Why the Allies did not open a second front in France in 1943

37
Why the Allies did not open a second front in France in 1943
The explosion of the American transport with ammunition "Robert Rowan" during the landing in Sicily near the city of Gela. July 11, 1943


Question of the second front


The Allies in 1943 could open a second front and bring victory over Nazi Germany closer. The allies had all the necessary conditions for this. England and the United States had overwhelming superiority over the Reich in the air and at sea. The Allies had an overwhelming superiority in human and material resources. Only US military production was 1,5 times higher than the military production of Germany, Italy and Japan combined. In 1943 alone, American factories (the United States began preparations for a major war before anyone else) produced almost 86 aircraft, about 30. tanks, 16,7 thousand guns. Great Britain also achieved serious success in the militarization of the economy: in 1943, its industry produced more than 26 thousand aircraft (in 1940 - 15 thousand), 7,5 thousand tanks (in 1940 - 1,4 thousand) , hundreds of warships, etc.



The armed forces of England and its dominions totaled more than 4,4 million people, plus 480 thousand people of colonial and dominion troops, which were intended for internal defense. The US army and navy numbered more than 10 million people: the ground forces - 7,4 million, the fleet - about 2,3 million, the marines - 382 thousand. The fleet of the USA and England was quickly replenished with warships and transports. In 1943, 17 thousand landing ships, ships and barges were built in the USA.

Thus, the Anglo-Saxons had a great advantage over the dispersed forces of the Axis. However, they preferred to wait while the struggle, titanic in scale and intensity, continued on the Russian front. The allies preferred to gradually squeeze out opponents from secondary theaters and fronts.

January 14-26, 1943 in the North African port of Casablanca, a conference of the heads of the United States and England was held with the participation of their military advisers. Stalin also received an invitation to take part in this meeting, but declined. Obviously due to the remoteness of the place. At the suggestion of American President Roosevelt, the meeting participants declared the unconditional surrender of the Axis countries (Germany, Italy and Japan) as a military goal of the United Nations.


US President Franklin Roosevelt rides in a Jeep "Willis" during a visit to Casablanca

The chief of staff of the American army, General Marshall, spoke out against the "floundering" in the Mediterranean Sea and proposed to launch an invasion of France across the English Channel. However, not all US military supported Marshall. Thus, Chief of Staff of the Navy King and Chief of Staff of the Air Force Arnold leaned towards the British point of view. Roosevelt also did not support Marshall. The general was forced to give in. The British delegation was united on the issue of military strategy - to complete the operation in North Africa and capture Sicily. This was supposed to move Italy to surrender and allowed the invasion of the Balkans to begin. Roosevelt went along with the wishes of Churchill, but did not tie the United States to the Mediterranean theater. The situation could change.

Moscow was informed that Germany would be brought to its knees in 1943. In February 1943, Churchill informed Stalin that the Allies were preparing to land in France in August 1943. This was disinformation.

As a result, the Anglo-American military-political leadership continued the Great Game, directed both against the Axis countries and the USSR. While Russia and Germany were depleting their resources in a titanic battle, the Anglo-Saxons waited, conserving their forces and means, and quickly increased their military potential. The Allies understood that the Russians were seizing the initiative in the war, but it was still unknown how long it would take the Red Army to dislodge the Nazis from the territory of the USSR and then continue the offensive in Europe. Washington and London were waiting for the moment when it would be possible to take all of Europe without a serious struggle. Therefore, Roosevelt and Churchill in 1943, as earlier in 1942, refused to open a second front in Europe by invading France. They proceeded from the fact that the USSR would be bound by a hard struggle with Germany for a long time to come.

In May 1943, at a conference in Washington (the Trident conference), the Anglo-Saxons finally postponed the landing in France to 1944. At the same time, they agreed on joint bombing of Germany. Emphasis was placed on action in the Mediterranean and Pacific theatres. This time accurate information was reported to Moscow. On June 11, Stalin replied to Roosevelt:

“This decision of yours creates exceptional difficulties for the Soviet Union, which has been waging war with the main forces of Germany and its satellites for two years now with the utmost exertion of all its forces ...”


Roosevelt and Churchill announce the results of the Casablanca conference to reporters

Defeat of the Axis in North Africa


In the fall of 1942, the Allies inflicted a decisive defeat on the German-Italian troops in Libya (The defeat of the tank army "Africa" ​​in Libya). On November 8, 1942, American troops landed in Morocco and Algeria, which in fact meant, in the face of the overwhelming superiority of the Anglo-American troops, that the Axis forces fell into a strategic trap (Operation Torch). On January 23, 1943, the British entered Tripoli, the main city of Libya.

During the rainy season, both sides prepared for subsequent battles. In Rome and Berlin, they understood the need to maintain a foothold in North Africa to tie down the Anglo-American forces. Italy and Germany had shorter sea and air links in the Mediterranean for the transfer of troops and equipment to Africa. However, a limited number of troops arrived in Tunisia, and the supply also left much to be desired. Obviously, this was due to Hitler's previous strategy - all the main forces and means were connected on the Eastern Front. The Fuhrer did not want to divert troops, especially mobile formations, and Aviation from the fierce struggle in the East. There is an opinion that from the very beginning the Fuhrer knew that the Anglo-Saxons would wait to the last, without opening a second front. If Russia fell, the possibility of a separate peace would open up.

The difficult situation on the Eastern Front forced the Reich to send all the reserves there. The African front in such a situation was de facto sacrificed. The British and Americans, on the contrary, were building up their forces and resources in Africa. In Rome, it was understood that the fall of the colony in Africa meant the end of the dreams of creating a "great empire" of the Italians. But the best, the 8th Italian army was destroyed in the Don steppes of Russia. The Italian troops, which in 1942, led by Rommel, tried to storm Egypt, were defeated, bled dry and demoralized. The remaining Italo-German troops in Africa experienced an acute shortage of manpower, in weapons, equipment, ammunition and fuel.

On January 12, 1943, Kesselring, appointed commander of the German forces in the Mediterranean theater, reported to Berlin about the shortage of ships to escort transports. He also asked to strengthen the air defense of the ports of Palermo, Naples and Tunisia, to increase the forces of the submarine fleet in the Mediterranean, send reinforcements and weapons. However, the General Staff could not allocate resources to strengthen the German forces in this theater. All resources went to Russia.


Paratrooper of the assault regiment "Hermann Goering", Tunisia, 1943


British soldiers sleep in a trench in front of the Maret Line (the fortifications that housed the Italo-German army) in Tunisia. March 1943

Fights for Tunisia


In this situation, the Italo-German troops were supposed to hold Tunisia, a former French colony. The formations transferred from Southern Europe were united in the 5th Panzer Army of General Ziegler (since March, General von First). It included 3 German divisions (10th Panzer, elite air force division "Hermann Goering" and 334th Infantry Division) and 2 Italian divisions, which took up defense in the northern part of Tunisia from centers in Tunisia. The 1st Italian Army (former Panzer Army "Africa") under the command of Rommel, which had 2 German (German African Corps) and 4 Italian divisions (20th Motorized and 21st Army Corps), retreated from Libya. The 1st Army took up defensive positions in South Tunisia along the Maret line. Both armies were part of Army Group Africa under the command of Rommel (since March 1943 - Hans von Arnim). In the German-Italian grouping, there were about 300 thousand people, including 116 thousand Germans.


Tunisia was easier to defend than Libya. Most of its western part, that is, the border with Algeria, runs along the western side of the Atlas Mountains. There were only a few passes through these mountains. In the south, a second line of mountains limited the passages to a narrow gap facing Libya. On one side were the hills of Matmata, on the other, the sea. At one time, the French, fearing the invasion of the Italians from Libya, built a defensive line here up to 30 km deep. It was the Maret line. Only in the north could it be convenient to attack, on the coast. There were two main deep-water ports in Tunisia and Bizerte, from where convoys from Sicily were going. Therefore, the Fuhrer believed that Tunisia could hold out for a long time, holding back and tying the enemy.

Allied forces opposing the Axis forces on the Tunisian front were united in the 18th Army Group (1st and 8th British armies, 2nd American Corps and French units) under the command of British General Harold Alexander. He was subordinate to D. Eisenhower, the commander-in-chief of the North African theater of operations. The allied forces numbered up to 500 thousand soldiers and were able to quickly build up and restore losses.

The Germans, knowing that the enemy was preparing a decisive offensive, tried to forestall him. In mid-February 1943, two German tank divisions of the African Corps (15th and 21st) launched an offensive in South Tunisia, striking at the 2nd American Corps, which was located on the right flank of the 1st British Army. The Germans defeated the American armored division. Developing success, Rommel's troops broke through the Kasserine Pass to strike at the flank and rear of the 1st British Army from the south. The Germans advanced 150 km, causing panic among the Anglo-American troops, who had not yet had such combat experience. The allied command had to take emergency measures to stop the enemy's breakthrough. Mobile units and the Air Force were mobilized. Large forces were thrown towards the Germans. Rommel, having no reserves, tanks, ammunition and fuel, could not build on the first success and withdrew troops behind the Kasserine Pass. By February 25, the situation at the front was restored.


British self-propelled guns "Bishop" is advanced to a position in Tunisia. March 1943


British gunners are firing at German troops from a 94-mm anti-aircraft gun in the area of ​​the Tunisian town of Mediez el-Bab. April 27, 1943

Loss of Tunisia


On March 6, 1943, the Germans attacked the flank of the 8th British Army east of the Maret line. However, the British Eighth Army was well fired on and, knowing Rommel's tactics, set up a strong anti-tank defense. Also, Rommel did not have enough strength for a powerful blow. Therefore, the attack was repelled.

Rommel, convinced of the doom of the Tunisian group, began to insist on urgent evacuation in order to avoid the defeat of Army Group Africa. The commander of the 1st Italian Army, General Messe, was of the same opinion. Hitler and Mussolini refused to evacuate them. Rommel was removed from further participation in the African campaign, and von Arnim became commander of Army Group Africa.

On March 20, 1943, the Allied troops went on the offensive. The fleet and aviation of the Allies completely paralyzed enemy communications in the Strait of Tunisia. The British Eighth Army, with heavy artillery and air support, stormed the Maret Line. On March 8, the German-Italian troops left the fortified line. On April 27, the 7st and 1th British armies joined in the Gafs area and moved on. Now the 8st Army and the 1nd American Corps dealt the main blow.


American twin-engine fighter P-38F "Lightning" with the name "Bat from Hell" from the 94th Fighter Squadron of the US Air Force in Tunisia


The commander of the 2nd Corps of the US Army, Lieutenant General George Patton, watches the advance of an armored column in the El Guettar valley in Tunisia. March-April 1943

On May 6, the Allies struck a decisive blow. The French units of General Leclerc, who came from the region of about. Chad to connect with the British. The Allies had complete air superiority. Aviation and artillery smashed the defenses of the Germans and Italians. By this time, German formations had already lost tanks and artillery, there was no fuel and ammunition. The Africa group was completely cut off from supply lines.

In a few days everything was finished. On May 7-8, the Allies occupied Tunisia, Bizerte and Ferryville. Italo-German troops huddled in the narrow space of the peninsula, which ended in Cape Bon. On May 12, 8 German and 6 Italian divisions capitulated. In total, about 250 thousand people.

Thus, the Anglo-American forces occupied all of North Africa, strengthening their positions in the Mediterranean theater. Germany and Italy lost the most important foothold in the Mediterranean. Now the war threatened directly to Italy itself.


German tank "Tiger" of the 504th heavy tank battalion, captured by the British in Tunisia. Also in the frame is a German 75mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun.
German tank Pz.Kpfw. VI Ausf. E with tail number "131", from the 1st company of the 504th heavy tank battalion, was damaged and captured on April 21, 1943 during the battle with the tanks Mk.IV "Churchill" of the 48th Royal Tank Regiment on the Jebel Jaffa hill in Tunisia. During the battle, the Tiger destroyed two Mk.IV Churchill tanks. In return fire, he received three hits from 6-pounder guns from British tanks. The car, in violation of the order, was left by the crew not undermined. The British also retreated. The next day, climbing the hill, they captured the tank. Subsequently, the car was shown to King George VI and Prime Minister Churchill


German prisoners of war at the assembly point in Tunisia. May 1943


A column of Italian prisoners of war walks past an Allied armored car in Tunisia. 20 May 1943
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    11 July 2023 05: 53
    I thought, now it will be, an analysis of combat and logistical capabilities for 1943, and here is Samsonov.
    1. +8
      11 July 2023 07: 31
      Quote: Cartalon
      I thought, now it will be, an analysis of combat and logistical capabilities for 1943, and here is Samsonov.

      Who completely forgets that most of the US troops were yesterday's farmers with no experience, and the US also fought against Japan, and sent lend-lease to the USSR and China. Which reduced their options against the Reich. If they had landed in Normandy in 1943, the Reich would have simply thrown them into the sea, and at TopVar Samsonov would have told about the cunning plan of the Anglo-Saxons to donate thousands of tanks and mountains of weapons, and equipment to the Reich wassat
      1. +3
        11 July 2023 09: 27
        Only, probably, in the mass not by farmers (they already made up a small part of the population in the social structure of the US population), but by workers and small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, employees of the private and public sectors.
        1. -1
          11 July 2023 10: 51
          In 1940, 56.5% of the US population lived in cities. Therefore, both options are acceptable. In any event, a US landing in Normandy in 1943 or earlier would have been a very positive outcome for the Reich. Additional working hands, weapons, ammunition and other goodies.
          1. +2
            11 July 2023 19: 51
            Quote: BlackMokona
            56.5% of the US population lived in cities. Therefore, both options are acceptable.

            Workers 'and Peasants' Striped Army.
            1. +2
              12 July 2023 10: 22
              Quote: Negro
              Workers 'and Peasants' Striped Army.

              Red-striped - for rednecks. smile
          2. +3
            12 July 2023 01: 16
            Even at this time, in the territories classified as rural areas of the United States, a significant part of the working population did not work in agriculture. At the same time, small settlements were classified as rural areas, in which often no one worked in crop production or animal husbandry, or in the processing of agricultural products, or a small part of their population was employed in these areas. In the United States, rural living has long not been synonymous with agricultural employment.
      2. +7
        11 July 2023 11: 18
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Had they landed in Normandy in 1943, the Reich would have simply thrown them into the sea
        This despite the fact that in Italy, they still landed in 1943, took the Italians out of the war, forcing the Germans to transfer new troops to the Apennines.
      3. +6
        11 July 2023 16: 15
        Exactly. Their maximum was a landing in Italy, and on the whole it was a success in 1943, both militarily and politically. Normandy was still too tough. One must understand the potential of the Reich in 1943, when they were still thinking of attacking on the eastern front, and in 1944, when thoughts were about keeping their borders and "not letting the Bolsheviks into Europe."
        In 1944, there was a completely different alignment thanks to the Red Army.
      4. +1
        12 July 2023 08: 11
        Yeah, and the Red Army consisted exclusively of terminators, super-soldiers, specially selected and raised from the age of 5
  2. 0
    11 July 2023 06: 56
    The Germans, with their straightforwardness in intellectual terms, "did not catch up" with the Anglo-Saxons.

    How many examples have there been in History showing that an alliance with Russia is more profitable !!
    But the inertia of the idiocy of Euro-vanity - - always won.

    Let's say Russia is a backward European province, but German - "civilized" dubaki ... which, like Russians, were lowered in the 21st century - below the plinth.
    1. +5
      11 July 2023 07: 32
      Quote: ivan2022
      The Germans, with their straightforwardness in intellectual terms, "did not catch up" with the Anglo-Saxons.

      How many examples have there been in History showing that an alliance with Russia is more profitable !!
      But the inertia of the idiocy of Euro-vanity - - always won.

      Let's say Russia is a backward European province, but German - "civilized" dubaki ... which, like Russians, were lowered in the 21st century - below the plinth.

      The Germans tried to ally with Russia. But in the end, the union broke up, since Russia did not agree to let France be smashed.
      1. 0
        13 July 2023 01: 13
        Quote: BlackMokona
        But in the end, the union broke up, since Russia did not agree to let France be smashed.

