How the Anglo-Saxons sabotaged the opening of a second front

58
How the Anglo-Saxons sabotaged the opening of a second front

70 years ago, 6 June 1944, the anti-Hitler coalition allies of the USSR launched the Norman Operation. The strategic operation of the Allies on the landing of troops in French Normandy (Operation Overlord) is considered the date of the creation of the Western (second) front of the Second World War. The Norman operation is the largest amphibious operation in stories more than 3 million people who crossed the English Channel from England into Normandy took part in it. Suffice it to say that on the first day of the operation 5 infantry divisions, 3 armored brigades and a number of other formations (about 100 thousand people) were landed.

Up to this point, neither the actions of the allied forces in Africa, nor the landing in Sicily and Italy could claim the title of "Second Front". The Allies captured a large bridgehead, which allowed them to land entire armies, launch an offensive on French territory and free Paris. German troops were able to restore the new front line only in September 1944 of the year on the western border of Germany.

The opening of the Western Front led to the approaching victory over the Third Reich. Berlin had to engage in the struggle with the Allied forces (mainly the armies of the USA, Great Britain, Canada and parts of the French Resistance Movement), significant infantry and tank connections. And although the war on the Western Front for the most part did not take on such a fierce and stubborn character as on the Eastern Front, nevertheless, Berlin could not transfer these troops against the Soviet Union. As a result, Victory Day took place on May 9, 1945, and not at the end of 1945 or the beginning of 1946. The Soviet Union saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The USSR would have broken Germany alone, but this would have happened later with more serious human and material losses.

So, 23 June 1944, began one of the largest military operations in the history of mankind - the operation "Bagration". And the success of the Belarusian operation significantly exceeded the expectations of the Soviet command. It led to the defeat of the Army Group Center, a complete cleansing of the enemy of Belarus, the Germans beat off part of the Baltic states and eastern regions of Poland. The Red Army at the front in 1100 km advanced to a depth of 600 km. A successful offensive jeopardized the Army Group North in the Baltic States, which subsequently greatly facilitated the Baltic operation. In addition, two large bridgeheads beyond the Vistula were captured, which facilitated the Vistula-Oder operation.

According to several military historians, the advance of the Soviet fronts was facilitated by the advent of the Western Front. The German command was not able to transfer reserves from France, including large tank formations. Their presence on the Eastern Front seriously complicated the conduct of the Belarusian offensive operation. In addition, it is worth considering that a significant part of German artillery was in the West, as aviation. This allowed the Soviet Air Force to quickly gain air superiority and smash the German retreating columns without counteracting the Luftwaffe.

On the other hand, the powerful Soviet offensive did not allow the German command to concentrate forces to eliminate the Allied bridgehead in Normandy. Already on June 10, the Red Army launched an offensive on the north wing of the front, and Operation Bagration began on June 23.

But do not forget that the allies landed in France much later than they were expected, and they promised. In fact, the highest military-political leadership of Britain and the United States waited until the last moment. The Anglo-Saxons initially believed that Hitler, who was allowed to bend under most of Europe to mobilize its economic and human resources, would rather quickly crush the USSR, but would become bogged down fighting with partisans and mastering the vast Russian spaces. Then the generals had to eliminate it and restore normal relations with Britain and the United States. This was facilitated by the fact that most of the German leadership before the Second World War, and even during its first stage, dreamed of an alliance with Britain. The British Empire was a model of their "Eternal Reich", it was she who created the racial system all over the planet, the first concentration camps and reservations. In addition, the Anglo-Saxons were originally the creators and sponsors of the project "Third Reich" (Who brought Hitler to power). Adolf Hitler was a figure in the Great Game, a man who once again poisoned Germany and Russia, natural allies, who could have been thrown out of the Anglo-Saxon world order.

Germany could not crush the USSR with one lightning strike, a protracted war of attrition began, a strength of spirit in which the Russian people had no equal. Then England and the United States began to wait, when the enemies will degrade each other in order to get all the fruits of victory and to establish full control over the planet. But even here the enemy made a mistake - the USSR, although it suffered terrible losses in this battle of the titans, was able to intensify and the process of liberation of the Soviet lands began, and then the liberation of Europe. There was a threat that the USSR would be able to control not only part of Eastern and Southeastern Europe, but Central and Western Europe. It was necessary to land the troops in Western Europe in order not to be late to the division of the skin of the killed Germanic bear.

For the first time, the question of opening a second front was officially raised in a personal message from the head of the Soviet government, Joseph Stalin, from 18 in July to 1941, to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Welcoming the establishment of allied relations between the USSR and Britain and expressing confidence in defeating a common enemy, Stalin noted that the martial law of the two powers would have been significantly improved if a front had been created against Germany in the West (Northern France) and in the North (Arctic). This front could delay significant German forces from the Eastern Front and would have made it impossible for Hitler to invade Britain. But Churchill rejected Stalin's proposal, citing the lack of strength and the threat of a "bloody defeat" of the landing.

In September, 1941, in the conditions of the hardest crisis on the fronts, Stalin again returned to the question of the second front. In messages from 3 and 13 in September 1941, Stalin wrote to Churchill that Germany transferred more than 30 fresh infantry divisions to the Eastern Front, a large number of aircraft and tanks and intensified the actions of its allies, as a result of which the USSR lost more than half of Ukraine and the enemy went to Leningrad . According to him, the German command considered “danger in the West to be a bluff” (as it was) and calmly transferred all forces to the East. Germany got the opportunity to beat their opponents one by one: first the USSR, then England. This gave England a good opportunity to open a second front. Churchill, recognizing that the Soviet Union had borne the brunt of the struggle against Germany, said that the opening of the second front was "impossible."

The victories of the Red Army in the winter of 1941 — 1942 opened new opportunities for the opening of a second front. Supply Minister Lord Beaverbrook reported to the British military office that the resistance of the Russians gave England new opportunities. Russian resistance created "an almost revolutionary situation in all the occupied countries and opened 2 thousands of miles of coast for the landing of British troops." However, the leadership of England still considered Europe a forbidden zone for British troops. The English Cabinet and the Imperial General Staff did not share the views of Beaverbrook.

December 7 1941. The United States entered the war. They skillfully provoked Japan to attack and became the "victim of a surprise attack." American public opinion, which was inclined to maintain neutrality, has forgotten about the principles of neutrality and isolationism. The headquarters of the US Army began to develop a strategic plan, which provided for the concentration of US military capabilities against Germany. England was supposed to be a springboard for the invasion of Northern France. The plan was discussed on 1 on April 1942 at a meeting at the White House and approved by US President Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt attached great political and military-strategic importance to this plan. The American president believed that it was necessary to assure Moscow of the speedy opening of a second front. This gave support to the broad masses of the United States who sympathized with the Soviet struggle against the Nazi invaders, and it was important in anticipating the upcoming congressional elections at the end of 1942. From the point of view of military strategic plans, Washington wanted to enlist the support of the USSR in defeating the Japanese Empire in the Pacific theater of military operations. President Roosevelt and the chiefs of staff attached the greatest importance to the participation of the USSR in the Pacific War.

