On June 6th, 1944, allied forces under the flags of Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States landed on Juno, Sword, Gold, Utah, and Omaha beaches in Normandy in the largest landing invasion in history, paving the way for a western front to be opened in Europe during WW2.
Plus it's my birthday today, so I figured I'd ask!
They only did it once the nazis failed to take out the USSR for them and it was clear the red army would March to the Atlantic. The British had forces in France when they declared war over Poland but they refused to open a front, it was called the Phoney War, they were giving Hitler a free hand in the East to finish what the intervention after WWI failed to accomplish. The Western front was literally just right wing-infighting over what to do about the USSR and Stalin, the pace of industrialization scared the dogshit out of the West and they were afraid slavic subhumans would achieve equality with them.
I'm not saying the west isn't deserving of the highest possible degree of cynicism but I think this is a bridge too far. At the advent of the Nazi invasion of the USSR the US was not yet in the war, and Britain alone had no capacity to open its own front in western Europe. They had tried and failed spectacularly in the Battle of France. By the time the US had joined the war and was fully mobilized, the Wehrmacht's advance had already been stalled for months, and the Soviets had already begun to regain ground. I think it's a hell of a stretch to say the west was crossing its fingers that Hitler would reach Moscow, especially given that if they did, the UK was likely next to be invaded. But we can't know any of that for sure, it's all speculation. What we DO know for sure is that Stalin had been asking Churchill and Roosevelt to open a front in western Europe since at least the middle of 1942. With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to say the Red Army easily could have steamrolled all the way to France without western intervention but the simple fact is Stalin absolutely wanted the help. I think it's ludicrous to suggest the opening of the western front was merely to prevent a completely Soviet-dominated Europe. Of COURSE that was a factor, but the invasion also held immense strategic importance, and the war likely would have dragged much longer without it. Even if we say your view is accurate, I would retort, so what? Killing Nazis, even if for "the wrong reason" is good, actually.
Before the battle of France they were at war with Germany With their forces in France but they refused to launch an offensive, see the Phoney War period, and Stalin was asking them to send forces to Poland before the war to contain Hitler, but they all refused. If the Germans had reached Moscow then they would no longer care about Britain as they would have more territory than they would know what to do with, leaving the door open for coexistence and by 44 the strategic importance of the Western front was fading, especially since they fucked up market garden too. Ofc it was good when they finally did it but they were double dealing.
Nazi interests were contrary to Wally interests. Imperialism is a zero-sum game and neither Britain nor France could allow Nazi supremacy on the continent. The 'optimism' that the Nazis could be thrown at the Soviets was essentially short-sighted and a gross miscalculation of Nazi ambition.
The whole Wallies being friendlier to Nazis than USSR is fodder for the pre-war appeasement conversation, and for blaming the Wallies for allowing the war to happen, not for claiming AFTER hostilities began that the Wallies were under any illusions of that happening.
How do you explain the phoney war? that wasn't before hostilities
Wally strategic planning presumed a semi-defensive war fought in Belgium or beyond, Belgium trying to do neutrality and re-enact WW1 fucked this up. the Saar offensive (and all other possible offensives on the french border) a) butted into the German defenses--hard fighting b) dislodged troops from a position of strength on the Maginot.
off of the franco-german border, the Wallys were perfectly prepared to engage the Axis, the naval war was hot, and a naval blockade was initiated. the blockade especially indicates Wally intentions, you'd hardly expect a germany cut off from the rest of the world to invade the USSR and win
Pretty strange to enact a blockade without also attacking, almost like they didn't really want to prosecute a war with Germany, at least not until they outlived their usefulness of destroying the USSR.
a naval blockade is attackin. the phoney war period is also when most of the german surface fleet got sunk.
also just before the Battle of France the French & British deployed in Norway, boots-on-the-ground fighting, thousands of allied casualties
They had troops on the border already and Norway isn't even on the mainland, a total free hand in the East
there was a limited amount of wallied troops. most had to be on the belgian border to counter the main expected thrust of the germans,
the troops 'available' on the border were the garrison of the lynchpin of allied strategy--the maginot line. you get them killed on the siegfried line you risk the germans being able to penetrate the maginot.
there's no denying wallied strategy was conservative in this theatre, even arguably cowardly. but its explicable without resorting to a secret and self-destructive bias toward the nazis
First they sign the Munich agreement, then their strategy is very conservative, or even cowardly, to the point that historians call the period the phoney war, then when the war was really on they choose to fight on a different continent or an island in the med until the USSR made the outcome a fait accompli.
that's pretty unfair for 1941, the British, after losing most their best equipment & a bunch of troops in France, were totally on their back foot but dug in their feet and kept the pressure on. If they wanted the Nazis to be successful against the Soviets would they have continued blockading the continent? Continued destroying Axis naval power? Destroyed whatever proportion of the Luftwaffe they did in the Channel? Make an agreement with the Soviets to not conclude separate peace with Germany?
That agreement wouldn't matter if the Germans succeeded
"just concluding a military alliance with someone i want to lose the war"
are you taking the piss? you dont seem very willing to consider my points
i have been enjoying carrying on in a days old thread tho lol :mao-wave: