Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

What if Patton would have gotten his wish?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.
Post 25 Sep 2006, 15:12
It's no secret that Patton did not trust Stalin and the soviets. If Patten would have been given the green light to clear soviet troops for Germany and Poland, would have Patton been able to get it done?
Post 25 Sep 2006, 15:19
Quote:
It's no secret that Patton did not trust Stalin and the soviets. If Patten would have been given the green light to clear soviet troops for Germany and Poland, would have Patton been able to get it done?


possibly,

Patton was an amazing tactician. but, where would he have stopped? would they have just erradicated tehn from germany? or out of the whole of eastern europe?

well before the war ended, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill met to divvy up the spoils. if patton had gotten his wish, the USSR would have been slighted in the exact way as when the molotov ribbentrop pact was violated.

the USSR wouldn't have just peacefully conceded.
Post 25 Sep 2006, 15:36
soviets had more powerful tanks and were closer to their factories and oil wells. they had troops stationed in half the iran and those could easly smash the british ones (they were not very popular on the middle east anyway. even the palestinians and jews united against them) and a road to india and iraq would be opened. it is possible that the soviets would eventually crush the allied forces in europe and middle east, but more likely it would result in a stalemate with neither side getting the upper hand.
Post 25 Sep 2006, 15:39
after 6 years of blood and death, one could only imagine how harsh it could have been.

The stalemate is a most likely scenario, but only after a great deal of losses on both sides.
Post 25 Sep 2006, 16:31
Quote:
after 6 years of blood and death, one could only imagine how harsh it could have been.

The stalemate is a most likely scenario, but only after a great deal of losses on both sides.


Which is precisely why the Western leaders kept Patton on a tight leash. But it is sometimes useful to have a dog which barks loudly and bares its teeth, even if you don't intend to release it from its leash....
Post 25 Sep 2006, 16:40
Quote:
If Patten would have been given the green light to clear soviet troops for Germany and Poland, would have Patton been able to get it done?


I think not. The scale and complexity of late Soviet operations such as Bagration and Operation August Storm (Manchuria 1945) far outmatched anything the Western Allies had been forced to achieve previously in size, speed, efficiency and deadliness.

The Soviets had more and better tanks than the Western Allies and very large numbers of massed artillery. They also had a solid ground support airforce, though admittedly not as strong as the WA.

Issues to consider:

1. US had nuclear bombs (though in limited numbers), USSR did not

2. The continued US war with Japan / issues of moving those troops to the West and questioning whether their outfits/training were what is needed in the West European combat environment

3. The Soviets had much armed/political support in Western Europe, including France and Italy (where communists had been the single major partisan military opposition to the Nazis during World War 2) undermining political and moral support to fight against the Soviets in those countries. A war between the Soviets and the WA would probably only necessitate victory in Western Germany, with a strong possibility that France and Italy would beg for neutrality or even some sort of alliance.

4. Soviets had nothing on Western naval power -thus Britain (and obviously America) would not be in danger of Soviet takeover, thus limiting the conflict to continental Europe
Post 25 Sep 2006, 16:58
Would the Soviets made a stronger alliance with the Japanese? Or to put it in a broader sense, where would Japan fall (edit: as in alliances)?
Post 25 Sep 2006, 19:28
Quote:
Would the Soviets made a stronger alliance with the Japanese?


hard to say the Japanese and the russians were never cuddly.
there was that war in manchuria.
Post 25 Sep 2006, 21:12
Its true but the border skirmishes in Mongolia could hardly compare to the threat America was imposing on Japan. Also three way wars are extremely rare throughout history.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 01:45
If the US invaded Soveit comtrolled territory the American soldier probably would have killed thier officers. The American people at the time were not very anti-soviet, infact they in some ways were pro-soviet and anti-british. An invasion simply would not have been politicaly reality.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 03:05
Quote:
Red Rebel:

hard to say the Japanese and the russians were never cuddly.
there was that war in manchuria.

Chaz171:

Its true but the border skirmishes in Mongolia could hardly compare to the threat America was imposing on Japan. Also three way wars are extremely rare throughout history.


I think you guys are looking at a separate timeframe. By the time the war was over the Soviets had driven the Japanese out of Manchuria. Some historians argue Red Rebel that the ferocity and speed with which they did so terrified the Japanese almost as much as the atomic bombs, and helped bring them to surrender, so in my view the question remains open as to which side the Japanese would side with, if any.


