War now appears unwinnable in light of new enemy offensive

[Shi Huangdi]

December 17th, 1944

PARIS (Routers) Long-time critics of the Roosevelt administration declared themselves vindicated today, as the Germans began a renewed offensive yesterday in the Ardennes Forest in Belgium, opening a huge hole in the "Allied" lines and throwing back troops for miles, with previously unimaginable US casualties.

Early yesterday morning, eight German armored divisions and thirteen German infantry divisions launched an all-out attack on five divisions of the United States 1st Army. Hundreds of heavy guns, howitzers and multiple-rocket launchers were fired on American positions.

The 5th and 6th Panzer armies, consisting of some eleven divisions, broke through the Loshein Gap against the American divisions protecting the region. The 6th Panzer Army then headed north while the Fifth Panzer Army went south. The latter army attacked the U. S. VIII Corps some 100 miles to the south, which was quickly surrounded, resulting in mass surrenders of unprepared American soldiers. By any reasonable and objective standard, it was an utter military disaster for the "Allied" forces.

It all came as a complete shock to the Roosevelt administration who, rumor has it, had been informed by the head of OSS that the imminent collapse of the German army was a "lead-pipe cinch." This only confirmed reasonable pre-election suspicions that the administration and General Eisenhower were operating on flawed intelligence, and led the nation into an invasion of Europe on clearly false pretenses.

This new setback came amidst continuing problems with the new government in France, installed by the "Allies." Many consider it a puppet, lacking legitimacy, and it has proven itself inept. The situation is chaotic, and "President" De Gaulle has shown himself to be unable to control food riots, or prevent the commission of massacres of former regime loyalists and the German troops who had supported the overthrown legitimate Vichy government. Though elections are promised sometime in the future, there is widespread doubt, given the infighting between FRLs, communists, and Gaullists, that peaceful and orderly elections can be held any time soon or that civil war can be prevented.

Many have pointed out that the troop strength on the continent has been inadequate since the invasion at Normandy last June, and that this only confirmed that. In addition, they say, it didn't help that, due to incompetence at the highest levels, up to the newly installed Secretary of War Hull, many troops died as a result of our own bombs.

"They ignored our warnings about getting embroiled in a quagmire here, and this campaign has been a disaster, from the hundreds killed in training, to the thousands who died on the beaches in France," said an anonymous State Department source. He continued, "We've also shamed ourselves before the world with our reckless policies and atrocities." In the wake of all this, some, off the record, are suggesting that it's time to consider impeachment of the recently reelected president.

Back in Washington, despite lofty rhetoric from the White House about the "liberation" of Europe, many had always been skeptical about the prospects for defeating Germany. As they correctly point out, the Germans are after all defending their homeland, and no matter how bad the alleged depravations of the Nazi regime, all familiar with the German character know that they can be depended on to fight to the death against any foreign invader, no matter how well intentioned. Many of the German dead or captured for the past few weeks have been adolescents, some only fourteen or fifteen years old, with dead, untrained yet willing hands clinging to their rifles. Seeing such images of dedication to the cause, it's difficult for many to believe that victory is possible.

As a result, the new setback has renewed rumbling among some that the time has come to seek an accord with the Nazi regime that could allow a withdrawal from Europe with honor, and not lose any more American troops in a hopeless cause, let alone bog them down for an unforeseeable period of time. "It was Japan that attacked us, not Germany," pointed out a Senate staffer. "We need to focus our resources on the true enemy in the Pacific."


Some staffers on Capitol Hill implied that the timing itself of the offensive was suspicious. "Hitler wanted Roosevelt to be reelected, so that he could continue to fight a war against a sick, senile incompetent. Had he started this offensive before the election back on November 7th, everyone would have seen what a disaster this president has been on foreign policy, and Hitler would have had to confront a young, vibrant Tom Dewey."

Others, representing moderate Democrats, seemed resigned. "We're stuck with a stubborn megalomaniac who's eventually going to have us at war with the rest of the world. How long will our Russian allies put up with this kind of behavior? How can we found or host a 'United Nations' when we ourselves are the author of so much aggression?"


