Really, what could the resistance have done? How would anything have changed?
Sneer at the Soviets if you will, but their 20 million losses and huge battle across the Eastern front give them every right to claim a victory over the German army. The Allies did not "cooperate" in the existence of the Soviet zone of occupation. They had no choice in the matter...unless you are going to argue that they should have announced war against Russia and used nuclear weapons. America was tired of war. Defeat of Germany was supposed to have been the final act of the war in the European theater. Fortunes of war. Was it worth the life of yet one more American soldier to continue beyond victory over Germany? (I know Patton argued in favor, but that was mainly an illustration of why Patton was ignored.)
Eastern Europe was not "granted" to the Soviet Union by the Allies. I don't know why you would use that terminology. It was what was possible to agree on at the Yalta Conference. When the smoke cleared, they were under Soviet occupation. It was a fait accompli. They were not going to relinquish them. We were in no position to do anything about it. And the Soviets had the atomic bomb by 1949.
I'm just being a realist. The Soviet Union was no fun for anyone, but by all accounts it was not as bad in the Eastern Bloc countries. That may be tiny consolation.
Like I said, the final phase of the war was an Allied race to the East, to get as far as possible before encountering Soviet forces. Once they met, that would be the end of the race. And the Soviets were racing, too.
I really don't want to argue with you over this. I have come to appreciate your posts and we are clearly both unhappy with how it turned out for Eastern Europe. It had to be a power play or the Soviets would have taken more than they did.
Really, what could the resistance have done? How would anything have changed?
Sneer at the Soviets if you will, but their 20 million losses and huge battle across the Eastern front give them every right to claim a victory over the German army. The Allies did not "cooperate" in the existence of the Soviet zone of occupation. They had no choice in the matter...unless you are going to argue that they should have announced war against Russia and used nuclear weapons. America was tired of war. Defeat of Germany was supposed to have been the final act of the war in the European theater. Fortunes of war. Was it worth the life of yet one more American soldier to continue beyond victory over Germany? (I know Patton argued in favor, but that was mainly an illustration of why Patton was ignored.)
I am not sneering at Soviets. Just saying that the USSR should not have been granted the peoples of Eastern Europe for 40 years.
Eastern Europe was not "granted" to the Soviet Union by the Allies. I don't know why you would use that terminology. It was what was possible to agree on at the Yalta Conference. When the smoke cleared, they were under Soviet occupation. It was a fait accompli. They were not going to relinquish them. We were in no position to do anything about it. And the Soviets had the atomic bomb by 1949.
I'm just being a realist. The Soviet Union was no fun for anyone, but by all accounts it was not as bad in the Eastern Bloc countries. That may be tiny consolation.
Like I said, the final phase of the war was an Allied race to the East, to get as far as possible before encountering Soviet forces. Once they met, that would be the end of the race. And the Soviets were racing, too.
I really don't want to argue with you over this. I have come to appreciate your posts and we are clearly both unhappy with how it turned out for Eastern Europe. It had to be a power play or the Soviets would have taken more than they did.
thx fren!