How could you not think he was the greatest general of dubya dubya two?

Politics

I wish they'd let him invade the Soviets. Ivan would be laughing all the way to La Manche.

He was a filthy anti-semite

What does Veeky Forums think of Zhukov?

>implying

The Greatest German general in the war.

>Looool fuck the Japs, oh shit, they're coming were is my motorboat
>Maaaaan fuck the Chinese and the Soviet military potential, let's nuke the riceniggers xD, they will run away for sure

Overrated. During his battles all he did was throwing another waves of his soldiers untill they managed to break the defences. It isn't hard when you have as much resources and manpower as Red Army had

Rumor has it he earned a medal for every Soviet division annihilated

...

What do the Germans have to do with it? I'm not arguing that the German generals who commanded the early-war campaigns were better than Patton, am I?

Patton had all those things because historical circumstance plus the efforts of a lot of other people set it up that way for him.

Pic related was better.

Because he wasn't even a good general, let alone the best. Hell, Devers has him beat out in just about every metric, and that's just among the American commanders.

About the only contest he'd be in the running for is "Most overrated general of WW2", but I'd still put Rommel ahead of him.

This

One of the greatest commanders of all time

not hugely knowledgeable about US commanders but pretty sure Omar Bradley was better than Patton

Bradley was better as a logistical and bureaucratic General. While it can be argued that that is what every general needs to be, Patton could take an objective.

George "We have more soldiers than they have bullets" Zhukov.

*Georgy

He hated jews that thought they were opportunistic scum. He even thought communists were worse than Nazis. How can you admire him?

But communists are worse than the Nazis.

George S. "American Zhukov" Patton

...

Your opinion

Back to /leftypol/

Back to /pol/

absolutely not. why would you think so? what were his great accomplishments? for that matter, America's military didn't do much for WW2 at all, they waltzed through western europe compared to the brutality and sheer numbers of the eastern front. their biggest contribution was money and supplies desu.

but muh lend lease.

By reading a book instead of memes

>Fights back to back in WWI and the Russian Civil War
>Plays a major role in taking down Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, who is legitimately one of the craziest figures of the 20th century
>Gets purged by Stalin and has his teeth knocked out by Soviet torturers
>Refuses to confess, even when subjected to mock executions
>Still fights loyally for his nation when rehabilitated
>Fights the Nazis to a standstill for several days at Smolensk
>Finishes off the 6th Army at Stalingrad
>Stands up to Joseph fucking Stalin, the man who had him imprisoned and tortured for three years, over military planning for Operation Bagration
>Stalin backs down
>Bagration drives the Nazis from the entirety of Belarus and takes out 400,000 fascists
>Governs Poland post-war and implements communist decrees with an iron fist
>Acts more Russian than the ethnic Russians
>Governs more severely than the harshest Stalinists
>And when it's all over he retires quietly to his dacha

What a badass. An utter totalitarian and generally a brutal bastard, but it's hard not to admire the depths of his devotion to the USSR.

Are you sure you're not talking about Rokossovsky?

That's the joke, Rokossowski is forgotten while Zhukov is glorified.

I'm sure the Russians definitely would still have won if it had been a one front war, especially since their tactics literally consisted of just dumping men and tanks on the Germans, who would kill them 5:1 and still advance, the Russian tanks didn't even have radios, and the winter killed more Russians than it did Germans. The Russians definitely performed better "winning" on the eastern front than the US did in literally two wars at once across three continents while providing an absolute shitload of supplies to every allied nation in the war.

Patton was shit. His only talent was bragging to the media.

>since their tactics literally consisted of just dumping men and tanks on the Germans, who would kill them 5:1 and still advance
Nice source there, friendo

>muh human wave.
Kill yourself but before you do that google deep battle and konstantin rokossovsky

He wasn't shit but you are right, mac-arthur did the same.

What happened? How could the French changee their opinion this much?

Hollywood and the soviet union I suppose.

Because his "quickest land advance in history" was only possible because Germany was fighting millions of slavs at the same time.

