Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[Camp]

Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.

Ah...so you can't read.

I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....

The 9th U.S. Army under the command of Lt. General William Simpson, which was then part of Montgomery’s larger army group, reached the Elbe River on April 11. (P. 84)

With Berlin practically in sight, Simpson’s army was transferred from the British Montgomery to the American Bradley – who immediately ordered Simpson to stop at the Elbe. Bradley said the order came from Eisenhower (who did nothing without clearance from Marshall). (P. 84)

Churchill protested to Roosevelt – why not continue the strategy agreed by the Combined Chiefs? Roosevelt’s reply was “a model of the blandly evasive….”

In 1972, General Simpson gave a detailed interview on this matter; after detailing both the strength of his army and supply, as well as the logistics support, Simpson concluded:

“So I think we could have ploughed across there [the Elbe] within twenty-four hours and been in Berlin in twenty-four to forty-eight hours easily.” (P. 87)

Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended – with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)

By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?

With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The OP has no merit as has been shown in the seven pages.

Let's close the thread as fail and move on.

 

[whitehall]

And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany."
Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.

That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.

You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?

Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.

 

[Camp]

And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany."
Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.

That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.

You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?

Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.

Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?

 

[whitehall]

That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.

You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?

Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.

Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?

Didn't Hesagawa make mid century furniture?

 

[Camp]

Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.

Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?

Didn't Hesagawa make mid century furniture?

Someone by that name may have made furniture. A fella by the name of Tsyuoshi Hesegawa put forward in scholarly fashion the thesis you appeared to have knowledge of, albeit somewhat distorted, confused, politicized and incomplete. His research and work was put into book form and has become foundation of the premise, or school of thought that you attempted to put forward.

 

[gipper]

Ah...so you can't read.

I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....

By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?

With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.

You need to do some research.

American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin. Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.

You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies. When you research, you will find he was not alone.

Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY? They were making easy progress.

 

[Camp]

Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?

Didn't Hesagawa make mid century furniture?

Someone by that name may have made furniture. A fella by the name of Tsyuoshi Hesegawa put forward in scholarly fashion the thesis you appeared to have knowledge of, albeit somewhat distorted, confused, politicized and incomplete. His research and work was put into book form and has become foundation of the premise, or school of thought that you attempted to put forward.

The Historical Society, Boston University

 

[Camp]

By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?

With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.

You need to do some research.

American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin. Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.

You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies. When you research, you will find he was not alone.

Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY? They were making easy progress.

Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.

 

[PoliticalChic]

With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.

You need to do some research.

American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin. Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.

You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies. When you research, you will find he was not alone.

Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY? They were making easy progress.

Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.

"....the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia."

OMG.




Here's a little ditty you probably have on your iPod....

 

[gipper]

With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.

You need to do some research.

American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin. Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.

You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies. When you research, you will find he was not alone.

Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY? They were making easy progress.

Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.

I find your post most disgusting.

You think the Russians were justified in mass murder and rape of German people, because it was vengeance and retribution. NOTHING justifies such actions and if you were informed, you would know many of those Germans who suffered at the hands of the commies, had nothing to do with the heinous actions committed by their government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Camp thinks no such thing, based on his writing, and PC is mindlessly chattering like a chipmunk again.

Read this, all of it if you wish to know what you are discussing. The Historical Society, Boston University

 

[Camp]

You need to do some research.

American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin. Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.

You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies. When you research, you will find he was not alone.

Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY? They were making easy progress.

Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.

I find your post most disgusting.

You think the Russians were justified in mass murder and rape of German people, because it was vengeance and retribution. NOTHING justifies such actions and if you were informed, you would know many of those Germans who suffered at the hands of the commies, had nothing to do with the heinous actions committed by their government.

I wasn't justifying atrocities you uninformed idiot. I specified "foot soldiers" with the knowledge of the education, intellect and emotional state of the soldiers. Their behavior was predictable. The country of the charging onslaught of undisciplined fighting under the absence of enforceable rules of engagement does not matter. It's called military science. Commanders and their staffs learn military science. Stopping at the Elbe and not fraternizing with the Russian hoard during the close of battle was the responsible command decision.

 

[gipper]

Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.

I find your post most disgusting.

You think the Russians were justified in mass murder and rape of German people, because it was vengeance and retribution. NOTHING justifies such actions and if you were informed, you would know many of those Germans who suffered at the hands of the commies, had nothing to do with the heinous actions committed by their government.

I wasn't justifying atrocities you uninformed idiot. I specified "foot soldiers" with the knowledge of the education, intellect and emotional state of the soldiers. Their behavior was predictable. The country of the charging onslaught of undisciplined fighting under the absence of enforceable rules of engagement does not matter. It's called military science. Commanders and their staffs learn military science. Stopping at the Elbe and not fraternizing with the Russian hoard during the close of battle was the responsible command decision.

Got it doofus.

If a dunce like you could see the atrocities coming by the commies, don't you think the allied high command and our political leadership could TOO?

Think real hard on that one...okay?

The commies had already committed numerous unbelievable atrocities as they marched through eastern Europe on their way to Berlin, and not just to Germans. This was well known to all in leadership positions in the US and Britain.

So....dickhead, getting to Berlin to avert the commie bloodlust, should have been our objective....if our political leadership was not completely controlled by Stalin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.

Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.

You have been told already if you have read the thread. PC won't respond to the challenges and questions that have refuted her thesis with academic responses. Maybe you want to give it a try. I can't speak for the other posters of this thread, but feel free to go through mine and respond to all the post and links I have used to shred her dopey conspiracy theory.

"....refuted her thesis with academic responses."


Bogus.


One more time.....watch me blow your lies out of the water:

Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?

Yep.


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?

Yep.


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


Yep.



So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????



None....unless you are the dupe that you are revealed to be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.

I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.

You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty, the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?

 

[gipper]

Camp thinks no such thing, based on his writing, and PC is mindlessly chattering like a chipmunk again.

Read this, all of it if you wish to know what you are discussing. The Historical Society, Boston University

So then, you must agree with the following statement:

Truman was justified in incinerating thousands of innocent women and children, by using the bombs on a defenseless nation, to achieve unconditional surrender from Japan and thus avoid Russia's entry into war with Japan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%. You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Based upon the OP this thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory zone in my opinion!

 

[Camp]

Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.

I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.

You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty, the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?

Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?