Had Patton been given the supplies that were given to Monty for Op MrkGrdn would WW2 have ended sooner?

Question

variable

NOT complaining about your answer but you seem to be the only person on earth to have watched the movie Patton more times then myself!!!!! LOL

Answer 1

I have heard that Patton and R.E. Lee were related

Answer 2

Absolutely certain. The Allies had information from the Dutch underground an SS pantzer gruppe was near Arnhem. But preferred to ignore it. One does not drop para's near armoured units, regardless whose they are! And there are plenty of reasons why Market Garden really was a gamble. (Throw a six, and you win. Throw anything else, you loose all. Monty threw a five...)

I recommend you read the book ' A bridge too far' by Cornelius Ryan. I fully concur with his conclusions.

As stated by others: The problem was how to stop Patton, apart from shooting him. I am (almost) certain Patton would have reached Berlin before Christmas, but by New Year he would (want to) be in Poland.

Answer 3

Could Patton have done better than Monty? Maybe, maybe not. I dont know nor do I have enough information to make an educated guess.

I can however tell you one thing. Patton would not have been able to charge right through Germany and to Poland and beyond.

He was not superman, he was not unstoppable, he did make mistakes and he was not, at any point in time after the campaign in Italy, in any position to make any major decisions.

The American high command realised this about Patton. Tactically he was the best they had but he had to be held on a tight leash or he overstretched himself and got a damned good thrashing.

It was partly because the American High command didn't trust Patton not to go gallavanting off on some poorly planed, spur of the moment kind of charge across Europe that he ended up only in command on one army while a lesser general in Bradley got command of an Army Group.

Answer 4

the only thing he are holding is the germans by the nose and kicking him in the a@#. the war might have ended sooner but the resources would have been much more stretched in december of 44.. the line of advance would have looked a lot different and the possibility of a "battle of the bulge" being more successful would have looked different on the map plus the supplies would have been limited for the allies.. the germans did fear patton but they were not surrendering in mass until the spring. he did get into austria and was not suppose to go that far so i am sure having him line up and stop somewhere near the russians would have been problematic. would the russians shoot or accept the loses as normal collateral damage.

Answer 5

It would either have ended sooner in Europe, as Patton pushed through to Berlin, or it would have extended the war. The first because Patton would have continued attacking as long as his supplies were present. In other words, he was an advocate of the same style of Blitzkreig that had served the Germans so well. His reputation among the German military was such that I believe many units and commanders would have been more likely to surrender to him, rather than wasting lives resisting.  The biggest problem with unleashing Patton would have been in reining him in. Politically, the western allies were content to allow the Soviets to take Berlin, and avoid potential confilct with those troops.

   Which is why I believe the war might have taken a rather nasty turn had Patton been given the supplies. While improbable, I think it's possible he might have pushed on hard and fast enough to have reached Berlin before or at the same time as the Soviets. The potential then would have been for some conflict between the purported allies, leading to a shooting war between them.  In this scenario, even the Pacific war might have ended up extended. With the Soviets looking to the western allies, they wouldn't have shifted troops to invade Japanese holdings. Odds are the A-Bomb would still have been deployed, but without the added threeat of a soviet invasion, the Japanese might have continued to resist surrender. Not that they could have fended off defeat, merely forced America to build and use more bombs. With a Soviet enemy, I don't think the US would have considered an invasion as a viable option at that point.

   And yes, Patton was distantly related to Robert E. Lee.

Answer 6

Maybe. They say that Monty was "magnificent in defeat and insufferable in victory".   Patton was also willing to use the Enigma codes which other generals were slow to accept.  It really gave him an edge.

It is so sad to hear of the British radios that didn't work at all in Market Garden.  So the Polish paratroopers were dropped into sure death.

Answer 7

Without a doubt. When in doubt, Monty would fall back and regroup. Patton never had a doubt about anything and he didn't believe in paying for the same real estate twice. Patton was a hard charger' who only believed in advancing and victory. After Patton was given command of the 3rd Army,  he advanced so far and so quickly no one knew where he was. He had literally advanced so far...3rd Army couldn't be located on a map.

Drive On Georgie!!!

Answer 8

I don't think so, by your question are you saying that American troops would have fought better than British troops at Arnhem? I don't think they would have, it was just bad luck that Bittrich's SS Panzer division was around Arnhem at the time of the attack, but the 1st Airbourne Division fought Heroically against all odds. I have to say though that General Frederick Browning did let the men down because knowing full well that the Germans were in the area, he kept this information from Montgomery and sent the troops in anyway.

Another reason Montgomery was more cagey about sending his troops gung-ho into battle was that the British had suffered a lot more casualties than the US and they couldn't afford many more battles with heavy casualties, so understandably they where a lot more cautious, compared with Patton and the US who only entered the war in 1941, had a lot more manpower and weapons at his disposal.