How much of Europe was supportive of the Nazi's during WWII?

13»

Comments

  • Mariamaniatis
    Mariamaniatis Posts: 90
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Mariamaniatis wrote:
    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.
  • Mariamaniatis
    Mariamaniatis Posts: 90
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Mariamaniatis wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Mariamaniatis wrote:
    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.
  • Mariamaniatis
    Mariamaniatis Posts: 90
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Mariamaniatis wrote:
    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.

Categories