NationStates Jolt Archive

General George S. Patton Jr. was in charge of the 2nd infantry division in World War 2, and fought in North Africa while working his way up to Europe. He was the only US general which the Nazis actually FEARED and his most memorable quote is probably, ""No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

All of this aside, Patton had the idea that the Allies should team up with the Axis forces, and overthrow Communism, then finish off the Nazis. Now I do understand that this would be almost impossible to do, seeing as how we were already fighting them and that they started the war etc.

But lets assume that the Allies did team up with the Nazis and defeat the Red Army. (Yes I know that was probably impossible given the brutality of the Russians.) But assuming we did beat the Soviets, how would the world look today? Since Russia has much more influence given it's size, I think that Patton's idea was quite genius. Communism would not have been spread, and the Allied forces would have been able to conquer the fascists after conquering the Russians.

In this way, Communism would not have spread around the world, and in my opinion, the world would possibly be a better place today.

It would have been the sort of victory that is pointless once you achieve it, whichever side won.

Whatever you're smoking, send me some. :)

First of all, I can't even see how an Axis/Ally coalition against the USSR was feasable on any level.

But, let's say for arguments sake, that Amercian forces worked alongside German forces on the collapse of the Soviet Union.

How exactly would America then 'beat the nazi's' afterwards? Really, if anyone beat them, it was the Russians. Once you eliminate the USSR from the equation, you're left with a powerful Reich with no real opposition except an enemy across the sea. No more eastern front to worry about means that a D-day style attack would be doomed to fail.

And communism emerged in China as well, and could always emerge again in the future.

I already said, "Let's suppose" that the events played out so that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were defeated. I knew this "WHAT?!?!? WE CANT BEAT NAZIS AND RUSKEES ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!1111" crap was going to happen which is why I put, "Let's suppose" up there.

My main point was, "What would the world look like today without a strong Communist influence."

My main point was, "What would the world look like today without a strong Communist influence."
Erm, you've been watching too much FOX. :p

Fox On The Rhine is a good book to go with this - basically the Von Stauffenberg plot succeeds, Rommel becomes the new Chancellor and leads the Wehrmarch against the USSR alongside General Patton. War ends with the US nuking Berlin to stop the advancing Russians and Stalin saying WWIII was all a misunderstanding, liquidates half his officer corp, plots revenge.

He was the only US general which the Nazis actually FEARED and his most memorable quote is probably.
That's because he was a lunatic...

All of this aside, Patton had the idea that the Allies should team up with the Axis forces, and overthrow Communism, then finish off the Nazis.
You wouldn't have happened to read the final entries in Joseph Goebbels diaries, would you?

IMy main point was, "What would the world look like today without a strong Communist influence."

Without the example of Totalitarian regimes like the USSR, the words of Marx and Engels would still be free to work their magic. The idea would surface somewhere else, and you'd probably have a revolution somewhere else.

In retrospect, it would have been a good idea to listen to Patton in soo many ways:

- In 1945, before the Allies demobilized, both the USSR and Allies had about 5 million men each, and the Allies had qualititative and industrial superiority
- After the war, Stalin tried very hard to keep Westerners out of Russia because he didn't want them to know how devastated the country was by the war
- The US had the A-bomb and the USSR wouldn't have it until the 1950s, or at least the late 1940s if it tried
- The wars in Korea and Vietnam would never have happened because Soviet-style despotic "Communism" would be nearly dead
- The Ak-47 would never have showed up in the Third World, meaning many fewer people would have died (French and Isreali dealers might have still sold weapons to Third World criminals anyway, but at least not as many guns would be sold)
- The Soviets would not cause the massive unrest in Africa and South America that was funded by the KGB from 1960 onward (may have still happened though, but on a smaller scale)
- Soo much money would be saved- the Cold War was the most expensive war in history

Just a few interesting aspects of the Patton debate that aren't usually touched upon.

- The Ak-47 would never have showed up in the Third World, meaning many fewer people would have died (French and Isreali dealers might have still sold weapons to Third World criminals anyway, but at least not as many guns would be sold)

The fact that such weapons would be sold, rather than given away, would probably have drastically reduced the ability of warlords in the third world to wage war against their own people....

- In 1945, before the Allies demobilized, both the USSR and Allies had about 5 million men each, and the Allies had qualititative and industrial superiority
Where do you get your stats from?

When the Allies met at Torgau, the Red Army was the single most powerful army the world had ever seen. They had the better tanks, perhaps better infantry weapons, and excellent morale - plus four years of experience (in battles much tougher than anything the Allies had seen). And their air force was pretty damn big too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army
During the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army drafted a staggering 29,574,900 in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war. Of these it lost 6,329,600 KIA and 4,559,000 MIA (most captured). Of these 11,444,100, however, 939,700 re-joined the ranks in the subsequently-liberated Soviet territory, and a further 1,836,000 returned from German captivity. Thus the grand total of losses amounted to 8,668,400. The majority of the losses comprised ethnic Russians (5,756,000), followed by ethnic Ukrainians (1,377,400). See Г. Ф. Кривошеев, "Россия и СССР в войнах XX века: потери вооруженных сил. Статистическое исследование" (G. F. Krivosheev, "Russia and the USSR in the wars of the 20th century: losses of the Armed Forces. A Statistical Study", in Russian).

- After the war, Stalin tried very hard to keep Westerners out of Russia because he didn't want them to know how devastated the country was by the war
It was devastated, yes, but its military industries were pumping out thousands of tanks a week, no problems there.

I have the whole Time-Life WW2 series in my room, and I remember it talking about both armies (US and Allies vs. Soviet Union) having 5 million men in arms at the end of the war. The Allies quickly demobilized down to 1 million after 1945, though.

Some Soviet units were pretty good, but man-for-man they were pretty low quality. They had no infantry weapons that could match the Garand at long-range or medium-range fire where almost all combat took place, and the thing about the T-34 being superior to the M-4 is a widespread falacy that arised due to the T-34 encountering obsolete German designs on the Eastern Front (the best troops always went to the West). And the American M4A3E8 that was in service at the end of the war was much improved over the early models that performed soo poorly. There's acutally a thread about this here- http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=417735&Main=409298#Post417735

And the Soviets were in a much worse state economically than the West by war's end. I'm not going to bother to provide links because this seems like common knowledge to me, but if you provide good sources to the contrary I'll accept what you say.

