I'd like to know the real reassons, if there are, of russians right to take Berlin before the rest of the allieds?
Thnx
Kike
Why russians first??
-
Benoit Douville
- Member
- Posts: 3184
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 02:13
- Location: Montréal
Well, the Soviet Union suffered a great deal from the invasion of the Germans beginning in 1941 with operation Barbarossa. The Germans commited a lot of atrocity on the Eastern Front as well as the Soviets. In that sense, i think the Soviets had more right than the Western Allies to take Berlin. The Eastern Front was the most brutal war in the history of warfare.
Regards
Regards
-
Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14048
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Also, is it really as much a 'right' they used, as it was that they were able to do it? After all, the Allies had to fight through France and Germany in less than a year, against heavier odds than they expected...
I would also say that their failure at Arnhem and their setback at the Ardennes sloed them down...
Christian
I would also say that their failure at Arnhem and their setback at the Ardennes sloed them down...
Christian
So we could say that allies gave russia the "honor" of taking Berlin to make as a pay back, maybe?
I understand the reassons why the allies made that, but didn't they know russians were gonna take over those territories and were not gonna give them back to germans for example? If so wasn't it something like a gift?
I understand the reassons why the allies made that, but didn't they know russians were gonna take over those territories and were not gonna give them back to germans for example? If so wasn't it something like a gift?
-
Krasnaya Zvezda
- Member
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: 27 Dec 2002, 18:45
- Location: Moscow
Re: Why russians first??
I think you are confusing the things here. There was no right here given to anyone. Soviet Union defeated the Germany and they capture Berlin . The toughest battles were taking place in the East, not west , at the time when Soviets were purging the Germans from Poland Americans and allies had only few island in the Pacific , some land in Italy. If there was the right to occupy something, it was the one given from Soviet Union to USA, GB and especially France to occupy west germany. Austria , again after the Soviet excursion , was given up by the Soviets.sniper wrote:I'd like to know the real reassons, if there are, of russians right to take Berlin before the rest of the allieds?
Thnx
Kike
Get the facts straight, Soviet Union could have done pretty good without the "allies". Better as a matter of fact, since than probably whole western europe would have been under the communism. Freightening thought, and lucky it did not happen.
I'm not sure about this, since russians were having lots of american armament, as far as I know.Get the facts straight, Soviet Union could have done pretty good without the "allies". Better as a matter of fact
The thing is, I'm not taking credits off russians, I was just courious (sp?) about the reassons since they were fighting "together", and they were all looking to get to Berlin.
Thnx
Kike.
-
jesse23464
- Banned
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 27 Nov 2002, 22:07
- Location: vrginia
Reply.
The Russians were never given "the right" to take Berlin. The Soviets simply acted on their own and took the city. There has been a lot of speculation on whether or the western allies should have or could have taken the capital Eisenhower had deep reservations about taking it. In 1944 an agreement had been made among the allies that Germany would be divided into 4 zones of occupation, the NW occupied by Britain, the SW occupied by the US, the SE occupied by France and the NW occupied by the SU. Berlin lay deep in the north west zone that was to be occupied by the Soviets. Furthermore Berlin itself was to be divided into 4 occupation zones in the same fashion as Germany was. There were 3 big reasons some people in the western allied camp felt Britain or the US should take the city.
1. Prestige. The army that took Berlin would get a lot of honor heaped upon them.
2. The fear that if the SU went in first they wouldn't follow the agreement and divide the city up.
3. The beleif that Berlin was important militarily and the Germans would automatically surrender after it's capture.
Eisenhower however made a counter argument. According to him the city shouldn't be taken by the western powers because:
1. He didn't care about prestige he simply wanted to finish the war as fast as possible with the minumum casualties.
2. The beleif that it didn't matter whether or not the Soviets divided the city up as he beleived that since the city lay in Soviet territory the western allies occupation would be temporary and that the entire city would eventually go to the Soviets anyway. There was also the fact the army to take Berlin would suffer large casualties. To Eisenhower it wasn't worth the cost if the city would wind up in Soviet hands anyways.
3. Finally Eisenhower didn't beleive Berlin was important militarily. He became convinced that that remnants of the German army and the SS
were secretly building a fortress in the mountains between Germany and Austria and that even Hitler woul be there as well. This place was called the southern redoubt and it ws there Eisenhower was convinced that the Nazis would make their last stand.
