Reason For Overlord

I just read that we invaded Normandy to free Western Europe from tyranny. However, it was the future tyranny of the Soviet Union which was as much of a concern to the allies as Nazi Germany.

The thinking for the invasion of Normandy was that if we did nothing, the Soviet Union would have overrun Europe and would have had it for herself. The author supports this line of reasoning by saying that we could have gotten to Hitler's Germany by continuing up from Italy but it would have taken until 1946 and by that time, Russia would have finished the job.

Any truth to this?

Bob Guercio

 

A friend of mine recommended a book to me a while ago, written by a Russian after WW2, which described Stalin's plans for a Soviet Europe. I imagine a lot of supposition was involved, but was described to me as very thought provoking, especially if actually true.

Unfortunately I cannot for the life of me recall the author or the name of the book. All I remember is that he lived in England under a different name as he had a death sentence hanging over his head in Russia.

Maybe someone else knows what the hell I'm talking about

 

I just read that we invaded Normandy to free Western Europe from tyranny. However, it was the future tyranny of the Soviet Union which was as much of a concern to the allies as Nazi Germany.

The thinking for the invasion of Normandy was that if we did nothing, the Soviet Union would have overrun Europe and would have had it for herself. The author supports this line of reasoning by saying that we could have gotten to Hitler's Germany by continuing up from Italy but it would have taken until 1946 and by that time, Russia would have finished the job.

Any truth to this?

Bob Guercio

We? Who's "we"? Did you invade anyone? I don't remember seeing you in the newsreels nor in The Longest Day, so who's the "we"?

The original plan for the Allies had always been bo get their foot in Europe and go after the Axis with land forces.

Also that "Russian scare" theory is complete and utter bollocks. It is a well known fact that Stalin always kept clamouring for a Second Front to be opened by the Western allies in Europe, pestering the Western leaders for playing games in Africa and later in Italy, those were too small affairs and were not contributing to a destruction of the Reich and final victory at all. Stalin wanted the Western Allies to invade Europe for themselves.

 

I always thought that the Allies invaded Western Europe because the Germans (Military and Political Factions) were bad, very bad, and they needed to be stopped. I guess that just shows what a dope I am.

 

I always thought that the Allies invaded Western Europe because the Germans (Military and Political Factions) were bad, very bad, and they needed to be stopped. I guess that just shows what a dope I am.

In ones lifetime new facts are uncovered and history is changed multiple times, don't worry.

I wouldn't doubt the Allies had prepared for the future somewhat, perhaps Stalin was urging for a new front to open because he played through a scenario created by his advisers that would ensure a better position during the cold war? Perhaps the US, Britain, etc gave into Stalin's "order" because they saw it as a "safeguard" against a potentially war with the USSR.

If documents do exist that would support any such theory they are probably classified, until they are made public this is all "what if" territory.

 

We? Who's "we"? Did you invade anyone? I don't remember seeing you in the newsreels nor in The Longest Day, so who's the "we"?



As a matter of fact, a friend of mine was in the Longest Day. He did not play a prominent part but he was as clear as daylight.

Bob Guercio

 

Ill see if I can find a quote from Stalin himself, which pretty much shows that HE didn't want to continue on to the English Channel. A group of his generals had come to him and suggested it as they figured when the Nazis finally collapsed, the allies would be both unprepared and unwilling to fight for Europe with Hitler gone.

He immediately put the guestion to them; "and who would feed these new milions of citizens? Not Mother Russia, we are just getting so we can feed our own people." (paraphrasing)

Occupying the western section of Europe much past Berlin would create a problem even he could see was a no-win situation. Stalin had his Patton like generals to deal with as well, Patton figured the Soviets were weakened to the point he could walk through them, glad cooler heads on both sides of the situation prevailed.

 

If documents do exist that would support any such theory they are probably classified, until they are made public this is all "what if" territory.

Well then it shall not be discussed on this forum and I will issue you a friendly caution to avoid it at all costs if you wish to remain in the good graces of this forum.

 

Well then it shall not be discussed on this forum and I will issue you a friendly caution to avoid it at all costs if you wish to remain in the good graces of this forum.

I appreciate the gesture but I don't understand why everyone is telling me this, I merely let the original poster know, I didn't ask a what if question!

 

We? Who's "we"? Did you invade anyone? I don't remember seeing you in the newsreels nor in The Longest Day, so who's the "we"?



Give over Za. You obviously know what he means mate.

 

Marcus, I'm not seeing anyone in this forum speaking in "we" terms except for our esteemed Vets but those were really "there". I most certainly wasn't so I wouldn't dream of usurping the "we".

 

On one hand, the thing about stoppin STALIN sounds logical, but on the other hand, research after the war indicated that the USSR's industry couldn't have supported the war much longer (because of the huge amount of casualties), so the Western Front HAD to be opened.

 

Ropi, history and logic are two disciplines that hardly ever touch. But if you insist on the logic of stopping Stalin, then why as I said above was Stalin pestering for a Second Front in Europe? Was he being illogical? What have you been reading, the Reader's Digest issues from the Cold War?

Second Front
In November, 1943, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt met together in Teheran, Iran, to discuss military strategy and post-war Europe. Ever since the Soviet Union had entered the war, Stalin had been demanding that the Allies open-up a second front in Europe. Churchill and Roosevelt argued that any attempt to land troops in Western Europe would result in heavy casualties. Until the Soviet's victory at Stalingrad in January, 1943, Stalin had feared that without a second front, Germany would defeat them.

