Ive been thinking wouldnt it been more safer to begin the invasion of fortress europe on some other front instead of losing thousands of soldiers in normandy?
Anybody have any idea what could have been done instead of overlord…
There was talk of invading through Norway (Hitler feared this in particular) or even from the Baltics. But as the slow, plodding march through Italy showed, the only viable option was to land in terrain that favored rapid maneuver and that was relatively close to German industry. An invasion through France was really the only plausible, and most direct route, to the German industrial heartland along the Ruhr. Take that, and the War was just a matter of time. Normandy was chosen because it was one of only two really suitable landing sites in France for the sheer numbers of men and materials being landed. The other, Palais De Calais, was closer to Britain, but far more heavily defended as the Germans had been led to believe this was where the primary assault would take place…
Maybe it would have been better to invade a year earlier? Maybe then we could have saved Eastern Europe from the Soviets?
that would have drawn more troops away from the eastern front earlier allowing the USSR for a more rapid advance
You know, the US Army high command was lobbying for an invasion of France in as early as 1942. But this was impossible for a whole host of reasons, I’m not sure the invasion could have gone forward much earlier than it did because of the numbers of German divisions available in France, and the Western Allies inability to deliver enough troops to the battle zone quickly enough until very late in 1943 or early 44.’ Then the weather is the consideration, and also the battles in North Africa and Italy that needed to be either won, or stabilized, before a major invasion could move forward…
Although, I think Italy might have been a big waste of time, after the taking of Sicily…
I think Overlord or something very similar to it was the only reasonable solution. I agree that the Italian invasion, especially north of Rome was probably a waste of time and materiel, especially since attacking through the Italian alps north would have been an extremely costly and difficult way of getting at Germany. The other possibility, launching an invasion of the south of France (from captured North African bases) in lieu of Normandy would also have posed extreme problems because of all the troops and supplies that would have to be ferried there. Too easily discovered.
No, I think Overlord was the way to go and it would have been difficult to impossible to avoid it if we wanted to have a hand in the liberation of Europe. Invading earlier sounds great, but I believe “we” invaded as early as we could. The logistics simply weren’t there, and although there were plenty of nut cases around who demanded an early invasion, I don’t think any of them actually had a clue as to what was involved. It’s one thing to have a political thought or idea and quite another to have sufficient gasoline to put into engines that haven’t been delivered yet and food into boys who haven’t arrived yet.
To add: one important factor in deciding the site of the invasion was the necessity of providing massive fighter cover in case of a Luftwaffe response. So the landing beaches had to be within range of the UK fighter bases.
Another issue was the ease of getting off the beaches - some locations were ruled out because of the very narrow access routes from the beaches to the countryside beyond. Yet another was the suitability of the beaches for LSTs to land tanks, and so on.
There was a huge range of factors to take into account, and the Normandy beaches represented the best compromise location.
As to the timing, the U-boats had to be defeated before it was practicable to ship the vast quantities of men, materials and supplies across the Atlantic for the invasion.
My bold.
Exactly.
Too much attention is focused on the titanic land battles.
WWII was determined largely by logistics, and most of all by shipping, on all sides outside the USSR. Both by the shipping available to a given side and its ability to destroy the shipping of the other side.
Tonnage for a given exercise is a function of the weight or volume of men or materiel to be carried by ship for a given distance. In simple terms, one ship can do in a one day return trip what thirty ships can do in a thirty day return trip. If you have only one or even twenty ships, you can’t succeed in the exercise needing thirty ships.
Then there is the problem of the fuel oil required for the ships on the longer trips, which requires greater tanker tonnage; fuel storage; and possibly refuelling at sea which then needs refueller ships.
And so it all goes infinitely.
There simply wasn’t the tonnage to support a Mediterranean invasion on the same scale as Normandy.
During the interwar years the US Army Staff College at Leavenworth had the students of each class run through detailed planning for a major operation. Sometime in the mid 1930s one or more of these exercises was specified for a hypothetical invasion of Europe. Normandy was choosen by the students as the optimal location for landing a large army group.
Interesting. You do realize that the Allies wouldn’t have won the war without the Red Army? The German army had suffered roughly 88% of its losses on the Eastern front. The Eastern front was also where the majority of the more experienced German commanders were stationed.
even with the Soviet contribution to WW2, does that really excuse putting eastern Europe under a dictatorship for 50 years?
