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

[woolfe9999]

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.

The Soviet advantage in tanks and, especially, artillery, was extreme. Their production of hardware was insane in the latter years of that war, and it had been supplemented by U.S. and British hardware through Lend/Lease, meaning they would have used our own stuff against us. The Soviets employed some 50,000 tanks and some 300,000 artillery pieces during that war. Even with a modest advantage in air power, which is all it would have been, we would have had no chance to push them back beyond the eastern border of Germany at best. Even had we decided to use nukes, we could never have held on to Soviet territory for any length of time.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

We'd all be speaking Russian. Srsly.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

Nuking Russia at that time would have ended the Russian and Chinese nuclear programs before they even began. It is then reasonable to argue that fewer weapons would have been detonated for atmospheric testing.

What price are we talking about?

 

[woolfe9999]

Nuking Russia at that time would have ended the Russian and Chinese nuclear programs before they even began. It is then reasonable to argue that fewer weapons would have been detonated for atmospheric testing.

What price are we talking about?

More likely delayed them than ended them. Had we "succeeded" - and there was no true success here because we could never have held on to Soviet territory in perpetuity - for a time the U.S. would have been the sole undisputed super power in the world. Every other powerful country would have been fearful of us and desiring to take us down a peg, and our use of nukes would have caused intense hatred from the Russians, which would never have been forgotten. As well, no one would have trusted us again after we had back stabbed an ally. We would more than likely have faced an eventual third world war where it was us and a close ally or 2 (the UK) against a wide array of powerful enemies. Win, lose or draw, it would have been a bloodbath.

I can see almost no possible scenario where going along with Patton would have been a better outcome than what actually happened.

 

[Genx87]

Another thing I would like to add about the ability of the Soviet war machine to simply crush the western allies in Europe. Economic output of the Soviet union was more on par with Germany in 1945 than it was with the United States.

 

[K1052]

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

Assuming hostilities with the Soviets would have broken out sometime in May 1945 the US/UK and the remains of the Wehrmacht (rearmed and supported) it would have been feasible to reduce the Soviet advance to a crawl. Japan wasn't going anywhere and was in no condition to mount any offensive so forces could have been reallocated to the ETO.

Three deliverable weapons would have been available by mid-August 1945 and with fissile material production already ramped up at both Hanford and Oak Ridge the US would have possessed cores for at least 10 additional weapons by the end of 1945. This is the primary reason that Stalin never attacked the other Allies in a bid to take the rest of Europe after the Nazi surrender.

 

[Albatross]

US should have nuked Moscow right after Japan:many wars could have been avoided but hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[nageov3t]

if the US didn't necessarily occupy/invade the Soviets but still liberated Eastern Europe, I wonder if only having a singular superpower in the world would have led to a much more militaristic European Union and China as they bridled against American dominance without a Soviet counterbalance.

 

[ichy]

The Soviet advantage in tanks and, especially, artillery, was extreme. Their production of hardware was insane in the latter years of that war, and it had been supplemented by U.S. and British hardware through Lend/Lease, meaning they would have used our own stuff against us.

The Russians could build a lot of tanks but they made it to Berlin supplies by American-made trucks. Lend-lease was enormously important to their logistics.

 

[ichy]

I am quite sure Patton was privy to the nuke program...

Highly doubtful. Even Harry Truman didn't know about it when he was VP.

 

[5150Joker]

I doubt the US public would have had the stomach at the time to press on with a war against Russia. It would have resulted in a political catastrophe, especially with the guaranteed huge losses of life. Personally I think that after WWII, the US should have become pro-isolationist and kept out of world affairs at large. It would have saved billions upon billions spent on military endeavors and could have been used to improve infrastructure, healthcare and education--something we are severely lacking in.

 

[EagleKeeper]

US should have nuked Moscow right after Japan:many wars could have been avoided but hindsight is always 20/20.

What would have been the justification?

 

[nageov3t]

What would have been the justification?

in the summer of 1945? I'd have blamed it on a rogue Nazi agent hijacking a US plane to get revenge on the Soviets for Germany's defeat and the country probably would have swallowed it up.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Assuming hostilities with the Soviets would have broken out sometime in May 1945 the US/UK and the remains of the Wehrmacht (rearmed and supported) it would have been feasible to reduce the Soviet advance to a crawl. Japan wasn't going anywhere and was in no condition to mount any offensive so forces could have been reallocated to the ETO.

Three deliverable weapons would have been available by mid-August 1945 and with fissile material production already ramped up at both Hanford and Oak Ridge the US would have possessed cores for at least 10 additional weapons by the end of 1945. This is the primary reason that Stalin never attacked the other Allies in a bid to take the rest of Europe after the Nazi surrender.

Same question as above - what justifications was there to go to war with the Soviets?

the West roles over German forces and meets up with the Soviets who are doing the same from their end. Communist control was close to the last thing on peoples minds.

It was to destroy Germany as quickly as possible with as little loss of life.
The West was even willing to let the Soviets die more by letting them conquer more of Germany.

 

[Albatross]

What would have been the justification?

