Following the defeat of Germany and Japan, had the USA declared war on the USSR as Patton wanted to, the USA would've completely pulverized the USSR. At the time the USA had the atom bomb and the USSR did not. That in and of itself would've enabled the USA to make mincemeat out of the USSR.
shareYour ignorance saddens me.
I'm your Huckleberry.
Hey, like it or not, the Russian soldiers' endurance against Hitler's armies in downright atrocious conditions contradict the idea that they'd ever be pushovers.
sharegoddamn i love this country
share[deleted]
They wouldn't be pushovers, but there were a whole lot fewer of them than there had been at the start of Barbarossa. Had we gone to war with the Soviets, they would have lost their major supplier, the US. The US military, along with the rest of the Allies, was on either side of it and we had the bomb. How were they going to stop us?
shareReally? And without further US aid, an entire army in Europe and another coming from the Pacific, along with nuclear capabilities, plus the fact that the Soviets just lost 40,000,000 of its people, what, exactly, was going to stop us?
shareOP holds a valid point. Stalin had no nuclear power.
During the immediate post-war years, Stalin was determined not to allow the U.S. monopoly of the atomic bomb to influence the course of international affairs. If anything the Americans' possession of the weapon, made Stalin more obdurate. In September 1946 he told a British journalist that "Atomic bombs are meant to frighten those with weak nerves." He went on to concede that the bomb did, of course, create a threat, but he warned, "monopoly ownership of the atomic bomb cannot last for long." And he was right, it didn't.
On August 29, 1949, at least a year before the American scientists expected, the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb.
"Rommel...you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
-- PATTON
Something that shouldn't be overlooked...
We weren't exactly rolling atomic bombs off the assembly line the way we made Jeeps and bullets. The two bombs dropped on Japan represented the entire US arsenal. Through the rest of 1945 and the end of 1946, we only produced seven more. I'm sure that through Soviet spies, Stalin knew that our inventory of atomic weapons was minimal.
The US only produced seven more because the war ended. They used that pause to rebuild the production line into something a great deal safer and more efficient and then started to churn them out by the dozen. Had the need been there, the US could have produced several per month on the original line instead.
The US alone outproduced the rest of the world combined in 1945. The Soviets had reached the end of their manpower resources while the US still had hundreds of thousands available. The US forces were lavishly equipped with motor vehicles and radios, while the Soviets still depended mostly on horse transport. Most of the Soviet Unions truck, radios, and AVGAS came from the US, not to mention food.
It wouldn't be a pushover by any means, but there can be little doubt that the US could beat the Soviet Union in 1945 if it were willing to pay the price. It wasn't and the Soviets were reasonably careful not to provoke Americans into changing their minds.
Nah, I'm not convinced at all. Ignoring the atom bomb, if the Germans couldn't do it I'm certainly not convinced the US could. The US army never had to contend with the losses that it would entail and the supply line problem still comes to the core. If Napoleon and Hitler couldn't conquer Russia the Americans couldn't either. It's as much a logitical problem as well as the Russians' simple determination to fight to the last man and being prepared to suffer massive losses in doing so.
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."
Germany had a much smaller economy than either the US or the Soviet Union and was fighting a multi-front war, including an air war that used up a million troops, thousands of aircraft and thousands of pieces of artillery. Germany could feed itself at the same time as it was fighting, which the Soviet Union could not do.
share[deleted]
How on earth can you say there would be 'little doubt' that the USA could have beaten the 4 million Soviet troops with their 20,000 AFVs
I've already said why and how. I didn't say it would be easy.
As I said, the Soviets had around 4 million in the Red Army in 1945.
And they weren't getting any more nor were they able to replace losses.
The Red Army was almost fully mechanized by 1944/45.
Nope. Still mostly on foot and dependent on horses.
As you said, they got a lot of trucks and half tracks from the USA
Not enough to mechanize them to nearly the same scale as Western forces and those vehicles they did have would soon run out of spare parts and stop working.
The Soviet Red Army also made excellent use of their tanks as troop transporters
That's not useful for anything more than tactical movement - certainly it does nothing to move stores and consumables which is the main task of motor transport. It's also a poor substitute for proper personnel carriers as the troops have absolutely no protection.
I agree with Hank, the Americans struggled with the Gemany Army, an army way past it's best, short of men and equipment, who had no air support. And it still took nearly a year to defeat them.
As for the Soviets in the event of a shortage of spare parts for their softskinned vehicles you cannibalise others, you make the spare parts yourself- hardly that difficult- the Soviets copied the entire B-29 a few years later, find other sources- probably in the umpteen German vehicles the Soviets captured from the Germans. The spare parts issue simply isn't one.
You don't think an army of 4 million would be difficult enough to defeat BTW?
As for horses, who cares? If they get the supplies to the front where they're needed it's irrelevant how. Horses have somewhat less traction problems on lousy roads too. The German army managed plenty well enough for the first three years of the war using mainly horse drawn transprt too.
The Russians had paid in blood to liberate their country from the Nazis, do you seriously think they would let the Americans have it?
You still haven't told us how the Americans would solve the logistics problem too, the country is just too damn big.
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."
The German army managed plenty well enough for the first three years of the war using mainly horse drawn transprt too.
The only time they faced an enemy that wasn't mainly horse drawn was in Africa, and the small force they had there was completely motorized.
As for the Soviets in the event of a shortage of spare parts for their softskinned vehicles you cannibalise others,
That means your stock of US made vehicles declines rather quickly.
you make the spare parts yourself- hardly that difficult-
Then you aren't making all the spare parts you were making before US aid was cut off because you're making these instead. Your stock of tanks etc declines.
probably in the umpteen German vehicles the Soviets captured from the Germans.
Mostly not compatible. For one thing, all the German vehicles are Metric, while the US ones are Standard. Even the screw threads are different.
You don't think an army of 4 million would be difficult enough to defeat BTW?
When did I claim it would be easy?
As for horses, who cares? If they get the supplies to the front where they're needed it's irrelevant how.
They won't get supplies or troops in place in anywhere near the qualities or time that trucks can as well as requiring more logistic support and not lasting as long.
You still haven't told us how the Americans would solve the logistics problem too
Probably much as the Germans did, only with American resources it should be quicker and more effective.
The only time they faced an enemy that wasn't mainly horse drawn was in Africa, and the small force they had there was completely motorized.
That means your stock of US made vehicles declines rather quickly.
Your stock of tanks etc declines.Why should it? The Soviets were making 300 T34s alone every month, never mind JS2s, SU85 and SU100s, etc. All of which were better than the average Sherman IMO. The US had just a few T26 Pershings on the Western Front in 1945. A Sherman against a JS2? Oh dear.
