Why.... - Aircraft of World War II

Lucky13 · 08-04-2008, 03:44 PM

didn't Eisenhower take Berlin, did he "let" the Soviets do the dirty work for him, would it have made any difference later IF the "western" allies had taken the city instead for the Soviet troops and Stalin?

Matt308 · 08-04-2008, 03:52 PM

No difference. Just likely WWIII. The huge armies that were converging upon Berlin were hell bent to either finish the war and go home or exact revenge upon the Germans. We already had official clashes between troops that resulted in deaths and injuries. By 1945 too many wester allies were weary of the expediture of men, resources and civil effort. Very complex subject.

Lucky13 · 08-04-2008, 04:04 PM

Right, thanks M!

ToughOmbre · 08-04-2008, 04:20 PM

Ike's reason? I think to prevent more American casualties.

TO

comiso90 · 08-04-2008, 04:21 PM

Casualties on both sides in the battle of berlin were over 500,000, more then what the US lost in the entire war.

Berlin was already carved up for post war occupation. The Russians suffered most at the hands of the Germans... let them have the fun.

Lucky13 · 08-04-2008, 04:22 PM

As in letting the Russians do the "dirty work"?

ToughOmbre · 08-04-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky13

As in letting the Russians do the "dirty work"?

Exactly!

TO

comiso90 · 08-04-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky13

As in letting the Russians do the "dirty work"?

"Dirty Work" sounds like the Soviets were somehow coerced into going it alone.

I dont think the Russians minded.. I'm sure they preferred the effort on there own terms w/o the West interfering.

The Americans wanted to get the job done and go home ASAP. For the Russians, The Great Patriotic War was a VERY different matter! It was a viscerally personal conflict of epic proportions. Every family experienced horror.. for them, sacking Berlin was a duty and honor and once more, it was their earned right and destiny!

Payback for Napoleon too!
.

.

.

RabidAlien · 08-04-2008, 09:45 PM

Looking back, alot of these questions are probably fairly easy to answer. Sure, let the Russians take Berlin, keep nutzo Stalin happy. But lean heavily upon the Russians for what they were doing with their occupied territory. A part of me also thinks we should have taken the Germans up on their offer to allow the German army to join with the Allies in fighting the Russians. That would have been one nasty war, that one. But Eisenhower held his armies at the Roer (correct me if I'm wrong) because, as stated before, he knew that of all the cities in Germany, Berlin would've been the hardest nut to crack. He also had to look ahead. The war in the Pacific was still raging, and a large percentage of the European troops were earmarked for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Germany was finished. Let the Russians continue to bleed if they wanted to.

Lucky13 · 08-05-2008, 09:31 AM

So, do you think that the war had continued then if Eisenhower had decided to take Berlin, do you think that the Germans would have put up slightly less resistance? Did they put up that much fight because it was the Russians that assaulted the city and not the western allies and knew what they had to expect from them, for what they did in Russia?

RabidAlien · 08-05-2008, 07:53 PM

There's a good possibility of that. Entire divisions would march across Germany in order to surrender to the first Allied soldier they could find (cook, infantry, "Yank" reporter....). The Russians were out to seek revenge...kinda hard to fault them, considering the sorts of things that were reported to happen on the Russian steppes and at Stalingrad, much less the well-documented Russian prisoner labor camps. Soviet propaganda machines had the Soviet troops whipped into a German-killing frenzy, and the German troops in Berlin knew there would be no quarter from the Russians. Had the US/British/Canadian troops marched into Berlin, I'm thinkin that they would've been met by a bunch of high-ranking German officers and officials, toting steins of beer and some good brautwurst, carrying the keyes to the city. Okay...perhaps not that easy...there would have been some token resistance put up, a few shots fired (to save face, of course), and then unconditional surrender. And then the hordes of pissed-off Russians, now cheesed that the rest of the Allies made it to Berlin first.

BTW...love the new avatar, Lucky!

08-04-2008, 03:44 PM	#1
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,144	Why.... didn't Eisenhower take Berlin, did he "let" the Soviets do the dirty work for him, would it have made any difference later IF the "western" allies had taken the city instead for the Soviet troops and Stalin? __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

08-04-2008, 03:52 PM	#2
Matt308 aka Dickcheese Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State Posts: 13,386	No difference. Just likely WWIII. The huge armies that were converging upon Berlin were hell bent to either finish the war and go home or exact revenge upon the Germans. We already had official clashes between troops that resulted in deaths and injuries. By 1945 too many wester allies were weary of the expediture of men, resources and civil effort. Very complex subject. __________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts

08-04-2008, 04:04 PM	#3
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,144	Right, thanks M! __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

08-04-2008, 04:20 PM	#4
ToughOmbre Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Jersey Shore Posts: 3,233	Ike's reason? I think to prevent more American casualties. TO __________________ *“Let's get Enterprise* and Hornet turned into the wind."**

08-04-2008, 04:21 PM	#5
comiso90 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: FL Posts: 3,294	Casualties on both sides in the battle of berlin were over 500,000, more then what the US lost in the entire war. Berlin was already carved up for post war occupation. The Russians suffered most at the hands of the Germans... let them have the fun. __________________ http://www.BOOKSonWAR.com/ . Last edited by comiso90; 08-04-2008 at 04:27 PM.

08-04-2008, 04:22 PM	#6
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,144	As in letting the Russians do the "dirty work"? __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

08-04-2008, 09:45 PM	#9
RabidAlien Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hurst, Texas Posts: 2,827	Looking back, alot of these questions are probably fairly easy to answer. Sure, let the Russians take Berlin, keep nutzo Stalin happy. But lean heavily upon the Russians for what they were doing with their occupied territory. A part of me also thinks we should have taken the Germans up on their offer to allow the German army to join with the Allies in fighting the Russians. That would have been one nasty war, that one. But Eisenhower held his armies at the Roer (correct me if I'm wrong) because, as stated before, he knew that of all the cities in Germany, Berlin would've been the hardest nut to crack. He also had to look ahead. The war in the Pacific was still raging, and a large percentage of the European troops were earmarked for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Germany was finished. Let the Russians continue to bleed if they wanted to. __________________ Pillage, then burn. Argue not with dragons, for thou art crunchy and go well on toast.

08-05-2008, 09:31 AM	#10
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,144	So, do you think that the war had continued then if Eisenhower had decided to take Berlin, do you think that the Germans would have put up slightly less resistance? Did they put up that much fight because it was the Russians that assaulted the city and not the western allies and knew what they had to expect from them, for what they did in Russia? __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

08-05-2008, 07:53 PM	#11
RabidAlien Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hurst, Texas Posts: 2,827	There's a good possibility of that. Entire divisions would march across Germany in order to surrender to the first Allied soldier they could find (cook, infantry, "Yank" reporter....). The Russians were out to seek revenge...kinda hard to fault them, considering the sorts of things that were reported to happen on the Russian steppes and at Stalingrad, much less the well-documented Russian prisoner labor camps. Soviet propaganda machines had the Soviet troops whipped into a German-killing frenzy, and the German troops in Berlin knew there would be no quarter from the Russians. Had the US/British/Canadian troops marched into Berlin, I'm thinkin that they would've been met by a bunch of high-ranking German officers and officials, toting steins of beer and some good brautwurst, carrying the keyes to the city. Okay...perhaps not that easy...there would have been some token resistance put up, a few shots fired (to save face, of course), and then unconditional surrender. And then the hordes of pissed-off Russians, now cheesed that the rest of the Allies made it to Berlin first. BTW...love the new avatar, Lucky! __________________ Pillage, then burn. Argue not with dragons, for thou art crunchy and go well on toast.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode