Patton vs MacArthur

[Terminus]

Yup, great read...

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

No.  You're just saying that the US did not need to worry about Europe at all.  There was no need for a second front.  Y'all had it under control by mid-43.  Now that's interesting.

The point here is that the recourses used during 1944 and 1945 had already been received during 1943.
This is the whole point in the study done by MACCA.
The quantityes they recived are huge, its extreme amounts we are talking about.

I have not explained this in any great detail, as I assumed that the other individuals part of this debate had the bask knowledge about the Soviet situation during WW2.

Soviet is a huge nation and had large stockpiles, its not like that they get the materials today and use it the next night... They received so much materials, extreme amounts of materials, that they could had their industry going on 100% for 480 days, but in 43, 44 and 45 they had their industry only going at 89%, 64% and 49%. This means that they received everything they would need already back in 1943.

Most people don't understand the quantity of materials they received during Leand Leace, and it can not be easily explained unless you have a very good understanding of the situation from before.


As of January 1944 there was no need for a 2nd front due to everything Soviet had a need for already was received during 1943, with other words they received far more materials in 1943 then they woud need for the rest of the war.
In 1944, Soviet had the situation under control, and the German Army had low manpower numbers, and was struggling, the German manpower stocks was bleeding badly, German Industry was struggling with materials, while the Soviet Union could throttle up its industry by +/- 40% any time if needed due to the stockpiles they had in 1944 (who was received in 1943). In 1941-1943 there was a need for a 2nd front, but as of 1944 there was no need. That is what MACCA is saying.

If it must be explained more, then please refer to the 3 Books i posted ISBN's for in previous posts.




-

[Nikademus]

In the market next for a good biopic on Mac. The last two reads that concerned him did not put him in a good light but were also not devoted to him. (Retribution, The Coldest Winter)

[Terminus]

Probably be a difficult thing to find. Bias is almost a certainty when it comes to Mac, whether good or bad.

[Nikademus]

Yes....for him or any famous person. For Patton i had the benefit of reading the huge Patton flame thread here from five years ago where D'este's name was mentioned. Did some research on him and he came highly rated, so picked up his book. It was very good. Fair and level-headed.

[Anthropoid]

As of January 1944 there was no need for a 2nd front due to everything Soviet had already recived during 1943.
In 1941-1943 there was a need. But as of 1944 there was no need. That is what MACCA is saying.

Two questions. First, in terms of the outcome of the war (who won, who lost, the nature of the surrender [conditional/unconditional], how long the war took, the negative ramifications for any additional duration of war, etc.), what do you mean by "there was no need?"

With respect to the matter of the outcome of the war, there are at least two (and indeed two is a minimum) different meanings that your statement might have. (1A) There was no need because the Soviets could have achieved an equally crushing victory and unconditional surrender without a land-offensive in the West. (1B) There was no need because the Soviets could have achieved a victory, albeit perhaps not an equally large victory, i.e., some sort of conditional surrender.

Second, the military and political outcome of the war is only one potential layer of meaning in your statement "there was no need." Another layer is the subsequent social and political geography of Europe after VE day. Here there are also at least two meanings that your statement could (and others possible as well): (2C) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly divided up the post-war political boundaries roughly like they did in actual history. (2D) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly extended their hegemony over the whole of German-occupied Europe, and the Cold war would started with West Germany, France, and the Low Countries as sateillite states of the USSR.

I think several guys here have made reasonable rebuttals to concluding that either (1A) or (1B) are likely alternate history outcomes, and that is not my area of expertise, nor interest, so I won't belabor it. Except to say that, first of all, as I stated above, because of the contingent nature of history, it is simply not possible to reach such firm conclusions as you seem to have reached about alternate histories. Take away any single element of the Western Powers war on Germany from 1943 and 1945 and, because of the interactive, contingent, and curvilinear dynamics among factors that shape events, it becomes effectively impossible to do more than make vague arguments from the standpoint of probabilities. In short, opinions. Yet you argue as if this were a physics experiment that is incontrovertible based on the data at hand, and which the rest of us are just too dumb or too biased to acknowledge. Fallacious rhetoric at best.

Second, an appeal to logical triangulation of historical facts. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Stalin had in 1941 made ardent pleas to the Western powers to get into the war and put pressure on Germany from the West, correct? If I am not mistaken, Stalin continued to pressure the allies all the way through 1944, no? If you are arguing for either (1A) or (1B) above, then why did Stalin continue to pressure the allies to get going with the Western land offensive all the way up to and through D-Day? Or did he not do so? He attended the Tehran Conference where he and the other two leaders spent days discussing the details of Operation Overlord. If it was such a 'sure' thing that (1A) or (1B) was going to be achieved without the allies bothering with an offensive in France, then why did Stalin even bother participating in this planning? Why did he not try to undermine it, discourage it, or demand that it not happen instead of continuing to work as part of an allied team planning it?

