1 Putin was, is and will always be a damned commie.

2

You mean listen to Gen Patton about attacking the Soviets after we finished off the Germans?  They didn't listen to him becaues the Russkies would have kicked our asses off of the continent.

3 what the General should of done was tell the chinese that russians taste like chicken

4 Commie John:


Spare me your tired commie bullshit. Actually, Patton said "give me a month and I'll kick their asses and make it look like they started it." He could have done so easily. The Russians were nothing but target practice. While America and Britain fought Germany's finest in the West, children and rejects were sent to the Russian front to face the savage Winter.


More Russians were killed in WWII than all other nationalities combined. Not even China suffered as many casualties, and the Imperial Japanese hated the Chinese with a burning passion. Germany had one of the lowest casualty rates in the war, despite massive Allied bombing campaigns.


The Russians have always been a joke.

5 The Russians pretty much lost every war they got envolved in. Without US aid the Germans would have had a field day. The Russians were brave and tough but never have had the organizational skills for war. For every WW2 Russian soldier at the front line there was one behind him with a pistol. But they did whip the Tartars. After 400 years of paying tribute. John: you commies are really truly without an once of common sense. The only communist countries left in the world are to stupid to change by themselves. But the dollar will win in the end since none of the commie nations have any.

6 Of course, if Harry Truman hadn't had such a bad case of "small man's syndrome" in the face of a giant like MacArthur, we wouldn't have the Chinese and NORK hobbit-races to deal with either.

Oh, and Viet Nam would be a popular tourist destination where French was spoken, and there would be no black-gash monument to tens of thousands of dead Americans on the mall.

Funny: When politicians fail to listen to seasoned generals, tragedy ensues.

But then, perhaps history repeating itself is actually a farce every time.

7 "Funny: When politicians fail to listen to seasoned generals, tragedy ensues. "

Not so funny in Bush's case. I don't know who the fuck he listens to anymore.

8

Warning : Sleepy headed post ahead ...

"The Russians were brave and tough but never have had the organizational skills for war" 
Yes on 'brave and tough', but I can only agree conditionally with the second part. I read a book about the Russian general Zhukov, and it remains a favorite of mine. He had organizational skills flying out of the pores of his skin. Not like we think of in the west, but solid, and effective. 

He was almost the father of WW2 Soviet special forces, in a wierd way. By chance, he wasn't in a position to attract Stalin's notice when all the other good generals were purged and murdered. He inflicted a defeat upon the Japanese so humiliating, that the surviving Japs were shipped to remote island bases to avoid having bring the story home where people would hear about it. Even today, the Japanese only barelty acknowledge that any such battle occured, but I think they had 60,000 troops there so it wasn't a small thing.

Zhukov's experience with Kossacks led him to develop tactics around their crosscountry mobility, unpredictability, and selfsufficiency. Why can't Hansel get a good nights sleep? Kossacks! Why are there mines on our road we used yesterday? Kossacks! Why did our train get derailed? Kossacks! You get the idea.

We had nukes. We would have been unstoppable. Not even 'General Winter' could have saved the USSR from us if we had gone to war against them then. But it would have had to have been thier fault. They would have had to start it.

In the original film "Why We Fight" we had built up the Russians as fighting for freedom against the same evil Nazi scum that we were. It would have been politically catastrophic to press on into the USSR, as the people at home would very likely have jumped ship. As we know from current events, the most powerful armed forces in the world can be castrated by their own people.

So John is ignorant. He probably went to college in California. The "Russkies" would have become caretakers of the largest radioactive snowcone factory in history. Except for our folks back home. And for John ... entire Soviet Tank Corps were equipped by the USA during WW2, and thats just for starters. We gave them so much stuff! You have no idea how lop sided the industrial equation was. Even without nukes, but with the people in total war mode, we pretty likely could have liberated the USSR in two or three more years.

But there was no way the people would have gone for it without serious provocation, and Stalin wasn't going to provide that. Not after Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. He could see those cards. We showed them to him. End of story. The USSR was not our serious equal until they got the bomb. Nor Red China either.

In the end, only our good moral character as a nation made us avoid adding tens of millions of additional deaths to the many tens of millions already dead from that war. Not that we coudn't have.

Was it the best choice? ... I just pulled a book of my shelf. The title is "Federal World Government" Complied by Julia E. Johnsen. Copyright 1948 !!!  It was sitting next to "Atoms For Peace" by David O. Woodbury, copyright 1955.  What did they say?

