Was Patton right? (communist related)

8,688 Views | 95 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by JABQ04
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would the world been better off if the communists were dealt with during WWII? The politics of a war weary nation aside. Do you think it would have bettered the world?
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think nobody had the stomach for that fight. There wasn't any support anywhere in the US or Europe for that war.
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agreed but that set aside how would it have changed what the next 4 decades looked like
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
that assumes we would have won. I don't think we would have. I don't think we could have conquered Russia or defeated the enough to remove Stalin. Then who takes over?

Unless we had hundreds of nukes laying around.

I guess we could have made peace with Japan and let them keep good chuck of SE Asia. Do we then fight Russia on 2 fronts?
kubiak03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As weird as that sounds, best option probably would have been to team up with Japan and Germans. Two front war.

Hopefully sans their leadership/ideology.

Probably would have been extremely hard to quash their ideology while quickly turning them into fighting allies.

Europe would have been a big killing field due to the size of Russian military over there.

Would have needed to get the Japanese to allow us to use Japan and Manchuria as staging areas to invade eastern Russia to provide some relief to the west.
chickencoupe16
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The better idea would have been to never let the Soviets in on Lend-Lease. If that hadn't been done, they still likely would have beaten the Germans but it would have been a much more bitter war for them. In addition, we might have been further east when the Germans did surrender than in actuality. We should have asked not for an unconditional surrender but surrender on the Western front and then began a war against the Russians along side the Germans.

The Germans were a fantastic fighting force save for Hitler's terrible command decisions and their lackluster logistics.
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think our air power would have severed the Soviet supply lines pretty easily. At that point their army dies on the vine. It would have been a huge task. But say we push them out of Europe all together and they are contained to their admittedly huge country, would they have had the influence they did? Could we have nuked Moscow and taken out their leadership?
Eliminatus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What would have been our justification for open warfare against the Russians at that time?

And also, horrible as it sounds, I have thought about if we hadn't have helped them it probably would have been better for us. Even if Germany had been able to conquer Russia, that is a damn slippery eel to hang on to. I doubt that would have been able to control it adequately. You can look at maps of the German offensive and see massive progress but it is all a lie. The Germans never controlled the countryside. Hell, they barely made the attempt in most instances. I wonder if we should have just let them bleed each other indefinitely.
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgBQ-00 said:

I think our air power would have severed the Soviet supply lines pretty easily. At that point their army dies on the vine. It would have been a huge task. But say we push them out of Europe all together and they are contained to their admittedly huge country, would they have had the influence they did? Could we have nuked Moscow and taken out their leadership?
until we set up B-17 and other bomber bases in Germany we couldn't hit most of Russia's industrial areas.

Also the OP said end communism in Russia, so to me this means you have to least conquer Moscow if not going even further into Russia.

I think at best we could have pushed them back to pre WWII boundaries. I do not think we could have conquered them at all, outside of having hundreds of nukes.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As already said in previous responses, I don't think the US was up for continuing the war as taking on the Soviets would have required. Patton was right IMO, that we should have done so, but doing so simply was impractical.

Quote:

until we set up B-17 and other bomber bases in Germany we couldn't hit most of Russia's industrial areas
True, but the B-36 Peacemaker was very near to coming on line by 1945. No idea how long it would have taken to get fleets of those big boys into combat status, but with an on-going war, I'd surmise that production would have been sped up to get them where they were needed. The B-36 could have utilized existing air bases in England to hit targets anywhere in the Soviet Union.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We could have used B-29s. We also had the new B-32 which saw action in the Pacific. However, I will offer that the Red Air Force was no joke in 1945. I also do not think we defeat the Red Army immediately post Nazi surrender.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure of the distance between England and targets inside of the Soviet Union, but the B-29 was limited in its range as opposed to something like the B-36. The B-32, I believe, was similar in vital statistics to the B-29. Using either probably would have required air bases in Germany or Poland to be effective against industrial targets deep within the Soviet Union.

The VVS was good by late in the war, and their air force had some good fighter aircraft that would have been difficult to handle.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
London to Moscow was around 1700 miles. Tinian to Tokyo was around 1500 miles. So we'd need bases in France or Germany. Need to check the distance from Italian bases though.

ETA. The 15th AF bombed out of Foggia Italy which is around 1500 miles from Moscow.
marcel ledbetter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
Smokedraw01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BQ_90 said:

that assumes we would have won. I don't think we would have. I don't think we could have conquered Russia or defeated the enough to remove Stalin. Then who takes over?

Unless we had hundreds of nukes laying around.

I guess we could have made peace with Japan and let them keep good chuck of SE Asia. Do we then fight Russia on 2 fronts?


