The European war was over with V-E Day. Attacking Russia right then would have wrecked the Allied claims to morality and credibility, broken up the UN, and codified the philosophies of betrayal, double-crossing, and backstabbing as the postwar world order. Hitler would have been laughing his head off.
What's that old adage--something like: First rule of military tactics--"Never march on Moscow"? Could only have meant disaster.
Kiwiwriter and Webhead are right, attack a former ally then it looks very bad and the west had no real right to fight Stalin out of Eastern Europe as the Soviet Union had sacrificed many millions of lives fighting against Hitler. The Soviet Union had a right to occupy Poland, Hungary and other places in the East for the time being as they had liberated them from Nazi rule as the British and American Armies had done liberating France and Belgium.
There is a popular and "what if" on this topic on The History Channel (US version), which is where I started on forums like many people. No matter how many times it is started, it keeps coming back. Any close study of the history of 1944-45 shows that it was just never going to happen and I am glad that so far nobody is going down this particular dead end street here. Funny old topic title, though, "War Crimes".
It would have been almost suicidal for the allies to attack the USSR (a former ally). For one it would have destroyed the UN and given the US very bad press. Eisenhower halted at the Elbe so and left Berlin for the Russians because he knew that they would take heavy casulties attacking it and he felt that the Russians deserved the prise of Berlin. The most notable advocate of attacking the USSR was General Patton, but as we all it never happened, but if it had a nucleur war would have properly ensued (as soon as the Soviets got a bomb), and that would of possibably destroyed civilisation.
Of course Patton's ideas were nothing more than sheer madness (or even stupidity). The Soviet Union defeated 2/3 of the German war machine, had more than 30 million people killed and a devastated country in doing so. The Red Army rightfully earned Berlin and eastern Europe by driving the nazis out. Poland was not 'betrayed' at Yalta. Stalin put and end to the ancient Russo-Polish conflict and by doing so he finished the 'new order' of racial genocide. Poland and other countries suffered 50 years of communist autoritarian régimes indeed, but they got rid of the nazi plague which would have ultimately annihilated the entire Slavic peoples. Besides, how many millions would have died in this war after the war? I have no doubt the western Allies could have in the long term defeated an exhausted USSR, but after severe setbacks and apawling losses. It would have deprived the US and the British Empire of all credibility and prestige, the UN wouldn't have ever been born and they would have done exactly what Hitler wanted them to do.
A "Red Star/White Star" war in 1945 would likely have resulted in the use of atomic weaponry, with horrific results. The only serious advocates of such conflict were desperate Nazis like Hitler and Himmler, and George Patton. The latter was saying and doing a lot of strange things in his last months of life, when he was frustrated as proconsul in Bavaria. Photographs of him and accounts show an exhausted, weary, frustrated man. Carlo D'Este suggests that he may have been suffering trauma and fatigue from three years of war, which would account for some of his more bizarre statements. His end did not do justice to his life.
Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Dec 9 2004, 03:16 PM Carlo D'Este suggests that he may have been suffering trauma and fatigue from three years of war, which would account for some of his more bizarre statements. His end did not do justice to his life. [post=30022]Quoted post[/post] In his introduction to the first volume of The Patton Papers, Blumenson suggested that he may have been suffering from accumulated brain damage from the number of injuries he had suffered falling off horses. In the inter-war years, Patton was a keen equestrian competitor.
Originally posted by Thomas McCall@Dec 8 2004, 06:24 PM The Soviet Union had a right to occupy Poland, Hungary and other places in the East for the time being as they had liberated them from Nazi rule as the British and American Armies had done liberating France and Belgium. [post=29996]Quoted post[/post] Is this hypocrisy makes you feel better, Thomas?
The only point I was trying to make Laufer was that the Soviet Union needed to occupy the lands it had liberated so as to improve the supply line to the front and make the area safe for returning refugees and also to start rebuilding.
