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

[cybrsage]

I didn't lie.

Then post the forums, are does that require too much bravery?

 

[cybrsage]

Patton was a blowhard, who got by on bluff and bravado.

I cannot believe even you think what you just typed is true. Admit it, you know the above phrase is simply not true.

Oh and you're no military strategist either.

Correct, which is why I side WITH a great general's views. At least you now admit your opinions on military strategy should not be listened to.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

And i dont think or know if we could have gone to Moscow. I am simply stating in my opinion the theory the Soviets would steamroll the Western allies is misguided. We had larger economies, a nearly untapped manpower reserve, and our homefront was untouched.

Since a lot of U.S. and Western Ally forces were tied up in the Pacific on V-E Day, the Soviets would have gained a lot of territory very quickly. There was a very real chance that they could have taken most, if not all, of the European mainland before we could reallocate forces, and then that would allow Japan time to work out a deal with the Soviets to work with them(not certain given their history with each other, but possible). If Japan had access to Soviet resources, the Pacific theater would be much different and would hamper our ability to fight in Europe.

Here's a map of the position of Allied forces at the surrender of Germany and shows how we were very much out numbered by the U.S.S.R.

 

[Brovane]

Since a lot of U.S. and Western Ally forces were tied up in the Pacific on V-E Day, the Soviets would have gained a lot of territory very quickly. There was a very real chance that they could have taken most, if not all, of the European mainland before we could reallocate forces, and then that would allow Japan time to work out a deal with the Soviets to work with them(not certain given their history with each other, but possible). If Japan had access to Soviet resources, the Pacific theater would be much different and would hamper our ability to fight in Europe.

Here's a map of the position of Allied forces at the surrender of Germany and shows how we were very much out numbered by the U.S.S.R.

So correct me if I am wrong. Where does this map show troop numbers? IE Number of divisions in theather.

 

[cybrsage]

If numbers were the end all, Japan would have never taken any Chinese land.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

If numbers were the end all, Japan would have never taken any Chinese land.

That's due to the Chinese not having a modernized army and the infighting(they only started working together once Japan had a foothold). Soviets had a united government and equipment that was just as effective as ours. The best advantage we had was training(this was pre-Trinity testing), but that can be overcome with pure numbers as Korea showed.

 

[cybrsage]

Had we used unrestricted warfare in Korea, we would have handily won. The two types of warfare were vastly different.

Besides, the USSR in WW2 was not as united as you say. They were hated by the lands they were conquering. Their military depended on their allies for assistence as well - the lend/lease program was alive and well. The USSR would have been starved into submission had the US not fed them. You can read up on it here:

http://www.historynet.com/russias-l...d-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm

The book goes into thoughts as to why the USSR failed, but the info it contains about WW2 is true.

 

[Genx87]

Since a lot of U.S. and Western Ally forces were tied up in the Pacific on V-E Day, the Soviets would have gained a lot of territory very quickly. There was a very real chance that they could have taken most, if not all, of the European mainland before we could reallocate forces, and then that would allow Japan time to work out a deal with the Soviets to work with them(not certain given their history with each other, but possible). If Japan had access to Soviet resources, the Pacific theater would be much different and would hamper our ability to fight in Europe.

Here's a map of the position of Allied forces at the surrender of Germany and shows how we were very much out numbered by the U.S.S.R.

They couldnt get to Berlin quickly or without significant loss of men and material. Why do you believe they would get to the channel against a better equipped, better supplied, and better trained opponent quickly?

 

[(sic)Klown12]

They couldnt get to Berlin quickly or without significant loss of men and material. Why do you believe they would get to the channel against a better equipped, better supplied, and better trained opponent quickly?

The reason it took the Soviets so long to go from Stalingrad to Berlin was in a large portion due to the landscape, the scorched Earth policy both they and the Germans used, and that most of Germany's focus was still facing east. As for material losses, even high, their war manufacturing(based east of the Urals and out of range of Allied bombers due to no escort fighter able to travel that far and the surprisingly effectiveness of Soviet aircraft and air defense) was hitting a high point and likely would have been able to keep up. They also had more access to captured German materials and research that would have only helped.

I'm not of mind to say that they would have definitely overrun Europe(and any statement alluding to that point was poor choice of words on my part) but that our ability to hold off their advanced if war continued is far from certain.

 

[Genx87]

The reason it took the Soviets so long to go from Stalingrad to Berlin was in a large portion due to the landscape, the scorched Earth policy both they and the Germans used, and that most of Germany's focus was still facing east. As for material losses, even high, their war manufacturing(based east of the Urals and out of range of Allied bombers due to no escort fighter able to travel that far and the surprisingly effectiveness of Soviet aircraft and air defense) was hitting a high point and likely would have been able to keep up. They also had more access to captured German materials and research that would have only helped.

I'm not of mind to say that they would have definitely overrun Europe(and any statement alluding to that point was poor choice of words on my part) but that our ability to hold off their advanced if war continued is far from certain.

Our war machine was peaking at that time. In economic terms the Allies(Britina + United States) were roughly 5 times the economic output of the Soviet Union. As for factories to the east of the Urals. Empircal evidence shows strategic bombing didnt have that much affect on the German war machine. Their economic output increased each year until 45 when we finally started physically taking their factories. Thus I dont think it would have much effect on the Soviets even if we could hit them.

What did hurt the Germans was our ability on a tactical level to cut off their ability to move troops and supplies during the day. Our aircraft production dwarfed the Soviets in terms of numbers and quality. On the ground our advantage in trucks was lopsided. And this was a major advantage we had over the Germans. The Germans for being portrayed as being mechanized were largely stuck to using horses for moving supplies in heer units. The Soviets didnt produce as many trucks during the war. Many they had were sent from our factories. If they dont build trucks they would be at a similar disadvantage as the Germans.

Then there were C&C issues with NKVD and political officers interfering on the ground. you would have a Germany military that could be reequipped, their economy used to fuel the war, French forces + economy ready. The populations ready to stop a Soviet advance. I just think the idea of them curb stomping us is over the top. They also had supply issues and it was a reason they couldnt curb stomp the Germans.

Anyways I enjoy these debates so if I come off as harsh I apologize. It is a fun what if scenario that thankfully never happened. Though I still contend us letting Eastern Europe fall under the communists is a black eye on the war. I also believe Patton understood the ramifications of us rolling over on Eastern Europe. He was simply stating that we have the men and materials here right now. Lets finish this now instead of letting it drag on forever.

 

[alzan]

I cannot believe even you think what you just typed is true. Admit it, you know the above phrase is simply not true.



Correct, which is why I side WITH a great general's views. At least you now admit your opinions on military strategy should not be listened to.

You may choose what to believe or not to believe, but I stand by the statement as it was written.

You side with whomever you choose; understanding of course that Patton's views of himself are colored by his own biases and worldview, in the same way that all peoples views are framed by biases and worldview. The only way to get a thorough understanding of an historical event or person is to read at least four or five books from different authors and perspectives; obviously the more you read, the closer you get to accuracy. Your posts seem to suggest you've read only one.

As far as to whether my opinions should be listened to; well we're all allowed to have one. If mine shouldn't be listened to then neither should yours or anyone else's in this thread. And that would make for kind of empty threads, wouldn't it?

 

[RampantAndroid]

I cannot believe even you think what you just typed is true. Admit it, you know the above phrase is simply not true.



Correct, which is why I side WITH a great general's views. At least you now admit your opinions on military strategy should not be listened to.

The guy's just crazy...

Patton was able to mobilize an army, flip them 90 degrees and counterattack, moving them great distances during the Battle of the Bulge - he successfully relieved the 101st airborne. What Patton did there was no small feat, and is something I doubt Monty was capable of.

Patton was a great strategist, and very likely the best allied tactician of the war. Had we not stalled his advance with Market Garden, Patton may have pushed through to Germany.

That's due to the Chinese not having a modernized army and the infighting(they only started working together once Japan had a foothold). Soviets had a united government and equipment that was just as effective as ours. The best advantage we had was training(this was pre-Trinity testing), but that can be overcome with pure numbers as Korea showed.

Uh, what? Stalin killed anyone who he didn't like. I don't call that properly united. Modernized? They were supplied with airplanes that were not up to standards with ours. Better, we would likely have mobilized the Germans into the offensive.

 

[OutHouse]

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.

jesus. you are a complete fucking moron.

 

[OutHouse]

Patton is my favorite general and i have stood at his grave at the American Cemetery in Luxemburg. that being said his hatred for the Russians and his plan to "crush" the reds was fucking stupid. they had more men, tanks, artillery and drive to absolutely crush the allies. at that point in the war our leadership had one goal and one goal only and that was to end the war with Japan. Not to mention that the other Allies had were exhausted of total war. The brits were damn tired and spent, and other than them it was be ludicrous to even think the US could take out Russia alone. starting up another war with Russia was beyond stupid.

to answer the OP's question, if patton did get the green light to take on the Bear and by the grace of God managed to somehow conqure Moscow. i really have no idea how the world would look. Thats such a hard question there are way too many variables involved.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

Uh, what? Stalin killed anyone who he didn't like. I don't call that properly united. Modernized? They were supplied with airplanes that were not up to standards with ours. Better, we would likely have mobilized the Germans into the offensive.

That's why by 1945 he had complete control and no organized dissent was a threat to his leadership. Anyone who could or would go against him was gone or kept in line by fear of having everything taken away. It might not be the best way to go about it, but it was brutally effective none the less.

As for modernization, by the end of the war they were a very capable military. Their tanks were extremely effective and their fighter(La-7, II-2, II-10, and Yak-3)aircraft were more than capable(bombers were behind, but they had a copy of the B-29 which could have been pushed into production pretty quick). There were two reasons the Soviets pushed back so well against the Germans. First were poor decisions by Hitler in over-ruling his military leaders, but a lot of it goes to the rapid modernization put into place during 1942/1943 which kept going into the Cold War.

As for re-arming the Wehrmacht, how many were left and how many were capable(not young or cripples, who were a large part of the defense of Berlin) at the end? Could we really rely on them? The thought if instantly turning the Germans into allies is something I like to see in a situation like that, but was it really feasible right at the end? Would France or Britain even sign off on that after what they were put though the previous 6 years?

 

[OutHouse]

They couldnt get to Berlin quickly or without significant loss of men and material. Why do you believe they would get to the channel against a better equipped, better supplied, and better trained opponent quickly?

thats false. the Russians were highly trained and very well equipped. they took on Germany and won. Would they make it to the channel? no, for one of the reasons the Nazis didnt make it to Moscow ant that is supply lines.

 

[Genx87]

thats false. the Russians were highly trained and very well equipped. they took on Germany and won. Would they make it to the channel? no, for one of the reasons the Nazis didnt make it to Moscow ant that is supply lines.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying compared to German troops the allies were better equipped, better trained, and better supplied. The Soviets had a hard enough time vs the depleted Germans. Why would anybody think they would perform that much better against a tougher opponent?

 

[(sic)Klown12]

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying compared to German troops the allies were better equipped, better trained, and better supplied. The Soviets had a hard enough time vs the depleted Germans. Why would anybody think they would perform that much better against a tougher opponent?

My thought is that a lot of the issues the plagued the Red Army on it's march west was the Russian winter and geography and the havoc it played on their ability to push anywhere. Once they got further towards the west and on easier geography they were pushing extremely fast and reached Berlin with a head of steam. The Germans were also putting up an extremely desperate defense against the Reds because they knew that they would have to pay for what they did on their march eastwards in 1941. All these little things add up and makes comparing different situations very difficult.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Then post the forums, are does that require too much bravery?

Google is your friend? You already know what you've done, and everyone here expects you to lie anyway. Your posting history here and elsewhere stands for itself, with your bans, lies, and other trolling.

And 5th time you refuse to post any reason refuting my claims. And still can't answer how Patton is infallible and knows more then 50+ yeras of research

And like I said, Colin Powell says you are full of shit with Iraqi WMD, but I see you refuse to answer that dilemma as well. You must be having a really bad day, given you can't admit anything without proving at least one of your ideas wrong.....but go ahead and try.....we'll be waiting. Or will you continue to ignore these FACTS again?

You are really good at ignoring facts, but then again, you are a troll and have had tons of experience.

 

[Brovane]

Interesting info....but that would take a lot of redeployment of forces to create and man airfields, and a lot of logistical hassles to supply fuel and weapons. I vaguely remember reading about the Air Corps flying "the Hump" to deliver supplies to China, and what an incredible logistical pain it was. Don't remember any efficiency numbers though.

But like you said, the US was tired of war, and the people and government would not have supported this massive undertaking (not just this, but the whole war on the USSR). To wage any type of war on the USSR would have to be an all-out effort, and no one would want that.

Yes it would take a re-deployment of forces. However launching from what is now Pakistan is doable. Launching from China is much more iffy because of logistics of getting the fuel and ordnance into position.

However all of these problems go away when the B-36 comes online. The B-36 could fly from Bases in Alaska and from the UK and reach all of the Soviet Union. Also when flying over 42000+ feet the Soviet's really didn't have a aircraft with the performance to intercept the B-36.

 

[Brovane]

thats false. the Russians were highly trained and very well equipped. they took on Germany and won. Would they make it to the channel? no, for one of the reasons the Nazis didnt make it to Moscow ant that is supply lines.

Most Soviet soldiers where not highly trained at all. The Soviet's basically did see their soldiers as disposable, why train soldiers that you treat as disposable? They had a reasonably good weapons, tanks etc.

 

[cybrsage]

You are really good at ignoring facts...

You refuse to show any facts, but instead keep repeating your lies. I know, you are not brave enough to actually post them, right? Show some spine, post these boards you keep droning on an on about. Prove me wrong, prove you have some backbone.

 

[Brovane]

Our war machine was peaking at that time. In economic terms the Allies(Britina + United States) were roughly 5 times the economic output of the Soviet Union. As for factories to the east of the Urals. Empircal evidence shows strategic bombing didnt have that much affect on the German war machine. Their economic output increased each year until 45 when we finally started physically taking their factories. Thus I dont think it would have much effect on the Soviets even if we could hit them.

What did hurt the Germans was our ability on a tactical level to cut off their ability to move troops and supplies during the day. Our aircraft production dwarfed the Soviets in terms of numbers and quality. On the ground our advantage in trucks was lopsided. And this was a major advantage we had over the Germans. The Germans for being portrayed as being mechanized were largely stuck to using horses for moving supplies in heer units. The Soviets didnt produce as many trucks during the war. Many they had were sent from our factories. If they dont build trucks they would be at a similar disadvantage as the Germans.

Then there were C&C issues with NKVD and political officers interfering on the ground. you would have a Germany military that could be reequipped, their economy used to fuel the war, French forces + economy ready. The populations ready to stop a Soviet advance. I just think the idea of them curb stomping us is over the top. They also had supply issues and it was a reason they couldnt curb stomp the Germans.

Anyways I enjoy these debates so if I come off as harsh I apologize. It is a fun what if scenario that thankfully never happened. Though I still contend us letting Eastern Europe fall under the communists is a black eye on the war. I also believe Patton understood the ramifications of us rolling over on Eastern Europe. He was simply stating that we have the men and materials here right now. Lets finish this now instead of letting it drag on forever.

Actually US strategic bombing did have a effect on Germany. Especially in the area of synthetic fuel. Essentially the US and the Allies destroyed the ability of the German war machine to produce and refine fuel. Also German output starting in the later half of 1944 was going downhill because the US and UK Air power had essentially broken the Luftwaffe and achieved dominance in the skies. This continued to escalate. The one thing Germany had going for it was the ability to disperse the factory components. This reduced overall production but made it much harder to take out the factories. The Soviet's on the other hand use large centralized factories (Communism) which would be great targets for Allied Bombers. Albert Speer in his Auto-biography wrote about the damage from Allied bombing. German production went up through 1942-1943 as Speer streamlined production however essentially in the later part of 1944 German production started a steep decline.

 

[rchiu]

Our war machine was peaking at that time. In economic terms the Allies(Britina + United States) were roughly 5 times the economic output of the Soviet Union. As for factories to the east of the Urals. Empircal evidence shows strategic bombing didnt have that much affect on the German war machine. Their economic output increased each year until 45 when we finally started physically taking their factories. Thus I dont think it would have much effect on the Soviets even if we could hit them.

What did hurt the Germans was our ability on a tactical level to cut off their ability to move troops and supplies during the day. Our aircraft production dwarfed the Soviets in terms of numbers and quality. On the ground our advantage in trucks was lopsided. And this was a major advantage we had over the Germans. The Germans for being portrayed as being mechanized were largely stuck to using horses for moving supplies in heer units. The Soviets didnt produce as many trucks during the war. Many they had were sent from our factories. If they dont build trucks they would be at a similar disadvantage as the Germans.

Then there were C&C issues with NKVD and political officers interfering on the ground. you would have a Germany military that could be reequipped, their economy used to fuel the war, French forces + economy ready. The populations ready to stop a Soviet advance. I just think the idea of them curb stomping us is over the top. They also had supply issues and it was a reason they couldnt curb stomp the Germans.

Anyways I enjoy these debates so if I come off as harsh I apologize. It is a fun what if scenario that thankfully never happened. Though I still contend us letting Eastern Europe fall under the communists is a black eye on the war. I also believe Patton understood the ramifications of us rolling over on Eastern Europe. He was simply stating that we have the men and materials here right now. Lets finish this now instead of letting it drag on forever.

Well in reality, Eastern Europe falling under communist turned out to be not so bad. After the cold war and the break up of USSR, a number of those countries now hates Russian and communists because of the crap communist rule and now become quite open and democratic.

What really hurts the US right now was Truman's decision to let communist took over China, and not listen to another legend - MacArthur. And now the US has to deal with this monstrous red china right now.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You refuse to show any facts, but instead keep repeating your lies. I know, you are not brave enough to actually post them, right? Show some spine, post these boards you keep droning on an on about. Prove me wrong, prove you have some backbone.

Facts? Anyone wanting your pathetic troll history can google it. That's facts. Like I said, you lie all the time, and you want someone to trust you? LOL. Care to actually comment on this thread? Like who you were proved wrong again, and refuse to say anything on topic?

6th time you ignore my reasoning. Still with the hand-wave and insults, since you can't post any rational reasoning. Explain why I am wrong...guess you still can't.

3rd time you ignore your own idea of "generals know better then us" proves yourself wrong with Powell saying there where no WMD.

Gee, reality sucks for you, doesn't it? Gotta hate those pesky facts getting in the way of your "beliefs".