If Patton had been allowed to attack the Soviet Union who would have won? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rudel73 · 10-16-2003, 02:55 PM

would of won? The Soviet army at the end of WW2 was at least 1/3rd bigger then the US army. They had 1/3rd more hardware too. Of course a bunch of that was lend lease stuff but they did have the IS1 & IS2 heavy tanks. I'd like to say that Patton would be able to kick the Soviets butts... then again Zukov was no slouch either...

Xenomorph · 10-16-2003, 06:29 PM

I'm fairly certain we would have got them. We did have the atomic bomb, after all, and weren't afraid to use it...

But even aside from that, the Soviets were exhausted by the end of WWII. 100 Russians died as a result of the war for every 1 American that did the same. They were pretty thoroughly destroyed, and who knows what would have happened if we'd have cut off their lend lease supplies....

Lebell · 10-16-2003, 11:29 PM

If the Soviets thought we would use the bomb, then no question.

Otherwise, it would have been a tough fight and I'm not sure which side would have prevailed, since we would have faced the same problems the Germans faced, maybe more so since our supply line would have been even longer.

thejoker130 · 10-17-2003, 07:20 AM

The Soviets toward the end of WW2 were actually very close to developing their own atomic bomb. Actually a lot closer to making their own atomic arsenal than we were to replacing the whole two in our stock. The prouction of the atomic bomb in the United States was not yet an exact science, and the ones that we had dropped on Japan we weren't even sure would work. Another problem with using the bomb on the Soviet Union is delivery, remember there were no rockets or missles capable of delivering an atomic payload to the Soviet Union. True, the German's had become close to perfecting rocket technology but it had a limited range and was not accurate enough to be dependable. The risk would be far too great flying a bomb into Soviet territory, the bomb could be lost to soviet AAA. When the bomb was used on Japan the Japanese military was pretty much destroyed. By the end of the war the Soviet army was almost fully recovered from the German Blitz. All these factors pretty much rule out the use of the atomic bomb for at least several years of a war between the US and the Soviets. That said, a war between the United States and the Soviet union would have been very close. The US military was better trained and better armed while the USSR had a larger army mostly made up of consripts. Also the Soviet comand were no slouches when it came to strategy, I would say that the minds working for Stalin were at least as good as the ones behind the US military. The biggest challenge for a US invasion of the Soviet Union would be the sheer size and climate of the USSR; it was, and still is, the largest nation in the world.

If it had come down to war between the two, I feel it would most likely be reduced to a war of attrition. And would have probably ended in a draw.

Moonduck · 10-17-2003, 07:56 AM

"Never get into a land war in Asia."

Patton was a heckuva General, but I still think Russia would have eaten whatever he could throw at it. Note: I am not saying the Soviets, I'm saying Russia, different story. You don't beat Russia and you won't beat the Russian winter.

Arc101 · 10-17-2003, 09:02 AM

If you take out the bomb and just use conventional weapons then Russia I think would have won. At the very least they would have conquered Europe. The leaders of Russia didn't give a damn that 100 of their soldiers had to die for every German. It is hard to fight an enemy who does not care about their own casualties.

Rudel73 · 10-17-2003, 11:50 AM

I don't know i think America would have won just from the complete air superiority it would enjoy. The Russian Fighters were outdated and were outclassed by more modern American Fighters, and America had another thing that Germany didnt; Long range bombers! Germany was never able to bomb Russia's factories, and America would be able to do that, slowing down their supply even more. Without air superiority i doubt the Americans would be able to win

Mephisto2 · 10-17-2003, 05:46 PM

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union would have won this war. It would be have been impossible for US forces to proceed all the way into Russia.

France failed. Germany failed and the US would have failed.

The US would also have been crippled by the fact that they would have had to transport their entire manpower and supplies across the Atlantic.

Get real people! No one could have ever defeated the Russians in an invasion.

Just imagine some ideologically opposite power invading America. Say Iran... Don't you think that every single man, woman and child would be up in arms fight for their very existence? That's what happened, and would have continued to happen, in the Soviet Union.

They had just lost 30 million in their war with Germany. THIRTY MILLION... Do you think the US public could stomach even 1/100th of that in an unpopular war? Remember "Uncle Joe" was still very popular with the US public at the end of WWII.

Mr Mephisto

Stare At The Sun · 10-17-2003, 09:07 PM

^^ Very true, i'd have to agree that it would have been a very unpopular war, and w/o atomic weapons, we would loose.

Mephisto2 · 10-17-2003, 09:48 PM

I neglected to address atomic weapons.