Roosevelt sent his special assistant G. Hopkins and the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General J. Marshall, to London to acquaint the British leadership with their plans. The British leadership agreed in principle to the landing of a limited landing of Western allies in 1942 and the opening of a second front in 1943. 11 April President Roosevelt invited Mr. A. A. Gromyko, an adviser to the Soviet embassy, ​​to himself and handed him a personal message to the head of the Soviet government. Roosevelt suggested sending a Soviet delegation for negotiations to Washington to discuss the opening of a second front. On April 20, Stalin announced agreement on the meeting of Molotov with the American president to exchange views on the opening of a second front. London was to take part in the negotiations. As a result of the difficult and tense negotiations of Vyacheslav Molotov with the military-political leadership of the United States and Britain, it was decided to create a second front in Europe. 12 June was informed that an agreement had been reached on the opening of a second front.

However, neither the 1942, nor the 1943, the second front was open. The landing of troops in Europe in 1942 was postponed for the offensive of the US-British forces in North Africa. Roosevelt and Churchill agreed on this without the participation of Soviet representatives. From a military point of view, the Allied operations in North Africa were insignificant in nature and could not weaken the military power of Germany on the Eastern Front and lead to its defeat. In addition, the operation in North Africa, which began in November 1942, excluded the organization of a second front in Europe and in 1943.

Churchill reported on the decision to Moscow. In August, 1942, the head of the British government, arrived in the USSR to conduct negotiations. Took part in them and the personal representative of the American President Harriman. 13 August 1942. Stalin handed Churchill and Harriman a memorandum stating that 1942 was the best time to open a second front. The best forces of the German Empire were shackled by battles with the Red Army. However, Churchill announced the final refusal of the United States and Britain to open a second front in Western Europe in 1942. At the same time, he assured that the front would be opened in the spring of 1943. Moscow understood the interests of the United States and England quite well, but decided not to exacerbate the issue.

Berlin, taking advantage of the passivity of England and the United States, launched in the summer and autumn of 1942 a powerful offensive on the southern flank of the Soviet-German front. The Wehrmacht rushed to the Volga and tried to seize the Caucasus in order to deliver a mortal blow to the USSR. In case of success of the German offensive, Turkey and Japan could oppose the Soviet Union. Britain and the United States, at the expense of the USSR, retained their strength and resources, planning to use them at the final stage of the war to dictate the conditions of the postwar world order.

1943 was marked by a radical change in World War II and World War II as a whole. The giant battle on the Volga, which lasted 200 days and nights, ended in a brilliant victory for the Soviet troops. Wehrmacht received a terrible wound. His strategic offensive failed. Germany lost and the battle for the Caucasus. Allies in May 1943 defeated the grouping of Italian-German troops in North Africa. In the Pacific, the situation stabilized and the strategic initiative passed into the hands of the Allies (the battle for Guadalcanal). The Allies were able to focus on Europe and open a second front.

After the Battle of Stalingrad and the continued offensive of the Red Army against the great Western powers against the USSR, a new factor emerged. Now they began to fear the premature, from their point of view, defeat of Germany. The task of maximally weakening the USSR in a war has not yet been realized. In London and Washington they began to realize that the USSR can not only withstand, but also win, dramatically strengthen its position and weight in the world. Therefore, the opening of the second front decided to delay, so as not to weaken Germany. The sabotage policy of the second front and the exhaustion of the USSR acquired crucial importance in the policies of the Western powers.

“There is no doubt,” said Soviet Ambassador M. Litvinov to the United States, “that the military calculations of both states (the United States and Great Britain) are built on the desire to maximize exhaustion and wear of the forces of the Soviet Union to reduce its role in resolving post-war problems. They will wait for the development of hostilities on our front. " In January, an Anglo-American conference was held in Casablanca, 1943, which showed that the Allies are not going to carry out any serious offensive in Europe in 1943. In fact, although they did not say this directly, the opening of the second front was postponed until 1944. Churchill and Roosevelt sent a message to Moscow following the results of the conference. It was compiled in vague terms and without specifying dates and information on specific operations, expressed the hope that Germany would be able to bring to its knees in 1943.

30 January 1943 Moscow asked to report on specific operations and the timing of their implementation. After consulting with Roosevelt, Churchill sent an encouraging response to Moscow, saying that the training of the “crossing of the Channel” (English Channel) is being carried out vigorously and the operation is planned for August. He also noted that due to weather or for other reasons, it may be postponed until September, but then it will be held by larger forces. In fact, it was a deliberate deception. London and Washington, declaring the preparation of a landing operation in northern France, were at this time preparing an operation on the Mediterranean theater. True, it was impossible to cheat for a long time, and in May, Roosevelt reported to Moscow about the transfer of the operation to 1944.

In addition, the 30 allies in March reported on the decision to once again suspend the supply of military materials to the northern seaports of the USSR, talking about the need to transfer all vehicles to the Mediterranean Sea. On the threshold of the next German summer strategic offensive, deliveries of military materials and equipment were halted. So it was in 1942, the same thing happened in 1943. In the most difficult time, the Allies refused to open a second front and left the USSR without supplies weapons and materials. 11 June Moscow sent a message to Washington (its text was sent to London). It pointed out that the next postponement of the opening of the second front "creates exceptional difficulties" for the USSR, which for two years now has been fighting hard with Germany and its satellites. Further exchange of views further heated the situation - the Western powers did not have arguments that could justify the delay in opening the second front. 24 Jun. Stalin sent a message to Churchill expressing the disappointment of the Soviet government in the allies. Stalin noted that we are talking about saving the lives of millions of lives in the occupied regions of Russia and Europe, the colossal victims of the Red Army.

The rout of the most powerful enemy grouping on the Kursk Bulge, the exit of the Soviet troops to the Dnieper River and their advancement to the state borders of the USSR showed that the process of a radical change in the course of the Great Patriotic War was completed. Germany and its allies were forced to move to a strategic defense. The victories of the Soviet troops in the summer and autumn of 1943 sharply changed the entire military-political situation in Europe and the world. They showed that the USSR is capable of independently crushing Germany, and the complete liberation of Europe from the Nazis is not far off. Fearing the entry of Soviet troops into Central and Western Europe before their armies, the leadership of Britain and the United States intensified the process of preparing the opening of a second front. The Anglo-Saxons were afraid to miss the time to invade Europe, to seize the most important political and economic centers and strategic areas. There is a threat that the United States will not be able to dictate the conditions of peace to the bloodless Europe.

In August, 1943 hosted a conference of heads of government and representatives of the United States and British Command in Quebec. The final report of the joint committee of chiefs of staff noted that the Norman operation would be the main offensive of the Anglo-American troops in 1944. The start of the operation was scheduled for 1 in May, 1944. This decision improved relations between the USSR and the Western powers. However, at the Moscow Conference, the Allies still did not provide specific data, wishing to preserve freedom of action. Only confirmed their intentions to start an operation in Northern France in the spring of 1944.

19 November 1943 on board the battleship "Iowa" on the way to Cairo for the Anglo-American-Chinese conference (it preceded the conference in Tehran), the American president, speaking of the need to open a second front, noted that Russian troops were already very close to Poland and Bessarabia. Roosevelt pointed out the urgency of the occupation by the Anglo-American troops of as much of Europe as possible. In the English sphere of occupation, Roosevelt gave France, Belgium, Luxembourg and South Germany. The Americans wanted to occupy North-West Germany, the ports of Denmark and Norway. Berlin, the Anglo-Saxons also planned to capture themselves.

Churchill also did not want to allow the appearance of Soviet troops in Western Europe and offered a "Balkan option" - the invasion of Allied forces in the Balkans, which was to cut off Soviet troops from Central Europe. In the countries of South-Eastern Europe they were going to establish regimes with Anglo-Saxon orientation. However, the Americans, who supported Churchill's Mediterranean strategy until the middle of 1943, believed that these plans were late. Allied forces could get bogged down in the Balkans, but at this time the Soviet armies would seize the most important centers of Europe. The second front in France allowed the Russians to be prevented from entering the vital areas of the Ruhr and the Rhine.

The Soviet delegation in Tehran sought to achieve a firm commitment from the British and Americans to open a second front. In general, Stalin got his way (Stalin's victory at the Tehran ConferenceThe Tehran Conference’s military decisions provided for the launch of a landing operation in Northern France in May 1944. At the same time, the Allies planned to launch an operation in southern France. The USSR promised at this time to launch a decisive offensive in order to prevent the transfer of German troops from the Eastern Front to the Western. The decisions adopted in Tehran determined a political decision on the start of the Norman operation.

Thus, the start of the Normandy operation was not connected with the desire to help an ally who led a hard struggle with Germany and liberated Europe from the Nazi occupation, but with the desire to establish an occupation regime in European countries and not allow the USSR to dominate the Old World. England and the United States were in a hurry to grab the best pieces from a dying German bear.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    6 2014 June
    Well, they really pulled until 1944 !!!
    1. +4
      6 2014 June
      Quote: Clever man
      Well, they really pulled until 1944 !!!

      They wanted to get the benefit, and they pulled it, and in 1944 they could not have got involved, they could have done without them!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +5
        6 2014 June
        Obama article minus set fool
        1. +4
          6 2014 June
          I saw a very interesting film, the doc-ny "The Road to Rome", by the way British, for me it was a revelation, WHO AND HOW fought in Africa.
          The Italians were immediately split, the Germans rescued them. On the side of the British "... the most efficient units were the corps from India and New Zealand ...",
          and the other day I saw a film, also English "Secrets of the Blitzkrieg", where "the secret data of the Second World War" was revealed, they immediately created the service "intellectual home (or family) service" - a service that monitors the morale of the population - the data was collected SECRETLY.
          They talked about looting (even the old man who looted himself, found alive, showed), and that after the first bombardment in the whole country the panic began, the film could not be retold, of course, but the British fought poorly and little.
          Recently, some people from Nepal went on strike (I don’t remember the name of the nationality) —they have the type of advanced units in the army, without fear.
          Here is such a "empire", and in England there is constant nostalgia for the imperial past, Victorian times, the time of the plunder of the colonies - they have a golden age.
          They excelled in the politics of manipulation.
          And the second front, if the USSR had not driven the Germans, NEVER WAS OPEN.
          1. de bouillon
            0
            6 2014 June
            and look at the Rommel African Corps

            2,5 years drove there the Anglo-Saxons. He would have 3 more full-armored tank divisions and certainly not what Cairo would probably have reached Beirut.

            and the "rural men" - Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and Rhodesians - fought well in Africa. They were entirely recruited from the villagers, farmers and hunters.
    2. 77bob1973
      +2
      6 2014 June
      The most interesting thing is that Operation Bagration was a little later than Operation Overlord, but for the Germans it had a fatal effect, and the allies stuck to Kahn and trampled there for two months, with most of the reservists standing against the allies, and against our line of fired formations!
    3. 0
      6 2014 June
      Quote: Clever man
      Well, they really pulled until 1944 !!!

      You somehow forget that the United States fought with Japan and at first it was not up to the offensive. England already had the sad experience of the Dardanelles operation.
      It must be said bluntly that the Allies were afraid of Germany, in 42-43 it could throw them into the sea, as in Dunkirk. And since they adopted a turn-based offensive strategy, they adhered to it in Africa-Italy and the Pacific
  2. +11
    6 2014 June
    there is such a dock series ,, 2worldly in color ,, well done bourgeois picture class, ours would be so, but voice acting !! ?? Like, while the Western heroes were grinding the selected Wehrmacht divisions, the RED ARMY fought with the Volksdeutsche in the east !!!! and so on throughout the series !! and day ,, D ,, THIS is their holy bogeyman !!!! soyuznichki landed and all Germans ran to surrender in packs - the end of the war !!!! wassat and Hitler according to their version, not that BRUCE Willis himself dunked a bat on the Eiffel tower, a group of American Jews burned the roofing felts in a movie theater !!! wassat
  3. +8
    6 2014 June
    The most interesting thing is that the countries that participated least of all in the unleashing of WWII, i.e. The USSR and China, dragged the largest part of this war, and the French calmly lay under the Germans, the British fled to their island, and the Americans "have nothing to do with it at all." And then, when the Third Reich was defeated and the Wehrmacht skidded to the West, "heroes" appeared on white horses and "like liberated" Europe from the Nazis.
  4. SPQR-63
    +1
    6 2014 June
    Here they are - "sluzniki"
  5. -8
    6 2014 June
    Another shoveling nonsense. Main question. What the hell did the US even have to open a second front with? Ordinary American citizen European fuss about, why should he give his life for not wanting to do this Frenchman or Dutchman? They mean paws up and live quietly for themselves, but should someone substitute their heads under bullets? According to the author’s logic, the USA should have spat on its problems in the Pacific Ocean, where the Japanese smashed them in the tail and mane in 1942. to give up all efforts to open a second front? They only by the end of 1943. established superiority over the Japanese and seized the initiative.
    By the way, the Allies could in 1943. open a second front. They have already made a lot of prerequisites for this, seized the floor of Italy, Sicily. The next blow was obvious, the landing in the Balkans, where the Germans did not have any coastal fortifications like in France, moreover, Yugoslav partisans with large organized groups in that region could really help. And from the Balkans the way to Berlin is much closer, and Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria would definitely fall out of the game, depriving Germany of oil. The landing in the Balkans is clearly a threat to the rear of the German troops in Ukraine ... But ...
    1. +6
      6 2014 June
      What is the nonsense? The fact that the USSR was waiting for help, but they worked for themselves? So they had to open a second front in accordance with the agreements. And how, Mr. good, p.in. dos would have landed in such a crowd in the Balkans ??? And for the Japanese: in 1943, P.I.Indostan did not have any initiative. According to their own estimates, had the USSR not entered the war against Japan, they would have been transported by the Japs until the 48th.
      1. -2
        6 2014 June
        Quote: Good cat
        So they should open a second front in accordance with the agreements

        Was the date set in the arrangements? Not. What are the claims? Why was the United States supposed to save the USSR? What for they needed it? Out of love for the Communist Party of the USSR?
        Quote: Good cat
        And how, Mr. good, p.in. dos would have landed in such a crowd in the Balkans ???

        As in Italy, landed or in Sicily. Or do you think that they entered Italy at the bottom? What could stop them? Germany had practically no fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and the Italian fleet was already blown away. Not only that, the coast of the Balkan Peninsula did not have any defensive structures, there was no German aviation either.
        Quote: Good cat
        According to their own estimates, had the USSR not entered the war against Japan, they would have been transported by the Japs until the 48th.

        And where did you see such assessments? I saw them in Soviet historical passages, the purpose of which was to show the role of the Red Army in the defeat of Japan. These tales had nothing to do with reality.
      2. de bouillon
        +4
        6 2014 June
        explain how and why the US could help open a second front before 44 years ??

        if you just look at the time frame.

