Patton charges into Berlin???

Wello, what would be the repercussions???

 

None, since the way Germany should be partitioned was agreed upon a long time before he could have done that.

 

A lot of American casualties and a very, very angry Stalin. It would have been a very tense environment of Cold War. In the military way there would have been just many casualties for both sides (more for Germany, of course, whose soldiers were unexperienced militia, sailors and civilians), but in the political way it would have provoked a very precarious situation. (...)

 

Not to mention the political repercussions back home in the USA when 10,000 casualties (the Allied estimate of what they'd suffer taking Berlin) got reported for the sake of an unnecessary attack.

 

I think that Patton would have had his hands full of fighting the russians (which he wouldnt have minded)had he been given the go ahead and make a dash for Berlin.

[ 25 March 2002: Message edited by: C.Evans ]</p>

 

Patton and Monty would have wanted to go as far as Berlin but politically this was not possible.I think if they had taken Berlin without Stalin´s agreement there would have been war between the western allied and USSR.But as well I think at least the western allied were tired of war, and were happy with the 2-part Germany by then. Later politically they were not, but that is another story.And Stalin got all of eastern Europe under his power ( well almost anyway ).

On the subject:

"By 28 March “Operation Plunder” was a success and established a beachhead on the Rhine with 12 bridges at their disposal, with another 80 elsewhere. Montgomery now looked to breakout across northern Germany by sending the US 9th and 2nd Army 250 miles east to the Elbe river while the 1st Canadian Army cleaned up the German 25th Army in Holland. First, Eisenhower had to work in conjunction with Stalin as he heard the Red Army was nearing Berlin and it would be wiser to deploy American forces to the southern pockets of German resistance instead. The truth was the Soviets were not anywhere near Berlin in March 1945, but Eisenhower did not know this and had given Berlin to Stalin in February at the Yalta conference anyway. He was afraid any attempt to undermine the Soviet victory there could result in the Allies fighting each other, as well as costing hundreds of thousands of American lives in Berlin. Instead, Eisenhower sought to establish the division of Germany beforehand. Stalin lied and said Berlin was not important to him but agreed the idea of linking up Soviet and American forces and dividing Germany. The British were appalled at giving part of Germany to Stalin and Churchill pleaded with Roosevelt to change Eisenhower’s mind, but at this point Roosevelt was too sick to interfere.
Whereas Eisenhower wanted a military victory, Stalin wanted a political victory and to seize eastern European countries to turn them into Communist satellites. Eisenhower felt it was best to link up with the Red Army near Dresden and divide Germany in 2, and that any resistance left would be south of Berlin. Stalin was paranoid and distrusted the Allies, believing they were as devious as he was. Since he thought the Allies were secretly plotting to take Berlin, he told his top 2 Field Marshals (Georgi Zhukov and Ivan Koniev) to devise a plan within 2 days. Zhukov was 50 miles east of Berlin on the 1st Belorussian front and planned to open the attack with 10,000 guns then blind the Germans with 140 searchlights as he threw 750,000 men (including 2 tank armies) at Hitler. Koniev was 75 miles southeast of Berlin on the 1st Ukrainian front and wanted to open with 7500 guns then use a smokescreen to put his 500,000 men (also including 2 tank armies) through German defenses. Both Field Marshals were tired from years of constant battles and hoped to take a month off to let their men recuperate until May. But Stalin liked their plans and gave Zhukov top priority into Berlin, yet encouraged competition to speed up their mission. They were only given 13 days to reach Berlin by 16 April.
-------

A couple of things I learned today:

On 2 March the Americans tried their hand at deception like the Germans did in “the Bulge” to snare a key bridge over the Rhine. They camouflaged their tanks to look like Panzers and dressed their men as German soldiers and snuck right past the German outposts, and nearly made it to their objective before it was blown up by quick thinking Germans.

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/1945.html

On December 7, 1945, the now four-star general, George S. Patton handed the Third Army over to a friend of his, General Lucien K. Truscott. It was a basic short and sweet ceremony during which Patton expressed his appreciation to his men and encouraged them to continue their high caliber of service under their new leader.