For those interested in this topic I highly recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. This is a truly breathtaking, fascinating and emminently readable account of this momentous achievement. It combines science, military history, political history, espionage, biography and journalistic investigation in one (quite lengthy) but superb book. It's really amazing to learn about how the secret US labs worked on the bomb, how famous names like Oppenheimer, Feynmann, Fuchs, Fermi et al were all involved. The book was a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize.

Rhodes wrote a "sequel" called Dark Sun that examines the beginning of the Atomic Arms Race and the development of the Soviet atomic and hydrogen bomb programs.

The Soviets detonated their first atomic device on August 29, 1949 and it was an almost carbon copy of the US bomb "Fat Boy" (thanks for the Los Alamos scientist Fuchs who was a Soviet spy).

So, whilst the US had a couple of years head-start, if you wanted to use atomic bombs on Russia you would have had to desperately ramp up production after August 1945.

As UnlikedOne says, without the A-bomb the US would undoubtedly have lost this hypothetical war. Even with it, I'm not convinced it would make any difference. Dropping a bomb on Japan to "help save" American GI lives is one thing. Using it to invade a popular and immense prior ally is another. No US President would have done this, least of all Truman.

The two above books are highly recommended. This is a very intersesting subject.

Oisin

Rudel73 · 10-18-2003, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Get real people! No one could have ever defeated the Russians in an invasion.

Mongols did way back when....

I still think that America would be able to succesfully invade Russia JUST because of air power. America's Army Aircorps was such a power at the end of WW2 i doubt anything could stop them

peeweesbigbong · 10-19-2003, 07:09 AM

a friend of mine was in germany a couple years ago interviewing people for a (another) book about WWII.

interestingly enough he met a guy who's father was one of the head honcho's of the SS.

He told him that when america finnally cornered the SS near the Eagles Nest they told the SS CO's that they would give them food and excercise equipment (by now they were nearly starving to death) and they (Patton and crew) were going to use the SS as a spearhead army into the USSR.

but Patton mysteriously died (the son of the SS leader also mentioned that no one knew who pattons driver was that morning) so the attack never happened.

Mephisto2 · 10-19-2003, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudel73
Mongols did way back when....

That's of no relevance to the period around WWII, or even the Napoleonic period. There was no unified Russian state, let alone a Soviet Union at that time.

Mr Mephisto

Jdoe · 10-20-2003, 12:22 AM

I think most points are covered other than arguing the points. But one is oddly skimmed. To say that a bomb could not be dropped into Russia is a bit silly I think. I hope everyone realises we didn't drop our big bombs two miles away. It was a very lengthy task with huge obstacles all along the way. The bombs cannot be counted out in this respect.

Jdoe

Fire · 10-20-2003, 02:23 AM

ok- yes, the russian winter is a hell of a foe, but I belive that we were in a good enough position to pull it off- not easily and not without cost, but russia relied heavily on our aid, and the air power difference is hard to beat....

thejoker130 · 10-22-2003, 05:57 AM

About air power. Even today air power cant win a war all on its own, troops would have to be on the ground doing the fighting that planes couldn't do. This is even more so back in the late 40's. And where are the supplies used to maintain the planes gonna come from, pretty much all of Europe was reduced to rubble. Supply lines running from US shores would have been monumentally hard to maintain.

Church · 10-23-2003, 07:48 PM

Patton was the man. With his percerverance (sp?), the US definitely would have won. There's a reason he was one of the great military leaders of America.

supafly · 10-24-2003, 01:31 AM

I think the sovjets would have won. The eastern-front was extreamly cold and the Russion already had a lot of fortifications around cities they had to defend from the Germans.

splck · 10-25-2003, 07:27 AM

No doubt the Red army would have won if you discount the A-bomb. I think it's delusional to think the US could have pulled it off.

XenuHubbard · 10-26-2003, 02:55 AM

Patton was a tactician, not a strategist. Without his planners' aid, Patton probably would have starved his own troops to death on the way.

He didn't plan for food, just for combat.
And I would say firing on British positions during WWII could be considered objectionable.

Rudel73 · 10-26-2003, 08:53 AM

Some of you don't understand that with America's HUGE Superiority in Aircraft overwhelm the Russians! There would be constant day/night air raids of the Russian factories (The germans were never able to do such a thing) which would completlely shout down the Russians ability to make their weapons of war. America was by far the best industrial nation at the time and could out-produce every other country. America would win by the fact of complete equipment superiority in quality as well as numbers!

