Was Patton Ignorant?

[Yakman]

Regarding Patton, was he ever at the receiving end of a major (counter-)attack? AFAIK, he pushed for very aggressive attacks, I wonder if he neglected defense.

He was not. He was a good commander but the world is better that he died (alas) when he did.

The idea that the world would have been better served with a second, or I guess third world war is insane.

The American led alliance made any number of errors, which you can point directly at Truman.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Because fifty years of proxy wars spread across the globe is better than standing up and staring each other in the eye when you still have regular armies in the field?

 

[Director]

@Andre Bolkonsky - given that the death toll was a tiny fraction of what another full-scale war would have brought, yes.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

@Andre Bolkonsky - given that the death toll was a tiny fraction of what another full-scale war would have brought, yes.

One, I will aggressively dispute the word 'tiny'. Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan and the linked Persian Gulf Wars. The Yom Kippur War. The constant destabilization and Nazification of South America under Operation Condor. The suppression of Soviet dissidents, Eastern European freedom movements, Warsaw, Hungary. Put it all on the table when you say tiny.

Two, no one is advocating for war. It is merely standing up to Stalin using the weapons as our disposal.

The concept of Containment specifically precludes a military solution, and demands economic and social Containment of the Soviet Communist problem.

Instead, what is done is the Allies turning their backs on Soviet aggression at the end of the war, then fighting them across the globe ever after for the benefit of weapons manufacturers and the Industrial-Military-Legislative complex as clearly outlined by Eisenhower on his way out of office.

Again, Stalin only respects force, and taking that option off the table neuters your ability to negotiate with him. You don't need a war, you just can't take the option off the table.

I do not see how ending the war in 1945 is not preferable to reverberations which can be felt in our world today.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

Two, no one is advocating for war. It is merely standing up to Stalin using the weapons as our disposal.

What do you mean? As opposed to history?

 

[Henry IX]

Because fifty years of proxy wars spread across the globe is better than standing up and staring each other in the eye when you still have regular armies in the field?

Of the approximately 120 million war deaths (estimates vary between 85 and 140 million, depending on what you call a war death) in the 20th century, the second world war accounts for over half the total (~65 million). A global total war in the second half of the 20th century would likely kill far more than that. By any accounting avoiding a global war was one of the best policy decisions made during the cold war.

Even continuing the war in 1945 would be catastrophic. The Soviet people were on the verge of starvation in 1945 and the discontinuation of food imports combined with further disruptions caused by war would likely have caused a famine to rival the Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward.

 

[Herbert West]

The concept of Containment specifically precludes a military solution, and demands economic and social Containment of the Soviet Communist problem.

Instead, what is done is the Allies turning their backs on Soviet aggression at the end of the war, then fighting them across the globe ever after for the benefit of weapons manufacturers and the Industrial-Military-Legislative complex as clearly outlined by Eisenhower on his way out of office.

Not sure what history you learned or read, but the USSR and its sphere WAS isolated both economically and socially.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

Even continuing the war in 1945 would be catastrophic. The Soviet people were on the verge of starvation in 1945 and the discontinuation of food imports combined with further disruptions caused by war would likely have caused a famine to rival the Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward.

To add to that, the Soviets would see their crops fail in 1946 - they were lucky to avoid it during the war. If that had happened during a subsequent hot war with the west it would've been a disaster.

Interesting reading this thread. The inevitable argument about tanks is always a peculiar waste of time. We all know that the Soviets beat the Germans back in 1941 with their superior tanks, and that the Germans rolled over them at Kursk with their own superior tanks. /s

 

[delta180]

if the USA had won a war against Stalin, would that really have brought about more world peace and stability for the next 50 years than what happened in reality?
since the USA was anti-colonialist and a democracy, annexing lands would be infeasible since they would not want a presently conquered land to get votes in their government, so the most probable outcome of such a war would be balkanisation, that is splitting the Soviet Union into many little democracies. but look at how unstable regions have been when that has happened before, even now their is fighting over what use to be the USSR, Yugoslavia and even the Ottoman Empire which fell apart more than 100 years ago
so lets say they kept the country in 1 piece and simply replaced the man in charge, the problem becomes that people put in charge by another country do not tend to be popular just look at what happened to the shah in Iran and Iraq, or look at what at what happened to Germany after WW1

I am not sure what people envision when they say that they will avert the cold war by beating the USSR early, the fact was that last century was an unstable time because of the decolonisation, Korea had been part of the Japanese empire, Vietnam had been part of the French empire, these region were unstable before the superpowers started intervening

 

[Yakman]

Because fifty years of proxy wars spread across the globe is better than standing up and staring each other in the eye when you still have regular armies in the field?

