Strategic Options After Kursk

[AJFFM]

Berlin wasn't a symbolic city, it was strategically located near the Oder which would be the natural boundary between unified Germany (which was obviously going to be under American influence) and Soviet controlled Poland. All signs before the deal (which offered Berlin to the Soviets by the Americans just to rile the Brits with no reciprocal guaranteed about Central and Eastern Europe) showed that Stalin was not interested in honouring any deal with the Americans and with hindsight the Americans realised their mistake as early as June 45.

And the Americas lost 10s of thousand of GIs in Austria, Germany and Czechoslovakia only to hand these territories to the Soviets, French and British so this argument is null.

If that's true then why did Stalin honour the agreement to divide Berlin up after the war?

Could that be because the Americans and the British already crossed the Elbe and already took a number of major cities designated within Soviet occupation zone in Czechoslovakia and Germany? Those places were not evacuated until mid summer of 45, well after the first problems between Anglo-American troops and Soviet troops started.

Your last point about Austria and Czechoslovakia isn't convincing either. Capturing Berlin would have been on a whole different scale of casualties compared to liberating these two countries. Austria also stayed in the western sphere of influence so it could be argued the American losses here were acceptable in terms of grand strategy.

No especially if you compare the phenomenal advance of the Anglo-American troops between the 1st of April and the end of the war with the of the Soviet troops. Magdeburg fell on April 11th, 5 days before the Soviet offensive started and it was a mere 100 km away from Berlin. The 2 million German troops between the Rhine and the Elbe gave little resistance compared with the resistance they gave in France, they and their commanders knew the war was over and except fanatical elements surrendered en masse.

And the west got to keep Austria because the cold war settlements which set up the iron curtain to avoid another destructive war this time with nukes being with only one side. Plus the Americans were already in Austria by the time the war ended so dislodging them would basically mean war.

Going by memory the Soviets captured most of Czechoslovakia themselves and in fact this was where the last remaining large scale organised German military resistance was located.

Yes, after the war already finished and most German troops surrendered to the Soviets or fought out to surrender to the Americans who already occupied a large chunk of Southern Czechoslovakia including Plzen (Pilsen).


In any case back to the original topic at hand. The Germans clearly wanted to surrender to the western allies (as the aforementioned Prague offensive show since Schorner decided to fight instead of surrendering to the red Army), their best chance after Kursk was to simply delay the Red army advance until the western allies land after which the hand over Germany with the least resistance as possible to the western allies.

I think if the Germans pursued this strategy the political pressure not to give Berlin or Central Europe to the USSR would have been to much to weather.

[RichTO90]

And the Americas lost 10s of thousand of GIs in Austria, Germany and Czechoslovakia only to hand these territories to the Soviets, French and British so this argument is null.

They did? Czechoslovakia, yes, parts of Germany, yes, Austria, no.

No especially if you compare the phenomenal advance of the Anglo-American troops between the 1st of April and the end of the war with the of the Soviet troops. Magdeburg fell on April 11th, 5 days before the Soviet offensive started and it was a mere 100 km away from Berlin. The 2 million German troops between the Rhine and the Elbe gave little resistance compared with the resistance they gave in France, they and their commanders knew the war was over and except fanatical elements surrendered en masse.

Sorry, but I don't think I will let you have your cake and eat it too. You can't on the one hand claim that tens of thousands were lost east of the Rhine and then also claim that the Germans gave little resistance east of the Rhine. In fact, the two months of combat east of the Rhine, March-April, saw 21,650 battle deaths, while the two months prior, January-February, saw 20,488.

And the west got to keep Austria because the cold war settlements which set up the iron curtain to avoid another destructive war this time with nukes being with only one side. Plus the Americans were already in Austria by the time the war ended so dislodging them would basically mean war.

Cold war settlements set up the iron curtain? Really? :roll:

In any case back to the original topic at hand. The Germans clearly wanted to surrender to the western allies (as the aforementioned Prague offensive show since Schorner decided to fight instead of surrendering to the red Army), their best chance after Kursk was to simply delay the Red army advance until the western allies land after which the hand over Germany with the least resistance as possible to the western allies.

Are you serious? The Germans "wanted" to surrender to the west?

