Patton vs MacArthur

[Anthropoid]

Okay, so back on topic . . . Patton--MacArthur: which one was more psychopathic and insulting? [:D]
 
Two very big egos there; makes it hard to decide which one was less of a friend to humanity overall. I'll leave it to the experts <waddles back to the primeval graveyard from whence he materialized>

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I'm sorry , but I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you are saying , "They started it 1st", is that really an example of a logical debate , or a playground pushing match? If you feel you are being insulted, you should say it to the person right there, not insult them back. This whole "insult" matter might simply be a matter of someone not understanding you. As I didn't from what you said above.

Well, whatever.

Maybe its better just to push the green button if someone obviously only intends to provoce me...

I'm sorry if anyone innocent felt insulted by me.

What I'm trying to say is that on a forum where we have speakers of every language ,dialect and culture, there are bound to be misunderstandings. Giving others "the benefit of the doubout" is always good policy. If you feel insulted, why not ask right here and then "did you mean to insult me?" "what did you mean by that?". You can always slide into name-calling later. Why not try the peace-full approach 1st?

And yes, some people will always try to provoke you. That's why we have a green button and moderators. Use the button, or e-mail the mods. [:)]

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Japan
Additionaly I would like to add and repeat,  that indeed the materials helped Soviet out, especially in 1941-1943,   but after that they could do it all alone, with or without assistance. 

Sorry, but that simply isn't true. There is a reason the US had to send 14,000,000 boots and had to produce most of the trucks and jeeps Russia used. And the trucks Russia produced on its own were HEAVILY dependent on US lend lease imports of raw materials.

What was the reason you ask? Rubber. The total world production of rubber during the war averaged 0.92 million metric tons worldwide. Russia's own rubber production was so low, it rates a -- entry on the production chart, in other words it was insignificant to the war effort.

Russia didn't have any rubber industry to speak of, so it could not simply replace the production it received from lend lease at will. Do you really think it was cheaper to make these things in the west and then send them to Russia through U-boats and air attacks? No way, the reason so much was sent, was because it was desperately needed.

Russia had several other areas of production where their capacity was nil as well. Tin ore, Molybdenum, Sulphur and sugar cane were all in desperate short supply and totally dependent on lend lease aid. The only thing the US was short of was Tin ore, but luckily the British Empire produced almost 40% of the worlds Tin ore production, so it had plenty to go around.

Jim

@Jim D Burns


I recommen you read the books:

The Soviet economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945,
ISBN: 0-275-94893-5

Milward, Alan S. War, Economy and Society. Harmondsworth,
ISBN 0-14-022682-6

The Creation of the Anglo-American Alliance 1937-1941: A Study on Competitive Cooperation,
ISBN 0-90511-868-5




Im sure there is more, but I can't remember names on other books i have read about the subject.


Anyway sir, thank you for being part of the debate, Now I will move on with other things to take care of.

Good Day.

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Okay, so back on topic . . . Patton--MacArthur: which one was more psychopathic and insulting? [:D]

Two very big egos there; makes it hard to decide which one was less of a friend to humanity overall. I'll leave it to the experts <waddles back to the primeval graveyard from whence he materialized>

I submit the wikipedia "controversy" entries on the two men:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Ma ... troversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton#Pat ... _the_press

It would seem Mac's ego was bigger than Patton's, but I guess that's neither here nor there as far as their ability to carry out their assigned duties.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Okay, so back on topic . . . Patton--MacArthur: which one was more psychopathic and insulting? [:D]

Two very big egos there; makes it hard to decide which one was less of a friend to humanity overall. I'll leave it to the experts <waddles back to the primeval graveyard from whence he materialized>

Wouldn't it be better to simply say , who's your favorite General? And wouldn't it be better yet, instead of setting this up for a general free for all, to use the poll function? That way it's a vote for one or the other , but no comment? [:)] BTW, I thought your secret lair was Seattle? [:D]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

Okay, so back on topic . . . Patton--MacArthur: which one was more psychopathic and insulting? [:D]

Two very big egos there; makes it hard to decide which one was less of a friend to humanity overall. I'll leave it to the experts <waddles back to the primeval graveyard from whence he materialized>

I like patton more.
Ok, he was a declared antisemitic bastard - that's ugly - but didn't he wanted to rearm the wehrmacht and march on to Moscow? [;)]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I'm sorry , but I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you are saying , "They started it 1st", is that really an example of a logical debate , or a playground pushing match? If you feel you are being insulted, you should say it to the person right there, not insult them back. This whole "insult" matter might simply be a matter of someone not understanding you. As I didn't from what you said above.

Well, whatever.

Maybe its better just to push the green button if someone obviously only intends to provoce me...

I'm sorry if anyone innocent felt insulted by me.

What I'm trying to say is that on a forum where we have speakers of every language ,dialect and culture, there are bound to be misunderstandings. Giving others "the benefit of the doubout" is always good policy. If you feel insulted, why not ask right here and then "did you mean to insult me?" "what did you mean by that?". You can always slide into name-calling later. Why not try the peace-full approach 1st?

And yes, some people will always try to provoke you. That's why we have a green button and moderators. Use the button, or e-mail the mods. [:)]

I stayed polite for several posts while everyone else seems to have given up this...
Anyway, the green button seems to be good solution [:)]

[Anthropoid]

. . . he wanted to rearm the wehrmacht and march on to Moscow?

I had heard that (or at least seen it in a movie?), so I guess he couldn't be all bad?

That whole slappin' the soldier in the face bit does kinda suggest a frightening psyche inside that uniform though doesn't it? Or I dunno, call me new-fashioned . . .

