2007-08-02 08:24:07 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
no way, Patton is a great strategic officer but Soviets were unbeatable
2007-08-08 23:22:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's possible. Patton had the tactical skills to do it, but the Soviets had a massive numerical superiority. Being the only nation with the A-bomb would have prevented defeat for the US, but would not have allowed them to win. They didn't have enough to simply erase their enemy, and any troop losses in isolated A-bomb attacks would not have impeded the Russians as much as it would have the Germans.
The USA had learned strategic warfare defeating Germany, and could likely have reached Soviet industrial centers that were beyond German reach. However the betrayal of attacking the Soviets would have certainly aroused the same kind of passion as the Pearl Harbor attack had done in the USA. So while it is possible that the US forces would have prevailed, I don't think it would have been likely. I think after another very long and costly war both sides would have agreed to end the fighting before they both ceased to exist. Those tensions would still be going on, and occasional fighting would likely erupt whenever one side or the other felt they had an advantage, or were antagonized enough.
2007-08-02 08:49:04 · answer #2 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
As with so many things in war, the answer would have to be "it depends." Could Patton have driven the Soviets out of Berlin? Without a doubt. The Soviet supply lines were much too long to support a lengthy effort so far from home, and the American air support would have easily tipped the balance. Could Patton have taken Stalingrad or Moscow where Hitler failed? Not a chance. The supply problems would then be reversed and the Soviet superiority of numbers would have held against Patton just as it did aganist Hitler.
2007-08-02 08:34:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I believe the political situation would have prevented the time line needed for such a huge undertaking. The U.S had been on war footing since 1941, our allies since 1939. I think the huge question is would the American and British people have the will to continue fighting, especially against someone that had not actually attacked us?
The U.S being protected by it's oceans had developed a manufacturing juggernaut dedicated to turning out war materials. There were experienced commanders and troops on both sides. I doubt there was an advantage to either side in that case.
Defeating a country the size and population of Russia on their home soil would be a long and difficult task. You'd have to fight the Russian army, plus every man, woman and child breathing.
Based on what's known of Stalin's personality, dropping the bomb and killing 500,000 to 1,000,000 people would not drive him to the negotiating table. Did the U.S have the war machine capable of defeating the Russian army in 1945? Yes. Did we have the will to fight another 3-4 years? I doubt it,as there was no immediate threat to the homeland.
2007-08-02 09:13:32 · answer #4 · answered by Michael J 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hi Jason!
Yes - but of course, it depends.
We had better tanks - they had more of everything. Patton and Zhukov were probably evenly matched in military skills. Patton was a certifiable genius who tended to "go off the map" and get himself in trouble. Zhukov did the same until the point when Stalin realized that Zhukov was so popular that to punish Zhukov would most likely be Stalin's downfall.
There's no question that Patton could have taken Berlin if politics hadn't made him stop his advance.
Glad you're back. I'm still "me" - just got snookered when I changed carriers.
2007-08-02 08:58:16 · answer #5 · answered by Sprouts Mom 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. Patton was overrated and the Soviets had beaten the best that the Germans had thrown at them, and the German best was far superior to the American best.
2007-08-02 18:40:17 · answer #6 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think he could have ever had the manpower to achieve any kind of final, decisive victory. Perhaps the other poster is correct that he could have pushed the Soviets out of Berlin, but I am not even confident of that. The Red Army was huge, motivated and in possession of superior tanks. It would have been World War III, and we would not have prevailed once the battle shifted into interior Russia.
2007-08-02 08:45:51 · answer #7 · answered by Captain Atom 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Patton could have beaten God with the right army.
M
2007-08-06 08:04:50 · answer #8 · answered by Matt 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Only if he was given command more than just the 3rd Army, he'd need the air support and command of the other allied armies....afterall, the Red Army was massive.
2007-08-02 10:18:51 · answer #9 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. Russia has the natural defense of geography, which has defeated every power that has tried to invade them.
2007-08-02 12:35:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