# Patton's take on WWII



## CrusaderFrank

For the most part Patton viewed the final disposition of Europe at the end of WWII as a huge strategic failure for the Allies (the US and Brits) because it left millions of acres of prime European real estate in the "hands of the descendants of Ghengis Khan" that is, the Rooskies.  

He hated them with all his heart and soul because he knew they were evil, devious scumbags and history bears him out.

What you never learn from the movie "Patton", because Omar Bradley was an adviser on the movie, is that after the outbreak from Normandy, the Allies had a substantial portion of the German force in the west trapped in a pocket at Falaise. Bradley was Patton's superior and Patton urged that every effort be made to seal the pocket, annihilate the German forces and move with haste toward Berlin as the destruction of the German forces there would leave a huge vacuum.  

Bradley ignored Patton and that night in his diary Patton noted that Bradley loss of nerve in his failure to take full advantage was one of the greatest turning points in history.

As we progressed East, the Russian progressed West. Patton wanted desperately to beat the Russian to Berlin, Prague and Vienna, but because FDR was taking advise from people who would later turn out to be genuine Communist spies, the Allies were held back so that the Russians could roll into these towns.

Even the Nazis would have gladly surrendered to the US rather than the Russians, but a deal's a deal and Uncle Joe wasn't such a bad guy once you get to know him.

The movie portrays Patton as a crazy man who for shits and giggles wanted to start a war with the Russians and that is the extent of most people knowledge of events.

Had he and Bradley switched jobs as they had before the Slap, Falaise would have been closed and FDR would have had to shoot Patton to stop him from entering Berlin months ahead of "Uncle Joe" Stalin.

Patton went to his grave knowing that all that was accomplished east of Berlin was that the world had traded a Fascist mass murderer for a Communist mass murderer.


----------



## rightwinger

While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.

That is why he never progressed beyond his third star


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Patton was a brilliant commander.
And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.

At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star



Yeah, that whole "Getting killed" thingy in 1945 might have had something to do with it too


----------



## del

rightwinger said:


> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star



he had four stars.








genius


----------



## rightwinger

del said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he had four stars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> genius
Click to expand...


My bad...forgot he got promoted right before he died


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.



The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.

How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
Click to expand...


The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.

As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?


----------



## rightwinger

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
Click to expand...


Agree. Imagine the amount of starving people we would have had to support. Rebuilding Russia would make the Marshall plan look like pennies


----------



## Sallow

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
Click to expand...


No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters. Add in..anyone who's tried to conquer Russia has failed..and failed miserably.

That's not taking into account that an attack on the Russians, an ally, would have broken the Alliance. The Chinese, while no friends of the Russians, for one, would not let such a treachery slide.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star






No, he understood them quite well.  He just didn't care.


----------



## geauxtohell

Hypothetical hindsight is always 20/20.  Hypothetically speaking.

We won the war.  If Patton was running the show, it might have gone better or it might have been a disaster.  

We'll never know.  As it stands, bashing Omar Bradley, one of the most competent commanders of the war, is idiotic.  

If it weren't for Bradley, Patton probably would have lost his command after he smacked his soldier.


----------



## geauxtohell

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he understood them quite well.  He just didn't care.
Click to expand...


I doubt that.

Patton read Clausewitz.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
Click to expand...





The Germans on the other hand had killed around 25 million Russians.  The average age of a Russian entering Berlin was around 17.  At the beginning of the war in the east the Russians felt people were not as important as equipment so they used them up at a horrific rate.  They lost 47,000 KIA just crossing the Volga into Stalingrad for reinforcements.  We had a better airforce, we had better supply and we had a secure rear area because the Germans had actually offered in 1944 to surrender to the west they just wanted to continue the war in the East.  If we had decided to continue on the Germans would have joined us with no hesitation.

Had we decided to go on we would have been won.  Yes it would have been costly, and probably more costly than what occured.  But it could have been done.  The question is should it have been done and that is a numbers game.  Would more have been killed doing it then were killed because we didn't.


----------



## westwall

Sallow said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters. Add in..anyone who's tried to conquer Russia has failed..and failed miserably.
> 
> That's not taking into account that an attack on the Russians, an ally, would have broken the Alliance. The Chinese, while no friends of the Russians, for one, would not let such a treachery slide.
Click to expand...




Not true at all.  The Mongols made short work of them.  Napoleon was totally victorious and was only driven back by the winter.  He had defeated all the troops the Russians sent against him.  Easily.


----------



## Sallow

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters. Add in..anyone who's tried to conquer Russia has failed..and failed miserably.
> 
> That's not taking into account that an attack on the Russians, an ally, would have broken the Alliance. The Chinese, while no friends of the Russians, for one, would not let such a treachery slide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Mongols made short work of them.  Napoleon was totally victorious and was only driven back by the winter.  He had defeated all the troops the Russians sent against him.  Easily.
Click to expand...


Which is why Russia is populated with Mongols and French.


----------



## westwall

geauxtohell said:


> Hypothetical hindsight is always 20/20.  Hypothetically speaking.
> 
> We won the war.  If Patton was running the show, it might have gone better or it might have been a disaster.
> 
> We'll never know.  As it stands, bashing Omar Bradley, one of the most competent commanders of the war, is idiotic.
> 
> If it weren't for Bradley, Patton probably would have lost his command after he smacked his soldier.







Uhhhh, he did.  He was the commander of the 7th Army and was relieved.  He was placed in command of the Third Army for Operation Cobra over the protests of Bradley but Ike knew he needed Patton to run it because everyone else was too timid.  One other thing the Falaise Pocket debacle was the fault of Monty.  He was the overall commander on the ground in Normandy (Bradley was under him) and he was also in direct control of the northern pincher of the attack.  He delayed his final assault long enough that the Germans were able to slip away.  They left behind most of their equipment but they got the people out.


----------



## westwall

Sallow said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters. Add in..anyone who's tried to conquer Russia has failed..and failed miserably.
> 
> That's not taking into account that an attack on the Russians, an ally, would have broken the Alliance. The Chinese, while no friends of the Russians, for one, would not let such a treachery slide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Mongols made short work of them.  Napoleon was totally victorious and was only driven back by the winter.  He had defeated all the troops the Russians sent against him.  Easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why Russia is populated with Mongols and French.
Click to expand...




You might want to take a look at the demographics of Russia there genius.  Mongols were the troops that were used to drive the Germans back during Operation Typhoon.  The French indeed were driven back after the winter, but the Mongols are still there.


----------



## Sunni Man

Sallow said:


> That's not taking into account that an attack on the Russians, an ally, would have broken the Alliance. The Chinese, while no friends of the Russians, for one, would not let such a treachery slide.


The Chinese Communists did even control China until 1949.

So they would not have been able to help the Russians if we had decided to attack in 1945-46.


----------



## Trajan

Sallow said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters. Add in..anyone who's tried to conquer Russia has failed..and failed miserably.
> 
> That's not taking into account that an attack on the Russians, an ally, would have broken the Alliance. The Chinese, while no friends of the Russians, for one, would not let such a treachery slide.
Click to expand...


the Chinese civil war was raging, our ally Chiang Kai-shek and all, Mao didn't give a hoot for the Russians he had other problems. It took till 49 for Mao to get Chiang totally out of China.


----------



## Trajan

the mongols invaded 'Russia' in the 13th century, so I am having a hard time seeing how they made their way into this conversation..


----------



## Trajan

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Mongols made short work of them.  Napoleon was totally victorious and was only driven back by the winter.  He had defeated all the troops the Russians sent against him.  Easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Russia is populated with Mongols and French.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take a look at the demographics of Russia there genius.  Mongols were the troops that were used to drive the Germans back during Operation Typhoon.  The French indeed were driven back after the winter, but the Mongols are still there.
Click to expand...


I think Siberian is more accurate.


----------



## Sallow

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.  The Mongols made short work of them.  Napoleon was totally victorious and was only driven back by the winter.  He had defeated all the troops the Russians sent against him.  Easily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Russia is populated with Mongols and French.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take a look at the demographics of Russia there genius.  Mongols were the troops that were used to drive the Germans back during Operation Typhoon.  The French indeed were driven back after the winter, but the Mongols are still there.
Click to expand...


You are talking about events that occurred in the 12th Century over many many years against a fractured and splintered Russia. Around the 17th century Russia became an empire. It's ridiculous to have these sorts of "bring everything into the mix" sort of conversations. Russia during WWII was very different then Russia in the 12th Century. 

Any idea that Russia was "ripe for the taking" after WWII is ridiculous. And..even if it did happen..the same outcome probably would have taken place..massive death in Russia. Probably moreso with another war. Anyone that thinks the cleanup after WWII was somehow peaches and cream is naive. The world suffered a great deal. There were lots of deaths.


----------



## Sallow

Trajan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters. Add in..anyone who's tried to conquer Russia has failed..and failed miserably.
> 
> That's not taking into account that an attack on the Russians, an ally, would have broken the Alliance. The Chinese, while no friends of the Russians, for one, would not let such a treachery slide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the Chinese civil war was raging, our ally Chiang Kai-shek and all, Mao didn't give a hoot for the Russians he had other problems. It took till 49 for Mao to get Chiang totally out of China.
Click to expand...


Which more then likely would have changed has America invaded. And that's not the only ally likely to split from the European powers.


----------



## westwall

Trajan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Russia is populated with Mongols and French.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take a look at the demographics of Russia there genius.  Mongols were the troops that were used to drive the Germans back during Operation Typhoon.  The French indeed were driven back after the winter, but the Mongols are still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Siberian is more accurate.
Click to expand...




See those asian looking guys?  They're Mongolian.  From Mongolia.



http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2008/09/sib01s.jpg


----------



## Sallow

westwall said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take a look at the demographics of Russia there genius.  Mongols were the troops that were used to drive the Germans back during Operation Typhoon.  The French indeed were driven back after the winter, but the Mongols are still there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Siberian is more accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See those asian looking guys?  They're Mongolian.  From Mongolia.
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2008/09/sib01s.jpg
Click to expand...


Yep..ol' Uncle Joe Stalin.

A Mongol through and through..

Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sallow

Hey..and Britain? Still Roman..

Yep..Rome never left.


----------



## Sallow

Why..in fact..all of China..really should have been called..Mongolia. There are no Han Chinese..they are really Mongolian. Tibetans? Peeshaw..Mongols. Zhuang? Naw..Mongols. What about the Manchus...Nope, those are really Mongols. Uyghur? Sheesh..you crazy? Mongols. Yao? Mongols.

Bai? Buyei? No no no. Mongols.

We never got past the invading hordes.

Russia should be called Mongolia too.


----------



## geauxtohell

westwall said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetical hindsight is always 20/20.  Hypothetically speaking.
> 
> We won the war.  If Patton was running the show, it might have gone better or it might have been a disaster.
> 
> We'll never know.  As it stands, bashing Omar Bradley, one of the most competent commanders of the war, is idiotic.
> 
> If it weren't for Bradley, Patton probably would have lost his command after he smacked his soldier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhhh, he did.  He was the commander of the 7th Army and was relieved.  He was placed in command of the Third Army for Operation Cobra over the protests of Bradley but Ike knew he needed Patton to run it because everyone else was too timid.  One other thing the Falaise Pocket debacle was the fault of Monty.  He was the overall commander on the ground in Normandy (Bradley was under him) and he was also in direct control of the northern pincher of the attack.  He delayed his final assault long enough that the Germans were able to slip away.  They left behind most of their equipment but they got the people out.
Click to expand...



Whoops.  You are right.  

At any rate, portraying Bradley as the villain in this thing is silly.

From Marshall to Eisenhower to Bradley to the Division Commanders the American Command Structure was a large reason we were successful.


----------



## Trajan

westwall said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to take a look at the demographics of Russia there genius.  Mongols were the troops that were used to drive the Germans back during Operation Typhoon.  The French indeed were driven back after the winter, but the Mongols are still there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Siberian is more accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See those asian looking guys?  They're Mongolian.  From Mongolia.
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2008/09/sib01s.jpg
Click to expand...




they are from the general region but really they aren't 'Mongolian', I think they are more Tungas than Mongolian. But the cultures certianly mixed....




https://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=The_Chinese_Republic_with_Tibet_and_Mongolia_c._1935.jpg


----------



## westwall

Sallow said:


> Why..in fact..all of China..really should have been called..Mongolia. There are no Han Chinese..they are really Mongolian. Tibetans? Peeshaw..Mongols. Zhuang? Naw..Mongols. What about the Manchus...Nope, those are really Mongols. Uyghur? Sheesh..you crazy? Mongols. Yao? Mongols.
> 
> Bai? Buyei? No no no. Mongols.
> 
> We never got past the invading hordes.
> 
> Russia should be called Mongolia too.






Actually there is some truth to that.  The Mongols under Kublai Khan were more Chinese in lifestyle than Mongolian (though Kublai did have a yurt in his palace courtyard.  One other thing to take note of, 800 years after he was dead it was still a law that a blood relation of Temujin had to be in the government.  That is the longest reach of any leader ever.

The Mongols conquered more than the known world at the time.  They did it with an army that never numbered over 100,000 men.  You should read Harold Lambs book on the Mongols, it is quite good.


----------



## westwall

Trajan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Siberian is more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See those asian looking guys?  They're Mongolian.  From Mongolia.
> 
> 
> 
> http://histclo.com/imagef/date/2008/09/sib01s.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are from the general region but really they aren't 'Mongolian', I think they are more Tungas than Mongolian. But the cultures certianly mixed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://qed.princeton.edu/getfile.php?f=The_Chinese_Republic_with_Tibet_and_Mongolia_c._1935.jpg
Click to expand...





OK, I'll give you that one!


----------



## Sallow

westwall said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why..in fact..all of China..really should have been called..Mongolia. There are no Han Chinese..they are really Mongolian. Tibetans? Peeshaw..Mongols. Zhuang? Naw..Mongols. What about the Manchus...Nope, those are really Mongols. Uyghur? Sheesh..you crazy? Mongols. Yao? Mongols.
> 
> Bai? Buyei? No no no. Mongols.
> 
> We never got past the invading hordes.
> 
> Russia should be called Mongolia too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is some truth to that.  The Mongols under Kublai Khan were more Chinese in lifestyle than Mongolian (though Kublai did have a yurt in his palace courtyard.  One other thing to take note of, 800 years after he was dead it was still a law that a blood relation of Temujin had to be in the government.  That is the longest reach of any leader ever.
> 
> The Mongols conquered more than the known world at the time.  They did it with an army that never numbered over 100,000 men.  You should read Harold Lambs book on the Mongols, it is quite good.
Click to expand...


Even more the reason for Patton's suggestion to be considered ludicrous. You think the Mongol nation would have stood up for an American assault on the Mongol State of Russia?

The Mongol State of China would have joined their brothers.

Man..the things you learn here.

Thanks for setting me straight.

And destroying your own argument.


----------



## rightwinger

Patton was a fucking moron

Invading the Soviet Union would have killed a million Americans


----------



## del

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.*
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
Click to expand...


the red army at the end of WWII had over 2 million soldiers, 4000+ tanks, 35,000+ artillery pieces and 6500+ aircraft within 50 km of berlin. 

you should read some history before you attempt to revise it.


----------



## westwall

del said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.*
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the red army at the end of WWII had over 2 million soldiers, 4000+ tanks, 35,000+ artillery pieces and 6500+ aircraft within 50 km of berlin.
> 
> you should read some history before you attempt to revise it.
Click to expand...





And don't forget the 600,000 trucks we gave them to keep it all supplied.


----------



## elvis

we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl.  without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.


----------



## westwall

elvis said:


> we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl.  without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.






Maybe.  They had so much land to trade for time and the Germans didn't enter into full war production till 1945 so while we certainly made the Russians battle a lot easier (especially with those aformentioned trucks) they would most probably have prevailed.  But they would have been a shadow of their former selves doing it.


----------



## rightwinger

elvis said:


> we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl.  without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.



The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war


----------



## zzzz

So we should have stabbed an ally in the back at the end of WWII? Remember we had just become one of the more powerful nations in the world at that time. 5 years earlier we were just a marginal power compared with the Japs, and the European countries. That would have established a bad precedence for a new global power, turning on your friends. Sure Stalin was a monster and they became our enemy but at the end of the war the American people were sick of war and would not have supported it.

China was in a war with Japan, as was Russia. Large parts of China were still occupied with Japs when the Germans were defeated so if we did enter Russia ... well we would have had the bomb before we even got to Russian territory (The eastern European bufferzone would have to be taken against a numerically superior army) and if we were at war with them we would have used several A-bombs on them because at the time there was no outcry on using them.

War is comprised of tactical battles to obtain a strategic political objective. The politicians set the stage and decide the parameters and the end and the military are the instruments. Patton was very good at battle and pushing his men into battle. The breakout at Normandy was a good example. But he was also at times reckless by pushing his armor till they ran out of gas and were sitting ducks and of course his escapades in Sicily. History has judged him to be one of the best commanders in  the army and rightly so. But it has also shown that strategically, IKE and Bradley were more in tune with FDR's plan of action and in the end FDR was the man!


----------



## editec

iamwhatiseem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you've been very misinformed about Soviet troop strength and its industrial capacity by 1945, too.
> 
> I'm not prepared to dig out my books on this subject, but at the end of the war the Soviet military machine was enormous and very able, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a chance in hell (unless we used the bomb...and we only had the nuclear material for two bombs) could we have defeated the Soviets in Europe and invaded Russia.
> 
> I think youre letting your US patriotism get the better of you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl.  without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.
> 
> It was Soviet blood that won the war
Click to expand...


uh huh..... what  a crock.


 American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and  lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing  Germany  to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl.  without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.
> 
> It was Soviet blood that won the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh huh..... what  a crock.
> 
> 
> American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and  lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing  Germany  to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..
Click to expand...


Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.

By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand


----------



## rightwinger

At the end of the war the Soviets had more tanks than the rest of the world combined. The Soviet T-34 was also superior to the Sherman tanks that Patton used.

Patton would not have had an easy time defeating the Soviets and would have suffered immense casualties.

The American public never would have stood for a million US casualties after we had already been fighting for four years

Patton was an idiot


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl.  without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.
> 
> It was Soviet blood that won the war
Click to expand...





If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans.  As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact.  The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people.  In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.

Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired.  That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.

So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.
> 
> It was Soviet blood that won the war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh huh..... what  a crock.
> 
> 
> American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and  lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing  Germany  to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.
> 
> By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand
Click to expand...




These are the most accurate figures that have been put together so far.  The Germans lost 1,419,728 KIA on the Eastern Front for the duration.  There are a further 997,506 MIA (the vast majority of which died in the Soviet gulags post war.  There were a further 3,498,060 WIA who survived.

The Germans lost another 841,794 KIA and captured in all campaigns in teh west, including the French campaign, the North African and the Italian and of course the final assault from the western allies.  There are a further 5 million or so wounded who were able to recover (some of whom saw further action of course), that equates out to around a 2.5 to one ratio for the Soviets vs the Western Allies as regards casualties inflicted.

Statistics and Numbers

You are ignoring the vast quantities of material that the US alone gave to the Soviet Union to sustain them in their defence against the Germans.  600,00 trucks that completely motorised their transport corps.  Thousands of aircraft and weapons.  Millions of tons of food and ammunition.  And not a few thousand lives of Merchant Marine seaman who gave their lives getting it to them.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl.  without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.
> 
> It was Soviet blood that won the war
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans.  As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact.  The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people.  In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.
> 
> Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired.  That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.
> 
> So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.
Click to expand...


I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.

I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them

Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.
> 
> It was Soviet blood that won the war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans.  As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact.  The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people.  In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.
> 
> Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired.  That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.
> 
> So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.
> 
> I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting
Click to expand...





You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many.  The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited.  They need not have lost that number of people.  But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way.  No?


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans.  As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact.  The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people.  In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.
> 
> Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired.  That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.
> 
> So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.
> 
> I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many.  The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited.  They need not have lost that number of people.  But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way.  No?
Click to expand...


World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I claimed 20 times what the US did

Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.

The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front

German deaths by front

EASTERN FRONT: 
Stalingrad: 1.8 million 
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million 
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000 
Smolensk 1941: 500,000 
Kiev 1941: 400,000 
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000 
Belarus 1941: 370,000 
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000 
Caucasus 1942: 260,000 
Kursk: 230,000 
Lower Dnieper: 170,000 
Kongsberg: 170,000 
Rostov: 150,000 
Budapest: 130,000 
and others with less killed 

Whereas on the Western Front 
Battle of France 180,000 
Normandy: 132,000 
El Alamein: 70,000 
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080130204203AA7LTZm


----------



## JakeStarkey

1.  In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2.  If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.
> 
> I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many.  The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited.  They need not have lost that number of people.  But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way.  No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I claimed 20 times what the US did
> 
> Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.
> 
> The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front
Click to expand...





Yes that number ignores the fact that we captured far more than we killed and ignores the million or so that were murdered after they had surrendered to the Soviets.  As I said the West values life the Soviet socialist system couldn't care less about human life.  I know where I would rather live.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.
> 
> I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many.  The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited.  They need not have lost that number of people.  But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way.  No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I claimed 20 times what the US did
> 
> Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.
> 
> The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front
> 
> German deaths by front
> 
> EASTERN FRONT:
> Stalingrad: 1.8 million
> Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
> Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
> Smolensk 1941: 500,000
> Kiev 1941: 400,000
> Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
> Belarus 1941: 370,000
> 2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
> Caucasus 1942: 260,000
> Kursk: 230,000
> Lower Dnieper: 170,000
> Kongsberg: 170,000
> Rostov: 150,000
> Budapest: 130,000
> and others with less killed
> 
> Whereas on the Western Front
> Battle of France 180,000
> Normandy: 132,000
> El Alamein: 70,000
> Battle of the Bulge: 38,000
Click to expand...






Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them.  Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous.  That's why no universities will use wiki as a source.  It is simply not credible.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many.  The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited.  They need not have lost that number of people.  But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way.  No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I claimed 20 times what the US did
> 
> Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.
> 
> The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front
> 
> German deaths by front
> 
> EASTERN FRONT:
> Stalingrad: 1.8 million
> Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
> Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
> Smolensk 1941: 500,000
> Kiev 1941: 400,000
> Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
> Belarus 1941: 370,000
> 2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
> Caucasus 1942: 260,000
> Kursk: 230,000
> Lower Dnieper: 170,000
> Kongsberg: 170,000
> Rostov: 150,000
> Budapest: 130,000
> and others with less killed
> 
> Whereas on the Western Front
> Battle of France 180,000
> Normandy: 132,000
> El Alamein: 70,000
> Battle of the Bulge: 38,000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them.  Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous.  That's why no universities will use wiki as a source.  It is simply not credible.
Click to expand...


You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.

They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights


----------



## JakeStarkey

The American casualties on D-Day in Normandy on 6 June 1944 (my uncle flew a glider in the pre-dawn darkness to France that morning) were approximately 6,000, 1/3rd of casualties total at Antietam in our Civil War.

