Battle For Berlin

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by Hammer, Jan 24, 2005.

  1. Hammer

    Hammer Junior Member

    Hello everyone. Well i'm a new member and thought i'd post a topic for everyone to make a comment on. It's one of those "what if" things.

    Short but sweet. Could the Americans and Brits have took Berlin without the aid of the Russians?

    Just thought i'd introduce myself and here what your thoughts are?

    hammer
     
  2. CROONAERT

    CROONAERT Ipsissimus

    Sorry to answer a question with another question...

    Could the Russians have done it without the aid of the Americans and Brits? (mainly talking about the lend-lease supplies of materiel, etc rather than actual combat).

    It's another of those things. I don't believe that either could have done it without the other.

    Dave.
     
  3. Hammer

    Hammer Junior Member

    Yes i think the Russians would still have done it. A population of 194 million is not going to roll over easily(especially the Russians).

    I must say i'm not Pro-Soviet. I'm totaly unbiased and thought i'd start a topic :D

    Hammer
     
  4. CROONAERT

    CROONAERT Ipsissimus

    Originally posted by Hammer@Jan 25 2005, 03:29 AM
    Yes i think the Russians would still have done it. A population of 194 million is not going to roll over easily(especially the Russians).

    [post=30875]Quoted post[/post]


    Not without the aid from the west, I don't think. Flesh against steel doesn't usually end triumphant. The Soviet offensives could not have happened without this war aid and the Axis forces would possibly have only got stronger against what was basically a defeated army.

    Bear in mind that not all that 194 million was pro-Soviet. A collapse of morale in the east could have caused anything really (look at 1917!!!!).

    Anyway, pure speculation on my part there! :)

    Dave
     
  5. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    I don't think so....the scenario I think about is where the Soviets supposedly made peace feelers to the Germans in 1943, but they were abortive. But if the Germans and Soviets had signed a truce in 1943 (and who knows with those two maniacs, Hitler and Stalin), they would have been able to devote all their energy to defeating the West...a stronger Atlantic Wall, more U-Boats, perhaps even the development of atomic weapons. World War II was a near-run thing for humanity, in many ways. In retrospect it looks easy. It really wasn't.
     
  6. Hammer

    Hammer Junior Member

    Anyway, back to the original question. Could the Brits and Americans done the dirty work and taken Berlin(we assume they got there first)?


    Hammer :)
     
  7. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by Hammer@Jan 26 2005, 12:28 PM
    Anyway, back to the original question. Could the Brits and Americans done the dirty work and taken Berlin(we assume they got there first)?


    Hammer :)
    [post=30916]Quoted post[/post]
    Probably. There was not a lot left between the Elbe and Berlin but fleeing Germans. However, the battle for Berlin would, like it was, have been a major struggle. Berlin's defenders included fanatical SS men from Himmler's personal guard, and regiments of SS renegades who were facing the certainty of treason trials if they were captured, and preferred death in battle. Berlin was also defended by its flak guns, which doubled as anti-tank guns, Hitler Youth that made up in loyalty what they lacked in skill, and Berlin factories were still producing Tiger tanks and self-propelled guns until the very end. Maj. Gen. Jim Gavin, while briefing the 82nd Airborne for its planned drop on Tempelhof, told his men that the Germans would probably fight until they ran out of ammunition, and then surrender and thank the Americans for saving them from the Russians. He was probably right. The plan for Berlin called for an airborne assault on the city, with the 82nd on Tempelhof, the 101st on Gatow, and a British airborne brigade (obviously from the 1st Airborne) on Oranienburg. 82nd was to hold the Zitadelle until 2nd Armored arrived from the Elbe. They would have done it, but it would have been a bloody mess.
     
  8. CROONAERT

    CROONAERT Ipsissimus

    Originally posted by Hammer@Jan 26 2005, 11:28 AM
    Anyway, back to the original question. Could the Brits and Americans done the dirty work and taken Berlin(we assume they got there first)?

    [post=30916]Quoted post[/post]


    For a direct answer (and, as you say assuming they had already got there) - quite categorically - yes!

    I don't believe either could have got there without the other though, but if it's just a case of supplimenting Amis and Brits for the Soviets in the battle that happened, then definately yes.

    (I also believe that, if Patton (I think!) was given his wish, the Americans and Brits could also have pushed on to take Moscow!!!! :ph34r: :D )

    Dave.
     