        That's the beauty of an alliance with Russia, that Russia keeps its allies from trying to defeat a third party. Germany and Austria-Hungary collapsed in World War 1 on Russia's allied Serbia and only lost Alsace with Lorraine and Transylvania with Poland and Croatia. Yes, and taking part in the sanctions against Russia, Germany and France presented the market of frequency converters, programmable panels, servo drives and operator panels in Russia to China.
        1. -1
          14 July 2023 14: 22
          Quote: gsev
          Quote: BlackMokona
          But in the end, the union broke up, since Russia did not agree to let France be smashed.

          That's the beauty of an alliance with Russia, that Russia keeps its allies from trying to defeat a third party. Germany and Austria-Hungary collapsed in World War 1 on Russia's allied Serbia and only lost Alsace with Lorraine and Transylvania with Poland and Croatia. Yes, and taking part in the sanctions against Russia, Germany and France presented the market of frequency converters, programmable panels, servo drives and operator panels in Russia to China.

          But no one ever needs such allies who hold back.
      2. +1
        14 July 2023 18: 04
        as a result, the union broke up, since Russia did not agree to let France be smashed

        Not certainly in that way. Negotiations on an alliance with Germany took place in the autumn of 1940, and Hitler had captured France even before that, in the spring and summer of 1940.

        On November 12, 1940, Adolf Hitler offered Vyacheslav Molotov, who was on a visit to Berlin, the accession of the USSR to the Axis countries as a full-fledged fourth participant [2].

        The parties did not agree on the positions of the treaty, Soviet demands were in conflict with other allies of Germany, and the positions could not be agreed upon.
        The USSR proposed to conclude not 2, but 5 secret protocols:

        On fixing the sphere of interests of the USSR for the area south of Batumi and Baku in the general direction to the Persian Gulf;
        On the organization of the military and naval base of the USSR in the area of ​​the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and the coercion of Turkey: the Soviet side proposed that in the event of Turkey's refusal to join this Pact, "Germany, Italy and the USSR worked out and put into practice all the necessary military and diplomatic measures »;
        On fixing the sphere of interests of the USSR in Finland;
        Protocol between the USSR and Japan on Japan's renunciation of coal and oil concessions in Northern Sakhalin;
        On the recognition that Bulgaria, despite its geographical position, is in the security sphere of the Black Sea borders of the USSR, in connection with which it is considered politically necessary to conclude a “mutual assistance pact” between the USSR and Bulgaria.

        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пакт_четырёх_держав
        1. 0
          20 September 2023 20: 49
          But the temporary detention center did not harbor any illusions about Nazi Germany. The “Polish” Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact not only postponed the war, but made it absolutely real. And all the actions of the USSR were aimed at preparing for it. Starting from the “Winter” War and ending with the annexation of the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus.
  3. +5
    11 July 2023 08: 24
    January 14-26, 1943 in the North African port of Casablanca, a conference of the heads of the United States and England was held with the participation of their military advisers. Stalin also received an invitation to take part in this meeting, but declined. Obviously due to the remoteness of the place.
    They simply wouldn’t let him fly to Casablanca, so he didn’t agree. This is Great Britain, it was everywhere: in India, in Africa, in Australia, in America.
    1. 0
      20 September 2023 20: 47
      Well, of course, Molotov nevertheless flew successfully to the USA...
  4. +5
    11 July 2023 09: 13
    Why the Allies did not open a second front in France in 1943
    In 1943, the 3rd Reich was still strong, the Americans did not want to risk the lives of their soldiers, the British, having a bitter experience of landing in Dieppe in 1942 without agreement with the Americans, did not really strive for this.
    1. +4
      11 July 2023 12: 05
      Quote: Gomunkul
      Why the Allies did not open a second front in France in 1943
      In 1943, the 3rd Reich was still strong, the Americans did not want to risk the lives of their soldiers, the British, having a bitter experience of landing in Dieppe in 1942 without agreement with the Americans, did not really strive for this.

      As a result, we decided to make a "training" landing in Italy. A much smaller scale and lighter opponent, on which the troops were well trained.
      1. +1
        11 July 2023 12: 09
        As a result, we decided to make a "training" landing in Italy.
        And this is including. The Americans are very good at counting money, so I can assume that the operation in Italy at that time would have cost them much less than the landing in France. hi
        1. +4
          11 July 2023 19: 54
          Quote: Gomunkul
          it would cost them much less than the landing in France.