In accordance with the above beleifs Eisenhower sent a telegram directly to Stalin in early April (angering Churchill who wanted badly to take Berlin whatever the cost) saying Berlin was unimportant and that he was moving south. Stalin responded that he agreed that Berlin wasn't important and that he would limited offensives. Eisenhower then turned his armies south to head for the southern redoubt. Stalin had been planning to take Berlin the whole time and was planning an offensive in May. Convinced that Eisenhower's message was an attempt at deception he ordered the offensive on Berlin to take place in mid April - 2 weeks ahead of schedule
to be the western allies. Eisenhower had not been lying and thought there was going to be last stand in the south. It turned the southern redoubt didn't exist and that nazi plans for it had been foiled at their very beginning because the allies had bombed trains carrying supplies southward. The nazis however had a propaganda campaign running on about it and that's what deceived Eisenhower. Hitler it turned out was also in Berlin but by the time Eisenhower found out everything the Soviets had already taken the city. The beleif in the southern redoubt played a major role in the decision to abandon Berlin. Whether or not Eisenhower would have tried to take Berlin if he had known the southern redoubt didn't exist will never be known.
1. Prestige. The army that took Berlin would get a lot of honor heaped upon them.
2. The fear that if the SU went in first they wouldn't follow the agreement and divide the city up.
3. The beleif that Berlin was important militarily and the Germans would automatically surrender after it's capture.
Eisenhower however made a counter argument. According to him the city shouldn't be taken by the western powers because:
1. He didn't care about prestige he simply wanted to finish the war as fast as possible with the minumum casualties.
2. The beleif that it didn't matter whether or not the Soviets divided the city up as he beleived that since the city lay in Soviet territory the western allies occupation would be temporary and that the entire city would eventually go to the Soviets anyway. There was also the fact the army to take Berlin would suffer large casualties. To Eisenhower it wasn't worth the cost if the city would wind up in Soviet hands anyways.
3. Finally Eisenhower didn't beleive Berlin was important militarily. He became convinced that that remnants of the German army and the SS
were secretly building a fortress in the mountains between Germany and Austria and that even Hitler woul be there as well. This place was called the southern redoubt and it ws there Eisenhower was convinced that the Nazis would make their last stand.
In accordance with the above beleifs Eisenhower sent a telegram directly to Stalin in early April (angering Churchill who wanted badly to take Berlin whatever the cost) saying Berlin was unimportant and that he was moving south. Stalin responded that he agreed that Berlin wasn't important and that he would limited offensives. Eisenhower then turned his armies south to head for the southern redoubt. Stalin had been planning to take Berlin the whole time and was planning an offensive in May. Convinced that Eisenhower's message was an attempt at deception he ordered the offensive on Berlin to take place in mid April - 2 weeks ahead of schedule
to be the western allies. Eisenhower had not been lying and thought there was going to be last stand in the south. It turned the southern redoubt didn't exist and that nazi plans for it had been foiled at their very beginning because the allies had bombed trains carrying supplies southward. The nazis however had a propaganda campaign running on about it and that's what deceived Eisenhower. Hitler it turned out was also in Berlin but by the time Eisenhower found out everything the Soviets had already taken the city. The beleif in the southern redoubt played a major role in the decision to abandon Berlin. Whether or not Eisenhower would have tried to take Berlin if he had known the southern redoubt didn't exist will never be known.
-
Krasnaya Zvezda
- Member
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: 27 Dec 2002, 18:45
- Location: Moscow
Look, all I am saying here is that Russians took Berlin first because they could get there first and the allies could not. Even if they could they would not like to fight for it most likely. I know that there was a plan to parachute troops into the Berlin but again, the calculation was made and as always the worse thing that could have happened to an american soldier was to give up its comfort or God forbid to loose his life. The fact that casualty rate would have been high was unacceptable for Americans. No wonder that they never occupied any territory (very few to say) and that all their victories were preceded with heavy bombing and in the case of Japan the nuclear bomb instead of honorable land invasion. This tactic is used even today. The Normandy invasion came at the time when it was clear that Russia will defeat Germany.sniper wrote:I'm not sure about this, since russians were having lots of american armament, as far as I know.Get the facts straight, Soviet Union could have done pretty good without the "allies". Better as a matter of fact
The thing is, I'm not taking credits off russians, I was just courious (sp?) about the reassons since they were fighting "together", and they were all looking to get to Berlin.