(Copyright 2004, by Rand Simberg)

[BeBro]

Summary?

[chequita guevara]

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by BeBro
Summary?

It's all Bush's fault.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


It's all Bush's fault.

We know Anything new?

[chequita guevara]

This thread was Godwinized in the OP.

[Shogun Gunner]

Interesting. The Onion?

[Kuciwalker]

[Urban Ranger]

PARIS (Routers)

Routers?

[Al B. Sure!]

i guess like people who retreat?

[lord of the mark]

You invade Iraq first. Then Syria. And only after that Iran. Guess who followed that policy before?

[Spiffor]

The Americans didn't want De Gaulle, whom they saw as a new Napoleon. They wanted to put a puppet in his stead, but Churchill insisted that De Gaulle leads the provisional government.

It was because of Churchill's attempt to keep some international power in Europe. Giving France a true leader, and a front seat among the winners, was in Churchill's interests, but definitely not in the US'.

I don't see how Allawi is a national hero of Iraq's.

[Arrian]

@ thread.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You invade Iraq first. Then Syria. And only after that Iran. Guess who followed that policy before?

Hitler when he invaded Tchequoslowakia before Poland?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The Americans didn't want De Gaulle, whom they saw as a new Napoleon. They wanted to put a puppet in his stead, but Churchill insisted that De Gaulle leads the provisional government.

It was because of Churchill's attempt to keep some international power in Europe. Giving France a true leader, and a front seat among the winners, was in Churchill's interests, but definitely not in the US'.

I don't see how Allawi is a national hero of Iraq's.

Yah, well, maybe we should have spent 4 years assisting Allawi in leading exile troops against Iraqi colonies abroad (?) before invading Iraq. And we could even have forgiven him for screwing up the first major operation. Then he could have been a hero. Oh, and I understand that to quite a number of Frenchmen in 1944 he was no hero at all (IE the Communists) and that he ended up getting support from many (rightists) who had supported the regime that exiled him. The parallel to Allawi is not all that weak.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Hitler when he invaded Tchequoslowakia before Poland?

No, those exact countries. Iraq first, then Syria, then Iran. Shall I make it easier? After those three, Libya.


For a guy who knows about DEGAULLE, at least one of the countries mentioned above should ring a bell.

[Az]

Umm, where are the soviets in this "teh funny"

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The parallel to Allawi is not all that weak.

OTOH, the Soviets were crushing the Nazis on the other front. No such parallel exists today.

Edit: @ Az

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You invade Iraq first. Then Syria. And only after that Iran. Guess who followed that policy before?

[second attempt]
The Arabs during the time of their expansion?

[lord of the mark]

another hint - the invasion of Iraq was a surprisingly easy win, with a small number of troops used, and the Iraqi army collapsing quickly.

[Japher]

The Battle of the Bulge was my favorite part of Band of Brothers:B:

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

[second attempt]
The Arabs during the time of their expansion?

no, they went into Syria and Iraq about the same time, IIRC.

THINK Spiff. What are we talking about in this thread? Why did i give De Gaulle as a hint. Iraq, then Syria, than Iran. Then Libya.

[lord of the mark]

another hint - before going into Iraq, the regional commander of the invading power suggested that military might would aggravate regional problems, and that a political settlement with Iraq should be reached instead. The head of the invading powers govt shook this off, saying theres nothing to negotiate.

[GePap]

What a pathetic piece of crap that OP was. honestly, truly stupid on multiple levels.

Thats about all discussion that fetid piece of dung is worth.

[lord of the mark]

im really surprised no one is getting this.

[GePap]

Why? Our minds are not up to thinking back historically much.

Either the Brits, the Ottomans, or the damned Romans, as far as i care.

[Japher]

[sarcasm]I'd assume there has to be some parallel seeing as american's know nothing about history[/sarcasm]

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Edit: @ Az

It's beeaaautiful.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Why? Our minds are not up to thinking back historically much.

Either the Brits, the Ottomans, or the damned Romans, as far as i care.

Ok, thats three guess, but GePap gets the prize.

Now which of those three? And when?

[Kuciwalker]

Can't be the Romans. Guess it's the Brits.