Many argue America should have continued East & fought Russia
bottom line the world would be ed if hitler won, and instead of nitpicking you should be thankfull, son
Many argue America should have continued East & fought Russia
why didn't the us come over and defeat the nazis? why did they let the "primitive animals" do all the work? your complaints make me![]()
lol they would have been destroyed, at the time of raping of berlin, russia had the most battle tested and experienced army, with the most equipment, america's power base an ocean away, your knowledge is lacking to say the least, seriously
Stalin, let's be fair here bro
Without those trucks, there would be no way you could transport all those soldiers so quickly to their death.
there is some truth to that
George S Patton
"The difficulty in understanding the Russians is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinaman or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them, except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other Asiatic characteristics, the Russian have no regard for human life and is an all out son of , barbarian, and chronic drunk. "
"We're going to have to fight the Russians eventually anyway. It might as well be now while we've already got the army here to do it. "
""I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for rive days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"
""I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers, with few exceptions, give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits." "
"In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better." Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger."
BR is using solid logic tbh. 0.5 + 0.5 = 1
Classic blunder. Never fight a land war in Asia.
thats one american generals opinion, so what? the majority were not as deluded thankfully for you, he also happened to have a convinient accident that claimed his life after those aggressive comments, looks like not all your leadership was as foolish in thinking you could win a war after russia beat the greatest army in history
An excerpt from a TOAOW doc :
"[...]Only the defeat of the Red Army would win the war, and with each year that passed, it was an army that would become stronger and stronger until it was largely invincible at the end of the war, the strongest military force on Earth. If Patton had gotten his wish to deal with the Russians at the close of World War II, it is very likely that the Soviet generals would have handed him his head!"
In a hypothetical situation, IF the USA kept fighting against the USSR after WW2, what would have happened?
I think the Russians would have won with their 7 million+ infantry, 18000+ tanks (with 4000+ IS 2s, not to mention the IS-3s which would be used) and 200000 arty pieces, but it would have been a great war of attrition vs the US's 5 million soldiers, 10000+ tanks (the pershings and super variants would see much use probably) and comparable number of arty.
It would have been a great fight, that's for sure. I think the logistics would support the USSR better as their resource base was closer than the Soviets.
as well as some more of patton's valuable opinions below
Patton's initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower's insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part: "This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General . . . The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it."
These experiences and a great many others firmly convinced Patton that the Jews were an especially unsavory variety of creature and hardly deserving of all the official concern the American government was bestowing on them.
taking a dumbass like patton seriously, give me a break scrah
Doesn't seem like Patton stated anything falsely
patton always talked big, but he was used to fighting a depleted and defeated nazi army, not a raging steamroller that the red army was in 1945, that actually won wwII, US was a sideshow, just look at the number of soldiers and materiel involved in their "battles" in comparison to when russia and germany faced of, don't make me laugh, brah
You are mistaking me, I am not cheer leading the US. As their effect in the European War is greatly exaggerated in this country
if he was right, why didn't any other american generals agree with him, and take up his cause? why only him? why did he have a convenient accident after making those claims? even he says that the red army would be too powerfull unless attacked immediatelly, russia survived the might of a full strength, experienced, nazi army that just conquered all of europe in 1941, you think they could not have taken on a relatively green outnumbered and outgunned american army in europe an ocean away from their homeland? you show your ignorance over and over, you sound like a butthurt polack, guess that explain these weak attempts of yours
finally you're starting to make sense, better late then never
sons it doesn't matter which team won a shortened season championship they deserve an asterisk next to it. the Spurs just so happen to be the 1999 asterisk season champions and have an opportunity to take advantage and win another one.
any team that has ever won a shortened season championship in any sport did so by taking the easy route. those "championships" are simply not in the same category as a regular season championship. its the easy way out.
66 games or 82 games regular season means nothing, don't make excuses for failing to win...
Couldn't USA have simply dropped an Atomic Bomb on Russia within a few years time?
What do you think of Trotsky?
russia had their own nukes as of 1947, in 1945 us didn't have that many to make a difference, how many died from nukes in japan? couple of hundred thousand if that, i believe, you think russia would have sued for peace after those casualties, when millions died in wwII vs germany?
lol thinking the Spurs are going to win the ring.
Gotcha. Under this make believe scenario the US would have to bomb Russia as trying to fight Russia/Japan would be too difficult
Anyway, England was in shambles & Churchill's bending over to Stalin did not help matters with Truman especially
At first glance, I thought this was a thread from 2006.
If three les in 2003, 2005 and 2007 weren't sufficient to erase the asterisk from 1999 (by the flawed logic of people who think so,) then why would another le in 2012 do the trick?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)