Thnx
Kike.
Soviet soldier knew, expected that he should and can die for a cause, that at those times was extermination of any German soldier in the enemy army anywhere in the world. Therefore the issue of casualties was taken differently in the East. The western soldier never had that degree of self sacrifice and the only soldier that came close to the Soviet one in this aspect was the German one.
As good old American saying goes, there is no free lunch , Berlin was no exception here. Therefore for the times to come, one will always remember that Berlin capitulated to the Russian soldier, and it was the Russian soldier who agree to give part of the occupied Berlin (western part) that he was dying for to the "allies".
-
Krasnaya Zvezda
- Member
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: 27 Dec 2002, 18:45
- Location: Moscow
Political decisions were decisive, not military
Hi all,
In the discussion above has omitted very much the political aspect. There was a difference of opinion between the US and the British on what Europe should look like after the war. In crude terms Churchill favoured a policy of "get all you can get and keep Soviet Union as far back in the east as possible" where as Roosevelt and his administration favoured a sort of "appeasement policy" towards Soviet Union. However, British aspirations could not be pulled through without US troops and given the stand of the US government their policy won. One aspect of the US policy was that Roosevelt was not ready to make any sort of deal on spheares of influence in Europe -but Churchill was. He just did not have the chips in any else where but in Greece. The only place were US made such a deal was Germany. As part of that deal they also "de facto" approved moving Poland 300 km to the west.
It should also be remembered that Churchill made a sincere proposal to make a landing in Greece in order to block the Soviet advance to the west. When he made this proposal he was already thinking about the political situation after the war because militarily the operation would have been very risky. It was dropped on the basis of the latter but also because US was not ready to confront Soviet Union at that point.
Anyway, US army did not even try to get into Berlin. Why bother because as has been already stated it was in the Soviet zone? Would the western allied have been able to take Berlin before the Red Army? Impossible to say now. Manpower and weapons were surely available but they were used in the Ruhr. It also seems that getting into Berlin first was not a very big deal for the general public in the US or Britain. It was much more important to get as many boys home alive as possible.
Regards,
Jari
In the discussion above has omitted very much the political aspect. There was a difference of opinion between the US and the British on what Europe should look like after the war. In crude terms Churchill favoured a policy of "get all you can get and keep Soviet Union as far back in the east as possible" where as Roosevelt and his administration favoured a sort of "appeasement policy" towards Soviet Union. However, British aspirations could not be pulled through without US troops and given the stand of the US government their policy won. One aspect of the US policy was that Roosevelt was not ready to make any sort of deal on spheares of influence in Europe -but Churchill was. He just did not have the chips in any else where but in Greece. The only place were US made such a deal was Germany. As part of that deal they also "de facto" approved moving Poland 300 km to the west.
It should also be remembered that Churchill made a sincere proposal to make a landing in Greece in order to block the Soviet advance to the west. When he made this proposal he was already thinking about the political situation after the war because militarily the operation would have been very risky. It was dropped on the basis of the latter but also because US was not ready to confront Soviet Union at that point.
Anyway, US army did not even try to get into Berlin. Why bother because as has been already stated it was in the Soviet zone? Would the western allied have been able to take Berlin before the Red Army? Impossible to say now. Manpower and weapons were surely available but they were used in the Ruhr. It also seems that getting into Berlin first was not a very big deal for the general public in the US or Britain. It was much more important to get as many boys home alive as possible.
