General Patton: The Pro-Trump

[Kondor3]

If a war broke out between the west and the USSR in 1946, the west would have lost, even with the few nukes we had.

Doubtful.

The Soviet Union had population of 170,000,000 in 1939 and it had lost 20,000,000 in fighting the Germans.

A tragedy that could have been averted had they not treacherously made a secret pact with Nazi Germany to invade and divide Poland.

( if you lie down with dogs then don't be surprised if you get fleas )

-----

The Soviets were approaching exhaustion by early 1945 and their logistics were desperately strained; buoyed by continued logistical support from the US.

The Soviets (and their Russian Imperial predecessors and their Russian Federation successors) function on the Cannon-Fodder Principle.

The Soviets of that era had a very good main battle tank, the T-34, and a decent Yak fighter or fighter-bomber or two...

But the American M4 (Sherman) was at parity with the T-34 and the M26 Pershings coming online were superior to their Soviet counterparts.

Not to mention the vast superiority of the United States in air assets... P47s and P51s, early jets, armadas of B29s, B24s and B17s - heavy strategic bombers.

And tremendous fleets of transport airplanes - C54s, C47s and the like, and massive airborne assault assets already in place.

Air superiority alone, in 1946, would have been enough to turn the tide of any conventional war between the Soviet Union and the West at that time.

And tremendous fleets of liberty ships and other logistics and infrastructure assets and production facilities well-protected on the other side of the world.

To paraphrase a French general speaking to Churchill in 1940... we have a very good anti-tank ditch... two of them, actually... called the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Also, there existed an incredible disparity of naval forces favoring the United States and the UK including vast capabilities for amphibious assault as needed.

Not to mention a US population reserve still largely fresh and untouched, to bring new and replacement ground forces to bear quickly upon the problem.

Toss in a handful of state-of-the-art atomic bombs just for grins and you've got such a lopsided contest in favor of the United States that it's embarrassing.

No... I do not agree with your assessment that the Soviet Union of 1946 would have won any contest between itself and The West.

It's all speculation, mind you, but that's the way I see it... rightly or wrongly.

The Soviet military by that point was a well-oiled machine that had much shorter supply lines.

One that was profoundly exhausted by 1946, whereas we had barely warmed-up by that time.

The British Empire was pretty much spent at that point. (It in fact, collapsed within a decade as all its colonies declared independence.)

Yep. Then again, at the time, their Navy and Air Force were still very formidable.

We would probably have tasked them to take-and-hold the Middle East and mid-Asia oil fields, and if they had any energy left-over, to take Crimea for us.

You see, here's the big lie that Americans believe about World War II... that we were the ones who won it.

Yes and No. It's not a "lie". It's "ignorance". A matter of simply not being reasonably well-read on the subject. or an inability to draw the correct conclusions.

Keep in mind that we are one of only a handful of nations to ever win a large-scale TWO-FRONT war ( the Pacific, and Europe ).

There can be no doubt that we won overwhelmingly in the Pacific and that it was mostly the US that did it - not single-handedly, but darned-near.

And we won in the Pacific after starting-out at an overwhelming deficit and while building-up for Europe and while feeding the Brits and Soviets.

We won in Europe by using our manpower intelligently on the macro level...

* Letting the Soviets take 60-70% of the "heat" from Nazi ground forces - although it took the Soviets 4 years to finish them off, and that with our help

* Letting our Air Force (and the RAF) smash Nazi war-production centers and infrastructure and logistics and cities from the air, with sustainable losses

* Establishing overwhelming air superiority for both strategic and tactical (ground support) purposes - a game-changer in its own right

* Amassing overpowering assault forces for Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy and Southern France, and hitting the Nazis from multiple directions

WE are the ones who "wrote the book" on integrated multi-force ( ground, air, naval ) operations and we continue to be the best at it to this very day.

The Soviets (like their Imperial predecessors and Federation successors) know two things... conscription and cannon-fodder frontal assault techniques.

Hell... here we are in 2022, and the Russian Army is the second-best army in Ukraine... put them back on their heels and their dogma begins to fall apart.

In fact, the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting in Europe

In Eastern Europe, yes indeed... that was their penance for climbing into bed with Nazi Germany in assaulting Poland in September 1939.

And it took them four years (1941-1945) to beat-back the large army of a pipsqueak nation only a fraction their size - and that with a LOT of help.

In Western Europe (and the Mediterranean, and Africa, and the Middle East) - all nearby theaters - it was all us... the US and the UK... all of it.

And all that while manufacturing and transporting vast amounts of equipment and food to the Soviets, given that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Things were not going well for the Soviet behemoth in its struggle against pipsqueak Germany, and Stalin begged for a second front for a very long time.

