- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Gen. George Patton wanted to wipe out the Soviets after defeating the Germans
Posted on 2/24/22 at 10:55 am
Posted on 2/24/22 at 10:55 am
Thoughts?
quote:
I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof — that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”
quote:
In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.” Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: “If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.”
This post was edited on 2/24/22 at 10:57 am
21
Posted on 2/24/22 at 11:01 am to weagle99
The Soviet Union was an existential threat to Western Civilization. It was based on an ideology of global revolution and bloody coup of capitalist societies.
Russia is none of that. Run by kleptocrats and criminals who have to pay homage to Putin.
Patton would likely think going to war with modern Russia over separatist regions of Ukraine to be the highest level of stupidity.
He would also despise the very idea of NATO
Russia is none of that. Run by kleptocrats and criminals who have to pay homage to Putin.
Patton would likely think going to war with modern Russia over separatist regions of Ukraine to be the highest level of stupidity.
He would also despise the very idea of NATO
This post was edited on 2/24/22 at 11:01 am
Posted on 2/24/22 at 11:10 am to weagle99
Patton would have had a mutiny on his hands, supported by the families back home. The army in Europe nearly did mutiny at plans to send them en masse to the Pacific. Having been told they were fighting to liberate Europe from Nazism, they weren't going to turn around and fight a former"ally" without extreme provocation. Patton understood the strategic picture, but he misunderstood, or chose to ignore, the social and political realuty.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 11:14 am to weagle99
quote:
They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you.
Boss mode
Posted on 2/24/22 at 11:20 am to weagle99
quote:
they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms
Patton was wrong about this. We didn't want any part of the Russian army in 1945. And the the logistics heavily favored the Russians.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 11:23 am to Tigris
quote:
Patton was wrong about this. We didn't want any part of the Russian army in 1945. And the the logistics heavily favored the Russians.
We had nukes though...
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:12 pm to weagle99
Patton to his wife:
“If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.”
So the ethical and moral question must be asked: "Why WAS the US so willing to concede so much and allow the Soviets to enslave and take over Eastern Europe?"
WAS one of the answers: The US State Dept and FDR were already socialist-symp (if not outright Communists themselves?) And was it not only possible, but very likely that General George S Patton WAS the victim of an assassination over his position?
IF we conclude this to be the case, there is a sinister taint to the entire war AND post-war. No 'COLD WAR', no long protracted "Military-Industrial Complex" lucrative marriage and 'Fear Factor'.
So we all know that after WW2, Communist USSR and Uncle Joe were given plans to the A-Bomb, and on to hold the Eastern Europe hostage and the US at bay until 1991.
Before all that:
1) Patton knew the Soviet full intentions of expanding Communism. And knew the window of opportunity of stopping them from doing so would never be better than ASAP
2) Knew that ONLY AS A RESULT of the ongoing massive American supply-chain of goods were the Soviets able to move an inch against Germany; ditch their calvary and roll in on (US made) armor and troop carriers; flew any (US -made) planes; fueled up armor and plane. Wore (US made) uniforms. AND ATE. He new the MINUTE the US pulled the plug on the Soviets' supply chain, they were stranded and DONE.
3) Given the US held *ALL the military supply-chain and (importantly) food supply cards, taking down the Soviets would not have been all that difficult.
*According to Maj Jordan's Diaries, the US "lent" $9.6 BILLION (1945 cash) -- which was massive and NOT known by Americans at the time, nor hardly anyone. EVER.
“If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.”
So the ethical and moral question must be asked: "Why WAS the US so willing to concede so much and allow the Soviets to enslave and take over Eastern Europe?"
WAS one of the answers: The US State Dept and FDR were already socialist-symp (if not outright Communists themselves?) And was it not only possible, but very likely that General George S Patton WAS the victim of an assassination over his position?
IF we conclude this to be the case, there is a sinister taint to the entire war AND post-war. No 'COLD WAR', no long protracted "Military-Industrial Complex" lucrative marriage and 'Fear Factor'.
So we all know that after WW2, Communist USSR and Uncle Joe were given plans to the A-Bomb, and on to hold the Eastern Europe hostage and the US at bay until 1991.
