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

Why did the U.S. let the Red Army take Berlin?

Discussion in 'Western Europe 1939 - 1942' started by Colin, Jan 25, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Colin

    Colin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey. I was wondering why we let the Red Army take Berlin. I think it would have made more sense if we had gone in first. Did the Russians have a score to settle with Germany so we let them take it, or did U.S. troops and allied forces not reach Berlin in time? And why do they call the invasion of Berlin by the Red Army the Rape of Berlin? Thankyou.
     
  2. De Vlaamse Leeuw

    De Vlaamse Leeuw Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    2
    All that stood betweet the British/Americans and Berlin was Eisenhower. That's the whole point here.

    He signed a treaty with Stalin in which he said that his troops wouldn't cross the line of the river Elbe.

    BTW Monty had the fastest way to Berlin.

    The "rape of Berlin". A lot of Russian soldiers did rape a lot of German woman, as a sort of revenge for what the Germans had done in teir country.
     
  3. charlie don't surf

    charlie don't surf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    1
    I guess it was a gesture of respect from the western allies side. Berlin was seen as a prize. Unfortunately a western allied assault on Berlin would probably mean lesser casualties than the Soviet did.

    The rapes were mostly carried out by second- line units. The first- line troops had good discipline unlike many of the soldiers that came after them.

    Best regards/ Daniel

    [ 26. January 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: charlie don't surf ]
     
  4. TA152

    TA152 Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,423
    Likes Received:
    120
    I think Churchill, Stalin, and Truman agreed on how to divide up Europe before the war was won and Russia got the east half of Europe and also I read that taking Berlin cost the Russians alot of dead and wounded.
    I don't know which conference it was agreed upon or the details, just that it was already agreed upon before Berlin fell.
    I think there was some problems after the war with the plan, because they did not want Greece to be communist, but again I am not sure of the details.
     
  5. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    From an operational POV, and in some contradiction to the above, I have read that the U.S./UK military leadership believed that Hitler will go to the Alps and cave in.

    Basically this was the reason why the stonger elements were sent southwards; the WAllies felt some kind of uncomfortable with the perspective to fighting Herrn Hitler and the loyal rest of the German Armed Forces the bloddy way dug in his last ressort.

    From a political POV, it was "appropiate" that the Red Army who carrie the major burden in defeating the Germans had the "honor" to seize the capital. Don't forget that the U.S. was still appeasing Uncle Joe because of the PTO.

    Cheers,
     
  6. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    616
    Yalta ? conference was it not when the agreement was made between Roosevelt and Stalin. Churchill was not even asked to take part on the secret dealings. A deep but good book on this and Roosevelt's communist sympathies is George Crocker's "Roosevelt's Road to Russia". It was all preplanned to stop at the Elbe and let the Soviets take retribution on the German peoples en-route to Berlin, in fact to go ahead and slaughter as many as possible in East Prussia the heart of the early Nazi regime....

    E
     
  7. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,918
    Likes Received:
    987
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    I guess it was Jalta Feb 1945 (?) as well, when the Europe was finally split.And the Russians got Berlin.
     
  8. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Erich and Kai are correct. Also I think it was felt that it would be better to let the Russians take Berlin and the casualties along with it--instead of G.I.s and Tommies--as the war was about over and it wasnt necessart to spill more Western Ally blood--as the war was coming to a successful conclusion anyway.
     
  9. Brad T.

    Brad T. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think the main reason was the west allies did not want the causualties.
     
  10. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr Patron  

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,358
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Location:
    London, England.
    Was it not also a factor at Yalta that Roosevelt was at this time a very sick man - certainly not at the top of his form & Stalin took advantage of this ?
     
  11. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    139
    Simply not true.

    The Eclipse plan( it was also called the Rankin C, or Attlee plan)which dealt with the post-war division of Germany into zones of occupation, was a British plan which divided Germany into 3 equal zones ( British, American and Russian).
    It was agreed by the Allies (Britain, America and Russia) on the 18 Febuary 1944.
    At the time it was signed the Western Allies were worried that the Russian might either, take the majority of Germany in battle, or come to a seperate peace with Germany.
    Eisenhower played no part in the agreement, he simply did not see the point in losing any of the American and British soldiers under his command taking somewhere that would later have to be handed over to the Russians after the war.

