The Politics of General Patton

[regent]

It should be coming clear to many why Ike kept Patton on a leash and what kind of nonsense was swirling around at that time. We are lucky that America had a president that was not jerked around by the many nuts that were coming out of the woodwork. Most board games probably do not come with bundles of gold stars, but real wars do. "I move my pawn...."

 

[Discombobulated]

Patton wanted to team up with willing elements of the Nazi Wehrmacht against the Soviets? Am I getting that right?

And he wanted to do that right at the time when the full scope of the Nazi holocaust was reaching the rest of world?

lol, good luck.

I believe that is correct, his idea was to rearm the Germans and go to war with the Soviet Union.

Yup. The Germans themselves wanted to surrender to the Western Allies. They would have handed over everyone we wanted, they just wanted to be able to continue the war against the Soviets, and this was offered in the middle of 1944.

By the end of the war, the Soviets had been bled dry. They no longer had the huge advantage in people they had enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Had the US gone to war with them, with German help. I have no doubt we would have won. It would however certainly have been a very bloody affair.

The Soviet tanks were far better than ours. No question. They weren't as good as the Panther, but they were orders of magnitude better than ours. Even the Pershing was no match for a JSU-152 or JS-2. But, our air power would absolutely have ruled the sky's after about three to four months.

That would negate the Soviet advantage in artillery and in men. We were a fully mobile army, they weren't. They were only as mobile as they were because we gave them 600,000 trucks through lend lease. The US gave the Soviets millions of tons of munitions, food, weapons, and medicine. Had that been taken away the Soviet armies would have collapsed after a few months of combat.

The problem would have been in administering that huge area. We can't control Iraq, there is no way we could have controlled the vastly larger Soviet Union. We would still have troops there, and we would still be actively fighting partisans to this day had we attacked.

By 1944, the Soviets were kicking their asses. Of course Germans wanted an out. Did they really think they could get off the hook with the soviets after what they had done?

Until we invaded in the west the Germans were holding their own. Manstein was a masterful defensive general. Had Hitler not pushed for the Kursk battles the Germans would probably have been able to bleed the Soviets out even after we had invaded.

Thankfully Hitler was a moron and squandered those resources which the Germans couldn't replace.

Baloney. And 80 per cent of German assets were against the Russians til the end and always, at least. Attacking them was RW idiocy, just more evidence, perhaps the best ever, you seldom want generals in politics.

The Soviets faced 80% of German ground forces and 50% of German air force. While the Soviets couldn't have defeated the Germans on their own it's also obvious that the US and Britain couldn't have won without the Soviets.

 

[Discombobulated]

Oh my, PoliticalShit is still flapping yap. And 20 years from now absolutely no one will care what the old hag said, and President Roosevelt will still be looked up to as one of our great American heros

It's amusing to watch obsessive hatred of FDR play itself out in a deranged mind;

now PC has resorted to allying herself with General Patton, who called Jews 'filthy' and 'sub-human', out of desperation to concoct one more line of attack.

If some people want to turn Patton into a political figure they need to remember that part too.

 

[Discombobulated]

Oh my, PoliticalShit is still flapping yap. And 20 years from now absolutely no one will care what the old hag said, and President Roosevelt will still be looked up to as one of our great American heros

Twenty years from now? What makes you think anyone cares now?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's amusing to watch obsessive hatred of FDR play itself out in a deranged mind;

now PC has resorted to allying herself with General Patton, who called Jews 'filthy' and 'sub-human', out of desperation to concoct one more line of attack.

Time for me to educate you again????

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),

You could not be more wrong standing with Patton's insane idea of declaring war on the USSR.

Keep talking...I'm diagnosing you.

Congress would have never declared war on the USSR in 1945. End of story, unless you have a coherent rebuttal up your sleeve.

Nah....I don't have access to the 'Magic 8-Ball" you use for research.

That's your rebuttal? It was your claim that this was a viable option, or wasn't it?

 

[Discombobulated]

So how about that Gen. Patton anyway........quite a guy huh. I wonder when we get to that part of the discussion?

This thread began with the erroneous "George Patton was pretty irrelevant politically."
General Patton Speaks With God Page 8 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Let's examine why Patton's politics ran counter to those of Franklin Roosevelt....


9. Patton did not hide his disregard for the Russians, shown even in unimportant comments, as those of April 25, of 1944, at the opening of a "Welcome Club" for American soldiers in Knutsford, England.