And, from a purely mathematical and cold-hearted perspective, it made sense to let the Soviets and Germans kill each other, so that more of ours survived.

Top-shelf thinking, that.

while the US and UK dicked around in Italy and France.

Yes... that little lightweight effort on our part that Uncle Joe Stalin had been begging us for, for three years (1941-1944)...

It was Soviet entry into the Pacific War that finally convinced the Japanese to surrender, more than Atom bombs did.

Nonsense.

The Soviet entry into the war and the beginnings of its assault on Manchuria was a minor accent in the catastrophe unfolding for Japan.

The Japanese had lost all of their outlying islands and these became strategic air assault platforms and assembly points for an amphibious assault on Japan.

The Japanese knew the ground assault was coming and had been training their schoolchildren and wives and old folk to resist to the last living soul.

The conventional air assault by high-altitude air armadas (that AA and Japanese fighters could not reach) was "on" in full and laying waste to the country.

They were running out of fuel and they were beginning to starve and they had no hope - zero - of winning any longer and the population knew it.

And, most importantly, they were running out of fighting men and equipment and ammunition and were already desperate to save the Emperor and Tokyo.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE the deciding factor in the Japanese decision to surrender.

This is well documented and is beyond rational contestation.

 

[22lcidw]

Doubtful.

The Soviet Union had population of 170,000,000 in 1939 and it had lost 20,000,000 in fighting the Germans.

A tragedy that could have been averted had they not treacherously made a secret pact with Nazi Germany to invade and divide Poland.

( if you lie down with dogs then don't be surprised if you get fleas )

-----

The Soviets were approaching exhaustion by early 1945 and their logistics were desperately strained; buoyed by continued logistical support from the US.

The Soviets (and their Russian Imperial predecessors and their Russian Federation successors) function on the Cannon-Fodder Principle.

The Soviets of that era had a very good main battle tank, the T-34, and a decent Yak fighter or fighter-bomber or two...

But the American M4 (Sherman) was at parity with the T-34 and the M26 Pershings coming online were

Not to mention the vast superiority of the United States in air assets... P47s and P51s, early jets, armadas of B29s, B24s and B17s - heavy strategic bombers.

And tremendous fleets of transport airplanes - C54s, C47s and the like, and massive airborne assault assets already in place.

And tremendous fleets of liberty ships and other logistics and infrastructure assets and production facilities well-protected on the other side of the world.

To paraphrase a French general speaking to Churchill in 1940... we have a very good anti-tank ditch... two of them, actually... called the Atlantic and the Pacific.

And the unbelievable disparity favoring the United States and the UK with respect to naval assets and amphibious assault equipment and troop formations.

Not to mention a population reserve still largely fresh and untouched, to bring new and replacement ground forces to bear quickly upon the problem.

Toss in a handful of state-of-the-art atomic bombs just for grins and you've got such a lopsided contest in favor of the United States that it's embarrassing.

No... I do not agree with your assessment that the Soviet Union of 1946 would have won any contest between itself and The West.

It's all speculation, mind you, but that's the way I see it... rightly or wrongly.


One that was profoundly exhausted by 1946, whereas we had barely warmed-up by that time.

Yep. Then again, at the time, their Navy and Air Force were still very formidable.

We would probably tasked them to take-and-hold the Middle East and mid-Asia oil fields, and if they had any energy left-over, to take Crimea for us.

Yes and No. It's not a "lie". It's "ignorance". A matter of simply not being reasonably well-read on the subject. or an inability to draw the correct conclusions.

Keep in mind that we are one of only a handful of nations to ever win a large-scale TWO-FRONT war ( the Pacific, and Europe ).

There can be no doubt that we won overwhelmingly in the Pacific and that it was mostly the US that did it - not single-handedly, but darned-near.

And we won in the Pacific after starting-out at an overwhelming deficit and while building-up for Europe and while feeding the Brits and Soviets.

We won in Europe by using our manpower intelligently on the macro level...

* Letting the Soviets take 60-70% of the "heat" from Nazi ground forces - although it took the Soviets 4 years to finish them off, and that with our help

* Letting our Air Force (and the RAF) smash Nazi war-production centers and infrastructure and logistics and cities from the air, with sustainable losses

* Establishing overwhelming air superiority for both strategic and tactical (ground support) purposes - a game-changer in its own right

* Amassing overpowering assault forces for Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy and Southern France, and hitting the Nazis from multiple directions

WE are the ones who "wrote the book" on integrated multi-force ( ground, air, naval ) operations and we continue to be the best at it to this very day.

The Soviets (like their Imperial predecessors and Federation successors) know two things... conscription and cannon-fodder frontal assault techniques.

