Patton’s Plan for Russia and Macarthur’s plan for China…

[losttribe04]

I forgot what book I came across this tidbit in, I read it about 10 years ago when I was hardcore into WWII history.

I’m sure most would agree that Patton had a strong dislike for Russia and felt that we should have been harder on the Soviets then we were the Nazis.

In this book it compared this with Macarthur’s similar outlook in China.

Patton felt very strongly that we shouldn’t have stopped in Berlin we should have kept going for Moscow.  I believe he also said something to the extent that we have the assets here now and if we don’t take care of them now we will have to come back and deal with them later.

As WWI led to WWII I’m sure that the US and the Soviet Union leaving WWII led to the cold war to follow as the two world superpowers “coexisted.”

The connection between China and the US was very different from that of the Soviet Union.  China didn’t have much of an industrial base and in addition to that deficit they suffered a countless number of lives under the Japanese advancement.

I was interested in what the history buff sub-forum to the A&A site felt on this topic.

Thanks,
LT

[Imperious Leader]

Stalin was always suspicious of this idea since it was clear the Allies would win. Patton did want this to happen, but even he kept his mouth shut officially on this for fear of losing his command. Their is little doubt that the US could take on the Soviets but they would need uk to help them. The Soviet military complex was declining in the late war period while USA was still peaking. The Soviets lost most of their males from the previous 3+ years fighting, while America was also experiencing a decline in average age from new recruits it was not as acute.

Id say US would win it but they would not push much farther than eastern Poland. The A bomb would put them over the top removing Stalin in quick order.

[ABWorsham4]

Had the A-Bomb not been invented and the U.S had to finish Japan with a invasion of the Home Islands, how would this effect Soviet-Western relations.

Just when I think I run out of poll questions….

Have a good weekend, friends.

[losttribe04]

My uncle is a retired Infantry Office from the US Army.  He spent 4 years in Korea and some time in Japan.

He was part of a think tank at the time was working on some kind of project comparing eastern and western personalities (unsure spelling).  Now that you have me wracking my memory banks I will have to call him this weekend.

He said that the Army concluded that for the first wave of Toyoko the allies couldn’t do it with less then 1,000,000 men.

During WWII the US Army had 110 Divisions.  I don’t think that could have been all at one time.  Depending on the type of division that could range from 10,000 - 15,000.

So with an average of 12,500 soldier to a Division you would have needed 80 Divisions JUST FOR THE FIRST WAVE!  :-o  :-o  :-o

Thank G-d for that guy named Atom and his bomb  :evil:

[toblerone77]

Another thing that isn’t as widely talked about is the fact that people were getting really sick of the war. towards 1945 it was getting harder to get people to buy war bonds even though we were winning.

Not only that, the more liberal members or parliment in England booted Churchill after the war. In addition to win the war in the Pacific a general agreement was made to southeast asian goverments that after the war they would be more/fully independent of thier european masters. The communists would have and did have support in this region.

In theory Patton had the right idea but I think in the end there wouldn’t have been the support of the people in the west.

The best example of this was the Koerean War. It was historically the least popular of all of our modern conflicts including Vietnam.

[A_Desert_Rat]

I wouldn’t say Korea was the least “popular,” it’s probably more forgotten about than anything. It was considered a “police action,” especially after 1951, when the lines were practically stabilized at the 38th parallel. Then it became a stalemate for two years before something was signed, but technically, they’re still at war.

[toblerone77]

@AHeroCompany:

I wouldn’t say Korea was the least “popular,” it’s probably more forgotten about than anything. It was considered a “police action,” especially after 1951, when the lines were practically stabilized at the 38th parallel. Then it became a stalemate for two years before something was signed, but technically, they’re still at war.

You’re correct. It wasn’t technically a war. I don’t have direct evidence to support the statement that Korea was the most unpopular war. However there are many documentaries and stats to back this up. You didn’t see the protests that Vietnam saw, but there was a massive disapproval and discontent with the general public over it.

The people of post-war America did not like this war. Nor was the US military in the best shape to fight it. Much of the surplus equipment from WWII was defective after years of mothballing and the fighting in Korea was miserable.

[Emperor_Taiki]

I agree, although I cant find any moral problems with a 1945 war with Russia and possible atomic bombing of them, the American people were too soft to deal with a new war after they thought their sacrficies were just about to pay off

MacArthur was right too
if you want to keep the 1 million plus chinese army from invading Korea, it takes an A-bomb

[losttribe04]

So aside from the morale not in favor of another war do any of you think that the US had the manpower and equipment to keep going?  What if Patton and Macarthur got thier way do you think we could have supported a two front war even with the UK?

[Emperor_Taiki]

Well, in 1945, an A-bomb in Lenigrad and another in Moscow solves the Soviet problem, in fact it would have allowed the Americans and British to have truly shaped the world anyway they saw fit
I am a big fan of utopia so in my oppion there would not have been a Korean War, there would not be anymore wars becasue the the US and UK would control the world, but to be realistic humans would fine some way to mess everything up.
Without the bomb, the Soviets might have conquered Europe, they had 3 million soldiers and heavier tanks. In 1945 China was in civil war, but by Korea they had millions of soldiers, I think it would have been hard to win a conventional war espeacialy against both at the same time.

