In Charge: Eisenhower or Stalin?

[PoliticalChic]

Is that why the US and Britain invaded Northern Africa first? Stalin ordered it?

Y'know.....you pitch 'em right into my wheelhouse!



1. In June, 1942, Rommel accepted surrender of the British, Tobruk, Libya. Rommel took more than 30,000 prisoners, 2,000 vehicles, 2,000 tons of fuel, and 5,000 tons of rations. Hopkins and Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'


2. How to understand these decisions?

"Washington (U.P.)- A highly reliable informant who has first hand information of events in the Soviet Union said tonight the Russian people would not regard even a major Allied success in North Africa as the answer to their desire for the opening of a second front." “Drive in North Africa Not Enough,” New York Times, October 28, 1942.


3. Churchill was beside himself!
Give FDR credit: he sent over 100,000 Allied troops into North Africa in November.
Yet he, Marshall, and Hopkins never waivered from northern France as their 'second front.'


4. "Stalin Still Insisting On That Second Front...belittles fighting in Africa." NYTimes, November 8, 1942



5. You think this operation compared to the one Stalin ordered????

" The Allies assembled 2 million troops of numerous nationalities, nearly 5,000 ships, and 11,000 aircraft..."
THE WAR . Search & Explore . Themes & Topics | PBS

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Stalin was losing millions of troops




b. There were several times that Nazis came close to breakthroughs on numerous fronts




4. His people were starving



m. Kursk helped turn the war for the Soviets. If anything, the Invasion of Normandy prevented the Soviets from marching straight through Western Europe

1. Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?



Why so afraid to answer?




2. As far as losing millions......he didn't care.
Communists are just fine with slaughter.....they killed over 100 million in the last century.
Stalin killed more Soviets than the Germans did.


World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
"The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million of its own men, women and children.



"Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin - NYTimes.com




So what have we learned?

a. Allied attack via Italy would have defeated Stalin's plan to occupy Eastern Europe. So he wouldn't allow it.

b. Stalin wasn't losing on the Eastern Front, so ANY second front would have been acceptable.

c. The loss of Soviet citizens was of no concern to the maniac Stalin.

d. You know nothing, except that you must defend Franklin Roosevelt.

1. Is losing millions of people losing?



a> Losing is defined as:


lose
[looz] Show IPA



verb (used with object), lost, los·ing.


1.
to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.




2.
to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.




3.
to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.




4.
to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister.



5.
to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure.



c. How could he not care about losing millions?



6. It was destroying his workforce. The bulk of his economy. A generation of male workers

Stalin, and communists in general, care not for human loss as long as the religion conquers the world.....

....as it has.


Almost every aim of his communist party has been instituted in America, and folks who 'think' like you are proof of same.

 

[Moonglow]

Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.

But even as a president he had the same policy

As the dust settled after the second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as competing superpowers. The former wartime allies found themselves locked in a struggle that came to be known as the Cold War. Eisenhower saw the Cold War in stark moral terms -- "This is a war of light against darkness, freedom against slavery, Godliness against atheism." But the President refused to undertake an effort to "roll back" Soviet gains in the years after WWII. Early in his administration he embraced a policy of containment as the cornerstone of his administration's Soviet policy.

 

[rightwinger]

Is that why the US and Britain invaded Northern Africa first? Stalin ordered it?

Y'know.....you pitch 'em right into my wheelhouse!



1. In June, 1942, Rommel accepted surrender of the British, Tobruk, Libya. Rommel took more than 30,000 prisoners, 2,000 vehicles, 2,000 tons of fuel, and 5,000 tons of rations. Hopkins and Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'


2. How to understand these decisions?

"Washington (U.P.)- A highly reliable informant who has first hand information of events in the Soviet Union said tonight the Russian people would not regard even a major Allied success in North Africa as the answer to their desire for the opening of a second front." “Drive in North Africa Not Enough,” New York Times, October 28, 1942.


3. Churchill was beside himself!
Give FDR credit: he sent over 100,000 Allied troops into North Africa in November.
Yet he, Marshall, and Hopkins never waivered from northern France as their 'second front.'


4. "Stalin Still Insisting On That Second Front...belittles fighting in Africa." NYTimes, November 8, 1942



5. You think this operation compared to the one Stalin ordered????

" The Allies assembled 2 million troops of numerous nationalities, nearly 5,000 ships, and 11,000 aircraft..."
THE WAR . Search & Explore . Themes & Topics | PBS

1. The Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943) was a major battle of World War II in which Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in the southwestern Soviet Union.



a. Marked by constant close quarters combat and disregard for military and civilian casualties, it is among the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare. The heavy losses inflicted on the Wehrmacht make it arguably the most strategically decisive battle of the whole war.






