Posted on 03/16/2008 10:37:34 AM PDT by Alouette
Woah! You really are equating the American soldier in Iraq today with the Red troops that swarmed across eastern and central Europe aren’t you.
Patton could have taken the last two nukes and saved us 50 years of cold war and whatever else Putin is going to do in Syria.
Eisenhower was a traitor.
Eisenhower was not a traitor. The decision on partitioning Europe was ultimately made (or at least agreed to) by Roosevelt, the President and Commander in Chief.
Eisenhower, or any other General for that matter, was no more empowered to defy the Commander in Chief than any of GWB's military leaders are today.
Civilian control of the Armed Forces is not a new idea.
Eastern Europe was indeed served up to the Soviets, but the serving was done by FDR.
It was not a conspiracy to trade people for an Allied win.
No. You MIGHT want to re-read that. I'm comparing it with the press "coverage" of the WoT.
You are oblivious to the fact that we openly tested our first nuke in April, the Germans were done in May , and the Japs got nuked in August.
Yet, Roosevelt and Eisenhower were refusing surrender offers by the Germans as early as 1943!
This would have prevented the bulk of the Holocaust!
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/warcrime.html
No, the only theory that makes sense is that Eisenhower and Roosevelt were committed to World Govt i.e., communism.
I mean what a joke - they refuse Germanys offers based on there having to be an “Unconditional” surrender, and then they pull back our troops so the Commies can overrun Europe.
PATHETIC!
You are oblivious to the fact that we openly tested our first nuke in April, the Germans were done in May , and the Japs got nuked in August.
Yet, Roosevelt and Eisenhower were refusing surrender offers by the Germans as early as 1943!
This would have prevented the bulk of the Holocaust!
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/warcrime.html
No, the only theory that makes sense is that Eisenhower and Roosevelt were committed to World Govt i.e., communism.
I mean what a joke - they refuse Germanys offers based on there having to be an “Unconditional” surrender, and then they pull back our troops so the Commies can overrun Europe.
PATHETIC!
I know this because I had a relative on the Admirals Staff at Bikini for the test.
The Soviets in and near Berlin lost something like 100,000 killed.
What does that have to do with the fact that our resources were stretched so thin? Let me put it this way: if you subtract YOUR losses from those of the enemy and come up with a positive sum BUT HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO REBUILD YOUR OR THE CONQUERED COUNTRY’S POPULATION OR ECONOMY WITH AFTERWARD....History will NOT say you were a glorius victor, History will say you were a MORON. History would be right.
It was because I was aware of the reputation of the Red Army that I listened carefully to see if the speaker would have anything negative to say about the troops who liberated their camp. It may be that they were all so malnourished that the soldiers were simply moved by pity rather than lust.
I don’t say any of this in attempt to excuse or mitigate the Soviet Union or the Red Army. Largely, I’m with Patton on this matter. We had a chance to just keep going and rid ourselves of them, but let’s face it, FDR was pathetic and Truman wasn’t up to speed even at the time he took over.
To note, in the Battle for Berlin alone - over 600,000 casualities.
Imagine if the Battle of the Bulge happened today. Ike would have been hauled before Congress.
bfl
And again, be careful.
5.56mm
” Imagine if the Battle of the Bulge happened today. Ike would have been hauled before Congress.”
It wouldn’t have been the first time in history that a Committee on Conduct of the War sat in Congress. The Continental Congress also continued to ride General Washington mercilessly as well. Politicians don’t know when to leave general officers alone and when not to, with some very rare cases.
Well said.
If the war against Japan had dragged on into 1946, Americans would have been happy that Russians were dying in the war and not as many Americans. I don't think many Americans in May 1945 would have welcomed Truman saying, "Germany has surrendered but now we're going to push the Russians out of Germany. We'll finish off the war with Japan eventually."
Japan was the enemy, while the Soviets had been our allies for the past several years. The US had about 400,000 killed in the war up to the time Germany surrendered--what American President would ask the country for a few hundred thousand more Americans dead to improve the postwar situation in Europe, when few people had any inkling of what was about to emerge in the countries occupied by the Red Army?
Dig around - you can google. The uranium bomb needed no testing and it is generally accepted that we built at least 4.
Dig around - you can google. The uranium bomb needed no testing and it is generally accepted that we built at least 4.
There’s lots of things to discover if you look well enough.
“In another brush with destiny, Mr. Skubik was informed by the Ukrainian underground of a Soviet assassination plot against Gen. George Patton. After his reports on the plot were dismissed, Gen. Patton was killed in an accident involving his staff car and a military truck. Although part of Gen. Patton’s security detail, Mr. Skubik was refused permission to investigate the crash. Mr. Skubik’s Ukrainian underground contact, Stepan Bandera, was himself assassinated by the KGB in 1959.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.