Not quite.
I read that Stalin was in panic during first period of war.When the Soviet Western front was fully surrounded and destroyed for few weeks. The history get us the few of his assertion:
( In telegram to Churchill , jule of 1941)
“The Soviet command would glad to meet the British forces , landing in Caucaus or Crimea. To fight alongside agains the GErman Army in Russia”
( In speech with US ambassador in Moscow)
“The Soviet Union is not agains the landing the american forces in Vladivostok, or everywhere on Soviet territory”
In fact in that period Stalin though that USSR probably would have been beaten in the war.Coz the soviet catastrophical loses in first period fairly told about that.
When was that?
It contradicts the way the Soviets treated the B25 crew that landed in Vladivostok after the Doolittle raid on Tokyo in 1942.
Yeah. They seized the B-29s and directly reversed engineered them and interned the crews…
In Jule/august 1941.
I found out this infor in the book of Alan Clark “Barbarossa”
It contradicts the way the Soviets treated the B25 crew that landed in Vladivostok after the Doolittle raid on Tokyo in 1942.
Nobody treated the Americans crews in USSR, never:)
Coz this could treat the Lend lise program, that was critically importaine for SU in that period.
Besides Stalin told about American troops in Vladivostok, not about the few pilots, returned after the bombing of Japane.
Formally USSR wasn’t in war with Japane, so soviets would have interned the crew according the international law.
BTW the US gov never DEMANDED those three B-29 back:)
Although their crew have been returned to the America.
It seems unreasonable that the Soviets should be forced to bear the vast brunt of the casualties sustained by the allies when it was seemingly possible to make the other allies contribute to an equal degree.
The non-Soviet Allies didn’t control where the Germans went.
If the Germans had advanced into Texas, the Americans could have engaged them on land, but the Germans put the bulk of their land forces against the Soviets who had to fight them in the east.
Logistically, it wasn’t feasible for the non-Soviet Allies to match the forces the Soviets could deploy on land at the time.
And the non-Soviet Allies fought the Germans on land where they could, with limitations on numbers, logistically speaking, imposed on both sides. North Africa was indeed “the second Stalingrad.” And Anglo-American bombing sapped much in the way of the Reich’s resources…
“Dearest Joe ‘Man O’ Steel’ Stalin: Can we please have our airplanes back. We’ve given you enough already.” --FDR
But they finally have deployed at the Western Europe in mid 1944 , right?
So the questions is still- could they made it early?
In this way they would have made the soviet casualties lower.
Probably he mean the Lend lise airplains that , according the conditions of Lend lise , would have been returned to the USA after the war.
Coz i never heared that the US authorities officially asked USSR give back those three B-29:)
Just because I’ve been away doesn’t mean I’ve gone soft. 
If the Soviets fought all the battles against the Germans that really mattered, then it doesn’t matter what the other Allies did elsewhere.
Conversely, if what the other Allies did elsewhere really mattered, then the Soviets didn’t win the war all by themselves.
Uncle Joe didn’t think so, because he was keen for a second front in 1942 and desperate for one in 1943.
Militarily, the other Allies couldn’t have sustained a second front into Europe anywhere in the Mediterranean in 1942, as Greece and Crete proved a year earlier. Logistically, they were even further away from it.
A second front anywhere you want from Denmark to Athens to Morocco in 1942 or 1943 would only have taken shipping away from the USSR that helped it defeat the Germans, and ensured that the other Allies blunted themselves in pointless exercises that failed to strike at the Nazi heart.
An earlier second front wouldn’t have had much impact on Russian casualties, but it would have had enough impact on other Allied forces and supplies to delay an effective second front for another year or two beyond 1944.
And despite this fact, various US Army officers desperately wanted too, but were thankfully overruled by a combination of British persistence, and the lobbying of FDR by Churchill.
Oh , harsh Rising Sun:)
Militarily, the other Allies couldn’t have sustained a second front into Europe anywhere in the Mediterranean in 1942, as Greece and Crete proved a year earlier. Logistically, they were even further away from it.
But as we saw in the end 1942-43 the allies could not just sustain but and win the second front in Africa, righ?
