MovieChat Forums > Patton (1970) Discussion > Patton was correct.....

Patton was correct.....


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.


And all the Lefties who moan about the ACTION of the bombs being dropped on Japan, that actually SAVED over a million on both sides, are the same ones that decry such 'crush the Soviets' thought....despite this INACTION dooming millions to death and oppression for decades to come.

reply

The US would not have had the resources to fight the Germans, the Russians and the Japanese at the same time. The soviets took care of about 75% of the German troops and they had about 29,5 million soldiers. I'm pretty sure the US couldn't even win a war against the USSR on Russian soil.

reply

I'm pretty sure the OP was referring to Patton's comment in 1945 after the German's surrendered that we should have armed the Germans and turned around and pushed the Soviets back to their territory.

reply

We only had 4.8 million soldiers in Europe, the Soviets would have rolled over us like they rolled over everybody else.

reply

The Soviets didn't roll the Germans over. It took them years and they suffered a 3 to 1 to 4 to 1 loss rate against an enemy fighting on two fronts. That's not a 'roll over'.

reply

why do west media rewrite histories and say russia won WWII? hahahahhahah.

german beat russia ease if they dont fight on multiples front.

reply

Stalin begged us for years to open a 2nd front in the west. They lost millions pushing the Germans back.

reply

Wasn't the second front wherever we were fighting them?

reply

Instead we allied with a man AS BAD as Hitler, with a regime AS BAD as The Nazis
This turns out not to be the case. Hitler in twelve years killed nearly as many as Stalin did in thirty. Some other facts you may wish to consider:

Six million Poles were murdered by the Nazis in five years of occupation. Half of those, about three million, were Christian. Orly about one million were killed by the Reds in forty-five years of rule, most in 1939-40.

The Nazis closed high schools, universities, and seminaries. The Communists reopened and expanded them - even Catholic seminaries like the one Karol Wojtyla attended - later known as Pope John Paul II.

The Nazis murdered teachers, university professors (and educated Poles in general), and placed Polish industry under German management. The Communists educated more teachers and professors to more than replace those the Germans killed and placed Poles in charge of the factories and other workplaces.

The Nazis plan for Poland, the first parts of which they put into effect, was the extermination of Poles as an ethnicity. The plan for Eastern Europe as a whole was for a reduced number of inhabitant to be educated just enough, if at all, for their place as peasant serfs on estates owned by German immigrants. The Communist's plan, which they did mostly put into effect, was for a educated and industrialized nation with good social services , full employment, and a higher standard of living.

This is not to say that the Communist regime was the best of all possible worlds. Political oppression was even worse than that under the pre-war military dictatorship and economic and environmental performance would have been better under a free-market democracy. It was a great deal better than genocide, though.

reply

Using even conservative estimates, Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people. Far more than Hitler.

reply

Then decades of earth changing Cold War and near nuclear destruction and the oppression of millions followed.


So you’d willingly trade that for decades of earth changing World War III, probable nuclear destruction, the horrible deaths of millions, and the ruin of civilization as we know it? How exceedingly odd.

In hindsight, I don’t see how the policy of containment that we historically followed failed. After all, we eventually won the Cold War, and we did so without annihilating the human race. The Truman Doctrine had its flaws, but compared to your alternative, it was pure genius.

reply

[deleted]

So the millions saved by the atomic bomb in your scenario would have been killed by fighting the Soviets. That makes sense?
Practically speaking, how would this attack on an ally play out? Would we have pushed into Soviet Russia and hoped to remove Stalin? Would we have pushed them back to Soviet territory and then created our own occupying Army in Eastern Europe? The end game in multiple scenarios is the inevitable Cold War occurring regardless, unless you could have eliminated Stalin and rebuilt Russia.
How would you address China? Stalin remaining in power stifled China because of the distrust between Mao and the Soviets. Remove Stalin and you may have had a much stronger Communist ally to the Soviets in China.

reply

The creation of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War gave the USA the opportunity and the excuse to begin eroding civil and Constitutional Rights, in the name of "national security", and that process is alive & well in 2013.




