MyFox
 

ChrisMerchant's Blog

by ChrisMerchant from The City Beautiful

Last Post 300 days, 5 hours Ago


We've come a long way thanks to Ike.

    The shrimp that families in Indianapolis will be having for dinner tonight, over 1000 miles away from where they were caught in Tampa Bay, were probably swimming 4 days ago. This concept is common place today. Just 50 years ago, the cost of 40,000 pounds of shrimp being maintained at -10F and transported 1000 miles would have been astronomical. Now: $2500.
    Lieutenant Colonel Dwight David Eisenhower, who later became a General and the Supreme Allied Commander during WWII, was an observer on the first Transcontinental Motor Convoy in 1919. The Convoy took what we now call "the scenic route" from Washington DC to San Francisco, predominantly taking US 30 from Gettysburg west. It took 2 months. Today it takes 4 days.
    The Interstate System, which bears Eisenhower’s name today, was built for the purpose of transporting government freight (commonly known as military equipment, troops and supplies) and the development of interstate commerce. It's not there for cars... they came as an afterthought. It was designed for trucks and the military.
    Ike saw what Hitler did with the Autobahn and expanded on it, 100-fold. That's pretty neat, huh? Guess what else he installed...

    Ike was the most powerful General EVER. Sun Tzu, Gengis Khan, Hannibal, Xerxes, they had nothing on him. Ike was a great chess player. The loops or bypasses around every major metropolitan area, you know, the roads that make going around a city easier, like 287 in New York, 265 in Louisville, and 417 here in Orlando. Yeah, that really quick way to avoid all those lights and traffic? Imagine a sentry every 10 feet with an M16 on his shoulder and a tank every 100 yards. That bypass is also there in the event of a civil insurrection.

And you wonder why I worry about who becomes the next President...
18 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 18
Page 1 of 1
zbert read my blog
Mar 14, 2008 | 11:35 PM

The bypasses were not Eisenhower's idea. Those came later, most times because the cities requested them.
The interstate system was a great idea, but he wasn't the first.
There was already a highway system started. The Interstate system killed many communities and US highways like 66 and 1 have been abandoned along with the towns and cities they went through.

zbert read my blog
Mar 14, 2008 | 11:41 PM

Ike was not the most powerful general ever. He was heavily restricted by politics. He had to discuss plans with Roosevelt and Churchill before he could do anything. Because of that, he couldn't deploy troops where and how they could do the most good.

Meb452m read my blog
Mar 14, 2008 | 11:54 PM

Eisenhower was the supreme commander,he wasn't on the battlefield though, he was a General Staff officer playing the political role. Bradly,Patton and Montgommery were responsible for planing and conducting the operations.. "COBRA" to break out of the Normandy hedgerows was solely Bradley's idea and Eisenhower approved, it didn't lead to the rapid breakthrough promissed. " MARKET-GARDEN " was Montgommery's failed brain-child to get a crossing over the Rhine, approved by Eisenhower,it chewed up and nearly destroyed three Allied divisions. He gave long range assignments and delegated areas of opperation. The battle-field Generals conducted the war.

zbert read my blog
Mar 15, 2008 | 12:21 AM

There was a lot of political fighting about who would get the glory. Eisenhower was forced to hold back Patton, who had a clear path to Berlin, so Montgomery's Market-Garden plan could be used. He was also forced to hold back and let the Russians enter Berlin.
Ike's hands were tied by the deals made by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

Meb452m read my blog
Mar 16, 2008 | 8:53 PM

Allowing the Russians to take Berlin cost them 1 million casualties, I'm fairly certain that was Roosevelt's main consideration. Those would have been American casualties if the demarkation lines hadn't already been drawn.

zbert read my blog
Mar 16, 2008 | 9:00 PM

Roosevelt's main concern was living up to the agreement at Yalta. He allowed Stalin to take all of Eastern Europe.
If he was worried about casualties, why would he have our troops go ashore on the most dangerous beach. Our casualties far outnumbered all the others.

Meb452m read my blog
Mar 19, 2008 | 9:39 PM

Zbert taking a comment out of context such as mine on the taking of Berlin doesn't win an arguement esspecially since I'd already mentioned that the demarkation lines had been drawn up. Ya blew it on that one. The US Army had the largest number of troops to deploy on D-Day so they got the largest landing beaches. The effectiveness of the peliminary fell far short of expectations. That lead to the high number of casualties.

zbert read my blog
Mar 19, 2008 | 10:58 PM

The way you worded it, no, it is in context.
You said Roosevelt allowed the Russians to take Berlin because of the casualties.
That is not the case. He made an agreement with Stalin long before. Germany was crumbling on the Western Front and Germany was putting its efforts into holding back the Russians. The German High Command, besides Hitler, were hoping the USA would enter Berlin and Eisenhower knew it.

zbert read my blog
Mar 19, 2008 | 11:02 PM

According to this, from the D-Day Museum, The UK troops outnumbered the US by more than 10,000.