Now, as to the social and political geography issues involved in meanings (2C) and (2D)

(2C) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly divided up the post-war political boundaries roughly like they did in actual history. (2D) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly extended their hegemony over the whole of German-occupied Europe, and the Cold war would started with West Germany, France, and the Low Countries as sateillite states of the USSR.

I think the events of the Cold War are pretty clear indicators that (2C) would _NEVER_ have occurred. Had the allies not taken control of France, the Low Countries and West Germany, the Soviets would have done so, and instead of only ~2/3 of Europe being subjected to Soviet domination for decades, something like ~3/4 would have suffered that fate. Indeed, with France, and all of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc., under their control, perhaps the Cold War would not have ended so happily in the long run after all.

Perhaps by 1943 the Soviets _did_ have enough power to defeat the Germans singlehandedly had the Western Powers never launched Overlord, but that is frankly a silly alternate universe. Why for heavensake would the allies have gone to the trouble of helping the Soviets to survive the winter of 1942 with massive lend lease, as well as bombing the smithereens out of Germany, and driving them out of North Africa and Italy, and then at the end of 1943, called off their continued offensive in the West? Given the allies ability to predict that (2D) was the likely consequence if they were to slack off in 1943-44, I can think of no reason whatsoever why they would not seek to liberate France and Germany from the Nazis, and prevent a possibly even worse outcome: having those societies fall under the hegemony of "communist" totalitarianism?

No sir, no matter how many numbers you provide, and no matter how powerful you can prove to me the Soviets were in 1943 or how able they were to beat the Germans, alone, with one hand tied behind their back, I simply cannot accept the logic, nor the ethical soundness of such an argument.

Overlord, and the continued allied combined arms war (including strategic bombing) against Germany were not only a necessity they were the ONLY reasonable path for two reasons: (i) to maximize the probabilty that Naziism fell in the most timely manner with the least expenditure in blood and treasure and; (ii) to insure that at least _some_ of Europe was liberated from not just Naziism, but Stalinism, and that the hope of a just and democratic Europe was kept alive.

ADDIT: and another thing! If it was such a surefire thing that the Russians had the Germans beat in 1943, then why did Stalin--given his intimate knowledge of the D-Day planning---not SABOTAGE the allies efforts at D-Day. It would have been fairly easy in the weeks leading up to D-Day to leak intell that would have tipped off the Germans about the allies plans (general days and times) and if Stalin had also coordinated some shifting of troops around so that the Germans might feel comfortable pulling a division or two off the Eastern front to head back West, I would think that Stalin could have had his cake and eaten too. Did Stalin do anything like this? As far as I know he did not. He had top secret information which he could have used to undermine the Allied success in Overlord, but he didn't. If you're argument holds any water, how do you account for this fact?

I'll tell you how you account for it: Stalin just like any of the leaders at that time knew that it wasn't over till the fat lady sang. He didn't have a crystal ball, he didn't know that they had the Germans licked and that " there was no need for a 2nd front due to everything Soviet had already recived during 1943." He wanted to WIN! and he knew his best probability of winning at the least possible cost was if the allies were keeping the Germans busy on the other side.

Even if the sheer math of your argument for (1A) or (1B) has any probabilistic value in projecting alternative histories (which I am quite skeptical about frankly) it is nonetheless, probabilistic arm-waving about fancifal alternate historical events based on the hindsight of 60 years of learning about the events of that period.

In my opinion, nothing at all wrong with "probabilistic arm-waving about fanciful alternate histories" on a forum like this. Indeed, I think it is a lot of fun myself to hear what others have to say, and hear what others think of what I have to say. But when somebody starts treating their arm-waving as if it is some sort of rock-solid experimentally proven FACT . . . well, it ain't so much fun anymore.

[Terminus]

Oh dear, it seems Nik's and my attempt to briefly hi-jack this thread from its hi-jackers has itself been hi-jacked... Bad form...[8|]

[anarchyintheuk]

Frank's biography was pretty good. Short tho. Same with Finkelstein's.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh dear, it seems Nik's and my attempt to briefly hi-jack this thread from its hi-jackers has itself been hi-jacked... Bad form...[8|]

Nah, it's just a hi-jack to the original OT conversation so it's heading back to Patton and Mac eventually if this trend continues. [:D]

I'd like to argue that the Eastern Front would have been lost if Russia didn't get their two pianos, clearly they were dropping them on Germans from airplanes dealing out massive casualties.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh dear, it seems Nik's and my attempt to briefly hi-jack this thread from its hi-jackers has itself been hi-jacked... Bad form...[8|]

Perhaps you should have tried to lojack the thread instead. [:'(]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Frank's biography was pretty good. Short tho. Same with Finkelstein's.

can you cite the full titles?

Thx in advance.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh dear, it seems Nik's and my attempt to briefly hi-jack this thread from its hi-jackers has itself been hi-jacked... Bad form...[8|]

Nah, it's just a hi-jack to the original OT conversation so it's heading back to Patton and Mac eventually if this trend continues. [:D]

I'd like to argue that the Eastern Front would have been lost if Russia didn't get their two pianos, clearly they were dropping them on Germans from airplanes dealing out massive casualties.

Don't forget the Sword of Stalingrad. Very important addition to Stalin's arsenal. He needed it after expending all those men by sending them into battle without weapons and then machinegunning them when they retreated.

[Nikademus]

It wasn't pianos.....it was cows. A devestating technique originally thought up by Mac, stolen by Patton and paradied by Monty Python during the filming of the Holy Grail.

(still on topic!!!!! mentioned both guys!!!)

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

As of January 1944 there was no need for a 2nd front due to everything Soviet had already recived during 1943.
In 1941-1943 there was a need. But as of 1944 there was no need. That is what MACCA is saying.

Two questions. First, in terms of the outcome of the war (who won, who lost, the nature of the surrender [conditional/unconditional], how long the war took, the negative ramifications for any additional duration of war, etc.), what do you mean by "there was no need?"

With respect to the matter of the outcome of the war, there are at least two (and indeed two is a minimum) different meanings that your statement might have. (1A) There was no need because the Soviets could have achieved an equally crushing victory and unconditional surrender without a land-offensive in the West. (1B) There was no need because the Soviets could have achieved a victory, albeit perhaps not an equally large victory, i.e., some sort of conditional surrender.

Second, the military and political outcome of the war is only one potential layer of meaning in your statement "there was no need." Another layer is the subsequent social and political geography of Europe after VE day. Here there are also at least two meanings that your statement could (and others possible as well): (2C) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly divided up the post-war political boundaries roughly like they did in actual history. (2D) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly extended their hegemony over the whole of German-occupied Europe, and the Cold war would started with West Germany, France, and the Low Countries as sateillite states of the USSR.

I think several guys here have made reasonable rebuttals to concluding that either (1A) or (1B) are likely alternate history outcomes, and that is not my area of expertise, nor interest, so I won't belabor it. Except to say that, first of all, as I stated above, because of the contingent nature of history, it is simply not possible to reach such firm conclusions as you seem to have reached about alternate histories. Take away any single element of the Western Powers war on Germany from 1943 and 1945 and, because of the interactive, contingent, and curvilinear dynamics among factors that shape events, it becomes effectively impossible to do more than make vague arguments from the standpoint of probabilities. In short, opinions. Yet you argue as if this were a physics experiment that is incontrovertible based on the data at hand, and which the rest of us are just too dumb or too biased to acknowledge. Fallacious rhetoric at best.

Second, an appeal to logical triangulation of historical facts. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Stalin had in 1941 made ardent pleas to the Western powers to get into the war and put pressure on Germany from the West, correct? If I am not mistaken, Stalin continued to pressure the allies all the way through 1944, no? If you are arguing for either (1A) or (1B) above, then why did Stalin continue to pressure the allies to get going with the Western land offensive all the way up to and through D-Day? Or did he not do so? He attended the Tehran Conference where he and the other two leaders spent days discussing the details of Operation Overlord. If it was such a 'sure' thing that (1A) or (1B) was going to be achieved without the allies bothering with an offensive in France, then why did Stalin even bother participating in this planning? Why did he not try to undermine it, discourage it, or demand that it not happen instead of continuing to work as part of an allied team planning it?

Now, as to the social and political geography issues involved in meanings (2C) and (2D)

(2C) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly divided up the post-war political boundaries roughly like they did in actual history. (2D) There was no need for the Western allies to bother with a Western land offensive because Either (1A) or (1B) would have been true, and the Soviets would have gladly extended their hegemony over the whole of German-occupied Europe, and the Cold war would started with West Germany, France, and the Low Countries as sateillite states of the USSR.

I think the events of the Cold War are pretty clear indicators that (2C) would _NEVER_ have occurred. Had the allies not taken control of France, the Low Countries and West Germany, the Soviets would have done so, and instead of only ~2/3 of Europe being subjected to Soviet domination for decades, something like ~3/4 would have suffered that fate. Indeed, with France, and all of Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc., under their control, perhaps the Cold War would not have ended so happily in the long run after all.

