Eisenhower and Patton: Their Motives, and Their Rewards

[francoHFW]

So all Americans are non-dupes? Is that the extent of your argument?

She meant all Dems..

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Patton was a Military genius. I have read a few books on General Patton .

Patton did not want things his way, he wanted things the way to be victorious. To happen and occur to be successful. To make the US Army and America look great.

He had enemy's in the states. Enemy's that their only gripe was jealousy.

Yes , General Pattons mouth did get him into trouble ; but when the butt kicking needed to happen : whom did the White House and the American peoplecall? General George Patton. When Pattons house hold name settled; he was of no more use to Washington. George tryed to shape foreign policy, and he could not. Foreign policy was not Pattons job . Even though Russia would prove in later years to be an adversary to the US; as Patton had previously predicted.

When the war was coming ( planned ) to a close, when Pattons initial popularity settled down , General Omar Bradley finished off the last yards of rushing in the forth quarter for the decisive win. Omar Bradley went on to be successful; but not without some personal as well as Military losses. Omar was as brilliant , or more brilliant than Patton. Omar was White House material and went on to make General of the Army.

Patton was great. Omar Bradley was great. Patton got himself into trouble - so Bradley went further in his career.

Shadow 355

I certainly agree with your post, but it was not the aim of the thread to provide hagiography of General Patton.

The aim was to compare Patton's staunchly pro-America attitude, with Eisenhower's willingness to go along to get along...and get few stars added to his epaulets.

Even at the cost of advancing Soviet Communism at home and abroad.


If you have the time or interest, I hope you will read the thread in its entirely.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think Patton thought of taking the objective as his goal, Bradley thought of taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective. GI's knew this and were grateful to be in Bradley's command. Patton's men were grateful and proud after they survived and went home.
Some generals, and we had them, were showboats and lives were secondary, Patton was a showboat, two guns and all that showboat crap.

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

 

[regent]

I think Patton thought of taking the objective as his goal, Bradley thought of taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective. GI's knew this and were grateful to be in Bradley's command. Patton's men were grateful and proud after they survived and went home.
Some generals, and we had them, were showboats and lives were secondary, Patton was a showboat, two guns and all that showboat crap.

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? Wonder how many men MacArthur and the marines lost helping Chiang? Perhaps one of the blessings is that we didn't lose anyone helping Churchill.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think Patton thought of taking the objective as his goal, Bradley thought of taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective. GI's knew this and were grateful to be in Bradley's command. Patton's men were grateful and proud after they survived and went home.
Some generals, and we had them, were showboats and lives were secondary, Patton was a showboat, two guns and all that showboat crap.

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? Wonder how many men MacArthur and the marines lost helping Chiang? Perhaps one of the blessings is that we didn't lose anyone helping Churchill.

1.
1. "Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin?"
Only a 'puzzler to the uneducated.
But.....I'm here to save your day!


Stalin was responsible for the 'unconditional surrender' demand.
Roosevelt jumped to!
And so did Eisenhower.

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.'

2. Plus....those wounded who didn't survive their wounds.

3. Add to that the 20,000 Americans that Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.

" 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.



Now....don't you feel smarter?

 

[mudwhistle]

General George S. Patton was Deeply Anti-Semitic & Believed in Superiority of the ‘Nordic Race’

Patton at the end of World War II disparaged the Jewish inmates of Hitler’s death camps who had been re-interned in Displaced Person (DP) camps maintained by the U.S. Army in the Allied Zone of Occupation. He also expressed the injudicious opinion that the United States fought the wrong enemy, meaning that he would rather have had the country allied with Hitler’s Germany for a fight against Stalin’s Soviet Union. …”

George S. Patton was an anti-Semite who wrote in his diary that Jews were “sub-human”


General George S. Patton’s diaries, which were published after his death, reveal that Patton was an anti-Semite, and not just akin to the garden-variety, country club anti-Semite that was common in America up to and through the Second World War. According to Leonard Dinnerstein in his book Antisemitism in America, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1995) Patton would not allow Jewish chaplains at his headquarters. (p.139). In light of the fact that the U.S. was engaged in unconditional warfare with the genocidal Nazi regime that had singled out “World Jewry” for liquidation, and the fact that as a commander of a corps and later an army,
thankfully that POS is dead




General George S. Patton was Deeply Anti-Semitic & Believed in Superiority of the ‘Nordic Race’ - The Constantine Report

Patton was an anti-Semite?

