I think Patton really wanted to go to Wien and Prague and free both countries.
Anyway, the partition of Europe was already decided in the allied conferences (Teheran, Yalta, Postdam), due to political compromises and Stalins greed.
Communism in East Europe was a failure. The removal of the so-called "capitalist upper class", at the end, is nothing more that to remove the people with...administration skills. Anyway, there are many people in Europe who still want the old red star back..
Yes, you are absolutely right. Well, in these days, it's getting better. I don't share Bush's view of Kosovo, but I'm glad we are in the NATO already.
August Storm was indeed a greatly executed military operation, but you should know that the Kwantung Army was relatively poorly equipped, unlike their counterparts who fought the British and the Americans. The fact is that the Manchurian campaign wasn't as strategically important as Western Allies' victories over the Japanese - Midway, Guadalcanal, New Guinea and the Phillipines to name just a couple. The Soviets didn't have the means to defeat the Japs the way the Americans did.
Ioizmavr, I belive the Capslock key on your keyboard may be stuck. Aside from that, you are indeed correct. The American (and British) forces often did have a hard time fighting the German forces and if the bulk of them (75%) had not been stuck fighting the Soviets on the Eastern front, it is quite possible that they would have had an even harder time.
Difference between the Soviets and Allies )British, American, Canadian, Austrailian, etc) force is that they believeing in saving lives and not throwing it away compared to Russian human wave assualt. True Soviets fought the bulk of the force of the German army, but think the allies decided to never to fight the axis powers ? Japanese would have intervened soon if U.S. did not step in, and Japanese would have lead an assualt on eastern Russia.
pattion said to truman nail china down before it becomes a monster too bad to handle . kill the chinese communist bastard and many countries will be free like eastern turkestan , mongolia , thailans , burma , eastern parts of india and pakistan terrorist from geeting weapons from the chinese asshole and last but not the least my peace loving buddhist country tibet plzzzzzzzzzzzzz guyssssssssssss
guys can some one nail the mother fucker communist bastard chinese dog eating down plz , and free tibet . i knew my history books were written kick chihna ass before its too late
It is difficult to say. What if the menschevik faction would win the war against Lenin in the 20s? What if the Western Powers would do an expedition to crush him once and for all? What if a democratized Germany joined this common expedition? Anyway, you're forgetting the main country affected by Versailles resolutions, which became the world's major power at some point of the history: Germany.
Woodrow Wilson did a proposal, for a peacified Europe, less agressive for living in harmony, which was humanist and modern, after the suffering of the great war.
Imagine, no Versailles, reduction of the colonials powers of France and UK, no militarized Germany, no Franco, Mussolini, Hitler...and maybe no Stalin as well. Soon, the countries that were formed clashed among each other in the 30s (Italy, Spain, Germany, Soviet Union, Poland). But it is was just the dream of an american president
Not really. At that moment, the bolscheviks were at civil war with other groups and nations (Finland, Poland, Ucrania), so they were not unified.
Main problem were that England and France were colonial, imperialist powers all over the world. Imperialist powers need also strong military. Germany had also strong militarism. Versailles treaty was really harsh for them, and quickly, paramilitary groups and right-wing military factions were formed.
It is not how many you kill, but who you kill, and what you take out. The simple fact is it was the allied bombing campaign that ended any hope of German victory. The reason you have such a high death total of Germans is because the Germans would surrender to American or Brit forces becuase they would live, if you surrendered to the Russians you would slaughtered or sent to a death camp in Siberia.
i read that ike had never even shot a weapon before and patton who was very good friend of his at awestpoint commanded a tank in WW1. ike was a office clerk and diplomatic hence the supreme commander. had patton been given the fuel and men he would made to berlin before hitler even considered the poision pill. monty was a loser he won against rommel because simply rommel ran out of fuel. his market garden was a disaster and a total waste of elite men from the paras to the 101.
Do you realize that it cost the Red Army 100,000 casualties to take Berlin? And Berlin was in the Soviet zone of occupation. There was no reason to go to Berlin since it would have been handed over to the Russians anyhow.
Victory is not in capturing territory, but in defeating the enemy forces. I'd have taken a mountain of Wehrmacht corpses over Berlin any day.
You're both correct. As awesome as the movie was (I have the dvd director's edition), they lacked the correct tanks for the most part (or mock ups of same). In the first battle scene where Patton ambushes rommel, all those "german" tanks were actually american tanks as well painted to look like rommel's.
they had the wrong type of tanks because when they made the movie there was a budget and the ww2 tanks costed more than the other tanks that looked like them to rent for the movie it what i think i heard off tv or something like that
Your grasp on history and reality tells me that need medication and counseling. The US would have rolled thru the Reds in '45 like a hot knife thru butter. You know why? We had the bomb- Our industrial base was safe in the heart land. Our Airforce was the largest in the world. Also the Reds depended on us for munitions. Patton would not have repeated the mistakes of Germany and France- It would have been a fight but the victory would have fallen to the US and Allies
Patton was a great general. His troops accomplished more, and suffered lower casualties than did those of any of his contemporaries.
(Anyone who says the German Army did not have any fight left by 1944 knows nothing of history)
Patton had a hot temper and very unPC views (You criticize him if you like- ironic, since he fought for a world where freedom of expression exists)- but only a FOOL would overlook his courage, skill, and devotion to his men.
You know Patton,wanted to push into Russia after WW2 and stop Comunism.But the people in charge wanted peace.Guess what happened
PS unless your American,a general in the military,or a world reknown historian.YOu have no right to critizes Paton,I doubt you would have don any better!
Have you heard of Hurtgen Forest? Have you heard of General Douglas Haig from WWI? Do you know how/why the Russians deployed their machine guns? Do you know about the Berlin Airlift?
GEN George S. Patton was the best thing to happen to the US Army at that time, in terms of his operational successes, raising of standards, and overall leadership. His loose tongue was his downfall, not his body count.
Yes, he loved the sting of battle, and yes he loved war - it is what he spent his whol life training for. What YOU fail to understand about Patton was his battle tactics actually saved American lives, and took a hell of alot more Germans that other wise would have happened. The US 3rd Army outperformed every other Army in WWII. If Patton had been allowed that 400,000 gal of gas he would have ended WWII far sooner than it didm and spared most of Germany fron Soviet occupation. YOU are the idiot.
That's the reason they invaded when they did, bonehead! Why would have they have invaded otherwise? Tag on about another 50-100k lives if they did it a year earlier.....Hopefully your not a military commander of any sort.....
I know this comment will seem pretty awful based on a movie.
But if Eisenhower diverted all of his attention to Patton and the Third Army, backing them up. The war on the Western Front might of been over by Christmas.
Then, Berlin, Prague, etc. would fall into the hands of the US, UK, France, etc., not those damn Commies.
lol. I was hoping to read some comments on the strength of George C. Scott's acting or what a brilliant movie this is. At least I thought people would be commenting on the video that is playing. Does anyone comment on the actual movie here? lol
US has not been "paying" UN for the last 7 years. Lot of talk, nothing happends. The Least the world whants is a "Pax American". Lay back and let Europe rule. You guys are finnished, and you are so stupid so you dont't even know it yet.
Really? Can you stop asking us to pay for your military defense then? And if we're so stupid why do you need our technolgy to defend your sorry asses? Well, it will be over for you soon anyway, you guys are so weak you don't start families. To make up for this you've allowed unlimited Muslim immigration; too bad the muslims hate you. But at least you won't have to deal with Americans.
So, again, DungMac, why so angry that the Iraqi people are finally going to taste the freedom that the Founders of our Country said was the right of ALL PEOPLE? Why do you hate the United States so much that, beyond your feelings for the war, you can't simply be proud of what the men & women of the United States Military have accomplished in the FACE OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAID WAS A WAR WE HAD -----LOST-----? Why is it that people like you & other Leftist lunatics prefer defeat over victory?
Since your so fanatical with this war why don't you go over an fight in Iraq? I'm sure you will love it a lot more than my PTS diagnosed brother and friends.
I've already served my country during the first Gulf War. However, I have two cousins on the ground as I type this as well as my nephew who returned at the end of last year. They can't stop talking about how much good that our country is doing there. They've sent and shown me pics of their work, in the streets, with Iraqi's who want to live their lives in a democratic republic just as we do. This of course was not an option to them when Saddam and his boys were running the show. One question....