Perhaps by 1943 the Soviets _did_ have enough power to defeat the Germans singlehandedly had the Western Powers never launched Overlord, but that is frankly a silly alternate universe. Why for heavensake would the allies have gone to the trouble of helping the Soviets to survive the winter of 1942 with massive lend lease, as well as bombing the smithereens out of Germany, and driving them out of North Africa and Italy, and then at the end of 1943, called off their continued offensive in the West? Given the allies ability to predict that (2D) was the likely consequence if they were to slack off in 1943-44, I can think of no reason whatsoever why they would not seek to liberate France and Germany from the Nazis, and prevent a possibly even worse outcome: having those societies fall under the hegemony of "communist" totalitarianism?

No sir, no matter how many numbers you provide, and no matter how powerful you can prove to me the Soviets were in 1943 or how able they were to beat the Germans, alone, with one hand tied behind their back, I simply cannot accept the logic, nor the ethical soundness of such an argument.

Overlord, and the continued allied combined arms war (including strategic bombing) against Germany were not only a necessity they were the ONLY reasonable path for two reasons: (i) to maximize the probabilty that Naziism fell in the most timely manner with the least expenditure in blood and treasure and; (ii) to insure that at least _some_ of Europe was liberated from not just Naziism, but Stalinism, and that the hope of a just and democratic Europe was kept alive.

S

I enjoy debating with you sir Anthropoid, you are informed, polite and skilled. It is appreciated.


I agree in most of your statements, of course it from a political point of wiev was necessary with Overloard, but not needed seen from a military perspective.

The western allied did not want the entire Europe to fall into Soviet hands, so Overloard makes sence from a Political perspective, Anyway, My intention have been to say that it was unnecessary from a Military perspective, and I have said several times the same as you say above, that it was necessary from a Political perspective. Actually I think my exact words was: " The troops did not die on Omaha to win the war against Nazi Germany, but they died to ensure that Western Political interests was maintained in post war Europe" And that is very much the case.

So when i speak of need then I do not talk about moraly right, or political right, but strictly the needs seen from a military perspective. Now there is people who are less informed then us, and claim that Overloard saved the world bla bla.. but fact is that it had very little effect on anything but by what date the Allies had won, the biggest effects of Overloard was Post war Europa.

[rjopel]

Wait, maybe they wern't actually pianos. 
 
The US and UK heard about Stalin's Organs and wanted to show what great organs the United States could make.
 

 

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Frank's biography was pretty good. Short tho. Same with Finkelstein's.

can you cite the full titles?

Thx in advance.

Richard Frank - MacArthur (part of a series called great generals, probably 200 pages)

Finkelstein: The Emperor General (iirc probably only 150-200 pages)

Manchester's American Caeser is still probably the best that I've read in terms of balance.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Oh dear, it seems Nik's and my attempt to briefly hi-jack this thread from its hi-jackers has itself been hi-jacked... Bad form...[8|]

Perhaps you should have tried to lojack the thread instead. [:'(]

Why would they do that? We KNOW exactly where this thread is, what we would like is for it to go away. It clearly shows just how hard the mods are working on AE in that this "thread" hasn't been locked,shot,drawn,quartered and the participants banished....


but here it comes, wait for it, the magic word; PIRATES!


There, that'll do it! [:D]

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Synthetic rubbers were decades away, there was no other technology to come up with to replace gaskets, heat resistant rubber hoses , tires, etc.
Jim

The BUNA corporation in Germany was producing synthetic rubber since 1937 using coal as source for several of the ingredients. The Soviets would have had to build the industrial infrastructure for that first, of course.

Someone else mentioned that Russia produced almost no sugar cane. True. On the other hand, neither did Germany (or France, Poland, Hungary etc.) In Middle/Northern Europe, we make sugar from sugar beets, which is more efficient, and sugar beets grow just fine in many parts of the Soviet Union.

The real question is not how much raw materials were imported into the Soviet Union, but could the S.U. have produced enough of the stuff (or reasonable substitutes) in-country if forced to? I suspect they would have managed somehow. Remember, Stalin had no particular need to take care of his population.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Frank's biography was pretty good. Short tho. Same with Finkelstein's.

can you cite the full titles?

Thx in advance.

Richard Frank - MacArthur (part of a series called great generals, probably 200 pages)

Finkelstein: The Emperor General (iirc probably only 150-200 pages)

Manchester's American Caeser is still probably the best that I've read in terms of balance.

Thx again. Richard Frank is known to me. Good author....the Manchester book sounds like a good bet as well given what you wrote. Will check it out. (DK Brown and Bergstrom are first though!!!!)

[bush]

Nik,

Although I read the Manchester book many, many years ago, my memory is that it was NOT very balanced, but definitely pro-Mac.

An interesting book on Euro-theater is War Between the Generals, by ?? Irving. Some good behind the scenes info. I really like a quote credited to Patton upon meeting Harold Alexander, "He has a very small head. That explains much."

Also info about Patton's excessive womanizing.