Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alpine Redoubt

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alpine Redoubt

    I never saw a thread about this. Was there any real attempt at an Alpine Redoubt? Were there vast underground networks and factories ready to keep producing weapons and equipment? Were there unit's ordered to take up positions in the Alpine region? Was there any real plan created for a long term guerilla resistance in this area? It was one of the most feared scenario's in Allied planning. Was it all a complete myth? And how would this have affected operations and how long would this redoubt last?

  • #2
    Just a myth. It was mainly a fear of the allies expecting the worst. Germany was completely broken by the spring of 45,...there was no hope, or desire for continued resistance.
    Last edited by The Purist; 18 Jul 06, 21:06.
    The Purist

    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

    Comment


    • #3
      The Alpine Fortress was a myth, created by Göerings propaganda. In truth, any fortifications which the Germans planned on building were mostly done by the closing months of WWII. Allied air recconissance and British intelligence even confirmed there was no massive fortifications in the Alpine region. However, Eisenhower fell for the trick. In order to prevent the Nazis from resisting for many months to come he decided to respect the deal with the Soviets, leave the Allied armies on the Laba river and head into Austria instead. We all know what the political consenquences of this move were.
      "Beneath its gilded beauty, though, there lies a poorly designed game which rewards the greedy and violent, and punishes the hardworking and honest; and if you think about it, that's a good representation of capitalism" - Nightfreeze about Eve Online

      Comment


      • #4
        Come on now Tom, you know very well that Eisenhower chose not to for go Berlin for far different reasons than the "National Redoubt". It was simply because the Russians were closer to Berlin and the city lay in the Soviet zone. He simply did not want to expend allied lives on a prestige target. Had he managed to take the city and the territory around it, the army would then have had to have withdrawn to the agreed occupation zones.

        Eisenhower was quite happy to let the Russians conquer their own zone of occupation.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Purist
          Come on now Tom, you know very well that Eisenhower chose not to for go Berlin for far different reasons than the "National Redoubt". It was simply because the Russians were closer to Berlin and the city lay in the Soviet zone. He simply did not want to expend allied lives on a prestige target. Had he managed to take the city and the territory around it, the army would then have had to have withdrawn to the agreed occupation zones.

          Eisenhower was quite happy to let the Russians conquer their own zone of occupation.
          And what horrendous and hideous casualties they took in the conquering of that city.
          "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

          Comment


          • #6
            Ike's motives for pushing hard into Bavaria are open to question. He was quite happy to 'adventure' into the proposed Soviet zones elsewhere so why not East Germany? Why did his decision to communicate his intentions to Stalin directly incur the wrath of his political masters? There is evidence that he believed in the 'Redoubt' and deployed his forces accordingly.

            That said, attempting to take Berlin would have incurred extra casualties to no appreciable gain (apart from allowing a British or American general to 'strut his stuff') so he was correct to leave this task to the Soviets.
            Signing out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Purist
              Come on now Tom, you know very well that Eisenhower chose not to for go Berlin for far different reasons than the "National Redoubt". It was simply because the Russians were closer to Berlin and the city lay in the Soviet zone. He simply did not want to expend allied lives on a prestige target. Had he managed to take the city and the territory around it, the army would then have had to have withdrawn to the agreed occupation zones.

              Eisenhower was quite happy to let the Russians conquer their own zone of occupation.
              While it is true he rejected the conquest of Berlin for those reasons, he was preety undecided before the "National Redoubt" issue appeared. Infact, Lewis Brereton and his staff from the First Allied Airborne Army drew plans for Operation Eclipse, a para drop and conquest of Berlin. Also, Churchill was a great runner for the "Race to Berlin" like many others.

              Also, you have to take into account that the Soviets claimed that they will use only secondary troops to capture Berlin while in truth they were using the best of what they had. Why would they do that if not for the reason to convince the Allies not to head there themselves?

              You should definitly try to find Janusz Piekalkiewiczes Spies, Agents, Soldiers. It provides a great account on the issues revolving the Alpine Fortress.
              "Beneath its gilded beauty, though, there lies a poorly designed game which rewards the greedy and violent, and punishes the hardworking and honest; and if you think about it, that's a good representation of capitalism" - Nightfreeze about Eve Online

              Comment


              • #8
                If the Allies had managed to get any sort of meaningful foothold in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Berlin it would have made the Soviet administration and occupation of East Germany at lot harder.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm not sure if that would have been the case. Under the Yalta accord, any land occupied by the western powers would have to be given up to Soviet control. Basically, it would mean incurring casualties for merely a matter of prestige. I don't think that is justified.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Purist
                    Come on now Tom, you know very well that Eisenhower chose not to for go Berlin for far different reasons than the "National Redoubt". It was simply because the Russians were closer to Berlin and the city lay in the Soviet zone. He simply did not want to expend allied lives on a prestige target. Had he managed to take the city and the territory around it, the army would then have had to have withdrawn to the agreed occupation zones.

                    Eisenhower was quite happy to let the Russians conquer their own zone of
                    occupation.

                    From what I have read Stalin was promised Berlin as part of the Russian revenge package...Read " Armagaden" by Hastings..

                    per ardua ad astra

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X