Patton vs MacArthur

[anarchyintheuk]

To each his own. I have a rosier view of Mac than a lot of posters here. As a sweeping generalization, I'd say Manchester likes Mac the commander, doesn't like Mac the man.

[Nikademus]

I've yet to read a bad review on the Machester book. Seems like a strong candidant. The fact that it was written in 78 and is still in print says something for i t right off.

[t001001001]

MacArthur's subordinates (K,K,K) were superb, and the man was a genius.  Who else could have moved through New Guinea so efficiently?  His weakness was ignoring objectives while there was still mopping up to do, and not paying much attention to details; b/c he was looking forward to the next objective.  It was also his strength. 

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I've yet to read a bad review on the Machester book. Seems like a strong candidant. The fact that it was written in 78 and is still in print says something for i t right off.

I do agree Nik, I think American Caesar is the most even handed and informative of Mac’s biographies. The first half (Mac’s early years and War-1 experience) goes a long way towards explaining the second. As with any controversial figure, it very, very hard to separate a man from his achievements and place the critiques in perspective.

I am not a Mac fan, for reasons that have no place here. But despite his personality, he showed flashes of brilliance and breathtaking audacity in his generalship. Luck or staff work, it doesn’t matter, because it’s the General’s call; hero or zero.

[Hornblower]

As much as it pains me, we must give Mac credit for understanting the importance of airpower and the need to lessen casulaties

[JeffroK]

From mikemike
 
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.

IMHO, the question is if the USSR had to manufacture, mine, process the materials received by LL, could it have managed to produce enough T34, MiG's, Yak's etc etc.
 
From bushpsu
 
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."
 
Is this from David "What Holocaust" Irving???
And the quote shows the level of Patton's intellect!
 

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

From mikemike

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.

IMHO, the question is if the USSR had to manufacture, mine, process the materials received by LL, could it have managed to produce enough T34, MiG's, Yak's etc etc.

From bushpsu

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."

Is this from David "What Holocaust" Irving???
And the quote shows the level of Patton's intellect!

I'm not sure who you are quoting, but when it comes to the content of the message, then the answer is no.

Soviet would collapsed without the Land Lace, there must be no doubt, it is 100% sure that they could not stopped Germany in 1942 without Land Lace. During 1943 they received so much raw materials, that they had enough recourses to go on until the early 50's thus also meaning that by 1944 they had what they needed to take on the Germans them self, but until late 1943 it was absolutely needed with at least the raw materials and the aircraft provided by the Lead Lace. (the Logistic Support was handy as well, but not crutial based on MACCA's study of LL).

[JeffroK]

I'm quoting from the 2 members names I mentioned. As to the question I ask, Its my question rather than anything I have read.

I wouldnt 100% agree or disagree with you.

I believe the USSR needed LL to perform as they did, but could they have survived without it??

LL didnt stop the Germans in front of Moscow in 1941, Hitler, General Winter, Russian stubborness & the Siberian Divisions did this.

I cant see how LL stopped them at Staligrad, though this could be argued. Maybe by the time of "Op Uranus" the logistical support was of value.

By 1943, the overall effect of LL would have helped the Soviets in amassing what would be the start of the push back through Soviet territory and into Germany.

I am unsure where the thought that the Soviets had enough resources to go into the 50's comes from, I have never seen anything to support this and would love a link to some info.

IMHO, this is a very interesting subject because I am sure that we can never see 100% of the information required to give an answer.

[gladiatt]

ORIGINAL: Japan


I'm not sure who you are quoting, but when it comes to the content of the message, then the answer is no.

Soviet would collapsed without the Land Lace, there must be no doubt, it is 100% sure that they could not stopped Germany in 1942 without Land Lace. During 1943 they received so much raw materials, that they had enough recourses to go on until the early 50's thus also meaning that by 1944 they had what they needed to take on the Germans them self, but until late 1943 it was absolutely needed with at least the raw materials and the aircraft provided by the Lead Lace. (the Logistic Support was handy as well, but not crutial based on MACCA's study of LL).

Hmmm, i'm sorry to put my two cents on this topic, but:
1) if i remenber correctly, no Leader absloutely know they were going to win. They just hope it, work for it, and after 1942 the allies leader were roughly confident in their futur victory. But all the conference they made to coordinate their effort show how much they thought it was going to be hard.
1-A just imagine yourself in the role of the Master Chief of a great wargame....are you always confident at 100% that the ennemy is not preparing a nasty surprise?

2) if Churchill had the feeling that Staline was thinking of post-war and zone of influence, Roosevelt was kind of naive on this point: he just wanted to free Europe from the fascists.
More : even if Roosevelt had thought that the russians could beat Germany, he would have helped as much as possible by morale reasons !
When you friend want to extinct the fire of his house, and use a firetruck, even if you have a small bucket of water, would'nt you help him as much you can ??

3) Of course, no one can say the Russians didn't made a tremendous effort against fachist Germany. The losses of each of theses country on the eastern front show how much of an intense conflict it was. But theses losses started to weight on each country (except the USA) on the last years: the "poor" brits had so many losses, mobilized mens, and so on, that they had to rely on mechanized unit rather than infantry. The Germans units were "phantoms" units with something between 70% and 20% of their normal effectifs. Even the Russians were lacking manpower. After 20 millions of casualties it can be understand. Of course Stalin wasn't really kind with his people...but the army started to feel the lack of manpower !
Even the race to Berlin took 4 months between Vistule and Berlin against a "beated" german army !

4) Just after the victory upon Germany, why Stalin didn't race for the rest of western Europe ? It was not because of his sympathy for the western allies. It was not because of the fear of the A Bomb. It was because the army couln't push farther !
A bit of diplomacy-lies-threat manage to make the eastern europe to stay in Stalin hands. But think of the Cold War: it was by small actions, point after point, that Stalin tried to expand it's power: aid to Northern Korea. Aid to Mao's China. Aid to the Vietnameses of Ho Chi Min. No direct conflict: it's army could'nt anymore !

5) Others people had described better than me the numbers of units/planes/supply kept in the west by the german army, that could have come back to the east front if the western allies were not figthing. Would'nt it have been enough to stop the Russians and force a conditional peace ?

So: USSR made a huge effort against Germany, for sure.
But would have been able to win alone ? I don't think so.

[Japan]

Much of what you are saying is correct, but you underestimate the Soviet Army's manpower base.
Soviet of course had to stop, 1- USA and UK was their allies, and 2- They had Nukes. [:D]


Btw, let me share with you a few pages I have, (permission has been granted from Author)
The entire book is availeble for free reading and wiev, link at bottom.
























-





If you want to (for free) read the whole book then look at this pdf link:
http://books.google.se/books?id=dcAgT_2 ... =1#PPP1,M1

[gladiatt]

Well, many points in theses pages are good, and some i discovered.
I can admit that Russians learned (the hard way) how to improve efficiency with their industry and weapons.
Many people know that germany gear up it's production only by 1943: too late.

But i still don't believe it was enough to obtain victory alone for the USSR.
There are many points in these pages about specifics.
But the large scope is the same as i wrote in my previous post
1) the allies leaders where confident about their final victory, but not absolutely sure
2) the western leaders were divided about the utility to fight in western europe: Churchill had foresee the futur cold war, and wanted to stop Stalin's army influence. But as Roosevelt was delivering the supplies and weapons he so badly lacked, he had to accept Overlord in France. Roosevelt was just aiming the end of fascist Germany.
3)the russian army had the upper hand on the werchmacht in 1943, but without the lend lease, it couldn't had survived (or survived in the ourals)
4)even if more effective in manpower, materials and tactics than the german army or the westerns army, the russian army (as many others) was bleeded by the end of 1944. It still fighted to the end (as did the Brits, the germans, the japanese). But could it had sustained a new war ( for example a Not-so-cold-war against the western allies) ???
5)what time would had it take for the russian army alone to defeat germany ? how many losses would had it costed ? would theses casualties had stopped the russian army power ?

Dont get me wrong: i'm not saying the Western allies defeated alone Germany. It would be difficult to estimate how much percent of victory is due to each country. But Russia alone would, in my humble opinion, not have obtain victory, even if it did the greatest effort.
You know how Stalin was proud of it's army, of it's country, of it's political regime.
Even with this, during the war, the soviet news told of the help sent by the allies (truck, food, cloth, medicines, planes, and so on). It's only AFTER the war that this lend lease was hidden in the news, for the soviet public and for the people of enslaved east europe.

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

1) the allies leaders where confident about their final victory, but not absolutely sure

Correct, based on MACCA WW2 study

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

3)the Russian army had the upper hand on the werchmacht in 1943, but without the lend lease, it couldn't had survived (or survived in the ourals)

Not Correct based on MACCA WW2 study, Soviet had all they needed as of mid-late 1943, and most of the raw material received during 1944 never left the port of Murmansk. See book above for details.