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Japan
Anyway sir, thank you for being part of the debate, Now I will move on with other things to take care of.

I'm not really sure what your point is, as you've really not said anything. How would you feel had I simply said "I recommend you look at World War II A Statistical Survey", and then left the debate? kind of leaves one to wonder what the point is.

However, a quick Google found this excerpt from the book you cite, which more than backs up what I was saying that lend lease aid was essential to Russia's production:

Russia's dedication to the production of weapons was not enough to secure
victory. Lend-lease aid from Britain and the United States was essential,
especially transportation and communication equipment, clothing, and food.
Lend-lease and the launching of the second front were interrelated. To the
United States and Britain, supplying aid was an alternative to direct military
support on a second front. The Russians received $10.8 billion in value, about
one-fourth of all lend-lease materials exported by the United States. An
additional $5.9 billion in aid came from the British. 1 The Russians considered
both aid and the second-front treaty obligations of the West: providing aid was
no excuse for not providing military support. The Soviets believed that the
belated opening of the second front only hastened the defeat of Hitler, and that
the West exaggerated the importance of lend-lease. 2

Immediately after the German invasion on June 22, 1941, Stalin made a
personal appeal to the British for both a second front and supplies. 3 In July,
Lord Beaverbrook from Britain and Averell Harriman representing the United
States went to Moscow to learn what the Russians wanted and to make an
agreement concerning what Britain and the U.S. could provide. Even before the
conference concluded, the first convoy of supplies left Iceland on August 21,
1941. The conference met from September 29 to October 1, 1941. The result
was the first protocol. 4 The long detailed list was to be delivered between

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23354584

Jim

[Footslogger]

Heres a hypothectial...If the Allies attacked the Soviets, in 1945, having that Germany surrendured, would the German people take heart and join the Allies?

[Canoerebel]

How can you compare Patton and MacArthur, given the totally different sizes and responsibilities of their respective commands?&nbsp; Sort of like comparing John Hood at Antietam to John Hood at Nashville.

[frank1970]

Slapping soldiers needn´t bwe too bad.
Sepp Ditrich, an hardcore SS-officer once slapped a soldier for cowardice whom his military judges wanted to shoot.
I would have taken the slap everytime instead of a firing squad. [;)]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Slapping soldiers needn´t bwe too bad.
Sepp Ditrich, an hardcore SS-officer once slapped a soldier for cowardice whom his military judges wanted to shoot.
I would have taken the slap everytime instead of a firing squad. [;)]

[:D]
me too!

[AW1Steve]

How about a compromise? Slap-shot!!! (My apologies to non-hockey fans out there).[:D]

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

How about a compromise? Slap-shot!!! (My apologies to non-hockey fans out there).[:D]

Hmm, no, not really. [8D]

[Bearcat2]

I agree with those that say the Soviet Union could have defeated Germany by itself without a western military presence and&nbsp;they were mainly responsible&nbsp;for the German defeat.&nbsp; In the absence of Alled Lend lease; it would have been a riskier proposition; mainly, because Lend Lease included a lot more than just military equipment. Without the raw materials the west supplied, it would have been&nbsp;impossible for the Russians to maintain their production levels in military equipment; I can't remember the books; but there is more to the story of America supplying trucks to the Soviet Union than is being presented.&nbsp; The Soviets constantly kept asking for more trucks; they&nbsp;preferred the Fords,etc to their own domestically produced trucks.
I will disagree that the west could not have won the war by themselves, once we had the bomb and the means to deliver the bomb&nbsp;from America[B-36]the war was over,&nbsp;late 46' at the latest.
&nbsp;
To get back to the McArthur, Patton debate- kind of hard when they did not have similar commands.&nbsp; McArthur made strategic decisions that helped hasten the war in the pacific, Patton carried out the strategic designs of his superiors.&nbsp; I have never been impressed by the tactical decisions of McArthur; but his strategic decisions were first rate.&nbsp; Patton, IMHO;&nbsp; main attribute was his ability to keep the initiative and force the enemy to respond to his strategy. He was also capable of some boneheaded decisions[Task Force Baum for ex]
IMO; I like Curtis LeMay as the best American commmander.
&nbsp;

[Historiker]

IMO; I like Curtis LeMay as the best American commmander.

Especially because he wanted to bomb the shit out of the cuban commies in 1963 [;)][&o][;)]


Edit:
Why do the US forums censor "sh*t"? [:D]

[frank1970]

Patton and Mc did both a good job given the circumstances. Both weren´t brilliant, but neither they sucked awfully.
On the other hand I am quite sure, that putting Mc into Europe and Patton into Pacific would have ended in desaster on both fronts.

[Bearcat2]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Patton and Mc did both a good job given the circumstances. Both weren´t brilliant, but neither they sucked awfully.
On the other hand I am quite sure, that putting Mc into Europe and Patton into Pacific would have ended in desaster on both fronts.

I shudder to think of what might have happened in Europe if Mac was there; instead of Ike. Good thing the Soviets had the war won, with Mac in Europe, there would have been no western allied cooperation; talk about your Prima Donna's- Mac and Monty OH MY!

[marky]

ORIGINAL: Termite2

ORIGINAL: Frank

Patton and Mc did both a good job given the circumstances. Both weren´t brilliant, but neither they sucked awfully.
On the other hand I am quite sure, that putting Mc into Europe and Patton into Pacific would have ended in desaster on both fronts.

I shudder to think of what might have happened in Europe if Mac was there; instead of Ike. Good thing the Soviets had the war won, with Mac in Europe, there would have been no western allied cooperation; talk about your Prima Donna's- Mac and Monty OH MY!

exactly [:D]

mac and monty were so full of it their eyes mustve been deep brown[:D]