Operation Eclipse

[Steve Arthur]

OK, I know this is on the fringe of discussion topice for this forum, yet it is related to the fall of the Reich. In Cornelius Ryan's book "The Last Battle" reference is made to the partitioning of post-war Germany by the Allies under the the name "Eclipse" I've off and on attempted to find other references to this and have not found anything. Has anyone else encountered this name?...I wish I had the book handy, I know there was something more significant to this...forgive me, it's been five years since I read it.

Best Wishes
Steve

[Bergsteiger]

I have not heard other references to Operation Eclipse--no mention in Beevor's Fall of Berlin. In The Last Battle it talks about how the 70 page document with maps was captured in the Ardennes Offensive. The Germans found it disheartening because it clearly showed the demarcation of Germany by the 4 main powers and told of a level of unity that they had not believed existed. Although plans were never executed, they were developed for an airborne assault on Tempelhof Airport by the Allies in Berlin. Presumably because of Operation Eclipse they never took place. This is all according to The Last Battle.

Bergsteiger

[Andy H]

This may be of some help, though I can't verify it's content.

The plan was called Operation Eclipse. Brereton 1st Airborne Army was planned to attack the following targets:
US 82nd Airborne : Templehof airfield (sec objective Rangsdorf airfield)
US 101st Airborne : Gatow airfield (sec objective Staaken airfield
UK 1st Airborne (with SAS and 1st Polish Parachute Brigade): Tegel and Oranienberg
A brigade consisting of elements from UK 6th Airborne and 17th Airborne was to drop over the Rhine near Wesel to support Montgomery's crossing meanwhile Patton would advance across the Rhine so that both forces would approach Berlin from North & South. Monty's crossing of the Rhine was originally planned for Operation Varsity and those units would have retained their function and targets to keep the Germans in the dark about Eclipse.
UK 52nd Air Landing division : held in reserve

The operation attack would be preceded by heavy bombing of all air defenses with special attention to the Berlin flak towers (Mosquitos dropping napalm followed by Lancasters dropping Tallboys).

http://www.wargamesdirectory.com/html/f ... 163&Page=1

[Durand]

Hallo,

The following links provide a bit of contextual background regarding the proposed airborne “Operation Eclipse”:

http://www.ww2-airborne.us/division/cam ... rmany.html

http://historynet.com/wwii/blairbornebridge/index.html

http://www.17th-airborne.org/eclipse.htm

Also, In his memoirs “On Time, On Target: The World War II Memoir of a Paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne” , John McKenzie mentions the following about Operation Eclipse:

It turns out there was a detailed plan for such an operation, but the idea was abandoned in April. The plan involved three American and two British airborne divisions. Two regiments from the 82d and two from the 101st were to seize Templehof airport, and British paratroopers would make battalion-sized drops on key strong points. The remainder of the five divisions would be air-lifted into Templehof. Once the airhead was secured, British and American armored and mobile infantry divisions would race to link up with us in the German capital. (p. 156)

Regards,

Durand

[Kim Sung]

Map of the Operation Eclipse


オラニエンブルク飛行場 - Oranienburg airfield　　

ガトウ飛行場 - Gatow airfield

テンペルルホーフ飛行場 - Tempelhof airfield

[JonS]

See: Alan Moorehead, "Eclipse", 1945 (numerous reprints available). The book is dated, and due to proximity some of his interpretations are a bit off, but it's still a very good book. It is sort-of a follow up/sequel to "African Trilogy"

[Ghost_of_War]

Check out the book Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian. I believe there are several references to Eclipse there, at least in the Western Theatre. Essential what the Ecplise Plan entailed, was that prior to the United States entering the war, England, Russia and the United States agreed on the division of Europe and how they would divde up Germany militarily. Essentially, it boiled down to the United States and England taking all over Western Europe to the river Elbe, and leaving all of Central and Eastern Europe to the Russians. Including Berlin. Contrary to what many scholars are dictating, the United States and England had no intention of ever taking Berlin.

[jwsleser]

If you search CARL, you will find two good documents on Eclipse. (http://comarms.ipac.dynixasp.com/ipac20 ... cgsc#focus)

The first is the Supreme Headquarter, Allied Expeditionary Forces; 1945 Eclipse Memorandum Number 1: appreciation and outline plan. 25 April 1945. This is the for real planning document for Eclipse. I scanned through it several years ago and found it very interesting.

