Eisenhower's Times

[Camp]

I use the term "moron" and look who pops up.

I wasn't calling you.

Why don't you post something you know about like squatting in rice paddy's and eating dog

You imbecile, I've just shown that I am a master of this subject, and none of you have dared to challenge any of the material.


Now, how about you go home and set up the slip 'n' slide so it ends in the knife drawer.

You began your OP with the assertion that the FDR administration was "infused" with Soviet spies and the old FDR was controlled by Stalin mantra. You make that assertion as if it is some kind of undisputed fact. It is not. It is hotly denied and debated and is nothing more than a conspiracy theory whose foundation is a book written by Chesly Manly. The name Chesly Manly references an alleged Tribune reporter that worked for an extremely anti FDR isolationist. His writings are poorly resourced and not viewed by the history community as being a valid history account due to the lack of and poor resources.

You then make a leap into the Eisenhower administration. The leap can not be made unless you can prove your assertion to begin with. You can not. You have based your assertions, on you own admission in the closing statement of your OP, on a guy who leaked America's secret war plans days before Pearl Harbor. Further research into Col. McCormick lends credence to speculation that the attacks he made on FDR way back in the 30's are what you are rehashing 80 years later. It's the age old battle between conservatives and liberals that concentrates on the original demonization methods that McCormick used to attack FDR and promote his libertarian ideology.

You can not attack the ideas of FDR and Eisenhower unless you attack them on a personal level as men with visions that they implemented to make America a better place for all Americans. FDR represents progressive ideas that Republican seem to hate and Eisenhower represents a redistribution of wealth economic system that actually worked and was liked by everyone, including Republicans, but is hated by the neocons of today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As MacArthur said, "Ike was a pretty good clerk."

If nothing else, Ike gave us the Interstate system. It was a good strategic idea at the time and still provides rapid transit of people and freight over most of the nation.

And, maybe it was due to his efforts that rail transportation suffered.

All in all, he deserved the presidency and did not do a great deal of harm.

That actually makes some sense. If he truly was a Communist sympathizer then perhaps he embraced some of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. Plank #6:

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

I'm not sure exactly what 'communist sympathizer' means in connection with Dwight Eisenhower.


It seems to me that there were huge numbers of communists and dupes in society and Eisenhower never had the gumption to form a strong opinion of the damage they could/would do....and couldn't get up the desire to fight the kind of battle that would be necessary to deal with them.
They were far too entrenched due to the efforts of Roosevelt.


Also, it would be a mistake to see him entirely as a soldier: Eisenhower didn't get to his lofty position in the Army without being at least as much politician as soldier.


Of course, this is true of every top level officer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why don't you post something you know about like squatting in rice paddy's and eating dog

You imbecile, I've just shown that I am a master of this subject, and none of you have dared to challenge any of the material.


Now, how about you go home and set up the slip 'n' slide so it ends in the knife drawer.

You began your OP with the assertion that the FDR administration was "infused" with Soviet spies and the old FDR was controlled by Stalin mantra. You make that assertion as if it is some kind of undisputed fact. It is not. It is hotly denied and debated and is nothing more than a conspiracy theory whose foundation is a book written by Chesly Manly. The name Chesly Manly references an alleged Tribune reporter that worked for an extremely anti FDR isolationist. His writings are poorly resourced and not viewed by the history community as being a valid history account due to the lack of and poor resources.

You then make a leap into the Eisenhower administration. The leap can not be made unless you can prove your assertion to begin with. You can not. You have based your assertions, on you own admission in the closing statement of your OP, on a guy who leaked America's secret war plans days before Pearl Harbor. Further research into Col. McCormick lends credence to speculation that the attacks he made on FDR way back in the 30's are what you are rehashing 80 years later. It's the age old battle between conservatives and liberals that concentrates on the original demonization methods that McCormick used to attack FDR and promote his libertarian ideology.

You can not attack the ideas of FDR and Eisenhower unless you attack them on a personal level as men with visions that they implemented to make America a better place for all Americans. FDR represents progressive ideas that Republican seem to hate and Eisenhower represents a redistribution of wealth economic system that actually worked and was liked by everyone, including Republicans, but is hated by the neocons of today.

1. "...and the old FDR was controlled by Stalin mantra. You make that assertion as if it is some kind of undisputed fact."

It is a fact, but hardly undisputed by folks like you, blinded by ideology.



2. "...a conspiracy theory whose foundation is a book written by Chesly Manly."