Or used the Germans to help us fight the Russians.
IDAGG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQ_90 said:

I think nobody had the stomach for that fight. There wasn't any support anywhere in the US or Europe for that war.
This is the correct answer or at least the most correct answer. It was a different era. Once you get outside of Churchill, the major political players of the time were either sympathetic to the Soviets or outright supporters.

There would have been major labor strife and strikes both in the US and western Europe. Most labor unions were at least left-leaning and some such as the US west coast stevedore union was for all intents and purposes, openly communist. Even though Truman was not a useful idiot as FDR was, the administration he inherited was still stocked with leftists and as history shows even some Soviet spies.

It was actually worse in Western Europe. In the years after WW II France, Italy, Greece and others flirted with having elected communist governments. And as a sub-note, one fact seems to get lost in the history of WWII: The most effective units of the French resistance were the communist ones. For all of DeGaul's fault's, his one saving grace is that he recognized this threat and tried his best to limit the influence of the French Communists during and after WW II. He probably saved France from communism.

So war against the Soviets immediately after WW II was a political impossibility.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
marcel ledbetter said:

How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
In '45, the jet age was not really a factor. The US had developed the P-59 Airacomet, and the P-80 Shooting Star (which was actually deployed but never saw combat in WWII); the Brits had the Meteor, which did see action during the war. I don't believe the Soviets had any serious jet development during the war.

I know the Americans brought home examples of Germany's jet aircraft - the Messerschmitt Me 262 fighter and the Arado Ar 234 bomber. I suspect the Soviets took examples of those as well. There was another German fighter, the ****e Wulf Ta 183 Huckebein, which the Germans never got past the wind tunnel model stage; it bore a striking resemblance to the Soviets' MiG-15, which saw significant action during the Korean War. Other jets the Russians developed in the latter half of the 40s include the MiG-9 "Fargo", and the Yak-15 & Yak-17 (none of these appear to be impressive aircraft, but I know very little about their actual performance). They also produced some bombers - the Illyushin Il-28 "Beagle", the Tupulov Tu-14 "Boson" among a few others that apparently never made it to actual production.

The Americans had developed jet fighters such as the F9F Panther/Cougar, the F-84 Thunderjet (there were many variations of this airframe), and the F-86 Sabre. Our earliest jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47, first flew in 1947, so likely that aircraft would have been accelerated in its development phase to be of use in such an extension to the second world war. The B-36 is commonly referred to as "four turning, two burning", so the Peacemaker was the first US bomber to utilize jet engines, and I believe would have been of considerable importance to the US war effort against the Soviets.

Admittedly, I am very biased here toward the Americans, but knowing what I know of WWII-era aircraft as well as the immediate postwar aircraft, I'd say the Americans had the advantage. That's not to say the Soviets did not have any capabilities; they certainly demonstrated their abilities in aviation during Korea.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

marcel ledbetter said:

How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
Our earliest jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47, first flew in 1947, so likely that aircraft would have been accelerated in its development phase to be of use in such an extension to the second world war. The B-36 is commonly referred to as "four turning, two burning", so the Peacemaker was the first US bomber to utilize jet engines, and I believe would have been of considerable importance to the US war effort against the Soviets.


"SIX turning, FOUR burning"


Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Patton is always right.... he read the book.
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rabid Cougar said:

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

marcel ledbetter said:

How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
Our earliest jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47, first flew in 1947, so likely that aircraft would have been accelerated in its development phase to be of use in such an extension to the second world war. The B-36 is commonly referred to as "four turning, two burning", so the Peacemaker was the first US bomber to utilize jet engines, and I believe would have been of considerable importance to the US war effort against the Soviets.


"SIX turning, FOUR burning"



Cut me a break; I hadn't had my morning caffeine when I wrote that.

Or had not yet been into my garage workshop where I have this hanging:
Law-5L
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sweet model.
BigJim49 AustinNowDallas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Russian supply lines would have been easily cut !

Our propaganda would have caused high % of Russian desertions !
BigJim49AustinnowDallas
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

Rabid Cougar said:

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

marcel ledbetter said:

How would the jet age that was just getting started impact an allied war with Russia in '45?
Our earliest jet-powered bombers, such as the B-47, first flew in 1947, so likely that aircraft would have been accelerated in its development phase to be of use in such an extension to the second world war. The B-36 is commonly referred to as "four turning, two burning", so the Peacemaker was the first US bomber to utilize jet engines, and I believe would have been of considerable importance to the US war effort against the Soviets.


"SIX turning, FOUR burning"



Cut me a break; I hadn't had my morning caffeine when I wrote that.

Or had not yet been into my garage workshop where I have this hanging:

A much more grievous faux paux then.....
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'll go ahead and see myself out, then ... right through one of the burners on the end of the wing!
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Law-5L said:

Sweet model.
Thanks. It's a big one, even in 1/72 scale. The B-17, B-24, and B-29s that I built in 1/48 scale are not quite as big as this one.

For reference ...


To get back to the topic, the B-36 could have made the round trip from essentially anywhere. I had the privilege of listening to a gentleman who came to our church to give a talk about a variety of things. He was wearing a shirt with a B-36 emblazoned on the lapel, and he was inevitably asked about that. He relayed a story about how, many years after leaving the USAF, he had travelled to Moscow and had visited the exact spot upon which his crew had orders to drop an A-bomb should the need ever arise.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My grandfather lived in Fort Worth near the south end of Carswell in the 1950's. He had many stories of the B-36's flying out of there.

They had a 10,000 mile range but only about 4,000 with a full war load. They were in active USAF units during the Korean War but were never committed to the Korean air war. Supposedly they didn't want to take a chance on any of them being shot down by the Russian Migs.

You could see what B-29's would have done in Europe against the Soviets by what took place in Korea.
The Russian manned Mig 15s made the sky so dangerous for B-29's in 1950 losing 27 in just a few months that they were relegated to night bombing for the duration of the war.
MGS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even the threat of war would have been helpful. If the Soviets were worried enough about an American attack in Europe in '45, they would have never shifted all of those forces to the Far East. Without that, they don't invade Manchuria and North Korea.

- No partition of Korea and subsequent Korean War
- KMT possibly holds onto power in China.
IDAGG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MGS said:

Even the threat of war would have been helpful. If the Soviets were worried enough about an American attack in Europe in '45, they would have never shifted all of those forces to the Far East. Without that, they don't invade Manchuria and North Korea.

- No partition of Korea and subsequent Korean War
- KMT possibly holds onto power in China.
The Russians were supposed to invade Manchuria within 90 days of the end of the war in Europe. That was the agreement with the Western allies made at the Tehran conference in 1943.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Soviets would have pushed us back out of Germany buy the end of 45. The Soviets were the largest and best equipped Army in the world in 45 and had very good leadership. They were brutal in there use of force on a level we didn't even see in the Pacific. Read a few the personal accounts of German soldiers that fought on both fronts. They said the British and Americans were gentile in the execution attacks compared to the Soviets.
We would have fought to a stalemate somewhere in France and had to negotiate a settlement that included the iron curtain falling across most of Europe.
Texas A&M - 144 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress.
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Patton may have been "right" but put me down as thinking we wouldn't have beat them.
Unknown_handle
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Patton was correct. Truman was a coward. We had nukes and the Soviets did not. We could have at least made Stalin pull back to their pre-war border. However, FDR had already given Stalin all of Eastern Europe at Yalta.

Truman was the same coward that emboldened China to attack us in Korea. China knew that chicken Truman was not a nuclear threat much less competent enough to blow up the bridges leading into Korea.

Russia was not the best equipped or trained army at any time in WW2. There only advantage is that they did not care about the casualty rate of their soldiers. By the end of the European war we were concerned about getting home alive. The Soviets could care less if any of their soldier's survived.
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So your proposal would have been to kick it off by dropping a-bombs on, what at that point, was our ally?


If that's NOT your proposal, don't get in a fight with the guy that doesn't care about wasting human lives; especially if you and your guys are concerned about getting home.
IDAGG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Unknown_handle said:

Patton was correct. Truman was a coward. We had nukes and the Soviets did not. We could have at least made Stalin pull back to their pre-war border. However, FDR had already given Stalin all of Eastern Europe at Yalta.
In May 1945 we had exactly zero operational nukes.

And the Soviet Army of May 1945 should not be confused with the Soviet Army of June 1941.

And yes, we had previously agreed to the partition of Europe. One of FDR's many political blunders.
Stive
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
IDAGG said:

Unknown_handle said:

Patton was correct. Truman was a coward. We had nukes and the Soviets did not. We could have at least made Stalin pull back to their pre-war border. However, FDR had already given Stalin all of Eastern Europe at Yalta.
In May 1945 we had exactly zero operational nukes.

And the Soviet Army of May 1945 should not be confused with the Soviet Army of June 1941.

And yes, we had previously agreed to the partition of Europe. One of FDR's many political blunders.

And even if we had time to put together more bombs, and your inclination is to drop a-bombs on them to kick things off, getting them there and dropping them on key cities was going to be a VERY different trip than the ones to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Soviets controlled the skies over everything east of Berlin and I don't think your bombers would have ever made it to Russian soil. Not so with the Japanese by August of '45...they were down to almost nothing in aircraft. MAYBE you could take off from somewhere in/around Scandinavia and make it to Leningrad but that's a big gamble with only one or two bombs.

On the ground, the armor, artillery, and rockets that the Russians would have had facing us that summer after Berlin fell would have made everything we had already faced in Western Europe look like a joke.
IDAGG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think you meat to reply to unknown_handle. You and I are basically saying the same thing.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.