Crimson Flag:

Quote:
If the US invaded Soveit comtrolled territory the American soldier probably would have killed thier officers. The American people at the time were not very anti-soviet, infact they in some ways were pro-soviet and anti-british. An invasion simply would not have been politicaly reality.


I agree with you that an invasion would not be realistic in a time when anti-Soviet rhetoric was still practically silenced due to the war alliances, but I doubt that the soldiers would kill their officers if ordered to attack. Soldiering is not a moral profession. You either do what you're told, or face the consequences. I also don't understand where you get your 'more anti-British than anti- Soviet' attitude.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 03:42
Quote:
I think you guys are looking at a separate timeframe. By the time the war was over the Soviets had driven the Japanese out of Manchuria.


78, I know that was 40 years apart, what I was eluding to was that if the US allowed ations taken against the soviets, I don't agree that the USSR and the Japanese would have joined forces against them. they would have both fought independantly, but I don't think there was enough common ground to form an alliance. The japanese wouldn't have been able to offer much support regardless to the Soviet Union because in 1945, they were retreating in many areas of the pacific. they were struggling to stave off the US in that theatre to have lent even one soldier to the european theatre to help the russians. If the Japanese were capable of ding so they would have done so to help the germans before the fall of berlin.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 05:24
Didn't the US War Dept/Pentagon have a plan in place since 1944 to bomb 10 Soviet cities within a couple of hours of presidential mandate, or is this some baseleess rumor?
Post 26 Sep 2006, 10:22
Quote:
Didn't the US War Dept/Pentagon have a plan in place since 1944 to bomb 10 Soviet cities within a couple of hours of presidential mandate, or is this some baseleess rumor?


this question I cannot answer, but I'd love to know how true it was.

It would not surprise me that the US had plans to bomb anyone they pleased within hours of presidential mandate.
Post 27 Sep 2006, 01:44
I could see why, the WA were afraid that the red army would keep going after they got to Berlin.
Post 27 Sep 2006, 20:56
@soviet78-
I was actually referring to the pre-WWII Soviet-Japanese border skirmishes.

Quote:
so in my view the question remains open as to which side the Japanese would side with, if any.


Well the Americans were starting to focus their full might at Japan. The Soviets the "declaration of war" 100 days after the fall of Nazi Germany. Japan would probably see America of more of a threat. Even if Japan and the USSR didn't like each other, their immediate intrest would be to keep an alliance against their common enemy.

Quote:
they would have both fought independantly, but I don't think there was enough common ground to form an alliance.


When two sides are fighting one side (which isn't a weak side), more likely than not, they form alliances.

Quote:
The japanese wouldn't have been able to offer much support


The gurantee of a safe front.
Post 27 Sep 2006, 22:22
Red Rebel:

Quote:
I was actually referring to the pre-WWII Soviet-Japanese border skirmishes.


Quote:
Well the Americans were starting to focus their full might at Japan. The Soviets the "declaration of war" 100 days after the fall of Nazi Germany. Japan would probably see America of more of a threat. Even if Japan and the USSR didn't like each other, their immediate intrest would be to keep an alliance against their common enemy.


Oh ok I understand and agree.

I guess the question we were debating comes down to whether Patton moves immediately after the end of World War 2 (European AND Asian front) or immediately after the war ends in Europe.
Post 27 Sep 2006, 23:40
Patton never striked me as a man of patience. I would assume that he would pick up what Germans he could and just keep going.

I don't know how the public would respond though. I have the "Why we fight, WWII" film produced by Frank Capra in 1944. Basically it showed the Sovies as allies (among other things). I don't know, espically with such limited access back then, how the public would change (although most people opposed commies, leftists, pinkos, ect.) there opinion. The last thing any government wants is lack of support during a war (ie America in WWI).
Post 28 Sep 2006, 14:31
More than the support of the general American people, do you think American soldiers in Europe would have gone along with Patton? I am sure that American soldiers were more aware than the general populace of the level of cooperation they had with Soviet planning. I am sure at least junior officers knew how Stalin had timed the Vistula-Oder offensive to divert attention and to ease the burden on Patton in the Battle of the Bulge, for example.
Post 28 Sep 2006, 14:37
Quote:
do you think American soldiers in Europe would have gone along with Patton?


I vote no.

Patton commanded a lot of respect even from people that disliked him still fought hard for him.

but those men after that time wanted to go home.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]