In March 1945, British Field Mar- Shal Bernard L. Montgomery Stood on the Rhine with Visions of a Triumphal Entry Into Berlin Da

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

In March 1945, British Field Mar- Shal Bernard L. Montgomery Stood on the Rhine with Visions of a Triumphal Entry Into Berlin Da n March 1945, British Field Mar- value. Except for a token presence, the the Allied powers would share control of shal Bernard L. Montgomery Reich ministries had moved out already. the city. Eisenhower was not willing to stood on the Rhine with visions The Soviet army was camped on the Oder, expend tens of thousands of lives for the of a triumphal entry into Berlin 35 miles from Berlin, with more than a prestige of taking territory that would be dancing in his head. It was Mont- million troops in position to attack. turned over to the Soviets as soon as the gomery’s expectation that in ad- The Battle of the Bulge in December war ended. Idition to his own 21st Army Group, he had sapped German strength in the west, Eisenhower also wanted an orderly would have command of the US Ninth but 61 divisions remained, with additional linkup with the Soviet forces, whose Army and an absolute priority on fuel pockets of strength in the Baltic states. emotions were running high as they swept and supplies. He would then make a Eisenhower’s plan was to advance on a through Germany. “What are your ideas 250-mile dash across the north German broad front, capture the industrial heart- on control and coordination to prevent plain to capture Berlin. land of the Ruhr, split Germany down the unfortunate incidents and to sort out the Prime Minister Winston Churchill middle, and consolidate Allied gains on two advancing forces?” Gen. George C. agreed with Montgomery’s assumptions the fl anks. A diversion of resources for a Marshall, US Army Chief of Staff, asked but the supreme Allied commander, Gen. single thrust by Montgomery would have Eisenhower. “One possibility is an agreed Dwight D. Eisenhower, did not. brought operations elsewhere along the line of demarcation.” Ike understood his mission to be de- line to a stop. Over the objections of Montgomery stroying the German armed forces and The United States, Britain, and the and Churchill, Eisenhower decided against ending the war in Europe as soon as pos- Soviet Union had agreed in 1944 on the an all-out push for Berlin and elected to sible. Berlin had political, symbolic, and boundary lines for postwar occupation meet the Soviet forces on the Elbe. Harsh psychological importance but it was a of Germany. Berlin lay more than 100 criticism of the decision followed in the bombed-out hulk with almost no military miles inside the Soviet zone, although years ahead. It dogged Eisenhower in The Halt on the Elbe 64 AIR FORCE Magazine / July 2013 his run for the presidency in 1952 and built up Montgomery.” He was immensely The British pushed constantly for ap- still pops up occasionally in theories that popular with the British public and the pointment of a “land forces commander” Ike’s failure to take Berlin delivered the Army rank and fi le. to be inserted between Eisenhower and city into Soviet hands. The Americans were less impressed the Allied army groups. This would by Montgomery and his egotism. The have effectively made Ike a fi gurehead. Eisenhower and Montgomery relationship hit bottom in January 1945 Their choice for the job was, of course, In the fi rst part of the war, Britain had when Montgomery held a press conference Montgomery. been the dominant partner in the western at which he essentially claimed credit for Eisenhower had appointed Montgom- Alliance, but by 1945 the Americans were winning the Battle of the Bulge. Churchill ery coordinator of the ground forces providing most of the troops and resources tried to repair the damage with a speech during the initial move inland after and had taken over the leadership role. in the House of Commons, acknowledg- the Normandy invasion, but by March The British did not handle the change ing that the Americans had done most of 1945, he had resumed operational com- gracefully. the fi ghting and had taken most of the mand of the seven Allied armies—four It rankled that Eisenhower was the su- casualties. American, one British, one Canadian, preme commander. “I would never class Nevertheless, Churchill was also an- and one French. Ike as a great soldier,” Montgomery sniffed. guished by the decline of British pres- Up to then, the leading element of the El Alamein in North Africa “was the tige. According to Field Marshal Alan offensive had been Montgomery’s 21st only major victory the British had in the Brooke, chief of the Imperial General Army Group on the northern fl ank, sup- fi rst three years of the war,” said historian Staff, Churchill “propounded strategies on ported by the 12th Army Group under US Stephen E. Ambrose. “The British