PDA

View Full Version : How close were the allies to Hitler (in berlin at ending of war)



Crosshairs
07-09-2007, 06:20 AM
I know that it was the Russians who closed in and surrounded Hitler. Hitler did not want to be taken by the Russians, and inevitably committed suicide.

I would just like to know, where were the allies in all of this? and had they even entered berlin?

Gen. Sandworm
07-09-2007, 06:29 AM
I dont know the exact distance from berlin (im sure you can easily find out) but it doesnt really matter. Ike had decided that the Russians would take Berlin. They wanted it and were prepared to make the sacrifices for it. Plus it would be quite complicated since the Western Allies and the Russians had not worked together on that level before.

Chevan
07-09-2007, 07:01 AM
I dont know the exact distance from berlin (im sure you can easily find out) but it doesnt really matter. Ike had decided that the Russians would take Berlin. They wanted it and were prepared to make the sacrifices for it. Plus it would be quite complicated since the Western Allies and the Russians had not worked together on that level before.
This is the very controversal point today that the Allies let the Russians to take the Berlin.
I know the some of US units was aimed to the Berlin like and Soviet was - if the Germans resistense would directed purely against the Red Army. As Hitler and OKV wanted - to leave the Western front and send the 12 army of general Venk to "save the Berlin".
Venk was not moved and simply surrendered for allies.
But if he lost his positions and went to the Berlin - there is no any doubts the USA troops come to the Berlin first.
Stalin was afraide of it- and he declared to surrounfd the Berlin from the North and South to prevent the possible Allies incoming.
The allies simply losed the competition for the Berlin. Later after thet war they prevented to say that "Let the Stalin made a job"- but this is wrong.
They wanted the Berlin too . Coz the Germans were ready to leave the west front and send the rest of troops against the soiviets- the allies could realise it without the great casulties.
The W.Churchill in his post war memours damned the fact that the Sovits took the Berlin - this was a seriouse political lose of Allies.

Crosshairs
07-09-2007, 07:25 AM
I dont know the exact distance from berlin (im sure you can easily find out) but it doesnt really matter. Ike had decided that the Russians would take Berlin. They wanted it and were prepared to make the sacrifices for it. Plus it would be quite complicated since the Western Allies and the Russians had not worked together on that level before.

I do remember researching somewhere that the commanders of all US Ground Infrantry units were told to "HOLD ALL PRESENT POSITIONS- NO ADVANCEMENT"

Was this an example of Western Allies just simply giving in to the Russians?

Gen. Sandworm
07-09-2007, 08:40 AM
The W.Churchill in his post war memours damned the fact that the Sovits took the Berlin - this was a seriouse political lose of Allies.

Well I think Ike made the right call. He got alot of opposition to this call. Most notably Patton and Monty.

1. It would save American lives not to have to go there. No Offense Chevan.

2. The Russians had suffered the most and wanted to take Berlin anyhow. Symbolic of their victory over Germany.

3. With the growing tensions it probably would not have been the best idea to have to large armies that close. Plus as I stated earlier the Western Alllies had not worked with Russia on a level like that. Could result in alot of problems and alot of friendly deaths.

Gen. Sandworm
07-09-2007, 08:42 AM
But if he lost his positions and went to the Berlin - there is no any doubts the USA troops come to the Berlin first.


I dont remember when Ike made the call but March maybe. Long enough for it to filter down to the low level and make sure they stopped shy of Berlin.

alephh
07-09-2007, 03:56 PM
Western Allies were more interested to attack the (fantasy creation) "Alpine Fortress" than took Berlin.


_

Nickdfresh
07-09-2007, 05:38 PM
I do remember researching somewhere that the commanders of all US Ground Infrantry units were told to "HOLD ALL PRESENT POSITIONS- NO ADVANCEMENT"

Was this an example of Western Allies just simply giving in to the Russians?

Quite correct. US and British forces were ordered to 'full stop.' They had actually blown Germany open by unexpectedly taking the key bridge at Nijmegen affecting a rapid pincer movement at a pace they had not expected. The Wehrmacht was almost completely to be destroyed in a battle of rapid encirclement when the the Western Allies stopped as agreed at Yalta...

But the Red Army deserved Berlin. They suffered horribly under German occupation and suffered heavy casualties (over 300,000!) in the Battle of Berlin alone...

Nickdfresh
07-09-2007, 05:41 PM
Western Allies were more interested to attack the (fantasy creation) "Alpine Fortress" than took Berlin.


