The Race for Berlin
The final days and aftermath of the European theatre of World
War II is a topic that still generates some controversy even seventy-five years
after the events. Competing nations have their respective narratives regarding
the defeat of Nazi Germany and who can rightly claim to have 'won the war'.
Additionally there is the popular perception of the history,
a neat and tidy narrative of 'good guys and bad guys' and then there is the
reality – a rather messy, confusing and even contradictory series of events
that defies the narratives, upsets some and generates controversies and
suspicion of conspiracy in others.
First, those who would downplay the Soviet role in defeating
the Nazis will argue that the US 'could have' taken Berlin first, but the
Allied armies halted at the Elbe in mid-April 1945. The British and American
units halted under the orders of Eisenhower and waited as the Soviets entered
the final three week phase of the war – the fighting within the environs of
Greater Berlin itself – culminating in Hitler's suicide and that fall of the
city. The regime would fully collapse and surrender just a week later.
Therefore it's argued the US could have finished off the Nazi
regime, stormed Berlin, hung an American flag over the Reichstag etc. – Russian
claims to have finished off the Nazis are patently an exaggeration – or so the
American camp would argue.
The simple answer is that both the Anglo-American forces and
the Soviets defeated the Nazis. That is of course on one level true. But on the
other hand as many have pointed out, the real breaking of the Nazis and the
vast bulk of the fighting took place on the Eastern Front. The battles in the
West are frankly small affairs compared to what took place in the East. This
reality upsets the narrative. The 'good war' is thrown into doubt when the
reality is that one set of 'bad guys' fought the biggest war in history (The
Eastern Front) against another set of 'bad guys'.
While the Soviets undoubtedly benefitted from US materiel,
the truth is they did the bulk of the fighting and though the cost would have
been terrible, they would have defeated the Nazis anyway. There's simply no
comparison. The Americans lost around 200,000 men in Europe – compared to over
8 million Soviet military dead and roughly 20 million civilians. The Germans
lost roughly 4 million men on the Eastern Front compared to significantly less
than a million men on the Western Front.
Literally 4/5 or 80% of the fighting and the deaths took
place in the East.
Additionally the Soviets were less than 50 miles from Berlin
in January 1945. They halted the advance and spent the next couple of months
consolidating their control of Western Poland and bringing up materiel for the
massive battle that was take place in April. Some historians have argued they
could have rushed Berlin in Jan-Feb '45 and taken it, as the city (at that moment)
was poorly defended. It's one of those 'what-ifs' of history. There were
vigorous debates within the Soviet high command over this issue. Would it have
changed things and ended the war sooner? Perhaps but perhaps not.
On the other hand the Allied troops were only seriously
crossing the Rhine into Western Germany in March of 1945. The failures of
Market Garden in the early fall of 1944 and the heavy losses in the Battle of
the Bulge had slowed the Anglo-American advance.
But by March of 1945, they were in Germany and moving East.
Why did Eisenhower call a halt?
The official story is that Eisenhower saw little point in
capturing the city as it would be located in the Soviet Zone after the war – as
agreed by the Big Three at Yalta. The Russians were already there and had been
since January and there was the risk of friendly fire. The US provided some
aerial support leading up to final Soviet push and then backed off, waited and
mopped up Western and Southern Germany.
There's a logic to the argument but it's not one that
everyone agrees with. Churchill was at Yalta but still pushed for an
Anglo-American assault on Berlin as did the American general George Patton. In
fact some historians point to both the words and deeds of Churchill and argue
that by the spring of 1945 he seemed ready to dispense with the Yalta agreement
altogether.
Eisenhower had been appalled at the numbers of casualties
during the Battle of the Bulge and apparently did not want to risk losing more
Anglo-American lives in what would be undoubtedly a large-scale conflict – on
the order of the Eastern Front – something they had not yet experienced.
So in other words they decided to let the Russians do it –
let them die in order to win the larger war. While there is 'a logic' to
Eisenhower's positions in reality this represents a general strategy that was pursued throughout the war. Let the Russians
do it. Let them do all the heavy lifting and bleeding and then the US/UK would
sweep in, mop up and claim victory.
Stalin had been livid during the 1942-1944 period as the
US/UK refused to open up a viable Second Front. They continued their sideshow
antics in North Africa followed by the invasion of Italy, leading to the defeat
of Mussolini and eventually the Nazis who rescued him and attempted to fortify
his hold on the northern part of the country. The Western Allies bombed Germany
to be sure but there was no invasion. Meanwhile the Soviets were fighting a
series of unprecedented battles outside Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad –
dying by the millions and yet from their perspective, the West would not
seriously engage themselves in the war. They would not risk serious casualties
to beat back and defeat the Germans. They were using the Soviets, playing them
– and Stalin knew it.
But of course an admission of such a strategy destroys the
narrative of Western valour and heroism. It gives the Soviets the glory and
makes the West look timid, manipulative and even weak by comparison.
