The Forgotten Part Of Normandy

[francoHFW]

The main assault was by German airborne, but at least three convoys of Italian ships and boats were involved as well.
EXCERPTS;
...

Axis landing attempt, 21/22 May​

An Axis convoy of around 20 caïques, escorted by the Italian torpedo boat Lupo, tried to land German reinforcements near Maleme. Force D under Rear-Admiral Irvine Glennie, with three light cruisers and four destroyers, intercepted the convoy before midnight; the convoy turned back with the loss of more than half of its boats, despite Lupo's defence. ...
...

Axis landing attempt, 22/23 May​

Italian torpedo boat Sagittario

Admiral Andrew Cunningham sent Force C (three cruisers and four destroyers, commanded by Rear Admiral Edward Leigh Stuart King) into the Aegean Sea through the Kasos Strait, to attack a second flotilla of transports, escorted by the Italian torpedo boat Sagittario. The force sank an isolated caïque at 08:30, saving itself from an air attack that struck the cruiser HMS Naiad as the German pilots tried to avoid killing their troops in the water. The British squadron was under constant air attack and, short of anti-aircraft ammunition, steamed on toward Milos, sighting Sagittario at 10:00. ... Eventually, the convoy and its escort managed to slip away undamaged. King's ships, despite their failure to destroy the German troop transports, had succeeded in forcing the Axis to abort the landing by their mere presence at sea.
...

23–27 May​

Aftermath of a German air attack on Souda Bay

Fighting against fresh German troops, the Allies retreated southward; the 5th Destroyer Flotilla, consisting of HMS Kelly, HMS Kipling, HMS Kelvin, HMS Jackal and HMS Kashmir, (Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten), was ordered to leave Malta on 21 May, to join the fleet off Crete and arrived after Gloucester and Fiji were sunk. They were sent to pick up survivors and then diverted to attack a German convoy of about fifty ships and caïques off Cape Spatha on Rodopou peninsula, western Crete on the night of 22/23 May and then shell the Germans at Maleme.
...
... ] German search-and-rescue aircraft and Italian motor torpedo boats, spotted and rescued the 262 survivors from the German light convoy sunk off Cape Spatha.
...
On 26 May, in the face of the stalled German advance, senior Wehrmacht officers requested Mussolini to send Italian Army units to Crete in order to help the German forces fighting there.[86][need quotation to verify] On the afternoon of 27 May, an Italian convoy departed from Rhodes with the intention of landing a brigade from the 50th Infantry Division Regina, supported by 13 L3/35 light tanks.[87] Italian participation in the battle of Crete was limited and finally on 28 May when the campaign was already decided in favour to the Germans and Allied evacuation had begun, an Italian landing force approached the west coast of the island off Siteia.[88][89][90]

At 13:30 on 28 May, the Italians believed that three cruisers and six destroyers of the Royal Navy were steaming up towards the northern coast of Crete in support of Allied troops, but the Royal Navy was fully occupied evacuating the Crete garrison.[85][87] The Italians assumed that the Royal Navy force would be off Sitia, the planned landing site, by 17:00 and the commander decided that the slowest ship of the convoy would be taken in tow by Lince to increase speed and Crispi was detached to shell the lighthouse at Cape Sideros. The 3,000 men of the division and their equipment were on shore by 17:20 and advanced west mostly unopposed, rendezvousing with the Germans at Ierapetra. The Italian troops later moved their headquarters from Sitia to Agios Nikolaos
...

Battle of Crete - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As can be seen, there were efforts to reinforce by sea, using mostly Italian naval forces and eventually an Italian Brigade was landed on the island. A little more than just there for the photo.
~~~~~~~~~~~
If you check the attitude and insults, you's have more credibility on your claimed education and knowledge.

So as I said the Italians took no part in the attack on Crete. now STHU for God's sake. Ever heard the one about not seeing the forest for the trees?


\\

 

[westwall]

So as I said the Italians took no part in the attack on Crete. now STHU for God's sake. Ever heard the one about not seeing the forest for the trees?


\\

Their navy was involved, thus they took part in the Battle for Crete you lying hack.