_


They simply changed focus from rapid advancement to one of securing all areas under control and preventing a large scale Nazi "werewolf" guerilla movement. And they were not interested in Berlin because it was previously agreed that the city should be taken by the Soviets...

Gen. Sandworm
07-09-2007, 08:32 PM
... They had actually blown Germany open by unexpectedly taking the key bridge at Nijmegen affecting a rapid pincer movement ...........

Dont you mean the bridge at Remagen?!?!?! Nijmegen is in the Netherlands.

Chevan
07-10-2007, 01:54 AM
Quite correct. US and British forces were ordered to 'full stop.' They had actually blown Germany open by unexpectedly taking the key bridge at Nijmegen affecting a rapid pincer movement at a pace they had not expected. The Wehrmacht was almost completely to be destroyed in a battle of rapid encirclement when the the Western Allies stopped as agreed at Yalta...

But the Red Army deserved Berlin. They suffered horribly under German occupation and suffered heavy casualties (over 300,000!) in the Battle of Berlin alone...
Really 300 000?
I have read it was 60 000 killed ;)

Gen. Sandworm
07-10-2007, 05:20 AM
Really 300 000?
I have read it was 60 000 killed ;)

Yea I was thinking that too ..... or actually 70k.

Nick you drunk or something your facts are usually better. ;)

Rising Sun*
07-10-2007, 09:00 AM
Nick you drunk or something your facts are usually better. ;)

There's nothing wrong with being drunk.

I'm often drunk when posting, as I am now, but I generally manage to avoid these sorts of mistakes.

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/westfront/at3rborderdec44.htm

Or maybe VE Day really was in 1946. :D

Crosshairs
07-10-2007, 05:12 PM
heres another question about hitler and berlin..

was the bunker hitler was in in the heart of downtown berlin?

Firefly
07-10-2007, 06:23 PM
ER, where were the Allies? They were fighting the Germans in Berlin. After all werent the Soviets part of the Allies?????


If you mean the US and UK, then, they halted where they agreed they should earlier that year, except a few US units who went too far and had to move back in Czechoslovakia.

Nickdfresh
07-12-2007, 02:13 PM
Dont you mean the bridge at Remagen?!?!?! Nijmegen is in the Netherlands.


Ha! I stand corrected.:oops:

Sorry 'bout that. I think I had Market Garden, and a few Sierra Nevada Ales, on the brain.:)

Nickdfresh
07-12-2007, 02:15 PM
Really 300 000?
I have read it was 60 000 killed ;)


Probably. By 'casualties,' I was including the wounded and missing...

Nickdfresh
07-12-2007, 02:29 PM
Yea I was thinking that too ..... or actually 70k.

Nick you drunk or something your facts are usually better. ;)

Yes, I was drunk. I was toasting the Allied War Dead with fine Crystal Vodka!:D

But I said "heavy casualties," not battle 'deaths.' Indeed, I was shocked when I read that number recently, and had to check the percentages of deaths to the wounded.

My source is John Keegan's "The Second World War":

The cost to the Red Army of its victory in the siege of Berlin had also been terrible. Between 16 April and 8 May, Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky's fronts had lost 304,887 men killed, wounded and missing...the heaviest casualty list suffered by any Red Army in any battle of the war (with exception of the captive toll on the great encirclement battles of 1941).

(p. 533)

Remember kids, "casualties" and "deaths" are not the same thing...

Dallas
11-09-2007, 01:59 PM
Eisenhower made the decision to stop short of Berlin with the Elbe river being a good stopping point/dividing line between two different combat forces. It was a political/military decision based in part on the Soviet desire for revenge againist the Germans for what they did to their country and their willingness to take the casualties to take the city. And American Intelligence's belief that the Germans were forming a large strong point in the Alps to continue resistance for some time. While the Americans stopped at the Elbe, further north the British kept moving to liberate Denmark and cut off the Soviets from getting access to the North Atlantic.

Yes the Americans could have gotten to Berlin before the Russians, but not by much. That would have meant the Americans attacking from (generally) the west and the Russians from (gnerally) the east, because the Russians were going to attack and take Berlin (the prize as far as they were concerned). If that had happened the risk of the Allies shooting at each other would have been almost guaranteed.

The Nazi Alpine Redoubt turned out to be a myth. But if it had been real the U.S. would of had its hand's full for who knows how long.