" General Patton was almost fired over the “Affair at Knutsford”.
Knutsford, England was a small town close Patton's headquarters. Patton has been asked to be a guest at the inauguration of a “Welcome Club” for American serviceman. After asking that no photographs be taken, and checking that there were no reporters, Patton made a few off-the-cuff remarks. This included a remark that America and Britain would rule the world. This was considered a slight to Russia, since Patton had failed to include Russia as a world ruler. It was this ‘slight’ that almost ruined Patton’s career. It was released to the world press. Patton was again in the news. All three governments were displeased with Patton. Patton's promotion to the permanent rank of general was placed on hold and Eisenhower sent Patton a blistering letter:

“I am thoroughly weary of your failure to control your tongue and have begun to doubt your all-round judgment, so essential in high military position.”

Patton wrote in his diary,“... this last incident was so trivial in its nature, but so terrible in its effects, but it is not the result of an accident...”
D-Day Three Unique Perspectives Where was General Patton on D-day

The comments did not escape the notice of Joseph Stalin.
He was enfuriated....and FDR couldn't have that!



10. Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.

"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???

Had Patton been a subject of Stalin's...one can guess what would have become of him.
But Roosevelt's version of the Kremlin has it's hands tied, both because Patton was non replaceable on the battlefield, but because America was not Russia.

This explanation applies:
" The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, ...."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism."


If you ask nicely, I may construct an OP on what could have happened otherwise.

Patton was a soldier, not a politician. His own big mouth is what usually got him into trouble, he questioned the decisions of his superior officers on a regular basis. He wasn't always right, his plan for the invasion of Sicily being case in point.

You have a limited view of the meaning of politics.

pol·i·tics
ˈpäləˌtiks/
noun

1. the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with being commander of the 3rd Army.

But it does show the fallacy in your statement "Patton was a soldier, not a politician."


Stalin and FDR saw him as a political threat.

I may post a thread on the result thereof.....if you ask nicely and promise to take notes.

I guess you can define politicians any way you want......no doubt you imagine yourself to be a politician too.

 

[Discombobulated]

Patton wanted to team up with willing elements of the Nazi Wehrmacht against the Soviets? Am I getting that right?

And he wanted to do that right at the time when the full scope of the Nazi holocaust was reaching the rest of world?

lol, good luck.

I believe that is correct, his idea was to rearm the Germans and go to war with the Soviet Union.

Yup. The Germans themselves wanted to surrender to the Western Allies. They would have handed over everyone we wanted, they just wanted to be able to continue the war against the Soviets, and this was offered in the middle of 1944.

By the end of the war, the Soviets had been bled dry. They no longer had the huge advantage in people they had enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Had the US gone to war with them, with German help. I have no doubt we would have won. It would however certainly have been a very bloody affair.

The Soviet tanks were far better than ours. No question. They weren't as good as the Panther, but they were orders of magnitude better than ours. Even the Pershing was no match for a JSU-152 or JS-2. But, our air power would absolutely have ruled the sky's after about three to four months.

That would negate the Soviet advantage in artillery and in men. We were a fully mobile army, they weren't. They were only as mobile as they were because we gave them 600,000 trucks through lend lease. The US gave the Soviets millions of tons of munitions, food, weapons, and medicine. Had that been taken away the Soviet armies would have collapsed after a few months of combat.

The problem would have been in administering that huge area. We can't control Iraq, there is no way we could have controlled the vastly larger Soviet Union. We would still have troops there, and we would still be actively fighting partisans to this day had we attacked.

By 1944, the Soviets were kicking their asses. Of course Germans wanted an out. Did they really think they could get off the hook with the soviets after what they had done?

Until we invaded in the west the Germans were holding their own. Manstein was a masterful defensive general. Had Hitler not pushed for the Kursk battles the Germans would probably have been able to bleed the Soviets out even after we had invaded.

Thankfully Hitler was a moron and squandered those resources which the Germans couldn't replace.

By the time we invaded Europe the Germans weren't holding shit on the eastern front, the Soviets were crashing into Poland within a few weeks of the Normandy landings.

 

[Camp]

Patton wanted to team up with willing elements of the Nazi Wehrmacht against the Soviets? Am I getting that right?

And he wanted to do that right at the time when the full scope of the Nazi holocaust was reaching the rest of world?

lol, good luck.

