so. you were taught D-day was the "turning point????"

tanstaafl72555

This Member's Account Has Been Permanently Banned
Life Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
7,213
Location
Spring Hope NC
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Uhhhhh, no. Not really.

D Day, or the Allied invasion at Normandy in 1944 (June 6) was pivotal IN THE WEST, but had it not been for the mother of all turning points at Stalingrad, frankly, we would have been pushed into the sea. We almost were, by the way. The first three DIVISIONS (8,000 men apiece) were reduced to somewhere around three COMPANIES (maybe 300 or so men, by the estimates) in the first couple of hours. Coxswains rebelled and simply refused to steer the boats into the meatgrinder of death. It was horrific. The opening scenes of Saving Pvt Ryan are an understatement, not an overstatement, of the fear, panic, confusion and death of the first guys in.

That in mind, it is important to note that the defenses there were SCALED DOWN because of the massive losses that the Wermacht had taken in the Eastern Front. We took some losses and they stung. They pale against the comparison of ONE POINT EIGHT MILLION men who either died or were severely wounded in the Eastern Campaign. More men died in the Soviet army SIMPLY IN THE BATTLE OF STALINGRAD than the US lost the entire war.

The Soviet army was as tough as anything we could imagine, and the godless Stalin regime threw them into the jaws of the German war machine like an unarmed person trying to stop a tank by jamming a crowbar into the treads. Wave after wave after wave after wave. It is really jaw dropping. Although the leaders were wicked men, the ones who died were like soldiers everywhere....., fighting for the homeland, their wives sweethearts and kids....., and their fellow soldiers.

The Russians broke the back of the mighty 6th army of Germany, surrounded it, killed off over 200 thousand men (started at 300,000, and then when 91,000 of them surrendered, less than 6000 survived Russian prison and returned after the war. You read that right. SIX thousand of 91,000. This happened in 1943, about 8 mos before the allied invasion at Normandy.

I hate communism. Stalin and the reds were unspeakably wicked, murderers, tyrants, and monsters. Yet, it is not hard to see why many Russians did view him as a kind of Winston Churchill. He saved Russia from the Nazis.

The key to remember here, though is that the USA sees itself as the "savior of the world from Hitler."

That is frankly, hogwash. It is still my opinion that we should have stayed out of that war, and let the TWO leftist monsters eat each other up. It is nonsense to assert that the west drained assets from Germany that "allowed" Russia to defeat them. In fact, estimates are that the Germans underestimated the strength of the Russian army BY HALF.

So, credit where credit is due, here. It does not diminish the bravery of the Allies nor does it dishonor the memories of those who thought they were saving the world from Hitler. However, it is a big propagandistic pile of horse manure to paint the intervention of the USA as the thing that did it (saved the world from Hitler).

What is worse, it paved the way for the monstrous egoism of those who insist that this was a "good war" and our abandoning the principle of non interference and isolation for the sake of that war therefore justifies the nonsense of us policing the world today, and the idiotic intrusions into the Mideast, Africa, and just about any other place on the map some general can find a place to put troops.

Governments are built on lies, and this one was a whopper.

Don't hate the messenger........

Screenshot at 2019-03-30 07-15-11.png
 
We were a fart in the wind compared to Russia.

Ask yourself how teeny tiny Germany ever had the manpower and materials to do what they did. Look to who was supplying them the whole time. War is big business.
 
You play a little bit of the historical revisionist here, drawing on several assumptions that bore out because they turned out the way they did. These discussions are entertaining and academically engaging, though.

Edited to add, while OVERLORD/NEPTUNE were essential, I think the turning point, really, was HUSKY. That operation really tested the principles on which Normandy was based and without which Normandy would have been an abject failure.
 
Last edited:
I have a degree in history. It was never taught that D-Day was the turning point in the war. It was, perhaps the nail in the coffin, but far from a “turning point”. Britain was no longer in danger, the Soviets were pushing back. Africa and Italy were a lost cause. D-Day and the following actions pushed the Germans out of occupied territory and forced the eventual surrender.

So the premise of your entire rant is completely moot to anyone who actually has studied the war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And would Russians possibly be speaking German today but not for the material support from the West (read USA)?
 