Johnsen indicated that while a single world goverment was needed to avoid an even worse war than the last, but expressed the idea the UN wasn't the way. She actually made the point that a USA styled Federal world government would be superior. Woodbury seemed to be trying to change the tone of nuclear technology, and show it as a constructive power. Both seemed to realize that the world was to small for the old style of thinking. But we still have it anyway.

Iran, and North Korea go after the bomb, while we sit. Petty dictators run the worlds edges, and we sit. Ken Hoop likes us to sit. Just sit.

I've gone of the edge of the map myself a bit here.

Basically, second guessing Patton is all speculation in the end. We have to deal with today's problems. Maybe we will have a modern 'Patton' offer us a sneaky solution to a serious problem, and see how that goes?  Maybe he can figure out Iran for us ...? Some are trying to claim that is already being done.

USA, all the way!

9 Professor Weaver,
Excellent post. Are you familiar with any of Owen Lattimore's work from that time?  "The Situation in Asia" 1949 has a excellent read given the situation in which we find ourselves today, playing chess with the people who invented it. The book augments your points by broadening the scope geopolitcaly to include the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and the middle east with remarkable clairity.. (given the new borders in an old part of the world.) Our greatest generation, no doubt. Thank you again for your time and effort in bringing fresh thought into the post. Do you think if we told the Chinese that we would supply them with extra soy sauce they might have a go at the Koreans as well? 
 

10 Yes. Excellent post. Russia did do a great job. But that was one battle. Russia against Japan on a one to one basis resulted in Russia surrendering to Japan. After losing their entire navy.

11 Besides my son who is into the martial arts thing says the Russians are the best of the bad asses.

12 "Besides my son who is into the martial arts thing says the Russians are the best of the bad asses."

Clear your ears, old fuck: Your son said the Russian men have the best asses. Martial arts thing = excuse to daddy so he can roll around with other men.

13

At least he isn't pushing Taekwon Mac Dojo. Sambo players are a tough bunch, no doubt. Sonny.... thank you for the sun shine in my life..... 

14 wb! "Owen Lattimore's work from that time?  "The Situation in Asia" 1949" I'll look for it. Yhanks for the reccomendation.  
         USA, all the way!

15 Osamabinpunked:


Why all the htred directed at homosexuals? I thought lefttards were supposed to be tolerant?


Yor self loathing is obvious, butt-pirate.

16 The lefturds who were running our country didn't listen to Patton
because they wanted Russia to win. Our government was infiltrated by
the enemy long ago, and has been almost solely in their control since.

17 "Why all the htred directed at homosexuals? I thought lefttards were supposed to be tolerant?"

Well, well...maybe your puny brain will figure out someday that I'm not a leftard. Just as much as you'll figure out Carlos is not a lib? I doubt it. You're head is full of corn husks. For the record, I only call you what best suits your own pathetic phobias. It's ok. We know you're a closet case.

18 Osamabinfelching:


Troll on, asswipe. You will never prove a point or convince a soul. You're a pathetic loser who cant face up to her inadequacies.


My shit is worth more than you--and you know it.

19 "Troll on, asswipe."

Is this your personal motto?

"You will never prove a point or convince a soul."

Well certainly not you. It requires too many brain cells for you to peck your wimpy insults into these posts. i wouldn't want to overwhelm your ape head with complex thoughts!

"You're a pathetic loser who cant face up to her inadequacies."

It's not healthy for you to say this about yourself or your mom.

"My shit is worth more than you--and you know it."

If "worth" = stupid, then you're right on the money!

20 Probably too late to come back to this, but...
 
Jeff and greyrooster:
I'm no damn commie, and I didn't go to kollege in Kalifornia.  You guys are dumber than a box of rocks if you think an assessment of relative combat power at the end of the war equals a love of communism.  The Russkies had more men, more (and better) tanks, more artillery, and more aircraft in Europe than we did.  They had also, post D-Day, advanced farther than our forces against twice as many German divisions.  And they knew how to fight.
 
And Michael Weaver: Lend lease?  We equipped entire Soviet tank Corps?  Really?  No kidding.  There's just one problem with your "analysis" - they already had all that stuff!  What impact that has on how many forces were in existence is beyond me.  The nukes very well might have made a difference, but we did only have 2 at the time.  IIRC we had a few more in the chute, but I'm not sure it would have been enough to make a difference.  Unlike the Japanese, Stalin would probably have known how many we had since he had so many commie-sympathizers on the payroll.
 