But it's the truth. In one rather cynical sense it's an
example of brilliance and cunning on the part of the West. Manage the narrative
and yet let the ally (that you don't like) defeat the enemy that represents the
immediate threat. Of course it's a betrayal of the ally and this is important
in understanding Soviet perceptions of the West after the war. They knew what
had happened and it was part of a historical pattern of Western relations with
the Eastern-Slavic-Orthodox world. They did not trust the West and what occurred
in World War II fit the pattern.
Churchill and Roosevelt knew this and thus were all but
forced to pacify Stalin as the war wound down. Churchill in his famous (or even
notorious) October 1944 meetings in Moscow schemed with Stalin over the
division of Europe. Carving out 'percentages' or spheres of influence, the
Soviets were given control over much of the East – a move that many people in
Eastern Europe considered a treacherous betrayal on the part of the West.
Indeed for the Poles, Czechs and Slovaks it was a monstrous betrayal and one
that defied the official narrative for why the United Kingdom entered the war
in September 1939. Decades later Churchill's name would cause people to curse
and spit – he remains a despised figure in that part of the world.
The truth is messy. Churchill's machinations were indeed somewhat
sinister. He was still thinking in terms of the British Empire – reality many
seem to forget. Britain is thought of as this valiant little island standing in
the face of a storm. The truth is that Britain controlled a vast empire, one
built on exploitation, blood and yes, racism. While not as brutal as the Third
Reich, it was brutal enough and as the war ended Churchill reverted to thinking
in terms of the big picture and Britain's future in the post-war order.
The future of Western Europe was uncertain and he believed he
had to forge a modus vivendi with
Stalin. The Americans were not entirely reliable and Churchill was caught in
the middle – wanting to maintain and believing fervently in the British Empire
but also knowing that his nation's capacity to hold on to it was diminished –
and that the UK was more or less dependent on the United States – a reality
that continues up to the present hour. And so he began to scheme.
Stalin had to be pacified to curtail any notion of expansion
into Western Europe. Stalin wanted a buffer to protect Russia from future
invasion and it was granted. Russia had just endured the greatest and most
destructive invasion in history – a war that threatened their very existence.
And so like the Jews their motto and strategic thinking was built on the idea
of 'never again'. And one of the means for accomplishing this was a buffer
between Russia and the Western powers of Central and Western Europe that had
waged war against them in two world wars.
Did the Russians manipulate the politics of the future Warsaw
Pact nations in order to set up satellite states? Yes, they most certainly did.
But of course as things quickly turned sour with regard to the Americans
post-1945 there was no way Stalin was going to allow the West to set up
satellite states (with troops) on his borders. He wanted the buffer.
While the West promotes a narrative of a free Western Europe
the truth is the American manipulated the politics of these nations. Spain and
Portugal were ruled by fascist dictatorships and these authoritarian societies were
warmly received by Washington. French politics were manipulated and when de
Gaulle resisted American control – the US didn't send in tanks but they did aid
the anti-de Gaulle resistance and played a part in attempting to assassinate
him. The politics of Italy were heavily manipulated and involved a great deal
of clandestine violence. The politics of NATO members Greece and Turkey were
also manipulated and subject to coup and violent repression. And there is still
a murky largely unaddressed history with regard to the Scandinavian nations.
And then of course there's West Germany itself. This state was dominated by
Washington and even thirty years after the Cold War the now reunified nation is
still occupied by US troops and its BND intelligence agency is closely tied to
US interests and control.
NATO provided security but in many respects it was also a
noose – a means for Washington to control the nations of Western Europe.
Outside Europe the US managed other 'allies' by manipulating
their politics and overthrowing governments – Australia and South Korea being
the most poignant examples in the decades following 1945. Under the auspices of
the Monroe Doctrine, Latin America was subject to constant manipulation and violent
control at the hand of American-backed (and sometimes installed) dictatorial
and even fascist regimes.
The truth is the American Empire also had its satellites
during the Cold War but it managed them differently. While the Soviets wielded
a club the Americans employed a rapier making precise cuts where needed. The
Soviet bloc is presented as a Moscow-dominated unity but the history tells a
different story. There was dissent and resistance and the US took advantage of
these 'rebel provinces' and formed relationships with not only Yugoslavia's
Tito but with the likes of Ceausescu in Romania. The American's struggled to
control their bloc and the Russians certainly had their struggles as well.
Albania pulled out of the Warsaw Pact in 1968 and while Romania remained part
of the pact they refused to participate in the suppression of the Prague Spring
and publically denounced it. Yugoslavia was behind the Iron Curtain throughout
the Cold War and yet was hostile to Moscow, never joined the Warsaw Pact and
had reasonably good relations with the West. The West had backed Tito during the
war as he was the most effective in fighting the Nazis. Having won his victory
apart from Moscow there was suspicion and bitterness leading to the Moscow-Belgrade
split in 1948.
The problem is the history has not been dealt with honestly
and thus there are many events that make little sense and contradict the
official narrative. This has generated conspiracy theories which have further
clouded the waters.
Continue reading Part 2
Continue reading Part 2