    [ 02. February 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: redcoat ]
     
  12. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,918
    Likes Received:
    987
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    On Martin´s question on FDR´s health:

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States, was elected to an unprecedented third term in 1940. It was during the end of this term that FDR's health began to decline. The strain of leading the country through World War II had begun to take its toll. Exhausted from a summit in Teheran with Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin at the end of 1943, FDR's health began to deteriorate rapidly after his return. Months passed and the President did not bounce back. He lost weight, his face thinned, and he suffered shortness of breath. At first, FDR's personal physician, Vice Admiral Ross T. McIntire diagnosed the President's problem as the "flu" and bronchitis.

    Not satisfied with the diagnosis, FDR's family wanted a second opinion. Dr. McIntire arranged to have the President examined at Bethesda naval Hospital in March 1944 by Dr. Howard G. Bruenn. Dr. Bruenn, a cardiologist, found that FDR was suffering from hypertension, heart disease, left ventricular cardiac failure, and bronchitis. He recommended that FDR be given digitalis, put on a diet, and have bed rest. No one told the President of his serious condition, and he never asked.

    FDR decided to run for a fourth term in 1944. No one made a serious attempt to persuade the President not to run or inform him of his health problems. While those who saw the President were shocked at his appearance, FDR's spokesmen assured them that there was nothing to be concerned about. Less than a month before the election, Dr. McIntire claimed that FDR's health was "perfectly OK." FDR was re-elected in 1944, and soon thereafter attended a summit in Yalta with Churchill and Stalin. It was a strenuous trip for the ailing FDR, but he appeared to be alert.
    ---------

    Other stuff as well:

    Two independent lines of evidence suggest FDR had a malignant melanoma excised while in the White House:
    Between 1920 and 1932 FDR developed an enlarging pigmented lesion above his left eye. This lesion vanished between 1940 and 1944, leaving a scar and a sparse lateral eyebrow.

    During lectures in 1963 and 1965, Dr. George Pack stated that his friend, Dr. Frank Lahey of Boston, had seen FDR in consultation in 1944 and had informed the president that he had a metastatic tumor, and advised him not to run for a fourth term.
    Interestingly, FDR's main health problem, starting around November 1944, was anorexia and weight loss. No confirmation of the melanoma theory is possible, however, FDR's medical record is missing.

    Dr. McIntire claimed, in a press conference after FDR's death, that the president had undergone only one surgical procedure during the time he was in the White House: removal of an abscessed tooth.


    While resting at the South Carolina retreat of Bernard Baruch, FDR developed severe abdominal pains on April 28, 1944, diagnosed as acute cholescyctitis. He was treated with parenteral codeine. The pain subsided by May 1, but recurred the next day. He was again treated with codeine, and after two days became asymptomatic.
    FDR returned to Washington and had a cholecystogram on May 26. Dr. McIntire, an otolaryngologist, interpreted it as a normal study. Dr. Bruenn, a cardiologist, said it showed a well-functioning gallbladder, but had evidence of a group of cholesterol stones. Bruenn, therefore, put FDR on a low-fat diet. Oddly, no surgeon was asked to review the study.

    While campaigning for his fourth term in August 1944, FDR gave a speech at the Puget Sound Naval Base in Bremerton, Washington. For about the previous year, he had delivered speeches from the sitting position because of his polio-weakened legs. On this occasion FDR decided to speak standing up, to dispel rumors of failing health.
    Unfortunately, in the year since he had last used his leg braces, FDR had lost considerable weight. As a result, his braces no longer fitted him and gave him little or no support at the podium. FDR compensated by using his arms for support, but this required a tremendous amount of arm effort. By the time the 35-minute speech ended, FDR was having severe substernal pain, radiating to both shoulders.

    It was feared the president had sustained a myocardial infarction. [3] An electrocardiogram and white blood cell count, made within an hour of the event, showed "No unusual abnormalities." [1] (Based on the timing of the event and the EKG, the possibility of an anginal attack cannot be eliminated. Of course, it could also have been purely musculoskeletal in origin

    The nation was stunned when FDR died unexpectedly on April 12, 1945 -- less than six months after being elected to a fourth term in office. The death was unexpected because the president's personal physician, VADM Ross McIntire, whenever asked, had proclaimed that FDR's health was excellent. McIntire, an otolaryngologist and then surgeon-general of the U.S. Navy, must have known FDR was gravely ill -- FDR's physical decay was plainly evident even to non-physicians in the final months .

    http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g32.htm
     
  13. Brad T.

    Brad T. Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    1
    Also Red Army was WAY WAY WAY bigger then the US Army
     
  14. Heartland

    Heartland Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not by as much as one could be led to believe. The Red Army may have been way way way bigger if you count the number of divisions, but compare the number of men, tanks and aircraft, and a quite equal picture emerges. Just a side note.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page