Patton's death was under extremely suspicious circumstances.
As for: could the US on a war footing at basically full strength have beaten the soviets who were nowhere near full strength? Yes, if we had attacked immediately as Patton suggested, we could have wrecked them. We had better chances than any time after they got the nuke, that's for sure.
Patton's death was under extremely suspicious circumstances.
Yeah, I'm sure of that. In right-wing mythology, everyone who dies is murdered. From Andrew Breitbart to Scalia.
As for: could the US on a war footing at basically full strength have beaten the soviets who were nowhere near full strength?
By all accounts, the Soviet army was vastly more powerful than those of all allies put together. So yes. Besides, the US was still fighting Japan.
But I'm not even solely talking about practicalities. World politics is not a game of Risk where you can turn on your ally in a war of aggression after years of portraying it positively. The American public and military simply would not have stood for it.
Yes, if we had attacked immediately as Patton suggested, we could have wrecked them. We had better chances than any time after they got the nuke, that's for sure.
You think we didn't know about the horrors the soviets had inflicted on the people they conquered? They were an ally of convenience, not ideology. They worked with Germany until Hitler went full retard. The soviets didn't just go dark side after the war, they were butchers from the start and people knew that. Stopping the soviets BEFORE they got the bomb, while we were still on a war footing with an untouched industrial base, while we still had operational momentum, would have been far easier than waiting for them to recover and get the bomb. People in the past weren't stupid, don't make that mistake. That kind of logical fallacy is beneath you.
Patton, along with anybody else who understood them, knew the soviets would be our enemy soon. That the soviets and the international communist organization (that was instrumental in the Spanish civil war as well as the rise of Hitler and the Soviets) could not coexist peacefully with the western world. He saw what was coming to the people of eastern Germany, and he wasn't alone in wanting to move on the Soviets. He was the most influential person at the time arguing for it.
You have made clear that you don't have the depth of knowledge on that historical period to be arguing this. Patton had logical reasons to want to attack the Soviets - he wasn't insane, and the allies were witness to soviet war crimes. We were no great friends of the soviets despite some late war propaganda. And finally, historical hindsight CLEARLY vindicates him.
U.S. leadership, at the time when the CIA was growing in power, saw him as a problem, and he died in a vehicle accident under strange circumstances far too conveniently.
You think we didn't know about the horrors the soviets had inflicted on the people they conquered?
No, I think they didn't care. Like I told you earlier, the Holocaust had absolutely nothing to do with why the Western allies disliked Germany.
Also, let's not forget that despite the oppression, they saved countless more people than they killed.
They worked with Germany until Hitler went full retard. The soviets didn't just go dark side after the war, they were butchers from the start and people knew that.
Correct. In fact, there is a recent work by a historian who argues, with some merit, that World War II is actually "Stalin's War" - the title of the book. You'd love it.
Stopping the soviets BEFORE they got the bomb, while we were still on a war footing with an untouched industrial base, while we still had operational momentum, would have been far easier than waiting for them to recover and get the bomb. People in the past weren't stupid, don't make that mistake. That kind of logical fallacy is beneath you.
Is the fallacy mine? I'm saying that what you propose would have been for no reason. Those who lived in the past made the right decision. Instead of getting millions of people killed in a probably futile effort to remove Stalin, come to a modus vivendi and combat the USSR by other means when the need arises - which led to the peaceful end of communism.
That the soviets and the international communist organization (that was instrumental in the Spanish civil war as well as the rise of Hitler and the Soviets) could not coexist peacefully with the western world.
And yet they did.
You have made clear that you don't have the depth of knowledge on that historical period to be arguing this.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you. Reading a few crappy right-wing articles screaming about COMMIE SUBVERSION does not make one a World War II specialist.
Patton had logical reasons to want to attack the Soviets - he wasn't insane, and the allies were witness to soviet war crimes.
No one cares about war crimes though, now or then. The Western allies helped the Soviets cover up the Katyn massacre, because it was their wartime ally after all.
We were no great friends of the soviets despite some late war propaganda. And finally, historical hindsight CLEARLY vindicates him.
On the contrary, historical hindsight proves him wrong. Instead of starting a disastrous war that would have killed millions, the Western allies came to a modus vivendi and communism collapsed on its own.
U.S. leadership, at the time when the CIA was growing in power, saw him as a problem, and he died in a vehicle accident under strange circumstances far too conveniently.
With respect, but right-wingers say this about literally everyone.
So the tens to hundreds of millions dead thanks to the influence of the USSR don't matter at all then. The fact that Russia is still basically a dictatorship. The oppression inflicted on Eastern Europe, the cover they gave to China which is still a genocidal dictatorship, the millions dead from proxy wars all over the world and the psychotic regimes they propped up.
It's cute you think that communism actually died when the USSR collapsed.
Now you're just trying to win points at any cost, not actually examining things in good faith - or you really do lack empathy, to ignore the century of crimes and lasting damage the communist machine wrought.
