Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Berlin or Bust?

Discussion in 'Western Europe 1943 - 1945' started by Watson, Aug 23, 2010.

  1. Watson

    Watson Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2008
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    Should Eisenhower have given the capture of Berlin a higher priority on his to-do list in 1945? What could he have gained and what would have been the downside?
     
  2. Totenkopf

    Totenkopf אוּרִיאֵל

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    89
    I think all it would have earned would be a USSR that would need to save face from being betrayed from their allies. Nothing good could have come from taking Berlin and it potentially could have led to more deaths in a West-East war.
     
  3. falaisegap

    falaisegap Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1
    General Omar Bradley estimated that taking Berlin would cost the Western Allies something like 100,000 casualties. It cost the Russians far more than that. Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt had already agreed at Yalta in February 1945 on the zones of military occupation once the war ended, so our occupation of Berlin or anything else would not have changed the final zones of occupation. The British argued for it, their willingness to spend the lives of their men for purely political goals was never in question after the Battle of Second Alamein. Eisenhower and Marshall shared the American view, that the lives of their soldiers were too important to sacrifice for political goals. When Eisenhower asked Marshall if he wanted him to take Prague, the Czech capital at the end of the war. Marshall wrote back something like, 'Aside for all strategic, logistical and tactical considerations - I would be loath to hazzard the lives of American soldiers for purely political objectives.' Given the Yalta agreement and the unwillingness to confront the Soviets, Marshall's decision was correct in 1945, and it is the correct decision today.
     
    Watson likes this.
  4. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Berlin was already designated to be in the "Soviet" zone of occupation between the Tehran and Yalta conferences. "Ike" was designated the Supreme Commander at the Tehran conference, and Berlin was never the object, or target of his command.

    Berlin was going to be the Soviet "prize", not the British, French, or American. And why drive hundreds of miles, costing thousands of lives, to get to a place you have to turn over to the Soviets when the war ends?

    What is the point of doing that? To turn our agreed upon lines of occupation on their heads? The West and the Soviets were already looking at each other with jaundiced eyes, why do a turn around and complicate an issue which is of little war; but great geopolitical value. Berlin would become a "bone of contention" later, but it could just as easily become one sooner, and like it or not we (the west) still needed Stalin and his Red Army to make sure the Japanese were defeated.

    Then couple in Stalin's "luke warm" committment to projecting Red Army strength into the Far East if the West had continued on to Berlin! He (Stalin) didn't even break/non-renew the Japan "non-aggression" pact until April of '45 as Berlin fell to him. Then he didn't declare war on the Japanese until August of the same year. And even then it was the appearance of the atomics which compelled Stalin to do so three weeks "early". His original date of war declaration was mid to late August, as that was the time he "estimated" in his own mind that it would take him to transfer the required forces to the East.

    Eisenhower taking (or driving toward) Berlin might have been the largest geopolitical blunder of all, it could have cast "the west" in the light of non-trustworthy allies, sacrificed western allied troops lives for no gain, an delayed the application of Red Army forces to the east against the last remaining Axis nation.

    When it was agreed that Berlin would be a Soviet objective, the atomics were still a "theory", not a single device had been constucted. The one which would be constructed hadn't been proven, and there was no guanantee the west wouldn't need the Red Army "BIG TIME" to defeat the Japanese.

    Just my opinion, using the lens of hindsight and attempting to understand why the western allies (Eisenhower commanding) left Berlin to the Soviets. I think it was the best decision at that moment in time.
     
    Watson likes this.
  5. gman41

    gman41 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the Germans were waiting for us to take it. I have often wondered if we had made more of a move to do so would they have accomodated us in getting there first. Would they have backed off and let us get there easier and faster than the Russians on some command level. Maybe not the high command, but German field commanders most likely would have rather seen us there first knowing it was going to fall anyway.

    The real mistake was occupying it, we should have kept Thuringia instead which was rich farmland un harmed by the war. Instead we left there after taking it, gave it to the Russians who destroyed it, then took command of Berlin sector USA which we had to govern, feed, and rebuild as well as hold in the cold war. Much debate then and now over this and might have been Eisenhower's biggest blunder.
     

Share This Page