Should we have followed Gen. Patton to Moscow?

Discussion in 'Education' started by elvis, Dec 15, 2008.

  1. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    Many criticize the US for not getting involved in World War II earlier to help save people from Hitler, a mass murderer. So, I will take this opportunity to ask them, should we have followed General Patton and gone on to Moscow to rescue Eastern Europe and Russia from Stalin? If not, why not?
     
  2. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    it's easy to criticize in hindsight; i've never been one of those but here's my opinion.

    no. we would have lost. ussr had 120 fully mobilized divisions in eastern europe alone. the us had less than 100 total spread across the european and pacific theaters.

    their lines of communication would have been much shorter than ours and i doubt the brits and french would have gone along with it amking resupply even more difficult.the soviets would have been fighting for their homes. we would have been smoked, IMO.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Churchill would have gone along with it. Who cares what the French would have done? At that point they had nothing more than what we gave them.:lol:

    The US would easily have controlled the air, but Russia is vast and the battlefield perfect for tank battles on mass scale as they proved against Germany. Russia had a tank that was superior to the Sherman. We only beat the Germans by sheer quantity in tank battles. It usually cost 2-3 Shermans to get the one up behind the Tiger and shoot it in the ass.

    We'd have had to nuke them to win. We had THAT technological superiority in 1945.
     
  4. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    you're right about churchill, but he was about to be kicked to the curb and extending the war may have hastened the process. there was a fairly large portion of the population in england that thought communism was just swell.

    you're definitely right about the french.

    the T-34 was superior to the sherman, and uncle joe, zhukov et al wasn't the least bit squeamish about sacrificing troops, unlike the us commanders.

    nuking them would have been the only viable option ; in a conventional war, a draw would be the best we could hope for.
     
  5. mightypeon
    Offline

    mightypeon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    728
    Thanks Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Berlin Germany (NOT MASSACHUSETS)
    Ratings:
    +83
    Actually, Zhukov was quite frugal with expending the lifes of his troops, even if they were Mongolian auxillaries or something. This was especially true after 1942. In 44 and 45 the Russians were very keen on not getting killed without a good reason.
    He got into quit a mess with Stalin for using non static way of defense, and only evaded cranial 9mm lead poisoning due to Stalin having a depression at that time.
    Besides, the T34 was not all the Russians had at that time, the JS series was even worse.
    Besides, Russia had fairly good air defenses, bad air defenses do not survive against the Luftwaffe.
     
  6. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    Patton had the idea of recruiting captured German soldiers to help the US invade Russia. "They hate the bastards anyway." he said.
     
  7. elvis
    Offline

    elvis BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,303
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +4,303
    Didn't Stalin sacrifice over 100000 Russians so he could be the one who reached Berlin first? so he could say he "conquered Hitler?"
     
  8. mightypeon
    Offline

    mightypeon Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    Messages:
    728
    Thanks Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Berlin Germany (NOT MASSACHUSETS)
    Ratings:
    +83
    Yes, as you noted it was Stalin not Zhukov.
    Besides, he did not do it to say "he conquered Hitler", he did do it to gain control over the very valuable German core lands. The later East German republic was the 2nd strongest industrial power of the East Block and number 7 worldwide. (more manufactured goods than italy f.e.).

    conceding the recuitment of captured Germans: It may have worked but would have had some very severe PR reprecursions, the actual success may have dependet on the number of Germans still active.
     
  9. DiamondDave
    Offline

    DiamondDave Army Vet

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    18,169
    Thanks Received:
    2,812
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    MD, on the Potomac River
    Ratings:
    +2,816
    The USSR was spread thin... their troops, while huge in number, were poorly trained...

    And please don't forget that we had 'next generation' weaponry, ordinance, and vehicles ready to go to the battlefield as well... and we did have the nuke, though it would have been a while to create another one... remember that we were really hoping that the Japanese would cower after the Nagasaki bomb, because we did not have another one ready to add another exclamation point...

    The objective was to push the commie bastards back... not to invade and take over the USSR... I believe Patton should have been given the green light to push the Soviet bastards back to show them that just because we defeated 1 tyrant and were happy that the war was 'over', we were not going to sit back and watch another take control over a huge chuck of Europe as well.. .unfortunately we let the iron curtain fall and the horrible period of Soviet rule caused misery for decades
     
  10. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    Well, I have some doubts as to whether or not we'd have had the strength and the will to continue on like that, which I believe was, in fact, the reason that we DIDN'T.

    On the other hand, it would have saved millions of lives and saved us the hassle of decades of Cold War.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

what did Patten say about Stalin

,

would patton have taken moscow