I have the whole Time-Life WW2 series in my room, and I remember it talking about both armies (US and Allies vs. Soviet Union) having 5 million men in arms at the end of the war. The Allies quickly demobilized down to 1 million after 1945, though.
Even if the numbers were correct - the Allies would have had 5 million in the whole of Western Europe, while the Soviets would have had 5 million actual frontline troops.
A million were fighting in Berlin alone.

...and the thing about the T-34 being superior to the M-4 is a widespread falacy that arised due to the T-34 encountering obsolete German designs on the Eastern Front (the best troops always went to the West).
How can you have a whole series of books and still believe that?

The "obsolete" German designs on the Eastern Front were the Panther and Tiger tanks, which were all developed with the T-34 in mind and first deployed in the East.
Yes, initially the T-34 only faced old German tanks, and picked them off in masses - but it was continuously improved and kept up.
Not to forget the Iosif Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-3) series, which was the best tank in the world.

And the "best troops" were in the East for most of the war. Only a few units (like SS-Panzerlehr) were moved to the West, and caused all sorts of havoc there.
Bigger and more experienced forces, like the Leibstandarte, Großdeutschland, Wiking served only in the East.

And the American M4A3E8 that was in service at the end of the war was much improved over the early models that performed soo poorly. There's acutally a thread about this here- http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=417735&Main=409298#Post417735
The same goes for the Soviet designs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34_variants)...to the point where the T-34 became the T-54 only two years after the war.

And the Soviets were in a much worse state economically than the West by war's end. I'm not going to bother to provide links because this seems like common knowledge to me, but if you provide good sources to the contrary I'll accept what you say.
I'm not disputing that the country was ravaged by war, and the economy going badly. But the thing that matters for fighting a war, ie weapons production, was going splendidly for the Soviets.

All of this aside, Patton had the idea that the Allies should team up with the Axis forces, and overthrow Communism, then finish off the Nazis. Now I do understand that this would be almost impossible to do, seeing as how we were already fighting them and that they started the war etc.

But lets assume that the Allies did team up with the Nazis and defeat the Red Army. (Yes I know that was probably impossible given the brutality of the Russians.) But assuming we did beat the Soviets, how would the world look today? Since Russia has much more influence given it's size, I think that Patton's idea was quite genius. Communism would not have been spread, and the Allied forces would have been able to conquer the fascists after conquering the Russians.

In this way, Communism would not have spread around the world, and in my opinion, the world would possibly be a better place today.

Er... Communism *is* dead. There are exactly 5 (cough) "Communist" states left on earth in 2006.
North Korea, Cuba: Economic basket cases held together on cults of personality (which, BTW, is a very *non* classical Communist trait...)
China, Viet Nam: Slowly liberalizing states that weren't even Communist during WW2. Undergoing massive economic expansion by ignoring Communist economic theory and embracing Capitalism.
Laos: Similar to China & Viet Nam, but on a smaller scale.

Now, as for what would have happened: probably the world would have been much worse off. The world was exhausted after WW1 & WW2. All of the European Colonial powers were destined to spin off their colonies over the next couple of generations as the modern world became "smaller".
The UK, France, Belgium, et al were in no shape to do much aside from rebuild (again!) after the war.

Now, given that... a world where Democracy was the major victor would just have factured against itself. Without a Soviet counterbalance, some of the things which helped to FORM modern democracy (NATO comes to mind, as do the UN and the EU) would probably never have happened...

Examples:
Would the UK/French intervention in Egypt have gone differently if there weren't two superpowers with nukes on hair triggers? Probably.

Or, take it a different way: BECAUSE the Democratic allies win, they try to hold onto their empires. The French keep Algeria and Viet Nam. The British hold onto India & much of Africa, etc. That builds up a major amount of resentment and *poof* we end up with perhaps a century of brush warfare.

Then there's the nature of Asia: Communism might have spread anyway, if the US still failed to support Mao and Ho.

We probably wouldn't have gone to the moon.

etc. Too many variables to really consider. :D

I was thinking about this for a while. It's a very interesting question, and I really think that it was risky for the West to write off the Soviet threat until the war was over.

Anyone who thinks that the T-34 was a supertank should read the link I posted. http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...298#Post417735

Like the Japanese Zero fighter, it was really a mediocre weapon whose capability was blown all out of proportion by early-war experience.

Yeah, Communism is dead, but it was a major player at one point and would have died much sooner.

And it would have been hard for the Europeans to rebuild, but Russia was in an equally bad shape (at least if you count the US's industrial strength). But getting the population excited about fighting another war would be hard, and was the very reason that we didn't try to tackle the Soviets. But, assuming that the West built up the willpower to fight the USSR, it would have won.

The European country's decision to hold on to their empires had little to do with the Cold War, or with competition with their neighbors. India, Africa, and others would have gotten indepence anyway. Notice that ever since democracy came to Europe around 1820, NO European nation other than Germany and Russia initiated a major war in Europe. The fact is, by 1945 all of western Europe was a democracy, and although there would be competition, there was plenty of willingess for cooperation, and little probability of war (think about the "democractic peace" theory).

And about the moon thing, it was a massive waste of money that really didn't accomplish very much.

The world would be much worse. Overthrowing Communism screwed up a lot of the world. Now Eastern Europe is poorer than ever and AIDS is growing common...

I was thinking about this for a while. It's a very interesting question, and I really think that it was risky for the West to write off the Soviet threat until the war was over.

Anyone who thinks that the T-34 was a supertank should read the link I posted. http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...298#Post417735

Like the Japanese Zero fighter, it was really a mediocre weapon whose capability was blown all out of proportion by early-war experience.

A T34/85 with the same driver training as that of a Sherman would pan a Sherman to pieces. See Korea.

The world would be much worse. Overthrowing Communism screwed up a lot of the world. Now Eastern Europe is poorer than ever and AIDS is growing common...
But that was started by the control of Communism in the first place, though if you want a real example, the downfall of communism (or the Soviet Union rather) removed any real world power to compete with the egotistical United States and thus stagnated major scientific, economic, and technological advance.

Anyone who thinks that the T-34 was a supertank should read the link I posted.
Who says that it was?

What is being said is that it was en excellent, quite revolutionary design with very few inherent weaknesses. When it first faced older German models, it crushed them.
The Germans then took the design from the T-34 and incorporated it into their own tank, the Panther (the Tiger is seperate again, although later Tiger versions also got the additions).

The Russians kept improving the T-34, to the point where in the final year, a T-34 and a Panther were almost equal. I don't think the same can be said for any version of the Sherman (And as far as I know, at most half of the Shermans were actually upgraded with a proper gun by the end of the war, leaving half of them pretty much useless cannon fodder).

Not to forget that the Allies hadn't really had hardcore combat experience. There were a few 'major' battles (which were still tiny compared to what the Soviets were going through), but most units didn't see all that much action.

The Soviets clearly fought the harder war, and thus came out with a much better understanding of their technology, tactics and strategy, plus an army of millions of veterans.

Yes, the Allies could've bombed and perhaps even nuked the Soviets - but I don't think they would've cared all that much, because they'd be marching straight through Europe and confining the Allies to Britain. And I don't think a second D-Day against a victorious Red Army would've been possible.

So if the Americans had listened to Patton, they would've gotten their arses kicked.

And don't forget that, despite the unsavory overtones this carries with it, most liberal social theory stems in some way from ideas first proposed in Communist theory. The very notion of the "welfare state" is grounded in a Marxist theory of social justice, albeit a bit watered down.

Also, in a weird, perverted sort of way, the only true period of PEACE in America during the latter half of the 20th century was during the Cold War, in which both sides were smart enough to realize that pushing "the button" would be as painful for them as for their enemies. Now, there is no "enemy" for our government to agitate against, only nameless, faceless terrorism, the war upon which carries many worse overtones than the struggle against communism, especially in the areas of foreign relations "Iraq, Iran(?), Afghanistan.....who knows?"

The best German troops were always in the East, and by the time the US entered France, were for the most part long dead. The month of the Normandy landings, the Germans lost an entire Army Group on the Eastern Front. This pace of losses continued during offensive after offensive. Only during Operation Market Garden and during the Ardennes Offensive did the western allies face significant numbers of troops from the East, and their presence was only temporary - most later met their end in east Germany, Austria and Hungary.

The Ardennes Offensive actually marked the end of meaningful German resistance on the Western front, from then on the unofficial policy was holding back the Russians as long as possible so the country fell to the western allies and not them.

The Russians kept improving the T-34, to the point where in the final year, a T-34 and a Panther were almost equal. I don't think the same can be said for any version of the Sherman (And as far as I know, at most half of the Shermans were actually upgraded with a proper gun by the end of the war, leaving half of them pretty much useless cannon fodder).

That's because the Shermans were like hyenas taking down lions. 1v1 they'd get slaughtered. 5v1 they'd lose two and destroy their opponent.

That's because the Shermans were like hyenas taking down lions. 1v1 they'd get slaughtered. 5v1 they'd lose two and destroy their opponent.
Exactly. That worked against a Germany which had to sorta deal with the Eastern Front.
But I don't think it would against a Soviet Union that was free to throw all its resources at that one theatre. Wiki says there might have been 85,000 T-34s, plus 13,500 T-34-based vehicles built.

The world would be much worse. Overthrowing Communism screwed up a lot of the world. Now Eastern Europe is poorer than ever and AIDS is growing common...

Huh? If anything, Slovakia, the Czechs and Poland are much better off than they ever were. Slovenia and Bulgaria are doing decently well. Romania and Jugoslavia are having some problems, and the Hungarians have a little too much debt, but IMO things are MUCH better than they were in the early 80s, for example.

We should have listened to Patton. Mike Patton, when he was in Faith No More. Then he might have sold more records and not gone off to form the atrocious side project "Mr Bungle"

A T34/85 with the same driver training as that of a Sherman would pan a Sherman to pieces. See Korea.

IIRC the Communist tanks didn't do too well in Korea.

The West in 1945 was just hitting its prime in tank production. The early model Shermans with short 75mm guns suffered from poor-quality ammunition, but so did the early T-34s with 76mm guns. The T-34 was knocked out in droves, as was the Sherman- the only difference was that the Americans gave a damn about losses and the Russians didn't. The Americans made about 50,000 Shermans during the war. The Russians made about twice that IIRC, but by 1945 the Allies had things like the M-26, M4A3E8, Comet and Centurion that even the JS-3 couldn't match dollar-for-dollar.

It's common knowledge that the best German troops and equipment where deployed to the West.

Although the battles that the Allies fought in were generally smaller, that was because the Allies did not have the masses of manpower that the Soviets had, and the Allies still had at least the same kind of combat experience. 40% of the German army was in the West by 1944, and 60% was in the East, so it would not be true to say that the Eastern front was all-consuming (even though it was the decisive theater).

And the Western, particularly American, industry was very potent at the end of the war, and they included the most powerful nations in the world. If they defeated Germany, the allies could certainly take on the Russians, and at least they would have taken Korea and taken over the eastern parts of the USSR. I now see that China would probably have gone communist anyway because the Chinese communist party pretty much won its civil war on its own against the incompetent KMT. So, when you look at it this way, it might have been another costly war against an enemy who was not willing to surrender because they were led by Stalin, who would see the whole country nuked and still not give up. Now, if the Allies had joined Hitler in 1944 to fight Russia, they would probably win as long as they could hold such a ridiculously untenable coalition together.

Everything in this debate, of course, is theoretical. No Westerner had the stomach after 6 years of war to do it all over again, and a conquest of the USSR would simply be too much effort. But it's still fun to play C&C Red Alert and pretend it turned out this way.

The Russians made about twice that IIRC, but by 1945 the Allies had things like the M-26, M4A3E8, Comet and Centurion that even the JS-3 couldn't match dollar-for-dollar.
Actually, I'd say it certainly could. And combined with the late versions of the T-34, soon to be T-54, and the fact that the Soviet tanks were actually standing ready or only a few days per rail away, while the Allied tanks had to be shipped a long way, the Soviets would have simply overwhelmed the Allied front and pushed it back far into France.
Remember how much trouble the Allies had with the Ardennes offensive early on. There were voices calling for a retreat pretty far back.

