The Americans taking Berlin and attacking the Soviets? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The Second World War (1939-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14656805
Patton actually planned on re-arming the Germans and using them to bolster a push against the Soviets, had the Americans taken Berlin first.

At this point, the Soviet would never get the bomb in time and would easily be overrun from both sides (after Japan's surrender).

There's just no cold war in this scenario. Not that the U.S.S.R is conquered but certainly pushed to the Russian border (past Ukraine, the Baltic states, etc).

This was more than possible and with nuclear arms the timeline could have been October of 1945 really.
#14657148
The general public of the Western Allies, not to mention the war-weary troops, would have had serious difficulty accepting this - after all, the Soviets had just borne the brunt of defeating the Nazis, whose grotesque atrocities against civilians were beginning to come to light, and now we were going to arm the Germans - whom we had gone to so much trouble to defeat - and sic them on the Soviets, stabbing our wartime ally in the back? It was an outrageous idea, and it would never have been accepted by the troops or the civilian population of the West. Just when they thought the War was over, a new one starts up? Fuck off!
#14657160
Ouch, R_G just got burned.

But hey, that is correct. If you just had 5 years of war non-stop, why would you turn on your ally straight away who helped you overturn the tide in the war and who bore the blunt of the enemy force. As much as i like political power plays or political power play scenarios, humanity needs usually an explanation for a war otherwise be you Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan, your rule will end.
#14657162
R_G wrote:Patton actually planned on re-arming the Germans and using them to bolster a push against the Soviets, had the Americans taken Berlin first.

You're correct about what Patton wanted, and knowing Patton, there's no doubt he had a plan prepared. Churchill was already in his corner. Britain had little to offer such an effort in the field, but Winston envisioned them administering the conquered territories while the US invaded Russia. The same Political / Industrial coalition that discretely sent Hitler against the Reds shifted their emphasis onto the Americans and in a very short time created significant mistrust and ill will.

However, Harry Truman turned out to be more of an obstacle than they anticipated, and efforts to Pressure SACEUR met strong resistance. Patton blew his chance at a pacific command by once again bucking the Top Brass and MAY have gotten himself assassinated (he knew way to much for one side and posed a potential political threat to the other.)

At any rate, the DEAL FDR cut with Stalin was honored. The Right Wing Industrialists had to settle for limited CIA engagement with reds until, Ironically, The CIA collapsed about the same time the Berlin wall tumbled. (one thing we must always thank G. Bush Sr. for.)

Zam
#14657166
JohnRawls wrote:But hey, that is correct. If you just had 5 years of war non-stop, why would you turn on your ally straight away who helped you overturn the tide in the war and who bore the blunt of the enemy force. As much as i like political power plays or political power play scenarios, humanity needs usually an explanation for a war otherwise be you Hitler, Stalin or Genghis Khan, your rule will end.


Because the Western political class hated the Soviets as much as Nazi Germany. Making an alliance with the USSR was not done out of any affection for that country but pure pragmatism. None of the Western leaders were happy about it.

Both the Nazis and Soviets made the British elite very uncomfortable in the 1930s. This is why Churchill could conceive of Operation Unthinkable which was essentially a plan for WW3 against Russia. We are extremely lucky that such a war never materialised because you yourselves were not far off developing nuclear weapons and there is no doubt such a war would have gone nuclear very quickly.

In any case the Western powers did not have enough manpower to overrun the USSR. Even with a re-armed Germany victory was not possible.
#14657178
R_G wrote:Patton actually planned on re-arming the Germans and using them to bolster a push against the Soviets, had the Americans taken Berlin first.

At this point, the Soviet would never get the bomb in time and would easily be overrun from both sides (after Japan's surrender).

There's just no cold war in this scenario. Not that the U.S.S.R is conquered but certainly pushed to the Russian border (past Ukraine, the Baltic states, etc).

This was more than possible and with nuclear arms the timeline could have been October of 1945 really.

If I were Patton I'd have wanted to do the same thing. The US and to a lesser extent the UK actually got through WW2 relatively unscathed both in terms of military power and industrial / economic base whereas the Soviets suffered stupendous casualties for reason of having a substantially jewish leadership determined to help the Germans kill as many Russians as possible. With Germany's Army brought in too the push against the Soviets would have been unstoppable.

Image

The time to do it would have been straight away after Germany's capitulation, strike while the iron is hot as they say, with all the countries involved already fully mobilised, in the field and geared up for war and before the Soviets had a chance to lick their gaping wounds and recover.

