Comments on: Wasn’t Someone Else Involved?

By: bmeisen

bmeisen — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:00:12 +0000

Nice that you picked up on the op-ed piece. I saw it and almost tossed my cookies. The same old bologne that they used to dish up on the CBS affiliate in my hometown in the 60s – Saturday Afternoon Movies. Heroic GIs rescuing Yurup, making the world safe for democracy, a bunch of Americans doing what needed to be done. While there were American heroes somehow CBS didn’t get around to describing who the ultimate liberators were and what happened in Berlin in May 1945. It’s impressive – the power of American propaganda, the spectacular success of the establishment media to guide and form the self-perception of Americans, to perpetuate a delusion. Is it unreasonable to think that Roosevelt and Churchill decided to let Stalin do the dirtiest work? That they hoped that in winning the last and most awful battle of the war Stalin would exhaust Russia and communism?

By: Ape Man

Ape Man — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:38:56 +0000

Yes, the opinion piece is way over the top for all sorts of reasons.

But for what it is worth, Omar Bradly also felt that Eisenhower was making a big mistake. If I am remembering Bradly’s memoirs correctly, he argued that Eisenhower gave the order mostly for political reasons.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:50:44 +0000

Not only that. There was a little something called the Colmar pocket just south of Strasbourg. Pulling out the 6th to cross the – seemingly – undefended Rhine might have been catastrophic for the French army protecting Strasbourg. The German units in Colmar were not pushovers and that was considered – already – part of Germany, not France. In any event, German units launched a counter attack against Strasbourg at the end of November which the understrength and largely green French troops withstood. But not by much.

The author, I think, wanted to bash caution but conveniently left out some strategic concerns that required the 6th to be held back. I also agree it would have been nice to remember the other,somewhat more important, front.

By: Jussi Jalonen

Jussi Jalonen — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:49:41 +0000

I think that it’s pretty obvious from the context that when an American newspaper makes a reference to the “War in Europe”, they speak of that part of the European theatre where the American forces were primarily involved.

Besides, many Russian writers still habitually treat 1941 as the year when the “War” started, even though most Chinese, Poles, Britons and… um, Russians would probably disagree with that definition.

Such generalizations are normal in every country.

Cheers,

J. J.

By: Rollo

Rollo — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:36:06 +0000

Agreed. “The war in Europe was at a stalemate” is both an abuse of the word “Europe” and the word “stalemate”. It was in fact a brief (if bloody) setback on a single part of the Western front.