No cold war without Patton?

Question

The most direct route to Berlin after the Normandy landings was the route the Germans had taken (in reverse) in 1914 and 1940. If General Patton was more willing to place his troops under british command (Montgommery being idealy placed on this 'direct' route) the western allies would have gotten to Berlin much earlyer resulting in at least 200'000 extra casualties but less territory taken by the red army. Would there have been a cold war if that had happened?

Answer 1

Yes, there still would have been a cold war. Even if the allies had taken Berlin in WW2 the Soviets still would have controled 90% of eastern Europe. As for Patton putting his troops under Montgommery's control, that would have been a cold day as Patton and Montgommery could not stand each other. As for the direct route to Berlin and the heart of Germany, the Germans were more intrested in portecting the northern apporaches to their fronteer due to the location of the Rhur Valley. Patton would have had a much easier approach to Berlin via the southerly route.

It was Eisenhour who gave the Russians permission to take Berlin. Not FDR. Curchill was pissed over that mistake. And FDR had nothing to do with causing the depression, that happen just before he was elected.

Answer 2

First off, the Pas-de-Calais, the direct route to Germany instead of at Normandy, was far better defended than the Normandy beachheads were. If the Allies had landed there the German 15th Army would have been waiting, which was Hitler's largest unit in France at the time because that was where the German high command thought that the Allies would land. It was the shortest route across the Channel, opposite Dover, and the shortest route to Germany.

But Monty was one of the most timid commanders in history. As it was it was the American army that caused the decisive breakthrough out of the Normandy pocket at Avronches, UNDER PATTON. General Bradley had just put him in command of the 3rd Army when Operation 'Cobra; was launched and caused the breakout. The British benefited from this because the Germans withdrew in front of them after the American breakout threatened to encircle them.

So, if Patton had been under the defensive minded Montgomery I think the Allies would have taken until 1947 to get to Germany and then maybe there wouldn't have been a cold war, it Soviet Union would have won it before it started.

Answer 3

Patton had nothing to do with it. The decision to push straight to Berlin or not was Eisenhower's sole decision as Supreme Allied Commander. Sure, he was advised to be certain others (named Churchill), but in the end as a military decision it was his call. Ike was no dummy; he knew how many US or British lives taking Berlin would cost, and the public in the US and Britain would have been outraged. Look at the US public opinion about how long the war in the Pacific was taking early 1945, and how costly it was becoming.
There would still have been a Cold War, since Stalin was dead set on his carving an empire out of eastern Europe. He got away with it because there were outspoken pro-Soviet advisors to FDR (Harry Hopkins) who prevented the British from really opposing Stalin.

Answer 4

First of all you should read up a little more on the history of WWII Eisenhower was the supreme allied commander and Under him was Bradley who headed the Normandy invasion. Patton was under Bradley at the time of the invasion of Europe. (although Patton was Bradley's superior during the invasion of Sicily) Montgomery made some very bad mistakes and was considered by Eisenhower too timid during the invasion. As a result the British objectives were not met during the first 48 hrs of the D-day landings. Plus his later fiasco of operation market garden which diverted allied resources from the front to take the bridge crossing the Rhine at Arnhem.
Operation Market Garden (September 17-September 25, 1944) was an Allied military operation in World War II. Its tactical objectives were to secure a series of bridges over the main rivers of the German-occupied Netherlands by large-scale use of airborne forces together with a rapid advance by armoured units along the connecting roads, for the strategic purpose of allowing an Allied crossing of the Rhine river, the last major natural barrier to an advance into Germany.

The operation was initially successful with the capture of the Waal bridge at Nijmegen on 20 September, but was a failure overall as the final Rhine bridge at Arnhem was never taken, and the British 1st Airborne Division was destroyed in the ensuing combat. The Rhine would remain a barrier to the Allied advance until the Allied Offensives in March 1945 under Patton. The defeat of Allied forces at Arnhem is considered the last major German victory of the Western Campaign.
It was decided at the beginning of the U.S. entry into the war that U.S. troops would only be under U.S. command That is why the supreme allied commander was Eisenhower. It was also agreed to at the Yalta conference that the Russians (since they had been fighting the Germans the longest) would be allowed to take Berlin no matter what!! Patton could have been in Berlin a whole two weeks before the Russians but he was held back by Bradley. Part of that was they needed the gas for the tanks for "operation market garden"
If Montgomery had not made that blunder and if the allies (namely Roosevelt and Churchill) had decided to ignore their agreement with Russia then Patton would have taken Berlin. There still would have been a cold war no matter who took it first. Relations were already strained and by the closing of the war in Europe they were not even talking to one another.

Answer 5

it wasn't Patton who was against the idea:
"Eisenhower was advised to strike toward Berlin. Winston Churchill sent the Supreme Commander cables urging him to order his 21st Army Group under Field Marshal Montgomery to attack and capture the capital city. General George Patton believed Monty’s forces could get to Berlin in less than three days and implored his friend Ike to order the attack. Instead, in mid-April, Ike ordered his allied armies to halt all eastward movement at the Elbe river line leaving the 21st Army Group about 70 miles from Berlin, and then to move both south into Czechoslovakia and north to the Baltic Sea to eliminate remaining elements of the Wehrmacht."

But, even if Ike had allowed it (and it probably wasn't his fault either; he was taking orders from FDR), I don't think that would have made much difference in there being a "Cold War" or not.
It would have happened anyway - the differing ideologies ("communism" and capitalism) couldn't co-exist without conflict.

Answer 6

Yes. Don't forget, the Red Army still took Eastern Europe. The Cold War was about more than East Germany and East Berlin.

Answer 7

Yes There would be. The USSR under Stalin was determined to expand his Communist base, and Harry Truman was determined to prevent him from doing this. A more intriguing question might be would there have been this confrontation had Vice President Henry Wallace not been dumped from the ticket in 1944 for Harry Truman. Wallace opposed confrontation with the USSR, and ran on the Progressive ticket in 1948 with Communist support.

Answer 8

Patton with his tactic using tanks were exceptional.
He brought victory in Africa and then in Europe.
Without Patton, perhaps Germans would never been defeated.

At that period, Patton's wish was get in, into a clash with Red Army but he was stopped and called back. Perhaps, if Patton just got some support, history would be completely different.

Cold War should happen anyway with German Defeat. Different ideology and patterns. No chance to survive at same period. ... also important to maintain balance and start again cultural domination in Third world.

Answer 9

Actually, towards the end of WWII Gen. Patton asked for permission to lead his mechanized troops into Russia and take over Moscow. That would have definitely negated a cold war.

Answer 10

I think the red army was focussed on capturing territory, while the Western Allies wer more focussed on Hitler. I'm betting the carve up of Europe would have been different - maybe Scandinavia would have been overrun by the red army ?