Clean off your specs.....is Manly the only source I've used?

I've proved dates and names.....you agreed that you were unable to challenge any.





3. "...unless you can prove your assertion to begin with. You can not."

Yeah, I can. And....how about I use you to prove same?




Here are a few questions....I dare you to answer them:


1. Was Roosevelt mentally unstable, and unable to objectively view the world scene?
Why did Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half refuse to recognize the Soviet government?

2. Since FDR knew of Stalin's genocides, was Roosevelt a man without a moral compass?
... eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine:


3. Did he agree with Stalin that wholesale slaughter was a justifiable method of governing.
Perhaps he lived by the motto 'Exitus acta probat.'


4. Was he just plain stupid?


5. Did he have so little respect for the kind of nation that our Founders set up that he was willing to toss it aside and form an amalgam with the bloody history of the Bolsheviks?


6. Did he desire ceding half of Europe to Stalin, who, he knew, would treat those people with the comfort of the gulag?


7. Why did he rush to agree with Operation Overlord via western France, as Stalin demanded, rather than via Italy, which had already surrendered?


8. When Alger Hiss was exposed as a Soviet spy...why did Roosevelt promote him?


Take your time.

 

[Camp]

You imbecile, I've just shown that I am a master of this subject, and none of you have dared to challenge any of the material.


Now, how about you go home and set up the slip 'n' slide so it ends in the knife drawer.

You began your OP with the assertion that the FDR administration was "infused" with Soviet spies and the old FDR was controlled by Stalin mantra. You make that assertion as if it is some kind of undisputed fact. It is not. It is hotly denied and debated and is nothing more than a conspiracy theory whose foundation is a book written by Chesly Manly. The name Chesly Manly references an alleged Tribune reporter that worked for an extremely anti FDR isolationist. His writings are poorly resourced and not viewed by the history community as being a valid history account due to the lack of and poor resources.

You then make a leap into the Eisenhower administration. The leap can not be made unless you can prove your assertion to begin with. You can not. You have based your assertions, on you own admission in the closing statement of your OP, on a guy who leaked America's secret war plans days before Pearl Harbor. Further research into Col. McCormick lends credence to speculation that the attacks he made on FDR way back in the 30's are what you are rehashing 80 years later. It's the age old battle between conservatives and liberals that concentrates on the original demonization methods that McCormick used to attack FDR and promote his libertarian ideology.

You can not attack the ideas of FDR and Eisenhower unless you attack them on a personal level as men with visions that they implemented to make America a better place for all Americans. FDR represents progressive ideas that Republican seem to hate and Eisenhower represents a redistribution of wealth economic system that actually worked and was liked by everyone, including Republicans, but is hated by the neocons of today.

1. "...and the old FDR was controlled by Stalin mantra. You make that assertion as if it is some kind of undisputed fact."

It is a fact, but hardly undisputed by folks like you, blinded by ideology.



2. "...a conspiracy theory whose foundation is a book written by Chesly Manly."

Clean off your specs.....is Manly the only source I've used?

I've proved dates and names.....you agreed that you were unable to challenge any.





3. "...unless you can prove your assertion to begin with. You can not."

Yeah, I can. And....how about I use you to prove same?




Here are a few questions....I dare you to answer them


7. Why did he rush to agree with Operation Overlord via western France, as Stalin demanded, rather than via Italy, which had already surrendered?

Italy didn't surrender. The Italian military surrendered. Italy remained in control of the German military.
Unlike you, Eisenhower and all the rest of the American military and FDR understood the difference between fighting battles over mountains vs. fighting battles over flat and rolling farmlands. Stalin would have been very pleased if we continued an Italian campaign style war with the loss of MILLIONS of men. That is exactly what you are suggesting. Continuous battles through mountains covered in German defenses.

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=ji00KzgQPlo"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=ji00KzgQPlo[/ame]
]
[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6utJ_VQc04"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6utJ_VQc04[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

You began your OP with the assertion that the FDR administration was "infused" with Soviet spies and the old FDR was controlled by Stalin mantra. You make that assertion as if it is some kind of undisputed fact. It is not. It is hotly denied and debated and is nothing more than a conspiracy theory whose foundation is a book written by Chesly Manly. The name Chesly Manly references an alleged Tribune reporter that worked for an extremely anti FDR isolationist. His writings are poorly resourced and not viewed by the history community as being a valid history account due to the lack of and poor resources.

