There was already controversy about which troops in Europe would be going to the Pacific.
There would be zero support for going to war with the Soviets that had been portrayed at home as loyal allies for over 3 years.
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 ...
Good analysis there (your post #7). The Red Army in 1945 was massive, experienced, and very well led.
The only way the Western Allies could have beat them would have been with a massive air campaign, including an atomic bomb or two. Even then, it would have been a bloody mess. And as you said, the American public never would have stood for it.
No.
We’d still be fighting that war.
The fate of Post WWII Europe was largely determined by FDR’s disastrous concessions to Stalin in Yalta.
We could,however, have done much more to prevent the Russian takeover of Eastern Europe and we should have done so.
Stalin was very dependent upon American aid to keep his Army going and his troops in Eastern Europe were very extended with long supply lines.
The West basically rolled over politically to Stalin and Socialists governments very sympathetic to the Soviets were elected in Great Britain and in much of Europe because there just was no political will to resist Stalin.
Militarily, the cost would have been very high to go against the Soviets.
“Was Patton right? Should we have taken out the Russians when we could?”
Depends on how many more millions of people you wanted killed.
None of this matters. If Truman had actually approved this the parents of every GI in Europe would have marched on Washington and burned the White House down. I remember talking about this with relatives of that generation and there would have been zero popular support for such a move. They wanted their sons home.
What’s the statistic? 80% of German casualties occurred on the Russian front.
The ideal situation would have been to let Germany and Russia bash each other’s brains out for another 3 years or so before entering the war.
Yes.
I always felt the best case scenario.....Hitler takes Moscow, Stalin is overthrown in a coup led by Khrushchev, who is pragmatic enough to understand that to truly unite the people and win the war he must abandon Bolshevism.
True, but by the time they reached Berlin they were overextended and had little air support. On our side we were at our zenith in terms of air, manufacturing, weapon technology, and strategy. We could have cut their supply lines (hell, we invaded Normandy) and wrapped up the campaign in 18 months, IMHO.
We could have done it for the Eastern Bloc. Ethnic wars in Yugoslavia would have resulted. Of course it was May, 1945. Plenty of time to free them.
That is why Patton was not put in command of anything past Sicily.
There was already controversy about which troops in Europe would be going to the Pacific.
There would be zero support for going to war with the Soviets that had been portrayed at home as loyal allies for over 3 years.
“Solution: Bring in the..”
Are you kidding?
After what the 3rd Army had gone through...it would have been a coin toss at the best.
Please permit me to add one more factor to your excellent list.
Morale: Advantage Soviets.
The Nazis had just surrendered. The average GI was breathing a sigh of relief. Then to be told that America was now going to attack a “friend”...I can’t see how that would sit well.
On the other hand, it would have been easy for the commissars to motivate the average Soviet soldier. An American attack on the Red Army would been painted as naked treachery. Just as FDR described the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
“and wrapped up the campaign in 18 months, IMHO. “
What on Earth constitutes “wrapped up”? Do you realize how long it took just to get from Normandy to Antwerp?
Not only that. Even if we “won” at great cost, Russia is too big to be meaningfully controlled. The only reasonable goal would have been to depose Stalin and the rest of the Communist government. But, as we have learned over the years, installing a new government doesn’t always work out in a smooth or timely fashion. I think Germany and Japan were unusual in that respect.
Right there was zero political appetite given our misunderstanding of Uncle Joe and his bloody regime.
A land war wasn’t necessary. Before the Soviets got “the bomb” we held all the cards.
Drop a nuke on Kamchatka, some place void of people with Moscow forewarned to ensure anyone near ground zero could be moved clear. Let them know the next would hit a sparsely populated area and keep upping the ante until they abandoned Eastern Europe and East Germany.
All our ground forced would be needed for was shielding Western Europe until Stalin threw in the towel or was forcibly removed from power.
> True, but by the time they reached Berlin they were overextended and had little air support. <
That would have, for sure, kept the Red Army from advancing into Western Germany at the time. But would it have been enough to dislodge them from prepared defensive positions?
Maybe. But it would have been a bloody mess. And as others have noted, mobs would have burned down the White House before then.
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.