The orders of leadership do not represent the feelings of the soldiers on the ground. What the soviets were doing was horrific, and Patton's army would have followed him to Moscow. What the USSR did afterwards was more than half a century of brutal oppression that caused tens of millions of deaths in Eastern Europe alone, between the gulag and the disappearings, and the suppression of rebellions. The "cold" war was in no way a "peaceful" end to communism. The current powers in the middle east were nearl entirely placed there by either the US or the USSR in competition. Without the USSR backing them, the Cuban communist regime could have been stopped - they are still a problem. Without the USSR shielding them, the Chinese communists wouldn't have the power they do today.
Communism didn't lose the cold war. That is propaganda peddled to the ignorant. The soviets did when they collapsed, but the ideological war is far more complex than that.
Patton's death was under extremely suspicious circumstances.
As for: could the US on a war footing at basically full strength have beaten the soviets who were nowhere near full strength? Yes, if we had attacked immediately as Patton suggested, we could have wrecked them. We had better chances than any time after they got the nuke, that's for sure.
Yeah, I'm sure of that. In right-wing mythology, everyone who dies is murdered. From Andrew Breitbart to Scalia.
By all accounts, the Soviet army was vastly more powerful than those of all allies put together. So yes. Besides, the US was still fighting Japan.
But I'm not even solely talking about practicalities. World politics is not a game of Risk where you can turn on your ally in a war of aggression after years of portraying it positively. The American public and military simply would not have stood for it.
And get millions killed for literally no reason.
You think we didn't know about the horrors the soviets had inflicted on the people they conquered? They were an ally of convenience, not ideology. They worked with Germany until Hitler went full retard. The soviets didn't just go dark side after the war, they were butchers from the start and people knew that. Stopping the soviets BEFORE they got the bomb, while we were still on a war footing with an untouched industrial base, while we still had operational momentum, would have been far easier than waiting for them to recover and get the bomb. People in the past weren't stupid, don't make that mistake. That kind of logical fallacy is beneath you.
Patton, along with anybody else who understood them, knew the soviets would be our enemy soon. That the soviets and the international communist organization (that was instrumental in the Spanish civil war as well as the rise of Hitler and the Soviets) could not coexist peacefully with the western world. He saw what was coming to the people of eastern Germany, and he wasn't alone in wanting to move on the Soviets. He was the most influential person at the time arguing for it.
You have made clear that you don't have the depth of knowledge on that historical period to be arguing this. Patton had logical reasons to want to attack the Soviets - he wasn't insane, and the allies were witness to soviet war crimes. We were no great friends of the soviets despite some late war propaganda. And finally, historical hindsight CLEARLY vindicates him.
U.S. leadership, at the time when the CIA was growing in power, saw him as a problem, and he died in a vehicle accident under strange circumstances far too conveniently.
No, I think they didn't care. Like I told you earlier, the Holocaust had absolutely nothing to do with why the Western allies disliked Germany.
Also, let's not forget that despite the oppression, they saved countless more people than they killed.
Correct. In fact, there is a recent work by a historian who argues, with some merit, that World War II is actually "Stalin's War" - the title of the book. You'd love it.
Is the fallacy mine? I'm saying that what you propose would have been for no reason. Those who lived in the past made the right decision. Instead of getting millions of people killed in a probably futile effort to remove Stalin, come to a modus vivendi and combat the USSR by other means when the need arises - which led to the peaceful end of communism.
And yet they did.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you. Reading a few crappy right-wing articles screaming about COMMIE SUBVERSION does not make one a World War II specialist.
No one cares about war crimes though, now or then. The Western allies helped the Soviets cover up the Katyn massacre, because it was their wartime ally after all.
On the contrary, historical hindsight proves him wrong. Instead of starting a disastrous war that would have killed millions, the Western allies came to a modus vivendi and communism collapsed on its own.
With respect, but right-wingers say this about literally everyone.
So the tens to hundreds of millions dead thanks to the influence of the USSR don't matter at all then. The fact that Russia is still basically a dictatorship. The oppression inflicted on Eastern Europe, the cover they gave to China which is still a genocidal dictatorship, the millions dead from proxy wars all over the world and the psychotic regimes they propped up.
It's cute you think that communism actually died when the USSR collapsed.
Now you're just trying to win points at any cost, not actually examining things in good faith - or you really do lack empathy, to ignore the century of crimes and lasting damage the communist machine wrought.
The orders of leadership do not represent the feelings of the soldiers on the ground. What the soviets were doing was horrific, and Patton's army would have followed him to Moscow. What the USSR did afterwards was more than half a century of brutal oppression that caused tens of millions of deaths in Eastern Europe alone, between the gulag and the disappearings, and the suppression of rebellions. The "cold" war was in no way a "peaceful" end to communism. The current powers in the middle east were nearl entirely placed there by either the US or the USSR in competition. Without the USSR backing them, the Cuban communist regime could have been stopped - they are still a problem. Without the USSR shielding them, the Chinese communists wouldn't have the power they do today.
Communism didn't lose the cold war. That is propaganda peddled to the ignorant. The soviets did when they collapsed, but the ideological war is far more complex than that.