Brainlet Generals

>Hey, the Chinese are massing an ungodly number of troops on the Yalu
>Yeah, but Moscow isn't showing any signs of being particularly interested in Korea, so I'm sure they won't do anything.
>You know, how they were showing similar signs of disinterest when the Norkies themselves invaded.
>Because we all know, Communism is a massive, monolithic entity directed from the USSR's capital, so we can all relax here.

Then he can be MacArthur, head of the Occupation government of Japan, but not MacArthur, commander of Army Forces in the Far East or McArthur, commander in chief of UN forces.

Honestly if we even attempted to fuck Mao up Xi Jinping wouldn't currently be the most powerful man in the world. Shoulda given it a go

>Man was a genious

Everything

Not nuking Japan a third time

giving unit 731 immunity in exchange for their data

irrc the data wasn't even very valuable

Well, Mac led 56 amphibious assaults as I recall, and I doubt you'll find anybody with that kind of record anywhere in history. And is was "Macarthur's Navy" that fought the final battle with the Imperial Japanese Navy at the Battle off Samar, following which the IJN ceased to exist as a fighting force, and the US Navy will never forgive him for it.

Or start a massive conflagration that would likely have drawn the Soviet Union into the fray and have a pretty likely chance of naturally turning into a full blown nuclear exchange that would have cost the lives of millions upon millions. Even given Russia's limited nuclear stockpile in the early 50s it still could have caused major devastation. That's completely ignoring the deaths from targets by American nukes.

MacArthur was an autistic child without the slightest idea of long term consequences.

>MacArthur was an autistic child without the slightest idea of long term consequences.
Which must explain why Japan is such a miserable failure today, sempai.

But an attempt to fuck Mao over without finishing the job would have just led to even stronger anti-capitalist sentiment in China, making Maoism an even more potent ideology that would have stayed around for much longer instead of being overthrown by the reformists and Deng

Is this bait? Because I don't think anyone but europoors believe this.

what do you mean won't forgive him for it? Wouldn't they be happy to see he destroyed their navy?

How many ships he lost?

Didn't he wanted to invade the USSR the second after germans surrender?

The squadron that made up "Macarthur's Navy" was under Macarthur's command, not the Navy's. He expressly demanded that he be given command of naval forces in his amphibious assaults, because he knew the Navy would screw him, which they did at the Battle off Samar, abandoning their post and leaving Macarthur's small ships to defend the beach head, which they did magnificently, and as mentioned, the IJN ceased to exist as a coherent force after that battle.

>didn't he want to invade the future enemy of the Allies
Yeah.

>naturally turning into a full blown nuclear exchange that would have cost the lives of millions upon millions
Yes, and? A paltry price for victory.

We could have done it. We should have done it.

Fucking Truman and the Joint Chiefs approved him to advance on the Chinese border, no sense blaming Macarthur for that, as the Joint Chiefs and Truman could have held him back if they'd ordered him to.

It seems a little much to believe the Western Allies standed a chance of a decisive and rapid victory, not to mention that it would have been very difficult to spin politically. You know, seeing as old Uncle Joe had been fighting the good fight for the last 6 years.

>it would be hard to spin
Americans hated communism since the 1920s. The first red scare proved that. It would be brain-dead simple to change the "take down Hitler" to be "Take down Stalin." The only reason it didn't happen was because FDR's and Truman's cabinet were infested with Soviet agents.

>Le waste time in Holland man

Its more that he wasn't prepared for chinese intervention at all than that he provoked them. That's why the marines almost got annihilated in chosin, after all.

>decisive and rapid victory
Decisive? Yes. Rapid? Fuck no. The us, uk and france would have outproduced the USSR to an almost comical degree.

>le horses can destroy tanks man

general download?

Or maybe they just didn't want to have an all out war that would likely turn nuclear. I don't see why not wanting to see millions upon millions dead is somehow evidence of infestation by Soviet agents.

We could have seen a kill count that would dwarf WW2. I'm glad as shit that I'm not living in a timeline where the Soviet Union and NATO went to war.

The US would have controlled the skies over the battlefield likely within 2-weeks of the commencement of action against the subhuman Sovs, who would also be facing a strategic bombing force, and the subhumans wouldn't have even a fraction of the aerial defenses the Germans had and would be incinerated accordingly. It would have been over rather quickly.

Yeah, because total domination of the skies is why Korea was a walk in the park, and why Seoul unified the peninsula. Oh, wait.

Patton was an overrated buffoon who didn't have a strategic thought in his head.

Except for maybe Rommel there is no general more famously overrated compared to their actual ability than Patton in WW2.

There were large armed Communist insurgent groups in Italy, France and Greece with experience fighting the Germans that would've been a nightmare to deal with while simultaneously fighting the huge numbers the Soviets could bring to bear

The problem was not materiel, but manpower. The UK and France were already tapped in terms of will to fight, and the Americans just starting to feel the pain of war

M8 you wanna talk manpower lets talk casualties as a % of total population, something that favors the western allies. The US also wasnt really feeling the pain just yet.

