Could we have ended Communism?

[Lumber-Jax12]

Apparently back in 1945 shortly after the defeat of the Third Reich, a certain General of the US Army came up with a plan that had many supporters abroad, I.E. Winston Churchill, the plan was to invade the Soviet Union and potentially end communism, the name of the man was George Patton, Jr., aka "Blood and Guts".

He believed that the Soviets were slowly creeping in on European territory, and that they are actually worse than the Nazi's were, he though that he could obtain a quick, and easy victory over the USSR. For those of you interested/versed in this stuff, what are your comments, could it have been done, was Patton simply a rabid, war-monger, or a modern day Nostradamus who fore-saw the disastrous effects that communism would have on the world?

Could it have been done, or we would we fail, like Napoleon, and Hitler before us.

[Randomguy78]

personally i don't give two fucks about the past...

whats happened, happened...
what didn't happen, didn't happen...

[Lumber-Jax12]

At 5/28/11 11:21 PM, Randomguy78 wrote: personally i don't give two fucks about the past...

whats happened, happened...
what didn't happen, didn't happen...

ehh you didn't have to post if it didn't interest you, no offense.

[Randomguy78]

At 5/28/11 11:22 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

At 5/28/11 11:21 PM, Randomguy78 wrote: personally i don't give two fucks about the past...

whats happened, happened...
what didn't happen, didn't happen...

ehh you didn't have to post if it didn't interest you, no offense.

none take, if you look through most of my posts you'll see i have a tendancy to not give a fuck often...

[Light]

We likely would have failed. If not, then we would've sustained massive amounts of casualties, which would not have been worth it. Remember, the Soviets were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers in each battle they fought.

They lost more than 7.5 million troops in WW2.

[Lumber-Jax12]

At 5/28/11 11:34 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: We likely would have failed. If not, then we would've sustained massive amounts of casualties, which would not have been worth it. Remember, the Soviets were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers in each battle they fought.

They lost more than 7.5 million troops in WW2.

The nazis could have won, they're enemy was Hitler, the man fucked up nearly every victory they could have had.

[Light]

At 5/28/11 11:39 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

They lost more than 7.5 million troops in WW2.

The nazis could have won, they're enemy was Hitler, the man fucked up nearly every victory they could have had.

Umm..

You've lost me there. Can you please clarify what you were trying to say?

[Lumber-Jax12]

At 5/28/11 11:44 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 5/28/11 11:39 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

They lost more than 7.5 million troops in WW2.

The nazis could have won, they're enemy was Hitler, the man fucked up nearly every victory they could have had.

Umm..

You've lost me there. Can you please clarify what you were trying to say?

Sure, If you look at many of the German army's many battles and basically the war overall you'll noticed the man(Hitler) stupidly refused many requests at certain military action for what-ever god knows he thought would have helped them "win" the war.

In example, during the infamous attempt at his invasion in the Soviet Union he made many mistakes, he failed to even supply his army with winter gear as he thought they would be finished before it rolled along, of course later he would do so, but only in the midst of the freezing, Russian cold. Secondly, he allowed Japan to conclude a cease-fire with the Russians, this alone freed 40 divisions.

Going even before this the man let his enemy gain practically all of eastern Europe by allowing them to take half of Poland and create "spheres of Influence" in other areas. But even with these setbacks he still could of have won. If he had not split his army in thirds at Stalingrad he could have won, and if he only retreated during Moscow, he could have saved his army and reorganize for another attack, instead he left them to die in the winter.

Hell, if only he followed through his attack at Dunkirk, he could have eliminated the British threat from the West and focus all attacks on the West.

[Light]

At 5/29/11 12:13 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

At 5/28/11 11:44 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 5/28/11 11:39 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

They lost more than 7.5 million troops in WW2.

The nazis could have won, they're enemy was Hitler, the man fucked up nearly every victory they could have had.

Umm..

You've lost me there. Can you please clarify what you were trying to say?

Stuff.

I agree with you; Hitler squandered many opportunities to prolong his defeat/win WWII. The man was not a military genius, to his detriment.

[theshadowwolf]

They would have failed, as was stated. Stalin did not give a fuck about lives, only about getting shit done. The soviet union would have suffered massive casualties, but its not like they weren't already.

And do americans still have a fucking problem with communism? And dont pull this bullshit like "communism doesn't work. I know because my parents told me so". You cant say that A.) Real communism as defined by Marx never happened B.) You cant even say the soviet union was unsuccessful, because under it, Russia industrialized 400%, by 50 to 100 years in 5 to 10 years, and C.) the soviet union fell because Russia was weakened by a crappy leader and bankruptcy from the arms race, which was ultimately stupid, as at that point, the soviet union could have nuked the whole world 12 times over.

[Shade]

Got a problem with Communism?

[Light]

At 5/29/11 01:12 AM, theshadowwolf wrote:

And do americans still have a fucking problem with communism? And dont pull this bullshit like "communism doesn't work. I know because my parents told me so". You cant say that A.) Real communism as defined by Marx never happened B.)

Just because it's never been accomplished, that doesn't mean that we can't determine whether it would be successful or not.

You cant even say the soviet union was unsuccessful, because under it, Russia industrialized 400%, by 50 to 100 years in 5 to 10 years, and C.)

Maybe, but the industrialization under those 5-year plans came at the cost of food; massive food shortages occurred in the Soviet Union. That doesn't seem very successful.

the soviet union fell because Russia was weakened by a crappy leader and bankruptcy from the arms race, which was ultimately stupid, as at that point, the soviet union could have nuked the whole world 12 times over.

Being a communist state is the best way for a country to stop being communist.