The casualties on the Eastern Front averaged _*every day *_a bit more than Normandy for us.  In other words, *every day *in the East was Normandy.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I claimed 20 times what the US did
> 
> Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.
> 
> The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front
> 
> German deaths by front
> 
> EASTERN FRONT:
> Stalingrad: 1.8 million
> Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
> Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
> Smolensk 1941: 500,000
> Kiev 1941: 400,000
> Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
> Belarus 1941: 370,000
> 2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
> Caucasus 1942: 260,000
> Kursk: 230,000
> Lower Dnieper: 170,000
> Kongsberg: 170,000
> Rostov: 150,000
> Budapest: 130,000
> and others with less killed
> 
> Whereas on the Western Front
> Battle of France 180,000
> Normandy: 132,000
> El Alamein: 70,000
> Battle of the Bulge: 38,000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them.  Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous.  That's why no universities will use wiki as a source.  It is simply not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.
> 
> They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights
Click to expand...





Of that there is no doubt but let's take a look at one battle, Stalingrad, wiki claims 1.8 million Germans were killed there and that is not factually correct.  The Germans had 1.5million killed (rounded in your favour) on the entire Eastern front from 1941 to 1945.  That is less than wiki claims for one battle.  The German 6th Army (the one fighting in Stalingrad) had 300,000 total soldiers.  That includes the Hungarian and Romanian contingents.  Of that total 90,000 went into captivity and 6,000 of those came home in 1950-1955.  So for wiki to claim that 1.8 million Germans were KILLED in the battle of Stalingrad is quite simply a joke.  They claim 6 times more Germans were killed than actually existed in the area of operations.


----------



## geauxtohell

JakeStarkey said:


> The American casualties on D-Day in Normandy on 6 June 1944 (my uncle flew a glider in the pre-dawn darkness to France that morning) were approximately 6,000, 1/3rd of casualties total at Antietam in our Civil War.
> 
> The casualties on the Eastern Front averaged _*every day *_a bit more than Normandy for us.  In other words, *every day *in the East was Normandy.



Your uncle was a brave man.  Ever read "Pegasus Bridge"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Since we're speculating...

When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fire at a Russian at over 700 yard.

The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets

The US and Brits would have owned the skies.

We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.

Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.

Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.


----------



## westwall

CrusaderFrank said:


> Since we're speculating...
> 
> When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fired at a Russian at over 700 yard.
> 
> The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets
> 
> The US and Brits would have owned the skies.
> 
> We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.
> 
> Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.
> 
> Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.





The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours.  The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational.  These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined.  The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.

The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us.  However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians.  They would have been unable to move anything during the day.  Period.  During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.

Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air.  Just like the Germans did to them during the war.  Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.  

The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies.  That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood.  We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> Since we're speculating...
> 
> When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fire at a Russian at over 700 yards
> swords.



Must be a BS quote or shows Patton was a moron.  Any tanker would prefer to have greater range than his enemy. It allows you to kill without being killed.  The Russian T 34 was vastly superior to the Shermans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

geauxtohell said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The American casualties on D-Day in Normandy on 6 June 1944 (my uncle flew a glider in the pre-dawn darkness to France that morning) were approximately 6,000, 1/3rd of casualties total at Antietam in our Civil War.
> 
> The casualties on the Eastern Front averaged _*every day *_a bit more than Normandy for us.  In other words, *every day *in the East was Normandy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your uncle was a brave man.  Ever read "Pegasus Bridge"?
Click to expand...


I haven't.  So I will look up the reviews.  Uncle would not call landing the glider the brave act of the day (though, even as a  paratrooper, I can't imagine ever riding in one of those death traps): he said that sitting in a foxhole with three prisoners, not shooting them, and then running away ~ that is what he was proud about.


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're speculating...
> 
> When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fired at a Russian at over 700 yard.
> 
> The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets
> 
> The US and Brits would have owned the skies.
> 
> We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.
> 
> Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.
> 
> Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours.  The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational.  These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined.  The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.
> 
> The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us.  However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians.  They would have been unable to move anything during the day.  Period.  During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.
> 
> Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
> If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air.  Just like the Germans did to them during the war.  Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.
> 
> The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies.  That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood.  We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.
Click to expand...


You guys obviously never served.  I am *not taunting*, just *pointing *out a fact.  None of what you are suggesting would have happened.  What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead.  What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."


----------



## elvis

What percentage of the nazis would we have had?  Even if every one of them agreed with the mission, how many were in soviet hands?


----------



## elvis

JakeStarkey said:


> 1.  In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.
> 
> 2.  *If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks*.



what stopped Stalin from doing that anyway?  there were those in soviet command who envisioned marching into paris.


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I claimed 20 times what the US did
> 
> Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.
> 
> The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front
> 
> German deaths by front
> 
> EASTERN FRONT:
> Stalingrad: 1.8 million
> Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
> Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
> Smolensk 1941: 500,000
> Kiev 1941: 400,000
> Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
> Belarus 1941: 370,000
> 2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
> Caucasus 1942: 260,000
> Kursk: 230,000
> Lower Dnieper: 170,000
> Kongsberg: 170,000
> Rostov: 150,000
> Budapest: 130,000
> and others with less killed
> 
> Whereas on the Western Front
> Battle of France 180,000
> Normandy: 132,000
> El Alamein: 70,000
> Battle of the Bulge: 38,000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them.  Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous.  That's why no universities will use wiki as a source.  It is simply not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.
> 
> They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights
Click to expand...


lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming? 

That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,  c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did? 


a, or b or c or ?.


----------



## rightwinger

The Soviets were principally responsible for defeating Germany. They had turned the tide before the Allies set foot in Europe. Did we help?  Of course we did
Were we equal partners?  No we were not


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.
> 
> It was Soviet blood that won the war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh huh..... what  a crock.
> 
> 
> American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and  lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing  Germany  to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.
> 
> By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand
Click to expand...


 killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.

You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework, 
Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously. 

 I will make the point again, and provide an example. 

Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts. 

When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein  in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....

Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east. 

Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell,  only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable . 

Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions  that wound up being sent to West and to  Italy in 43 never would have went as well. 



on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we're speculating...
> 
> When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fired at a Russian at over 700 yard.
> 
> The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets
> 
> The US and Brits would have owned the skies.
> 
> We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.
> 
> Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.
> 
> Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours.  The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational.  These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined.  The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.
> 
> The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us.  However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians.  They would have been unable to move anything during the day.  Period.  During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.
> 
> Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
> If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air.  Just like the Germans did to them during the war.  Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.
> 
> The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies.  That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood.  We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys obviously never served.  I am taunting, just point out a fact.  None of what you are suggesting would have happened.  What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead.  What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."
Click to expand...






You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I.  I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.


----------



## elvis

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours.  The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational.  These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined.  The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.
> 
> The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us.  However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians.  They would have been unable to move anything during the day.  Period.  During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.
> 
> Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
> If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air.  Just like the Germans did to them during the war.  Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.
> 
> The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies.  That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood.  We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys obviously never served.  I am taunting, just point out a fact.  None of what you are suggesting would have happened.  What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead.  What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I.  I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.
Click to expand...


Hmm..  I was assuming he forgot a the "not" before "taunting".


----------



## westwall

elvis said:


> What percentage of the nazis would we have had?  Even if every one of them agreed with the mission, how many were in soviet hands?





We would have had around a million.  Of that total probably 200,000 would be considered reliable good troops.  And of that probably around 40,000 would be considered elite troops, like the fallschirmjaeger and the 5th , 9th and 10th SS and possibly (depending on how well we were able to rebuild them after the mauling we gave them) the 2nd SS Panzer divisions.


----------



## westwall

elvis said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys obviously never served.  I am taunting, just point out a fact.  None of what you are suggesting would have happened.  What would have happened would be American troops killing Russians until the last American was dead.  What would have happened before that is that the British, the French, and the Germans would have said "You are idiots, and, no."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I.  I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm..  I was assuming he forgot a the "not" before "taunting".
Click to expand...





Ahh yes I can see that too, sorry Jake!


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.
> 
> 2.  *If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what stopped Stalin from doing that anyway?  there were those in soviet command who envisioned marching into paris.
Click to expand...


The Soviets were interested in consolidating their gains in eastern Europe.  Soviet communism was motivated by (1) imperialism and (2) protection of very vulnerable borders.  I imagine that they were more interested in 1945 in #2, but if the Americans came, the bad guys would have made lemonade out of lemons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may taunt all you wish and just because you served makes you no more an expert than I.  I have however read over 2,000 books on the subject so have the knowledge of those who did serve in the war to draw on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm..  I was assuming he forgot a the "not" before "taunting".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes I can see that too, sorry Jake!
Click to expand...


You guys are right.  The fault was mine.  I have corrected it above in *bolding*.  My apologies.


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> 1.  In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.
> 
> 2.  If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.



I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if. 


In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated  factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....


In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies. 

uhm by the end of  may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.
> 
> 2.  If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.
> 
> 
> In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated  factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....
> 
> 
> In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.
> 
> uhm by the end of  may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.
Click to expand...


Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched.  Really hard.


----------



## elvis

We would not have had the element of "surprise"  that hitler had.


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.
> 
> 2.  If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.
> 
> 
> In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated  factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....
> 
> 
> In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.
> 
> uhm by the end of  may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched.  Really hard.
Click to expand...


please explain  my fallacies. 

and think on that manpower blurb.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them.  Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous.  That's why no universities will use wiki as a source.  It is simply not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.
> 
> They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?
> 
> That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,  c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> 
> 
> a, or b or c or ?.
Click to expand...



*YES TO *"a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"

*YES TO * b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,  

*YES TO * c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.
> 
> They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?
> 
> That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,  c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> 
> 
> a, or b or c or ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YES TO *"a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"
> 
> *YES TO * b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> whatever.
> 
> this question was not for you.
> 
> 
> 
> *YES TO * c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.
> 
> 
> In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated  factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....
> 
> 
> In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.
> 
> uhm by the end of  may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched.  Really hard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please explain  my fallacies.
> 
> and think on that manpower blurb.....
Click to expand...


No manpower "blurb" existed in fact.  Go back and study the relative strengths of the various coalition members in May 1945.

"the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one...."  Patton then would have had the same problem going east if it were a problem as the Russkies would going west.

"the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies": think it through ~ no strategic air capability was necessary (90% of the production was done in the U.S.: the Soviets couldn't have reached the U.S. even if they had B-29 bombers and imagine the logistical problems for the U.S.) 

"Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken"  ummm. . . more than a 100000 dead Japanese, more than a 100000 dead Okinawan citizens, and more than a 100000 American casualties.  No reason existed to think it was going to be anything but harder. 

No one here is more patriotic than I, having served faithfully and honorably.  The debate here is not about patriotism but rather about realistic expectations.


----------



## rightwinger

Back to the claim of the OP

I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.

But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.

What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first?  We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.

But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?

We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?
> 
> That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,  c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> a, or b or c or ?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whatever.
> this question was not for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answered and sustained, nevertheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## elvis

rightwinger said:


> Back to the claim of the OP
> 
> I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.
> 
> But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.
> 
> What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first?  We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.
> 
> But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?
> 
> We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later


Did he really die in an accident?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh huh..... what  a crock.
> 
> 
> American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and  lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing  Germany  to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.
> 
> By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.
> 
> You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
> Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.
> 
> I will make the point again, and provide an example.
> 
> Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.
> 
> When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein  in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....
> 
> Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.
> 
> Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell,  only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .
> 
> Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions  that wound up being sent to West and to  Italy in 43 never would have went as well.
> 
> on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....
Click to expand...


Strawman arguments and immaterial.  For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire.  The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43.  But it didn't, and that's the point.  We have to deal with what happened.

Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.

And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."


----------



## rightwinger

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the claim of the OP
> 
> I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.
> 
> But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.
> 
> What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first?  We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.
> 
> But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?
> 
> We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later
> 
> 
> 
> Did he really die in an accident?
Click to expand...


