Sinking of the British troop ship Rohna

[Nonskimmer]

After explaining your point of view, it becomes somewhat understandable Udet, but I agree with trackend here. You tend to use a very broad brush in condemning the Allied public.

The public perception of the events of WWII isn't as black and white as it used to be, and as certain things are brought to light, that perception is ever so slowly changing. The danger is that it almost seems to be slowly swinging in the opposite direction. I for one attribute much of that to political correctness, as it seems to be fashionable these days to condemn the victors. Facts are facts after all, but we need to be careful here that new facts don't overshadow the old. The Nazis were brutal and expansionistc. Evil.

The Soviet Union under Stalin was indeed a brutal, expansionistic empire and very few people will deny that these days. As trackend pointed out, Churchill so much as stated that he would sleep with the devil himself if it meant defeating Hitler. There was no delusion there. The British knew exactly who they were allying themselves with, but it had to be done in order to defeat the more immediate, and even worse regime under Hitler. The Americans recognized this as well.

[evangilder]

Udet, I was only pointing out that in your "passion", you often go off sounding like a man who is angry at the allies. That is what puts me, and others off. You can take it as a witch hunt or however you like it. The simple fact of the matter is that all of us here treat the facts as they are, facts. Sometimes thing contradict and that is part of the investigative process of history.

But keep in mind that many times you have gone on record stating that the allies have "distorted", "lied", or some other metaphor for been untruthful. ALL sides used propaganda. I don't think there is anyone here who has done any research at all can deny that there have been mistakes made in documentation, for whatever reasons.

The key is to not let your emotions over-ride the facts. That is the point I was making.

[plan_D]

I would like to point out that Britain was willing to go to war with the Soviet Union in 1939 in defence of Finland. The alliance between Britain, the U.S and the Soviet Union was to destroy a common enemy, Germany.

If you look beyond the war, late 1945, '46 and '47 many Americans and Britain were wanting to continue the war but, now against the Soviet Union.
Britain wasn't foolish, they were gaining their allies to defeat one enemy at a time. They gladly sent weapons to the Soviet Union to let them slug it out with Germany. I don't know what was going on inside the minds of British and American politicians but maybe, behind closed doors, they were avoiding Operation Overlord for as long as possible. Let the two great fascist states destroy one another then move in to mop up the mess.

The landing in Normandy was to stop the Soviet Union encompassing the whole of Europe. This is also true of the British landing in Greece. What I want you to question is this, Germany in 1943 were willing to gain peace off the Western Allies so they could divert all efforts to the Soviet Union but the West had already stated unconditional surrender only. However, in 1944 when the Western powers landed the Germans put up a massive effort on the Western front as well as the Eastern. If Germany was so wanting to stop the Soviet Union only, they'd have eased back on the West front because the Allied armies weren't going anywhere fast and they would have thrown everything at the East. But they didn't, why?

I don't know why, to be honest, maybe they just wanted to prove to the whole world that they were still a power right up to their dying days. They maybe wanted to be definately written in the history books. Or maybe, they weren't just about stopping the Soviet Union, maybe the ruling body of Germany, the Nazi regime just wanted war by that stage.

Think, if Germany had collapsed on the West and thrown everything to the East would the Soviet Union have taken Poland? Would they have taken Hungary? Would they have taken East Germany? No they wouldn't because when those T-34s would have rolled on to the River Vistula in Poland, more likely than not M4 Shermans would have already been sat on the other bank.

The Western Allies wanted Germany's Wehrmacht destroyed by whatever means. The Soviet Union wanted to expand. In 1944, what did Germany want? Survival? I think not, that would have been better secured by a collapse in the West.

[evangilder]

It's hard to put logic to Hitler's thinking. I wonder if he thought his new wonder weapons would change the course of the war. If you look at the planning that went into the battle of the bulge, alot of the German generals were either not liking the plan, or were kept in the dark until just prior to execution. Hitler was convinced that the troops would be able to make it ot the North Sea and drive a wedge between the Americans and the Brits.

Leaving the western front lightly defended would have been tough to explain to the German people why so much ground was being lost so quickly. If it had only been token resistance, it would have been interesting though, each army driving east. How far do you think the Germans could have gotten before the Americans and Brits took Berlin, especially with Patton and Monty so gung-ho to get there.

[plan_D]

Patton and Monty weren't gung-ho, that advance was slow! That advance could have been much-much-much quicker. The German forces had collapsed after the Normandy break-out but the Allied forces weren't keeping up. They were giving the Wehrmacht breathing space with which they could set-up defences.

