Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

The Russian cult of WWII


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-04-2013, 23:06
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
You need soldiers to wield the arms and they wanted to go home - the US forces had been seriously depleted already, and the pressure was on to move them to the Pacific. Of course it was considered, but the US public (and the UK etc) wanted it over. Europe was in ruins, millions had already died.
US forces were not in any way "seriously depleted" at the end of the war. It had amassed a fighting force that is likely to never be matched again in the future and its manufacturing capacity was equally unmatched.

Europe was in ruins, not America. Just the opposite.

Of course they realised that the Soviets were a huge threat, but they simply did not have the ability to deal with them. Nuclear weapons were months away from being ready at the end of the European conflict.
Even if your "months away" comment is true the Soviets didn't have a nuke until 1947. There was plenty of time to easily topple the Soviet Union with nukes.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-04-2013, 23:07
jesaya
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Loathed by the Daily Mail...
Posts: 25,898
The only perspective I need is the fact that at the end of WWII America was the only superpower and the only country with nukes and a willingness to use them. I'm simply saying what should have been done. Obviously Patton agreed. I'm sure he wasn't the only one. Just the threat of the use of nukes would probably have been enough to dismantle communism in the Soviet Union. In hindsight it was a mistake not to topple the Soviet Union.
Patton was an excellent strategic general in many respects but he lacked the long-term strategic thinking of others and completely lacked political vision. He was a fighter and always thought he could win. I would not take his opinion over that of Eisenhower or Churchill or Roosevelt.
jesaya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:09
Bungitin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 3,150
The two atom bombs were two different hand built prototypes, not production models and if IIRC just had the bits to make an immediate third. They were not available until after VE day anyway.

As for the Russkies, they only joined the war in the far east until the last minute, up until then they were neutral. Japan did not intercept US lend lease supplies through Vladivostok because of Russian neutrality, the Japanese left the American convoys alone.
Bungitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:09
hyena
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,686
Patton was an excellent strategic general in many respects but he lacked the long-term strategic thinking of others and completely lacked political vision. He was a fighter and always thought he could win. I would not take his opinion over that of Eisenhower or Churchill or Roosevelt.
May God have mercy on my enemies - because I certainly won't.

(Patton)
hyena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:10
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
Patton was an excellent strategic general in many respects but he lacked the long-term strategic thinking of others and completely lacked political vision. He was a fighter and always thought he could win. I would not take his opinion over that of Eisenhower or Churchill or Roosevelt.
He obviously knew what could have and should have been done since the fact remains, America had the ability to easily topple the Soviet Union and in hindsight it should have been done.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:12
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
The two atom bombs were two different hand built prototypes, not production models and if IIRC just had the bits to make an immediate third. They were not available until after VE day anyway.

As for the Russkies, they only joined the war in the far east until the last minute, up until then they were neutral. Japan did not intercept US lend lease supplies through Vladivostok because of Russian neutrality, the Japanese left the American convoys alone.
The Soviets didn't have a nuke until 1947, obviously giving America plenty of time to build more and destroy the Soviet Union.

I haven't been commenting on the things you mentioned in the second part of your post.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:12
jesaya
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Loathed by the Daily Mail...
Posts: 25,898
US forces were not in any way "seriously depleted" at the end of the war. It had amassed a fighting force that is likely to never be matched again in the future and its manufacturing capacity was equally unmatched.

Europe was in ruins, not America. Just the opposite.



Even if your "months away" comment is true the Soviets didn't have a nuke until 1947. There was plenty of time to easily topple the Soviet Union with nukes.
Sorry, but America was drained by the war - the men wanted to go home, the people wanted them home. The Soviet Union is huge - they could have continued to pour millions of men into the field and dragged the allies into exactly the same kind of fight they dragged the Germans into. Even deploying nuclear weapons - do you really think any politician would approve killing millions of civilians that were our allies?
jesaya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:14
jesaya
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Loathed by the Daily Mail...
Posts: 25,898
He obviously knew what could have and should have been done since the fact remains, America had the ability to easily topple the Soviet Union and in hindsight it should have been done.
He was a scrapper - a chancer who was excellent at short term goals to directed targets. Vital to the war after D-Day but he didn't understand the political or practical implications of his proposal. The man just liked fighting.,
jesaya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:17
Bungitin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 3,150
The Russians had 3 B29's so the capacity to deliver one was half there.
Bungitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:20
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
Sorry, but America was drained by the war - the men wanted to go home, the people wanted them home. The Soviet Union is huge - they could have continued to pour millions of men into the field and dragged the allies into exactly the same kind of fight they dragged the Germans into. Even deploying nuclear weapons - do you really think any politician would approve killing millions of civilians that were our allies?
You are naively judging politicians from back then to your views of politicians today. Politicians of today would never have used nukes or even carpet bombed cities. The Soviet Union was also well known to not be a true partner in the war.

