What are some of the worst choices in history? I'll start.
>US fighting Germany, rather than allying with them
>The entente allowing Germany to exist after world war 1
> let's just declare war on the entire world
Not /his/ but I'm pretty sure there's a series of alternate history fiction written by Harry Turtledove where the US loses 2 civil wars and allies with the German Empire for World War 1 and becomes a superpower with Germany by WW2 IIRC
>>1278417
Is this even what he really said ? Or just naziboos memes?
>>1278421
/thread
>>1278432
>loses two civil wars
As in two separate secessions?
>>1278572
Maybe it is though I'm not sure. He became less enthusiastic about the war, and war in general, as it came to a close.
>>1278572
iirc it's from his diary. There's a lot of /pol/-tier shit in Patton's diary.
>>1278429
Germans have been plotting to do so since they first speciated from Homo Sapiens.
>>1278417
I often see Hitlerboos writing this shit, yet how can you be so fucking insane to not understand that there was no fucking way a liberal democratic republic would ally with a totalitarian regime.
In reality not even Soviets were real allies, rather co-belligerent.
>>1279458
Patton was an idiot. He was a good corps-level commander. That's literally it.
>>1281407
> He was a good corps-level commander. That's literally it.
>Implying he was a good corps-level commander.
>>1281735
Patton was a decent leader. If he had served in the Wehrmacht, he would've been an above average Panzer division or corps commander on the Eastern Front.
>>1278421
/thread
>>1278421
First reply is best reply.
>>1281748
>Patton was a decent leader.
Patton was an aggressive leader. I wouldn't call him a decent one. He always advocated hard pushing forward, regardless of the circumstance. He was put into an operational situation where he usually had overwhelming advantages and a hard, sharp strike was the way to go. Dump him even in the eastern front in late 1942, and he's likely to get himself into trouble charging blindly on.
You look at his performances in places like North Africa and Sicily, and it's nothing special at all.
>>1281748
I swear the German military command was shit tier since they purged a lot of their decent commanders, e.g. Erwin Rommell.
>>1281407
>we weren't allied with the Soviets
>>1281748
>Decent leader
Fucking Hitlerboo
>>1281779
>Rommell
>Decent
>He fell for the english propaganda
>>1281830
Yes, and I'm saying he wouldn't even be that good. Which part of that was hard to understand?
>>1281850
>English propaganda
He fell for empathy and sympathy; neither him nor his soldiers were ever accused of war crimes, such as torturing or executing prisoners or sending them to concentration camps.
He was a patriot: he loved Germany and wanted to defend it but he wouldn't submit to tyrants such as Hitler or the Nazi party, who would ruin it through corruption, nepotism, murder and social/moral decay. This angered Hitler so he was forced to commit suicide, and losing them one of the best military commanders if not THE best. Another classic example of Hitler's incompetence as a leader.
>>1281903
Do you, by any chance know what Rommel was doing between the fall of France and the North African campaign?
>>1278417
>US fighting Germany, rather than allying with them
edgy
>allying with the side with the worst allies and who hated your way of living
>>1278417
>we failed to liberate Europe!
>the US then proceeded to have a tremendous amount of influence on most of Western Europe
>even today several Eastern European shit holes are now pro-NATO/pro-US because it's the only barrier between them and Russia
>>1281908
nope, what did he do?
>>1281908
fucking your Mother's fat ass?
>>1281932
We did ally with someone who hated our way of living. Russia.
>>1278421
Got it in one!
>>1281779
>Erwin "logistics are for sissies" Rommell
>Good
Here's a smug anime grill for effort
>>1281947
He was shooting Nazi propaganda, mainly, although he did do a stint of commanding Hitler's bodyguard when the man visited Paris.
It's almost like he was perfectly willing to ride the Nazi party's coattails when it was advantageous for him, but only turned against them when he saw an opportunity in it.
And by the way, was in no way one of "their best military commanders". He wasn't even an average corps level general. He's most remembered for a campaign that accomplished none of its goals, and his "plans" for dealing with an invasion of northern France, where he talked himself out of the correct LZ and advocated a plan that had demonstrably failed before.
>>1281830
> that America's greatest tank commander
Well, that's not Patton.
>>1278417
yeah totally makes sense because classical liberalism and totalitarian fascism mixes quite well.
>>1281407
>yet how can you be so fucking insane to not understand that there was no fucking way a liberal democratic republic would ally with a totalitarian regime
Pinochet? Somoza? Trujillo?
>>1281407
>how can you be so fucking insane to not understand that there was no fucking way a liberal democratic republic would ally with a totalitarian regime.
I dunno, ask all those totalitarian regimes America propped up later for the express purpose of fighting communism.
>>1281972
>it's alomost like he was perfectly willing to ride the Nazi party's coattails when it was advantageous for him, but only turned against them when he saw an opportunity in it.
Yep, seems like he was more interested in advancing his military career than being a good little doggy for Hitler. I respect that, he was his own person.
>He wasn't even an average corps level general
So? He used what, supposedly little command he had to do impressive things. Famous generals such as Montgomery as well as Winston Churchill even praised him as being a brilliant military commander, during the war. You don't receive praise like that for being average.
>campaign that accomplished none of it's goals
If what you said is correct about his power then the failure of the campaigners is not his fault, and therefore he did not fail.
>plans for france
From what i've heard when he came across the defences he believed that they were nto what the propaganda had made them out to be and set out to improve them, with success. I don't know about the failure ridden or the landing zone(?)
>>1278421
fpbp
>>1282284
>So? He used what, supposedly little command he had to do impressive things.
Not really. Twice he opportunistically struck at British forces in the wakes of large withdrawals from the theater, advanced until his logistical chain could no longer support him, and was beaten back.
>Famous generals such as Montgomery as well as Winston Churchill even praised him as being a brilliant military commander, during the war. You don't receive praise like that for being average.
You get praise liek that to cover your own deficiencies....
>If what you said is correct about his power then the failure of the campaigners is not his fault, and therefore he did not fail.
When his original orders were to preserve a presence in Cyrenica, and he decides "I'm going to conquer Egypt" when he hadn't the means to do so, and wasted a ton of his resources, especially fuel, trying to charge across the desert, yes, it is his failure.
>From what i've heard when he came across the defences he believed that they were nto what the propaganda had made them out to be and set out to improve them, with success. I don't know about the failure ridden or the landing zone(?)
The thing is that Rommel wanted to have a very stiff beach line and attempt to throw any landings into the sea, as opposed to guys like Rundstedt who wanted their reserves further back and to counterattack or rush to plug in gaps as opportunities developed. (Hitler, characteristically, went for a half and half approach, which was totally worthless)
The problem is, Rommel's style of heavy beach defense, little reserve was attempted at the landings in Italy, and failed rather spectacularly. There was little reason to suppose it would work at the north coast of France, but he kept championing for it anyway.
>>1278417
Another nazi retard posting bullshit.
Germany was never an American ally.
French Republic, British Empire longtime allies.
Patton loved the French, and would never have fought them.
USA was considered a decadent nation, filled with jews, negroes, unionists.
No political reason for a USA-NAZI alliance.
FDR supporting Hitler is risable.
So, your bizarre counterfactual has no basis in even speculation.
Too much would have to be altered in the past..
>>1281407
Patton was not an idiot.
He was bilingual and extremely literate.
His understanding of modern mobile warfare made him a perfect commander for WWII.
Third Army liberated territory from nazi hell at an amazing pace.
That's an Army level commander.
Lmaoing at the germanophobe retard tears ITT for real right now
You're on the wrong side of history, get over it
>>1282501
>>1282501
>Patton was not an idiot
Correct, but you on the other hand clearly are.
See >>1282513
In the end he knew that the allies were on the wrong side. He saw right through the allied propaganda, something which you are obviously too retarded for
http://balder.org/judea/Important-Quotations-For-A-Better-Understanding-Of-WWII.php
>>1282513
>You're on the wrong side of history, get over it
>the side that won the war is the wrong side of history
>>1282513
>>1282501
>Various explanations beyond his disappointments have been proposed for Patton's behavior at this point. Carlo D'Este wrote that "it seems virtually inevitable ... that Patton experienced some type of brain damage from too many head injuries" from a lifetime of numerous auto- and horse-related accidents, especially one suffered while playing polo in 1936.[125]
I'm glad you get your political talking points from a literally brain damaged half-baked American general whose biggest achievement was pursuing a broken and routed enemy after Falaise with complete numerical superiority in every way imaginable and STILL managing to take hideous losses. Let's not even talk about when Patton actually hit organized resistance at the Siegfried Line.
I'm being a bit unfair to Patton as he was an aggressive leader and definitely wasn't a shitty one, but he completely lacked the qualities that made aggression great in other leaders like Guderian or Zhukov.
>>1281961
Only out of necessity to defend ones who did support your way of living.
>>1282513
>wrong side of history
>won the war
>germans were so butthurt and ashamed of what they did they continue to shy away from nationalism to this day
>>1278417
Go back to your parents' basement.
Nazis were shit. Don't defend them
>>1282526
Wow, I have been called an idiot by a neo-nazi.
Did you even bother to read my post on the utterly laughable idea of a USA-NAZI alliance.
Son, I have been an historian longer than you've been alive.
I know the GSP hated the Soviets, but he had no love for the Germans.
He definitely respected the Germans as warriors and able foes.
But his love for the French, as well as Americans, was genuine. He was very unhappy with Germans occupying France.
Oh, I am quite aware of the economic reasons for the war. Germany and Japan pulled out of the international banking system, with the Nazis favoring a modified barter system outside of the gold standard.
Imperial Japan attempted to form an autarky in East Asia, also outside of the gold standard.
Stop reading neo-nazi garbage.
In the beginning of wwi, Germany pushing into France's border through neutral Belgium.
It forced UK to join the allies the war, so I guess that wasn't too bright.
Not killing every single germanigger
>>1282083
You mean the puppet states the U.S. directly had control over?
Are you seriously comparing S. American puppet regimes to the fully industrialized superpower that was Germany?
