Understanding Stalin: D-day

[PoliticalChic]

Even the die-hard FDR defenders seem copacetic with the charge that the Roosevelt administration was riddled with Soviet agents.
I suppose the evidence is so overwhelming that even Liberals can't deny it.

So....why the difficulty in considering the implications of the above?



1. An indication of the subservience of the American Communists to a foreign government can be seen during WWII. The American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of ’41, at the behest of the Commintern, whose function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britain…they paraded in front of the White House, chanting “FDR is a fascist, …he’s starting a war! Think Pete Seeger.

In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia! Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasn’t a fascist…and they changed their name to American People’s Mobilization. Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century by Paul Kengor


You can see who was calling the shots.





2. American Communists, working under the direct supervision of the Kremlin controllers, sat in the very pinnacles of power of the United States government, able to subvert both domestic and foreign policies. They could be found at Treasury, State Department, War Department, the Office of Strategic Services, the War Production Board, the Board of Economic Warfare, the Office of War Information, the Office of Price Administration, and, without doubt, the White House itself.

a. Certainly they had access to almost every secret held by the United States government, but it a mistake to believe that espionage was the main objective. No, it was a secondary consideration: the primary objective was to influence American policy toward the creation of a Soviet America, and a Soviet world.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 94.

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....the two had treaties to divide Europe between them.
Only one of them succeeded.







3. Just to get a inkling of how advanced Soviet machinations were....and how successful, consider this:

a.In " Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation, designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."

b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.

Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes, Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.

Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History

c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalin’s agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression “elsewhere.” That “elsewhere” eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor. Stalin’s acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America." Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News






4. So.....if well-placed Communist agents could influence the above mentioned nations to battle in the Pacific.....ready?.....how difficult is it to conceive of these agents doing the same in Europe?
The thread will show that Stalin's agents managed to turn the Anglo-American attack on the continent from the south, i.e., Italy.....far to the north...France.
So....how to explain the action...except as one designed to leave Central and Eastern Europe open to Soviet invasion and occupation.


Those who doubt same fall into two groups:

a. Congenital Roosevelt supporters who will never admit to his falling under the sway of Soviet communists, and 'Uncle Joe.'

b. Those who have never been exposed to the education about the history of the period that will be provided in this thread.



Get it?
Through the use of an army of Soviet spies and policy manipulators, and the willing blindness of Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin was able to order the D-day attacks to be aimed at northern France, so as to leave the Eastern half of the continent to his Red Army.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's no coincidence that Zhukov's Winter Counteroffensive in 1941 was timed to coincide with the Pearl Harbor attack.

From a military prospective, Japan should have attacked the USSR, attaching the USA was beyond stupid.

Have to credit Stalin for directing the war efforts of both the USA and Japan

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's no coincidence that Zhukov's Winter Counteroffensive in 1941 was timed to coincide with the Pearl Harbor attack.

From a military prospective, Japan should have attacked the USSR, attaching the USA was beyond stupid.

Have to credit Stalin for directing the war efforts of both the USA and Japan

None seem to recognize how deftly Stalin played not just the United State....but Japan and Germany as well.

They don't seem able to see the connections between communism....world socialism.....and today's world, with the United Nations, the product of Soviet agents....





So....Stalin pushes Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.....and the Philippines falls....but somehow Roosevelt, Marshall, and Hopkins push for relief for Stalin!

a. Ten thousand American and Filipino troops were killed, and 20,000 wounded, at Bataan. And 3,000 killed at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall pressed for an invasion at northern France ASAP!

b. 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. Hopkins and Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'



Give FDR credit: he sent over 100,000 Allied troops into North Africa in November. Yet he, Marshall, and Hopkins never waivered from northern France as their 'second front.'





5. How to understand these decisions?

"Washington (U.P.)- A highly reliable informant who has first hand information of events in the Soviet Union said tonight the Russian people would not regard even a major Allied success in North Africa as the answer to their desire for the opening of a second front." “Drive in North Africa Not Enough,”
New York Times, October 28, 1942.

a. "Stalin Still Insisting On That Second Front...belittles fighting in Africa."
NYTimes, November 8, 1942





6. So FDR ignores Stalin and Marshall and Hopkins and sends 100,000 to North Africa....but won't hear of the 'second front' by way of our bases in Italy.....


"One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander (Field Marshal Harold Alexander, became commander of Allied armies in Italy) 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, aslo 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






One more decision of many that FDR, Marshall, and Hopkins advanced in acquiescing to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.....

....over the objections of United States military experts.


Explanation???


....or eminently clear.

 

[regent]

It's no coincidence that Zhukov's Winter Counteroffensive in 1941 was timed to coincide with the Pearl Harbor attack.

From a military prospective, Japan should have attacked the USSR, attaching the USA was beyond stupid.

Have to credit Stalin for directing the war efforts of both the USA and Japan

None seem to recognize how deftly Stalin played not just the United State....but Japan and Germany as well.

They don't seem able to see the connections between communism....world socialism.....and today's world, with the United Nations, the product of Soviet agents....





So....Stalin pushes Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.....and the Philippines falls....but somehow Roosevelt, Marshall, and Hopkins push for relief for Stalin!

a. Ten thousand American and Filipino troops were killed, and 20,000 wounded, at Bataan. And 3,000 killed at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall pressed for an invasion at northern France ASAP!

b. 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. Hopkins and Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'



Give FDR credit: he sent over 100,000 Allied troops into North Africa in November. Yet he, Marshall, and Hopkins never waivered from northern France as their 'second front.'





5. How to understand these decisions?

"Washington (U.P.)- A highly reliable informant who has first hand information of events in the Soviet Union said tonight the Russian people would not regard even a major Allied success in North Africa as the answer to their desire for the opening of a second front." “Drive in North Africa Not Enough,”
New York Times, October 28, 1942.

a. "Stalin Still Insisting On That Second Front...belittles fighting in Africa."
NYTimes, November 8, 1942





6. So FDR ignores Stalin and Marshall and Hopkins and sends 100,000 to North Africa....but won't hear of the 'second front' by way of our bases in Italy.....


"One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander (Field Marshal Harold Alexander, became commander of Allied armies in Italy) 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, aslo 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






One more decision of many that FDR, Marshall, and Hopkins advanced in acquiescing to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.....

....over the objections of United States military experts.


Explanation???


....or eminently clear.

Didn't McCarthy expose Ike's communist leanings in the army-McCarthy hearings, so the question is: was Ike's involvment in DDay part of the Stalin plot?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's no coincidence that Zhukov's Winter Counteroffensive in 1941 was timed to coincide with the Pearl Harbor attack.

From a military prospective, Japan should have attacked the USSR, attaching the USA was beyond stupid.

Have to credit Stalin for directing the war efforts of both the USA and Japan

None seem to recognize how deftly Stalin played not just the United State....but Japan and Germany as well.

They don't seem able to see the connections between communism....world socialism.....and today's world, with the United Nations, the product of Soviet agents....





So....Stalin pushes Japan to attack Pearl Harbor.....and the Philippines falls....but somehow Roosevelt, Marshall, and Hopkins push for relief for Stalin!

a. Ten thousand American and Filipino troops were killed, and 20,000 wounded, at Bataan. And 3,000 killed at Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt, Hopkins, and Marshall pressed for an invasion at northern France ASAP!

b. 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. Hopkins and Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'



Give FDR credit: he sent over 100,000 Allied troops into North Africa in November. Yet he, Marshall, and Hopkins never waivered from northern France as their 'second front.'





5. How to understand these decisions?

"Washington (U.P.)- A highly reliable informant who has first hand information of events in the Soviet Union said tonight the Russian people would not regard even a major Allied success in North Africa as the answer to their desire for the opening of a second front." “Drive in North Africa Not Enough,”
New York Times, October 28, 1942.

a. "Stalin Still Insisting On That Second Front...belittles fighting in Africa."
NYTimes, November 8, 1942





6. So FDR ignores Stalin and Marshall and Hopkins and sends 100,000 to North Africa....but won't hear of the 'second front' by way of our bases in Italy.....


