Author Topic: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...  (Read 1213 times)

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2019, 08:28:50 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Including plans for Federal troops to invade Texas over to California.  Can't imagine why?
It would be nice if you could make sense every now and again.  What the fuck did you just say??????
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2019, 08:41:46 PM »
I think he's in chat bot mode, Mike, so he streams his consciousness all over the place.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The phrase "freedom of religion" means "no freedom from religion."

Offline Baruch

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2019, 12:31:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It would be nice if you could make sense every now and again.  What the fuck did you just say??????

War plans.  Plan for war against New Hampshire for example, and the there 49 states.  The oath sworn is against ... all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Perhaps we should have done this in the 60s, rather than invade Vietnam.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Baruch

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2019, 12:32:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think he's in chat bot mode, Mike, so he streams his consciousness all over the place.

Stream of consciousness is better than stream of unconsciousness ;-)  Also it is the literary technique of James Joyce.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2019, 06:33:42 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And that's bad?  Because drawing up plans to react to any foreseeable international crisis even among allies (allies don't always stay allies, just ask Russia and China) and assinging Areas of Responsibility and Areas of Operations seems pretty reasonable to me.

Yes, always be prepared...  Sometimes allies change...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2019, 06:36:30 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes and no.  To not gather intelligence is to stay blind.  That can be dangerous.  Gathering too much intelligence, too aggressively can also be dangerous.  It is a fine line that needs to be threaded.  Even back in the day when I was a Military Intelligence Agent, we had too many agencies gathering intel and not sharing it.  I dealt with Naval, Air Force, NSA, FBI and every now and again, CIA agents.  They were a closed mouth batch.  Every request was met with 'Well, I'll have to see if I can release that to you.'  I thought that we had too many agencies gathering the same type of intel; to day that has been compounded.  That can, and does, lead to happenings like 9-11.  We had the intel to stop it, but the agencies just don't share intel with one another. 

As for Russia/China complaining about it, that is their job.  Almost all other countries complain about out intel gathering; and we complain about theirs.  Sort of like Amazon competing with IBM or Microsoft or Walmart.  That's their job.

Within a nation, all intelligence should be shared.  But that means a central agency and that can get out of hand.  Better to have several and share as much "as possible". 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2019, 06:44:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Those are fascinating studies.  And those are good and valid questions.  And I would imagine they are still being asked and answered every so often by all the branches of the military.
Preparation is vital. Dwight David Eisenhower was being groomed for an important spot in 1939. Gen. George Catlett Marshall wanted him to take over in the top job in the US Army. Marshall wanted someone competent to replace him so he could go fight the war in Europe. Eisenhower was a Lt. Col. in 1939. Five years later he was a five star general.

(Marshall's plan fell through when FDR refused to let him go play soldier. The fact that Marshall was an bit of an anglophobe played in that decision. I've always thought that the idea he couldn't rise above that was a discredit to Marshall.)
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Baruch

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #22 on: February 26, 2019, 06:51:25 AM »
Marshall was an excellent organizer.  That doesn't make him good at combat.  The first American commander in N Africa, had been the head of West Point, and failed.  Patton was called in to replace him.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2019, 08:04:50 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Preparation is vital. Dwight David Eisenhower was being groomed for an important spot in 1939. Gen. George Catlett Marshall wanted him to take over in the top job in the US Army. Marshall wanted someone competent to replace him so he could go fight the war in Europe. Eisenhower was a Lt. Col. in 1939. Five years later he was a five star general.

(Marshall's plan fell through when FDR refused to let him go play soldier. The fact that Marshall was an bit of an anglophobe played in that decision. I've always thought that the idea he couldn't rise above that was a discredit to Marshall.)

I did not know the details of Eisenhower's advancement.  It makes sense that skill can be quickly recognized, though.  If I recall accurately through history, though, organizers make good leaders.  Robert Lee was a Quartermaster at the start, Grant kept supply lines operating, and Eisenhower was both an organizer and a consensus-maker.  Someone more knowledgable than I would have to tell me about his tactical skills.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2019, 01:11:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I did not know the details of Eisenhower's advancement.  It makes sense that skill can be quickly recognized, though.  If I recall accurately through history, though, organizers make good leaders.  Robert Lee was a Quartermaster at the start, Grant kept supply lines operating, and Eisenhower was both an organizer and a consensus-maker.  Someone more knowledgable than I would have to tell me about his tactical skills.

Eisenhower was a superb supply officer, plan maker, politician in uniform.  Just what was needed at his level.  Being in the field carrying a rifle, wasn't his calling.

I have read of his advancement ... Marshall kept a little black book of young Army officers he thought had promise, going back decades before WW II.  And he used it when the opportunity arose.  For selected reasons, different people were advanced way past where they were in the seniority list (how the Army usually did things).  Other people were forcibly retired.  Marshall founded the Pentagon and cleaned house at the outset.

Patton was originally higher in seniority than Eisenhower, and before the war started Eisenhower polled him on help getting a job in the coming war.  Patton's forte was as a trainer, not a combat officer.  A more practical version of the guy who lost the first US army battle with the Afrika Corp.  Bradley on the other hand, wasn't an aristocrat like Patton, and was better with people in general, so he was put in charge of the American part of Overlord, and interacting with the difficult Field Marshall Montgomery.  Of course all the generals made mistakes during the war, and other men paid for it with their lives ...  cest le guerre.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2019, 04:51:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Eisenhower was a superb supply officer, plan maker, politician in uniform.  Just what was needed at his level.  Being in the field carrying a rifle, wasn't his calling.

I have read of his advancement ... Marshall kept a little black book of young Army officers he thought had promise, going back decades before WW II.  And he used it when the opportunity arose.  For selected reasons, different people were advanced way past where they were in the seniority list (how the Army usually did things).  Other people were forcibly retired.  Marshall founded the Pentagon and cleaned house at the outset.

Patton was originally higher in seniority than Eisenhower, and before the war started Eisenhower polled him on help getting a job in the coming war.  Patton's forte was as a trainer, not a combat officer.  A more practical version of the guy who lost the first US army battle with the Afrika Corp.  Bradley on the other hand, wasn't an aristocrat like Patton, and was better with people in general, so he was put in charge of the American part of Overlord, and interacting with the difficult Field Marshall Montgomery.  Of course all the generals made mistakes during the war, and other men paid for it with their lives ...  cest le guerre.

This is why they keep you around.  ;)  But I disagree about Patton being a trainer rather than a combat officer.  It seems to me the opposite.

References would be greatly appreciated please?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2019, 06:20:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is why they keep you around.  ;)  But I disagree about Patton being a trainer rather than a combat officer.  It seems to me the opposite.

References would be greatly appreciated please?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Rommel was a brilliant infantry officer (as a young man) that became mobile.  Patton was a brilliant cavalry officer (as a young man) that became motorized.  Both did combat, as young men, not as generals.  They weren't special berserker warriors at that level, but thinkers.  As generals you have to get other people do to things.  The failings of Patton were directly related to his aristocratic background, his being from cavalry (Bradley was infantry), and his histrionic way of training.  He was one of the leaders of the huge Army games in Southern America just before WW II, when they had to pretend with logs in place of artillery.  He led the Army out to Ft Irwin in the Mohave, to teach his corp cadre how to survive in the desert (he had foresight).  He was good at motivating men, who are open to his drama queen style of leadership.  But he was a disaster with the press ... not a politician at all.  Dual bios are interesting (Rommel was middle class), because you can see how Rommel would have been better in the US Army, and Patton would have been better in the German Army (my opinion).  Until Patton got the US 3rd Army, he didn't have the right group of officers and men who could dance to his tune.  Earlier he was tied to Monty.  When he did, he performed miracles.  But you have to match the conductor to the orchestra.  And of course ... the US had absolute air superiority for the French and German campaign, that helps a lot.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2019, 12:41:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Rommel was a brilliant infantry officer (as a young man) that became mobile.  Patton was a brilliant cavalry officer (as a young man) that became motorized.  Both did combat, as young men, not as generals.  They weren't special berserker warriors at that level, but thinkers.  As generals you have to get other people do to things.  The failings of Patton were directly related to his aristocratic background, his being from cavalry (Bradley was infantry), and his histrionic way of training.  He was one of the leaders of the huge Army games in Southern America just before WW II, when they had to pretend with logs in place of artillery.  He led the Army out to Ft Irwin in the Mohave, to teach his corp cadre how to survive in the desert (he had foresight).  He was good at motivating men, who are open to his drama queen style of leadership.  But he was a disaster with the press ... not a politician at all.  Dual bios are interesting (Rommel was middle class), because you can see how Rommel would have been better in the US Army, and Patton would have been better in the German Army (my opinion).  Until Patton got the US 3rd Army, he didn't have the right group of officers and men who could dance to his tune.  Earlier he was tied to Monty.  When he did, he performed miracles.  But you have to match the conductor to the orchestra.  And of course ... the US had absolute air superiority for the French and German campaign, that helps a lot.

That is a very interesting interpretation of Patton's skills.  I don't disagree that he was a very good disciplinarian General (but crossed over to local dictatorship habits when not watched carefully (as in not comprehending "battle-shock" on occasion).

But driving soldiers to exhaustion by force of will is not the same thing as training.  Your statement about "he didn't have the right group of officers and men who could dance to his tune" demonstrates that.  "Dance to his tune" is not the same thing as training.

Patton "demanded" obedience, "trainers" teach skills.  That is very different. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2019, 05:13:40 AM »
That is a dialectic.  You have to push soldiers to win, but you have to have trained them first to be able to perform under stress.  The natural position of any soldier is with his head between his legs.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Deep State of WW II ... continues ...
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2019, 08:07:29 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is a dialectic.  You have to push soldiers to win, but you have to have trained them first to be able to perform under stress.  The natural position of any soldier is with his head between his legs.

Patton did not train any soldiers.  He demanded his subordinates did without having any skill to do it himself.  That in itself is not exactly a weakness on his part; he commanded well.  But he never "trained" anyone at any level well.  I'm just saying you should recognize the difference...

Indeed, his inability to actually "train" subordinates is well-documented.  As a fierce fighter, he could not understand "battle fatigue" and was never good at leading individuals in warfare.  I offer a wikipedia page discussing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_S._Patton_slapping_incidents].

I do not hesitate to say that he was a skilled commander and tactician.  His quick recognition and planned responses to the Battle Of the Bulge (for example) are impressive.  But it was his LACK of ability to train soldiers that lead to his temporary removal from command afterwards.

Yes he was returned to command for his tactical skills after Operation Overlord, but that was the reason subordinates became his superiors in rank.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk