The Forgotten Part Of Normandy

[Oddball]

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

Those anti-Hitler Germans were bullied back into line after Valkyrie failed....They kept up determined fighting even after a gazillion of them were slaughtered at Falaise.

 

[westwall]

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.

No argument on that. But Italy is a no brainer. It is a unrelenting slog with hundreds of thousands of casualties in the offing.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

Look again, addlepated one.

They definitely should have gone thru Italy and Austria

Wow, if you click on the quote, it actually takes you to the quote! And it is on the first page of this very thread.

I guess is better to be a smartass than a dumbass.

 

[Mushroom]

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.

"Amphibious Envelopments" are something that is rarely done once an enemy has been engaged in battle. It is far more efficient to simply pour more forces and material to the beachhead than it is to go off galivanting around the beaches of a country and trying to repeat it again and again.

The initial beachhead was in Sicily, then more in Southern Italy once that was secured. But they did not establish another one until they had moved past the Gustav Line and taken Rome. Where it then used the Italian ports they had captured.

And that still does not resolve the issues of U-boats and aircraft attacking the convoys bringing troops and material to the battlezone.

Like UGS-3, attacked in January 1943 off Spain. 2 ships sunk, only 3 survivors.

U-boat successes in the Mediterranean - German U-boats in WWII - uboat.net

The U-boat War in World War Two (Kriegsmarine, 1939-1945) and World War One (Kaiserliche Marine, 1914-1918) and the Allied efforts to counter the threat. Over 40.000 pages on the officers, the boats, technology and the Allied efforts to counter the U-boat threat.

uboat.net

This is the difference between somebody who makes repeated political attacks based on their opinion, and those who actually know and understand the operational environment. And I for one have long had the stance that politics should stay the frack out of military operations.

Many do not even seem to realize we had already been in Europe for almost a year, with little gains. And there was simply no way to continue even if we had taken the entire country. To avoid the Alps, the Allies would have had to go all the way around the mountains, into what was then Yugoslavia. Which was having its own problems, with some supporting Germany and others the Soviets. Like in China against Japan, some of the groups were happier attacking each other than Germany (which had actually invaded them).

And Italy was far from good for armored warfare. The terrain was too rough, with to many hills, valleys, ridges, and the like for defensive forces to hide behind.

Seems to me that if we had followed the ideas of many in here, almost all of Europe East of France would have ended up under Soviet control. Because they would have overrun Germany and kept going, as the US and UK were still bogged down in Italy.

Congrats to those thinking we should have gone through Italy and not France. You have given most of Europe to Stalin.

 

[francoHFW]

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

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

Churchil wanted the soft underbelly through Yugoslavia from Italy up through Austria Hungary and that way beat Russia there perhaps...

 

[francoHFW]

Look again, addlepated one.



Wow, if you click on the quote, it actually takes you to the quote! And it is on the first page of this very thread.

I guess is better to be a smartass than a dumbass.

I am 71 after all. Thanks for the tip. And I still will go with Eisenhower and Churchill and the soft underbelly and stop screwing with the French for once LOL

 

[Mushroom]

No argument on that. But Italy is a no brainer. It is a unrelenting slog with hundreds of thousands of casualties in the offing.

Uhh, total casualty numbers for the Allies in Italy from July 1943 to May 1945 was almost 400,000. And it was an unrelenting slog.

 

[Mushroom]

Churchil wanted the soft underbelly through Yugoslavia from Italy up through Austria Hungary

You are aware that Germany invaded Yugoslavia in 1941, right? Both Austria and Hungary were Axis members. So once they left Italy, they then would have been fighting in Eastern and Southern Europe, all the way until they linked up and were behind the Soviet forces.

Long before the Allies made it through Italy then Yugoslavia, the Soviets would have been in Germany itself.

 

[westwall]

Uhh, total casualty numbers for the Allies in Italy from July 1943 to May 1945 was almost 400,000. And it was an unrelenting slog.

Yeah, pretty much what I said.

 

[francoHFW]

You are aware that Germany invaded Yugoslavia in 1941, right? Both Austria and Hungary were Axis members. So once they left Italy, they then would have been fighting in Eastern and Southern Europe, all the way until they linked up and were behind the Soviet forces.

Long before the Allies made it through Italy then Yugoslavia, the Soviets would have been in Germany itself.

On the other hand they would have loved surrendering to the allies rather than Russia, and these places are just not that Far East... I am still going with Eisenhower and Churchill and France...

 

[Mushroom]

On the other hand they would have loved surrendering to the allies rather than Russia

What?

Have you completely forgotten that the region of Yugoslavia we know of as Serbia was a long time Russian ally? I mean, it was the reaction of what Austria-Hungary was doing to the Serbians that essentially kicked off WWI.

 

[francoHFW]

What?

Have you completely forgotten that the region of Yugoslavia we know of as Serbia was a long time Russian ally? I mean, it was the reaction of what Austria-Hungary was doing to the Serbians that essentially kicked off WWI.

Lol which basically means the croatians the kosovans the slovenians would be anti Russian. At any rate they all hated the Germans. With a full allied effort the allies could have been through Yugoslavia Austria and Hungary before the Russians reached Berlin. It is all extremely hypothetical. But everyone wanted to surrender to the allies and democracy rather than communism Goodnight

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.)

You've left out the controlling factor in the entire situation, and the only thing that counted: Stalin's demands.

 

[westwall]

Lol which basically means the croatians the kosovans the slovenians would be anti Russian. At any rate they all hated the Germans. With a full allied effort the allies could have been through Yugoslavia Austria and Hungary before the Russians reached Berlin. It is all extremely hypothetical. But everyone wanted to surrender to the allies and democracy rather than communism Goodnight

There is a reason why the Soviets suffered so many casualties. Fighting through the Balkans is one of them.

When you don't care how many casualties you suffer you can do that.

But if you actually value your people it is beyond disgusting to send them into a shooting gallery like that.

 

[westwall]

You've left out the controlling factor in the entire situation, and the only thing that counted: Stalin's demands.

Stalin doesn't matter. If we had only fought through Italy our losses would have been ten times what they were with the Normandy invasion, and subsequent destruction of the northern German Army.

Attacking through France allowed us to encircle, and destroy a huge amount of German material in the Falaise Pocket.

Most of the German armor in the west was lost in that one battle.

That would have never been possible in Italy.

Ike was refighting WWI.

Patton was fighting WWII.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stalin doesn't matter. If we had only fought through Italy our losses would have been ten times what they were with the Normandy invasion, and subsequent destruction of the northern German Army.

Attacking through France allowed us to encircle, and destroy a huge amount of German material in the Falaise Pocket.

Most of the German armor in the west was lost in that one battle.

That would have never been possible in Italy.

Ike was refighting WWI.

Patton was fighting WWII.

Stalin was the only thing that mattered.


His control of FDR made the attack via Normandy the only choice.



And while he died.....his effect is still the stongest motivator of events to this day:
The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.



Stalin's spy, Alger Hiss 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.

.... three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union.





The major political party in America is the result of Stalin's efforts.


There are only three things important to the Democrat program, agenda.....Race, Class, and Gender.
Not liberty, not religious freedom, not prosperity, not individuality, not tranquility.
Race, Class, and Gender.
“Cultural Marxism, though it’s dismissed by critics as a “term invented by the Right”, “was an undeniable school of thought taking Marxist categories of oppressed and oppressor beyond the economic realm and applying to it other forms of oppression: gender, race, sexuality.” Caldron Pool

“A hundred years ago, kids in classrooms were taught the color of their skin was their most important characteristic — and if they looked a certain way, they were inferior. Today, kids again are being taught that the color of their skin defines them — and if they look a certain way, they’re an oppressor.” Tim Scott Text of Sen. Tim Scott's GOP response to Biden speech

What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know

www.bibliotecapleyades.net

One moment, please...

 

[westwall]

Stalin was the only thing that mattered.


His control of FDR made the attack via Normandy the only choice.



And while he died.....his effect is still the stongest motivator of events to this day:
The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.



Stalin's spy, Alger Hiss 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.

View attachment 677634

.... three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union.





The major political party in America is the result of Stalin's efforts.


There are only three things important to the Democrat program, agenda.....Race, Class, and Gender.
Not liberty, not religious freedom, not prosperity, not individuality, not tranquility.
Race, Class, and Gender.
“Cultural Marxism, though it’s dismissed by critics as a “term invented by the Right”, “was an undeniable school of thought taking Marxist categories of oppressed and oppressor beyond the economic realm and applying to it other forms of oppression: gender, race, sexuality.” Caldron Pool

“A hundred years ago, kids in classrooms were taught the color of their skin was their most important characteristic — and if they looked a certain way, they were inferior. Today, kids again are being taught that the color of their skin defines them — and if they look a certain way, they’re an oppressor.” Tim Scott Text of Sen. Tim Scott's GOP response to Biden speech




View attachment 677635

What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know

www.bibliotecapleyades.net

One moment, please...

I know all of that. It doesn't fucking matter. Italy is a country that is tailor made for defence. We suffered more casualties in limited operations in the south, than we suffered in the invasion of Normandy.

I know you want to make this a political thing, but the politics is WRONG.

Tactically you would have to be a moron, or an absolute heartless asshole to willingly force your troops to fight in Italy.

The best unit the US ever fielded in its history, The Devils Brigade, suffered over 100% casualties during its time in Italy.

These are military facts. Military facts ALWAYS trump political ones.

 

[Stryder50]

You've left out the controlling factor in the entire situation, and the only thing that counted: Stalin's demands.

No I didn't. I don't see Stalin as the only or prime "controlling factor".

France and England were at war and attacked by Germany nearly two years before Russia was in the picture ~ other than that botch where Russia attacked Finland and grabbed some turf in 1940 - The Winter War. (BTW, at that time, it being before the attack on France in early Summer of 1940, England and France were working on plans to come to Finland's aid against Russia, but the war ended in a settlement before those could jell.)

Then after the fall of France there was the Battle of Britain in later Summer 1940, which the Brits would refer to as "The Blitz". While there was an intense couple of months, it eventually tapered off to more sporadic attacks during the next two years.

Also at this time (attack into France by Germany), Italy declared war on France and England, attacked from Libya into Egypt and set off the whole North Africa, East Africa, and Mediterranean Theaters of action.

So when the attack/invasion of Russia happened in June 1941, and tied up the majority of the German Army and tanks, keeping Russia in the war and not defeated, or striking another "deal" with Germany like happened with regard to Poland a few years earlier, became essential to give the West a better chance to attack through France, eventually.

Stalin made his demands, and while FDR might have leaned in favor of Uncle Joe, both being fellow 'socialists', Churchill made a strong counter weight and point in regards to USA's "Germany First" policy, and provided a base of reality and perspective opposite Stalin's narrow Russian priority.

Also remmeber that during most of the war Russia wouldn't declare against Japan, despite FDR and Churchill pleading, so there was a sense of "If you don't do this, we can't do that" in the USA and UK relations with the USSR.

 

[francoHFW]

Stalin doesn't matter. If we had only fought through Italy our losses would have been ten times what they were with the Normandy invasion, and subsequent destruction of the northern German Army.

Attacking through France allowed us to encircle, and destroy a huge amount of German material in the Falaise Pocket.

Most of the German armor in the west was lost in that one battle.

That would have never been possible in Italy.

Ike was refighting WWI.

Patton was fighting WWII.

Rome was taken about the same time as Normandy and Normandy was damn risky, if they had woken up Hitler, could have been totally different.... Could have been a total loss. While that could not happen in Yugoslavia Austria Hungary (and a lot of the civilian deaths would not have been our allies. and a lot of the civilian deaths would not have been our more french civilians were killed than allied soldiers in the battle of france 1944. ) and Greece et cetera. Either way.... Hitler's stupidity caused the Falaise gap when he told them they couldn't retreat...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rome was taken about the same time as Normandy and Normandy was damn risky, if they had woken up Hitler, could have been totally different.... Could have been a total loss. While that could not happen in Yugoslavia Austria Hungary (and a lot of the civilian deaths would not have been our allies. and a lot of the civilian deaths would not have been our more french civilians were killed than allied soldiers in the battle of france 1944. ) and Greece et cetera. Either way.... Hitler's stupidity caused the Falaise gap when he told them they couldn't retreat...

Time and again, the world has been saved by villains making mistakes.


Case in point:

Democrat policies/governance revealed.