So we had no interest in combating the Nazis before December 1941? Did you study lend-lease or did you miss that part of history in which the United States supplied, more or less, all of the tanks your bone-headed generals had lost as well as naval vessels, aircraft, and other arms you and the Russians needed until we showed up to save your asses.
Ah, the overly magmanimous lend-lease...where you gave us a bunch of tanks and ships in exchange for a large portion of our overseas territories, and in which the UK finally Paid off Lend lease In 2006 and paid nearly $14.00 for every dollar borrowed. Wonderful.
And you didn't save anyone's asses. The German military machine was defeated by the Russians, not the Americans.
So we had no interest in combating the Nazis before December 1941? Did you study lend-lease or did you miss that part of history in which the United States supplied, more or less, all of the tanks your bone-headed generals had lost as well as naval vessels, aircraft, and other arms you and the Russians needed until we showed up to save your asses.
Ah, the overly magmanimous lend-lease...where you gave us a bunch of tanks and ships in exchange for a large portion of our overseas territories, and in which the UK finally Paid off Lend lease In 2006 and paid nearly $14.00 for every dollar borrowed. Wonderful.
And you didn't save anyone's asses. The German military machine was defeated by the Russians, not the Americans.
So, the British had nothing to do with Germanys defeat? I dont actually believe that. But you seem to. Just because the Russians ended up with many more dead doesnt mean they won it. Eisenhower let the Russians have Berlin leading to the false impression that the Russians beat us there. And Ill add it took the US/British force less than a year to take nearly as much territory as the Russians took in 4 years.
Eisenhower let the Russians have Berlin leading to the false impression that the Russians beat us there. .
What a distorted view of history. Contrary to Montgomery who wanted the allies to take Berlin, Eisenhower 'wimped' out as he understood that the taking of Berlin would result in a very high loss of life and he wasn't willing to put forth the allied armies and suffer such casualties. The Russians did - at a huge cost to them.
The Russians 'laid the ground' for the final push.
Eisenhower let the Russians have Berlin leading to the false impression that the Russians beat us there. .
What a distorted view of history. Contrary to Montgomery who wanted the allies to take Berlin, Eisenhower 'wimped' out as he understood that the taking of Berlin would result in a very high loss of life and he wasn't willing to put forth the allied armies and suffer such casualties. The Russians did - at a huge cost to them.
The Russians 'laid the ground' for the final push.
Sorry have to correct you too. Loss of American life was an issue for Eisenhower but it wasnt an issue of wimping out. The Allies had already determined that Berlin would fall in the Soviet Sector so Eisenhower saw no reason to take Berlin to only give it back. Would that have been a smart military move? No doubt Monty wanted to take Berlin the Narcissistic twerp he was. But he didnt have it in him.
American forces were right outside Berlin and pushing forward. Ike stopped them. Rightly so.
So, the British had nothing to do with Germanys defeat? I dont actually believe that. But you seem to. Just because the Russians ended up with many more dead doesnt mean they won it. Eisenhower let the Russians have Berlin leading to the false impression that the Russians beat us there. And Ill add it took the US/British force less than a year to take nearly as much territory as the Russians took in 4 years.
Nine out of every ten German soldiers killed in WWII were killed on Russian soil.
As for Eisenhower 'letting' the Russians take Berlin, do you have anything to back that claim up?
And Ill add it took the US/British force less than a year to take nearly as much territory as the Russians took in 4 years.
That may have something to do with the fact that top german officers calculated that they'd rather lose to the british/americans than the russians, who they quite correctly feared would wreak terrible vengenace for Germany's misdeeds in the east. Thus troops were more vigorously applied to the eastern front.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
most generals wanted to take berlin, monty, patton, etc. but it was the better political move for post war relations to allow the russians to take berlin. the battle of stalingrad alone caused millions of casualities so it was only right to allow he russians to take berlin. the russians lost nearly an entire generation of young men in world war 2. besides, the americans had a whole other war to fight in the pacific after germany surrendered and we did not need to be sending our soldiers into the slaughterhouse of berlin because we needed them in the pacific. letting russia take berlin was the right thing to do from my perspective.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Suggested Book - Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944 - 1945 by Max Hastings
This is a good book that covers the fall of Nazi Germany from many different viewpoints. There is astounding amount of suffering that took place in the final years.
Hastings details that the Allies' failure to capture and secure the port in Antwerp during the Battle of the Bulge allowed the Germans to get reinforcements and drag the war out for several more years ... which turned out to be one of the worst things that could have happened to any Dutch civilians and Germans stuck in that theater.
The Red Army had its men keep "revenge" journals and great suffering was inflicted once they crossed into Germany. As well, it allowed the Holocaust to continue into it's final evil stages.
The book is great, but there is a lot of detail in it (if you are not a fan of flipping back and forth in a book to keep track of everything, avoid this).
most generals wanted to take berlin, monty, patton, etc. but it was the better political move for post war relations to allow the russians to take berlin. the battle of stalingrad alone caused millions of casualities so it was only right to allow he russians to take berlin. the russians lost nearly an entire generation of young men in world war 2. besides, the americans had a whole other war to fight in the pacific after germany surrendered and we did not need to be sending our soldiers into the slaughterhouse of berlin because we needed them in the pacific. letting russia take berlin was the right thing to do from my perspective.
But did you 'let' the Russians take Berlin? Were the allies in any position to tell Stalin what he could or couldn't have?
'...The Americans had recently crossed the Rhine and the Soviet leader was concerned that they might capture Berlin before him. To speed up his campaign, he split the command of the Berlin operation between Marshall Zukhov in the centre and Marshall Konev in the south. Stalin thus effectively triggered a race between his two most senior commanders, as both of them were eager to be credited with the conquest of the German capital.
...So what are the reasons for Stalin's hurry to reach Berlin? After all, he was happy to share the city with his western allies after the city's surrender. The traditional explanation is that it was a question of Soviet prestige and mistrust of the west. However, during his research, Beevor discovered a startling new document: 'It struck me so powerfully that the moment I started to read it I knew I had to look at a totally different aspect of Stalin's interest in Berlin.'
Nuclear legacy
The document shows that Stalin was desperate to get his hands on the German nuclear research centre, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the southwest of Berlin - before the Americans got there. The Soviets knew through their spies of the American atomic bomb programme. Stalin's own nuclear programme, Operation Borodino, was lagging behind and Soviet scientists wanted to find out exactly what the Germans had come up with during the war.
As it turned out, the special NKVD troops despatched to secure the German institute discovered three tons of uranium oxide, a material they were short of at the time. 'So the Soviets achieved their objective,' says Beevor, 'the uranium oxide they found in Berlin was enough to kick start Operation Borodino and allow them to start working on their first nuclear weapon.'
After the battle, more than a hundred thousand German prisoners of war were marched to labour camps in the Soviet Union. Only now did the totality of their defeat sink in on the German people. The country lay in ruins and the population was close to starvation. In addition, confirmation of the Nazis' mass extermination of the European Jews meant that Germany faced a complete moral catastrophe.
The battle for Berlin had brought to an end the bloodiest conflict in European history. 'There's no family in the Soviet Union, Poland or Germany where they didn't lose at least one close relative,' said Beevor in our final interview. 'In Britain, the suffering was real, but it simply cannot be compared to the scale of suffering in Central Europe.'
I'm always curious about Germany and the younger generations thoughts toward the Holocaust. Can anyone give some generalizations about how it's dealt with, discussed, general feelings about, talked about in schools, etc.
I asked a German friend how it is taught in school and he said that the emphasis is all on "never again."
I used to date a girl from Heidelberg, and she said pretty much the same thing. They're embarrassed by it and don't like to talk about it, and they feel bad that whenever people talk about Germany it's usually in conjunction with WWII.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
So, the British had nothing to do with Germanys defeat? I dont actually believe that. But you seem to. Just because the Russians ended up with many more dead doesnt mean they won it. Eisenhower let the Russians have Berlin leading to the false impression that the Russians beat us there. And Ill add it took the US/British force less than a year to take nearly as much territory as the Russians took in 4 years.
Nine out of every ten German soldiers killed in WWII were killed on Russian soil.
As for Eisenhower 'letting' the Russians take Berlin, do you have anything to back that claim up?
Yes. Off the top of my head I believe the first place I came across that was in one of Stephen Ambrose's books. Ill multi source it. Not that you would accept any authority other than your own so Im not sure its worth my effort.
So, the British had nothing to do with Germanys defeat? I dont actually believe that. But you seem to. Just because the Russians ended up with many more dead doesnt mean they won it. Eisenhower let the Russians have Berlin leading to the false impression that the Russians beat us there. And Ill add it took the US/British force less than a year to take nearly as much territory as the Russians took in 4 years.
Nine out of every ten German soldiers killed in WWII were killed on Russian soil.
As for Eisenhower 'letting' the Russians take Berlin, do you have anything to back that claim up?
More accurately Eisenhower, whose troops had crossed the Elbe and did in fact have open roads to Berlin were ordered to hold. Here's a quick source.
I can provide probably a dozen more. But will it change ur view? No. The Americans chose not to take Berlin. No argument. Was it a mistake? Hell yes. But we kept our commitments to our Allies, at the time, the Russians. Ive read multiple accounts of the specific American unit actions who were just South of Berlin and ordered to hold.
I can provide probably a dozen more. But will it change ur view? No. The Americans chose not to take Berlin. No argument. Was it a mistake? Hell yes. But we kept our commitments to our Allies, at the time, the Russians. Ive read multiple accounts of the specific American unit actions who were just South of Berlin and ordered to hold.
A lot more evidence has been uncovered since this was written in 1952.
I can provide probably a dozen more. But will it change ur view? No. The Americans chose not to take Berlin. No argument. Was it a mistake? Hell yes. But we kept our commitments to our Allies, at the time, the Russians. Ive read multiple accounts of the specific American unit actions who were just South of Berlin and ordered to hold.
A lot more evidence has been uncovered since this was written in 1952.
Comments
Ah, the overly magmanimous lend-lease...where you gave us a bunch of tanks and ships in exchange for a large portion of our overseas territories, and in which the UK finally Paid off Lend lease In 2006 and paid nearly $14.00 for every dollar borrowed. Wonderful.