Yes. It was not much of an accident but he hit his head and died a few days later


----------



## elvis

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.
> 
> By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.
> 
> You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
> Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.
> 
> I will make the point again, and provide an example.
> 
> Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.
> 
> When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein  in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....
> 
> Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.
> 
> Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell,  only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .
> 
> Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions  that wound up being sent to West and to  Italy in 43 never would have went as well.
> 
> on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman arguments and immaterial.  For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire.  The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43.  But it didn't, and that's the point.  We have to deal with what happened.
> 
> Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.
> 
> And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."
Click to expand...

you don't think without our help Germany would have succeeded in starving Britain, or knocking her out of the war?


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.
> 
> 2.  If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you ponder the over arching manpower fallacy a while, you are missing a big part of this what if.
> 
> 
> In addition you have total missed the boat on one of the underestimated  factors of war , logistics, and why Germany had a hard time supplying the Ost front, the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one....
> 
> 
> In addition the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies.
> 
> uhm by the end of  may 45, Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken reed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched.  Really hard.
Click to expand...






The Soviet counterpunch would have been obliterated by our air force.  They wouldn't have been able to move anything without our allowing it.  That is a simple fact.  They would have certainly controlled their immediate area until they ran out of fod and munitions and then had to slink back to their border.  Patton would have actually done quite well.  He fought like Manstein did and Manstein was able to halt Soviet attacks even though he was outnumbered by 20 to 30 to one at times.  Patton would have had the advantage of absolute command of teh skies and a good supply system the Germans could only dream of.

I do agree though that it would have been terribly bloody but you guys give almost no credit to the American war machine.  By the end of the war the Russians were tired.  Hell they were exausted.  Our command of the air would have been the defining issue.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.
> 
> They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?
> 
> That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,  c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> 
> 
> a, or b or c or ?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *YES TO *"a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"
> 
> *YES TO * b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,
> 
> *YES TO * c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
Click to expand...




Not borne out by fact.  If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust.  They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition.  That is simply madness.  Even with that they almost won it on the bounce.  Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expenditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Back to the claim of the OP
> 
> I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.
> 
> But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.
> 
> What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first?  We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.
> 
> But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?
> 
> We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later






No, he was very serious about it.  Ike and Bradley had to reign him in because of Monty.  Patton made one mistake during the war and that was to send a Combat Command out to relieve a Pow camp under Captain Baum.  Other than that Patton captured and killed more Germans and more importantly suffered fewer casualties than any General officer in the allied force.

Now the last question would we have been better?  I think not.  I think far more people would have died had he gone ahead and attacked than were lost throughout the entire Cold War.  So it is good he didn't attack.


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Loaded with fallacies, but even if you are right, Patton would have ground to a halt very quickly, and the Soviets would have counter punched.  Really hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please explain  my fallacies.
> 
> and think on that manpower blurb.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No manpower "blurb" existed in fact.  Go back and study the relative strengths of the various coalition members in May 1945.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still missing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the Russian railroad gauge was wider than the German and European one...."  Patton then would have had the same problem going east if it were a problem as the Russkies would going west.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if the goal was throwing the Russian out of germany, no he would not have had that issue at all....he would have been using the European gauge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the Russians had NO strategic Air force and tactically there were inept comparatively with the Western allies": think it through ~ no strategic air capability was necessary (90% of the production was done in the U.S.: the Soviets couldn't have reached the U.S. even if they had B-29 bombers and imagine the logistical problems for the U.S.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there fore the Russians could not hurt us a wit while we could further a strategic air force means destroying rolling stock and  rail centers, urban areas , logistics would have been a chaotic event vis a vis the Russians supplying themselves into any part of Germany hence Europe. The western allied tactical air forces would have had a field day. read a few after actions reports on german formations moving toward Normandy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Okinawa was wrapping up, the Japanese war machine was a broken"  ummm. . . more than a 100000 dead Japanese, more than a 100000 dead Okinawan citizens, and more than a 100000 American casualties.  No reason existed to think it was going to be anything but harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what does that have to do with my point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one here is more patriotic than I, having served faithfully and honorably.
> 
> The debate here is not about patriotism but rather about realistic expectations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany, what does the above have to do with that?
Click to expand...


----------



## westwall

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the claim of the OP
> 
> I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.
> 
> But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.
> 
> What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first?  We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.
> 
> But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?
> 
> We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later
> 
> 
> 
> Did he really die in an accident?
Click to expand...





He was involved in a minor automobile accident.  The only thing I can think of is he suffered the same kind of injury as Dale Earnhardt did.  The injury was out of proportion to the damage done to his vehicle and he was the only one injured.  That is why there are quite a few people who think he was assassinated.


----------



## elvis

westwall said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the claim of the OP
> 
> I doubt if Patton was serious about invading the Soviet Union. If anything, it is probably more Patton bluster and grandstanding.
> 
> But what would have changed if Patton had been allowed to break loose and attack Berlin? There is a good chance he would have overrun his supply lines and been wiped out. Ike and Bradley had to continually hold back Patton during the war. They had to save him from himself. Patton was more concerned about his legacy than what was best for the war effort.
> 
> What would have happened if Patton had gotten to Berlin first?  We would have given back those zones that were agreed to beforehand...just like the Soviets did.
> 
> But if we could change history and attacked the Soviets after Germany was defeated ....would we have been better off?
> 
> We would have suffered a million casualties to accomplish something that happened without a shot being fired 45 years later
> 
> 
> 
> Did he really die in an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was involved in a minor automobile accident.  The only thing I can think of is he suffered the same kind of injury as Dale Earnhardt did.  The injury was out of proportion to the damage done to his vehicle and he was the only one injured.  That is why there are quite a few people who think he was assassinated.
Click to expand...


It's the only conspiracy theory I'm interested in.  But I'm not that interested, as I haven't researched it.


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> lets clear this up, what exactly are you claiming?
> 
> That a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies,b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,  c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> 
> 
> a, or b or c or ?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YES TO *"a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"
> 
> *YES TO * b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,
> 
> *YES TO * c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not borne out by fact.  If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust.  They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition.  That is simply madness.  Even with that they almost won it on the bounce.  Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expinditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.
Click to expand...


We will never know, will we?  

When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.

By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YES TO *"a) the soviets were responsible for winning war and could have even without the allies"
> 
> *YES TO * b) the western alies were merely ancillary adding another front but not overall crucial in that the russians would have defeated Germany without them it just would have taken longer,
> 
> *YES TO * c) they inflicted more causalities on the German war machine than the western alllies did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not borne out by fact.  If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust.  They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition.  That is simply madness.  Even with that they almost won it on the bounce.  Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expinditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will never know, will we?
> 
> When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.
> 
> By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth
Click to expand...




By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, _Typhoon_ and Stalingrad.  England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there.  And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different.  We mobilised the entire Soviet Army.  The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end.  The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft.  We gave them millions of small arms.  We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions.  Without that they would not have prevailed.


----------



## rightwinger

One thing we do know..

If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.

We would have saved England and thats about it


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.
> 
> By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.
> 
> You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
> Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.
> 
> I will make the point again, and provide an example.
> 
> Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.
> 
> When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein  in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....
> 
> Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.
> 
> Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell,  only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .
> 
> Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions  that wound up being sent to West and to  Italy in 43 never would have went as well.
> 
> on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman arguments and immaterial.  For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire.  The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43.  But it didn't, and that's the point.
> 
> 
> We have to deal with what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thats not the point, do you remember your own claim?
> 
> I was explaining events that took place at the same time, why your belief is false,  I  used real examples, you now want to say nothing matters, and strawman? I addressed your argument, but you really don't have a refutation other than to say hey no fair we are not allowed to consider why the Russians would not have taken Stalingrad if the Americans had not invaded and taken Africa or invaded italy and tied down German forces and resources. whatever.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Within the context of what happened:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> translation; I will ignore historical fact,  and will ignore any points that I find contrary and declare myself right. wonderful, another waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> hey you cannot proved that.  you have not made one argument that makes that even tempting to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> means squat and I explained why, another waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> supposition sans deatil,  thanx for the 'explanation'.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not borne out by fact.  If the Germans had not had to worry about their rear they would have ground the Russian army into dust.  They invaded Russia with one months reserve of fuel and ammunition.  That is simply madness.  Even with that they almost won it on the bounce.  Had they just simply gone on into Russia without the expinditure of material in the West they would most probably have won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will never know, will we?
> 
> When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.
> 
> By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, _Typhoon_ and Stalingrad.  England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there.  And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different.  We mobilised the entire Soviet Army.  The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end.  The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
> We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft.  We gave them millions of small arms.  We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions.  Without that they would not have prevailed.
Click to expand...


Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing. Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will never know, will we?
> 
> When Germany attacked Russia in 1940, the US was not in the war and England was on the ropes. The logistics of sustaining the invasion, weather, a poor command structure and a Russian population willing to fight to the last man was their undoing.
> 
> By the time the US and England geared up its war machine, Russia had already scored significant victories. There is no question we had an impact on the final result of the war. But the idea of most Americans that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis is a myth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, _Typhoon_ and Stalingrad.  England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there.  And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different.  We mobilised the entire Soviet Army.  The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end.  The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
> We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft.  We gave them millions of small arms.  We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions.  Without that they would not have prevailed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. *But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing.* Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.
Click to expand...


Links please.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> One thing we do know..
> 
> If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.
> 
> We would have saved England and thats about it






Actually Stalin was getting ready to invade Europe.  It would have happened in either 1942 or most likely early 1943.  Stalin feared Hitler and hated Europe. He wanted to destroy it.


----------



## westwall

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time we got going they had two major victories under their belt, _Typhoon_ and Stalingrad.  England was only able to really gear up after the defeat of the Wolfpacks so you are correct there.  And I have to agre with you about most Americans views of the war, but you have to also admit that without the US's violation of its own neutrality act and the shipment of millions of tons of material to Russia the story would have been very different.  We mobilised the entire Soviet Army.  The Germans were still a horse drawn army all the way to the end.  The Soviets were fully mechanised by 1943...thanks to us.
> We gave the Soviets thousands of tanks and aircraft.  We gave them millions of small arms.  We gave them millions of tons of food and munitions.  Without that they would not have prevailed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. *But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing.* Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Links please.
Click to expand...





No, he's accurate here.  The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans.  Their tanks were better.  A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955.  The Germans however, used them far better.  The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters.  The Germans however once again used them better.  The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.  

They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale.  In tank production alone it is almost a joke.  The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war.  The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone.  Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.


----------



## Trajan

westwall said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. No doubt that US supplies were a lifeline that helped save the Soviets. *But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role of Soviet manufacturing.* Russian tanks, aircraft, rifles, rockets, artillery were as good as any in the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's accurate here.  The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans.  Their tanks were better.  A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
> of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955.  The Germans however, used them far better.  The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters.  The Germans however once again used them better.  The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.
> 
> They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale.  In tank production alone it is almost a joke.  The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war.  The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone.  Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.
Click to expand...


he is? the quote was-



> But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role



where is this version?


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's accurate here.  The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans.  Their tanks were better.  A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
> of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955.  The Germans however, used them far better.  The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters.  The Germans however once again used them better.  The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.
> 
> They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale.  In tank production alone it is almost a joke.  The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war.  The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone.  Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is? the quote was-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is this version?
Click to expand...


As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military materiel they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis. That the Sherman tank was a feared fighting machine


----------



## elvis

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's accurate here.  The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans.  Their tanks were better.  A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
> of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955.  The Germans however, used them far better.  The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters.  The Germans however once again used them better.  The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.
> 
> They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale.  In tank production alone it is almost a joke.  The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war.  The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone.  Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he is? the quote was-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is this version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.
> 
> This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis
Click to expand...


80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped.  is that fucking savage enough for you?


----------



## rightwinger

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is? the quote was-
> 
> 
> 
> where is this version?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.
> 
> This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped.  is that fucking savage enough for you?
Click to expand...


In war

Payback is a bitch. Want to go into how the Soviet civilians were treated by the Nazis?


