Wallies reach 1938 Soviet borders -- what do postwar borders look like?
- Thread starter NAF
- Start date
According to Forrest C. Pogue, Author of the official history: The Supreme Command (Washington, 1954), UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II. Pages 479 to 480
"""
On 12 April 1945, the day of President Roosevelt's death and eighteen days before the Russians took Berlin, Ninth U.S. Army units crossed the Elbe River near Magdeburg, some fifty miles from the German capital. (See Map X inside back cover.) They established a second bridgehead farther south on the following day. German counterattacks forced them to withdraw from the northern position on the 14th, but the Americans held the southern bridgehead. These elements were ordered to hold in place while other units arriving at the Elbe were turned toward objectives south and north along the west bank of the river. On 5 May, a week before the Russians liberated Prague, the Third U.S. Army pushed spearheads inside the Czechoslovak frontier and, on the day the war ended, was in a position to advance in force to the Czechoslovak capital.
Despite the pleas of the Czechoslovak leaders and the appeals of Mr. Churchill, these units were not sent forward. Many observers have concluded that only a political decision, perhaps made weeks before, could have held General Dwight D. Eisenhower's forces at the Elbe.
Careful examination of the Supreme Commander's action indicates that he halted his troops short of Berlin and Prague for military reasons only.
"""
Last edited:
Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Eisenhower made this decision because he didn’t feel Berlin was worth the projected 100,000 American soldier deaths that his logistician estimated id cost to take Berlin?
He suffered 7,000 casualties including 2,000 dead to take Aachen, a city of around 25,000 for symbolic purposes. It was the preferred medieval Imperial residence of Emperor Charlemagne of the Frankish Empire, and, from 936 to 1531, the place where 31 Holy Roman Emperors were crowned Kings of the Germans.
As another part of the Siegfried line campaign he took 55,000 casualties to take the Hürtgen Forest, including 9,000 friendly fire and non-combat casualties during the battle. The U.S. commanders' initial goal was to pin down German forces in the area to keep them from reinforcing the front lines farther north in the Battle of Aachen. Total casualties of the Siegfried Line Campaign in American personnel were close to 140,000.
So Berlin wasn't that excessive. The 100,000 was for casualties, not deaths. US infantry units lost around 3% of their strength every day.
Army leaders were chomping at the bit to redeploy to invade Japan. The US First army was scheduled to lead the attack on Tokyo. That would have been a blood bath.
Last edited:
Your same quoted source says the following later on (page 484):
"Nearly two hundred miles separated Montgomery's Rhine bridgehead from the Elbe, while Marshal Georgi K. Zhukov had nearly a million men on the Oder with some elements within thirty or forty miles of the German capital. Even if the Allies reached the Elbe before Zhukov crossed the Oder, the British and U.S. forces would still have to cross fifty miles of lowlands marked by lakes, streams, and canals to get to Berlin. When asked by General Eisenhower for an opinion, General Bradley estimated that a breakthrough from the Elbe would cost 100,000 casualties. "A pretty stiff price to pay for a prestige objective ," he told the Supreme Commander. And, remembering that the Allies had already agreed that the Russian occupation zone would run within one hundred miles of the Rhine, he added, "Especially when we've got to fall back and let the other fellow take over." He says candidly of his thinking of this period:
I could see no political advantage accruing from the capture of Berlin that would offset the need for quick destruction of the German army on our front. As soldiers we looked naively on this British inclination [the desire to go on to Berlin] to complicate the war with political foresight and non-military objectives. [10]
With these arguments in mind and fearing that the enemy might successfully establish his redoubt in the south, General Eisenhower concluded near the end of March that he should push his main force from the Kassel-Frankfurt area to the Elbe, split the German forces, cut off Berlin from the National Redoubt area, and then turn his forces directly to the north and to the southwest of the Elbe. These maneuvers would enable him to seize ports on the North Sea and the Baltic and also clean up the area to the south before the enemy could assemble a force there. This meant that the main offensive would be under Bradley's command. [11] On 28 March he asked the Allied military missions in Moscow to inform Marshal Stalin of his intentions."
At the time it was considered a steep price to pay for territories they had already promised to give up to the USSR at the Yalta Conference. There was a deeper concern about possible German resistance in the so-called National Redoubt which directed their attention south rather than focusing on an effort to cross the Elbe in force.
I'm a bit confused what you mean with both statements. Are you arguing that the settlement at Yalta would be the same in all timelines barring leadership changes no matter what the progress of the war was? The dividing lines at Yalta were pretty much directly influenced by the pace of the war and assigned occupation zones based on what would likely be occupied by each army. If the Soviets don't liberate Bulgaria and Romania for instance, I think there is an open possibility of them not hosting Soviet troops after the end of hostilities. It also seems like you are implying that the Yalta Conference was some great kowtow to Stalin by Soviet-sympathetic politicians which I find objectionable, but maybe I'm misreading your comment.
And it doesn't seem at all absurd to you for Allied armies to stop at the Elbe and just let the German war effort continue to power on in the east? If all political and military imperatives demand the end of the war and the defeat of Nazi Germany, then of course the length of time is important. Especially if you just hunker down and open yourself to the possibility of German formations regrouping and smashing through your defensive line or a continued hail of rockets smashing into London or the continued economic dislocation caused by total war footing. I could go on.
Last edited:
The overall cost of the Siegfried Line Campaign around Aachen and the Hürtgen Forest, in US personnel, was close to 140,000 for a city of around 25,000. Bradley wanted to capture the first German city by the Wallies. He's telling Ike Berlin's worth less than Aachen.
In this TL aren't the Soviets running behind the OTL by a lot ? Ike in the OTL has:
- 4,500,000 men
- 92 full strength divisions*
- 17,000 tanks
- 28,000 combat aircraft
- 63,000 artillery pieces
- 970,000 vehicles
The national redoubt was nonsense dreamed up by the OSS and Ike's Intel staff that got caught with their pants down before the battle of the Bulge. The top deputy of the OSS was a Soviet agent. SS divisions ended up in the south due to the attempt by the 6th SS panzer Army to retake Hungarian oil fields and relieve Budapest, Operation Spring Awakening. By that logic the Bulge was a key German area, since the 6th SS Panzer Army fought there along with the 5th Panzer Army. That might explain SHAEF's strategy to take the bulge rather than bypass it.
SHAEF also approved Operation Market Garden vs cutting off the German 15th army trying to retreat into Holland via the Scheldt estuary islands. The islands controlled access to Amsterdam's port. That error lead to the Wallies running short of supplies, while Monty had to go dig out the Germans now fortified on the Islands. That's what lead to the Wallies grinding to a halt before entering Germany, and allowed the Germans to rebuild units and prepare the Siegfried line.
The battle of the Bulge was another poorly fought slogfest, like Aachen and Hürtgen Forest, by Bradley's 12th Army group. Instead of cutting off the bulge he attacked it head on. He suffered a lot of unnecessary casualties due to that approach.
Bradley was also a big fan of Hodges, who was predictable and had high casualties. He did not impress the Germans or Monty. Bradley was an anybody but Patton guy. Class jealousy and Bradley like Ike, didn't like or understand Blitzkrieg or Deep Battle. Bradley was the chief consultant for the movie Patton. The battle in the movie where Patton's troops run out of gas never happened.
* Includes 25 armored, 60 infantry, 6 airborne, 1 mountain divisions, and 1 airborne brigade.
Breakdown -
62 American - 16 armoured, 42 infantry and 4 airborne divisions,
13 British - 3 armoured, 8 infantry and 2 airborne divisions,
11 French - 3 armoured, 7 infantry and 1 mountain divisions,
5 Canadian - 2 armoured and 3 infantry divisions,
Polish - 1 armoured division,
Plus several independent brigades. One British division arrived from Italy after the start of the campaign.
American infantry divisions are fully motorized and generally have attached armoured and/or motorized tank destroyer battalions.
Other Wallies forces:
Italy: US 1 armoured, 4 infantry and 1 mountain divisions
British 1 armoured, 2 infantry divisions, 3 armoured , 1 commando and 1 parachute brigades
Indian 2 infantry divisions, 1 infantry brigade
Poland 2 infantry divisions
Brazil 1 infantry division
New Zealand 1 Mechanized division
South Africa 1 armoured division
Pacific:
US 18 infantry, 6 Marine, 1 airborne and 1 cavalry divisions.
Breakdown -
62 American - 16 armoured, 42 infantry and 4 airborne divisions,
13 British - 3 armoured, 8 infantry and 2 airborne divisions,
11 French - 3 armoured, 7 infantry and 1 mountain divisions,
5 Canadian - 2 armoured and 3 infantry divisions,
Polish - 1 armoured division,
Plus several independent brigades. One British division arrived from Italy after the start of the campaign.
American infantry divisions are fully motorized and generally have attached armoured and/or motorized tank destroyer battalions.
Other Wallies forces:
Italy: US 1 armoured, 4 infantry and 1 mountain divisions
British 1 armoured, 2 infantry divisions, 3 armoured , 1 commando and 1 parachute brigades
Indian 2 infantry divisions, 1 infantry brigade
Poland 2 infantry divisions
Brazil 1 infantry division
New Zealand 1 Mechanized division
South Africa 1 armoured division
Pacific:
US 18 infantry, 6 Marine, 1 airborne and 1 cavalry divisions.