  9. sappernz

    sappernz Member

    As with all " what if " theories there can be no definitive answer but I will pose this question anyway. I believe that the Allies could have taken Berlin without the Russians if they had dropped the " Unconditional Surrender " requirement as most of the German Army would have turned on Hitler, SS etc and ended the war earlier. However what if the Allies, fighting house to house in Berlin are ordered to withdraw. A lone American bomber flies over the city and drops a single bomb. The battle is over and Hiroshima never happens. Berlin would be the first nuclear strike. From my reading it was something that was considered even though the bomb was not quite fully ready. A test drop maybe. It was certainly a close call though.
     
  10. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Could the Russians have done it without the aid of the Americans and Brits? (mainly talking about the lend-lease supplies of materiel, etc rather than actual combat).

    Lend & Lease, though very important, was NOT decisive. It certainly saved the USSR a year less of war and many more million deaths, but boots and jeeps didn't win the war. Germany armies were defeated and destroyed mainly in the eastern front meat grinder: the Axis nations suffered more than 11 million casualties in the eastern front.

    The Soviet offensives could not have happened without this war aid

    Excuse me, but even if American-built lorries, jeeps and planes helped (mosty in logistics) to the success of Soviet offensives, the shells raining on the Germans, the tanks passing over them, the weaponry shooting at them and the men killing them were not provided by the Western Allies.

    the Axis forces would possibly have only got stronger against what was basically a defeated army.

    A defeated Army?! You're starting to have the same ill ideas as Hitler and the entire German High Command in 1941 and 1942. The Soviet armed forces did indeed lost millions of men in the first years of the war, but, if I remember well, by the end of 1941 the Red Army many threw fresh, experienced and well-equipped divisions against the whole German front. If that's a defeated Army, I wonder how a victorious one looks like… :rolleyes:

    As for the Battle of Berlin… of course the Allies would have prevailed in the end. Germany was destroyed, had no men and no fuel to resist. But certainly, even if better equipped and with many tactical and technological advantages, the Western Allies would have faced a blood bath because they didn't have enough experience in such a great scale urban fight.
     
  11. laufer

    laufer Senior Member

    They would have done it, but it would have been a bloody mess.

    Not as bloody as that made by Soviets. I'm sure you have heard about the race of the Soviet marshals - unbelievable waste of human lives.
     

    Attached Files:

    • 12.jpg
      12.jpg
      File size:
      95.7 KB
      Views:
      6
  12. Kiwiwriter

    Kiwiwriter Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by laufer@Jan 27 2005, 06:57 AM
    They would have done it, but it would have been a bloody mess.

    Not as bloody as that made by Soviets. I'm sure you have heard about the race of the Soviet marshals - unbelievable waste of human lives.
    [post=30937]Quoted post[/post]
    Well, the American and British approach to war was a lot more careful about both shedding blood and taking it, so you are right...it would not have been as frightful as the Soviet assault. Certainly far less incidents of rape and looting. The British and American invaders of Germany did their share of looting and rape, but not did not haul off everything that was and was not nailed down, as the Soviets did. They would have been giving candy to kids and nylons to girls. However, the battles themselves would have been ferocious...urban fighting is never pleasant.
     
  13. CROONAERT

    CROONAERT Ipsissimus

    Originally posted by Friedrich H@Jan 26 2005, 07:25 PM
    A defeated Army?! You're starting to have the same ill ideas as Hitler and the entire German High Command in 1941 and 1942. ..... If that's a defeated Army, I wonder how a victorious one looks like… :rolleyes:


    [post=30932]Quoted post[/post]

    Friedrich.

    My sincerest apologies for having a different opinion to you on another "what if" question with no actual correct answer!

    Depending upon how you lookat what actually happened and what could possibly have happened "if...", then either of us could be correct.

    (I hope that wasn't a too "Hitler-like" comment! :angry: )

    Dave
     
  14. Friedrich H

    Friedrich H Senior Member

    Not as bloody as that made by Soviets. I'm sure you have heard about the race of the Soviet marshals - unbelievable waste of human lives.

    This was common, but not the rule. Marshal Zhúkov might have been a general without much regard for the human cost of his battles, but marshals Kóniev and Rokossovski (particularly the latter one) were not like him: they put special enphasis in preliminary bombardments, all-arms support, agile comunications and rotation of units to prevent useless casualties.

    …the battles themselves would have been ferocious...urban fighting is never pleasant.

    Specially if you don't have an Army designed or experienced enough for it.

    Depending upon how you lookat what actually happened and what could possibly have happened "if...", then either of us could be correct.

    No need to apologise. I rather prefer to see some statements and some facts which support the assertion of a 'defeated army' which could have been destroyed by the all-mighty Germans. Thanks.
     
  15. CROONAERT

    CROONAERT Ipsissimus

    No need to apologise. I rather prefer to see some statements and some facts which support the assertion of a 'defeated army' which could have been destroyed by the all-mighty Germans. Thanks.



    Friedrich.

    I'd hoped for and expected a better response than this from you.The apology was a joking attempt to be as patronising as some of your posts seem to be to me - totally not intended.

    I didn't expect sarcasm as a response (so you won there - WELL DONE!!!!)

    To be honest, Friedrich, there are certain people that I can't be bothered to even humour with a reply. Welcome to a very select club.

    Good bye. (or should I say "Sieg Heil", as I get the impression that, you think that I think that way!!!! :( )

    B.

    (Lee. please delete me from this forum if you can. I can't be arsed playing with people like this any more.)
     
  16. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    Originally posted by Friedrich H@Jan 27 2005, 12:25 AM
    A defeated Army?! You're starting to have the same ill ideas as Hitler and the entire German High Command in 1941 and 1942. [post=30932]Quoted post[/post]

    I am sure we can have reasoned debate on here without resorting to personal attack. I am equally sure Friedrich did not mean anything personal in this statement, but perhaps members should read through what they have written before they post, or after, and then edit if need be.

    History is about debate, and I am sure we all have firmly held beliefs about things, one way or another, but as adults we should be able to discuss it forcibly without resorting to insult.
     
  17. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Originally posted by Paul Reed+Jan 29 2005, 11:59 AM-->(Paul Reed @ Jan 29 2005, 11:59 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Friedrich H@Jan 27 2005, 12:25 AM
    A defeated Army?! You're starting to have the same ill ideas as Hitler and the entire German High Command in 1941 and 1942. [post=30932]Quoted post[/post]

    I am sure we can have reasoned debate on here without resorting to personal attack. I am equally sure Friedrich did not mean anything personal in this statement, but perhaps members should read through what they have written before they post, or after, and then edit if need be.

    History is about debate, and I am sure we all have firmly held beliefs about things, one way or another, but as adults we should be able to discuss it forcibly without resorting to insult.
    [post=31003]Quoted post[/post]
    [/b]
    Agreed!! And we are all mature adults right?

    As to the question, well I do believe that the Allies would have reached Berlin first if the will was there. Churchill was certainly in favour of it and indeed was urging Eisenhower to take the prize. Cornelius Ryan's The Last Battle makes reference to this.

    Certainly the Germans did not resist as much in the West as they did in the East. Christopher Duffy's excellent book "Red Storm on the Reich" details the fierceness with which the Germans defended Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia. Once the Allies broke across the Rhine there was no organised German Resistance save for the Ruhr region which was ultimately surrounded.

    Indeed the one Army (if we could call it that)that could have offered resistance in the west was the 11th Army under Walther Wenck which was concerned primarily with the evacuation of the 9th Army and other assorted formations from the Halbe Pocket.

    I have often wondered if the Allied armies had been deployed differently, i.e. Americans in the North and British and Commonwealth in the South would they have approached it differently?
     
  18. GUMALANGI

    GUMALANGI Senior Member

    Stalin was also urged US and UK to broke the west wall of german.
    Should battle of the bulge was directed to the eastward. Perhaps, early 1945
    UK and US might reached Berlin much earlier than Russian.
     
  19. Dpalme01

    Dpalme01 Member

    I think it all really comes down to having two (or three including Italy) fronts. It didn't really matter about all the lend lease, or the methods of fighting as much (all though fighting well with good supliesis helpful), but the Germans were divided. They couldn't just plow in one direction and wipe anything in their path.
     
  20. Field Marshal Rommel

    Field Marshal Rommel Junior Member

    Uhhh, the Russians could have fought WWII alone. Considering a Western front wasn't open until 1944 and supplies from the West was relativly little compared to what the Russians produced. I think the total of planes sent over equaled to several months of production.
     

Share This Page