Patton vs MacArthur

[stuman]

To get further off target, I think that I can safely speak for all North Americans ( I only feel comfortable representing this continent ) when I say that we sincerely hope that our European friends have reached the point where they are no longer going to start wars that result in the deaths of tens of millions of people. It had gotten very tiresome.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: pad152
I think the war in Europe would have ended sooner if Patton gotten the fuel and supplies vs. Market Garden. MacArthur did a great job in Japan post war, wish we had some one like him in post war Iraq.

I disagree, it wasn't Mac, rather it was the entrenched culture of the Japanese. Once the emperor had told them to lay down their arms and cooperate, it was a forgone conclusion that Mac would receive total loyalty from the Japanese. So he benefited from a unified culture group completely loyal to its leader, where in Iraq you have three completely different culture groups, which themselves are each fractured by myriad tribal and religious loyalties.

Iraq is an artificial nation grouped together by the British about 100 years ago or so, Japan was a unified nation that had been in existence for centuries. Two completely different kettles of fish.

Jim

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger




Nice to know the Soviets were only kidding when they were crying for a 2nd front. Oh, and the whining for all that lend-least stuff was oscar material too I guess. Good to know they had it in the bag and we werent needed at all. And the 8th air-force, guess that wasnt needed either.

Why so unfriendly?
It defently was the Eastern front that broke the neck of the Wehrmacht. There can't be any doubt about this.
Do you really think a missing western front would've changed the outcome of the war?

It's always hard to say what would have happened. Had there not even been the threat of the Western front is it possible Germany could have held out long enough to get their next generation of weapons? What would chemical or nuclear tipped V2s have done on the eastern front? The USSR had a woeful lack of strategic weapons. Without the US and UK bombers destroying the industrial base of Germany who is to say what happens? It is possible that Germany could have forced a stalemate with the Soviets....maybe not likely, but definitely possible without the Western front.

This assumes that there aren't any allies. In this case, I have no doubt that Germany would have won.

What I say is, if the allies exist but don't land on the continent, the outcome of the war wouldn't change. The strategic bombardement was less effective than many assume so it had some effect. But the german units in the west weren't strong enough to turn the war in the east in 1944.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger




Nice to know the Soviets were only kidding when they were crying for a 2nd front. Oh, and the whining for all that lend-least stuff was oscar material too I guess. Good to know they had it in the bag and we werent needed at all. And the 8th air-force, guess that wasnt needed either.

Why so unfriendly?
It defently was the Eastern front that broke the neck of the Wehrmacht. There can't be any doubt about this.
Do you really think a missing western front would've changed the outcome of the war?

It's always hard to say what would have happened. Had there not even been the threat of the Western front is it possible Germany could have held out long enough to get their next generation of weapons? What would chemical or nuclear tipped V2s have done on the eastern front? The USSR had a woeful lack of strategic weapons. Without the US and UK bombers destroying the industrial base of Germany who is to say what happens? It is possible that Germany could have forced a stalemate with the Soviets....maybe not likely, but definitely possible without the Western front.

The argument that the Russians could have won the war by themselves always makes me laugh. It shows an utter lack of knowledge about the war on the part of the author.

The US lost over half a million army airforce personnel alone in the war in its campaign to win air superiority over the European continent. There is no way Russia could ever have won the war had the west not tied down almost 80% of Germanys fighter air arm.

Russia's Sturmovik's were deadly to axis armor, but they were just as vulnerable to fighters as the Stuka was (though a bit more durable), so forget any kind of offensive operations in Russia if the 50,000 - 60,000 or so German fighters destroyed by the west had been available in Russia.

Then there is the fact the US built over 90% of the large trucks Russia used during the war. Without those trucks, Russia could never have moved enough supplies to launch any kind of serious offensive. Not to mention the 2 million or so Germans and Italians tied down fighting on the ground in the west.

Russia's land army was a huge part of the victory won by the allies, there is no doubt. But if Russia had been alone, the war for them would have ended in 1942.

Jim

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

The argument that the Russians could have won the war by themselves always makes me laugh. It shows an utter lack of knowledge about the war on the part of the author.

The US lost over half a million army airforce personnel alone in the war in its campaign to win air superiority over the European continent. There is no way Russia could ever have won the war had the west not tied down almost 80% of Germanys fighter air arm.