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewe ... ISOPTR=501

For some reason the PDF is not working. I have e-mailed CARL and asked about it. They found part of the document at http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/ETO/Surrend ... index.html
This is not the complete document. CARL is looking to see if they can find a complete copy. The library is getting ready for maintenance and renovation, so their archives section is closed for the next year or so.

The other document is Planning the peace: Operation Eclipse and the occupation of Germany. This is a monograph written by a SAMS student for his Masters. This is available at:

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm4/item_viewe ... SOPTR=1166

Jeff

[Ghost_of_War]

Thanks Jeff.

They are leaving out the part about all Western Military units being stopped from advancing past the river Elbe until after the surrender of Germany and the fall of Berlin to the Soviets. It would not suprise me if that omission was intentional. The idea that we would allow the poorly defended captial of Germany fall into Russian hands even though we could have beat them to it is, even today, an overwhelming unpopular decision.

Also, the more I study the World Wars, the more disgusted I get with the United States' misguided alliance with the Soviet Union and our broken promise to the German military that we would join them in joint operations. Instead, we were responsible for the defacto murder of tens of thousands of their troops, the death of hundreds of thousands of their civilian population and the redistribution of their land and assets, effectively converting them from a 4th super power, into at best, a 2nd tier nation. This was all done after the war had ended and Hitler was long gone.

The more I study it, the more it seems like this was a war that was not necessarily instigated entirely by the Axis. The further one digs, the more it appears that, at least from the German perspective, they were forced into situations where war was the only answer.

Think about it...
1: Russia declares war on Poland and asks Germany to help. Germany does so because they want to gain back territory lost after WW1, and they need Russian oil to maintain their military capabilities.

2: The English land a massive military assault force in France, while France also gears up for war with Germany.

3: Germany now shares borders with 3 of it's 4 largest opponents from WW1, two of which are clearly massing forces for a large scale attack on Germany's Western front, and the other is a hated political opponent and one known to be a regular betrayer of treatys.

4: Instead of allowing the English to continue to mass forces in France, while Russia builds up to their East, Germany attacks France and pushes the English out. They then sign a treaty with the French government, allowing them to continue to self govern, in an effort to shore up the Western front and hopefully appease the Western powers in an effort to prevent further hostilities.

5: Russia stops selling oil to Germany, effectively cutting off the bulk of their supplies. Germany does not declare war over this, but clearly the shakey alliance is on dangerous ground as the German armed forces cannot fuction without oil and their supply from outside of Russia is severly limited.

6: Russia demands that Germany make a large number of concessions to Russia or risk war, including giving up territories and breaking alliances with countries bordering Russia, such as Finland, one of Germany's closest allies. Germany refuses.

7: Germany continues to try to get the English to sign a peace treaty, or at least sign an armistice that will be favorable to Germany and close up the Western Front. England refuses, resulting in the escalation of hostilities and the bombing of England, all in the desperate hope of achieving a lasting peace in the West.

8: Russia invades Finland, forcing Germany to declare war on Russia.

9: The United States stops allowing oil to be shipped to Japan, another feeble German ally, ultimately resulting in a Japanese attack on the US Pacific fleet and a state of war.

10: The state of affairs at the middle of WW1 is right back where it left off, only the Allies are stronger than ever, and Germany is weaker, with more feeble allies than before.

Did I miss anything?

[Bronsky]

They are leaving out the part about all Western Military units being stopped from advancing past the river Elbe until after the surrender of Germany and the fall of Berlin to the Soviets. It would not suprise me if that omission was intentional. The idea that we would allow the poorly defended captial of Germany fall into Russian hands even though we could have beat them to it is, even today, an overwhelming unpopular decision.

Firstly, the final occupation boundaries were decided at Postdam, in June 1945. The Allies did have an understanding that the Soviets would get an eastern occupation zone and that Berlin would be under joint control by all three major powers.

Secondly, in March 1945, which is when the last offensives were launched, Berlin was 250 miles from the Allied starting point and the Soviets were much closer. Read: logistics were going to be - and proved to be - a problem.
On top of that, advancing Allied forces discovered various concentration camps, the condition of the inmates dictated urgent attention. Read: a further, and unplanned for, drain on Allied logistics (Belsen alone required a 14,000-bed hospital).
Finally, Eisenhower was concerned about the Alps Redoubt. Just because we now know it to have been only propaganda doesn't mean it wasn't taken seriously in western HQs: it was.