I believe that is correct, his idea was to rearm the Germans and go to war with the Soviet Union.

Yup. The Germans themselves wanted to surrender to the Western Allies. They would have handed over everyone we wanted, they just wanted to be able to continue the war against the Soviets, and this was offered in the middle of 1944.

By the end of the war, the Soviets had been bled dry. They no longer had the huge advantage in people they had enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Had the US gone to war with them, with German help. I have no doubt we would have won. It would however certainly have been a very bloody affair.

The Soviet tanks were far better than ours. No question. They weren't as good as the Panther, but they were orders of magnitude better than ours. Even the Pershing was no match for a JSU-152 or JS-2. But, our air power would absolutely have ruled the sky's after about three to four months.

That would negate the Soviet advantage in artillery and in men. We were a fully mobile army, they weren't. They were only as mobile as they were because we gave them 600,000 trucks through lend lease. The US gave the Soviets millions of tons of munitions, food, weapons, and medicine. Had that been taken away the Soviet armies would have collapsed after a few months of combat.

The problem would have been in administering that huge area. We can't control Iraq, there is no way we could have controlled the vastly larger Soviet Union. We would still have troops there, and we would still be actively fighting partisans to this day had we attacked.

By 1944, the Soviets were kicking their asses. Of course Germans wanted an out. Did they really think they could get off the hook with the soviets after what they had done?

Until we invaded in the west the Germans were holding their own. Manstein was a masterful defensive general. Had Hitler not pushed for the Kursk battles the Germans would probably have been able to bleed the Soviets out even after we had invaded.

Thankfully Hitler was a moron and squandered those resources which the Germans couldn't replace.

By the time we invaded Europe the Germans weren't holding shit on the eastern front, the Soviets were crashing into Poland within a few weeks of the Normandy landings.

The allies had agreed that Russia would get Berlin at Yalta. Knowing Berlin was to be a Russian prize, several huge Russian Armies with competing Marshall's/Generals were racing to the final victory. Their forces were massive, comprising of over 2.5 million troops, over 45,000 artillery, 6,250 tanks and 7,500 attack aircraft. These numbers were only the forces directly involved in the Battle for Berlin and do not count the over 7 million troops on other fronts or in reserve, but available to confront Patton's ill conceived plan that was categorically rejected by his commanders.

 

[francoHFW]

Well they agreed to split Germany and Berlin. Russia lost hundreds of thousands just taking Berlin. They would have beaten Germany on their own and taken over all of Europe without D-Day. Attacking them was right wing idiocy.

 

[westwall]

Patton wanted to team up with willing elements of the Nazi Wehrmacht against the Soviets? Am I getting that right?

And he wanted to do that right at the time when the full scope of the Nazi holocaust was reaching the rest of world?

lol, good luck.

I believe that is correct, his idea was to rearm the Germans and go to war with the Soviet Union.

Yup. The Germans themselves wanted to surrender to the Western Allies. They would have handed over everyone we wanted, they just wanted to be able to continue the war against the Soviets, and this was offered in the middle of 1944.

By the end of the war, the Soviets had been bled dry. They no longer had the huge advantage in people they had enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Had the US gone to war with them, with German help. I have no doubt we would have won. It would however certainly have been a very bloody affair.

The Soviet tanks were far better than ours. No question. They weren't as good as the Panther, but they were orders of magnitude better than ours. Even the Pershing was no match for a JSU-152 or JS-2. But, our air power would absolutely have ruled the sky's after about three to four months.

That would negate the Soviet advantage in artillery and in men. We were a fully mobile army, they weren't. They were only as mobile as they were because we gave them 600,000 trucks through lend lease. The US gave the Soviets millions of tons of munitions, food, weapons, and medicine. Had that been taken away the Soviet armies would have collapsed after a few months of combat.

The problem would have been in administering that huge area. We can't control Iraq, there is no way we could have controlled the vastly larger Soviet Union. We would still have troops there, and we would still be actively fighting partisans to this day had we attacked.

Pretty much what the Germans thought in 1941.......they were wrong.

The US was at full war production for less than two years. We began cancelling production towards the end of 1943. That's when we knew we were going to win. We out produced the entire world in that short period. We would have done to the Soviets, what they had done to the Germans, only we wouldn't have suffered the massive losses that they did.