"One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander (Field Marshal Harold Alexander, became commander of Allied armies in Italy) 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, aslo 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






One more decision of many that FDR, Marshall, and Hopkins advanced in acquiescing to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.....

....over the objections of United States military experts.


Explanation???


....or eminently clear.

Didn't McCarthy expose Ike's communist leanings in the army-McCarthy hearings, so the question is: was Ike's involvment in DDay part of the Stalin plot?

Really glad you asked that question.....

....I know you thought you were being cute, essentially demanding that I include Eisenhower in my charges.



But...what is about to happen is that I'm going to prove that I know infinitely more than you....and, arguably more than the 'historians' you bow to.
Get ready to bow to me!


"...was Ike's involvment (sic) in DDay part of the Stalin plot?"

Twice removed.

1. The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a George Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").

If Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, i.e., to give domination in Europe to the Soviets, 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.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119.



2. 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."



3. 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."
Get that? Fantastic...as in 'a fantasy.'

So....what was the impetus for the northern France invasion? Joseph Stalin.



Roosevelt, George Marshll, and the Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins, jumped to perform every wish Stalin asked for.
Eisenhower, a soldier, knew how to follow order.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Elizabeth Bentley, a former operative of the Soviet underground testified before the Senate subcommittee on August 14, 1951, naming some 80 Soviet spies. Her testimony was summarized in an FBI report, dated November 25, 1945.



Her testimony gives a glimpse the methods and purpose of the Soviet operation:




Miss Bentley testified as follows about the Morgenthau plan for Germany-

Senator Eastland: "Did you know who drew that plan?"

Miss Bentlcy: "Due to Mr. [Soviet spy Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."

Senator Ferguson: "That was what the Communists wanted?"

Miss Bentley: "Definitely Moscow wanted them completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies."

Senator Eastland: "What you say is that it was a Communist plot to destroy Germany and weaken her to where she could not help us?"

Miss Bentley: "That is correct. She could no longer be a barrier to protect the western world."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.102-103

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. The decision to fight a land war against Germany was the first of a long series of tragic mistakes in the prosecution of the war. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'



Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. What was the reasoning behind FDR's 'Russia über alles' Policy'?

That the USSR was a necessity in the battle against Germany?

Who said so?



The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, headed by Franklin D'Olier, former president of the Prudential Life Insurance Company, and staffed by hundreds of technical experts, made an extensive evaluation of the effects of the air war against Germany. It reported:

"By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting-any effective fighting-within a few months. Germany was mortally wounded."
Manly, Op.Cit., p.116



a. " The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was a board of experts assembled to produce an impartial assessment of the effects of Anglo-Americanstrategic bombing of Nazi Germany during the European theatre of World War II. After publishing its report, the Survey then turned its attention to the efforts against Imperial Japan during the Pacific War, including a separate section on the recent use of the atomic bombs.
Although most of the Survey's members were military, about one-third of the 1,000-member group were civilian. While the Board was not associated with any branch of the military, it was established by the US Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and chaired by a civilian, Franklin D'Olier."
Strategic bombing survey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So....what was the impetus for a northern France attack on Germany?

a. Stalin demanded this, as much to weaken the Allies as to destroy Germany

b. Stalin saw to it that the attack was via northern France....and not through Italy, which might have interfered with his plan to annex eastern Europe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Germany was "mortally wounded" prior to the D-day invasion, exactly as the United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported to Roosevelt, Marshall and Harry Hopkins.


This conclusion is supported by the testimony of General Heinz Guderian, Germany's great commander of armored forces and master of the blitzkrieg technique. In his book,
"Panzer Leader," General Guderian writes:

"The Allied air offensive had brought ever increasing devastation to Germany during the last few months. The armament industry had suffered heavily. The destruction of the synthetic oil plants (in January, 1945) was a particularly severe blow, since our fuel supplies were mainly based on those installations....The destruction of the greater part of our synthetic fuel industry meant
that the German command now had to make do with such supplies as came from the wells at Zistersdorf in Austria, and from around Lake Balaton in Hungary."
"Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian, Constantine Fitzgibbon, Kenneth Macksey and B. H. Liddell Hart, p.417




QED....Roosevelt acceded to every wish Joseph Stalin demanded.