Yet you support Obama, who is also a closet anti-Semite. Eventually, he'll admit to it. His actions speak louder than is words however.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think Patton thought of taking the objective as his goal, Bradley thought of taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective. GI's knew this and were grateful to be in Bradley's command. Patton's men were grateful and proud after they survived and went home.
Some generals, and we had them, were showboats and lives were secondary, Patton was a showboat, two guns and all that showboat crap.

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? Wonder how many men MacArthur and the marines lost helping Chiang? Perhaps one of the blessings is that we didn't lose anyone helping Churchill.

Oh....and BTW.....you know how helpful I always try to be....

"A conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal"...

...I'd be remiss if I didn't pass this on to you:

During my studying today, I came upon the explanation you regularly request...why historian find Roosevelt so attractive.

This will answer that query:

"Many modern historians tend to be reflexively anti-capitalist and distrustful of free markets; they find Roosevelt’s exercise of power, constitutional or not, to be impressive and historically “interesting.”

In surveys, a majority consistently rank FDR near the top of the list for presidential greatness, so it is likely they would reject the notion that the New Deal was responsible for prolonging the Great Depression. But when a nationally representative poll by the American Institute of Public Opinion in the spring of 1939 asked, “Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?” the American people responded “yes” by a margin of more than 2-to-1. The business community felt even more strongly so."


a. In his private diary, FDR’s very own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, seemed to agree. He wrote: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!”45 At the end of the decade and 12 years after the stock market crash of Black Thursday, 10 million Americans were jobless. The unemployment rate was in excess of 17 percent. Roosevelt had pledged in 1932 to end the crisis, but it persisted two presidential terms and countless interventions later."


You can find the above here:
http://fee.org/media/12185/great-myths-print-final.pdf


No need to thank me....it's my mission.

 

[PoliticalChic]

General George S. Patton was Deeply Anti-Semitic & Believed in Superiority of the ‘Nordic Race’

Patton at the end of World War II disparaged the Jewish inmates of Hitler’s death camps who had been re-interned in Displaced Person (DP) camps maintained by the U.S. Army in the Allied Zone of Occupation. He also expressed the injudicious opinion that the United States fought the wrong enemy, meaning that he would rather have had the country allied with Hitler’s Germany for a fight against Stalin’s Soviet Union. …”

George S. Patton was an anti-Semite who wrote in his diary that Jews were “sub-human”


General George S. Patton’s diaries, which were published after his death, reveal that Patton was an anti-Semite, and not just akin to the garden-variety, country club anti-Semite that was common in America up to and through the Second World War. According to Leonard Dinnerstein in his book Antisemitism in America, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1995) Patton would not allow Jewish chaplains at his headquarters. (p.139). In light of the fact that the U.S. was engaged in unconditional warfare with the genocidal Nazi regime that had singled out “World Jewry” for liquidation, and the fact that as a commander of a corps and later an army,
thankfully that POS is dead




General George S. Patton was Deeply Anti-Semitic & Believed in Superiority of the ‘Nordic Race’ - The Constantine Report

Patton was an anti-Semite?

Yet you support Obama, who is also a closet anti-Semite. Eventually, he'll admit to it. His actions speak louder than is words however.

And the one the Left loves the most?

"...Roosevelt’s most despicable statements about Jews, extensively documented in a series of on-line commentaries by Rafael Medoff, ...did the depths of Roosevelt’s loathing for Jews, and refusal to lift a finger ... to rescue them, fully penetrate.


As far back as 1920, when FDR was the Democratic party candidate for vice president, he had proposed that “the greater part of the foreign population of the City of New York” should be “distributed to different localities upstate” so as to feel pressure to “conform to the manners and customs and requirements of their new home.”As a member of the Harvard board of directors he supported a Jewish admissions quota.


In 1941 he told his Cabinet that too many Jews were federal employees in Oregon.

One of his grandsons recalled that the protagonists in FDR’s jokes “were always Lower East Side Jews with heavy accents.”


At a wartime White House luncheon with Prime Minister Churchill, he suggested “the best way to settle the Jewish question”was “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.”

At the 1945 Yalta conference, FDR indicated to Stalin that as a concession to the king of Saudi Arabia he would “give him the six million Jews in the United States.”Betrayal: FDR and the Jews


Kinda got Jewish Liberals prepared to support a President who is all about throwing Israel under the bus.....
...but, heck......