So already inthe mid 1943 they were fully ready for landing in Europe, but they’ve prefered the Sicily and Italy ( rather senseless from military poin compain)
As the resault the great forces were frittered away of the strategic second front in Western Europe.
A second front anywhere you want from Denmark to Athens to Morocco in 1942 or 1943 would only have taken shipping away from the USSR that helped it defeat the Germans, and ensured that the other Allies blunted themselves in pointless exercises that failed to strike at the Nazi heart.
But the second fron in the 1944 did cut off the shipping in the USSR?
And since the 1944 the second front ACTUALLY helped the Red Army very much.
So there were no any proves of the “pointless exercises” if the Second front was opened for instance 1943:)
To the contrast- we could finish this war for year early and saved the millions of lives.
An earlier second front wouldn’t have had much impact on Russian casualties, but it would have had enough impact on other Allied forces and supplies to delay an effective second front for another year or two beyond 1944.
Well may be , but i have to say that there were no points to think so.
If the Allies attacked the Germany in the 1943- they could save the Eastern Europe from soviet liberation ( as well as Berlin).So at least ONE million soviet soldiers could save their lives.
The Allies HAD to take Sicily in order to secure the Mediterranean shipping lanes. You recall that both Britain and the US are separated from Europe by bodies of water?
And while Italy wasn’t totally senseless, there are a number of US Army officers that would have happily agreed that Italy was largely a waste of time and resources, and a more minimalist attack could have been waged, with more emphasis for a cross channel invasion sooner, perhaps by the latter half of 1943. The British point of view was that the Allies could roll-up Italy quickly, then blow through passes in the Alps into Vienna and hit the “soft underbelly.” With the limitations on shipping, men, material, and the surprising German will to resist and to advantageously defend the Italian countryside, they were wrong…
But the second fron in the 1944 did cut off the shipping in the USSR?
And since the 1944 the second front ACTUALLY helped the Red Army very much.
So there were no any proves of the “pointless exercises” if the Second front was opened for instance 1943:)
To the contrast- we could finish this war for year early and saved the millions of lives.
Well may be , but i have to say that there were no points to think so.
If the Allies attacked the Germany in the 1943- they could save the Eastern Europe from soviet liberation ( as well as Berlin).So at least ONE million soviet soldiers could save their lives.
This is no certainty. The breakout of Normandy probably would have taken longer, and the numbers of divisions ready to be sent were less. The Battle for France may well have been a bloody stalemate for a year anyways. But I agree, the Allies should have by-and-large skipped Italy and hit France sooner. I think the rewards far outweighed the risks. But that’s hindsight, and the Italian front was also meant to lesson the pressure on the Eastern Front as well as draw off Wehrmacht forces from Normandy. And the Italian campaign was waged with a secondary objective of trying to prevent a communist takeover in the Balkans in mind…
It should be remembered that the non-Soviet Allies were also fighting the Japanese, where the Soviets were just facing them.
In 1942 the Japanese war soaked up whatever forces and materiel might have been available for a second front in Europe, and again in 1943.
Also, America needed time to mobilise men and industry. It certainly wasn’t in a position in mid 1942 to undertake anything like the Normandy operation a bare six months after entering the war. Without America, and American materiel stockpiled in the UK which took time to build up, Overlord wouldn’t have been possible.
That’s exactly what i mean.
The Allies tryed to prevent the sovetisation of Balcans( this was a aim of Churchill firstly).Besides , as i know the Churchil planned to involve the Turkey into the war on allies ( British ) side.
But as we know today the Italy invasion did not prevented the Soviet offensive on the Balkans. And Turkey was not involved into the war.
So , in the end, the whole Italy compain was political failure of allies.
I do not argue, this had a certain limited military success for the allies and Soviets, but in general - this had not critically influence at the GErmans military forces.( well Germans was forced to withdrew the very few divisions from the Eastern front during the Kursk battle)
So from pure military sense it also was fairly waste of forces.
But you wrote previously that the Soviets tied the million Kwantung Army ( very essential part of Japs troops) out of fight with Allies, right?
Coz the Soviet also hold about million of troops in the Far East.
In 1942 the Japanese war soaked up whatever forces and materiel might have been available for a second front in Europe, and again in 1943.
But inthe 1944 the Allied strength agains Japane were even higher.
And this was not a barier for Overlord.
Also, America needed time to mobilise men and industry. It certainly wasn’t in a position in mid 1942 to undertake anything like the Normandy operation a bare six months after entering the war. Without America, and American materiel stockpiled in the UK which took time to build up, Overlord wouldn’t have been possible.
But the Italy compain was still possible in minds of allied politics?So why the Overlord wasn’t?
Agreed. But the logistics and replacement of casuatlies and relief of fighting units impose far greater strains on an army and its LOC than holding units, while the burdens in seaborne landings in the Pacific were far greater than European land based operations.
It all changes once the holding units are engaged, as happened to the Germans after D Day.
True, but by mid 1944 America had had two and half years to mobilise and train men and mobilise its huge industrial capacity for war.
It’s worth noting that America never devoted more than 15% of its war effort to the Pacific, and considered devoting none in the early stages in preference for the ‘Germany First’ aim. If that 15%, or whatever it was in mid 1943, was available for Europe then it’s feasible that a second front could have been opened.
As usual, the merchant shipping would have been the critical factor. Any serious second front through the Med in 1942, maybe even 1943, would have needed just about all the merchant shipping in the Pacific, and even more USN and RN because the Japanese, typically stupid in applying medieval concepts to modern war, largely ignored sinking merchant shipping while their own was being sunk much faster than they could replace it. The Germans understood that it was at the heart of any chance they had of defeating England or bringing it to terms of peace. Allied merchant convoys in the Pacific went largely unescorted for much of the war. Compare that with the Med and the North Atlantic, and the German commerce raiders in the Indian and Pacific oceans, from memory nine of which sank more merchant shipping than the whole of the German navy during the war.
It’s also feasible that if America abandoned the Pacific, which Britain had already done, Japan would have left Australia alone and turned its attention to the Soviets without the shipping and logistical problems involved in invading Australia. Russia was of a lot more interest to Japan in its war aims. In which case the Soviets would have had to divert substantial forces to the east and been at risk in the west, or abandon the east to ensure they had sufficient forces against the Germans in the west.
Guys!
I have not read thoroughly the latest post in this thread. But I want to bring up 2 points:
[ol]
[li]Question: Are there any Western historians/military men that were concluding that “Overlord” should and could be done earlier, i.e. in 1943? I know of one of them but I have to look it up as I do not remember by heart.
[/li][li]I point to remember: Each goverment besides the global human kind interest also has to watch the interest of it’s own country. Clear ehough as the politics is not a charity. Sadly so… But nonetheless is the reality. So there is play/balance between Odjective goals (i.e. defeat of Axis powers and bringing peace to the World) and Subjective goals (defeat the enemy here and now in order to gain someting for my country). The thing is that for the most part of the war (but not all of it of course) the only country which Subjectivs goals were exactly coinsiding with the Objective goals of the war was USSR. This is because USSR suffered the strongest Axis blow and highest losses. One has to remember that while analysing the events. I hope it is clear what I want to say.
[/li][/ol]
[/li]
Maybe. More like finish the war and get a result on our terms which meets our needs, which doesn’t necessarily involve world peace. None of the major Allies did anything to bring peace to China or various European colonies in Asia, for example, once they had peace for themselves.
Where is the evidence that the Soviets were fighting for world peace, as distinct from, say, conquering fascism so that they could export communism around the globe?
Why doesn’t Britain meet that goal? Apart from not fighting for most of the war, because it was the only Allied nation that fought for all of the war when others had surrendered or, like the USSR, had done deals with the Nazis to avoid fighting?
What about, for example, Poland? Or Greece? Or China?
The Soviets had the luxury of geography, resources, manpower, and politics that enabled them to keep fighting when other nations didn’t, including Poland which the Soviets grabbed a chunk of in collusion with the Nazis.
I think we’re heading back to the endless USSR contributed more than anyone else / no it didn’t debate, which is a profitless exercise as there were so many contributions made by, and so many losses suffered by, so many people and peoples and nations.