Russia's Sturmovik's were deadly to axis armor, but they were just as vulnerable to fighters as the Stuka was (though a bit more durable), so forget any kind of offensive operations in Russia if the 50,000 - 60,000 or so German fighters destroyed by the west had been available in Russia.

Then there is the fact the US built over 90% of the large trucks Russia used during the war. Without those trucks, Russia could never have moved enough supplies to launch any kind of serious offensive. Not to mention the 2 million or so Germans and Italians tied down fighting on the ground in the west.

Russia's land army was a huge part of the victory won by the allies, there is no doubt. But if Russia had been alone, the war for them would have ended in 1942.

Jim

This is what I mean when i say that yanks have been fed with their "west is best, west is good, US is hero" propaganda for ages, the numbers referred to here is absurd, their effect is presented as something it never was Evan close to.

Soviet received indeed a lot of assistance with equipment, and it was indeed necessary and highly needed until early 1943, but the numbers he claim here is absurd for 1944+, there is so much information in the above post that it's just plain Ignorance.


Soviet production capacity, and equipment was simply of the character that they in mid 1944 had afford to serial produce Civilian Cars, for Civilian use.


Grahh.. I shall not comment that post above any future.


-

[Mike Scholl]

"Russia's land army was a huge part of the victory won by the allies, there is no doubt. But if Russia had been alone, the war for them would have ended in 1942."

Jim.., gotta dissagree with you here.  Allied contributions to the effort against Germany in 1941-42 didn't amount to much at all given the scale of the War in the East.  1943-45 is a somewhat different case, but by then Germany had already "shot her bolt" in the East and it was the Russians who were going to be "calling the tune" strategically.  Truth be told, without Stalin's helpfull "screwing of the pooch", the Germans could easily been stopped cold by the second half of 1941.  A rational defense would have exposed all the weaknesses of the German War machine much quicker.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What I say is, if the allies exist but don't land on the continent, the outcome of the war wouldn't change. The strategic bombardement was less effective than many assume so it had some effect. But the german units in the west weren't strong enough to turn the war in the east in 1944.

Aigan I fully agree with you Historiker.



Regarding the Strategic Campaign, I once saw some copies of data charts about it at a Museum in Munich, and it is my impression that the actual effect of the 8th Airforce and RAF-BC was to force Germany to Gear up for War in 1943, something they should have done in 1939 in my opinion.

The Air Camping had in the Museums opinion a noticeable effect on German petroleum industry once Soviet Union entered Romania.

For General Industry Germany produced so much each month of 1944, that the entire production year of 1942 compared to a single month of 1944, makes year 1942 to look like a normal year in peace.


I think that the Soviet invasion of Romania combined with the Strategic Air Campaign probably did have some effect on German Petroleum / Syntetic Oil Industry, however Albert Spear refuse to accept this in the series BBC WW2 By Thems, regardless I think it is very hard to tell.

I'm convinced that the morale effect of the Strategic Air Campaign was far more important then the actual industrial effect.


-

[stuman]

The following is a bit silly I suppose , but if Germany attacks Russia in 1941, and there is NO Allied effort at that time ( some alternate universe Allies/Germany peace reached at the end of 1940 ) then Germany wins. In the real world, becuase of Soviet murderous/inept handling of their armed forces up to summer of 1941 they almost lost it. But they hung on, made an incredible comeback, and utterly destroyed the main bulk of the German army.
 
It is more interesting ( although preposterous ) to ponder what would have happened if the Allies and Germany all of a sudden reached that same " alternate universe "  peace accord right after Stalingrad. Is it really certain that a Germany now free from attack everywhere else, no more allocation of resources to an Atlantic sub campaign, no more worries about bombers over the homeland, could not have fought the Soviets to a standstill ?  I don't know, sort of intriguing to think about I suppose. Although this starts to stray into Harry Turtledove territory.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The argument that the Russians could have won the war by themselves always makes me laugh. It shows an utter lack of knowledge about the war on the part of the author.

The US lost over half a million army airforce personnel alone in the war in its campaign to win air superiority over the European continent. There is no way Russia could ever have won the war had the west not tied down almost 80% of Germanys fighter air arm.

Russia's Sturmovik's were deadly to axis armor, but they were just as vulnerable to fighters as the Stuka was (though a bit more durable), so forget any kind of offensive operations in Russia if the 50,000 - 60,000 or so German fighters destroyed by the west had been available in Russia.

