Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

General Eisenhower - Political Naivety

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • General Eisenhower - Political Naivety

    I find it interesting while reading WWII history that Winston Churchill and the British advocated the Western Allies should take Berlin, Prague, and Vienna as he foresaw the treachery of Stalin and Stalin's desire to control Central and Eastern Europe.

    Eisenhower did not see the strategic importance of taking these Central European capitals and the balance of power in Central Europe as he simply thought the casualties to take these cities were not worth it. FDR is as much to blame as well as the Yalta conference was a disaster full of concessions to Stalin.

    I find it odd the U.S. fought Germany on the grounds that Germany invaded Poland and France but then blindly allowed the Soviet Union to take Poland, Hungary, Chechozlovakia, Eastern Germany, the Baltics, Romania etc.

    General Patton and Winston Churchill were absolutely correct in their assessment of post war Europe and Stalin's intentions.

  • #2
    US technically fought Germany because Hitler declared war on us.

    Not taking central Europe before the Soviets got there was to conserve the western allies strength. Why waste soldiers lives if the post war borders were already drawn?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #3
      The Western Allies could have taken Berlin, Prague and Vienna prior to the Russians. In fact, the Germans would have allowed and desired the Americans to take Berlin.

      A major political, strategic benefit would be the Americans and British would have been viewed by the other nations as more powerful with the conquest of these capitals. Russia gained much prestige by taking Berlin, Prague, and Vienna which helped their international communist drive.

      The Brits and Americans could have obtained considerable scientific research, German technology, more German scientists, uranium etc that fell in to Russian hands. Russia's NVKD (KGP) had special units with the front line troops to find these items in Berlin as Russia was behind the U.S. in atomic research.

      Having control of these capitals would have provided the Brits and Americans more bargaining power with the Soviets after WWII. Plus, Prague and Vienna were not necessarily part of the Yalta agreement.

      Comment


      • #4
        Personally, I have little respect for Eisenhower.
        "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

        Comment


        • #5
          irishman,

          stalin was fully ready to see his armies just about ground to dust to ensure that he got there before the allies. as gunnut mentioned, the borders were already drawn up at yalta.

          say the allies did take berlin before stalin. that would have costed the allies plenty, and would have most certainly dramatically raised tensions between russia and the allies after the war, even more so than in our own time.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't think the casualties would have been that heavy given the mass surrenders to the Western Allies the latter months of the war. The Wermacht, SS, Volkstrum, Berliners would not have fought to the death against the Americans like they did the Red Army. They knew what the Red Army was capable of.

            Why appease Stalin?........the guy was ruthless and treacherous. Stalin only respected strength. In 1940 and 1941, he feared Hitler and Germany and did everything possible to avoid war with Germany. Eisenhower and FDR did not understand Stalin's treachery until it was too late. Truman quickly did but he came in too late. Patton, Montgomery and Churchill certainly did.

            Also, Stalin and his generals were very apprehensive about General Patton and the Third Army. They were afraid Patton would initiate war with the Red Army.

            Comment


            • #7
              Eisenhower did a great job in his role as the Proconsul (overseeing diplomat-general), and that is what it counts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by leibstandarte10 View Post
                Personally, I have little respect for Eisenhower.
                No other man could have done what he did with the tools he had.

                -dale

                Comment


                • #9
                  I won't disagree that he was an efficient commander of all Allied forces on the Western Front. But his treatment of POWs was inexcusable, perhaps even a bit cowardly.
                  "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Anyone seen the movie Patton? Shoulda taken Patton up on his offer...
                    MT . . .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      [QUOTE=gunnut;350326]
                      US technically fought Germany because Hitler declared war on us.
                      A point often overlooked because of Pearl harbour gunnut.
                      sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                      Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Irishman, the USA didn't participate in WWII over Poland. Poland got overrun in 1939 and the USA did nothing. The USA never wanted to fight over Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, Finland, or Romania.

                        The USA, like the UK, fought in both World Wars mostly for grand geopolitical reasons: it was unacceptable to allow Europe or Asia to be dominated by any single power.

                        That's why the USA and UK went quickly from opposing Germany to opposing Russia, and from opposing Japan to opposing China. The old square-dance of power-politics: swing your partner and switch. As Palmerston put it: "No permanent allies, only permanent interests."

                        In that context, whether the European land border is drawn a few miles more here or there made little difference to the USA.

                        As Churchill himself said, the genius of grand strategy in WWII, in terms of maximizing one's influence at minimum cost or risk, wasn't himself or Stalin, but Roosevelt. At first glance, Yalta looks like a shameful cave-in on Roosevelt's part, but when you look at the big board, Roosevelt could make such concessions since he had scored almost all of his points the world over:

                        1. US economic pre-eminence worldwide.
                        2. British and French empires effectively dependent and dismantled.
                        3. The USSR and China exhausted and checked.


                        What does Prague count among such vast considerations? A mere bagatelle.

                        When the long-term world situation was taking shape so favourably for the USA, why should they rush to quarrel over a few devastated acres of central Europe? To get even more refugees to look after, as if they didn't already have enough of them?

                        As for Eisenhower, why should he have fought more battles and took more losses just to grab territory that he would have cede shortly after? What sort of generalship is that?

                        Eisenhower might have had a nice boyish grin, but he was no kind of fool. Ike was a shrewd, hard-boiled, soldier-statesman who rose far and fast because he could put the ultimate aim above all other considerations. One of his most effective management techniques was to let others think they were smarter than he was. In this fashion, he could satisfy their ambitions while getting the best out of them to achieve Eisenhower's goals.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Cape Royds,

                          I agree with many of your points but Great Britain and France were supposed allies of Poland. Although the U.S. was not a pre-WWII ally of Poland, it seems we sure expended $billions and a lot of nervous energy during the Cold War to undermine the Soviet Union in Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. Plus we quickly took Poland into NATO.

                          I still think FDR gave too much to Stalin at Yalta, however, the only way to liberate Poland and Eastern Europe would have been warfare with the Soviets in 1945 which would have been no easy task. Thus I can understand and appreciate FDR's approach. I'm a big fan of FDR by the way. He led the U.S. out of the Great Depression and WWII. A great leader and statesman.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by leib10 View Post
                            Personally, I have little respect for Eisenhower.
                            Personally, I have IMMENSE respect for him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by leib10 View Post
                              I won't disagree that he was an efficient commander of all Allied forces on the Western Front. But his treatment of POWs was inexcusable, perhaps even a bit cowardly.
                              Sitting there in the comfort of your centrally-heated home with plenty to eat, far from the sights, smells, dangers and general ugliness of 20th Century warfare, I imagine it looks a bit different to you than it did to a commander that has seen all of that, and has borne the responsibility for the lives lost under his command.

                              So you can be forgiven for holding that opinion, I suppose. Different perspective, you might say.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X