You then make a leap into the Eisenhower administration. The leap can not be made unless you can prove your assertion to begin with. You can not. You have based your assertions, on you own admission in the closing statement of your OP, on a guy who leaked America's secret war plans days before Pearl Harbor. Further research into Col. McCormick lends credence to speculation that the attacks he made on FDR way back in the 30's are what you are rehashing 80 years later. It's the age old battle between conservatives and liberals that concentrates on the original demonization methods that McCormick used to attack FDR and promote his libertarian ideology.

You can not attack the ideas of FDR and Eisenhower unless you attack them on a personal level as men with visions that they implemented to make America a better place for all Americans. FDR represents progressive ideas that Republican seem to hate and Eisenhower represents a redistribution of wealth economic system that actually worked and was liked by everyone, including Republicans, but is hated by the neocons of today.

1. "...and the old FDR was controlled by Stalin mantra. You make that assertion as if it is some kind of undisputed fact."

It is a fact, but hardly undisputed by folks like you, blinded by ideology.



2. "...a conspiracy theory whose foundation is a book written by Chesly Manly."

Clean off your specs.....is Manly the only source I've used?

I've proved dates and names.....you agreed that you were unable to challenge any.





3. "...unless you can prove your assertion to begin with. You can not."

Yeah, I can. And....how about I use you to prove same?




Here are a few questions....I dare you to answer them


7. Why did he rush to agree with Operation Overlord via western France, as Stalin demanded, rather than via Italy, which had already surrendered?

Italy didn't surrender. The Italian military surrendered. Italy remained in control of the German military.
Unlike you, Eisenhower and all the rest of the American military and FDR understood the difference between fighting battles over mountains vs. fighting battles over flat and rolling farmlands. Stalin would have been very pleased if we continued an Italian campaign style war with the loss of MILLIONS of men. That is exactly what you are suggesting. Continuous battles through mountains covered in German defenses.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=ji00KzgQPlo]General Dwight D. Eisenhower Observes the U.S. 5th Army's Drive Toward Italian Front WWII Newsreel - YouTube[/ame]

1.Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are unable to answer the questions, as they lead to an undeniable conclusion, i.e., that Franklin Roosevelt had an inordinate affection of Stalin and Soviet communism.




Now...Italy:

2. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy, who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, was one of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions" Churchill?s Southern Strategy

a. Clark's Fifth Army had suffered 124,917 casualties establishing bases and positions in Italy before D-day. These were bases already won.

b. General Carl Spaatz, the commander of Strategic Air Forces in Europe, also disagreed with abandoning this theatre for northern France. He thought it better to move up Italy, taking and using airfields, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany. West, "American Betrayal," p.263

Spaatz 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





3. "... Eisenhower and all the rest of the American military....blah blah blah...."

a. "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.



b. "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!




c. And now for Eisenhower himself:
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....




Clearly....you are clueless.

Everything you post is made up to support Roosevelt, with no attempt at veracity or research.

 

[Camp]

What a low bid huckster you are. You conveniently cut the clip about Cassino which took place in 1944 and was raging almost to the D-Day invasion. You are using quotes from 1943 when the Italian campaign was not yet begun or just getting started. You even use the 8 Sept 1943 date as the "Italy surrendered" date because the Italians signed an armistice. Tell, us, does this look like Italy surrendered? Did someone forget to send that memo to the Germans?

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=D6utJ_VQc04]The Battles for Monte Cassino, Italy 1944, WWII - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

What a low bid huckster you are. You conveniently cut the clip about Cassino which took place in 1944 and was raging almost to the D-Day invasion. You are using quotes from 1943 when the Italian campaign was not yet begun or just getting started. You even use the 8 Sept 1943 date as the "Italy surrendered" date because the Italians signed an armistice. Tell, us, does this look like Italy surrendered? Did someone forget to send that memo to the Germans?

The Battles for Monte Cassino, Italy 1944, WWII - YouTube

I cut nothing you simpleton.

I ignored it and posted a reply.

...and the reply included the words of experts including Eisenhower.