The only point I was trying to make Laufer was that the Soviet Union needed to occupy the lands it had liberated so as to improve the supply line to the front and make the area safe for returning refugees and also to start rebuilding. For 40+ years? Regards, Marco
lets not forget that both Churchill and FDR agreed to the Russian expansion. But that was because Churchill was drunk and FDr was trying to act that he was still fit enough to be a statesman.
Originally posted by morse1001@Jan 1 2005, 08:26 PM lets not forget that both Churchill and FDR agreed to the Russian expansion. But that was because Churchill was drunk and FDr was trying to act that he was still fit enough to be a statesman. [post=30364]Quoted post[/post] If Churchill was drunk, it was probably because by Yalta he was pretty well being ignored by FDR and Stalin. He actually took a much harder line on this than FDR.
Originally posted by angie999+Jan 2 2005, 10:27 AM-->(angie999 @ Jan 2 2005, 10:27 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Jan 1 2005, 08:26 PM lets not forget that both Churchill and FDR agreed to the Russian expansion. But that was because Churchill was drunk and FDr was trying to act that he was still fit enough to be a statesman. [post=30364]Quoted post[/post] If Churchill was drunk, it was probably because by Yalta he was pretty well being ignored by FDR and Stalin. He actually took a much harder line on this than FDR. [post=30368]Quoted post[/post] [/b] according to the various historys, Stalin spoke to Churchill and FDR seperately and with Churchill, he provided a great deal of brandy while he, himself, drank a clear fluid which he called "vodka"!
Originally posted by morse1001+Jan 2 2005, 10:54 AM-->(morse1001 @ Jan 2 2005, 10:54 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by angie999@Jan 2 2005, 10:27 AM <!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Jan 1 2005, 08:26 PM lets not forget that both Churchill and FDR agreed to the Russian expansion. But that was because Churchill was drunk and FDr was trying to act that he was still fit enough to be a statesman. [post=30364]Quoted post[/post] If Churchill was drunk, it was probably because by Yalta he was pretty well being ignored by FDR and Stalin. He actually took a much harder line on this than FDR. [post=30368]Quoted post[/post] according to the various historys, Stalin spoke to Churchill and FDR seperately and with Churchill, he provided a great deal of brandy while he, himself, drank a clear fluid which he called "vodka"! [post=30370]Quoted post[/post] [/b] Maybe, but I still think that Stalin was not taking Churchill too seriously at this stage, compared to the more "compliant" - and more powerful - FDR.
I agree with the concensus here that stopping at the Elbe was the best idea for the western Allies, for the reasons already mentioned, such as the meat-grinder that Berlin would become, and the threat of unconventional (i.e. - nuclear) war with the USSR (although this consideration was not known at the time except by a select few). Also, the US was still contemplating Operation Downfall against the home islands of Japan beginning in Nov. of 45 and to be concluded less than 1 year after Germany's surrender. We have all heard the estimates of up to 1 million expected casualties in Downfall, so it would likely have been impossible to successfully mount such a brutal campaign while slugging it out with the USSR in Eastern Europe. And, seeing how Truman eventually opted for the "nuclear option" rather than endure the bloodbath that would have been Downfall, it stands to reason he might've made the same call if confronted with a bloodbath in Europe. All things taken into account, stopping at the Elbe was the right call, Patton's zeal notwithstanding.
lets not forget that both Churchill and FDR agreed to the Russian expansion. Did they have a choice? Could they have told Stalin anything? According to this thread's poll, 70% of us do not think so.
The mere thought of fighting against our war time allies, is unthinkable, and in my mind just plain stupid. It would have been a blood bath beyond comprehension, and would have opened up a conflict for a hundred years or more. For we are no more able to capture and hold the vast expanses of Russia, than the Germans were, even if HItler had occupied Russia, he could never get enough people to keep it down under his heel, it would be a man drain, where the best you could hope for would be a easy death. In my opinion the Germans got off relatively lightly in the Russain occupation, when you think about the death and destruction, the murders and tortures they committed in Russia, and the Millions of Russians they killed. let alone the terrible crimes against their Russian prisoners of war. Sapper