Thirdly, exactly what 'poorly defended capital of Germany' are we talking about, here? The Germans only began considering surrender after Hitler's death, until then they were ordered to fight, and they fought. US forces established bridgeheads over the Elbe and were forced to give them up, not out of political considerations but from German counter attacks. Berlin was defended, the western armies were in no position to launch a prepared assault against it whereas the Soviets were, having had a couple of months to build up their stockpiles from a much closer starting point.

Fourthly, from Eisenhower's perspective, why indulge in costly street fighting to capture Berlin when the Red Army was willing to take the casualties for a city, two thirds of which would end up in western control anyway?

Also, the more I study the World Wars, the more disgusted I get with the United States' misguided alliance with the Soviet Union and our broken promise to the German military that we would join them in joint operations.

Ah, exactly what promise was that? When was it made, where and by whom? Details, please.

As far as I can tell, that promise was no more than a German wet dream. People like Himmler and Göring were hoping for such a deal, with a sort of western solidarity kicking in and the western powers joining up with Germany to fight bolshevism and defend civilization. What they refused to consider, though the West kept telling them, was that there was no room for nazism and civilization in the same sentence.

Instead, we were responsible for the defacto murder of tens of thousands of their troops, the death of hundreds of thousands of their civilian population and the redistribution of their land and assets, effectively converting them from a 4th super power, into at best, a 2nd tier nation. This was all done after the war had ended and Hitler was long gone.

In 1918, Kaiser Wilhelm II stepped out immediately and Germany was left broadly alone. Barely 20 years after it had signed the peace treaty ending a world war it had largely contributed to start, the country proceeded to start WWII. The Allies were taking no chances that Germany would start WWII in 1966.

Incidentally, the Germans were responsible for the not de facto murder of millions of civilians and troops (the latter being POWs), not counting what you called "de facto murder" of enemy troops which also ran into the millions. Nazi Germany had indulged in some really heavy-handed "redistribution of land and assets" as well. I think making sure it stayed gone was a good thing.

The more I study it, the more it seems like this was a war that was not necessarily instigated entirely by the Axis.

Hm, let's see... Germany invades Poland, Germany invades a bunch of small neutral countries, Germany invades the Soviet Union, Germany attacks the USA. Italy unilaterally declares war on Britain & France, and later on the Soviet Union and the USA. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, invaded the Philippines, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

Exactly who else "instigated" that war?

The further one digs, the more it appears that, at least from the German perspective, they were forced into situations where war was the only answer.

Well, "look what he made me do" doesn't count as a valid defense in court. The Germans would always blame everyone else for their troubles. The reality is that in early 1939, Germany was the largest European country with the largest population and economy as well as the most powerful army and air force (it was still working on its navy, these things take time).

If that's a situation "where war was the only answer", then maybe it was just as well that the country was cut back to size, right? In the real world, the Allies had no problems with a large and prosperous Germany, as long as it stopped attacking its neighbors.

Think about it...
1: Russia declares war on Poland and asks Germany to help. Germany does so because they want to gain back territory lost after WW1, and they need Russian oil to maintain their military capabilities.

But the Soviet Union did NOT declare war on Poland, Germany did. Also, the Germans didn't need Soviet oil until they got into a war with the West, resulting in a blockade of overseas imports. Prior to its invading Poland, Germany was getting most of its oil from the Americas.

2: The English land a massive military assault force in France

The British didn't have a massive military force in the first place and no plans to build one until Germany went on the war path. The first British troops to land in France - all of two divisions - arrived almost a month AFTER the war had started.

3: Germany now shares borders with 3 of it's 4 largest opponents from WW1

Germany didn't have a common border with Italy (another WWI opponent) until it annexed Austria, nor did it have a common border with the Soviet Union until after it had conquered Poland.

4: Instead of allowing the English to continue to mass forces in France, while Russia builds up to their East, Germany attacks France and pushes the English out. They then sign a treaty with the French government, allowing them to continue to self govern, in an effort to shore up the Western front and hopefully appease the Western powers in an effort to prevent further hostilities.

Germany invades 3 neutral countries and proceeds to strafe civilians, loot everything not hidden or nailed to the ground, start deporting Jews, declare most of these areas off-limits as well as de facto annexing others (like Alsace - Lorraine).

5: Russia stops selling oil to Germany

Soviet oil deliveries kept picking up, the only thing that interrupted them was the German attack of the Soviet Union. The Germans weren't even bothering to pay for them.

6: Russia demands that Germany make a large number of concessions to Russia or risk war, including giving up territories and breaking alliances with countries bordering Russia, such as Finland, one of Germany's closest allies. Germany refuses.