Patton was wrong.

21

John, we basically agree that Patton was wrong about wanting to fight russia. I know I snipe at you sometimes, but I have to give you that one. I'll even take back what I said about you being ignorant. I was out of line. But ... "They already had that all that stuff" Ummm, No!
 
 Ever hear of the A-20 attack bomber, or the Airacobra fighterplanes? We supplied all of those to the soviets. They did build 'tankograd' and that IS a pretty neat achievement, but from a total economic/industrial standpoint we had the upper hand without nukes. Otherwise ...
 
I mentioned Those tank corps were equipped with M-4 Shermans. The Soviets didn't have any of those did they? It was the most produced tank of the war. Far outstripping Soviet production, and models rolling of the ships in 1945 were quite capable of taking out a T-34, which would have been their most likely typical opposition.

German gains were almost decisive in the first year because of shortages in the Soviet arsenal. The T-34 and KV series tanks were superior, but not even close to numerous until about 43' and by then most armies had put aside guns like the 37mm because everyones tanks were better.

The IS (or Stalin) tanks were awesome, but in very short supply, and terribly limited in operational range. In 1945 we were just beggining to use the M-47 tanks, precursor to the M-48/M-60 series, and I have no doubt we could have flooded the continent with them if the war had continued. We could have fueled them also.

Shipments from the USA were like blood transfusions to the badly wounded.

The Japanese defeat at the hands of Zhukov, which I mentioned, is largely responsable for the USA's shipments to the eastern USSR not being interfered with. It was this defeat, that most contributed to japan's acceptance of a non-agression pact withthe Soviets, and which for a time, left Asian Soviet ports accessable to the USA. Minus these shipments, there may well have not been a USSR to worry about later. Japan was in actuality, should probably never have signed that pact, as it allowed Russia to turn all its resources towards Hitler. Without that freedom, Stalin would likely have been defeated.

Talking about troops, we could talk about how US combat divisions were the only consistently 'overstrength' divisions in any army, or how much more vastly supported most of those divisions were.

We could talk about how the US G.I. was considered by some to be a secret weapon due to the simple capacity of Americans to not wait for orders. In short, other armies were made up of Europeans. Command hierarchy was important. Losing a commander meant loss of initiative. Not so with Americans. This is a fact established in actual combat. And we didn't need political officers to keep us motivated.

We had the power. The only thing Patton got seriously wrong, was that the American people wouldn't go for it. His superiors understood this, and that is why we had the cold war.

I do think we were better off not going on into Russia, but it is because of the difference in motivation. Americans would not have been motivated to push on. Soviets would have been motivated to resist. Maybe that wasn't clear from my earlier comment.

I am for the USA being involved in the world, but we are pretty lethargic as a people unless we are clear about the nature of the emergency. Like we are losing the perception war now, we would have likely lost it then, and that is something Patton was never good at understanding. How people percieved things. As great a general as he was for rapid manuvers, he sucked at presentation.

So anyway, thanks for those who liked my earlier comment. Sorry we disagree John, and I'll try and be nicer about it next time.

USA, all the way!

22

Sorry again, but I used a wrong designation on a tank type I mentioned above. The M-26 was a precursor to the M-48/M-60 tanks, and it was available in Feb 45'. I made a point about mentioning the ability to fuel them, because they did have about 100 miles range, which isn't far unless you have the logistical capabilty of a US division. We always had plenty of trucks, while much of Europes military was supplied by wagons, and carts (even the Germans)

The M-26 was a match for Tigers, and Panthers, but was more mobile than either. The IS-3 Soviet tank was potentially superior in terms of armor, and main gun, but had a few deficiencies that would only be obvious when western tanks met eastern tanks during cold war brush wars.

I usually don't get my weapon numbers confused but it happens. I was building a tactical tank simulation when Desert Sheild commenced. Back then I was crunching numbers on tank statistics so much I probably talked about it in my sleep.  It worked pretty well. I had some of my test players argueing with me about how the 'soviet' tanks were so good, but my game had them getting their butts kicked by western tanks. All I can say is that I was trying to simulate the whole tank. Gun, armor, doctrine, crew quality, and speed of turret traverse and fire control.

Anyway, I'm probably getting boring here.

USA, all the way!