Yes. Or no.

Or maybe one side started all those wars? For no tangible benefit to itself? Because it was worried that the poorest people in the world expropiating banana plantations was a threat to its freedom?

Who can know?

 

[Yakman]

To add to that, the Soviets would see their crops fail in 1946 - they were lucky to avoid it during the war. If that had happened during a subsequent hot war with the west it would've been a disaster.

Interesting reading this thread. The inevitable argument about tanks is always a peculiar waste of time. We all know that the Soviets beat the Germans back in 1941 with their superior tanks, and that the Germans rolled over them at Kursk with their own superior tanks. /s

The red army didn't defeat the wehrmacht in 1941 with superior tanks (unless you are being sarcastic, in which case, I apologize). They beat them back with overwhelming numbers and distance and cold.

The German plan was what they said - kick down the door and the rotten house will come crumbling down.

Well they kicked as hard as anyone can kick, but the house wasn't rotten and it kicked back.

As far as the war continuing into 1946 against the Allies, who can know? The Soviet citizenry had been on essentially starvation rations for years, and western Germany is pretty far from the Soviet Union.

It would have been a completely different war, and one side would have had nuclear weapons and B-29s and the other side would have been stronger on the ground but really at the end of its ability to project power.

I don't have any idea what would have happened in Europe, but I suspect that the more interesting deviations from our time line would have been in Asia.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

The red army didn't defeat the wehrmacht in 1941 with superior tanks (unless you are being sarcastic, in which case, I apologize). They beat them back with overwhelming numbers and distance and cold.

/s usually denotes sarcasm. Also, what superior numbers?

 

[Yakman]

/s usually denotes sarcasm. Also, what superior numbers?

they just kept putting men in the field.

the wehrmacht thought that they could kill enough Red Army soldiers to force a defeat. They could not.

Even after the catastrophic losses of 1941, the Red Army was still in the field. When you combine that with the cold and the extended supply lines, that was overwhelming for a campaign that was clearly designed to be over by winter. When you look at Hitler's comments to Mannerheim in 1941, it's clear that the Germans had no idea that the Reds would have had so many tanks, so many men, and so much military equipment in general.

 

[Acheron]

When we talk about a WWIII immediately after WWII, wouldn't that assuredly mean the liberal nuking of Soviet cities?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Not sure what history you learned or read, but the USSR and its sphere WAS isolated both economically and socially.

The history I read shows that the economic containment fails during the Cold War because of the lucrative nature of proxy wars, introducing the military component which George Kennan strongly argued against in 1947 when he drafted the concept of Containment in the first place. It makes the problem a military contest rather one of political forbearance, thereby putting the Soviets on an equal footing as an arms dealer. The exact opposite of what was prescribed.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Of the approximately 120 million war deaths (estimates vary between 85 and 140 million, depending on what you call a war death) in the 20th century, the second world war accounts for over half the total (~65 million). A global total war in the second half of the 20th century would likely kill far more than that. By any accounting avoiding a global war was one of the best policy decisions made during the cold war.

Even continuing the war in 1945 would be catastrophic. The Soviet people were on the verge of starvation in 1945 and the discontinuation of food imports combined with further disruptions caused by war would likely have caused a famine to rival the Chinese famine during the Great Leap Forward.

This proves the point that merely standing up to Stalin, who demanded the arrival of several Lend Lease convoys even after the war had ended to help alleviate exactly what you are describing, might have kept the Russians from forming the Warsaw Pact and allowing the Iron Curtain to descend by forcing them to withdraw behind their own borders.

Or, did the Eastern European countries like being occupied by Soviets and having that Wall running through the middle of Berlin? @Herbert West might remind you about Soviet tanks in Hungary when they tried to proclaim freedom for themselves; if he is unwilling then try Milan Kundera and the Prague Spring. Or Lech Walesa, Karol Wojtyla, and those miners trapped by the Soviets underground. And if you don't want to leave Mother Russia, try Solzhenitzen.