....as long as he is a Democrat.....good enough.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Who hated Patton?

The list is probably pretty long. Any commander he had to releave of their command for one.

I would say anyone who was classified as a paper-pusher instead of a combat commander.

But Patton hated Stalin....and I think it was mutual.

 

[regent]

I think Patton thought of taking the objective as his goal, Bradley thought of taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective. GI's knew this and were grateful to be in Bradley's command. Patton's men were grateful and proud after they survived and went home.
Some generals, and we had them, were showboats and lives were secondary, Patton was a showboat, two guns and all that showboat crap.

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? Wonder how many men MacArthur and the marines lost helping Chiang? Perhaps one of the blessings is that we didn't lose anyone helping Churchill.

1.
1. "Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin?"
Only a 'puzzler to the uneducated.
But.....I'm here to save your day!


Stalin was responsible for the 'unconditional surrender' demand.
Roosevelt jumped to!
And so did Eisenhower.

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.'

2. Plus....those wounded who didn't survive their wounds.

3. Add to that the 20,000 Americans that Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.

" 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.



Now....don't you feel smarter?

So, then many innocents must have died in the Civil War because of Grant's "Unconditional Surrender" demands?

 

[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.

Who hated Patton?

The list is probably pretty long. Any commander he had to releave of their command for one.

I would say anyone who was classified as a paper-pusher instead of a combat commander.

But Patton hated Stalin....and I think it was mutual.

"But Patton hated Stalin....and I think it was mutual."

Right you are.

. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.

" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”. Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler.

It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:

“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”

Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day



The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was infuriated.

Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians. Of course, he was totally correct.
More important, Stalin knew he was correct....and so did Franklin Roosevelt, whose raison d'être was to make certain that Soviet communism survived and ended up ruling Europe after the war.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think Patton thought of taking the objective as his goal, Bradley thought of taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective. GI's knew this and were grateful to be in Bradley's command. Patton's men were grateful and proud after they survived and went home.
Some generals, and we had them, were showboats and lives were secondary, Patton was a showboat, two guns and all that showboat crap.

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? Wonder how many men MacArthur and the marines lost helping Chiang? Perhaps one of the blessings is that we didn't lose anyone helping Churchill.

1.
1. "Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin?"
Only a 'puzzler to the uneducated.
But.....I'm here to save your day!


Stalin was responsible for the 'unconditional surrender' demand.
Roosevelt jumped to!
And so did Eisenhower.

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.'

2. Plus....those wounded who didn't survive their wounds.

3. Add to that the 20,000 Americans that Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.

" 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.



Now....don't you feel smarter?

So, then many innocents must have died in the Civil War because of Grant's "Unconditional Surrender" demands?

Why are you running away from your earlier post?
This one:
"Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? "

Have you been properly chastised?

 

[regent]

I think Patton thought of taking the objective as his goal, Bradley thought of taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective. GI's knew this and were grateful to be in Bradley's command. Patton's men were grateful and proud after they survived and went home.
Some generals, and we had them, were showboats and lives were secondary, Patton was a showboat, two guns and all that showboat crap.

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? Wonder how many men MacArthur and the marines lost helping Chiang? Perhaps one of the blessings is that we didn't lose anyone helping Churchill.

1.
1. "Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin?"
Only a 'puzzler to the uneducated.
But.....I'm here to save your day!


Stalin was responsible for the 'unconditional surrender' demand.
Roosevelt jumped to!
And so did Eisenhower.

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.'

2. Plus....those wounded who didn't survive their wounds.

3. Add to that the 20,000 Americans that Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.

" 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.



Now....don't you feel smarter?

So, then many innocents must have died in the Civil War because of Grant's "Unconditional Surrender" demands?

Why are you running away from your earlier post?
This one:
"Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? "

Have you been properly chastised?

Nope, I just wondered when Grant used unconditional surrender it was a sign of bravery or something, at least the presidency, and now unconditional surrender is evil? Maybe a study should be done on changes in History? But first tell us about Ike squandering 200,000 American lives.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...taking the objective and saving men as they took the objective....."


Hmm.....I note that you have left out the facts that I provided indicating that Eisenhower cost the lives of up to 200,000 American soldiers by going along with Roosevelt/Stalin's directives.