Mostly not compatible. For one thing, all the German vehicles are Metric, while the US ones are Standard. Even the screw threads are different.
They won't get supplies or troops in place in anywhere near the qualities or time that trucks can as well as requiring more logistic support and not lasting as long.
Probably much as the Germans did, only with American resources it should be quicker and more effective.The Germans never did solve it though. As well as over long supply lines- the supply lines needing supply lines of their own eventually- the Germans had continual shortages, and were attacked by partisans along their supply lines. The further they advanced the harder it got until they could go no further- a similar stayte of affairs existed in the North Africa campaign.
Anywhere they faced the British Army they faced an enemy that wasn't horse drawn
In the first three years of the war, except for Africa (and Crete), British forces were a minority amongst the forces Germany was facing. This particularly includes France.
US, British and Canadian vehicles supplied to the USSR were sturdy and simple and well maintained would go on for ever
So long as they were well maintained. Even American trucks broke down or needed preventive maintenance, especially when being used as hard as these were. North American trucks didn't break down as often as British or German ones, mind, but they had their moments.
engine parts were simple to manufacture back then
If they're making parts they used to get from America, then they aren't making other things that they need.
You don't see horses bogged down to their axles!
You don't see a horse-cart moving several tons at a time hundreds of miles in a couple of days either. Most of the year, Early spring and fall rains excluded, trucks are far better. Do recall too that this war starts off in Germany, not on the steppes.
[b]The Germans never did solve it though.
The Germans, with all their limitations, were still operating in western Russia from 1942 to 1943. By 1942, they had established sufficient rail service to do this.
I'm lacking time to reply in depth but for the moment:
North American trucks didn't break down as often as British or German ones, mind, but they had their moments.Nothing wrong with British trucks, they were very reliable and unlike most other armies purpose designed for army use, often with four wheel drive, single large rear tyres as opposed to duals- very important as a lot of damage to duals is caused off road or on bad roads by rubbish- stones etc- being forced up between the tyres. The Germans liked British trucks and used them as much as they could, especially in North Africa. The basic German trucks like the Opel Blitz were basically miliarised civilian models and thus often not sturdy enough for the role they were asked to perform.
In the summer of 1944, 21st Army Group was short of transport as most of their fleet of British built trucks was out of service due to a manufacturing defect.
shareby R011DaveAAA
In the summer of 1944, 21st Army Group was short of transport as most of their fleet of British built trucks was out of service due to a manufacturing defect.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWpatton.htm
Studs Terkel interviewed Robert Rasnus about his experiences in the US Army in Germany for his book, The Good War (1985)
We were aware that the Russians had taken enormous losses on the Eastern front, that they really had broken the back of the German army. We would have been in for infinitely worse casualties and misery had it not been for them. We were well disposed toward them. I remember saying if we happen to link up with 'em, I wouldn't hesitate to kiss 'em.
I didn't hear any anti-Russian talk. I think we were realistic enough to know that if we were going to fight them, we would come out second best. We hadn't even heard of the atomic bomb yet. We'd just have to assume that it would be masses of armies, and their willingness to sacrifice millions of troops. We were aware that our leaders were sparing our lives. Even though somebody would have to do the dirty work in the infantry, our leaders would try to pummel the enemy with artillery and tanks and overpower them before sending the infantry in. If that was possible.
In the final campaign down through Bavaria, we were in Patton's army. Patton said we ought to keep going. To me, that was an unthinkable idea. The Russians would have slaughtered us, because of their willingness to give up so many lives. I don't think the rank of the GIs had any stomach for fighting the Russians. We were informed enough through press and newsreels to know about Stalingrad. I saw the actual evidence in those black-bordered pictures in every German household I visited. Black border, eastern front, nine out of ten.
Terkel was a left wing Stailnist
shareThe Ford V8 flathead was used by all three, the Germans in their Fords. The General Motors straight six, ditto, in GMC, Chevrolet, Bedfords and Opels. So there was no problem finding sufficient supplies of engines- cannibalising just German vehicles would have given them plentiful supplies alone.
Most vehicles supplied to the Soviet Union were made by Dodge and Studebaker. They didn't use Ford or GM engines, but Dodge and Hercules ones.
Yes, but those Dodges/Studebakers would easily have taken a Opel six or flatty V8 in their (large) engine bays with very few modications. If backyard hotrodders could do that sort of thing 60 or 70 years ago any competant army mechanics are going to have little problem doing so.
After all a lot of surplus army vehicles have been re-engined with new diesel engines etc post war.
"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."
Dropping in a completely different engine - rather than changing a part or two is not a trivial operation, even when your army is composed of soldier familiar with motor vehicles rather than moujiks off the kolkhoz.
With no L-L spare parts, the Soviets could not keep their fleet running by cannibalization without significant shrinkage.
I've swopped different engines in cars myself and I'm a home mechanic not a professional. The Studebaker and GMC's had almost identical chassis'- they were built to the same spec, so swapping a Opel (GMC) 6 for a Stude block wouldn't be that difficult.
"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."
I've swopped different engines in cars myself
No doubt an experience typical of the average Soviet soldier who grew up on an unmechanized, or nearly so, collective farm or in a town where privately owned motor vehicles were all but unknown.
so swapping a Opel (GMC) 6 f
Because there was such an abundant supply of Opel engines not being used for anything else - like driving Opel trucks. An, of course, an endless supply of spare parts other than whole engine assemblies that could easily be installed regardless of model or skill of the mechanics.
You seem to have a poor opinion of Russian engineering abilities- they turned out the T34, KV1, KV85, the JS series of tanks in WW2, arguably all of them better than what the Americans produced, such as the Sherman.
"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."
It's very much arguable that they were better than US tanks, but it's also not relevant to whether a large number of ordinary Soviet soldiers knew much about motor vehicles, whether the Soviet Army had the time or workshops to do all the work you are contemplating, or whether cannibalization is a reasonable substitute for new vehicles and spare parts.
share[deleted]
The Russians went all out to spy on USA post WWII for the A-bomb. They got some lower ranking nuke scientist & we got the cream of the crop. Nobody wanted any more war,thus began the cold war.
Imre Demech
You basically just swept over/brushed aside the Soviet Union's 4 million men and 20,000 AFVs.
The USSR had a strength of twenty-four million men, including about two million returned POW's, out of a similar population to the US which had by 1945 only mobilized sixteen million. The US was just getting started.
The US had produced twice the number of aircraft that the Soviet Union produced, eighty percent of the AFV's and twelve times the trucks. The US had five times the GDP.
The Red army was well enough mechanized for modern warfare in 1944/45
Against another army that was mostly horse drawn.
