parts of his record that show Stalin's influence....a secret.

Certainly not to stir it up.

And that's what his record shows.

17. His post-war record was simply one more example of incredible lack of concern, about the communist conspiracy on the part of executive agencies, and it continued under the Eisenhower administration.
The danger to Eisenhower was brought out by Senator McCarthy's permanent investigating subcommittee.



Eisenhower became President in January of 1953. In August, 1953, McCarthy disclosed that Communists had penetrated and still were active in the huge government printing office, which prints thousands of secret documents for the army and navy, atomic energy commission, and other government agencies.

In testimony before the subcommittee and in reports by the FBI, Edward Rothschild, an employee of the printing office, was identified as a member of the Communist Party and accused of stealing a secret United States merchant marine code book during the war, in 1943. When called before the subcommittee, Rothschild refused, on the ground of self-incrimination, to say whether he was a Communist or was engaged in espionage against the United States.



Testimony disclosed that the loyalty board of the printing office cleared Rothschild in 1948, despite an FBI report stating that he was a Communist and had stolen secret documents. S. Preston Hipsley, personnel security officer of the printing office, testified that "mere membership in the Communist party" was not a ground for dismissal from the government service.


WHAT?????



And.... even that wasn't true!

In 1951, Truman had signed an executive order authorizing the dismissal of employees in case of "reasonable doubt" as to their loyalty.

Although a second FBI report on Rothschild was received by the printing office in 1951, there was no action against him. Nothing was done by the new public printer, Raymond Brattenberger, appointed by Eisenhower in April, 1953, until Senator McCarthy's committee began its inquiry.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."

In 1953, President Eisenhower appointed veteran diplomat Charles E. "Chip" Bohlen (a protégé of Soviet spy Harry Hopkins) to become US ambassador to Moscow. The appointment was unsuccessfully contested by Senate anti-Communists as a continuation of Rooseveltian appeasement policies.
Evans, "Blacklisted By History," p. 478-490.



How did President Eisenhower respond to Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove communists from sensitive positions in our government?
"As President, Eisenhower tried to shut down McCarthy's investigations."
"American Betrayal," West, p. 63.



So, no one, right up to the President, cared if Stalin had agents funneling secrets back to the Soviet Union.

"Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice."
Coulter


Based on how Soviet espionage was treated- including by Republican Eisenhower, any surprise as to the power and influence of the Left in America today?

Could explain why the Democrat Party today is indistinguishable from the Communist Party post-war.

Sounds like it is the Republican Party that has to be watched for communists. Has the Republican Party made any effort to remove communists since McCarthy made such an ass of himself taking on the army to get David Shine a commission?

As a rule, one puts his best argument forward.

That seems to indicate that you haven't a single objection to anything in my posts.

And that is the pattern, isn't it: you show up, wishing for some way to blunt the real history that I provide.....and, really, come up short every time.


My favorite was forcing you to admit that there isn't a single innocent American whose life was ruined by allegations by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
I'm still chuckling about that.

Me too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

After the war, and based on the revelations in this thread, it would seem to behoove Eisenhower to keep the parts of his record that show Stalin's influence....a secret.

Certainly not to stir it up.

And that's what his record shows.

17. His post-war record was simply one more example of incredible lack of concern, about the communist conspiracy on the part of executive agencies, and it continued under the Eisenhower administration.
The danger to Eisenhower was brought out by Senator McCarthy's permanent investigating subcommittee.



Eisenhower became President in January of 1953. In August, 1953, McCarthy disclosed that Communists had penetrated and still were active in the huge government printing office, which prints thousands of secret documents for the army and navy, atomic energy commission, and other government agencies.

In testimony before the subcommittee and in reports by the FBI, Edward Rothschild, an employee of the printing office, was identified as a member of the Communist Party and accused of stealing a secret United States merchant marine code book during the war, in 1943. When called before the subcommittee, Rothschild refused, on the ground of self-incrimination, to say whether he was a Communist or was engaged in espionage against the United States.



Testimony disclosed that the loyalty board of the printing office cleared Rothschild in 1948, despite an FBI report stating that he was a Communist and had stolen secret documents. S. Preston Hipsley, personnel security officer of the printing office, testified that "mere membership in the Communist party" was not a ground for dismissal from the government service.


WHAT?????



And.... even that wasn't true!

In 1951, Truman had signed an executive order authorizing the dismissal of employees in case of "reasonable doubt" as to their loyalty.

Although a second FBI report on Rothschild was received by the printing office in 1951, there was no action against him. Nothing was done by the new public printer, Raymond Brattenberger, appointed by Eisenhower in April, 1953, until Senator McCarthy's committee began its inquiry.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution."

In 1953, President Eisenhower appointed veteran diplomat Charles E. "Chip" Bohlen (a protégé of Soviet spy Harry Hopkins) to become US ambassador to Moscow. The appointment was unsuccessfully contested by Senate anti-Communists as a continuation of Rooseveltian appeasement policies.
Evans, "Blacklisted By History," p. 478-490.



