How long till we'll start seeing fictional WW2 films?

I think you overestimate their chances. The Germans had bled the USSR's manpower pool to its limits. They had almost no more reserves. It was a good thing that the war ended when it did.

Attached: 960.jpg (960x540, 20.44K)

> Red Army was big enough to roll over them on land.
>depopulated Germany, and ruined eastern Europe even worse than the Cold War did, but they sure as shit wouldn't've made any gains.

All correct. Analogy: When you have the most advanced spears and bows and arrows its still a very hard problem when you have to face cannons.

The US allies would've never approved of such folly.

How come Patton looks like Trump?

Never understand why Canada is always separate here. British Dominion, fuck nuts.

Patton was a shit general who thought every battle could be won by charging headfirst. He was the rush-b-cyka of tactical officers. There's the infamous orders he gave to soldiers to not even stop to aim but to just fire and keep firing and keep moving forward. It worked against the leftover scraps of the Wehrmacht but it wouldn't work on the Soviets. There'd be massive losses and by now everyone was sick of war.

The only reason they were able to upkeep that army was because of American funding. If USA cut that and declared war, they would crumble the same way they crumbled at the start to Germans before the lend-lease. Plus the slavs would have been happy for the benevolent USA to liberate them because they knew the same old Soviet poverty awaited them after the war.

The British were prepared to do it. Their end war tanks were all designed to fight USSR tanks.

The Red Army was totally dependent on raw steel from the states for manufacturing replacement parts and a full 50% of the brass for their bullets and shells was an American import. A concentrated nuclear campaign south into the Czech's and an armor push east-north east would have decided the war in a month. If Patton could push all the way to the oil fields and the Navy could blockade shipments across the asian sea then the USSR would run out of parts in three months and have no choice but to march the cream of their army straight into an irradiated killzone surrounded by American armor, english/american planes and American Navy. It would have devastated eastern Europe for 60-100 years and depopulated Russia into a huge grave but at that point The USA had an opportunity for the closest thing to a sure victory in modern history, if they were willing to pile the corpses high enough to get it.

I don't get it, if he thought like this why did he want to disarm Germany at all? Sounds like he agreed with what Hitler thought of Russians.

not that im some fan of russians, but patton really is insufferable. he wasnt even at the rhein when zhukov was 60 miles from berlin. he had a cakewalk post d-day.

But why do all of this? You're thinking like a strategy game player, not a politician. In a strategy game I would've of course nuked everything for the lulz.

They were busy "liberating" Holland. My gf is Canadian of Dutch ancestry and she knows all about it. Sounds like they were just chickenshit tho

>>the same old poverty
>fastest growing economy in the world until the 80s
>second largest in the world by 50s
>rivaled the us by 60s
we got too cocky ameribros

I doubt that the populations of eastern europe would have agreed to kill themselves mercilessly for the soviet regime. Those at the lead of Soviet Union would have gotten overthrown fast in this scenario. USA had the reputation of being benevolent to populations they conquered.

Interesting that some people just stay retarded enough to be communist, like you and your shill friends.

All Holocaust films are fiction

Attached: 1582508813653.png (500x500, 395.3K)

So that they could end the cold war there and then? It was obvious from the moment they captured Berlin that cold war would happen.

>I doubt that the populations of eastern europe would have agreed to kill themselves mercilessly for the soviet regime
I equally doubt they would support the invading American army.

Patton liked the German's (those damn basterd huns) but he didn't like Hitler or Stalin. He was a prima donna and recognised the same megalomania in them as in himself but he didn't think they admitted it like he did. Post war Patton wanted to re-arm the Germans, didn't like billeting peasent Jews in German aristocrat homes and wanted make peace with the jappo's to surround the USSR and invade. He was also killed in mysterious circumstances when he announced political aspirations and a gubernatorial run...
lol it always cracks me up when revisionists try to argue with historical evidence. Patton was one of two men who truly understood mechanized warfare (the other being rommel) and his victory roll speaks for itself. Seethe more

Retards thinking red army would lose
Sheer exp per unit was huge, production capacity was huge and most importantly - westerners would consider huge loses devastating, while the slavs would consider it another shity normal day just like any other in the last 600 years
They surendered in vietnam for crying ou loud

Their command structures and arms were torn down as a necessity, but you absolutely would've seen German soldiers wielding Garands and driving Shermans fighting on the Western side in that war.

I'm anticommunist and pretty much fascist, but the USSR did become massively prosperous but only after ditching communist.

They supported the germans invading them until they saw that they were sometimes even more merciless than soviets to them and clearly thought of them as undermensch.

I believe poland at least would have welcomed the british and the americans

>the reputation of being benevolent to populations they conquered
You know there was an argument by some of the Allies to keep the Germans agrarian after the war and to never allow them to develop to avoid another world war.
The US decided this was not a good idea.
There was a time when the US was the most forward thinking nation on the planet.
Its a shame that time has passed.

>revisionists
Nigger we have evidence that Patton's "understanding" was limited to swarming the enemy. He never once led a battle outnumbered or under unfavorable conditions. The only time he lacked overwhelming air support was at the Bulge where, lo and behold, he got his ass kicked until the skies cleared and air support was renewed.

Soviet man power reserves were running dry and lend lease aid would have been cut.

>but why
There were OSS think tanks that had already concluded a post-war nuclear divided world would turn into MAD. At that point nobody knew this modern proxy war bullshit was sustainable so they way I'd sell it as a politician is "50 million more dead this year or 4 billion dead in ten years, the choice is ours and the outcome inevitable one way or the other."

Your typical soviet was still poor as fuck compared to western population, and the occupied regions like Estonia would have kept their development on par with western nations, like they had before the occupation.