It's common knowledge that the best German troops and equipment where deployed to the West.
Not in Germany it isn't. Nor in Russia. Or pretty much anywhere else in Europe.
Must be one of those USA-only things. :p

Although the battles that the Allies fought in were generally smaller, that was because the Allies did not have the masses of manpower that the Soviets had, and the Allies still had at least the same kind of combat experience.
Only about 15% of US troops ever fired their weapon in combat.

Considering that the Soviets had a much tougher time for most of the war, when they had to use every last reserve unit (plus whole regiments of women), I think that percentage would be much higher for them.

40% of the German army was in the West by 1944, and 60% was in the East...
Have you got a link on that?
I think you might be thinking of 1945, or very late 1944, when the battles in France were mostly over and the German army in the East was mostly destroyed.

...so it would not be true to say that the Eastern front was all-consuming (even though it was the decisive theater).
The point is moreso that the war was over by the time the Allies landed. With Operation Bagration, the German Front was destroyed. Whether or not the Americans played attacked for a bit in the West would not have made a difference anymore.

If they defeated Germany, the allies could certainly take on the Russians, and at least they would have taken Korea and taken over the eastern parts of the USSR.
Korea? First they'd have to land there, and face off with the Soviet Eastern Divisions, which had just kicked the Japanese' arse quite decisively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Storm

So, when you look at it this way, it might have been another costly war against an enemy who was not willing to surrender because they were led by Stalin, who would see the whole country nuked and still not give up.
The problem is that the Soviet Union is so big that with 1945-style nukes, you wouldn't do anything to it.
You might be able to annihilate a few cities, but that wouldn't bother the industry, the military or even the leadership much.

North Korea, Cuba: Economic basket cases held together on cults of personality (which, BTW, is a very *non* classical Communist trait...)

Oh, please. Personality cults are endemic in all dictatorial regimes. It's only natural that Stalinist ones have them.

...yet, they have nothing to do with communism itself. Actually, where were the statues of Lenin before Stalin came to power in the USSR?

And come to think of it, Cuba isn't really able to embrace free trade right now even if they wanted to, are they? :p


China, Viet Nam: Slowly liberalizing states that weren't even Communist during WW2. Undergoing massive economic expansion by ignoring Communist economic theory and embracing Capitalism.

Er...

How much communist theory do you actually know?

To put things simply; Marx, following on from Hegel's theory of dialectic materialism, and opposing certain other leftists of the era like Kropotkin, wrote that an industrial capitalist economy must exist before socialism can be brought about.

Lenin and many of the Bolsheviks also recognised it and knew that unless Germany had a revolution, it would be near impossible for the Bolsheviks to hold onto power considering the nature of Russia at that time. (so therefore, many foolishly turned to Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" policy, which set the foundations for the brutal regimes you call attention to.)

It could be argued, then, that the governments of Vietnam and China are completely in accordance with Marxist theory.

Now, regardless of your stance upon Marx or the Bolsheviks...I'm not an orthodox Marxist, and I don't care for the Bolsheviks at all (not to mention the more directly relevant example of China), your opinion does not illustrate any latent superiority capitalism holds over communism, i'm afraid.

IIRC the Communist tanks didn't do too well in Korea.

I'm not sure if that's true, but your other points aside (which Leonstein is addressing fine), that's 'cause Korea is mountainous, with soft marshy areas inbetween. Generally a bad idea for massed armoured warfare.

I am sure the Germans were thankful they didn't have Mark Clarke in their ranks.-Useless git.

everyone face facts New Zealand killed the best German soldiers, Quit arguing.

I am sure the Germans were thankful they didn't have Mark Clarke in their ranks.-Useless git.

everyone face facts New Zealand killed the best German soldiers, Quit arguing.
This guy's got a point... Those crazy New Zealanders.

IIRC the Communist tanks didn't do too well in Korea.
http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2002/04/msg00044.html
Found this regarding tanks in Korea.

It's true that the T-34 design had reached the end of its life, and that the Soviets didn't get their new tanks involved directly. Nonetheless, considering the relative communist success, I don't think one can say that their tanks really failed to do what they were meant to do.

This guy's got a point... Those crazy New Zealanders.
It is true, the SS never defeated us, we chased Afrika Korp all across the desert and whipped the Paras at Salerno.

It is true, the SS never defeated us, we chased Afrika Korp all across the desert and whipped the Paras at Salerno.
And I was being sarcastic, calm down...:rolleyes:

It is true, the SS never defeated us, we chased Afrika Korp all across the desert and whipped the Paras at Salerno.
The SS never defeated the Chinese either...:p

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/northafrica-overview

The british staff examined the possibility of a war with the USSR in mid 1945 to guarantee polish independence (The reason why the war started in the first place :rolleyes: ). They concluded that there was practically no chance of winning a quick decisive limited war, and if hostilities started the USSR numerical superiority on land would quickly result in being drawn into a protracted total war with the USSR.

As part of the plan, it was intended that german troops should be re-armed to fight alongside the western allies.

Operation Unthinkable (http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/)

In any case, the conclusion was that a total war with the USSR would be unlikely. Of course this assesment was made without considering the use of nuclear weapons.

Operation Unthinkable (http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/)
Thanks. I was looking for something like that all day. :)

EDIT: Seems like their conclusion is something like "We'd get thoroughly pwned!"

- The Ak-47 would never have showed up in the Third World, meaning many fewer people would have died (French and Isreali dealers might have still sold weapons to Third World criminals anyway, but at least not as many guns would be sold)


Are you joking or on crack? People have been killing each other for millenia, you think a different weapon would change that? If the AK was not available, prospective dictators would just find other suppliers of some other weapon.

Oh, please. Personality cults are endemic in all dictatorial regimes. It's only natural that Stalinist ones have them.

Note that I was talking about CLASSICAL Communism (ala Marx & Engles).

...yet, they have nothing to do with communism itself. Actually, where were the statues of Lenin before Stalin came to power in the USSR?

And come to think of it, Cuba isn't really able to embrace free trade right now even if they wanted to, are they? :p

Agreed. Dunno, never been to Moscow. However, his small statue in Bratislava is now gone. ;)

Sure they could. All they have to do is remain Communist while "retiring" Castro. ;)


Er...

How much communist theory do you actually know?

Having lived in Czechoslovakia in the 80s, quite a lot, thanks.

To put things simply; Marx, following on from Hegel's theory of dialectic materialism, and opposing certain other leftists of the era like Kropotkin, wrote that an industrial capitalist economy must exist before socialism can be brought about.

Absolutly. One of the flaws here being that the former & current Communist states went politically Communist and these two (three, if you count Laos) have shifted away from economic Communism. The Manifesto quite clearly states that the Revolution will come AFTER the pinacle of Capitalism, not during the machinations of a Communist state. Indeed, M&E would have found such a thought preposterous.

Lenin and many of the Bolsheviks also recognised it and knew that unless Germany had a revolution, it would be near impossible for the Bolsheviks to hold onto power considering the nature of Russia at that time. (so therefore, many foolishly turned to Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" policy, which set the foundations for the brutal regimes you call attention to.)

Yep.

It could be argued, then, that the governments of Vietnam and China are completely in accordance with Marxist theory.

It could. And it can equally be argued that since they're revolution is "backwards" that they are even more of a failed Communist state than Czechoslovakia in 1969 or East Germany in 1990: the counter-revolutionaries have seemingly won.

Now, regardless of your stance upon Marx or the Bolsheviks...I'm not an orthodox Marxist, and I don't care for the Bolsheviks at all (not to mention the more directly relevant example of China), your opinion does not illustrate any latent superiority capitalism holds over communism, i'm afraid.

Never said it did, just that Communism is dying out, and is bankrupt as an economic theory. The only possible successful Communist state was that of the Spartans, and they had outlawed currency. Indeed, there has not been any successful Communist state since the killing of Tsar Nicholas.

Fox On The Rhine is a good book to go with this - basically the Von Stauffenberg plot succeeds, Rommel becomes the new Chancellor and leads the Wehrmarch against the USSR alongside General Patton. War ends with the US nuking Berlin to stop the advancing Russians and Stalin saying WWIII was all a misunderstanding, liquidates half his officer corp, plots revenge.

:confused:

Is there a vastly different British version of that book? The book by that name that I read had Himmler taking over after Hitler was killed.. He signed an armistice with the Russians. The result was a different (better?) operation Wacht Am Rhein led by Rommel and supported by mass produced ME-262 fighters. It ends with Rommel surrendering because he knew Germany would be better off under Western occupation rather than under the Soviets.

EDIT: Seems like their conclusion is something like "We'd get thoroughly pwned!"

Yep. The US/Commonwealth force structure was inadequate to take on the Red Army conventionally. Probably they could have harrased it around the flanks initially, using the Navy and whatnot, but there just wasn't the number of men or the right kind of equipment to beat the red army back into the USSR.

And if the Red Army suceeded in driving the Allies off the continent, there really would have been no chance of mounting another sucessful D-Day.

Basically, the USSR had a huge advantage because all it had really done is spend the last four years developing a mamoth land army and the infrastructure to support it.

Cynical people claim this is why the US actually dropped the bomb on Japan. Sort of as a warning.

And I was being sarcastic, calm down...:rolleyes:
I am being serious.

The SS never defeated the Chinese either...:p

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/northafrica-overview
We engaged the SS though...
The New Zealanders used their bayonets to telling effect in the hand-to-hand fighting that ensued.
Silly Germans.;)

That's because he was a lunatic...


You wouldn't have happened to read the final entries in Joseph Goebbels diaries, would you?
No one has, only JOSEPH GOEBBELS WOULD'VE READ THAT!
Thats right. I know who you are;)

No one has, only JOSEPH GOEBBELS WOULD'VE READ THAT!
Thats right. I know who you are;)
Lol
Goebbels had Polio.:p

Even if the numbers were correct - the Allies would have had 5 million in the whole of Western Europe, while the Soviets would have had 5 million actual frontline troops.
A million were fighting in Berlin alone.


How can you have a whole series of books and still believe that?

The "obsolete" German designs on the Eastern Front were the Panther and Tiger tanks, which were all developed with the T-34 in mind and first deployed in the East.
Yes, initially the T-34 only faced old German tanks, and picked them off in masses - but it was continuously improved and kept up.
Not to forget the Iosif Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-3) series, which was the best tank in the world.

And the "best troops" were in the East for most of the war. Only a few units (like SS-Panzerlehr) were moved to the West, and caused all sorts of havoc there.
Bigger and more experienced forces, like the Leibstandarte, Großdeutschland, Wiking served only in the East.


The same goes for the Soviet designs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34_variants)...to the point where the T-34 became the T-54 only two years after the war.


I'm not disputing that the country was ravaged by war, and the economy going badly. But the thing that matters for fighting a war, ie weapons production, was going splendidly for the Soviets.

I hate to point this out you but the Russians lost about a hundred for every one they killed...ummmm if you had a clue you would realize that the only thing realy helping them was the fact that there was not enough bullets to kill all of them...if that your idea of ..." Strategy " well ...thats what the west decided to defend against after the war...hold them and KILL them in huge MASSES ...study a bit and get back to me .

General George S. Patton Jr. was in charge of the 2nd infantry division in World War 2, and fought in North Africa while working his way up to Europe. He was the only US general which the Nazis actually FEARED and his most memorable quote is probably, ""No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

All of this aside, Patton had the idea that the Allies should team up with the Axis forces, and overthrow Communism, then finish off the Nazis. Now I do understand that this would be almost impossible to do, seeing as how we were already fighting them and that they started the war etc.

But lets assume that the Allies did team up with the Nazis and defeat the Red Army. (Yes I know that was probably impossible given the brutality of the Russians.) But assuming we did beat the Soviets, how would the world look today? Since Russia has much more influence given it's size, I think that Patton's idea was quite genius. Communism would not have been spread, and the Allied forces would have been able to conquer the fascists after conquering the Russians.