public ensuring that British troops were retained Gen. Omar N. Bradley and the 6th Army had desperately needed a hero and after in the limelight, if necessary at the expense Group under US Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers. El Alamein the government deliberately of the Americans.” The Ninth US Army had been attached to Left: The Brandenburg Gate in June 1945, after the Soviet army took Berlin. Below: Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, fl anked by Gen. Dwight Eisenhower (l) and Gen. Omar Bradley (r), in 1946. Montgomery was loved by the British public, but many Al- lied military leaders were not so enamored. Eisenhower did not regard Berlin as an The Halt on the ElbeBy John T. Correll important military target. He would not expend tens of thousands of Allied lives to take it. Carl Weinrother photo via Bundesarchiv, Germany AIR FORCE Magazine / July 2013 65 The Cable to Stalin On March 28—in an initiative that would reverberate for years—Eisen- hower sent a cable to Maj. Gen. John R. Deane, the US military liaison officer in Moscow, with a message to be deliv- ered to Stalin. Ike said operations had reached the point where it was essential Staff illustration by Zaur Eylanbekov by Staff illustration for him to know Russian intentions so actions of the advancing forces could be coordinated. His own immediate plan, he told Sta- lin, was to encircle the Ruhr and isolate it from the rest of Germany, then “divide the enemy’s remaining forces by join- ing hands with your forces. ... For my forces, the best axis on which to effect this junction would be Erfurt-Leipzig- Dresden.” Contrary to the legend that Eisenhower’s message conceded Berlin to the Russians, the cable did not men- tion Berlin at all. However, it could be reasonably inferred from the context that Ike did not regard Berlin as a major goal. He was aiming for Dresden, some 100 miles to the south. Concurrently, Eisenhower sent tele- grams to Marshall and Montgomery about the latest developments. The Ninth US Army would revert to Bradley, whose army group would become the spearhead of the advance. The British complained furiously that Eisenhower had exceeded his authority by contacting a head of state directly. When Eisenhower established a bridgehead on the Elbe, Montgomery was still 60 miles short of the goal. Eisenhower was concerned that Montgomery’s plodding Eisenhower said he wrote to Stalin in pace might allow the Russians to reach Luebeck first and keep going into Denmark. his capacity as head of the Soviet armed forces, not as head of state. Besides, Churchill had always felt free to deal Montgomery for the drive to the Rhine. Furthermore, primacy in the offensive with Eisenhower directly. Montgomery assumed the arrangement was about to shift from Montgomery More to the point was the diminution to be permanent. to Bradley. On March 7, elements of of the British role. Churchill told the When Montgomery did not get the Bradley’s 12th Army Group seized an British chiefs of staff that Montgomery orders he wanted, he gave the directions intact bridge over the Rhine at Remagen had been “deprived of the Ninth United himself. In a message to Eisenhower and expanded the bridgehead deeper States Army” and that the British “might March 27, he said, “Today I issued or- into Germany. Meanwhile, Montgom- be condemned to an almost static role” in ders to army commanders for operations ery paused at the Rhine and did not get the final phase of the war. In a message to eastward which are about to begin.” He across until March 23. Eisenhower March 31—sent directly, as would “drive hard” toward the Elbe and Bradley, steady and reliable, could be usual—Churchill expressed his dismay “thence by autobahn to Berlin, I hope.” counted on to exploit the bridgehead, at “the relegation of His Majesty’s forces He had miscalculated on several whereas Montgomery’s reputation for to an unexpected restricted sphere.” points. methodical plodding inspired little confi- Delivery of the message to Stalin As recently as September 1944, Eisen- dence. “Monty wanted to ride into Berlin was held up temporarily, but Marshall hower had recognized Berlin as a principal on a white charger,” said British Maj. Gen. and the US military chiefs, weary of objective, but back then, the Red Army John F. M. Whiteley, deputy operations British complaining, stood staunchly had been outside Warsaw. In a massive chief at Supreme Headquarters Allied behind Eisenhower. Montgomery’s new effort in February 1945, the Soviets surged Expeditionary Force, but “the feeling was assignment was to protect Bradley’s almost 300 miles westward to draw within that if anything had to be done quickly, left flank, seize Luebeck in northern artillery range of Berlin, where they were don’t give it to Monty.” Germany, cut off German troops in the busily building up their stores of munitions British Lt.