The question is, irregardless of how you felt about the war before it started, how do you feel now? Our Military has done what the Democrats screamed from the mountain tops saying was impossible, they've turned this thing around. The Surge (which most of those on the left was against) WORKED! That is a good thing right? Don't you agree? You didn't want all of this to be for nothing, right? If Iraq becomes a Nation like Japan or Germany, a strong Democratic Nation, that is good, right?
Iraq is going to have a budget surplus of over $80 Billion dollars this year. Money that they desperately need to turn their country from a third world ghetto that Saddam made it into a first world ally. A Democratic Nation in the HEART of the Middle East. All because of the hard work of our young men & women who, even though people at home said they couldn't do it, have WON this thing. Victory snatched from the grasp of Democrat defeatists. Let Freedom Ring....
bradley was a good soldier but he was in charge because as he says here patton didnt know when to shut up. bradley was put in charge simply because monty hated patton and if patton had been in charge everyone knows that the war would have been over by xmas 44'
There were many who felt (in the height of western arrogance & racism) that the Iraqi were incapable of operating in a democracy. Our Nation's Founders felt that ALL MEN are created equal and have INALIENABLE human rights. Those Iraqis, under threat of death, proudly mached to the polling places to cast their vote, to be a positive part of the process. This has the Ayatollahs in Iran & the House of Saud troubled greatly. Look at what happened in France after the American Revolution.
If the Iraqis can have it, what is to stop the peoples who live in those Middle Eastern lands? Will they demand it? It may be bloody, just as the French Revolution was, but France became a World Power. History can repeat itself again. Exciting times. It isn't a done deal, however, it is getting so close, we can taste it. Let Freedom reign...........Just as the Japanese, Germans & South Koreans are now some of our closest friends. What is Iraq follows their lead? How could this be bad?
War is an ugly business(I've learned this first hand).However, for that Iraqi father to not worry about those that he holds dear to never have to suffer in Saddam's Rape Rooms. How does one put a price on that?As a Shia, the threat of them being wiped out by Saddam no longer exists.What price can one put on that?If Iraq, in the next 10 years grow to be a nation like Japan & Germany, what would that mean to the peoples of the Middle East? To the World? Peace is sweeping the land, why? The people.
For the Iraqi father who worried about the fate of his children and wife living under Saddam, then to see his country shaken to it's core by the foreign fighters pour into Iraq to fight their blood enemy (the U.S.)to recreate what they had lost in Afghanistan in Iraq. He has seen the Triabl Leaders, at risk of losing their own lives, coming to the Americans and working with us. The Sons of Iraq that have risen up to cleanse, by force, al qaeda in it's sypathizers, all focused on the future.
Nonsense! Al Qaeda was never in Iraq, there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and never was. We blundered into Iraq without a clue how to help the iraqi's run the country after war. Al Qaeda exploited that weakness and recruited officers who were loyal to Saddam after we gutted the Iraqi army command. The Bush administration policy in Iraq has been a colossal failure and would have continued to be so until the political pressure that was brought to bear after the 2006 election.
Al qaeda was "never" in Iraq? Who was that Zarqawi fellow again? Must really piss you off to see the Iraqi people building a democracy after years of being crushed under Saddams boot. Wait, don't tell me, you don't think the surge worked either, right? It's all smoke and mirrors, right? Please, before spouting more clap trap, speak to someone who has been there and knows what our blood & sweat has bought those people. Or maybe you just dig rape rooms?
I've noticed you're an argumentative little bitch on these posts, arguing like a little schoolgirl with everyone you can find. The truth is the Bush administration screwed up Iraq every which way but loose and should have done "the surge" back when it would have saved about 4,000 lives that have been squandered stupidly by an incompetent administration. And opposing the war in no way means anyone supported Saddam. That's piss-ant argument from someone who is too emotional to argue rationally.
Wow, must have worked really hard to shit that funny little statement out of your pie hole. Whats wrong? Uncle Sam wouldn't take you into the military with the rest of us who were willing to serve? Or perhaps you simply didn't have the testicular fortitude for such work? "Saved about 4,000 lives"? Yet again, you brilliantly illustrate why your ignorance knows no bounds. Tell me, oh wise asshat, who was against a troop buildup????
Of course, that wouldn't be Don Rumsfeld and his "New Military" Ethos, right? Bush accepting his resignation and going with a different plan of attack was a bad thing? Oh wait, I get it....You are simply furious that your Marxist Brethren in the Democratic Party were unable to snatch Victory away from my brothers and sisters kickin ass & taking names in Iraq, right? Damn Troops, who do they think they are, Right? You guys almost had us lose this one. Sorry,history is on our side, Fuckstick.
I mean, after all, who do those damn Iraqis think they are anyway? They had it so good under Saddam! Fuck, they should have called France like the United States had to do in order to get rid of their previous form of government! Right? Jesus, don't they know Freedom really is free? Ask the Japanese, Germans, South Koreans, the People of Kosovo or hey, ask the Georgian people what the cost of freedom can be. Question is, why can't fucktards like you understand that?
One interesting question is this: What happens when the people of Iran & other countries in the Middle East look across their borders and see a blossoming Democratic Republic growing stronger in Iraq? Do we see something similiar to what happened in France after the American Revolution? Think of the implications, not just to the Middle East, but to the world. In 10 or 20 years, this could be a defining moment that could shake the foundations of what people think of when they think "Middle East".
We pointed them in the right direction, now they are taking control of their own destiny. This is a threat to the Ayatollahs in Iran and even the Saudi Royal Family. If, in 10 years, Iraq is a stable democracy (just as we were able to foster in Germany & Japan)the implications to the peoples of the Middle East will be enormous. The Tigris & Euphrates Valley area has always been the Keystone to the Middle East. History could repeat itself in this area once again, but in a much more positive way.
Iraq was not a poor country, indeed. But Saddam expend all the money in weapons and luxury for himself. He should be quickly removed in the first gulf war because his army was already crushed in the battlefield. I think the international coalition waited too much. Why? Opposition of the other arabian countries? Afraid of an Israel involvement? Too costly? Who knows.
As for the First Gulf War, the U.N. Mandate was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Nothing more. It was after the War that the heavy sanctions and Weapons Inspections by the U.N. began (the very same inspections that catalogued, in precise detail, the since disappeared Weapons of Mass Destruction). Interesting that when the U.S. takes out 550 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium from Iraq over the July 4th weekend it barely gets a mention in the "News".
The Uranium that was taken out of Iraq had been catalogued by the U.N.Weapons Inspectors after the First Gulf War, along with thousands of other munitions grade WMDs. The very same ones that no one can now locate. The recent uranium removal illustrates that the WMD material was still there, the question is, is the Free World safer now that Saddam does not control it and now a Democratic Government is taking hold in Iraq?
"U.N.drive invasions out & USA(CIA)replaces governments and presidents"?
Please advise where the "U.N." has driven invasions "out" and where the "USA" has replaced governments/presidents. In the two recent operations conducted by NATO Coalition Members, in both Afghanistan & Iraq, the Peoples of those nations, for the first time ever, were given the opportunity to freely elect their own representatives, hence the winds of change blowing across Iraq as we speak.
Which is truly amazing considering in both Nations the General Populace was under direct threat of pain of death for both them and their loved ones for participating in the elections. Yet to see those men and women coming out of the polling places, proudly holding up their ink covered thumbs, indicating they had exercised their new right to freely choose their leaders, illustrating yet again, that freedom is never free, it does have a cost.
Have you ever actually spoken to anyone who was on the ground, in-country in Iraq? What "invasion" has the United Nations stopped? Who predominantly makes up(and invests in) the United Nations Forces again, just for the record?
Actually is the type of conflicts that are developed there: tribal wars, warlords that take control over the common people, humanitarian crisis, children soldiers...I was really shocked when I saw a program about village african women who were hiperbrutally (organs damaged) raped and enslaved by local warlords. In a few words, atrocities.
By the way, you obviously aren't aware of the events on the ground as they transpired in Iraq. Yes there was some fighting in the early days, however, it wasn't until the Foreign Fighters from Syria,Iran & our friends in Saudi Arabia came across the border that the real fighting began. Again, to the Iraqi peoples benefit, they are finally tired of what they have been put through by these terrorists. The Sons of Iraq and other groups are now cleaning up the neighborhoods for the Iraqi people.
I'm aware, there is progress and a reinforced government, and I find it positive, but it had a huge cost. During the invasion there was a heavy fighting, civilian bombing, but US media covered it. We will never know what is going on there in reality. War is terrible, but needs propaganda and images so people can know "why they are fighting in other country".
