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

[cybrsage]

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?

The price in human lives and suffering, as well as the intense environmental damage. It would have taken more than 2 bombs to make the Soviets surrender.

The damage to the environment would have been far more than the simply air tests conducted over the years.

 

[cybrsage]

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

The VP did not need to know, he was not fighting the war. The commanding generals, though...different story. I will bing it, since it is interesting to me to find out.

EDIT: Eisenhower knew, since he knew about the Alsos Mission. Not sure about Patton, though.

EDIT: It appears Patton did not know, but the Secretary of War knew (no surprise on that one). Patton felt he could take the Soviets due to their horrific supply line. He knew they raped the land on their way into Germany, and that meant nothing to eat on their way back out if he attacked them. He also knew they lacked discipline and training, due to the massive casualties they had already suffered.

 

[DigDog]

if the first wednesday of march back in 1983 i had gone out to buy a mars bar instead of what else i did that day, now the world would be different.

so your question is pointless.

 

[irishScott]

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?



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

It might have been a side benefit, but I doubt it was a primary objective. Remember the Japanese populace was almost as indoctrinated as their military for the most part, and somewhat combat trained into state-sponsored militias precisely designed to resist invasion. Taking Japan itself conventionally would have made Vietnam look like a tea party. By nuking them we were able to make it clear that they no longer had anything on us, period; and that we could and would wipe them out without taking so much as return fire. At that point they wisely surrendered.

 

[monovillage]

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?

It depends who you think is/was better informed about the balance between the U.S. military and the Russian military in 1945, General Patton or a bunch of internet generals 67 years later.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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.

Wow, ignorance from you...unpossible! You have any evidence to support your BS, or is this just another made-up theory floating in your head?

There is no way Patton could have won, no way.

-Politically - US Gov would never have allowed it, and the US was in no mood for continuing the war for a lot longer.

-Logistically - You want to give some logical explanation on how we could even supply forces as they went into the USSR?

-Numbers - The entire US military in WWII was 16million, and all of them couldn't possibly be deployed to the ETO. Of those, only ~3 million were in the Army and deployed in the ETO. The Russian military was what, about 20million strong? Care to explain the huge disparity in numbers? What about Japan still?

Trying reading some real books instead of trolling, you might learn something. Talk about clueless.

 

[Atreus21]

This all sounds like a really cool scenario to play out via Axis & Allies. Once Germany surrenders, America and Britain have to take Russia.

It's been so long since I played that game, but I bet America would win. IIRC, the Americans are slow to start but when they get rolling they're nigh unstoppable.

 

[ichy]

It's a fun war gaming scenario but completely absurd in real life. Nobody in the West had the stomach for this sort of thing. If it had happened though I believe the US would have won. When you stack our economy against that of the USSR's in 1945 and throw in the fact that they have nukes the Russians wouldn't have a chance.

 

[Orignal Earl]

People..people
After the West and the East wiped each other out
The Middle would of rose and whoever was left over would be praying to the East
Am I right??
lol

 

[Orignal Earl]

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.

Here's a story about a Norwegian conquering most of Russia

http://badassoftheweek.com/rurik.html

 

[Jaskalas]

-Numbers - The entire US military in WWII was 16million, and all of them couldn't possibly be deployed to the ETO. Of those, only ~3 million were in the Army and deployed in the ETO. The Russian military was what, about 20million strong? Care to explain the huge disparity in numbers? What about Japan still?

When speaking of using WMDs, troop numbers are no longer relevant.

 

[Exterous]

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

The US produced some 50,000 shermans (some 80,000 tanks during the war) and was already shipping pershings over to Europe by the end of the european theater and that doesn't include any British/Canadian contributions. Yes the Soviets had better tanks but the Allies had more than a few to throw around as well. The Allies had about 4.5 million (including free french) in Europe which, I believe, is a million less than the Russians. The Russians also had to deal with relativley unhappy occupied territories where the Allies did not.

All that said I believe it comes down to two things: Air power and Logistics

For the first its a bit hard to tell but I think the Soviets were at a large disadvantage here. Granted they had a large airforce and did well against the Germans but everyone did well against the German airforce after '41 (Except unescorted bombers). I am only basing this off of biographies I have read but the German tankers feared the Allied air power much more than the Soviet's. Not to mention that the first jet fighters were already coming off the lines

If the P-51s and P-47s could be freed up to go against tanks along with the bombers the results were devestating - just ask the Germans.

For the areas they could reach (I am thinking supply depots and lines) the B29 would have been tough to get at. Its ceiling was 40,000ft + and I do not believe there was a Russian fighter that could reach it (but I also don't know how effective they would be at that altitude)

For Logistics the Allies had generally superb access to deep sea ports (antwerp) and would have had significantly shorter supply lines that were through friendly territory. The Russians had the exact opposite. I think we'd find the Germans, Austrians, Hungarian, Romanians (maybe even the Poles and Czechs as they started realizing the Soviets weren't much better than the Germans) generally friendlier towards us and already operating guerrilla operations against the Soviets

 

[Atreus21]

Here's a story about a Norwegian conquering most of Russia

http://badassoftheweek.com/rurik.html

Aw. Apparently websense doesn't like the badassoftheweek domain.

Drat.

 

[CitizenKain]

It depends who you think is/was better informed about the balance between the U.S. military and the Russian military in 1945, General Patton or a bunch of internet generals 67 years later.

Lets see, Internet Generals have 67 years of detailed troop movements, logistic information and detailed information from both sides of the conflict. Patton had only what people had told him, and that was pretty sketchy at best.