And no, America was not "drained." The fact that any soldier ultimately wants to go home is a ridiculous indication of that. You are also dismissing what America amassed by the end of the war and its unmatched manufacturing capabilities. That makes no sense.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:21
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
The Russians had 3 B29's so the capacity to deliver one was half there.
Huh? Who says you needed a B-29 to deliver a nuke?
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:23
KJ44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: location location
Posts: 27,454
Why not? They had just been used in two Japanese cities.
How many bombs would it have needed? Where would the fallout settle?

I'm henceforth responding to your argument by recommending some more alternate history science fiction. Enjoy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar

Worldwar is a series of novels by Harry Turtledove whose premise is an alien invasion of Earth in the middle of World War II. The military invasion begins on or around May 30, 1942, but the aliens, who call themselves the Race, reached Earth orbit in December 1941.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Time
The novels deal with the radical alteration of the history of World War II and the socio-historical changes that result when a technologically advanced naval task force from the year 2021 is accidentally transported back through time to 1942.
KJ44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:23
jesaya
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Loathed by the Daily Mail...
Posts: 25,898
You are naively judging politicians from back then to your views of politicians today. Politicians of today would never have used nukes or even carpet bombed cities. The Soviet Union was also well known to not be a true partner in the war.

And no, America was not "drained." The fact that any soldier ultimately wants to go home is a ridiculous indication of that. You are also dismissing what America amassed by the end of the war and its unmatched manufacturing capabilities. That makes no sense.
No, I am basing my views on having a) read a large amount about WW2 and b) having listened to the first hand view of someone who was there at the time. I am perfectly aware of what the politicians were capable of then - but they were still politicians. The people of the US and the UK wanted the war to end and politicians want to be re-elected.
jesaya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:23
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
He was a scrapper - a chancer who was excellent at short term goals to directed targets. Vital to the war after D-Day but he didn't understand the political or practical implications of his proposal. The man just liked fighting.,
And he rightly knew America could defeat the Soviet Union and should have been defeated. It would have been the correct thing to do, unless you sympathize with tyrannical communist governments.

Whether you like it or not America had the ability to nuke away the Soviet Union. That's a fact.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:27
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
No, I am basing my views on having a) read a large amount about WW2 and b) having listened to the first hand view of someone who was there at the time. I am perfectly aware of what the politicians were capable of then - but they were still politicians. The people of the US and the UK wanted the war to end and politicians want to be re-elected.
I'm simply saying what could have easily been done and should have been done.

You are also not the only person that has talked to and listened to veterans and people of that period. Every American WWII veteran I have spoken to agrees that the Soviet Union should have been toppled when we had the chance. Every single one! And I have spoken to and known many.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:28
Bungitin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 3,150
I will have to take Churchills word for it,

but he was at great pains to suggest that he lobbied to get America to keep its forces viable in Europe for an offensive against Russia, hence he's 'Iron Curtain' speech post war. Churchill was suspicious of Stalin from about mid-war but Roosevelt was less fussed, perhaps differing war priorities.
Bungitin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:28
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
How many bombs would it have needed? Where would the fallout settle?

I'm henceforth responding to your argument by recommending some more alternate history science fiction. Enjoy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar

Worldwar is a series of novels by Harry Turtledove whose premise is an alien invasion of Earth in the middle of World War II. The military invasion begins on or around May 30, 1942, but the aliens, who call themselves the Race, reached Earth orbit in December 1941.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_Time
The novels deal with the radical alteration of the history of World War II and the socio-historical changes that result when a technologically advanced naval task force from the year 2021 is accidentally transported back through time to 1942.
Obviously fallout wasn't a consideration back then and it only took two to get the Japanese to surrender.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:30
jesaya
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Loathed by the Daily Mail...
Posts: 25,898
And he rightly knew America could defeat the Soviet Union and should have been defeated. It would have been the correct thing to do, unless you sympathize with tyrannical communist governments.

Whether you like it or not America had the ability to nuke away the Soviet Union. That's a fact.
No, it isn;t a fact and that has been explained to you. Had Patton continued into Poland and Russia his forces would have been crushed... months before the US managed to test the first bomb. Where would that have left the fight against Japan? I don't think you have thought this through to be honest.
jesaya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:31
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,212
Having read through the last page, there's a couple of things to bear in mind....

Regarding the Soviets only starting to negotiate civilly on the postwar future of Europe once the Bomb was dropped...don't forget that Stalin already knew about MANHATTAN! It was already colouring his behaviour...

The USSR did NOT have an endless supply of manpower - in fact, it was about to fall off the edge of a manpower precipice! It had to summon up 2nd-echelon troops from all over the Eastern Front to complete the encirclement of Berlin...

....it was the huge output of its industries as transferred to the USSR BY the U.S. that only allowed the Soviets to mobilise the manpower they did! Look at the list of stuff I've already mentioned - imagine how many hundreds of thousands of industrial and agricultural workers the USSR would have needed to keep on its farms and in its factories to produce all that!!!

The U.S. did not suffer manpower losses on anything ressembling the scale that many other nations did during the war. Not only was the Pacific War fought on a virtual shoestring - no more than 250,000 combat troops in the Pacific Theatre at any one time from 1942-45!...and most of them FED out of New Zealand!!!...up to 2/5 of ALL combat and transport aircraft built in the U.S. during the war years never left the Continental U.S.! There was a HUGE stockpile of materiel AND recruits in training that the U.S. simply never used! They were looking for example at absorbing losses of one million men in the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands had it been necessary...
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:32
KJ44
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: location location
Posts: 27,454
Obviously fallout wasn't a consideration back then and it only took two to get the Japanese to surrender.
It's a good thing for Europe that the USofA was inept by your standards back then; freedom is not much use if you're dead or can't have kids.
KJ44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:34
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The Black Country
Posts: 99,705
I agree that Russia lost the most in WW2 and contributed the most towards final victory over the Germans, but I really don't think that slating the Western allies is necessary. We all gave a lot and lost a lot. At one point Britain stood alone against the nazi war machine, whilst prior to 22nd June 1941,Stalin had a pact with Hitler, who between them had carved up Poland.
It is true that the USSR didn't give a stuff about us till they were attacked. They even had communists causing disorder in our factories
What if Hitler had never invaded Russia. I wonder how much the Russians would have cared about our fate.
Not at all
Another point: The Western allies let the Russians take Berlin in recognition of their suffering under the Germans. Had we wanted to, we could have taken Berlin long before the Russians reached it.
The Western Allies let the USSR take Berlin because it would be the USSR doing the fighting and the dying
Yeah, this country gave a hell of a lot in WW2, and after wards we were exhausted, run down and on our arse for several years.
We not only supplied the USSR in the north we also supplied them in the south via Iran.

Untill Pearl harbour we had to give the USSR half of what we got from the USA.
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:35
jesaya
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Loathed by the Daily Mail...
Posts: 25,898
I'm simply saying what could have easily been done and should have been done.

You are also not the only person that has talked to and listened to veterans and people of that period. Every American WWII veteran I have spoken to agrees that the Soviet Union should have been toppled when we had the chance. Every single one! And I have spoken to and known many.
The person I spoke to was actually a senior officer in Eisenhower's HQ - my uncle. My aunt, who was a war correspondent and travelled with Patton across Europe from D-Day to the end of the war, agreed. They saw the bigger picture from first hand and you are in a dream if you think the US were in any kind of state to fight the USSR. They saw what happened to the Germans and Poles... no way were they going to take that on. Political suicide.
jesaya is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:40
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
No, it isn;t a fact and that has been explained to you. Had Patton continued into Poland and Russia his forces would have been crushed... months before the US managed to test the first bomb. Where would that have left the fight against Japan? I don't think you have thought this through to be honest.
It is a fact that America had nukes for quite some time before the Soviets did!

LOL, why would they need to "test" their nuke when they had already successfully delivered two of two different designs?!
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:44
PPhilster
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,693
The person I spoke to was actually a senior officer in Eisenhower's HQ - my uncle. My aunt, who was a war correspondent and travelled with Patton across Europe from D-Day to the end of the war, agreed. They saw the bigger picture from first hand and you are in a dream if you think the US were in any kind of state to fight the USSR. They saw what happened to the Germans and Poles... no way were they going to take that on. Political suicide.
Once again, I am simply saying what could have been done and what should have been done.

Your claim to know the people you say you knew is a bit out there but in no way is more valuable than the opinions expressed by the common soldier on what could have been and should have been done, especially in hindsight.
PPhilster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-04-2013, 23:45
jesaya
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Loathed by the Daily Mail...
Posts: 25,898
It is a fact that America had nukes for quite some time before the Soviets did!

LOL, why would they need to "test" their nuke when they had already successfully delivered two of two different designs?!
They tested the bomb in July 1945 - two and a half months after the fall of Berlin. They didn't deliver the bombs on Japan until August. At the time when Patton wanted to continue to attack the Russians they didn't even know the bombs would work.
jesaya is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:15.