"We will never know what is going on there in reality"?
Really, where I am, all you have to do is ask (or pay attention). The "civilian bombing" was done by those wonderful jihadis who answered Bin Laden's call that Iraq was the centerpiece of Al qaeda's war against the infidels (it was all over their websites). That is why it is so heart warming to see the Sunni's engaged in the Government again & the Iraq people fighting against the terrorists that have held them hostage.
As democracy takes hold & the Iraqi people for the first time get the chance to experience self-determination for themselves, the Islamic Jihadis that have dictated the fate of millions will slowly find themselves marginalized. Christianity went through a similiar change as certain Western nations started to develop. These are good things. Will they last? Who can say, but it is a step in the right direction (much to the Ayatollahs & Taliban types dismay).
"What we don't know is what happens really in Abu Graib or in Guantanamo"
Beg to differ, the Abu Graib incident has been investigated ad nauseum. As for Guantanamo, the Red Cross has been monitoring the conditions of the Detainees at that facility for years, not to mention inspections by Congressmen from both sides of the aisle. No different treatment than the Nazi Prisoners received.
Adam-Are you accusing the United States military of targeting Civilians? No country on the face of the Earth spends more money & resources on designing weapons that can be used to minimize civilian casualties while maximizing hostile casualties. No one seems to ever ask why China & Russia (as two examples) don't invest in weapons that minimize collateral damage as we do. Ironic that we still get painted out to be the bad guy while their weapons are designed to kill indescriminately.
News Flash: I don't watch CNN. I actually watch the BBC predominantly. Bosnia-Herzogovina? Ummm, the United States still has troops there. We went there to stop a genocide. Not sure what you were told. Please provide any evidence that the United States intentionally targeted civilians. As far as Cluster Bombs, how many Nations field them? Oil Ministry? You have got to stop drinking the Kool Aid. We had bigger fish to fry.
Adam-First let me say that bearing the name, Adam, is a particularly plus in my case on your behalf. My Great-Great Grandfather left his Father-Land and brought our family to the United States in 1893. Thought that may be of interest to you. My icon that I use on YouTube is a clue as to what country that we called home originally. As far as your Korea conflict comment. I will agree that civilians were accidentally killed in many conflicts that have swept the globe over the history of Mankind.
I would then challenge you to find one nation on this planet that spends more money on weapons specifically designed to protect civilians while attacking those that would do us harm. Compare our weapons programs to the Russians or Chinese for example. This isn't, obviously to make things easier for the Pentagon in these operations, it is because, above all, we want to leave these nations that we deal with that much stronger when we leave.
Yeah, Japan and Germany were SO much stronger AFTER we left! Get real! We bombed them nearly out of existence. Marshall Plan spent massive billions of dollars to rebuild both countries. Your posts here are full of Rah! Rah! propaganda about how wonderful the US is. Well, the country is, but the gov't. has proven beyond doubt that it will lie, cheat, steal, obfuscate, spin, bully, and use any other tactic at it's disposal to discredit or destroy anyone that doesn't agree with it's policies.
Wow, for a guy that obviously doesn't have a clue, you sure do have a lot to say! Explain to me again, and for the class how the United States rebuilding Japan & Germany helping them to get to the Economic Powerhouses that they are to day is a bad thing? I have family who was actually there for the Reconstruction of Japan. They lived through Japan being brought to sit at the table with the rest of the World as an equal, democratic country. What do you have again?
Accidentally killed? Korean civilians and refugees were DELIBERATELY targeted by US troops, because the Army command suspected many of them to be North Korean infiltrators, even thought they had no direct intel this was so.. Thousands of innocent Koreans were strafed and bombed by the USAF and US Army troops killed thousands who were buried in mass graves. These war crimes are just now being investigated because of the more democratic South Korean gov't., which is determined to find justice.
You obviously don't have a firm grasp of the real world. How old are you, 14? Please, besides spewing nonsensical Blame America First Propaganda, please provide EVIDENCE for your tripe. Until then, don't get in the deep end with the adults. You might hurt yourself silly boy.
I think you're right. 1st Gulf War, the objective was to liberate Kuwait and crush Saddam's forces. It was a total victory for the coalition then, and Saddam could have been easily removed. But there was no plan or intention for the democratization of Irak. (A plan that should have been made together with France, UK and the arab allies).
I see your point, DPKFour7: a direct blow, a fearless blitzkrieg into enemy lines. Remember the cross of the Rhine at Remagen (near Bonn), it was a surprise attack and it was succesful. So, if Patton should had the command of a large army, fuel and supplies, and coordination with Monty and the french, he could have won the battle.
But the situation was complex: supply problems, the allied superior command (they had their own plan of how to lead the war) and agreements with the soviets.
I think there was stronger forces facing eastwards, who could be turned against an hypothetical attack from Patton. (Like the ones defending Seelow Heights). The attack maybe could end in a bitter street fight like in Aachen. I think the main reasons to not send patton to this ultimate goal was to avoid entering in zones designated for the soviets and avoiding clashes with the Red Army.
Americans did had the chance, even to launch a surprise attack to Berlin. But, should they have faced the same odds as russians did? They sent millions of men, entire armies to the besieged capital and suffered terrible casualties, but finally won the battle.
Try reading Max Hastings' recent book "Armegaddon". With more gasoline, Patton might have made it to the Rhine, but he couldn't have won the war. In 9/44 the Germans and their allies still had about ten million armed men. (Great movie though)
You obviously are not very educated about the problems 12th Army Group was facing at that time. When Patton reached Lorraine in Sept. 1944 his supply lines stretched 450 miles back to Normandy, and all materiel had to be brought by truck. In addition, Marseille had not come online as the large supply port we would need to supply millions of troops. This was a time of shortages in everything from clothing to gas to ammunition, so a slow down was unavoidable. Your notions are patent fiction.
The reason Ike didn't want to go to Berlin is that it was already zoned into the Soviet sector of occupation. Taking Berlin cost the Russians 100,000+ casualties, a cost that was not worth it in American lives to our command just for the prestige of taking the enemy capital. The correct choice.
Hell, we could have taken the Soviet Union during that time. I wish we had Patton during the cold war, and would have scared the Communist powers @#$@less !
If was head of command I would have went with Patton, and pushed to Germany, and ended the war. Should have have unleashed Patton more and there would have been no market garden.
While this was a great movie the right vehicles were not filmed. Visually modified Patton tanks (M46, M47, M48) were used for most German and American tanks. A few M41 and M24 light tanks were also used but out of all of these only the M24 served in World War II.
Patton largely commanded M4 Shermans, M5 Stuarts, and late in the war M26 Pershings.
Heh, my boss' assistant at Cisco told me that I am a great network supervisor, organizer, and a good morale booster, but I don't know when to shut up and I'm a pain in the neck. I took it as a compliment, lol
On the subject about the end of the war, Japan's total defeat at the hand of the allies was due to two factors: the releasing of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (altough many more Japanese were killed during the B-29 bombing missions on Tokyo and Kyoto), and the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific Theatre and the subsequent, Operation August Storm in which the Japanese army was brushed aside with ease by the battle tested Red Army.
We tend to think it was just a minor soviet attack in Manchuria. It was not: it was a very well organized attack performed by several armies, airplanes and heavy machinery.
Japan did have still complete reserve armies, but they had no fuel, few trained pilots, broken supply lines, the navy was severely beaten, not enough tanks, no radar...
The USA had the only workable weapons. But it's been said that we had only one bomb left after Nagasaki, the problem being that the methods for producing fissionable material were still very inefficient. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were awesome displays but they were also bluffs of a sort; if the Japanese had held out for one more drop we would have been out of A-bombs and may have had to go through with the mainland invasion of Japan.
Check out the recent book "Downfall". If the Japanese hadn't surrendered, Truman would have gotten the following advice: MacArthur:invade; Marshall:land in Northern Honshu or Hokkaido; Nimitz, King, and Hap Arnold opposed the invasion. My best guess: no invasion and Japanese deaths from starvation would have been *way* over 2 million- possibly as high as ten million.
The question is moot, sir. Whatever might have hypothetically happened between American and Soviet forces May 7-August 6, 1945, after that America had the A-bomb.
I think Patton had already foreseen that the alliance with the Soviets won't last for a long time. In plain words, the Soviet rulers were doing terrible things in East Europe, that's why Patton was ideed angry and eager to do something by his own.