        1941 falls for objective reasons

        1942 year? With those problems in the Pacific, the Americans could not, but the British? Considering how the German aviation drove out the British fleet in previous years and how bad the Britons fought in Africa, here the British alone could not do it either. They were simply not capable. The United States created its army from scratch. They had a tank division for 42 years, only 1 was. It was necessary to form a bunch of new connections. They began to create parachute divisions only in the spring and summer of the 42nd, and this process was very slow. The Marine Corps is completely stuck in the Pacific. In the summer of the 42nd Jap Perley already to Australia, the United States lost the Philippines, which cost them 100 prisoners. How in such circumstances the United States could gather forces for a war in Europe.
        what began in November 42nd, for the most part, the landing in Africa took place without due resistance, but already in December the Anglo-Saxons got bogged down in a positional struggle.

        1943 remains. Well here is a dilemma too. On the one hand, they were obliged to take Sicily. The United States-Britain could not, after the African campaign, spit on everything to transfer all of its land and naval forces from the Mediterranean to northern France. Therefore, Sicily became a continuation of the Tunisian campaign and in fact set the task to withdraw Italy from the war.

        In summer, Italy began sabotaging allied relations with Germany, and apparently the West believed that Italy would become an easy hike. Especially after Sicily, there were no large Wehrmacht forces in Italy. But the Germans quickly managed to take control of all of Italy, thereby spoiling all the plans of the West by September.

        autumn-winter remains. in the English Channel begin landing at this time? It’s interesting that, in Italy, the US and British Navy got stuck with what other reserve amphibious assault forces and transports they had in order to conduct another major operation in parallel. They could not land closer to winter in disgusting weather conditions. Therefore, in October it was clearly clear that before May-June 1944, the landing would not be possible.
    2. +4
      6 2014 June
      Thunder?
      Americansisolationists,I know?
      This always influenced their foreign policy, and during the Second World War Roosevelt had to overcome the most powerful isolationist lobby.
      If the 2nd front were not opened, ALL Europe would be OUR-This is the British, the Americans were afraid.
      The second front was opened in order to prevent the Union from gaining control of all the liberated lands, HER for some reason and not for the help of the USSR.
      And the Lend-Lease, which brought the USA 50 billion in income, the USSR got ONE FIFTH of help from it, most of all went to England, which is why Doenitz promised the Fuhrer a victory over England with his "gray wolves".
      A e
      1. +1
        6 2014 June
        Quote: mirag2
        If the 2nd front were not opened, ALL Europe would be OUR

        What price? Another 5-10 million?
        And I didn’t understand: They didn’t open the second front, they were bad, they opened, they are bad again ... You somehow decide
        Quote: mirag2
        And the Lend-Lease, which brought the USA 50 billion income, the USSR received from it help ONE FIFTH

        And that everything should have been sent to the USSR? Thanks for that too

        de Bouillon, Nayhas - you are a plus for the ability to sober analysis
        1. +1
          6 2014 June
          the fact is that they opened ONLY because of the fear that the Soviet Army would reach those beaches where the "allies" landed in the 44th ... The Soviet Union fought for its existence, and the British and Americans - for geopolitical gain .. ...
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 11111mail.ru
      0
      6 2014 June
      Until the end of 1942, your favorite "allies" were like that "elusive Joe" from the anecdote. Moreover, the Germans were "pushed" as with the dissolution of the convoy of the PQ-17 caravan, the loss of weapons and material values ​​as a result of its defeat was tantamount to losing a big battle.
  6. +5
    6 2014 June
    "Allies" !!! am If only to command and count money! am
    It was not necessary in January of the 45th to launch an offensive through Poland, due to bad weather without aviation and almost without artillery!
    It was also necessary to wait for good weather, and let the Germans teach the Anglo-Saxons how to fight!
    And then, taking Berlin, forget about these naturally cowardly jackals, and get to the Atlantic!
    And so they said in Soviet times, that the Americans supposedly pretended to take the Soviet troops for the German troops, it seemed like they hit ours, but they got such a shit that they could fly out of the mainland if it weren't for Stalin who stopped ours.
  7. +4
    6 2014 June
    The politicians of any country seek maximum benefits for her, even if it damages other countries. The USSR also used to the maximum the Non-Aggression Treaty of 1939. And when London and Coventry were on fire, I do not think that Soviet citizens were eager to rush into battle. This can be extremely cynical, but understandable. Then, accusing the Allies, one should not forget that the United States Army, for example, in the summer of 1941 of the year were generally incapacitated, they had only 1940 outdated tanks in 400. In general, the army had to be created from scratch, in contrast to the Navy, Air Force and the ILC, which, since the United States entered the war in December, 41 has been fully involved in the Pacific Ocean. Yes, the USA has been waging war on two fronts since 41. It’s easy to blame, but it’s difficult to imagine the necessary resources for everything. But the soldiers and officers who were dying in the deserts of Africa, in the mountains of Italy, on the islands of the Pacific Ocean, in the Arctic convoys or on the plains of France are not at all to blame for their Soviet comrades in arms.
    1. AX
      +1
      6 2014 June
      Spain remember ...
    2. dmb
      +3
      6 2014 June
      All this is so, and it would be a shame to encroach on the memory of dead soldiers, allied armies. But did Churchill and Truman's plans begin to be realized, the German divisions used against us after surrender had an analogue on our side, and the withdrawal of the cover squadron from the pq-17 convoy on the days of the Battle of Stalingrad critical for us was caused by something other than the suspension of supplies under pretext for the death of this convoy? After all, both the British and the British knew very well how we needed this help at that moment.
      1. +1
        6 2014 June
        and the withdrawal of the cover squadron from the convoy pq-17 during the critical days of the Battle of Stalingrad for us was caused by something other than the suspension of supplies under the pretext of the death of this convoy? After all, both the British and British knew very well how we needed this help at that moment.

        The withdrawal of the cruising cover of the convoy was the result of the mistake of the first sea lord, Sir Dudley Pound.
        The destroyers, minesweepers and air defense warriors, who carried out close cover for the convoy, were not given the command to withdraw.
        There elemental confusion has occurred. Convoy PQ-18 was released on September 2, 1942.
    3. 11111mail.ru
      0
      6 2014 June
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      generally not guilty of anything before the Soviet comrades in arms.

      Smoothly you get about innocence. http://www.world-war.ru/ocenka-sootnosheniya-poter-na-sovetsko-germanskom-i-na-z

      apadnom-fronte /
      Losses of the Red Army - 1941 (193 days) 3 million 138 thousand 1942 (365 days) 3 million 258 thousand, total under 6,5 million
      British losses (not only and not so many English!) - 515 thousand in three years
      “We will also use the observations of the German tanker Otto Carius, who from 1941 to 1944 fought against Soviet soldiers, and from 1944 to 1945 - against the Anglo-American. Having personal experience of the war on the eastern and western fronts, Carius concludes: after all, five Russians were more dangerous than thirty Americans. ”[10] Western researcher Stephen E. Ambrose says that casualties can be minimized “only by the quick end of the war, and not by caution during offensive operations". Otto Carius. "Tigers in the mud." Stephen E. Ambrose. Day D
    4. +1
      6 2014 June
      And we must add Japan fought with America, and not with the USSR, and for some reason the USSR (faithful to allied duty) did not declare war on Japan at 41, but it was at 45 when Japan almost lost. The fact that all countries voted for their interests. Crossing the English Channel on logs as the Soviet soldiers did on the Dnieper, the Americans could not. The battle for Dieppe at 42 was a reconnaissance battle and showed what and how much was needed for a successful operation. 42 and 43 were preparatory. And it was not at the amers of Zhukov to attack the minefields.
      And you Aron +
      1. +1
        7 2014 June
        Enchanting statement. You do not know about the situation of the 20-30s at all? Nothing America actually created 3 Reich? Pumped up loans, technology, built factories, even during the war, Standard Oil supplied the Germans with oil through Spain. Who are the authors of the Munich agreement?
        Fulfill the wet dream of the Americans and fight on two fronts?
      2. 0
        21 2014 June
        Quote: denis02135
        And we must add Japan fought with America, and not with the USSR, and for some reason the USSR (faithful to allied duty) did not declare war on Japan at 41, but it was at 45 when Japan almost lost.


