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

[cybrsage]

I agree. The Lend/Lease program greatly helped the Allies, and if Germany killed some Americans to stop it, we would have entered the war, which would have been a great help to the Allies. Win either way. WW2 was a war we needed to fight. A successful Nazi Germany would have been a horrible thing.

 

[woolfe9999]

Germany secured it's defeat in December 1941 when the US entered the war. It is more targeted at the people that think if only Germany did this or did that could it win WW2. The balance of victory or defeat for Nazi Germany wasn't even close.

I would say this. With at least UK at Germany's back forcing a 2-front war things look better for the USSR facing down Germany. However if the UK negotiates a separate peace with Germany in May-June 1940 then things look fairly bad for the USSR if it is left alone to face Nazi Germany.

I agree that the USSR needed to have the UK on the western front at a minimum. I think the US wasn't needed for a German defeat. We accelerated the outcome that was a foregone conclusion. Our most important contribution was actually the containment of the USSR. They were a military behemoth at that point and if it had been the UK alone in the west most likely the USSR would have swallowed all of Germany at a minimum if not the whole of Europe.

 

[Veliko]

Germany secured it's defeat in December 1941 when the US entered the war. It is more targeted at the people that think if only Germany did this or did that could it win WW2. The balance of victory or defeat for Nazi Germany wasn't even close.

I would say this. With at least UK at Germany's back forcing a 2-front war things look better for the USSR facing down Germany. However if the UK negotiates a separate peace with Germany in May-June 1940 then things look fairly bad for the USSR if it is left alone to face Nazi Germany.

No it doesn't. The Russians would have won anyway. It may have taken longer but Nazi Germany was doomed.

 

[Jimbo]

No it doesn't. The Russians would have won anyway. It may have taken longer but Nazi Germany was doomed.

Without Lend Lease from the U.S., the Soviets would have heard their own death knell by 1943.

Trucks, toluene, rail road locomotives with rolling stock and most of all Spam.

 

[Veliko]

Without Lend Lease from the U.S., the Soviets would have heard their own death knell by 1943.

Trucks, toluene, rail road locomotives with rolling stock and most of all Spam.

Well that's a bit like saying that without tanks the Germans wouldn't have defeated France.

Either way it wouldn't have mattered, the Nazis would have frozen themselves solid still. They simply couldn't resupply themselves.

 

[Jimbo]

Well that's a bit like saying that without tanks the Germans wouldn't have defeated France.

Either way it wouldn't have mattered, the Nazis would have frozen themselves solid still. They simply couldn't resupply themselves.

Yeah they could, especially after the winter of 1942.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html

The Soviet's ability to produce enough chemicals was all by itself was a show stopper for them.

 

[Veliko]

Yeah they could, especially after the winter of 1942.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html

The Soviet's ability to produce enough chemicals was all by itself was a show stopper for them.

No, the Nazis could not resupply themselves effectively.

 

[dennilfloss]

Remember that in 1945 Pakistan was part of India. I show on Google Earth it is right around 1500mile from some parts of Pakistan to Chelyabkinsk, which was also known as "Tankograd", key tank production center. Also it is around 1500 miles from Iraqi to Chelyabinsk which in 1945 was under British control. I would say 1500 miles is right around the edge of the B-29's capability, especially if you use the B-29B which has all defensive armament stripped out except for the tail guns.

At the outset it will be difficult to get to the Soviet factories. However if the war progresses and 1945 turns into 1946 things start to get interesting. The B-29D (Which was later renamed the B-50) is staring to be produced. This was essentially a B-29 with Wasp Major engines (3500hp) which allowed for much more performance. The regular B-29 engines produced 2200hp. Of course if the war continues into 1946, one Air Craft that had the reach and then some the B-36 is going to start coming into service. Once the B-36 starts coming into service in numbers all of the Soviet Union is in reach. Also fighers and flack are going to have trouble intercepting B-36s flying missions at over 45000+ fleet.

Plus the B-29 bases will not remain static. The Corps of engineers will keep on establishing runways maybe 100-200 miles behind the front.

 

[dennilfloss]

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.

If Stalin thought this was a realistic possibility, he would have gone for it. The guy was no angel and would have probably attacked Germany as soon as the re-armament in material and officers post-purge would have allowed if they hadn't attacked first.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Yep, still to cowardly to admit you lied. You have been busted.



Once you either show these sites (the reason you have yet to do it is because you are lying) or admit you are a liar, then we will continue to other things. Until then, why should I humor a liar?

Look, I'm sorry you are a pathetic troll, who goes from forum to forum trolling the same thing. But I can't help or change that, only you can. As I have said multiple times, anyone interested can google you and see your posting history on multiple forums. But as a known troll on several forums, trusting anything you say is laughable at best, and dangerous at worst.

Just in your short time here, you have had how many temp bans already? How many threads locked? LOL.......yeah, you are believable, not!

So back to the OP and your ridiculous (and unsupported assertions). How pathetic....7 pages in, and you cannot refute anything. Are you even capable of posting rebuttal, or are you only allowed to troll?