Patton is an overrated faggot that abused his own soldiers. Based Eisenhower should have kept his fat, glory-obsessed ass out of the war for good after Sicily.

george "PTSD don't real" Patton

Panzer Division: The Mailed Fist by Major K J Macksey
I said that their strategy was literally human wave for the purpose of sarcasm. But fact remains they took a very long time to adapt to German mobility warfare and lost a tremendous amount of men and materiel in the process. They were particularly discombobulated at the beginning of the war, but that seems to be the trend with Russians when they enter wars in general
>See: WWI

They WERE suprise attacked before they were ready remember.

Since you posted a german sounding source I assume you think the best tank of world war 2 was the Tiger. It wasn't. It was the T-34 with the Panzer 4, ISU-152 and Stug being runners up.

It's a British source. And the Sherman was a better tank than the T-34, Korea proved that.
>Way more reliable than the T-34
>Wet stowage for ammo
>Radio
>Turret basket
>Better armor by the end of the war
The T-34 was the tank the Soviets needed in 1941 and it was excellent at the time, but it had been surpassed technologically by both the Sherman and the Panzers. Which isn't to say that the T-34 didn't leave its mark either, a tank with armor like the Panther's was what the Germans should have been building from the start.

Well I am including ease of manufacture, cost etc etc. Germany probably should have just built Stug's and Upgunned pZIV's. 65k T34s were built in comparision to 8000 Panzer IVs, less than 6000 Panthers and under 2000 Tigers. Command t-34s had radios and the upgunned (and regular) T34 was much better then the Sherman's peashooter.

Every time the Nazi's created a new design like the Jagd(tiger,panther,panzer) it took time to mass produce it, there were like 400 of these built when they could have made another 2000 Stug's T34-s were very simple, easy to fix and able to quickly be mass produced. German's should have adopted a war economy much sooner and got women working in the factories.

>5:1

I'm always astounded at what ratio Germanboos can come up with for 12 million : 10 million.

Not him, and I'm aware of the difficulties in getting reliable information on German WW2 casualties due to their messed up bureaucracy, but I've never seen anything that came up with 10 million military dead/wounded/missing for the entire war, let alone the Eastern Front. I'm more used to seeing in the 5-7 million range. Where are you getting your numbers from?

Casualties include prisoners, otherwise we'd be inflating the Germans' K/D due to the fact that they were inhumane even compared to the Soviets.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties

But they don't usually include prisoners taken post national surrender, which was the overwhelming source of German prisoners. Again, I haven't run the numbers of who got captured when, but to suggest somewhere on the order of 3-5 million Germans were taken prisoner operationally is a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, if you're counting Soviet losses at 12 million, you're very clearly not including their prisoners as among the casualties, as you'd run way higher than that.

>But they don't usually include prisoners taken post national surrender, which was the overwhelming source of German prisoners.

The Soviets got like, one million German POWs post surreder tops. It's the western allies who took four million. You can exclude them if you want, but 12 million : 9 million is still a way from 5:1.

> you're very clearly not including their prisoners as among the casualties
Wikipedia lists 5 million Soviet prisoners of war. Do you dispute that figure?

Unironically fuckloads of communists in France.

>implying this is not the most effective commander of the war

>The Soviets got like, one million German POWs post surreder tops.
Yes, but again, that won't get you anywhere near a ten million rate for the whole war, let alone on the eastern front alone. Look at Overmans's work, with a table cited here .
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union

Even if all 1,000,000 of his high estimate of German prisoners that died in captivity died during the war, you still only have about 2.1 million prisoners taken during the war, and that's not nearly enough to push the Germans up to ten million.

>Wikipedia lists 5 million Soviet prisoners of war. Do you dispute that figure?
I actually would, albiet not by much. The work I'm most familiar with/think is most authorotative on the subject gives 4.5 million.

gutenberg.cc/articles/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union

Still, you throw in about 6.3 million killed or dying of their wounds, and another 4-5 million PoWs, and you get 10-11 million without counting any wounded at all. And there were a lot of wounded. Depending on what exactly you want to count them with, you get somewhere between 3.7 million (only counting those who never returned to duty) to 13 million (anyone who was taken off the duty for longer than a month or so).