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

zbert read my blog
Mar 19, 2008 | 11:06 PM

Roosevelt was interested in turning the US into a World Power, and didn't care about how many lives would be sacrificed to do it.

Meb452m read my blog
Mar 19, 2008 | 11:06 PM

That was the consideration in his decision at Yalta, though I didn't mention Yalta, same for Churchill.You're the one that tried to twist my statement on casualties wih our beach landing. Sorry zbert you loose. Put down the Marvel comics and cheap paperback novels.Must I remind you again ?

zbert read my blog
Mar 19, 2008 | 11:18 PM

Sorry, you're the one reading the comics.
I get my info from real history, like documents and books written by the people who were there.
Yalta is the only thing you could have meant, so why would you need to mention it?
Churchill argued with Roosevelt and didn't want to hand over Eastern Europe to Stalin.
It had nothing to do with casualties.

Meb452m read my blog
Mar 19, 2008 | 11:29 PM

zbert, I mentioned the Russian casualties taking Berlin and stated that wa roosevelt's consideration for letting the Russians having it, fact. Then you make a claim stating that if casualties were a consideration then our troops wouldn't have been put ashore at Normandy. Bogus claim zbert. The time of the year,tides and depth of the actual beach to land on also played part. Juno,Gold,and Sword for the British and Canadians. Ohama and Utah for the Americans.

zbert read my blog
Mar 20, 2008 | 12:18 AM

Eisenhower knew what the troops were facing. He had clear intel from the French Underground and offshore submarines. He insisted on having detailed information. He knew which beaches would be the hardest targets. He put the US on those beaches because he was ordered to by Roosevelt who wanted to prove the US is a world power. He willingly sacrificed our troops.

zbert read my blog
Mar 20, 2008 | 12:19 AM

Anthony Eden wrote about Yalta in his autobiography, Memoirs: The Reckoning (1965)


Roosevelt was, above all else, a consummate politician. Few men could see more clearly their immediate objective, or show greater artistry in obtaining it. As a price of these gifts, his long-range vision was not quite so sure. The President shared a widespread American suspicion of the British Empire as it had once been and, despite his knowledge of world affairs, he was always anxious to make it plain to Stalin that the United States was not 'ganging up' with Britain against Russia. The outcome of this was some confusion in Anglo-American relations which profited the Soviets.

Roosevelt did not confine his dislike of colonialism to the British Empire alone, for it was a principle with him, not the less cherished for its possible advantages. He hoped that former colonial territories, once free of their masters, would become politically and economically dependent upon the United States, and had no fear that other powers might fill that role.

Winston Churchill's strength lay in his vigorous sense of purpose and his courage, which carried him undismayed over obstacles daunting to lesser men. He was also generous and impulsive, but this could be a handicap at the conference table. Churchill liked to talk, he did not like to listen, and he found it difficult to wait for, and seldom let pass, his turn to speak. The spoils in the diplomatic game do not necessarily go to the man most eager to debate.

Marshal Stalin as a negotiator was the toughest proposition of all. Indeed, after some

zbert read my blog
Mar 20, 2008 | 12:21 AM

Marshal Stalin as a negotiator was the toughest proposition of all. Indeed, after something like thirty years' experience of international conferences of one kind and another, if I had to pick a team for going into a conference room, Stalin would be my first choice. Of course the man was ruthless and of course he knew his purpose. He never wasted a word. He never stormed, he was seldom even irritated. Hooded, calm, never raising his voice, he avoided the repeated negatives of Molotov which were so exasperating to listen to. By more subtle methods he got what he wanted without having seemed so obdurate.

There was a confidence, even an intimacy, between Stalin and Molotov such as I have never seen between any other two Soviet leaders, as if Stalin knew that he had a valuable henchman and Molotov was confident because he was so regarded. Stalin might tease Molotov occasionally, but he was careful to uphold his authority. Only once did I hear Stalin speak disparagingly of his judgment and that was not before witnesses.

zbert read my blog
Mar 20, 2008 | 12:22 AM

As you can clearly see from the memoirs of someone who was there, Roosevelt's primary concern was political, not casualties.

zbert read my blog
Mar 20, 2008 | 12:27 AM

I never said anything about our troops not being put on Normandy, My comment is that our troops got the hardest target.

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




ChrisMerchant

I'm the Sales Manager for ROCK100diz.com and her sister internet stations. I've worked in TV and radio in Cleveland and Tampa (working with some amazing, Murrow and Emmy Award winning people) and somewhere along the way I've managed to drive over 2 million miles in a semi truck. I'm working on a novel, and I've been considering a run for the state house in a few years.

Member Since: 1/10/2007