Stalin, who always favoured in offensive strategy, believed that there were political, as well as military reasons for the Allies' failure to open up a second front in Europe. Stalin was still highly suspicious of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt and was worried about them signing a peace agreement with Adolf Hitler. The foreign policies of the capitalist countries since the October Revolution had convinced Stalin that their main objective was the destruction of the communist system in the Soviet Union. Stalin was fully aware that if Britain and the USA withdrew from the war, the Red Army would have great difficulty in dealing with Germany on its own.

At Teheran, Joseph Stalin reminded Churchill and Roosevelt of a previous promise of landing troops in Western Europe in 1942. Later they postponed it to the spring of 1943. Stalin complained that it was now November and there was still no sign of an allied invasion of France. After lengthy discussions it was agreed that the Allies would mount a major offensive in the spring of 1944.
D-DAY / 60 years later : For Russia, opening of a second front in Europe came far too late - The New York Times
In fact, the problem of the second front in Europe was one of the most complicated in the relations between the Allies. Stalin had raised the issue as early as July 1941 in a letter to Churchill. "It seems to me," he wrote, "that the military position of the Soviet Union and by the same token that of the Great Britain would improve substantially if a front were established against Hitler in the west (northern France) and in the north (the Arctic). A front in the north of France — besides diverting Hitler's forces from the east — would also make impossible the invasion of England by Hitler." Otherwise, he argued, "The Germans think it perfectly possible that they will be able to beat off their enemies one at a time: first the Russians, then the British."

By June 1942, Vyacheslav Molotov, the Soviet minister for foreign affairs, had visited London and Washington, and resulting official communiqués said that "complete agreement" had been reached "in regard to the urgent tasks of the creation of the second front in 1942." Even now historians differ in their assessment of this document. Some historians think, as apparently did Stalin, that the statement was the equivalent of assuming an obligation; others say this was only a form of moral support to Russia and a threat to the common enemy. Whatever the truth, in 1942 and 1943 the second front was not opened. This resulted in serious discord between the Allies. In 1943, the Soviet ambassadors were recalled from London and Washington; Stalin was angry that, after written promises from Roosevelt and Churchill of an offensive in spring or at latest by September, nothing occurred.

The documents speak for themselves, the least of Stalin's worries was having the allies stepping into Europe to forestall him in his "plans of world conquest", jeez!

 

Marcus, I'm not seeing anyone in this forum speaking in "we" terms except for our esteemed Vets but those were really "there". I most certainly wasn't so I wouldn't dream of usurping the "we".

Fair enough mate. That's your opinion. However, I have used the 'we' terms plenty of times and will continue to do so as 'we' represents the allies of which 'we' are part of.

I just thought you were a little bit harsh on our fellow member mate.

Anyway, back to the thread.......

 

Its an interesting subject and who can guess what was going on in Stalin's mind.

No one has mentioned FDR's naivity when dealing with the Soviets (I think Truman was a different kettle of fish).

I dont think Stalin 'planned' to take western Europe but if he found himself in Berlin with nothing between him and the channel he wouldnt have thought twice of at least taking all of Germany. Not like he had any qualms at all with the Baltic states or Poland and he had the justfication.

Kev

 

Not all are "we". For instance I myself am from a neutral country, ditto for Jan7. Ropi and Kruska come from countries formerly on the other side. Alex (AMVAS) when he shows up belongs to the formerly Godless Oriental Hordes.

This "we" thing makes it sound like we all belong to the same football club, and I resent that a lot as I simply hate football. When they win, it's all "WE did this, WE did that". Strangely when the team loses it's "They are some lousy SOBs"...

Anyway, if I offended Bob's feelings then I apologise. Back to the thread, where it is my belief my latest post had been somewhat meaningful...

 

Anyway, if I offended Bob's feelings then I apologise.

You didn't offend my feelings but I accept your apology!

Bob Guercio

 

To be honest I think talk about the Allies getting a foothold in Europe to stop the Soviets overrunning the West is definitely spoken with hindsight. At the time the defeat of Germany was not seen as a done deal. Whilst the Russians had halted the Germans in the East at Kursk they had not launched Bagration and whilst there was good reason to assume it would succeed it was not an assured thing. I would imagine that this line of thinking was on the minds of the Allies following the battles of Bagration and France when the German Army as a fighting force was ground down. But I still believe that the reason the Allies invaded France was to open up the Third Front, or have we all forgotten the Italian Front which really should be known as the Second Front??

 

Ill see if I can find a quote from Stalin himself, which pretty much shows that HE didn't want to continue on to the English Channel. A group of his generals had come to him and suggested it as they figured when the Nazis finally collapsed, the allies would be both unprepared and unwilling to fight for Europe with Hitler gone.

He immediately put the guestion to them; "and who would feed these new milions of citizens? Not Mother Russia, we are just getting so we can feed our own people." (paraphrasing)

Occupying the western section of Europe much past Berlin would create a problem even he could see was a no-win situation. Stalin had his Patton like generals to deal with as well, Patton figured the Soviets were weakened to the point he could walk through them, glad cooler heads on both sides of the situation prevailed.

I find this very surprising considering that Europe was the most progressive area of the world with its scientists, writers, artists, architects, etc.

These people would have been a tremendous advantage to Stalin in his quest for world power.

Bob Guercio

 

I find this very surprising considering that Europe was the most progressive area of the world with its scientists, writers, artists, architects, etc.

These people would have been a tremendous advantage to Stalin in his quest for world power.

Bob Guercio


Find it pretty hard to believe too, Stalin not really got a good record on feeding his people....

Kev