• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

General Patton!

Yeah we probably should've. If we did, there would have been no need for a Cold War. Nobody liked Stalin anyways. He was an asshole and his methods of controlling the population were quite similar to Hitler's. The Russians, however, were probably the main reason why we were able to win the war so I think instead of invading Russia maybe we could've simply overthrown Stalin some way. Or assassinated him.
 

I think a lot of times in our country's history we haven't listened to the military enough.
 
Nice thought...

Attack a country that didn't attack us because it's ruled by a madman who used harmful methods to control the population and it would be better in the long run to just get rid of him...

Now where did I hear THAT before?...:2wave:
 
cnredd said:
Nice thought...

Attack a country that didn't attack us because it's ruled by a madman who used harmful methods to control the population and it would be better in the long run to just get rid of him...

Now where did I hear THAT before?...:2wave:


See, this is why a country needs to listen to it's military or else we get people like you that don't understand warfare. Stalin was a ruthless monster and eliminating him would have saved the people of East Germany 45 plus years of communism.
 
think a lot of times in our country's history we haven't listened to the military enough.

Generals aren't politicians. Think of all the presidents we had who were generals. Ulysses Grant, one of the worst we ever had and indirectly caused the near extermination of the native Americans. Andrew Jackson, who wasn't a very good president either. Ike who was so-so.

You have to remember the Russians were our allies. Attacking them after the defeating the germans is very sleazy indeed regardless of how you feel on the matter. It is perhaps unwise to have been allied with them in the first place but we wouldn't have been able to win the war without them.


Nice thought...

Attack a country that didn't attack us because it's ruled by a madman who used harmful methods to control the population and it would be better in the long run to just get rid of him...

Now where did I hear THAT before?...

If you think that Bush invaded Iraq because of the goodness of his compassionate conservative heart, you are mistaken. Nothing good can possibly come out of this, even without Saddam. Anything could happen now. Its all up in the air. We just have to hope for the best now.

Oh yeah and just to remind everyone, the mindset of the United States during the Cold War era was the ends justify the means. We knew exactly what we were doing when, through Pinochet, we became responsible for the deaths of thousands and perhaps more. Not only was the 'ends justify the means' mindset turned out to be completely unhelpful but it helped no one when it came to keeping world peace. I guess it just goes to show.
 
Last edited:
George_Washington said:
See, this is why a country needs to listen to it's military or else we get people like you that don't understand warfare. Stalin was a ruthless monster and eliminating him would have saved the people of East Germany 45 plus years of communism.
ummmm....read it again, tough guy...

I was commenting on Finny's description of Stalin...It's pretty much the same as the description as Saddam today...

I was surprised that he found it conceivable to attack Russia then but not Iraq now...:doh

If you check again, you'll see that I did NOT give my opinion of whether or not we should have invaded Russia...
 
cnredd, read above. I responded to this already.

But anyways, I shouldn't have said we should have invaded Russia. They were our allies but I still think we should've took care of Stalin in someways, though I understand it is probably much more complicated then that.
 
Patton bugged the hell out of the pansy public, that's for sure.

http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html
 
Thank god our soldiers weren't such pansies lol. The movie Patton was edited so much that the George C Scott version seems like an angel compared to the real thing. That is nothing against Scott though, as he played a magnificent Patton.
 
 

Ok sorry, my bad.
 

Except for one thing:
An 'invasion' of Rissian in May or June 1945 means that the Russians would have would up occupying almost ALL of Europe, rather than just the Eastern part. They would have absorbed out initinal advance, and then pushed West, stopping only at the channel.

What people forget is that the Rissuan army was far larger than our, far more experienced. just as well-commanded (if in a different style) and better equipped. They fought 80-90% of the German army, and they mover farther and faster against them than we did.

No, an Allied attack on the Russians spells disaster for Europe.
 

I was under the impression that the Russian army was less technologically advanced than us and Germany, I read that in a book. But anyway, then what was Patton's reasoning for wanting to invade them? You would think a General like Patton would know what he was talking about.
 

They were not technically as advanced as us - but that doesmt mean their equipment wasnt better.

Simplest amd most relevant:
Compare the T34/85 and the M4A3(76).
Compare the JS-IIm and the M-26.

Remember - these guys beat 80-90% of the German Army.
 
FinnMacCool said:
Generals aren't politicians. .

actually if it hadn't been for Grant....from what i've read...I think Winfield Hancock would have been a good politician....and look at Chamberlain after he came home after the war to maine.....there are some generals who could be good politicians
 
The American people wouldn't have tolerated an attack on the Soviet Union.

If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, it's doubtful if the US would have entered that war at all. Even after Pearl, we weren't going to get involved in Europe until Hitler declared war on us.

Okay, ignore the political realities. Our supply lines would have stretched from New Jersey to Moscow. Every foot we advanced into Russia would have shortened the Russian lines, who also benefitted from interior lines of communication. Once we crossed into Poland and Czechoslovakia, a just defeated and still dangerous Germany would be in our rear. The Russian ire the fueled their fighting spirit against their former allies the Nazis would burn doubly bright at the thought of such American treachery, and at the same time the American enthusiasm for the war would fade rapidly. We were still fighting Japan and we didn't have the Bomb available when Germany surrendered.

No sane commander would consider starting a new war under those circumstances.

If Patton was serious, he was crazy.
 

Ohh Patton was serious. He was ready to have a go at it with the Russians. One of the conversations that he and his officers had after dealing with the Soviet Army was that they were fighting the wrong people. Patton wanted to use the Germans to attack the Soviet Army as well. However, I think the Soviet Union would have attacked West Germany shortly after World War II if the US didn't have nuclear weapons.
 


What did he say?
 
Guys, I still just think we should have invaded Russia. Think about it. Couldn't we have easily got Germany's support based on their anger at the Russians? And even if the Russians had more advanced weapons, I think if we sent in enough troops we could have been successful. We could have also brought in the remaining French and British armies to help us. Once we had taken Stalingrad and Moscow, we could have set up Germany as a united capitalist state and that would not have only helped the German people but it would have also strengthened democracy in the face of other communist nations. I mean shoot, we could have made all of Europe capitalist and democratic and just think how much better off the people would have been. It would have been better for us because we could have traded with Russia and all of those Eastern European former communist nations, which would have been better for our economy.
 


Do you have any idea how many men the Russians had on their western frontier in May 1945? How many tanks and guns? Do you have any idea of the combat power of those formations in may of 1945?

An assault on them would have been a disaster.
 
M14 Shooter said:
Do you have any idea how many men the Russians had on their western frontier in May 1945? How many tanks and guns? Do you have any idea of the combat power of those formations in may of 1945?

An assault on them would have been a disaster.
If this was to occur...wouldn't have we come in from the East?
 
M14 Shooter said:
From the Pacific Theater?
No.
Nah...I'm thinking topside...If Europe would be willing to SHOW a big front on the western side of Russia, we'd pretty much own the Siberian region....

From there we'd turn it into a long war...inch closer & closer to Moscow until they are squeezed...any sign of reinforments from the west and Europe starts movin' in and keep them "occupied"...

I'm still not saying it would be RIGHT...I'm just saying that if my CiC told me to do it, that's probably how I'd plan it...
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…