2. It was a turning point in the European theatre of World War II–the German forces never regained the initiative in the East and withdrew a vast military force from the West to reinforce their losses.







b. The German offensive to capture Stalingrad began in late summer 1942 using the 6th Army and elements of the 4th Panzer Army. The attack was supported by intensive Luftwaffe bombing that reduced much of the city to rubble.





6. The fighting degenerated into building-to-building fighting, and both sides poured reinforcements into the city. By mid-November 1942, the Germans had pushed the Soviet defenders back at great cost into narrow zones generally along the west bank of the Volga River.

 

[Moonglow]

The Allies did try a landing in France in 1942, known as the battle of Dieppe.

Virtually none of these objectives were met. Allied fire support was grossly inadequate and the raiding force was largely trapped on the beach by obstacles and German fire. After less than 10 hours since the first landings, the last Allied troops had all been either killed, evacuated, or left behind to be captured by the Germans. Instead of a demonstration of resolve, the bloody fiasco showed the world that the Allies could not hope to invade France for a long time.

Dieppe Raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is said a camel is a horse designed by committee. If so the Allied Mediterranean strategy is an apt example of that analogy. Adamantly opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) who favored a direct assault on Germany as soon as possible, General Marshall and Admiral King were overruled by President Roosevelt. Anxious to see American troops in action for political and morale reasons FDR embraced Churchill's stratagem for a thrust at the 'soft underbelly of the Axis' when it became apparent a cross channel invasion was not feasible in 1942.

Military History Online

I very serious doubt that Stalin was able to control military operation by the US or Eisenhower, the Jewish/American Supreme commander.

 

[rightwinger]

1. Was Stalin losing on the Eastern front?



Why so afraid to answer?




2. As far as losing millions......he didn't care.
Communists are just fine with slaughter.....they killed over 100 million in the last century.
Stalin killed more Soviets than the Germans did.


World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
"The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million of its own men, women and children.



"Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin - NYTimes.com




So what have we learned?

a. Allied attack via Italy would have defeated Stalin's plan to occupy Eastern Europe. So he wouldn't allow it.

b. Stalin wasn't losing on the Eastern Front, so ANY second front would have been acceptable.

c. The loss of Soviet citizens was of no concern to the maniac Stalin.

d. You know nothing, except that you must defend Franklin Roosevelt.

1. Is losing millions of people losing?



a> Losing is defined as:


lose
[looz] Show IPA



verb (used with object), lost, los·ing.


1.
to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.




2.
to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.




3.
to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.




4.
to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister.



5.
to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure.



c. How could he not care about losing millions?



6. It was destroying his workforce. The bulk of his economy. A generation of male workers

Stalin, and communists in general, care not for human loss as long as the religion conquers the world.....

....as it has.


Almost every aim of his communist party has been instituted in America, and folks who 'think' like you are proof of same.

1. The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, (Pub.L. 77–11, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 3034, enacted March 11, 1941) was a program under which the United States supplied Great Britain, the USSR, Free France, the Republic of China, and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and August 1945.




a. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of World War II in Europe in September 1939 and nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941.




b.A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S. In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining 2.6 to the other Allies.





2. Reverse Lend-Lease policies comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth.





a. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until time for their return or destruction.



b. In practice very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to Britain at a large discount for £1.075 billion using long-term loans from the United States.





3. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies.


a. The United States did not charge for aid supplied under this legislation.





4.This program effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality and was a decisive step away from non-interventionist policy, which had dominated United States foreign relations since 1931.

 

[Moonglow]

The US had a moral obligation to liberate France once again, since that was the nation which help create the new nation of the USA to be able to finally defeat the last British army in colonial America..Yet the French suffered at the hands of the Nazi's brutality while the allies built up munitions and personnel to be able to land and hold the beach head since previous attempts failed.

Stalin was pissed about the N. African invasions and the snails pace of the Italian campaign. Yet this very fact that the allies invaded other areas to test and train troops and combined arms, was not part of the assertions of the OP that Stalin influenced military operations in Europe.


So now we will probably see how Stalin controlled military operations in the Pacific.
Oh that's right, Stalin made a non-aggression pact with Japan and was able to transfer Siberian troops for use on the western front. Germany made a major miscalculation with Stalingrad, by turning Stalingrad into a city of rubble, excellent for urban warfare, the Blitzkrieg military tactics were made ineffective for the use in cities of rubble..thus they beat themselves, more than the Soviet's military ability..