Even if a 1943 attack into France had been sucessfull its unlikely Eastern or Central Europe would have been ‘saved’ from Soviet occupation. The German forces were not as near collapse in 1943 and a much slower and tougher fight across France and the Rhineland would have been the fact. If the Anglo/American armys do batter down the German defense faster this only makes it easier for the Red Army to advance.
There was also the matter of supply. While the Allies could have supported several armys in France in 1943 the supplies, transport & construction capability of January 1945 simply was not available in 1943, or even in the first half of 1944. Trying to support a couple of Anglo/American army groups in a lunge across the Rhine to Warsaw & Prague was just not possible, unless the Wehrmacht is vaporized with fairy dust.
I know some American history books try to say the good has triumphed over evil, when in reality it was a greater evil that triumphed over that evil. The Anglo-American armies might have lost, actually, had the Soviets not contributed.
i never said they would have
i agree, but i believe the reason we waited to massively invade Europe was to just let Stalin and Hitler wear themselves out against each other. Even though we had a happy face towards communism, 
as you can see, Roosevelt and Churchill were both very wary about what may happen in post war Europe. And there nightmares ultimately came true.
But, in sense of your original question. I believe Normandy was the only logically position. We could have attacked and cut in half German forces at the Rhine, but imagine the increased cost of life and the struggle might have lasted even longer.It is true that Roosevelt, and especially Churchill, were very cognizant of the inevitable post-War struggle with the USSR. This was shown most notably with their continued interest and active support to the Greco-Balkan resistance movements throughout 1941 to the end of the War. But to say that some in the US gov’t and military were not interested in invading France very early on is just wrong and is another myth about the “Machiavellian” Western Allies sitting on the sidelines, waiting for the Osteer to ‘weaken’ the Soviets."
The US Army devised war plans for the invasion of France that were proposed as early as 1942. These included ideas for what was essentially an incursion that was limited in scope designed to capture a “foothold” in a port city, then fortify it against the inevitable German counterattacks, leaving the area open to reinforcement and a future breakout once the US forces were completely trained and equipped. But it was pure fantasy. The Germans had more divisions in France than the Allies could hope to deploy in such a small area in the near future. At best, it would have been a bottleneck - and they may very well have been driven into the sea in a second Dunkirk, which could have ultimately prolonged the war. As far as the future Cold War - the US military was more concerned about Soviet forces collapsing in 1942 and the spectre of fighting the Third Reich without a nation-state Eastern European ally more than they were about Stalinism, because remember, this was BEFORE Stalingrad. As indeed, with the Red Army being pushed towards Moscow and looked like it was about to buckle once-and-for all after its initial routes.
The US generals had to be overruled and essentially tricked by the British high command into a progression of campaigns starting in North Africa, then Sicily, which in hindsight was the best operational attrition of German forces in the West, since the newly raised US Army was by no means ready to fight the Wehrmacht on equal terms. Also, total air superiority was not achieved over the Luftwaffe until 1944 and the transport centers of Europe had to be raised to deny the Wehrmacht and SS proper transport and reinforcement. Unfortunately, this also entailed FDR going along with the Italian campaign. This possibly could have been avoided, many think the Italian campaign was indeed a blunder, and France could have been entered earlier. But even then - we’re talking months, not years, earlier than June 1944. Maybe the fall of 1943, but I don’t even know if the weather and tides were conducive to this…
That is why im posting, thank you, i am young and still learning. 
I see the overall picture now
I know that Russia kept up the pressure for a 2nd front assult as they did not feel the Itlay invasion a real 2nd front
I know that Russia kept up the pressure for a 2nd front assult as they did not feel the Itlay invasion a real 2nd front
Actualy the Italy wasn’t a second front at all.
The few GErmans divisions have regrouped and succesfully hold the more Allies troops almost eight month , using the tactical advantage of relief ( mountains).
Interesting historical moment:In one of telegram to Stalin , Churchill hinted
- whe have already opened the Second front , according you demands.
Stalin just sarcastically answered: - the Italian compain is not a front, but rather a big partisan operation.