Patton's take on WWII

[editec]

Patton was a brilliant commander.
And he was dead on about Russia as history shows us.
Patton correctly saw Stalin as worse even than Hitler, and correctly predicted that they would dominate the entire theatre with great human suffering.

At the same time however, what we would have done with Russia if we would have conquered them is a whole other story.

The Russians had just finished killing 4 million Germans.

How many Americans would we have been willing to sacrifice?

The Russian Army at the end of the European war was just about completely evaporated.
They couldn't have defeated an Ivory Coast invasion at that point.

I think you've been very misinformed about Soviet troop strength and its industrial capacity by 1945, too.

I'm not prepared to dig out my books on this subject, but at the end of the war the Soviet military machine was enormous and very able, too.

As a clarification, I am not saying I agree with Patton...as I said above, if we would have invaded/conquered Russia - what the hell would we have done with them?

Not a chance in hell (unless we used the bomb...and we only had the nuclear material for two bombs) could we have defeated the Soviets in Europe and invaded Russia.

I think youre letting your US patriotism get the better of you.

 

[Trajan]

we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl. without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.

The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war

uh huh..... what a crock.


American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing Germany to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..

 

[rightwinger]

we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl. without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.

The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war

uh huh..... what a crock.


American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing Germany to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..

Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.

By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand

 

[rightwinger]

At the end of the war the Soviets had more tanks than the rest of the world combined. The Soviet T-34 was also superior to the Sherman tanks that Patton used.

Patton would not have had an easy time defeating the Soviets and would have suffered immense casualties.

The American public never would have stood for a million US casualties after we had already been fighting for four years

Patton was an idiot

 

[westwall]

we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl. without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.

The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war

If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans. As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact. The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people. In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.

Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired. That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.

So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.

 

[westwall]

The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war

uh huh..... what a crock.


American Ingenuity and Manufacturing , encompassed by/ in and lend lease, degrading the axis via strategic consumption ( partnered with france and Britain) forcing Germany to dissipate its resources etc. becasue we opened several fronts, strategic warfare as in an air force that attacked strategic national targets, ( oil, ball bearings, rolling stock,aircraft manufacturing) etc etc etc etc..

Americans bore the brunt of winning the war in the Pacific. The Soviets bore the brunt of defeating the Nazis.

By the time we invaded Sicily in 1943, the Soviets had already turned the tide of the German invasion at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. The Germans threw the bulk of their Army at the Soviets not the Allied forces. The western front was relatively weak compared to the eastern front. The Soviets killed an estimated 4 million Germans while we killed approximately 200 thousand

These are the most accurate figures that have been put together so far. The Germans lost 1,419,728 KIA on the Eastern Front for the duration. There are a further 997,506 MIA (the vast majority of which died in the Soviet gulags post war. There were a further 3,498,060 WIA who survived.

The Germans lost another 841,794 KIA and captured in all campaigns in teh west, including the French campaign, the North African and the Italian and of course the final assault from the western allies. There are a further 5 million or so wounded who were able to recover (some of whom saw further action of course), that equates out to around a 2.5 to one ratio for the Soviets vs the Western Allies as regards casualties inflicted.

Statistics and Numbers

You are ignoring the vast quantities of material that the US alone gave to the Soviet Union to sustain them in their defence against the Germans. 600,00 trucks that completely motorised their transport corps. Thousands of aircraft and weapons. Millions of tons of food and ammunition. And not a few thousand lives of Merchant Marine seaman who gave their lives getting it to them.

 

[rightwinger]

we were actually supporting the soviets before pearl. without the US, the entire russian (and the other ethnic groups of the soviet union) civilization would be extinct.

The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war

If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans. As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact. The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people. In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.

Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired. That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.

So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.

I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.

I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them

Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting

 

[westwall]

The Soviets killed 20 times the number of Nazis than we did.

It was Soviet blood that won the war

If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans. As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact. The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people. In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.

Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired. That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.

So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.

I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.

I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them

Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting

You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many. The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited. They need not have lost that number of people. But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way. No?

 

[rightwinger]

If only the Soviet State had not been so contemptuous of its citizens they wouldn't have lost 6 times the amount of the Germans. As far as the Soviets killing 20 times the number of Germans that is not born out by fact. The soviets did cause the Germans to use up vast quantities of supplies but the blood they shed was for the most part due to follishness and not caring about their people. In the Steppes it was common for the Soviets to round up an entire village and charge them (unarmed) at a German machine gun nest to run it out of bullets so that the troops could then deal with the now empty machine gun crew.

Likewise their mine clearing techniques left a lot to be desired. That consisted of having people link arms and march through minefields.

So yes the blood was certainly shed...but there was no need to shed so much now was there.

I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.

