Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US & Britain invade Berlin

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

  • US & Britain invade Berlin

    Towards the end of WWII there were many who thought the Americans and British could and should go for Berlin, beating the Soviets there.

    How successful compared to the Soviets would they have been in taking Berlin?

    According to "The Battle of Berlin 1945" by Tony Le Tissier, the Berlin campaign cost the Soviets:
    • 304,877 killed, wounded and missing
    • 2,156 tanks and self-propelled guns
    • 1,220 guns and mortars
    • 527 aircraft

    This is partially because Zhukov and Koniev were racing each other for the honour, partially because Stalin wanted results by May Day and partially because of the fierce resistance by the Germans.

    How well would the US and British done in comparison?

    Thanks

  • #2
    i think that there would have been ALOT less casualties with the germans wanting to surrender to the western allies and not the soviets. maybe the germans surrender earlier with the western allies controlling berlin.
    "Folks need to be realists and realize that peace is a nice idea, but ultimately unattainable on a worldwide level."
    - 6thInf Grandson

    Comment


    • #3
      It would still be casualties for land that would have to be handed back anyway to the Soviets under the Yalta Agreement.

      Comment


      • #4
        Its not mystery that the US casualties would have been alot less than the Soviets. Also the Germans were surrendering faster than the US was advancing at that point. But the german defenders of berlin were all supposed to fight to the death. But who knows how many did or would if the US invaded Berlin. I agree that we should have let the Soviets have Berlin. It would have been a waste if we attacked Berlin.
        "All Glory is Fleeting"

        Comment


        • #5
          the assumption would have to be that at Yalta, the eastern and western allies decided that Berlin was a free for all to grab... (and about post-war zones of control, they may or not have agreed or not on who kep what)

          if the US and britains had gone to Berlin straight, yes, one could assume the road would have opened for them.. and that much much less germans, and russians, incidentally would have died in the war.

          but morally, after the sufferings of the russian people in the war, the russians HAd to take Berlin as a symbol. after all it was at 90% that Russians defeated the Reich, in tems of blood...
          "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

          Comment


          • #6
            I have to agree that there would have been a lot less casualities had the U.S. and Britain had gone to Berlin, but I also think that Stalin(suspicious and paranoid as he was) would have sped up the Russian advance to Berlin since he clearly wanted to go to Berlin and would've done anything in order to do it.

            Jeff

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ogukuo72 View Post
              It would still be casualties for land that would have to be handed back anyway to the Soviets under the Yalta Agreement.
              According to C. Ryans book on the fall of Berlin 'The Last Battle', the partition of Germany and the areas involved was already agreed upon by February 1944. The only change agreed at Yalta was the creation of a French zone from parts of the British and US areas.

              Comment


              • #8
                Air power

                The Americas and Britsh had a much larger air force the the Soviets which would provide support thier advanceing armies
                "The people never have the power, only the illusion of it. And here is the real secret: they don't want it. The responsibility is too great to bear. It's why they are so quick to fall in line as soon as someone else takes charge."
                "

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HistoryFan
                  I have to agree that there would have been a lot less casualities had the U.S. and Britain had gone to Berlin, but I also think that Stalin(suspicious and paranoid as he was) would have sped up the Russian advance to Berlin since he clearly wanted to go to Berlin and would've done anything in order to do it.
                  I entirely agree. The problem doesn't lie in the advance itself, since the Germans are pretty much beaten by this point. The problem lies in Stalin's reaction to any hypothetical advance. Megalomania and paranoia are uneasy bedfellows: I can see Stalin believing that this is part of some nefarious plot to do a deal with the German government that makes peace in the west and allows the Western Allies and a rearmed Wehrmacht to turn against him.

                  Stalin would almost certainly have speeded up his advance, regardless of cost, to reach Berlin as soon as possible- either before the Western Allies reach it, or in time to control at least a part of it. A few cases of friendly fire, a few unfortunate misunderstandings, and the post-war honeymoon might have been over much sooner than it was in reality.

                  Cooler heads might have prevailed, and the combined armies in the West were just about enough to make Stalin slightly cautious. However, all things considered, I think Eisenhower was right to turn his attention to the rumoured "National Redoubt" in the Alps.
                  Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X