# Eisenhower's Times



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
And, perhaps he lived up to both.
But he carried baggage, and a view that surprised quite a few.






1. Let's begin at the middle....and, later, head back to the war years. 
*Eisenhower was a product of his times,* malleable as most are, and the crucible of his times was Franklin Roosevelt. For whatever the reasons, Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets, and his administration was thoroughly infused with Soviet spies and sympathizers.

Based on the above, and one's natural inclinations where his career was involved....what should one expect?


a. But, unfortunately, the same pressures were exerted on large segments of the American population. 
"Back in the 1930s, *American liberals excused the communists of the Soviet Union as being simply Liberals in a Hurry.* 

Doug Ross spots a Timesperson visiting North Korea, retching at the horror before her and quips, New York Times visits North Korea, unintentionally reveals *the endgame of the Democrats unchecked authoritarian agenda. *Ed Driscoll » When ?Liberals in a Hurry? Reach the Endzone 

Then, just as now.





b. Here is a view from the top:
 "As Hitler marched into Poland, [Soviet agent] Whittaker Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelts assistant Secy of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelts administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to *Roosevelt, who laughed, *and told Berle to go f---  himself."
(Arthur Herman, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of Americas Most Hated Senator," p. 60) 

No action was taken, and in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss.
Remember, FDR was Eisenhower's boss.

c. How about Truman?
President *Truman denounced the Hiss investigation as a red herring* by do-nothing Republicans (Whitaker Chambers, Witness, p. 564-74) 
Felix Frankfurter and Adlai Stevenson offered to be character witnesses for Hiss.

Such were the times.....not very different from these times.








2. Eisenhower become President on January 20, 1953. Understanding the free rein communists had in the times doesn't mean that many weren't aware of the danger posed by the communists, as many are today. 
On August 24, 1953, Senator Jenner's eight-member judiciary subcommittee on internal security issued a unanimous report declaring that *the penetration of the United States government by the Soviet international organization *"has not been fully disclosed....


Policies and programs laid down by members of this Soviet conspiracy are still in effect within our government and constitute a continuing hazard to our national security."

And...have been largely successful in subverting America....it has been "fundamentally transformed" from what the 'greatest generation' fought for.







3. The communist penetration of the government occurred in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, but policies and programs laid down by the Soviet conspiracy were *still in effect after the Eisenhower administration had been in office seven months,* according to the unanimous report of eight senators...
... there were indications that the Eisenhower administration would be little more diligent than its predecessors in exposing and eliminating the Soviet conspirators still remaining in the government.

Is that what was expected from his election?







Much of the above is based on Chesly Manly's "The Twenty Year Revolution." 
It should be read by those who want to understand what went wrong, and how we got to today.


----------



## guno (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
> And, perhaps he lived up to both.
> But he carried baggage, and a view that surprised quite a few.
> 
> ...


----------



## guno (May 16, 2014)

guno said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
> ...


----------



## guno (May 16, 2014)




----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

guno said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...










So....your time-saving technique is not to read the material to which you are ostensibly giving a reply?


Great.


You must be a government school grad, huh?


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2014)

_ Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at Dwight D. Eisenhower Quotes - BrainyQuote _

Great man


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> _ Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
> 
> Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> ...






Another government school grad checks in.


Of course....nothing to do with the essence of the well constructed OP....


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > _ Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
> ...



You know I don't read your OPs....

They are like literary diarrhea


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...






You're a liar...and a Liberal.

Is that redundant?


The truth is that you read 'em, grind your teeth, and do the best you can to respond to 'em....

...which means, change the subject.


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2014)

What Eisenhower had to say about Political Chic

_An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

_


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> What Eisenhower had to say about Political Chic
> 
> _An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.
> 
> ...






How would you know....you just claimed you don't read 'em....



  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]





Another liar hoist by his own petard.....whatever the heck a petard is.


----------



## jasonnfree (May 16, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I don't usually read PC posts.    It's auto messages by a computer bot with auto responses.


----------



## regent (May 16, 2014)

So with all these commie dupe presidents we've had since Hoover, who won the battle, America or the USSR?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...








What a coincidence....that was your response to education, too!

But I respect your right to be stupid.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Much of the above is based on Chesly Manly's "The Twenty Year Revolution."
> It should be read by those who want to understand what went wrong, and how we got to today.




Much of your work is based on Manly. So, who was he. Did he exist, or was he the alter ego Col. Robert McCormick, the owner of the Chicago Tribune. 

The name Manly became somewhat famous when the Tribune released WWII contingency war plans (RAINBOW FIVE) a few days before Pearl Harbor. Hitler used the leaked article in his declaration of war against the USA.
http://MISES.org/Literature/Author/1332/Chesly-Manly


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Much of the above is based on Chesly Manly's "The Twenty Year Revolution."
> ...






Have you ever noticed how when one cannot dispute the correctness of an idea, they try to attack the one who said it.
The characteristic identifies bout the ignorant and the disingenuous.


Of course, if you believe that that was a correct course of action, you would have stopped using Arabic numerals after 9/11.



So....you agree with every single iota in the OP?

Or at least, there is nothing in the OP with which you are able to find fault?



Good to know.




As usual, I have provided astoundingly correct information.
You find it offensive...I find it truthful. I'm just more perceptive.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

regent said:


> So with all these commie dupe presidents we've had since Hoover, who won the battle, America or the USSR?






Let's see.....the United Nations was a Soviet idea, ...
"A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. 

He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). 

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, *and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."*
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know




Just about every aim of the Communist Party of the United States has been realized....



Did you know that ObamaCare was first proposed by the Soviets?



How about you answer your query.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



There is nothing challenging in my post and I offer not agreement or disagreement with you OP. The Col. was a fascinating individual. He was a giant in his era, yet mysterious and controversial.                                    
You, as I stated, base much of your work on the works of Manly. Since bio's and information about him can not be found and don't seem to exist, it is fair to assume the name was first used as a "staff" alias at the Tribune and later as a name used by McCormick. This is speculation on my part, but Manly/McCormick views and insights certainly seem to match up pretty well.
So, who was McCormick and how did he use the Chicago Tribune?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






"There is nothing challenging in my post...."



Great.



So we agree........I have a proprietary pride in veracity.


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2014)

He was before my time ... how was Eisenhower on the economy?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

Faun said:


> He was before my time ... how was Eisenhower on the economy?







OMG!

If I looked like you, I wouldn't say 'hi,' ....I'd say 'boo!'


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > He was before my time ... how was Eisenhower on the economy?
> ...



The economy was that bad, was it?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...






.......so ugly when you walk into a bank, they turn the cameras off!


----------



## Faun (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Seems the others were right when they said you're nothing but a bot with auto responses. C'est la vie.  I shall try not to make the mistake of attempting to engage you again.

Btw, do you have any idea how stupid it is to insult someone's looks when you have no idea whatsoever what they look like? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I full expect your autobot response to be another lame insult based on your own ignorance.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





Great.....


Hey, on your way out....any truth to the rumor that you were the cause of paper bags with chin straps?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

How did President Eisenhower handle Soviet agents in his government? 

4. ....about *7 months after Eisenhower's election*:
A letter to Senator Jenner from William P. Rogers, Deputy Attorney General, dated July 6, 1953, disclosed that the Justice Department still had not decided whether to prosecute the notorious John P. Davies, Jr., one of the architects of* the betrayal of China and Korea*, for perjury. Senator McCarran (D., Nev.), then chairman of the subcommittee, first requested action by the Justice Department against Davies on September 21, 1951.
The subcommittee repeated this request on July 2, 1952, and again on June 11, 1953.

a. "... expert on China, one of the China Hands who knew China and the Far East best in the State Department.,,,,*Davies also saw the Communists as a suitable* alternative to the Kuomingtang." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paton_Davies,_Jr.


And General Albert C. Wedemeyer, commander of American forces in China from 1944 to 1946, told the Senate subcommittee that *Davies glorified the Chinese Communists* and emphasized the "shortcomings, maladministration and unscrupulousness of the nationalist leaders" in their reports.


"...Davies glorified the Chinese Communists..." 
I can't help but comment on how the same phrase applied to Franklin Roosevelt.





As far as dealing with communist influence in government....
...the Eisenhower administration pretty much picked up where Roosevelt and Truman ended....



 Chesly Manly's "The Twenty Year Revolution." 
BTW....it can be read on line.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 16, 2014)

This false assertion "For whatever the reasons, Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets" topples the OP.

Let's move on.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> This false assertion "For whatever the reasons, Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets" topples the OP.
> 
> Let's move on.





Of course, the facts prove otherwise.


They also indicate strongly that you are a moron.


----------



## guno (May 16, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> This false assertion "For whatever the reasons, Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets" topples the OP.
> 
> Let's move on.



She knows nothing about America or American history.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

guno said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > This false assertion "For whatever the reasons, Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets" topples the OP.
> ...







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

I wasn't calling you.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Didn't say I agreed with you. Examining the roots and foundations of your anti-American 
fervor and paranoia. This Manly seems to be your hero and I'm not sure you know he was a made up character and hence could not be questioned of held accountable for his works. He appears to have been a shadow promoting a shadow agenda. Look at what he and/or the owner of the Tribune,McCormick did on Dec. 4, 1941.

F.D.R.S WAR PLANS! (Chicago Daily Tribune-12/4/41)

The Big Leak - Rainbow Five


----------



## guno (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



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


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...







1. "... your anti-American fervor and paranoia."

Actually, I am the pro-American in this debate.

Your slander is a 'get-even' effort on your part because I've been able to shine a spotlight on one of your idols.



2. "This Manly seems to be your hero..."

Knowledge is my hero....and, inadvertently you have verified what Manly said, as you have been unable to find any errors in his statements.



Now calm down, take a deep breath....and hold it for about 20 minutes.


----------



## guno (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
> And, perhaps he lived up to both.
> But he carried baggage, and a view that surprised quite a few.
> 
> ...



So this is the party that you belong to and think is so great?

I hate the gooks  John McCain

"I hate the gooks" - John McCain - AMERICAblog News


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

guno said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...






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.


----------



## longknife (May 16, 2014)

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.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

guno said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
> ...






I love it when I force you dopes to make the posts about me because the subject is over your head.

Actually, you'd be out of your depth in a parking lot puddle.


Do you know anything?

Anything?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2014)

longknife said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




"...did not do a great deal of harm."
That's true.



Actually,  I'd rather not change the subject.

The hostile posts in this thread have attempted to do so...but I'm going to maintain my discipline: for all of his attributes, neither as general, nor as President, did Dwight Eisenhower bring the* appropriate measures against the enemies of our founding principles.*


Not to the extent that Roosevelt did, but he allowed the Soviet agents to be comfortable in American government at policy levels.


----------



## DriftingSand (May 16, 2014)

Hi PC.  I appreciate your historical essays.  Very interesting.  I don't know much about Eisenhower.  I do remember my dad calling him a "Communist sympathizer" when I was a little kid.  I never spent the time to really find out what he meant.  I've heard that little snippet of him warning of the "military-industrial complex" but that's about as far as it goes.  I'm at work so I don't have time to really study your OP.  I will try to pay it some time when I get home tonight.  Thanks for your hard work.


----------



## DriftingSand (May 16, 2014)

longknife said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



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 (May 16, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


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






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 (May 16, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > guno said:
> ...






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 (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



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 (May 16, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






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 (May 16, 2014)

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 (May 16, 2014)

Camp said:


> 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 (May 16, 2014)

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 (May 16, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (May 16, 2014)

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 (May 17, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Now...Italy:
> ...







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 (May 17, 2014)

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 (May 17, 2014)

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 (May 18, 2014)

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 (May 18, 2014)

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 (May 18, 2014)

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


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

regent said:


> 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 (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 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 (May 18, 2014)

regent said:


> 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 (May 18, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> 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.


----------



## regent (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Yep, I have that power to prove correct or incorrect.


----------



## regent (May 18, 2014)

Unkotare said:


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




So what countries have practiced Marxian Communism?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...






Ah....the Roosevelt apologist checks in! 

If you are going to be two faced, at least make one of them pretty.

When will you be providing the answers to post #43?



After that you may address Clark, Spaatz, and Eisenhower....all of whom supported exactly what I said....in post #45.



A dunce like you can keep ignoring the facts for just so long.


In short, If you were a swine, you would be what you are now.


----------



## regent (May 18, 2014)

Italy was a meat grinder that could go no place. There was some debate after Sicily as to the value invading Italy and its value was to tie up some German divisions and create a possible threat. I think the Germans would have loved it if we had chosen Italy for a second front. or maybe Finland. Clark also would have loved Italy because he was the biggie in charge.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

regent said:


> Italy was a meat grinder that could go no place. There was some debate after Sicily as to the value invading Italy and its value was to tie up some German divisions and create a possible threat. I think the Germans would have loved it if we had chosen Italy for a second front. or maybe Finland. Clark also would have loved Italy because he was the biggie in charge.





Remember how you would suggest that I inform 'historian'?

Well....same advice to you re: Eisenhower.


"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." 
Eisenhower,  November 26, 1943....