Last edited:
Think this is going to need a number a narrow fronts. Bypass Holland for a start, but still have enough troops to stop a counter attack from there. Get straight in to the Rhur but only go for targets of strategic value, doesn't matter if town X has 1,500 troops, they're not going to be able to do much, just cut them off. they will surrender sooner or later, sooner more likely, men like to have something to eat.
Leap frog, and air drop supplies and take airfields!
Or maybe in other words Blitzrieg
Leap frog, and air drop supplies and take airfields!
Or maybe in other words Blitzrieg
Come to think of it, does this all mean the Germans do not invade (and rearrange the governments with direct puppets, vicious local fascists, and the SS) Slovakia, Hungary, etc? If they manage doing what Romania did (managing to defect suddenly and not have the Germans in their borders) they may handle things better postwar, though if Hungary suffered a German reign of terror it might look better for them, as they can claim themselves as victims, rather than someone constantly trying to take the land of their neighbors. I imagine it might have an effect on if Hungary does actually manage to keep any gained land after the war, as unlike between Romania and Bulgaria, things were a lot less voluntary. Plus of course there is going to be the issue of all the Swabian and Saxons in Transylvania and who gets the land if they are expelled. Again, depends on whether or not the Germans occupied these areas and made themselves be seen as near definite traitors (even if plenty loved being Romanians or Hungarians) rather than potential fifth columnists. Probably less necessary if the Soviets never got past the Polish border.
I suspect the museums of Western Europe are a fair bit fuller here, depending on whether or not the Germans decide to destroy art or if it is kept in areas that end up bombed. I bring that last part up mostly because I remembered that in a book it said the zsoviets declared the gold and diamonds found in concentration camps they liberated (or walked into after the German guards who preferred killing babies and the elderly over fighting on the Eastern Front scarped) as war booty. I feel it will just go into a pension fund or something if the Allies take it (though I imagine corrupt officials or some Polish nationalists claiming a large cut of it) as blood money and gold taking from human teeth would be deemed as creepy. You know, I think in this world the Soviets might focus less on their propaganda bait concentration camps being used for killing ‘surplus labor’ (too make it fit with a communist narrative) and instead play up what it really was. Every minority or person with any degree of influence (especially Slavs) being killed off to create German dominance. Maybe Soviets go along with the French of calling the Americans and English Anglo-Saxons to hint at German backgrounds. Actually, would France have any contribution in their war? I know they broke ranks (as in ran faster than they were supposed to as the Americans neutralized an area) when invading, German trying to get to one of Hitler’s compounds for the glory. I assume they will want to send over at least enough people for a parade in Warsaw (though they lacked enough in Paris when the Americans refused to let them use their African troops, instead using Spanish prisoners) to play up the old role with the Little Entente. Maybe make some speech about Napoleon and once more reversing a Partition of Poland.
I suspect the museums of Western Europe are a fair bit fuller here, depending on whether or not the Germans decide to destroy art or if it is kept in areas that end up bombed. I bring that last part up mostly because I remembered that in a book it said the zsoviets declared the gold and diamonds found in concentration camps they liberated (or walked into after the German guards who preferred killing babies and the elderly over fighting on the Eastern Front scarped) as war booty. I feel it will just go into a pension fund or something if the Allies take it (though I imagine corrupt officials or some Polish nationalists claiming a large cut of it) as blood money and gold taking from human teeth would be deemed as creepy. You know, I think in this world the Soviets might focus less on their propaganda bait concentration camps being used for killing ‘surplus labor’ (too make it fit with a communist narrative) and instead play up what it really was. Every minority or person with any degree of influence (especially Slavs) being killed off to create German dominance. Maybe Soviets go along with the French of calling the Americans and English Anglo-Saxons to hint at German backgrounds. Actually, would France have any contribution in their war? I know they broke ranks (as in ran faster than they were supposed to as the Americans neutralized an area) when invading, German trying to get to one of Hitler’s compounds for the glory. I assume they will want to send over at least enough people for a parade in Warsaw (though they lacked enough in Paris when the Americans refused to let them use their African troops, instead using Spanish prisoners) to play up the old role with the Little Entente. Maybe make some speech about Napoleon and once more reversing a Partition of Poland.
Yes.
Now, what's less politically tenable, stopping where you've agreed the divide postwar will be with your ally that started the war effectively on the opposite side, or fighting to liberate more land, countries, and people then surrendering them to the same? As for Yalta, I don't know how anyone could conclude with hindsight that FDR was generally too trusting of Soviet leadership.
Okay.. mind elaborating? Like I said in my post, Yalta was a very involved negotiation and the maps that came out of that conference were highly contingent on the progress of the war at the time of the Conference. If Czechoslovakia was quite far from the Soviet front in an alternate timeline, I'm not sure why you still believe it will always be assigned to the Soviets. Its like saying we could never have an alternate Congress of Vienna and it would always 100% play out the exact same. Your position makes little sense here.
