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.
Right and I believe if I remember correctly Patton wanted to arm the Germans to help accomplish his goals.
He wouldn't have had much of a choice, given the decrepit state of US manpower. By the last months of the war the replacement system had completely broken down. The US was running dangerously low on combat infantry replacements to the degree that they began stripping manpower from logistics, AA and other support units and moving those troops to the frontlines as replacement infantry. The quality of US combat divisions had been significantly eroded by the end of the war.
A big part of the problem was the decision to keep units intact and in combat continuously. Instead of following the British or Soviet model of cycling units back for rest and re-fit the US left it's divisions in combat and then fed replacements to them. What happened was that we were constantly throwing very green troops into the meat grinder. This created a disparity between the "core veterans" of a unit who had been in almost continuous combat together and the "new guys". Had the units been cycled the veterans could have taken time to get to know the replacements and help train them which would have improved the overall combat performance of US units.
Only in the United States could anyone be so blindly nationalistic, and ignorant of the relative force strengths, to imagine that the US/UK could have made any headway against the Soviet military circa mid-1945. Then again, I've seen people on here seriously assert that we could easily invade mainland China and defeat it, so there really is no limit.
They would have surrendered once the Communist party's leadership was
ousted or enough were dead, and that would have been the only goal anyway.
I think it could have and should have been done.
This didn't happen in the beginning of Barbarossa when the front was falling apart and Nazis were literally on the outskirts of Moscow, why would it happen in 1945 when the Soviet Army was at its best?
And people tend to forget that Zhukov's army was only a part of the Soviet forces in Europe. He needed a breather to regroup before the final push into Berllin, doesn't mean he would be unable to do it if Stalin said "no", there was also a huge army that swept through Austria and Hungary and was posed to strike West if needed, there were armies to the North. Only a person with very limited understanding of relative strenghts of ground forces would think the US and UK could prevent the rest of Europe from falling into Soviet hands, at least mid-term.
And arming the defeated Nazis to fight the Soviet liberators ? (Remember that's before the forced Communist coups of late 1940) This would create a tsunami of anger in most of Eastern and Southern Europe. Expect massive uprisings in Italy, Greece, and all over Balkans.
But most of all, US and UK were not able to declare war on an powerful ally just as the millions of voters were counting days before seeing their loved ones back from the war. Patton was crazy to even suggest it.
This didn't happen in the beginning of Barbarossa when the front was falling apart and Nazis were literally on the outskirts of Moscow, why would it happen in 1945 when the Soviet Army was at its best?
And people tend to forget that Zhukov's army was only a part of the Soviet forces in Europe. He needed a breather to regroup before the final push into Berllin, doesn't mean he would be unable to do it if Stalin said "no", there was also a huge army that swept through Austria and Hungary and was posed to strike West if needed, there were armies to the North. Only a person with very limited understanding of relative strenghts of ground forces would think the US and UK could prevent the rest of Europe from falling into Soviet hands, at least mid-term.
And arming the defeated Nazis to fight the Soviet liberators ? (Remember that's before the forced Communist coups of late 1940) This would create a tsunami of anger in most of Eastern and Southern Europe. Expect massive uprisings in Italy, Greece, and all over Balkans.
But most of all, US and UK were not able to declare war on an powerful ally just as the millions of voters were counting days before seeing their loved ones back from the war. Patton was crazy to even suggest it.
The Soviet army accomplished its mission at great cost, and was of somewhat reluctant,
exhausted morale, because Germany was already defeated. I'm only talking about
Allied bombing runs and containment, including targeted strikes on government hq's
and other bases of strategic importance. Once the motive (removal of the Soviet regime
being the only stated and obvious motive), it could have been accomplished, because
where what would the Soviet army be able to do about it ? Instead of over-bombing
an already finished Germany, Soviet supply lines and administrative areas could have
been bombed until a new government, non-communist, composted of dissidents and
Russians who were only defending their country (not died in the wool Communists),
in a sense, a coerced "orange revolution" of sorts.
The Soviet army accomplished its mission at great cost, and was of somewhat reluctant,
exhausted morale, because Germany was already defeated. I'm only talking about
Allied bombing runs and containment, including targeted strikes on government hq's
and other bases of strategic importance. Once the motive (removal of the Soviet regime
being the only stated and obvious motive), it could have been accomplished, because
where what would the Soviet army be able to do about it ? Instead of over-bombing
an already finished Germany, Soviet supply lines and administrative areas could have
been bombed until a new government, non-communist, composted of dissidents and
Russians who were only defending their country (not died in the wool Communists),
in a sense, a coerced "orange revolution" of sorts.
How many senior members of the Nazi leadership were killed in 5 years of near constant allied bombing?
How many senior members of Japanese leadership were killed in the massive and devastating allied raids?
The British plan seems to ignore the American possession of the atomic bomb, which for our 4 year monopoly was the game changer.
The Bomb, our untouched industrial capacity, and the possession of not a few German rocket scientists were good arrows in the quiver. Add those to superior naval and air forces on the part of the UK (I assume they would be a part of it) and the US, and you have a pretty good shot.
Having said that, it would have been a bloodbath for both sides and victory may well have meant an unstable and chaotic USSR or whatever was left of her. And while I can justify nuking the Japanese, doing so unprovoked to the Russians is nearly unpalatable, although the Berlin Blockade may have been a decent pretext. Even then, occupying Russia? Fuggehhetiabouit.
Even if something is doable and winnable does not mean you should do it.
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.