 

[Mushroom]

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

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

Oh good God, is this the level of historical knowledge we have to work with?

I always find it amazing that most people do not know that America actually invaded Europe. Way back on 3 September 1943. And the battle there was a long and vicious stalemate, with relatively little ground gained for the losses.

Just before D-Day, the Allies finally won the Battle of Monte Cassino. A 4 month long bloodbath that saw over 55,000 casualties. The simple fact is, the Allies already were going through Italy, but the terrain there was almost made for defense and not offense.

Remember when you look at that map, they had landed in September 1943. But it took them until June 1944 to finally pass the "Gustav Line" and take Rome. And they would not reach the Gothic Line in Northern Italy until late 1944. And even though fighting continued, they had yet to even reach Austria via Italy when the war ended.

And the reasons for this were many. Italy was a long ways from the US or UK, and supporting it was a royal pain in the ass logistically. All supplies had to come in via ship, a distance of well over 3,000 miles from London. All through waters infested with German submarines and aircraft.

However, most of Europe was almost perfectly made for the kind of offensive that was needed to take the fight to Germany. Fairly flat terrain, no major obstacles, and easy to reach via air and sea from the UK.

I have to laugh when something this basic is ignored, and instead used as some kind of political attack.

But please, I will sit back and let everybody explain to me how it would have been better if we had instead invaded Italy, and then gone up through Austria.

I guess a lot of people forgot about this minor geological feature that probably most have never heard if. It's called "The Alps".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh good God, is this the level of historical knowledge we have to work with?

I always find it amazing that most people do not know that America actually invaded Europe. Way back on 3 September 1943. And the battle there was a long and vicious stalemate, with relatively little ground gained for the losses.

Just before D-Day, the Allies finally won the Battle of Monte Cassino. A 4 month long bloodbath that saw over 55,000 casualties. The simple fact is, the Allies already were going through Italy, but the terrain there was almost made for defense and not offense.

Remember when you look at that map, they had landed in September 1943. But it took them until June 1944 to finally pass the "Gustav Line" and take Rome. And they would not reach the Gothic Line in Northern Italy until late 1944. And even though fighting continued, they had yet to even reach Austria via Italy when the war ended.

And the reasons for this were many. Italy was a long ways from the US or UK, and supporting it was a royal pain in the ass logistically. All supplies had to come in via ship, a distance of well over 3,000 miles from London. All through waters infested with German submarines and aircraft.

However, most of Europe was almost perfectly made for the kind of offensive that was needed to take the fight to Germany. Fairly flat terrain, no major obstacles, and easy to reach via air and sea from the UK.

I have to laugh when something this basic is ignored, and instead used as some kind of political attack.

But please, I will sit back and let everybody explain to me how it would have been better if we had instead invaded Italy, and then gone up through Austria.

I guess a lot of people forgot about this minor geological feature that probably most have never heard if. It's called "The Alps".

It was Eisenhower's opinion.


Are you suggesting readers give more weight to your considered opinion than his?



Eisenhower said that Italy, straight North was the correct strategy......until he was given another star.


In 1943, before he was offered another star:
"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....

" 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

He received his fifth star December 20, 1944....four days after Marshall received his.

 

[francoHFW]

Oh good God, is this the level of historical knowledge we have to work with?

I always find it amazing that most people do not know that America actually invaded Europe. Way back on 3 September 1943. And the battle there was a long and vicious stalemate, with relatively little ground gained for the losses.

Just before D-Day, the Allies finally won the Battle of Monte Cassino. A 4 month long bloodbath that saw over 55,000 casualties. The simple fact is, the Allies already were going through Italy, but the terrain there was almost made for defense and not offense.

Remember when you look at that map, they had landed in September 1943. But it took them until June 1944 to finally pass the "Gustav Line" and take Rome. And they would not reach the Gothic Line in Northern Italy until late 1944. And even though fighting continued, they had yet to even reach Austria via Italy when the war ended.

And the reasons for this were many. Italy was a long ways from the US or UK, and supporting it was a royal pain in the ass logistically. All supplies had to come in via ship, a distance of well over 3,000 miles from London. All through waters infested with German submarines and aircraft.