The Soviets had almost 1 million wheeled and tracked vehicles in WW2
That's about the number that were produced for them during the war. Most of that was lost. They had far fewer actually in service in 1945.
Show me footage and pictures of 1944/45 where the Soviets are mostly on foot and dependant on horses
A Soviet Rifle Division in 1945 had an establishment of 11,780 men, 445 motor vehicles and 1200 horses.
http://rkka.ru/org/str/sd-change.htm
An American Infantry Division had an establishment of 14,037 men, 2,114 motor vehicles, and no horses.
http://tinyurl.com/2elg5yt
You disperse and go to ground when at the combat zone.
Which then means tanks have no infantry support - assuming your infantry hasn't been blown off your tanks by artillery from several miles away or by aircraft.
Dedicated APCs of WW2 were really only good protection against small arms fire. They weren't much good against artillery, air attack or tanks/anti tank guns etc.
In fact, they provided quite good protection from artillery until VT fuzes made overhead cover necessary. The US Army had VT fuzes in 1945, by the way. The Red Army didn't. Trucks are also a lot more efficient at carrying troops than tanks. They carry more, with more kit, and the troops are less fatigued when they dismount. Tank-riders are a function of insufficient transport.
After the whole year it took to push a bled white numerically inferior German army (which was also fighting a bigger war in the east at the same time) from the D-Day beaches to the Elbe
Actually, it took three months to drive them out of France and about two more in the spring to drive them to the Elbe. They did stop for the winter due to logistics issues, weather, and heavy German fortifications of a kind the Red Army did not have in Germany in 1945. Incidentally, the Red Army stopped at the Vistula at the end of the summer in 1944 and also didn't advance again until spring.
You need to get from the rail head to the combat zone and once there, you may need to make rapid changes in the direction of advance. The Third Army's change in axis of advance during the Battle of the Bulge is an example of this kind of flexibility motor transport brings. All American forces could do that, only the Soviet tank units could do the same.
Zukhov had way more experience and a far better track record than Patton.
That's nice, but why you think an Army Group commander is comparable to an Army comnmander?
The Soviet Union also had a superior AFV force
Superior in numbers perhaps, but not in crew quality or communications. Nor were they significantly better in quality - and US tanks were getting better. Not only that, this claimed superiority will do the Red Army little good if the USAAF has interdicted their supplies of fuel and spare parts.
[deleted]
The USA never could and never would have utilised the population pool like the Soviets did.
For one thing, the US needed to keep food production going. All the Soviet farmers were in uniform. Not many crops were being planted or harvested. Guess who fed them? Remember what happened during the last war when ordinary Russians got hungry? Didn't so much for the stability of the then government. That still leaves a fair bit of fat on America's bones. They could easily, for instance, lower the medical categories slightly - which they did in 1945 just before the war ended.
That's because they moved so fast and took so much that they needed a period of rest and consolidation.
So when the Soviets do that it's understandable but when the West does it, it's because they're inferior? Double standard much?. By the way, it only took three months for American forces to move from Normandy to the Rhine taking everything across beaches using a mostly destroyed rail-net. It took the USSR three years to get from the Curzon Line to the Vistula with the advantages of a fully developed rail-net.
Which the Soviets proved capable of doing time and again in 1944/45.
Not nearly as well as the Americans.
I'd beg to differ.
Beg away. Even the Germans noted that Western troops were more skilled than the Soviets.
I really don't see why you are trying to refure this. It's a fact.
The fact is that horse drawn infantry is far less mobile than motorized infantry.
The T34/85 we all know about.
So you know all about how the surviving tanks had to be rebuilt after the war as they were so badly made and how they presented little problem for US Shermans in Korea?
The IS(JS) series already had thousands produced
Just over 3800, actually, of which 1800 were lost in 1944/5. Meanwhile the US produced over 2000 M26's in 1945 giving them about the same number.
although the late Sherman 76 was a different and much better beast than the mid war Sherman
And was the standard tank in US forces by 1945. Indeed, they had so many that they reduced production in 1944. That's easy to ramp up again.
The Soviet tank destoyers and self propelled guns
The Soviets had a different doctrine and built fixed traverse assault guns. The American equivalent wasn't the Gun Motor Carriages but actual tanks. The Soviet equivalent to the M18 and M36 were their towed 85 mm guns of inferior performance and mobility. As for SP field artillery, the only thing the Soviets had was the SU-76 whereas the US Army was well equipped with SP 105 and 155 mm howitzers and guns.
The Soviets had their own fuel
Except AVGAS which they imported from the US. They could make their own, of course, but only at the expense of other POL production. Of course even if they had lavish amounts, getting it to the front would be problematical. The USAAF was quite experienced by that time at interdicting the battlefield.
The Soviets would be just holding their ground and fighting defensively.
In Germany, Poland and the Western Ukraine, not to mention Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic States. Not places where they were very popular. Historically, they did have an insurgency problem in Poland and Ukraine. In real life, those insurgencies had no outside support and soon fizzled out. That's not likely to happen here.
[deleted]
We are talking about 1945 not 1943.
So am I.
Not double standards at all. The Soviets had been coming up against, took out and suffered far more casualties in their 1943/1944 campaigns than the Americans had
In other words, just like the US, the Soviets periodically had to stop and regroup.
You are forgetting that in the meantime Soviets were pushed all the way back to the Kalmyk Steppe are you not
Nope.
Guess you never heard of the Nazi's 'scorched earth' policy.
Actually, getting rail lines back in service isn't very hard. Resurrecting shot up locomotives and other rolling stock though, is a bit more difficult.
I know that in Korea the T34s used suffered from poor crew standards and inexperienced crews
I also know that the US 76 mm gun had better armour-piercing performance than the Soviet 85 mm, that the Sherman was as well protected, and about as mobile. I know that the war-built T-34's had a terrible reputation for reliability, unlike the Sherman. I know that every Sherman had at least one radio, which was not the case with Soviet tanks. I also know that Soviet tankers who used Shermans preferred them to the T-34.
Again the Soviets the Americans would have had neither qualative or quantitive superiority. Big difference.
They'd have rough parity in both with the advantages of far better C3ISR and crews.
One thing we haven't discussed yet is the difference in artillery doctrines. The Soviets were pretty much limited to pre-planned shoots or to whatever a single battery's observer could see. US artillery observers could concentrate any guns within range no matter where they were located. An infantry platoon could get nearly all of a corps artillery, if the target was worthwhile, without having to plan days or weeks in advance. Those hub-to-hub artillery shoots of the Red Army are indicative of weakness, not strength..
And like their German equivalents, they were successful when engaging tanks too.
But not as successful as actual tanks.
Yup, the USAAF really stopped the Germans from getting to the front
No, but they did stop them from getting very much POL and limited the amount of other supplies they did get.