In contrast to Potemkin's assessment I don't think the general public of the US, UK and others would have been difficult to bring on board to this change of target and any confusion could easily be managed with the right public information presentations (propaganda). I don't think anyone really doubted that the Soviets were anything more than allies of convenience. War weariness was hardly an issue for the US and UK given how few casualties were sustained and truth be told for most Britons and yanks the war so far had been enormously good fun, in stark contrast to WW1 which was fairly catastrophic at least for Britons.
#14657191
Political Interest wrote:Because the Western political class hated the Soviets as much as Nazi Germany. Making an alliance with the USSR was not done out of any affection for that country but pure pragmatism.

WHOA ... where did you get these ideas ? 1st, no one really HATED Nazi Germany ... Lots of people admired Hitler and the Germans ... We had VERY STRONG commercial ties with them. Many American Bankers and Industrialist backed them implicitly and some of them had secretly contributed to the creation of "National Socialism" as the Savior of Western Civilization.

Likewise the intellectual community and MANY blue collar workers adored Communism as the "Future of Mankind." (one of the things that disturbed those bankers and industrialists) The situation was much the same in England, where they even had the beginnings of their own fascist party forming and an active communist community.

Our eventual alliance with the USSR was a VERY POPULAR event ! Lots of Beer and champagne went over the dam while in the cigar smoke of the capitalists backrooms FDR got labelled a Commie for allowing it.

taxizen wrote: I don't think the general public of the US, UK and others would have been difficult to bring on board to this change of target and any confusion could easily be managed with the right public information presentations (propaganda). I don't think anyone really doubted that the Soviets were anything more than allies of convenience.

You don't think ? OK ... TRY thinking about the immense effort expended in the 1950s and 1960s to PURGE the USA of communists and "pinkos." and that was AFTER one of the most MASSIVE propaganda campaigns in history. Those "allies of convenience" WON WWII. They were really what it was all about. Maybe consider the depth of conviction of the AMERICAN SPYS we caught and give a little thought to all of them we FAILED to catch before you start dismissing the soviets so lightly.

Zam
#14657199
Zamuel wrote:WHOA ... where did you get these ideas ? 1st, no one really HATED Nazi Germany ... Lots of people admired Hitler and the Germans ... We had VERY STRONG commercial ties with them. Many American Bankers and Industrialist backed them implicitly and some of them had secretly contributed to the creation of "National Socialism" as the Savior of Western Civilization.


If the British political class were so enamoured with the Nazis then why did they declare war on them? There were definite elements who were sympathetic but the general feeling about Hitler was fear and alarm. The English have never liked having masculine continental powers on their doorstep.

Zamuel wrote:Likewise the intellectual community and MANY blue collar workers adored Communism as the "Future of Mankind." (one of the things that disturbed those bankers and industrialists) The situation was much the same in England, where they even had the beginnings of their own fascist party forming and an active communist community.


Both British fascism and communism were relatively marginal movements. Neither were able to achieve any major political successes.
#14657201
Political Interest wrote:If the British political class were so enamoured with the Nazis then why did they declare war on them? There were definite elements who were sympathetic but the general feeling about Hitler was fear and alarm. The English have never liked having masculine continental powers on their doorstep.

Which is why we have film of the queen mother and her father practicing their "Nazi" salutes together ...

Britain declared war over Poland due to a joint treaty obligation with France ... to have failed to do so would have put ALL their alliances and diplomacy in question. Hitler believed they would continue to negotiate and secretly approve when he attacked the soviets, MANY British would have liked that, but he was wrong.

Political Interest wrote:Both British fascism and communism were relatively marginal movements. Neither were able to achieve any major political successes.

The British Government didn't consider them marginal ... They considered them THREATS.

Zam
#14657204
Taking Berlin and attacking the Soviets are two separate questions. The WAllies would have very probably probably been able to take Berlin if D-Day had happened 9+ months earlier. Nazi Germany fought a lot harder and with a lot more resources against the Soviets than the WAllies... And once the wermacht basically collapsed in late 1944-early 1945, the German establishment was basically scrambling to surrender to the West rather than the Red Army.

But attacking the Soviets? With what? Overwhelming Soviet conventional superiority, a pro-Soviet homefront, a counterrevolutionary aggression with troops propagandized for an anti-fascist crusade? They called it unthinkable for a reason.
#14657210
Taxizen wrote:Image


This graph is bullshit. Only 1.3 million Chinese dead? The lowest estimate put it around 3.5 millions. Th German causality listed in the graph is only upto August of 1944 after which there is no reliable data from German side. Total "axis" dead is somewhere around 5 million and soviets around 10 millions but then over 3 million soviets were dead under captivity, no such fate befall axis troops. So if we count battlefield death, its more like 4.5 million axis and 7 million soviets dead on the battlefields. And this is only for eastern front.