Regards,
Jari
Well guess what I damn sure will disagree with you.Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:Well you must be a very nice person since you agree ! I wish you all the best . And I also forgot to mention jesse23464, he or she had a very nice post!sniper wrote:I agree with most of what you say, and I guess my question has been answered, but you can always conntinue
Thnx
Kike
Your sense of History is a little twisted. First off there is no such thing as an Honorable land invasion. Unlike your thinking the Americans did not like the idea of losing 100,000 men just to save someone's honor. The planning for the invasion of Normandy was well underway when Stalingrad was still smoking. Stalin was still demanding a second front and the best that could be given was Italy, where those god forbidden lazy western allies lost men all up and down the boot to help relieve pressure on the Eastern front, because strategically it was not needed.Look, all I am saying here is that Russians took Berlin first because they could get there first and the allies could not. Even if they could they would not like to fight for it most likely. I know that there was a plan to parachute troops into the Berlin but again, the calculation was made and as always the worse thing that could have happened to an american soldier was to give up its comfort or God forbid to loose his life. The fact that casualty rate would have been high was unacceptable for Americans. No wonder that they never occupied any territory (very few to say) and that all their victories were preceded with heavy bombing and in the case of Japan the nuclear bomb instead of honorable land invasion. This tactic is used even today. The Normandy invasion came at the time when it was clear that Russia will defeat Germany.
Sure the USSR would have taken Berlin, however you can add 2 or 3 times more dead Soviet soldiers to your list however. Those divisions in France would have been pulled back to defend Germany and then you could have had your great and honorable land battle that takes another 500,000 soviet troops. For your information the US and UK fought a war across the globe, not just 1200 miles or so of it but 12,000 miles on more fronts then I can think of at the moment, and they "occupied" territory all across that globe. The huge amounts of resources shipped to the USSR during the war also had a impact on Soviet industrial success, rather you like it or not it is simple fact. Zhukov stated it was vital and Stalin also made the same statements.
Also all major Soviet advancements were started with huge bombardments by both aircraft and unimaginable numbers of artillery guns, so I have no idea what all that jabbering means you are spewing out about bombing before attacking. Makes perfectly good sense to me. The Red Army fought hard and long I do not see that as an issue, and I agree that Berlin was not given to them, but your asinine statements about western armies is just that asinine.
You also forget ONE MAJOR point, this was not an American war, it was just another of a long list of bloody and barbaric wars carried out in Europe. So why should American troops die by the millions? So that I can say it was honorable? You should be grateful for the help they did give and hundreds of thousands that did die deserve better then the crap you are spewing.
-
Krasnaya Zvezda
- Member
- Posts: 1157
- Joined: 27 Dec 2002, 18:45
- Location: Moscow
Caldric,
I do not know what are you trying to say? The topic here is Berlin and all I said it fell to the Soviets because you did not wanted to sacrifice. What is wrong with this?
As for the rest, that is off topic, and OK, we can discuss that one too. Are you tying to tell me that the American soldier was willing to sacrifice the same way as the Soviet? The tactics of the two armies were very different. Everything has its own advantage and disadvantage. For each american soldier that died 80 other Soviets did. Bombing of Hirishima and Nagasaki was a typical tactics used by USA. Targeted at civillians, and you ask yourself why? It is clear to avoid direct conflict with the enemy. Is it that really America could not win the war with Japan? Oh, I doubt. The strenght of USA was unsurpasable at those days, it is just that they did not wanted to wage the war anymore, and killing civillians was the last thing they worried about. I mean there is much more to talk about the differences in the apporach, yet this subject is totally off and I am affraid it will be locked. There is also much more to talk about the ferocities of war that Soviet experienced vs the one Americans did and of course the significance of allied help to the Soviet Union, rough statistics do exist.
I do not know what are you trying to say? The topic here is Berlin and all I said it fell to the Soviets because you did not wanted to sacrifice. What is wrong with this?
As for the rest, that is off topic, and OK, we can discuss that one too. Are you tying to tell me that the American soldier was willing to sacrifice the same way as the Soviet? The tactics of the two armies were very different. Everything has its own advantage and disadvantage. For each american soldier that died 80 other Soviets did. Bombing of Hirishima and Nagasaki was a typical tactics used by USA. Targeted at civillians, and you ask yourself why? It is clear to avoid direct conflict with the enemy. Is it that really America could not win the war with Japan? Oh, I doubt. The strenght of USA was unsurpasable at those days, it is just that they did not wanted to wage the war anymore, and killing civillians was the last thing they worried about. I mean there is much more to talk about the differences in the apporach, yet this subject is totally off and I am affraid it will be locked. There is also much more to talk about the ferocities of war that Soviet experienced vs the one Americans did and of course the significance of allied help to the Soviet Union, rough statistics do exist.