The Germans handled it
By diverting about a million or so men to counter-insurgency operations.
[deleted]
lightening quick huge mobile offensive through Poland in Jan and Feb 1945
That's about the same time as it took to go from the Seine to the Rhine. Incidentally, it took nearly three more months to go the last seventy kilometers to Berlin.
So why did they struggle so much against Germany then?
Until early 1945, they were still moving most of their supplies across beaches and then by truck. The German border is about as far as that will take you before the trucks use more fuel than they can transport.
The Soviets still had 1 motor vehicle per 20 men.
Compared to one per seven for the US. Did ya notice that they had nearly four times as many horses as trucks?
Infantry support for tanks is certainly not effective if the infanrty is huddled up in half tracks and not fanning out supporting the tanks.
Even less effective if it's been cleaned off their transport miles behind the drop point.
They weren't immune to aircraft, artillery, anti tank guns.
Immune, no. Resistant to artillery fire, yes. Of course, it's not likely US forces would need to worry much about aircraft after the first few days. Even with equal or better aircraft in Korea, Soviet pilots came off second best.
American WW2 personnel carriers only really provided good protection against small arms fire.
You do realize that the way artillery kills is by sending lots of fast moving bits of metal flying about, right? What stops bullets stops fragments.
The foe has got nothing to do with it.
So we can ignore your snark about Third Army then. In fact, that most of both armies were equally immobile means the key maneuver combat is by the mechanized forces on each side. When all the American forces can do such maneuver and only some of the Red Army can, the advantage is not to the Red Army.
Well the Red Army had trucks too.
In infantry divisions, they didn't ride at all. Those four hundred trucks were towing artillery and carrying supplies, particularly artillery ammunition.
I call that a 4 month stalled banging your head against a brick wall period of mostly disappointing gains, set backs and heavy casualties for little or nothing.
Call it what you will. The Western Allies had no intention of any significant advance that season until they got their logistics sorted out.
The Third Army did indeed disengage very well from the front line and turned north to the Ardenens area......but they had nobody trying to stop them.
And only Soviet mechanized forces could have done the same. Third Army wasn't some special tank army, but one with a high proportion of ordinary infantry divisions. Besides, didn't you say "The foe has got nothing to do with it"?
[deleted]
No it didn't. The offensive for those last 70 kms (against some of the bitterest fighting of WW2) took just over a week.
So when we talk of how long it took US forces to go somewhere, we treat the entire campaign as one entity, but for the Soviets, we split it up so it seems they aren't taking as long.
Antwerp was open as a port by end November 1944.
And they still would need to rehabilitate the rail infrastructure. That would take most of the winter, not to mention that winter weather effectively grounded air cover.
Do you think it all magically appeared in a puff of smoke in a depot just 2 miles behind the front line?
No, I think it appeared in a train in a depot a few tens of miles behind the front rather than on a beach in Normandy or, later, a port in Belgium.
Why would that happen?
Artillery. A 105 mm howitzer has a range of some eleven kilometers, if I recall correctly, and 155 mm fire several kilometers more.
Not if the artillery shell get's lobbed right into an unroofed personnel carrier.
A situation that's so rare as to be a wonder. They didn't start providing overhead cover to APC's until the 1950's and that was because of VT fuzes.
Also, damage to wheels and tracks (by fragmentation)
An issue that in real life proves to be too minor to be an issue.
No. I noticed there were just over twice as many horses
Yes, right you are, about 2.7 times in fact.
I would vouch that those motor vehicles provided by far the lion's share of the mobility
You'd be wrong. Firstly, a formation moves only at the pace of its slowest element. That means the horses - or actually, it means to marching soldiers. Secondly, as I said, the motor transport would not be carrying troops, it would be towing artillery (172 AT guns, heavy mortars, and field pieces) and carrying artillery ammunition. A typical artillery battalion uses about a hundred motor vehicles. You also have reconnaissance and supply units to equip.
Wow they must be very fast walkers then.
Marching troops can move at least twenty miles a day. Of course the real speed of advance is created by enveloping mechanized forces acting as the hammer while marching infantry acts as the anvil.
It was only a snark because you have repeated the revisionist pro Patton myth
No, I'm saying this kind of operational shift was within the capabilities of any American formation. Patton happened to do it, but I'm not sure that any other competent US army commander could not have done the same.
there was NO foe. That makes a difference.
Only when we talk of the Third Army. When we talk of the Soviets, you say it doesn't.
Is it going to be just one army doing the manuvering
No, it would likely be an entire army group or more, as in the break out at Normandy.
After Market Garden, Eisenhower stubbornly insisted on a broad front strategy.
And his subordinate commanders complained about shortness of supply - you know, that thing you claim wasn't a problem.
[deleted]
Your logic is flawed in a few ways.
At the time that Patton was advocating or suggesting that the victorious allies, (and the defeated Germans!) turn on the Soviet Union, the time frame he was suggesting this was the late Spring early Summer of 1945, shortly after VE Day.
Patton was saying that we could utilize our conventional forces ( with him leading them) to defeat the Soviets. At this time, the first Atomic Bomb had not been tested yet, and Patton was in no position to know if the existance of the Manhattan Project ( A-Bomb). It wasn't until August after the use of the first bomb on HIroshima that Patton like most others would have known about the bomb.
He was delusional enough to think that the Soviets could be beaten with the same tactics that had defeated Germany.
Secondarily, suggesting that we use Atomic Bombs in a un-provoked attack on Russia when they were still technically our allies, and had done more to defeat Hitler's Germany than any other country, is pretty crazy in of itself.
As in let's Nuke a bunch of Russian, women children, dogs and cats.................etc. And in case you didn't know, we defeated the Soviet Union without using any Nuclear weapons, or virtually no military weapons (directly against THEM) for that matter...
I may be in way over my head here but I just want to point out one thing.
The Luftwaffe did not have a long range bomber capable of penetrating deep into soviet territory from German occupied territory. To me that's important. The US did. American B-24's and B-29's were the best bombers of the war and had long ernough range to get to principle Soviet cities and industrial centers from the safety of Western Europe. Whether or not it would work, it would most definitely play an integeral part in the American offensive into Russia had it happened.
That is all.
"Let's get out of here before one of those things kills Guy!"
I wouldn't say the USA would have pulverized the USSR outright (too much geography to cover - historical problem - especially then, i.e. feet on the ground) HOWEVER, we sure could have saved Eastern Europe the hell, torture and destruction of their best and brightest people and other's from the Soviets.
So much of Eastern Europe would have easily rallied behind the USA as someone else in this thread has mentioned: Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria the Baltic and the Balkans all had reasons to fight the Soviets.