I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them

Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting

You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many. The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited. They need not have lost that number of people. But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way. No?

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I claimed 20 times what the US did

Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.

The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front

German deaths by front

EASTERN FRONT:
Stalingrad: 1.8 million
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
Smolensk 1941: 500,000
Kiev 1941: 400,000
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
Belarus 1941: 370,000
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
Caucasus 1942: 260,000
Kursk: 230,000
Lower Dnieper: 170,000
Kongsberg: 170,000
Rostov: 150,000
Budapest: 130,000
and others with less killed

Whereas on the Western Front
Battle of France 180,000
Normandy: 132,000
El Alamein: 70,000
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080130204203AA7LTZm

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. In May 1945, (1) German and the rest of Europe was a shattered wreck; (2) Japan was at war with the U.S., Great Britain, France, Holland, and other countries but not the USSR; (3) the atomic weapon was more than two months from testing and only two others would be available until 1946; (4) a Soviet military presence several times the size of the western allies stretched across eastern Europe; (5) the U.S. had no more training divisions stateside while the Soviets had 90 within 500 miles of the western front; (6) the Ruskies were not the least bit intimidated by us or anyone else.

2. If Patton had begun a war, the Soviets would have been on the English channel in ten weeks.

 

[westwall]

I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.

I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them

Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting

You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many. The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited. They need not have lost that number of people. But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way. No?

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I claimed 20 times what the US did

Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.

The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front

Yes that number ignores the fact that we captured far more than we killed and ignores the million or so that were murdered after they had surrendered to the Soviets. As I said the West values life the Soviet socialist system couldn't care less about human life. I know where I would rather live.

 

[westwall]

I stated they killed more Nazis than the US did.

I did not imply they killed more Nazis than the Nazis killed them

Regardless, the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting

You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many. The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited. They need not have lost that number of people. But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way. No?

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I claimed 20 times what the US did

Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.

The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front

German deaths by front

EASTERN FRONT:
Stalingrad: 1.8 million
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
Smolensk 1941: 500,000
Kiev 1941: 400,000
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
Belarus 1941: 370,000
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
Caucasus 1942: 260,000
Kursk: 230,000
Lower Dnieper: 170,000
Kongsberg: 170,000
Rostov: 150,000
Budapest: 130,000
and others with less killed

Whereas on the Western Front
Battle of France 180,000
Normandy: 132,000
El Alamein: 70,000
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them. Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous. That's why no universities will use wiki as a source. It is simply not credible.

 

[rightwinger]

You claimed the Soviets killed 20 times the number of Germans that the Western Allies did and that number is simply ridiculous, they killed around 2.5 times as many. The Germans killed 5 times as many Russians as they lost and the reason why they did so was because of the contempt for human life that Soviets exhibited. They need not have lost that number of people. But when you don't care about your people it is easy to waste them in that way. No?

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I claimed 20 times what the US did

Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.

The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front

German deaths by front

EASTERN FRONT:
Stalingrad: 1.8 million
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
Smolensk 1941: 500,000
Kiev 1941: 400,000
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
Belarus 1941: 370,000
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
Caucasus 1942: 260,000
Kursk: 230,000
Lower Dnieper: 170,000
Kongsberg: 170,000
Rostov: 150,000
Budapest: 130,000
and others with less killed

Whereas on the Western Front
Battle of France 180,000
Normandy: 132,000
El Alamein: 70,000
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them. Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous. That's why no universities will use wiki as a source. It is simply not credible.

You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.

They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights

 

[JakeStarkey]

The American casualties on D-Day in Normandy on 6 June 1944 (my uncle flew a glider in the pre-dawn darkness to France that morning) were approximately 6,000, 1/3rd of casualties total at Antietam in our Civil War.

The casualties on the Eastern Front averaged every day a bit more than Normandy for us. In other words, every day in the East was Normandy.

 

[westwall]

World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I claimed 20 times what the US did

Germany lost a total of 6.5 million to 8.8 million civilian and military. Of that 5.5 million were military. The overwhelming majority of that was on the Eastern front and inflicted by the Soviets.

The US killed an estimated 200-400 thousand Germans on the Western front

German deaths by front

EASTERN FRONT:
Stalingrad: 1.8 million
Siege of Leningrad: 1.5 million
Moscow 1941-42: 700,000
Smolensk 1941: 500,000
Kiev 1941: 400,000
Vorenesh 1942: 370,000
Belarus 1941: 370,000
2nd Rzhev-Sychevka: 270,000
Caucasus 1942: 260,000
Kursk: 230,000
Lower Dnieper: 170,000
Kongsberg: 170,000
Rostov: 150,000
Budapest: 130,000
and others with less killed

Whereas on the Western Front
Battle of France 180,000
Normandy: 132,000
El Alamein: 70,000
Battle of the Bulge: 38,000

Wiki's numbers are nowhere near the factual reality but hey feel free to quote them. Just realise they claim that over half the total soldiers in service were killed and that is simply ludicrous. That's why no universities will use wiki as a source. It is simply not credible.

You are free to check each battle and the number of German casualties. The casualties on the western front were nowhere near the magnitude of the Eastern front. Look at Moscow, Lenningrad and Stalingrad alone.

They make D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge look like catfights

Of that there is no doubt but let's take a look at one battle, Stalingrad, wiki claims 1.8 million Germans were killed there and that is not factually correct. The Germans had 1.5million killed (rounded in your favour) on the entire Eastern front from 1941 to 1945. That is less than wiki claims for one battle. The German 6th Army (the one fighting in Stalingrad) had 300,000 total soldiers. That includes the Hungarian and Romanian contingents. Of that total 90,000 went into captivity and 6,000 of those came home in 1950-1955. So for wiki to claim that 1.8 million Germans were KILLED in the battle of Stalingrad is quite simply a joke. They claim 6 times more Germans were killed than actually existed in the area of operations.

 

[geauxtohell]

The American casualties on D-Day in Normandy on 6 June 1944 (my uncle flew a glider in the pre-dawn darkness to France that morning) were approximately 6,000, 1/3rd of casualties total at Antietam in our Civil War.

The casualties on the Eastern Front averaged every day a bit more than Normandy for us. In other words, every day in the East was Normandy.

Your uncle was a brave man. Ever read "Pegasus Bridge"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Since we're speculating...

When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fire at a Russian at over 700 yard.

The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets

The US and Brits would have owned the skies.

We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.

Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.

Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.

 

[westwall]

Since we're speculating...

When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fired at a Russian at over 700 yard.

The "90 divisions in training" is probably bluff and bluster from the Soviets

The US and Brits would have owned the skies.

We could have reactivated and protected German factories so in addition to the Pershing and Shermans, we would have hoards of the German 8.8cm Pak and initially adopt Rommel's ignored advice of using the AT gun to bleed the Russians in their straight ahead surges (The Brits were producing a 17lb AT gun at the time too), so any Russian advance would be greeted by rockets from above and AT guns below.

Additionally, the Germans were inches away from developing a jet engine powered fighter. We would have had them up and running in a month.

Thankfully Reagan was able to make Patton's dream of total defeat of the Russian Empire come true without ever crossing swords.

The Germans had an operational jet fighter (the Me 262) and they also had an operational jet bomber (the Arado 234) however both were plagued by poor engines that had very short lifespans measured in just a few hours. The British had one jet fighter that was operational by 1944 in the Gloster Meteor and later on in 1945 the DeHavilland Vampire was operational. These had better engines than the German aircraft and would no doubt have seen the Arado re-engined. The 262 was actually not as good as teh Meteor.

The Russians had far more troops on the ground than us and much better tanks than us. However our airforces would have swept the skies of the Russians in short order and the exact same thing that happened to the Germans would have happened to the Russians. They would have been unable to move anything during the day. Period. During the night it would have been extremely difficult to move anything as well.

Their best possible course of action would have been to retreat to their border and build up their strenght and hope the US led coalition would run out of will and decide on peace.
If it came to blows the vast majority of Soviet tanks would be destroyed from the air. Just like the Germans did to them during the war. Rudel alone destroyed over 800 Russian tanks from his Stuka.

The only problem that a US led coalition would face is transport of supplies. That would slow us down considerably and allow the Russians to design defensive areas that we would have to destroy in detail and that would take time and blood. We could have done it, but it in no way would have been easy.

 

[rightwinger]

Since we're speculating...

When Patton met Zhukov the Russian was bragging how they had a tank that could throw a shell 2 miles. Patton laughed it off and turned the great Zhukov white when he responded he would court martial for cowardice any US tanker who open fire at a Russian at over 700 yards
swords.

Must be a BS quote or shows Patton was a moron. Any tanker would prefer to have greater range than his enemy. It allows you to kill without being killed. The Russian T 34 was vastly superior to the Shermans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The American casualties on D-Day in Normandy on 6 June 1944 (my uncle flew a glider in the pre-dawn darkness to France that morning) were approximately 6,000, 1/3rd of casualties total at Antietam in our Civil War.

The casualties on the Eastern Front averaged every day a bit more than Normandy for us. In other words, every day in the East was Normandy.

Your uncle was a brave man. Ever read "Pegasus Bridge"?

I haven't. So I will look up the reviews. Uncle would not call landing the glider the brave act of the day (though, even as a paratrooper, I can't imagine ever riding in one of those death traps): he said that sitting in a foxhole with three prisoners, not shooting them, and then running away ~ that is what he was proud about.