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!
Way too late. Stalin had asked Churchill to restart the second front in 1942. Several eastern front battles and 25 million soviet deaths later, the USSR was finally pushing the nazis back. Thats when D-day happened. A cynical take might be that Britain, France and US invaded at that time not for military strategy against the nazis or the goodness of their hearts. But instead to prevent the soviet union (and thus communism) from freeing western europe and winning the ideological victory.
Way too late. Stalin had asked Churchill to restart the second front in 1942
How the fuck do you open a second front in 1942 when Britain barely could keep the fight up in the Mediterranean and North Africa?
In 1942, when the Axis were at their peak... of all years!
Churchill was dragging his feet in the mud. He didn't like the soviets and he made that very clear. The allied powers also had the cairo and tehran conferences in late 1943 (well after Stalingrad) where Stalin was begging for the western front to open. Then it took another 7 months to actually do D-Day.
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
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?
"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:
Killing Nazis fuck yeah!!!!!
The Wallies were committed to defeating the third reich, there was no conspiracy to let the soviets fall, and any post-war concerns were secondary to the very real utility of opening a second/third front
I mean, a lot of fascists died and it was a huge blow to the third reich, and likely did shorten the war by at least a year, but at that point the direction of the war had already been settled. Germany lost their offensive edge into the Soviet Union and was actively being pushed back, and unless they somehow found a massive petroleum deposit underneath Frankfurt that nobody had noticed before, then the rest of the war would just be the Soviets making a long, protracted push towards Berlin as they did historically, just somewhat more difficult.
By summer of 1944, it was abundantly clear to everyone that Germany would lose this war, and opening up a second front in France was mostly there to curtail the very real possibility of spreading Soviet influence over Europe in the post war. By opening up their own front in the war, the West was really just ensuring they had more bargaining chips at the peace talks.
It was an incredible invasion that took a ton of planning and effort on everyone involved. Still one of the greatest military achievements of all time. It hastened the fall of the Nazis by at least a year and took some pressure of the Soviet front. Though strategically by 1944 the Soviets were well on their way to winning and the Western allies got way more than would be "fair" in proportion to Soviet causalities and everything. The desire not to see Stalinist Mainland Europe (hell based) did certainly encourage the allies to get moving by 1944. But honestly I don't think they were deliberately delaying or anything, it took a few years for the western allies to get their shit together to pull off a big invasion like that.
Lol just imagining Stalin like "PLEASE! THE RED ARMY IS BEGGING FOR HELP. WE HAVE NOTHING LEFT BUT OUR TEETH TO BITE THEM WITH. IF WE FALL, YOU'RE NEXT, PLEASE HELP" in 1943
Churchill and FDR are all, "don't worry bro, we're totally making headway in Africa"
It was very sad, successful as it was, lots of people died gruesome, horrible deaths. War is hell
The US's part in defeating the Nazis is one of the few morally good things we've ever done with our military, so naturally the US had to go and undo all of it in the years immediately following the fall of the third reich by reinstating all of their officers into NATO positions and supporting the worst warcriminals in Europe as part of anti-communist "resistance" efforts. Thinking about it though it's kind of hilarious how little attention the pacific theater gets nowadays and that's because subconsciously every American knows it wasn't justified like the war in Europe was. The war in the Pacific was a battle between two empires for resources, not a war of liberation
The front against the Japanese was absolutely justified, seeing as how they were aggressively pushing into the rest of Asia on a genocidal scale.
Lol yeah wait what the Japanese killed like 10 million Chinese between 1937-1945
If you find yourself uniting both the KMT and CPC, you know you're a special kind of monster.
It is an incredibly important in bringing the war to a close, and beyond that is a seriously incredible achievement of logistics and planning. That side alone is fascinating. It finally eased the pressure on the Soviets and the Partisans, as well as western resistance forces. In the next months Free France would hijack it and everything, but the landings themselves are incredibly based, even if an incredibly bloody awful event in its own right which cannot be understated
also happy birthday
I liked that youtube about the german machinegunner that fired for 9 hours nonstop and killed hundreds of Americans and got away with nothing but a bad case of PTSD, war dials the perversity of life up to 11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfQdON0saRM
I don't personally have much thoughts on D day itself but by 1944 it was pretty clear Germany was going to lose, and the Nazis needlessly killed people by forcing the war to go on until the bitter end.
Anyone who thinks that fascists have their best interests needs to have a good slap in the face. Fascist leaders will always throw their supporters under the bus as soon as they realize they can't win.