The Soviet Union never threatened war. Finland was not "one of Germany's closest allies" but had been declared "within the Soviet zone of interest" by the German-Soviet pact signed in August 1939. I'm not claiming this was nice, but German support of Finland was a German breach of its treaty with the Soviet Union, not the other way around.

7: Germany continues to try to get the English to sign a peace treaty, or at least sign an armistice that will be favorable to Germany and close up the Western Front. England refuses, resulting in the escalation of hostilities and the bombing of England, all in the desperate hope of achieving a lasting peace in the West.

Strangely enough, other countries weren't interested in letting Germany have what it considered favorable peace terms. After all, most of Germany's neighbors would have been quite favorable to peace terms involving the breakup of the Reich and they didn't get them, why should the Germans be any different?

Translation of your paragraph: Germany tells Britain to surrender or else, the British refuse. War goes on.

8: Russia invades Finland, forcing Germany to declare war on Russia.

Nah, Russia invaded Finland in November 1939 and Germany didn't declare war, then. The Winter War was over by the spring of 1940. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, there was no war going on except the one with Britain.

9: The United States stops allowing oil to be shipped to Japan, another feeble German ally, ultimately resulting in a Japanese attack on the US Pacific fleet and a state of war.

Japan invades southern Indochina, a territory of no conceivable worth to them except as a base from which to attack Western possessions. The United States decides to stop subsidizing the Japanese war economy. Note that even after the embargo, Japan had plenty of oil for its civilian needs, it just didn't have enough to wage a war.

...and so on.

[Ghost_of_War]

Firstly, the final occupation boundaries were decided at Postdam, in June 1945. The Allies did have an understanding that the Soviets would get an eastern occupation zone and that Berlin would be under joint control by all three major powers.

Sorry, but the entire point of this thread is that it is known that the Eclipse plan contained detailed information that had divided up Europe with the United States and Britan stopping their Eastward advance at the river Elbe. This plan was in place before the United States and Britan invaded Normandy. Also, this plan was detailed out in three different books by high ranking Germany generals, who have no reason to manufacture that information.

Secondly, in March 1945, which is when the last offensives were launched, Berlin was 250 miles from the Allied starting point and the Soviets were much closer. Read: logistics were going to be - and proved to be - a problem.
On top of that, advancing Allied forces discovered various concentration camps, the condition of the inmates dictated urgent attention. Read: a further, and unplanned for, drain on Allied logistics (Belsen alone required a 14,000-bed hospital). Finally, Eisenhower was concerned about the Alps Redoubt. Just because we now know it to have been only propaganda doesn't mean it wasn't taken seriously in western HQs: it was.

Yes, that is true however that was done by design. In multiple places the United States was able to establish bridgeheads across the Elbe. The troops and their commanders were then shocked when they were ordered to stop and hold in place. The reason: the Elbe was as far as the United States and Britan were going to go from the begining. Had they been allowed to proceed, they would have easily beaten the Russians to Berlin.

Thirdly, exactly what 'poorly defended capital of Germany' are we talking about, here? The Germans only began considering surrender after Hitler's death, until then they were ordered to fight, and they fought. US forces established bridgeheads over the Elbe and were forced to give them up, not out of political considerations but from German counter attacks.

That was soley the result of the order that prevented the United States from expanding their bridgeheads. If you cannot expand a bridgehead, you will lose it because it's not possible to hold a bridgehead without holding the ground on the opposite side of it. If you cannot expand your position on the enemy controlled side, you have to give it up out of strategic necessity. Once the order came that prevented them from advancing any further, the bridgeheads were lost. That was not the result of German resistance, as much as it was by design.

Berlin was defended, the western armies were in no position to launch a prepared assault against it whereas the Soviets were, having had a couple of months to build up their stockpiles from a much closer starting point.

Berlin was lightly defended by mostly boys and old men mixed in with a few reserves and soldiers not yet fit for the front. As detailed in several memoirs, the myth of fortress Berlin, was just that, a myth. There was very little defense and what few soldiers remained were utterly incapable of defending the city, from the West or the East.

The only reason the Russians managed to get there first is that the United States let them. It wasn't a battle, as much as it was slaughter. The overwhelming majority of the people killed in Berlin were civilians, and most of those were women and children. The Russians specifically went out of their way to rape and kill civilians. Soviet Propaganda Minister Ilya Erenberg ordered communist soldiers to rape German women to “break their racial pride”. They shelled refugees with their artillary and straffed the thousands of them packed on the roads with aircraft. Their men raped women in convents, maternaty wards and nunneries. These events didn't happen in ancient history either, many of the thugs who committed these atrocities are still alive today, as are some of the vicitims.