And would Russians possibly be speaking German today but not for the material support from the West (read USA)?
In a word, no. It is quite possible that Germans would be speaking Russian, though, had we not whined incessantly at them to slow down so Ike could share the glory.
 
Last edited:
Let us not forget that WE ground the Empire of Japan to dust pretty much, but not entirely, all by ourselves. The Normandy invasion gets all the press.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
Yeah, heaven forbid Ike not do whatever he could to stop the Russians from taking over the entire continent in their great push to defeat Germany. Glad he "whined" as he did. Saved millions of Western Europeans from the fate of millions of dead Russians at the hand of Stalin. We saw what he did to his own people, would be horrifying to think of what he would have done to the rest of Europe.
 
I have a degree in history. It was never taught that D-Day was the turning point in the war. It was, perhaps the nail in the coffin, but far from a “turning point”. Britain was no longer in danger, the Soviets were pushing back. Africa and Italy were a lost cause. D-Day and the following actions pushed the Germans out of occupied territory and forced the eventual surrender.

So the premise of your entire rant is completely moot to anyone who actually has studied the war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well thanks. I was never subject to the strenuous academic disciplines of history, but coasted thru college just doing chemistry and math and stuff. As such, I never really learned much from the study of such, limiting myself to a couple of courses in world history. So, it is always good to learn from someone who knows something.

My point, (inartfully articulated as it may have been) was that a large number of people actually DO believe that the USA entering the war "saved the world from Hitler" and that our entry into the war was a good thing because of it. Now, I admit, my conversations with people who hold such ideas may have been largely limited to folks like myself who engaged in hard sciences and did not study history. In that case, I am certainly guilty of transferring the opinions of a few to the general consensus. Most people may NOT have the mistakened notion that it was the USA whose actions primarily ended the war, and that without us, the Nazis would have been knocking on our door from Mexico and Canada. I did hear that opinion here on CFF but it was, again from another engineering type, who did not have a degree in history, so we may be a small crowd.

Anyway, I thought (actually still do) that this fallacy is/was held by a large segment of the population. I hear it set forth frequently as a justification of our international meddling in other nations to this day. My point, whether or not D day was a "turning point" (the title of my rant was in fact a hook.... I am not a military strategist), is that you cannot use the actions of the US in WW2 as a justification of our current imperialism.

I myself grew up believing this nonsense. I assumed that others did as well. Of course, others may not have been so stupid and misinformed as me. That certainly happens at times, as there seems to be no end to my ignorance and misinformation. I see that more clearly as I get older......., and more cynical about avenues of power.

Anyway, the founders were right. Foreign defense treaties are poison, and draw us into needless wars. World War 2 was NOT an exception to this rule, and one may not use it to justify our current intrusion into over 150 countries on the planet. I believe that entire story line to be a deliberate propaganda lie, for the sole purpose of expanding the power of the state, using military needs, young men's blood, and a pile of propagandistic slop to do so.

WW2 was not a "good war." It was unnecessary. We did not "save the world from the Nazis." In fact, an equally godless and barbaric state did. What we did is use our entry into a regional conflict to justify building a military empire that is bleeding us white.

That is the point, as poorly ranted out as it may have been.
 
Yeah, heaven forbid Ike not do whatever he could to stop the Russians from taking over the entire continent in their great push to defeat Germany. Glad he "whined" as he did. Saved millions of Western Europeans from the fate of millions of dead Russians at the hand of Stalin. We saw what he did to his own people, would be horrifying to think of what he would have done to the rest of Europe.

Yeah. We were real principled about that. Yalta is a great example of our courage there.
 
Well thanks. I was never subject to the strenuous academic disciplines of history, but coasted thru college just doing chemistry and math and stuff. As such, I never really learned much from the study of such, limiting myself to a couple of courses in world history. So, it is always good to learn from someone who knows something.

My point, (inartfully articulated as it may have been) was that a large number of people actually DO believe that the USA entering the war "saved the world from Hitler" and that our entry into the war was a good thing because of it. Now, I admit, my conversations with people who hold such ideas may have been largely limited to folks like myself who engaged in hard sciences and did not study history. In that case, I am certainly guilty of transferring the opinions of a few to the general consensus. Most people may NOT have the mistakened notion that it was the USA whose actions primarily ended the war, and that without us, the Nazis would have been knocking on our door from Mexico and Canada. I did hear that opinion here on CFF but it was, again from another engineering type, who did not have a degree in history, so we may be a small crowd.