IF the US was really interested to oppose communism they would have found a reason,but you really can`t get a prosperous and democratic country to wage yet another war in a far off land for mostly geopolitical reasons.
I`m just a bitter Eastern European,can`t I fantasize retrospectively?
But who knows?Maybe a single nuke would have forced the Soviets to surrender without the need for a ground war after they saw what the US did to Japan.
The USSR didn`t aquire the bomb until 49 so there was a 4 year opening,enough time for plenty nukes.

 

[K1052]

Same question as above - what justifications was there to go to war with the Soviets?

the West roles over German forces and meets up with the Soviets who are doing the same from their end. Communist control was close to the last thing on peoples minds.

It was to destroy Germany as quickly as possible with as little loss of life.
The West was even willing to let the Soviets die more by letting them conquer more of Germany.

By 1945 Soviet control over Eastern Europe/Poland was increasingly on everyone's mind, particularly Churchill (since the British originally declared war over Poland).

The resistance faced by US/UK forces in the last months was nothing compared to what the the Germans were throwing at the Russians. Wehrmacht generals were more than aware the war was lost and were basically ignoring direct orders by intentionally thinning out the defenses on the Western front and angling their lines of retreat directly into non-Soviet allied areas.

 

[Kntx]

What would have been the justification?

A russian attack on US forces of course.

 

[JTsyo]

Don't forget even after V-E we still had Japan to deal with. Had we gone after Russia, we would have been in a two front war again. I don't think we would have lost to Japan in the Pacific but it could have lasted longer if we took our eyes off the ball.

For the Allies to have a shot at Russia, it would have had to be an overall plan throughout the war. In fact, they could have not had Russia as an ally but let it stand on its own. Then delay the invasion and let Germany concentrate on Russia while building up a large invasion force. When the Eastern front finally turned against the German, invade Europe and push fast. Get the Germans in the west to stand down before Russia gets much into Europe if possible, otherwise just crush them.
Even with all that, I'm not sure the Allies would be able to get to Moscow but might have stopped the Iron Wall much further east.

 

[Atreus21]

Who was the last force to successfully conquer the general land mass known as Russia? I know the Mongols took a good chunk of it.

Probably not an easy answer.

 

[K1052]

Don't forget even after V-E we still had Japan to deal with. Had we gone after Russia, we would have been in a two front war again. I don't think we would have lost to Japan in the Pacific but it could have lasted longer if we took our eyes off the ball.

After the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944 it was game over for Imperial Japan. All they had left was a strategy of trying to make the war so costly in human terms for invasions that we'd negotiate a favorable peace. By mid 1945 they were a literal wreck of a nation in the midst of a severe famine with no ability to project military force.

 

[woolfe9999]

The Russians could build a lot of tanks but they made it to Berlin supplies by American-made trucks. Lend-lease was enormously important to their logistics.

I never said it wasn't, but the fact is, they had all those supplies we sent them in addition to their enormous production of tanks and artillery. We could never have prevailed against them without using nukes.

 

[Genx87]

I never said it wasn't, but the fact is, they had all those supplies we sent them in addition to their enormous production of tanks and artillery. We could never have prevailed against them without using nukes.

So did we. We nearly closed that gap in 4 years in total production of many war goods and the Soviets had a rather nice head start on us. Our economy was multiples larger than theirs. Their economy at the end of the war was about on par with Germany that was a bombed out hulk of a mess. Now that doesnt mean we would win in such an engagement since we have to ship our economic power across an ocean. But I think Soviet military power was over stated at the end of the war through its collapse in 1991.

 

[manimal]

Us was war weary. Unless a Lusitania type incedent was mfg.

 

[jackschmittusa]

The G.I.s in the ETO figured they had won their war and wanted to go home. There was even talk of mutiny after many were told to prepare to move to the Pacific and get ready to invade Japan. A call to gear up and fight to Moscow would not have fared well. And remember, Stillwell called for fighting the Communists in China too (and nukes wouldn't have mattered to them).

Imagine trying to control the land masses of China and the U.S.S.R. at the same time.

 

[Fox5]

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

This. We probably would have lost unless we used atomic weapons. Heck, a major reason we used the atomic bombs are Japan was probably to deter Russia from expanding its borders further.
Tank wise, our tanks were tiny weak things that could be shipped across the ocean easily, we were only just producing tanks that could hang with the Soviets at the end of WW2, and not in great numbers. But we could have just taken care of Soviet tanks the same way we took care of the German tanks...bombing runs from air craft. We had air superiority against the Soviets at least, but I wonder how many viable airfields we could have found in a fast march.

On the other hand, we were supplying the Russians with a lot of raw materials, cut that off and we may have been able to starve them out. I don't really see us being able to push too hard into them though.

Also, the US had a slightly evil bent after WW2...it may have been somewhat in response to the USSR, but imagine if the US could have had its way with the world (and any opinions counter to its own) without the USSR to challenge them a bit?

US should have nuked Moscow right after Japan:many wars could have been avoided but hindsight is always 20/20.

We would have to reach Moscow first. We didn't have long range missiles yet.