[ASLML] Inside The Third Reich

[Keith Todd]

Could not help but notice, Sam, that you put "Jim "Educated in Canada"
McLeod wrote:"..  I sincerely doubt that any USA or British sources on
the public history of WWII can be taken that seriously.  The standard
American history books in 1977 and before were full of "Remember Pearl
Harbor" and twisted facts about the US government's knowledge of the
impending attack and especially the Marshall telegram that made to all
US military post except Hawaii.

Keith 

-----Original Message-----
From: Aslml-bounces at asl-forums.net [mailto:Aslml-bounces at asl-forums.net]
On Behalf Of Sam Belcher
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 10:32 AM
To: jmmcleod at mb.sympatico.ca; Aslml at asl-forums.net
Subject: RE: [ASLML] Inside The Third Reich


Jim "Educated in Canada" McLeod wrote: 

> I just finished reading this book last night.  Going on the assumption

> that what Speer wrote is mostly true, I have the following 
> observations;

<big snip>

> [conspiracy mode ON]
> 
> There are the Allies, plugging away through 1941 to early 1943.  The 
> desert war is a total sideshow in the big scheme of things.  The 
> Allie's deep stratigic thinkers know that Hitler can't win the war 
> versus the Soviets after Stalingrad.  The Allies now are looking at 
> postwar Europe and their enemy is the USSR as the nazis are done.  The

> Allies need the Russians to grind down the Germans and they, the 
> Allies, also need the Germans to grind down the Russians.  IMHO, that 
> is why the Allies avoided the invasion of France until June '44.  
> Invading Italy was an appeasement to the Russians and the Allies would

> have been farther ahead to have not invaded Italy at all.

I disagree. The USA wanted to invade Europe in '43 but the British were
concerned about launching an invasion before it could be done with over
whelming force. The Brit's won that point at the conference.... And I
disagree that the allies "Knew" that Germany couldn't win after
Stalingrad. Both the Germans AND the other allies were kept in the dark
about the true strength of Stalin's army. Neither the Germans, nor the
allies thought that the Soviets would win. In fact, the allies didn't
initially send much aid to the Russians because they expected them to be
over-run. 

OTOH, the allies could not have won without the Russians - at least not
without using the atom bomb in Europe.  Think about -that- alternate
history a bit...

> IMO, Ol' Eisenhower had his sights on the US presidency by the time of

> WWII.  His hands off approach to the ground war in France after the 
> D-Day landings may indicate that he:
> 
> - knew without doubt that the Allies would win.

I disagree...

> - knew that the families of dead American soldiers might not be so 
> keen to vote for candidate Ike'.  His broad front strategy hints in 
> that direction as do the antics of his "party all the time" HQ.  They 
> knew they would win so why push the issue.  Keep US losses low to help

> Ike's image with voters but lets meet the Russians in mid-Germany for 
> the next war so France doesn't get trashed again.  The A-bomb's 
> dropped in Japan were in a way, the final test of that weapon for the 
> benefit of the Russians.

The fact that Eisenhower wanted to minimize allied (particularly US)
casualties is evidence that he knew he'd win and that he was already
running for the White House? I disagree. 

The A-Bomb was dropped on Japan because the US wanted to minimize
casualties (especially US casualties). Revisionist history will not
change that...

Sam