And again, still ignoring the proof that your "Patton is a great general, so he knows more then all of us" is 100% wrong? Still can't acknowledge the 50+ years of research might make us more informed then Patton? LOL You have ignored that as well.

Still ignoring the dismantlement of your mistaken belief that Iraq had WMD, now that Colin Powell, a general himself, says you are wrong? LOL funny how you don't mention that at all. You claim two things that prove your two thoughts wrong....how fitting your own lack of logic shows your fail.

Troll on, everyone can see you ignoring the facts, and refusing to defend your BS. Just like you always do.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Given all these hypotheticals, no one has answered how Patton would have gotten the US government and the US population to go along with this.

We were not at war with the USSR.....how do you plan on getting Congress to declare war on them?

How do you get the US population, already tired of the war and sacrifices, to continue on and even increase the military manpower needs and continue in a wartime footing with all the sacrifices it entails?

How do you explain to the US population, who had been told for 5 years that the Russians were are allies, that were know our enemies and we would declare war on them?

Just wouldn't happen.

 

[cybrsage]

Look, I'm sorry...

As you should be. Now admit your lie. So far, you are proving me right about you being too afraid to do it. I thought you might gain the courage to admit it just to prove me wrong about you being to cowardsly to admit it...but apparently courage is not your forte.

Just admit you lied and move on, it requires no real courage, so I know you can do it.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

As you should be. Now admit your lie. So far, you are proving me right about you being too afraid to do it. I thought you might gain the courage to admit it just to prove me wrong about you being to cowardsly to admit it...but apparently courage is not your forte.

Just admit you lied and move on, it requires no real courage, so I know you can do it.

Don't intentionally misquote me, isn't that a forum offense? Hmm.....

Community message here folks, this kind of intentional misquoting and misattributed quotes to an individual will be treated as actionable and sanctioned from here out.

and

No intentional misquoting with the intent to alter a member's quote as a means to insult said member.

Sure sounds like what you did. Hmmm.......

I'm sorry you are a troll. Don't cut off my statement and make it misleading, which BTW, is what you do when your threads get locked, correct? You should know better.

LOL I'm a coward for proving you wrong on WMD, and you are brave for making up BS and refusing to justify it? You certainly have an ahem, "unique" mindset....perhaps psychological help and meds are needed? You really are off in your own universe.

Why don't you explain how Patton knows more then me? Given I can read up on 50+ years of knowledge that he didn't have.

Why don't you explain how Patton would get Congress to declare war on the USSR?

Too hard for the poor troll?

 

[werepossum]

Well that's a bit like saying that without tanks the Germans wouldn't have defeated France.

Either way it wouldn't have mattered, the Nazis would have frozen themselves solid still. They simply couldn't resupply themselves.

Um, no. The Germans' tanks were largely German-built, notable exceptions being the excellent light to medium Czech tanks they got when the West refused to defend Czechoslovakia. But you're missing that without Lend-Lease, the Soviets could not have supplied themselves either. Something like 90% of all military trucks, maybe 70% of the grain, and more than half the boots (I'm doing this from memory) consumed by the Soviet Army were US and to a lesser extent, British Commonwealth. Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets could not have sustained a field operation, could not have stopped the Germans, and would have lost much more territory the first two years. They very likely would have lost the war completely within three years, having only limited numbers of trains for supply.

If Stalin thought this was a realistic possibility, he would have gone for it. The guy was no angel and would have probably attacked Germany as soon as the re-armament in material and officers post-purge would have allowed if they hadn't attacked first.

Stalin had pre-war plans to attack Germany after she and the Western Allies had exhausted themselves. His government was fairly well infiltrated by spies, so this was known to Hitler and to the West. Ironically, Hitler's own government was also well infiltrated. The Soviets knew exactly what Hitler was going to do, they just couldn't convince Stalin that he was not the cleverest guy in the world. He even forbade movement to meet the attack on its eve, on the grounds of preventing provocation.

Regarding postwar Germany, Stalin had negotiated concessions he thought would give him all of Germany in short order at no additional cost. He didn't predict FDR dumping the communist Wallace, thereby avoiding a President pulling out American troops, and he didn't realize to what extents (e.g. the Berlin Airlift) we would go to avoid losing all of Germany to the Soviet Expansion.

 

[Veliko]

Um, no. The Germans' tanks were largely German-built, notable exceptions being the excellent light to medium Czech tanks they got when the West refused to defend Czechoslovakia. But you're missing that without Lend-Lease, the Soviets could not have supplied themselves either.

I am not missing it, I am saying that talking about the removal of lend-lease is like talking about the removal of German tanks. Or the removal of the raw materials that Germany needed from Russia. Where they came from is irrelevant.

Something like 90% of all military trucks, maybe 70% of the grain, and more than half the boots (I'm doing this from memory) consumed by the Soviet Army were US and to a lesser extent, British Commonwealth. Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets could not have sustained a field operation, could not have stopped the Germans, and would have lost much more territory the first two years. They very likely would have lost the war completely within three years, having only limited numbers of trains for supply.

