Patton's take on WWII

[Trajan]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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. .

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]

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]

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

links please.

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

 

[Trajan]

very nice.

 

[rightwinger]

so you agree with those rapes.....

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

 

[Trajan]

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

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]

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

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.

And I will stand by my statement ...thankyou

 

[Trajan]

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.

And I will stand by my statement ...thankyou

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]

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]

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.