AlphaFox830 · 10-26-2003, 11:00 PM

... this is my pure opinion... but i think patton would have lost. Im not much of a history buff, and im not in the army... but what i remember from my history classes is that the russian/soviet army was huge at that time.

Who knows?

SuperMidget · 10-27-2003, 09:04 PM

Russia would have won hands down. Even including the A-bomb.

I'm shocked that such a collection of intelligence overlooked the most important fact. The biggest advantage Russia has over every other nation is land. Like the capmaign against the germans, the russians would not have hesitated to trade land for time and used scorched earth tactics.

Combine that with the russians love for sniping and long range battle, and the US would have been beaten like the proverbial red-headed step-child.

During the height of the Battle for Stalingrad, the germans were losing about two soldiers every half hour to enemy sniper fire.

Air superiority does not mean a thing if you have no soldiers to hold the rubble left by the bombers.

Mephisto2 · 10-27-2003, 09:53 PM

Well said SuperMidget.

The Soviet Union was HUGE. Constantly retreating until your enemy over-extends itself and then biting back like a cornered bear...

Sound familiar?

Le Grande Armee anyone? The Wehrmacht? You think Patton could have done any better? Give me a break.

Mr Mephisto

PS - a realisitc appraisal of Patton's unlikely success in this hypothetical war does not equate to anti-Americanism before anyone accuses me of some such nonesense. Stop the flag waving for a minute and think it through.

debaser · 10-29-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by peeweesbigbong
(the son of the SS leader also mentioned that no one knew who pattons driver was that morning)

Horace Woodring

http://www.skylighters.org/patton/index8.html

santafe5000 · 11-02-2003, 04:23 PM

Personally, I think the Russians would have "Won", due to the fact that their army was much larger and closer to home. Just the logistics would have hampered the US. We only had enough fusioable material for a few "Nuc's" so I don't think they would be a factor. Also, the American public would have put up a fit at the casualties from that foray.

Mael · 11-02-2003, 05:43 PM

i don't think that the american public would have turned against a war against russia at any point. there was a huge red scare, and i think that could have easily been used to keep the people pro-war. also, i think it may have been possible for the US to win, although it really would be an unwinnable war. best we could really hope for is to actually beat their army. i think there's no way we could have really beaten them and held the territory.

mml · 11-03-2003, 11:07 AM

I don't believe that the U.S., particularly under Truman, would have actually attacked the U.S.S.R. However, if we throw out logic and say that the U.S. did attack, I believe that it would be a war that no one would win. It would be bloody and long and would end up in a negotiated "peace". Most of the factors have already been discussed - U.S. air superiority and better trained forces v.s. the larger Soviet army. Brutal Russian weather, the vast size of the U.S.S.R. and their willingness to sacrifice people and land in order to win would seemingly make it impossible to truly defeat the Soviets. The U.S. would have its successes, but eventually their losses would begin to outweigh the value of those successes.

Interestingly though, such a war would most likely have pushed the Soviets out of Eastern Europe and possiblely weakened their military enough to prevent their future domination of Eastern Europe and ability to assist Communist insurgencies around the globe. No matter the outcome, we would be living in a different world today.

JoenOcoee · 11-07-2003, 02:47 AM

I don't think there would be a winner. It's true the US would carpet bomb mercilessly, but in the end US troops would not have fared to well engaging the Russians in Russia.

I also must admit that if a war broke out between the Russians and the US, it would be a war of supply lines for the Americans, and that being said, Patton would NOT be the best general for the Americans to use. Old Ike was an exponentialy better organizer that Patton and would be better suited for the task.

Just out of curiosity...do you think that the US would attack East to West or West to East?

nirol · 11-08-2003, 10:19 PM

The question of who would win is largely dependent on the definition of victory. What is the objective.
Could we capture and hold large parts of the Soviet Union for a long period? No. Does that mean we lose? Perhaps not. If we affect change to the outlook of the Soviets, help the remnants of opposition to Stalin and cause insurrection in the smaller republics, liberate central Europe, then we are in a better position and it moves history up several decades. Remember, we were at war for the ensuing 45 yrs with the Soviets(and we won).
If you define Soviet victory as repelling a US invasion, then yes, they would win most likely. If their victory meant they affected constitutional change in the US or laid a glove on North America, no way, they had no military capability to do so and would not for years.

