The Forgotten Part Of Normandy

[PoliticalChic]

1. That was that there didn't have to be a Normandy. It was at the insistence of Joseph Stalin, and Franklin Roosevelt's constant grabbing-the-ankles, that there was a Normandy.
"The estimated total battle casualties for the United States were 135,000, including 29,000 killed and 106,000 wounded and missing. United States casualties are taken from Office of the Adjutant General, Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II: Final Report, 7 December 1941–31 December 1946, page 92.
Estimated Battle Casualties during the Normandy Invasion on ...
https://www.britannica.com › story › estimated-battle-casu...



2. Stalin ordered his vassal, FDR, to make the attack on Fortress Europa as far West as possible so that the Red Army could occupy fully half of Europe post war.
We already owned Italy, and the correct strategy would have been straight up into Germany.




3. Stalin insisted on a 'second front,' the assumption being that Hitler's attack on the Soviet homeland, June 21, 1941, was the 'first front.'

Further, Stalin insisted....demanded .....that the second front be as far west in Europe as possible....so that at war's end, the Red Army could occupy and control all of Eastern Europe.

This meant that, although the Allies had control of Italy and could advance north into Germany, the Adriatic second front was not acceptable to Stalin....only Normandy, France, was.






4. Now....what could have made him change his mind, and agree with Stalin/Roosevelt?

" In December1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suddenly, the Roosevelt/Stalin choice, Normandy, became exemplary.





5. How about Eisenhower's assessment at the time?

....until FDR bribed him with another star, Eisenhower disagreed with the Stalin/FDR plan to attack from the far West, Normandy.

"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 becloser 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....



Franklin Roosevelt and his Democrats......the greatest friend the Bolsheviks had........and have.

Just ask Hillary were she got that dossier.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

And now they want us to go over there again, after their Afghanistan screw up, while their sons and daughters stay at home because they're special and need to go to college to learn how to be bureaucrats and diplomats who can get us into more wars.

*****SMILE*****

 

[francoHFW]

They definitely should have gone thru Italy and Austria, allies of Hitler, and France had suffered enough...I don't really believe Roosevelt etc, conspiracy, just thought it was fastest....

 

[task0778]

I dunno PC, the French, Belgians, and Hollanders all wanted an Atlantic front too. I don't understand why anyone would be worried that much about what Stalin wanted, he wasn't going to stop his westward push into Germany anyway. I do not doubt that the decision to land at Normandy was as much political as anything else, but I am hard-pressed to believe anybody gave a damn about what Stalin wanted.

The thing about Italy was that in order to get to Germany you have to go through Switzerland, a neutral country. And the Alps kinda made that route somewhat problematical anyway.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They definitely should have gone thru Italy and Austria, allies of Hitler, and France had suffered enough...I don't really believe Roosevelt etc, conspiracy, just thought it was fastest....

Well......there is this:


Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.



When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.



Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?



No doubt.

 

[francoHFW]

Considering that 80% of German effort was against Russia, they deserved it, and they were given the majority of consideration in those eastern countries, just recognizing reality. Then the Cold War. What to do?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I dunno PC, the French, Belgians, and Hollanders all wanted an Atlantic front too. I don't understand why anyone would be worried that much about what Stalin wanted, he wasn't going to stop his westward push into Germany anyway. I do not doubt that the decision to land at Normandy was as much political as anything else, but I am hard-pressed to believe anybody gave a damn about what Stalin wanted.

The thing about Italy was that in order to get to Germany you have to go through Switzerland, a neutral country. And the Alps kinda made that route somewhat problematical anyway.

I could post a dispositive reply.....beginning with the fact that FDR not only welcomed Stalin's agents into his administration....but when appraised of the facts......he promoted them.


I strongly recommend:

 

[PoliticalChic]

Considering that 80% of German effort was against Russia, they deserved it, and they were given the majority of consideration in those eastern countries, just recognizing reality. Then the Cold War. What to do?

I make no argument as to whether Germany didn't deserve it......but America didn't.


If we had an American President.....this wouldn't be true: time and again, German anti-Nazis wanted to turn Hitler over to the Allies....but Stalin wouldn't allow it.....he wanted Germany "pastoralized" so he could take over Europe.....and FDR went "duh....yup...yup!"





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...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 onthe 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

 

[francoHFW]

Well......there is this:


Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.



When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.



Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?



No doubt.

Recognizing reality....Russia was going to win the damn war by themselves, we could have been trapped behind the Alps and Dolomites while Russia took France lol...Our ALLIES were dying for Normandy to Holland Belgium France....NO CONSPIRACY LOL!!! They DON'T happen...All this very hypothetical....Churchill even liked Greece....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Recognizing reality....Russia was going to win the damn war by themselves, we could have been trapped behind the Alps and Dolomites while Russia took France lol...Our ALLIES were dying for Normandy to Holland Belgium France....NO CONSPIRACY LOL!!! They DON'T happen...All this very hypothetical....Churchill even liked Greece....

I'll go with
a. Eisenhowe's original assessment.....through Italy

b. FDR's constant bowing to Stalin's demands.


And this:

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!"


Did you notice that that is exactly what Reagan did vis-a-vis Iran and Iraq?

 

[francoHFW]

I make no argument as to whether Germany didn't deserve it......but America didn't.


If we had an American President.....this wouldn't be true: time and again, German anti-Nazis wanted to turn Hitler over to the Allies....but Stalin wouldn't allow it.....he wanted Germany "pastoralized" so he could take over Europe.....and FDR went "duh....yup...yup!"





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...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 onthe 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

I meant the RUSSIANS deserved a heluva lot of consideration. screw Germany lol...

Yes, there also is a grad level theory that the American insistence on unconditional surrender in both wars cost lots of suffering...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Recognizing reality....Russia was going to win the damn war by themselves, we could have been trapped behind the Alps and Dolomites while Russia took France lol...Our ALLIES were dying for Normandy to Holland Belgium France....NO CONSPIRACY LOL!!! They DON'T happen...All this very hypothetical....Churchill even liked Greece....

Wanna understand FDR?

He was a wanna-be dictator....and envied Hitler, Mussolini.....and especially Stalin.


This is FDR to Stalin: "I wanna be like yoooooo!!'

 

[Darkwind]

1. That was that there didn't have to be a Normandy. It was at the insistence of Joseph Stalin, and Franklin Roosevelt's constant grabbing-the-ankles, that there was a Normandy.
"The estimated total battle casualties for the United States were 135,000, including 29,000 killed and 106,000 wounded and missing. United States casualties are taken from Office of the Adjutant General, Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II: Final Report, 7 December 1941–31 December 1946, page 92.
Estimated Battle Casualties during the Normandy Invasion on ...
https://www.britannica.com › story › estimated-battle-casu...



2. Stalin ordered his vassal, FDR, to make the attack on Fortress Europa as far West as possible so that the Red Army could occupy fully half of Europe post war.
We already owned Italy, and the correct strategy would have been straight up into Germany.




3. Stalin insisted on a 'second front,' the assumption being that Hitler's attack on the Soviet homeland, June 21, 1941, was the 'first front.'

Further, Stalin insisted....demanded .....that the second front be as far west in Europe as possible....so that at war's end, the Red Army could occupy and control all of Eastern Europe.

This meant that, although the Allies had control of Italy and could advance north into Germany, the Adriatic second front was not acceptable to Stalin....only Normandy, France, was.






4. Now....what could have made him change his mind, and agree with Stalin/Roosevelt?

" In December1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suddenly, the Roosevelt/Stalin choice, Normandy, became exemplary.





5. How about Eisenhower's assessment at the time?

....until FDR bribed him with another star, Eisenhower disagreed with the Stalin/FDR plan to attack from the far West, Normandy.

"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 becloser 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....



Franklin Roosevelt and his Democrats......the greatest friend the Bolsheviks had........and have.

Just ask Hillary were she got that dossier.

They should have listened to Patton.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I meant the RUSSIANS deserved a heluva lot of consideration. screw Germany lol...

Yes, there also is a grad level theory that the American insistence on unconditional surrender in both wars cost lots of suffering...

The insistence was Stalin's....not America's.

Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.

a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel.

BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was Alger Hiss, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
The group functioned via this mantra: "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today, and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult."About CFR


Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
Churchill knew nothing of the plan.


3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by Harry Hopkins. One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.



4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, "carefully prepared in advance,"...one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.

a. Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins


b. Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.

c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father: "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122

 

[francoHFW]

I'll go with
a. Eisenhowe's original assessment.....through Italy

b. FDR's constant bowing to Stalin's demands.


And this:

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!"


Did you notice that that is exactly what Reagan did vis-a-vis Iran and Iraq?

They WERE both frazzled...lol. (Reagan was an idiot and war/genocidal mongerer, giveaway to the rich catastrophe...How's his pal Saddam?)

 

[PoliticalChic]

They should have listened to Patton.

Patton became Roosevelt's target: lots of evidence Stalin and FDR had Patton killed....here's why-



“Patton opened his mouth again, saying that the Nazis were better than the Russians were in Late 1944.

Patton said of the Russians:



Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? We are going to have to fight them sooner or later, within the next generation. Why not do it now while our Army is intact and the damn Russians can have their hind end kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bastards.[92]



These actions were all Eisenhower could handle; he could not cover this one up and had no choice but to relieve Patton of his command. Patton was personally hurt by the loss.

MilitaryHistoryOnline.com

A collection of various battles from around the world

www.militaryhistoryonline.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

They WERE both frazzled...lol. (Reagan was an idiot and war/genocidal mongerer, giveaway to the rich catastrophe...How's his pal Saddam?)

Reagan.....the finest President in the last 100 years.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Essentially, FDR served as Stalin's agent.



Stalin refused to allow Germany to surrender, to end the war: he was perfectly happy with American's dying to 'pacify' Germany before his army could take over.


German army leadership wanted Hitler dead, and the war over.....and offered that to Roosevelt.

He refused to accept.
At the cost of well over 100,000 American dead.....he chose to continue the war.



"British double agent Eddie Chapman volunteered for a suicide mission to blow up Hitler, according to a report in the British daily The Times Tuesday. Chapman, who was codenamed "Zigzag" by the British, was a British professional criminal who was recruited as a spy by the Nazis but who later became a double agent..... Some historians believe that Chapman's German spymaster, Stephan von Gröning, may have been deliberately trying to use Chapman to assassinate Hitler. Von Gröning was opposed to Hitler, as were many German Abwehr intelligence officers."
The WW2 Wannabe Suicide Bomber: British Spy Volunteered to Blow Up Hitler In Suicide Mission - SPIEGEL ONLINE


Again?
".... Abwehr officers had been plotting to bring down Hitler since 1938,.... opposed to Hitler, as were many German Abwehr intelligence officers." "
The war ended in 1945.



"...... there was not a single year between 1933 and 1945 during which there was not some contact or attempt at contact, between the anti-Hitler opposition and either Britain or the Unites States, or both."
The Greatest War Crime

Roosevelt could have ended the war far earlier.
The explanation is clear and undeniable: Franklin Roosevelt did not avail the Allies of the chance to end the war years earlier.

Rather, to maintain the friendship of Soviet Communist and mass murderer, Joseph Stalin, he allowed the war to drag on......causing thousands and thousands of deaths of American servicemen.
That was the cost of extending the war.


Well read individuals recognize the sadness when Democrats claim Republicans were associated with Russia...then....or now.

Imagine getting away with the Russia Collusion Hoax.

 

[task0778]

It seems to me that perhaps the primary reason for D-Day being on the northern coast of France is that it offered the shortest supply line to the Allied troops in the field. From more men to trucks to tanks to ammo to artillery, everything had to be at the invasion point in the shortest amount of time to ensure the Allied forces could hold the terrain they took on the 1st day and then move in-land. We did land in Italy 1st, in 1943 I think, but it wasn't feasible to mount an invasion force as great as D-Day was anywhere else but France.

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan.....the finest President in the last 100 years.

Gave us crap wars, S+L, incredible inequality (meanwhile, FDR was a genius. Too bad about the cigs)...and the worst divisiveness and inequality...Agree to disagree lol...ss ever....We Americans are not supposed to be political addicts, bring back the Fairness Doctrine and debate everywhere...