To defeat the soviets in a frontal battle? That would habe been another Barbarossa. More intelligent: to remove Stalin from power, an internal "coup-d'etat" and replace him for a more benevolent leader. But Stalin was paranoid and protected himself.
true, i think the red army was over six million strong at the end of the war, i think the allies had about three or four million.plus t-34s against shermans? it would have been hard,but the americans had an ace up their sleeves with the atom bomb.who knows how it would have turned out.
What happened is that USA and Soviet Union/Communist China challenged each other in many nations of the Third World in what is called "The Cold War" (a few years after WW2)
They didn't fight directly, but tested their weapons, guerrilla and anti-guerrilla tactics and send military advisors in different scenarios: Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa and Latin America. The result? suffering and death for millions.
At this time during the war, did Brad have seniority over George? I notice they're both 3-Star, but Brad speaks as though he has seniority over George.
Good question. In North Africa and Sicily, Bradley was Patton's subordinate. After the slapping incident, Patton was put on the shelf for almost a year, then brought back to serve under Bradley.
Ah, I see, thank you. Yeah, that slapping incident really fucked Patton up, unfortunately. It wasn't the only time he'd slapped a soldier, but that one incident just threw everything into perspective. Having said that, I still think Patton was one of the best Generals this country has ever had, besides Lee.
Its likely that Patton would have made it to Berlin if he was given that fuel. However the fuel was obviously more important for use in taking out the V2 facilities in Holland and the Baltic.
In my opinion, I strongly believe that General Douglas MacArthur was the most gifted general of the Second World War. From his decleration of "I shall return" to the recapture of the Philipines and unmatched successes in the Pacific Theatre, MacArthur truly embodied leadership.
forgotten how to fight wars? im sorry, but we completley crushed the iraqi army and our military technology keeps the likes of china, north korea and iran at bay as well. iraq and afganistan today are only insurgencies...
The greatest general of the war was zhukov. it is forgotten today that the most important battles of the war were fought and won by him. stalingrad, kursk, berlin et al. without zhukov, patton and the others would still be in england, waiting for a chance to land.
good point,he was the russians best general.he always outnumbered the german commanders in troops and resources,i wonder what it would have been like if it was a level playing field,but then again war isnt fair.
Zhukov was not a better general than Patton. He, among with the rest of the Soviets, had no regard whatsoever for their own troops. How many millions of soldiers and civilians alike were needlesly sacrificed in their victory?
Funny how it is that when the Soviet soldiers die in war, we say it is because their generals needlessly sacrificed them and when American soldiers die in war, we say the soldiers made the sacrifice. Do you see the hypocrisy here? Zhukov had as much regard for his troops as Patton or Monty or any other general. Take your Soviet-bashing elsewhere. If not for those Soviets, you would be living in Oceania instead of the USA. Oh wait, you are.
Russia lost men because they were poorly equipped, not because their generals didn't care. The numbers in the army were too great for the Ruskies to give them all guns, canteens, medical kits, etc.
Zhukov wasn't a bad general at all, and I agree that the massive army of the USSR played a significant role in the final outcome. But, in a Patton vs. Szhukov match... Patton wins.
That matchup never happened. Too bad. I believe Zhukov would win that matchup. The general who won extremely lopsided victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, annihalating entire German armies would not have been stopped by one army (The US Third Army). What was Patton's greatest battle victory, Bastogne? The place where two US armies defeated one German army?
Montgomery was an idiot. If they had gotten rid of him in North Africa the allies would have finished the War a year early.
grumpyhunter 3 years ago
i salute patton,he wanted to give the commies a good kicking,its a shame the allies didnt back him.
goldyn12345 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Patton is #89 in the AFI's list of greatest american movies of all time. I'm watching all the movies of the list online, here:
blogger-films.blogspot.*com
deibid2003 3 years ago
I have the impression the Kwantung army was a great militia, but with limitation of heavy tanks, fuel, airplanes...
Red army was succesful with their massive attacks, but they also faced heavy material and human losses.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
The biggest tragedy for my country was Patton didn't come to Prague, just to Pilsen. Unfortunately, we lived 40 years under communism.
Zik2 3 years ago 3
what country do you live in?
johnross456 3 years ago
In the Czech Republic, former Czechoslovakia.
Zik2 3 years ago 2
I think Patton really wanted to go to Wien and Prague and free both countries.
Anyway, the partition of Europe was already decided in the allied conferences (Teheran, Yalta, Postdam), due to political compromises and Stalins greed.
Communism in East Europe was a failure. The removal of the so-called "capitalist upper class", at the end, is nothing more that to remove the people with...administration skills. Anyway, there are many people in Europe who still want the old red star back..
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
Yes, you are absolutely right. Well, in these days, it's getting better. I don't share Bush's view of Kosovo, but I'm glad we are in the NATO already.
Zik2 3 years ago
August Storm was indeed a greatly executed military operation, but you should know that the Kwantung Army was relatively poorly equipped, unlike their counterparts who fought the British and the Americans. The fact is that the Manchurian campaign wasn't as strategically important as Western Allies' victories over the Japanese - Midway, Guadalcanal, New Guinea and the Phillipines to name just a couple. The Soviets didn't have the means to defeat the Japs the way the Americans did.
RudolfMaister 3 years ago
And nowadays we have leaders who let an oil tanker get hijacked..
tillman40 3 years ago
What victory ? it taste bitter as defeat.
23Revan84 3 years ago
Ioizmavr, I belive the Capslock key on your keyboard may be stuck. Aside from that, you are indeed correct. The American (and British) forces often did have a hard time fighting the German forces and if the bulk of them (75%) had not been stuck fighting the Soviets on the Eastern front, it is quite possible that they would have had an even harder time.
Grubnar 3 years ago
You are partially correct. Of course, things would have changed DRAMATICALLY on 8/6/45.
kentamitchell 3 years ago 2
Difference between the Soviets and Allies )British, American, Canadian, Austrailian, etc) force is that they believeing in saving lives and not throwing it away compared to Russian human wave assualt. True Soviets fought the bulk of the force of the German army, but think the allies decided to never to fight the axis powers ? Japanese would have intervened soon if U.S. did not step in, and Japanese would have lead an assualt on eastern Russia.
23Revan84 3 years ago
dipshit
1987chevywagon 3 years ago 2
pattion said to truman nail china down before it becomes a monster too bad to handle . kill the chinese communist bastard and many countries will be free like eastern turkestan , mongolia , thailans , burma , eastern parts of india and pakistan terrorist from geeting weapons from the chinese asshole and last but not the least my peace loving buddhist country tibet plzzzzzzzzzzzzz guyssssssssssss
amdo2008dragon 3 years ago
guys can some one nail the mother fucker communist bastard chinese dog eating down plz , and free tibet . i knew my history books were written kick chihna ass before its too late
amdo2008dragon 3 years ago
It is difficult to say. What if the menschevik faction would win the war against Lenin in the 20s? What if the Western Powers would do an expedition to crush him once and for all? What if a democratized Germany joined this common expedition? Anyway, you're forgetting the main country affected by Versailles resolutions, which became the world's major power at some point of the history: Germany.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
Woodrow Wilson did a proposal, for a peacified Europe, less agressive for living in harmony, which was humanist and modern, after the suffering of the great war.
Imagine, no Versailles, reduction of the colonials powers of France and UK, no militarized Germany, no Franco, Mussolini, Hitler...and maybe no Stalin as well. Soon, the countries that were formed clashed among each other in the 30s (Italy, Spain, Germany, Soviet Union, Poland). But it is was just the dream of an american president
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
Not really. At that moment, the bolscheviks were at civil war with other groups and nations (Finland, Poland, Ucrania), so they were not unified.
Main problem were that England and France were colonial, imperialist powers all over the world. Imperialist powers need also strong military. Germany had also strong militarism. Versailles treaty was really harsh for them, and quickly, paramilitary groups and right-wing military factions were formed.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
It is not how many you kill, but who you kill, and what you take out. The simple fact is it was the allied bombing campaign that ended any hope of German victory. The reason you have such a high death total of Germans is because the Germans would surrender to American or Brit forces becuase they would live, if you surrendered to the Russians you would slaughtered or sent to a death camp in Siberia.
kepler1000 3 years ago 2
the tanks are actually m40 "Patton" main battle tanks. funny huh?
justsuper9 3 years ago
i read that ike had never even shot a weapon before and patton who was very good friend of his at awestpoint commanded a tank in WW1. ike was a office clerk and diplomatic hence the supreme commander. had patton been given the fuel and men he would made to berlin before hitler even considered the poision pill. monty was a loser he won against rommel because simply rommel ran out of fuel. his market garden was a disaster and a total waste of elite men from the paras to the 101.
xwingclass 3 years ago
Do you realize that it cost the Red Army 100,000 casualties to take Berlin? And Berlin was in the Soviet zone of occupation. There was no reason to go to Berlin since it would have been handed over to the Russians anyhow.