Xi Jinping is only the most powerful man because the US is currently politically fractured.

A US that is unified and behind their leadership is still a power that nobody can hope to compare with.

1950 Asia is not the same year or theater as 1945 Eastern Europe, lad.

Actually, it'd be harder to find a military commander who drove harder and faster than Patton, Normandy to Czechoslovokia in about 9 months, during a bitter winter, with a side detour to Bastogne which some consider the outstanding land maneuver of the war.

The Soviets were at the very least as weakened as the UK. The US on the other hand was in good shape. The US could have defeated the Soviets without using any more nukes or relying on other allied soldiers.

>nuclear war
>1945
>When only the US has the nukes

Drove hard and fast into that truck too kek

I thought we were talking about 1950s when the Russians did have a small amount of nukes.

kek. Pretty funny.

the US is and always has been politically fractured, if a Pearl Harbor type attack happened in this day and age we would absolutely unite and fight together regardless of political beliefs

France would be out of the war within months.
Allies didn't have even remotely sufficient forces to handle USSR in Europe during 45

You're right, it was a far more limited theater in which American air supremacy was not only established, it was essentially unchallenged. It didn't win the war, and you're a fool to think that air power=win in absence of all other factors.

And guys like Devers moved even faster, but you never hear about them. Patton's performance in 1944-45 was average, nothing more.

Agreed, even though Easy Company didn't need to be rescued in Bastogne

>Drove hard and fast into that truck too kek
>believes Patton was in a vehicle accident kek

Not him, but unlikely. Consider the rate of advance of the Soviets against the German forces just in the year of 1945, and you see them going at about 175 km a month. This is against a completely shattered army with no meaningful air support, drained of manpower, and short on just about everything.

While the Soviets almost certainly would advance in that first summer, it would do so at a much slower rate. It would probably take them close to 2-3 months just to push the Western Allies back to the Rhine, let alone over it.

>"hurr durr I can do what Napoleon and Hitler couldn't"
fucking dumbass

Starting to feel the pain in terms of national spirit, nobody wanted to lose a million men whether against Japan or the Soviets. And any prolonged war against the Soviets would further weaken the will to fight. Especially if the Soviets make initial advances while their airforce and major tank formations still exist

>he actually believes he died from a vehicle (((accident)))

Not even a /pol/ack but it's spotty at best on how he died.

You're a fool to think that air supremacy wasn't a necessity for victory in WW2 in any major theater, as Eastern Europe would be considered.

Plus I think a lot of the german soldiers that were discharged would have joined up to fight the russians if it meant getting them out of central europe

That's not what I said, please advance your reading comprehension. I'm arguing sufficiency, not necessity.

>Patton's performance in 1944-45 was average
So you know of other commanders who went from Normandy to Czechoslovokia in 9 months and dead of Winter, while organizing and executing a lateral relief effort in another sector, and you'll be able to provide detail on such commanders of course? I'll wait.

...

I've already mentioned a commander who did more. Seriously, look up the name Jacob Devers. He advanced not only further, but eliminated greater opposition than Patton did.

Who ever said anything about invading from Europe? The US has plenty of forces in the Pacific, forces they could transport via the Suez Canal to the Black Sea. It would only take a few months to move.

Not either of them, and I've been arguing alongside you, but if the Allies did launch Unthinkable they would've deployed more to Europe and probably not until after the Japanese surrender. Though that raises the question of how much the Soviets could muster in response to an Allied buildup

One side has the necessary components to win, the other side hasn't. Please advance your mental retardation.

Why do you think the Soviets are invincible? You forget, Russia was defeated in WW1
>b-but muh revolution
The revolution wouldn’t of happened if the army wasn’t losing.
The revolution

You are aware that an "Army" was not a standard of organizational capacity between major powers, and that the Western Allies invaded Germany with 91 divisions between them, while the Soviets invaded Germany with about 230. While that's a significant advantage, it's not this "oh god they'll sweep to the Atlantic in the face of 0 opposition"

No, you haven't done anything but sputter nonsense. If you have bullet points to match what the supposedly average guy did and that I provided, please bullet them. I'll wait.

>One side has the necessary components to win,
You have not even begun to demonstrate this. For starters, you haven't even demonstrated that the Western Allies have the will to actually advance into the USSR and fight for God knows how long against them.

>Please advance your mental retardation.
Pot, meet kettle.

I'm talking about the once absolutely necessary component to win in theater, as any component even amateur historian understands, but this may have escaped you mental retards. Meaning, one side has no chance of victory, the other does, by default. If your retarded point is that it doesn't guarantee victory, then your retarded point is granted. There are no guarantees of victory, just a guarantee that one of the combatants can never win.

>If I keep spouting a meaningless unit of distance, it means something.

It's about 1,120 km from Rouen to Pilsen. In 9 months, that's 124.4 km a month.

The Sixth Army Group went all the way from Marseilles to Munich, going the long way around, not through Italy or Switzerland. That is 1,178 km journey, done in 8 months, also mostly in winter, for an average rate of advance of 147.25 km a month. They also faced and outfought and outcaptured more troops than Patton ever did, with more prisoners in Dragoon than Patton's forces saw in the entirety of their wartime (i.e. not post surrender) service.

That puts every single one of guys like Patch, Haislip, Brooks, Milburn, Tassigny, Doyen, etc; ahead of Patton.

Based ally. This should've happened.

>Meaning, one side has no chance of victory, the other does, by default.
You. Have. Not. Demonstrated. This.

You're assuming that Soviet goals are equivalent to U.S. goals in this hypothetical scenario, and that if the U.S. can keep the Soviets from winning, they will necessarily win themselves. That's stupid beyond belief in a war in which the U.S. is attacking the Soviets, who are going to be happy with just surviving.

As long as the Soviet state endures in some semi-intact fashion, they win this war. They don't need to crush U.S. armored columns, or shoot down their planes, they just need to hold on and fight long and bloodily enough that the U.S. will give up interest, like it did in Korea, and like it would go on to do in Vietnam. They do not need to invade anything to do this. They do not need to control the skies to do this. They just need to not be wiped out.

That you can't grasp this, and just throw out insults, is really rather pathetic. Wars aren't fought just to kill a bunch of people on the other side. There is some goal you are trying to achieve, and if you achieve that goal, you win, no matter how you got there.

No, it doesn't compare, and that's Southern Europe, retard. Winter doesn't enter into it. You're right though, they took a lot of prisoners. Guess why? Vichy France was occupied by garrison troops. Nazi Germany did not rely on garrison troops to defend Nazi Germany. Try again, retard.

>Wars aren't fought just to kill a bunch of people on the other side. There is some goal you are trying to achieve, and if you achieve that goal, you win, no matter how you got there.
Something Krauts don't seem to understand.

Why would the US attack the Soviets right after the Japanese surrender? It’s better to wait 1-2 months to reposition their forces and replenish supplies. Hell, wait until you’ve got 3 or 4 nukes and use those right off the bat.

You. Are. A. Retard.

The subhuman Sovs were incapable of even remotely matching the aerial warfare, tactical or strategic, that the US was capable of laying on them. Nobody wins a campaign in WW2 theater without air supremacy, least of all the subhumans Sovs. You are a tankie retard.

>US could have defeated Soviets in 1945 without any help

Fucking laughable.

I didn’t say without any help. Britain would still provide a vauble operating base and a lot of naval power.

Please try to actually address the point. You did understand the point, didn't you? The Soviets do not need to fight in the air at all, since their goals are substantially different from the Americans in the scenario you're proposing.

And again, the comparisons to Korea are rather salient, what with it only being 5 years afterwards and much of the technology being the same.

Baby upset that someone proved him wrong? Cry harder. Are you seriously suggesting that they don't have winter along Alsace and Lorraine? Because that's where the 6th army group was at when the snow started flying, not all that far away from where the 3rd Army was.

And I find it a laugh that you denigrate Army Group G, when Patton only showed up after the breakthrough at Cobra was achieved. He barely did any fighting at all.

They approved Korean troops going to the border, not American troops.

hey i just watched band of brothers again too

>the only unit in Bastogne was Easy Company
Are you retarded?

You're not making a point, lad. You're a retard, and you're retardedly hammering a retarded rant that air supremacy doesn't matter in 1945 Eastern Europe. Stop posting, retard.

See
No need to get your jimmies rustled

You're not proving anything, retard. When you point to Southern France as a significant theater of the war, you're merely demonstrating you're a retard.

>They approved Korean troops going to the border, not American troops.
citation required for assertion that political leadership was making decision of tactical deployments during the Korean War

get your facts straight fuckwit

despite muh pride, opening up bastogne was extremely useful. they had to keep the town, right? what better way to do that than by opening it up. it was very touch and go for a while

>what are Fox and Dog companies of the 101st, which lost up to 70% of all soldiers during the battle
Don't believe everything you watch in BoB.

its not tactical, its political and pretty fucking obvious shit when you think about it

I have noticed, though, that BoB takes unnecessary liberties with reality to make E/II/506 look like the most badass, unstoppable unit in the US army, and they do it by making shit up and then cutting out the stuff that actually did happen.

Like, they contrive all the Nazis to for some reason flee north over the marshes in Carentan (even though they fled south) so they can annihilate them all in the open and make the victory look total when in fact they got shot up and held up by a friggin rear guard platoon while most of the Fallschirmjager slipped away. Then they make the rest of their battalion look like cowards during the 17th SS attack who ran away while Easy 'bravely' fought on even though most of the German attack force attacked the rest of the battalion, while Easy was just pinned in place as the Germans maneuvered ot their left.

So they make up crap like that, but then cut out actual badass stuff, like the bayonet charge in the sandpits in Vehgel, or defending Bastonge against a Panzer attack. WHY?

>we dineed ta be fucken rescued by patton

ambrose was a fraud to begin with

good watching but

again, citation required for assertion that tactical deployments were controlled by politicians and not theater commander