Hell... here we are in 2022, and the Russian Army is the second-best army in Ukraine... put them back on their heels and their dogma begins to fall apart.


In Eastern Europe, yes indeed... that was their penance for climbing into bed with Nazi Germany in assaulting Poland in September 1939.

And it took them four years (1941-1945) to beat-back the large army of a pipsqueak nation only a fraction their size - and that with a LOT of help.

In Western Europe (and the Mediterranean, and Africa, and the Middle East) - all nearby theaters - it was all us... the US and the UK... all of it.

And all that while manufacturing and transporting vast amounts of equipment and food to the Soviets, given that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Things were not going well for the Soviet behemoth in its struggle against pipsqueak Germany, and Stalin begged for a second front for a very long time.

And, from a purely mathematical and cold-hearted perspective, it made sense to let the Soviets and Germans kill each other, so that more of ours survived.

Top-shelf thinking, that.


Yes... that little lightweight effort on our part that Uncle Joe Stalin had been begging us for, for three years (1941-1944)...

Nonsense.

The Soviet entry into the war and the beginnings of its assault on Manchuria was a minor accent in the catastrophe unfolding for Japan.

The Japanese had lost all of their outlying islands and these became strategic air assault platforms and assembly points for an amphibious assault on Japan.

The Japanese knew the ground assault was coming and had been training their schoolchildren and wives and old folk to resist to the last living soul.

The conventional air assault by high-altitude air armadas (that AA and Japanese fighters could not reach) was "on" in full and laying waste to the country.

They were running out of fuel and they were beginning to starve and they had no hope - zero - of winning any longer and the population knew it.

And, most importantly, they were running out of fighting men and equipment and ammunition and were already desperate to save the Emperor and Tokyo.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE the deciding factor in the Japanese decision to surrender.

This is well documented and is beyond rational contention.

The then globalists caused most of this.

 

[Kondor3]

The then globalists caused most of this.

Isolationists would have had us wait until it was too late to save ourselves.

There is strength in numbers and allying ourselves with similar peoples and cultures against an encroaching tyranny made perfect sense.

Freedom isn't free.

The trick is to recognize when to keep to ourselves and when to jump into the fray with both feet.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Isolationists would have had us wait until it was too late to save ourselves.

There is strength in numbers and allying ourselves with similar peoples and cultures against an encroaching tyranny made perfect sense.

Freedom isn't free.

The trick is to recognize when to keep to ourselves and when to jump into the fray with both feet.

Had we disposed of the USSR along with Nazi Germany, there wouldn't have been the spread of Communism in the West like we have today. Sen. McCarthy was right as rain on this.

 

[JoeB131]

Keep in mind that we are one of only a handful of nations to ever win a large-scale TWO-FRONT war ( the Pacific, and Europe ).

There can be no doubt that we won overwhelmingly in the Pacific and that it was mostly the US that did it - not single-handedly, but darned-near.

Um, other people did most of the fighting on those two fronts.

In Europe, it was the Soviets and British, and in the Pacific, it was China.

 

[JoeB131]

Had we disposed of the USSR along with Nazi Germany, there wouldn't have been the spread of Communism in the West like we have today. Sen. McCarthy was right as rain on this.

Or the USSR would have disposed of us... Our biggest problem post war that most of Europe that wasn't behind the Iron curtain was starting to think, "Hey, maybe Communism isn't such a bad idea!" When Mao won in China, the west collectively crapped their pants.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Or the USSR would have disposed of us... Our biggest problem post war that most of Europe that wasn't behind the Iron curtain was starting to think, "Hey, maybe Communism isn't such a bad idea!" When Mao won in China, the west collectively crapped their pants.

As a Commie yourself, you would support that spread.

 

[Kondor3]

Um, other people did most of the fighting on those two fronts.

In Europe, it was the Soviets and British, and in the Pacific, it was China.

You're right about one thing... I left out the huge Chinese contribution in Asia... guilty as charged.

Keeping in-mind that the Chinese only had control of part of their country and that we and the UK had to supply them over air and land.

However, the Second Sino-Japan War (1937-1945) only accounted for 400,000 -ish Japanese military fatalities throughout its entire eight-year duration.

In WWII the Japanese suffered a total of 1,700,000 military fatalities.

1,700,000 - 400,000 = 1,300,000 Japanese military fatalities beyond the scope of the SIno-Japan War.

Care to guess who inflicted the lion's share of those 1,300,000 Japanese military deaths?

Like I said, the US did most of the heavy lifting against Japan, with some good help from the UK and the Aussies.

 

[g5000]

He told it like it is
He was rude when he had to get his point across
Sometimes he was politically incorrect
He was a fighter
The common man loved him
He was a winner when given the chance
He was the man you want at your side in a war

Was it Trump?
Was it Patton?