----------



## elvis

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.
> 
> This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped.  is that fucking savage enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In war
> 
> Payback is a bitch
Click to expand...

 
so you agree with those rapes.....


----------



## rightwinger

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped.  is that fucking savage enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In war
> 
> Payback is a bitch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you agree with those rapes.....
Click to expand...


----------



## elvis

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In war
> 
> Payback is a bitch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree with those rapes.....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


and the women who were raped were responsible for that.  You agree with the rapes.  Good to know.


----------



## rightwinger

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree with those rapes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and the women who were raped were responsible for that.  You agree with the rapes.  Good to know.
Click to expand...


No..I am acknowledging the fact that the Nazis inflicted far worse on the Ukranian, Georgian and Russian civilian population long before the Soviets got near the German population


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's accurate here.  The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans.  Their tanks were better.  A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
> of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955.  The Germans however, used them far better.  The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters.  The Germans however once again used them better.  The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.
> 
> They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale.  In tank production alone it is almost a joke.  The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war.  The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone.  Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he is? the quote was-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> where is this version?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military materiel they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.
> 
> This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis. That the Sherman tank was a feared fighting machine
Click to expand...


links please.


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In war
> 
> Payback is a bitch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree with those rapes.....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants. 


you are some piece of work. 


so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?


----------



## elvis

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree with those rapes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.
> 
> 
> you are some piece of work.
> 
> 
> so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?
Click to expand...


rightwinger is a communist, so naturally he is a Soviet apologist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.
> 
> You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
> Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.
> 
> I will make the point again, and provide an example.
> 
> Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.
> 
> When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein  in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....
> 
> Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.
> 
> Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell,  only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .
> 
> Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions  that wound up being sent to West and to  Italy in 43 never would have went as well.
> 
> on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman arguments and immaterial.  For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire.  The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43.  But it didn't, and that's the point.  We have to deal with what happened.
> 
> Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.
> 
> And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you don't think without our help Germany would have succeeded in starving Britain, or knocking her out of the war?
Click to expand...


Yes, the USA was instrumental in saving Great Britain, which was necessary as a physical platform for invasion of the continent, along with many other advantages.  Nonetheless, without our help, the Soviets would have eventually beat back the Germans with one possible exception: if the Nazis had develop the bomb first, civilization would have been held hostage by Hitler.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan, you post &#8220;I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis *the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany*, what does the above have to do with that.&#8221;

Nope, that is your red herring.  You are finessing the argument and going off the tracks.  No, *the issue was not Patton defending Germany and throwing out the Russians*.  Your point was that *Patton should have taken on the Russians and driven them out of Eastern Europe and back into the USSR*.  I am right about that?  If I am, then, yes, the Russians would have defeated us soundly.

Our strategic air capability would have had a long way to go to get to the Urals and the factories and back.  The USSR air force would be quite capable with numbers, box air formations, ADA, and radar in handling the USAF.  The Soviet tactical and combat air formations would have competently handled defense over the primary battle zones.  No, the Me-262 factories were in ruins, so that would not have been a factor.

Your point has no realistic expectation of success.  Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, in that order would not have permitted Patton to attack Soviet formations.  Why?  We had a war with Japan (and don&#8217;t bring up-Okinawa to have me knock it down then you say it does not matter) and they weren&#8217;t the least bit scared of us either and gave us no thought they would be surrendering.


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing we do know..
> 
> If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.
> 
> We would have saved England and thats about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Stalin was getting ready to invade Europe.  It would have happened in either 1942 or most likely early 1943.  Stalin feared Hitler and hated Europe. He wanted to destroy it.
Click to expand...


Very politely, horseshit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is? the quote was-
> 
> 
> 
> where is this version?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.
> 
> This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped.  is that fucking savage enough for you?
Click to expand...


Probably as savage as the Germans in the Soviet Union.  So what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree with those rapes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.
> 
> 
> you are some piece of work.
> 
> 
> so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?
Click to expand...


None of this is justification for Patton to begin a war with the Soviets that we could not win.


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.
> 
> 
> you are some piece of work.
> 
> 
> so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> rightwinger is a communist, so naturally he is a Soviet apologist.
Click to expand...


That is what a fascist would say, Elvis.  But you are not a fascist, and RW is not a communist.

Let's have some sense here.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.
> 
> This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped.  is that fucking savage enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In war
> 
> Payback is a bitch. Want to go into how the Soviet civilians were treated by the Nazis?
Click to expand...





How about how the Russians were treated by the Russians?  Hitler muredered 6 million or so Jews, Gypsys and other "undesirables".  Stalin murdered over 50 MILLION of his own people.  In his gulags.  The rape and murder of innocents is never "OK".  At least the Germans were doing what they did according to treaties that prescribed exactly what they were allowed to do in the event of Partisan warfare.  I don't approve even of that but they were following the law.  The Jewish issue is seperate from that of course.

Your knowledge of history seems to be lacking.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman arguments and immaterial.  For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire.  The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43.  But it didn't, and that's the point.  We have to deal with what happened.
> 
> Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.
> 
> And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."
> 
> 
> 
> you don't think without our help Germany would have succeeded in starving Britain, or knocking her out of the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA was instrumental in saving Great Britain, which was necessary as a physical platform for invasion of the continent, along with many other advantages.  Nonetheless, without our help, the Soviets would have eventually beat back the Germans with one possible exception: if the Nazis had develop the bomb first, civilization would have been held hostage by Hitler.
Click to expand...





We didn't need the UK as a jumping off point for the invasion of Europe.  We invaded North Africa directly from the US.  We could easily have done the same in Europe.  Germany could never have developed the bomb.  They were following the wrong path and were trying to develop a hydrogen bomb not knowing you needed a fission bomb to set it off.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan, you post I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis *the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany*, what does the above have to do with that.
> 
> Nope, that is your red herring.  You are finessing the argument and going off the tracks.  No, *the issue was not Patton defending Germany and throwing out the Russians*.  Your point was that *Patton should have taken on the Russians and driven them out of Eastern Europe and back into the USSR*.  I am right about that?  If I am, then, yes, the Russians would have defeated us soundly.
> 
> Our strategic air capability would have had a long way to go to get to the Urals and the factories and back.  The USSR air force would be quite capable with numbers, box air formations, ADA, and radar in handling the USAF.  The Soviet tactical and combat air formations would have competently handled defense over the primary battle zones.  No, the Me-262 factories were in ruins, so that would not have been a factor.
> 
> Your point has no realistic expectation of success.  Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, in that order would not have permitted Patton to attack Soviet formations.  Why?  We had a war with Japan (and dont bring up-Okinawa to have me knock it down then you say it does not matter) and they werent the least bit scared of us either and gave us no thought they would be surrendering.






You are completely wrong about the capability of the Soviet air capability.  They couldn't eliminate the Luftwaffe with a 10 to 1 advantage, and nearly unlimited supply as compared to the Germans.  Our bombers didn't need to reach the factories.  In point of fact the bombing campaign against Germanies factories was a failure.  The attack on rolling stock and transportation and POL resources on the other hand were extremey effective.

Our fighter pilots would heve swept the Russians from the sky in short order.  Also the Russians had rudimentary night fighting capability whereas our P-61 Blackwidow could detect target as far as 10 miles away and track and kill them.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing we do know..
> 
> If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.
> 
> We would have saved England and thats about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Stalin was getting ready to invade Europe.  It would have happened in either 1942 or most likely early 1943.  Stalin feared Hitler and hated Europe. He wanted to destroy it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very politely, horseshit.
Click to expand...



I hate to tell you pal but it is fairly well documented.

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan, you post I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis *the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany*, what does the above have to do with that.
> 
> Nope, that is your red herring.



what color is it? 




> You are finessing the argument and going off the tracks.  No, *the issue was not Patton defending Germany and throwing out the Russians*.  Your point was that *Patton should have taken on the Russians and driven them out of Eastern Europe and back into the USSR*.  I am right about that?  If I am, then, yes, the Russians would have defeated us soundly.





> Our strategic air capability would have had a long way to go to get to the Urals and the factories and back.  The USSR air force would be quite capable with numbers, box air formations, ADA, and radar in handling the USAF.  The Soviet tactical and combat air formations would have competently handled defense over the primary battle zones.  No, the Me-262 factories were in ruins, so that would not have been a factor.


you appear to be not only a stranger to military history but reading comprehension as well, I never said anything about flying the urals.


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't think without our help Germany would have succeeded in starving Britain, or knocking her out of the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA was instrumental in saving Great Britain, which was necessary as a physical platform for invasion of the continent, along with many other advantages.  Nonetheless, without our help, the Soviets would have eventually beat back the Germans with one possible exception: if the Nazis had develop the bomb first, civilization would have been held hostage by Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We didn't need the UK as a jumping off point for the invasion of Europe.  We invaded North Africa directly from the US.  We could easily have done the same in Europe.  Germany could never have developed the bomb.  They were following the wrong path and were trying to develop a hydrogen bomb not knowing you needed a fission bomb to set it off.
Click to expand...


One, we could not have sustained a supply line from the U.S. to Europe if we invaded with the UK under Nazi control.  Two, the shipping was committed to the Pacific.  Third, this is one of your wackiest comments.


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan, you post I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis *the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany*, what does the above have to do with that.
> 
> Nope, that is your red herring.  You are finessing the argument and going off the tracks.  No, *the issue was not Patton defending Germany and throwing out the Russians*.  Your point was that *Patton should have taken on the Russians and driven them out of Eastern Europe and back into the USSR*.  I am right about that?  If I am, then, yes, the Russians would have defeated us soundly.
> 
> Our strategic air capability would have had a long way to go to get to the Urals and the factories and back.  The USSR air force would be quite capable with numbers, box air formations, ADA, and radar in handling the USAF.  The Soviet tactical and combat air formations would have competently handled defense over the primary battle zones.  No, the Me-262 factories were in ruins, so that would not have been a factor.
> 
> Your point has no realistic expectation of success.  Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, in that order would not have permitted Patton to attack Soviet formations.  Why?  We had a war with Japan (and dont bring up-Okinawa to have me knock it down then you say it does not matter) and they werent the least bit scared of us either and gave us no thought they would be surrendering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are completely wrong about the capability of the Soviet air capability.  They couldn't eliminate the Luftwaffe with a 10 to 1 advantage, and nearly unlimited supply as compared to the Germans.  Our bombers didn't need to reach the factories.  In point of fact the bombing campaign against Germanies factories was a failure.  The attack on rolling stock and transportation and POL resources on the other hand were extremey effective.
> 
> Our fighter pilots would heve swept the Russians from the sky in short order.  Also the Russians had rudimentary night fighting capability whereas our P-61 Blackwidow could detect target as far as 10 miles away and track and kill them.
Click to expand...


The Black Widow was a night fighter, a good plane.  By 1944, the Russian pilots were good, the planes were adequate, and the numbers were incredible.  I don't think what you are suggesting would have had a chance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Stalin was getting ready to invade Europe.  It would have happened in either 1942 or most likely early 1943.  Stalin feared Hitler and hated Europe. He wanted to destroy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very politely, horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to tell you pal but it is fairly well documented.
> 
> Stalin's Secret War Plans: Why Hitler Invaded the Soviet Union. Richard Tedor.
Click to expand...


