Patton wanted to take on the Soviets 1945

You do know why his wife had his bronze statue stationed at West Point with binoculars in hand squinting at the library don't you?

 

Patton was an old school horse soldier like Ney or Stuart. Brilliant at knowing when and where to strike, but not always a deep thinker at seeing the big picture.

 

I believe in destiny. Yes we create our own destiny. But all great men were/are destined to be great. Patton knew he was special. He came from a long line of warriors. Genetic memory. Great race car drivers beget great race car drivers. Etc.

 

I didn't say US wouldn't have won the war. I'm saying historians said it could have lasted till 1947. Nothing yet was said of the atomic bomb, and Russia helping US out was an important issue in the agenda in US-Soviet negotiations.

 

While the content in the link provided here proves interesting this is the organization started by William Pierce, he of the Turner Diaries and probably as exact as anything that the IHR or any of that ilk put out.

Just sayin'

 

I watched a documentary about Patton yesterday on the History channel, and it quoted that Patton said in 1945, Lets fight them now, we will be at war with them sooner or later so lets do the job now while we have the army here in place.

 

Perhaps. But my impression of Unthinkable is that there was at least as much chance that it was a cover to explain to conservatives why they didn't take action vs the Soviets than it was a plan that was undertaken with the actual intent of attacking the Soviets.

 

It is said that Patton fancied himself as the reincarnate of a military leader from ages back in the past and was inspired by this leader of bygone times.....who is to say we did not benefit greatly by whatever inspiration led him to be such a bold leader in war. He certainly had his faults but in the end his service to us was great in what was accomplished. He appears to have little understanding for such things as "shell shock" or "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" but then who at the time was fully knowledgeable about such things. Many can find fault with his understandings for those ailments but I have read commendations that he gave to soldiers under his command and I do not have copies to share but he did a great job of recognizing the sacrifice and determination of soldiers in those letters he sent to men who served under him. I was greatly moved by those letters and the fact that he took the time to write and send those out to these men under him that did suffer to make the gains that were made. It is clear he appreciated them and their individual sacrifice. If I can ever get my hands on one I will share it here.

 

I had never heard about the Allied forces making up preliminary plans for clashing with the Russians. That's very interesting although it would make sense. But I guess even the thought of it probably did not get very far, right?

I mean, Roosevelt and Churchill basically gave into Stalin controlling most of Poland by the Tehran conference in 1943, right? Then by Yalta, the fate of eastern Europe was basically sealed, was it not?

 

I heard on the History Channel that Churchill retured home after talks between the big three to fight a general election because his role as PM was under threat and a deal was done between the Americans and Russians over Poland in his absence, he was furious when he found out.

 

Here are a couple of links to unthinkable:
Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Operation Unthinkable: 'Russia: Threat to Western Civilization,'" British War Cabinet, Joint Planning Staff [Draft and Final Reports: 22 May, 8 June, and 11 July 1945], Public Record Office, CAB 120/691/109040

 

That isn't really the case, as early as Oct. of 1944 Churchill had made his "naughty (or nasty) note" proposal to Stalin during the Tolstoy Conference, which divided eastern Europe up in percentages between the west and the Soviets. Poland was left for later since Stalin was still fighting Nazis on the east, and the "deal" done at Yalta counted on Stalin keeping his word as to "open elections" being held in Poland post-war. He lied, or at least "stretched" the truth and when the elections were held only Soviet approved candidates could be voted for. And this was WELL before the Potsdam Conference between Truman (who really didn't trust Stalin) and the Soviets.

Churchill might very well have been furious, but he himself sort of started the ball rolling in that direction while Hitler and the Nazis were still "in the fight", and his motive was to keep the Soviets out of Greece and re-install the Greek king and a pro-British government.

 

In the calculations of the final days amongst the "Big Three" Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt we may have suffered a bit as Roosevelt was not 100% becoming ill during these times and could explain why our first moves to begin the Cold War were not always the most desirable. It may not be the fault of our Generals such as McArthur or Patton who may have had designs for at least a more aggressive stance than they were permitted to achieve. Remember we had a change in leadership just before the end of the war and we may have not had our eggs in the basket so to speak until we arrived at the matters of the Berlin Airlift. Roosevelt's death was opportunity for the Russians.

 

Patton had his good and bad points but, one thing needs to be remembered-is that he got the JOB done.

 

It can be argued that Patton was the best US army commander based on troops lost for ground gained and enemy formations destroyed. But then he did give Ike a headache or three.

 

:lol::lol: He's probably the one who made Ike go bald ;-))

 

Patton was a highly aggressive commander who developed a studied instinct for the psychology of the enemy and to execute decisive maneuvers to unhinge his equilibrium with the utmost violence and determination. He often forced the currents of battle to propel his army into the main effort and found himself leading the entire Allied advance. I think he was about the best general in Western Europe shoulder-to-shoulder with Monty.

 

i think that Patton was a very skilled and brave commander, but if any of the good German generals had the air support and the reserves of tanks, artillery and men, would they have done just as good, lets face it, the Geramans had to take on a totally mechenized force with total air superiority, when them selfs had to fall back on Horses and no air force.

 

I think Metz took rather longer to take than Patton perhaps thought.he was indeed a great cavalry general though,cheers.

 

Hi Triple/ Well said and couldnt agree more.

Yan, Patton didnt have as much as you might think. in 1944, no matter what military you were in, everybody had their fair share of shortages, not just the Germans. I read slightly over a year ago, some good books dealing with that subject in an off-handedly way, and was slightly surprised how much of the Penny Pinch the Russians too were feeling.