        Interesting statement laughing Can you enlighten about the date when allied relations with America, France, and England were concluded? You can remember how these countries rejected the Soviet Union's proposals to create a coalition to curb Germany's aggressive ambitions. And the most interesting thing in all this is that the USSR undertook an obligation to the allies to start hostilities with Japan after the defeat of Germany (3-4 months later for the transfer of troops to the east). Unlike the allies, it exactly fulfilled its obligations and "perfidiously", announcing the start of hostilities to the Japanese in 1.5 months, attacked the Kwantung Army and defeated it, although they could have pulled it for half a year or more, following the example of the Allies (to equip more units, update weapons , to replenish the Pacific Fleet with more modern ships (not to liberate the Kuril Islands on logs), etc.).
        And about the lack of Zhukov - they had enough of their generals who did not care about the lives of their subordinates and threw them into a meat grinder.
  8. Nikich
    +3
    6 2014 June
    I would also add that you comrades forget about the losses of the Allies during the Western campaign, and again about the double standards of the West, but they did so in the name of the interests of their people.
  9. +8
    6 2014 June
    With all due respect, it’s still a little one-sided.
    The author very competently laid out on the shelves the question of the second front. But in defense of the allies, I want to say the following - neither in 1941, nor in 1942, and if you think about it, then in 1943 neither England nor the USA had an army capable of invading the continent.
    We are very fond of throwing mud at our own generals who endured the unlimited severity of the confrontation with the fascist military machine. We love to talk about how unprepared for war we were in 1941, how we could not fight in 1942 ... But for some reason we forget to compare the actions of the Red Army with the military machine of our allies.
    I strongly recommend everyone who is interested to read "The War in North Africa 1942-1943", the authors - S.U. Mitchum, D. Rolf. Pay attention, the authors are imported, so they are unlikely to gorgeously trample their own troops and their own generals in the mud - this is not accepted in the West.
    On 20 of June 1942 of the year Rommel attacked the British, who had a TWICE superiority in forces and ... defeated them utterly, took Tobruk in Libya on the move. This, excuse me, how? And elementary, read Mitchem. Absolutely inadequate command system, the introduction of troops into battle in parts, the complete inability to organize cooperation on the battlefield - the British infantry, artillery, tanks fought strictly SEPARATE and almost never - together. Interaction between teams? Forget it. One British unit bleeds, in vain attempts to stop Rommel’s main forces, the other at this time, a few kilometers from the battlefield indulges in sweet idleness. Lepota!
    When you read the description of the battles, the 41 year, a border battle, is constantly recalled. I just want to note - in the 1941 r, our army in its overwhelming mass was still completely unshooted, but the British were at war almost 1942 of the year by the summer of 3 ...
    But the British at least knew how to die with dignity. Then, during the offensive, passing the places of the old battles, more than once or twice the British troops found their own units that took up a circular defense - and so forever and remaining at their last frontier, the Germans did not have time to bury all. But the Americans ... Their martial art was SO high that EVEN the British military leaders clutched their heads and tried to educate the Americans at least something. But, not possessing military skill, they did not possess British stamina either - American soldiers preferred to flee at the slightest trouble. Then, during the fighting, the situation started to improve for the better, the troops gained strength, the Americans got good commanders (the same Patton, Bradley), but at first the Americans didn’t have anything of this. And there was, for example, Fridendall, who preferred to get drunk in a sausage instead of commanding troops ...
    What? Formidable American Air Force? Mitchum has a nice historical anecdote about how EMNIP Patton complained to the Allied command that the Anglo-American air force is not doing a damn thing and that the Luftwaffe planes are walking over the heads of his troops. This caused a big scandal, since there were enough planes at that moment, the aviators wrote a devastating response, in which they scrupulously listed hundreds and hundreds of sorties to cover the American troops and attack the Germans ... ... But when she arrived at Patton's headquarters, at the very first meeting ... "Messers" flew in and almost sent the entire commission to the World.
    1. +5
      6 2014 June
      To the question of the confused chairman of the commission: "How did you manage to organize such a brilliant demonstration in support of your point of view ?!" Patton replied: "I don't know. But I swear, if I get to these German zasu.ra.nz, I will personally present everyone for the award .."
      Ah, yes, I completely forgot - well, of course, because the True Shadow Aryan Genius - Rommel fought against the British and Americans. The greatest general of our time ... one can only regret that Rommel did not get on the Eastern Front. With all due respect to him (and Rommel has something to respect, and besides his military art), he is still not so much different from other German commanders, but to such monsters as the same Manstein, he was completely infrequent.
      In general, all this does not justify either the British or the Americans. But it should be understood that an attempt to land, even in 1943, would have turned into a grandiose massacre, which would have been staged for the valiant Anglo-American troops by German units of the "second stage" slightly diluted by divisions defeated on the eastern front and withdrawn to France for reorganization. In 1943, the Germans would still be quite enough for this.
      1. 52
        0
        6 2014 June
        By the way, the soldiers of the US Army (not pi "stan") suffered the heaviest losses among the troops who landed. So those guys had no lack of courage and fortitude, remember the Pacific Ocean. But the command ... Here, except for obscenities, there is nothing to add.
        1. +1
          6 2014 June
          Quote: 52gim
          By the way, the soldiers of the US Army (not pi "№stan) suffered the heaviest losses among the landing troops.

          Landed where, excuse me? Are you talking about Overlord? So this is 1944, the Americans behind Africa and Italy, yes, by that time, they had learned something. But I'm talking about 1942-43 gg
          Quote: 52gim
          So the courage and stamina of those guys was not to occupy, remember the Pacific Ocean.

          I remembered. For example, as in Guadalcanal, the coolest American marines, having an advantage in the number of 2: 1 could not do half-dead from hunger the Japanese garrison.
          Thus, the Japanese, whom the Red Army broke on the knee in 1939 (Khalkhin Gol) and 1945 (Manchuria and Yu Sakhalin)
          1. +1
            6 2014 June
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            having a 2-1 advantage, nothing could have done the Japanese garrison half-dead of hunger.