How did President Eisenhower respond to Senator McCarthy's campaign to remove communists from sensitive positions in our government?
"As President, Eisenhower tried to shut down McCarthy's investigations."
"American Betrayal," West, p. 63.



So, no one, right up to the President, cared if Stalin had agents funneling secrets back to the Soviet Union.

"Fifty years of liberal propaganda got people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice."
Coulter


Based on how Soviet espionage was treated- including by Republican Eisenhower, any surprise as to the power and influence of the Left in America today?

Could explain why the Democrat Party today is indistinguishable from the Communist Party post-war.

Sounds like it is the Republican Party that has to be watched for communists. Has the Republican Party made any effort to remove communists since McCarthy made such an ass of himself taking on the army to get David Shine a commission?

As a rule, one puts his best argument forward.

That seems to indicate that you haven't a single objection to anything in my posts.

And that is the pattern, isn't it: you show up, wishing for some way to blunt the real history that I provide.....and, really, come up short every time.


My favorite was forcing you to admit that there isn't a single innocent American whose life was ruined by allegations by Senator Joseph McCarthy.
I'm still chuckling about that.

Me too.

Great!

Let's do it again!

Go ahead and post about McCarthy ruining the lives of innocent Americans with fabricated accusations.


Go ahead.......or are you askeeeeerred????

 

[Moonglow]

Strange as it is, the remarkable ability as a general isn't what pushes one to the top in the armed forces. Sometimes, it becomes secondary to.....other things. Why would George Patton, who believed himself the reincarnation of a Roman legionnaire, not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history?




4. "June 6, 1944 General Omar Bradley (1893-1981) led the First Army of the United States in the famous D-Day landing on the beaches of Normandy. Interestingly, Bradley was the understudy of another man, General George S. Patton Jr. (1885-1945). How did Bradley overtake his mentor? What caused the Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1979) to give the job to Bradley when Patton had helped lead the Allies to victory in Sicily only a short time before? During the 1943 invasion, Bradley had served under Patton, now Bradley was Patton's commanding officer.

General Patton was an aggressive general; his tactics were unorthodox, but successful. Why would he not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history? Why would he be used as a decoy rather than be on the front lines of Normandy? Was this because of the rocky relationship he had with the Allied Commander, General Eisenhower? How did Patton view Eisenhower and how did Eisenhower view Patton?" Military History Online



What sort of machinations were behind the advancement of Eisenhower over Patton?


Guess who hated Patton, and vice versa...Hint: he slaughtered millions of his own citizens.

Good guess!


And Franklin Roosevelt bowed to the every desire and wish of Joseph Stalin.

Eisenhower was agreeable.....Patton very much the opposite.

Patton assaulted a soldier in a field hospital and was temporarily taken off command...He lost his position and others were deemed more suitable and in control of their emotions....Don't think that you are not watched when in command..Since you have zero experience in military code of conduct, I don't doubt you would or could understand how all those people leaped over Patton for higher positions....

 

[Moonglow]

If FDR was this big ol' commie you claim, why would his pen pass this legislation?
The Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act), 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute enacted June 29, 1940, that set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.
Approximately 215 people were indicted under the legislation, including alleged communists, anarchists, and fascists. Prosecutions under the Smith Act continued until a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in 1957[1] reversed a number of convictions under the Act as unconstitutional. The statute has been amended several times.
Smith Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Strange as it is, the remarkable ability as a general isn't what pushes one to the top in the armed forces. Sometimes, it becomes secondary to.....other things. Why would George Patton, who believed himself the reincarnation of a Roman legionnaire, not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history?




4. "June 6, 1944 General Omar Bradley (1893-1981) led the First Army of the United States in the famous D-Day landing on the beaches of Normandy. Interestingly, Bradley was the understudy of another man, General George S. Patton Jr. (1885-1945). How did Bradley overtake his mentor? What caused the Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1979) to give the job to Bradley when Patton had helped lead the Allies to victory in Sicily only a short time before? During the 1943 invasion, Bradley had served under Patton, now Bradley was Patton's commanding officer.

General Patton was an aggressive general; his tactics were unorthodox, but successful. Why would he not be the commander during the biggest invasion in United States history? Why would he be used as a decoy rather than be on the front lines of Normandy? Was this because of the rocky relationship he had with the Allied Commander, General Eisenhower? How did Patton view Eisenhower and how did Eisenhower view Patton?" Military History Online



What sort of machinations were behind the advancement of Eisenhower over Patton?


Guess who hated Patton, and vice versa...Hint: he slaughtered millions of his own citizens.

Good guess!


And Franklin Roosevelt bowed to the every desire and wish of Joseph Stalin.

Eisenhower was agreeable.....Patton very much the opposite.

Patton assaulted a soldier in a field hospital and was temporarily taken off command...He lost his position and others were deemed more suitable and in control of their emotions....Don't think that you are not watched when in command..Since you have zero experience in military code of conduct, I don't doubt you would or could understand how all those people leaped over Patton for higher positions....

Patton slapped a soldier for crying.
Eisenhower followed Stalin's orders....and cost 100 thousand American lives.
....Stalin's orders demanding unconditional surrender of Germany.



To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributable to 'unconditional surrender.'