In this way, Communism would not have spread around the world, and in my opinion, the world would possibly be a better place today.
Yes, that is the problem: communism spreading.
And yes, that is the solution: an alliance with the Nazis.

Now go back to shooting cans and stop trolling.

I hate to point this out you but the Russians lost about a hundred for every one they killed...ummmm if you had a clue you would realize that the only thing realy helping them was the fact that there was not enough bullets to kill all of them...if that your idea of ..." Strategy " well ...thats what the west decided to defend against after the war...hold them and KILL them in huge MASSES ...study a bit and get back to me .
Your point has been refuted long before you even made it, my friend.

By who ? Please try to prove me wrong.....no one has proven it wrong since WW2 ...you can be first...Google the casualties .....start there ...ummm just a little bit out of proportion...ummmm....other than that there are ALL of the GENERALS BIOGRAPHYS that say the same thing ...so excuse me for excepting history . Especially the history written by those who MADE it .

and no ONE makes excuses for the germans underestimating Russian capacity for industry or design . TACTICS by the Russian army is the point ...not equipment .

By who ? Please try to prove me wrong...
Hell, I don't even know what your point is anymore.

The Soviet equipment was pretty good, in tank design they were the best.
Their strategies took a while to perfect (no wonder if you have most of your general staff purged), but by 1944 they were routinely killing more enemies than they lost troops.

And Lacadaemon's link regarding the outcome of a war between the USSR and the Allies in 1945 is pretty clear as well.

As for the proportion of casualties...there were a lot more Russians too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country

Hell, I don't even know what your point is anymore.

The Soviet equipment was pretty good, in tank design they were the best.
Their strategies took a while to perfect (no wonder if you have most of your general staff purged), but by 1944 they were routinely killing more enemies than they lost troops.

And Lacadaemon's link regarding the outcome of a war between the USSR and the Allies in 1945 is pretty clear as well.

As for the proportion of casualties...there were a lot more Russians too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country

I agree.

Even supposing by some miracle the allies had won such a conflict (anything is possible), the cost would have been so high as to make it a phyrric victory.

What many people assume is that the Soviet Union was stronger than the west, militarily and economically. Although they were stronger militarily throughout the whole war, their economy, and that of the Warsaw Pact nations, was much weaker than that of the West.

So, if the West really wanted to win, it would re-instate the draft and make a 100% effort toward winning the war. The Soviet Union had about 100 million people, but America alone had about twice that for most of the Cold War.

If the West really ever wanted to, it could have qualitative AND quantitative superiority over the Warsaw Pact. It would only be motiviated to do this, of course, in a life-or-death situation.

edit: And as for Soviet equipment, some of you still think that it was fairly good. Well, I've already talked about the inferiority of the T-34, and I hope you're not still talking about that. But all of the Soviet equipment, even though it may have had a lot of firepower in armor, was markedly inferior in everything else (fire control, egronomics, reliability (there's a common myth that all Russian equipment is reliable, but this is only actually true in a few cases, namely the MiG fighters and the AK-47 only, low quality of manufacturing meant that, for example, the T-55 engine could only go 500 miles without being completely replaced)). Their ammunition was of low-grade steel and often shattered on impact. Although some of the soldiers had a lot of combat experience, they where rapidly replaced by 2-year conscripts, and the Allied armies, which had a lot of volunteers, kept their experienced people for longer. All this means is that, although on paper Russian tanks, guns, etc. had bigger guns and heavier armor than the Allied equivalents, they were much weaker pound-for-pound, everything considered. It took them three years to defeat the Germans after Stalingrad, even though the Russians had an immense advantage in manpower and industry (especially considering the diversions caused by the Allied land advance and strategic bombing). The Allies took two years, even though their advantage in manpower was not as marked. The only reason Russia usually wins wars is just by getting by with sheer numbers, and if you even out the numbers on both sides, they crumble.

I hate to point this out you but the Russians lost about a hundred for every one they killed...ummmm if you had a clue you would realize that the only thing realy helping them was the fact that there was not enough bullets to kill all of them...if that your idea of ..." Strategy " well ...thats what the west decided to defend against after the war...hold them and KILL them in huge MASSES ...study a bit and get back to me .
A hundred? Do you even know what you are talking about? :rolleyes:

Typically the Germans were able to force only a 3:1 tank kill ratio over the course of most Soviet offensives. That's better than what the US/UK M4s were able to achieve in France - the allies had to rely on air power to destroy German armour, because their ground units were not capable of engaging on equal terms. Even infantry losses averaged 4:1 on the Eastern Front. A hundred is a bit of an exaggeration.

And yes, that is a reasonable strategy when your army has divisions with four-digit numbers. Has the Allies attempted to force the Red Army out of Europe, the war of annihilation would have continued for another couple of years, and after fighting only the German rear-guard, the western allies would have been taken aback by what Soviet combined arms Army Groups were capable of. And they had the air support and ground attack capability too - Kursk 1943 was accompanied by the largest air battle of all time, during which the Soviet VVS owned the Luftwaffe.

It really would not have been simple at all, and Europe would have been destroyed, making victory for anyone meaningless.

The SS never defeated the Chinese either...:p

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/northafrica-overview
That also makes no mention of the deeds of Minqar Qaim.


At the time of the Nazi assault on the USSR in June 1941, the Red Army had 303 divisions and 22 brigades (4.8 million troops), of which 166 divisions and 9 brigades (2.9 million troops) were in the western military districts. Their Axis opponents had at the Eastern Front 181 divisions and 18 brigades (5.5 million troops). The first weeks of the War saw the annihilation of virtually the entire Soviet Air Force on the ground, as well as major equipment, tanks, artillery, and major Soviet defeats as German forces trapped hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in vast pockets.

During the Great Patriotic War, the Red Army drafted a staggering 29,574,900 in addition to the 4,826,907 in service at the beginning of the war.
Those are straight from the Wiki and although i dislike Wiki it is the best i could find, although it leaves me asking does that include Air Force Personel?
I intended Googleing 'Red Army Divisional Sizes' and Red Army Divisional Strengths but got no real luck so i went on the premise that a Brigade is 4,000 men even though the Russians had reduced Battalion strengths i also suspect this affected the other unit formations sizes.