            It seems they themselves could barely keep this Guadalcanal (airfield). And remember the losses please
        2. 0
          6 2014 June
          I won’t know how they could fight without diapers and Coca-Cola ?! wassat
    2. 0
      7 2014 June
      In addition to the landing, there were other options for cooperation.
      The Soviet military mission worked in England, and the British in the Union.
      Together with the British, to clear Norway from the Germans, block the northern grouping of German troops with the actions of the fleets (most of the transport was by sea), send 25-30 divisions for operations on the Soviet front, there was no refusal, even a request to exert diplomatic pressure on Finland ended in nothing, the USA she didn’t even declare war.
  10. +1
    6 2014 June
    According to a number of military historians, the advance of the Soviet fronts was facilitated by the advent of the Western Front. The German command was not able to transfer reserves from France, including large tank formations...However, they transferred ... If, on the Western Front, combat-ready units fought, as on the Eastern .. And according to a number of military historians, German generals misled Hitler, convincing him that the landing would be in the Kale region .. and not in Normandy .. it was the Wehrmacht’s fighting divisions that were concentrated in Calais .. but not in Normandy, and again Rommel did everything to prevent them from falling into Normandy ... or they arrived late.
    1. +1
      6 2014 June
      And why did German generals think that the landing would be in Calais?
      Because the British counter-intelligence successfully threw the desa, and
      the Germans pecked at them.
      1. +1
        6 2014 June
        Oh, you don’t have to blame everything on the British intelligence .. Among the German generals, the conspiracy was matured, the same Canaris already successfully worked for the British, realizing that the case was lost .. Let's say that the Germans did their best to help the Western allies .. and you all you want to write off the genius of the allies .. The head of the German Agency for Global Communications, Professor Lorenz Haag, believes that the war in Europe could end in 1943. And if this did not happen, then the reason for this is the desire of the USA and especially England to replay the USSR not in the fight against Nazi Germany, but in building a post-war world order. At the same time, London and Washington were of little concern to the Allied landing in Normandy was of great military and political importance, primarily for the United States and Great Britain. The leaders of these countries understood that Nazi Germany would soon be defeated, and the USSR would become its only winner. The leaders of the United States and Great Britain took into account that the delay in opening a second front would damage their interests in Europe after the end of the war.
  11. +3
    6 2014 June
    Nayhas (2) RU  Today, 09: 37


    Another shoveling nonsense. Main question. What the hell did the US even have to open a second front with? Ordinary American citizen European fuss about, why should he give his life for not wanting to do this Frenchman or Dutchman? They mean paws up and live quietly for themselves, but should someone substitute their heads under bullets?
    If not landed, then all of Europe would be social. camp ..
  12. Nikich
    -1
    6 2014 June
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    To the question of the confused chairman of the commission: "How did you manage to organize such a brilliant demonstration in support of your point of view ?!" Patton replied: "I don't know. But I swear, if I get to these German zasu.ra.nz, I will personally present everyone for the award .."
    Ah, yes, I completely forgot - well, of course, because the True Shadow Aryan Genius - Rommel fought against the British and Americans. The greatest general of our time ... one can only regret that Rommel did not get on the Eastern Front. With all due respect to him (and Rommel has something to respect, and besides his military art), he is still not so much different from other German commanders, but to such monsters as the same Manstein, he was completely infrequent.
    In general, all this does not justify either the British or the Americans. But it should be understood that an attempt to land, even in 1943, would have turned into a grandiose massacre, which would have been staged for the valiant Anglo-American troops by German units of the "second stage" slightly diluted by divisions defeated on the eastern front and withdrawn to France for reorganization. In 1943, the Germans would still be quite enough for this.

    In vain are you talking about Rommel. Very, very sensible general, and Manstein is better several times better
    1. +1
      6 2014 June
      Quote: Nikich
      In vain are you talking about Rommel. Very, very intelligent general

      I do not dispute this, Rommel was indeed an outstanding military commander. One of many others who served in the Wehrmacht.
      Quote: Nikich
      and Manstein is better several times

      What, excuse me? As for me, Rommel’s capture of Tobruk, by the complexity of the task, wasn’t lying around in comparison with the capture of Crimea by Manstein.
    2. 0
      6 2014 June
      Quote: Nikich
      In vain are you talking about Rommel. Very, very sensible general, and Manstein is better several times better


      In Rommel, I am impressed by the fact that his African corps did not mess himself up with participation in war crimes, and the general himself was not a member of the Nazi party.
      1. +2
        6 2014 June
        Quote: Zymran
        In Rommel, I am impressed by the fact that his African corps did not mess up with participation in war crimes

        In-in. Those. the order of the felik führer regarding the Jews reached Rommel unequivocally, but no one saw him in the troops. And, whatever they say, but he fought in Africa very humanly, he could release wounded Britons from the encirclement and in general ... a gentlemanly war.
        Many therefore look down on the military operations in Africa somewhat downright - no one stood on ceremony with us on the eastern front, "commissars - get out of line!" But reasoning logically, if you really want to fight, you have to do it exactly as Rommel did, not a beast completely and without losing his human appearance. Rommel succeeded and this, of course, should be credited to him.
        In addition, he participated in a conspiracy against Hitler.
        But it would be interesting if Hitler could be controlled and come to power ... well, let's say, the young Field Marshal Rommel laughing
        1. 0
          6 2014 June
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In-in. Those. the order of the felik führer regarding the Jews reached Rommel unequivocally, but no one saw him in the troops. And, whatever they say, but he fought in Africa very humanly, he could release wounded Britons from the encirclement and in general ... a gentlemanly war.
          Many therefore look down on the military operations in Africa somewhat downright - no one stood on ceremony with us on the eastern front, "commissars - get out of line!" But reasoning logically, if you really want to fight, you have to do it exactly as Rommel did, not a beast completely and without losing his human appearance. Rommel succeeded and this, of course, should be credited to him.


          Yes, he also buried with honors the British commandos who were supposed to eliminate him. Personally, I would have thrown their bodies into the desert to feed jackals. For if we fight in a gentlemanly way, then to the end.

          I also remember the episode when he mistakenly drove a tank to the British location, but was not at a loss, but spent the night right there, and dumped him from the mongrel. laughing
    3. 0
      6 2014 June
      No, not better, standard general. In Germany, there were many.
      By the way, the question, they said that there were no veterans in the ranks of the allied forces. But .. The 84th Germans in Normandy consisted mainly of World War I veterans and other second-rate categories. And they asked pepper at the right time. What prevented the allied forces from using similar veterans of the 1st World War, because there were at least 1 times more of them than similar Germans? Already ready and fired troops.
      1. +1
        6 2014 June
        Quote: goose
        But .. The 84-th corps of Germans in Normandy consisted mainly of veterans of the 1-th World War and other second-class categories. And they asked pepper at the right time. What prevented the allied forces from using similar veterans of the 1-th World

        Well, judge for yourself - if a warrior went to the front even in the 1917 year (i.e. he was already 18 years old), then by the 1943 year he should already be 44 of the year! Isn't it a bit much for an infantryman? :)
        Germans - it’s understandable that they have at least rowed someone, but even then, pay attention - in the second-rate.
        1. 0
          6 2014 June
          It's you about the Soviet volunteers that 44-56 were, my great-grandfather fought in World War I, Civil, and the Second World War and I do not call him second-rate. Have respect for the opponent. Remember the Hitler Youth how many tanks they burned.
    4. 0
      6 2014 June
      No, not better, standard general. In Germany, there were many.
      By the way, the question, they said that there were no veterans in the ranks of the allied forces. But .. The 84th Germans in Normandy consisted mainly of World War I veterans and other second-rate categories. And they asked pepper at the right time. What prevented the allied forces from using similar veterans of the 1st World War, because there were at least 1 times more of them than similar Germans? Already ready and fired troops.
  13. MVV
    MVV
    +2
    6 2014 June
    TWARS waited until we grind each other as much as possible. TWARI.
  14. padonok.71
    +1
    6 2014 June
    Anglo-Saxon pigs, the whole story pushes us with deutsche foreheads and rubbing their hands, counting profits.
  15. +2
    6 2014 June
    About the "GREAT BATTLE" during the landing of Western troops, firsthand:
    My friend’s grandfather was captured by the Germans, before the opening of the second front, the Germans dressed Soviet prisoners of war in German uniform and put them in the trenches without weapons. Behind were German detachments.
    There his grandfather was captured again, now by the Americans. Such a "terrible slaughter" awaited the Anglo-Saxons, an unarmed and hungry Soviet prisoner.
  16. +1
    6 2014 June
    How did we manage (twice) to be allies of the Anglo-Saxons in two world wars? And in both cases, immediately after the war, they did not behave very well in relation to the former ally. As there: "It is dangerous to be an enemy of America, even more dangerous to be a friend."
    1. +1
      6 2014 June
      Quote: teron
      to be allies of the Anglo-Saxons in two world wars?

