In June 1944 not only the Western Allies made their big move to bring the war to a conclusion swiftly. But the Soviets also shortly after D-Day launched Operation Bagration, A Massive sweeping frontal attack on Army Group Centre which swept the Wehrmacht pretty much all the way back to the banks of the Vistula.

This has been identified as one of those strategic Dilemmas which were to face the beligerent powers. So, what if ... Bagration did not take place and an alternative Axis of advance was taken into Germany. Would the Russians have beaten the Western Allies to Berlin as they did through a Central advance?

To my mind a Southern Sweep from the South of the Pripet Marshes would have taken in Vienna, Prague and Budapest on the way and would have potentially encircled Army Group North, Centre(Vistula) and possibly North Ukraine as well. I think this Sweep can be discounted as achieving the same effects as Bagration but may have potentially ended the war sooner as the potential for the destruction of German and Axis forces could have been much greater. Though retreating forces heading west may have made the Allies western advances different.

Does anyone have any thoughts on a Northern Axis through the Baltic States and East Prussia, or a Narrower Front option? Would either of these options or even a different Strategic concept from the Stavka put the Western Allies in the Driving seat for the capture of Berlin?

I guess in a way the main attack from the south might have given more German and European ground to the Red Army/Stalin. Considering Berlin as a possiblity for the Western Allied I think Ike did the decision early on that no way would they go for Berlin and left it to the Red Army.

However considering the speed the Red Army was getting through the German lines since late 1943 and made progress, Bagration and the following operations seem pretty obvious. That was like Blitzkrieg at its best or even better, so I don´t think Stalin would change his mind about going for Berlin first, and STAVKA=Stalin anyway so...

__________________

You raise the point of the western Allies being in the driving seat to take Berlin but the question is did they really want to fight for the city. I think not, the cost in human terms would be politically damaging, particulary in the US. If the Soviets did take the Southern route - Baltic/East Prussian would have been harder - and leave Berlin open to the western Allies I could imagine the British driving along the Baltic coast to the Oder but staying well north of Berlin. Likewise the US armies would avoid the capital. They might encircle it but not attempt to take it.
If the British did cross the Oder they could push on into Poland, where it all started, then leaving them with the politically tricky business of handing it over to the Soviets - as per Yalta agreements - once the war ended.

__________________
Those who live by the sword will be shot by those of us who have progressed

Most American and Commonwealth generals wanted Berlin. Monty, Bradley, Patton, Collins to name a few. It was the supreme prize and everyone wanted to have a shot at it. If the Allied Armies were not so far from Berlin at the Yalta Conference, there was no question that the Western Allies would race the Russians for it. I think.

Army Group Center was by necessity, the most powerful German Army group (before Bagration). For the soviets to have attempted the type of retrograde movement as you suggest, implies ignoring the existence of Army Group center and any countermeasures they would have taken. (Certainly army Group Center would have had some of its lines of communication cut from the west but it would have still been possible to supply them from the north and northwest.)
Any such maneuver by the soviets at the timeline suggested in summer 1944, means it would have left a (still formidable) Army group center active in the soviet rear and on their flanks and even threatening their rear - an almost certain formula for defeat for the Russians.