[AJFFM]

I think it has been well established that there was a lag in battle casualty reporting because no centralised system was established. We know how many KIA, WIA, MIA or POW but we don't know a lot about where and when. So it is not surprising that many deaths in February and March were reported later in March and April and May (which saw nearly 500-1000 deaths in roughly 6 days of combat).

I never said the fight for Berlin would be a cake walk but seeing that two army groups surrendered with no major resistance and another two just sitting there in Czechoslovakia with no pressure is a little bit odd.

And yes, the Germans wanted to surrender to the Anglo-American forces seeing how desperately they fought to escape Berlin, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

[BDV]

Are you serious? The Germans "wanted" to surrender to the west?

You did not know that? This is late April-early May 45.

Yes, and some units kept fighting the Soviets so others could withdraw to surrender. However, AFAIK, as per prior WallySoviet agreements such POWs were transferred to the Soviets.


PS

According to Edward Peterson, the U.S. chose to hand over several hundred thousand German prisoners to the Soviet Union in May 1945 as a "gesture of friendship".[14] Niall Ferguson maintains that it is clear that many German units sought to surrender to the Americans in preference to other Allied forces, and particularly the Red Army.[15] Heinz Nawratil maintains that U.S. forces refused to accept the surrender of German troops in Saxony and Bohemia, and instead handed them over to the Soviet Union.[16]

Thousands of prisoners were transferred to Soviet authorities from POW camps in the West, e.g. it is known that 6,000 German officers were sent from the West to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp which at the time was one of the NKVD special camp and from which it is known that there were transfers further east to Siberia.[17]
-Wikipedia

[ljadw]

I think if the Germans pursued this strategy the political pressure not to give Berlin or Central Europe to the USSR would have been to much to weather.

I see : the good old Yalta myth is not dead : Berlin was conquered by the Soviets,who lost a lot of men in the fighting,and the Soviets gave the half to the Wallies,who did not fight for Berlin .

Central-Europe was not given to the SU (whatever was saying the junior senator of Wisconsin) :it was conquered by the Soviets,and why should the Soviets give these territories to the Wallies ?
Besides,most of these territories were alies of Germany thus,why would the Wallies care about them ?

[ljadw]

Thousands of prisoners were transferred to Soviet authorities from POW camps in the West, e.g. it is known that 6,000 German officers were sent from the West to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp which at the time was one of the NKVD special camp and from which it is known that there were transfers further east to Siberia.[17]
-Wikipedia

[/quote]


1)Ferguson said a lot of things,most of which can be discarded.

2)As in 1945,no one cared about the Germans (a dead German was a good one)why should it be a problem for the Wallies to transfer German POW to the Soviet occupation zone ?

3)What the Tcheka did with the German POW was not the business of the Wallies ;do also not forget that at that moment there were still a lot of Western POW in the territories occupied by the Soviets,and the lives of these POW were more worth than the lives of German POW.

[BDV]

Glad to be of help.

[RichTO90]

I think it has been well established that there was a lag in battle casualty reporting because no centralised system was established. We know how many KIA, WIA, MIA or POW but we don't know a lot about where and when. So it is not surprising that many deaths in February and March were reported later in March and April and May (which saw nearly 500-1000 deaths in roughly 6 days of combat).

Sorry, but no, you are talking through your hat. No such thing has been "well established" by anyone least of all by you. Battle deaths are probably the best reported in the American system and the date of death was one of the most important elements of that data.

You are confusing unit ELR's (estimated loss reports) and the periodic reporting by the armies and theaters with the final casualty accounting as completed by the Adjutant General's Office.

I never said the fight for Berlin would be a cake walk but seeing that two army groups surrendered with no major resistance and another two just sitting there in Czechoslovakia with no pressure is a little bit odd.

No, you never did, instead you have now made for the second time the claim I called you out on. You cannot reconcile the casualties incurred by the American Army "east of the Rhine" - your phrase BTW - with "no major resistance", which you first said was "little resistance". Neither works.

And yes, the Germans wanted to surrender to the Anglo-American forces seeing how desperately they fought to escape Berlin, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

Why yes, indeed, but what I was referring to was your inference that "after Kursk" they would have realized that they were interested in surrendering to the Western allies. That is frankly silly and unsupportable.