Victory is not in capturing territory, but in defeating the enemy forces. I'd have taken a mountain of Wehrmacht corpses over Berlin any day.
radio187 3 years ago
Patton was pissed off when he heard about Ike's German POW camps..etc, good man
ScavHC 3 years ago
Didn't the US use sherman tanks? Those tanks in the background look wrong.
Lufkin139 3 years ago
"Didn't the US use sherman tanks? Those tanks in the background look wrong."
I think you're right. Those look like Patton tanks, which weren't used until the end of Korea and Vietnam I think. Good eye!
LordBLB 3 years ago
You're both correct. As awesome as the movie was (I have the dvd director's edition), they lacked the correct tanks for the most part (or mock ups of same). In the first battle scene where Patton ambushes rommel, all those "german" tanks were actually american tanks as well painted to look like rommel's.
kb5zht 3 years ago
they had the wrong type of tanks because when they made the movie there was a budget and the ww2 tanks costed more than the other tanks that looked like them to rent for the movie it what i think i heard off tv or something like that
rkhale01 3 years ago
The cicle "A" was the insignia for the Third U.S. Army which Patton commanded in Europe.
CLSSACT7778 3 years ago
patton was an asskicker, not an asshole. he could kick anyones ass.
hint0122 3 years ago 6
my opinion is that IKE IS ONE PIECE OF CRAP
rkhale01 3 years ago
Ike was a West Point grad, a five-star general, supreme commander of the greatest army in history, and two-term president of the United States.
And you're a dumbass.
radio187 3 years ago
Does anyone know what the "A" on his uniform stands for?
Srd1126 3 years ago
"A"wesome
JoeTyler85 3 years ago
Your grasp on history and reality tells me that need medication and counseling. The US would have rolled thru the Reds in '45 like a hot knife thru butter. You know why? We had the bomb- Our industrial base was safe in the heart land. Our Airforce was the largest in the world. Also the Reds depended on us for munitions. Patton would not have repeated the mistakes of Germany and France- It would have been a fight but the victory would have fallen to the US and Allies
polarpawn 3 years ago 2
Patton was a great general. His troops accomplished more, and suffered lower casualties than did those of any of his contemporaries.
(Anyone who says the German Army did not have any fight left by 1944 knows nothing of history)
Patton had a hot temper and very unPC views (You criticize him if you like- ironic, since he fought for a world where freedom of expression exists)- but only a FOOL would overlook his courage, skill, and devotion to his men.
kentamitchell 3 years ago 7
You know Patton,wanted to push into Russia after WW2 and stop Comunism.But the people in charge wanted peace.Guess what happened
PS unless your American,a general in the military,or a world reknown historian.YOu have no right to critizes Paton,I doubt you would have don any better!
jetsam50000 3 years ago
Its not being on the front,its commanding your troops and reading romalds book.And tell me if you were a general,would you fight on the front lines?
jetsam50000 3 years ago
Patton was the BUTCHER of the war?
Have you heard of Hurtgen Forest? Have you heard of General Douglas Haig from WWI? Do you know how/why the Russians deployed their machine guns? Do you know about the Berlin Airlift?
GEN George S. Patton was the best thing to happen to the US Army at that time, in terms of his operational successes, raising of standards, and overall leadership. His loose tongue was his downfall, not his body count.
Do your research and THEN talk about butchers.
FlivverHP 3 years ago 9
"If Ike would stop holding Monty's hand and give me the gas, I would go through the Siegfried Line like shit through a goose!"
FlivverHP 3 years ago
Yes, he loved the sting of battle, and yes he loved war - it is what he spent his whol life training for. What YOU fail to understand about Patton was his battle tactics actually saved American lives, and took a hell of alot more Germans that other wise would have happened. The US 3rd Army outperformed every other Army in WWII. If Patton had been allowed that 400,000 gal of gas he would have ended WWII far sooner than it didm and spared most of Germany fron Soviet occupation. YOU are the idiot.
ghampton106 3 years ago 4
That's the reason they invaded when they did, bonehead! Why would have they have invaded otherwise? Tag on about another 50-100k lives if they did it a year earlier.....Hopefully your not a military commander of any sort.....
suprchrgr 3 years ago
ESTA PELI SE HIZO EN ESPAÑA EN ALMERIA
ROPOME 3 years ago
We need more people like him, our country has become soft and weak. Its show how much political correctness has destroyed this country.
zack9912000 3 years ago
Yeah but they lost so many ,thousands died every day some without guns even
Mack488 3 years ago
give me 400,000 gallons of booze ill end Al,qeadea in a month
Mack488 3 years ago
I know this comment will seem pretty awful based on a movie.
But if Eisenhower diverted all of his attention to Patton and the Third Army, backing them up. The war on the Western Front might of been over by Christmas.
Then, Berlin, Prague, etc. would fall into the hands of the US, UK, France, etc., not those damn Commies.
USMCommando 3 years ago 4
lol. I was hoping to read some comments on the strength of George C. Scott's acting or what a brilliant movie this is. At least I thought people would be commenting on the video that is playing. Does anyone comment on the actual movie here? lol
bdrman 3 years ago
US has not been "paying" UN for the last 7 years. Lot of talk, nothing happends. The Least the world whants is a "Pax American". Lay back and let Europe rule. You guys are finnished, and you are so stupid so you dont't even know it yet.
427gmu 3 years ago
Really? Can you stop asking us to pay for your military defense then? And if we're so stupid why do you need our technolgy to defend your sorry asses? Well, it will be over for you soon anyway, you guys are so weak you don't start families. To make up for this you've allowed unlimited Muslim immigration; too bad the muslims hate you. But at least you won't have to deal with Americans.
Hidun 3 years ago
So, again, DungMac, why so angry that the Iraqi people are finally going to taste the freedom that the Founders of our Country said was the right of ALL PEOPLE? Why do you hate the United States so much that, beyond your feelings for the war, you can't simply be proud of what the men & women of the United States Military have accomplished in the FACE OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS SAID WAS A WAR WE HAD -----LOST-----? Why is it that people like you & other Leftist lunatics prefer defeat over victory?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Since your so fanatical with this war why don't you go over an fight in Iraq? I'm sure you will love it a lot more than my PTS diagnosed brother and friends.
JokersAce0 3 years ago
I've already served my country during the first Gulf War. However, I have two cousins on the ground as I type this as well as my nephew who returned at the end of last year. They can't stop talking about how much good that our country is doing there. They've sent and shown me pics of their work, in the streets, with Iraqi's who want to live their lives in a democratic republic just as we do. This of course was not an option to them when Saddam and his boys were running the show. One question....
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago 2
The question is, irregardless of how you felt about the war before it started, how do you feel now? Our Military has done what the Democrats screamed from the mountain tops saying was impossible, they've turned this thing around. The Surge (which most of those on the left was against) WORKED! That is a good thing right? Don't you agree? You didn't want all of this to be for nothing, right? If Iraq becomes a Nation like Japan or Germany, a strong Democratic Nation, that is good, right?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Iraq is going to have a budget surplus of over $80 Billion dollars this year. Money that they desperately need to turn their country from a third world ghetto that Saddam made it into a first world ally. A Democratic Nation in the HEART of the Middle East. All because of the hard work of our young men & women who, even though people at home said they couldn't do it, have WON this thing. Victory snatched from the grasp of Democrat defeatists. Let Freedom Ring....
