If he had only treated Gen. George Patton better. Eisenhower and Bradley used Patton and then threw him away when he spoke the truth about the Soviets.
I think you might be being a bit harsh on Ike on that one. Ike and Patton were counter parts to each other in many ways. Ike, the consummate politician, but possibly a weak field commander. Patton, the ultimate field commander and a terrible politician.
Recall that after the notoriously overblown 'slapping' incident, it was Ike and others who fought hard to save Patton's job and get him back into the fight. That was done for one primary reason: Ike recognized Patton as being the best we had.
After the War to do what Patton proposed would never have been unacceptable to Truman, Congress and the American people. If Ike had not reined him in, Truman would have, just like he did Mac.
Ike read the writing on the wall, Patton was just a better predictor of the lack of character in the Soviets.
Remember also, Patton believed he was a man of destiny, born to serve one primary purpose: to defeat a strong opponent thus preserving that which he was fighting for. He achieved that, and I am sure, departed the world content with what he had achieved.
Perhaps. But it was more political than that, and Patton was not a politician, he was a warrior.
When you have Roosevelt/Truman & Churchill sitting down to powwow with Stalin regarding a World War, you tend to not want to alienate one of your partners, regardless of your feelings towards him or his government, at that time. [the enemy of my enemy, is my friend.]
Patton's problem wasn't so much what he thought, but what he said. Open mouth, insert foot.
Don't misunderstand; I have great admiration for Patton, and I suspect, underneath it all so did Ike and Bradly, or at least shared some of his thoughts on the Soviets, whether they publicaly admitted it (at that time) or not. As a warrior - a pure warrior - there was no equal to Patton. They had to know that.
The German's sure as hell did.