Could you explain why you tried to ignore that?

Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? Wonder how many men MacArthur and the marines lost helping Chiang? Perhaps one of the blessings is that we didn't lose anyone helping Churchill.

1.
1. "Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin?"
Only a 'puzzler to the uneducated.
But.....I'm here to save your day!


Stalin was responsible for the 'unconditional surrender' demand.
Roosevelt jumped to!
And so did Eisenhower.

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.'

2. Plus....those wounded who didn't survive their wounds.

3. Add to that the 20,000 Americans that Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.

" 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.



Now....don't you feel smarter?

So, then many innocents must have died in the Civil War because of Grant's "Unconditional Surrender" demands?

Why are you running away from your earlier post?
This one:
"Boy that's a puzzler. Where in the world could Ike have lost 200,000 men helping Stalin? "

Have you been properly chastised?

Nope, I just wondered when Grant used unconditional surrender it was a sign of bravery or something, at least the presidency, and now unconditional surrender is evil? Maybe a study should be done on changes in History? But first tell us about Ike squandering 200,000 American lives.

"But first tell us about Ike squandering 200,000 American lives."

Here ya' go:

Stalin was responsible for the 'unconditional surrender' demand.
Roosevelt jumped to!
And so did Eisenhower.

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.'

2. Plus....those wounded who didn't survive their wounds.

3. Add to that the 20,000 Americans that Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.

" 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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Patton stunned Zhukov into silence during their one and only meeting during a parade of Soviet hardware. Zhukov was bragging that a Soviet tank could lob a shell 7 miles and Patton responded he would have his tankers tried for cowardice if they opened fired before they closed in to less than 700 yards.

 

[regent]

Patton stunned Zhukov into silence during their one and only meeting during a parade of Soviet hardware. Zhukov was bragging that a Soviet tank could lob a shell 7 miles and Patton responded he would have his tankers tried for cowardice if they opened fired before they closed in to less than 700 yards.

So what would have been safer for the American tankers, closing to less than 700 yards or lobbing a shell seven miles? Was that more Patton showboating indicating how brave he was?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Who hated Patton?

The list is probably pretty long. Any commander he had to releave of their command for one.

I would say anyone who was classified as a paper-pusher instead of a combat commander.

But Patton hated Stalin....and I think it was mutual.

"But Patton hated Stalin....and I think it was mutual."

Right you are.

. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.

" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”. Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler.

It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:

“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”

Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day



The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was infuriated.

Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians. Of course, he was totally correct.
More important, Stalin knew he was correct....and so did Franklin Roosevelt, whose raison d'être was to make certain that Soviet communism survived and ended up ruling Europe after the war.

Which is why what Trump says out loud doesn't bother me.

I'd rather know what he thinking than be lied to.

We've had waaaaay too much of that BS.

Obama's SOTU speech was a great example of talking but not believing what you're saying. When he mentioned curing cancer.....nuff said.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Patton stunned Zhukov into silence during their one and only meeting during a parade of Soviet hardware. Zhukov was bragging that a Soviet tank could lob a shell 7 miles and Patton responded he would have his tankers tried for cowardice if they opened fired before they closed in to less than 700 yards.

So what would have been safer for the American tankers, closing to less than 700 yards or lobbing a shell seven miles? Was that more Patton showboating indicating how brave he was?

He was, far and away, the best field commander in any army in all of WWII.

He stunned the great Zhukov into silence

 

[PoliticalChic]

Patton stunned Zhukov into silence during their one and only meeting during a parade of Soviet hardware. Zhukov was bragging that a Soviet tank could lob a shell 7 miles and Patton responded he would have his tankers tried for cowardice if they opened fired before they closed in to less than 700 yards.

So what would have been safer for the American tankers, closing to less than 700 yards or lobbing a shell seven miles? Was that more Patton showboating indicating how brave he was?

He was, far and away, the best field commander in any army in all of WWII.

He stunned the great Zhukov into silence

Now....you'd best stop this very instant!

See what you've done?

You complimented Patton....a man who earned the enmity of not just Stalin.....but reggie's god, Roosevelt!



Now reggie has to phone up his historian buddies to see what to think.

 

[Agit8r]

He saw things in Eisenhower that inspired trust....most especially, the unhesitating ability....and desire.... to follow orders.

That's the nature of an Army, yep.