[RichTO90]

You did not know that? This is late April-early May 45.

Indeed I do know that. In fact they preferred surrendering to the Western allies, but I doubt they "wanted to", they likely much rather "wanted to" win the war. And the notion that post Kursk they would have come to the conclusion that they "wanted to" surrender to the Western allies while continuing to fight the Soviets is silly.

Yes, and some units kept fighting the Soviets so others could withdraw to surrender. However, AFAIK, as per prior WallySoviet agreements such POWs were transferred to the Soviets.

What in the world do you imagine you mean by that statement? Are you claiming that PW from units fighting the Soviets were kept by the Soviets? Why would they have to be transferred to the Soviets if they were fighting the Soviets? Transfers of prisoners from Western allies to the Soviets were either claimed as war criminals against the Soviets or were former Soviet citizens.

BTW, like a lot of Wiki, the entry in that passage you snipped from the entry on German PW referencing Peterson is fraudulent. No such statement appears in The American Occupation of Germany on page 116 or anywhere else that I am able to find.

[AJFFM]

I think if the Germans pursued this strategy the political pressure not to give Berlin or Central Europe to the USSR would have been to much to weather.

I see : the good old Yalta myth is not dead : Berlin was conquered by the Soviets,who lost a lot of men in the fighting,and the Soviets gave the half to the Wallies,who did not fight for Berlin .

Central-Europe was not given to the SU (whatever was saying the junior senator of Wisconsin) :it was conquered by the Soviets,and why should the Soviets give these territories to the Wallies ?
Besides,most of these territories were alies of Germany thus,why would the Wallies care about them ?

Obviously you misunderstood me.

I never talked about the immediate aftermath of Yalta, I am talking after Kursk. The Germans, who had enough men and equipment to slow the Red army if they employed them correctly and not insisted on anchoring them is hopeless defence of extended lines as in the Baltics, East Prussia and Belarus without compromising their situation in the west could have ended up with a situation where by they would have still kept much of Poland by the time the Anglo-American armies crossed the Rhine after which they would conveniently pretend to fight while surrendering.

As for conquering Central and Eastern Europe. There were promises made and deal signed. The Anglo-American alliance could have done the same (especially in Czechoslovakia, they did reach it first and conquered nearly a third of it before the Red army attacked) but they honoured their agreements. It was Stalin who backed out of those deals beginning with the massacring of the Polish home army as early as the summer of 45 and ridiculous demands for Turkish territory around the same time and ending with the blockade and communist take over. Those lands were not the USSR to take to begin with (especially not forgetting that they had as much guilt in starting the war as the Germans in the particular case of Poland).

[ljadw]

I understood you very well : in post 61 you said that Berlin/Central Europe was given to the USSR.

This is not correct : Berlin/Central Europe (Poland and CZ) were conquered by the Red Army,something which was good for the West,because during this conquest,the Red Army killed a lot of Germans who otherwise would have killed a lot of Wally soldiers .Was this conquest good for the natives ? That's an other question,but it was not the business of the West .

In 1945 Stalin was master of Poland (in Czechia, one was keeping up appearances,and Slowakia was a German ally,thus,no one cared about Slowakia) .THE question is : could the West force Stalin to get out of Poland and how ? It could be done by starting a war against the USSR,something nobody wanted .

Thus :end of the discussion .

About Berlin : the Red Army conquered Berlin (with heavy losses) and gave the half of the city to the West,who did not participate in the battle .IMHO,this was the best solution the West could have .

Last point : it is not so that in 1943/1944 the Germans would willingly have surrendered to the West : if you don't believe it,google at Henri-Chapelle where thousands of American soldiers are buried,killed by the Germans,or at the Mardasson (in Bastogne) .

[steverodgers801]

We gave up Czechoslovakia and the Soviets gave up Austria. Greek communists had nearly won their civil war when the British intervene starting more fighting. The communists were ordered by Stalin to stop fighting and share power which they did. France and Italy had large communists forces which could have started a lot of problems, which they didn't because of the so called sell out.

[RichTO90]

We gave up Czechoslovakia and the Soviets gave up Austria.

