***** is gone

[jimmyj]

I suppose that no one could know for sure; but, I don't think Russia would have been capable of fighting a significant war without someone's help. I think that they lacked the industrial base to have defeated us long term; not to mention the challenge of feeding their people. Interesting prospective.

Jim

I have been reading everything I can get my hands on regarding WW2 and I agree with what you say Jim. For sure.

Regarding OBL, I think they shoulda stuffed him and took him on tour like the movie "Weekend at Bernies"

 

[JB4310]

I suppose that no one could know for sure; but, I don't think Russia would have been capable of fighting a significant war without someone's help. I think that they lacked the industrial base to have defeated us long term; not to mention the challenge of feeding their people. Interesting prospective.

Jim

Not sure how fighting Russia after they sacrificed more than anyone else to defeat Germany could of been thought up. Who ever did must of been out of their minds, (I mean back then, not here).

Who Helped Russia in WW2? They were producing 1000 t-34's a month!
They didn't have to worry about feeding their people, by some accounts they starved 10's of millions of their own people to feed the war effort.

Patton wanted to go ahead and squash Russia while the iron was on their soil. Took a long time to see he was right. How long was the cold war???

The iron was not on their soil it wasn't even east of the Berlin, we let Russia take Berlin for 2 reasons 1st to limit our casualties and second to reward Russia for their great sacrifices.

I don't even want to think how ugly a ground war with Russia would of been, let alone predict who would of won. The vast expanse that is Russia is their greatest asset. The Nazis never even got to Moscow. The infamous Siberian prison camps didn't even have fences they were so remote.

Eisenhower was right in reigning in Patton, the guy was a loose cannon, a great battle field tactician, but to recommend invading Russia was :confused2:

The Cold War? I always think of this picture when I think of the Cold War. I personally always thought of the Russians as more of an ally than an enemy.

JB.

 

[Jim Thompson]

Sure, we probably could have beaten Russia at least back to 1939 borders but it would have cost us about a million casualtes.

The T34 was a much better tank than the Sherman and was available in larger numbers. Russia had massive artillary capability and something like four times as many soldiers in Europe. Our Air Force was better but the Russian AF would have inflicted serious damage to our ground troops before being beaten. Also we smashed Germany's war production anf fuel supplies but would have had a much harder time reaching Russian war factories already relocated east of the Urals. We also had the logistic challenge of feeding liberated Europe and continuing the Pacific campaign.

Patton was a fine general especially in armor tactics and battlefield leadership but he was a moron strategically as evidenced by his more balls than brains suggestions re Russia.

I'm not endorsing the wisdom of invading Russia; but, if the decision were made to do so, I think we could have almost starved them into surrender. Surely, with a protracted ground operation, the loses would have been excessive; however, a combination of concentrated bombing as was done to Germany and a blockade of Russian ports before involving ground troops would have been decisive. Russia lacked the Naval or Air capability to have prevented it. Logistics certainly would have been an issue.

I probably would not characterize Patton as a moron although he was clearly a little trigger happy. He did have a different prospective on how to deal with post war Europe; however, I hesitate to be too critical of the person in the arena, engaged in the conflict, experiencing the heat of battle with the unimaginable emotion and hurt one must certainly feel. You may be correct in your assessment of Patton, I just elect to not judge so harshly.

Jim

 

[Jim Thompson]

Not sure how fighting Russia after they sacrificed more than anyone else to defeat Germany could of been thought up. Who ever did must of been out of their minds, (I mean back then, not here).

Who Helped Russia in WW2? They were producing 1000 t-34's a month!
They didn't have to worry about feeding their people, by some accounts they starved 10's of millions of their own people to feed the war effort.





The iron was not on their soil it wasn't even east of the Berlin, we let Russia take Berlin for 2 reasons 1st to limit our casualties and second to reward Russia for their great sacrifices.

I don't even want to think how ugly a ground war with Russia would of been let alone predict who would of won. The vast expanse that is Russia is their greatest asset. The Nazis never even got to Moscow. The infamous Siberian prison camps didn't even have fences they were so remote.

Eisenhower was right in reigning in Patton, the guy was a loose cannon, a great battle field tactician, but to recommend invading Russia was :confused2:

Excellent points!

Jim

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm not endorsing the wisdom of invading Russia; but, if the decision were made to do so, I think we could have almost starved them into surrender. Surely, with a protracted ground operation, the loses would have been excessive; however, a combination of concentrated bombing as was done to Germany and a blockade of Russian ports before involving ground troops would have been decisive. Russia lacked the Naval or Air capability to have prevented it. Logistics certainly would have been an issue.

I probably would not characterize Patton as a moron although he was clearly a little trigger happy. He did have a different prospective on how to deal with post war Europe; however, I hesitate to be too critical of the person in the arena, engaged in the conflict, experiencing the heat of battle with the unimaginable emotion and hurt one must certainly feel. You may be correct in your assessment of Patton, I just elect to not judge so harshly.

Jim

I won't be wishy washy about Patton. He was a great general but his advocacy of a plan to attack the Ruskies was nothing but vainglorious idiocy. Same as with MacArthur in Korea. The main reason we would never have won is that the US public would never have supported such a move. We lost 500,000 men in all fronts in WWII, the Russians lost 20 million mostly fighting on their own turf. We cuild not havr rolled over the massive Russian armies and the US public would never have accepted another million casualties. Russia didn't need to control the seas to maintain supply lines so the US Navy would not have been a significant factor. Our Air Force was better but the overland supply lines needed to sustain fighter escorts and long range bombers wod have taxed even the USA. No one in their right mind would want to face massed Russian armor and infantry especially on their own soil. Imagine the lack of esprit de corps among US troops setting off to repeat Napolean and ******'s mistakes. You'd need to be blind or a fool as a US general to think otherwise. Patton was a moron. Luckily Eisenhower, Bradley and Truman weren't.