As per the idea it was indeed a terribly insane idea and no one took Patton seriously after the war. But I love how all the plans existed for invading USSR but in pop media its always the soviets who are the aggressors because reasons
#14657215
fuser wrote:This graph is bullshit. Only 1.3 million Chinese dead? The lowest estimate put it around 3.5 millions. Th German causality listed in the graph is only upto August of 1944 after which there is no reliable data from German side. Total "axis" dead is somewhere around 5 million and soviets around 10 millions but then over 3 million soviets were dead under captivity, no such fate befall axis troops. So if we count battlefield death, its more like 4.5 million axis and 7 million soviets dead on the battlefields. And this is only for eastern front.

As per the idea it was indeed a terribly insane idea and no one took Patton seriously after the war. But I love how all the plans existed for invading USSR but in pop media its always the soviets who are the aggressors because reasons

Image

Do you like this graph better?

The Chinese lost huge numbers of civilians but not so much military, presumably the chinese government didn't have the logistical resources at the time to effectively funnel China's huge population into the military, the fact that the Japanese had so much of the country under occupation didn't help.
#14657219
My 3.5 million number is for military death only, the 1.3 million comes from official RoC version which obviously no one takes seriously. As per statistics I like my own as posted in last post without any fancy graphs.
#14657221
KlassWar wrote:Taking Berlin and attacking the Soviets are two separate questions. - Nazi Germany fought a lot harder and with a lot more resources against the Soviets than the W Allies ...

But attacking the Soviets? With what? Overwhelming Soviet conventional superiority, a pro-Soviet homefront, a counterrevolutionary aggression with troops propagandized for an anti-fascist crusade? They called it unthinkable for a reason.

Yes 2 questions ... IF the allies had made the effort, they probably could have met the Russians in Berlin ... But FDR promised Berlin to Stalin, so the Allies called a halt (nobody was complaining but Patton).

Yes, the Germans fought a LOT harder against the Russians, particularly as they were aware what they could expect if captured.

Pattons plan wasn't to "overwhelm" it was to drive East then Pivot North and interdict Russian Supply lines. The Russians were very overextended, low on ammo and scavenging most of their food. 3rd Army had been stockpiling Gas, Ammo, and Rations, and had some of the new improved Pershing Tanks in service ... coupled with rearmed, reinforced German Troops, and liberated German prisoners holding in the west, they probably could have encircled the Soviets and pounded them into submission with air power ... Patton was very good at that sort of thing.

Zam
#14657228
Patton was most good at inflating numbers to make third army look much better than it actually was.

As per supplies, USSR was far more better positioned in logistics department than western allies, namely most of their supplies were not coming from offshore.

Now, air power, USSR is not 1944 Germany, her airforce slightly outnumbers western allies airforce, add that to an organized ground based air defense system, and overwhelming Red Army with airpower sounds like a pipedream. Heck Germany with less than 1/6 of airforce compared to allies managed to inflict double the causality in air, thanks to organized air defense system.

On land USSR completely dominates in every way, it was really an unthinkable operation, the only trump card allies have is nuke and how are they used, whether successfully or not.

Ending my post with a joke : Two Soviet Tankist in Berlin after end of the war, "By the way, does anyone knows who won the air war?"
#14657244
Dagoth Ur wrote:Yeah but he was absolutely shit at being a rational human.

Like you know anything about that ?

Patton was considered charming by most, he was an eloquent speaker with a flair for telling his audience exactly what they wanted to hear. He was on his way home to consider several political proposals when he died under unusual circumstances. Given his war record, with the right managers doing his PR, he could easily have been elected president over Harry Truman in 52.

Zam
#14657253
Zamuel wrote:Which is why we have film of the queen mother and her father practicing their "Nazi" salutes together ...


Yes but they were not representative of the whole establishment. Most of the British political class were displeased with the king's ties to the Nazis. They found it embarrassing and compromising. Apparently it was Wallace Simpson who was the real enthusiast for National Socialism and she influenced Edward in that direction. I've heard a rumour that she was a German agent.

Zamuel wrote:Britain declared war over Poland due to a joint treaty obligation with France ... to have failed to do so would have put ALL their alliances and diplomacy in question. Hitler believed they would continue to negotiate and secretly approve when he attacked the soviets, MANY British would have liked that, but he was wrong.


There was more to it than that. They did it because they feared being enveloped by the Germans. After Czechoslovakia it was no longer possible for London to sit idly by and allow Germany free reign over the continent.

Zamuel wrote:The British Government didn't consider them marginal ... They considered them THREATS.


They may have viewed them as threats but that does not mean they were serious political forces.

They are not victims just stupid. Your socio[…]

Too Many White People

I would amend that statement. I think the governm[…]

I support this initiative. Small migrant boats can[…]

I saw that too, but I do not think Sinn Fein winn[…]