Roosevelt's Greatest Blunder

[PoliticalChic]

But the worst blunderwas bowing to Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.


PC

In your "surrender" were you going to allow the Nazis to keep their concentration camps?

Where is 'my surrender' you gutter snipe?

It is Roosevelt who surrendered, early and often....to Stalin....beginning in 1933.

And....he allowed Stalin to keep his concentration camps.

 

[Moonglow]

Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

It never began in Western Europe, which is what Stalin wanted, yet according to your propaganda, with links provided, FDR did not do as Stalin demanded....FDR wanted to take Africa.....and he did...Pissing off his supposed master....

 

[rightwinger]

FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties

Who won?

Stalin killed 60 million of his own people.

Those 'casualties'?

Perhaps you, and FDR, should be more concerned with dead Americans.....rather than...





You Leftists are all the same, huh.

Well PC....I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII

You still worshiping Neville Chamberlain?

You remain both a liar an a worshiper of communist icons.



".I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII."

Unlike you, here's what a real American wrote:

1. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"

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."


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

You and Mr Hanson Baldwin sure are a couple of fucking idiots

Let Germany and USSR fight it out?
What about France, England, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Finland?

The winner gets to keep them?

 

[Camp]

Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

It never began in Western Europe, which is what Stalin wanted, yet according to your propaganda, with links provided, FDR did not do as Stalin demanded....FDR wanted to take Africa.....and he did...Pissing off his supposed master....

".... yet according to your propaganda, with links provided, FDR did not do as Stalin demanded..."

False and total rubbish.


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. Harry Hopkins and George Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'



Starting to get the picture?
The only "second front" that counted, according to Stalin and Roosevelt, was the one that Stalin named as the "second front."


2."This talk about a 'second front' is getting annoying,"a letter to the editor dated February 23, 1943, begins.
Listing assorted theaters of war including China, The South Pacific, Burma, and North Africa,the writer concludes "that when people talk about a second front what they mean is a ninth front"
From "Our Indispensible Fronts," NYTimes, February 25, 1943.
Quoted in "American Betrayal," West, p.269.


3.Somehow, only an Allied invasion via Normandy would count as an authentic 'second front.'
How to understand these decisions?
"Washington (U.P.)- A highly reliable informant who has first hand information of events in the Soviet Union said tonightthe 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.


a. 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.'

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

c."Soviet Renews CryFor Second Front"
NYTimes, March 12, 1943

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties

Who won?

Stalin killed 60 million of his own people.

Those 'casualties'?

Perhaps you, and FDR, should be more concerned with dead Americans.....rather than...





You Leftists are all the same, huh.

Well PC....I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII

You still worshiping Neville Chamberlain?

You remain both a liar an a worshiper of communist icons.



".I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII."

Unlike you, here's what a real American wrote:

1. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"

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."


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

You and Mr Hanson Baldwin sure are a couple of fucking idiots

Let Germany and USSR fight it out?
What about France, England, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Finland?

The winner gets to keep them?

Watch how easily I show exactly what you are..a vulgar, lying, Roosevelt/communism apologist....

"Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 - November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of the New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics."
Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Moonglow]

FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao

Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR....Blunder???


Blunder???


5. Well, some might say 'unconditional surrender,' in the light of Nazi atrocities, ...it was a great idea! After all, isn't 'total war' the correct response to the 'total guilt' of all Germans?


Isn't it true that all of the German people had an unswerving, monolithic, uniform belief in Hitler and in Nazism?




Think hard on that one.


If you believe it to be the case....wouldn't one hold the same belief about all of the Russians had an unswerving, monolithic, uniform belief in Stalin and communism?

They didn't.


a. 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"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

b. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcibly repatriated between 1944 and 1947." "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present," by Julius Epstein p.27, 53.



And another fact....there is no Nazi atrocity what was not surpassed by greater atrocities by the communists.

Who do you think taught the Nazis how to build and operate concentration camps?



Still think all Germans supported Hitler and the Nazis?
Let's look ata primary source, Allen Dulles,first civilian to head the CIA, and its longest serving director. In "Germany's Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance," Dulles wrote of thatthe German was the only anti-Nazi underground not supported by the United States. (p.22).
On page 140, Dulles states "The plotters (anti-Nazi German resistance)....were told clearly and repeatedly that we had made common cause with Russia...." as the reason they were frozen out.

The NYTimes told the same story, March 18, 1946: "Full Story of Anit-Hitler Plot Shows That Allies Refused To Assist."

 

[Porker]

2. Franklin Roosevelt was known to fabricate all sorts of things...

The most LETHAL thing Roosevelt "fabricated" was the USA's entry into WWII. He made all the right moves to piss-off Japan so intently as to finally attack our sitting duck Navy purposely harbored at Pearl Harbor and knew in advance, the time, when, and where it would happen. And kept Admiral Husband E. Kimmel in total darkness about the imminent attack which annihilated almost 3,000 of our own military and native Hawaiians (furture citizens to be). ROOSEVELT directed and choreographed the event almost as if he were Hirohito, himself. All to serve his ultimate purpose of getting our country into the European War against Axis power Germany,

 

[Camp]

Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.

 

[regent]

I wonder if Germany has its political chics rewriting history on how Germany could have won the war? If only the USSR had surrendered like it did in WWI; that surrender alone would have meant FDR lost the war and Hitler declared the winner. Or suppose Hitler had pursued the Abomb with more vigor instead of relying on the Messerschmidt 109? Or suppose Hitler had put all Germany to work building V missles to reach New York? Then again suppose Stalin hurt so much from ingrown toenails he decided to end the war and seek help from a toenail man in Spokane? Or suppose....