[satanbrain]

But lords don't attack each other! they send their peasants to quarrel around the world. A direct attack would've turned the cold war to another global war.

[Wagggs]

At 5/28/11 11:17 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: He believed that the Soviets were slowly creeping in on European territory, and that they are actually worse than the Nazi's were, he though that he could obtain a quick, and easy victory over the USSR. For those of you interested/versed in this stuff, what are your comments, could it have been done, was Patton simply a rabid, war-monger, or a modern day Nostradamus who fore-saw the disastrous effects that communism would have on the world?

Could it have been done, or we would we fail, like Napoleon, and Hitler before us.

Because obtaining land and administering it as if it were your own country's land is worse than the systematic killing of 6 million jews. Right? Patton was a successful general, but he was not a good one, nor did he think clearly. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with good communism. Do I like my capitalism, freedom, and democracy? Yes, but that doesn't mean communism is a bad idea. In fact, communism was ideal to many post-war nations.

Generals like Patton and MacAurthur were brash idiots that got praised for their bold attitudes. These attitudes got the job done, but if they would have chilled out a little bit, quite a few more Americans would have survived the war. Ultimately, irresponsible boldness is not needed in a general, which made Patton a bad general.

[Falconpunchr]

Even if it somehow was done, then someone else would likely adopt communist ideology.

[111122223138]

There was no need to stop communism though, cause it ain't nothin bad... Just a way to govern a country's people.

[dantehawesomeman]

An enemy of our enemy is our friend.

[Sevkat]

At 5/28/11 11:17 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Apparently back in 1945 shortly after the defeat of the Third Reich, a certain General of the US Army came up with a plan that had many supporters abroad, I.E. Winston Churchill, the plan was to invade the Soviet Union and potentially end communism, the name of the man was George Patton, Jr., aka "Blood and Guts".

This dude also wanted to bomb all of China in fear that they'd overpopulate and invade us.

[111122223138]

At 5/29/11 02:23 AM, dantehawesomeman wrote: An enemy of our enemy is our friend.

Yea, Al-Qaeda and the US sure are tight.

[ModernPatriot]

Lol, you should read my blogs.

[Comrade]

We should have invaded Iran when we had the chance.

[Minerals]

This is the plan you speak of, regarding to the question, I don't think Britain and the US could have taken out Russia, no one can take out Russia, military desaster everytime.

[Asandir]

I don´t think so, you would have to put down alot of states with military, it is impossible.

[Boss]

we should have nuked those fucks. nah i lie

[IncendiaryProduction]

It doesn't need any help to end. The Soviet Union fell on it's own, China is switching to capitalism, and cuba can't stand in it's own much longer.

Yeah, communism fails on it's own.

[Lumber-Jax12]

These are pattons views, not mine, you do also realize none of the wars we fight today would have happened had communism fallen right, or vietnam, korea, and many african nations wouldn't be in shambles due them being proxy wars we fought simply for "democracy/communism"

Please, none of you would have the priviledges you have today if communism is your government, and if you live in china, this doesn't count, the country is no where near as radically communist as it was, and there is no denying that either Mao/Stalin were bad men.

[Lumber-Jax12]

Also I personally believe it could have been done, Patton was no simpleton, he had fewer men true, but this doesn't always mean its better, Finland took on the Russians for years, and in the end the Soviets could only gain a small portion of land in the territory.

Bear in mind I'm no military genius or even versed in the tactics/strategies needed to win a war, so feel free to point errors in my plan.

Couldn't the Allies launch a three front war and this would separate the Soviets to the point where their large numbers meant nothing? True they would out-number us even still, and we would need a lot of me to launch such an offensive.

Couldn't it go something likes this: Attack from the Eastern portion of Europe lead by the British/Americans and if possible German Soldiers willing to make amends for the war as a way of getting of the hook, I think in order for this one to work, they would have to strike at the main strategic points in each satellite and stir up anti-communist feelings to do so, There definitely would be no objection in Poland.

Once they did this, couldn't they simply build defenses so as to lure the Soviets into ambushes and force them to go on the offensive where they would run out of supplies quicker and allow us to bombard them with superior Artillery/ Air Power, the Royal Air Force was very strong and reliable, they even beat the Germans on a 4:1 disadvantage.

Then to the North they could rally the Finnish to help fight, they were at war with them during WWII and the only reason they joined the Axis was because they needed protection, this would be the larger offensive, with temperatures too cold for the russians to even advance it would allow us to send supplies to them and with better gear as the Finnish would be willing to help out.

Plus there is a clear route to St. Petersburg(Leningrad) so with this we could launch a naval assault/amphibious landing when the waters are cold, and if the Soviets do turn to scorched Earth, let them, we just keep supplies running strongly with the areas we acquired from the Germans(Belgian/French Farmlands, and more importantly the Oil reserves in the M.E.), but if not we could then strike from Leningrad to Moscow and if all out fails, we still got the Nuke.

Heres where it could turn to shit, and be the most costly theater of the "war", Invasions from the East, realistically this one would be very hard to accomplish, we would need to secure Japan from any treachery during this invasion and have to defeat Mao Zedong and his communists while at the same time, insure that the Kuomintang stay in power, once we get through them and their support from the Soviets, which if all goes to plan will be hardly any because of the Two fronts in the West.

We could then use the Chinese armies to invade them in Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc, thus taking out any resources they could get from them ,once completed and invasion from the eastern most Russia led by Marines/Army supported by supplies through Alaska and Canada, since at this time was a province of Britain. And with the armies of China, push them to the eastern most extent of Siberia, where they could draw no supplies and be left to starve in the harsh cold of the tundra.

I know its no militarily sound-proof, but I think it could work, but if not tell me where specifically I screwed up or would end this "war" in defeat for the Allies.