Um... Russia is vast and the winters long and cold. Ask Hitler and Napoleon.
It might not have been as easy as Patton wanted it to be.
“You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” - but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line”! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!”
Still love Patton, though.
Off topic , but I hope Trump goes to Normandy next year, for what I hope is a major 75th anniversary commemoration of D Day.
I still remember, as many do, Reagan’s wonderful speech at the 40th anniversary.
I wouldn’t necessarily have gone into Russia but we could have taken the Satellite countries at least.
Yes he was but the globalist needed a continued boogeyman so they killed him.
Uh. No. We did not have the wherewithal to defeat Russia. They had 5 times as many troops under arms. The Eastern Front was overwhelmingly larger than the Western one.
Never mind the logistical nightmare and the American Public that would not have stood for it.
It’s a major assumption to think that we could.
1) Winter was in progress, so we would have had to wait until spring.
2) We had used up our Nukes. We may have made some since spring but I doubt we were in full on production.
3) Ivan never surrenders and was still a war hardened formidable foe.
4) I don’t think there was the political will.
The Soviets were our allies (though not "Allies" with a capital "A"), and to have turned against them so quickly after being "comrades in arms" would have been perfidious.
However, we should have leveraged our military superiority - first and foremost based upon our "Nuclear Card" - to demand that they scrupulously ensure that fair elections be held in the (later) Eastern Bloc countries. That would have effectively deprived them of the countries in Eastern Europe (including the three Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania).
Regards,
It wouldn’t have changed anything - the people have never been free, they don’t know how. Stalin would have been replaced by yet another one (maybe Putin’s grandfather).
Land power: Immediate advantage Soviets. The T-34/85 and the JS series of heavy tanks were better than anything the Americans and British had on the field. But the British were introducing the Comet and the Americans the Pershings.
Officers: Advantage Soviets. Zhukov and company were experts in Deep Operations. The only Allied general I would have faith in was Patton. Although the Americans and British would hopefully rely on German advisers. I would give the advantage in the lower officer ranks to the Allies as the Red Army was a top down organization.
Air Power: The Allies would sweep the sky of Soviet aviation from day 1. The Soviets at best achieved parity with the Luftwaffe. Allied 4 engine bombers could strike deep in the Soviet rear disrupting supply lines. Big Soviet formations would be like shooting fish in a barrel for strike aircraft and tactical bombers.
Staying Power: Advantage Allies. Two of the most important materials the West provided the Soviets was food and raw materials, especially aluminum. Shipments of food enabled an Ivan to enjoy two or three meals a day. Aluminum was critical to the production of the diesel engines powering Soviet armored fighting vehicles. Form the books I read the Red Army was drawing from the bottom of the barrel to fill the ranks.
Trump card: If the Allies could hold out then nukes could be deployed.
Fifth Column: Draw. Eastern Europeans would develop partisans to fight the Soviets but Western Communist parties would support Moscow.
Solution: Bring in the Soldiers and Marines that fought against Tojo's Japanese Army in the Pacific. Or does the author think the Imperial Japanese Army was made up of old men and teenagers? My late father would have disabused him of that notion.
We used eastern Europe as bargaining chips with Russia as the war was being wrapped up.
We should have looked them in the eye and said all of Europe will be free or else. But we were too tired and gave it away.
Found out after WWI and we occupied parts of Russia during the Civil War that America had serious war fatigue and we withdrew.
There would have been zero, and I mean zero, public support stateside for such a move. Parents wanted their boys home. No one would have stood for this.
Patton had the bolsheviks pegged right.
No.
We’d still be fighting that war.
The fate of Post WWII Europe was largely determined by FDR’s disastrous concessions to Stalin in Yalta.
We could,however, have done much more to prevent the Russian takeover of Eastern Europe and we should have done so.
Stalin was very dependent upon American aid to keep his Army going and his troops in Eastern Europe were very extended with long supply lines.
The West basically rolled over politically to Stalin and Socialists governments very sympathetic to the Soviets were elected in Great Britain and in much of Europe because there just was no political will to resist Stalin.
Militarily, the cost would have been very high to go against the Soviets.
“Was Patton right? Should we have taken out the Russians when we could?”
Depends on how many more millions of people you wanted killed.
What’s the statistic? 80% of German casualties occurred on the Russian front.
The ideal situation would have been to let Germany and Russia bash each other’s brains out for another 3 years or so before entering the war.
Yes.