Did Communist Influence Lead to D-Day Invasion over Italy Strategy?

Breitbart ^ | 7 Aug 2013 | Diana West

[cutty]

The two most ardent boosters of the Normandy invasion were Stalin and Harry Hopkins

...

Churchill famously urged that the advance on Germany continue from already-won bases in Italy and elsewhere in south-central Europe.

Stalin’s demand for the big U.S.-British push in northern France, however, prevailed. According to the tally of one peeved letter to the editor in the New York Times, this would put the Allies on track to open their ninth front.

Of course, in order to gather sufficient forces for the June 1944 D-Day invasion, men and equipment, particularly landing craft, had to be withdrawn from the European continent – in Italy – to reinvade the European continent – in France.

In his memoir, Calculated Risk, Gen. Mark Clark, commander of U.S. forces in Italy, explains how gutting his forces in Italy in the months before D-Day stalled Allied progress against German forces. (Italy had already surrendered.) Meanwhile, the disappearance of Allied men and materiel from the battlefield completely mystified the Germans.

For weeks, Clark writes, Allied counterintelligence “was catching enemy agents who had orders to find out 'where in hell' were various Allied divisions that were being sent to France.” They couldn’t believe the Allies weren’t dealing them the death blow they had expected.

Italy... “was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valley 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,” he explained. The commander went on recommend “operations in the Aegean”: "From here the Balkans could be kept aflame, Ploesti would be threatened and the Dardanelles might be opened.”

That commander’s name was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

[Verginius Rufus]

Actually, Hannibal did have to fight the local tribes while taking his forces through the Alps, and suffered a lot of casualties while doing so.

[hecht]

The famous back door plan

[hecht]

The Brits would still not be on the continent

[JewishRighter]

My reading on the subject of Omaha was simply a matter of bombers on that beach having poor siting due to some overcast and that naval bombardment also suffered from not being able to visualize targets once they began shelling because of the way prevailing winds blew all the smoke and dust in such a way that screened the targets.

A great story is the USS Texas which, seeing how badly the men on the beach were doing, sailed in much closer than they normally would so they could get good visuals on the pillboxes. Their shelling, while almost running aground, played a big role in saving the day from utter disaster.

This is from memory of a lot of reading over years, so please forgive me if the details are not quite right. Best of my recollection, though.

[fabian]

This is from Dick Morris .com and is from a biography of Eisenhower. General Bradley opted out of using heavy tanks, instead using smaller types which almost all did not make it to shore to help the troops being slaughtered. The GI’s had a ridiculous 68 lbs in their packs, as compared to the British 20 lbs, causing many of them to drown or be killed by the slower movement with all that weight. The other beach landings were pounded for 4 hours, wiping out a lot of the defenses, Omaha was hit for about 40 minutes. If they saw an issue with targeting, they should have been ordered to move their asses up closer before the landing. They also launched the landing crafts from a ridiculous 12 miles rather than 7 which caused more sea sickness and a not sharp trooper when he finally made it to the beach. And, to top it all off, the used a frontal assault, rather than a flanking one , when they knew from previous engagements, that it was much more difficult. I know it is easy for us to point this out so far away from the actual battle, but I think it is obvious that Bradley really screwed up Omaha and those poor men that were mowed down for several hours had to pay an awful price. I just hope they all are in heaven now and would think that they are.

[Western Phil]

The German’s “ready” acceptance of Hitler has always been an issue not well addressed. Germany had experienced post WWl hyperinflation and now was well into the world wide depression. Hitler promised and delivered prosperity. In addition Stalin was starving the Kulaks in the Ukraine. The Kulaks were ethnic German farmers who had settled there under the reign of Catherine the Great. The Kulaks were still corresponding with their relatives living in Germany. Thus the Germans knew what Communism entailed and wanted no part of it. Hitler’s belligerent “anti-communism” was thus something they would tend to welcome.

[cunning_fish]

>>>The entire effort in the Med, that whole soft underbelly thing, was done to benefit the British in maintaining it’s empire in the post war era. The American idea was to end the war rapidly as possible. The British insisted on sideshows designed to help them maintain their position in the postwar era.

Thank god we didn’t do it the British way.<<<

Bingo. That trend continued after the War as well until 1960s when communists hijacked British strategy in the Middle East (Arab terrorism against Israel was originally a way for the British to wage a proxy war for influence against US).

[cunning_fish]

>>>In retrospect, if there had been no D-Day, Stalin may have shot himself in the foot. Without D-Day, he might have conquered all of Germany.<<<

And France too. It was (and probably still that way) more Communist than both Romania and Ukraine.

Not to mention Norway, Finland and Sweden. All could follow a fate of Baltic states and Konigsberg.

[Southack]

The problem was that Northern Italy was more easily defensible by the Germans.

We would have needed to go over the Alps to reach Germany that way.

In contrast, invading from France was flat to the Rhine.