No, I don't think American leadership was "too trusting". I think, given the context of the time, they were as trusting as they should have been. If they had blown up the deal over suspicions which they had no way of actually confirming, it would have made the post-war situation noticeably worse and probably would have led to things like a Sovietized Greece - why would Stalin keep to the Percentages Agreement if no deal could ever be reached with a paranoid Allied leadership? The Soviets did keep to a number of agreements in the immediate post-war period. In fact, studies that I've read of post-war Soviet policy indicates that there was never some pre-formed design to subvert the agreements with the Allies and consolidate a closed off bloc in the east. It turned out that way, but only due to years of zigs and zags and diplomatic brinksmanship between east and west from 1945 - 1950. Mistrust on both sides fueled the start of the Cold War, it wasn't just about whether one could "trust Stalin" or whether he backstabbed the utopian dreams of harmony drawn up at Yalta. Trusting them less wasn't exactly a great option either - it took Churchill down the road of proposing a Third World War and nuclear hellfire.
Last edited:
If the Soviets are lagging, Yalta might still be under German control.
FDR thought Stalin would be under a gentlemen's debt,* noblesse oblige , if the Wallies gave in on a few items.
* Miscamble, Wilson D. (2007), From Roosevelt to Truman: Potsdam, Hiroshima, and the Cold War, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-86244-8, PG 52
How “Uncle Joe” Bugged FDR (and HST)
Last edited:
When someone dies without having an heir, it goes to the country and there's nothing weird about that. That's also how in OTL the Polish People's Republic and the western Jews agreed on that (something the Jews try now to deny). As for the polish nationalists, the actual ones, their National Armed Forces were much smaller than the Home Army. While they could be influencial within postwar Poland, they wouldn't be the dominant force.
They managed to reach the 1938 soviet border. This is not going to happen without a complete german collapse.
kham_coc
Banned
Sure, but it also means a near total Soviet collapse since they can't push forward from there - Now maybe you can handwave this a bit by the Germans simply choosing to 'let' the Wallies go forth and hold the east, but it is still going to be much much more difficult than in OTL - Where 90% of German combat power was expended.
The only way the Wallies aren't paying a heavier butchers bill is if this scenario is predicated on a Heer coup (Where they get told something like off the Nazis, and you get to keep all 'German land' or something). Put simply, if the Heer can hold the Soviets to 1938 borders, then a lot of that combat power that they destroyed OTL isn't destroyed.
There is a weird belief in certain American political segment about FDR being too Soviet-friendly during the war for no good reason. Which is objectively false thing and basically amounts to projecting partisan US politics into the past to score points against the opponents.
One thing the Jews did not agree in was Poles attacking them if they tried to returning to their old homes and farms that said Polish people took for themselves. As well as the Austrians refusing to giv back art and other things stolen by Jews, either to the owner or the heirs. Anyways, I suppose that in this case all the people in the camps get to go through the warehouses to find glasses that fit them, as well as spare clothing, and the any lockers of jewelry with inscriptions get set aside until they see if the owner of an heir is alive. It should be interesting to see what the Polish border with Germany ends up being and how the Polish government distributes the property of the evicted Germans. The Poles did give the Ukrainians deported from the border with the USSR to Silesia and Pomerania where they got nice houses, versus the Soviets dumping the Ukrainians (they had some independence thing going) on their side of the border into Kazakhstan without any houses. I wonder how much pressure it will take to get the Soviets to return the Poles, Jews, Balts, and Westerners they kept in gulags and camps by the hundreds of thousands.
I’ve certainly heard Wallace smeared constantly for it even though it’s mostly just a myth propagated by his opponents, but seeing it ascribed to FDR too is interesting and sort of new to me at least. But yeah, it does seem to be pretty much just projecting the end result onto decisions taken in 1943/1944, and buying into a new form of the International Communist Conspiracy shtick.
People forget at the time of Yalta, FDR had no way of knowing if the atomic bomb was viable, so the US really needed to keep supplying the Soviets to ensure they keep the bulk of the Wehrmacht occupied and we get Soviet participation in the pacific.
People unfairly criticize FDR for not seeing into the future as his main concern was how do I defeat the axis while limiting my casualties, and the best way to do that, was ensure the Soviets don’t collapse
Likely that Poland would get all of East Prussia since the Soviets don't occupy it and it was part of Poland's initial war aims.
For the rest of the German border, I'd imagine that the Polish-Prussian border pre-First Partition (plus Upper Silesia) would be a good basis, possibly with certain other adjustments like taking all of the OTL current-day Pomorskie region to increase the Polish coastline.