Stalin was not getting ready to do anything in Europe in 1942 and 1943.  Your conclusion is not supported by your source.  From your own source:

_An authority on Soviet military affairs, Glantz provides a comprehensive analysis of the 1941 Red Army in his study, Stumbling Colossus. He argues that rapid expansion since 1939, among other factors, made the USSR's fighting forces unprepared to conduct a military operation in the scope of the purported preemptive offensive against Germany. Soviet commanders, as reflected at that time in their military periodicals, "demonstrated a clear Soviet appreciation of the superb German military performance... and an unmistakable realization that the Soviet military in no way matched German military standards."34

Glantz provides evidence that troops were unfamiliar with new ordnance, service branches of the army lacked experience in coordinated operations, and the level of training among inductees was inadequate. In the 37th Tank Division, for example, "About 60 percent of the enlisted personnel had joined the army in May 1941, and none had any general or specialized training."35
Glantz publishes a July 1941 analysis of the Soviet 15th Mechanized Corps on the first day of fighting by its acting commander, in which the officer states that personnel in the corps' motorcycle regiment had never fired a rifle.36 Stumbling Colossus also mentions that the "majority of KV and T-34 [tank] drivers had from three to five hours of service driver training."37 *Aware of the military's predicament, Glantz concludes, Stalin sought diplomatic solutions to problems with Germany*

. . . . The controversy will continue, at least until the former Allied powers Britain, the United States and Russia, whose governments have liberally exposed Germany's wartime records, release the relevant material in their own archives._​
One final comment: the armed force high commands of all countries make war plans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan, your OP does not work.  What I am saying is that your knowledge on the OP and the subjects that inform remains minimal.

1.  Our leadership would not have permitted such a war.

2.  Our allies would not have supported it.

3.  Our global responsibilities dictated that we make nice with the Russians.

4.  The Russians would have defeated us if we had tried it.


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan, your OP does not work.  What I am saying is that your knowledge on the OP and the subjects that inform remains minimal.
> 
> 1.  Our leadership would not have permitted such a war.
> 
> 2.  Our allies would not have supported it.
> 
> 3.  Our global responsibilities dictated that we make nice with the Russians.
> 
> 4.  The Russians would have defeated us if we had tried it.



I never made the case that we should, I answered a posit that we couldn't be successful.


----------



## JakeStarkey

My mistake, Trajan, I forgot the OP belonged to CF.  Within the context of May 1945, no, I don't think we could have been successful.

But look at politically as well.  New president. 12 years of depression. 3 1/2 years of war, in those war years we touted "Uncle Joe" to our citizens as part of good will to keep the alliance together.

Question: Would the citizens and would the soldiers marched off to war against their former allies?


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA was instrumental in saving Great Britain, which was necessary as a physical platform for invasion of the continent, along with many other advantages.  Nonetheless, without our help, the Soviets would have eventually beat back the Germans with one possible exception: if the Nazis had develop the bomb first, civilization would have been held hostage by Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't need the UK as a jumping off point for the invasion of Europe.  We invaded North Africa directly from the US.  We could easily have done the same in Europe.  Germany could never have developed the bomb.  They were following the wrong path and were trying to develop a hydrogen bomb not knowing you needed a fission bomb to set it off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, we could not have sustained a supply line from the U.S. to Europe if we invaded with the UK under Nazi control.  Two, the shipping was committed to the Pacific. .
Click to expand...


that response is nonsensical. we were already supplying Russia and keeping UK afloat with everything from vanilla extract to arms, via the convoy system. 
Shifting that to say Africa and then say invading southern France, ala Operation Dragoon, we would have not have utilized or required any more shipping than we already had built by late 43, plus we had a growing surplus with ships rolling off the line almost one a day,  in fact taking out the UK from the supply picture due to nazi occupation would have left more shipping for the Mediterranean effort.


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> My mistake, Trajan, I forgot the OP belonged to CF.  Within the context of May 1945, no, I don't think we could have been successful.
> 
> But look at politically as well.  New president. 12 years of depression. 3 1/2 years of war, in those war years we touted "Uncle Joe" to our citizens as part of good will to keep the alliance together.
> 
> Question: Would the citizens and would the soldiers marched off to war against their former allies?



I don't care.  the hypothetical is so varied its a dead horse imho.


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is? the quote was-
> 
> 
> 
> where is this version?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military materiel they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.
> 
> This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis. That the Sherman tank was a feared fighting machine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> links please.
Click to expand...



http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Funny/granny_finger.jpg


----------



## Trajan

very nice.


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you agree with those rapes.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.
> 
> 
> you are some piece of work.
> 
> 
> so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?
Click to expand...


The point is that neither the Russians nor the Germans held the moral high ground to complain about how their civilians were treated


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.
> 
> 
> you are some piece of work.
> 
> 
> so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that neither the Russians nor the Germans held the moral high ground to complain about how their civilians were treated
Click to expand...


I am going to bookmark this. I am certain we'll be seeing you engage in a bout of hypocrisy that will lay that statement low.


----------



## rightwinger

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.
> 
> 
> you are some piece of work.
> 
> 
> so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that neither the Russians nor the Germans held the moral high ground to complain about how their civilians were treated
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to bookmark this. I am certain we'll be seeing you engage in a bout of hypocrisy that will lay that statement low.
Click to expand...


And I will stand by my statement ...thankyou


----------



## Trajan

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that neither the Russians nor the Germans held the moral high ground to complain about how their civilians were treated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to bookmark this. I am certain we'll be seeing you engage in a bout of hypocrisy that will lay that statement low.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I will stand by my statement ...thankyou
Click to expand...


uh huh.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Trajan: that response is nonsensical. *we were already supplying Russia and keeping UK afloat with everything from vanilla extract to arms, via the convoy system*.  //   Shifting that to say Africa and then say invading southern France, ala Operation Dragoon, we would have not have utilized or required any more shipping than we already had built by late 43, plus we had a growing surplus with ships rolling off the line almost one a day, in fact taking out the UK from the supply picture due to nazi occupation would have left more shipping for the Mediterranean effort.

No, Trajan, to invade Nazi Europe from the U.S. was impossible.  You don't understand logistics.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan: that response is nonsensical. *we were already supplying Russia and keeping UK afloat with everything from vanilla extract to arms, via the convoy system*.  //   Shifting that to say Africa and then say invading southern France, ala Operation Dragoon, we would have not have utilized or required any more shipping than we already had built by late 43, plus we had a growing surplus with ships rolling off the line almost one a day, in fact taking out the UK from the supply picture due to nazi occupation would have left more shipping for the Mediterranean effort.
> 
> No, Trajan, to invade Nazi Europe from the U.S. was impossible.  You don't understand logistics.



Look at the thousands of landing craft needed for D Day. Look at how difficult it was to capture a port....we had to float in our own

Now try to do that from 3000 miles away instead of 50


----------



## ginscpy

If you factor in the US Navy at the end of WW2 - no contest who had the most balanced and powerfull military.

Overwhelming dominant in the air and sea - and almost match the Soviets on land.


----------



## rightwinger

ginscpy said:


> If you factor in the US Navy at the end of WW2 - no contest who had the most balanced and powerfull military.
> 
> Overwhelming dominant in the air and sea - and almost match the Soviets on land.



True

But. It is hard to pound the soviets with your navy


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think anyone here is saying the the armed forces of the U.S. were anything but magnificient.  Considering the geo-political situation and the dedication of military resources beyond the European center of operations, the U.S. could not have conducted an operation to successfully eject the Soviets from Eastern Europe much less invade the USSR and topple Stalin.


----------



## ginscpy

I doubt Patton ever advocated attacking the Soviets (with German help) as was portrayed in the movie.

Soldier-slapping  incident was all blown out of porportion also.

Patton was probably applauded by most of the military and  civilian homefront on that matter.


----------



## zzzz

In his book, "The Patton Papers", author Martin Blumenson relates the following...



> After the surrender of May 8, 1945 extinguished the common threat of Nazi Germany, Patton was quick to assert the Soviet Union would cease to be an ally of the United States. In fact, he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe. Patton thought that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and the United States should act on these weaknesses before the Soviets could consolidate their position. In this regard, he told then-Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson [2] that the "point system" being used to demobilize Third Army troops was destroying it and creating a vacuum that the Soviets would exploit. "Mr. Secretary, for God&#8217;s sake, when you go home, stop this point system; stop breaking up these armies," pleaded the general. "Let&#8217;s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people the Soviets. This is the only language they understand." Asked by Patterson &#8212; who would become Secretary of War a few months later &#8212; what he would do, Patton replied: "I would have you tell the Red Army where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it."


----------



## rightwinger

zzzz said:


> In his book, "The Patton Papers", author Martin Blumenson relates the following...
> 
> After the surrender of May 8, 1945 extinguished the common threat of Nazi Germany, Patton was quick to assert the Soviet Union would cease to be an ally of the United States. In fact, he urged his superiors to evict the Soviets from central and eastern Europe. Patton thought that the Red Army was weak, under-supplied, and vulnerable, and the United States should act on these weaknesses before the Soviets could consolidate their position. In this regard, he told then-Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson [2] that the "point system" being used to demobilize Third Army troops was destroying it and creating a vacuum that the Soviets would exploit. "Mr. Secretary, for Gods sake, when you go home, stop this point system; stop breaking up these armies," pleaded the general. "Lets keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people the Soviets. This is the only language they understand." Asked by Patterson  who would become Secretary of War a few months later  what he would do, Patton replied: "I would have you tell the Red Army where their border is, and give them a limited time to get back across. Warn them that if they fail to do so, we will push them back across it."


[/QUOTE]

Wow...it is just plain creepy that people would take the guy seriously


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank heavens Patton's thoughts were not given solid credence.  The comment above brings up an interesting point.  America was sold on the absolute necessity of killing the fascist regiemes, not the soviets, who were pictured as our allies for more than three years.  To follow up on Patton's requests would have required (1) to sell the "new" war to the armed forces personnel, and (2) to their folks at home, who had been fighting recession and bad guys since the fall of 1929.  That simply, I think, would have been impossible to sell.


----------



## zzzz

> "The murder of Patton is known for a fact, known for the very simple reason that an agent of the well-known OSS (Office Of Strategic Services), an American Military Spy named Douglas Bazata, A Jew of Lebanese origin, announced it in front of 450 invited guests, nearly all high-ranking ex-members of the OSS at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, DC the 25th of September, 1979.
> 
> Bazata stated, word-for-word: "For diverse political reasons, many extremely high-ranking persons hated Patton. I know who killed him because I am the one who was hired to do it. Ten thousand dollars. General William J. 'Wild Bill' Donovan himself, director Of O.S.S, entrusted ne with the mission. I set up the 'accident.' Since he didn't die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital, where he was killed with a cyanide injection." "





> "But after a decade-long investigation, military historian Robert Wilcox claims that OSS head General &#8220;Wild Bill&#8221; Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman called Douglas Bazata to silence Patton, who gloried in the nickname &#8220;Old Blood and Guts&#8221;.
> His book, &#8220;Target Patton&#8221;, contains interviews with Mr Bazata, who died in 1999, and extracts from his diaries, detailing how he staged the car crash by getting a troop truck to plough into Patton&#8217;s Cadillac and then shot the general with a low-velocity projectile, which broke his neck while his fellow passengers escaped without a scratch.
> Mr Bazata also suggested that when Patton began to recover from his injuries, US officials turned a blind eye as agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, poisoned the general."



So it seems the conspiracy theory will live on for eternity.


----------



## Trajan

JakeStarkey said:


> Trajan: that response is nonsensical. *we were already supplying Russia and keeping UK afloat with everything from vanilla extract to arms, via the convoy system*.  //   Shifting that to say Africa and then say invading southern France, ala Operation Dragoon, we would have not have utilized or required any more shipping than we already had built by late 43, plus we had a growing surplus with ships rolling off the line almost one a day, in fact taking out the UK from the supply picture due to nazi occupation would have left more shipping for the Mediterranean effort.
> 
> No, Trajan, to invade Nazi Europe from the U.S. was impossible.  You don't understand logistics.



your reading comprehension is really an issue.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the USA was instrumental in saving Great Britain, which was necessary as a physical platform for invasion of the continent, along with many other advantages.  Nonetheless, without our help, the Soviets would have eventually beat back the Germans with one possible exception: if the Nazis had develop the bomb first, civilization would have been held hostage by Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't need the UK as a jumping off point for the invasion of Europe.  We invaded North Africa directly from the US.  We could easily have done the same in Europe.  Germany could never have developed the bomb.  They were following the wrong path and were trying to develop a hydrogen bomb not knowing you needed a fission bomb to set it off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, we could not have sustained a supply line from the U.S. to Europe if we invaded with the UK under Nazi control.  Two, the shipping was committed to the Pacific.  Third, this is one of your wackiest comments.
Click to expand...





