The Western Allies took Berlin.

The taking of Berlin would be pointless, unless the western allies were prepared to break the agreements it had already signed with the Soviets.
The borders of the post-war break-up of Germany had been agreed since February 1944

 

You're absolutely right, no agreement should have been made in the first place

 

But it was made. So arguing that Eisenhower was a coward because he didn't attempt to take Berlin even though he would later have to hand it back is both insulting and completely false.
Eisenhower didn't decide the foreign policy of the USA, the bloke in the White House did.

 

Eisenhower was a west pointer, sure he was taught to follow orders, but more importantly he was taught to think for himself, and to DISOBEY those orders when they were BAD ones.

 

Staggeringly naive statement there I'm afraid CGEVM.
Would you really equate the sensible flexibility often granted to commanders on a tactical basis with a Strategic & Internationally Political action like this? To continue the maelstrom of death and destruction, to extend the killing, potentially by years, to disregard the delicate balance struck over years of careful negotion between Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Alanbrooke, Marshall and other eminent and far more qualified men would be no more than an acceptable ignoring of 'bad' orders?

Such a cavalier, foolish and dangerous action would more likely be cited as a war-crime, particularly by those on his own side.

It's an enormous discredit to Eisenhower to believe that he could even have considered such lunacy.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Just "suitably" I found this but not sure how true it is...

"Ernest Leiser, a newspaperman for Stars and Stripes during World War II went with Mack Morris into Berlin by jeep in the third week of April 1945. They encountered no opposition."

ANybody know the real story?

 

Churchill wasn't involved in the final decision to give Berlin to the Soviets. FDR stabbed him in the back, thats historical fact.

Such a cavalier, foolish and dangerous action would more likely be cited as a war-crime, particularly by those on his own side.


And yet, such a small sacrifice for the millions of Europeans who would have lived better lives free of the yoke of Communist oppression.

 

If you don't think Churchill was involved in the negotiations, conferences, and general decision-making during the previous years of war which shaped the allies position then the naivety builds.

'Small sacrifice' so that millions of Europeans could continue to live in terror of an ongoing, deadly, and most importantly avoidable war triggered by the arrogant (and thankfully impossible/theoreticall) actions of one rogue soldier, with blood turned so bad that despite any possible cessations fighting would be likely to break out again at the drop of a hat?

The postwar geopolitical world was far from satisfactory, but considering what had gone before and the potential outcomes you suggest it was the best compromise that could be reached at that time, and all politics has always been the business of compromise & 'least worst outcomes' That is, perhaps sadly, one of the great truths of the world.

I think I'll 'do a Za' on this one & bow out, it's not being pinned to the actual possibilities in any sensible manner. Just being abused as a platform for somewhat flaky 1950's propaganda.

Over and out.
Adam.

 

Only orders that were militarily unsound, as a West Pointer he will have been taught that the military could not ignore the political decisions of the United States made by its elected officials

 

The partition of post-war Germany was agreed by a comittee headed by the deputy prime minister of Great Britain, Clement Atlee. Churchill was fully consulted, and agreed with the final plan.

 

ah yes, I forgot our Lord and Savior Clement Atlee, The Original Red PM was involved. I take back my entire argument

 

How can you forget one of the greatest British prime ministers of the 20th century ??????

 

Getting back to the original thread, had the western allies had indeed advanced and taken Berlin then there are two senarios i can see arrising and that is
1, Joseph Stalin feeing betrayed by the west decides to attack the west to take western Europe for his own, and after that begin massive pograms that made what he is doing domestically look like a picnic.

2, Joseph Stalin has no choice but to cop it and does nothing, but he takes it out on his own people.

 

Thing is that Berlin was in the 'soviet zone' when they discussed it at Yalta; so if the western allies took it then the russians would be pretty ticked.

But if the western allies got berlin in thier zone, then the outsome of the city would have probably been similar: It would have been split up into sections for the British, Americans French and Russians. Maybe the Russians would have not gotten any of the important buildings??