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
The objective of war, is not to die for your country, but make the other bastard die for his.- General George s. Patton
aznxwarlock 3 years ago 4
My favourite all-time quote, surpassing my second favourite quote (which is the "nuts" speech).
segregator236 3 years ago
bradley was a good soldier but he was in charge because as he says here patton didnt know when to shut up. bradley was put in charge simply because monty hated patton and if patton had been in charge everyone knows that the war would have been over by xmas 44'
xwingclass 3 years ago
There were many who felt (in the height of western arrogance & racism) that the Iraqi were incapable of operating in a democracy. Our Nation's Founders felt that ALL MEN are created equal and have INALIENABLE human rights. Those Iraqis, under threat of death, proudly mached to the polling places to cast their vote, to be a positive part of the process. This has the Ayatollahs in Iran & the House of Saud troubled greatly. Look at what happened in France after the American Revolution.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
If the Iraqis can have it, what is to stop the peoples who live in those Middle Eastern lands? Will they demand it? It may be bloody, just as the French Revolution was, but France became a World Power. History can repeat itself again. Exciting times. It isn't a done deal, however, it is getting so close, we can taste it. Let Freedom reign...........Just as the Japanese, Germans & South Koreans are now some of our closest friends. What is Iraq follows their lead? How could this be bad?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
War is an ugly business(I've learned this first hand).However, for that Iraqi father to not worry about those that he holds dear to never have to suffer in Saddam's Rape Rooms. How does one put a price on that?As a Shia, the threat of them being wiped out by Saddam no longer exists.What price can one put on that?If Iraq, in the next 10 years grow to be a nation like Japan & Germany, what would that mean to the peoples of the Middle East? To the World? Peace is sweeping the land, why? The people.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
For the Iraqi father who worried about the fate of his children and wife living under Saddam, then to see his country shaken to it's core by the foreign fighters pour into Iraq to fight their blood enemy (the U.S.)to recreate what they had lost in Afghanistan in Iraq. He has seen the Triabl Leaders, at risk of losing their own lives, coming to the Americans and working with us. The Sons of Iraq that have risen up to cleanse, by force, al qaeda in it's sypathizers, all focused on the future.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Nonsense! Al Qaeda was never in Iraq, there is no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and never was. We blundered into Iraq without a clue how to help the iraqi's run the country after war. Al Qaeda exploited that weakness and recruited officers who were loyal to Saddam after we gutted the Iraqi army command. The Bush administration policy in Iraq has been a colossal failure and would have continued to be so until the political pressure that was brought to bear after the 2006 election.
dougalmac54 3 years ago
Al qaeda was "never" in Iraq? Who was that Zarqawi fellow again? Must really piss you off to see the Iraqi people building a democracy after years of being crushed under Saddams boot. Wait, don't tell me, you don't think the surge worked either, right? It's all smoke and mirrors, right? Please, before spouting more clap trap, speak to someone who has been there and knows what our blood & sweat has bought those people. Or maybe you just dig rape rooms?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I've noticed you're an argumentative little bitch on these posts, arguing like a little schoolgirl with everyone you can find. The truth is the Bush administration screwed up Iraq every which way but loose and should have done "the surge" back when it would have saved about 4,000 lives that have been squandered stupidly by an incompetent administration. And opposing the war in no way means anyone supported Saddam. That's piss-ant argument from someone who is too emotional to argue rationally.
dougalmac54 3 years ago 2
Wow, must have worked really hard to shit that funny little statement out of your pie hole. Whats wrong? Uncle Sam wouldn't take you into the military with the rest of us who were willing to serve? Or perhaps you simply didn't have the testicular fortitude for such work? "Saved about 4,000 lives"? Yet again, you brilliantly illustrate why your ignorance knows no bounds. Tell me, oh wise asshat, who was against a troop buildup????
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Of course, that wouldn't be Don Rumsfeld and his "New Military" Ethos, right? Bush accepting his resignation and going with a different plan of attack was a bad thing? Oh wait, I get it....You are simply furious that your Marxist Brethren in the Democratic Party were unable to snatch Victory away from my brothers and sisters kickin ass & taking names in Iraq, right? Damn Troops, who do they think they are, Right? You guys almost had us lose this one. Sorry,history is on our side, Fuckstick.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I mean, after all, who do those damn Iraqis think they are anyway? They had it so good under Saddam! Fuck, they should have called France like the United States had to do in order to get rid of their previous form of government! Right? Jesus, don't they know Freedom really is free? Ask the Japanese, Germans, South Koreans, the People of Kosovo or hey, ask the Georgian people what the cost of freedom can be. Question is, why can't fucktards like you understand that?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I agree but we will have a hard time fostering a real democracy there. A Democratic culture takes time to grow
mcie5 3 years ago
One interesting question is this: What happens when the people of Iran & other countries in the Middle East look across their borders and see a blossoming Democratic Republic growing stronger in Iraq? Do we see something similiar to what happened in France after the American Revolution? Think of the implications, not just to the Middle East, but to the world. In 10 or 20 years, this could be a defining moment that could shake the foundations of what people think of when they think "Middle East".
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
We pointed them in the right direction, now they are taking control of their own destiny. This is a threat to the Ayatollahs in Iran and even the Saudi Royal Family. If, in 10 years, Iraq is a stable democracy (just as we were able to foster in Germany & Japan)the implications to the peoples of the Middle East will be enormous. The Tigris & Euphrates Valley area has always been the Keystone to the Middle East. History could repeat itself in this area once again, but in a much more positive way.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Iraq was not a poor country, indeed. But Saddam expend all the money in weapons and luxury for himself. He should be quickly removed in the first gulf war because his army was already crushed in the battlefield. I think the international coalition waited too much. Why? Opposition of the other arabian countries? Afraid of an Israel involvement? Too costly? Who knows.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
As for the First Gulf War, the U.N. Mandate was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. Nothing more. It was after the War that the heavy sanctions and Weapons Inspections by the U.N. began (the very same inspections that catalogued, in precise detail, the since disappeared Weapons of Mass Destruction). Interesting that when the U.S. takes out 550 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium from Iraq over the July 4th weekend it barely gets a mention in the "News".
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
The Uranium that was taken out of Iraq had been catalogued by the U.N.Weapons Inspectors after the First Gulf War, along with thousands of other munitions grade WMDs. The very same ones that no one can now locate. The recent uranium removal illustrates that the WMD material was still there, the question is, is the Free World safer now that Saddam does not control it and now a Democratic Government is taking hold in Iraq?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
U.N drive invasions out.
USA (CIA) replaces governments and presidents
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
"U.N.drive invasions out & USA(CIA)replaces governments and presidents"?
Please advise where the "U.N." has driven invasions "out" and where the "USA" has replaced governments/presidents. In the two recent operations conducted by NATO Coalition Members, in both Afghanistan & Iraq, the Peoples of those nations, for the first time ever, were given the opportunity to freely elect their own representatives, hence the winds of change blowing across Iraq as we speak.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Which is truly amazing considering in both Nations the General Populace was under direct threat of pain of death for both them and their loved ones for participating in the elections. Yet to see those men and women coming out of the polling places, proudly holding up their ink covered thumbs, indicating they had exercised their new right to freely choose their leaders, illustrating yet again, that freedom is never free, it does have a cost.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Check: Un operations: Bosnia-Herzegovina (conflict with Serbia), and diverse civil wars and conflicts in Africa.
President replacement: Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Chile Check the names: PBFORTUNE, PBSUCCESS, AJAX.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
Have you ever actually spoken to anyone who was on the ground, in-country in Iraq? What "invasion" has the United Nations stopped? Who predominantly makes up(and invests in) the United Nations Forces again, just for the record?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Oh, yeah! The UN did a GREAT job in Africa! (SARCASM) Rwanda, Darfur, Zaire, Somalia, the list of utter failure by the UN is endless!
kentamitchell 3 years ago
Actually is the type of conflicts that are developed there: tribal wars, warlords that take control over the common people, humanitarian crisis, children soldiers...I was really shocked when I saw a program about village african women who were hiperbrutally (organs damaged) raped and enslaved by local warlords. In a few words, atrocities.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
and the UN did NOTHING!
kentamitchell 3 years ago
By the way, you obviously aren't aware of the events on the ground as they transpired in Iraq. Yes there was some fighting in the early days, however, it wasn't until the Foreign Fighters from Syria,Iran & our friends in Saudi Arabia came across the border that the real fighting began. Again, to the Iraqi peoples benefit, they are finally tired of what they have been put through by these terrorists. The Sons of Iraq and other groups are now cleaning up the neighborhoods for the Iraqi people.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I'm aware, there is progress and a reinforced government, and I find it positive, but it had a huge cost. During the invasion there was a heavy fighting, civilian bombing, but US media covered it. We will never know what is going on there in reality. War is terrible, but needs propaganda and images so people can know "why they are fighting in other country".