 

[regent]

Well we keep getting closer to MacArthur and that's good. The real question seems to have come down to: how many American generals were loyal to the US during WWII and not to Stalin?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well we keep getting closer to MacArthur and that's good. The real question seems to have come down to: how many American generals were loyal to the US during WWII and not to Stalin?

Was there some reason you dropped by this thread?

 

[Camp]

Seems to be an absense of inclusion of a little situation going on in direct relation to the French and Dutch coast. Not many new about it. Hush, hush secret and all. FDR, Churchill, Marshall and Eisenhower knew the little scret but most of the rest of the world wouldn't learn about the secret until a week after D-Day. It is the knowledge of that secret that took the idea of a southern invasion off the table and made the invasion of the French coast imperative.

One week after D-Day, on June 13, the Germans began launching a new kind of weapon. It was the first cruise missile and it was called the V-1 Flying Bomb. They hurled 100 of these missiles per day at England, mostly London. They continued to hurl these missiles at the rate of about 100 per day until the launch sites and areas where mobil sites could be operated were overrun by allied forces.

In Sept. the Germans had introduced a more fearsome longer range weapon that brought about terror to the British along with implications of a bombing of the eastern seaboard of the United States.
The V-2 was the first ballistic missile, the first missile to enter space and return to earth with it's bomb load. While there was some defense against the V-1, albeit extremely limited, but there was no defense against the V-2 other than the good fortune to find them being transported on the ground. In addition the V-2 carried a much larger and far more deadly payload. Over 3,000 of these were launched before they too were overrun by allied troops.

An invasion of the French coast meant quick resupply and deployments coming from England. Speed was imperative. An invasion from the south would have been at the risk of having huge civilian casaulties as British cities, including London and British ports were pounded into rubble. It would have also given time to the Germans to finish the developement of it's V-10. The V-10 was being developed specificly to bomb New York City and other cities on the eastern seaboard.

All of the above data can be found with simple searches of German V-1 missile, V-2 missile, V-10 missile. Take your pick of sources and links. Use wikipedia if you want or use some of the more sophistigated, detailed, reliable, whatever sources. They will all bring you to the same data as listed above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems to be an absense of inclusion of a little situation going on in direct relation to the French and Dutch coast. Not many new about it. Hush, hush secret and all. FDR, Churchill, Marshall and Eisenhower knew the little scret but most of the rest of the world wouldn't learn about the secret until a week after D-Day. It is the knowledge of that secret that took the idea of a southern invasion off the table and made the invasion of the French coast imperative.

One week after D-Day, on June 13, the Germans began launching a new kind of weapon. It was the first cruise missile and it was called the V-1 Flying Bomb. They hurled 100 of these missiles per day at England, mostly London. They continued to hurl these missiles at the rate of about 100 per day until the launch sites and areas where mobil sites could be operated were overrun by allied forces.

In Sept. the Germans had introduced a more fearsome longer range weapon that brought about terror to the British along with implications of a bombing of the eastern seaboard of the United States.
The V-2 was the first ballistic missile, the first missile to enter space and return to earth with it's bomb load. While there was some defense against the V-1, albeit extremely limited, but there was no defense against the V-2 other than the good fortune to find them being transported on the ground. In addition the V-2 carried a much larger and far more deadly payload. Over 3,000 of these were launched before they too were overrun by allied troops.

An invasion of the French coast meant quick resupply and deployments coming from England. Speed was imperative. An invasion from the south would have been at the risk of having huge civilian casaulties as British cities, including London and British ports were pounded into rubble. It would have also given time to the Germans to finish the developement of it's V-10. The V-10 was being developed specificly to bomb New York City and other cities on the eastern seaboard.