Fourthly, from Eisenhower's perspective, why indulge in costly street fighting to capture Berlin when the Red Army was willing to take the casualties for a city, two thirds of which would end up in western control anyway?

Three big reasons and many small ones. The big ones are...

1: It was the right thing to do. It was clear that Berlin was poorly defended and it was no secret what atrocities the Russian army was openingly committing all across Germany. A large portion of the United States forces were of German decent, and German speaking, including some of my relatives who were right there at the front at that time.

2: The prestige and political capital gained from taking the city is incalcuable, and the overwhelming majority of the troops were chomping at the bit to get there first.

3: The population of that city did not deserve their fate. Had the Americans gotten their first, things would have gone much differently.

Ah, exactly what promise was that? When was it made, where and by whom? Details, please.

It was what American commanders were telling the Germans when they parlayed with them. There is a ton of documentation on this, so I shouldn't have to provide it for you. I have two relatives who were there, who have spoken about it. I have also read about such statements being made in numerous accounts from both sides, the most recent of which was the memoirs of Otto Carius. Perhaps that was just a ruse to get them to surrender, but the troops saying it believed in it because none of the trusted the Russians... and rightfully so. Imagine how much better off the world would be if Stalin had been toppled and communist Russia had been eliminated as a super power.

the West kept telling them, was that there was no room for nazism and civilization in the same sentence.

Really? Where was that ever said?

Instead, we were responsible for the defacto murder of tens of thousands of their troops, the death of hundreds of thousands of their civilian population and the redistribution of their land and assets, effectively converting them from a 4th super power, into at best, a 2nd tier nation. This was all done after the war had ended and Hitler was long gone.

Barely 20 years after it had signed the peace treaty ending a world war it had largely contributed to start, the country proceeded to start WWII. The Allies were taking no chances that Germany would start WWII in 1966.

Incidentally, the Germans were responsible for the not de facto murder of millions of civilians and troops (the latter being POWs), not counting what you called "de facto murder" of enemy troops which also ran into the millions. Nazi Germany had indulged in some really heavy-handed "redistribution of land and assets" as well. I think making sure it stayed gone was a good thing.

I believe that you're trying to justify the rape and outright murder of millions of innoccent civilians and POW's after the war was over, by claiming that because the war took place at all, they all deserved it because they fought the war and lost. This is a rather unfortunate outlook on the history of the events and the horrible effect on most European societies.

The more I study it, the more it seems like this was a war that was not necessarily instigated entirely by the Axis.

Hm, let's see... Germany invades Poland, Germany invades a bunch of small neutral countries, Germany invades the Soviet Union, Germany attacks the USA. Italy unilaterally declares war on Britain & France, and later on the Soviet Union and the USA. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, invaded the Philippines, Malaya and the Dutch East Indies.

Well, "look what he made me do" doesn't count as a valid defense in court. The Germans would always blame everyone else for their troubles. The reality is that in early 1939, Germany was the largest European country with the largest population and economy as well as the most powerful army and air force (it was still working on its navy, these things take time).

If that's a situation "where war was the only answer", then maybe it was just as well that the country was cut back to size, right? In the real world, the Allies had no problems with a large and prosperous Germany, as long as it stopped attacking its neighbors.

That is a rather short-sighted and unthoughful post without any regard to the German perspective. Based on that logic, you must believe that every country ever to have been conquered in the history of the world was lead by a madman and filled with a population of evil-doers obsessed with world domination.

Also, I'm not talking about Japan here because they are an entirely different story, although as much as they deserved their defeat, they did not suffer the same tragic fate that the Germans did.

Think about it...
1: Russia declares war on Poland and asks Germany to help. Germany does so because they want to gain back territory lost after WW1, and they need Russian oil to maintain their military capabilities.

But the Soviet Union did NOT declare war on Poland, Germany did.

Sheesh... check your facts. Russia attacked Poland and met the Germans in the middle.

2: The English land a massive military assault force in France

The British didn't have a massive military force in the first place and no plans to build one until Germany went on the war path. The first British troops to land in France - all of two divisions - arrived almost a month AFTER the war had started.

Again, your statements/beliefs are incorrect.

3: Germany now shares borders with 3 of it's 4 largest opponents from WW1

Germany didn't have a common border with Italy (another WWI opponent) until it annexed Austria, nor did it have a common border with the Soviet Union until after it had conquered Poland.