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

PO VALLEY 1945

One of the best short synopsis of the Italian campaign at the beginning of this piece you will ever find. It explains how all the comments made by Ike and others, including Churchill became obsolete and tossed aside once the fighting began and the allied forces realized the Germans did not care about the Italians or their surrender and had decided to turn Italy into a meat grinder and make the allies fight for every foot of ground. It also shows how it took the allies until the spring of 1945 to reach the Valley of the Po and finely force the Germans out of Italy, almost a year after the Normandy Invasion. Dates make a difference in history. Duh


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> PO VALLEY 1945
> 
> One of the best short synopsis of the Italian campaign at the beginning of this piece you will ever find. It explains how all the comments made by Ike and others, including Churchill became obsolete and tossed aside once the fighting began and the allied forces realized the Germans did not care about the Italians or their surrender and had decided to turn Italy into a meat grinder and make the allies fight for every foot of ground. It also shows how it took the allies until the spring of 1945 to reach the Valley of the Po and finely force the Germans out of Italy, almost a year after the Normandy Invasion. Dates make a difference in history. Duh





Post #43 awaits you.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

12. So....did Eisenhower change his view in anticipation of a fifth star?

 Even a careful reading of Eisenhower's memoir, "Crusade in Europe." doesn't offer any real *explanation of his change of heart, *and doesn't say that he was leaned on or offered command and another star to champion Normandy over Italy....but, remember that George Marshall was in charge of Eisenhower's promotions....


...and the following  insight comes from Marshall's response to General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forces during World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force," 
Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Eaker stated that it would be "easier to support *a trans-Adriatic operation* than the invasion of southern France. 
The bases, he pointed out, had* already 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




Seems logical, even evident, that *Eisenhower received the same treatment from his boss, Marshall*.


 BTW....As per Stalin's wishes, Eisenhower halted US forces before they could liberate Berlin, Prague, and Vienna.

Who told him to do that?......
And why do you suppose?


----------



## rdean (May 18, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I know.  Just this one line:  Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets

Turns the DB into a RT.  And it calls that "well constructed"????


----------



## rdean (May 18, 2014)

I wonder if that DB thinks NASA and the Interstate Highway System were "wasteful socialistic government programs"?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

rdean said:


> I wonder if that DB thinks NASA and the Interstate Highway System were "wasteful socialistic government programs"?








1. "I wonder....blah blah blah...."

Full Definition of WONDER
a :  a cause of astonishment or admiration :  marvel <it's a wonder you weren't killed> <the pyramid is a wonder to behold>
b :  miracle
2
:  the quality of exciting amazed admiration
3
a :  rapt attention or astonishment at something awesomely mysterious or new to one's experience
Wonder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




a. Did you really 'wonder'?

Prior to your use of the term, one would have believed that such an emotion required a brain.......

...a condition not in evidence in your case.




2. "....NASA and the Interstate Highway System..."

So...you believe that these are not possible under a socialist or communist government?



Yes, deanie......another well 'thought' out post.



Even stupid people believe you to be stupid.


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PO VALLEY 1945
> ...



Your questions are just stupid and can not be debated or discussed to any kind of conclusion. You are using a common method of deflection from the actual factual and provable elements of your conspiracy theory.
Lets look at those questions.
Was FDR mentally unstable?                 No                                                            Did he support genocide                      No
Did he support Stalin's slaughter            No
Was he stupid                                    No
Did he respect the founders                Yes

So there are the answers to your stupid loaded questions.
I have repeatedly answered your question about Italy and provided you with lots of links to make my point. What good does it do. You continue to live in this fantasy world where a 19 month string of battles up the Italian peninsula in WWII didn't happen.
What is left? Did FDR give eastern Europe to Stalin as a gift? No, he gave it to Stalin as a gift to western Europe with western Europe's blessing. It was a buffer between the west and the east. Eastern Europe did not have economic or military value to western Europe and the USA. Eastern Europe was seen as a burden. So he let Stalin have the burden.
Finally, Hiss, scholars have been debating him for years. That debate will go on forever unless someday the US declassifies documents to show what some speculate was a counter intelligence effort and operation that makes him an unrecognized hero.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






I would be happy to grade your responses....

...but I need context: are your errors lies or based on ignorance?


Please advise.


----------



## longknife (May 18, 2014)

Getting back to Ike.

He was more of an administrator/politician than a strategist. His one goal was to stay even with Montgomery who kept coming up with grandiose schemes that never worked - i.e., Operation Market Garden.

It was Bradley that kept pushing for the main attack to be through Italy. De Gaulle put enough pressure on to change the direction to France.

And, the most brilliant soldier/leader of the war was Patton who was constantly kept in check for political purposes. Without the limitations, he could've led American troops to the eastern border of Poland, thereby doing away with the entire Cold War.

Ike, pushed by Washington, put Bradley over Patton to keep him from being too successful.

The only other true soldier/leader of WWII was MacArthur. Even though they called him Dugout Dug, he came up with some truly brilliant strategies.


----------



## Unkotare (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> Was FDR mentally unstable?                 No
> Did he respect the founders                Yes







Would you consider George Washington one of the founders? He established a precedent of serving no more than two terms as President that became a tradition by those who "respected the founders."

Does your reading of the Constitution suggest support by the founders for depriving innocent American citizens of life, liberty, and property without due process? Do you think the founders built a separation of powers into the Constitution so that one man in one branch of government could accumulate all power unto himself, turning the legislature into a rubber stamp and intimidating the highest court into compliance via threats? Do you think that's what the founders had in mind after throwing off the yolk of an unjust monarchy?

Yeah, so much respect there...


----------



## rdean (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *I wonder if that DB thinks NASA and the Interstate Highway System were "wasteful socialistic government programs"?*
> ...



Did you just call yourself "stupid"?  Finally, something we can agree.....................


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Was FDR mentally unstable?                 No
> ...



It's deflection. There is no possible way to answer such questions without the use of  opinion and speculation. Hence, it is a never ending debate with no certain specific answer. It deflects from making provable conclusions that a conspiracy theory is based on, such as Eisenhower having ulterior motives for the Normandy Invasion. 

The allegation is based on the erroneous conclusions that the Italian campaign was meeting with success, which had to be successful for a southern strategy to be realistically considered. The whole conspiracy theory is based on the assertion that a southern strategy was not attempted, or attempted and succeeded and ignores the reality that a southern invasion and strategy was attempted and failed.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...






My mistake, deanie.....

...You've convinced me.


You're brilliant.


What did it was how cleverly you picked apart the OP.....

...you know, the OP.....to which you are ostensibly responding?


----------



## Unkotare (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



It very directly addresses your own words and puts the lie to your conclusion.


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Really asshole, I'm a liar because I say FDR respected the founders and you disagree and think he didn't? You think way to highly of yourself. You know you're in the history forum right? This is the exact reason I didn't address the stupid ass questions to start with. If you are so fucking smart how about addressing the question about the Italian campaign and the dumb ass assertions made by the OP. Oh wait, that would require the use of facts and being able to prove stuff that can be either proved or thrown into the trash bin. Better stick to the theory crap where you can use imagination and speculation in place of factual data.


----------



## Unkotare (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





You posed your own question and then answered it categorically. I responded by posing some telling questions of my own. When you realized what these questions demonstrated about your unambiguous claim you then started on this hissy fit. 

And I didn't call you a "liar." I was thinking more along the lines of "idiot."


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



OK, the OP asked some questions in post #43 and has been demanding that I answer her questions, which I viewed as deflections, but finally answered in a somewhat sarcastic way. The substantive question she asked, the one that could be answered with facts she has chosen to ignore or refused to answer in an academic fashion. 
So, if there has been a misunderstanding, lets move on. It makes no difference to me whether someone thinks FDR respected the founders, whatever that means, because I don't think it is even clear what the hell that means.


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You are the one ignoring facts. And we haven't even used the word Dragoon. It's the history forum, so history buffs will recognize what Dragoon means. You, doubtful.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

13. General Eisenhower was used to following George Marshall's orders, which seemed to coincide with the wishes of Joseph Stalin.

 "Marshall's record is the most tragic and incomprehensible. Throughout World War II and the postwar years, down to 1951, when he was largely responsible for the removal of General MacArthur from command in the Far East and for the strategy of appeasement which resulted in our defeat in the Korean War.... *The record of his service to the communist cause, however innocent, is appalling, and hardly could have been worse if he had consciously acted on instructions from the Kremlin."*
Manly, Op.Cit., p. 118.


George Marshall....the one responsible for awarding the fifth star to Eisenhower......





14.  On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order: 

*"Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment.*" 

This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army. 
Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned.

a. " By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed *25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet *demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. 

On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, *signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower,* explaining away the loss of approximately *20,000 POWs* remaining under Stalin's control." 
WWII Home Page, National Alliance of Families



What the heck....it was only twenty thousand Americans......


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






Did you suggest that you are a 'history buff'?

You meant, 'butt,' didn't you?

Still mistake 'f' and 't,' huh?




Oh....and you forgot to respond to post #13....


This one:

I would be happy to grade your responses....

...but I need context: are your errors lies or based on ignorance?


Please advise.




Want me to give you the benefit of the doubt, and simply award you the title of 'dunce'?


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 13. General Eisenhower was used to following George Marshall's orders,
> .



Holy crap, General Eisenhower followed the orders of his commander during WWII.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 18, 2014)

guno said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY



His farwell address speech he made warning the american people about the forces that dictate the presidency-the military industrial complex which to this day still threaten our civil liberties as they did back then which was the message he was trying to get out,that same military industrial complex he warned americans about was behind the JFK assassination. Ike must have felt guilty in the end so he tried to redeem himself with that speech warning americans.Ike had to feel guilty for all the atrocities he committed at dresdan.

The reason for the notoriety is the author's conclusion that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, as head of the American occupation of Germany in 1945, deliberately starved to death German prisoners of war in staggering numbers. Mr. Bacque charges that "the victims undoubtedly number over 800,000, almost certainly over 900,000 and quite likely over a million. Their deaths were knowingly caused by army officers who had sufficient resources to keep the prisoners alive." 
Ike and the Disappearing Atrocities

Allied War


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So, basically you have run out of crap to promote your slander on Ike and are reduced to a pile of garbage who needs to reduce the debate to a personal level of name calling and goofy attacks on your opponent in a forum debate. Since you ask me to advise:

PO VALLEY 1945

Read what I have repeatedly posted a link to. Maybe if you do you will understand what an ass you have been and who is the buff and who is the butt.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 13. General Eisenhower was used to following George Marshall's orders,
> ...





Hey, History Butt......whose orders did Marshall follow?

Here's a hint: take a look at my previous post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
> And, perhaps he lived up to both.
> But he carried baggage, and a view that surprised quite a few.
> 
> ...



This is sure having a hope for a lot of beginnings.Having a president who stood next and buddied up to Stalin watching him murder countless numbers of women and having a jolly old good time watching him do it. Like Ike WASNT a devotee of Stalin and the soviets as well?

Who Else Liked Ike? Stalin; That's Who!


----------



## regent (May 18, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Was FDR mentally unstable?                 No
> ...




The founders were of various minds. Thomas Payne would not attend the convention, others attended one time, still others would not sign the finished document, and some would not vote for ratification unless there was a Bill of Rights promised. 
Washington established precedents that some presidents followed and some not. In any case a precedent is not a law and perhaps one of the factors in others not running for a third term is they saw little chance of being elected. The presidents that lead are often called "strong presidents" and in that box were FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and of course the strongest of all, Lincoln.  The weak presidents are those that let Congress run the country and we had those. As for the Courts Jefferson tried the first intimidating and it didn't work how does a president intimidate the Court?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 18, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hi PC.  I appreciate your historical essays.  Very interesting.  I don't know much about Eisenhower.  I do remember my dad calling him a "Communist sympathizer" when I was a little kid.  I never spent the time to really find out what he meant.  I've heard that little snippet of him warning of the "military-industrial complex" but that's about as far as it goes.  I'm at work so I don't have time to really study your OP.  I will try to pay it some time when I get home tonight.  Thanks for your hard work.



your dad was right that Ike was a communist smypathiser alright.Just like FDR,he buddied with STALIN.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 18, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> _ Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
> 
> Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> ...



funny that you consider someone a great man who saynds next by stalins side and watches him murder thousands of women.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 18, 2014)

regent said:


> So with all these commie dupe presidents we've had since Hoover, who won the battle, America or the USSR?



amen to that,every president we have had since hoover,has been a commie dupe.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 18, 2014)

guno said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > This false assertion "For whatever the reasons, Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets" topples the OP.
> ...





thats the understatement of the century,one of our  resident trolls  of USMB.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

Oh....one more thing: President *Eisenhower's support for the Constitution?* 


Sixty-four senators, two thirds of the Senate, have sponsored a Constitutional amendment by Senator Bricker (R., 0.) which provides that:

". . . A provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. ... No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control or adjudicate rights of citizens of the United States within the United States enumerated in this Constitution.... A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress."
Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," chapter 12.




10. ."Despite the initial support, t*he Bricker Amendment was blocked through the intervention of President Eisenhower *and failed in the Senate by a single vote in 1954." 
Bricker Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



yeah she is one of the resident trolls of USMB,Like you said so well,she evades facts when she is cornered and deflects your points switching to something else

you are wrong on a couple points though.

FDR would never have buddied up with mass murderer stalin if he did not support Stalins slaughter.The fact he buddied up to him makes him as much a mass murderer as stalin.same with churchill.

FDR could have cared less about stalins genocide.this is a man who purposely allowed pearl harbour to be bombed and murdered many of our american navyman after all tricking americans into going into war just like Bush did.

and this post below,proves beyond a doubt,he did not respect the founders.Like all puppet presidents since Hoover-other than JFK of course,he served wall street and his masters instead of the american people. Like this poster said below,serving four terms in office as president was not respecting the founders.

Would you consider George Washington one of the founders? He established a precedent of serving no more than two terms as President that became a tradition by those who "respected the founders."

Does your reading of the Constitution suggest support by the founders for depriving innocent American citizens of life, liberty, and property without due process? Do you think the founders built a separation of powers into the Constitution so that one man in one branch of government could accumulate all power unto himself, turning the legislature into a rubber stamp and intimidating the highest court into compliance via threats? Do you think that's what the founders had in mind after throwing off the yolk of an unjust monarchy?