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

4)even if more effective in manpower, materials and tactics than the German army or the westerns army, the Russian army (as many others) was bleeded by the end of 1944. It still fighted to the end (as did the Brits, the germans, the japanese). But could it had sustained a new war ( for example a Not-so-cold-war against the western allies) ???

No due to Nukes, but yes if only conventional war. This is based on MACCA Post WW2 Studyes.
Please understand that this speculations is not based on "who will win" but in manpower and fanatism in a Culture vs Culture battle. Western Culture are generelly not willing to accept millions of millions losses ect in a war due to lack of fanatism ect.
(You might want to challenge them on that, I think our western culture can (more or less) be as easely manipulated as any other)

ORIGINAL: gladiatt

5)what time would had it take for the Russian army alone to defeat Germany ? how many losses would had it costed ? would theses casualties had stopped the Russian army power ?

Based on MACCA by mid 1946, losses estimated to another +1,3 Million.
Also, based on MACCA Soviet would be able to feed 1,4 million men and females into Army pr year, + another 1 million into logistics pr single year... and that ratio could go on until 1978! (Due to amount of Males and Females in Soviet + Occupied countries who reach Army service age pr year). The number could be made higher if Soviet would geared up its industry aigan for all out war (they started gearing down in mid 1943).

ORIGINAL: gladiatt


Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the Western allies defeated alone Germany. It would be difficult to estimate how much percent of victory is due to each country. But Russia alone would, in my humble opinion, not have obtain victory, even if it did the greatest effort.

Your Opinion is noted, but keep in mind that it is only that.
From Late 1943, the Actual scientific study say otherwise. See book above for details.

Much of the Land Lace received in 1944 had hardly any effect on anything as most was stored in Murmansk untill after the war, this due to lack of logistics in the Soviet Union, and the logistics was not prioritated for it as they by then had more then enugth already stocpiled up at indistrual centers. Large Scale movement started aigan 9th February 1945.
Last shipment was recived September 1945. The "official" record claim sevreal of the rare materials lasted untill 1957, as Soviet Industry Gered Down for Peace levels already in mid 1943, this caused the Soviet stocpiles to last years longer then initially planned, and the majorety of the raw materials was recived during 1942 and 1943.

If this subject interest you gladiatt, then i recommend you read the 3 books, and especially the one you see screanshots from in posts above.

[Iridium]

One last statement that I think we can all agree on:

Without the ~2.55 million lbs of soap the US sent to Russia, the Eastern Front would have smelled a heck of a lot worse than it did. Both sides benefited from this greatly.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Japan
Btw, let me share with you a few pages I have, (permission has been granted from Author)
The entire book is availeble for free reading and wiev, link at bottom.

This moron writes almost as badly as you do. Unsubstantiated, conclusory statement after unsubstantiated, conclusory statement in a confused blather of unconnected assertions that prove nothing and go nowhere. Looks quite the amateur effort. I am not surprised it is available free; I have to pay a disposal service to get rid of stuff like this that accumulates in my yard.

Thanks for "land lace," though. You are an entertaining source of non sequiturs and other malaprops, if nothing else.

As far as Patton and MacArthur are concerned, I don't see much of a principled way to compare the command abilities of the two (as others have ably pointed out), but, despite their petty foibles and other shortcomings, where would the Allies have been without 'em?

[gladiatt]

ORIGINAL: Japan

If this subject interest you gladiatt, then i recommend you read the 3 books, and especially the one you see screanshots from in posts above.

As soon as i can find some spare time in my life, i'll do: it is always better to have a maximum of information on a topic, even if contradictory with others info: it help to form it's own opinion. Thanks for the links

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: 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!!!)

"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Soviet army" Stalin.

I wonder if he actually said this. Great quoted though.

[bush]

JeffK,

Yes, THAT David irving!

[Japan]

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

JeffK,

Yes, THAT David irving!

don't bother to read books by him, he is no good..

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Japan

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

JeffK,

Yes, THAT David irving!

don't bother to read books by him, he is no good..

I have always been a fool for good advice.

[Anonymous]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Japan

ORIGINAL: bushpsu

JeffK,

Yes, THAT David irving!

don't bother to read books by him, he is no good..

I have always been a fool for good advice.

That is so funny. [:D] There are so many books written by fascists in Europe that are shreded wheat. [:D] Please keep being a fool.[:D]