If Patton had gotten his way and started attacking the Russians-made it looked like it was their fault-How far do y'all think he could have pushed them back? He would have all the western allies and the remains of the German army under his command Personally I think he couldv'e pushed them out of Europe It's just something I've always wondered

He surely would have driven them back out of occupied Europe and maybe even a little further. I wonder if he would have been stopped by the harsh Russian winter, like the Germans were at Stalingrad.... It would have been interesting seeing Pershings and perhaps even remaining German "heavies" battle it out with JS-3s. And it would definitely have been a war of attrition....
But would anyone still have morale after five long years of fighting? I think not...
How about this : the Russian invasion of Finland was successful and Hitler never broke the Non-aggression treaty between him and the Soviets.....
Then we probably would have seen Patton doing just that.

My two cents for thought here:

I think Patton would have driven to Moscow - in a bloody war of attrition. I think the US would have dropped atomic weapons on Japan as what happened to bring about surrender in the Far East, then they would have turned the threat against Russia to end an anticipated all-out struggle for Moscow. I think the morale of five years of fighting would have come into play too, but with atomic weapons dropped on Eastern Europe for force an end to the War.

Gunnie

Tossed 'on the table'

The historical effort to 'conquer' russian territory has, and always will be, a lost and silly cause. Napoleon proved the purity of this idiom. Just check out a bar graph representation of his losses after his 'retreat' from Moscow. Good god, talk about military defeat!
One of Hitler's biggest military mistakes was not entering into an armistice or peace with Russia. Why he would WANT russian real estate is beyond me. It absolutely killed his chances of winning the war.
Additionally, why WE would want to try to continue that train of thought and expend the effort to try to conquer Russia at that time is, and would have been, military blunder. If for no other reason than the sheer amount of casualties Russia, (like China or Korea) would be williing to endure. Of course, Patton would have driven to Mars if it added any gilding to the lily called 'Patton'. We only.........damnnn, there I go again.

My apologies for the soap box, sorry................(clearing throat) Patton would have 'kicked ass' and the entire Cold War would have been averted! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Tread.

I wonder if he would have overextended forces by trying to do that. I certainly don't think he could have done it until after the Germans were defeated and then your talking a long way to push them back.

Fighting the Russians out of Germany is too much like fighting for the Germans. Remember, back then they were the "Dirty Rotten Krauts" and we had been trained to hate them for half a decade. Besides, doing anything to assist Germany would be extremely curtailed after we pushed too far east and ran into some of the more nasty concentration camps.

I think balance of power was more of an issue here than (not) helping the Germans. But there may be some truth to it. Nobody really wanted to help the Germans and we all wanted an end to that rotten war already. Maybe if they knew then what we know now about the Cold War etc, the Allied might have tried to push the Russians back into Russia. But I guess then our whole world would have looked different now. Any speculations on how? Just curious about your two cents worth....

I agree with Rob. The war had already dragged on long enough. And it would have been a hard sell to average Americans (at the time) who thought of the Ruskies as our allies and friends. Sure there were those who knew what Stalin and his government were "really" about (power), but it still would have been a hard sell not only here but all over the world.

I can't imagine saying this back in the eighties (of course I was much younger then). But in some ways I don't really blame the Russians for creating the Iron Curtain in the first place. Just as the free-world answer was to create NATO. Stalin's (who I see as just another dictator) answer was to take control (via puppet governments) of all those countries who may pose a future threat AND at the same time create a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and the West. I am glad it failed in the long run. But again, after the kind of war fought in the Eastern front, and the level of losses on the Soviet side. One can understand (a little) why they may have reacted this way.

To me the 20th Century will always be remembered as a turning point for the world between the age of kings, dictators, and the power hungry.... vs. free peoples and their elected governments. Let's hope it continues to swing in the direction of the later.

