No. For the simple reason even Patton wouldn't have ignored his own men's wellbeing to the same extent as the Russians. The Russian casualties in taking Berlin were horrific, primarily as for Stalin the end was all, and the loss of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers meant nothing to him.
Debatable. The German army was putting up as much resistance on the Western Front as it was on the Eastern.
It is estimated that the Russians lost over 330,000 men in taking Berlin. They are buried in the Soviet Cemetery at Treptow Park in what was East Berlin, visited the Park as part of a "flag tour" when stationed in that city.
I doubt it.
Group Captain Lionel Mandrake
Yes, the Germans stripped the Western defences to stop the Russians. After all they had done to them in the war they were disparate to stop them entering Germany.
yeah but if the US and britain took berlin, it would have been much less costly than when the USSR invaded as there would have been much less resistance
While it is possible it would have been very costly just as the russians soon found out to there grief.
Yes he would have taken the city but it would have violated agreements between the political leaders made at the Malta Conferance.
World War three could have immediately been started where World War two ended.