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!
But this doesn't answer the question, how would they even try to open up a front in 1942 after or at the time of the disastrous Dieppe Raid?
The western allies were nowhere near ready to take on the Germans at France, the landing alone was a massive logistical nightmare and then you have to take on the Wehrmacht, which again, was at it's peak on performance. Stalin pressured Churchill on the idea of opening up a second front but the task was impossible by 1942, either it was just a political-ish move or Stalin was dead serious on that idea (which is a gross misinterpretation of the strategic/operational situation in Western Europe by that time).
Even when careful preparation, years of technological advances, theorical advances and training, the landings in June of 1944 were at the mercy of things like weather, unexpected events and the German resistence, an insanely risky endeavour that could have gone wrong even though the Western Allies had a numerical, intelligence and material advantage over the Wehrmacht. The correct time was 1944, any sooner and it would have gone to shit.
Look i dont know the month to month military capabilities of the western front. But what i do know is that the west was incentivized to delay invasion for as long as possible. Yes, part of that was military build-up, but part of that was also just letting the USSR and Nazi Germany tire each other out. And after the war, instead of recognizing the wins, losses and efforts the soviets made during the war, the US almost immediately jumped into cold war posturing.
Yeah it is unfounded to say '42 would have been possible and didn't occur do to sabotage by the western allies. The Brits did seriously hold off on opening a second front to be sure, but that went for Operation Torch as well. The US had hesitations and wanted its imperial vengeance war in the Pacific, but people like Eisenhower pushed hard for supporting the USSR. Thing is D-Day was not something you could just do, even with months of build up. They had to do Operation Torch and clear out Vichy forces and Germans in North Africa in a manner that was utterly untested and experimental.
Then they needed to do Operation Husky and invade Sicily which was another immense task and involved the shifting of war production all towards LSTs for invasions, as well as being a real joint operation between the US and UK which got very messy. Nothing to do with the Soviets with why Husky was harsh to plan, it was plain old British stubbornness and an open attitude of honor and ego mattering more than anything. It also involved a shift in planning between the army and navy which led to some fights between commanders and the captains of ships who would be responsible for their landings.
They D-Day gets postponed due to weather and Churchill's incompetent dick-measuring at Anzio and waste of LSTs at a time when Eisenhower was literally trading units with the Pacific in exchange for a handful of them. The logistics of all of this, the complicated relations and red tape, it cannot be understated.
One of the best histories I have ever read and probably the most readable history book is Craig L Symonds' "world war 2 at sea: a global history" I HIGHLY recommend people buy it asap. Doesn't matter if you like naval stuff or anything, do yourself a favor and check it out