Anyway, I thought (actually still do) that this fallacy is/was held by a large segment of the population. I hear it set forth frequently as a justification of our international meddling in other nations to this day. My point, whether or not D day was a "turning point" (the title of my rant was in fact a hook.... I am not a military strategist), is that you cannot use the actions of the US in WW2 as a justification of our current imperialism.

I myself grew up believing this nonsense. I assumed that others did as well. Of course, others may not have been so stupid and misinformed as me. That certainly happens at times, as there seems to be no end to my ignorance and misinformation. I see that more clearly as I get older......., and more cynical about avenues of power.

Anyway, the founders were right. Foreign defense treaties are poison, and draw us into needless wars. World War 2 was NOT an exception to this rule, and one may not use it to justify our current intrusion into over 150 countries on the planet. I believe that entire story line to be a deliberate propaganda lie, for the sole purpose of expanding the power of the state, using military needs, young men's blood, and a pile of propagandistic slop to do so.

WW2 was not a "good war." It was unnecessary. We did not "save the world from the Nazis." In fact, an equally godless and barbaric state did. What we did is use our entry into a regional conflict to justify building a military empire that is bleeding us white.

That is the point, as poorly ranted out as it may have been.

So, you are just ranting again. Gotcha.

A lot of people also think the world is flat, Elvis is alive, and .22 is a good defensive caliber. Thanks for bringing up a subject aimed at the lowest denominator.

I am failing to see anyone, anywhere, using our actions in WWII as justification for anything today. The Cold War is what led us to this "Imperialism" that you are harping on, not WWII and certainly not D-Day.

There is no "good war". WWII was not "unnecessary". No, >we< did not save the world from anyone. The combined allied forces did. No single country did it. We just happened to come in later, after all the other countries in Europe had largely beaten the snot out of each other already.

WWII was not a "regional conflict"...a few died in the Pacific as well...

If you want to rant on how the eventual Cold War led to US Imperialism in another Tanstaafl rant on how evil and mean the US is then go for it. It wouldn't be the first time and will not be the last time I am sure.
 
Yeah. We were real principled about that. Yalta is a great example of our courage there.

Ya know...nevermind...this is like playing chess with a pigeon, eventually the pigeon just craps on the board and acts like it won. The US is a horrid place and we should all be completely ashamed of everything we did at any time. Other than the McRib, that was good.
 
What part was unnecessary? Europe? Japan? Both?? Since Japan declared war on the US, and Germany sided with Japan as an ally (in December 1941), we were legally at war with both countries. You can argue that we could wage full, unrestricted war on Japan and restricted/no war with Germany, but that wouldn't happen.

Also, asking Soviets to slow down for Ike's "glory" is disingenuous; he was by all accounts the opposite of anything resembling a glory seeker. He was acting on Marshall's et al., orders, ostensibly handed down by Roosevelt (and very much more likely) Churchill.

As for WW2 being a catalyst for post-war imperialism, that ship sailed in the late 1700s.
 
Ya know...nevermind...this is like playing chess with a pigeon, eventually the pigeon just craps on the board and acts like it won. The US is a horrid place and we should all be completely ashamed of everything we did at any time. Other than the McRib, that was good.

You are not serious.....(or is this sarcasm I am not getting)….
 
Last edited:
So, you are just ranting again. Gotcha.

A lot of people also think .22 is a good defensive caliber.

So this should not be my primary defensive tool?

th


Damn!
 
You are not serious.....(or is this sarcasm I am not getting)….
sarcasm bro...just agreeing with the tin foil mad hatter.
So this should not be my primary defensive tool?

th


Damn!

It makes as much sense as a primary defense firearm as this thread does any semblance of sanity.
 
Yeah, heaven forbid Ike not do whatever he could to stop the Russians from taking over the entire continent in their great push to defeat Germany. Glad he "whined" as he did. Saved millions of Western Europeans from the fate of millions of dead Russians at the hand of Stalin. We saw what he did to his own people, would be horrifying to think of what he would have done to the rest of Europe.
I agree 100%, it is absolutely fair to say that America was reasonably concerned about Stalin/Russia rolling across Europe. Consider that it would have been hard to get a bunch of idiots, in this case the American people, to gear up to protect Europe from Russia, far easier to get everyone focused on the evil that was Hilter. Perhaps we waited to enter the war to be assured of victory and to allow the maximum diminishment of the Russia military. We do know that Russia didn’t love us for stalling.
 