      When it comes to survival, you won’t think much about it. Let's just say that they were forced allies. Yes, and the USA in those years was far from what it is now.
      Well, after all, Anglo-Saxon crematoria were not built
  17. de bouillon
    -1
    6 2014 June
    Quote: Good cat
    What is the nonsense? The fact that the USSR was waiting for help, but they worked for themselves? So they had to open a second front in accordance with the agreements. And how, Mr. good, p.in. dos would have landed in such a crowd in the Balkans ???


    explain how and why the US could help open a second front before 44 years ??

    if you just look at the time frame.

    1941 falls for objective reasons

    1942 year? With those problems in the Pacific, the Americans could not, but the British? Considering how the German aviation drove out the British fleet in previous years and how bad the Britons fought in Africa, here the British alone could not do it either. They were simply not capable. The United States created its army from scratch. They had a tank division for 42 years, only 1 was. It was necessary to form a bunch of new connections. They began to create parachute divisions only in the spring and summer of the 42nd, and this process was very slow. The Marine Corps is completely stuck in the Pacific. In the summer of the 42nd Jap Perley already to Australia, the United States lost the Philippines, which cost them 100 prisoners. How in such circumstances the United States could gather forces for a war in Europe.
    what began in November 42nd, for the most part, the landing in Africa took place without due resistance, but already in December the Anglo-Saxons got bogged down in a positional struggle.

    1943 remains. Well here is a dilemma too. On the one hand, they were obliged to take Sicily. The United States-Britain could not, after the African campaign, spit on everything to transfer all of its land and naval forces from the Mediterranean to northern France. Therefore, Sicily became a continuation of the Tunisian campaign and in fact set the task to withdraw Italy from the war.

    In summer, Italy began sabotaging allied relations with Germany, and apparently the West believed that Italy would become an easy hike. Especially after Sicily, there were no large Wehrmacht forces in Italy. But the Germans quickly managed to take control of all of Italy, thereby spoiling all the plans of the West by September.

    autumn-winter remains. in the English Channel begin landing at this time? It’s interesting that, in Italy, the US and British Navy got stuck with what other reserve amphibious assault forces and transports they had in order to conduct another major operation in parallel. They could not land closer to winter in disgusting weather conditions. Therefore, in October it was clearly clear that before May-June 1944, the landing would not be possible.
  18. +1
    6 2014 June
    Quote: Nayhas
    Another shoveling nonsense. Main question. What the hell did the US even have to open a second front with? Ordinary American citizen European fuss about, why should he give his life for not wanting to do this Frenchman or Dutchman? They mean paws up and live quietly for themselves, but should someone substitute their heads under bullets? According to the author’s logic, the USA should have spat on its problems in the Pacific Ocean, where the Japanese smashed them in the tail and mane in 1942. to give up all efforts to open a second front? They only by the end of 1943. established superiority over the Japanese and seized the initiative.
    By the way, the Allies could in 1943. open a second front. They have already made a lot of prerequisites for this, seized the floor of Italy, Sicily. The next blow was obvious, the landing in the Balkans, where the Germans did not have any coastal fortifications like in France, moreover, Yugoslav partisans with large organized groups in that region could really help. And from the Balkans the way to Berlin is much closer, and Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria would definitely fall out of the game, depriving Germany of oil. The landing in the Balkans is clearly a threat to the rear of the German troops in Ukraine ... But ...

    1. 'Main question. What the hell did the US even have to open a second front with? "
    And why the hell did the Americans in general then already cram into the allies of the British and the USSR? After all, did they have reasons? And if they became official allies and agreements appeared, and with specific terms, then they must be implemented, no?
    2. 'By the way, the Allies could in 1943. open a second front. They have already made a lot of prerequisites for this, seized the floor of Italy, Sicily. The next blow was obvious, landing in the Balkans, where the Germans did not have any coastal fortifications like in France ..."
    The couch strategists touch me ...
    I recommend that you carefully look at the physical maps of Europe (not political) and think about what are the chances of a large-scale offensive through the Italian mountain ranges (when attacking from the South to the North) and the Balkans? Let me tell you: the chances are practically zero, even in the absence of resistance. One Monte Cassino, while the Poles were not thrown into the assault as cannon fodder and three and a half thousand were not laid, they could not take for almost a month. So northern France is the best option for an offensive by mechanized and tank units.
    When historical facts are considered, it is useful to dig deeper and inquire about the causes of events and the conditions in which they occurred, otherwise a constructive analysis very quickly turns into criticism
    1. 11111mail.ru
      0
      6 2014 June
      Quote: Salieri
      One Monte Cassino, while the Poles were not thrown into the assault as cannon fodder and three and a half thousand were not laid, they could not take for almost a month.

      Moreover, this monastery was defended by several platoons (no more than 150 people) of Germans without heavy weapons.
  19. crownn
    +2
    6 2014 June
    In his memoirs, Kesselring wrote that the line of coastal fortifications in Normandy was organized too far from the coastline. The gently sloping coast, the absence of natural obstacles to landing, in his opinion, made landing in this place impossible if the German firing points were correctly located. Many military historians directly or indirectly confirm his point of view.
    It turns out that either German practicality and thoroughness failed in this case, or someone in Berlin received appropriate instructions (maybe not only instructions).
    Reality showed that, even in case of negligence on the part of the Germans in organizing coastal defense in Normandy, the vaunted harsh Normans and Yankees could not land without casualties on their part. Imagine what kind of okroshka the coastal northern waters of Normandy would turn into in case of competent German defense.
    The Anglo-Saxons would have to reopen the western front, but in a different place
  20. 0
    6 2014 June
    The note is good (and excellently neutral). I just want clarifications)

    Firstly, the Soviet Union carried out its first major victory ... approximately 14 days after the outbreak of war (June 22). Many will ask the question - what is this victory? The front is broken, parts are broken and if they are not bogged down in boilers and border battles, they are simply either destroyed or fleeing. From a military point of view, yes. But it is worth noting that the only such significant advance of the Wehrmacht troops was only on the central front. The Northern and Southern Front wavered but continued to stand. But besides the military point of view, there is also a political one. Not so long ago, the esteemed Wasserman spoke about her (by the way, you can search, there is an article on Topvar), making conclusions based on the conclusions of some historians. The bottom line was this - the aggressor was none other than the Nazi-fascist clique of Germany, and shift the blame on the USSR for invading their territory (it is now recorded that the memorandum said that Germany is afraid of aggression from the USSR, but these pieces of paper are so easily written. Over in the 43rd for Katyn and many similar allies blamed Natsik. Now who is to blame is not worth talking about) is impossible.
    Of course, then there was no Internet, but a truck with such a foul-smelling mass could not be hidden, and the world knew everything, but what are all the rulers worth without the support of the people? what are their armies worth? One way or another, the allies could not directly declare (no need to talk about a war between them. As Mueller said, “Come on!”. Peace can be concluded very quickly - a couple of signed papers by diplomats and that's all) about their support for Germany, otherwise the politicians very quickly “left” a place for the new, those who at least in their speeches say what the people want to hear. One way or another, the allies announced their support (at least some) of the USSR. Many peoples from occupied Europe began to fight on the side of the USSR. The Polish army fought on the side of the USSR (I'm not talking about everyone. There were also ...), the Normandy-Niemen regiment (which, by the way, returned home on the latest Soviet fighters Yak-3 and Yak-9) and many others. It was the first victory, albeit not on the military front, that made the Allies tense.

    Probably give the opportunity to one radio, so he would not only ask about Leningrad (Nane St. Petersburg), but also about Stalingrad (now Volgograd). But this city was a good springboard that made the whole German headquarters attack the Caucasus. After all, it was worth a little bit to relax the 6th army and that’s all - they will end up in a ring from which they either make their way, or lay in pine boxes or surrender.
    In addition, a very important issue, vital then, is not taken into account in the battle for the Caucasus. These are now the deposits of Western Siberia, and then all the oil was produced in the Caucasus. And oil was consumed by all compounds. And this is not the one tank that most citizens use when driving. It’s not even a tank car or a train with them. Without fuel and fuel, the army will stand up. Why was JV Stalin said (but to whom, I have forgotten unfortunately) - "If you give the deposit to the enemy, we will shoot you. If the enemy does not come, and you destroy him, we will shoot him." This is because that oil went almost directly to the troops. "Vika" can write about Hitler's miscalculation, but take the Germans, their war could end in a year at most. And definitely not in favor of the USSR.
  21. 0
    6 2014 June
    Good stat. What is missing is a brief overview of the plans for the Unthinkable operation which the Anglo-Saxons were preparing against the USSR.
  22. 0
    6 2014 June
    many of you have this logic) you have to taunt and condemn the Allies) they are cowards and stupid) We are the best and so on
    until the 39-41 years of the USSR stood still and did not help the British
    The USSR would have won the war without allies, but would have lost even a million more people)
    Why are Americans British and do you like biting each other?
    The Americans and the British. They don’t know how to fight. They did not have Stalingrad and blah blah.
    Thanks to all veterans of the USSR and the Allies for breaking the Fascists and the Japanese.
  23. Alex donetsk
    0
    6 2014 June
    Andrey is right
  24. Serg93
    0
    7 2014 June
    They were afraid that all of Europe would fall under the USSR !!! So they opened a second front !!!
  25. +1
    7 2014 June
    Fuck them. At least somehow they helped. The soldiers have nothing to do with the games of politicians. It was soldiers, not politicians, who landed in Normandy. They didn’t pull themselves off (finally) part of the German army, honor and praise them, more of our people survived. Interested in the basis of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" - a spectacular film. Well, in general, everything is shown truthfully in the film. On the Omaha Beach landing site, they really got into trouble, and there the Americans broke off quite well. For all my hatred of modern America, I somehow feel sorry for those Americans. The guys faced a real war. Situations like this were common on the Soviet-German front, but for the Americans it really looked like complete horror. But I feel sorry for my soldiers much more (selfish motives, my paternal grandfather fought, and even in the infantry, as a squad leader). It's good that they were honored to open so that they did not stand behind it. By the way, the second front did not help my grandfather, he was seriously wounded during the storming of Konigsberg, the war was over for him.
  26. Nikich
    0
    7 2014 June
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Nikich
    In vain are you talking about Rommel. Very, very intelligent general

    I do not dispute this, Rommel was indeed an outstanding military commander. One of many others who served in the Wehrmacht.
    Quote: Nikich
    and Manstein is better several times

    What, excuse me? As for me, Rommel’s capture of Tobruk, by the complexity of the task, wasn’t lying around in comparison with the capture of Crimea by Manstein.

    Of course, of course, after all, Manstein had a numerical superiority in Crimea and the newest heavy weapons of the Wehrmacht. And Rommel, during his arrival in Africa, only defeated Italians, the enemy’s superiority in technology and people, and severe weather
    1. +1
      7 2014 June
      Quote: Nikich
      Of course, of course, after all, Manstein had a numerical superiority in Crimea and the newest heavy weapons of the Wehrmacht

      Manstein did not have any advantage; the Red Army had the superiority in numbers. I’m already silent about the Kerch-Feodosia landing, when, in addition to the defenders in the Crimea, we moved an assault force that was almost numerically superior to everything that Manstein had. Nevertheless, it all ended with a "bustard hunt"
      The Wehrmacht did not have any "new heavy" guns, and if you are talking about the "Dora" then this dream of reason did not show itself in anything special. But the defensive lines of the Crimea surpassed everything that only the British had in Tobruk.
  27. 0
    7 2014 June
    Well, they landed in order to keep up with the distribution of elephants ... in principle, the 70th anniversary of the landing is more likely an event in the Western world, but it is related to us indirectly. Although they didn’t let some divisions transfer to us, thanks for that.
    By the way, I always offer liberal-minded people on forums to read the book by Max Hastings "Operation Overlord. How the Second Front Was Opened." I remember in the book there is a topic that their analysts thought that in the battles for Normandy the Germans suffered 1,5 or 2 times less losses than the British and the Yankees.In all situations when they won a battle, when they lost, when they had the advantage when they did not have it. The Yankees were generally amused, they had a shortage of infantry! Since the young people during the draft had the right to choose the type of troops. And it turned out that the infantry has the worst officers and soldiers than in the Navy and Air Force. And they are were preparing for hostilities in the European theater of operations))) Even then, during the battles already, the Americans sent some of the graduates of the flight schools to the infantry)) So why blame our commanders in conditions when the Germans found us at the stage perhaps roaming troops. The Yankees and the British how much they prepared for this operation ... in fact, they crushed the Germans with a numerical advantage.
  28. Kostya pedestrian
    0
    July 9 2014
    I would like to ask a question from the reader of this country:
    - Should we erect a pedestal for the "masters" of the Imperial Japanese Army for the fact that they "fulfilled" their non-denial agreement, and, thereby, helped the Red Army to win?

    But the fact that the United States involved the main forces of Japan in the defense of the captured Pacific islands and destroyed the production base of the Japanese military machine did not tell anyone.

    As well as about the air war, where the British involved (distracted) a huge number of both German aces and submarines, which could cause us many problems.


    So why in Minsk we poured cobblestones dedicated to all sorts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and there is no monument, just to welcome those people who did not run over, but went to the meeting.

    PiES: it is difficult for an infantryman who has got into a tank with wounded tankers to control the tank right away, you need to bandage the wounded, make your way to the driver’s mechanic’s place, and, most importantly, find the control levers and pull correctly to escape from the ditch!

    And then there are the Khazars, they want to bury alive with the tank and the wounded.

    Studying the side of the tank on the Internet, I noticed that the positions of the tank commander, gunner and driver-mechanic are in different sections of the tank.

    It is time to heal Khokhlov, and see what kind of Little Russians Russians do with their own hands.

    Here the main thing in cunning is not to concede, and the two-faced anus, not to be confused with the "burning", like the sword of Arsangel Kashel, the wheels of Michelin, is a very good example, how "The lambs of God themselves" take the world for sowing wars, and then you and will be accused.

    Thanks to Athos for such wise words.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"