Marriage is between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

reply

Funny how nowhere in your post do you ever even acknowledge the human beings who would have suffered and died in your scenario. The whole point of that scene in the movie is to remind you that Patton is fundamentally off his rocker. He was a fantastic battlefield general but a terrible diplomat and politician.

Those latter talents matter. Turning around and fighting the Russians -- which is what Hitler wanted us to do -- was a nonstarter. It was an insane suggestion. The American public wanted the war over. Everyone wanted to go home. We were war weary and hundreds of thousands of Americans had already died. Plus Europe was in shambles and the Brits wouldn't have gone along for a second. The war's objectives had always been to defeat Germany in Europe, and Japan in the Pacific, period, full stop. If President Truman had then said "you know what? Screw it, we're already over here in Europe, let's kick some Russian ass" he would have been impeached before the day was over.

Instead we got a Cold War that, however unpleasant, meant no more major wars in Europe. Germany is reunified, Poland and the Baltics and some of the other central European nations are firmly in the West's sphere, and things are okay. The catastrophic war that you and Patton wanted would have made all that infinitely worse.

reply

I am of the belief that Patton doesn't deserve credit/kudos for having Napoleon-like warmonger tendencies.

I am also of the belief we shouldn't just go around trying to dominate people and cultures who don't look and act like ours.

reply

All I can add to the excellent ways some previous posters have pointed out what lunacy it would have been to follow Patton's suggestion to go straight from war with Germany to war with the Soviet Union is my wish that the OP were suddenly transported to Germany in May of 1945. I'd like to see him try to sell his bilge to all those American soldiers who had just finished going through the hell of World War II, mostly amazed and grateful to have simply survived the experience. Wonder how long he would have lasted before he had his own little "car accident"?

reply

Agreed. I think Clemenceau said it best:

"War is far too important to be left to the generals."

reply

[deleted]

You forget the little detail of having to sell a second war to the war-weary American people – to say nothing of our even more exhausted allies and the rest of the world. Or did that not occur to you?

reply

Patton was right. We should have told the truth all the time and smashed Russia in 1945.

reply

The thing is that Russia was not a threat at the time and in fact, we were more of a threat to Russia, but they had taken the brunt of defeating Hitler.

It was only later when the US went on the anti-communist jag that Russia become our enemy. There is a lot more nuance and history, but it's very easy 80 years later to play armchair President, but the US at the time was very belligerent and imperialistic in the world. Not to say that is right or wrong, but it is just not that simple.

reply

Anti- Communist jag? They became our enemy when the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace and were never anything else

reply

> They became our enemy when the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace

That's a peculiar dividing line.

Why did you used that royalist supporting meme rather than the October revolution. What does it have to do with WWII and Patton?

reply

Roosevelt was to.blame for sending aid to Stalin and all the nauseating wartime propaganda about "Uncle Joe ...our gallant Soviet ally." We should have told the truth instead so people would have been in the right anti-Communist mood in 1945 - and the fighting still going on in Russia.

reply

"Roosevelt was to.blame for sending aid to Stalin "

yes.

russkies got taste for conquests in WWII. they think they won WWII themself. they want whole world because american fuel their war machine hahahahahah.

reply

That's nonsense. Russia has never needed to conquer anyone. They are almost 3 times the size of the US with a little more than half the population, very rich in resources, which is they the US and UK have constantly tried to overturn them and take them over.

Any system would have failed in those days. There was a lot of theory, and a lot of people fighting each other, like we have today in the US.

Russia's main problem has been invasion and protection. You would feel the same way if every generation of your family was missing large numbers of members from different wars and invasions.

Ukraine is the belligerent here.

reply

russia is bandit country.

always have. always will.

commie bastards.

reply

You know nothing ... betcha you're a Republican.

reply