You mean when Germany and Russia together conquered Poland? Or do you still not know that Russia attacked Poland?

4: Instead of allowing the English to continue to mass forces in France, while Russia builds up to their East, Germany attacks France and pushes the English out. They then sign a treaty with the French government, allowing them to continue to self govern, in an effort to shore up the Western front and hopefully appease the Western powers in an effort to prevent further hostilities.

Germany invades 3 neutral countries and proceeds to strafe civilians, loot everything not hidden or nailed to the ground, start deporting Jews, declare most of these areas off-limits as well as de facto annexing others (like Alsace - Lorraine).

Alsace-Lorriane, a German territory from prior to WW1 with a German speaking populace.

The invasion of said neutral countries was mostly either a military necessity, or an effort to gain back territory lost after WW1.

Where did you get that strafing of civilians garbage?

5: Russia stops selling oil to Germany

6: Russia demands that Germany make a large number of concessions to Russia or risk war, including giving up territories and breaking alliances with countries bordering Russia, such as Finland, one of Germany's closest allies. Germany refuses.

Soviet oil deliveries kept picking up, the only thing that interrupted them was the German attack of the Soviet Union. The Germans weren't even bothering to pay for them.

The Soviet Union never threatened war. Finland was not "one of Germany's closest allies" but had been declared "within the Soviet zone of interest" by the German-Soviet pact signed in August 1939. I'm not claiming this was nice, but German support of Finland was a German breach of its treaty with the Soviet Union, not the other way around.

Sorry, but according to multiple books I've read on the subject (most recently, Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian) the Russians stopped supplying Germany with oil and they demanded that Finland (who was very much a strong German ally) be made part of the Soviet sphere of influence. They then attacked Finland, which would be the equivalent of China attacking Canada. Would the US help them? Of course.

However, if you can provide credible facts to the contrary, I would welcome them.

7: Germany continues to try to get the English to sign a peace treaty, or at least sign an armistice that will be favorable to Germany and close up the Western Front. England refuses, resulting in the escalation of hostilities and the bombing of England, all in the desperate hope of achieving a lasting peace in the West.

Strangely enough, other countries weren't interested in letting Germany have what it considered favorable peace terms. After all, most of Germany's neighbors would have been quite favorable to peace terms involving the breakup of the Reich and they didn't get them, why should the Germans be any different?

Translation of your paragraph: Germany tells Britain to surrender or else, the British refuse. War goes on.

I disagree with your points on several fronts. First off, most European countries were sympathetic to the German cause against Bolshevism. Only were many of the countries firmly backing Germany, they were counting on Germany to shield them from Soviet aggression. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Italy, Spain, France, ect... they all had volunteers in the Waffen SS, an organization that has been demonized in history because an extremely tiny portion of their number were used as guards in some concentration camps. However, the vast majority of their members were men who volunteered to defend Europe from Soviet aggression. You should read the book Black Edelweiss; it provides good detail on that front.

8: Russia invades Finland, forcing Germany to declare war on Russia.

Nah, Russia invaded Finland in November 1939 and Germany didn't declare war, then. The Winter War was over by the spring of 1940. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, there was no war going on except the one with Britain.

That is a short sighted view. Germany couldn't just declare war the day the Russians attacked, they had to mass forces, plan and prepare. Then counter attack and move to defend Finland from Soviet aggression.

9: The United States stops allowing oil to be shipped to Japan, another feeble German ally, ultimately resulting in a Japanese attack on the US Pacific fleet and a state of war.

Japan invades southern Indochina, a territory of no conceivable worth to them except as a base from which to attack Western possessions. The United States decides to stop subsidizing the Japanese war economy. Note that even after the embargo, Japan had plenty of oil for its civilian needs, it just didn't have enough to wage a war.

Quite correct.

Thanks for the post Bronsky, I enjoy the discussion and am interested to see if you can clarify some of your comments. I hope I wasn't insulting, I'm not meaning to be. I merely hope you can dig a little deeper and I'm rather tired as it is late.

Cheers!

--GoW

[Bronsky]

Also, this plan was detailed out in three different books by high ranking Germany generals, who have no reason to manufacture that information.

Thanks for the laugh.

In multiple places the United States was able to establish bridgeheads across the Elbe.