So he just let the jews win because of his own hubris? What a retard. Also more on jews getting the german aristocratic estates after the war?

>He never once led a battle outnumbered or under unfavorable conditions.
Look you have to ensure victory for an assault.
I think the US unofficially used 3 to 1 in their planning.
The British used 5 to 1.

his victory roll was niggas getting out of his way and him waltzing in.

There were no planned nuclear strikes, the whole point was to attack right after Germany was defeated in May so the Soviet infrastructure would still be damaged, they didn't have a single functional nuke for military use until July/August

Other way around. British always planned overwhelming air support, America always planned overwhelming armor.

That's what you get for siding with the jews.

There are reports of US citizens visiting Moscow in the 60s and reporting that people seemed happier and bettet off. In the 70s the standard of living was higher in Russia than the US on average. NYC looked like a warzone while St. Petersburg looked like paradise.

>...they didn't have a single functional nuke for military use until July/August
Sure. That would have changed quickly if/when the tide changed.

Did u not watch inglorious bastards?

Like Schindler's List?

>Nigger we have evidence that Patton's "understanding" was limited to swarming the enemy
That's the most unquantifiable bullshit. Pull your evidence out about Patton did and did not "understand."
>He never once led a battle outnumbered or under unfavorable conditions
You do understand logistics are a component of Warfare? Choosing the time, place and material to make the circumstances in your favor?
>The only time he lacked overwhelming air support was at the Bulge where, lo and behold, he got his ass kicked until the skies cleared and air support was renewed
Patton held against the last push of the greatest Armoured Division ever assembled without Air support and a stalemate at that point was still a German loss. Oh, and remind me when the airborne surrendered at the Bulge? Oh yeah, they didn't. The krauts couldn't even push out a dug in urban infantry without exposing their ass to general motherfucking pattons ass blasting. Patton deployed a day before orders and arrived three days before the Germans thought he could and that's what beat the bulge and that's part of why he's one of the greatest generals in history. Seethe more in your basement you armchair general faggot.

My point is it isn't a relevant point to bring up, it was a plan Churchill ordered to be drawn up without taking nuclear weapons into consideration for the sole purpose of getting "a square deal for Poland". People constantly conflate Operation Unthinkable with Patton's own opinions and post-war plans

>production capacity was huge
Using American parts and raw material with American tooled factories and delivered to the front with American trucks under the aircover of aircraft burning American avgas.

Did you not see (haha) Overlord?

>fictional WW2 films
That's a genre. It's called "Historical Fiction". Is that what you meant?

>I'd really like to see Operation Unthinkable.
That's a genre. It's called "Alternate History". Is that what you meant?

>Soviets bled to their absolute limit on manpower
>capable of continuing to fight after multiple nuclear strikes it couldn't retaliate against anyway

Yeah, no.

Kek are you american or something? How can you have this opposite idea of USSR to how it actually was? I'm finnish and i have heard loads of stories about how USSR was, St. Petersburg too. I've been to baltic states and seen how they were after Soviet occupation and i know their development levels were the same as Finland or better before the war.

You mentioned St. Petersburg, my dad went there in the late 70's as an epic party adventure with his uni mates. He took even the most shitty clothes he could find from my Grandma's attic in order to sell them in St. Petersburg, my grandma herself told him to stop it because she didn't believe they would sell. All the clothes were sold and taken instantly from his hands in St. Petersburg. With their finnish (western) currency they could live like kings there. They only needed to show the money at the entrance of the "club" (which was btw really grim even by finnish 70's standards) and the russians would throw out people sitting at the best table and give it to my dad and his student friends. Does this all really sound to you like better living stantards than fucking USA?

Attached: 1526319625803.jpg (640x625, 104.55K)

>...sole purpose of getting "a square deal for Poland"
Well it makes sense that it didn't go forward. Why?
Because it ignores Russia's requirement for buffer states.

>Churchill ordered to be drawn up without taking nuclear weapons into consideration
Which would have been such an expensive campaign (in human terms) because it would have implied Barbarossa all over again.

Anyway 'what ifs' are a lot of fun.
But then there is what is and what happened.
And that's the poo we have to deal with every day :)

>patton won against a massively outnumbered undersupplied army with very little air power while he had overwhelming numerical and air superiority and took heavier losses he's such a badass
Badass is Wehrmacht soldiers facing the jaws of hell and holding out and consistently inflicting heavier battle casualties than they sustained
>seethe more in your basement you armchair general faggot
The fucking irony.

Literally some people saying that people seemed happier, same can be said for rural Sudan compared to Tokyo

>Badass is Wehrmacht soldiers facing the jaws of hell
So which is it? Is Patton a dumb fuck or is he "The Jaws of Hell?" You want to pat everybody on the back except the man who won, you haven't refuted a single point nor supplied any "evidence." Next time just admit you got BTFO instead of embarrassing yourself.

>They surendered in vietnam for crying ou loud
Lol you’re a stupid fucking retard for bringing Boomers into this.

>How can you have this opposite idea of USSR to how it actually was?
Because of how heavily the 'Commies bad' shit was pushed in America for propaganda reasons, lefties tend to think it was also exaggerated for propaganda reasons.

Why didn't they listen?

Attached: General-Douglas-MacArthur.jpg (1000x600, 128.71K)

This. The operation would be just backstabbing an ally in the back in a devasted Europe. Eurasia would be communist.

Because people generally want to avoid a nuclear holocaust over a bunch of bug people in Korea

>Is Patton a dumb fuck or is he "The Jaws of Hell?"
This is the dumbest thing I've read all week. A general can be as dumb as he wants, that doesn't change that the outnumbered army has to face their death

Intrigued. What did the Pacific commander have to say?

>fictional WW2 films
i mean we have schindlers list and shoah already