George S. Patton. If Only.

Someone on YouTube has put out a modern version of the speech from the movie Patton. It is the most spot on description of the War on Terror that has ever been made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

It's a damn shame that we can't dig this guy up and put him in charge of this World War.

Yeah, I saw that. Pretty cool

Yeah Patton is a real hero. Wait a minute, isn't he the one that wanted to rearm the Germans and take on the Soviets straight away? Wow what a clever fellow, not only is that bad diplomacy, but he would have got his butt kicked. Yip, a great man that Patton.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Yeah Patton is a real hero. Wait a minute, isn't he the one that wanted to rearm the Germans and take on the Soviets straight away? Wow what a clever fellow, not only is that bad diplomacy, but he would have got his butt kicked. Yip, a great man that Patton.

We should have rearmed the germans and killed thos slav bastards back in 45.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Yeah Patton is a real hero. Wait a minute, isn't he the one that wanted to rearm the Germans and take on the Soviets straight away? Wow what a clever fellow, not only is that bad diplomacy, but he would have got his butt kicked. Yip, a great man that Patton.

I wonder if Eastern Europe would have preferred to have not lived under 45 years of Soviet occupation. Patton saw the Soviets for the murderous, evil bastards that they were. Good diplomacy, bad diplomacy, it didn't matter to Patton. He wasn't a politician. He was a soldier.

Clubtender wrote: Good diplomacy, bad diplomacy, it didn't matter to Patton. He wasn't a politician. He was a soldier.

Libs don't understand that. They think that rolling over and baring your throat and belly to the enemy is always the best strategy.








[img][/img][img]

iluvfreebeer wrote:

Clubtender wrote: Good diplomacy, bad diplomacy, it didn't matter to Patton. He wasn't a politician. He was a soldier.

Libs don't understand that. They think that rolling over and baring your throat and belly to the enemy is always the best strategy.

Cool looking dog.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Yeah Patton is a real hero. Wait a minute, isn't he the one that wanted to rearm the Germans and take on the Soviets straight away? Wow what a clever fellow, not only is that bad diplomacy, but he would have got his butt kicked. Yip, a great man that Patton.

Actually, that would have stopped the red threat before they grew into the monster they were. Patton was a strategic genius and people nowadays are either too ignorant or naive to understand that.

How do you know Patton would have lost against the Soviets? Diplomacy only goes so far before you have to do something to fix the problem.

"No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair"
- George S Patton

The Allies (minus USSR obviously) would have been heavily outnumbered in both men and material, and facing hugely experienced troops who had been fighting the Germans since 1941 (on the ground that is). General Zhukov (commander of the Red Army) was also a very experienced and clever leader, though to be fair most Red Army tactics revolved around over-whelming a numerically inferior foe. Still, I think it would be optimistic at the very least to think the Allies could have beaten the Red Army at that point.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:The Allies (minus USSR obviously) would have been heavily outnumbered in both men and material, and facing hugely experienced troops who had been fighting the Germans since 1941 (on the ground that is). General Zhukov (commander of the Red Army) was also a very experienced and clever leader, though to be fair most Red Army tactics revolved around over-whelming a numerically inferior foe. Still, I think it would be optimistic at the very least to think the Allies could have beaten the Red Army at that point.

At the time in late 1945 to early 1946, without food, ammo and fuel from the US, Zhukov would have been leading starving soldiers who were using sharpened sticks. There was also that little atom bomb thing that we had and the Soviets didn't at the time.

As I said, Patton was a soldier, not a politician. He knew that FDR had sold out Eastern Europe to Stalin and he knew that the Soviets were on US life support while we were in full wartime production mode. Patton was an honorable man trying to deal with a dishonorable bargain between dishonorable men the best that he could.

Clubtender wrote:As I said, Patton was a soldier, not a politician. He knew that FDR had sold out Eastern Europe to Stalin and he knew that the Soviets were on US life support while we were in full wartime production mode. Patton was an honorable man trying to deal with a dishonorable bargain between dishonorable men the best that he could.

The US and the Soviets were an unholy alliance.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:The Allies (minus USSR obviously) would have been heavily outnumbered in both men and material, and facing hugely experienced troops who had been fighting the Germans since 1941 (on the ground that is). General Zhukov (commander of the Red Army) was also a very experienced and clever leader, though to be fair most Red Army tactics revolved around over-whelming a numerically inferior foe. Still, I think it would be optimistic at the very least to think the Allies could have beaten the Red Army at that point.

We could have nuked those slav bastards into extinction.

We could have nuked those slav bastards into extinction.

Lets remember that the US didn't have any more atomic bombs after the first two, and hardly any bombers capable of delivering them. Truman himself admitted this, and tried very hard to keep it a secret.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

We could have nuked those slav bastards into extinction.

Lets remember that the US didn't have any more atomic bombs after the first two, and hardly any bombers capable of delivering them. Truman himself admitted this, and tried very hard to keep it a secret.

Hmmm . . .
That defies the facts.

Hundreds of B-29s.
Plenty of uraniam and time to build bombs.


Truman didn't know dick.

Truman didn't know dick.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.