VitaminH · 11-10-2003, 09:53 AM

I don't think the US's air superiority would have made all the difference. You can't do much from the air when your planes can't even fly during a Siberian blizzard. Napolean couldn't, Hitler couldn't...and I have doubts the US could have either. Russia was crippled sure, but so were we, even if not to the extent that the Russians were. It would have ended up being the Russians pulling back and turning it into a wasteland just like with Germany and France and the US eventually pulling out.

Seaver · 11-15-2003, 01:37 PM

There's a difference in what people are talking about.

If the war would have commenced there would have been one EASY way for America to win. To attack, then feign a retreat. While Russia amasses an enormous counterattack you get the B-29s up and you nuke their spearhead. After this the road would be cleared until the next counter-attack by the Russians, you forget that they were tactitians who believed in numbers not strategy.

Air Superiority could be won easily with bases in Germany (secured by the tactical nuclear attacks), and after this is ensured daylight and night time bombing of Moscow and Leningrad could commence.

We wouldnt make the mistake Germany made, Americans like to destroy infrastructure BEFORE invading, Germans did it the opposite. Russian tanks would whoop up on the Shermans, true, but a good General would never let this happen without massive Sherman numerical advantages.

Added to this we knew where EVERY Russian factory was, hell we gave them the equipment to build them. Just give these coordinates to the B-29s and whipe them out. The B-29s could fly higher than any Russian plane, even the Yaks.

And if they try to move it outside the range of bases in Germany we still have Japan and China (both our allies at the time). That leaves just a sliver of perma-frozen Siberia.... nothing much you can do there.

The war would have been horrendous on both sides, but America would have won.

dog1 · 11-16-2003, 12:10 PM

And don't forget, the remnants of the Wehrmacht could have been rearmed.

Easytiger · 11-16-2003, 07:38 PM

Seaver, have you ever read about how good the Russians were at moving factories? They had a lot of practice doing it during the German offensive, and they wouldn't have had too hard a time doing it if the Americans attacked.

dailyjo2003 · 11-18-2003, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nirol
The question of who would win is largely dependent on the definition of victory. What is the objective.
Could we capture and hold large parts of the Soviet Union for a long period? No. Does that mean we lose? Perhaps not. If we affect change to the outlook of the Soviets, help the remnants of opposition to Stalin and cause insurrection in the smaller republics, liberate central Europe, then we are in a better position and it moves history up several decades. Remember, we were at war for the ensuing 45 yrs with the Soviets(and we won).
If you define Soviet victory as repelling a US invasion, then yes, they would win most likely. If their victory meant they affected constitutional change in the US or laid a glove on North America, no way, they had no military capability to do so and would not for years.

Good point - you have to look at objectives. A weakened Soviet Union and a free Eastern Europe would have drastically changed history. The question is not absolute victory by either side but some other measure of victory.

Somebody has to have written some alternative history on this subject.

rodgerd · 11-19-2003, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudel73
Some of you don't understand that with America's HUGE Superiority in Aircraft overwhelm the Russians!

Air power didn't mean shit in WW II except for sea battles, where it rendered battleships obsolete.

German factory output actually rose over the time that the British and Americans were performing round the clock bombing - and they were in easy reach of UK airfields, unlike the Russian factories, which had been relocated beyond the Urals.

queedo · 11-24-2003, 08:30 PM

If Patton had attacked the Soviets, Brittan would have come along for the ride and possibly the newly mangaged Japanese army under McCarther as well. The Soviets also didn't know how many nukes we had left so we might have forced tham to make a lot of conssesions.

Easytiger · 11-25-2003, 08:17 PM

It's true that Churchill didn't like Communism, but I don't think he would have been able to convince Britain to jump back into a massive conflict so soon after beating the Germans- besides which, I think he was replaced as PM not long after the cessation of hostilities (can't remember for sure, though I know he was re-elected for a while as well).
As for a Japanese army, I don't really think so. Although there's no love lost between Japan and Russia, the Japanese were under strict limitations on their military development after the Second World War, and I don't think anybody would have been willing to allow them to re-arm- even for use as a proxy army.

dragon2fire · 11-26-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodgerd
Air power didn't mean shit in WW II except for sea battles, where it rendered battleships obsolete.

German factory output actually rose over the time that the British and Americans were performing round the clock bombing - and they were in easy reach of UK airfields, unlike the Russian factories, which had been relocated beyond the Urals.

air power no question played a huge roll in the win for the allies

this fact is well documented

Mephisto2 · 11-26-2003, 08:00 PM

I have to agree with this statement.

For example, it was a key issue in the Battle of the Bulge and one of the main reasons this offensive (Macht am Rhein) was so successful during its initial stages.