          Some strange thesis. Overlord as we know it in the 43rd year is impossible. Unless with completely alternative Americans, who already in the 41st know how to fight at the level of themselves in the 45th year and do not waste a single day
  5. BAI
    +7
    11 July 2023 10: 16
    A large landing operation - huge difficulties. The Germans failed to land in England. The USSR suffered huge losses on a small island in the Kuriles and refused to land on Hokaido (and did the right thing). And the USA and England were able
    1. +3
      11 July 2023 19: 56
      Quote: BAI
      refused to land on Hokaido (and rightly so).

      )))
      Comrade Stalin started talking about Hokkaido at the end of August, when Japan had already capitulated. Truman refused to land Comrade Stalin on Hokkaido.
    2. +2
      12 July 2023 23: 54
      Churchill was personally responsible for the failure of the galipolli. I remembered and made the right conclusions
  6. -1
    11 July 2023 13: 46
    Colleagues, good afternoon to you! hi

    Hell, as soon as I opened the "History" section today, I immediately realized that the author of this opus was Samsonov, and the other article was Vyacheslav Olegovich. Yes

    And His Majesty Alexander Samsonov again makes the same mistake. am

    Quote: Skill
    while on the Russian front continued
    belay

    What is "in Russian"? To put it in the language of Germans, British, Americans and Co., then "Eastern Front", not "Russian".

    "Eastern" front - means in the east of the borders of Germany and other Western countries.

    It should be clear as two and two. Yes
    1. +1
      11 July 2023 15: 45
      And His Majesty Alexander Samsonov again makes the same mistake.
      And you still can’t understand how many times that the text is taken from an English-language site? smile
      1. -1
        11 July 2023 16: 47
        Quote: kor1vet1974
        And His Majesty Alexander Samsonov again makes the same mistake.
        And you still can’t understand how many times that the text is taken from an English-language site? smile

        So this is not the first time I've seen it. And I write for, as I put it earlier, "for solidity" and so to speak, just in case. Yes
      2. +3
        11 July 2023 17: 52
        Quote: kor1vet1974
        And you still can’t understand how many times that the text is taken from an English-language site? smile

        Would you like to say that invectives to shitty Englishwoman Anglos are also taken from an English-language site? wink
        As a result, the Anglo-American military-political leadership continued the Great Game, directed both against the Axis countries and the USSR. While Russia and Germany were depleting their resources in a titanic battle, the Anglo-Saxons waited, conserving their forces and means, and quickly increased their military potential.
  7. +2
    11 July 2023 17: 18
    It was not bad to remember how the allies landed in Africa in 1942, and then in Sicily.)))) In 1943, a colossal landing fleet was not created. And also huge resources of weapons, equipment and personnel were not accumulated. Anglo-Saxons are not prone to mass heroism.))
  8. +3
    11 July 2023 17: 49
    The Allies in 1943 could open a second front and bring victory over Nazi Germany closer. The allies had all the necessary conditions for this.

    Uh-huh ... with the same success, based on the lines in the production reports, it can be argued that the USSR in 1941 could have defeated Nazi Germany.
    And after all, the author writes further - what was the real combat capability of the most combat-ready divisions of the US Army at the beginning of 1943:
    In mid-February 1943, two German tank divisions of the African Corps (15th and 21st) launched an offensive in South Tunisia, striking at the 2nd American Corps, which was located on the right flank of the 1st British Army. The Germans defeated the American armored division. Developing success, Rommel's troops broke through the Kasserine Pass to strike at the flank and rear of the 1st British Army from the south. The Germans advanced 150 km, causing panic among the Anglo-American troops, who had not yet had such combat experience. The allied command had to take emergency measures to stop the enemy's breakthrough.


    The chief of staff of the American army, General Marshall, spoke out against the "floundering" in the Mediterranean Sea and proposed to launch an invasion of France across the English Channel. However, not all US military supported Marshall. Thus, Chief of Staff of the Navy King and Chief of Staff of the Air Force Arnold leaned towards the British point of view.

    That is, against the landing across the Channel in 1943, the persons directly responsible for the transportation and landing of the landing, as well as its support, spoke out. And only the army men, who had never engaged in landings, were in favor.

    In general, everything is much simpler. In February 1941, the belligerent Great Britain and the neutral USA at the ABC-1 conference agreed on a strategic plan for the Second World War, which the Allies continued to adhere to. According to the decision of the conference, Europe was appointed the main theater of operations, the Reich was the main enemy, and the primary task was the withdrawal from the war of the weakest link of the Axis - Italy.
    1. +1
      11 July 2023 20: 05
      Quote: Alexey RA
      only the army men, who had never engaged in landings, were in favor.

      There are more questions to the figure of Marshall. His sycophants are portrayed as the American Moltke Sr., while his activities were more like those of LaKeitel. And it seems that Keitel's deputies did not bomb each other.

      Either the crossed-out plywood Marshall agreed with the overly optimistic fantasies of his grandfather, or he himself rubbed his glasses - now you won’t understand.
  9. +5
    11 July 2023 20: 16
    I don `t understand. What kind of landing in the 43rd? Whose mill is the Samsonovs' artel throwing water at?

    That is, either alternative Americans in the 43rd year are fighting as in the 44th, according to the same schedule - and then in the summer of 44 all sorts of Witzlebens surrender Berlin to them along with Hitler. The USSR, meanwhile, is fighting according to a real schedule and ends the war in the summer of 44, at best, on the Vistula, or even near Smolensk (more precisely, on the Dnieper-Dvina line). Comrade Samsonov wants such a victory for the USSR?

    Or real Americans are fighting the way they actually fought in the 43rd. That is, the landing ends with the second Dunkirk and the desire to either sit out before the bomb, or negotiate with the Reich, but for now, attack Japan. In this scenario, the USSR finds itself with the Reich one on one for another two years. Gorgeous perspective.
  10. -2
    12 July 2023 17: 54
    The United States was not interested in a second front, there was no economic basis, the primary task for the Yankees was the possibility of confronting Japan in the Pacific region, and there oil, rubber and metals ..
    The landing in Africa is a consequence of the failure of Montgomery's army against Rommel's corps .. Do not forget that during this period the Anglo-Saxons still doubted which side to stand on .. Since neither the USSR nor Germany were yet in a winning position ..
    1. +6
      12 July 2023 19: 40
      Quote: AlexFly
      Do not forget that during this period the Anglo-Saxons still doubted which side to stand on.

      Let me remind you that the Anglo-Saxons declared war on the Reich on September 3, 1939. It was a slightly different country that doubted until the Reich stopped doubting itself about it.
    2. +2
      13 July 2023 10: 43
      Quote: AlexFly
      The United States was not interested in a second front, there was no economic basis, the primary task for the Yankees was the possibility of confronting Japan in the Pacific region, and there oil, rubber and metals ..

      Oh, ho, ho ... back in early 1941, the Allies decided that Europe would be the main theater of operations. And in the Pacific Ocean they will fight according to the residual principle.
      As a result, in 1942, under the guise of new fighters, the first R-400 Cobras decommissioned by the British were handed over to the Pacific Ocean. And when Nimitz puzzled over how to cover the aircraft carriers near Midway with 20-knot battleships, brand new 27-knot SoDak and Washington were slowly walking between the bases in the Atlantic.
      And for oil, rubber and metals, the United States had both Americas, which they considered their fiefdom. Let me remind you that in 1940 the United States was in first place in the world in oil production, far ahead of the second in the list.
      Quote: AlexFly
      Do not forget that during this period the Anglo-Saxons still doubted which side to stand on.

      Yeah ... in 1941 they had no doubts, but in 1943 they suddenly began to doubt. In the spring of 1941, the neutral Yankees sent lodgers to the British Isles to select bases for the American forces, and at the same time assess the defense and logistics on the islands.
  11. 0
    16 November 2023 09: 39
    There was no hurry to open it. Firstly, they understood that there would be great losses. And so it happened. Secondly, they were waiting for the outcome of the war between the USSR and Germany. The second front was opened when it became clear that Germany was finished and, even worse, Stalin could occupy most of Europe. They opened it mainly in their own interests.