Then there is the fact the US built over 90% of the large trucks Russia used during the war. Without those trucks, Russia could never have moved enough supplies to launch any kind of serious offensive. Not to mention the 2 million or so Germans and Italians tied down fighting on the ground in the west.

Russia's land army was a huge part of the victory won by the allies, there is no doubt. But if Russia had been alone, the war for them would have ended in 1942.

Jim

Haven't you read what I've written or does your patriotism enrage you when you read that it wasn't the US who won the war in Europe?

No one of the "the soviet side won the war" fraction here has argued assuming an allied nonexistance. All we said is, that the Western FRONT wasn't the key to victory - no one sayed the allies existance.

So before you insult others by denying every knowledge about what they talk to them, you should rather properly read what has been written, no?
Otherwise, one could also draw conclusions about you that aren't very gentle... [:-]

[AZKGungHo]

My vote between Mac and Patton would be Patton. Mac just made too many huge mistakes to get my vote.  As for fighting a defensive battle, Mac's "defense" of the Philippines was a disaster.  Granted he could have never won, but he didn't have to allow his entire airforce to be destroyed, etc.

If I were to pick my best of WW2 I'd probably go with Manstien first and maybe Zukhov second.  Rommel would also rank high, as would many others. 

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Japan

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What I say is, if the allies exist but don't land on the continent, the outcome of the war wouldn't change. The strategic bombardement was less effective than many assume so it had some effect. But the german units in the west weren't strong enough to turn the war in the east in 1944.

Aigan I fully agree with you Historiker.

So, how about the two of you go dress up in your favorite early-to-mid-twentieth-century fascist nation uniforms, rent a room, and get it on?

Or, better, how about we all break out our favorite wargames, computer or otherwise, and fight it out surreptitiously AND FOR FUN. Then, maybe, these forums can go back to being what they are instead of being used as space for ignorant spew that is intended strictly as an insult to anything and everything American.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Japan

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What I say is, if the allies exist but don't land on the continent, the outcome of the war wouldn't change. The strategic bombardement was less effective than many assume so it had some effect. But the german units in the west weren't strong enough to turn the war in the east in 1944.

Aigan I fully agree with you Historiker.

So, how about the two of you go dress up in your favorite early-to-mid-twentieth-century fascist nation uniforms, rent a room, and get it on?

Or, better, how about we all break out our favorite wargames, computer or otherwise, and fight it out surreptitiously AND FOR FUN. Then, maybe, these forums can go back to being what they are instead of being used as space for ignorant spew that is intended strictly as an insult to anything and everything American.

Not everything the US patriots/nationalists don't like is anti-american, especially not by an admirer of the US like me...

[stuman]

Now let's vote on when the thread will be locked [:)]

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: stuman

Now let's vote on when the thread will be locked [:)]

which seems to be better concerning the aggressiveness and ignorance of some posters...

[Terminus]

So predictable... So very, very predictable...[8|]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Japan

ORIGINAL: Historiker

What I say is, if the allies exist but don't land on the continent, the outcome of the war wouldn't change. The strategic bombardement was less effective than many assume so it had some effect. But the german units in the west weren't strong enough to turn the war in the east in 1944.

Aigan I fully agree with you Historiker.

So, how about the two of you go dress up in your favorite early-to-mid-twentieth-century fascist nation uniforms, rent a room, and get it on?

Or, better, how about we all break out our favorite wargames, computer or otherwise, and fight it out surreptitiously AND FOR FUN. Then, maybe, these forums can go back to being what they are instead of being used as space for ignorant spew that is intended strictly as an insult to anything and everything American.

As you well know Pas, anti-Americanism, like any anti-anything , is simply bigotry in motion. And any bigotry is simply small mindedness. In other words, I'm with you brother. Let's not feed the trolls, let them starve. So , How about those Dodgers? [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
The argument that the Russians could have won the war by themselves always makes me laugh. It shows an utter lack of knowledge about the war on the part of the author.

The US lost over half a million army airforce personnel alone in the war in its campaign to win air superiority over the European continent. There is no way Russia could ever have won the war had the west not tied down almost 80% of Germanys fighter air arm.