All of the above data can be found with simple searches of German V-1 missile, V-2 missile, V-10 missile. Take your pick of sources and links. Use wikipedia if you want or use some of the more sophistigated, detailed, reliable, whatever sources. They will all bring you to the same data as listed above.

1. As evidenced by above posts which you pretend to ignore, Germany was, to quote the experts, 'mortally wounded.'


2. No, as the thread proves, the real reason for a northern France 'second front,' as opposed to one via bases in Italy, was that that conformed to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.


Such was the power of Stalin, and the weakness of Roosevelt.


3. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.


4. Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan." It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 114-115.



5. Time and again, American loses were not a consideration to Roosevelt, Marshall, and the spy, Harry Hopkins. I refer to tens of thousands of American loses in the Far East.

 

[Camp]

Seems to be an absense of inclusion of a little situation going on in direct relation to the French and Dutch coast. Not many new about it. Hush, hush secret and all. FDR, Churchill, Marshall and Eisenhower knew the little scret but most of the rest of the world wouldn't learn about the secret until a week after D-Day. It is the knowledge of that secret that took the idea of a southern invasion off the table and made the invasion of the French coast imperative.

One week after D-Day, on June 13, the Germans began launching a new kind of weapon. It was the first cruise missile and it was called the V-1 Flying Bomb. They hurled 100 of these missiles per day at England, mostly London. They continued to hurl these missiles at the rate of about 100 per day until the launch sites and areas where mobil sites could be operated were overrun by allied forces.

In Sept. the Germans had introduced a more fearsome longer range weapon that brought about terror to the British along with implications of a bombing of the eastern seaboard of the United States.
The V-2 was the first ballistic missile, the first missile to enter space and return to earth with it's bomb load. While there was some defense against the V-1, albeit extremely limited, but there was no defense against the V-2 other than the good fortune to find them being transported on the ground. In addition the V-2 carried a much larger and far more deadly payload. Over 3,000 of these were launched before they too were overrun by allied troops.

An invasion of the French coast meant quick resupply and deployments coming from England. Speed was imperative. An invasion from the south would have been at the risk of having huge civilian casaulties as British cities, including London and British ports were pounded into rubble. It would have also given time to the Germans to finish the developement of it's V-10. The V-10 was being developed specificly to bomb New York City and other cities on the eastern seaboard.

All of the above data can be found with simple searches of German V-1 missile, V-2 missile, V-10 missile. Take your pick of sources and links. Use wikipedia if you want or use some of the more sophistigated, detailed, reliable, whatever sources. They will all bring you to the same data as listed above.

1. As evidenced by above posts which you pretend to ignore, Germany was, to quote the experts, 'mortally wounded.'


2. No, as the thread proves, the real reason for a northern France 'second front,' as opposed to one via bases in Italy, was that that conformed to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.


Such was the power of Stalin, and the weakness of Roosevelt.


3. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.


4. Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan." It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 114-115.



5. Time and again, American loses were not a consideration to Roosevelt, Marshall, and the spy, Harry Hopkins. I refer to tens of thousands of American loses in the Far East.

I am not pretending to ignore your post. I am suggesting an alternative analysis of a specific topic of WWII history. I disagree with the conclusions you reach. I have stated many times that I consider your sources often unreliable and many of your conclusions and opinions to be distortions and laced with politics. Your narratives are agenda driven. You have a clear political agenda. My agenda is presenting factual and reliable data without a political agenda. Rather than provide specific links that may be biased or interpreted as slanted one way or another, I instead give interested persons the opportunity to choose their own sources. I give a suggestion of what to search for and leave it to the interested person to decide which sources they wish to use. If people who have followed my post trust that my sources are reliable and my evaluations and analysis of topics are accurate, reliable, whatever, that is ok too. Unlike you, I am not demanding or insisting that folks agree with me. Honestly, the only challanges I get about my post have nothing to do with the information I provide. It is almost always like your kind of comment about not seeing things the right way or being foolish for not agreeing with an opinion. Sometimes it's just nasty name calling. It is what it is.