In fact some did! Read The East Came West by Peter J Huxley-Blythe. It gives details about Operation Keelhaul, the repatriotion of those of russian - ukraine descent mostly Cossacks, who did not want to return and were willing to fight the Soviet forces.
This incident is still highly classified and is a blot on Eisenhower and the Allies. They returned millions to certain death. Also, in May of 1945 Patton wanted to help the Czechs (Prague revolt) but Eisenhower forbade him to go to their aid. Their was so much missed opportunities and heinous treatment of those trying to escape the clutches of Soviet Communist oppression but the allies turned a deaf ear to it. Patton as a field General knew it and well there's lots of speculation about his death, but I won't go there on this thread.
Another indication of the lack of Soviet support was the high number of initial Soviets who surrendered to german army in late summer 1941 and also greeted them as liberators (from the Communist regime) - little did they know the hell of Hitler's beliefs.
I wouldn't say the USA would have pulverized the USSR outright (too much geography to cover - historical problem - especially then, i.e. feet on the ground) HOWEVER, we sure could have saved Eastern Europe the hell, torture and destruction of their best and brightest people and other's from the Soviets.
At a cost in lives and a ruined US economy that would not have been worth paying as opposed to just waiting them out. We might still be fighting terrorists and partisans in Russia.
It gives details about Operation Keelhaul, the repatriotion of those of russian - ukraine descent mostly Cossacks, who did not want to return and were willing to fight the Soviet forces.
They had just spent the last four years fighting for the Nazis. Treason has consequences.
This incident is still highly classified
No it isn't. Nearly all of it is now unclassified and has been reasonably well known for decades.
Also, in May of 1945 Patton wanted to help the Czechs (Prague revolt)
I'm not familiar with this. Who were they revolting against? Tbe US forces who had just liberated them? The returned Czechoslovak government-in-exile?
there's lots of speculation about his death
All of which, except that which accepts that it was caused by an ordinary traffic accident, is completely unfounded.
Treason has consequences.
The allegiance every citizen owes to his nation of citizenship. One of the obligations of citizenship is not to fight against ones own people. Usually, treason doesn't proper, for if one won it's not treason. IN this case even if the Nazis won, they;d still be traitors considering the fate the Nazis had planned for the Slavs - "sub-humans" to the Nazis..
I've not little sympathy for anyone who chose to fight for the Nazis, and as far as I'm concerned the Soviet government could have executed every one of those people instead of just the leadership.
These folks weren't so much fighting FOR the Nazis as fighting AGAINST Stalin. Would you fight FOR Stalin? After he confiscated your land, took your children and sent them to a comsomol, tortured yor wife, and sent YOU to a Gulag?????
as far as I'm concerned the Soviet government could have executed every one of those people instead of just the leadership.
You do know that the various ex-Soviet citizens who fought for the Germans were renowned for their savagery commiting many war crimes, don't you? Others worked as concentration/extermination death camp guards with much enthusiasm for their work.
Many were captured fighting against British and American forces in France etc- hardly fighting for their countries' liberation there now were they?
"I was left in no doubt as to the severity of the hangover when the cat stamped into the room."
But they didn't START that way. In the end they were fighting for their LIVES. They KNEW what Uncle Joe had planned for them, and also that any of his allies would hand them over. I'm not justifying that, just explaining. But MAYBE if the Soviets hadn't terrorized the Ukraine, so many of them wouldn't have seen the Germans as "Liberators". Which they DID! Historical FACT!
BTW, ordinarily "citizens" considerer themselves as such. Conquered peoples like the Ukrainians DON'T! Do you think that the Kurds Who were just such citizens, owed allegiance to Saddam???!!!
But they didn't START that way. In the end they were fighting for their LIVES.
Please tell me how this excused or explained war crimes committed against Italian civilians by Cossack collaborators? How did this explain how collaborators willingly assisted the Holocaust? How did this excuse the murder of innocent Ukrainian non-combatants by Ukrainians in Nazi uniforms?
Please tell me how this excused or explained war crimes committed against Italian civilians by Cossack collaborators?
They were war criminals.
Then there's really nothing more that needs to be said is there?
I SAID they were war criminals! But my contention is and will always be, they were not traitors. War criminal does NOT equal traitor! Was Judas a war criminal? Did Bennedict Arnold run concentration camps??!!
I SAID they were war criminals! But my contention is and will always be, they were not traitors.
So who's taking refuge in legalisms now? They were criminals and they were punished for it. You just want to quibble about wording of the charges.
War criminal does NOT equal traitor
True, though there's no reason why they can;t be guilty of both crimes. In this case it seems they were mostly guilty of both. Interestingly, their treatment was no worse than that of the Nazi Germans they served. Both groups had the obvious war criminals amongst them tried and executed while the rest spent the next ten years in similar camps.
Did Bennedict Arnold run concentration camps??!!
Arnold, of course, was forgiven his earlier treason when he returned to the service of his King. Mind you, he did it for personal reasons, not conviction, so its no wonder he was not particularly rewarded for remembering something he shouldn't have forgotten.
Also see my post to RO11Dave on this topic.
These folks weren't so much fighting FOR the Nazis as fighting AGAINST Stalin
A difference that makes no difference is no difference. They fought for our enemies and fought against their own people. Treating them the same as Western traitors, or indeed, the same as their German Kameraden doesn't bother me in the least.
took your children and sent them to a comsomol
You actually don;t know what KOMSOMOL means, do you?
Stalin didn't murder enough people to suit you?
Executing those who have committed a capital crime isn't murder. They knew the risks they were taking when they did the crime. I'm not concerned that Stalin;s regime also executed ordinary murderers and rapists either.
Are you aware that ALL Soviet POW's captured by the Germans were sent to the Gulag, and thus usually died JUST for being prisoners of the Germans?
In fact, that was not the case. While all of them were screened, some eighty to ninety percent of them were cleared and returned to duty in regular units.
http://tinyurl.com/38xousx
By your lights Von Stauffenberg and the other conspirators who tried to kill Hitler were traitors too!
Their side, our side, won. That makes them heroes. After all, "treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
I will say, though, that the German government of the time was legally justified in arresting, charging, trying, convicting and punishing those people involved in the plot according to normal German law, just as it was justified in taking appropriate legal action against Allied intelligence operative caught committing espionage.
Executing those who have committed a capital crime isn't murder. They knew the risks they were taking when they did the crime. I'm not concerned that Stalin;s regime also executed ordinary murderers and rapists either.
You actually don;t know what KOMSOMOL means, do you?
In fact, that was not the case. While all of them were screened, some eighty to ninety percent of them were cleared and returned to duty in regular units.
Firstly, my apologies. I thought I did reply to this post, but it seems my reply was eaten.