Air power played a huge factor in the Allied victory.

However, I maintain that Patton would not have "won" such a war. It would have simply degenerated into battle of attrition; one which the Soviets would have had many millions more men to sacrifice.

And to what end would the Allied effort be aimed? Do you really think that after the losses of WWII the British and American public would have accepted millions more casualties in an unpopular war against a former ally?

I think not.

Mr Mephisto

10-16-2003, 02:55 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rudel73 Psycho	If Patton had been allowed to attack the Soviet Union who would have won? would of won? The Soviet army at the end of WW2 was at least 1/3rd bigger then the US army. They had 1/3rd more hardware too. Of course a bunch of that was lend lease stuff but they did have the IS1 & IS2 heavy tanks. I'd like to say that Patton would be able to kick the Soviets butts... then again Zukov was no slouch either...

10-16-2003, 06:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
Xenomorph Crazy Location: St. Louis, MO	I'm fairly certain we would have got them. We did have the atomic bomb, after all, and weren't afraid to use it... But even aside from that, the Soviets were exhausted by the end of WWII. 100 Russians died as a result of the war for every 1 American that did the same. They were pretty thoroughly destroyed, and who knows what would have happened if we'd have cut off their lend lease supplies.... __________________ The facehugger is short-lived outside the egg which normally protects it. Armed with a long grasping tail, a spray of highly-concentrated acid and the single-minded desire to impregnate a single selected prey using its extending probe, it will fearlessly pursue and attack a single selected target until it has succeeded in attachment or it or its target is dead

10-16-2003, 11:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	If the Soviets thought we would use the bomb, then no question. Otherwise, it would have been a tough fight and I'm not sure which side would have prevailed, since we would have faced the same problems the Germans faced, maybe more so since our supply line would have been even longer. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-17-2003, 07:20 AM	#4 (permalink)
thejoker130 Insane Location: slippery rock university AKA: The left ass cheek of the world	The Soviets toward the end of WW2 were actually very close to developing their own atomic bomb. Actually a lot closer to making their own atomic arsenal than we were to replacing the whole two in our stock. The prouction of the atomic bomb in the United States was not yet an exact science, and the ones that we had dropped on Japan we weren't even sure would work. Another problem with using the bomb on the Soviet Union is delivery, remember there were no rockets or missles capable of delivering an atomic payload to the Soviet Union. True, the German's had become close to perfecting rocket technology but it had a limited range and was not accurate enough to be dependable. The risk would be far too great flying a bomb into Soviet territory, the bomb could be lost to soviet AAA. When the bomb was used on Japan the Japanese military was pretty much destroyed. By the end of the war the Soviet army was almost fully recovered from the German Blitz. All these factors pretty much rule out the use of the atomic bomb for at least several years of a war between the US and the Soviets. That said, a war between the United States and the Soviet union would have been very close. The US military was better trained and better armed while the USSR had a larger army mostly made up of consripts. Also the Soviet comand were no slouches when it came to strategy, I would say that the minds working for Stalin were at least as good as the ones behind the US military. The biggest challenge for a US invasion of the Soviet Union would be the sheer size and climate of the USSR; it was, and still is, the largest nation in the world. If it had come down to war between the two, I feel it would most likely be reduced to a war of attrition. And would have probably ended in a draw. __________________ WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? ------------------------------------- I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

10-17-2003, 09:48 PM	#10 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I neglected to address atomic weapons. For those interested in this topic I highly recommend The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. This is a truly breathtaking, fascinating and emminently readable account of this momentous achievement. It combines science, military history, political history, espionage, biography and journalistic investigation in one (quite lengthy) but superb book. It's really amazing to learn about how the secret US labs worked on the bomb, how famous names like Oppenheimer, Feynmann, Fuchs, Fermi et al were all involved. The book was a well deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. Rhodes wrote a "sequel" called Dark Sun that examines the beginning of the Atomic Arms Race and the development of the Soviet atomic and hydrogen bomb programs. The Soviets detonated their first atomic device on August 29, 1949 and it was an almost carbon copy of the US bomb "Fat Boy" (thanks for the Los Alamos scientist Fuchs who was a Soviet spy). So, whilst the US had a couple of years head-start, if you wanted to use atomic bombs on Russia you would have had to desperately ramp up production after August 1945. As UnlikedOne says, without the A-bomb the US would undoubtedly have lost this hypothetical war. Even with it, I'm not convinced it would make any difference. Dropping a bomb on Japan to "help save" American GI lives is one thing. Using it to invade a popular and immense prior ally is another. No US President would have done this, least of all Truman. The two above books are highly recommended. This is a very intersesting subject. Oisin Last edited by Mephisto2; 10-17-2003 at 09:50 PM..

