[GandalfTheGrey]

Horrible idea.

Russia didn't dedicate 4 years and the sacrifice of ~20 million people defeating Germany only to allow them to waltz back in again. The astronomical level of war production the Russians had achieved by wars end, not to mention their high level of morale and sense of nationalistic pride at defeating the invaders, means that any new attack against Russia would have created a level of carnage that would make WWII look like a Sunday school picnic.

[Tailz]

I kinda wish Patton did attack the Soviets, just so he would have had his arrogant ass ground into dust under the tracks of IS-2 and IS-3 tanks. Patton was an arrogant aggressive bastard that should have been sent back to the USA in disgrace as Ike was planning to do.

Patton had held the view that after the Second World War the greatest threat came from the East in Soviet Russia.

As much as I think Patton and Churchill were right about the threat from the Soviets, there is no way America or the British combined could have sustained a continued war on the European mainland. Both armies were worn out.

He argued that the German troops should be re-armed and sent East to Moscow.

Given that the Western Allies had just bombed German industry out of existence, destroyed German sources of fuel and construction materials, it is impossible to think they could have re-equipped the German Army. Even if they did just start giving the Germans equipment (lets just forget the supply problems the Western Allies already had supplying their own troops), the German troops would have required time to be trained use the equipment and to work with the Western Allies – unless your going to let the German command structure remain intact under Generals the Allies were planning to put on trial for War Crimes – no American of British soldier would have stood for working alongside former members of the SS!!

As much as the Germans may have been eager to fight against the Soviets, the German army was essentially a spent force.

I would like to argue he was probably right. It was acheivable. With the atomic bomb which Russia would not produce for another 5 years, being on a war footing with a war economy and enough man power it would have been a short though probably very messy atomic war.

Here your being a bit delusional. The Japanses Generals were correct in their assessment of the American ability to manufacture atomic weapons, they estimated that an atomic bomb was a technically intensive device that required a lot of time and material to produce – they assumed correctly that in the short term, the Americans only had one, maybe two atomic bombs, and would require many more months to manufacture another (which was true, mass production of atomic weapons was not up to scale for quite some time). So a rain of atomic bombs on Soviet sites is highly unlikely, plus Russian spies in the Atomic program would have kept the Soviets informed of American atomic progress – if not supplied the Soviets with atomic secrets at a faster rate because of the threat that the Soviets were the next atomic target.

America was on a war footing as far as production goes, but it still had to get those materials to the battlefront, which was still a major problem. Plus this also forgets that the Soviets were just as powerful an industrial power in their own right and were producing war materials that rivalled, if not were better, than American made materials – certainly the Western Allies were lagging in terms of tank design compared to the Germans and Soviets.

The Western Allies by the end of the War were already combing out rear area units for manpower to replace loses at the front, the Soviets still had large reserves of manpower – once again, this was an issue of what the Soviets could get to the battle on the mainland verse what the Western Allies would have had to ship to the European mainland.

So what would it acheive? Well the end of Communism for a start, the occupation of Russia would put us on the door-step of China with the possibility of preventing that revolution. Without Russian and Chinese support Korea and Vietnam would have been sorted alot easier as would Cuba if ever happening at all. The various revolutions in Africa would similarly not have happened.

On a bigger note what of the proxy wars? No Soviet backing for Middle Eastern forces, no war in Afghanistan, no Bin Laden, no Al Qaeda.

Of course it would essentially put America as the conquerer of the world but for what it would have prevented would it be so awful?

This just sounds like wishful thinking, knock the soviets out of history and the world would have become a happy planet were everyone loved each other because the evil of the world, communism, had been destroyed. I disagree. Had Communism been destroyed, there are plenty more ideologies to take its place, and the problems of the world would have taken a different shape – who knows, it may have been worse, the new super America may have turned into a police state to control its gains, the CIA may have become just as evil as the KGB.

Enjoy the war, for the peace will be terrible!

[Oxymoron]

I kinda wish Patton did attack the Soviets, just so he would have had his arrogant ass ground into dust under the tracks of IS-2 and IS-3 tanks. Patton was an arrogant aggressive bastard that should have been sent back to the USA in disgrace as Ike was planning to do.

The IS-3 was expensive, small in number, and not proven in the battlefield. Plus the Americans would have had Air superiority.

[Smilin' Dave]

Allied planers thought the sheer size of the fronts likely to be involved would tend to dilute their airpower advantage (according to Operation Unthinkable, strategic bomber forces were likely to be forced into a tactical/operational role). Add in the Soviet preference to ensure air superiority over narrow frontages rather than contest the whole space (after all, they didn't have a strategic bomber force to think about) and tactical air superiority for the Allies would not have been assured.

While the IS-3 was untested, it was an evolution on the successful IS-2 series. On the other hand, the IS-2 wasn't primarily intended to fight other tanks, the main armament was intended to destroy strongpoints.

[Thunderhawk]

The allied forces would have the same problem facing Soviets tanks as they did against German tanks. However, the Soviets had more of them and the allies never developed good air based tank popper to make use of their air supremacy.

[guzzipat]

Pattons "idea" neglected several aspects.

The countries he expected to join the "crusade" against the Soviets had been fighting since 1939, a total of 6 years. American had been fighting for half that, it could have been the American troops, although I doubt it, were not so war weary. However Pattons expectation that the others who had been fighting for twice as long would join in was stupid.

I can tell you now with absolutely no boubt whatsoever that Britain, at least in terms of the British people, would never have stood for another war. Why the hell do you think they voted Churchill out?
Because they were ungratefull? No, partly because they feared he would take them into a war with the Soviet Union and partly because they would not tollerate a return to the old society.

The country was totally drained both in terms of effort and money. Few now realise the extent of the debts and financial problems that faced Britain in 1945. There was rationing till the early 50's, all luxuy goods went for export. A new car or even motorcycle was an impossible dream with long waiting lists.
Britain finally paid off the last of it's WW2 debts just a couple of year ago. We had to repay loans for more than 60 years.

The whole Patton project was ridiculous and unsustainable, it clearly demonstrates his poor strategic sense. He was fine tactical, but he was a strategic idiot. He never understood political or economic limitations, or the need to keep a group of allies together. His constant clamour for one single narrow thrust (with him in command of course) shows his limitations clearly and demonstates the excellence of Ikes command.
Patton had one priority and that was Patton, he was always only capable of acting under firm control. Letting Patton run strategy would have been a total disaster.

[Unperson-K]

And how many woukd you need to make a country submit? Remember Japan didn't surrender because of the direct loses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was because they thought we could do it 100 times over. St Petersburg, Moscow and Volgograd were reachable.

Would preventing the Cold War be worth the millions of (relatively) innocent lives that such an atomic bombing campaign would cost? I agree with taliz: there is no guarantee that knocking the Soviet Union in 1945 out would have created a better world.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

There is no way, politically or militarily, that it was feasable. The British were war weary and running low on man power, The French would have demanded to be kept out of it or risk a civil war, nobody would have seriously considered using the German army, and the US public would have hardly stomached starting a war with the USSR (and the casualties it would have entailed) while Japan was still fighting. The USSR still fielded a massive, battle hardened army fighting under a regime that had very little regard for human life, and who had almost single handedly destroyed the Nazi war machine. Completely wishful thinking on the part of Patton and his admirers.