 

[Camp]

So, why was the invasion through France, rather than Italy?

Answer: Franklin Roosevelt was a Stalin sympathizer; Harry Hopkins, a Soviet agent; George Marshall, a willing accomplice.

Joseph Stalin dictated the Allies invasion plans.

You need to read some different books. The invasion of Europe didn't begin in France, it began in Itlaly with the invasion of Sicily on 9 July 1943 followed by the invasion of the mainland on 3 September 1943. The last battle of Monte Cassino had barely ended when the D-Day invasion of France occured. There was still more fighting to come in Italy and victory wouldn't be declared until September of 1944, three months after the Normandy invasion.
Stalin and his wishs had nothing to do with when and where the invasion took place. It was all about terrain. The German's were the defenders. An offensive campaign against an entrenced defender is extremely costly. Defenders entrenced on farmlands, plains and rolling hills are much easier and less costly in casualties to defeat that defenders dug into mountains. The allies designed a campaign of armor and maneuver, not charging up mountainsides in suicide assaults the way they had to fight in the mountainous regions of Italy (Monte Cassino). Any movement out of Italy would have meant even more casualty costly mountain warfare.

What am I missing in this thread? The allies were attacking German forces in Italy finding it difficult to defeat them due to the mountainous terrain that allowed the Germans to fall back into prearranged and constructed defensive lines. The Italian campaign was draining German reserve elements that could be used when western Europe was invaded. Nobody gave serious thought to a southern invasion that would lead beyond Italy.

 

[Moonglow]

Communism is not rooted in US society. That's pure speculation for shock and awe..

1.

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat

.

There is no proletariat in the USA today..

The proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the working class of the 19th century.

2.Private property is allowed in the US.

In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

3

. Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

Private banks abound in the US..

4.

Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation

.

Lots of private enterprises in this industry...in the US, very few for the state..in fact even the military uses private manufacturers for it's needs, unless we buy it from Britain...and even then it's is probably a private contractor..

I could go on for pages, yet I don't think it is necessary to prove my point..

I used some points from this site...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

 

[Wry Catcher]

PC is compelled by her mental illness (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), always and in every thread she posts, to attack the intelligence and character of anyone who dares to challenge her. Her use of logical fallacies in lieu of rational argument is a lesson in informal logic: Poisoning the Well, Appeal to Ridicule, Abusive Ad Hominem, Appeal to Common Belief, Assertion (you say that X is true. Therefore X is true) and others show her true metal, and it is tin foil much like the hats worn by those who feed her obese ego.

1. ".... to attack the intelligence and character of anyone who dares to challenge her."


Pleeeezzzeee.....don't suggest that "... intelligence and character ...." refers in any way to you.


That would be a reliance on facts not in evidence.






2. "...show her true metal, and it is tin foil much like the hats worn by those who feed her obese ego."

I'm really easy to get along with once you learn to worship me.






3. "....Her use of logical fallacies in lieu of rational argument..."

First of all, I don't argue....I simply explain why I'm right.

Secondly, the evidence for my rectitude is clear: you have failed to contest even one of the items I've posted.






4. "...Abusive Ad Hominem..."

Really.

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.

Let me remind, there is no problem with ad hominem descriptions as long as they are true....as is the case with everything I've reported about you....e.g., A brain like a BB in a boxcar.

...you dope.

If it were only me you abuse you might have a wee bit of credibility, that it is not suggests your personality disorder distorts reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC is motivated by a world view rooted in an end of days theology of Jesus in America coupled to an Opus Dei type of hatred of any type of collectivism, particularly Stalinism. She filters all "evidence" through her filters. Thus, Eisenhower and Marshall were willing dupes of world-wide communist goals.

 

[Camp]

PC is motivated by a world view rooted in an end of days theology of Jesus in America coupled to an Opus Dei type of hatred of any type of collectivism, particularly Stalinism. She filters all "evidence" through her filters. Thus, Eisenhower and Marshall were willing dupes of world-wide communist goals.

OK, but that doesn't explain how she figured the allied armies could cross the Alps, with or without elephants.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one could figure out why Churchill thought it either.

 

[Unkotare]

The Problem with PC and her ilk is that they are mad that WWII, a Liberal endeavor, successfully dispatched one of the most evil Christian leaders ever to be "saved" by Christ.

Adolf "Me loves me some Jesus" Hitler.

Is this gonna be your new thing now? Every post on every topic shoe-horned into your anti-Christian agenda? You're in danger of novasteving yourself.

 

[whitehall]

In the greatest Country in the world the military works for elected civilians. Ike was no match for Stalin because Ike worked for FDR. Apparently Ike was ordered to stand by while the Russians invaded Berlin. Of course it caused all sorts of problems after the war.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is compelled by her mental illness (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), always and in every thread she posts, to attack the intelligence and character of anyone who dares to challenge her. Her use of logical fallacies in lieu of rational argument is a lesson in informal logic: Poisoning the Well, Appeal to Ridicule, Abusive Ad Hominem, Appeal to Common Belief, Assertion (you say that X is true. Therefore X is true) and others show her true metal, and it is tin foil much like the hats worn by those who feed her obese ego.

1. ".... to attack the intelligence and character of anyone who dares to challenge her."


Pleeeezzzeee.....don't suggest that "... intelligence and character ...." refers in any way to you.


That would be a reliance on facts not in evidence.






2. "...show her true metal, and it is tin foil much like the hats worn by those who feed her obese ego."

I'm really easy to get along with once you learn to worship me.






3. "....Her use of logical fallacies in lieu of rational argument..."

First of all, I don't argue....I simply explain why I'm right.

Secondly, the evidence for my rectitude is clear: you have failed to contest even one of the items I've posted.






4. "...Abusive Ad Hominem..."

Really.

You’re such a delicate child….you must wash in Woolite.

Let me remind, there is no problem with ad hominem descriptions as long as they are true....as is the case with everything I've reported about you....e.g., A brain like a BB in a boxcar.

...you dope.

If it were only me you abuse you might have a wee bit of credibility, that it is not suggests your personality disorder distorts reality.

What makes you believe you're the only dope??

 

[Unkotare]

Which brings us back again to FDR being a fucking scumbag who left a never-ending mess behind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stalin screamed for the allies to open a second front for three years while the Soviets suffered millions of casualties

We were hardly jumping to his bidding

Why not tell us how Eisenhower did what DeGaulle ordered him to?

Well....there was a "second front"....it was in North Africa.

But....for the reasons stated in the OP, that was not where Stalin wanted it.....



5. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.

Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan."
'It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.'
Manly, p. 114-115.




a. Harry Hopkins would not consider the arguments of the British, that the attack be up from Italy and the Adriatic.

"Hopkins said very positively that once the decision was taken to go ahead with the trans-Channel Operation it could not be reversed. "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History," volume 2, p. 542, Robert E. Sherwood

b. Even after this:
"September 8th, 1943... Italy has signed an unconditional armistice with the Allies, General Dwight D Eisenhower has announced." BBC ON THIS DAY | 8 | 1943: Italy's surrender announced


Nine months before the Normandy invasion.


Bad news to good communists.



But Stalin still held three 'aces:'
Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall

1. Stalin wanted to stophaving to fight the brunt of the Nazi Army by himself





a North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy

"North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy"


Verbal evisceration coming right up!



6. "The decision to abandon Italy as an expanding , leading front at the end of 1943 made very little sense- unless, cynically, the true objective was to ensure that Central and Eastern Europe remained open for Soviet invasion."
West," American Betrayal," p. 263.


And that is the only explanation for the northern France invasion: Stalin wanted half of Europe for occupation by the Red Army!

So Stalin's spy, Harry Hopkins insisted to FDR....and it was done.


Who else said so???




Read on:

7. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the first Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombing in Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.

He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher




8. Wait.....who was the true expert? Who was the military genius of the campaign???

Certainly not you!

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 be closer 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....

" 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



His honest assessment was in November, but he was a soldier, used to taking orders....so he did what Stalin, Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall told him what was best....and he got another star for it.




In short...."North Africa did not do that. Neither did Italy"....

...you don't know what you are talking about.....

And that is why you speak for communists to this very day.



Stalin dictated the campaign.
Communism won the peace.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is motivated by a world view rooted in an end of days theology of Jesus in America coupled to an Opus Dei type of hatred of any type of collectivism, particularly Stalinism. She filters all "evidence" through her filters. Thus, Eisenhower and Marshall were willing dupes of world-wide communist goals.

OK, but that doesn't explain how she figured the allied armies could cross the Alps, with or without elephants.

Post #38....take notes, you moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one could figure out why Churchill thought it either.

Only an uneducated lame brain would say that.

Raise your paw.