10-17-2003, 07:56 AM	#5 (permalink)
Moonduck Junkie Location: SE USA	"Never get into a land war in Asia." Patton was a heckuva General, but I still think Russia would have eaten whatever he could throw at it. Note: I am not saying the Soviets, I'm saying Russia, different story. You don't beat Russia and you won't beat the Russian winter.

10-17-2003, 09:02 AM	#6 (permalink)
Arc101 Addict Location: Nottingham, England	If you take out the bomb and just use conventional weapons then Russia I think would have won. At the very least they would have conquered Europe. The leaders of Russia didn't give a damn that 100 of their soldiers had to die for every German. It is hard to fight an enemy who does not care about their own casualties.

10-17-2003, 11:50 AM	#7 (permalink)
Rudel73 Psycho	I don't know i think America would have won just from the complete air superiority it would enjoy. The Russian Fighters were outdated and were outclassed by more modern American Fighters, and America had another thing that Germany didnt; Long range bombers! Germany was never able to bomb Russia's factories, and America would be able to do that, slowing down their supply even more. Without air superiority i doubt the Americans would be able to win

10-17-2003, 05:46 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	There is no doubt that the Soviet Union would have won this war. It would be have been impossible for US forces to proceed all the way into Russia. France failed. Germany failed and the US would have failed. The US would also have been crippled by the fact that they would have had to transport their entire manpower and supplies across the Atlantic. Get real people! No one could have ever defeated the Russians in an invasion. Just imagine some ideologically opposite power invading America. Say Iran... Don't you think that every single man, woman and child would be up in arms fight for their very existence? That's what happened, and would have continued to happen, in the Soviet Union. They had just lost 30 million in their war with Germany. THIRTY MILLION... Do you think the US public could stomach even 1/100th of that in an unpopular war? Remember "Uncle Joe" was still very popular with the US public at the end of WWII. Mr Mephisto

10-17-2003, 09:07 PM	#9 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	^^ Very true, i'd have to agree that it would have been a very unpopular war, and w/o atomic weapons, we would loose.

10-19-2003, 07:09 AM	#12 (permalink)
peeweesbigbong Tilted	a friend of mine was in germany a couple years ago interviewing people for a (another) book about WWII. interestingly enough he met a guy who's father was one of the head honcho's of the SS. He told him that when america finnally cornered the SS near the Eagles Nest they told the SS CO's that they would give them food and excercise equipment (by now they were nearly starving to death) and they (Patton and crew) were going to use the SS as a spearhead army into the USSR. but Patton mysteriously died (the son of the SS leader also mentioned that no one knew who pattons driver was that morning) so the attack never happened.

10-20-2003, 12:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
Jdoe Crazy	I think most points are covered other than arguing the points. But one is oddly skimmed. To say that a bomb could not be dropped into Russia is a bit silly I think. I hope everyone realises we didn't drop our big bombs two miles away. It was a very lengthy task with huge obstacles all along the way. The bombs cannot be counted out in this respect. Jdoe

10-20-2003, 02:23 AM	#15 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	ok- yes, the russian winter is a hell of a foe, but I belive that we were in a good enough position to pull it off- not easily and not without cost, but russia relied heavily on our aid, and the air power difference is hard to beat.... __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

10-22-2003, 05:57 AM	#16 (permalink)
thejoker130 Insane Location: slippery rock university AKA: The left ass cheek of the world	About air power. Even today air power cant win a war all on its own, troops would have to be on the ground doing the fighting that planes couldn't do. This is even more so back in the late 40's. And where are the supplies used to maintain the planes gonna come from, pretty much all of Europe was reduced to rubble. Supply lines running from US shores would have been monumentally hard to maintain. __________________ WHAT MORE CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? ------------------------------------- I like you. When the world is mine your death will be quick and painless.

10-23-2003, 07:48 PM	#17 (permalink)
Church Tilted F*ckhead Location: New Jersey	Patton was the man. With his percerverance (sp?), the US definitely would have won. There's a reason he was one of the great military leaders of America.

10-24-2003, 01:31 AM	#18 (permalink)
supafly Psycho Location: Rotterdam	I think the sovjets would have won. The eastern-front was extreamly cold and the Russion already had a lot of fortifications around cities they had to defend from the Germans. __________________ Thumbs up

10-25-2003, 07:27 AM	#19 (permalink)
splck it's jam Location: Lowerainland BC	No doubt the Red army would have won if you discount the A-bomb. I think it's delusional to think the US could have pulled it off. __________________ nice line eh? Last edited by splck; 10-25-2003 at 07:31 AM..

