British / American against Russia in 1945
 

I read a book a while back about the battle for Berlin and in it it states that near the very end of the war their were several incidents of supposed Allies..British and Russians actually exchanging shots with each other in very tense situations, not friendly fire but deliberate actions,fortunately the officers on both sides appear to have stopped it from getting out of hand.
Did any US or British aircraft ever trade blows with Soviet fighters or bombers just before the end of the war ? They must have come across each other on occasions?

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Jon, there were a few "friendly fire" incidence between USAAF and VVS from Jan 1945, but none of these were intentional, before the cold war began, the relationship between common soldiers of Red army and Western allies was generally good

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Agree, I doubt any English, Canadian, French or American soldier was seeing the Soviet as enemies in April-May 1945. Poles were maybe not thinking the same but I don't think they met Soviet troops in Germany.

On the other hand, two armies attacking in opposite directions without coordination will always hit friendly troops coming the other way. And then in combat conditions, battle vs "friendly troops" may last a while before both sides realized what is happening.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Thanks for the responses, The shots fired in the book were definate actions and remember it was a big fear of the Brits and Americans in 1945 that the Russians would just continue on through Germany into France pushing us back into the sea. Powerfull as Britain and the US were in 1945 i think the Russians would have managed this , remember 70% of German combat losses were inflicted on the Eastern front !

Indeed some peope feel that our bombing of Dresden when the war was almost finished was partly ( or totally) to show the Russians who were only 50 miles away and going to get their first, that RAF bomber command by 1945 could level a whole city in one night....and make them think twice about attacking their former Allies.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Being old enough to have been around at the end of WWII and with Father, Uncle, cousins, etc., in the military, I do not think that we in the USA feared USSR in 1945. In fact, the popular opinion in the USA was probably that we could have beaten anybody at that point (not that this was correct, but that is how we felt). As for the bombing of Dresden, based on how we felt about Germany and the Germans, the only reason not to bomb any German targets was to put our aircrews at any unnecessary risk at that late point of the war. Looking back with over 60 years of hindsight, things look somewhat different now. But when by 1945, we heard of millions and millions of non-combatant civilian casulties in the European war caused by Nazi germany (which all through the war appeared to have the support of the German civilian population), torture, slavery, looting, etc., there was not a great deal of sympathy for any Germans and the thousands of civilian bombing casulties were only payback for what the Nazi bombers had inflicted on civilianpopulations in other nations. As I say, this may not have been the proper attitude, but that is how I felt as a boy growing up in the USA during WWII.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

The Russians were considered the new enemy even before the last shots of World War II were fired. U.S. intelligence teams and British were right behind the troops after the landing in Normandy. B.I.O.S. and C.I.O.S. teams often competed for the same "targets." Scientists, engineers, documents, patents, aircraft, other military equipment, and entire factories were carted off. One of the main reasons being to deny them to the Russians. The Russians were the only military threat to be taken seriously at the time. And there was a concern that they would continue to advance into western Europe in spite of any agreements.

See here for a description of a British plan called Operation Unthinkable. http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/church.htm



Ed

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Thanks for the Link Ed.

I am sure that the Russians would have swept Britain and America from Europe with ease. Just look at the number of tanks they had by 1945, all superb and very capable of defeating the poor Shermans used as the main allied battle tank. And as for numbers of men....well Russia i am afraid would have won that battle too. I think our only strong area would have been in the air where we would perhaps have been the strongest. It certainly was a good job they stopped in Berlin !!!! Again the RAF bombing of Dresden to me, was aimed more at Russia to view as what could happen to her rather than a major war winning raid....More of a stop the war carrying on with a new enemy raid. Lets face it the Lancaster by 1945 in Europe was the only bomber able to end a city in one night, with a bomb load more than twice that of the B17. Great aircraft unless you were on the receiving end !!