...and kicked out of the largest ones, so they evacuated those they rightly decided they couldn't hold against determined opposition.
The US Army was in a position to advance beyond the Elbe against light opposition. It met more than light opposition, and as it was at the end of its logistical tether, it stopped. There is no doubt that Eisenhower could have ordered it forward at all costs and made a little more progress. Such a decision would have been much more costly, and really unlikely to capture Berlin.

Had they been allowed to proceed, they would have easily beaten the Russians to Berlin.

So you claim, at least.

Here's a map of the Allied positions with a frontline as of 18 April. Not sure it will display well, so here's the link:
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/c ... map%29.jpg



The actual situation was that one of the prongs of the exploiting US forces, i.e. a weak corps' worth of troops having outrun their logistics, was on the Elbe. The Soviets had two full fronts on the Oder at full strength, with rested troops and logistical stockpiled. Primed and ready to go instead of spent. The Soviet offensive kicked out on 20 April.

For a detailed study, written at a time when the Cold War had kicked in and the West was being accused of letting too much territory go to the Soviets, try this link:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_22.htm

I'll only quote from the summary: "On 12 April 1945, the day of President Roosevelt's death and eighteen days before the Russians took Berlin, Ninth U.S. Army units crossed the Elbe River near Magdeburg, some fifty miles from the German capital. They established a second bridgehead farther south on the following day. German counterattacks forced them to withdraw from the northern position on the 14th, but the Americans held the southern bridgehead. These elements were ordered to hold in place while other units arriving at the Elbe were turned toward objectives south and north along the west bank of the river. ... Many observers have concluded that only a political decision, perhaps made weeks before, could have held General Dwight D. Eisenhower's forces at the Elbe. Careful examination of the Supreme Commander's action indicates that he halted his troops short of Berlin and Prague for military reasons only."

That was soley the result of the order that prevented the United States from expanding their bridgeheads.

No, they were counterattacked, see above. The remaining - and smaller - bridgeheads were evacuated because there was no hope of turning them into suitable launching off points for an off the cuff offensive. See also things like blown up bridges and so on. The Germans fought. It took until Hitler's death for them not to, and by then of course the Soviets were already in Berlin.

Berlin was lightly defended by mostly boys and old men mixed in with a few reserves and soldiers not yet fit for the front.

So you claim. Be that as it may, these defenders were enough to push US troops back to the western bank of the Elbe. That Berlin wasn't a fortress is quite true, that it was undefended isn't either. Berlin could be taken by a major assault, which it was..

The only reason the Russians managed to get there first is that the United States let them. It wasn't a battle, as much as it was slaughter.

You may want to check out Soviet casualties for that battle.

Ah, exactly what promise was that? When was it made, where and by whom? Details, please.

It was what American commanders were telling the Germans when they parlayed with them. There is a ton of documentation on this, so I shouldn't have to provide it for you.

In other words, you don't know and can't support your claim. I thought so. Thanks for the confirmation.

Imagine how much better off the world would be if Stalin had been toppled and communist Russia had been eliminated as a super power.

Russia wasn't a super power in 1939. It was a large power, not quite as rich as Germany or Britain, with a large but second-rate military. It was also an international pariah. By 1945, the Soviet Union was the world's second superpower with plenty of intellectual support within European communist parties and intellectuals, all of it as a result of Hitler's actions. Given how much communist expansion owed to Nazi deeds, I don't think that cutting Nazi Germany any slack was the solution if you wanted to remove Stalin.

the West kept telling them, was that there was no room for nazism and civilization in the same sentence.

Really? Where was that ever said?

That was my paraphrasing. The West ignored attempts by nazi higher ups to foster a separate peace.

http://www.rense.com/general6/himm.htm

That is a rather short-sighted and unthoughful post without any regard to the German perspective.

From the German perspective, the country seems to have done much better not invading any of its neighbors in the 65 years since WWII than it did in 1914-1939.

Think about it...
1: Russia declares war on Poland and asks Germany to help. Germany does so because they want to gain back territory lost after WW1, and they need Russian oil to maintain their military capabilities.

Sheesh... check your facts. Russia attacked Poland and met the Germans in the middle.

My facts are quite easy to check.

1 September 1939: Germany invades Poland.
14 September 1939: Germany lets the Soviets know the deal over Poland will not stand if they don't pull their weight.
17 September 1939: the Soviet Union invades Poland, with very little fighting as Germany had already destroyed the bulk of the Polish armed forces by then.

None of the "Russia declares war on Poland and asks Germany to help" nonsense. Note that the Soviet Union never declared war on Poland, as it considered that state to have been wiped out by the time it moved in. The part about the oil is just as false: Germany was receiving exactly ZERO oil from the Soviets at the time. The first deliveries as part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreements came later.