Some time later, Patton was nearly killed in a collision with an oxcart. With slight laugh, he said to his aide, "After all I've been through, think of being killed on the road by a team of oxen." On December 9, 1945, he was not so lucky. Patton was in a head-on collision with a truck from quartermaster. He was thrown from the 1939 Cadillac he was riding in.

Seemingly paralyzed, General Patton was rushed to the hospital. He was taken into surgery, where it was discovered that his neck was broken. He was paralyzed from the neck down. Afterwards, it looked as if he might pull through and return to the States. On December 19, 1945, complications arose. Increased pressure on his spinal chord and difficulty breathing resulted in acute heart failure. He died on December 21, 1945. He had earlier told his brother, "This is a hell of a way for a soldier to die." General George Smith Patton, Jr. was dead.

 

Stalin would be quite unamused seeing the WAllies breaking prior agreements.

Guess he wouldn't feel obligated any more to stick to agreements by himself.

Result: No USSR partipication against Japan (maybe USSR helping Japan to stay in the war as long as possible?), Red Austria, Red Greece, Red Finnland, maybe Red Turkey.

Cheers,

 

I think that there would have been fewer german casualties and more german surrenders.

regards

 

I would agree. The only reason the Russians lost as many was because the Germans knew there was no quarter given. Had it been Patton, Berlin may have surrendered just so they could be under the American protection versus Russian. All but Hitler knew the war was already lost. Even the Waffen SS was looking to surrender to the western allies.

 

I totally agree! Everyone says the if the American took Berlin, they would have suffered horrible losses. I think that there would have been more surrenders!

I also believe that if Patton did charge into Berlin. That the Russians, and Americans would be at war! (don't ask me who would've started it? Patton or Stalin?)
It would have put the large ground forces of the Red army against the overwhelming Air Forces of the US. Who would win? I really can't say? I think if they did what Patton wanted to do, which was to re-arm the Germans and use thier weapons to help fight the Russians, I think the American would win. Also the Americans with the A-bomb would definately have an avantage. It would have been a huge war though! that is for sure!

Matt

 

Posted by AndyW:

Stalin didnt much care for agreements anyway. I believe free elections in Poland were one of the first to go.

 

I've just been reading about Eisenhower and the fall of Germany in the last couple of days.

It appears that despite what was agreed upon at the Yalta conference, Eisenhower still took going for Berlin under consideration, but due more to strategic and logistic reasons (particularly the lengthening of his lines of communication) he decided against Berlin as an objective. As well, there was still a lot of (false) information going around about the "National Redoubt" supposedly planned by die hard nazi fanatics in the Harz Mountains, and this was taken quite seriously by US planners.

On the 24th of March '44, in accordance with the decision made at Yalta, Eisenhower sent Stalin his projected goals, which were...

1) to make contact with Soviet forces moving West as soon as possible, in order do deny the Germans any chance at re-grouping in the future.

2) To send the 21st Army Group to the North East, to cut off German forces in Norway and Denmark.

3) To send the 12th and 6th Army Groups into the southern Bavarian region to cut off any chance of the "National Redoubt"

Stalin apparently agreed with Eisenhowers plan most warmly, replying to him that, " your plan entirely coincides with that of the Soviet High Command.. Berlin has lost its former strategic importance. The Soviet High Command therefore plans to allot secondary forces in the direction of Berlin"

Of course at the time of this reply, Stalin was already concentrating five tank armies and 25,000 guns to take this "secondary" objective.

Eisenhower had only military objectives in mind at the time. Stalin had military and political objectives in sight.

The only person who outspokenly objected to Eisenhowers plans was Churchill, who could see Stalins political aims quite clearly. Churchill himself had already seriously looked at the post war political environment of a free europe.

Churchill wrote to Eisenhower, objecting firstly to his advising Stalin of his future plans and secondly, setting out what he thought should be the Allied goals before the German collapse.

Briefly, they were:

1) That the Soviet Union should be considered a mortal danger to the free world.

2) That a new front should be established immediately to combat Russia's onward sweep across Europe.

3) That this front should be as far East as possible.

4) That Berlin was the prime and true objective of the Anglo-American Allies.

5) That the liberation of Czechoslovakia and the entry into Prague by US forces was of high consequence to the future of Europe.

6) That Vienna, and indeed Austria should be regulated by the Western Powers, or at least equally with the Russians

7) That Marshall Tito's aggressive pretensions against Italy be curbed.

Finally, that a settlement must be reached on all major issues between the West and the east before the armies of Democracy melted, or the Western Allies yielded any part of the German territory they had conquered.

Churchill even appealed to President Roosevelt to have Eisenhower change his plans, but to no avail. In this appeal he wrote " The Russian armies will no doubt overrun all Austrai and enter Vienna. If they also take Berlin will not their impression that they have been the over-whelming contributor to our common victory, be unduly imprinted in thei minds, and may this not lead them into a mood whcih will raise grave and formidable difficulties in the future?"

Churchills objections were ignored and Eisenhowers plans went ahead.

The rest is history.

____________________

"I am ready to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

 

Nice piece of information, thanx Sniper!

Indeed, that´s quite funny to see how Churchill was anxious to divide the eastern Europe with Stalin at one point and then got totally scared that Stalin´s going to take it...and keep it!I wonder about that, while on the map it would go nicely 50-50 I think. Probably Chruchill feared the communism was going further in the west not by tanks but as an ideology.
On Germany´s behalf they had ideas like putting the country down and turning it into a potato field so that Germany could never rise again. The Russians did take everything that could be removed and sent it to the USSR. The cold war changed plans and Germany was built again.

 

Yes, I think Churchill was foremost a politician, with a military background. And, as such his focus late in the war was on the political future of Europe, and how Britain would fit in it.

Where-as Eisenhower was a soldier, with the focus of a soldier, on the immediate goals, and only later became a politician. So his main aim at the end of the war was to ensure a successful end, minimum casualties, and leaving the politics to the politicians.

Stalin was a lot like Hitler, using military means to further his political goals. The benefits of being a virtual dictator over all you command.

_____________

A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic
- Joseph Stalin

In starting and waging war, it is not right that matters, but victory - Adolf Hitler

 

I agree with most of you and you bring an interesting point here: German troops surrendering to the Western Allies in Berlin instead of fighting to death against the Reds. With Hitler alive? I don't think so. A bloody fighting would have taken place, maybe not as bloody and a short one, like always happened in the West.

 

Why should it have been bloody if the western allies had tried to takethe city? For instance compare the number of surrenders on the different fronts, also compare how soldiers and civilians flew to the west to escape the russians. There was little pardon on the eastern front and 'russenschreck (spelling?) was widely spread in germany. However you bring an interesting thing here, had Hitler commited suicide if it were the allies who tried to take the city? This is indeed an interesting thing to think about.

regards

 

Yes..interesting question that! I mean if the allied would have conquered Berlin under the Russians´noses then what would he have done? He had some ( lotsa? ? ideas on turning the war to east with the allied, didn´t he? But then again he would have not allowed the Nurnberg trials to happen to him, I think.Quite tricky.

I guess one of the ideas why Eisenhower did not let the guys (Patton, Monty ) go to Berlin was to rule out the possibility of a clash between the allied forces.

 

Charlie, I think the Soviet were Allies too...

But I mean: Americans charging into Berlin, Hitler alive. At least, the first days would have been a bath of bloof for both sides, because we know that Hitler would have ordered: "Fight to the last man". But after a few days, many men would have surrendered. With the Russians, it was: whether to die in Berlin fighting or dying frozen and starving in Siberia... That's the difference. Against the Americans you fight a bit to show that you care, but as it is a lost cause you later surrender and get some Hershey's chocolate.

 

Oops, sorry, I meant the western allies.

I just don't think that there would have been much of a fight whatever Hitler had ordered.

regards

 

Yes, Charlie. You are right. It would have been like the fighting in Aachen in autumn 1944. Even if the German garrison could have resisted many more days than it did because we could have trapped the unexperienced in urban fighting Americans in a big butchery, but it all finished soon.