However, most of Europe was almost perfectly made for the kind of offensive that was needed to take the fight to Germany. Fairly flat terrain, no major obstacles, and easy to reach via air and sea from the UK.

I have to laugh when something this basic is ignored, and instead used as some kind of political attack.

But please, I will sit back and let everybody explain to me how it would have been better if we had instead invaded Italy, and then gone up through Austria.

I guess a lot of people forgot about this minor geological feature that probably most have never heard if. It's called "The Alps".

I will go with Eisenhower and Churchill, it's a question of opinion, smartass. This quote of mine is not from this thread at all lol.

 

[westwall]

It was Eisenhower's opinion.


Are you suggesting readers give more weight to your considered opinion than his?



Eisenhower said that Italy, straight North was the correct strategy......until he was given another star.


In 1943, before he was offered another star:
"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....

" 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

He received his fifth star December 20, 1944....four days after Marshall received his.

His opinion was wrong. I don't care if he got another star or not, it was wrong. The town of Cassino was held by a single German parachute regiment (the Third) and they fought off three divisions. In other words they were outnumbered a minimum of 9 to 1 and they still prevailed. The only reason why they left their positions was because we landed behind them at Anzio, which has been called the "largest self supporting POW camp in history".

And the process would have begun again. And ultimately, if the losses were ignored, we would have finally made it to the Alps, and then we would have been stuck. Italy is a no win situation. It is built for defense. Not offense.

In this case your position is wrong. Eisenhower was wrong. The losses to try and take the country would have been astronomical. Italy, as a battlefield, was tailor made for the Germans. It magnifies every one of their advantages, and minimizes their disadvantages.

 

[Oddball]

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



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




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

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

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






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

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

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





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

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

"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would becloser to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....



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

Just ask Hillary were she got that dossier.

Not so sure about your assessment of the suppoed ease of launching a land war from Italy....It has choke points to both the east and west by that little bit of hill country known as the Alps.

 

[PoliticalChic]

His opinion was wrong. I don't care if he got another star or not, it was wrong. The town of Cassino was held by a single German parachute regiment (the Third) and they fought off three divisions. In other words they were outnumbered a minimum of 9 to 1 and they still prevailed. The only reason why they left their positions was because we landed behind them at Anzio, which has been called the "largest self supporting POW camp in history".

And the process would have begun again. And ultimately, if the losses were ignored, we would have finally made it to the Alps, and then we would have been stuck. Italy is a no win situation. It is built for defense. Not offense.

In this case your position is wrong. Eisenhower was wrong. The losses to try and take the country would have been astronomical. Italy, as a battlefield, was tailor made for the Germans. It magnifies every one of their advantages, and minimizes their disadvantages.

There are two reasons I'm gonna go with Eisenhower......first, he was the experienced exec on site. He was good at what he did.

Second, the plan to use Normandy was Stalin's in anticipation of his Red Army occupying Europe after the war.
FDR went along with just about every demand Stalin made, no matter the reasons.

By agreeing to Stalin's demands that the 'second front' be via Western Europe, rather than the Italy-Adriatic, Franklin Roosevelt was agreeing to turn Central and Eastern Europe over to occupation by the Red Army....and its 'tender mercies.'​

​

Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies.​

Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin.​

​

Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":​

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."​

​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not so sure about your assessment of the suppoed ease of launching a land war from Italy....It has choke points to both the east and west by that little bit of hill country known as the Alps.

I don't know about "ease," but I do know it was Eisenhower's assessment before Stalin orderd FDR to bribe Eisenhower to go along with the Western Europe plan, Normandy.


Keep in mind that FDR turned over American soldier's lives to Stalin's demand for nothing less than "unconditional surrender."
Stalin needed Germany unable to resist communism post war.....so what he called 'pastoralizing' Germany. The policy extended the war needlessly.
. "Archival evidence indicates that the Soviet’s wanted the war to continue long enough for them to conquer Eastern Europe and in order for Germany to be utterly destroyed or “pastoralized” which was called for in the Morgenthau Plan which was actually written by Soviet spy Harry Dexter White. The Soviets were also clamoring for a “second front” in France in order to deflect the allies out of Italy and the Balkans which was too close to Russia."
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up







To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


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

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



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

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


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

 

[Oddball]

I don't know about "ease," but I do know it was Eisenhower's assessment before Stalin orderd FDR to bribe Eisenhower to go along with the Western Europe plan, Normandy.


Keep in mind that FDR turned over American soldier's lives to Stalin's demand for nothing less than "unconditional surrender."
Stalin needed Germany unable to resist communism post war.....so what he called 'pastoralizing' Germany. The policy extended the war needlessly.
. "Archival evidence indicates that the Soviet’s wanted the war to continue long enough for them to conquer Eastern Europe and in order for Germany to be utterly destroyed or “pastoralized” which was called for in the Morgenthau Plan which was actually written by Soviet spy Harry Dexter White. The Soviets were also clamoring for a “second front” in France in order to deflect the allies out of Italy and the Balkans which was too close to Russia."
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up







To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


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

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



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

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


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

Thee was no "mood of acceptance" until after Murican troops crossed the Rhine.

U.S doesn't invade, and all of Germany falls behind the Iron Curtain, maybe even other western European nations get gobbled up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have no doubt that, had Eisenhower stuck to his original view, attack through Italy......Stalin would have had him assassinated, as evidence suggestes he did with Patton.


"But the death of General George S. Patton presents a disturbing picture if one fully accepts history’s contention that his demise was simply the result of an accident. We begin with Sgt. Robert Thompson and his two friends, who were responsible for plowing into Patton’s car. Shortly after the accident, Thompson claims to have been flown to England by army intelligence for his own safety, due to the number of American soldiers who worshipped Patton and would perhaps have wanted to cause Thompson physical harm.



However, just four days after the collision, Thompson mysteriously makes his way back to Germany. There, he is interviewed by American journalist Howard K. Smith. In the wire service story Smith files on December 13, Thompson claims that Patton’s driver was speeding and at fault. Thompson also asserts that he was alone in the truck when it struck Patton’s limo, but Gen. Hap Gay and PFC Horace Woodring swear there were two other people in the truck with Thompson.



Indeed, a report dated December 18, 1945, by the Seventh Army provost marshal specifies that a German civilian employee of the 141st Signal Company of the First Armored Division (Thompson’scompany) named Frank Krummer was in the truck at the time of the accident. The name of the other passenger was not mentioned.



But that report, like every other document relating to the accident, has disappeared. So the veracity of Thompson’s story was never officially challenged. His version of events was not vetted by the military police. He was not arrested or detained for anything having to do with the accident. Robert Thompson soon vanishes from the historical record, surfacing only after he dies in Camden, New Jersey, on June 5, 1994.



Frank Krummer also disappears. And if there was a third occupant of the vehicle, his name remains unknown to this day.* * *

In 1979, OSS Jedburgh Douglas Bazata made the astounding assertion that he was part of a hit team that lay in wait for Patton’s limousine. He claimed that after the crash, he fired a low-velocity projectile into the back of Patton’s neck in order to snap it. When Patton did not die immediately, Bazata said, the general was murdered in the hospital by NKVD agents using an odorless poison. Bazata also swore that Wild Bill Donovan paid him ten thousand dollars plus another eight hundred dollars in expenses for his role in Patton’s death. But many believe that Bazata’s story is far-fetched. No projectiles were ever found, and surelyWoodring and Hap Gay would have seen any assassination team. However, Bazata held to his story. On September 25, 1979, he described Patton’s assassination to four hundred and fifty former OSS agents gathered for a reunion at the Washington Hilton.

1

Bazata does have some credibility. He was heavily decorated for his service as a Jedburgh,inning the Distinguished Service Cross, four Purple Hearts, and France’s Croix de Guerre with two palms."
The strange death of George S. Patton should be reexamined by American military investigators. Although the trail is ice cold, technological advances could solve some of the puzzles. There is no doubt that General Patton died a hero, and history certainly honors that to this day. But the tough old general did not go out on his own terms, and there are many unanswered questions surrounding his death. Those questions deserve to be addressed."

O'Reilly and Dugard, " Killing Patton"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thee was no "mood of acceptance" until after Murican troops crossed the Rhine.

U.S doesn't invade, and all of Germany falls behind the Iron Curtain, maybe even other western European nations get gobbled up.

Not so.


There were numerous attempts by anti-Hitler Germans to work out a surrender.
there was a large anti-Nazi, anti-communist German underground.

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

Wilhelm Canaris

Franz von Papen

Colonel General Ludwig Beck Beginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter, Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79). As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann, German Resistance, p. 153). The Greatest War Crime


Carl Friedrich Goerderler

Ulrich von Hassell

Johannes Popitz

Kurt von Hammerstein

Job Wilhelm Georg Erdmann Erwin von Witzleben (4 December 1881 – 8 August 1944) was a German officer, by 1940 in the rank of a Field Marshal(Generalfeldmarschall), and army commander in the Second World War. A leading conspirator in the 20 July plot,[1]he was designated to become Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht armed forces in a post-Nazi regime Erwin von Witzleben - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.General Edward Wagner

General Georg Thomas

Major General Hans Oster

General Friederich Olbricht

Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg

Wilhelm Leuchner

Julius Leber

Helmuth von Moltke

Baron Kurt von Lersner

Most importantly, the opposition to Hitler would have to be assured that the people who were about to risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow Hitler would, if they succeeded, be faced with something better than the "unconditional surrender" formula proclaimed as a British-American war aim at the Casablanca Conference of Churchill and Roosevelt in January 1943. Von Papen needed to know "whether they would grant, to a German Government which met democratic requirements, the rights to which Germany's history and position entitled her. This must be the decisive factor in any further step (von Papen,Memoirs, p. 499; and Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports! New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958, p. 417.)."


Franz Von Papen promised to get in touch with FDR. He decided to ask his friend, Baron Kurt von Lersner (a friend of FDR) to make contact with the former governor of Pennsylvania, Commander George H. Earle, FDR's personal representative (i.e., eyes and ears) for the Balkans, stationed in Istanbul. In the meantime, German Intelligence chief, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, long in contact with the Beck-Goerdeler group, had also decided to make the same attempt through Navy Captain Paul Leverkuehn, an internationally-known lawyer and acquaintance of William J. Donovan, head of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (Heinz Hoehne, Canaris, trans. J. Maxwell Brownjohn Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979, pp. 482-83; Ritter, Goerdeler's Struggle; and von Papen, Memoirs, pp. 488-89, 499.).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thee was no "mood of acceptance" until after Murican troops crossed the Rhine.

U.S doesn't invade, and all of Germany falls behind the Iron Curtain, maybe even other western European nations get gobbled up.

Wilhelm Canaris, in full Wilhelm Franz Canaris, (born January 1, 1887, Aplerbeck, Westphalia, Germany—died April 9, 1945, Flossenbürg concentration camp, Bavaria), German admiral, head of military intelligence (Abwehr) under the Nazi regime and a key participant in the resistance of military officers to Adolf Hitler. Believing that the Nazi regime would ultimately destroy traditional conservative values and that its foreign ambitions were dangerous to Germany, he enlisted some of the anti-Hitler conspirators into the Abwehr and shielded their activities.

Britannica.com


The Nazi hung Canaris twice.


4. Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris: 'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.

Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?
"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims" Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945


What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
….Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.





5. "Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. The head of the German Secret Service told Earle there were many sensible German people feeling that Hitler was leading their nation down a destructive path. Admiral Canaris continued that an honorable surrender from the German army to the American forces could be arranged."

 

[Oddball]

Wilhelm Canaris, in full Wilhelm Franz Canaris, (born January 1, 1887, Aplerbeck, Westphalia, Germany—died April 9, 1945, Flossenbürg concentration camp, Bavaria), German admiral, head of military intelligence (Abwehr) under the Nazi regime and a key participant in the resistance of military officers to Adolf Hitler. Believing that the Nazi regime would ultimately destroy traditional conservative values and that its foreign ambitions were dangerous to Germany, he enlisted some of the anti-Hitler conspirators into the Abwehr and shielded their activities.

Britannica.com


The Nazi hung Canaris twice.


4. Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris: 'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.

Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?
"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims" Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945


What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
….Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.





5. "Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. The head of the German Secret Service told Earle there were many sensible German people feeling that Hitler was leading their nation down a destructive path. Admiral Canaris continued that an honorable surrender from the German army to the American forces could be arranged."

So we all know the coup plotters failed.....What is that supposed to prove?

 

[westwall]

There are two reasons I'm gonna go with Eisenhower......first, he was the experienced exec on site. He was good at what he did.

Second, the plan to use Normandy was Stalin's in anticipation of his Red Army occupying Europe after the war.
FDR went along with just about every demand Stalin made, no matter the reasons.

By agreeing to Stalin's demands that the 'second front' be via Western Europe, rather than the Italy-Adriatic, Franklin Roosevelt was agreeing to turn Central and Eastern Europe over to occupation by the Red Army....and its 'tender mercies.'​

​

Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies.​

Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin.​

​

Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":​

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."​

​

Stalin was going to get eastern and central Europe REGARDLESS of what we did. FDR had already signed them over. Italy is a terrible place to fight on the offensive. I have traveled the length, and breadth of it. I have walked the battlefields, old, and new. I spent three days in Cassino with a veteran of the 36th Infantry Division, and a German para and we talked about the battle at length. The German was amazed by how much supply we had, at one point he laughed, "we had to be very careful when we would fire our mortars, we only had 20 or thirty rounds, so we had to make them count. And every time we fired one, we knew we would have 800 fired back at us".

Like I said, I don't care about Ike's opinion. He was flat assed wrong. Kesselring was able to mount up a ridiculously strong defense, with relatively little in the way of resources. Had we not landed in Normandy, and caused the Germans to send most of their supply to that front, we would have been bottled up in Italy till the cows came home.

 

[westwall]

I have no doubt that, had Eisenhower stuck to his original view, attack through Italy......Stalin would have had him assassinated, as evidence suggestes he did with Patton.


"But the death of General George S. Patton presents a disturbing picture if one fully accepts history’s contention that his demise was simply the result of an accident. We begin with Sgt. Robert Thompson and his two friends, who were responsible for plowing into Patton’s car. Shortly after the accident, Thompson claims to have been flown to England by army intelligence for his own safety, due to the number of American soldiers who worshipped Patton and would perhaps have wanted to cause Thompson physical harm.



However, just four days after the collision, Thompson mysteriously makes his way back to Germany. There, he is interviewed by American journalist Howard K. Smith. In the wire service story Smith files on December 13, Thompson claims that Patton’s driver was speeding and at fault. Thompson also asserts that he was alone in the truck when it struck Patton’s limo, but Gen. Hap Gay and PFC Horace Woodring swear there were two other people in the truck with Thompson.



Indeed, a report dated December 18, 1945, by the Seventh Army provost marshal specifies that a German civilian employee of the 141st Signal Company of the First Armored Division (Thompson’scompany) named Frank Krummer was in the truck at the time of the accident. The name of the other passenger was not mentioned.



But that report, like every other document relating to the accident, has disappeared. So the veracity of Thompson’s story was never officially challenged. His version of events was not vetted by the military police. He was not arrested or detained for anything having to do with the accident. Robert Thompson soon vanishes from the historical record, surfacing only after he dies in Camden, New Jersey, on June 5, 1994.



