Posted on 04/13/2005 6:24:31 PM PDT by Yasotay
Sixty years ago, the US Ninth Army had two bridgeheads across the Elbe River. One was crushed and the other secured. The sixty year old question remains: Should and could we have beaten the Soviets into Berlin?
Yes, but we took more prisoners. There was a reason for that.
Hogwash. They were light effing years away. The only reason they got the bomb is because of traitors like Ted White.
Yep they are better than a standard can opener. I have opened everything from an oil can to a coffee can, soups and such with ease. Actually "faster" than an electric when ya get used to em !
Best thing money can buy !
Make sure ya get the GI version as in the pic vs the aftermarket clone at camping stores from cooligan etc etc .
Surplus stores have em in small brown paper wrappers for a dollar ea.
Key chain, vehicles, tackle box, kitchen drawer etc is a good spot for a few. I have same one for over 30 years now and it is just as functional as the day I got it in a C-Rat Box......
Get one or 12 BD !
I can't beat Squantos' statement. All that I can say is that yes it opens regular cans ... does a great job .... and still works after almost 20 years.
Maybe. I consider David Glantz one of the best American Soviet experts in the world. In his book about Kursk, he starts to attack that theory about Hitler and he does a very good job doing it. As he states, during the Cold War the German Generals were trying (and not get sent to prison) to put the best face on the war. While the buck stopped at Hitler, far more blame needs to be placed with the German Generals.
Very good points (we did lose some men.... probably about 1,000+). I sure saw what we got when I was stationed in Berlin but sometimes history guys like to "What If" and taking Berlin will always remain one of history's great "What Ifs".
Not worth debating with that mind set.
First hand accounts of losers (the Germans) need to be taken with a grain of salt rather then hook, line and sinker. Some revisions of history are good and needed. Yes fighting on the Eastern Front was terrible, BUT I doubt that the "fighting" was any worse then the Western Front. I see the major difference is how the Germans treated the Slavs, therefore the arrogance of the Germans really shows through. With the opening of the Soviet records, guys like Glantz will destory many myths the Germans created.
I agree but the surviving Germans with experience in the East and West are pretty consistent in ranking the Russian soldier as having the best fighting qualities.
Yes fighting on the Eastern Front was terrible, BUT I doubt that the "fighting" was any worse then the Western Front.
This entire thread is based on the question of what the Western Allies should have done upon reaching the Elbe. The generally accepted reason why we reached the Elbe so much earlier than the Russians is because the Germans were putting up a much more determined resistance against the Russians than the Western Allies.
Pretty much once the Allies crossed the Rhine, the resistance from the Germans was relatively miniscule to that of the resistance against the Russians in the East. Even in Bavaria, which was considered the stronghold of Nazism. There was great fear that Hitler would go the Bavaria and fight a protracted Guerrilla war there (the National Redoubt), but that did not happen. Hitler never even endorsed the plan because he knew most Germans at that point, with the war all but lost, would fight against the Americans and British. Much easier to surrender to them.
Which of course makes my point that the Nazis should have learned. To win a war, make it easy on your enemy to surrender. The Russians could have used that lesson as well, instead of losing a half million in the fight for Berlin alone.
To take Berlin, yes the people were willing to do that. Fight the Russians.... No.
England did go to war over Poland .... had Ike taken Berlin then maybe Churchill would have won reelection and with the Western armies in Berlin convinced Stalin to withdraw from Poland. I differ with you about the atomic weapons, Truman did use it and would have continued using it. Based on what I remember, the US was planning on using an atomic curtain of about 8 bombs to protect US troops on the invasion of Japan. So at least 8 bombs could have been used.
The fact remains that is was a boy who gave the Russians the bomb.
Actually I am confident that the full story on how the Soviets got atomic knowledge remains highly classified. For an alternative point of view on that subject read Robert Wilcox's "Japan's Secret War". A very strong argument can be made that the Japanese were far farther in the development of atomic bombs then the Germans and the Soviets got much of their knowlegde from Japanese scientists in what is now North Korea.
Wilco ...Good Luck to you
The bulk of American aid had not arrived until about 1943.
The Russians took vastly more Japanese prisoners than we did. FWIW.
"The Tu-4 was a bolt for bolt copy of the B-29."
"There were others as well. Still, existing Russian bombers in production in 1944 were satisfactory for hitting American positions in Western Europe. It was not until 1949 that a threat to America itself by the Tu-4 became a big issue."
And as the source I pointed out to you in my message #85 the fact that the initial copies of the B-29 were made in 1947 did not mean that sufficient production levels were achieved until 1950-1953. Your contention that the Soviet Air Force had "existing Russian bombers" available in 1944 for "hitting American positions" in Europe is just laughable. The end of WWII found the Soviets with a large, tactical air force that had absorbed the 'strategic' bomber command, which had in its entire existence performed a few raids on Berlin in the early part of the war, then had hit the capitol of Estonia late in the war. Take a look at the twin-engine 'bombers' that were the mainstay of the Soviet Air Force in WWII. The Soviets copied the Germans in air doctrine, they created weapons for tactical air operations and ignored strategic air doctrine (and the necessary aircraft)...
Look at the table below. You will see that the most numerous twin-engined bomber of the USSR was the IL-4, with about 6,800 produced during WWII. The only four-engined bomber was the Pe-8, which had about 145 produced before and during the war. The USSR had no strategic bomber force, nor the long-range fighter aircraft necessary to escort said non-existent bombers to targets in Western Europe. The Russian fighters were optimized for high-performance, short range combat against the fighters of the Luftwaffe. The Soviet Air Force simply had NO P-51D long-range fighter escort equal... You also might be surprised to find out where most of the USSR's high-octane AVGAS for high-performance engines came from during WWII - the U.S. via the Iranian oil, refineries, pipe-lines and rail tank-cars run by the United States Army.
In the sources listed below is an account of the USSR bomber 'raids' on Berlin during the early stages of WWII. Think of these raids on Berlin as on the same scale of the USAAF "Dolittle Raid" on Tokyo in 1942. Strategic air capabilities did not enter the USSR inventory until the 1950s.
Source: The Other Air Forces of the Second World War
Source: Specifications of WWII Soviet bombers
Source: Red Stars over Berlin
dvwjr
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.