how would history have been different if Patton got his way?

[nageov3t]

I was listening to a Hardcore History podcast on the Red Scare last night while exercising, and Dan Carlin brought up the point that at the close of WW2, General Patton wanted to keep marching all the way into Moscow.

which got me thinking... how would the modern world be different if he got his way and, instead of dividing Germany and settling into the Cold War, what if the Allied forces (minus Russia, obv) kept marching East to break the Soviet Union and the Cold War never happened?

I can picture the up-sides pretty easily (no Eastern Bloc, probably no Korean/Vietnam Wars... presumably no Soviet war in Afghanistan, which itself had a lot to do with the rise of the Taliban and OBL), but would there have been downsides?

 

[Anarchist420]

I think that it would've been a good idea for the U.S. gov to have never gotten involved in WWII. That would've been the only way to prevent the Cold War and Communism.

To answer your question... if it had gone as you mentioned, then the only downsides would've been a few Americans dying compared to the many who died in Vietnam. However, the NWO wouldn't let Patton do what may have been best.

 

[Atreus21]

That's a hard freaking question to answer. It's hard to imagine a world without the Soviet counterweight to the US.

Did the Russians have a working atomic bomb by that time?

Frankly, I don't think we would've won a war like that. Napoleon failed. Hitler failed. Would Patton succeed?

 

[LTC8K6]

The Soviet Union's military was huge, battle experienced, and well equipped at the end of WW2.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Patton could have gone eastward until they met up with the Soviets.

No one wanted a battle between the allies.
The West would have been able to recover Germany; I do not think that they would have been able to recover Poland or the Ukraine; remember the Soviets were pushing toward Germany also.

 

[nageov3t]

That's a hard freaking question to answer. It's hard to imagine a world without the Soviet counterweight to the US.

Did the Russians have a working atomic bomb by that time?

Frankly, I don't think we would've won a war like that. Napoleon failed. Hitler failed. Would Patton succeed?

this would have been ~3 months before the US nuked Japan, so presumably Russia wouldn't have had nukes while the Allies would have.

(of course, whether or not their usage would have been justified is a whole other story)

 

[thraashman]

this would have been ~3 months before the US nuked Japan, so presumably Russia wouldn't have had nukes while the Allies would have.

(of course, whether or not their usage would have been justified is a whole other story)

One of the infamous stories however about the nukes is that the US initially only managed to make 3. One test, one used at Hiroshima, one used at Nagasaki. So until we managed to make more, even if we were reckless enough to use them we couldn't.

And, as bad as the cold war was, I think it may have been slightly good for the world. Well, good in some ways, bad in others. But due to the race to out do, out gun eachother; the US and USSR did a lot for technology. The space race for example, it wouldn't have been near as enthusiastic without the cold war. And a lot of tech came out of the space race.

I think we can safely ignore anyone who thinks we shouldn't have entered WW2. I'm also willing to bet he believes the easily debuked conspiracy theory that the US knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and did nothing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

<snip>
I think we can safely ignore anyone who thinks we shouldn't have entered WW2. I'm also willing to bet he believes the easily debuked conspiracy theory that the US knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and did nothing.

They also believe that it was planned by the US. After all - why else have the carriers out of port yet leave the battle wagons sitting like ducks?


Naval aviation wanted to get in the drivers seat

 

[PingSpike]

You make it sound like all we had to do was go for a light jog and the Soviet Union would have collapsed under the weight of American optimism. We didn't just decide to let the soviet union 'win', it would have been a bloodbath and victory far from a certainty. Both sides were not interested even though we barely trusted each other during the war, hence the long stalemate with some small proxy conflicts that constituted the cold war.

 

[TheSlamma]

He would have lost and lost bad. His Shermans would have met the same fate as the Panzer IV and if he thought getting food and fuel to his forces was hard in western Europe he would have had a whole new wake up call in eastern Europe and Russia.

there is a very good reason that place has never been conquered since the Golden Horde

 

[Jaskalas]

There is no reason to expect we would have survived the Russian winter.

 

[Matt1970]

I think that it would've been a good idea for the U.S. gov to have never gotten involved in WWII. That would've been the only way to prevent the Cold War and Communism.

To answer your question... if it had gone as you mentioned, then the only downsides would've been a few Americans dying compared to the many who died in Vietnam. However, the NWO wouldn't let Patton do what may have been best.

Really? Russia had forces well over 10 Million with another 29 Million trained as reserve. Unless we planned to carpet bomb them for another 3 years we would have lost a hell of a lot more than the 40K we lost in Vietnam. BTW, North Vietnam was largely backed by China, not Russia.

 

[Atreus21]

Only way we would've won was with nukes.

glad it didn't come to that.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not a chance we could have succeeded unless we were willing to use nukes against them. Their conventional military was many fold larger than the U.S. and Britain combined. And it was a well led military by that time.