No, it's not.  We landed just as much supply onto the Normandy beaches as the British did in their Mulberry's.  Thats fact.  We landed directly from the US into North Africa.  Thats fact.  We landed many of our troops directly from the US into attacks on the various islands in the Pacific.  Thats fact.  We had an un-challenged ability to project power at that time.  We began cancelling orders for ships and other weapons in 1943, so that means we knew we were going to win at that time.  We could just as easily have ramped that production back up again and provided the neccessary shipping.  We were launching a Liberty ship every 42 days and one ship (just to show it could be done) the Robert E. Peary was launched 4 days and 16 hours after her keel was laid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We landed an invasion into North Africa from the U.S. and Great Britain.  Then we were able to sustain it because we had Great Britain as a floating supply base, factory, airfield, and barracks for more than 3 million Americans plus our allies.  No, no, and no again. The U.S. could not have invaded Europe dwithout establishing a safe base in the UK.

Tell you what.  Send your thesis to several well known WWII historians and ask them for an opinion.  You will be startled to find (1) they really will answer and (2) you will not like their answer.


----------



## ginscpy

ginscpy said:


> If you factor in the US Navy at the end of WW2 - no contest who had the most balanced and powerfull military.
> 
> Overwhelming dominant in the air and sea - and almost match the Soviets on land.



"At the end of the war - 24 battleships, 35 aircraft carriers,  77 escort carriers,92 cruisers, 501 destroyers, 406 destroyer escorts, and 262 submarines were in service.  This was the greatest Navy that ever sailed the seas."  World Book


----------



## rightwinger

ginscpy said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you factor in the US Navy at the end of WW2 - no contest who had the most balanced and powerfull military.
> 
> Overwhelming dominant in the air and sea - and almost match the Soviets on land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "At the end of the war - 24 battleships, 35 aircraft carriers,  77 escort carriers,92 cruisers, 501 destroyers, 406 destroyer escorts, and 262 submarines were in service.  This was the greatest Navy that ever sailed the seas."  World Book
Click to expand...


Largest..not greatest

Todays Navy would wipe them out


----------



## ginscpy

no kidding..

WW2 Navy best in relative terms

Nobody today to fight today expcept Somalui pirates and punk N. Koreans

Punked the mighty  Japanese Imperial Navy in the Big One


----------



## ginscpy

5 deaths on USA mainland during WW2 - Jap ballon bomb who killed  family camping in Oregon forests

20 million deaths in the Soviet Union 

Soviet Union  difficult to conguor - USA impossible to set foot  on..............................


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> We landed an invasion into North Africa from the U.S. and Great Britain.  Then we were able to sustain it because we had Great Britain as a floating supply base, factory, airfield, and barracks for more than 3 million Americans plus our allies.  No, no, and no again. The U.S. could not have invaded Europe dwithout establishing a safe base in the UK.
> 
> Tell you what.  Send your thesis to several well known WWII historians and ask them for an opinion.  You will be startled to find (1) they really will answer and (2) you will not like their answer.






There are at least three MHQ articles that support what I am saying.  All written by well respected military historians.  I got the information from them.  It is not my contention.  After reading the three articles I agree with them.  You need to read more.


----------



## ginscpy

Soviets ww2 surface navy was pathetic/non-existent 

We had THE  BEST NAVY OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1.


----------



## ginscpy

Pacific War dwarfed the Europe War in logistical terms.

US won 2 wars on broad fronts -while the Soviets prevailed on one front with a lot of help..............................


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We landed an invasion into North Africa from the U.S. and Great Britain.  Then we were able to sustain it because we had Great Britain as a floating supply base, factory, airfield, and barracks for more than 3 million Americans plus our allies.  No, no, and no again. The U.S. could not have invaded Europe dwithout establishing a safe base in the UK.
> 
> Tell you what.  Send your thesis to several well known WWII historians and ask them for an opinion.  You will be startled to find (1) they really will answer and (2) you will not like their answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least three MHQ articles that support what I am saying.  All written by well respected military historians.  I got the information from them.  It is not my contention.  After reading the three articles I agree with them.  You need to read more.
Click to expand...


Post the articles or links to them so that we can read.  I will probably disagree at the end, but I would like to read them for exposure to other ideas.


----------



## rightwinger

ginscpy said:


> Pacific War dwarfed the Europe War in logistical terms.
> 
> US won 2 wars on broad fronts -while the Soviets prevailed on one front with a lot of help..............................



The US won the Pacific
The Soviets beat the Nazis


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We landed an invasion into North Africa from the U.S. and Great Britain.  Then we were able to sustain it because we had Great Britain as a floating supply base, factory, airfield, and barracks for more than 3 million Americans plus our allies.  No, no, and no again. The U.S. could not have invaded Europe dwithout establishing a safe base in the UK.
> 
> Tell you what.  Send your thesis to several well known WWII historians and ask them for an opinion.  You will be startled to find (1) they really will answer and (2) you will not like their answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are at least three MHQ articles that support what I am saying.  All written by well respected military historians.  I got the information from them.  It is not my contention.  After reading the three articles I agree with them.  You need to read more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post the articles or links to them so that we can read.  I will probably disagree at the end, but I would like to read them for exposure to other ideas.
Click to expand...





MHQ doesn't post their articles online I'm afraid.  One of the articles is from 1994 and I will have to find the others.  When I do I will see if I can scan the relevant passage in and post it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I can get to the copies of MHQ if you have the references for them.


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pacific War dwarfed the Europe War in logistical terms.
> 
> US won 2 wars on broad fronts -while the Soviets prevailed on one front with a lot of help..............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won the Pacific
> The Soviets beat the Nazis
Click to expand...






The Soviets beat the Nazi's becaue the US gave them more supplies than they could provide for themselves when it was the most critical.  Had it not been for the support of the US and the UK during the initial onslaught of Barbarossa and into the beginning of Operation Typhoon the Germans would have won.  

After the front was stabilized the continuing support of the western allies made it possible for the Soviets to grind the Germans down while they rebuilt their industrial capacity in the Urals far from German attack, once again making it possible for the Soviets to prevail during that critical time.

And don't ever forget the thousands of American Merchant Seamen who died getting those supplies to the Soviets.  Those men KNEW they had a better chance of not coming home than a Marine fighting in the Pacific did and still they went.


The US produced more of everything then the entire rest of the world did and got it to those who needed it most.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> I can get to the copies of MHQ if you have the references for them.





Ok, i'll dig them out.


----------



## Unkotare

Sallow said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters........
Click to expand...



By that point, they didn't have enough warm bodies to withstand a major invasion force, especially if that force happened to be the source of the supplies that had allowed them to survive their recent decimating debacle.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Russians outnumbered the western Allies by 3.5 to 1, did not have a war with Japan to face, could bring up almost 25 reserve divisions, the Germans were not going to fight them, the French and British were not going to let us fight them, and our American citizenry with a war to fight in Japan would not let us fight them.

We had no idea if atom bombs worked, and we had no more divisions to ship overseas.

Let's talk real guys.


----------



## regent

Patton loved war and Patton.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Patton loved war and Patton.


True, but unlike FDR, he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.  Do you prefer long wars or short wars?


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton loved war and Patton.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but unlike FDR, he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.  Do you prefer long wars or short wars?
Click to expand...

What a stupid statement.  Link?


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton loved war and Patton.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but unlike FDR, he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.  Do you prefer long wars or short wars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid statement.  Link?
Click to expand...

Damn Jake, your question only confirms what I have long known about you.  You clearly have very little knowledge of FDR and WWII.  Must you always prove your ignorance?

Happy 4th Jake!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star



That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover
Click to expand...


In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
Click to expand...


Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
Click to expand...

Patton was a tactical genius 

Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton loved war and Patton.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but unlike FDR, he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.  Do you prefer long wars or short wars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid statement.  Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn Jake, your question only confirms what I have long known about you.  You clearly have very little knowledge of FDR and WWII.  Must you always prove your ignorance?  Happy 4th Jake!!!
Click to expand...

Happy 4th, gipper!  I wish you knew what it was all 'bout.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
Click to expand...

Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
Click to expand...

Reading Pattons quotes shows what an idiot he was


----------



## Vandalshandle

Patton was the ultimate loose cannon. Ike and Marshall were relieved to be rid of him when he died. He was the Trump of the 1940's with the exceptions that he really believed in what he said, and had the power to actually do what he said he would do, if unleashed. Ike's greatest virtue was his ability to keep Patten from destroying the Allies coalition, which Pattern not only could have done, but would have enjoyed doing.

One thing people forget is that America was war weary in the Spring of 1945. They were prepared to pay the price to finish off Japan, but had no interest whatsoever in going to war with the Russians. Not to mention that the Russians had lost 10 million killed in WW2, which was just under the total number of Americans in uniform in WW2. Thier war machine was just reaching high gear when they took Berlin.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
Click to expand...

I am not RW as you well know, Frank.

Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vandalshandle said:


> Patton was the ultimate loose cannon. Ike and Marshall were relieved to be rid of him when he died. He was the Trump of the 1940's with the exceptions that he really believed in what he said, and had the power to actually do what he said he would do, if unleashed. Ike's greatest virtue was his ability to keep Patten from destroying the Allies coalition, which Pattern not only could have done, but would have enjoyed doing.
> 
> One thing people forget is that America was war weary in the Spring of 1945. They were prepared to pay the price to finish off Japan, but had no interest whatsoever in going to war with the Russians. Not to mention that the Russians had lost 10 million killed in WW2, which was just under the total number of Americans in uniform in WW2. Thier war machine was just reaching high gear when they took Berlin.


Just so,

The Americans may have keep the Russians in a war out of France, but that is not a given.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you're a fucking clown and a joke and a Stalin lover
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
Click to expand...


Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.

Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Americans were 'war weary" because FDR made the war drag on just as ordered by Uncle Joe


----------



## Weatherman2020

rightwinger said:


> While a strategic genius, Patton had a poor conception of the political realities of war.
> 
> That is why he never progressed beyond his third star


Math is hard for the left.


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.
> 
> Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe
Click to expand...

Who didn't predict Ike would run for President?


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> Americans were 'war weary" because FDR made the war drag on just as ordered by Uncle Joe


Four years is pretty quick for a war of that magnitude


----------



## yiostheoy

Unkotare said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a brilliant commander.
> And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
> Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.
> 
> At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.
> 
> How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
> They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.
> 
> As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No "we" could not. Russians are tough people and by that point they were harden fighters........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By that point, they didn't have enough warm bodies to withstand a major invasion force, especially if that force happened to be the source of the supplies that had allowed them to survive their recent decimating debacle.
Click to expand...

Holy thread resurrections Batman !!

Why don't you start a new thread instead ?!

This one is old, tired, dead, and erroneous.

Talk about something current, such as ...

- Should have Petraeus have gone all-in on Paula Broadbutt?

- Would Petraeus have made a better GOP candidate than Trump?

- With BHO pulling out US troops from A-stan and Iraq as promised, is the USA better off or worse off?

- Will Hillary's first term as POTUS simply resemble a 3rd BHO term or will she do anything differently?


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton loved war and Patton.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but unlike FDR, he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.  Do you prefer long wars or short wars?
Click to expand...

There is more to wars than long or short there are casualties, many for the wrong purpose. Would you rather have a long war with few casualties or a short war with many casualties? To have a war with many casualties to satisfy a general's love of warfare is perhaps the most obscene.  IKE and Bradley used Patton perhaps as best Patton could be used.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In understanding the political realities of war, Patton was almost as bad as MacArthur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.
> 
> Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe
Click to expand...

