Anyone who likes WWII novels, might be interested in this series

"Killing Patton" relied heavily on "Target: Patton" as source material, is what I've heard.

 

Depends on where you are going with "pushed back." We couldn't have gone all the way to Moscow, and I don't think he was advocating that. But the Russian forces were in a very poor logistical situation at the end of the war. They had sustained a devastating direct attack on their home soil from the Nazis. From a re-supply standpoint, they had the advantage of not having to cross the Atlantic, but their infrastructure had taken a beating. Their forward troops were literally herding live animals along with them for food. Patton felt he had the resources to hit them hard and fast (dare I say "bliltzkrieg"?) and push them out of Germany, perhaps all the way across Poland, within a matter of weeks. His character flaws and psychological profile notwithstanding, it would be hard to argue against his knowledge of offensive warfare.

 

It's hard to argue against his knowledge of offensive warfare on the ground at his level. But his strategic knowledge and judgment was not good at all. He could have never done Eisenhower's or Bradley's jobs. He had little regard for airpower, naval power, theater logistics, and most importantly . . . international politics and support from the citizenry.

The Soviets had 170 divisions and 6.5 million men in place in Eastern Europe. We had 80 divisions and 4 million men in Western Europe. Our logistical situation was far more complex than the Soviets, who had rebuilt their infrastructure since 1941. Not that they didn't also have problems, but It would have been a very difficult fight with millions of casualties and a greater chance of losing western Europe than we had just freed than gaining Eastern Europe.

We still had a great war to fight with Japan. WWII had already caused 50 million worldwide casualties and all parties wanted it to end. There was just nothing worthwhile to be gained by turning against one of our allies and starting a new giant war. They had nothing we needed. We came out of the War as a military, economic, and cultural superpower that we have never relinquished. The Soviets emerged with huge problems that eventually sank them. And we ended up with Eastern Europe anyway.

Patton was wrong and foolish.

 

It is possible to find books on the eastern front. Less so the war in China, which was 12 years long and killed millions. Lots on the Pacific War, but little from the Japanese perspective.

I get less of the big picture from reading soldiers memoirs than I do from a good historical analysis. They sure do fill in the details, though. I also like the new books that include tons of previously classified information that was not available to the authors of the 1950's and 1960's. Those early books also include a lot of wartime disinformation that has subsequently been exposed as bogus. Authors that did not experience the war seem to be able to examine all sides of a topic better than those who had to take a side.

And there are still tons of classified material from WWII that may not see light for another century, if ever.

 

I'll only disagree with one point of this.....most military historians agree Patton probably had a better understanding of air power in support of ground tactics than anyone else in the biz.

Probably the biggest strategic issue standing in the way of Patton's notions was the need to finish off Japan. We really did need to divert resources to the Pacific.

But it remains a wonderful hypothetical question....had Patton been turned loose and pushed the Russians out of Germany, how would the Cold War have shaped up? The "huge problems that eventually sank" the USSR nevertheless took 50 years to do so. Could we have hastened that process?

 

Yes, and possibly to our own detriment and the total destruction of Europe. I reiterate . . . Russia had just beaten Germany with the biggest army ever assembled. It is more likely that we would have lost the land battle than win it. Soviet resources were all internal and our naval might could not hamper them much. They would have suffered from airpower, especially if we used nuclear weapons. But we only had two at the time and a very vulnerable delivery system. Moving out that Soviet Army was not worth the tremendous cost. Defeating the Soviet Union was not doable and we had no need for the place. We fought to regain France, defend Britain and defeat Germany and that had been accomplished. We did not fight to settle thousands of years of conflict between Slavs in eastern Europe. We had an end game. The right end game.

Patton just never wanted the war to end, he loved it so much. He wanted to die gloriously in battle. His delusional fantasies were not the best interests of the US.

 

Anything that is still classified are top national secrets that will likely never see the light of day. Ultra was not the only espionage secret that we possessed, it just was the secret that slipped out after 25 years. The fact that the Soviets had British Intelligence completely riddled with spies took years to come out. Lots of dirty political tricks got buried, lots of our own atrocities are still buried.

Lots of infighting between the allies has been consigned to classified files. The British wanted to let the Russians beat Germanyand exhaust themselves in the process and wanted us to join them in protecting the Mediterranean and the sea lanes to India, Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia and to toss out the Japanese. We had no intention of sending Americans to defend Britain's overseas Empire, nor those of France, Belgium, Germany, and Holland. We had already fought wars to expel the British and Spanish from their American and Philippine colonies. Very dirty politics went on that has been deeply buried for the sake of cooperation.

In a sense, America and the Soviet Union conspired to end European world domination and replace it with Russian continental hegemony and America global economic empire.