 

[guno]

in 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin begin a nine-day conference in Moscow, during which the war with Germany and the future of Europe are discussed.

Germany’s defeat now seemed inevitable, and Stalin was prepared to commit the USSR to intervening in the war against Japan once Germany had formally surrendered. This optimistic outlook enabled a significant portion of the talks to center on the relative spheres of influence of the two superpowers in a postwar European environment. Churchill ceded the disposition of Romania, which Stalin’s troops were liberating from German control even as the conference commenced, to the Soviet Union. But the British prime minister was keen on keeping the Red Army away from Greece. “Britain must be the leading Mediterranean power.” They made a deal: Romania for Greece.

Churchill was more accommodating elsewhere, willing to divvy up the spoils of war. Yugoslavia could be cut down the middle, east for Russia, west for the West. Churchill also laid out a plan by which the German populations of East Prussia and Silesia would be moved into the interior of Germany, with East Prussia split between the USSR and Poland, and Silesia handed over to Poland as compensation for territories Stalin already occupied and intended to keep.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.

"The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it."

Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?


I provided the testimony of Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

...and you claim that the orders of a homicidal psychopath are the ones to accede to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I wonder if Germany has its political chics rewriting history on how Germany could have won the war? If only the USSR had surrendered like it did in WWI; that surrender alone would have meant FDR lost the war and Hitler declared the winner. Or suppose Hitler had pursued the Abomb with more vigor instead of relying on the Messerschmidt 109? Or suppose Hitler had put all Germany to work building V missles to reach New York? Then again suppose Stalin hurt so much from ingrown toenails he decided to end the war and seek help from a toenail man in Spokane? Or suppose....

"... rewriting history..."

Liar.

I link, source, and quote to back up everything I post.

Stop slurping Roosevelt's and Stalin's boots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. Franklin Roosevelt was known to fabricate all sorts of things...

The most LETHAL thing Roosevelt "fabricated" was the USA's entry into WWII. He made all the right moves to piss-off Japan so intently as to finally attack our sitting duck Navy purposely harbored at Pearl Harbor and knew in advance, the time, when, and where it would happen. And kept Admiral Husband E. Kimmel in total darkness about the imminent attack which annihilated almost 3,000 of our own military and native Hawaiians (furture citizens to be). ROOSEVELT directed and choreographed the event almost as if he were Hirohito, himself. All to serve his ultimate purpose of getting our country into the European War against Axis power Germany,

Actually,Porks, there is another element to the Pearl Harbor story....I've done some research on same...and will post it when I have the time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. So....who opposed the 'unconditional surrender' policy?

Our military opposed Roosevelt's greatest blunder.



" General Albert Coady Wedemeyer... was a United States Army commander who served in Asia during World War II from October 1943 to the end of the war. Previously, he was an important member of the War Planning Board which formulated plans for the Invasion of Normandy. He was General George Marshall's chief consultant when in the Spring of 1942 he traveled to London with General Marshall and a small group of American military men to consult with the British in an effort to convince the British to support the cross channel invasion." Albert Coady Wedemeyer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


In his biography and analysis of the war, he devotes an entire chapter to the 'unconditional surrender' policy, saying "We annulled the prospect of winning a real victory by the call for unconditional surrender....

Our demand for unconditional surrender naturally increased the enemy's will to resist and forced even Hitler's worst enemies to continue fighting..." "Wedemeyer Reports!: An objective, dispassionate examination of World War II, postwar policies, and Grand Strategy,"
by Albert C. Wedemeyer, p. 95-96.




7. [The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe through its usefulness to German domestic propaganda that used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies, and its suppressive effect on the German resistance movement since even after a coup against Adolf Hitler:

"...those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country."
Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",International Affairs(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736


Was Roosevelt stupid...???


Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.

 

[Camp]

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.

"The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it."

Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?


I provided the testimony of Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

...and you claim that the orders of a homicidal psychopath are the ones to accede to.

You distort quotes and avoid addressing the high casualties that would have occurred. Nor do you address the political consequences of a million casualties in Europe before Japan was dealt with. FDR orchestrated the winning of WWII and saved untold numbers of American lives doing it. The proposals you dream about would have cost millions of American lives and if your plans had been followed, ended with NAZI leadership still in control of Germany thanks to your imagined conditional surrender.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.

Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin 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



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "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, wasone 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



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

"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....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'

You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.

"The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it."

Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?


I provided the testimony of Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

...and you claim that the orders of a homicidal psychopath are the ones to accede to.

You distort quotes and avoid addressing the high casualties that would have occurred. Nor do you address the political consequences of a million casualties in Europe before Japan was dealt with. FDR orchestrated the winning of WWII and saved untold numbers of American lives doing it. The proposals you dream about would have cost millions of American lives and if your plans had been followed, ended with NAZI leadership still in control of Germany thanks to your imagined conditional surrender.

Au contraire.

I make an unassailable argument leading to a conclusion that you dolts can't defeat.

I quote experts, military and political.



No arguments that 'unconditional surrender' was a peachy-keen idea???



8. Many Allied leaders agreed with General Wedemeyer, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
" The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575


Now....you mention casualties....

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

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



9. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt on the effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."


a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher



Now...you lying sewer rat.....show where I "distort quotes."


Waiting.