Had not thought of it that way, Jim. I agree 100%.
I am also glad that the Iron Curtain did not hold and that it fell in a peaceful way (well, for the most part anyway).

patton could have done very well, the russkies had over a million casualties at berlin and were burned out. the soviets also had very few reserves left. so i guess the best thing left is there were a lot less to deal with. so to bad.

the reasons why the european powers would not enter into a war with the soviets at that time,is quite simple,the carnage of the first world war was still fresh in peoples minds when they were faced with another war against Germany.Appeasment was the word of the
day,and who can blame them.Europe entered another war tired and broke from the last
one,and the fact that Britain survived,up to the Battle of Britain,was down to luck,and blunders on the other side.After five years of war,Europe was down and out,all the best
combat personel tired and out of it,thousands of families wanting their men and women
back home,safe.A war with Russia at that time would,in my opinion,have been lost.
By that stage in the game Russia was one giant war machine ready to go,morale was
high,revenge not sated,and more loot to be had. Having survived,our veterans wanted to
go home,and how long do you think the replacements would have lasted.Just think on this!
Patton,had this in common with "Kessler" in the Battle of the Bulge,he would fight to the last drop of your blood to stay in uniform.In times of war these types of men are are all important
but when its finished !its finished!
On my hobby horse!
Arthur

Patton would certainly driven the russians out of occuiped Europe.
The poltical hacks would have stopped him though,and established
a buffer zone. A war of attrition no that was not Pattons style.This fight
would have been a study of all his past campains.It certainly would
have been a short fight.

ponysoldier.......read the history books and think again
regards
Arthur

I personally feel if left up to Patton, he would have conquered Russia. It may have taken a few months to push to Moscow, but the Russian's would have surrenderded with the fall of Moscow. I don't feel nukes would have been used.

If this had happened, and a true democracy established, imagine the super power Russia would be today. They would be every bit our equal. We would also be staunch allies as we and the UK are now. I don't think the problems in the middle east would even exist had this all happened. Just a thought.

Don

If anyone wants to read about the German offensive in the East I recommend "Hitler's Panzers East" by R.H.S Stolfi.
In the book the author argues that the Germans could have won the war against Russia if only Hitler was not in command of the forces there. In the book the Fuhrer is pictured as a strategically ultraconservative military leader, with the only interest of improving the size of the "siege lines" around White Russia. Stolfi also explains why Hitler decided to attack Russia.

Cheers,

~CDT Reimund Manneck
U.S. Army ROTC

Don...why would the Russians capitulate with the taking of Moscow,take a look at the map
Moscow is within spitting distance of Western Europe,the tail end of the Soviet Empire was
wthin spitting distance of Japan, thats a lot of country,Moscow was a paper mountain
all the industry was in the east.....come on back.
Arthur
ps/....go back minimum 2000 yrs problem middle east

I think I have to agree with Arthur on this one. I think it is doubtful that English or French forces would have gone with us on this one. To take on the Russian Army alone would have been foolhardy and rash, IMHO. They would have outnumbered U.S. forces in Europe by something like 4 to 1, if not more. To say that numbers don't matter is to commit the same mistake Hitler made in dismissing the Soviet Army when he invaded. As for the Atomic bomb...well, that kind of logic reminds me a little of Vietnam...."Sir, in order to save Eastern Europe, we had to nuke it". I'm sure they would have thanked us, too.

Mike

sorry authur, i have to totally disagree with you on this one. the soviet army in may 1945 was in no shape to stop an american offensive to push them out of europe. from december 1944 to may 1945 the soviet army suffered 3 million casualities and the stratigic reserve was gone. they were quite burned out and were extremely low on fuel, armor(lost 2000 tanks at berlin) and were not ready to fight again.

well pak40....we will have to agree to disagree on this one,all the best to you.
wishing you well
Arthur

Something that's to be remembered is that to the russians, russian soil is not only homeland,
but it's more a kind of "sacred land".
I've got the feeling that it's a bit like the chinese.
If even a very little part of the country is invaded or lost, it's not only the establishment that
will start calling for war, but also the people !
These are proud people, with a long history and many moments in a close or long gone past
when the country was powerful and fiered by it's neighbours.
Such a war wouldn't have been more than a bloodbath. Morale would've dropped a lot in the
west.
You must also remember that the comunist party was very strong in several western european
countries (France for exemple). So there would've been a terrible political crisis in these countries.
Real peacetime governments had not been elected yet in the liberated countries. With such a crisis,
how would democracies evolved ? The military or "strong men" would certainly have seized power...
And fighting would've started again with partisans all over western europe.
How would've the american people reacted when seeing their guys killed so far away from home when
some of their allies start turning their back on them ?