I would hesitate to use the term "gave up" since neither us nor them had all of either Czechoslovakia or Austria solely in our own hands and we had already agreed to the demarcation lines. Where we got to in the process of the endgame campaign as a result of military operations is more than somewhat moot.

Greek communists had nearly won their civil war when the British intervene starting more fighting. The communists were ordered by Stalin to stop fighting and share power which they did. France and Italy had large communists forces which could have started a lot of problems, which they didn't because of the so called sell out.

Not exactly. The Athens uprising in December 1944 was quelled by the British independently. The later Communist Civil War in Greece began after the war and was facilitated through Albania and Yugoslavia. That was quelled by the Greek Army with considerable assistance - in terms of advisors and supplies - from the U.S. and Britain. The pipeline from Albania-Yugoslavia was turned off as much because there were so few insurgents left to supply as anything.

[AJFFM]

I understood you very well : in post 61 you said that Berlin/Central Europe was given to the USSR.

This is not correct : Berlin/Central Europe (Poland and CZ) were conquered by the Red Army,something which was good for the West,because during this conquest,the Red Army killed a lot of Germans who otherwise would have killed a lot of Wally soldiers .Was this conquest good for the natives ? That's an other question,but it was not the business of the West .

Don't know what you mean by Wally soldiers but I think Okinawa and Island hopping policy in general showed that the US was willing to give up its troops on the altar of Mars if necessary without a second thought. Anyway Berlin conquered after deals were made in which Berlin was given to Moscow for its participation against Japan and partition. By the time the Red army began its operations the Anglo-American armies were already within striking distance from Berlin and indeed could have launched the attack first. But a deal is a deal and from history not everyone on the western ally side liked it.

And Uncle Joe only gave the Anglo-Americans their share of Berlin because they already occupied a third of Czechoslovakia and large parts of Germany East of the Elbe. The only way to dislodge was to honour the deal which took until August to happen or war. He chose the easiest route.

In 1945 Stalin was master of Poland (in Czechia, one was keeping up appearances,and Slowakia was a German ally,thus,no one cared about Slowakia) .THE question is : could the West force Stalin to get out of Poland and how ? It could be done by starting a war against the USSR,something nobody wanted .

Thus :end of the discussion .

Just because he was master of Poland doesn't give him any right to violate agreements with the allies and act like a rabid dog as if the world didn't just finish slaughtering itself for the last 6 years. The Americans naively thought they could trust uncle Joe (any parallels with the situation today?) to honour his deals forgetting that it was uncle Joe's division of Eastern Europe was the cause of the war to begin with.

In any case Yalta and the American surrender there was the reason for the whole cold war mess. They realised that immediately with the Turkey situation but by then it was too late.

About Berlin : the Red Army conquered Berlin (with heavy losses) and gave the half of the city to the West,who did not participate in the battle .IMHO,this was the best solution the West could have .

Last point : it is not so that in 1943/1944 the Germans would willingly have surrendered to the West : if you don't believe it,google at Henri-Chapelle where thousands of American soldiers are buried,killed by the Germans,or at the Mardasson (in Bastogne) .

Again, they gave Berlin to get what was assigned to them in Yalta not because of the goodness of their hearts.

As for German surrender, not so much. Records show that Germans surrendered en masse in Cotentin, Brittany, South of France and other areas when they realised their situation was hopeless. In the East the Germans fought every encirclement and pocket as a matter of life and death. So the Germans while knowing POW was not good in general it was better to be in American or British camps than a French or the most horrible Soviet option.

[ljadw]

Wallies = western allies .

Why are you talking of rights ? Intenational politics is not a question of rights ,but a question of power and,deals exist to be violated .

And ,again : YALTA WAS NO SURRENDER . At the time of Yalta,the Soviets were master of Eastern Europe .The only way to expel them was to start a war against the SU .And,why would the west want to expel the Soviets from eastern Europe ?Before the war, Britain and France agreed to a German domination of eastern Europe,as long as it happened without fighting ,and,at Yalta,they agreed to a Soviet domination of eastern Europe . Nothing changed : it was appeasement again .

And the US ? They did not trust Stalin,but they were not interested in what happened to eastern Europe(after the war,they would leave Europe) : FDR was only interested in the votes of the Polish-Americans,and asked Stalin to keep up appearances ,what Stalin,initially,did .