Goni said:Patton was a good general and a great man, but it does not mean he was right about the military strength of the Red Army.911 said:Allied forces had 3,000 strategic bombers, complete air superiority, and nukes. As well the Soviets depended on Allied supplies on funds, weapons food products and key strategic items.Goni said:It would be impossible for Patton to take over Eastern Europe.911 said:The Soviets would have collapsed well before 1991 without the financial support from the West, which also handed to them half of Europe on a platter after WW2, at a time when Patton, who didn't like that, could have easily taken back all of Eastern Europe without much opposition. Instead Patton was killed.
The current ayatollah regime was also propped up by the deep state in 1979, but since the 00s it's been on the regime change list.
Soviet Army was too strong , too numerous and heavily armed.
The men were also used much more to war than the Americans who used the massive industrial production to defeat the enemy , unlike the Soviets ( or unlike the Germans who used tactics, technology in small numbers im terms of production and bravery).
Patton was killed because he understood that the 3rd Reich was not the monster he was made the believe.
He understood the Jews were his masters and he was killed for that.
Pretty much like Kennedy.
Stalin was not under jewish control btw, or at least not entirely under their control.
He was an outcast.
His takeover òf power was not predicted. Trotsky was the one to become the Soviet leader.
The Soviets were thousands of kms away from home and the US could have quickly taken out Soviet supply lines in a couple of weeks, grounding their armored brigades and air force. The Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians would have cooperated, and the Soviet troops themselves had no animus towards Americans the same way they did towards the Germans.
Even without nukes, it would have been a mismatch, so much so that Stalin could have been forced to retreat to his 1945 USSR borders with just a bit of arm twisting. That was Patton's take as well:
On Patton's assassination, which was done by Soviet agents with the tacit knowledge of Allied commanders:Several months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.
On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.
Patton said to Patterson: "Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect."
Patterson replied, "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture."
Patton rejoined: "I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"
...On May 18 he noted in his diary: "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better."
Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger."
Saying that allies were superior in terms of air force and artillery and that soviet supplies were chicken meat and cats is ridiculous.
Red Army had more than 17,000 armoured vehicles in 1945 of which more than 10,000 were tanks.
It had almost half of that number in terms of aircrafts. Does not matter how many bombers allies had, because everything was produced by the USA, industrial production of Britian was very small in comparison.
It had more than 8 million soldiers in the front, double size of the army of western powers in Europe.
Stalin had another 20 million russian slaves to be used as cattle every time. Why do you think so many Russians were killed in warfare against Germans? Besides german precission and skills, another reason was that Soviet leadership had no empathy for the loss of human life.
Thousands of pieces and technology of Katyushas was better than the western one.
No one was ready for a 3rd World War, people were devastated.
Btw, since this is a topic about Iran...
You said deep state wants Iran to be a backward country?
Since Iran is being valued in this thread for being a conservative country and holding against globalism, at the same time it is being called backward?
Also, how much sense does it make for the deep state to overthrow the Shah they put in power and place a regime hostile to the Deep State?
Or are you saying that the Deep State did not predict that?
Similair to Hitler who was initially financed by western industries but later on he turned to be a huge danger to them by the successful system he created and the war he was conducting against ((them))?
Btw Shah was a piece of shit. The deep state would not place on the top a descent man.
The Shah sold all the natural sources of Iran to the Deep State , he killed and imprisioned many people and during his time society got worse in terms of degeneration.
That is why this regime came in power in the first place
The Shah had his flaws, like Saddam, both were highly compliant men that were placed at the top of their countries by the CIA but gradually morphed into nationalist leaders. Once Saddam got his billions, his dozen palaces, the next thing for him was to climb up Mazlow's pyramid and seek the approval of his people. The same for the Shah, Iran was starting to become a prosperous regional power in the 1970s, with oil prices spiking, as was Iraq. Both of these countries have a very rich cultural heritage with glorified past rulers, to which their modern rulers will aspire.
As to the Soviet army in Europe, manpower alone doesn't matter as much in modern warfare, that's how Germany blietzkrieged and overrun all of Europe, or how Israel overwhelmed Arab forces. The Soviets were overstretched, thousands of kms from their bases and supply sources. The Allies could have bombed their refineries, railroads, bridges, tankers and quickly crippled their supply lines, which would have left their armored vehicles useless. Box formations of thousands of B-29s, which were nearly as fast as Soviet fighter planes like the P-39 Aircobra, escorted with thousands of P-51s, the best propeller fighter of WW2, were practically invulnerable, and could have burned any industrial region or large city to the ground in 48 hours, without using nukes.
Starving soldiers 3,000kms from home aren't going to die for Stalin. They would have sacrificed themselves for Stalingrad and Moscow in a heartbeat, but not to take Berlin and Prague away from the Allies.
One way to think about this is to look at Napoleon's Russian campaign. He was practically invincible at home or close enough to it, but he overreached and marched well ahead of his supply lines, leaving France with nearly half a million troops and returning with 10,000, which was a turning point for that Empire: