Was Patton right? Should we have taken out the Russians when we could?

American Thinker ^ | 06/06/2018 | By Richard Jack Rail

[taxpayerfatigue]

When the Allies let the Russians come in and do the mopping up at war’s end in Berlin, we gave grudging consideration to Russia for the sheer numbers of troops they sacrificed to combat the German war machine, far more than any other Ally. Stalin regarded his military as merely cannon fodder. The Russian contribution and distraction on the Eastern front allowed the Allies to place priority on the Theatres of Operation on the European/South African Continents. One wonders if all the German materiel/manpower was concentrated on the Allies during WWII (with Hitler saving Russia for a later conquest) if the onslaught of the German war machine in its totality would have caused a different outcome to the war. I believe the with the Allies facing the war with Japan and troops facing battle fatigue, there would have been little stomach to enter war with Russia.

[Bull Snipe]

about 16 million Americans served in all services during WWII. The Soviet army drafted 29,500,000 men and women during WWII. While not 5 times a many troops under arms,
the reds had considerably more under arms than we did.

[AppyPappy]

IL-2 and 10’s didn’t have to worry about Mustangs and Spitfires, not to mention P-80’s.

The Soviets were facing a lot fewer tanks by the time they hit Germany.

[AppyPappy]

Most Nazis were gone by then. Remember, the German military tried to kill Hitler late in the war.

[central_va]

The main thing going for us was that we hadn't lost nearly as many men as Russia had, and our people were better fed and healthier. The main thing on their side was that they had all their best formations and leaders right there. Our guys were good, and they were courageous, and so were our allies, but in general, they were not as good as the Russians they faced. That owed to training, leadership, and lessons learned from combat.

This is BS. Patton knew the Russians used up all their resources getting to Berlin and were spent. We could have kicked them back to their borders at a minimum . GIVE ME A BREAK. Air power alone would have devastated them.

[central_va]

The Red Army was spent in 1945. Used up in getting to Berlin. We’d have killed them.

[central_va]

Our Allies were just plain tired, wore out basically. The Russians could muster millions of men. It would have been plain stupid to do so IMHO.

You have it backwards, the Red Army was spent. We were just getting warmed up.

[Titus-Maximus]

You can’t read.

[SkyDancer]

I just finished reading a history book about from D-Day to the end of the war. In it, it tells of how both the English soldiers and our GI were just wore out from fighting. The Red army had so many men in reserve (millions) plus it was obvious that two people Napoleon and Hitler learned of the vastness of Russia. The US and the UK were just tired of war and we were still fighting in the Pacific until August.

[daniel1212]

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.

Thus the question that should have been asked is. "Should the US have provided so much aid (that they still will not gratefully acknowledge) to the Soviets that treacherous Stalin was enabled to become an advancing army (getting to Berlin first), rather than just providing humanitarian aid and enough material to enable a stalemate with Germany?"