Frank is repressive in nature as Stalin; there would be no difference in how either would rule. Frank simply hates civil liberties.

Patton saying DDE would be president means nothing, Frank, because we are talking about Patton being stupid enough to give the Russians the chance to kick his ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If Stalin had been in charge, the Allies would have invaded France in 1942 and had their heads handed to them by the Germans.

Frank does not know history at all.


----------



## regent

westwall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ginscpy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pacific War dwarfed the Europe War in logistical terms.
> 
> US won 2 wars on broad fronts -while the Soviets prevailed on one front with a lot of help..............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US won the Pacific
> The Soviets beat the Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviets beat the Nazi's becaue the US gave them more supplies than they could provide for themselves when it was the most critical.  Had it not been for the support of the US and the UK during the initial onslaught of Barbarossa and into the beginning of Operation Typhoon the Germans would have won.
> 
> After the front was stabilized the continuing support of the western allies made it possible for the Soviets to grind the Germans down while they rebuilt their industrial capacity in the Urals far from German attack, once again making it possible for the Soviets to prevail during that critical time.
> 
> And don't ever forget the thousands of American Merchant Seamen who died getting those supplies to the Soviets.  Those men KNEW they had a better chance of not coming home than a Marine fighting in the Pacific did and still they went.
> 
> 
> The US produced more of everything then the entire rest of the world did and got it to those who needed it most.
Click to expand...

America spent 55 billion on lend lease with
31 billion going to Britain
11.3 going to the USSR
3.2 going to France
11,6 to China
2.6 to other nations.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously,  you don't know Dick about George.  All you know about Patton is from the movie
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.
> 
> Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank is repressive in nature as Stalin; there would be no difference in how either would rule. Frank simply hates civil liberties.
> 
> Patton saying DDE would be president means nothing, Frank, because we are talking about Patton being stupid enough to give the Russians the chance to kick his ass.
Click to expand...


Jake swoons at the mere mention of his idol, Uncle Joe







"Pat Merle-Smith has told me of what took place during a second Berlin visit in the first week of September 1945. “The Russians were putting on a military review for all four occupying powers. [General Patton] was seated next to Marshal Zhukov and I, naturally, was with the standees a few rows below. I heard quite clearly what was said when some huge Soviet tanks passed by. ‘My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles.’ Patton answered, ‘Indeed?’ Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards I’d have them court-martialed for cowardice.’ It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence.”

General Patton stuns Marshall Zhukov into silence - Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton loved war and Patton.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but unlike FDR, he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.  Do you prefer long wars or short wars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more to wars than long or short there are casualties, many for the wrong purpose. Would you rather have a long war with few casualties or a short war with many casualties? To have a war with many casualties to satisfy a general's love of warfare is perhaps the most obscene.  IKE and Bradley used Patton perhaps as best Patton could be used.
Click to expand...

True....but as relates to WWII and Patton, had his plan worked and the German Army in France eliminated in mid-1944, much of Europe might have been liberated rather than enslaved to the USSR, the Nazi prison camps liberated a year early, the persistent Allied bombings stopped a year early.  All this would indicate thousands of lives saved and the suffering stopped.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> 
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.
> 
> Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank is repressive in nature as Stalin; there would be no difference in how either would rule. Frank simply hates civil liberties.
> 
> Patton saying DDE would be president means nothing, Frank, because we are talking about Patton being stupid enough to give the Russians the chance to kick his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake swoons at the mere mention of his idol, Uncle Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pat Merle-Smith has told me of what took place during a second Berlin visit in the first week of September 1945. “The Russians were putting on a military review for all four occupying powers. [General Patton] was seated next to Marshal Zhukov and I, naturally, was with the standees a few rows below. I heard quite clearly what was said when some huge Soviet tanks passed by. ‘My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles.’ Patton answered, ‘Indeed?’ Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards I’d have them court-martialed for cowardice.’ It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence.”
> 
> General Patton stuns Marshall Zhukov into silence - Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton was a tactical genius
> 
> Beyond that, he was a moron. He didn't understand politics, logistics, people or finance
> 
> 
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.
> 
> Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank is repressive in nature as Stalin; there would be no difference in how either would rule. Frank simply hates civil liberties.
> 
> Patton saying DDE would be president means nothing, Frank, because we are talking about Patton being stupid enough to give the Russians the chance to kick his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake swoons at the mere mention of his idol, Uncle Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pat Merle-Smith has told me of what took place during a second Berlin visit in the first week of September 1945. “The Russians were putting on a military review for all four occupying powers. [General Patton] was seated next to Marshal Zhukov and I, naturally, was with the standees a few rows below. I heard quite clearly what was said when some huge Soviet tanks passed by. ‘My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles.’ Patton answered, ‘Indeed?’ Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards I’d have them court-martialed for cowardice.’ It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence.”
> 
> General Patton stuns Marshall Zhukov into silence - Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites
Click to expand...

Another anecdote that never happened.  Those tanks could not fire a shell 3 miles much less 7 miles.  The site is nobiity.org.  Anyone who wants a hoot, go to it.  Frank wishes to create an America as rigid and government dominated as Stalin's.  He just wants a right wing totalitarian dictatorship.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> 
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.
> 
> Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank is repressive in nature as Stalin; there would be no difference in how either would rule. Frank simply hates civil liberties.
> 
> Patton saying DDE would be president means nothing, Frank, because we are talking about Patton being stupid enough to give the Russians the chance to kick his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake swoons at the mere mention of his idol, Uncle Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pat Merle-Smith has told me of what took place during a second Berlin visit in the first week of September 1945. “The Russians were putting on a military review for all four occupying powers. [General Patton] was seated next to Marshal Zhukov and I, naturally, was with the standees a few rows below. I heard quite clearly what was said when some huge Soviet tanks passed by. ‘My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles.’ Patton answered, ‘Indeed?’ Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards I’d have them court-martialed for cowardice.’ It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence.”
> 
> General Patton stuns Marshall Zhukov into silence - Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another anecdote that never happened.  Those tanks could not fire a shell 3 miles much less 7 miles.  The site is nobiity.org.  Anyone who wants a hoot, go to it.  Frank wishes to create an America as rigid and government dominated as Stalin's.  He just wants a right wing totalitarian dictatorship.
Click to expand...


Any story that ends......It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence

Is probably made up


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well got it, you're an ignorant fuck, you don't have to keep proving it over and over Jake
> 
> 
> 
> I am not RW as you well know, Frank.
> 
> Patton was a great general, but very very ignorant about geo-political issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, we know you're to the Left of your Hero, Stalin.
> 
> Patton correctly predicted that Ike was going to run for President.  Just because Patton has a disdain for politicians does not make him ignorant of geo-political issues, which we all know is Progressive code word for high-fiving FDR's sucking up to Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frank is repressive in nature as Stalin; there would be no difference in how either would rule. Frank simply hates civil liberties.
> 
> Patton saying DDE would be president means nothing, Frank, because we are talking about Patton being stupid enough to give the Russians the chance to kick his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake swoons at the mere mention of his idol, Uncle Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pat Merle-Smith has told me of what took place during a second Berlin visit in the first week of September 1945. “The Russians were putting on a military review for all four occupying powers. [General Patton] was seated next to Marshal Zhukov and I, naturally, was with the standees a few rows below. I heard quite clearly what was said when some huge Soviet tanks passed by. ‘My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles.’ Patton answered, ‘Indeed?’ Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards I’d have them court-martialed for cowardice.’ It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence.”
> 
> General Patton stuns Marshall Zhukov into silence - Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another anecdote that never happened.  Those tanks could not fire a shell 3 miles much less 7 miles.  The site is nobiity.org.  Anyone who wants a hoot, go to it.  Frank wishes to create an America as rigid and government dominated as Stalin's.  He just wants a right wing totalitarian dictatorship.
Click to expand...


Jake is projecting bigger than a Soviet towed artillery piece

Rightwinger and Jake (as if they're two different people) have the honor of being the only 2 people to lose every single game of Rock, Paper & Scissors to a box of rocks


----------



## CrusaderFrank

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton loved war and Patton.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but unlike FDR, he wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.  Do you prefer long wars or short wars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is more to wars than long or short there are casualties, many for the wrong purpose. Would you rather have a long war with few casualties or a short war with many casualties? To have a war with many casualties to satisfy a general's love of warfare is perhaps the most obscene.  IKE and Bradley used Patton perhaps as best Patton could be used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True....but as relates to WWII and Patton, had his plan worked and the German Army in France eliminated in mid-1944, much of Europe might have been liberated rather than enslaved to the USSR, the Nazi prison camps liberated a year early, the persistent Allied bombings stopped a year early.  All this would indicate thousands of lives saved and the suffering stopped.
Click to expand...


FDR and Ike stopped Patton from: a) entering Berlin before Stalin and b) sent him on a wild goose chase to locate the non-existent German National Redoubt rather than liberate Prague and Vienna.


----------



## JakeStarkey

""Jake is projecting bigger than a Soviet towed artillery piece"

CrusaderFrank, using phony material, is as crazed a totalitarian as his hero Stalin.  He just has no power.

The stupid comment above about FDR, DDE, and Patton is simply stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> ""Jake is projecting bigger than a Soviet towed artillery piece"
> 
> CrusaderFrank, using phony material, is as crazed a totalitarian as his hero Stalin.  He just has no power.
> 
> The stupid comment above about FDR, DDE, and Patton is simply stupid.



Well, to someone who knows nothing at all about WWII, it would seem "stupid"


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ""Jake is projecting bigger than a Soviet towed artillery piece"
> 
> CrusaderFrank, using phony material, is as crazed a totalitarian as his hero Stalin.  He just has no power.
> 
> The stupid comment above about FDR, DDE, and Patton is simply stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to someone who knows nothing at all about WWII, it would seem "stupid"
Click to expand...

Yes, you have described yourself: you know nothing except a partisan ideology that is not rooted in the actual events.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Does Jake not know that US Forces were held up from entering Berlin ahead of our Soviet "Allies"?

Does Jake not know about the wild goose chase to locate the non-existent "National Redoubt"?

I guess not


----------



## JakeStarkey

I know that talks with FDR, Churchill, Stalin, and the military heads were held, and that since the Russians had suffered far worse casualties by several times of that of the British, Americans, and French, the Russians were allowed to fight the Battle of Berlin.  They took half a million casualties, which Frank wishes the Americans suffered.

The National Redoubt was a true concern at the time.

Frank is very illiterate about these matters.


----------



## whitehall

Poor George Patton has been a dupe of the liberal media since he slapped that malingerer during WW2. The movie "Patton" was played practically for laughs by quirky actor George C. Scott and all Patton's excentricities were out there for all to see. Hollywood could have played MacArthur for laughs but they didn't. Instead they offered a serious actor like Gregory Peck to play it straight and stick to the script. No mention of the "dougout doug" sneers from the Troops or the fact that he lost an entire army within four months of WW2 hostilities. In all fairness MacArthur was well past his prime in WW2 and when he lost another army in Korea and ranted to the media about nuking Red China before he was finally relieved of duty by Truman. Still Hollywood relies on cliches rather than history.


----------



## JakeStarkey

whitehall said:


> Poor George Patton has been a dupe of the liberal media since he slapped that malingerer during WW2. The movie "Patton" was played practically for laughs by quirky actor George C. Scott and all Patton's excentricities were out there for all to see. Hollywood could have played MacArthur for laughs but they didn't. Instead they offered a serious actor like Gregory Peck to play it straight and stick to the script. No mention of the "dougout doug" sneers from the Troops or the fact that he lost an entire army within four months of WW2 hostilities. In all fairness MacArthur was well past his prime in WW2 and when he lost another army in Korea and ranted to the media about nuking Red China before he was finally relieved of duty by Truman. Still Hollywood relies on cliches rather than history.


That is the far right that does that


----------