No one said a war is required, just meet chutzpah with chutzpah; they rattle a saber, you rattle a saber. Merely having someone at the negotiating table who isn't mere weeks away from death would have been a great place to start, and his successor proved to be a very poor choice indeed.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

When we talk about a WWIII immediately after WWII, wouldn't that assuredly mean the liberal nuking of Soviet cities?

Depends on what the objective was.

If the goal is merely to push the Soviets back into Russia, perhaps not.

If the goal is to stupidly try and occupy Russia, which serves no purpose whatsoever and would be incredibly difficult to take and hold, perhaps yes.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

This proves the point that merely standing up to Stalin, who demanded the arrival of several Lend Lease convoys even after the war had ended to help alleviate exactly what you are describing, might have kept the Russians from forming the Warsaw Pact and allowing the Iron Curtain to descend by forcing them to withdraw behind their own borders.

Or, did the Eastern European countries like being occupied by Soviets and having that Wall running through the middle of Berlin? @Herbert West might remind you about Soviet tanks in Hungary when they tried to proclaim freedom for themselves; if he is unwilling then try Milan Kundera and the Prague Spring. Or Lech Walesa, Karol Wojtyla, and those miners trapped by the Soviets underground. And if you don't want to leave Mother Russia, try Solzhenitzen.

No one said a war is required, just meet chutzpah with chutzpah; they rattle a saber, you rattle a saber. Merely having someone at the negotiating table who isn't mere weeks away from death would have been a great place to start, and his successor proved to be a very poor choice indeed.

No amount of economic pressure would make Soviets withdraw from EE in 1945.

 

[Arilou]

Yeah. And likely Stalin would meet his demands simply by cannibalizing (to an even greater extent) eastern europe. (hopefully not literally, but you never know with Stalin)

It should also be noted that while the cold war certainly impacted many late 20th century wars, it is hard to say that it was entirely the cause. Many wars had other causes not directly tied into the Cold War. (most of the colonial wars would still have been fought, i think, though not neccessarily for as long)

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Stalin would meet his demands simply by cannibalizing (to an even greater extent) eastern europe. (hopefully not literally, but you never know with Stalin)

good line

It should also be noted that while the cold war certainly impacted many late 20th century wars, it is hard to say that it was entirely the cause. Many wars had other causes not directly tied into the Cold War. (most of the colonial wars would still have been fought, i think, though not neccessarily for as long)

I tend to agree.

The problem, repeatedly, is that small localized wars become weapons dumps for both sides; escalating the conflict and dramatically increasing the bloodshed where action in one place leads to horrific consequences in another. Over and over and over again.

One example: The US pours weapons into Israel, the Communists pour weapons into Muslim countries who have become addicted to Amin al-Husayni's brand of Nazi fueled hatred of the Jews. A man so toxic even the king of Jordan banished him. The Arab-Israeli wars become a weapons and training hot bed, and serves as an operational laboratory helping to evolve the military concept of the AirLand Battle Space. When an area serves as a laboratory for both sides to test how effective their current weapons are against the adversary's, peace is usually temporary.

Another: The Khmer Rouge dramatically expands their power base over time, transforming from angry Cambodian college students in Paris headed for the barricades into the overlords of The Killing Fields. The common consensus is the great leap forward in their ability to seize total power came because of outrage at US carpet bombing, Operation Menu. Coppola doesn't hide Col. Kurtz in a Cambodian temple by accident, and even he is tame compared to the bloodlust exhibited by 'Brother Number 1', Pol Pot.

Yet another: Out of the rubble of Soviet occupied Afghanistan rises a small sect of heavily financed, highly dissatisfied, religious fanatics who can't decide if they hate the Soviets more for occupying them, or the Americans for pretending to care while weaponizing them and then abandoning them to their ancestral poverty when they are done with them. This simple act designed to drain the Bear's strength and retard his ability to act in Europe ends up plunging America into decades of involvement in a Land War in Asia ('one of the classic blunders'). Last I checked, this group and its progeny are still with us.

This is not a tithe of the tale, but illustrates the point. Without the Cold War, and the desire to turn every flashpoint into a battlefield of the larger war around them; small wars remain small, and the Powers that Be could easily suppress rather than encourage the bloodshed.