Edit: Atreus said the same thing above.

 

[Genx87]

One thing I would point out is the amount of men and material the Soviets lost to the German army. They lost more men in single battles than we lost through the entire war. My point here is we had a deeper pool of untouched soldiers to pull from they didnt. Our military in 1945 numbered close to 16 million in uniform. So it isnt like we werent close to them in total men in uniform. I dont know what the outcome would had been. But I also dont believe the Soviets would just steam roll us either. They had a hard enough time fighitng an underpowered, undermanned German army in 44-45. I dont think they would have faired any better against a better armed, supplied British and American forces.

That said what happened to Eastern Europe was a travesty. Allowing the Soviets a buffer zone for the sake of peace that subjugated millions of people to that brutal pathetic ideology is a black mark on the war.

 

[K1052]

The only practical thing that could have been done at the time was for Eisenhower to press as far into Germany as possible before meeting the Soviets. The Wehrmacht generals were throwing everything and everyone at the Soviet advance to slow it down hoping the US/UK would come up from behind faster.

Attacking the Soviets was never a realistic option. Churchill ordered the possibility studied and the strategists came back and said it was basically impossible.

 

[tydas]

Well, if he did and succeeded then we would most likely be living under some kind of military run government, because at that point the military influence would have been staggering...

 

[Emos]

Yes this is one of the great "what-ifs" of 20th century history. I personally feel that Patton would have been able to kick the Soviets out of Germany but not been able to make it all the way to Moscow. The Soviet military was a juggernaut by then and their new heavy tanks (JS-1 and such) would have been more then a match against Western armour.

GenX87 does make a good point that the Soviets lost an immense amount of manpower in WWII and I wonder at what point they would start running low on actual soldiers. Then again, I don't know if the Western democracies would stomach the massive casualty rates that an authoratarian regime would shrug off. I realize that the US suffered many deaths in the war but would the population (even back then) be able to handle casualty counts in the millions?

BTW, Hardcore History is my absolute favorite podcast!

 

[ichy]

Did the Russians have a working atomic bomb by that time?

No, and they wouldn't for several years.

 

[cybrsage]

Patton would have used Nukes on the major cities and large concentration of troops. Patton was a warrior, not a politician, and he fought like someone who wanted to win at all costs.

There is no doubt Patton would have quickly won, but the price to the planet would have been too high. I am glad he was not allowed to move forward.

 

[Exterous]

He would have lost and lost bad. His Shermans would have met the same fate as the Panzer IV and if he thought getting food and fuel to his forces was hard in western Europe he would have had a whole new wake up call in eastern Europe and Russia.

Agreed esp with how much the Allies loved using material superiority when fighting (Throw enough bombs and tanks at a problem and it will eventually stop being a problem.) While I am not well versed with Sovet air power quality during '45 I would imagine the Allies would have enough resources to make it into western Russia but I don't see them taking Moscow.

Would China have been involved on our side? I'm not sure how the war around korean and vladivostok would have gone. We could certainly pummel the crap out of them with all the B-29s but I'm not sure about on land

The Wehrmacht generals were throwing everything and everyone at the Soviet advance to slow it down hoping the US/UK would come up from behind faster.

Not to mention purposefully surrendering to the Allies instead of the Russians. Of course many were still given to the Russians anyway

 

[EagleKeeper]

Patton would have used Nukes on the major cities and large concentration of troops. Patton was a warrior, not a politician, and he fought like someone who wanted to win at all costs.

There is no doubt Patton would have quickly won, but the price to the planet would have been too high. I am glad he was not allowed to move forward.

The US did not have nukes available for the Soviets.

The European Theatre ended May 2, 1945

We did not even test the nuke until July 16, 1945

It was not a weapon that was available to Patton had they butted heads with the Soviets

 

[cybrsage]

The US did not have nukes available for the Soviets.

The European Theatre ended May 2, 1945

We did not even test the nuke until July 16, 1945

It was not a weapon that was available to Patton had they butted heads with the Soviets

No, but we would have had them for him soon enough. I am quite sure Patton was privy to the nuke program...especially with the need to capture Nazi info about it.

He would have fought his standard war until he had nukes, then used them. Once he had them, which would have been only a few months away, he would have quickly won.


It would have been the wrong thing to do, but Patton would have won.

 

[topgun36]

They also believe that it was planned by the US. After all - why else have the carriers out of port yet leave the battle wagons sitting like ducks?


Naval aviation wanted to get in the drivers seat

Well to be fair the Enterprise was supposed to be back @ Pearl on Dec 6 but a stormed delayed her.

 

[nageov3t]

Well to be fair the Enterprise was supposed to be back @ Pearl on Dec 6 but a stormed delayed her.

everyone knows that the US government has a weather control device, it's how GWB flooded out all the black people from New Orleans.