No, the Russians wouldn't have lost because the Nazis simply couldn't win it.

 

[cybrsage]

No, the Russians wouldn't have lost because the Nazis simply couldn't win it.

If they could not win, then why did so many people have to die to stop them from winning? Why did the US have to to send the Soviets so much equipment to stop Germany from winning?

Germany could win, which is why the US decided to become Allies with a nation we considered an enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend was invoked and the lesser enemy chosen to be a friend.

 

[Veliko]

If they could not win, then why did so many people have to die to stop them from winning? Why did the US have to to send the Soviets so much equipment to stop Germany from winning?

Because it suited the US to do so and the facts available to those in 1941 or so were not the same as the facts available to those of us in 2012.

Germany could win, which is why the US decided to become Allies with a nation we considered an enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend was invoked and the lesser enemy chosen to be a friend.

Germany could not win.

Or if you want to be pedantic they could, technically, 'win' but it was such an incredibly unlikely thing to happen that you may as well regard it as not being possible.

 

[cybrsage]

Because it suited the US to do so and the facts available to those in 1941 or so were not the same as the facts available to those of us in 2012.

The facts we have today are based on the Soviet army having food. The US provided that food. No food makes a big difference in how well an army fights, how many tanks and planes are built in the factories where the non-fed workers are working, etc.

Do not underestimate the power of not eating.

Germany could not win.

The US obviously thought differently. We went to war because we thought they had a good chance of winning. Had they not a chance of winning, the need to go to war would not have been there and we would have concentrated our power on Japan instead of splitting it in half.

That does go to show just how powerful the US had become. We fought a two front war with two major nations and won them both.

 

[Veliko]

The facts we have today are based on the Soviet army having food. The US provided that food. No food makes a big difference in how well an army fights, how many tanks and planes are built in the factories where the non-fed workers are working, etc.

Do not underestimate the power of not eating.

Yes, wars of that magnitude can be won and lost on logistics.

It's part of the reason why the German's couldn't win in Russia.

 

[cybrsage]

It really was stupid of Germany to invade Russia before winning the western front. If nothing else, I am sure we both agree that I am glad we never had to find out if Germany would have won WW2 had we not gotten involved.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

If they could not win, then why did so many people have to die to stop them from winning? Why did the US have to to send the Soviets so much equipment to stop Germany from winning?

That doesn't even make sense.

Germany could win, which is why the US decided to become Allies with a nation we considered an enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend was invoked and the lesser enemy chosen to be a friend.

You have evidence to support this, of course? Or is this just another fantasy in your head?

Oh, still waiting since you are unable to refute any of my points proving you wrong, or Colin Powell's facts proving you wrong, or even explain how Patton would have gotten Congress to declare war on the USSR. Damn those pesky facts that prove you wrong!

 

[cybrsage]

That doesn't even make sense.

I understand it does not make sense that you would so blatantly lie in this thread...but it does show why you refuse to support yourself on it. It is impossible to support your lie.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I understand it does not make sense that you would so blatantly lie in this thread...but it does show why you refuse to support yourself on it. It is impossible to support your lie.

Wow, you really like the intentional misquoting don't you? Must be a trolltrick you picked up from another forum you have trolled I bet.

I can't help you are a ignorant troll....8 pages, and you still offer no support for your unsubstantiated opinions. All you can do is make up random thoughts, and throw them out unsupported. Just like your WMD assertion, and your victory mosque assertion. But everytime, when called to provide proof, you fall back to name calling and ignoring everyone that proves you wrong. How pathetic is it to go from forum to forum trolling people, that has to be some kind or perverse mental issue.

Again, explain how Patton knows more then us with all the research done since then. Especially since he have access to the official Soviet records.

Explain how Patton would get a declaration of war from Congress to even start a war with the USSR.

And now, explain your assertion that Germany could have "won" against the USSR.

It's a pity the mods don't make posters defend their posts, because that would eliminate 99% of all your posts.

Why don't you go educate yourself, and come back when you can actually defend your assertions.

 

[CallMeJoe]

General Patton was indeed a brilliant operational commander; possibly the best in any army in the Second World War.

His operational skills notwithstanding, there were excellent reasons his subordinates (Eisenhower and Bradley) were promoted over him. Neither of these superior strategists proposed any such assault on the Soviets. Do General Patton's sycophants in this thread claim military judgement superior to Dwight David Eisenhower's or Omar Bradley's?

 

[cybrsage]

Wow, you really like the intentional misquoting don't you?

No misquote, you actually said what I quoted. You still have yet to admit your lie. Why do you lie and then, when caught, refuse to actually admit you lied? It appears you have two major personality flaws, one of which is cowardace and the other is being a pathological liar. The two are related, so if you cure your cowardace, the other very well may go away as well.

Pathological liars
Lying is the act of making a false statement.[4] Most people do so out of fear.[5] Pathological lying is considered a mental illness, because it takes over rational judgement and progresses into the fantasy world and back

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudologia_fantastica