Again, your statements/beliefs are incorrect.

British and French official historians agree with me that no massive assault force was landing in France, but that two British divisions (not exactly massive) were finally being assembled and taking up frontline positions a full month after the German invasion of Poland.

Alsace-Lorriane, a German territory from prior to WW1 with a German speaking populace.

I'm pained by your lack of regard for the German perspective, you should spell that Elsass-Lothringen I guess. Or Alsace & Lorraine in English or French. The territory had been taken by Germany in 1871, taken back by France in 1919, the locals spoke both French and a German dialect and by 1939 had no wish to be part of Germany, particularly not nazi Germany.

Where did you get that strafing of civilians garbage?

Ah, from people who were there at the time? From the records of civilians who died at the time? Of course, German pilots didn't go out of their way just to strafe civilians, but they definitely attacked everything that looked like a vehicle column.

Sorry, but according to multiple books I've read on the subject (most recently, Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian) the Russians stopped supplying Germany with oil and they demanded that Finland (who was very much a strong German ally) be made part of the Soviet sphere of influence. They then attacked Finland

Finland - along with the Baltic states and Bessarabia - was considered to be "within the Soviet sphere of interest" by the German-Soviet pact, signed in August 1939. That text has been available for decades. Here it is.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html

Facts:
1. The Soviet Union attacked Finland on 30 November 1939. The Soviets were not supplying Germany with oil at the time, as the infrastructure was still being built up (they had agreed to let the Germans have the oil from the Polish wells that were in their - Soviet - area of Poland), so no threats were necessary.
2. Germany didn't lift a finger to help the Finns.
3. The Winter War ended on 13 March 1940.
4. No further hostilities between Finland and the Soviet Union took place until after the German invasion of the USSR.

So you're mixing things up. The Soviets did insist that if they were to deliver oil to Germany, they should have the Baltic states and Finland. But that was before the war started. Germany didn't have to sign the pact, all it had to do was leave Poland alone, or tell Ribbentrop not to fly to Moscow to sign it. Later on, the Soviets attacked Finland, failed to conquer it, left it at that. Still later, the Germans decided - for reasons entirely unconnected with Finland - to invade the Soviet Union, and did.

Try looking up any WWII diplomatic chronology, this really is elementary and should provide all the "credible facts" that you claim you'd welcome.

First off, most European countries were sympathetic to the German cause against Bolshevism.

The Soviet Union was really unpopular everywhere. It took nazi Germany to make Stalin look like an ok guy, and that took some doing. I suggest that says something about what you call "the German cause" in WWII.

Only were many of the countries firmly backing Germany, they were counting on Germany to shield them from Soviet aggression. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Italy, Spain, France, ect... they all had volunteers in the Waffen SS, an organization that has been demonized in history because an extremely tiny portion of their number were used as guards in some concentration camps.

Countries like Norway, Italy, Spain and France felt perfectly safe about Soviet aggression until after WWII. The Waffen SS was also involved in a few little mishaps like torching the occasional village, but what's a few civilians between civilized people, hm?

You should read the book Black Edelweiss; it provides good detail on that front.

I know quite a bit about these volunteers. The distinct majority of the population from their host countries would rather the Germans left them alone.

Germany couldn't just declare war the day the Russians attacked, they had to mass forces, plan and prepare. Then counter attack and move to defend Finland from Soviet aggression.

Soviet attack starts late November 1939
Soviet attack stops March 1940.
June 1941, or 15 months later, the German "counter attack to defend Finland" starts?

This really is ridiculous...

[OpanaPointer]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned: http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/ETO/Surrend ... index.html

[Carl Schwamberger]

Any opinions here on what plausible circumstances might make the execution of Op Eclipse necessary?

[DP1944]

Hi,

I'm a newbie, but I wanted to share with you the latest from the BBC. It says that Maj. Tony Hibbert from the British para forces will be getting the key to the city of Kiel, Germany, for landing his 500-man force there in May 1945 which caused the surrender of the Germans in Denmark and also may have halted the Russian troop expansion westward during that time. Interviewed, Hibbert said his task was called "Operation Eclipse."

I know, because I was there having escaped through the Russian lines as a baby with my mother from Schwerin in the middle of the night to British forces who stood off the Russians and said "welcome to the West." By the way, this was an exodus from my native country of Latvia. Then off to Sweden and the U.S.