Do you care that Stalin murdered millions of innocents?
Yes I do. I just don't care that he also punished a number of criminals and Nazi collaborators.
Well gosh, it's SUCH a hard concept to understand.
Funny that your understanding wasn't so evident when you were spouting nonsense about "a comsomol".
It was Stalin's version of the Hitler Youth.
You have it backwards. The HJ was Hitler's version of Lenin's KOMSOMOL.
After the war they just tossed 'em away.
This is not correct, as the link I posted noted.
You somehow think that Ukrainians, who were a conquered people owed allegiance to their conquerors.
Most Ukrainians at the time thought they owed their loyalty to the Soviet Union and not to the Germans. Most of those who had differing opinions in 1941 very soon changed their minds. Even most of those who fought for the Nazis would have admitted that the law was against them. Probably as many Ukrainians joined the pro-Soviet resistance as joined the SS, and Ukrainians were as prominent amongst those fighting Hitlerism as any other nationality. Even the anti-Soviet resistance fought the Germans as much as they fought the Reds. You will find few Ukrainians left of that generation who have much sympathy for the collaborators who victimized them as much as their German masters did.
Actually, Ukraine wasn't conquered by the USSR. It had been part of the Russian Empire for centuries and there was little, if any serious anti-Imperial sentiment among the common people. Even when it joined the Soviet Union, it joined due to the efforts of Ukrainian Reds supported by the mass of the people. As sometimes happens, the people made an error that couldn't be corrected.
Funny that your understanding wasn't so evident when you were spouting nonsense about "a comsomol".
You have it backwards. The HJ was Hitler's version of Lenin's KOMSOMOL.
Even most of those who fought for the Nazis would have admitted that the law was against them.
Probably as many Ukrainians joined the pro-Soviet resistance as joined the SS, and Ukrainians were as prominent amongst those fighting Hitlerism as any other nationality.
a Komsomol!
Was there more than one? It's rather my understanding the KOMSOMOL had a bit of a monopoly.
The Ukrainians who joined the Germans didn't do it to oppress Ukranians!
Yet they did - not to mention Yugoslavs, French, Italians, and others. Funny how that works, ain't it
Of COURSE it was against the law!
And I note that the current Ukrainian governments is in no hurry to give amnesty to those collaborators who survive. Even Bandera fought the Nazis.
Stalin could have made ANYTHING illegal
You mean just as the UK, the US, France, and, well, everywhere else, have made it illegal for their citizens to fight for their enemies? The British, for instance, executed an Irishman whose on the technicality that, while not a British citizen, he had used a British passport for a time. Fighting for the other side in a war is one of those universal offenses, like murder. Indeed, I'm quite sure you will find that under Ukrainian law, ethnic Russians who live in places like the Crimea which were historically Russian would be charged with treason should they fight against the Ukraine.
If the Brits had won, the "Patriots" would have been charged with "Treason".
Yes they would, and the British government would have been right to do it to oath breakers like Washington. When you win, it isn't treason. When you lose, you're SOL.
"Was there more than one? It's rather my understanding the KOMSOMOL had a bit of a monopoly."
Since I assume you are NOT living in the former USSR it would have to be "a" Komsomol in another country. I can't imagine the Brits or Americans allowing a Soviet run one. Man you just won't let it GO, will ya? Forgive me for being more concerned with making my point than about misperceptions that might arise.
Yes they would, and the British government would have been right to do it to oath breakers like Washington. When you win, it isn't treason. When you lose, you're SOL.
it would have to be "a" Komsomol in another country.
I see. You're making up your own language to go with your own facts. How darling.
They were fighting FOR the Ukraine AGAINST the USSR.
And against their fellow Ukrainians, including anti-Soviet partisans.
The fact that they did bad stuff later in no way makes them traitors, even if some of their victims were Ukrainians.
So you claim they owed no loyalty to any state, there being no Ukrainian state at the time except the Ukrainian SSR, nor to their own people. If they were murdering Ukrainians, as you admit, how exactly were they fighting for Ukraine?
Nathan Hale remains a patriot no matter what some legalist claims.
Hale et al were only absolved of High Treason because they won just as Jefferson Davis and his cohorts in 1865 were not. I'm with those who saw that their loyalty to their nation was greater than some some transient political disagreement and that oaths like Washington once took, to bear true allegiance to the legally constituted constitutional government were more than words.
I've made my point. Folks can form their own opinions as to what allegiance is owed from whom to what national state. The non-democratic states will demand absolute "loyalty" from their subjects, even if they have unjustly arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and murdered their countymen and families. And they will have LAWS to justify any outrage of human rights or decency and defend this perversion of genuine devotion to one's nation. The cynical solipsism of those who claim that "the victors are always right" notwithstanding!
What the OP writes is simplistic, jingoistic, ahistorical drivel. If what he is suggesting is that the US could have, with the threat of dropping nuclear bombs on the USSR, terrorized the Soviet Union into retreating or surrendering, there is simply no historical basis for that opinion. First off, I don't believe we actually had a ready store of bombs like that. Second, how would it have looked if we had suddenly declared war on our up-to-then ally and started annihilating civilians? Even the US population, which had been propagandized that Uncle Joe Stalin was our friend, would have found that hard to swallow. Also, the US population had long since tired of war and its costs and simply would not have tolerated its continuance against what had been an ally (as dramatized in "FLags of our Fathers", the flag-raisers of Iwo Jima were turned into PR people to sell war bonds because the public had stopped supporting the war effort through bond purchases). Roosevelt or Truman, whomever of the two was President when such a decision was made would have been impeached. Stalin would not have backed down or surrendered. His country had just lost 20 million people because its security was inadequate - I hardly think he was planning to surrender to the Americans. Even if we had bombed his cities (many of which were already destroyed), he simply would have evacuated those cities. Were we going to a-bomb Russian troops in Germany and Poland? As for pulverizing them in a ground battle, think again. To quote historian Stephen Ambrose (who wrote "Band of Brothers") from his book, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy, 1938-76: "Nor would [Roosevelt] ever be willing to pay a high cost in lives or goods to defeat Hitler. The theme of America's participation in World War II was victory at the lowest possible cost." (p. 27) Note he did not say a low cost, but the lowest possible cost. Of all the major belligerents, the US suffered the least (in terms of losses and expenditures) and by far gained the most. In the very next paragraph of Ambroses book, he makes a stark example of the differences between Soviet and American ways of approaching combat which would indicate why we would not have pulverized them on the way to Moscow: "After World War II Russian generals were amazed to hear that Americans often cleared a path through minefields by setting off the mines through the use of artillery. This seemed to the Russians an irresponsible waste of valuable shells. The Americans were equally astonished to learn that the Russian method was to march troops through the minefields. Each side used what it had in abundance." Do you honestly think we would have pulverized that army?
shareCrap.
We should have destroyed Stalin ands his regime THEN.
Instead we allied with a man AS BAD as Hitler, with a regime AS BAD as The Nazis (and who'd fought alongside the Nazis!) and ended up handing over half the countries we had just liberated from Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia!
Then decades of earth changing Cold War and near nuclear destruction and the oppression of millions followed.
Patton was 1000% right.
What a wasteful, pointless, bad joke, the end of WW2 was.
I'm not sure what your comment "Crap" is referring to.
Apart from that, your post is utterly pointless. Yes, of course we should not have allied with Stalin, but in 1941 that was the only viable option. It was clear to all leaders left standing in the West that, if Hitler succeeded in conquering Russia, the Nazis would have an unshakeable position in Europe, creating a totalitarian nightmare there. Obviously allying with Stalin was seen as the lesser of two evils. As it was, the Soviet Army did most of the heavy lifting in defeating the Wehrmacht, so it turned out to have been a good strategy.
You make your points as if the US was somehow omnipotent. Pointing out that Stalin was as evil as Hitler is not the same as demonstrating that the US and Britain had the means or the will to defeat the Red Army. You have not even bothered to considered whether that was a viable possibility. You just assume that away. But you can't do that while purporting to make a serious attempt to consider the dilemmas of that time. If you bothered to read my previous post, I made several very cogent points that make patently clear why Patton, while a great general on the battlefield, did not belong in the counsels deciding the political aims of the war. Perhaps defeating Hitler by teaming with Stalin was jumping from the frying pan into the fire, but most people finding themselves in a frying pan would jump. If you want to discuss these issues seriously, try gaining some genuine historical knowledge and some perspective, neither of which are evident in your post.
And a further point: we didn't "hand over" to them the countries we had just liberated from the Nazis. Which countries specifically are you referring to? We did not liberate Bulgaria, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Hungary or Poland. The Red Army liberated all of Czechoslovakia, except for a small bit in Western Bohemia near Pilsen. We did not hand that over to the Soviets, because Czechoslovakia was the sole country in that region that was not occupied by the Soviets and forced to install a Stalinist regime. It returned to a limited democratic system until 1948. So, again, WHICH countries specifically are you referring to?
And don't bother trying to accuse me of ignoring "near nuclear destruction and the oppression of millions". I am well aware of the Cold War. But trotting out that reality does not change the reality that faced us in 1945.
Ask the Polish how they feel EVEN NOW, and in fact ALL of what became The European Soviet Empire, about being liberated from the Nazis. only to be HANDED OVER...we ALLOWED IT...to the *beep* Russians.
Poles are STILL resentful towards the Western Allies for that.
Now go away, you weakling.
Another armchair hero. Easy to say the West should have gone to war when you would not have been at risk of fighting that war
Of course we allowed the Soviets to take Eastern Europe without a fight. We were not stupid enough to start yet another world war after the one we just fought, one which a substantial number of British and American citizens would not have then supported. We didn't want to lose hundreds of thousands of our soldiers and start a war that would kill millions more Eastern Europeans.
How did it work out in real life? Not too bad actually, though it would probably have been better without the Soviets. A lot fewer Eastern Europeans died than would have died if yet another world war had been fought on Eastern European soil and a lot fewer Western soldiers died than would have in a war followed by years of guerrilla and terrorist activity in Russia. Europe and America had resources that hadn't been expended in years of warfare to spend on post-war reconstruction. The Communists could indeed be right b-ds to political opponents but, unlike the Nazis, were not genocidal and, unlike the Germans, did build up the economies of Eastern Europe and usually improved the standard of living of most people - though almost certainly not as much as free enterprise would have. A substantial number of Eastern Europeans still look back with some nostalgia at the former regimes.
The Communist regimes died mostly without bloodshed, even in the former Soviet Union. Given how we thought things might have gone wrong during that time, it looks to me as if the West made the right decision in 1945.
"""A lot fewer Eastern Europeans died than would have died if yet another world war had been fought on Eastern European soil and a lot fewer Western soldiers died """"
Yeah.....Makes you wonder why we bothered even fighting Germany then.
I mean all that you said above would apply much more there too!
Easy for armchair weaklings to say when they aren't the ones living under the Soviet boot for 45 odd years.
Yeah.....Makes you wonder why we bothered even fighting Germany then.If by "we" you mean France and the British Empire, then recall that Germany gave them a very clear casus belli in 1939 which the Soviets did not in 1944-48. For that matter, if they didn't go to war with the USSR in 1939 or 1940, why would they do so n 1945?
Hey, 42ndStFreak, you are a total douche. Call me a "weakling" if you like, but it's you who is putting forward weak arguments, and even saying that is being generous by characterizing your brainless drivel as "arguments". I lived for fifteen years in the Czech Republic, and I met plenty of people, both Czech and from other nations, who had to live under Soviet domination. So I don't need to ask them; I know. In any case, whatever anyone may think about the outcome of the war and the situation that left them in, that does not add one jot of validity to your drivel. Now, why don't you go away, because you haven't written a single thing evidencing either intelligence or knowledge.
shareWhile that's true, the Commander-in-Chief refused to continue the war effort, declaring the war won. IIRC, there was a similar executive decision meanwhile made in the USSR. At the end of WWII in 1945, the Cold War soon followed.
--
And to think that computers used to be about precision! Bah! Precision! Who needs it!
During world war 2 the USSR received over 10 billion dollars in lend lease supplies from the USA which included tanks, jeeps, cars, planes, trains, sheet metal, leather (for boots ) and foodstuffs. Without this to help their war effort I doubt if they would have lasted long against the American forces. Patton and his anti communist opinion was in the minority at the time anyway. Because of Roosevelt's pro communism and fanatical support of Stalin the support of the Soviet Union was firmly entrenched in American politics. And because of the wartime alliance every branch of the US government had been infiltrated by communist spies, fellow travellers and fifth columnists -
www.jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/fdr.html
Communists are *beep*holes.
shareTo OP.
No and no.
Here's the problem. The war was incredibly costly for the USA and one of the main reasons the atomic bombs were dropped over Japan was to get the war over quickly so that peace-time economy could be resumed. People were dead tired of the war and having things rationed even in the United States. Need I remind you that people were urged to buy more warbonds to support the war against JAPAN who by that time was pretty much finished. The invasion of the Japanese mainland was going to be incredibly costly and even Churchill believed they wouldn't see a Japanese surrender until 1947. He didn't of course know of the atomic bomb.
Declaring war on the USSR when Japan is still in the fight and yet to be defeated would have been madness. Declaring it after the war was over leads to the American homefront going absolutely ballistic. "They were our allies and now we are suddenly at war with them? Just like that? We just broke our backs fighting Nazi Germany and Japan and now we have to fight against a superpower that just did the lion's share in destroying the mighty Nazi war machinery? WHO is going to FINANCE this costly war? WHO led us into this? WHO expects US to trust ANY politician anymore when they say we are ALLIES with some country only to change our minds on a dime??"
It's clear that OP doesn't understand both the short-term and long-term political ramifications and what that can do to people. By 1945 people were dead tired of the war and just wanted it to end already. You won't find it easy to train countless of new troops to a war in which the end might not be anywhere on the horizon.
Great Britain was bankrupt in 1945. They would have nothing to do with it. Patton dreamt of rearming German troops. Germany just got destroyed in a crazy war and now they are suddenly going to accept another - possibly even more devastating war - all over again? For what? For the glory of Patton rather than the glory of Hitler?? France? Fuggeddaboutit. In order to get all American troops and equipment to Europe you first need to SHIP it all there. Using who's ports? The British and French need the peace to start shipping civilian goods not military equipment to fight an enormous war. Planning to bankroll the British and French economies too? In a time war bonds were needed to finance the war against Japan? How is this war going to work ECONOMICALLY? It would have been pure madness and they all knew it.
I see the communist resistance movements and propaganda having a field day all over occupied Europe. The peace made the USA ample time to send in economical help and aid which eradicated all the misery the local communists would have used to rally support from suffering people. OP doesn't understand the power of people's minds. Neither did many rulers when they suddenly found themselves deposed in a revolution.
"You see. We told you they couldn't be trusted. They even betrayed the ones they had helped in the war. Can they be trusted with their word ever again?"
WW2 was a land war and it was on land Nazi Germany was defeated. The USSR had considerable tank forces and were spurting out so many heavy tanks even Patton was worried in the Berlin victory parade. The most numerous American tank in Europe at this time was the Sherman. That isn't going to win them a war. More Pershings? First produce enough numbers of them and ship them over...
Aircraft? To bomb the German infrastructure to even more pieces or trying to fly all the way to Moscow from Great Britain?? Fighters? Plenty of them. Now of course the USSR had a serious amount of fighter aircraft a whole new generation of freshly trained pilots in 1945.
The atomic bombs. Sure, if you can somehow mass produce them, which in 1945 was time-consuming and difficult. By the time the bomb on Nagasaki was dropped they had another one being prepared and assembled for the planned attack of Kokura (primary target for the second attack but obscured by clouds that day). That would have been the last one of the four they had (including the Trinity test). New ones would have taken time to build, ship and use. We're not talking the modern era intercontinental ballistic missile here, we're talking 1945 logistics strained by the war.
Will the attack be on the tank forces in Germany? Turning Germany into a radioactive wasteland? Not? Ok, so that mean attacking civilians in the USSR. You just opened up a can of worms and created a world where it's totally justified to use nuclear weapons like any other weapon not having any ethical dilemmas killing millions of civilians in the process. It's a world where all industrial nations will develop them and possibly use them self-righteously.
Attacking Japan with the bombs was contemplated enough and still remains a debated topic today. Using several more against people that moments ago were your allies? Again, we're not talking 1950's communist paranoia here. In the war "Uncle Joe" was a hero in the States for making life miserable for the Nazis. His war actually SAVED hundreds of thousands of American and British lives.
Now OP is a teen (or an adult with a teen mindset) and his very short and simple assessment of the whole thing tells us he has no clue what it takes economically, politically and emotionally to be in war. It's not some stupid video game.
He can take that to the bank.
The invasion of the Japanese mainland was going to be incredibly costly and even Churchill believed they wouldn't see a Japanese surrender until 1947. He didn't of course know of the atomic bomb.
True.
Like I said people were already gearing up for peace in 1945 and for many it couldn't come soon enough. Starting another war after the most costly conflict in human history - against somebody that was your ally just recently - would have caused a public riot in the United States, let alone in what was left of Europe after the war. Just when you were celebrating that one long hell was finally over you're going to start another one? Imaginable only in world ruled by utterly insane people.
Great Britain was economically finished in 1945 and many people were still homeless. Victory celebrations were cut short when the British realized they had a serious challenge ahead of them providing even food and shelter for people. Many were forced to live in wooden barracks. They felt they had won a Pyrrhic victory. Like I said: Don't count that Great Britain will commit themselves to this madness.
France was still recovering from WW1 when they were invaded and WW2 left them devastated enough with a ruined infrastructure not to even consider becoming a huge depot to supply the immense logistics required for another war. Using the harbors and infrastructure for civilians good and aid to get France back on its feet and raise the overall morale? Not if it's used for a war. You can't have both. There's also the "small detail" that France had the largest numbers of communists in Western Europe after Italy. A France in peace sees their influence diminish, a France at war or crippled by a war that isn't even theirs sees them gaining influence since they feed off people's misery and dissatisfaction with bad rulers. Another obstacle so to speak.
Germany? It's in ruins and completely devastated. It was on the verge of chaos and anarchy had the war not ended. Hunger and desperation does that to people. It was hard enough to save it when peace finally arrived in 1945. Another warzone in a country that already is in covered in rubble? In the last two years of the war the Germany fought for their country and their survival NOT for Hitler. I don't know Patton was thinking when he thought he could make the Germans volunteer to be cannon fodder under his command when they already had suffered incredibly fighting the war.
Fact is that WW1 and WW2 were so devastating for Germany it's no wonder present day Germany is reluctant in getting involved in any war. They were not involved in either the Gulf War or the Iraqi War.
And that R011DaveAAA doesn't know what he's talking about when he says that the USSR had no troops left. They used close to two million of them when they invaded Manchuria and easily finished off the Japanese in short time. They captured Sakhalin and the next step was an invasion of the Japanese mainland.
They had a significant presence in Romania, which also left them in control of the richest oil fields in Europe, while already having their own in Caucasus and also being in joint control with the British over the oil fields in Iran. Unlike the Germans who were struggling with a shortage of oil the Soviets are in control of all the oil they will need for their tank forces.
What's the plan btw? Driving the Soviets out of the part of Germany they ALREADY had been granted in the Yalta conference? Driving them out of Europe? Going all the way to Moscow? Ridiculous.
Whoever considers this attack a feasible scenario given the disastrous logistical situation and the already strained war economy is living a pipe dream. This was perfectly clear at the time too which is why nobody in their right mind would have gone with Patton's crazy plan. The situation was dire enough after VE day and remained so for years in Europe.
The bottom line is that a good man knows his limitations. He seemed to think he didn't have any and that led him into a lot of trouble in the war already.