Conflict with the Russians would have led to an incredible bloodbath on both sides that would have left no one with a victory. Maybe in a few months a nuke is dropped on Moscow turning it into rubble, then what. Allied forces would have had to fight all the way to the Urals to stop the production of weapons, so we'd have a supply line stretching from France to Western Russia.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

When speaking of using WMDs, troop numbers are no longer relevant.

IIRC, the number of atomic weapons were small, maybe one being produced every other month? So 6 (small by today's standards) nuclear weapons getting used a year isn't some overwhelming attack.

USSR is was vast country, lot of real estate there. And as most accounts point out, the further east you go, the wider the front becomes, dispersing your forces even more.

Since strategic bombing by B-17/24/29's did as much or more damage to cities with conventional weapons, I don't see how a few small nuclear weapons would matter that much.

 

[EagleKeeper]

IIRC, the number of atomic weapons were small, maybe one being produced every other month? So 6 (small by today's standards) nuclear weapons getting used a year isn't some overwhelming attack.

USSR is was vast country, lot of real estate there. And as most accounts point out, the further east you go, the wider the front becomes, dispersing your forces even more.

Since strategic bombing by B-17/24/29's did as much or more damage to cities with conventional weapons, I don't see how a few small nuclear weapons would matter that much.

This - We had 3 by Aug 1945.

The bombers range's were
B29 was 2800
B17 was 1700
B24 was 1800

From Berlin it is over 2800 km to Moscow itself and close to the same to the Urals; remember the Soviets relocated much of their manufacturing East of the Urals when the Germans approached.

It is mainly empty farmland - few cities along the route.

Heavy bombers are not going to work against ground forces; you need pinpoint bombing. You would have to have flights of bombers to be able to break apart the rail system; with the exception of bridges, rail can be relaid fairly quickly with dedicated labor.

The distance is to far for the escorts; the US fighters had a problem just escorting to Berlin (600 miles from England).

 

[Brovane]

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.

Where you getting your production figures?

In 1945 the US GDP was 1,474 Billion dollars in 1945 the Soviet Union was 343 Billion.

 

[cybrsage]

Wow, ignorance from you...unpossible! You have any evidence to support your BS, or is this just another made-up theory floating in your head?

Bravery due to anonymity is not actual bravery.

There is no way Patton could have won, no way.

Patton did not agree with you, and he wass a subject matter expert on warfare and an amazingly brave man. You are the opposite of him.

-

Politically - US Gov would never have allowed it, and the US was in no mood for continuing the war for a lot longer.

Says a man who was not of fighting age during WW2. Patton disagreed with you.

-Logistically - You want to give some logical explanation on how we could even supply forces as they went into the USSR?

With boats and planes and trucks. The same way we supplied the troops in Germany. What, do you think magic is needed to move these items a few extra hundred miles further?

-Numbers - The entire US military in WWII was 16million, and all of them couldn't possibly be deployed to the ETO. Of those, only ~3 million were in the Army and deployed in the ETO. The Russian military was what, about 20million strong? Care to explain the huge disparity in numbers? What about Japan still?

Nuclear weapons make numbers useless. You cannot amass large groups because they all die in a fireball. What about Japan, they received two fireballs and stopped fighting?

Trying reading some real books instead of trolling, you might learn something. Talk about clueless.

Says the man who thinks Patton knew less about warfare than he does. Your kind saddens me.

 

[cybrsage]

It really comes down to the style of warfare fought. Patton was not against using the Sherman style of warfare - scorched earth fighting. That is the same type of warfare the Mongols used.

If you fight without regard for the civilian casualties (and WW2 was such a war), and you already hate the people you are about to fight, it is far easier to win.

 

[nageov3t]

Says the man who thinks Patton knew less about warfare than he does. Your kind saddens me.

it seems like it would be debatable to me... Patton probably knew what the individual soldiers were capable of, but us armchair generals with 6 decades of knowledge/history on our side probably have more comprehensive knowledge of the Russian military at the time, supply lines, technological capabilities, etc.

 

[cybrsage]

it seems like it would be debatable to me... Patton probably knew what the individual soldiers were capable of, but us armchair generals with 6 decades of knowledge/history on our side probably have more comprehensive knowledge of the Russian military at the time, supply lines, technological capabilities, etc.

I do not doubt a modern general, given the knowledge we have about Patton's time, would be far more capable than Patton at knowing what would happen.

An anonymous Internet poster who is obviously unlearned in war, though, certainly does not fall into such a category.

 

[monovillage]

Lets see, Internet Generals have 67 years of detailed troop movements, logistic information and detailed information from both sides of the conflict. Patton had only what people had told him, and that was pretty sketchy at best.

Conflict with the Russians would have led to an incredible bloodbath on both sides that would have left no one with a victory. Maybe in a few months a nuke is dropped on Moscow turning it into rubble, then what. Allied forces would have had to fight all the way to the Urals to stop the production of weapons, so we'd have a supply line stretching from France to Western Russia.

It took me a few seconds to realize your were serious about internet Generals. We would no more of had to fight all the way through the Urals then we fought on every island approaching Japan. We would also have been using China for another front. Sorry, but i'll put my money on Patton.

 

[PingviN]

Invading Russia by land hasn't exactly proved successful in the past. At the end of WWII, Russia had a rather massive and battle hardened army, more so than the US.

 

[monovillage]

Invading Russia by land hasn't exactly proved successful in the past. At the end of WWII, Russia had a rather massive and battle hardened army, more so than the US.

They had the army, but not the supplies, armor, ammunition, fuel, planes, bombs etc. etc. for it. They depended on the allies for supply.

 

[nageov3t]

Invading Russia by land hasn't exactly proved successful in the past. At the end of WWII, Russia had a rather massive and battle hardened army, more so than the US.

the Allies wouldn't necessarily have had to invade Russia, though, just push them out of the Eastern Bloc (and presumably critically damage their military/morale in the process)