Roosevelt, Stalin and The Elusive "Second Front"

[JakeStarkey]

[Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939
Nov 27, 2007 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch....if you ever decide to educate yourself.
I'm never wrong......learn that.

You are wrong about this, and Professor Schivelbush would curse you to your face for the misuse and corruption of his work for your evil purposes. You are a little Nazi.

Are you claiming to have read Schivelbusch's book???? Now....don't run off and hide......answer the question.

I know you have not because you could not have come to the conclusion that it supports your thesis.

Now show us how exactly the Professor's work supports your nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....where the heck is was that elusive "second front"???
Depends how you define "second front."

Let's see how elusive that "second front" really was.


8. So....what, exactly, did Stalin want from American foreign policy? The call was for an Anglo-American 'second front,' in Western Europe, to draw German forces away from their attack on mother Russia, the putative 'first front.'

The astute should have noted that the real 'first front' was Poland, which had been attacked in 1939 by both Hitler and Stalin.
But, put that aside....


a. After Pearl Harbor, wasn't the South Pacific a second front?


b. Ten thousand American and Filipino troops were killed, and 20,000 wounded, at Bataan.
How about a 'front' there?

c. How about North Africa?
In June, 1942, Rommel accepted surrender of the British, Tobruk, Libya. Rommel took more than 30,000 prisoners, 2,000 vehicles, 2,000 tons of fuel, and 5,000 tons of rations. Harry Hopkins and George Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'



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

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


Yup!
'Russia Uber Alles'

What nation did Roosevelt represent, again?

 

[regent]

Did FDR do a con-job on old Stalin about the second front? I mean all those excuses over the years must have had an effect on old Joe. How long can you do "The second front Is in the mail" before it get old. But I also think of the America lives FDR saved with the delay. Wonder how that delay is written up in the Russian history books?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Looks like I caught Jakal in a lie....and he ran off with his tail between his legs.

You have gotten your ass booted all over the Board on this issue. Yet again. Here is your consolation prize.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939
Nov 27, 2007 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch....if you ever decide to educate yourself.
I'm never wrong......learn that.

You are wrong about this, and Professor Schivelbush would curse you to your face for the misuse and corruption of his work for your evil purposes. You are a little Nazi.

Are you claiming to have read Schivelbusch's book???? Now....don't run off and hide......answer the question.

I know you have not because you could not have come to the conclusion that it supports your thesis.

Now show us how exactly the Professor's work supports your nonsense.

Now, Jakal....answer the question.

You wrote "You are wrong about this, and Professor Schivelbush would curse you to your face for the misuse and corruption of his work for your evil purposes. You are a little Nazi."

Did you read the book?

You certainly tried to imply that you have/


Did you?

Or were you intentionally lying?

You can answer.....everyone knows you are a liar...I just like documenting it.

If you say you have....I'll ask you a question or two.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks like I caught Jakal in a lie....and he ran off with his tail between his legs.

You have gotten your ass booted all over the Board on this issue. Yet again. Here is your consolation prize.

You're lying again.

I've won every round....a shut-out.

You haven't been able to even quote one fact that you could dispute.


Did you read Schivelbusch's book
Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939
Nov 27, 2007
by Wolfgang Schivelbusch


...or are you simply a blow-hard liar?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did FDR do a con-job on old Stalin about the second front? I mean all those excuses over the years must have had an effect on old Joe. How long can you do "The second front Is in the mail" before it get old. But I also think of the America lives FDR saved with the delay. Wonder how that delay is written up in the Russian history books?

Talking out of your hat again?

What happened....your historians didn't tell you what to say?

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

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




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.

He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher



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




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



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

"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



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

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.

After all....that might not have presented the Red Army with Eastern Europe, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

15 minutes....and Jakal won't admit he lied in implying he read the book....or even knows who Wolfgang Schivelbusch is......


I love it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Affirmation is yours, honey. You quoted the prof and the title in support of your OP, but offered nothing from the book to evidence that affirmation.

We know you are lying that (1) you read the book and (2) that it supports your OP.

Go ahead and do so and I will ask you some questions to see if you are lying.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Affirmation is yours, honey. You quoted the prof and the title in support of your OP, but offered nothing from the book to evidence that affirmation.

We know you are lying that (1) you read the book and (2) that it supports your OP.

Go ahead and do so and I will ask you some questions to see if you are lying.

In fact, once we expose PC's reply, we can move on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If any of this is a graduate work by PC for a graduate degree at a reputable university, she can kiss her chances good bye.

 

[Dot Com]

FDR save the county by pulling it out of the great depression and defeating Nazi Germany. Probably the best president since Washington, maybe even better.

He had no love of Hitler and Stalin.

^ that

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, we are waiting for evidence from the Prof's book (accessible online page and verse) that supports your OP.

You have not even told us you read the book.

Come on, PC, we are waiting.

 

[westwall]

The fact remain, PC, is that you are delusional on this subject.

Then argue the points she brings up, instead of repeating your mindless personal attacks on her.

 

[westwall]

FDR save the county by pulling it out of the great depression and defeating Nazi Germany. Probably the best president since Washington, maybe even better.

He had no love of Hitler and Stalin.

There is actually far more evidence that FDR's policies prolonged the depression. Far more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Affirmation is yours, honey. You quoted the prof and the title in support of your OP, but offered nothing from the book to evidence that affirmation.

We know you are lying that (1) you read the book and (2) that it supports your OP.

Go ahead and do so and I will ask you some questions to see if you are lying.

In fact, once we expose PC's reply, we can move on.

You are a lying sack of offal...

....you never read the book, you are clueless as to who Schivelbusch is, and now your dancing around.
You attempted to pretend that you have some expertise....and you've been caught.

No fear.

Everyone already knows you are a lying imbecile....


As I quoted the kinship section of the book, it is clear that I read the book....studied it actually, and quoted it correctly.


You remain a stinking pile of effluvia

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, we are waiting for evidence from the Prof's book (accessible online page and verse) that supports your OP.

You have not even told us you read the book.

Come on, PC, we are waiting.

Did you read it or not, you excrement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remain, PC, is that you are delusional on this subject.

Then argue the points she brings up, instead of repeating your mindless personal attacks on her.

Read the whole string. She won't post the evidence we are asking for. She is mindlessly chattering. I can't refute an affirmation for which she does not give the Professor's argument she cites.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You cited the Professor as an expert, PC, but you have not read the book, and have not posted his material. You get nothing until you do your due diligence. Post the evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fact remain, PC, is that you are delusional on this subject.

You cited the Professor as an expert, PC, but you have not read the book, and have not posted his material. You get nothing until you do your due diligence. Post the evidence.

Did you read the book, dirt-bag, or did I catch you in another lie.