[losttribe04]

@Emperor_Taiki:

Well, in 1945, an A-bomb in Lenigrad and another in Moscow solves the Soviet problem, in fact it would have allowed the Americans and British to have truly shaped the world anyway they saw fit
I am a big fan of utopia so in my oppion there would not have been a Korean War, there would not be anymore wars becasue the the US and UK would control the world, but to be realistic humans would fine some way to mess everything up.
Without the bomb, the Soviets might have conquered Europe, they had 3 million soldiers and heavier tanks. In 1945 China was in civil war, but by Korea they had millions of soldiers, I think it would have been hard to win a conventional war espeacialy against both at the same time.

I think that even knowing how things played out it would still be a very hard call to make to go back in time and drop an A-bomb on Moscow.

I do agree with you that the Korean war would not have happened.

I am also a big fan of utopia but I don’t think one could have been built out of the ashes.  Not getting political but the UN split Korea to have a superpower assist in the aid and development of north and south.  Even with good intentions bad things will happen.

LT

[Emperor_Taiki]

i dont think that the  soviets weren North Korea to developit, they were given it because thats were their soldeirs occupied,

i dont thing the UNreally has good intensions, sure their are many who acually belive in the Un but they dont have much power.

i am accauly typing this from a model UN confrence. I am representing Eitiopia in the 1962 General Assembly, we are discussing Pople’s Republic of China’s membership into the UN, of course other cool stuff is going on like a Indian-Sino border conflict aswell as the Cuban Missle crisis.

[losttribe04]

Emperor_Taiki,

What is this project you are doing for? (History, Economics, Political Science).

I agree with you about the UN but lets not turn this into a PD.

LT

[Emperor_Taiki]

It is the annual Chicago International Model United Nations confrence for high school students

It is over the course of 4 days Thursday to Sunday.

They have a 1962 simulation,
there are six bodies that intereact with each other, the UN General Asembly, UN Secuirty Council, and Cabinets for the United States, USSR, China, and India

I dont know how much you know about Model UN, but it is competion in which high school and collage students simulate the workings of the UN, as well as other political ogranizations

[losttribe04]

If I understand correctly it is kind of like the “boy’s state” program hosted by the American Legion correct?

LT

[Zhukov44]

Soviet superiority in infantry was approximately 4:1, and more than 2:1 in armor.  The Soviets could quickly blitz Turkey, Greece and the Middle East, and potentially ally themselves with Japan.  Hence the opinion in US high command that Patton was batshit crazy if he really wanted to attack the Red Army.

I think Atomic weapons and bombers would give the long-term advantage in such a war to the Allies, but they would also have to deal with the destabilization of Western Europe.  There was the risk of communism in Germany, France and Italy for a short or long period.  One can also imagine a high-level conspiracy or coup by Soviet sympathizers and/or pacifists in the US government, which might could lead to military dictatorship of the right or left.  Given these risks and the horrendous loss of life that would result from war, handing over Eastern Europe to the Soviets in exchange for peace and control of Western Europe was an easy choice.

Check out this cool original source….“Operation Unthinkable” from the British High Command.
http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

[losttribe04]

Zhukov,

If all that’s true why did Patton feel that due to politics he was not allowed to take Berlin?  From what I have read about him he felt like he was coasting to allow the Soviets to catch up.

LT

[Zhukov44]

By Febuary 1945, the Big 3 had already agreed upon occupation zones at Yalta.  The Germans had nothing left for the Western Front after Bulge, since the Russians were advancing on all fronts.  So the American army probably could have made it to Berlin (one of the bloodiest battles of the war), but it meant sacrificing lives.

It’s hard to say whether advancing further would have placed enough German Laender under Allied control to achieve a unified liberal democracy in Germany.  Undoubtedly attacking Berlin from the air and from the West would have been very costly.  Whether the potential benefits are worth the potential cost is for the big boys to decide.  It’s also questionable whether the Soviets will leave Vienna if the Americans cling to Berlin.

This is a different topic than whether the Allied armies should have attacked the Red Army or issue an ultimatum.

[losttribe04]

@Zhukov44:

This is a different topic than whether the Allied armies should have attacked the Red Army or issue an ultimatum.

Yeah but I have heard it discussed here many times and until now never asked the question.  I think we all agree the US was spent and wouldn’t have been able to go to Russia or China at that time.

[balungaloaf]

i have to strongly disagree with zhukov here.

its not insane to attack the russians.

americans were the only ones with the bomb.  japan wouldnt want to get bombed again, and russia could give japan NO support.

american could begin daily bombing runs again on all modes of russian factory output.

plus add nuclear devastation to many key soviet cities and to whole armored divisions.