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

I thought the raid on Dresden and the strategic planning behind it were well documented. It was the simple culmination of a strategy and also the basic running out of other worthwhile targets that lead to its destruction, not a warning to the Soviets.

Churchill, Harris and the main RAF histories all give the same explanation.

Isn't this a little speculative without any hard evidence?

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Yes i agree it is a little speculative. I have now read this in several publications and whilst Dresden certainly was full of worthy targets, maybe they would have been more worthy in 1943 or 44 ? remember Dresden had not had any major raids for the whole war, that was why it was full with civilians to escape the bombing of other German cities, some German soldiers even told their families to flee to Dresden as they felt the Allies were saving it to be the new Capital after the war. Don't get me wrong sat in my comfortable armchair 60 years after the event i am 100% in favour of bomber command and the raids they did but i still think their was more to this raid than "simply" another city to destroy and bring the end of the war a few days closer. Sadly we shall perhaps never know.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

I am not awared of any deliberate Allied attacks on Soviets but certainly the war was very close. It is hard to say who could win it but I have no doubt that Red Army was not as strong as it is tended to believe and Western Allies not as weak as it is claimed. Judging the result it must be remembered availability of human resources, industry as well as both communists in the West and anti-Soviet underground in the East. Having in mind that major Polish forces were destroyed in about 1947 - after 3 years of combats - I believe it could have been a major threat if properly supported from the free world.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

What evidence is there that the Soviets were able to keep going May 1945? Or were their units worn out and understrength like (it seems) everyone's Armies except the USA which was still fielding new divisions in Europe. The Soviet "style" seems to have been long build up of resources - massive onslaught and dramatic advance - halt for x months to resupply and regroup - massive onslaught etc. They couldn't have paused for too long...

By August the USA had operational nukes and did the Soviet AF have any reliable means of tackling the B-29 at high altitude (especially if it came at night?).

P.S. at the end of the war, the Allies were getting better tanks at last (Pershing, Centurion), they had a technological lead over the Soviets (radar etc.) and above all the massive industrial power of the USA (on which the Soviets too had been highly dependent).

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

You may have a point Franek, but would the political climate (or perhaps more exactly the civilian morale in the US and British Commonwealth) in the Western democracies have been able to support another war, one against a former Allied power, after five years of struggle?

An Eastern Front - massive frontal engagement between two fully developed forces and its mass casualties that had been more or less avoided - in the West - to this stage?

A war which probably have needed support of the just defeated axis powers?

Could John Doe have supported that war in 1945?

EDIT:

There may have been Anti-Communist movements in the East, but there were also plenty of Communist militants in the West, now much of it in arms as former Anti-German resistance fighters. These men (and women) would certainly have presented a problem in France, Italy, Greece and even countries like the Netherlands.

Counter resistance operations, both in the East and the West, probably a civil war like situation in many areas of Europe.

There may have been new toys for the Western Allies, but the Soviets had a lot of practical material already in the field, and new material being introduced, and a mentality more capable of sustaining heavy loss, of continued hardship.

For some it may not have been a perfect peace, but would the alternative have been so much better (for Europe)?


Moderator note:
Like you I enjoy these discussions, but let me make it clear in advance that this discussion must stay civil. I will not allow it to become another politically motivated argument.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Oh, it is a job for propaganda and perhaps a 'Pearl Harbor' would have been needed but nothing unachieveable. There were strong anti-Soviet sentiments and the only problem could have been commie dominated press and film industry. Nothing that you canot cope with, sending McCarthy a little bit earlier.

Well, it was more a problem for Soviets rather than to Westerners. The USA alone could have form an army able to beat Soviets. The latter were going short of human resources and there was a lot of people the Red Army, who went there unwillingly and would change the sides on the first opportunity. Otherwise, there is a valid question if the losses would be so high?