After the Battle of the Bulge they had the oppurtunity to snip off the bulges neck and encircle three German armies! They didn't though, they just pushed the bulge out.

The only reason the German generals did not like Wacht Am Rhein was the simple fact that they knew it couldn't work. Germany lacked reserves. The Ardennes Offensive would have been a perfect execution of mobile warfare if the Wehrmacht had another mobile army to throw in after the breakthrough.
All they did was breakthrough, they had nothing to exploit.

I have faith in Herr Goebbels in keeping the German people in check. A collapse in the West might well have allowed Berlin to fall to them but that would have been fine for the Germans. It wouldn't have been the post-war Germany we know today.
Even with a fall of Berlin, it's not a fall of the Wehrmacht. Germany had never assumed that the capital was the heart of a nation that is why, in 1940, Paris was not an objective. They only occupied it because France declared it an open city.

A collapse in the West, and the West conquering Berlin would move the planning to the Wolfs Lair. From there a continued effort against the Soviet Union could have taken place to hold them off until the West occupied the vast majority of Germany.

[evangilder]

Obviously, we can only guess what would have happened, but I do wonder if the resistance had been lighter in the west, how fast the allies would have raced forward. The biggest problem was obviously the supply lines, which with armor and airplanes at the front, could be quickly outpaced.

I do see your point about continuing from Berchtesgaden. That would have been a tough place to attack if properly defended.

It certainly presents an interesting scenario. It also seems to make more sense. But then, we all know that Hitler didn't always make wise decisions and toward the end got very odd.

[plan_D]

I don't actually know but if I were in Germany at the time, I'd much rather fall to the Western powers. The only logical thing would be to collapse in the West and put up stiff resistance in the East.

The "Wolfs Lair" is near Ketrzyn, some kilometers east at the village of Gierloz. The "Eagles Nest" taken by Easy Company, 506PIR, 101st AB was in Berchtsgaden.

[evangilder]

I agree, I would rather have been taken by the western allies. If Germany had been kept intact it would have been very interesting. Especially when you look at the differences between east and west Germany just after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Even now there is a big disparity.

Oops, my bad on the wolf's lair. The Eagles Nest would have been a good place to be holed up as well though.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Chocks away!

I for one find Udet's posts extremely interesting, and while i don't agree with all of them, i'm sure none of them were directed to any other members in an insulting way. I'm just saying this because of the general reaction which i found a bit over the top.
*waves white flag*

I agree with you fully, I am just trying to understand his post because he posts it in ways that can be taken in different ways.

Now back on topic.

As for the Russian attrocities and such. I dont think anyone debates the fact that Stalin was much better then the Russians but as many people have stated by many the Allies need the Soviets and the Soviets needed the Allies to defeat a common enemy: Germany. Especially in the early stages of the war. Sometimes you have to decide who is the lesser of the two evils and in this case I believe the US and Britain made the right decision and cooporate with the evil known as Stalin! (drum roll) Dum Dum Dum!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by evangilder

Oops, my bad on the wolf's lair. The Eagles Nest would have been a good place to be holed up as well though.

Despite who used to live there, the Eagles Nest is beautiful. I have been there several times and always enjoy making a visit there when I am in the area.

[Erich]

not to get too off-topic but have heard the Eagles nest was to be rebuilt with a very nice Hotel establishment taking over ? True Adler ??

also the mtn climbing is especially awesome. It is one of my to do lists when I get back over
__________________________________________________ _________

may go off slightly and interpose more guided bomb to Allied ship attacks on this thread via KG 40 and the like next week.

E ~

[evangilder]

Back in the 1980s, the US military had a nice facility in Berchtesgaden. I don't know if it got turned back over to Germany or not. I did not get an opportunity to go there, but I had friends that did and they said it was incredible.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yes Erich it was turned into a Restaurant and the food is very good. The Restaurent is in the main room where the large stone fire place is set. The view is very panoramic and beautiful with the Bavarian and Austrian Alps surrounding you all over. It really is breath taking. Here is a link:

http://www.eagles-nest.de/index2_e.htm

Yes for the most part it was turned over to the Germans again. Now there is another location outside of Garmisch. The one in Chiemsee got turned over last year to the Germans also.

[cheddar cheese]

That looks beautiful!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It really is, but as Erich said we need to get back on topic.