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
"We will never know what is going on there in reality"?
Really, where I am, all you have to do is ask (or pay attention). The "civilian bombing" was done by those wonderful jihadis who answered Bin Laden's call that Iraq was the centerpiece of Al qaeda's war against the infidels (it was all over their websites). That is why it is so heart warming to see the Sunni's engaged in the Government again & the Iraq people fighting against the terrorists that have held them hostage.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
As democracy takes hold & the Iraqi people for the first time get the chance to experience self-determination for themselves, the Islamic Jihadis that have dictated the fate of millions will slowly find themselves marginalized. Christianity went through a similiar change as certain Western nations started to develop. These are good things. Will they last? Who can say, but it is a step in the right direction (much to the Ayatollahs & Taliban types dismay).
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I know what you mean, young people or women which, under pressure, carry a bomb on themselves.
I mean civilian bombing from above. What we don't know, is what happens really in Abu Graib or in Guantanamo.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
"What we don't know is what happens really in Abu Graib or in Guantanamo"
Beg to differ, the Abu Graib incident has been investigated ad nauseum. As for Guantanamo, the Red Cross has been monitoring the conditions of the Detainees at that facility for years, not to mention inspections by Congressmen from both sides of the aisle. No different treatment than the Nazi Prisoners received.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Adam-Are you accusing the United States military of targeting Civilians? No country on the face of the Earth spends more money & resources on designing weapons that can be used to minimize civilian casualties while maximizing hostile casualties. No one seems to ever ask why China & Russia (as two examples) don't invest in weapons that minimize collateral damage as we do. Ironic that we still get painted out to be the bad guy while their weapons are designed to kill indescriminately.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I cannot accuse but observe. There was also civilians bombed in the war (news from CNN were different from french or german TV).
Remember the issue of cluster bombs? I hope they will be finally banned.
Another mistake in the operation was the looting of iraki museums. US forces were somewhere else...in the oil ministry.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
News Flash: I don't watch CNN. I actually watch the BBC predominantly. Bosnia-Herzogovina? Ummm, the United States still has troops there. We went there to stop a genocide. Not sure what you were told. Please provide any evidence that the United States intentionally targeted civilians. As far as Cluster Bombs, how many Nations field them? Oil Ministry? You have got to stop drinking the Kool Aid. We had bigger fish to fry.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Yahoo News: Refugees killed in Korean conflict by the Air Force. South Korea Government formally denounced it today.
That's all war is about it.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
Adam-First let me say that bearing the name, Adam, is a particularly plus in my case on your behalf. My Great-Great Grandfather left his Father-Land and brought our family to the United States in 1893. Thought that may be of interest to you. My icon that I use on YouTube is a clue as to what country that we called home originally. As far as your Korea conflict comment. I will agree that civilians were accidentally killed in many conflicts that have swept the globe over the history of Mankind.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I would then challenge you to find one nation on this planet that spends more money on weapons specifically designed to protect civilians while attacking those that would do us harm. Compare our weapons programs to the Russians or Chinese for example. This isn't, obviously to make things easier for the Pentagon in these operations, it is because, above all, we want to leave these nations that we deal with that much stronger when we leave.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Yeah, Japan and Germany were SO much stronger AFTER we left! Get real! We bombed them nearly out of existence. Marshall Plan spent massive billions of dollars to rebuild both countries. Your posts here are full of Rah! Rah! propaganda about how wonderful the US is. Well, the country is, but the gov't. has proven beyond doubt that it will lie, cheat, steal, obfuscate, spin, bully, and use any other tactic at it's disposal to discredit or destroy anyone that doesn't agree with it's policies.
dougalmac54 3 years ago
Wow, for a guy that obviously doesn't have a clue, you sure do have a lot to say! Explain to me again, and for the class how the United States rebuilding Japan & Germany helping them to get to the Economic Powerhouses that they are to day is a bad thing? I have family who was actually there for the Reconstruction of Japan. They lived through Japan being brought to sit at the table with the rest of the World as an equal, democratic country. What do you have again?
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
Accidentally killed? Korean civilians and refugees were DELIBERATELY targeted by US troops, because the Army command suspected many of them to be North Korean infiltrators, even thought they had no direct intel this was so.. Thousands of innocent Koreans were strafed and bombed by the USAF and US Army troops killed thousands who were buried in mass graves. These war crimes are just now being investigated because of the more democratic South Korean gov't., which is determined to find justice.
dougalmac54 3 years ago
You obviously don't have a firm grasp of the real world. How old are you, 14? Please, besides spewing nonsensical Blame America First Propaganda, please provide EVIDENCE for your tripe. Until then, don't get in the deep end with the adults. You might hurt yourself silly boy.
TheRentschmeister 3 years ago
I think you're right. 1st Gulf War, the objective was to liberate Kuwait and crush Saddam's forces. It was a total victory for the coalition then, and Saddam could have been easily removed. But there was no plan or intention for the democratization of Irak. (A plan that should have been made together with France, UK and the arab allies).
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
I see your point, DPKFour7: a direct blow, a fearless blitzkrieg into enemy lines. Remember the cross of the Rhine at Remagen (near Bonn), it was a surprise attack and it was succesful. So, if Patton should had the command of a large army, fuel and supplies, and coordination with Monty and the french, he could have won the battle.
But the situation was complex: supply problems, the allied superior command (they had their own plan of how to lead the war) and agreements with the soviets.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
I think there was stronger forces facing eastwards, who could be turned against an hypothetical attack from Patton. (Like the ones defending Seelow Heights). The attack maybe could end in a bitter street fight like in Aachen. I think the main reasons to not send patton to this ultimate goal was to avoid entering in zones designated for the soviets and avoiding clashes with the Red Army.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
Americans did had the chance, even to launch a surprise attack to Berlin. But, should they have faced the same odds as russians did? They sent millions of men, entire armies to the besieged capital and suffered terrible casualties, but finally won the battle.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
no its cuz they went with operation market garden wich was a failure
cub1698 3 years ago
Try reading Max Hastings' recent book "Armegaddon". With more gasoline, Patton might have made it to the Rhine, but he couldn't have won the war. In 9/44 the Germans and their allies still had about ten million armed men. (Great movie though)
kentamitchell 3 years ago
Great film, great film. Just watched this last night. I love this film.
masterchief601 3 years ago
You obviously are not very educated about the problems 12th Army Group was facing at that time. When Patton reached Lorraine in Sept. 1944 his supply lines stretched 450 miles back to Normandy, and all materiel had to be brought by truck. In addition, Marseille had not come online as the large supply port we would need to supply millions of troops. This was a time of shortages in everything from clothing to gas to ammunition, so a slow down was unavoidable. Your notions are patent fiction.
radio187 3 years ago
really great film thanks for posting m8
1315229 3 years ago
The reason Ike didn't want to go to Berlin is that it was already zoned into the Soviet sector of occupation. Taking Berlin cost the Russians 100,000+ casualties, a cost that was not worth it in American lives to our command just for the prestige of taking the enemy capital. The correct choice.
radio187 3 years ago 3
anyone knows the name of this movie? :o
yordi1992 3 years ago
"Patton". Came out in 1970, I believe. It's worth watching.
blackmesalabs 3 years ago 2
Why the hell don't we still have Patton nowadays. That's the question I ask myself every day. We would have the best world ever.
AkaRambo 3 years ago 4
Hell, we could have taken the Soviet Union during that time. I wish we had Patton during the cold war, and would have scared the Communist powers @#$@less !
23Revan84 3 years ago 2
It be soo funny to hear what Patton would
say these days. He drives up to a gasoline station and asks "gimme 400,00 gallons please." It would have the liberals drop dead
and a fortune for him and he'd give him the best of his mouth. hahahahahahah Love Patton!
daykm 3 years ago 2
If was head of command I would have went with Patton, and pushed to Germany, and ended the war. Should have have unleashed Patton more and there would have been no market garden.
23Revan84 3 years ago 2
Karl Malden..Streets of San Fransisco..!
Opercula1 3 years ago
i wish i could play company of heros when wacthing this
godwhyisthistaken 3 years ago
those arent sherman tanks, but its too early to be pershings...
dojokonojo 3 years ago
While this was a great movie the right vehicles were not filmed. Visually modified Patton tanks (M46, M47, M48) were used for most German and American tanks. A few M41 and M24 light tanks were also used but out of all of these only the M24 served in World War II.
