U.S. takes Berlin

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

U.S. takes Berlin

Post by stg 44 » 18 Dec 2002 19:32

I was talking with some friends the other day and we were wondering what would have happened to history if the western allies were not held back by their governments and continued to march through germany and made it all of the way to poland. They overran berlin and east prussia before the russians. Would poland be split and warsaw be east and west? Or would germany still be divied up between the former allies? Would there still be atrocities against german civilians if the russians were given control of east germany? Would prussia still be given to poland?

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 18 Dec 2002 20:14

I think under the terms of the Yalta agrement the WA would have to withdraw to the pre-arranged lines. The US Army took the south west of what became East Germany (if that makes sense) and then handed it over to the Russians.
Don't think the WA were prepared to go to war over Eastern Europe in 45

Regards

-Nick

User avatar
peter_suciu
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 29 Nov 2002 16:49
Location: New York City

No way young American men were going to die for Berlin

Post by peter_suciu » 19 Dec 2002 22:35

As I argued before I don't know if the army was really held back from taking Berlin. I don't think Ike or anyone else in the US Army really wanted to take Berlin. They knew it would costs hundreds of thousand of American lives for essentially a trophy city.

It wouldn't have really shaped post-war politics. Stalin wanted the city, the allies let him take it and he proved you only needed to lose a few hundred thousand men doing so! The Soviets fought for an earned in blood every square inch of Berlin.

It was agreed upon that Germany was to be divided in sectors of control and the US taking Berlin wasn't going to change that. Had Berlin been in the US sector then I think the US would have had to take it. But as things were there was no reason for US boys to die to take the city and hand it over to the Soviets.

ISU-152
Member
Posts: 711
Joined: 14 Nov 2002 14:02
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: No way young American men were going to die for Berlin

Post by ISU-152 » 20 Dec 2002 13:44

peter_suciu wrote: But as things were there was no reason for US boys to die to take the city and hand it over to the Soviets.
No comments guys. :x
With approach like this and with allies like this I still wonder why UK and US fought on the side of anti-Hitler coalition?

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 20 Dec 2002 14:01

But as things were there was no reason for US boys to die to take the city and hand it over to the Soviets.
Interesting, I don't think the Germans would have put up the same fight against the WA, most sources I have read of the time show the Berliners longing for the arrival of the Western allies. I suppose Mr G's propaganda and the realisation that the 'chickens were about to come home to roost' might have had something to do with it. Having said that from a purely cynical view point at that late a stage of the war why take 'unnecessary' casualties to take land you are going to give away? Stalin had made it plain that he wanted Berlin, unfortunately the Soviet people were going to pay the price.

No comments guys.
With approach like this and with allies like this I still wonder why UK and US fought on the side of anti-Hitler coalition?
Rhetorical question I know, but 'my enemy’s enemy is my friend'. Didn’t Churchill when asked how he squared his pre-war anti Bolshevism with working hand-in-glove with Stalin say something about making a deal with the devil if he was attacking Hitler?


Regards

-Nick

User avatar
Mike K.
Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 22:33
Location: California

Post by Mike K. » 20 Dec 2002 14:16

Winston Churchill wrote: If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.
It's not uncommon that the victorious allies of one war become the enemies of the next. We did spend the next 46 years battling the forces of Communism.

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 20 Dec 2002 14:27

Ah, thanks, just the quote I was looking for.

User avatar
peter_suciu
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 29 Nov 2002 16:49
Location: New York City

Post by peter_suciu » 20 Dec 2002 16:43

With approach like this and with allies like this I still wonder why UK and US fought on the side of anti-Hitler coalition?
The UK was fighting Hitler when the Soviets joined that "coalition." And I don't mean to be belittle the efforts of the Soviets. I agree that the British paid in time, the Americans in material and the Soviets in blood.

That said, the city was clearly going to be in Soviet hands in the post-war era and the Americans could not weather the political storm if they fought and died to take the city and then didn't get to "rule" it.

User avatar
Gyles
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 02 Dec 2002 16:01
Location: Surrey, UK

Re: No way young American men were going to die for Berlin

Post by Gyles » 20 Dec 2002 22:45

ISU-152 wrote:
peter_suciu wrote: But as things were there was no reason for US boys to die to take the city and hand it over to the Soviets.
No comments guys. :x
With approach like this and with allies like this I still wonder why UK and US fought on the side of anti-Hitler coalition?
Whats the big deal?
Fact remains that Stalin was hellbent on taking the city and got his way at Yalta. Dont forget the contributions Britain was making in 42 with the Arctic conveys, the 200,000 boots fresh from Brit factories as well as the hundreds (if not thousands) of aircraft and tanks and trucks. Sure, the west hated communism (with good reason) but in the UKs hour of need the Russians responded by greatly increasing oil supplies to Adolph. Very strange behavior indeed. Then Stalin naturally chose to ignore Winstons warnings of Barbarossa. Just typical paranoid Soviet mentality I guess :D

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 21 Dec 2002 00:23

Just typical paranoid Soviet mentality I guess
Oh Gyles, please don't try and start the Cold War again! :wink:

Actually the Soviets had good reason not to trust the West, didn't we support the 'Whites' 1919-20? We sent them planes and troops - not a very friendly thing to do. WC was no admirer and made no secret about it he was not alone in his views, many of the ruling classes felt that Adolf was a better bet.

I must admit though Russian sources abut the events leading up to the German invasion tend to be a bit vague about what was going on diplomatically, almost as if they were embarised about the whole period 1939- mid 41.

the Communist party of France, under orders from Moscow, was advocating collaboration with the Germans until they invaded - I don't know what that has to do about anything it just came to mind, must start drinking decaff

Regards

-Nick

User avatar
Nagelfar
Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: 08 Sep 2002 06:31
Location: Pacific Northwest

Post by Nagelfar » 21 Dec 2002 01:29

If Hitler invaded Hell....
Whoah... "Hitler: Wer ist jetzt der Teufel?" 8O

(trying to make a rhetorical question in german; I could be off the mark :P )

User avatar
Maple 01
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: 18 Nov 2002 23:19
Location: UK

Post by Maple 01 » 21 Dec 2002 09:37

"Hitler: Wer ist jetzt der Teufel?"
Well, Teufelsberg is in Berlin......... :wink:

Regards


-Nick

Return to “What if”