Well, it’s true that our alliance with Stalin had some very unfortunate consequences. I’m not sure I believe this, but it’s possible.
Didn’t Ike stop Patten so the Soviet army could take Berlin? That adds some credibility to this story.
And Ike was presumably leaned on by the Commies in the White House.
Why should we have fought to take Berlin? We had already signed away East Germany at Yalta.
Patton was a problem for probably the commies in the State Dept when the war ended. I would not put this past anyone on the govt.
And they lost over 100,000 men killed doing so.
As compared to 400,000 US troops dead in the entire war.
Let the Soviets have the capture of the capital of a defeated enemy. I'd rather have 100,000 live Americans.
That's true... and tens of thousands of Americans are alive because he did. Stalin wanted to take Berlin and lost over 80,000 troops to Nazi fanatics in doing so. A few weeks later, we (and the Brits and French) strolled in and took over more than half the city.
I'm sure Patton wanted to take Berlin to add to his 'list of triumphs,' but if your father or grandfather was a grunt in the 3rd Army, be glad that Ike let the Ruskies do it. It was a price we did not need to pay.
The Russians lost 80,000 men killed and 275,000 wounded or missing in the lead up to the battle and in the battle itself. Two thousand Russian tanks were destroyed. 150,000 Germans were killed during the battle.
Source = http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_for_berlin.htm