I wonder, when you did your narrative, did you have any knowledge about the V missile situation? Most people with any knowledge of WWII know at least a little about the V missiles, but did you correlate the dates and implications into your thoughts at all? It doesn't seem like you even realized the significance of the correlation of D-Day and the V missiles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems to be an absense of inclusion of a little situation going on in direct relation to the French and Dutch coast. Not many new about it. Hush, hush secret and all. FDR, Churchill, Marshall and Eisenhower knew the little scret but most of the rest of the world wouldn't learn about the secret until a week after D-Day. It is the knowledge of that secret that took the idea of a southern invasion off the table and made the invasion of the French coast imperative.

One week after D-Day, on June 13, the Germans began launching a new kind of weapon. It was the first cruise missile and it was called the V-1 Flying Bomb. They hurled 100 of these missiles per day at England, mostly London. They continued to hurl these missiles at the rate of about 100 per day until the launch sites and areas where mobil sites could be operated were overrun by allied forces.

In Sept. the Germans had introduced a more fearsome longer range weapon that brought about terror to the British along with implications of a bombing of the eastern seaboard of the United States.
The V-2 was the first ballistic missile, the first missile to enter space and return to earth with it's bomb load. While there was some defense against the V-1, albeit extremely limited, but there was no defense against the V-2 other than the good fortune to find them being transported on the ground. In addition the V-2 carried a much larger and far more deadly payload. Over 3,000 of these were launched before they too were overrun by allied troops.

An invasion of the French coast meant quick resupply and deployments coming from England. Speed was imperative. An invasion from the south would have been at the risk of having huge civilian casaulties as British cities, including London and British ports were pounded into rubble. It would have also given time to the Germans to finish the developement of it's V-10. The V-10 was being developed specificly to bomb New York City and other cities on the eastern seaboard.

All of the above data can be found with simple searches of German V-1 missile, V-2 missile, V-10 missile. Take your pick of sources and links. Use wikipedia if you want or use some of the more sophistigated, detailed, reliable, whatever sources. They will all bring you to the same data as listed above.

1. As evidenced by above posts which you pretend to ignore, Germany was, to quote the experts, 'mortally wounded.'


2. No, as the thread proves, the real reason for a northern France 'second front,' as opposed to one via bases in Italy, was that that conformed to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.


Such was the power of Stalin, and the weakness of Roosevelt.


3. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.


4. Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan." It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 114-115.



5. Time and again, American loses were not a consideration to Roosevelt, Marshall, and the spy, Harry Hopkins. I refer to tens of thousands of American loses in the Far East.

I am not pretending to ignore your post. I am suggesting an alternative analysis of a specific topic of WWII history. I disagree with the conclusions you reach. I have stated many times that I consider your sources often unreliable and many of your conclusions and opinions to be distortions and laced with politics. Your narratives are agenda driven. You have a clear political agenda. My agenda is presenting factual and reliable data without a political agenda. Rather than provide specific links that may be biased or interpreted as slanted one way or another, I instead give interested persons the opportunity to choose their own sources. I give a suggestion of what to search for and leave it to the interested person to decide which sources they wish to use. If people who have followed my post trust that my sources are reliable and my evaluations and analysis of topics are accurate, reliable, whatever, that is ok too. Unlike you, I am not demanding or insisting that folks agree with me. Honestly, the only challanges I get about my post have nothing to do with the information I provide. It is almost always like your kind of comment about not seeing things the right way or being foolish for not agreeing with an opinion. Sometimes it's just nasty name calling. It is what it is.

I wonder, when you did your narrative, did you have any knowledge about the V missile situation? Most people with any knowledge of WWII know at least a little about the V missiles, but did you correlate the dates and implications into your thoughts at all? It doesn't seem like you even realized the significance of the correlation of D-Day and the V missiles.

" I have stated many times that I consider your sources often unreliable..."

That isn't true.

You recognize that most of the works cited are by first-person witnesses to history.