 

[Transit]

I was not going to comment, but other factors have been over looked, we were the only ones to have an A-bomb, rearm the German troops for an attack from the west and the Japanese troops from the east. We could have brought German engineers here to make the tiger tanks and both armies would be so equipped. I don't know if the Russians had any aircraft that could reach the B-29's and of course we had a large aircraft carrier fleet to move around at will.

Not saying that we should have but just pointing to what was overlooked.

 

[Jim Thompson]

I won't be wishy washy about Patton. He was a great general but his advocacy of a plan to attack the Ruskies was nothing but vainglorious idiocy. Same as with MacArthur in Korea. The main reason we would never have won is that the US public would never have supported such a move. We lost 500,000 men in all fronts in WWII, the Russians lost 20 million mostly fighting on their own turf. We cuild not havr rolled over the massive Russian armies and the US public would never have accepted another million casualties. Russia didn't need to control the seas to maintain supply lines so the US Navy would not have been a significant factor. Our Air Force was better but the overland supply lines needed to sustain fighter escorts and long range bombers wod have taxed even the USA. No one in their right mind would want to face massed Russian armor and infantry especially on their own soil. Imagine the lack of esprit de corps among US troops setting off to repeat Napolean and ******'s mistakes. You'd need to be blind or a fool as a US general to think otherwise. Patton was a moron. Luckily Eisenhower, Bradley and Truman weren't.

You are assuming an occupation. I am not. I am also not arguing the popularity of such a war. I am saying that with the right strategy it was doable.
We'll agree to disagree of Patton even with 20/20 hindsight.

Jim

 

[IslandTractor]

I was not going to comment, but other factors have been over looked, we were the only ones to have an A-bomb, rearm the German troops for an attack from the west and the Japanese troops from the east. We could have brought German engineers here to make the tiger tanks and both armies would be so equipped. I don't know if the Russians had any aircraft that could reach the B-29's and of course we had a large aircraft carrier fleet to move around at will.

Not saying that we should have but just pointing to what was overlooked.

As long as we are speculating, I'd say the Ruskies would have pushed us back to Dunkirk by the time we reorganized and reeuipped the Germans who would likely have fought with us but I don't see the Japanese having any motivation. Recall it was a while before VJ day anyways and that we had used our only two nukes subduing Japan. Our B29 fleet certainly would have contributed but I don't know if they had the range from England to Novosibersk and other Russian war munition plants thatnwere deliberately sited east of any forward German air threat while the Germans were at Moscow's gates. Our aircraft carriers wouldn't have many targets given the 200 mile combat radius of WW2 naval bombers.

I forget the numbers but Russia had many times the infantry, armor and artillery in Germany/Europe than we did. Frankly they also had tougher troops who we willing to die (or forced to die) for the Motherland. We had excellent forces who thought their job was done when the ****'s were finished. Hard for me to think most would have fought to invade Russia ththe

 

[Jim Thompson]

As long as we are speculating, I'd say the Ruskies would have pushed us back to Dunkirk by the time we reorganized and reeuipped the Germans who would likely have fought with us but I don't see the Japanese having any motivation. Recall it was a while before VJ day anyways and that we had used our only two nukes subduing Japan. Our B29 fleet certainly would have contributed but I don't know if they had the range from England to Novosibersk and other Russian war munition plants thatnwere deliberately sited east of any forward German air threat while the Germans were at Moscow's gates. Our aircraft carriers wouldn't have many targets given the 200 mile combat radius of WW2 naval bombers.

I forget the numbers but Russia had many times the infantry, armor and artillery in Germany/Europe than we did. Frankly they also had tougher troops who we willing to die (or forced to die) for the Motherland. We had excellent forces who thought their job was done when the ****'s were finished. Hard for me to think most would have fought to invade Russia ththe

All valid points. In my mind, the biggest obstacle would have been the winter weather. You're right about Russia manufacturing hardware. Not very sophisticated, but tons of it.

Jim

 

[JB4310]

No one in their right mind would want to face massed Russian armor and infantry especially on their own soil. Imagine the lack of esprit de corps among US troops setting off to repeat Napolean and ******'s mistakes.

If I was there, the first time I heard Stalin's organ, I'd of hauled a** back to Dunkirk myself.
YouTube - Katyusha rocket launcher

We would of had zero motivation to fight Russia, the Germans were fighting for promised land to expand into.

I was not going to comment, but other factors have been over looked, we were the only ones to have an A-bomb, rearm the German troops for an attack from the west and the Japanese troops from the east. We could have brought German engineers here to make the tiger tanks and both armies would be so equipped. I don't know if the Russians had any aircraft that could reach the B-29's and of course we had a large aircraft carrier fleet to move around at will.

Not saying that we should have but just pointing to what was overlooked.

There were no German troops left, My father was in the constabulary force that occupied Germany post ww2. He said just old men and boys.

Yeah we could of dropped A bombs on them, but for what? never could of occupied them, and they would of never given up.

You are assuming an occupation. I am not. I am also not arguing the popularity of such a war. I am saying that with the right strategy it was doable.
We'll agree to disagree of Patton even with 20/20 hindsight.

Jim

We will never know, but I would not say it would of been a sure thing.

All valid points. In my mind, the biggest obstacle would have been the winter weather. You're right about Russia manufacturing hardware. Not very sophisticated, but tons of it.

Jim

I know we are just talking hypothetical, But I can not think of single reason to have even considered fighting Russia in 1945. Plenty of reasons not to though.

JB