General Eisenhower later said that not taking Berlin was his greatest regret but I believe he was only referring to Soviet committed atrocities that occurred.
Geopolitically speaking, Eisenhower did not find it reasonable to lose more American or Western Allied life in taking Berlin given the Yalta conference. Plus, after the stiff resistance the allies faced at the Elbe River, Eisenhower stopped his forces there and focused on the southern highlands due to intelligence that the Nazis were going to retreat and put up a guerrilla war from that area.
But Churchill, General Patton and General Montgomery saw the writing on the wall with Stalin. They advocated for taking as much German territory as possible before the Soviet Army could get it and use it as a bargaining chip, knowing, that the Soviets if they got their hands on any other territory outside of the agreed upon terms would use it against the Western Allies. This is why Western Allies were diverted in the closing weeks/months of the war to cut off the Scandinavia Low Countries as the Soviets we’re rushing to seize Denmark.
During the entire war, the Soviets fought a vicious war against Finland to seize that country. This is often a forgotten piece of history. That is why Finland had to side with the Nazis. In their place between a rock and a hard place, the Nazis were a lesser of two evils than Stalin. Stalin would have never let Finland go.
Churchill, Patton and Montgomery saw the future and distrusted Stalin. Others saw the future as well but chose to accept it. Patton was so adamant about taking Berlin and then pushing the Soviets back to their own land while they were weak, exhausted and extended that Eisenhower and the top brass censured him. Churchill wanted to squash the Socialist-Communists but needed the American might to lead the way.
But we didn’t. There are pros and cons to the decisions. Pros: not having any more Western Allied men killed or European civilians; not extending the World War in Europe which would have made it more difficult to beat the Japanese as forces would not have been able to be diverted to e Pacific and the Soviets would have allied with the Japanese at that point. Cons: leaving 1/2 of The European continent in imprisonment and under socialist rule; leaving the women of Berlin to the mercy of the Soviets, leaving the Soviets as a superpower with further vast resources; and in hindsight, not striking them when the West had the upper-hand, leaving the Soviets to eventually develop atomic/nuclear power.
Well studied and written.... I would like to add some more information:
The key dates would be.... again... Patton at the Rhine in August 1944; Yalta conference in February 1945 - the Western Allied Armies at the Elbe, near Berlin, in April 1945.
The pulling of gas and supplies from Patton in August of 1944 had nothing to do with a fierce enemy at the time or mounting casualties. It had everything to do with giving everything to Montgomery and permitting him to enter Germany first because the British had suffered so much and deserved the honor.
This gave us Monty's plan Operation Market-Garden, September of 1944. It was one of the worst catastrophes of the war. This bled our supplies and stalled our advance into the winter of 1944... which also gave us the Battle of the Bulge.
Could Patton have made it to Berlin before Christmas 1944? Well, he sure as hell thought he could and everything he had done with his army so far indicated he could. Instead, winter came and allowed one last German offensive.
During that time Russia advanced through Poland killing both Germans and the Polish Resistance. This was consistent with Stalin who murdered everyone he considered a future threat. At Yalta, February 1945, he promised reforms but the Western Allied armies on the ground knew of Stalin's butchery.
This leads us to the Elbe, near Berlin, in April 1945. Ike stopped the Western Allies cold even though the German army was surrendering in front of them. Could the Germans have started resistance once they got closer than 60 miles to Berlin? Maybe... but Jeeps with recon drove right up to the city without encountering a single soldier.
The fierce battle for Berlin was because the Russians were taking it. I contend that the remnants of the German army would have gladly surrendered to anybody but the Russians. Instead, Ike purposely kept the Elbe river between himself and the Russians - as he has so stated in his memoirs. Ike stayed back over the river and allowed the murdering and raping of Berlin.
Was it the best decision at the time? Well... it was the easiest. Personally, I think that the failure to support Patton way back in August 1944 was a worse decision by far. The Market-Garden disaster, the Battle of the Bulge as well as the future Soviet empire could possibly have been avoided.