However, the "victory" would still be being fought for today against partisans. That much is very clear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh my, PoliticalShit is still flapping yap. And 20 years from now absolutely no one will care what the old hag said, and President Roosevelt will still be looked up to as one of our great American heros

It's amusing to watch obsessive hatred of FDR play itself out in a deranged mind;

now PC has resorted to allying herself with General Patton, who called Jews 'filthy' and 'sub-human', out of desperation to concoct one more line of attack.

Time for me to educate you again????

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (October 16, 1854),

You could not be more wrong standing with Patton's insane idea of declaring war on the USSR.

Hmmm....you seem to be running away from claiming that Patton was incorrect in his predictions as to the result of not stopping the advance of the Red Army.

So....contrary to popular opinion, you may be capable of some, rudimentary ability to learn.



And, if Patton and Churchill were correct- and they were- how might their rectitude have been brought to fruition at the time?

Careful now...you may stumble into rectitude, and destroy the reputation you've so assiduously built over the years.

 

[westwall]

Patton wanted to team up with willing elements of the Nazi Wehrmacht against the Soviets? Am I getting that right?

And he wanted to do that right at the time when the full scope of the Nazi holocaust was reaching the rest of world?

lol, good luck.

I believe that is correct, his idea was to rearm the Germans and go to war with the Soviet Union.

Yup. The Germans themselves wanted to surrender to the Western Allies. They would have handed over everyone we wanted, they just wanted to be able to continue the war against the Soviets, and this was offered in the middle of 1944.

By the end of the war, the Soviets had been bled dry. They no longer had the huge advantage in people they had enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Had the US gone to war with them, with German help. I have no doubt we would have won. It would however certainly have been a very bloody affair.

The Soviet tanks were far better than ours. No question. They weren't as good as the Panther, but they were orders of magnitude better than ours. Even the Pershing was no match for a JSU-152 or JS-2. But, our air power would absolutely have ruled the sky's after about three to four months.

That would negate the Soviet advantage in artillery and in men. We were a fully mobile army, they weren't. They were only as mobile as they were because we gave them 600,000 trucks through lend lease. The US gave the Soviets millions of tons of munitions, food, weapons, and medicine. Had that been taken away the Soviet armies would have collapsed after a few months of combat.

The problem would have been in administering that huge area. We can't control Iraq, there is no way we could have controlled the vastly larger Soviet Union. We would still have troops there, and we would still be actively fighting partisans to this day had we attacked.

By 1944, the Soviets were kicking their asses. Of course Germans wanted an out. Did they really think they could get off the hook with the soviets after what they had done?

Until we invaded in the west the Germans were holding their own. Manstein was a masterful defensive general. Had Hitler not pushed for the Kursk battles the Germans would probably have been able to bleed the Soviets out even after we had invaded.

Thankfully Hitler was a moron and squandered those resources which the Germans couldn't replace.

By the time we invaded Europe the Germans weren't holding shit on the eastern front, the Soviets were crashing into Poland within a few weeks of the Normandy landings.

You forgot Sicily and Italy. That is the invasion I am referring too. That took valuable combat forces and diverted them away from Russia. A month after Husky the Soviets launched the first of their major attacks into the Ukraine to begin kicking the Germans out of the Soviet Union. Which was soon followed by the retaking of the Crimea etc.

We also started the attacks on the Ploesti oil fields at the same time the Soviets launched their attacks which helped strangle the German transportation networks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well they agreed to split Germany and Berlin. Russia lost hundreds of thousands just taking Berlin. They would have beaten Germany on their own and taken over all of Europe without D-Day. Attacking them was right wing idiocy.

"...They would have beaten Germany on their own ..."
What an imbecile.

How can anyone as dumb as you pretend he has a library card, much less a college degree????



The following from Joseph Stalin's inamorata, Franklin Roosevelt:

1. It is well known and documented that FDR's administration was riddled with Stalin's agents, and, in many ways, policy was directed from Moscow. Case in point, aid to Mao and resistance to helping Chiang Kaichek. Less well known, when told about the spies, Roosevelt simply laughed.