Recommended publications
  • Babadzhanian, Hamazasp
    Babadzhanian, Hamazasp Born: February 18th, 1906 Died: November 1st, 1977 (Aged 71) Ethnicity: Armenian Field of Activity: Red Army Brief Biography Hamazasp Khachaturi Babadzhanian was a Russian military general who served during multiple wars for the Soviet Union, rising to prominence during the Great Patriotic War. He was born in 1906 into an impecunious Armenian family in Chardakhlu, Azerbaijan. He attended a secondary school in Tiflis in 1915 but due to familial financial difficulties was forced to return home and toil in the fields on his family’s plot of land, later working as a highway worker during 1923-24. Babadzhanian joined the Red Army in 1925 and later attended a Military School in Yerevan in 1926, graduating as an officer in 1929, as well as joining the Soviet Communist Party in 1928. He received various postings, mopping up armed gangs in the Caucasus region in 1930 and aided in liquidating the Kulak revolt. Babadzhanian moved around frequently, generally within the Transcaucasus and Baku regions, until 1939-1940, when he served in the Finno-Soviet war. He played a pivotal role in numerous battles in World War 2, participating in the battle of Smolensk, as well as contributing a fundamentally in Yelnya, where he overcame a far superior German force. For his efforts in recapturing Stanslav he received the title of Hero of the Soviet Union. He provided support in Poland, as well fighting in Berlin, contributing to the capture of the Reichstag. After the Great Patriotic War Babadzhanian would prove crucial in quelling the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, and some time after in 1975 became Chief Marshal of the Tank and Armoured Troops, a rank only he and one other attained.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long-Lasting Shadow of the Allied Occupation of Austria on Its Spatial Equilibrium
    IZA DP No. 10095 The Long-lasting Shadow of the Allied Occupation of Austria on its Spatial Equilibrium Christoph Eder Martin Halla July 2016 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor The Long-lasting Shadow of the Allied Occupation of Austria on its Spatial Equilibrium Christoph Eder University of Innsbruck Martin Halla University of Innsbruck and IZA Discussion Paper No. 10095 July 2016 IZA P.O. Box 7240 53072 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Fax: +49-228-3894-180 E-mail: [email protected] Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but the institute itself takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent nonprofit organization supported by Deutsche Post Foundation. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its international network, workshops and conferences, data service, project support, research visits and doctoral program. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Depiction of Prussia in the GDR
    The Changing Depiction of Prussia in the GDR: From Rejection to Selective Commemoration Corinna Munn Department of History Columbia University April 9, 2014 Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Volker Berghahn, for his support and guidance in this project. I also thank my second reader, Hana Worthen, for her careful reading and constructive advice. This paper has also benefited from the work I did under Wolfgang Neugebauer at the Humboldt University of Berlin in the summer semester of 2013, and from the advice of Bärbel Holtz, also of Humboldt University. Table of Contents 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….1 2. Chronology and Context………………………………………………………….4 3. The Geschichtsbild in the GDR…………………………………………………..8 3.1 What is a Geschichtsbild?..............................................................................8 3.2 The Function of the Geschichtsbild in the GDR……………………………9 4. Prussia’s Changing Role in the Geschichtsbild of the GDR…………………….11 4.1 1945-1951: The Post-War Period………………………………………….11 4.1.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………11 4.1.2 Public Symbols and Events: The fate of the Berliner Stadtschloss…14 4.1.3 Film: Die blauen Schwerter………………………………………...19 4.2 1951-1973: Building a Socialist Society…………………………………...22 4.2.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………22 4.2.2 Public Symbols and Events: The Neue Wache and the demolition of Potsdam’s Garnisonkirche…………………………………………..30 4.2.3 Film: Die gestohlene Schlacht………………………………………34 4.3 1973-1989: The Rediscovery of Prussia…………………………………...39 4.3.1 Historiography and Publications……………………………………39 4.3.2 Public Symbols and Events: The restoration of the Lindenforum and the exhibit at Sans Souci……………………………………………42 4.3.3 Film: Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria………………………..45 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Sunrise: America’S OSS, Swiss Intelligence, and the German Surrender 1945
