humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Brian Bagnall wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
> news:ft3gpp$rd8$3@vulture.killfile.org...
>> Add one more. Not marching to Moscow after beating the Germans. The
>> Rooskis
>> were pretty well bled out and advancing American troops would have been
>> seen
>> as liberators.
>
> That's what Patton wanted to do. Too bad he died in a tragic accident before
> the end of the war. He could have added his 2 cents on some of these issues.
>
> - Brian


Brian:

The Russians only won their share of the war against the Nazis due to
the direct supply of some 50% of the war materials to the Russian army
and 25% of the food to support the USSR citizenry by the US. Without the
US made tanks, trucks, engineering, tank mfg. factories, and tons of
everything else, the Russians would have lost as certainly as they were
massively loosing in Operation Barbarossa.

The role the USSR played was important. Note that 90% of the German
casualties in Europe were on the Eastern Front. The US and British had
it relatively easy by comparison. Hitler's attack on the USSR was his
strategic blunder. The US invasions could have never happened if the
Russians were allies of the Germans or neutral. Rommel's defenses in
France and those in Italy would have been far too strong. The US might
not have had as easy a time in N. Africa, and the invasion into Italy
not possible for years to come.

Interestingly, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to have the greater part
of the war fought on Russian turf using Russian troops. The war never
came to the GB or USA. That was a brilliant piece of strategy.

Even if the Nazis had not gone into Russia that doesn't mean that a US
supplied USSR wouldn't have attacked Germany.

If the Patton idea had become a reality at the end of the German war the
logistics would have been a problem. The US would have been supplying
both sides. Alternatively, the US could have withdrawn support for the
Russians, and fashioned new US divisions made up of what few Germans
they could round up and rehabilitate. That war would have been fought in
Eastern Germany and Poland. I think that a year of cold war stalemate
would have been necessary to get the demolished German troops back to
any sort of readiness. Then, an invasion into the East and a hardened
Russia would have been necessary. If Patton were in charge, there
wouldn't have been any waiting, and a US Armed Forces policy and prior
planning would have been necessary.

US tanks would have been placed against the USSR tanks. US technology
would have been fighting itself in a war of attrition until Russian
supplies ran out.

I read that the reason why Patton had to stop his advance into Germany
due to fuel shortages was that the main fuel supply depot in France had
been blown up by accidental shelling by US friendly forces. Supplies had
to be restocked for Patton and the Allies to resume the attack. Without
that event Patton could have rolled deep into Germany several weeks
earlier and caused enormous confusion.

What if?

If Pres. Wilson had not provoked a war against Germany, Ayn Rand pointed
out that no Nazism or Soviet Communism would have existed. That is, no
WW1, no WW2, and no PRC.

The "most colossal strategic blunder in American history" was the US
entry into WW1.

Ralph Hertle