Was Patton Ignorant?

[JodelDiplom]

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 resulting in the 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, they're still around.

This is not a tithe of the tale, but illustrates the point.

And without a 40 year cold war all those factions would be peaceful and not start bloody wars? Sorry but that's not credible. It's human nature to want to get your way through violence. Sure the cold war defined "how" those conflicts took place and for some of them, actions of the cold war superpowers were even the trigger "that" they would take place. But it's baseless speculation to say having a WW3 right after WW2 would mean the world would be more peaceful in the 40 years after. Humans aren't like that. The cold war period was not that warlike compared to earlier periods that lacked the stabilizing superpower duality.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

And without a 40 year cold war all those factions would be peaceful and not start bloody wars? Sorry but that's not credible. It's human nature to want to get your way through violence. Sure the cold war defined "how" those conflicts took place and for some of them, actions of the cold war superpowers were even the trigger "that" they would take place. But it's baseless speculation to say having a WW3 right after WW2 would mean the world would be more peaceful in the 40 years after. Humans aren't like that. The cold war period was not that warlike compared to earlier periods that lacked the stabilizing superpower duality.

Jodel. I have had a lot of respect for you for a long time. But if you're not going to bother to make some attempt to follow the argument, it's really a waste of time to reply. Sorry.

Give you an example; I just said, word for word, that local wars are going to occur, it is human nature. For you to tell me that it is human nature for wars to occur as a rebuttal and walk past the rest seems a bit redundant.

Have a nice day.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

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.

Counterpoint: Ruanda genocide: very short done with melee weapons mostly little foreign involvement and huge death toll.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Counterpoint: Ruanda genocide: very short done with melee weapons mostly little foreign involvement and huge death toll.

Good point.

The exception that proves the rule.

 

[newtlord]

Good point.

The exception that proves the rule.

Umm... how does it prove the rule?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Umm... how does it prove the rule?

It is merely a saying. Don’t get bogged down in semantics.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Good point.

The exception that proves the rule.

Might as well cite the Congolese civil war, or the Yugoslavian wars. Large death tolls without the cold war component to it, and in the case of the Yugo wars, even a fairly effective weapons embargo in place throughout most of the conflict.

The cold war superpower duality might have contributed to make some of the local wars outside of europe and the Americas more bloody than they might have been without the superpower duality in place. But it also pretty much avoided 100% any and all wars in Europe for 40 years. Given that wars in Europe in the 20th century tended to clock in at upwards of 1 million dead each that would amount to several third world proxy conflicts' worth of human life loss.

Just having the superpower duality break down in 1946 or 1947, and having one of the two impose itself onto the rest of Europe as the sole hegemon, could have led to class conflicts, ethnic cleansing and civil wars worth another million dead or so.

 

[Henry IX]

The bloodiest war of the second half of the 20th century (which continued into the 21st century as well, being the bloodiest war of this century), took place after the fall of communism. It was the 2nd Congo war, and killed over 5 million people, all with the almost total indifference of the traditional powers.

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

The Khmer Rouge was supported by the Chinese Communist Party as a power play against the Russian supported Vietnamese communists (who were the ones who eventually ousted Pol Pot). There great leap forward came when they were armed by several significant shipments of Chinese arms. Pol Pots peculiarly murderous form of communism was the reductio ad absurdum of Maoist ideas of class conflict and the need to destroy class enemies. Standing up to Stalin in 1945 (assuming you avoided a war) would have stopped none of this.

 

[Herbert West]

To be honest, I am still stuck at the idea that standing up to Stalin in non-violent ways will achieve anything.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

To be honest, I am still stuck at the idea that standing up to Stalin in non-violent ways will achieve anything.

TBH, I am still stuck at the idea that standing up to Stalin in non-violent ways did not happen.

 

[Yakman]

And without a 40 year cold war all those factions would be peaceful and not start bloody wars? Sorry but that's not credible. It's human nature to want to get your way through violence. Sure the cold war defined "how" those conflicts took place and for some of them, actions of the cold war superpowers were even the trigger "that" they would take place. But it's baseless speculation to say having a WW3 right after WW2 would mean the world would be more peaceful in the 40 years after. Humans aren't like that. The cold war period was not that warlike compared to earlier periods that lacked the stabilizing superpower duality.

the Cold War tended to exacerbate conflicts because external sponsors would support unpopular and failing movements long after they would have otherwise been forced to disband or come to the table. American support for factions like UNITA and the Contras is evidence of this - the civil wars were made more bloody and prolonged as a result.

 

[MCMartel]

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?

Your argument is that World War III is better? Really? That's a bad joke.

 

[MCMartel]

TBH, I am still stuck at the idea that standing up to Stalin in non-violent ways did not happen.

What in the world would "non-violently" "standing up to stalin" mean?

 

[XxComrade_RossxX]

To the OP: I strongly believe Patton was ignorant, as during the push to berlin in the last parts of the war, he ignored the warnings from Eisenhower and the fact he would go farther ahead of the infantry and blow through germans so fast he would run out of gas. In my eyes he seems like a good strategist, but not good at considering other generals and his surroundings.

 

[Grandpa Maur]

What in the world would "non-violently" "standing up to stalin" mean?

Not replying to Stalin proposing amending US constitution as one-party communist state with "please go right ahead"

 

[Ming]

What in the world would "non-violently" "standing up to stalin" mean?

Stalin wanted each Soviet republic to receive a seat at the UN. Truman said "Fine. Each US state gets one as well."

Is that the kind of hardball that would have gotten a square deal for Poland?

 

[MCMartel]

Stalin wanted each Soviet republic to receive a seat at the UN. Truman said "Fine. Each US state gets one as well."

Is that the kind of hardball that would have gotten a square deal for Poland?

I don't buy that any scenario like this doesn't just end with Stalin going "and are you going to make me?" In specific to the case you mentioned, he'd just say "No thanks I'm taking my ball and going home" and leave the UN and make a communist UN, also, none of europe would join if every US state get's a seat.

 

[MCMartel]

Not replying to Stalin proposing amending US constitution as one-party communist state with "please go right ahead"

I'm sorry, what?

 

[fr-rein]

I'm sorry, what?

Just take a look what happened to Eastern&Central Europe in Warsaw pact.
And no, they didn't win elections, in fact in case of Hungary they lost them.

Stalin wanted each Soviet republic to receive a seat at the UN. Truman said "Fine. Each US state gets one as well."

Is that the kind of hardball that would have gotten a square deal for Poland?

I don't buy that any scenario like this doesn't just end with Stalin going "and are you going to make me?" In specific to the case you mentioned, he'd just say "No thanks I'm taking my ball and going home" and leave the UN and make a communist UN, also, none of europe would join if every US state get's a seat.

That was an issue separate to fate of Eastern Europe.
To put it shortly, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed on this concession to make UN functional (unlike League of Nations) and kind of agreed that allowing Ukraine and Belarus to get votes would at least prevent USSR from being too diplomatically marginal (also minor justifications like their size, formal sovereignty in USSR, huge losses and contributions to war). They were also compared to UK dominions and Stalin even used UPA (Ukrainian insurgents) to say that Ukraine needed concessions and without it he would have troubles back at home (lie ofc, but it may have affected decision of Roosevelt and Churchill). Lithuania was initially considered as well as an option, in return USSR should have allowed Southern America and other neutrals to join.
Since it happened in Yalta, no one had any idea that all Eastern Europe would fall to Stalin and bitter Cold War would start. This is a bad example of "standing up to Stalin" as not only Roosevelt did suggest all US states getting votes, but later agreed on the compromise to allow functioning of UN.