Patton largely commanded M4 Shermans, M5 Stuarts, and late in the war M26 Pershings.
ReconTeam111 3 years ago
"Patton" is so well done I must have watched it like 30 times. 5/5 stars
GDHouston 3 years ago
nobodys a fag here mate... or is someone tryin to come out here...? greetings to your sister
judgejury 3 years ago 5
u can suck on a pole for free. get yo ass to a videostore bitch
judgejury 3 years ago 6
no one else could play patton but george c scott he is the best
JEDIMASTER123456789 4 years ago 7
those who say a little get alot done,and keep more of what they got
famousin8 4 years ago
wait a mintute how come there M60 Patton tank in WWII
RPG7V 4 years ago
Should be M26 Pershing Tank, but only in limited number. So yeah, it should be Sherman Tank in WWII.
anders88 3 years ago
wow ppl don't know there tanks lol those tanks are m18 hellcats.
Dogmeat7 3 years ago
Heh, my boss' assistant at Cisco told me that I am a great network supervisor, organizer, and a good morale booster, but I don't know when to shut up and I'm a pain in the neck. I took it as a compliment, lol
greyfox37 4 years ago 3
On the subject about the end of the war, Japan's total defeat at the hand of the allies was due to two factors: the releasing of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (altough many more Japanese were killed during the B-29 bombing missions on Tokyo and Kyoto), and the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific Theatre and the subsequent, Operation August Storm in which the Japanese army was brushed aside with ease by the battle tested Red Army.
gurena 4 years ago
the ussr's entry in the pacific was late and had little to do with thier surrender, it was American might that brought them down.
classicrocker2142 3 years ago
We tend to think it was just a minor soviet attack in Manchuria. It was not: it was a very well organized attack performed by several armies, airplanes and heavy machinery.
Japan did have still complete reserve armies, but they had no fuel, few trained pilots, broken supply lines, the navy was severely beaten, not enough tanks, no radar...
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
How did you get so dang smart? You are *so* much better informed that some of the people I've had to argue with over the last third of a century.
kentamitchell 4 years ago
"I think I smell Montgomery!"
I love this movie.
tomcatlover 4 years ago 8
The USA had the only workable weapons. But it's been said that we had only one bomb left after Nagasaki, the problem being that the methods for producing fissionable material were still very inefficient. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were awesome displays but they were also bluffs of a sort; if the Japanese had held out for one more drop we would have been out of A-bombs and may have had to go through with the mainland invasion of Japan.
tucsonia 4 years ago
Check out the recent book "Downfall". If the Japanese hadn't surrendered, Truman would have gotten the following advice: MacArthur:invade; Marshall:land in Northern Honshu or Hokkaido; Nimitz, King, and Hap Arnold opposed the invasion. My best guess: no invasion and Japanese deaths from starvation would have been *way* over 2 million- possibly as high as ten million.
kentamitchell 4 years ago
if patton was given the go ahead,could he have defeated the ussr with the forces he head?im not too sure.
goldyn12345 4 years ago
The question is moot, sir. Whatever might have hypothetically happened between American and Soviet forces May 7-August 6, 1945, after that America had the A-bomb.
kentamitchell 4 years ago
I think Patton had already foreseen that the alliance with the Soviets won't last for a long time. In plain words, the Soviet rulers were doing terrible things in East Europe, that's why Patton was ideed angry and eager to do something by his own.
To defeat the soviets in a frontal battle? That would habe been another Barbarossa. More intelligent: to remove Stalin from power, an internal "coup-d'etat" and replace him for a more benevolent leader. But Stalin was paranoid and protected himself.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
true, i think the red army was over six million strong at the end of the war, i think the allies had about three or four million.plus t-34s against shermans? it would have been hard,but the americans had an ace up their sleeves with the atom bomb.who knows how it would have turned out.
goldyn12345 3 years ago 2
What happened is that USA and Soviet Union/Communist China challenged each other in many nations of the Third World in what is called "The Cold War" (a few years after WW2)
They didn't fight directly, but tested their weapons, guerrilla and anti-guerrilla tactics and send military advisors in different scenarios: Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Africa and Latin America. The result? suffering and death for millions.
KronprinzAdam 3 years ago
patton was an awesome dude:P
KristianCramer 4 years ago
At this time during the war, did Brad have seniority over George? I notice they're both 3-Star, but Brad speaks as though he has seniority over George.
Vladpryde 4 years ago
Good question. In North Africa and Sicily, Bradley was Patton's subordinate. After the slapping incident, Patton was put on the shelf for almost a year, then brought back to serve under Bradley.
kentamitchell 4 years ago
Ah, I see, thank you. Yeah, that slapping incident really fucked Patton up, unfortunately. It wasn't the only time he'd slapped a soldier, but that one incident just threw everything into perspective. Having said that, I still think Patton was one of the best Generals this country has ever had, besides Lee.
Vladpryde 4 years ago
patton had the right idea,he wanted to attack the commie scum russkies,shame he didnt.eastern europe wouldnt be enslaved for 50 years.
goldyn12345 4 years ago
Its likely that Patton would have made it to Berlin if he was given that fuel. However the fuel was obviously more important for use in taking out the V2 facilities in Holland and the Baltic.
PattonIRL 4 years ago
in the neck?!
centylt 4 years ago
"I think I smell Montgomery."
Hahahaha!!!
larma7 4 years ago
In my opinion, I strongly believe that General Douglas MacArthur was the most gifted general of the Second World War. From his decleration of "I shall return" to the recapture of the Philipines and unmatched successes in the Pacific Theatre, MacArthur truly embodied leadership.
gurena 4 years ago
yeah,macarthur was a great leader,he always gets overlooked though dosent he.
goldyn12345 4 years ago
I agree completely. america -- at least, do-godder types -- have forgotten how to fight wars. The middle east should be a parking lot now.
Coachwkr 4 years ago 2
forgotten how to fight wars? im sorry, but we completley crushed the iraqi army and our military technology keeps the likes of china, north korea and iran at bay as well. iraq and afganistan today are only insurgencies...
Chubachus 4 years ago
von manstein,good choice.brilliant general,he would have done much,much better on the eastern front had hitler not kept interfering.
goldyn1234 4 years ago
Your honestly suggesting that the Americans "let" the British win battles in the Western Front. Jesus Christ...
forestrigby 4 years ago
thats what the movie patton really suggests. im really not sure that is very accurate though.
Chubachus 4 years ago
You're doing too good of a job George...but we run political wars..so we need to let the British do the winning..
tillman40 4 years ago
who was the greatest general of the war? rommel? patton?guderian? zhukov? i personally think rommel was the best.
goldyn1234 4 years ago
The greatest general of the war was zhukov. it is forgotten today that the most important battles of the war were fought and won by him. stalingrad, kursk, berlin et al. without zhukov, patton and the others would still be in england, waiting for a chance to land.
iammasterlion 4 years ago
good point,he was the russians best general.he always outnumbered the german commanders in troops and resources,i wonder what it would have been like if it was a level playing field,but then again war isnt fair.
goldyn12345 4 years ago
Zhukov was not a better general than Patton. He, among with the rest of the Soviets, had no regard whatsoever for their own troops. How many millions of soldiers and civilians alike were needlesly sacrificed in their victory?
godboy50 4 years ago 4
Funny how it is that when the Soviet soldiers die in war, we say it is because their generals needlessly sacrificed them and when American soldiers die in war, we say the soldiers made the sacrifice. Do you see the hypocrisy here? Zhukov had as much regard for his troops as Patton or Monty or any other general. Take your Soviet-bashing elsewhere. If not for those Soviets, you would be living in Oceania instead of the USA. Oh wait, you are.
iammasterlion 4 years ago
Russia lost men because they were poorly equipped, not because their generals didn't care. The numbers in the army were too great for the Ruskies to give them all guns, canteens, medical kits, etc.
Zhukov wasn't a bad general at all, and I agree that the massive army of the USSR played a significant role in the final outcome. But, in a Patton vs. Szhukov match... Patton wins.
JeebusTheBear 4 years ago
That matchup never happened. Too bad. I believe Zhukov would win that matchup. The general who won extremely lopsided victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, annihalating entire German armies would not have been stopped by one army (The US Third Army). What was Patton's greatest battle victory, Bastogne? The place where two US armies defeated one German army?
iammasterlion 4 years ago
Wrong Rommel would beat both of them together by himself. and Patton would win vs. Zhukov
brethalion332 4 years ago