10-26-2003, 02:55 AM	#20 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	Patton was a tactician, not a strategist. Without his planners' aid, Patton probably would have starved his own troops to death on the way. He didn't plan for food, just for combat. And I would say firing on British positions during WWII could be considered objectionable. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

10-26-2003, 08:53 AM	#21 (permalink)
Rudel73 Psycho	Some of you don't understand that with America's HUGE Superiority in Aircraft overwhelm the Russians! There would be constant day/night air raids of the Russian factories (The germans were never able to do such a thing) which would completlely shout down the Russians ability to make their weapons of war. America was by far the best industrial nation at the time and could out-produce every other country. America would win by the fact of complete equipment superiority in quality as well as numbers!

10-26-2003, 11:00 PM	#22 (permalink)
AlphaFox830 Tilted Location: Chicago	... this is my pure opinion... but i think patton would have lost. Im not much of a history buff, and im not in the army... but what i remember from my history classes is that the russian/soviet army was huge at that time. Who knows? __________________ Self Styled Pirate

10-27-2003, 09:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
SuperMidget Banned Location: Farm country, South Dakota	Russia would have won hands down. Even including the A-bomb. I'm shocked that such a collection of intelligence overlooked the most important fact. The biggest advantage Russia has over every other nation is land. Like the capmaign against the germans, the russians would not have hesitated to trade land for time and used scorched earth tactics. Combine that with the russians love for sniping and long range battle, and the US would have been beaten like the proverbial red-headed step-child. During the height of the Battle for Stalingrad, the germans were losing about two soldiers every half hour to enemy sniper fire. Air superiority does not mean a thing if you have no soldiers to hold the rubble left by the bombers.

10-27-2003, 09:53 PM	#24 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Well said SuperMidget. The Soviet Union was HUGE. Constantly retreating until your enemy over-extends itself and then biting back like a cornered bear... Sound familiar? Le Grande Armee anyone? The Wehrmacht? You think Patton could have done any better? Give me a break. Mr Mephisto PS - a realisitc appraisal of Patton's unlikely success in this hypothetical war does not equate to anti-Americanism before anyone accuses me of some such nonesense. Stop the flag waving for a minute and think it through.

11-02-2003, 04:23 PM	#26 (permalink)
santafe5000 EVIL! Location: Southwest of nowhere	Personally, I think the Russians would have "Won", due to the fact that their army was much larger and closer to home. Just the logistics would have hampered the US. We only had enough fusioable material for a few "Nuc's" so I don't think they would be a factor. Also, the American public would have put up a fit at the casualties from that foray. __________________ When all else fails, QUIT.

11-02-2003, 05:43 PM	#27 (permalink)
Mael Banned Location: The Hell I Created.	i don't think that the american public would have turned against a war against russia at any point. there was a huge red scare, and i think that could have easily been used to keep the people pro-war. also, i think it may have been possible for the US to win, although it really would be an unwinnable war. best we could really hope for is to actually beat their army. i think there's no way we could have really beaten them and held the territory.

11-03-2003, 11:07 AM	#28 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	I don't believe that the U.S., particularly under Truman, would have actually attacked the U.S.S.R. However, if we throw out logic and say that the U.S. did attack, I believe that it would be a war that no one would win. It would be bloody and long and would end up in a negotiated "peace". Most of the factors have already been discussed - U.S. air superiority and better trained forces v.s. the larger Soviet army. Brutal Russian weather, the vast size of the U.S.S.R. and their willingness to sacrifice people and land in order to win would seemingly make it impossible to truly defeat the Soviets. The U.S. would have its successes, but eventually their losses would begin to outweigh the value of those successes. Interestingly though, such a war would most likely have pushed the Soviets out of Eastern Europe and possiblely weakened their military enough to prevent their future domination of Eastern Europe and ability to assist Communist insurgencies around the globe. No matter the outcome, we would be living in a different world today. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

11-07-2003, 02:47 AM	#29 (permalink)
JoenOcoee Tilted Location: Athens, Georgia classic city my ass....	I don't think there would be a winner. It's true the US would carpet bomb mercilessly, but in the end US troops would not have fared to well engaging the Russians in Russia. I also must admit that if a war broke out between the Russians and the US, it would be a war of supply lines for the Americans, and that being said, Patton would NOT be the best general for the Americans to use. Old Ike was an exponentialy better organizer that Patton and would be better suited for the task. Just out of curiosity...do you think that the US would attack East to West or West to East? __________________ Remember kiddies, panic attacks can be fatal

