The Western Allies took Berlin.

If in that context, better the Soviets losing 100,000+, than 100,000 of your own troops. Smart man was Ike.

 

Patton would be the last guy we'd want to be 'sharing' the battlefield with the Russians around Berlin or anywhere, unless we wanted war with Russia. Alot of friendly-fire possibilities.

But I agree, he wouldn't get there first. Had Operation Market Garden worked, and it was an interesting gamble, maybe Monty might have.

We needed to encircle and cut off the fortified Ruhr industrial district along the Rhine and the Nazi's greatest base of support were the mountains along the Austrian border if I recall, where it was feared the SS would re-assemble and make their last stand, maybe with a fleeing Hitler.

Sadly I don't think we'd beat the Russians to Berlin.
I say sadly because of the Rape of Berlin, circa 100,000+ by the invading Soviets.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F01%2F24%2Fwbeev24.xml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_atrocities

It would have been interesting, though. One of the few things Monty and Patton agreed about was the Russians and both would have loved another friendly race to beat the Soviets and prevent them from dominating so much of Eastern Europe.

Monty, known for being the opposite of Patton, meaning maybe 'over-cautious' when it came to the lives of his men, was the last commander the Germans expected to support the Operation Market Garden Plan. That was a brilliant reversal and who knows what would have happened if it had worked?

Might have at least given the Allies the ability to do as you suggest.

 

I don't know what revisionism is going on. But of course there as an agreement to have the Soviets take Berlin, along with most of East Germany. Eisenhower's cowardice, yes, COWARDICE, coincidently played into Roosevelt's betrayal of Freedom and Democracy at the Yalta Conference, thereby condeming Eastern Germany to a half century of Slavery. The fact is, the Western Allies could have, and SHOULD have moved as far east as was humanly possible. Why do you fight it out for years and years, and sacrifice SO much, only to drop the ball and give into the tempation to trade comfort for results.

 

So Eisenhower's decision to not waste Allies soldiers lives is cowardism ?????

Don't you just love the bravery of armchair generals

 

Cowardice, NO. A Stategist, Yes and a brilliant one at that.

 

He was worse, Ike was a politician.


I guarantee he regretted his decision 10 years later when he was President.


Listen, I know the idea I put forth is not a popular one. But its hard to argue that the world would not have been a better had place had the Soviets been more limited in their territorial acquisitions at the end of the war.

 

Just out of curiosity, who are you talking about here?

 

predominantly the British, as it is many commonwealthers here that seem to support pandering to the communists

 

Well then couldnt your very own quote be used in the defense for the Soviets?

 

Of course, if your world view was so skewed as to possible find any sort of sympathy for what happened to the Russians.


In my opinion, the Soviet Union's mere existence, let alone its conduct during the war, is indefensible.



So no, I don't think I'd use that quote to defend the soviets

 

Please continue.........

 

Thank you for allowing me more rope to hang myself with Its pretty clear to today's historians that Stalin slaughtered more of his people that did the Germans (to the Russians). This of course is not a defense of German atrocities on the East Front, however it is an indicator that it was case of Bad vs ...Bad-er on the Eastern Front (I will let you draw your own conclusions as to who is who). Certainly then you could make the argument that it was better to leave the Russians to take Berlin, as it would inflict more casualties on their armed forces, however with the knowledge that the Red army could take an incredible amount of damage and keep on truckin', why would you allow them only to be stronger in a post WW2 world? How many further millions of people in eastern Europe would have lived fuller, longer lives had 100,000 (as the estimate given in this thread) soldiers of the Western Allies died in taking Berlin? You can argue that Eisenhower saved lives by letting the Ivans take Berlin, but it is a more keen mind that sees that the decision made only condemned millions more to suffer and die under Communist Oppression in Eastern Germany and Eastern Europe.

 

Obviously it was becasue teh Western Allies were impotent when it came to capturing Berlin. Only Russia could have done such a thing. (I am being sarcastic.)

I think that at this point Roosevelt still felt that Stalin was a good guy. He may have been smoking something, but he felt that the Russians devered this and that they wouldn't rape, murder, and pilage, not to mention the continuation of inhumanities for decades to come. Churchill however wanted to get as much as possible, but after the deliniation line was drawn between the big three there wasnt much that could have been done to prevent Stalin from making more statistics.

 

On the contrary, this is still a matter of great dispute.... Also ( NOT coming to Stalin's defense ) it is important to consider the time frame. While Stalin killed millions he did so in a much longer time period then Hitler did, if im not mistaken, I believe that our very own Richard has pointed this out as well.

This combined with the previous quote

"Of course, if your world view was so skewed as to possible find any sort of sympathy for what happened to the Russians" and In my opinion, the Soviet Union's mere existence, let alone its conduct during the war, is indefensible"

Puts me under the impression that your judgement of Russians is bad solely based on their leader at the time, Stalin. Otherwise how can one say he/she has absolutely no sympathy for over 28 million innocent people exterminated and a country left in ruins? Please tell me that I am mistaken, as I would find it very difficult to comrehend such a shallow view. Afterall, would it be fair to judge all Americans solely on Bush?

Mannerheim, it was the Russians that were invaded and were fighting for their survival, they were the good guys..( maybe not in your opinion, judging by your post ) In my opinion, to state that one has no sympathy for the deaths of over 28 million fighting for their country, is in fact indefensible

But like I said, I hope this is not what you meant

 

I agree with you completely, however I would go so far as to say that FDR did merely think that the russians were simply 'good guys' at that point, but that instead he wanted to see a Communist state succeed. (One need only to see his own economic policies in the 1930s to see that the comparison is not that far fetched)

 

Also consider that the German atrocities came during a time of war, and against an active resistence movement behind the lines, whereas Stalin literally killed his people methodically because it pleased him

No, Stalin is just a very small part. my judgement on the Russians is based on their national ideologies. I am not the type that follows the assumption that "The Russian people are stupid, they do not care who is in charge, so long is they have a warm belly full of vodka." However I am VERY critical of the totalitarian Communist state that the Russian people SUPPORTED. When you have 28 or 30 million people, someone notices someone else missing, you would expect that a bit more would have been done to throw a wrench in the purges. Also, comparing Bush to stalin (though they have similar economic policies is a bit ... simplistic.

I respect the sacrifices made by russians during the war, its the pre-war purges I bring issue with.

 

I didn't know the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals eliminated by the Germans were an active resistance movement behind the lines.

 

The Warsaw uprising, and the amount of gypsies that were active in the Balkans during those resistance movement might have had something to say about it. But again, several hundred thousand - 1,2 million gypsies is different than 30,000,000 russians. Also, keep on topic, we're talking about issues of foreign policy, not the ethnic makeup of gypsies or russians

 

I pressume the basis for your opinion comes from your extensive stay in Russia or maybe Russian friends or family members that you may have?

I dont think that this is a fair analysis..... Communism at this time was a new and revolutionary idea... Other then Communism the Russians as a whole experienced only Monarchy. Also the average Russian, had no idea that Stalin himself was behind the purges, or were in a stage of denial. After all how can he be the one responsible when he has just turned a peasant country into a world power? Which is the reason why so many Russians, ironically wrote letters to Stalin while in the Gulags asking him for help.

Also not to defend communism ( As I do not agree with it ), there was a big difference in the way Russians lived during and after Stalin in Communist Russia

Totally agree, I was not comparing the two at all, but instead comparing only the view of what one might have about a population based solely on the leader.

I think we might be getting off topic here....

 

Agreed, getting off topic. Just for the record though, it is based in large part of my Russian friends. Lucky for me my college is an affiliate of the United World College. Hell, even my R.A. this past semester was a lovely Russian girl. Got to know her pretty well, and had some very good conversations with her.