Frank Krummer also disappears. And if there was a third occupant of the vehicle, his name remains unknown to this day.* * *

In 1979, OSS Jedburgh Douglas Bazata made the astounding assertion that he was part of a hit team that lay in wait for Patton’s limousine. He claimed that after the crash, he fired a low-velocity projectile into the back of Patton’s neck in order to snap it. When Patton did not die immediately, Bazata said, the general was murdered in the hospital by NKVD agents using an odorless poison. Bazata also swore that Wild Bill Donovan paid him ten thousand dollars plus another eight hundred dollars in expenses for his role in Patton’s death. But many believe that Bazata’s story is far-fetched. No projectiles were ever found, and surelyWoodring and Hap Gay would have seen any assassination team. However, Bazata held to his story. On September 25, 1979, he described Patton’s assassination to four hundred and fifty former OSS agents gathered for a reunion at the Washington Hilton.

1

Bazata does have some credibility. He was heavily decorated for his service as a Jedburgh,inning the Distinguished Service Cross, four Purple Hearts, and France’s Croix de Guerre with two palms."
The strange death of George S. Patton should be reexamined by American military investigators. Although the trail is ice cold, technological advances could solve some of the puzzles. There is no doubt that General Patton died a hero, and history certainly honors that to this day. But the tough old general did not go out on his own terms, and there are many unanswered questions surrounding his death. Those questions deserve to be addressed."

O'Reilly and Dugard, " Killing Patton"

Patton was most likely killed by us, because he was telling the world that Stalin was a bad dude, and that we should not believe a word he said.

 

[westwall]

Not so.


There were numerous attempts by anti-Hitler Germans to work out a surrender.
there was a large anti-Nazi, anti-communist German underground.

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

Wilhelm Canaris

Franz von Papen

Colonel General Ludwig Beck Beginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter, Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79). As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann, German Resistance, p. 153). The Greatest War Crime


Carl Friedrich Goerderler

Ulrich von Hassell

Johannes Popitz

Kurt von Hammerstein

Job Wilhelm Georg Erdmann Erwin von Witzleben (4 December 1881 – 8 August 1944) was a German officer, by 1940 in the rank of a Field Marshal(Generalfeldmarschall), and army commander in the Second World War. A leading conspirator in the 20 July plot,[1]he was designated to become Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht armed forces in a post-Nazi regime Erwin von Witzleben - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.General Edward Wagner

General Georg Thomas

Major General Hans Oster

General Friederich Olbricht

Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg

Wilhelm Leuchner

Julius Leber

Helmuth von Moltke

Baron Kurt von Lersner

Most importantly, the opposition to Hitler would have to be assured that the people who were about to risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow Hitler would, if they succeeded, be faced with something better than the "unconditional surrender" formula proclaimed as a British-American war aim at the Casablanca Conference of Churchill and Roosevelt in January 1943. Von Papen needed to know "whether they would grant, to a German Government which met democratic requirements, the rights to which Germany's history and position entitled her. This must be the decisive factor in any further step (von Papen,Memoirs, p. 499; and Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports! New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958, p. 417.)."


Franz Von Papen promised to get in touch with FDR. He decided to ask his friend, Baron Kurt von Lersner (a friend of FDR) to make contact with the former governor of Pennsylvania, Commander George H. Earle, FDR's personal representative (i.e., eyes and ears) for the Balkans, stationed in Istanbul. In the meantime, German Intelligence chief, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, long in contact with the Beck-Goerdeler group, had also decided to make the same attempt through Navy Captain Paul Leverkuehn, an internationally-known lawyer and acquaintance of William J. Donovan, head of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (Heinz Hoehne, Canaris, trans. J. Maxwell Brownjohn Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979, pp. 482-83; Ritter, Goerdeler's Struggle; and von Papen, Memoirs, pp. 488-89, 499.).

Yes, and all of those efforts were refused by US, WE demanded unconditional surrender. The conspirators had offered to give us anyone we wanted so long as they could continue fighting in Russia.

We refused.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we all know the coup plotters failed.....What is that supposed to prove?

That there was lots of anti-Hitler Germans who would have ended the war....but Stalin would not allow his vassal, FDR, to deal with them.


. There was a large and well-organized anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany, and Stalin demanded that it never be recognized....or even its existence admitted.



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


Just as he extended the Depression though counter-productive policies and stupidity,Franklin Roosevelt extended WWII by years......years that cost thousands of American lives....by his affiliation with Stalin.


Stalin demanded that the Allies ignore German anti-Nazi resistance; Roosevelt bowed to the demand, as he did to Stalin's other demands.
Just one more example of Roosevelt's infatuation with the blood-drenched homicidal maniac, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin.





In October of 1944, he AP bureau chief in Berlin, Louis Lochner tried to file a story on the anti-Nazi Germans operating out of France. The US military censors blocked the story.

"The government official in chare of censorship was forthcoming enough to confide to Lochner that there was a personal directive from the president of the United States 'in his capacity as commander in chief forbidding all mention of the German resistance."
"Hitler and America,"by Klaus P. Fischer

"....a personal directive from the president...."

Why?


a. Fischer quotes Lochner as follows: "Stories of the existence of a resistance movement did not fit into the concept of Unconditional Surrender."



Harry Hopkins biographer, George McJimsey, makes the claim that, after Stalin and his spies in the administration demanded that the Allies never open communication with the anti-Hitler Germans, and accept only unconditional surrender- which would leave Germany in no condition to hinder Stalin's post war efforts to control all of Europe, Roosevelt viewed "the doctrine as an approach to Stalin...a device, along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front for convincing Stalin of his good will."
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy,"
by George McJimsey, , p. 278-279

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, and all of those efforts were refused by US, WE demanded unconditional surrender. The conspirators had offered to give us anyone we wanted so long as they could continue fighting in Russia.

We refused.

Patton wanted to re-arm the surrendered German troops for just that reason.


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

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


Patton was correct.
Roosevelt not.

 

[Stryder50]

It was Eisenhower's opinion.


Are you suggesting readers give more weight to your considered opinion than his?



Eisenhower said that Italy, straight North was the correct strategy......until he was given another star.


In 1943, before he was offered another star:
"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....

" 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

He received his fifth star December 20, 1944....four days after Marshall received his.

NOTE: "Eisenhower's opinion", one based on conditions of the time, and including early factors in the Italian campaign portion of the MTO (Mediterranean Theater of Operations). Hence a conditional "opinion" and done while there was major build-up and staging in England/UK for a cross channel landing into Northern France (mush closer to Germany than anything in the MTO).

Factors to consider:
1) USA leadership was anxious to invade into France, as early as mid-late 1942 until Churchill and UK generals talked reason to them about USA lacking numbers and experience for such a venture, especially so soon.

2) Allies, USA and UK/Commonwealth, land in mainland of Italy in Sept. 1943. By mid to late November is when they run up against stout German defense of the 'Gustav Line'. Block to northward progress aggravated by onset of Winter with rains/snow and muddy conditions in a region with few paved roads.

3) The Allies already had a couple years campaigning in the MTO with large numbers of troops(divisions) committed, along with naval and air forces. Easier and better to use them in shorter range and closer fronts than load and ship back to England for eventual Overlord. Also, continued actions and pressure on the Germans in the MTO draw resources away from use in either Russia, or defense of North France.

4) The Med./MTO offered large coastal lines the Germans would have to garrison and protect from potential Allied landings. This gives the Allies an interesting offensive potential and advantage, to strike where they might see it most advantageous. This si close to what Churchill was advocating for. Others saw it as dispersing resources too thinly, into "penny packet" rather than sledgehammer blows, so the concept was debated for some time.

5) As "Mushroom" points out(and implies/suggests), unless engaging amphibious envelopment, the geography of Italy and much of the Med. don't allow the sort of ground warfare of mechanized mobility that was becoming the effective means of winning in WW2. One major gltch here is there never seemed to be enough amphibious vessels, landing craft/boats to LSTs (Landing Ship Tanks) to meet needs or desires in both Europe and the Pacific.

6) Eisenhower is not seen as an inspired tactician like Patton or Rommel, etc. He excelled at "Organization" of resources and getting the contentious and hubris loaded sub-generals/commanders to work together towards common goals and plans. His time and circumstance based "opinion" that 'northward up Italy' was the best path forward falls short in the assessment and opinions of others more knowledgeable and experienced in combat operations.

(I'll pick up on this and other related considerations later after tending to some essential 'homestead' chores.)