The point I'm driving at is that the only way I can see you getting a listing of 12 million Soviet casualties and 10 million German eastern Front casualties is to use some sort of accounting that isn't calculating the casualties according to similar metrics. Because I can't see you getting as low as 12 million for the Soviets without counting any wounded, not even those who were discharged, but I can't see you getting as high as 10 million for the Germans without counting a lot of wounded. 2 millionish prisoners plus about 3-4 millionish dead doesn't get you anywhere close.

I wasn't talking about overall. The book I mentioned above just says that the Soviets had a 5:1 numerical advantage in several battles but the Germans were able to repel them. I'm not even a wehraboo honestly, the Soviets just kind of sucked at fighting compared to everyone else

It's true. Communists have engaged in both ethnic cleansing on a scale even past Nazis, and they also kill their own people too. They're worse.

The power of propaganda. Hollywood is America's greatest weapon.

shoo shoo antifa

>Communists have engaged in both ethnic cleansing

True

>on a scale even past Nazis,

False

>and they also kill their own people too. They're worse.

implying fascist regimes didn't "kill their own people"?

More people died in Stalin's Soviet Union alone than in all of the Facist regimes combined, that's not even taking into account leaders like Mao or Pol Pot. Don't be a retard.

>More people died in Stalin's Soviet Union alone than in all of the Facist regimes combined

ya lets get a source on that, its the same kind of idiotic crap /pol/tard trump supporting pseudo-nazis spew.

Douglas "Spooked by the Gook" McArthur.
Douglas "Takes a Slap from the Jap" MacArthur.
Douglas "Lets the Chink through the Chainlink," MacArthur
Douglas "Wear the shades and the shame fades" MacArthur

Why are you writing the lend-lease off as some small part of the war?

You tried to turn a historical discussion into a political debate by spewing rhetoric and ad hominem. But I'll bite, the most accepted number of deaths in the holocaust is around 11 million. Stalin various purges and famines range from anywhere from 5-60 million, but many historians estimate around 20 million. Again, not counting Mao or Pol Pot or any other communist dictators.

Not even him, but you do realize that "The Holocaust" is not equal to the deliberate death toll of Nazi Germany, right? I mean, that's just idiotic.

Are you going to count WW2 as the Nazi's death toll?

Two of the most overrated hacks of world war 2.

At the very least, I would count things like the deliberately executed prisoners among the death toll, as military deliberate killings are never considered part of that 11 million. And while I wouldn't put all of the WW2 deaths at Hitler's doorstep, a lot of them can very clearly be attributed to Hitler directly, what with the whole "plunging Europe into chaos through retarded brinksmanship based off of your insane conspiracy theories" thing.

If you order the invasion of a country that you've got a nonagression pact with and is in fact your biggest overall trade partner because you're worried about them refusing to extend you more credit (to keep that trade going) how are the deaths on their side from the resulting war NOT your fault?

If we're counting wars, then Stalin's death count goes up too. The soviets committed just as many war crimes as the Germans. I'll also count all the Soviet soldiers that were executed by their own government for retreating despite having no chance of survival.

I wasn't in this debate all the way, but I assume this is a debate over the ideology right?

I"m not sure either. I joined this midway here, to rebut the previous user's asinine claims that Hitler is only responsible for about 11 million deaths a la the Holocaust. You'd really need to ask and

Well we'll assume it is about the warcrimes the Germans made v the Russians. If that is true, what said here holds weight. Whatever the Nazis did, the Russians did just as bad, even worse at some times.

Correct answer.

Didn't Patton have some of the lowest casualty rates for the Americans though?

In hindsight, we'd have won a nuclear war against the Soviets and the Chinese back then.

Passing up that chance doomed America to eventual destruction.

It's not promoting Nazis. It's pointing out that communists manage to be even worse by using the frame of reference.

That would have been the objectively smart move. The USA failed to act when it had the chance and allowed Communism to kill more people than a nuclear conquest ever would have been able to approach at the time.

Nuking the USSR was the right, moral thing to do.

Because he was average at anything that wasn't PR.

PR, however, made him fucking famous.

He certainly wasn't good at playing politics

No citizens of the United States "back to back XD" of America please.

he's right