 

[whitehall]

The first thing you learn in military tactics 101 is not to launch a direct attack on an impregnable fortress but that's what Ike did in Normandy. Maybe there was no other choice and I don't presume to be a better strategist but I reserve the right to second guess any general. Much is said about the secrecy and the "longest day" heroism but life was cheap back then. The Normandy breakout was a horrendous waste of American lives but Ike promised that he had a million Troops and he would use them if that's what it took. Ike worked for the most overrated general in history, George Marshall, and he thought he would be relieved of duty after the intelligence debacle of the Argonnes Offensive aka "The Battle of the Bulge" but Marshall kept him on. Five years after the end of WW2 president Harry Truman decided to issue an executive order that sent Troops to Korea. The fact of bypassing Congressional approval meant that the Korean War became Truman's war and he handled it badly. Truman couldn't even muster enough support in his own party for another full term and MacArthur thought he had the inside track on the republican nomination but WW2 and Korean Vets prevented the old soldier's nomination. Mac decided to run as a 3rd party candidate apparently with full knowledge that he would be taking votes away from a fellow General but apparently didn't matter. Ike won handily.

 

[Camp]

Now...Italy:

2. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy, who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, was one of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions" Churchill?s Southern Strategy

a. Clark's Fifth Army had suffered 124,917 casualties establishing bases and positions in Italy before D-day. These were bases already won.



c. And now for Eisenhower himself:
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....
.

Like your often quoted favorite author West and your favorite conspiracy book American Betrayal, you depend on misusing quotes. Your use of airforcmag.com to reference Churchhill and Gen. Clark is misrepresented. You don't have to read the whole article. The conclusion in the last few paragraphs shows how you made the misrepresentation and gives a different conclusion then the one you have created.

The assessment by Eisenhower made regarding the objectives of the Italian campaign were as I have previously pointed out, made before the operation began or in it's early stages. They were objectives, most important of which was reaching and conquering the Valley of the Po.
Clark didn't reach the objective until May and April of 1945.
Eisenhower, Marshall and FDR knew what they were doing.

PO VALLEY 1945

 

[regent]

Churchill wanted to attack the soft underbelly because it would save British lives, and leave the USSR to carry the brunt of the war. Some of the allied generals, however, believed Hitler's demise was also an American cause and we should land where it would end the war in a quicker manner and that meant Normandy. Logistics was a large part of any landing area, Italy was a slug it out kind of war and the war might still be going on if we stayed there slugging it out. The threat of Normandy tied up German resources and allowed some advances in Italy, but Africa and Italy were sideline affairs and many knew it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now...Italy:

2. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy, who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, was one of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions" Churchill?s Southern Strategy

a. Clark's Fifth Army had suffered 124,917 casualties establishing bases and positions in Italy before D-day. These were bases already won.



c. And now for Eisenhower himself:
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....
.

Like your often quoted favorite author West and your favorite conspiracy book American Betrayal, you depend on misusing quotes. Your use of airforcmag.com to reference Churchhill and Gen. Clark is misrepresented. You don't have to read the whole article. The conclusion in the last few paragraphs shows how you made the misrepresentation and gives a different conclusion then the one you have created.

The assessment by Eisenhower made regarding the objectives of the Italian campaign were as I have previously pointed out, made before the operation began or in it's early stages. They were objectives, most important of which was reaching and conquering the Valley of the Po.
Clark didn't reach the objective until May and April of 1945.
Eisenhower, Marshall and FDR knew what they were doing.

PO VALLEY 1945

What you refer to as conspiracy theory is your cover for abandonment of facts.


That's why you ran and hid from the questions posed in post #43...


...and the quote of Eisenhower himself, post #45, in November of '43, before he was offered that fifth star to agree with the attack via Normandy.




Your train of thought derailed....and there were no survivors.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. Another example of incredible lack of concern, about the communist conspiracy on the part of executive agencies under the Eisenhower administration, was brought out by Senator McCarthy's permanent investigating subcommittee.





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



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



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






a. Except that that wasn't true!

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

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






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







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

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


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

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. During Eisenhower's times, one could hardly offer a differing opinion on communists and communism from the one espoused by the elites.

Bet you can think of two or three examples of the same today......and we have the same elites......





So, contrary to the mainstream view of Dwight Eisenhower, the warrior, he went along to get along.




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


a. In commenting on how pervasive Soviet propaganda was in America, Bohlen wrote that with many in government, that "these feelings were so strong that one could hardly say it was cold in Russia without being accused of being anti-Soviet."
Bohlen, "Witness to History, 1929-1969."




So....voice an opinion contrary to the Left's aims, and one could lose a career, a job, one's business, face 're-education...'

Just as in 'politically correct' America today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. A look back at Eisenhower, the soldier's, motivations, might give a view of how he dealt with political pressure he was under to accept communist influence in government.



The soldier's view of the war was that the attack on Europe should come via Italy, which had surrendered and was controlled by Mark Clark and the Allies. Stalin, Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall demanded western France as the attack zone (Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for occupation by the Red Army).


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

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

 

[regent]

Ah, so that's why Republicans nominated and ran Ike for president. Truman could no longer be trusted to follow orders after he sent troops to Korea. So the Republicans and communists looked about for a man they could trust and obey Stalin's orders and nominated Ike. In the end not only was Ike given a fifth star, but also the presidency for following orders. Ike even went to Korea to stop the Americans invasion of peaceful communist Korea and keep to Korea safe from further American aggression. It all is starting to make sense now. And in the end the Republicans were in on the whole plot. It's that fluoridation of water thing, turns brains to putty.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no such thing as a "peaceful communist" country. Communism requires violence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, so that's why Republicans nominated and ran Ike for president. Truman could no longer be trusted to follow orders after he sent troops to Korea. So the Republicans and communists looked about for a man they could trust and obey Stalin's orders and nominated Ike. In the end not only was Ike given a fifth star, but also the presidency for following orders. Ike even went to Korea to stop the Americans invasion of peaceful communist Korea and keep to Korea safe from further American aggression. It all is starting to make sense now. And in the end the Republicans were in on the whole plot. It's that fluoridation of water thing, turns brains to putty.

The aim of this thread is to show that Eisenhower was no any more a threat to communists in the government than Truman was.

The fact that you have run from this concept is proof that I am correct.

 

[Camp]

The soldier's view of the war was that the attack on Europe should come via Italy, which had surrendered and was controlled by Mark Clark and the Allies. Stalin, Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall demanded western France as the attack zone (Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for occupation by the Red Army).

None of your bull can be taken seriously because you simply ignore fact and persistently promote the ridiculous claim that Italy was controlled by Gen. Clark and allied forces. I have posted details about the war in Italy and if you had read it, or actually knew anything about what you are basing your conspiracy theory on you would know that in planning the invasion of Europe there were those who looked at Italy and a southern strategy and those who looked a France. It took only a short time to understand that there was no such thing as a "soft underbelly" and all thoughts of a southern invasion had to be abandoned. One of your own links explains it and points out that even the biggest proponent of a southern strategy, Churchill, gave up on the idea after the invasion of Italy had proven to be far more costly than the proponents had anticipated.
You continue to insist Gen. Clark "controlled Italy when in fact the allies were forced to fight a slug fest and fight the Germans in a scorched earth campaign of head to head engagements that gave little or no opportunity for maneuver or advantage of overwhelming logistical advantage.
You simply can not admit the facts that crush your outrageous theory of Eisenhower because, well, to admit the facts crushes your conspiracy theory. But when you stand on the stupid assertion that the allies controlled Italy in early June of 1944 is just factually not plausible as a debatable topic and exposes your ridiculousness and purposeful lying to promote a weird conspiracy theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, so that's why Republicans nominated and ran Ike for president. Truman could no longer be trusted to follow orders after he sent troops to Korea. So the Republicans and communists looked about for a man they could trust and obey Stalin's orders and nominated Ike. In the end not only was Ike given a fifth star, but also the presidency for following orders. Ike even went to Korea to stop the Americans invasion of peaceful communist Korea and keep to Korea safe from further American aggression. It all is starting to make sense now. And in the end the Republicans were in on the whole plot. It's that fluoridation of water thing, turns brains to putty.

"In the end not only was Ike given a fifth star,....."


As I pointed out earlier, that star was the student's reward for agreeing to follow Stalin's.....and Soviet dupe, George Marshall's plan to attack at Normandy, rather than via the south, Italy and the Balkans.




10 . 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 that the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.

But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.


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

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




11. Eisenhower's assessment at the time?

Here are his words, in November, 1943:

"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....


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



This is the way the world works.

Unfortunately, the influence of communism was amplified by the above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no such thing as a "peaceful communist" country. Communism requires violence.

Very astute.


Not that you haven't made the point, but let me add some support:

a. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares:
The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."


b. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels stated that communist ends can be attained "only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

And, as far as being an enemy of socialists, well....not really, as far as the American economic system: "The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." (same source.) So...communists may attack socialists for tactical reasons, yet they infiltrate and seek to give direction to socialist movements.
The point: we are discussing siblings.

In the above, one can watch as progressive melts into socialist, which, with very little effort, re-emerges as communism. Distinctions are hardly differences.



Therein lie my difficulties with Eisenhower's far-less-than-harsh approach to communists in government.