Re: George S. Patton. If Only.

by Clubtender on Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:55 pm

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Well I guess the President at the time must have had it completely wrong and that these things were hiding away in a closet somewhere.

Harry Truman was many things but a hawk was not one of them. The only reason that he used atomic weapons on Japan was to end the war as quickly as possible which actually saved lives in the long run. The day after the war ended, he slashed military spending to the bone which included the production of atomic weapons. If the need for atomic weapons arose in 1946, It would have taken the US less than a month to produce them in volume.

by Bilbo Baggins on Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:35 am

Harry Truman was many things but a hawk was not one of them. The only reason that he used atomic weapons on Japan was to end the war as quickly as possible which actually saved lives in the long run. The day after the war ended, he slashed military spending to the bone which included the production of atomic weapons. If the need for atomic weapons arose in 1946, It would have taken the US less than a month to produce them in volume.

Even if thats true, don't you think it would have been a pretty hard war to sell to the US public, and other Allies? Casaulties would have been huge, and Europe would have been further ravaged. What would have Truman said; 'Yeah, the Red Army pretty much just won us the war against the Nazi's, and now we're gonna team up with what remains of the Third Reich and take it to those commie scum. What's that Winston? Britain is shattered economically? No worries, it'll be fine, we'll just put you more in debt so you have to keep rationing until the 60s.'

by Clubtender on Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:05 am

Bilbo Baggins wrote:
Harry Truman was many things but a hawk was not one of them. The only reason that he used atomic weapons on Japan was to end the war as quickly as possible which actually saved lives in the long run. The day after the war ended, he slashed military spending to the bone which included the production of atomic weapons. If the need for atomic weapons arose in 1946, It would have taken the US less than a month to produce them in volume.

Even if thats true, don't you think it would have been a pretty hard war to sell to the US public, and other Allies? Casaulties would have been huge, and Europe would have been further ravaged. What would have Truman said; 'Yeah, the Red Army pretty much just won us the war against the Nazi's, and now we're gonna team up with what remains of the Third Reich and take it to those commie scum. What's that Winston? Britain is shattered economically? No worries, it'll be fine, we'll just put you more in debt so you have to keep rationing until the 60s.'

I never said that it wouldn't have been a political nightmare. Remember, this began when I said that I understood and agreed with Patton's motives.

by Bilbo Baggins on Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:09 am

True, but the original suggestion was that Patton was one hell of a leader. If a good leader is someone who advocates war against a current ally, who is hugely powerful, then by all means, bring old Pat back to life!

He might know something about war, but Patton was no great leader (in the general sense of the definition).

by Clubtender on Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:17 am

Bilbo Baggins wrote:True, but the original suggestion was that Patton was one hell of a leader. If a good leader is someone who advocates war against a current ally, who is hugely powerful, then by all means, bring old Pat back to life!

He might know something about war, but Patton was no great leader (in the general sense of the definition).

He was no political leader by any meaning of the word, but he was the absolute best military leader in the last 200 years.

by Bilbo Baggins on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:34 am

he was the absolute best military leader in the last 200 years.

What about Napoleon? Rommel? Guderian? Yamamoto was no fool either. Brusilov of WWI was no slouch either, especially considering what he was working with.

by Clubtender on Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:45 am

Bilbo Baggins wrote:
he was the absolute best military leader in the last 200 years.

What about Napoleon? Rommel? Guderian? Yamamoto was no fool either. Brusilov of WWI was no slouch either, especially considering what he was working with.

Patton was able to get his men to perform without guns at their backs. I will admit that Yamamoto was no slouch. He advised Japan to not attack the US. When he was overruled, he told the Japanese government that he could only give them 6 months of victories before the US would turn the tables on Japan and he was right. Patton however did not find a way to get himself killed during the war, Yamamoto did.

by iluvfreebeer on Wed Nov 07, 2007 6:40 pm

I would rank Napolean above Patton.
I'd also rank Stonewall Jackson above Patton.
I'd put Shaka above all, except perhaps for Napolean.
That still puts Patton in the top 5 or so.

by Bilbo Baggins on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:56 pm

Robert E. Lee was a good general, he could have won the Civil War if his plans hadn't been lost to the North.

If we're just talking the last 200 years then surely Napoleon is number 1?

by iluvfreebeer on Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:11 am

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Robert E. Lee was a good general, he could have won the Civil War if his plans hadn't been lost to the North.

If we're just talking the last 200 years then surely Napoleon is number 1?

And as a Black man I would have been much better off had Robert E. Lee been successful.

The South Will Rise Again!!!!!

Here's hoping the next great war of independence will turn out better.

by Bilbo Baggins on Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:18 am

And as a Black man I would have been much better off had Robert E. Lee been successful.

How so?

by iluvfreebeer on Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:33 pm

Bilbo Baggins wrote:
And as a Black man I would have been much better off had Robert E. Lee been successful.

How so?

States rights.
Small federal government.
More individual liberty.

by KSigMason on Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:43 am

Bilbo Baggins wrote:He might know something about war, but Patton was no great leader (in the general sense of the definition).

No, he was a good leader, by definition:

a person who directs a military force or unit

or

a person who has commanding authority or influence

Also, who are you comparing him to, if any, that makes him not a leader? Most people are not leaders, even some politicians. They are managers. Not a lot of real leader any more.

by Bilbo Baggins on Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:56 pm

Fine fine, he was a great military leader.

States rights.
Small federal government.
More individual liberty.

You think you would have had greater individual liberty? In time, I'm sure the Confederate States (if they survived) would have improved socially, but I think its pretty optimistic to think they would have thrown away the whole 'white man better than black man' theory. Theres still racism in the US today, it would be worse in a country that fought to keep their slaves (though I do recognise that it was just one issue of many)

by iluvfreebeer on Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:05 am

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Fine fine, he was a great military leader.

States rights.
Small federal government.
More individual liberty.

You think you would have had greater individual liberty? In time, I'm sure the Confederate States (if they survived) would have improved socially, but I think its pretty optimistic to think they would have thrown away the whole 'white man better than black man' theory. Theres still racism in the US today, it would be worse in a country that fought to keep their slaves (though I do recognise that it was just one issue of many)

I have more personal liberty in Texas than I would in a socialist yankee state like Massacheusetts, NY, NJ, CA or Illinois.

Lincoln was one of the biggest racist terrorists in the history of the world.