Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From what i've always understood is that Gen. Patton wanted to drive the Soviets out of Berlin and East Germany but Allied Supreme Commander in Chief Gen. Eisenhower stopped him from doing so.
If that is correct lets assume ''Ike'' would have let Patton have at the Soviets to drive them back east. Would Japan have had an influence on either countries military at that point of the war?
Who's military was stronger in may 1945 ....The USA or The Soviet Union.
I hate to be picky about language, but do you mean "What would have happened. . . ?
Sorry, that particular construction is one of my pet peeves.
To answer your question, though, I suspect the Cold War would have been, right from its pre-inception, a hot war, and I can't see any way that that could have been a good thing.
The Germans met resistance on the eastern front and that cost Hitler any chance he had for decent success in the west. We would have been throwing ourselves up against the same kind of odds, embroiling ourselves in at least another Korea, but in Poland instead.
Patton might have been a tough and and competent militarist, but he was nowhere near Eisenhower in ability to look at the big picture from a standpoiint more complex than to simply beat the hell out of them.
From what i've always understood is that Gen. Patton wanted to drive the Soviets out of Berlin and East Germany but Allied Supreme Commander in Chief Gen. Eisenhower stopped him from doing so.
If that is correct lets assume ''Ike'' would have let Patton have at the Soviets to drive them back east. Would Japan have had an influence on either countries military at that point of the war?
Who's military was stronger in may 1945 ....The USA or The Soviet Union.
The Russians would've sent us back with our tails between our legs. There was no greater military then the Soviet Army of the 1940's.
It wouldn't have been Ike's decision, and it wouldn't have been Patton's forces.
But - The Soviet Union was strong and battle tested, but they were seriously beat-up in WW2 while the U.S. was still maximizing it's industrial and technological strength. Depending on the goals of a "hot" war (like push Soviet forces back to the Russian border) I would say the U.S. would have no problem confronting the USSR. Plus the US had the atom bomb.
Not yet at the time of Germany's fall, presumably the time a confrontation between The United States and the Soviets would have taken place under this scenario. Remember too that we still had the Japanese to whip and our army was seriously undersized because of decisions made earlier in the war.
I doubt that either The United States or the Soviets would've had the political will for such a war, oh, wait a minute, they obviously didn't have the will, it didn't happen.
I hate to be picky about language, but do you mean "What would have happened. . . ?
Sorry, that particular construction is one of my pet peeves.
.
And my ''pet peeve'' is someone stating they have a ''pet peeve'' !!
Dd714.......about the ''Atomic Bomb''......even if we had it by may 1945 where do you think we would have dropped it?? Surely not anywhere in east germany or eastern europe? Did the soviets have the capability to shoot down one of our long range bomber's over Moscow etc.
That's an interesting point for speculation. I can see where a full-scale effort might have succeeded in moving the Soviet Army out of Germany. All the way across Poland and back into Russia proper? That sounds kind of iffy.
The main problem, as often happens in war, is that the larger decisions were being made in state houses and not on battlefields. There was already an agreement (the Yalta conference had taken place earlier in 1945) to split Germany into zones of occupation among the "Big Four." Russia was therefore guaranteed their zone in Germany, making it impossible for Eisenhower to give Patton a go-ahead for a confrontation with the Soviets even if he had wanted to.
The Russians would've sent us back with our tails between our legs. There was no greater military then the Soviet Army of the 1940's.
The question that occurs to me is whether the Soviet war effort was itself nearing a point of serious national fatigue. I think when a nation has lost over 10% of its entire populace that question is worth accounting for.
I agree with you from an order of battle standpoint; their military was vast, well-equipped and capable. Lots of good planes, lots of good tanks, lots of good artillery, lots of infantry--excellent in all areas. At the same time, most of its later victories were earned against a badly depleted adversary with minimal air cover, and with many of the more experienced enemy troops by now disabled, captured or dead, replaced with hastily-trained conscripts of mainly survival motivation, and logistically challenged.
What is more, a battle for Germany and Poland and Austria is one thing in the Russian/Soviet mind, and a battle for the Rodina another. With most soldiers, the farther they have to march from home the more affected they are. So to me it remains a reasonable question whether the USSR would have fought over East Germany in the immediate postwar period. Poland I think they might have, because that's closer to home and there's a grudge issue there on both sides. For their own soil, my first thought is to assume they would: past practice, after all. And yet...when the Germans invaded at first, a lot of Soviet soldiers just packed it in. Only when they learned that they were subhumans to be exterminated did they rally to defend Mother Russia. I'd like to hope an Allied occupation, if possible, would have been kinder than that.
I am not sure that the Allies could have obtained East Germany, much less the Soviet frontier, but I do wonder if by that time the Soviet people (including restive minorities) might have been at a point of economic, mental and physical exhaustion. After all, they did not whirl about and grab the Dardanelles, or try to force their will upon Yugoslavia, or even demand that Austria be divided as Germany was. They let Finland off without occupation, and they were pretty annoyed with the Finns.
Very good question with a lot of avenues to consider, and no simple answers.
JKK's excellent post has me thinking this----was it a mistake to let Germany reunify? Is the world a better place with a weak and divided Germany rather than a strong and united one?
The main problem, as often happens in war, is that the larger decisions were being made in state houses and not on battlefields. .
That sounds like the opposite of a problem to me. Unless you see the very existence of war as the objective to be attained, as opposed to a political or diplomatic outcome. In the case of the VietNam war, the larger decision was made in the streets of Berkeley, which turned out to be the right one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
