Berlin at the end of WWII

[dead0man]

I was reading an interesting thread on another MB and the gist of it was:
1.Could the West have gotten to Berlin before the Soviets if they (the West) tried?
2.What would have happened if we did?

Was just wondering what some of our "smarts" here have to say on the subject.

(and yes, lefties can respond too )

[J. J.]

I was reading an interesting thread on another MB and the gist of it was:
1.Could the West have gotten to Berlin before the Soviets if they (the West) tried?

Probably, with another 1,000,000 UK and USA casualties.

[/quote]
2.What would have happened if we did?

Was just wondering what some of our "smarts" here have to say on the subject.

(and yes, lefties can respond too )
[/quote]

Probably nothing but extending the war a few weeks and a slightly more hostile Soviet Union.

[afleitch]

The short answer is - Yes. And easily.

However it has to be remembered that the Allied advance in both directions was agreed beforehand (as was the 'carving up' of Europe). Indeed the Allies were sweeping through Germany too quickly which is why they fell back when the war ended and occupation started. German resistance once the Allies had crossed the Rhine was not as strong as had been assumed. Had the western Allies decided to go 'full blast' towards Berlin they could have done so without much additional effort. However it would have led to conflict with the Soviets (which some minds wanted...)

[J. J.]

The short answer is - Yes. And easily.

However it has to be remembered that the Allied advance in both directions was agreed beforehand (as was the 'carving up' of Europe). Indeed the Allies were sweeping through Germany too quickly which is why they fell back when the war ended and occupation started. German resistance once the Allies had crossed the Rhine was not as strong as had been assumed. Had the western Allies decided to go 'full blast' towards Berlin they could have done so without much additional effort. However it would have led to conflict with the Soviets (which some minds wanted...)

The problem though, as I see it, in the "National Redoubt."  Presumed attempts were a failure, but could the Nazis have retreated to the south?

[afleitch]

The short answer is - Yes. And easily.

However it has to be remembered that the Allied advance in both directions was agreed beforehand (as was the 'carving up' of Europe). Indeed the Allies were sweeping through Germany too quickly which is why they fell back when the war ended and occupation started. German resistance once the Allies had crossed the Rhine was not as strong as had been assumed. Had the western Allies decided to go 'full blast' towards Berlin they could have done so without much additional effort. However it would have led to conflict with the Soviets (which some minds wanted...)

The problem though, as I see it, in the "National Redoubt."  Presumed attempts were a failure, but could the Nazis have retreated to the south?

It was floated and it was Churchill's fear that they would retreat to the Alps (with key figures slipping into Switzerland), however Hitler never endorsed it. He was a fantasist first and foremost; had strategists been in control it would have been a different outcome. He did tactitly endorse such a plan in late April 1945 but by then it was too late and there was never any real resistance.

Had the order been given even as late as February it could have been interesting. The Germans could have left a 'false front' wihil the bulk of the senior army withdrew south. One plan floated was to round up the PoW's, take them to the Redoubt and use them as a bargaining tool. But then we're into the realm of fantasy as to how long a hold out could have lasted. It may have prolonged the war in Europe into the 'atomic era', but the US were not going to be as 'bomb happy' in Europe, and certainly not anywhere near the redoubt. I would think it could have lasted to late 1945, early 1946 at most.