You, on the on the other hand, are immersed in FDR-worship.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems to be an absense of inclusion of a little situation going on in direct relation to the French and Dutch coast. Not many new about it. Hush, hush secret and all. FDR, Churchill, Marshall and Eisenhower knew the little scret but most of the rest of the world wouldn't learn about the secret until a week after D-Day. It is the knowledge of that secret that took the idea of a southern invasion off the table and made the invasion of the French coast imperative.

One week after D-Day, on June 13, the Germans began launching a new kind of weapon. It was the first cruise missile and it was called the V-1 Flying Bomb. They hurled 100 of these missiles per day at England, mostly London. They continued to hurl these missiles at the rate of about 100 per day until the launch sites and areas where mobil sites could be operated were overrun by allied forces.

In Sept. the Germans had introduced a more fearsome longer range weapon that brought about terror to the British along with implications of a bombing of the eastern seaboard of the United States.
The V-2 was the first ballistic missile, the first missile to enter space and return to earth with it's bomb load. While there was some defense against the V-1, albeit extremely limited, but there was no defense against the V-2 other than the good fortune to find them being transported on the ground. In addition the V-2 carried a much larger and far more deadly payload. Over 3,000 of these were launched before they too were overrun by allied troops.

An invasion of the French coast meant quick resupply and deployments coming from England. Speed was imperative. An invasion from the south would have been at the risk of having huge civilian casaulties as British cities, including London and British ports were pounded into rubble. It would have also given time to the Germans to finish the developement of it's V-10. The V-10 was being developed specificly to bomb New York City and other cities on the eastern seaboard.

All of the above data can be found with simple searches of German V-1 missile, V-2 missile, V-10 missile. Take your pick of sources and links. Use wikipedia if you want or use some of the more sophistigated, detailed, reliable, whatever sources. They will all bring you to the same data as listed above.

1. As evidenced by above posts which you pretend to ignore, Germany was, to quote the experts, 'mortally wounded.'


2. No, as the thread proves, the real reason for a northern France 'second front,' as opposed to one via bases in Italy, was that that conformed to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.


Such was the power of Stalin, and the weakness of Roosevelt.


3. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.


4. Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan." It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 114-115.



5. Time and again, American loses were not a consideration to Roosevelt, Marshall, and the spy, Harry Hopkins. I refer to tens of thousands of American loses in the Far East.

I am not pretending to ignore your post. I am suggesting an alternative analysis of a specific topic of WWII history. I disagree with the conclusions you reach. I have stated many times that I consider your sources often unreliable and many of your conclusions and opinions to be distortions and laced with politics. Your narratives are agenda driven. You have a clear political agenda. My agenda is presenting factual and reliable data without a political agenda. Rather than provide specific links that may be biased or interpreted as slanted one way or another, I instead give interested persons the opportunity to choose their own sources. I give a suggestion of what to search for and leave it to the interested person to decide which sources they wish to use. If people who have followed my post trust that my sources are reliable and my evaluations and analysis of topics are accurate, reliable, whatever, that is ok too. Unlike you, I am not demanding or insisting that folks agree with me. Honestly, the only challanges I get about my post have nothing to do with the information I provide. It is almost always like your kind of comment about not seeing things the right way or being foolish for not agreeing with an opinion. Sometimes it's just nasty name calling. It is what it is.

I wonder, when you did your narrative, did you have any knowledge about the V missile situation? Most people with any knowledge of WWII know at least a little about the V missiles, but did you correlate the dates and implications into your thoughts at all? It doesn't seem like you even realized the significance of the correlation of D-Day and the V missiles.

Tomorrow....Truman.


Prepare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"If Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, i.e., to give domination in Europe to the Soviets, 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."

you stooge for the far right reactionary Christian "the atheist communists are gonna get us" world view

Not only a conspiracy stooge but a narcissistic stooge ne as well.

Your wailings are one of the reasons why critical thinking is taught in HSs and universities: thesis, objective and vetted evidence, rebuttal, counter rebuttal, and conclusion with emphasis.

You are a disgrace to Columbia U.

 

[regent]

I wonder if any instructor of critical thinkling uses these posts in their classroom? It is a goldmine.

