Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Should we have listened to Patton?

“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 [b]we have failed in the liberation of Europe[/b]; we have lost the war!”

George S. Patton
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
No. The US was war weary and broke. Debt was 119% of GDP, which was the highest up until that time. Supply shortages were problematic too.

Defeating the Soviets would have paid obvious dividends.

But unless we were ready to go nuclear and get it over fast and inexpensively, it would have been difficult and expensive.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@HoraceGreenley Japan was defeated. It would have been a 1 front war against a battered enemy. We knew about Soviet atrocities in Ukraine and Poland. Google holodomor. Why did we think they would magically stop in 1945? Of course, they didn't.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@irishmolly72 Sure. But I stand by my remarks. The US was battered too.
irishmolly72 · 56-60, F
@HoraceGreenley Thank you. Sorry for being such a Karen.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@irishmolly72 Nothing to apologize for Molly. You have a valid point. I actually agree with you.

I just think that people have forgotten how desperate WWII was. Today we view it as a forgone conclusion.

I just think defeating the Soviets in 1945 would have been much tougher than people appreciate.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
A few well placed nukes would have served 1945 Russia well and at least delayed a nuclear USSR for a long long time. @HoraceGreenley
acpguy · C
@HoraceGreenley WWII is what brought us out of the Depression that the Democrats kept going longer than it should have due to socialist ideas. As jackj stated just 2 or 3 nukes would have broken the Russians and the country could have been broken up into several independent countries, kept those that were taken over by Russia free. Patton had much better ideas than the politicians just as Trump had but was not allowed to complete.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Some of the USSR could have been given to the Palestinians, the Taliban, Israel and others to prevent the constant nonsense that lack of land has caused. Even some to China so make the. Feel good 😜 @acpguy
acpguy · C
@jackjjackson Hard to determine history looking backwards.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
True. Here’s another one. How about if Israel is what was Manitoba and Palestine is what was Israel? Would Canada really miss it and imagine what the industrious Israels would do with all that real estate? @acpguy
acpguy · C
@jackjjackson Well at least they would speak better in Manitoba now. 🤣
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@acpguy I agree. WWII pulled the US out of the Great Depression. FDR and his policies made it worse and much longer lasting.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@jackjjackson I'm not adverse to nuking the Russkieys in 1945. I see no need for a long drawn out conflict.

Would have saved the world a lot of trouble
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
In retrospect it’s too bad we did. It do it. @HoraceGreenley
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@jackjjackson Yeah...hindsight is a btch. But everyone was war weary and I don't blame anyone for not going after the Soviets.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Just a few buttons pushed and the nukes would be flying 🤠 @HoraceGreenley
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@jackjjackson Well not in 1945 as you still needed a plane to drop a bomb.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@jackjjackson That requires complete air superiority to drop an atmic bomb.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
That should not have been a problem back then. @HoraceGreenley
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@jackjjackson I don't recall the state of the Soviet Air Forces in 1945.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
Decimated from what wasn’t much to begin with. @HoraceGreenley
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
@jackjjackson Probably...i can see that. Anyway a fast cheap war would have been good. Drop a few nukes, get rid of Stalin and the Commies and history would have been very different.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
For the better @HoraceGreenley
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
wildbill83 · 36-40, M
@HoraceGreenley Russia has no strategic bomber, we had the B29; In fact, it wasn't until they captured and reverse engineered one that they had one of their own

Which is true for most Russians things, reverse engineered/stolen tech from the west