303 Divisions +22 Brigades/3 Brigades in a Division=7 extra Divs
310/4,800,000=15,483.87(I added the .87 for a good reason)
Then remember the Soviets had women in their ranks and sorry to say it ladies pound for pound i'd rather have men than women by my side in combat, although that might not mater much when they are behined 6 inches of steel.

Shortly after 0300 hours on the morning of 22 June 1941, 30 hand-picked Luftwaffe bomber crews crossed the Soviet frontier at high altitude. In groups of three, these bombers struck 10 major Soviet air bases precisely at 0315 hours, the time when a brief artillery bombardment signaled the start of the ground war. As soon as the sun rose, the Luftwaffe followed up this attack with a force of 500 bombers, 270 dive bombers, and 480 fighters to hit 66 Soviet airfields in the forward areas. The Soviet Air Force lost over 1,200 aircraft in the first morning of the war.
http://www.mfa.gov.by/eng/index.php?d=belarus&id=6
^That i just found interesting, who would have that Belarus could almost be helpful when supplying information.

But then i read on a bit and found this...
A large portion of the Wehrmacht regarded the Soviet people as bumbling and potentially treacherous subhumans. In itself this is by no means a unique psychological failing. Soldiers feel the need to dehumanize or demonize their opponents in order to overcome their natural reluctance to kill, and atrocities have all too frequently ensued. In dealing with Soviet prisoners and civilians, however, this unofficial German attitude produced widespread instances of brutality and murder. Quite apart from the moral implications of such conduct, the German behavior served to alienate potential allies and to spark widespread resistance.

The most obvious explanation for the German brutality was the horror of the Eastern Front itself, where German troops suffered heavy casualties while they were isolated from society and surrounded by a hostile populace and terrain. In fact, however, the German troops engaged in atrocities almost from the start of the war. Long before the Nazi Party forces arrived in a given region, the first troops to enter a Soviet town frequently executed several people in an attempt to deter any resistance. The Commissar Order was often interpreted to mean the execution of anyone identified as a Communist Party member or anyone who appeared to be Jewish, since Nazi propaganda held that many Communists were Jewish. The troops frequently shot such people out of hand, even when ordered to turn them over to the Nazi security services for interrogation. Other prisoners were forced to clear land mines or engage in similar actions considered too dangerous for German troops.
Well actually German troops had been given a free hand to do as they pleased in regards to 'them' it was a directive put out when the invasion started.

Yet the greatest German intelligence error lay in underestimating the Soviet ability to reconstitute shattered units and create new forces. Given the German expectation of a swift victory, their neglect of this Soviet ability is perhaps understandable.

For much of the 1920s and 1930s, the Red Army had emphasized the idea of cadre and mobilization forces, formations that had very few active duty soldiers in peacetime but would gain reservists and volunteers to become full-fledged combat elements in wartime. By the time of the German invasion, the Soviet Union had a pool of 14 million men with at least basic military training. The existence of this pool of trained reservists gave the Red Army a depth and resiliency that was largely invisible to German and other observers.

A total of 5,300,000 reservists were called to the colors by the end of June, with successive mobilizations later. Thirteen new field armies appeared in July, 14 in August, 1 in September, and 4 in October. Yet this mobilization system, in conjunction with active duty units that moved from the eastern military districts to the west, retained enough strength to provide 8 more armies to defend Moscow in November and December, and another 10 new armies in the spring of 1942.

Meh just read the whole thing.

The strategic success of Bagration did not come without cost for the Soviets troops. Of the 2,331,000 troops engaged in the Belarusian and Lublin-Brest operations, 178,507 were killed or missing and 587,308 were wounded. In addition, 2,957 tanks and self-propelled guns, as well as 2,447 guns and mortars were lost in combat. Soviet casualties in the L'vov-Sandomierz operation totaled 65,001 killed or missing and 224,295 wounded, and meant the loss of another 1,269 tanks and self-propelled guns and 1,832 guns and mortars.

Despite these losses, Soviet manpower strength on the Eastern Front continued to rise from 6,394,500 troops (with another 727,000 in hospitals) on 12 March 1944 to almost 6,500,000 troops in late fall, while overall German strength ranged from 2,460,000 (plus 550,000 of its allies) on 1 June

Sure that is 6.5 million in '44 and the Soviets could have( and maybe/probably did) increase their numbers but they couldn't have been able to mass 34 million troops on an assault against the West, nor could they supply constantly supply them.
Operation Bagration
Contributing to the German defeat was the transfer of units in response to the invasion of Normandy two weeks earlier.
-Sure contributing but they couldn't have stopped them anyways, however that doesn't mean 'The West' couldn't have stopped them.
It isn't only a Normandy Invasion Force vs The Red Army why not add the few Divisions of 'Dragoon', the Italian Campaign, Pacific Theatre, The Rest of America 'twiddling her thumbs'(For want of a better discription), and of course Brazil.

Then i ask if D-Day was so insignificant why was Stalin always wanting this Second Front?
Didn't he think The Red Army was up to it?
Especially for a man who is credited with '1 Death is a tragedy, a million is just statistics.'*
Of course it could be said he just wanted the West to bleed, but why would the West cater to his perverse pleasures?
To gain as much of europe as possible in case/to stop the Ruskies taking the lot?

But why then was Simpson stopped outside Berlin???
Even if the boundaries for the future sectors had already been drawn up.

Reality is with the 'Allies' fighters such as the Spitfire, Hurricane and Mustang as well as the Kittyhawk a mass of Bombers even if it had been hard tack on the ground the 'Allies' would have claimed the air and so negated Soviet Ground strength as long as they could hold a few forward Airfields.

Also why bother supplying Russia with Goods, Food and supplies of War through the North Atlantic if Russia was so fantastic???
They may have had the numbers but we kept them going when they needed it most.

*Forgive me if the quote is offJust so you know if you can't understand what i said or get bored i win, even if i am stuck on the side of Ultraextreme Sanity.
Result: The West is Better than Soviet Russia;)
;)

-snip-
You're drunk, ain't ya? :p

At any rate, read Lacadaemon's link. It tells you everything they need to know, straight from the experts.