It was both!
Patton was the Proto Trump
And we need him to save America

Patton would have slapped the shit out of Bone Spur.

 

[JoeB131]

You're right about one thing... I left out the huge Chinese contribution in Asia... guilty as charged.

Keeping in-mind that the Chinese only had control of part of their country and that we and the UK had to supply them over air and land.

However, the Second Sino-Japan War (1937-1945) only accounted for 400,000 -ish Japanese military fatalities throughout its entire eight-year duration.

In WWII the Japanese suffered a total of 1,700,000 military fatalities.

1,700,000 - 400,000 = 1,300,000 Japanese military fatalities beyond the scope of the SIno-Japan War.

Care to guess who inflicted the lion's share of those 1,300,000 Japanese military deaths?

Like I said, the US did most of the heavy lifting against Japan, with some good help from the UK and the Aussies.

Most of those Japanese deaths were from firebombing civilians... what an idiotic argument.

 

[JoeB131]

As a Commie yourself, you would support that spread.

Do you really go through life with such a child-like view of the world? I mean, I used the term "Commie" when I was a teenager... but then I grew up.

 

[Kondor3]

Most of those Japanese deaths were from firebombing civilians... what an idiotic argument.

Nope.

Figured you'd try to go there.

The figure I quoted EXCLUDED civilian deaths due to firebombing.

We are talking EXCLUSIVELY about MILITARY deaths.

And virtually all of their MILITARY fatalities occurred off-shore.

Nice try.

Not.

 

[Kondor3]

Had we disposed of the USSR along with Nazi Germany, there wouldn't have been the spread of Communism in the West like we have today. Sen. McCarthy was right as rain on this.

Yep.

It would have been in our long-term interests to eliminate the USSR.

But we lacked a casus belli and our own people were (understandably) tired of war and wanted to get back to enjoying life.

As to McCarthy being right...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

And McCarthy was about as wrong as wrong-can-be about so many other things that the overall effect cancelled out whatever little good had done.

Much like Benedict Arnold, who was a valued and trusted US military commander, right up the split second when he betrayed his country...

Much like Ronald Rump, who was accorded high office, then broke his oath and betrayed his country in summoning and loosing January 6, 2021...

 

[JoeB131]

Nope.

Figured you'd try to go there.

The figure I quoted EXCLUDED civilian deaths due to firebombing.

We are talking EXCLUSIVELY about MILITARY deaths.

And virtually all of their MILITARY fatalities occurred off-shore.

Nice try.

Not.

Horseshit.

Even the bloodiest battles in the Pacific weren't that bloody for japan.

Okinawa was only 78K Japanese dead.

Iwo Jima only 18K Japanese dead.

Peleliu only 14K Japanese dead.

Gudacanal - 19K dead.


I could go on but you get the point. The miserable little Islands we fought the Japanese over didn't really effect their casualty counts that much. It's when we started bombing the hell out of them we started really inflicting misery on the Japanese people.

We Americans fantasize about our military prowess in WWII... but the reality is, other people did most of the fighting.

Americans just don't have the stomach for war, and never really have.

 

[DudleySmith]

True, but we could have waited, not given the bolsheviks anything and focused on the Nips.

Had we not fed and equipped stalin's hordes, they would have lost the war by 1943. I'll never understand how the stupid euroweenies could not see the threat that the bolsheviks were, and for whatever reason after the krauts and ruskies invaded Poland, only the krauts were held accountable.

If you ask me, the bolsheviks should have been left to fend for themselves.

It was actually the timely British aid that saved Moscow and allowed the Soviets to launch the Winter Offensives, not the U.S. It can be argued that Lend-LEase aid to the British made it possible for them to provide that first shipment, but it didn't include American goods.

 

[Blaster]

He told it like it is
He was rude when he had to get his point across
Sometimes he was politically incorrect
He was a fighter
The common man loved him
He was a winner when given the chance
He was the man you want at your side in a war

Was it Trump?
Was it Patton?

It was both!
Patton was the Proto Trump
And we need him to save America

They are both fighters.

 

[surada]

They are both fighters.

Trump's not a fighter. He's a bully and a coward... that's why he never takes responsibility for anything. He's the victim since 1980.

Uncle Dick was Patton's aid de camp in Italy. He said Patton was a patriot, a colorful character who really had pearl handled pistols... and, he was a very devout Catholic.

 

[Blaster]

Uncle Dick was Patton's aid de camp in Italy. He said Patton was a patriot, a colorful character who really had pearl handled pistols... and, he was a very devout Catholic.

A patriot just like Trump.