    Operation Sunrise: America’s OSS, Swiss Intelligence, and the German Surrender 1945 by Stephen P. Halbrook* Operation Sunrise was a cooperative effort of American and Swiss intelligence services which led to the unconditional surrender of the German Wehrmacht forces in Northern Italy and Western Austria on May 2, 1945. General Heinrich von Vietinghoff, Commander-in- Chief of the Southwest Command and of Army Group C, surrendered nearly a million soldiers, the strongest remaining German force. This was the first great surrender of German forces to the Allies, and became a strong impetus for the final Allied victory over Nazi Germany on May 8, Victory in Europe (VE) Day. Operation Sunrise helped to nip in the bud Nazi aspirations for guerilla resistance in an Alpine redoubt. Sunrise, sometimes referred to as “Crossword,” has special significance today beyond the sixtieth anniversary of the German surrender. Despite Switzerland’s formal neutrality, Swiss intelligence agents aggressively facilitated American efforts to end the war. Ironically, the efforts of key U.S. intelligence agents on the ground to orchestrate the surrender were hampered and almost scuttled by leaders in Washington to appease Joseph Stalin, who wished to delay the surrender in the West so that Soviet forces could grab more territory in the East. *This paper was originally presented at the conference Sunrise ‘05, Locarno, Switzerland, May 2, 2005, and was published in “Operation Sunrise.” Atti del convegno internazionale (Locarno, 2 maggio 2005), a cura di Marino Viganò - Dominic M. Pedrazzini (Lugano 2006), pp. 103-30. The conference was held to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the surrender of German forces in northern Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • (June 1941) and the Development of the British Tactical Air Doctrine
    Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1, FALL 2011 Studies A Stepping Stone to Success: Operation Battleaxe (June 1941) and the Development of the British Tactical Air Doctrine Mike Bechthold On 16 February 1943 a meeting was held in Tripoli attended by senior American and British officers to discuss the various lessons learned during the Libyan campaign. The focus of the meeting was a presentation by General Bernard Montgomery. This "gospel according to Montgomery," as it was referred to by Air Chief Marshal Arthur Tedder, set out very clearly Monty's beliefs on how air power should be used to support the army.1 Among the tenets Montgomery articulated was his conviction of the importance of air power: "Any officer who aspires to hold high command in war must understand clearly certain principles regarding the use of air power." Montgomery also believed that flexibility was the greatest asset of air power. This allowed it to be applied as a "battle-winning factor of the first importance." As well, he fully endorsed the air force view of centralized control: "Nothing could be more fatal to successful results than to dissipate the air resource into small packets placed under the control of army formation commanders, with each packet working on its own plan. The soldier must not expect, or wish, to exercise direct command over air striking forces." Montgomery concluded his discussion by stating that it was of prime importance for the army and air 1 Arthur Tedder, With Prejudice: The war memoirs of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder (London: Cassell, 1966), p.
    [Show full text]
  • Switzerland in the Second World War
    To Our American Friends: Switzerland in the Second World War By Dr. Hans J. Halbheer, CBE Honorary Secretary of the American Swiss Foundation Advisory Council in Switzerland and a Visiting Scholar at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, California Dr. Halbheer wrote the following essay in 1999 to offer a Swiss perspective on some issues of the recent controversy to American friends of Switzerland. In addressing the arguments raised by U.S. critics of the role of Switzerland during the Second World War, I am motivated both by my feelings of friendship towards America and by my Swiss patriotism. For both of these reasons, I feel deeply hurt by both the charges against my country and the vehemence with which they have been expressed. During a recent period of residency at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, one of the leading U.S. think tanks, I sought to present my personal standpoint regarding the lack of understanding about Switzerland’s role during the Second World War in many discussions with Americans both young and old. On these occasions, I emphasized my awareness of the fact that the criticisms of Switzerland came only from a small number of Americans. Despite the settlement reached in August 1998 between the two major Swiss banks (Credit Suisse Group and UBS) and two Jewish organizations (the World Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Restitution Organization), the matter has still not run its course, although it has widely disappeared from the American media. Unfortunately, I must maintain that as a result of the generally negative portrayal of Switzerland over the past few years, the image of Switzerland has suffered.
