Laisrean
September 12th, 2008, 03:50 AM
Patton and Montgomery both advocated taking Berlin before the Soviets did, but they were overruled by the Supreme Allied commander, Eisenhower. Eisenhower didn't see any value in taking Berlin, because for one thing, even if the Allies took it they would still have to hand it back over to the Soviets, as per the agreement at Yalta. Eisenhower also seen the city as little more than ruins, and he didn't want to waste troops in taking it and then having to mess with it. Better to just let the Russians fight for it themselves.
But was he right? As it turned out, Berlin was the headquarters of the Nazi nuclear weapons program, and while they were far from building nuclear weapons of their own, the Nazis did have a considerable stockpile of Uranium and heavy water which the Russians seized, and were able to use in their own program. Also, the Soviets captured quite a few German scientists who were useful to them in things like rocketry and jet aircraft and so forth, as well as the nuclear weapons.
So by taking Berlin, the Soviets manages to get an enormous boost to their own weapons technology, and this is undoubtedly the main reason they beat us into space with Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin. But did it have to be this way? If Patton and Montgomery had their way, America and Britain would have seized Berlin instead, and even though they would have had to hand half it back to the Soviets after the war, they could have handed it back minus the Uranium and the scientists. If that were the case, the world might not have had to live through the cold war and the fear of nuclear armagedon, or at least that would have been post-poned for awhile anyway.
As for the casualties in taking the city? It is true the Soviets suffering terrible losses in taking the city, but that doesn't mean the western Allies would have. For one thing, the Germans in the final months of the war showed an eagerness to surrender to the Americans and British, when they would just keep fighting against the Soviets (and for good reason, considering the brutality of Stalin and his thugs). Also, the Germans had arrayed their forces in preparation for an attack from the East, and had little or nothing to defend against an attack from the west. So I think the Allies could have taken the city with far fewer casualties to both sides than was the case with the Russians.
What does everyone here think? Was Eisenhower right to just surrender the city to the USSR; or should he have listened to Patton and Montgomery and not let the Soviets have it (or at least not let them have the Uranium and scientists anyway)?
But was he right? As it turned out, Berlin was the headquarters of the Nazi nuclear weapons program, and while they were far from building nuclear weapons of their own, the Nazis did have a considerable stockpile of Uranium and heavy water which the Russians seized, and were able to use in their own program. Also, the Soviets captured quite a few German scientists who were useful to them in things like rocketry and jet aircraft and so forth, as well as the nuclear weapons.
So by taking Berlin, the Soviets manages to get an enormous boost to their own weapons technology, and this is undoubtedly the main reason they beat us into space with Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin. But did it have to be this way? If Patton and Montgomery had their way, America and Britain would have seized Berlin instead, and even though they would have had to hand half it back to the Soviets after the war, they could have handed it back minus the Uranium and the scientists. If that were the case, the world might not have had to live through the cold war and the fear of nuclear armagedon, or at least that would have been post-poned for awhile anyway.
As for the casualties in taking the city? It is true the Soviets suffering terrible losses in taking the city, but that doesn't mean the western Allies would have. For one thing, the Germans in the final months of the war showed an eagerness to surrender to the Americans and British, when they would just keep fighting against the Soviets (and for good reason, considering the brutality of Stalin and his thugs). Also, the Germans had arrayed their forces in preparation for an attack from the East, and had little or nothing to defend against an attack from the west. So I think the Allies could have taken the city with far fewer casualties to both sides than was the case with the Russians.
What does everyone here think? Was Eisenhower right to just surrender the city to the USSR; or should he have listened to Patton and Montgomery and not let the Soviets have it (or at least not let them have the Uranium and scientists anyway)?