And you didn't save anyone's asses. The German military machine was defeated by the Russians, not the Americans.
So, the British had nothing to do with Germanys defeat? I dont actually believe that. But you seem to. Just because the Russians ended up with many more dead doesnt mean they won it. Eisenhower let the Russians have Berlin leading to the false impression that the Russians beat us there. And Ill add it took the US/British force less than a year to take nearly as much territory as the Russians took in 4 years.
What a distorted view of history. Contrary to Montgomery who wanted the allies to take Berlin, Eisenhower 'wimped' out as he understood that the taking of Berlin would result in a very high loss of life and he wasn't willing to put forth the allied armies and suffer such casualties. The Russians did - at a huge cost to them.
The Russians 'laid the ground' for the final push.
Sorry have to correct you too. Loss of American life was an issue for Eisenhower but it wasnt an issue of wimping out. The Allies had already determined that Berlin would fall in the Soviet Sector so Eisenhower saw no reason to take Berlin to only give it back. Would that have been a smart military move? No doubt Monty wanted to take Berlin the Narcissistic twerp he was. But he didnt have it in him.
American forces were right outside Berlin and pushing forward. Ike stopped them. Rightly so.
Nine out of every ten German soldiers killed in WWII were killed on Russian soil.
As for Eisenhower 'letting' the Russians take Berlin, do you have anything to back that claim up?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This is a good book that covers the fall of Nazi Germany from many different viewpoints. There is astounding amount of suffering that took place in the final years.
Hastings details that the Allies' failure to capture and secure the port in Antwerp during the Battle of the Bulge allowed the Germans to get reinforcements and drag the war out for several more years ... which turned out to be one of the worst things that could have happened to any Dutch civilians and Germans stuck in that theater.
The Red Army had its men keep "revenge" journals and great suffering was inflicted once they crossed into Germany. As well, it allowed the Holocaust to continue into it's final evil stages.
The book is great, but there is a lot of detail in it (if you are not a fan of flipping back and forth in a book to keep track of everything, avoid this).
But did you 'let' the Russians take Berlin? Were the allies in any position to tell Stalin what he could or couldn't have?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... n_01.shtml
'...The Americans had recently crossed the Rhine and the Soviet leader was concerned that they might capture Berlin before him. To speed up his campaign, he split the command of the Berlin operation between Marshall Zukhov in the centre and Marshall Konev in the south. Stalin thus effectively triggered a race between his two most senior commanders, as both of them were eager to be credited with the conquest of the German capital.
...So what are the reasons for Stalin's hurry to reach Berlin? After all, he was happy to share the city with his western allies after the city's surrender. The traditional explanation is that it was a question of Soviet prestige and mistrust of the west. However, during his research, Beevor discovered a startling new document: 'It struck me so powerfully that the moment I started to read it I knew I had to look at a totally different aspect of Stalin's interest in Berlin.'
Nuclear legacy
The document shows that Stalin was desperate to get his hands on the German nuclear research centre, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the southwest of Berlin - before the Americans got there. The Soviets knew through their spies of the American atomic bomb programme. Stalin's own nuclear programme, Operation Borodino, was lagging behind and Soviet scientists wanted to find out exactly what the Germans had come up with during the war.
As it turned out, the special NKVD troops despatched to secure the German institute discovered three tons of uranium oxide, a material they were short of at the time. 'So the Soviets achieved their objective,' says Beevor, 'the uranium oxide they found in Berlin was enough to kick start Operation Borodino and allow them to start working on their first nuclear weapon.'
After the battle, more than a hundred thousand German prisoners of war were marched to labour camps in the Soviet Union. Only now did the totality of their defeat sink in on the German people. The country lay in ruins and the population was close to starvation. In addition, confirmation of the Nazis' mass extermination of the European Jews meant that Germany faced a complete moral catastrophe.
The battle for Berlin had brought to an end the bloodiest conflict in European history. 'There's no family in the Soviet Union, Poland or Germany where they didn't lose at least one close relative,' said Beevor in our final interview. 'In Britain, the suffering was real, but it simply cannot be compared to the scale of suffering in Central Europe.'
I used to date a girl from Heidelberg, and she said pretty much the same thing. They're embarrassed by it and don't like to talk about it, and they feel bad that whenever people talk about Germany it's usually in conjunction with WWII.
Yes. Off the top of my head I believe the first place I came across that was in one of Stephen Ambrose's books. Ill multi source it. Not that you would accept any authority other than your own so Im not sure its worth my effort.
More accurately Eisenhower, whose troops had crossed the Elbe and did in fact have open roads to Berlin were ordered to hold. Here's a quick source.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2009127
I can provide probably a dozen more. But will it change ur view? No. The Americans chose not to take Berlin. No argument. Was it a mistake? Hell yes. But we kept our commitments to our Allies, at the time, the Russians. Ive read multiple accounts of the specific American unit actions who were just South of Berlin and ordered to hold.
A lot more evidence has been uncovered since this was written in 1952.
Like i said im wasting my time here.