Before all that:
1) Patton knew the Soviet full intentions of expanding Communism. And knew the window of opportunity of stopping them from doing so would never be better than ASAP
2) Knew that ONLY AS A RESULT of the ongoing massive American supply-chain of goods were the Soviets able to move an inch against Germany; ditch their calvary and roll in on (US made) armor and troop carriers; flew any (US -made) planes; fueled up armor and plane. Wore (US made) uniforms. AND ATE. He new the MINUTE the US pulled the plug on the Soviets' supply chain, they were stranded and DONE.
3) Given the US held *ALL the military supply-chain and (importantly) food supply cards, taking down the Soviets would not have been all that difficult.
*According to Maj Jordan's Diaries, the US "lent" $9.6 BILLION (1945 cash) -- which was massive and NOT known by Americans at the time, nor hardly anyone. EVER.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:14 pm to weagle99
That’s what Napoleon and the Germans wanted to do as well.
Worked out great……
Worked out great……
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:16 pm to Tigris
quote:
Patton was wrong about this. We didn't want any part of the Russian army in 1945. And the the logistics heavily favored the Russians.
NO logistics but raw manpower favored the Soviets. What they already possessed was American made and supplied and transported.
The US supplied nearly everything to Stalin's Army and AF. Talking about equipment. Fuel. FOOD. etc.
Patton knew this and knew that we could choke off all supplies and win while our military was still smoking hot and ready.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:17 pm to weagle99
quote:
Thoughts?
We should've stayed out of Europe. frick Europe, we ought to heed Washington's advice regarding that snake pit.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:18 pm to polizei11
quote:
We had nukes though.
We had 3. One was the test and the other two were used on Japan. It would’ve taken more time to roll out more.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:23 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Patton would have had a mutiny on his hands, supported by the families back home.
Wouldn't have been popular. BUT if framed properly and correctly, it could have been sold. The MEDIA controlled and manipulated popular opinion then -- same as today. And...taking out the Soviets back made sense and WAS very do-able. IF everything was on the up and up (it wasn't).
Taking out the Soviets wasn't in the cards because the State Dept and other Comm-Symps within had already rigged this game, supplying Uncle Joe during the entire war WHILE rewarding him with Eastern Europe AND a bonus: A-Bomb plans.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:34 pm to weagle99
Churchill initially wanted this as well. His plan was named "Operation Unthinkable". The problem was that Allies leaders learned the Red Army had twice as many soldiers in Germany than the Allies at the time of Germany's surrender. Attacking the Red Army wasn't a practical option at the time. Especially with the war in the Pacific still raging on.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 1:41 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Patton would have had a mutiny on his hands, supported by the families back home. The army in Europe nearly did mutiny at plans to send them en masse to the Pacific. Having been told they were fighting to liberate Europe from Nazism, they weren't going to turn around and fight a former"ally" without extreme provocation. Patton understood the strategic picture, but he misunderstood, or chose to ignore, the social and political realuty.
This. A lot of people may not realize that even in a war that has clear purpose and objectives and what was supposed to be a "good" war had started to become unpopular due to its high costs.
There was a great article about a photo published in Time that showed dead American soldiers for the first time. It was used to re-rally support back home... and this was only in 1943.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/24/22 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 2/24/22 at 2:16 pm to Liberator
quote:
Liberator
Excellent post.
I have begun to wonder if much of anything I learned in history class was accurate.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 2:19 pm to weagle99
quote:
I have begun to wonder if much of anything I learned in history class was accurate.
I think a lot of how history is presented in text depends on how close in time to the event that the text is prepared
Posted on 2/24/22 at 2:23 pm to weagle99
The Soviets were objectively worse than the Nazis in almost every way imaginable. And Marxism has done far more harm to this country than Fascism. Not saying we were wrong, but it makes me wonder about who we allied with in WWII.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 2:25 pm to SCLibertarian
We allied with the people not burning Jews and using their gold teeth to make swastikas.
Posted on 2/24/22 at 2:26 pm to Abstract Queso Dip
quote:
We allied with the people not burning Jews and using their gold teeth to make swastikas.
literally came down to a coin toss
Posted on 2/24/22 at 2:32 pm to Abstract Queso Dip
quote:
We allied with the people not burning Jews and using their gold teeth to make swastikas.
Make no mistake, Stalin had his own disgusting atrocities.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News