I agree 100%, it is absolutely fair to say that America was reasonably concerned about Stalin/Russia rolling across Europe. Consider that it would have been hard to get a bunch of idiots, in this case the American people, to gear up to protect Europe from Russia, far easier to get everyone focused on the evil that was Hilter. Perhaps we waited to enter the war to be assured of victory and to allow the maximum diminishment of the Russia military. We do know that Russia didn’t love us for stalling.

If my memory serves, Patton and some generals wanted to keep going and fight the Russians then. They argued that they already had the men and man power on the ground and Russia was a threat. "Cooler" heads prevailed...if you could call it that, and we ended up with the cold war and a split Europe.
 
I agree 100%, it is absolutely fair to say that America was reasonably concerned about Stalin/Russia rolling across Europe. Consider that it would have been hard to get a bunch of idiots, in this case the American people, to gear up to protect Europe from Russia, far easier to get everyone focused on the evil that was Hilter. Perhaps we waited to enter the war to be assured of victory and to allow the maximum diminishment of the Russia military. We do know that Russia didn’t love us for stalling.

We didn't wait, though. In fact, there's a good argument that FDR was talking out of both sides of his mouth prior to 12/7/41 with lend-lease and heavy US Navy involvement with protecting convoys, trying to get in it without getting in it.

Stalin had a serious hard on against FDR and especially Churchill, because he wanted a front opened in the west super early, and the English didn't really want one at all.
 
I am failing to see anyone, anywhere, using our actions in WWII as justification for anything today.

Okay. Maybe all the folks I have talked with are flat earthers or "Elvis is alive living in Palisades CA" types. Would not be the first not last time I misjudged the zeitgeist.

I have a windmill to go fight. Later.
 
If my memory serves, Patton and some generals wanted to keep going and fight the Russians then. They argued that they already had the men and man power on the ground and Russia was a threat. "Cooler" heads prevailed...if you could call it that, and we ended up with the cold war and a split Europe.
You’re the scholar, but this wouldn’t surprise me a bit. Do have to give the politicians of the time credit, there would have been no winning a war against Russia, we wouldn’t have lost per se, just thrown resources at it for decades.
 
What part was unnecessary? Europe? Japan? Both?? Since Japan declared war on the US, and Germany sided with Japan as an ally (in December 1941), we were legally at war with both countries. You can argue that we could wage full, unrestricted war on Japan and restricted/no war with Germany, but that wouldn't happen.

Also, asking Soviets to slow down for Ike's "glory" is disingenuous; he was by all accounts the opposite of anything resembling a glory seeker. He was acting on Marshall's et al., orders, ostensibly handed down by Roosevelt (and very much more likely) Churchill.

As for WW2 being a catalyst for post-war imperialism, that ship sailed in the late 1700s.

Japan attacked, to be sure. OTOH, we embargoed them and cut off their supply of oil and other hard materiel (which they were admittedly were using for expansionism). There is good evidence that FDR both deliberately provoked them, AND ignored clear intel that they were planning an attack because HE WANTED US IN A WAR.

Did they fire the first shot? yeah Was it equivalent to some guy throwing a punch on the playground after the antagonist blustered and got in his face and invaded his space? also, yeah.

Point is, our upper echelon leadership WANTED war. I do understand the axis determination to declare war on us once Japan was at war. Perhaps it was inevitable, but I think not. There were actually a whole series of editorials in the Saturday Evening Post (one of the most popular publications a the time) that argued that maybe the Nazis/Japs were imperialistic and expansionistic.... but SO WHAT? It was not our conflict, and we should instead focus on making our own country defensible and impregnable.

I guess the really tragic thing is that today, such thinking is sneered at and considered on the level of "the aliens ate my baby."

Sad, because that USED TO BE identical with constitutional conservatism. Outside the fever swamps of Ron Paul lunatics, it is pretty much an extinct species. I see why when I post stuff like this.

Oh well. Off to the windmills.

Bye, all.
 
I've always wondered why we didn't let Germany and the Soviets duke it out a little longer before getting involved. I figure doing that would have taken care of Germany pretty much without our involvement, and left the Soviets in a much weaker state by the time it would have been over. I guess the US figured it better get involved at some point if for no other reason than to have a say in things after the shootin was over.
 
At least his spelling was generally correct. The US was attempting to recover from the great depression. Our military was diminished. Most people still had a desire to be isolationists especially after the horrors of WWI. THATS where the "Yeah they are expansionist, but so what" discussions were had. The US didn't want to get involved. It isn't "poking and blustering" to refuse to sell oil and supplies to a country that is massacring its way across Asia. Its more like some guy who was kicking over everyone's lunch's and grabbing all the girls butts on the playground sucker punching a guy for saying "No, I wont help you fondle the cheerleaders".

I've always wondered why we didn't let Germany and the Soviets duke it out a little longer before getting involved. I figure doing that would have taken care of Germany pretty much without our involvement, and left the Soviets in a much weaker state by the time it would have been over. I guess the US figured it better get involved at some point if for no other reason than to have a say in things after the shootin was over.

It is easy to argue that the Russians were only as successful against the Germans as they were because the US got involved and exposed the weak underbelly of the Axis by opening up the African campaign and eventually the fight on the Italian peninsula. Germany's main aim in Russia were the Russian oil fields, they really had little care about the vast majority of the country. Germany had to expend much of its strength fighting in Africa and in support of its ally Italy. So, in short, we didn't let them duke it out any longer because if we had there would have been a chance, especially before the southern front was opened, that the Soviets would have sued for peace, allowed Germany run of its southern oil fields, and hid out in Moscow until the war blows over.
 
Last edited:
Well, if you were a citizen of of Russia today, and every day since the Red and White Russians had their little civil war, you would disappear for speaking against Russia as you did the US there OP.
But you can talk openly against the US here and not fear for your well being.
But to downplay the US involvement and the importance they had in winning WWII especially on the 75th anniversary of D-Day, is pretty much a slap in the face to any survivors left and their families.
If the US had not declared war on Japan and Germany we would be speaking either Russian, German or Japanese today. Which would you prefer for your children or Grandchildren OP?
I also don't understand the connection to the meme below your first rant to your rant either. Maybe I would be easier for me to understand if I was a Russian citizen. I dunno.
I knew a few men who survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, they are all gone now. Do you think they needed the Govt. to tell them who their enemy was?
My rant is over. Carry on.
 
@tanstaafl72555 you make some good points, there's actually quite a bit of literature that Japan did not want war with us, but instead wanted to split the Pacific into their area and our area. But, our diplomatic alliances with England, the Dutch, and some others, we were not in a good position to let them get away with expanding into those colonies unchecked.

I think Roosevelt wanted war and simply did not have the political backing at home to do it. Not until Pearl Harbor.

@Railsplitter , the Soviets were running out of resources quickly, and we had been financing them and sending them war supplies. We wanted to open a western front to act as a pressure valve way before England did. I think if we had waited longer, Russia would have pushed even further west and it would have been a worse post-war outcome. I don't think our politicians we're good with that either.
 
Kind of a side note, but the more I learn, the more I think FDR was s total sleaze bag of a president. The first Regressive Librul if you will.
I agree - and also a damned genius.
 
@tanstaafl72555 you make some good points, there's actually quite a bit of literature that Japan did not want war with us, but instead wanted to split the Pacific into their area and our area. But, our diplomatic alliances with England, the Dutch, and some others, we were not in a good position to let them get away with expanding into those colonies unchecked.

I think Roosevelt wanted war and simply did not have the political backing at home to do it. Not until Pearl Harbor. .

I've never really read anything that pointed to Roosevelt >wanting< war. Id be interested to see any source data on that. But it is pretty well accepted that Japan, especially the military leaders, didn't want to fight the US. But they felt it inevitable. Their goal of Pearl was to completely knock out our Pacific carrier fleet, leaving us toothless in the Pacific. If someone >wanted< to point out a possible conspiracy would be that our carriers just happened to be out of dock when the attack struck. Leaving the carriers, coupled with an enraged and encouraged population, allowed the US to recover extremely fast and bring fire to bear on the Japanese far before they expected.
 