Yeah, so much respect there...

damn straight.


----------



## Unkotare (May 18, 2014)

guno said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > This false assertion "For whatever the reasons, Roosevelt was a devotee of Stalin and the Soviets" topples the OP.
> ...



She seems to understand both a hell of a lot better than you, punk.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 18, 2014)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






History Butt: 
A boon?

If you are unfamiliar with Shakespeare, that means I'd like to ask you a favor....


I was about to respond to this post....grade it, as it were,....and thought it might be a bit long....


So...I'd like to OP it- 

Would you have an objection if I quote and name you?
If so, I won't use your name.


RSVP.


----------



## regent (May 18, 2014)

I suspect this whole thread to be an attempt to make FDR a communist dupe by making Eisenhower a communist dupe by making the Normandy invasion a communist plan. The non-communist route was through Italy not France and so few can see that. 
If the Normandy invasion had failed, the argument might have a little more validity but alas the Normandy invasion seemed to work so it proved nothing, well maybe that FDR, and Marshall made a correct appointment with Ike.  
The name-calling is always  a free bonus.


----------



## Camp (May 18, 2014)

http://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/salantqa.html


Successful Strategic Deception: A Case Study


This kind of stuff makes FDR extreme conspiracy theory proponents heads explode. Hiss a double agent or counter intel operative. And credible universities !!!


----------



## gipper (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> I suspect this whole thread to be an attempt to make FDR a communist dupe by making Eisenhower a communist dupe by making the Normandy invasion a communist plan. The non-communist route was through Italy not France and so few can see that.
> If the Normandy invasion had failed, the argument might have a little more validity but alas the Normandy invasion seemed to work so it proved nothing, well maybe that FDR, and Marshall made a correct appointment with Ike.
> The name-calling is always  a free bonus.



Could it be the Normandy invasion and the liberation of western Europe was not a success...in FDR's small mind?

Had Stalin's BFF lived (thank God he did not), he likely would have given ALL of Europe to his buddy, rather than only half of it.


----------



## regent (May 19, 2014)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect this whole thread to be an attempt to make FDR a communist dupe by making Eisenhower a communist dupe by making the Normandy invasion a communist plan. The non-communist route was through Italy not France and so few can see that.
> ...



Are you trying to say that after the defeat of Hitler the allies should have continued the war by attacking the USSR and forcing them to obey their agreements and giving up the land they had  taken?


----------



## rightwinger (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Its a conservative wet dream


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Dems are very defensive regarding their ideological forefathers


----------



## gipper (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



No.

Jumping to dumb conclusions, is well...for dummies.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Yes. Instead of subjecting hundreds of millions of people to the crushing oppression of Soviet Communism, we would have had a free Eastern Europe.

Patton thought so. He said WWII was a huge strategic failure for the USA and GB because all it did was trade one form of oppression for another. Of course, Democrats get very sensitive whenever there's criticism of their Uncle Joe so they hop in and call Patton crazy and a "War monger"

That's where Stalin's control of US foreign policy came in so handy. He made his Democrat sock puppets in the White House say "It's OK, Uncle Joe, take Eastern Europe" and so it was!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2014)

PC's Opus Dei like criticism of FDR and his policies makes no difference when one realizes that she would have had FDR either stay neutral or support Hitler vs. Stalin.  Neither were viable options for America's future.

That FDR and Eisenhower and others were willing dupes and lackeys of the commies is a loony tune recitation of the John Birch Society propaganda fifty and sixty years ago.

When you have Comrade Frank and others supporting her, you know that her argument has grown toxic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's Opus Dei like criticism of FDR and his policies makes no difference when one realizes that she would have had FDR either stay neutral or support Hitler vs. Stalin.  Neither were viable options for America's future.
> 
> That FDR and Eisenhower and others were willing dupes and lackeys of the commies is a loony tune recitation of the John Birch Society propaganda fifty and sixty years ago.
> 
> When you have Comrade Frank and others supporting her, you know that her argument has grown toxic.



See what I mean about how defensive Dems get when you criticize Stalin and his Sock Puppet FDR?


----------



## regent (May 19, 2014)

Why didn't the people of Eastern Europe do something themselves about their own plight? 
If America had continued WWII by attacking the USSR, what nations would have aided us? 
America sort is a democracy  and would the American people have gone along for more years of warfare with the USSR? 
America had begun dismantling her military even before Japan was defeated. I doubt if the American people would have supported more years of  warfare with the USSR.  
As for Patton, he was one of those that live for war, and would have attacked Mars if it meant keeping the war going. 
Today, some posters are ready for a war with the Soviet Union, but the bottom line at that time, is were the American people of that period, ready to spend more years in a war with the Soviet Union, so that the people of Eastern Europe could be free and Stalin keep his agreements? 
And in the end who won?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > PC's Opus Dei like criticism of FDR and his policies makes no difference when one realizes that she would have had FDR either stay neutral or support Hitler vs. Stalin.  Neither were viable options for America's future.
> ...



Whatever you "mean" is confused, Frank.  The great majority of our GOP opposes your and PC's nonsense about FDR.  You are a reactionary and not a Republican.  PC is further down the crazy spectrum then you.

Your attempt to revise American narrative, which is your right to do, will continue to fail as it has for sixty years.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> Why didn't the people of Eastern Europe do something themselves about their own plight?
> If America had continued WWII by attacking the USSR, what nations would have aided us?
> America sort is a democracy  and would the American people have gone along for more years of warfare with the USSR?
> America had begun dismantling her military even before Japan was defeated. I doubt if the American people would have supported more years of  warfare with the USSR.
> ...



The people of Eastern Europe were unarmed and that's why you're never going to take away our Second Amendment rights.

We would have rearmed the Germans. All of Eastern Europe would have lined up with us to fight against the "Descendants of Genghis Khan"

Patton was NOT a War Monger, he was a clear thinker and, unlike Democrats, was totally against Communism. He knew how evil it was, that why he was for pushing Stalin back.

In the end, Reagan won


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> Why didn't the people of Eastern Europe do something themselves about their own plight?
> If America had continued WWII by attacking the USSR, what nations would have aided us?
> America sort is a democracy  and would the American people have gone along for more years of warfare with the USSR?
> America had begun dismantling her military even before Japan was defeated. I doubt if the American people would have supported more years of  warfare with the USSR.
> ...



Frank can pontificate all he wants, and he is still wrong.

One, we could not have continued the war into the East of Europe and had hope for success, for several reasons.

Two, we still had the Japanese to finish off.

Three, we had no idea if the atomic bomb would work.

Fourth, all of our divisions were overseas, and we had no stateside training divisions or cadres or recruits for them.

Fifth, the American electorate would never had accepted attacking the Soviet Union after defeating the Nazis.

Sixth, neither the French, British, or the Poles would have accepted such a dangerous venture.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Jake, you sound EXACTLY like a Democrat! Look at your reflexive defense of FDR who has more people in his WH Reporting to Stalin than to him.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't the people of Eastern Europe do something themselves about their own plight?
> ...



