This thread got me thinking. Patton wanted to roll all the way to Moscow. He had openly stated that the Allies had defeated “the wrong enemy”.
What do you think would have happened if Eisenhower et. al. had gassed up George’s tanks and said, “Go get 'em”?
Russian tanks would have ripped the hell out of Patton’s army.
One reason America did so well at the end of WWII was that we had such strong support from the American population at home, who were firmly committed to defeating Germany, Italy, and Japan. Russia is definitely not on that list, and I don’t think that the American citizenry would put up with another war being started. They were excited to be finished on V-J day, and probably wouldn’t have looked favorably on starting a new war with the same people we called “Allies” during the war with Germany.
Millions dead, but in all likelihood, you’d have a Soviet victory on the ground as the Allies fell apart - there’s no way the other Allies would have stood for it. If the war had gone on long enough it’d end in a truce forced by American use of an atomic weapon.
Didn’t Churchill have a plan to arm the German POW’ s and point them eastwards again?
Zhukov v Patton; Patton never stood a chance. Now with Hodges in command, you might have an epic battle.
Incidentally, I have always been of the Patton-is-overrated crowd. Of US Field Army Commanders, I would say that Hodges was definatly the best in Europe.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
I agree.
There are two aspects to this:
It’s be the U.S. (with possible remnants of the German army) versus the Soviet Union; RickJay is correct; the British by 1945 were pig-sick of war, and the rest of the European allies had only just been liberated a year earlier. How that ends, who knows? Reds in Paris?
Those complaints were pretty unfounded, and was one of the reason Patton never rose above Field Army command and saw many erstwhile subordinates like Bradley and Clark get Army Group Commands. Pattons army was the southern most of the 4 allied armies during the break out (from Normandy) and incidentally Patton’s saw the least resistance, Hodges advanced further than he did with half the armour and more resistance. Both Demsey (British 2nd Army) and Cerar (canadian 1st Army) advanced as far with much much greater resistance.
True.
“Crerar,” just to be picky.
Crerar is an interesting character. He had no battle experience prior to taking over the 1st Canadian Army, but had long advanced on his brilliance and organizational skills. His performance in Europe has widely been regarded as excellent; Canadian troops were not the equal of their enemies at first, but he accomplished remarkable things. Dashing generals like Patton and Rommel got all the press, but at the highest levels of command, it was the highly skilled administrators who really got things done.
I appreciate ralph124c’s comment and your agreement about the T-34 being better than Allied tanks, but that’s really irrelevant. German tanks were better than Allied tanks and the Allies still drove them from Normandy to Germany; I could cite all kinds of weapons systems the Allies had that were better than the Soviet counterpart. American artillery was, collectively, by that point perhaps the best weapons system deployed by any army; the Allies had better bombers, so on and so forth. What answers the OP is simple; the Soviets were one army, bigger than the Allied army and, contrary to popular belief, very well organized and supplied. The Allies simply wouldn’t have followed Patton into that war; their cohensiveness would have dissolved, and that would have decided matters.
In An Army at Dawn and Day of Battle, Patton comes across as someone who never really got logistics, so if he were “turned loose,” he’d probably end up out of gas somewhere. In another book I read about the last year of the war (would have to look for the title) it described a number of Soviet commanders just waiting for the US Army to cross the Elbe and keep going so they would have a chance to accidentally fire on the Americans, bloody their noses, and apologize profusely while having delivered a message of sorts.
In terms of conventional forces, I’m with the majority on this one: Soviets win. DEpending on exactly when all this is happening, however, life might get more interesting given atomics. Scenario: October 1945 sees an American declaration of war followed immediately by a bomber taking a one way trip to Moscow while another hits the biggest military target in Eastern Europe. Stalin and most of the general staff are dead. Rather interesting situation, isn’t it? It or equivalent are the only paths to victory I see.
I’m also not sure how much the soviet logistical system depended on continued American support. Over the course of the war, the US built a shocking fraction of the Soviet support equipment via lend lease; they desperately needed our help up through at least 42. Depending on how much their domestic industry took over they might not have been in a position to supply a sustained war.
While nukes might tip the advantage to the US, or the US plus whatever allies were willing to go along, what happens after the surrender? How on earth do you occupy and keep control of a country that size?
We still had a war going on with Japan which complicates things. But I feel the United States could have beaten the Soviet Union in 1945 if we had been willing to fight the war. But it would have been a huge effort - more than we needed to win WWII. At least four years and several million casualties.
Hodges was good but I think Truscott was better.
You don’t. You set up a local strong man, have him surrender to you, and pray that he either keeps power or that his fall results in anarchy and civil war.
I’m pretty sure this is the one thing that would not happen. Soviet land superiority was awesome at that point. Without nukes, they walk all over western Europe and we’d be helpless to do much about it. With nukes…well, there are only so many cities in the Soviet Union and i think our bomb production was such that it wouldn’t take 4+ years.
But the Soviet Union was pretty much at its peak and the United States still had a lot of untapped resources. The Soviets could have beaten the American forces that existed in 1945 but the United States would have been able to build an army by 1947 or 48 that could have beaten the Soviets.
I am a Truscott fan, but by the time he got Fifth Army, the war in Italy was pretty much won. Hodges faced the best the Germans had.