    [Show full text]
  • Henry S. Smith World War Ii Letters, 1943-1946
    Collection # M 0939 HENRY S. SMITH WORLD WORLD WAR II LETTERS, 1943–1946 Collection Information Biographical Sketch Scope and Content Note Series Contents Cataloging Information Processed by Tyler Nowell September 2007 Manuscript and Visual Collections Department William Henry Smith Memorial Library Indiana Historical Society 450 West Ohio Street Indianapolis, IN 46202-3269 www.indianahistory.org COLLECTION INFORMATION VOLUME OF Manuscript Materials: 1 document case COLLECTION: Visual Materials: 8 folders of photographs COLLECTION 1943–1946 (bulk 1944–1946) DATES: PROVENANCE: Charles, Kritsch, Indianapolis, Indiana, August 1999 RESTRICTIONS: None COPYRIGHT: REPRODUCTION Permission to reproduce or publish material in this collection RIGHTS: must be obtained from the Indiana Historical Society. ALTERNATE None FORMATS: RELATED HOLDINGS: ACCESSION 1999.0589 NUMBER: NOTES: BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Henry S. Smith was born on February 20, 1914 in Indiana. He married Alice Kritsch sometime in the late 1930s. Smith enlisted in the Unites States Army on March 3, 1944 to fight in World War II. When he enlisted he stated he had four years of high school and that his occupation was as a physical therapy technician or chain store manager. Smith served as a truck driver in C Company of the 136th Ordnance Maintenance Battalion, which was later changed to an Armored Ordnance Maintenance Battalion in April 1945. The battalion was in the 14th Armored Division, which was in the 7th Army for much of the war under General Alexander M. Patch. Late in the war the division was moved to the 3rd Army under General George Patton. Henry Smith was a private until early November 1944. At this time he was promoted to Technician Fifth (T/5), which is equal to a corporal.
    [Show full text]
  • 27. December 1945 (The Recorders Continue)
    Chapter 27 December 1945 he five recorders meet with me again in the evening at my living Tquarters. “We left off last time with the failure of the Ardennes Offensive, which Allied forces called the Battle of the Bulge. Who would like to start?” I ask. “I’ll do it,” says Reynitz. “But first everyone should be aware that Hitler had a split personality. He lived in two worlds—reality and fan- tasy.” Everyone looks at Reynitz. “In the real world, Hitler dismissed from his mind military re- verses. When I was on the headquarters train, he refused to look at bombed German cities or wounded German soldiers. As far as I know, he never saw a concentration camp. He usually shut his mind to any- thing unpleasant. 283 Witness to Barbarism “In the fantasy world, Hitler predicted that if the Russians came too close, the Allies would certainly join his troops in the fight against the Russians because the Allies hated Communism as much as the Germans. If the Allies chose not to fight with us but fought the Rus- sians directly, we would wait until they became exhausted, then come out of the National Redoubt in the Alps, to make victory ours. This was his constant hope. The hope was dashed when Himmler sent only half of the 80,000 SS troops he had ordered,” Reynitz recalls. “Hitler was a dreamer, wasn’t he?” “Yes, and worse than that, he was a liar,” Reynitz continues. “Goebbels was on the radio almost every day telling how the un- conditional surrender demanded by the Allies would mean disaster.
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Critique of a Liberator's
    THE SOVIET CRITIQUE OF A LIBERATOR’S ART AND A POET’S OUTCRY: ZINOVII TOLKACHEV, PAVEL ANTOKOL’SKII AND THE ANTI-COSMOPOLITAN PERSECUTIONS OF THE LATE STALINIST PERIOD by ERIC D. BENJAMINSON A THESIS Presented to the Department of History and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts March 2018 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE Student: Eric D. Benjaminson Title: The Soviet Critique of a Liberator’s Art and a Poet’s Outcry: Zinovii Tolkachev, Pavel Antokol’skii and the Anti-Cosmopolitan Persecutions of the Late Stalinist Period This thesis has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree in the Department of History by: Julie Hessler Chairperson John McCole Member David Frank Member and Sara D. Hodges Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded: March 2018 ii © 2018 Eric D. Benjaminson iii THESIS ABSTRACT Eric D. Benjaminson Master of Arts Department of History March 2018 Title: The Soviet Critique of a Liberator’s Art and a Poet’s Outcry: Zinovii Tolkachev, Pavel Antokol’skii and the Anti-Cosmopolitan Persecutions of the Late Stalinist Period This thesis investigates Stalin’s post-WW2 anti-cosmopolitan campaign by comparing the lives of two Soviet-Jewish artists. Zinovii Tolkachev was a Ukrainian artist and Pavel Antokol’skii a Moscow poetry professor. Tolkachev drew both Jewish and Socialist themes, while Antokol’skii created no Jewish motifs until his son was killed in combat and he encountered Nazi concentration camps; Tolkachev was at the liberation of Majdanek and Auschwitz.