Jake while you're defending the gains Stalin made, bear in mind that the USAF would have laid waste to entire Soviet armored divisions in little or no time.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Also, Eisenhower is responsible for Berlin being a divided city. Patton would have been there ahead of the USSR, but after consulting with USSR generals, Eisenhower redirected Patton to locate the non-existent German "National Redoubt". Patton tried to tell Ike he was being a dupe and a moron, but to no avail. 

Sure enough, there was no German National Redoubt, the USSR gets half of Berlin and the rest is history


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



One of the lessons learned early in the war against the German divisions is that they could not be bombed into submission. It took ground troops even though we had total control of the skies. The enemy is able to use weather and hiding, stealth and maneuver to counter some of the advantages of air power.


----------



## regent (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn't the people of Eastern Europe do something themselves about their own plight?
> ...



Yep, Gorby offered Reagan a deal and Reagan grabbed it. So in the end  Reagan began making deals with USSR sort of like we did during WWII when we held Stalin's coat after promising him second fronts for a couple of years. And now with the Reagan-deal Russia keeps her word and we no longer have any problems with Russia. The Eastern Europeans are free and happy and peace reigns? Who needed Genghis Khan?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



What deals is Putin offering Obama these days?


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Also, Eisenhower is responsible for Berlin being a divided city. Patton would have been there ahead of the USSR, but after consulting with USSR generals, Eisenhower redirected Patton to locate the non-existent German "National Redoubt". Patton tried to tell Ike he was being a dupe and a moron, but to no avail.
> 
> Sure enough, there was no German National Redoubt, the USSR gets half of Berlin and the rest is history



Patton was our wild man and vicious dog that had to be controlled lest he bring about troubles beyond his vision and understanding. He was dependent on an endless supply of material and men and a "blood and guts" attitude. Without that attitude and that endless supply of material, meaning fuel, replacement tanks and manpower he would have been just another General. He was not a General that realistically recognized or understood the big picture.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Also, Eisenhower is responsible for Berlin being a divided city. Patton would have been there ahead of the USSR, but after consulting with USSR generals, Eisenhower redirected Patton to locate the non-existent German "National Redoubt". Patton tried to tell Ike he was being a dupe and a moron, but to no avail.
> ...



"wild and vicious dog"? LOL

Just shut the fuck up. I have no patience for your brand of stupid today


----------



## gipper (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Also, Eisenhower is responsible for Berlin being a divided city. Patton would have been there ahead of the USSR, but after consulting with USSR generals, Eisenhower redirected Patton to locate the non-existent German "National Redoubt". Patton tried to tell Ike he was being a dupe and a moron, but to no avail.
> ...



Yeah...if only Patton had been removed years earlier, then maybe Stalin would have taken all of Europe...if only....


----------



## regent (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dems are very defensive regarding their ideological forefathers



And well they should be, and maybe this explains it?

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of that liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." 

General Douglas MacArthur.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Also, Eisenhower is responsible for Berlin being a divided city. Patton would have been there ahead of the USSR, but after consulting with USSR generals, Eisenhower redirected Patton to locate the non-existent German "National Redoubt". Patton tried to tell Ike he was being a dupe and a moron, but to no avail.
> ...



This is how you know Democrats are descended from Communists.


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well perhaps you should go cut the grass or find something else to do. Vicious dog is not meant as an insult to Patton you dumb ass. It is a compliment. If you don't understand how the warrior class is organized that is your weakness. A small street gang will have a pit bull and a platoon will have squad of them and a company will have a platoon of them and it goes all the way up the line that way until you have an Army Corp that has an entire Division that is the pit bull, or vicious dog that will attack without fear or mercy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dems are very defensive regarding their ideological forefathers
> ...



Liberals from the 60's were protesting the war and abuse of government powers; today's Liberals are too busy Fluffing Obama to speak out against the drones, IRS or the NSA


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



You're totally fucking ignorant about Patton and WWII in general. Just shut the fuck up


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That is only the message you get from my post. That is because you are one of those shallow thinkers that have to relate everything to politics and particularly politics of the day. It seems beyond your ability to understand that Patton can be viewed as a General that was greatly needed at the time and was perhaps the only General in the ranks that could perform the way he did, yet have limitations in other areas of endeavor.


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No I'm not. You just don't know how to counter the things I've said so your only recourse is to attack the messenger.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Frank, (1) you are wrong on the effect of aerial warfare against the vast geography of the USSR, and (2) you have no idea what formations were and were not available.

No such war could have succeeded.  And a typical McCarthyite like statement from you that I was defending Stalin's successes.

Your reactionary propaganda does not substitute for fact and objectivity.


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

Patton was our General in command of our armored version of shock troops. People who worship Patton usually are people who don't know the difference between shock troops and regular maneuver infantry. They have no concept of the specific roles of specifically trained units and hence can't possible relate to military field tactics.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 19, 2014)

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



exactly.that couldnt be anything further from the truth that Patton didnt recognize or understand the big picture. Patton more than anybody,saw what an evil tyrant Stalin was and how russia was the REAL enemy.as you can see from this link,he said he could have taken Berlin but Eisenhower would not let him and stopped him and would not allow  him to do so. any wonder he died very mysteriously afterwards.

funny how when I expose how corrupt and evil Eisenhower really was  and Patton was actually a bright man with this link below,that it goes ignored EVERYTIME.

I could have taken it (Berlin) had I been allowed.

Letter from General George Patton to his wife on July 21, 1945.  

By stopping General Patton's advance and handing Eastern Germany to Stalin, "Ike" enabled the mass rapes and murders.
Who Else Liked Ike? Stalin; That's Who!


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

Patton did not see the big picture, he saw an element of it, but that is where his vision stopped. His vision of USSR taking control of Eastern Europe was not unique. It had been discussed and debated in Washington and London and it's fate concluded. What Patton did not "see" were the political repercussions if the war continued as he proposed. America would not support a continued war to "free" the people of what looked like and had always been a perfectly good buffer zone between the USSR and the western allies of Europe. If Patton's advice had been followed America would vote out the leaders that subjected the nation to more sacrifice to achieve a stalemate with the loss of hundreds of thousand of troops and install one that was isolationist and would abandon all of Europe to their own hopeless future that would allow the USSR to grow to enormous power and wealth and have to be dealt with eventually. Eastern Europe was a burden placed on the USSR that gave the USA the chance to build the western allies into strong economic powers and created a military powerhouse that would neutralize USSR dreams of further expansion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Jake, As usual your reflexive defense of Stalin and Communism makes you look foolish and exposes you as the Komrade we know you to be.

I don't know how you post something like "aerial warfare against the vast geography of the USSR". Do you think they just bomb and strafe the entire country and just hit tanks at random??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> Patton was our General in command of our armored version of shock troops. People who worship Patton usually are people who don't know the difference between shock troops and regular maneuver infantry. They have no concept of the specific roles of specifically trained units and hence can't possible relate to military field tactics.



I beg you to shut the fuck up. Besides annoying me with your ignorance, you're embarrassing yourself. I'm actually doing you a favor


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Patton was our General in command of our armored version of shock troops. People who worship Patton usually are people who don't know the difference between shock troops and regular maneuver infantry. They have no concept of the specific roles of specifically trained units and hence can't possible relate to military field tactics.
> ...



I wish someone with actual knowledge would counter some of the specifics regarding military tactics and strategy in my comments.  I debated the Italian campaign yesterday on this thread and provided numerous links to help understand that aspect and engagement and how it effected the war effort. This Patton thing is just a deflection with only minor connections to the topic of the OP, but it is what it is.
If you have a problem with being annoyed it is because you are frustrated that you can not argue your point with anything other than whining and nonsense. If Patton was not used as a tactical version of an armored shock troop element, explain why the analysis or conclusion is wrong. I welcome the review and alternate explanation. Your crap is just crap.  You are the annoying embarrassment.


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

Here you go. If the annoying stuff really gets to you, read this.

http://history.army.mil/html/books/Mobility_Shock_and_Firepower/CMH_30-23-1.pdf

Get back with us when you come up with a alternative theory about that Mobility-Shock-Firepower doctrine. Should be interesting since your favorite General used the doctrine and even helped implement and write some new chapters for it.


----------



## regent (May 19, 2014)

The beauty of revising history to meet one's politics is that many of the important factors can be omitted, new ones emphasized, and all configured to meet one's political goals. One of factors that is overlooked at times is the diplomacy required to keep the allies killing Germans. I often thought that is one reason Ike was picked instead of a Patton. Patton was a time-bomb waiting to go off, yet he was extremely valuable in the right slot. In the movie Patton there was a scene that was inserted I believe as a sop to WWII infantry soldiers when an enlisted puke says to another, yeah our blood and his guts.  How many wars do generals get to become famous?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> The beauty of revising history to meet one's politics is that many of the important factors can be omitted, new ones emphasized, and all configured to meet one's political goals. One of factors that is overlooked at times is the diplomacy required to keep the allies killing Germans. I often thought that is one reason Ike was picked instead of a Patton. Patton was a time-bomb waiting to go off, yet he was extremely valuable in the right slot. In the movie Patton there was a scene that was inserted I believe as a sop to WWII infantry soldiers when an enlisted puke says to another, yeah our blood and his guts.  How many wars do generals get to become famous?



Another ignorant, dopey fuck.

After the Soldier Slap, Patton and Omar Bradley traded places. Patton would have ended the war in favor of the US and Brits 6 months ahead of Ike/Bradley.

I take back what I said about Camp needing to shut the fuck up, you and he need to tell us all about Patton and WWII


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Here you go. If the annoying stuff really gets to you, read this.
> ...



No Frank, screw that deflection crap. You got critical and told me to shut up over my post about how Patton used his armored division the way infantry shock troops were used. You got pretty darn ignorant about it. I posted a link to a book by the US military that gives detailed history about the use of tank warfare from 1917 to 1945 which has in it's title the word SHOCK. Specifically it refers to armor warfare as MOBILITY-SHOCK and FIREPOWER and that is part of the actual title. Your response is a link to a bio about General Patton. 
Lame Frank.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



It was to educate you about George Patton and I took it down as a useless, futile gesture


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Oh bull, you just don't have a way to respond in an intellectual way. I learned about Patton as a child. An uncle, my Uncle Brownie, served in his HQ as a Major. He never talked about it, but my family followed Patton during the war as you can imagine. Long before my time, but our shelves were full of books about him and his deeds. As a bonus I was able to read the old newspaper and magazine articles written during the war and saved in our attic along with articles about the USS Enterprise, the 82ND AND 101ST Airborne, also units and a ship relatives served with. For some reason articles about the Eighth AF and B-17's weren't kept. That relative, Richard, didn't come home.

So here is a treat for you Frank. Two of your favorites on the same venue. Patton and Reagan.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=sSByDgizwck]George S. Patton - General of the US Army | American Hero of WW2 | Biography Documentary - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



except he throws temper tantrems and goes into meltdown mode having near heart attacks when you expose the myths of reagan, how evil and corrupt he  REALLY was and when you shread to pieces  the lies of the CIA controlled media that he was a great president. the truth of his cousin Reagan being exposed makes him have to go take his blood pressure pills everytime since the truth scares him to death and he cant handle it and still lives in denial about his distant cousin.


----------



## Unkotare (May 19, 2014)

Anyone recall a less than glorious occasion when MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton served together in dubious distinction before WWII?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Say hello to George HW Bush from us willya. 

Reagan was a great US President.

Patton was Americas greatest military general

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



I apologize for the insults. Ignorant statements about Patton just set me off

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Anyone recall a less than glorious occasion when MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton served together in dubious distinction before WWII?



I forgot that stuff decades ago. Thanks for the memories. A real BONUS.


----------



## regent (May 19, 2014)

Unkotare said:


> Anyone recall a less than glorious occasion when MacArthur, Eisenhower, and Patton served together in dubious distinction before WWII?



After they had shot a couple of veterans and a baby died in that first bonus army confrontation a new bonus army converged on DC. This time FDR sent Eleanor to talk to the vets instead of MacArthur and friends. Eleanor had coffee with the vets and they posed  for some pictures and later the vets went home. The bonus bill was passed over FDR's veto.


----------



## whitehall (May 19, 2014)

regent said:


> 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.



Truman could have legally run for a full 2nd term but Korean Vets sent him packing. He couldn't even muster enough support from democrats to withstand a primary fight. Truman sent Troops to Korea on an executive order and Korea became Truman's war but strangely enough he was afraid of the political and media clout of the general he appointed. MacArthur told the president of the United States that he was too busy to fly to Washington to talk about the situation in Korea and Truman had to pack up and meet him for talks at Wake Island. Truman was intentionally disrespected by MacArthur who wore a disheveled uniform and refused to salute. Next thing you know Truman went along with MacArthur's insane (in a clinical sense) plan to expand the mission and we ended up with not only the biggest ambush in history at Chosin but the loss of 50,000 Troops in three years and an embarrassing truce under Chinese Communist demands when we had the war won before MacArthur's ego trip..


----------



## regent (May 19, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The beauty of revising history to meet one's politics is that many of the important factors can be omitted, new ones emphasized, and all configured to meet one's political goals. One of factors that is overlooked at times is the diplomacy required to keep the allies killing Germans. I often thought that is one reason Ike was picked instead of a Patton. Patton was a time-bomb waiting to go off, yet he was extremely valuable in the right slot. In the movie Patton there was a scene that was inserted I believe as a sop to WWII infantry soldiers when an enlisted puke says to another, yeah our blood and his guts.  How many wars do generals get to become famous?
> ...



Glad to help, so what do you need to know? Actually I never served with Patton and Camp seems more knowledgeable, but with your "ifs" of history you can have Patton doing just about anything, winning wars galore. Ike put Patton in the right spot and kept him muzzled.


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2014)

By far the best US General of WWII was Lt. Gen. Alexander Patch. He is referred to as the "most underrated" General and that is the truth. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 20, 2014)

Camp said:


> By far the best US General of WWII was Lt. Gen. Alexander Patch. He is referred to as the "most underrated" General and that is the truth. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.





I'm gonna use your quote today...stay tuned.


Don't worry, I won't use your name.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 20, 2014)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Ike Kept Patton Muzzled alright.Traiter Ike,kept patton from taking over berlin giving it away to his pal and FDR's pal,mass murderer Stalin.

I could have taken it (Berlin) had I been allowed.&#8221;

Letter from General George Patton to his wife on July 21, 1945.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 20, 2014)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Patton would have closed the Falaise pocket and dealt  the Germans bigger defeat than Stalingrad....I thought you and Camp knew this stuff

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## regent (May 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I only know what I read and experience, and when you get into the "IF's" of history, it gets a little garbled, sort of like a board game. Millions of mistakes were made in WWII from the GI that should have dug his slit trench a might deeper, or us shooting down our own paratroopers, to decisions made by generals. And to now go back and re-fight those battles leaving out many other factors of the battle is difficult.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 20, 2014)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Well, it's a good thing Patton kept a diary and corresponded with people so we have a real time record of what he thought and said.


----------



## Camp (May 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



My opinion is that your are viewing the Falaise engagement and entire situation without taking into consideration the components and potential repercussions if Patton would have been given the orders you propose. 
First, the suggestion that Germany would have suffered a defeat comparable to Stalingrad. That just does't make sense, not even mathematical sense. Falaise had approximately 100,000 German troops involved in the area and battle. In the resulting battle, which was the closing battle of Operation Overlord, the Germans lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 to 30,000 casualties, another 20,000 plus captured and the rest, escaped leaving their equipment, including all of their tanks and artillery on the battlefield. The actual number of dead and escaped is unknown. That is because bulldozers were used to bury the German dead and an accurate count was never made. By the time the allies got to the battlefield which had been bombed by air and artillery to the point of total destruction, the bodies of the Germans that had not been torn to pieces were blotted with gas and had to be shot as a method of releasing the gas before burying in mass grave.
The Germans lost 1.5 million at Stalingrad. That hardly compares to 100,000 troops at Falaise.
Eisenhower chose to use bombs, Polish and British troops instead of Patton to finish off the last operation of OVERLORD, the Normandy Invasion.
Elements of American and Free French forces took part in the battle with a large Canadian involvement.


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes what a terrible mistake.  Many experts believe had Allied command listened to Patton and allowed him to encircle the Germans at Argentan-Falaise, the war would have ended shortly thereafter.  The allies could have marched all the way to Berlin unopposed....now imagine what Stalin would have thought of that.

This might have prevented east Germany from 50 years of hell under the USSR and maybe saved other east Euro nations too.


----------



## Camp (May 20, 2014)

gipper said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Are there any military history experts that actually agree with that and offer some kind of substantive reasons for that opinion?


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2014)

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Really?


----------



## regent (May 20, 2014)

Bradley ordered the troops to stop closing the door on the pocket because the Canadians on one side and Americans on the other could clash with friendly fire killing both Canadians and Americans. By the time it was cleared many Germans had escaped. As it was, however, 10,000 Germans were killed and 50,000 captured. In any case it doesn't sound like it had much to do with the taking of Berlin. 
I imagine many a GI lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin. To armchair generals on these boards does the loss of life  enter their board game of generalship? Of course the response will be ending the war quicker means a less loss of life.


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2014)

regent said:


> Bradley ordered the troops to stop closing the door on the pocket because the Canadians on one side and Americans on the other could clash with friendly fire killing both Canadians and Americans. By the time it was cleared many Germans had escaped. As it was, however, 10,000 Germans were killed and 50,000 captured. In any case it doesn't sound like it had much to do with the taking of Berlin.
> I imagine many a GI lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin. To armchair generals on these boards does the loss of life  enter their board game of generalship? Of course the response will be ending the war quicker means a less loss of life.



Actually had the allies succeeded in closing the gap and preventing the Germans escape, many lives might have been saved....think no Battle of the Bulge.

Mistakes in war on commonplace.  Failing to close the gap, at the earliest possible time, was a huge mistake.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 13, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
> And, perhaps he lived up to both.
> But he carried baggage, and a view that surprised quite a few.
> 
> ...



If Ike was a hope for new beginnings for america then no wonder america is a facist dictatership now. were talking about a man who stood next to Stalin and watched him murder thousands of women.I have posted that pic here many times before and will do again over the weekend when i find it again.


----------



## regent (Mar 14, 2015)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Bradley ordered the troops to stop closing the door on the pocket because the Canadians on one side and Americans on the other could clash with friendly fire killing both Canadians and Americans. By the time it was cleared many Germans had escaped. As it was, however, 10,000 Germans were killed and 50,000 captured. In any case it doesn't sound like it had much to do with the taking of Berlin.
> ...


The question, however, is why didn't you give this information to Ike at that time, it surely would have saved  the bulge fiasco.


----------



## gipper (Mar 15, 2015)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



You seem to think the Allied military command are above criticism and any criticism of them today, is merely monday morning quarterbacking.  Terribly foolish.

Patton wanted to close the gap and had the ability to do so.  He was told by his superiors to stop.  Thus allowing the German army to escape and continue fighting.  Mistakes happen and if we fail to learn from those mistakes, as you suggest we should, military leaders will make them again.  Mistakes happen in war with regularity...only small minds think pointing out mistakes is the same thing as asserting some conspiracy was involved.  Are you small minded?

There are several good books on the subject,  You might try reading them.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 15, 2015)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...





"....why didn't you give this information...."

That sure was a knee-slapper the first thirty-forty times you wrote it.



You're a clever guy.....




.....not.


----------



## regent (Mar 15, 2015)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Since the same stuff is being posted the same responses still apply. Perhaps we should just number the attacks and number the responses, save time?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 15, 2015)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...





Actually, it never applied.

It was an insufferably poor attempt to dodge the points raised.

It is sophomoric....your statement that you disagree but have neither the education nor the ability to contest same.

Carry on.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 15, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > General Eisenhower was elected as a coda to the war, and a hope for new beginnings.
> ...



Here is the proof in the pudding that I wasnt blowing smoke everybody.

Eisenhower and his times?  yeah traiter Ike and THESE times.

_As 2 million German women were being gang raped on Stalin's orders, Eisenhower partied with 'Uncle Joe' - atop Lenin's tomb!_

Who Else Liked Ike Stalin That s Who 


thats a lot of hope for a lot of great beginnings for america all right.

Pc probably thinks that photo is doctored or something lunatic like that. she cant deal with cold hard facts that it is a genuine authentic photo.


----------