 

[Camp]

1. As evidenced by above posts which you pretend to ignore, Germany was, to quote the experts, 'mortally wounded.'


2. No, as the thread proves, the real reason for a northern France 'second front,' as opposed to one via bases in Italy, was that that conformed to the wishes of Joseph Stalin.


Such was the power of Stalin, and the weakness of Roosevelt.


3. All of the efforts of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and George Marshall went into opening a "second front" to reduce the tribulations of 'Uncle Joe' Stalin.


4. Robert E. Sherwood, in "Roosevelt and Hopkins," notes the
"contradictory circumstance of the American representatives [Hopkins and Marshall] constantly sticking to the main topic of the war against Germany while the British representatives were repeatedly bringing up reminders of the war against Japan." It was a policy that dominated American military and political decisions throughout the war-decisions that insured victory for communism. The American policy called for support of the Soviet Union on all European and FarEastern questions.
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 114-115.



5. Time and again, American loses were not a consideration to Roosevelt, Marshall, and the spy, Harry Hopkins. I refer to tens of thousands of American loses in the Far East.

I am not pretending to ignore your post. I am suggesting an alternative analysis of a specific topic of WWII history. I disagree with the conclusions you reach. I have stated many times that I consider your sources often unreliable and many of your conclusions and opinions to be distortions and laced with politics. Your narratives are agenda driven. You have a clear political agenda. My agenda is presenting factual and reliable data without a political agenda. Rather than provide specific links that may be biased or interpreted as slanted one way or another, I instead give interested persons the opportunity to choose their own sources. I give a suggestion of what to search for and leave it to the interested person to decide which sources they wish to use. If people who have followed my post trust that my sources are reliable and my evaluations and analysis of topics are accurate, reliable, whatever, that is ok too. Unlike you, I am not demanding or insisting that folks agree with me. Honestly, the only challanges I get about my post have nothing to do with the information I provide. It is almost always like your kind of comment about not seeing things the right way or being foolish for not agreeing with an opinion. Sometimes it's just nasty name calling. It is what it is.

I wonder, when you did your narrative, did you have any knowledge about the V missile situation? Most people with any knowledge of WWII know at least a little about the V missiles, but did you correlate the dates and implications into your thoughts at all? It doesn't seem like you even realized the significance of the correlation of D-Day and the V missiles.

Tomorrow....Truman.


Prepare.

Prepare for what? You are clueless. You are suggesting that the wishs of Stalin were followed by the guys who brilliantly won WWII. Not only did you fail to consider the V-Missiles, your amaturish idea gets even worse. You seem to not have knowledge that the very strategy you suggest was in fact instigated 11 months before D-Day. The assault on Sicily began on July 9, 1943 and was followed by the assault of mainland Italy on Sept. 3, 1943. The attack on Germany that you suggest should have been implemented and was opposed by Stalin actually happened and was implemented, according to you, against the wishs of Stalin.

If you had an actual understanding and knowledge about WWII beyond the political drivil of agenda driven propagandist you would know how the high attrition battles for defeat of the German forces defending the Volturno, Barbara and Bernhardt lines and the four battles for the Gustav line referred to as the Battles for Monte Cassino or Battle for Rome were so costly by the time Monte Cassino was over the allies confirmed what they alread knew. The highly defensable terrain advantage and the huge cost of the so called southern assault was out of the question. You simply do not understand the difference between warfare through mountains and mountain passes and warfare over level ground. You do not understand the limits of artillery and air power in a mountain environment and the cost in infantry soldiers in that same envirornment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"If Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, i.e., to give domination in Europe to the Soviets, 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."

you stooge for the far right reactionary Christian "the atheist communists are gonna get us" world view

Not only a conspiracy stooge but a narcissistic stooge ne as well.

Your wailings are one of the reasons why critical thinking is taught in HSs and universities: thesis, objective and vetted evidence, rebuttal, counter rebuttal, and conclusion with emphasis.

You are a disgrace to Columbia U.

Translation: I am correct in everything I've posted....and you cannot find any way to refute same.

That's why you have no examples in your drivel.



True?