11-08-2003, 10:19 PM	#30 (permalink)
nirol Crazy Location: South East US	The question of who would win is largely dependent on the definition of victory. What is the objective. Could we capture and hold large parts of the Soviet Union for a long period? No. Does that mean we lose? Perhaps not. If we affect change to the outlook of the Soviets, help the remnants of opposition to Stalin and cause insurrection in the smaller republics, liberate central Europe, then we are in a better position and it moves history up several decades. Remember, we were at war for the ensuing 45 yrs with the Soviets(and we won). If you define Soviet victory as repelling a US invasion, then yes, they would win most likely. If their victory meant they affected constitutional change in the US or laid a glove on North America, no way, they had no military capability to do so and would not for years. __________________ 'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

11-10-2003, 09:53 AM	#31 (permalink)
VitaminH An embarrassment to myself and those around me... Location: Pants	I don't think the US's air superiority would have made all the difference. You can't do much from the air when your planes can't even fly during a Siberian blizzard. Napolean couldn't, Hitler couldn't...and I have doubts the US could have either. Russia was crippled sure, but so were we, even if not to the extent that the Russians were. It would have ended up being the Russians pulling back and turning it into a wasteland just like with Germany and France and the US eventually pulling out. __________________ "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte

11-15-2003, 01:37 PM	#32 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	There's a difference in what people are talking about. If the war would have commenced there would have been one EASY way for America to win. To attack, then feign a retreat. While Russia amasses an enormous counterattack you get the B-29s up and you nuke their spearhead. After this the road would be cleared until the next counter-attack by the Russians, you forget that they were tactitians who believed in numbers not strategy. Air Superiority could be won easily with bases in Germany (secured by the tactical nuclear attacks), and after this is ensured daylight and night time bombing of Moscow and Leningrad could commence. We wouldnt make the mistake Germany made, Americans like to destroy infrastructure BEFORE invading, Germans did it the opposite. Russian tanks would whoop up on the Shermans, true, but a good General would never let this happen without massive Sherman numerical advantages. Added to this we knew where EVERY Russian factory was, hell we gave them the equipment to build them. Just give these coordinates to the B-29s and whipe them out. The B-29s could fly higher than any Russian plane, even the Yaks. And if they try to move it outside the range of bases in Germany we still have Japan and China (both our allies at the time). That leaves just a sliver of perma-frozen Siberia.... nothing much you can do there. The war would have been horrendous on both sides, but America would have won. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

11-16-2003, 12:10 PM	#33 (permalink)
dog1 Upright	And don't forget, the remnants of the Wehrmacht could have been rearmed.

11-16-2003, 07:38 PM	#34 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	Seaver, have you ever read about how good the Russians were at moving factories? They had a lot of practice doing it during the German offensive, and they wouldn't have had too hard a time doing it if the Americans attacked.

11-24-2003, 08:30 PM	#37 (permalink)
queedo Shodan	If Patton had attacked the Soviets, Brittan would have come along for the ride and possibly the newly mangaged Japanese army under McCarther as well. The Soviets also didn't know how many nukes we had left so we might have forced tham to make a lot of conssesions. __________________ If you think you can or you can't, you are right!

11-25-2003, 08:17 PM	#38 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	It's true that Churchill didn't like Communism, but I don't think he would have been able to convince Britain to jump back into a massive conflict so soon after beating the Germans- besides which, I think he was replaced as PM not long after the cessation of hostilities (can't remember for sure, though I know he was re-elected for a while as well). As for a Japanese army, I don't really think so. Although there's no love lost between Japan and Russia, the Japanese were under strict limitations on their military development after the Second World War, and I don't think anybody would have been willing to allow them to re-arm- even for use as a proxy army.

11-26-2003, 08:00 PM	#40 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	I have to agree with this statement. For example, it was a key issue in the Battle of the Bulge and one of the main reasons this offensive (Macht am Rhein) was so successful during its initial stages. Air power played a huge factor in the Allied victory. However, I maintain that Patton would not have "won" such a war. It would have simply degenerated into battle of attrition; one which the Soviets would have had many millions more men to sacrifice. And to what end would the Allied effort be aimed? Do you really think that after the losses of WWII the British and American public would have accepted millions more casualties in an unpopular war against a former ally? I think not. Mr Mephisto