I've never really read anything that pointed to Roosevelt >wanting< war. Id be interested to see any source data on that. But it is pretty well accepted that Japan, especially the military leaders, didn't want to fight the US. But they felt it inevitable. Their goal of Pearl was to completely knock out our Pacific carrier fleet, leaving us toothless in the Pacific. If someone >wanted< to point out a possible conspiracy would be that our carriers just happened to be out of dock when the attack struck. Leaving the carriers, coupled with an enraged and encouraged population, allowed the US to recover extremely fast and bring fire to bear on the Japanese far before they expected.

I'll see what I can find. I don't think it was original source data, it may have been some editorial about his foreign policy. Not so sure he really wanted it, as much as he wasn't going to do much to prevent it. He was riding the political fence on that one.
 
Well, if you were a citizen of of Russia today, and every day since the Red and White Russians had their little civil war, you would disappear for speaking against Russia as you did the US there OP.
But you can talk openly against the US here and not fear for your well being.
But to downplay the US involvement and the importance they had in winning WWII especially on the 75th anniversary of D-Day, is pretty much a slap in the face to any survivors left and their families.
If the US had not declared war on Japan and Germany we would be speaking either Russian, German or Japanese today. Which would you prefer for your children or Grandchildren OP?
I also don't understand the connection to the meme below your first rant to your rant either. Maybe I would be easier for me to understand if I was a Russian citizen. I dunno.
I knew a few men who survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, they are all gone now. Do you think they needed the Govt. to tell them who their enemy was?
My rant is over. Carry on.

I think you have some good points, I do not think that had we stayed out we would be speaking Russian, German, or any of that. But I do think that the Cold war would have looked entirely different because a great deal more of Europe would have been under Soviet control.

frankly, there was too much distance between the United States and the other areas that even had they attacked us they could not carry on a war on our mainland; however they could have definitely controlled the sea lanes, oil, and natural resources, and that would have hurt us quite a bit, and put us at a significant disadvantage after the war.
 
One points to Stalingrad as the turning point. May have been but remember the troops that defeated the Germans came from the Chinese border because Russia knew no plans were made by the Japanese to come to the aid of their supposed Axis partners. Lots of possibilities from hindsight but one thing is certain our country did it's fair share and at times more, the D-day invasion is a fine example. If memory serves me right the Germans kicked our allies off the western front a few years before and everybody knew that Germany's finest were waiting for them when the time came for another try; the eastern front was a the last place a German chose to be. Nobody can describe the mass confusion and carnage that took place this time 75 years ago but America took the lead and never looked back until the German's were defeated. God bless America and especially those that stood the test.
 
Nobody can describe the mass confusion and carnage that took place this time 75 years ago but America took the lead and never looked back until the German's were defeated. God bless America and especially those that stood the test.
Growing up, a neighbor at my parents house was a child, Jewish, in France during WW2. Her father was a POW in Stalag 12B. He spoke 13 languages and was used as a translator. This little girl faced the SS in her own home when they were searching for her father after he escaped. She told the story, that apparently he came home and knocked his wife up and had to leave. The kid, her brother, was born, and the SS was at their house. The infant started to cry and they were like What’s that. She said her mother rubbed up against the Nazi in a sultry move and said, “I’ve got to make a living somehow.”

She said that when the US came to France that the people were whispering with great excitement about how, “ The Americans are coming”. Despite some of the attitude we get today, at the time, they were grateful for the help.
 
Who is saying it was a turning point? Where did you get that from?
 
@tanstaafl72555 you make some good points, there's actually quite a bit of literature that Japan did not want war with us, but instead wanted to split the Pacific into their area and our area. But, our diplomatic alliances with England, the Dutch, and some others, we were not in a good position to let them get away with expanding into those colonies unchecked.

I think Roosevelt wanted war and simply did not have the political backing at home to do it. Not until Pearl Harbor.

@Railsplitter , the Soviets were running out of resources quickly, and we had been financing them and sending them war supplies. We wanted to open a western front to act as a pressure valve way before England did. I think if we had waited longer, Russia would have pushed even further west and it would have been a worse post-war outcome. I don't think our politicians we're good with that either.

Not so sure. There is ample evidence that there were a decent number of Soviet supporting members of FDR’s administration. And the fight against Patton might have have a ‘red’ flag too.
 
Back
Top Bottom