My main point was, "What would the world look like today without a strong Communist influence."


Not much different, really ...

http://www.unlc.biz/images/World%20Map.jpg

Are you joking or on crack? People have been killing each other for millenia, you think a different weapon would change that? If the AK was not available, prospective dictators would just find other suppliers of some other weapon.

Very true. Fabrique Nationale would be even richer (although they still do a lot of business with LEDCs, particularly in Africa) and it's not like nobody could reproduce the StG44 designs and simply sell those on.

That's because he was a lunatic...
He was far from a lunatic. He believed that controlled overwhelming aggression saved lives, particularly your own. As it happens he was right. Not that the idea, which is ancient, originated with him. It's hard to imagine Patton having a problem with how the USSR fell. A nearly bloodless war, and ideals of freedom, liberty, and democracy prevailed. It wasn't perfect or free, but the outcome wasn't any shade of objectionable as the alternative offered in the original post of this thread.

You're drunk, ain't ya? :p

At any rate, read Lacadaemon's link. It tells you everything they need to know, straight from the experts.
You can't trust the British for those sort's of things they are always doom-sayers.
I was going to read it but i spent enough time colating that jumble of facts and theories that i planned on doing it tomorrow.

In any case i stand by what was said no matter how inebriated i may or may not be.
Heck if 2NZD had been sen't to Normandy the war would have been over in 6 weeks and we would have taken Moscow before Summer.*

*Not serious
But i'd like to think we learnt a bit about Anti-tank warfare during all that time in the dessert to realise russia can have all the Tanks it would wan't if ytou have an NZ FDL with aquality AT screen and Hurricane Tank Busters you'd be 'good guns' just need to worry about Rusky Arty.

He was far from a lunatic.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060927623/104-7308211-6297545?v=search-inside&keywords=brain%20damage

By the way, I'm not getting into the whole Patton debate. Suffice to say that I consider him a fraud, someone who plays politics in the middle of a war, someone who doesn't mind if his guys get killed, as long as it makes him look good.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060927623/104-7308211-6297545?v=search-inside&keywords=brain%20damage

By the way, I'm not getting into the whole Patton debate. Suffice to say that I consider him a fraud, someone who plays politics in the middle of a war, someone who doesn't mind if his guys get killed, as long as it makes him look good.
Yep especially to save a weasel of a son in law.

But i'd like to think we learnt a bit about Anti-tank warfare during all that time in the dessert to realise russia can have all the Tanks it would wan't if ytou have an NZ FDL with aquality AT screen and Hurricane Tank Busters you'd be 'good guns' just need to worry about Rusky Arty.
You're free to like to think all you want...but to be honest, I see no evidence whatsoever that the NZ troops are particularly outstanding, for no other reason than being from NZ. Might as well use the Indians, or the Polish, or the French for that matter. They've all done very well indeed, particularly in the tough battles in Italy.
I've had some heated debates in these parts here as well. It's quite foreign to me that people would abandon all rationality and objectivity when it comes to one's history, but with regards to ANZAC, the Aussies certainly do.

It's quite foreign to me that people would abandon all rationality and objectivity when it comes to one's history, but with regards to ANZAC, the Aussies certainly do.

Meh, I liken our involvement in both World Wars to "Santa's Little Helper". Thinking beyond that is stupid. Our involvement in the Pacific was a definite contribution to the war effort, but the war would have been won anyway. We simply didn't have enough population to be the military powerhouse that folk legend would have we Orstrayuns believe.

NZ even more so.

You're free to like to think all you want...but to be honest, I see no evidence whatsoever that the NZ troops are particularly outstanding, for no other reason than being from NZ. Might as well use the Indians, or the Polish, or the French for that matter. They've all done very well indeed, particularly in the tough battles in Italy.
I've had some heated debates in these parts here as well. It's quite foreign to me that people would abandon all rationality and objectivity when it comes to one's history, but with regards to ANZAC, the Aussies certainly do.
Well i'd say that that is a tragedy for you that you can't see it.
Sure you could take the 4th Indian Division as well into account.

I didn't actually mean we as in New Zealand but we as in British, shame on you for thinking i would think New Zealand by it's self could beat the USSR.

Meh, I liken our involvement in both World Wars to "Santa's Little Helper". Thinking beyond that is stupid. Our involvement in the Pacific was a definite contribution to the war effort, but the war would have been won anyway. We simply didn't have enough population to be the military powerhouse that folk legend would have we Orstrayuns believe.

NZ even more so.
http://spatula-city.net/blog/img/outrage.jpg
That 'NZ even more so' comment is poor even for you i've never heard NZ regarded as a 'military powerhouse' nor Australia but it doesn't mean we weren't didn't have some of the finest Divisions in WWII even if you guys did go to the Pacific.


Low Populations don't mean the fighting standard of a unit is low.
Maybe Australian Divisions weren't rated highly in WWI but the New Zealand Division was noted as a 'Crack Unit' (And that has nothing to do with Gallipoli)

That 'NZ even more so' comment is poor even for you i've never heard NZ regarded as a 'military powerhouse' nor Australia but it doesn't mean we weren't didn't have some of the finest Divisions in WWII even if you guys did go to the Pacific.

Low Populations don't mean the fighting standard of a unit is low.
Maybe Australian Divisions weren't rated highly in WWI but the New Zealand Division was noted as a 'Crack Unit' (And that has nothing to do with Gallipoli)

I wasn't disputing the quality or fighting effectiveness of the soldiers at all, but rather the extent of our contribution (collectively), which is quite inflated in folklore. Obviously our men were very willing to put their lives on the line considering that neither of our nations had conscription and yet still managed to field a comparatively large volunteer force.

However, when it came down to it, our men couldn't be everywhere. We simply didn't have enough to carry on a sustained campaign of our own and make a real difference to the war effort. The Italians would have been routed in Africa anyway. New Guinea probably would have been a different story, but the war would have been won anyway had we lost that one.

Case in point with WW1 being that you note that New Zealand had a "crack" division. The Allies had how many total divisions in the field, though? 100? 200? 300? More? Our troops might have been good, but they had negligible impact.