Skip to comments.Was Patton right? Should we have taken out the Russians when we could?
Posted on 06/06/2018 10:44:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This being D-Day, it's inevitable that thoughts turn to WWII. The slaughter. The sacrifices. The magnificent courage of going forward into the teeth of machine gun fire and artillery barrages onto open beaches. In perhaps its only redeeming virtue, war brings out the heroism inherent in the human breast.
You can get into some interesting discussions online, and WWII always comes up. Specifically, the ending of WWII. Patton wanted to take out the Russians while we were already there, and today, a lot of people think he was right. But he wasn't right. At least, not in the sense he meant.
We had the military and economic might to take out Russia but not the political will. Ike knew it, and so did Roosevelt. It would have been a hugely costly continuation of WWII, in both lives and treasure, that Americans would not have supported. The outcome might well not have been the sort of victory Patton sought.
The Russians had learned to fight against the very best German formations led by the very best higher-level German commanders. These formations had the superb lower-level leadership (sergeants and company-grade officers) for which Germany was famous. Most of this lower-level leadership died in the fight with Russia.
In the West, we fought Volksstrum units of teenagers and old men with nothing like the lower-level leadership that the German outfits in the East had had. You rise or stoop to the level of your opposition, such that by 8 May 1945, the Russians were simply better at war than we were, and their supply lines were much closer to the action than ours.
The main thing going for us was that we hadn't lost nearly as many men as Russia had,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Um... Russia is vast and the winters long and cold. Ask Hitler and Napoleon.
It might not have been as easy as Patton wanted it to be.
“You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!”
Still love Patton, though.
Off topic , but I hope Trump goes to Normandy next year, for what I hope is a major 75th anniversary commemoration of D Day.
I still remember, as many do, Reagan’s wonderful speech at the 40th anniversary.
I wouldn’t necessarily have gone into Russia but we could have taken the Satellite countries at least.
Yes he was but the globalist needed a continued boogeyman so they killed him.
Uh. No. We did not have the wherewithal to defeat Russia. They had 5 times as many troops under arms. The Eastern Front was overwhelmingly larger than the Western one.
Never mind the logistical nightmare and the American Public that would not have stood for it.
I read a couple of books. Hated the Russkies more than the Nazis. At least with the Nazis he knew what to expect. But the Russkies were backstabbers, accdg to his autobiography.
It’s a major assumption to think that we could.
1) Winter was in progress, so we would have had to wait until spring.
2) We had used up our Nukes. We may have made some since spring but I doubt we were in full on production.
3) Ivan never surrenders and was still a war hardened formidable foe.
4) I don’t think there was the political will.
The Soviets were our allies (though not "Allies" with a capital "A"), and to have turned against them so quickly after being "comrades in arms" would have been perfidious.
However, we should have leveraged our military superiority - first and foremost based upon our "Nuclear Card" - to demand that they scrupulously ensure that fair elections be held in the (later) Eastern Bloc countries. That would have effectively deprived them of the countries in Eastern Europe (including the three Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania).
It wouldn’t have changed anything - the people have never been free, they don’t know how. Stalin would have been replaced by yet another one (maybe Putin’s grandfather).
>>Um... Russia is vast and the winters long and cold. Ask Hitler and Napoleon.<<
No one in history has defeated the Russian winter. Game of Thrones would never have been written in Russia b/c “Winter is coming” is meaningless where it is always winter.
Just as well we stayed OUT.
I think history shows the only one who can take down Russia is Russia. Politically, from the inside. A land war would end up looking a lot akin to Afghanistan. They’d just bleed you out until you leave on your own.
Land power: Immediate advantage Soviets. The T-34/85 and the JS series of heavy tanks were better than anything the Americans and British had on the field. But the British were introducing the Comet and the Americans the Pershings.
Officers: Advantage Soviets. Zhukov and company were experts in Deep Operations. The only Allied general I would have faith in was Patton. Although the Americans and British would hopefully rely on German advisers. I would give the advantage in the lower officer ranks to the Allies as the Red Army was a top down organization.
Air Power: The Allies would sweep the sky of Soviet aviation from day 1. The Soviets at best achieved parity with the Luftwaffe. Allied 4 engine bombers could strike deep in the Soviet rear disrupting supply lines. Big Soviet formations would be like shooting fish in a barrel for strike aircraft and tactical bombers.
Staying Power: Advantage Allies. Two of the most important materials the West provided the Soviets was food and raw materials, especially aluminum. Shipments of food enabled an Ivan to enjoy two or three meals a day. Aluminum was critical to the production of the diesel engines powering Soviet armored fighting vehicles. Form the books I read the Red Army was drawing from the bottom of the barrel to fill the ranks.
Trump card: If the Allies could hold out then nukes could be deployed.
Fifth Column: Draw. Eastern Europeans would develop partisans to fight the Soviets but Western Communist parties would support Moscow.
Solution: Bring in the Soldiers and Marines that fought against Tojo's Japanese Army in the Pacific. Or does the author think the Imperial Japanese Army was made up of old men and teenagers? My late father would have disabused him of that notion.
We used eastern Europe as bargaining chips with Russia as the war was being wrapped up.
We should have looked them in the eye and said all of Europe will be free or else. But we were too tired and gave it away.
Found out after WWI and we occupied parts of Russia during the Civil War that America had serious war fatigue and we withdrew.
Agreed. And we were still at war with Japan. Had we attacked Russia, they might have become friendly with Japan.
My dad, in Patton’s Third Army, had a chance to give Patton the war he wanted. For once my dad kept a cool head instead of shooting the Russian officer.
There would have been zero, and I mean zero, public support stateside for such a move. Parents wanted their boys home. No one would have stood for this.
Patton had the bolsheviks pegged right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.