2. Further, supplies didn't just "flow" to the Soviet Union, they flooded it, including non-military supplies: a tire plant, an oil refinery, pipe-fabricating works, over a million miles of copper wire, switchboard-panels, lathes and power tools, textile machinery, woodworking, typesetting, cranes hoists, derricks, air compressors, $152 million in women's 'dress goods,' 18.4 million pounds of writing paper, cigarette cases, jeweled watches, lipstick, liquor, bathtubs, and pianos.

a. " A year and a half after WWII began in Europe, Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease supplied a prodigious amount of war materiel to Russia, without which the embattled Red Army, the only challenge to Hitler’s forces, would have been defeated. The temporary congruence of interests was called an alliance, albeit a strange one. For example, when the Americans tried to find a way that long-range American bombers could land in Russia to re-fuel, so as to bomb deep into Germany, the Russians were found to be suspicious, ungrateful, secretive, xenophobic, unfriendly, in short….a great deal of take and very little give."
“The Anti-Communist Manifestos,” by John V. Fleming, chapter six.


3. George Kennan wrote: "there is no adequate justification for continuing a program of lavish and almost indiscriminate aid to the Soviet Union at a time when there was increasing reason to doubt whether her purposes in Eastern Europe, aside from the defeat of Germany, would be ones which we Americans could approve and sponsor." George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. xvii.


4. I challenge FDR apologists to explain government largesse to Soviet Russia, even superseding Allied, or even American military needs. Or American civilian needs: 217,660,666 pounds of butter shipped to the USSR during a time of strict state-side rationing.
John R. Deane, "The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Cooperation With Russia," p.94-95.


a. "The President has directed that 'airplanes be delivered in accordance with protocol schedules by the most expeditious means.' To implement these directives, the modification, equipment and movement of Russian planes have been given first priority, even over planes for US Army Air Forces."
From the diaries of Maj. George Racey Jordan, supervisory 'expediter' of Soviet Lend-Lease aid, p. 20.


b. At Congressional Hearing Regarding Shipments of Atomic Material to the Soviet Union During WWII, Washington GPO, 1950, p.909-910, Major Jordon would tell Congress that he kept this presidential directive on his person to show incredulous officers.



5. What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore."
Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

 

[Camp]

5. What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore."
Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

There was no way to get them there and even if there was, there was no place to put them. The Battleship and Heavy Cruiser Prince of Wales and Repulse had be sunk in the sea north of Singapore. The possibility of delivery by sea was out of the question. The Japanese controlled the skies as well. Air delivery, flying the planes in, would have required them to fly over large expanses of Japanese controlled territory without opportunity to refuel or restock of munitions to fight their way to Singapore. And even if they made it to their destination, there was no place to land and store the planes. All but one of the airbases were under Japanese artillery fire and the runways made useless. The only airfield left was under regular air attack. Any aircraft that arrived there would have been immediately destroyed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore."
Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

There was no way to get them there and even if there was, there was no place to put them. The Battleship and Heavy Cruiser Prince of Wales and Repulse had be sunk in the sea north of Singapore. The possibility of delivery by sea was out of the question. The Japanese controlled the skies as well. Air delivery, flying the planes in, would have required them to fly over large expanses of Japanese controlled territory without opportunity to refuel of restock of munitions to fight their way to Singapore. And even if they made it to their destination, there was no place to land and store the planes. All but one of the airbases were under Japanese artillery fire and the runways made useless. The only airfield left was under regular air attack. Any aircraft that arrived there would have been immediately destroyed.

"There was no way to get them there..."

It is a little known fact, .....airplanes fly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore."
Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

There was no way to get them there and even if there was, there was no place to put them. The Battleship and Heavy Cruiser Prince of Wales and Repulse had be sunk in the sea north of Singapore. The possibility of delivery by sea was out of the question. The Japanese controlled the skies as well. Air delivery, flying the planes in, would have required them to fly over large expanses of Japanese controlled territory without opportunity to refuel or restock of munitions to fight their way to Singapore. And even if they made it to their destination, there was no place to land and store the planes. All but one of the airbases were under Japanese artillery fire and the runways made useless. The only airfield left was under regular air attack. Any aircraft that arrived there would have been immediately destroyed.

"And even if they made it to their destination, blah blah blah..."
Rather than listen to your bloviation, let's see the reality:


1. Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.

a. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


2. In July, 1942, a supply convoy called PQ-17 was sent to supply the USSR at Murmansk. Only 11 of the 35 merchant ships in the convoy survived German attacks. Robert Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins: An Intimate History," vol.2, p.634-645.

Could an attempt to supply MacArthur have cost more men and material?
Why were Russian lives more important to Hopkins/FDR than American?

The explanation: an unnoticed, unimagined crime of Communist penetration and influence on American policy, not only during the war....but after.


3. Even before Bataan fell, MacArthur had bulldozers working around the clock to build 4 airstrips in the Philippines, and 9 on Mindanao...he believed Roosevelt would send help.

Generald Hap Arnold told an RAF commander that if 80 B-17s and two hundred p-40s could get to the islands, he believed 'we could regain superiority of the air in the theater.'
"American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 - 1964," William Manchester

 

[PoliticalChic]

Patton wanted to team up with willing elements of the Nazi Wehrmacht against the Soviets? Am I getting that right?

And he wanted to do that right at the time when the full scope of the Nazi holocaust was reaching the rest of world?

lol, good luck.

I believe that is correct, his idea was to rearm the Germans and go to war with the Soviet Union.

Yup. The Germans themselves wanted to surrender to the Western Allies. They would have handed over everyone we wanted, they just wanted to be able to continue the war against the Soviets, and this was offered in the middle of 1944.

By the end of the war, the Soviets had been bled dry. They no longer had the huge advantage in people they had enjoyed at the beginning of the war. Had the US gone to war with them, with German help. I have no doubt we would have won. It would however certainly have been a very bloody affair.

The Soviet tanks were far better than ours. No question. They weren't as good as the Panther, but they were orders of magnitude better than ours. Even the Pershing was no match for a JSU-152 or JS-2. But, our air power would absolutely have ruled the sky's after about three to four months.

That would negate the Soviet advantage in artillery and in men. We were a fully mobile army, they weren't. They were only as mobile as they were because we gave them 600,000 trucks through lend lease. The US gave the Soviets millions of tons of munitions, food, weapons, and medicine. Had that been taken away the Soviet armies would have collapsed after a few months of combat.

The problem would have been in administering that huge area. We can't control Iraq, there is no way we could have controlled the vastly larger Soviet Union. We would still have troops there, and we would still be actively fighting partisans to this day had we attacked.

Pretty much what the Germans thought in 1941.......they were wrong.

The US was at full war production for less than two years. We began cancelling production towards the end of 1943. That's when we knew we were going to win. We out produced the entire world in that short period. We would have done to the Soviets, what they had done to the Germans, only we wouldn't have suffered the massive losses that they did.

However, the "victory" would still be being fought for today against partisans. That much is very clear.

But 1943 didn't end Roosevelt's gifts to Stalin....even years after Roosevelt's passing.


The original Lend-Lease act provided that, unless sooner terminated by a concurrent resolution by Congress, the authority to enter into lend-lease agreements would end 30 June 1943, and the authority to carry out contracts or agreements with foreign governments would continue until 1 July 1946.

Congress then made one-year extensions of the agreements three times so that the final date for making lend-lease agreements was 30 June 1946, with authority to carry them out until 1 July 1949.
Film Study An Analytical Bibliography - Frank Manchel - Google Books

 

[westwall]

5. What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore."
Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

There was no way to get them there and even if there was, there was no place to put them. The Battleship and Heavy Cruiser Prince of Wales and Repulse had be sunk in the sea north of Singapore. The possibility of delivery by sea was out of the question. The Japanese controlled the skies as well. Air delivery, flying the planes in, would have required them to fly over large expanses of Japanese controlled territory without opportunity to refuel or restock of munitions to fight their way to Singapore. And even if they made it to their destination, there was no place to land and store the planes. All but one of the airbases were under Japanese artillery fire and the runways made useless. The only airfield left was under regular air attack. Any aircraft that arrived there would have been immediately destroyed.

What most armchair generals don't know is the Japanese, when they first contacted the defenders of Singapore were there to negotiate the Japanese surrender! The British commander though, who is one of the most colossal idiots ever to be in military service offered to surrender first! Before he had heard anything!

 

[Sunni Man]

What most armchair generals don't know is the Japanese, when they first contacted the defenders of Singapore were there to negotiate the Japanese surrender! The British commander though, who is one of the most colossal idiots ever to be in military service offered to surrender first! Before he had heard anything!

..............................................

 

[francoHFW]

Sounds more like the anti-FDR Manifestos lol. The Russians stopped the Nazis in Dec 1941 BEFORE any real aid arrived. And got NOTHING after the war ended. They moved all their manufacturing behind the Urals lol and weren't going to lose Period. No matter what your bought off charlatans come up with. They were amazing.