Russia's Sturmovik's were deadly to axis armor, but they were just as vulnerable to fighters as the Stuka was (though a bit more durable), so forget any kind of offensive operations in Russia if the 50,000 - 60,000 or so German fighters destroyed by the west had been available in Russia.

Then there is the fact the US built over 90% of the large trucks Russia used during the war. Without those trucks, Russia could never have moved enough supplies to launch any kind of serious offensive. Not to mention the 2 million or so Germans and Italians tied down fighting on the ground in the west.

Russia's land army was a huge part of the victory won by the allies, there is no doubt. But if Russia had been alone, the war for them would have ended in 1942.

Jim

Haven't you read what I've written or does your patriotism enrage you when you read that it wasn't the US who won the war in Europe?

No one of the "the soviet side won the war" fraction here has argued assuming an allied nonexistance. All we said is, that the Western FRONT wasn't the key to victory - no one sayed the allies existance.

So before you insult others by denying every knowledge about what they talk to them, you should rather properly read what has been written, no?
Otherwise, one could also draw conclusions about you that aren't very gentle... [:-]

It doesn't really matter who one world war 2. What matters is who lost. Victory is less important than defeat. And that is why this entire thread, and all the comments on it , are irrelevant. [:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: stuman

Now let's vote on when the thread will be locked [:)]

which seems to be better concerning the aggressiveness and ignorance of some posters...

I would suggest that declaring posters to be "ignorant" falls under the concept of a personal attack. Perhaps you meant something else? Surely you wouldn't want to violate Matrix policy? [&:]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Historiker
Haven't you read what I've written or does your patriotism enrage you when you read that it wasn't the US who won the war in Europe?

No one of the "the soviet side won the war" fraction here has argued assuming an allied nonexistance. All we said is, that the Western FRONT wasn't the key to victory - no one sayed the allies existance.

So before you insult others by denying every knowledge about what they talk to them, you should rather properly read what has been written, no?
Otherwise, one could also draw conclusions about you that aren't very gentle... [:-]

First I apologize, It was not my intent to insult anyone and I should have chosen my words more carefully. When I said it makes me laugh, I meant what makes me laugh is how history has been distorted from the facts over the years. One thing that doesn't lie are the raw statistics of the war, and here are some figures from John Ellis' book World War II A Statistical Survey.

Military Truck production:

1942: US 619,735.... USSR 30,400.... UK 87,499
1943: US 621,502.... USSR 45,600.... UK 113,912
1944: US 596,963.... USSR 52,600.... UK 54,615
1945: US 327,893.... USSR 68,500.... UK 47,174

Total war production: US 2,382,311.... USSR 197,100.... UK 480,943

I did not list 1941 production because USSR figures were not listed for that year. But as you can see, the USSR produced vastly fewer trucks than either of its allies. Russia could have easily lost 200,000 trucks in the opening months of the war, so it barley replaced its losses from 1941 by itself. Only the US lend lease trucks allowed Russia's land army to grow into a modern mechanized force capable of feeding itself for sustained offensives.

In all the US sent 362,000 trucks to Russia along with lots of other stuff. Here's a site that lists total shipments: http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/in ... llies.html

"From 1942 to September 1945, the Soviet Union received 9,000 tanks or self-propelled guns, 362,000 trucks, 47,000 jeeps, 131,633 submachine guns, 3,000 rocket launchers, 14,000,000 boots, 532,000 tons of U.S. sugar, 485,000 tons of canned meat (i.e., Spam) and hundreds of other items. Twenty percent of the Lend-Lease supplies the Soviets received were military, while the rest were food, metals, chemicals, petroleum products, and factory machinery."

I am not simply an American claiming something simply because the US was part of the west. Russia alone could never have beaten Germany, but neither could the west. Both sides made significant contributions to the war effort which combined allowed them to win.

Russia's massive land army was needed to win the war, but so was the US's massive production capacity. Without both of these, Germany would have won a settled peace with the west after it had first crushed Russia.

Jim

[Historiker]

So despite showing arguments for my thesis, no one is willed to discuss. All that comes is: "You don't know what you'r talking about" "Troll" "Anti-Amercian". Is my fault that I have the same opinion here as the commonly hated Japan?

Is that your style of discussion? Never argue, just insult und a little bit of Godwin's law (pasternakski)?
Well, in this case its obviously better to react like Terminus and never hope for a discussion if the US boys don't agree...