What if??

[callmeslick]

what would have been the up-side of further decimating Russia, at that point? Further, the US was so heavily in debt(war bonds) that another major effort would have been perilous for all involved. Also, it would have shown us forever to be a worthless ally. So, to sum up, it probably would have been a success militarily, but we would have never seen the progress that we saw in the 1960-75 era(no need for a space race without Russia, lack of economic resources), nor would the resources have been there to rebuild Europe. The latter was the reason, after WWI that gave rise to Hitler, so I can't fathom what the thinking would have been behind such a move.

[CUDA]

what would have been the up-side of further decimating Russia, at that point? Further, the US was so heavily in debt(war bonds) that another major effort would have been perilous for all involved. Also, it would have shown us forever to be a worthless ally. So, to sum up, it probably would have been a success militarily, but we would have never seen the progress that we saw in the 1960-75 era(no need for a space race without Russia, lack of economic resources), nor would the resources have been there to rebuild Europe. The latter was the reason, after WWI that gave rise to Hitler, so I can't fathom what the thinking would have been behind such a move.

you missed the point of the question.

[Pudfark]

what would have been the up-side of further decimating Russia, at that point? Further, the US was so heavily in debt(war bonds) that another major effort would have been perilous for all involved. Also, it would have shown us forever to be a worthless ally. So, to sum up, it probably would have been a success militarily, but we would have never seen the progress that we saw in the 1960-75 era(no need for a space race without Russia, lack of economic resources), nor would the resources have been there to rebuild Europe. The latter was the reason, after WWI that gave rise to Hitler, so I can't fathom what the thinking would have been behind such a move.

Red seemed so appropriate.....Ya know if you flip that statement around 180 degrees, it showed the Russians to be a worthless ally. The rest of what you wrote has some merit, though not applicable to Cuda's question....

[Reservoir_Dog]

what would have been the up-side of further decimating Russia, at that point? Further, the US was so heavily in debt(war bonds) that another major effort would have been perilous for all involved. Also, it would have shown us forever to be a worthless ally. So, to sum up, it probably would have been a success militarily, but we would have never seen the progress that we saw in the 1960-75 era(no need for a space race without Russia, lack of economic resources), nor would the resources have been there to rebuild Europe. The latter was the reason, after WWI that gave rise to Hitler, so I can't fathom what the thinking would have been behind such a move.

Red seemed so appropriate.....Ya know if you flip that statement around 180 degrees, it showed the Russians to be a worthless ally. The rest of what you wrote has some merit, though not applicable to Cuda's question....

I'm going to assume that you reread what you typed before you clicked "submit".
Which means of course......that you're a blithering idiot.

[CUDA]

NICE

I try to start a topic that has NOTHING to do with politics or religion. so we could at least TRY to act like adults here and what happens it turns RIGHT BACK into a flame war

[Reservoir_Dog]

Sorry Cuda, I didn't mean to trample on your thread. And you make a very valid point.

From here on in I will practice what I preach.

[CUDA]

[Reservoir_Dog]

Quite frankly, I think we would have got our collective asses kicked.

Care to expand on that??

It's simply too vast. By the end of the war the Russians had pulled the bulk of their industrial might to the east in order to avoid German bombing. And while the allies had superiority in high altitude bombers, the targets were too far away and decentralized. The Allies had good fighter planes, but lets face it, at the end of the war the Russians had the best fighter plane in the world with the Yak. (I'm discounting the jets as there simply weren't enough of them) The tanks would cancel each other out and battles would come down to commanders who made the better decisions in the field. (and the Soviets were pretty good at that)
An alliance with Germany would be out of the question. Too much had happened. And the general public would never accept it. And let's keep in mind that Germany had been divided in half.
Make no mistake, this would be a land war. And that's where we would get our asses kicked. The Allies would have no interest in a war of attrition where the Russians would expect one and invite it. The Russians would throw absolutely everything they had into the fray...to the last person. They proved that against the Germans. That's also a philosophy that goes against our western sensibilities. In time the general public in the Allied nations would turn against war. (think Vietnam)
An attack on Russia would turn into a long, drawn out affair probably ending in a stale mate.(like Korea)
But win, lose or tie....we would get our asses kicked.
And it would take generations to recover from it.

But, if China got involved....now that would be a whole new ball game!

[callmeslick]

you missed the point of the question.

I got the question, but what would have BEEN the point? Why would we have even entertained the thought of sending Patton after the Russians? The risk of men, for starters, men who had just endured a pretty rough stretch of warfare, would have been prohibitive. The Russians had shown themselves to be a pretty determined lot, civilians included. What on Earth would have been the purpose? Any military question has to take the objectives into consideration. It's not merely a question of whether we would prevail, but at what cost, for what gain.