Think You Know Who Won WWII?

[Unkotare]

Think You Know Who Won WWII?

The Allied Forces.

It was in all the papers.

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

"Ok"? Why, it's their ideal! Gulags, reeducation camps and all!

 

[Moonglow]

So the Soviet Unions spies and control of our government ended when?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the Soviet Unions spies and control of our government ended when?

It stopped with Reagan for a spell --and he took a bullet for it.

Actually Reagan, ignored their advice even the CIA-KGB wing

 

[Toro]

There was nothing about an exclusive "Jewish state" in the Balfour declaration.
The Jewish banker Rothshild ...

Stopped reading right there.

Not worth it thereafter.

 

[Moonglow]

So the Soviet Unions spies and control of our government ended when?

It stopped with Reagan for a spell --and he took a bullet for it.

Actually Reagan, ignored their advice even the CIA-KGB wing

So Eisenhower and Nixon were commie stooges also?

 

[Peterf]

Think You Know Who Won WWII?

The Allied Forces.

It was in all the papers.

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

Leftists - who you call 'liberals' - see FDR as their hero. FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.

 

[Unkotare]

Think You Know Who Won WWII?

The Allied Forces.

It was in all the papers.

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

Leftists - who you call 'liberals' - see FDR as their hero. FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.

Sounds like you two are in agreement then.

 

[Peterf]

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

Leftists - who you call 'liberals' - see FDR as their hero. FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.

Sounds like you two are in agreement then.

Yes indeed it does. And why not?

 

[Unkotare]

That fucking asshole jroc negged me for this comment. I ask you, who came out the best after WWII? The Jews, that's who. They got support to invade Palestine and boot all those lazy arabs out.

Now that dumb ****** unkoretard just negged me and called me an anti-semite? Geez, I'm happy the Jews won. He couldn't figure that out?

Is he black? I should have known. ...

Hey idiot, you want to guess another 'race' for me? Or did you run away from this thread with your tail between your legs and your foot in your mouth?

 

[Unkotare]

Leftists - who you call 'liberals' - see FDR as their hero. FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.

Sounds like you two are in agreement then.

Yes indeed it does. And why not?

No reason why not.

 

[Moonglow]

Think You Know Who Won WWII?

The Allied Forces.

It was in all the papers.

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...

 

[Unkotare]

Think You Know Who Won WWII?

The Allied Forces.

It was in all the papers.

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...

He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?

 

[Camp]

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

Perhaps tha's why Patton was not in command of Overlord, he was fighting a political war and not military. Ike had placed Patton in the right place with the right command.

The right position...for Uncle Joe.

Patton would have ended the war 6 months sooner and been in Berlin way ahead of "Uncle" Joe

Patton knew they had the Germans trapped in the Falaise Pocket and did everything short of resigning to make his "Superiors" see the benefit of closing the pocket and crushing German resistance in the West.

How different the world would be without your beloved Communists running most of Eastern Europe

An entire thread could be dedicated to Falaise and the proposition that Patton could have accomplished what you suggest. Bradley and Eisenhower had other plans for Patton and did not want to risk the 3rd Army in an engagement that would stretch it out along a 40 mile front with only 4 Divisions facing 19 German Divisions. Not only was the 3rd Army smaller than it would later become, this was the Normandy breakout and fuel for Patton's armour was not in the abundance it would later become, nor had the Red Ball express been established the way it would later. This was early in the ground war, only 2 months after D-Day and allied forces were still situating themselve.

 

[Peterf]

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...

He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?

My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.

 

[regent]

You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...

He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?

My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.

Yep, old blood and guts.
I'd like to think that many American commanders kept in mind two things: taking their objective and saving lives. A number of commanders did exactly that, but a few also used the war to enhance their egos. Generally the enlisted soon knew the difference
I don't know that Patton had ego in mind so much as objectives.
One of the sad things about some professional soldiers is that they spend all their time simply waiting for a war, and when one comes they have to make the most of it.

 

[Moonglow]

Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism

You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...

He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?

The only reason he stopped was direct orders from Eisenhower...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...

He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?

My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.

Clearly, your entire database on Patton comes from one baised movie

 

[Peterf]

He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?

My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.

Clearly, your entire database on Patton comes from one baised movie

On the contrary, my perception of Patton comes from extensive study, over a period of 40 years, of WWII - particularly in Europe.

One small example. In Sicily Patton left the hard slog of defeating the Germans on the East coast and around Etna to the British. He charged around in the strategically unimportant West 'capturing' cities like Palermo defended, if at all, by remnants of Italian units. When he eventually reached a more strongly defended town he attacked head-on with scant preparation and incurred heavy and needless casualties.

That this third-rate general saw fit to strut around with two pearl-handed revolvers reveals much about him.

 

[kucing]

is very good

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?

My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.

Yep, old blood and guts.
I'd like to think that many American commanders kept in mind two things: taking their objective and saving lives. A number of commanders did exactly that, but a few also used the war to enhance their egos. Generally the enlisted soon knew the difference
I don't know that Patton had ego in mind so much as objectives.
One of the sad things about some professional soldiers is that they spend all their time simply waiting for a war, and when one comes they have to make the most of it.

How many lives would have been saved had the US and Brits won the war 6 months sooner and been in Berlin ahead of the Russian?