Italy already changed sides, minor countries like Balkan ones doubtless would support the effort, especially gaining industrial help (Lend-Lease), that they did not receive from Germany. The latter, IIRC there were plans to use their forces, but how and when - I have no idea, several scenarios are possible. Japan - perhaps most likely to twist the sides - just a matter of politics.
Please remember about China and Turkey, however.

Yes, and that is why I have mentioned them. But I would expect more problems in sabotage rather than actual combat - those partisans were not strong enough. For a comparison, IIRC, Polish underground alone had some 1,5 million soldiers against the Soviets and they were fought by about 30 Soviet divisions (writing from memory). Add Ukrainians and other nations and this way you will receive quite an army behind the lines.

This was an industrial war and I do not think SU was able to do anything without supplies of raw materials (including Alclad and 100 grade fuel). Cutting the deliveries could hit them very hard if war was to last any longer.

Count the people conquered by the SU and even add a lot of the latter. The peace was far from perfect and it resulted in several wars outside of Europe. Count the victims of Korea (still counting) and Vietnam and all the other wars like Afghanistan. There was no paradise here (as claimed by that bastard Chomsky) and you cannot make conclusions based on your personal experiences only.

Well, it is politics! ;)

PS I am still experiencing trouble configuring mail software, so I cannot reply messages.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

I thought of many reactions, but all I can really add to that Franek, without starting an argument, which is a stupid thing to do as a forum host (!), is that I disagree on most points, but that's the way it goes, does it not.

:o

Actually the only point I might agree upon is American military strength in 1945.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

What about 1.5m Polish forces? They were fought by 30 soviet division (180k soldiers), you say?

If soviets could defeat them being in ratio 1:8, it's come as no suprise that Western world could not rely on IIRC and could not consider polish forses as something which could be a serious ally against commies.

Anyway, never heard about any serious fighting with anti-soviet polish forces... Are you dreaming?

the scale of possible Ukranian opposition and other nationalists movements is grossly overestimated (as always).

And who is bastard Chomsky?

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Noam Chomsky is an american intellectual who has opinions that Franek (strongly) disagrees with. Of course you can find Chomsky on the left side of the political spectrum.

:o

Just do a Google and you'll find out more than enough.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

I have written from memory and additionally did a typo - 0,5m. I cannot find exact numbers at the moment but remember the number does include all the people involved, not only armed soldiers (at least 80k). There was just not enough weapons available, while Soviets had aviation and tanks. Also, to the Soviet units, a number 'Polish' ones must be added, the latter consisting of Polish soldiers and Soviet officers.

Oh, that is not my problem. You apparently have not heard about German-Soviet cooperation that started WWII, as well.
There were several large (as for partisans) clashes like attack on Soviet concentration camp at Rembertów.

Or underestimated. Considering number of ex-Soviet volunteers in the German army and the fact the last partisan units survived well into 1950s (without external support), a massive support in Baltic states and Western Ukraine was to be much expected.

Noam Chomsky, never heard of him?

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

Noam Chomsky did some brilliant work in linguistics many years ago (defining grammars corresponding to the four types of mathematical automata). Apparently he thinks this makes his opinions on politics and economics equally important.

Frank.

Re: British / American against Russia in 1945
 

So as it presumed - no facts of considerable polish resistance.

FYI Poland got some territories from Czechoslovakia in 1938 using the same scheme as USSR in 1939.

About WWII start :

It was nothing more than real politics

First you should agree that Poland was USSR enemy number 3 that times.

Second, Western countries didn't show any serious intentions to deal with USSR against Germany in 1939. Nobody in Kremlin wanted to fight Germans alone, especially for adverse poles.

Even Polish allies,UK and France were not eager to help Poland in September 39 because of different reasons.

So it was no other way for Soviets but signing the treaty and getting the territories.
It makes Germans to waste some valuable time in 1941 and saved Russia and eventually the whole european continent, putting it lightly.

The price was high for small eastern european countries. It meant occupation for 40 years

But what's better - be alive under commies or dead under nazis?