Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Why did the Americans let the Russians into Berlin first?

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Mylady Debbie, Apr 26, 2016.

Tags:
  1. Mylady Debbie

    Mylady Debbie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because of Hitler's attack on Russia. Operation Barbarossa. Then the Allies signed the agreement to let the Russians in first, the 3rd Army was there first, but had orders to pull back 50 miles, and let the Russians move in, and watch. My papaw watch in horror as the Russians Raped, and burned, murdered, pillaged their was into Berlin. He hated his Allies buddy's. He was only 18 years old. So it was , not good will. Americans and the Brits didn't trust the Soviets and they gave them what they wanted to just appease them.
     
  2. Mylady Debbie

    Mylady Debbie New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    THE Russians lost 100,000 men to take Berlin only to have to give half of it up. Eisenhower was right to not want to lose so many men to give up half of the city to the Russians
     
  4. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,985
    Likes Received:
    2,377
    "Let"???? as if they had the choice. They were halted at the Bulge and lost precious weeks. Patton ran out of gas earlier. . Not to mention "the Bridge to far" Episode . The British were struggling in Holland, the French in Alsace and the Americans in Alsace and the Ardennnes. The Russians got to Berlin first and, as mentioned earlier, because they paid the high price for it.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  5. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    The Soviets were closer to Berlin than were the Allies, and if they wanted to fight and lose men to capture Berlin, why not ?
     
  6. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,941
    Likes Received:
    991
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Didn´t Stalin say berlin was not his primary goal in 1945 and the reason Ike was not in a hurry to get there as the Alpine stronghold was being mentioned again and again? then suddenly Berlin was all STalin wanted. But I am sure Ike knew that the losses would be massive to try to take Berlin if that should happen.
     
  7. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,445
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    London UK
    It certainly could have been possible for the Western Allies, in particular US forces to have advanced further into Germany in the last two weeks of the war. The Germans were by and large trying to avoid the Russians and surrender to Americans.

    Not all of the Germans were surrendering. According to the CWGC records, some 8,300 men who died between 1st March and 30 April 1945 are buried in Germans and the Netherlands. That equates to C 30,000 casualties just for two armies out of seven, What was the point in taking more casualties for terrain which was always going to be handed back to the Soviets?

    Berlin mattered far more to the Soviets than it did to the Americans. One of the reasons the Russians cared about taking Berlin because it was an opportunity for pay back: for Stalingrad, Kiev, Leningrad Kharkov and dozens of other cities - and the murder and ill treatment of of millions of Soviet citizens. It is easy to take the moral high ground, but it is not unknown for revenge to play a part in American motivation. Ten years ago the US Marines entered the Iraqi city of Fallujah over a bridge with the chalk marked slogan "remember 9/11"

    One of the problems of coalition warfare is keeping the coalition together. The Germans hoped that the coaliiton would fall apart, as did the coalition against Frederick II of Prussia in 1761. Despite all the idealism and political spin surrounding the United Nations, the totalitatian soviets were always likely to come into conflict with the Americans. The hope for the Nazis was that this would take place before, rather than after the war ended. It made sense for the American leadership to avoid anything which could divert the allies from the primary purpose of defeating the Axis. The US had gone to war to fight Germany and Japan, not the USSR.
     
  8. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,227
    Likes Received:
    2,004
    Location:
    Alabama
    Thread moved to correct forum.
     
  9. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,471
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    Eisenhower noted that his job was to defeat the Wehrmacht, and he considered Berlin a political objective. He also had responsibility for conserving fighting men for the PTO once Europe's latest civil war was over.
     
  10. Brian Smith

    Brian Smith Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    Bridlington East Riding Yorkshire England
    Always going to be a messy business with feelings running high and a lot of hand to hand combat with civilians getting involved. With this knowledge Eisenhower and Churchill did right to take a step back and avoid our troops getting involved.
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    What agreement was it that allowed the Russians in first? 3rd Army wasn't anywhere near Berlin from what I recall. Once Germany surrendered the allies pulled out of the Soviet occupation zone is that what you are referring to above or is it something else?
     
  12. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    655
    Because it was decided between the Allies three months earlier that Berlin would be in the Soviet Zone of occupation. So expending American lives to capture Berlin in order to turn most of the territory over to the Soviets would have been a stupid waste.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  13. green slime

    green slime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    565
    I'm with Skipper; "Let" doesn't quite seem like the appropriate verb.
     
  14. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    here we go again ..it was the Allies' fault that the Russians did what they did?!? the Germans reaped what they sowed....like I've said before, the war released the humans' 'natural' evil.......then you have actions and reactions that cannot be stopped.....wars create extremely powerful forces that reverberate..
    .what did you think would happen when the Germans 1. invaded Russia after signing a non-aggression pact 2. destroyed cities/raped/murdered/massacred hundreds of thousands of Russians ?
    why waste lives when you don't have to?? there are/were a lot of grateful wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters for Ike not going to Berlin
     
  15. RaconteurNick

    RaconteurNick New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    3
    The Soviets quite literally were living off of the adrenaline of finally getting to Berlin and cutting the head off of Nazi Germany. As mentioned in previous posts, it was decided that it would be an unnecessary loss for the Americans to arrive first when the Soviets were more than willing to sacrifice so many to get there no matter what. This decision always fascinated me, and says a lot about human nature.
     
  16. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    13,584
    Likes Received:
    2,178
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I agree with Opana. Berlin was largely symbolic for the Allies. Eisenhower knew the taking of the city would require unacceptably high casualties. While Patton and some others wanted to storm the capital, the Western allies rightly gave the Soviets their imprimatur. Berlin was only going to be given back anyway so why expend lives unnecessarily.
     
  17. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    The allies had already agreed at Yalta to give eastern Europe to the Soviets. Why should a single American, British, Commonwealth soldier die for that real estate?
     
  18. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,471
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    Ike was also concerned about blue-on-blue incidents. Having a clear line of demarcation was an effective way of reducing that danger.
     
  19. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    My "papaw" watched in horror what the Germans did in Russia... Reading the above I'm curious if your aware of how the Germans conducted themselves in Soviet Russia?

    I'm afraid the Allies didn't "let" the Russkies take anything. The fate of Berlin was decided at Yalta and the Russians were closer with a much larger force. Eisenhower did the right thing. The Russians deserved Berlin and they got it.
     
  20. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    235
    Your papaw has read tomuch Anthony Beevor .
     

Share This Page