I think it's important to remember that it was happening in Europe, where the political situation was
quite... complicated, as well as the state of the mind of the people involved.
Some people in France started colaborating with the german, and then joined the resistance...

What would it have been like had the war kept on ? Very bloody, I guess... and it certainly wouldn't
have been all that easy...
As you can guess from that far too long post of mine, I'm a peace loving guy !


peace to you all !

A little late, but I'll chime in, too. At best, Patton would have shoved the Russians back to the Russo-Polish border region. At BEST. It has been stated that the Russians in May/June '45 were burned out from tremendous casualties involved in taking Berlin. Absolutely true. Also true is that WE were also over-extended. The Channel and Dutch ports were still not to full capacity, and logistically it would have been impossible to sustain a major drive east. As has also been noted, it would have been fought alone. The British, despite Churchill's mistrust of Stalin, had not the manpower to fight on. The Canadians certainly would not have, and there goes a susbstantial part of 21 Army Group. The French were far more interested in the internal matters of reestablishing political control at home.

The tactical arguments ring a bit hollow. Yeah, the Pershing could easily deal with a T34 but would not have so easy a time against a JS-3. Recall that we had only about 300 Pershings in the whole ETO at the time, and were hardly building them at a rate like Shermans or the T34. The Germans proved that technically marvelous tanks don't mean squat in the final analysis when they are grossly outnumbered. Air power? Doesn't anybody think the Il-2 would have been just as nasty to OUR tank columns? They certainly would have had plenty of top cover, and a well-flown Yak is a competent match for a Mustang or Jug. Russian pilots killed a lot of Germans, guys. They knew how to fly and fight. I grant that we probably had some substantial advantages in offensive artillery fire control, much better on a fluid battlefield than the Russians. But not that much better, and the Russian had already proved themselves fast learners. Yeah, Patton could almost certainly have gotten the rest of Germany and maybe Poland too, but that is it and to what end? I doubt that the geopolitical dynamics of the last sixty years would have been changed for the better. The Cold War would have started hot and might have stayed that way. More interesting, perhaps, is how Patton would have fared had he been sent to the Philippines, or Burma in the early summer of '45.
Greg

Greg....PenPen....together you got it in a nutshell!!!!
Cheers
Arthur

Thanks, Arthur! I get a LOT of practice at this sort of "what if" theorizing. In addition to my scale modeling, another hobby of long standing is board wargaming. Inevitably when the lads get together to play these sorts of discussions come up and always generate lively debate over the game table and dinner table. And then when all is done we all tell each other we're full of s#%& and go back to pushing cardboard and rolling dice!
Greg

If I may, I would like to chime in on the economic implications of a US assualt on Soviet-controlled territiories:

We must remember that one of the major reasons the UNited States became involved in WW2 was the money. The US made huge amounts of money by exporting equipment to the allies, so much so that the european allies were so much in debt with the US that that they were now obligated to allow the US to become the next world power. THe United States effectively gained control of the enitre non-soviet world through the money gained in these arms sales. Attacking the USSR to gain total world control would likely have cost the US all of the money and political support it gained from fight ing the Axis powers, and as the arms sales would have stopped by this time, the US would either be forced to accpet only a part of the soviet territories, or risk capitulation if it continued. Wisely, the US leaders decided to take the vicotry they recieved in europe without risking it in a vietnam-type conflict with russia

Look at this way Patton was quite crude ,but a fool when he said that to Ike
he most likely had plans already drawn up and units begiinning to move into
place.
For my my British friend I do read the history books just not the ones that are skewed
for artistic endevors,the best history lesson i have is a man who jumped in north africa
and landed on normandy on day 1.
For my yak friend if we are talking about the same yak it had severe over heating ,
making necessary 4 modifications and had very poor preformance problems,
above 10000 ft hardly a match for hurry bomber



ponysoldier