    [Show full text]
  • 2Nd INFANTRY REGIMENT
    2nd INFANTRY REGIMENT 1110 pages (approximate) Boxes 1243-1244 The 2nd Infantry Regiment was a component part of the 5th Infantry Division. This Division was activated in 1939 but did not enter combat until it landed on Utah Beach, Normandy, three days after D-Day. For the remainder of the war in Europe the Division participated in numerous operations and engagements of the Normandy, Northern France, Rhineland, Ardennes-Alsace and Central Europe campaigns. The records of the 2nd Infantry Regiment consist mostly of after action reports and journals which provide detailed accounts of the operations of the Regiment from July 1944 to May 1945. The records also contain correspondence on the early history of the Regiment prior to World War II and to its training activities in the United States prior to entering combat. Of particular importance is a file on the work of the Regiment while serving on occupation duty in Iceland in 1942. CONTAINER LIST Box No. Folder Title 1243 2nd Infantry Regiment Unit Histories January 1943-June 1944 2nd Infantry Regiment Unit Histories, July-October 1944 2nd Infantry Regiment Histories, July 1944- December 1945 2nd Infantry Regiment After Action Reports, July-September 1944 2nd Infantry Regiment After Action Reports, October-December 1944 2nd Infantry Regiment After Action Reports, January-May 1945 2nd Infantry Regiment Casualty List, 1944-1945 2nd Infantry Regiment Unit Journal, 1945 2nd Infantry Regiment Narrative History, October 1944-May 1945 2nd Infantry Regiment History Correspondence, 1934-1936 2nd Infantry
    [Show full text]
  • The Failed Post-War Experiment: How Contemporary Scholars Address the Impact of Allied Denazification on Post-World War Ii Germany
    John Carroll University Carroll Collected Masters Essays Master's Theses and Essays 2019 THE FAILED POST-WAR EXPERIMENT: HOW CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF ALLIED DENAZIFICATION ON POST-WORLD WAR II GERMANY Alicia Mayer Follow this and additional works at: https://collected.jcu.edu/mastersessays Part of the History Commons THE FAILED POST-WAR EXPERIMENT: HOW CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF ALLIED DENAZIFICATION ON POST-WORLD WAR II GERMANY An Essay Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies College of Arts & Sciences of John Carroll University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts By Alicia Mayer 2020 As the tide changed during World War II in the European theater from favoring an Axis victory to an Allied one, the British, American, and Soviet governments created a plan to purge Germany of its Nazi ideology. Furthermore, the Allies agreed to reconstruct Germany so a regime like the Nazis could never come to power again. The Allied Powers met at three major summits at Teheran (November 28-December 1,1943), Yalta (February 4-11, 1945), and Potsdam (July 17-August 2, 1945) to discuss the occupation period and reconstruction of all aspects of German society. The policy of denazification was agreed upon by the Big Three, but due to their political differences, denazification took different forms in each occupation zone. Within all four Allied zones, there was a balancing act between denazification and the urgency to help a war-stricken population in Germany. This literature review focuses specifically on how scholars conceptualize the policy of denazification and its legacy on German society.
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet Youth on the March: the All-Union Tours of Military Glory, 1965–87
    This is a repository copy of Soviet Youth on the March: The All-Union Tours of Military Glory, 1965–87. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/96606/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Hornsby, R (2017) Soviet Youth on the March: The All-Union Tours of Military Glory, 1965–87. Journal of Contemporary History, 52 (2). pp. 418-445. ISSN 0022-0094 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022009416644666 © 2016, The Author. This is an author produced version of a paper published in Journal of Contemporary History. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Soviet Youth on the March: the All-Union Tours of Military Glory, 1965-87 ‘To the paths, friends, to the routes of military glory’1 The first train full of young people pulled into Brest station from Moscow at 10.48 on the morning of 18 September 1965.
    [Show full text]