American views of the British effort in D-Day and WW2 in general.

[Camikaze]

The Nazis never wanted a war on two fronts, as such. They wanted to be able to take the Eastern territories unhindered, without having to oppose Western Europe. So, when France and the UK declared war, they had to attempt to beat them into submission (which they almost succeeded in) before they could successfully open up an Eastern Front. If Germany had won the Battle of Britain, this goal would have been achieved, and it would have been much easier for Germany to defeat the Soviets. So it wasn't a matter of wasting time attempting to win- it was essential. It was just that they really needed to win.

And time. Perhaps if they had waited until the following year (so as to not get stuck by winter), concentrating on reinforcing what they had in the West (without wasting precious aircraft and manpower), and not declaring war on America, then they would have had a much better chance of defeating Russia.

 

[Masada]

If Germany had won the Battle of Britain, this goal would have been achieved, and it would have been much easier for Germany to defeat the Soviets. So it wasn't a matter of wasting time attempting to win- it was essential. It was just that they really needed to win.

Spurious logic is spurious! How did winning the Battle of Britain (given that the RAF was just going to retreat out of German range to rest and regroup if the going got to tough)) spare Germany a second front? Sea-lion was a joke that was predicated on the notion that the Royal Navy could be destroyed which lets face it wasn't going to happen considering the deplorable state of the Luftwaffe's anti-maritime capabilities. Z Force is one thing destroying the whole Home Fleet with all its escorts was simply beyond the Luftwaffes capabilities. Realistically it didn't have a Second Front until Italy. North Africa was fought mostly by Italians.

And time. Perhaps if they had waited until the following year (so as to not get stuck by winter), concentrating on reinforcing what they had in the West (without wasting precious aircraft and manpower), and not declaring war on America, then they would have had a much better chance of defeating Russia.

Refer below.

It still resulted in a huge loss of men and material for the Germans didnt it?

Yes. It did.

What part of Luftwaffe not being able to keep up with the advancing army and having complete air-superiority don't you get? The early stages when Barbarossa was largely resolved came long before the Soviets managed to gain air-superiority.

If the germans hadnt wasted all that time and effort...dont you think it could have influenced the war in Russia?

Chronology boss isn't chronological!

 

[Camikaze]

Spurious logic is spurious! How did winning the Battle of Britain (given that the RAF was just going to retreat out of German range to rest and regroup if the going got to tough)) spare Germany a second front?

Seeing as the object of the Battle of Britain was to completely eliminate the RAF, being successful in that goal would have, conceivable, spared Germany a second front, or at least a very secure Western Front.

Sea-lion was a joke that was predicated on the notion that the Royal Navy could be destroyed which lets face it wasn't going to happen considering the deplorable state of the Luftwaffe's anti-maritime capabilities.

Sealion was unrealistic, yes, but if Germany had decided to not go ahead with the plan (which they did decide), and had defeated the RAF in the Battle of Britain, then there would be no need. The Western Front would have been secure, or at least secure enough for a more successful invasion of Russia.

 

[RedRalph]

Where would have German production been without the attacks on say, ball bearing plants and fuel refineries? Not to mention railways?

Do you honestly think the Russians would have been as successful as they were without all the rest of that happening behind the scenes?

Really?

Laugable.

Of course they wouldnt. No one is saying it didnt help.

now tell me this, do you think D-Day would have been as successful without the Soviet effort? How do you think it would have gone if the entire Eastern front had been waiting in Normandy? If the Russians hadnt killed so many Germans? Hadnt tied up sdo much manpower? Hadnt won battles thr size of which the US and UK still basically have no comprehension of?

 

[Masada]

Seeing as the object of the Battle of Britain was to completely eliminate the RAF, being successful in that goal would have, conceivable, spared Germany a second front, or at least a very secure Western Front.

Assuming Britain was content to have its air-force completely destroyed yes. In reality no. If the RAF had been unable to continue combat operations it would have withdrawn into the North and into comparative safety during which time it would have rested and rebuilt. At no time would it ever have been allowed to be destroyed wholesale.

Sealion was unrealistic, yes, but if Germany had decided to not go ahead with the plan (which they did decide), and had defeated the RAF in the Battle of Britain, then there would be no need. The Western Front would have been secure, or at least secure enough for a more successful invasion of Russia.

... They still would have had the risk of a second front.

 

[FriendlyFire]

For most of WW2 British tank design was an utter disgrace caused by idiot weight, width, regulations.
The British did not put a reasonable tank out until the Comet and even it could not carry the Seventeen pounder gun.
Funny how those backward Soviets had reasonable guns and diesel engines in their tanks.

They had the Maltilda II. I thinks its amazing that they had 2 pounders when British ww1 tanks had 6 pounders. The British should have shoehorned there Bofors AA that would have given them a 57mm auto cannon.

 

[Rik Meleet]

And why was that?

The US bombing raids of the Ploesti Oil Fields for example - Operation Tidal Wave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tidal_Wave

Did you read that page?
If not; I'll quote: "Circa September, however, the Enemy Oil Committee appraisal of Ploesti bomb damage indicated "no curtailment of overall product output" as many of the refineries had been operating below maximum capacity."

----

I'm not quite sure how it is interpreted across the pond; but as far as the European theater of WWII is concerned; it was the Russians who broke the backbone of the German army.
It was the Americans who did that in the Pacific.
D-day quickened the pace of Germany's defeat; but without it Germany would have lost anyway.

 

[Camikaze]

Assuming Britain was content to have its air-force completely destroyed yes. In reality no. If the RAF had been unable to continue combat operations it would have withdrawn into the North and into comparative safety during which time it would have rested and rebuilt. At no time would it ever have been allowed to be destroyed wholesale.

Removing itself from the area would have had the same desired effect for Germany, though. No planes troubling them on the Western Front.

... They still would have had the risk of a second front.

They still would have the risk of the Luxembourgish resistance movement rising up to crush the German war machine. But likewise, it probably would have been a manageable risk.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

It still resulted in a huge loss of men and material for the Germans didnt it?

Yes. It did.

If the germans hadnt wasted all that time and effort...dont you think it could have influenced the war in Russia?

Of course it would have.

For the love of God, the point is not that the British and American efforts were not important. The British (Canadians, and others) especially, were fighting and wearing down the Germans at a time when nobody else was bothering.

What people are saying is that the Soviets were a much larger and more important factor. Can you imagine how pointless the strategic bombing campaigns would have been if the Germans could have focused their entire national effort to defending it, rather than 10-20 percent? Can you imagine if the (stunted) German production was being saved up, rather than being thrown into the cauldron of the East?

You are trying to convince everyone that 2 is more important than 8 in making 10.

The Americans did a lot of good, especially in the Pacific. The battles that the Americans (and Japanese) fought there were some of the fiercest in all of history. In fact, at the time even, many were overshadowed in the media and in people's minds by the relatively smaller American contributions in Europe, because that is what people wanted to emphasize.

Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa... these were almost D-Day in scale.

 

[Patroklos]

THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN WAS OVER by that time. They knew beforehand about North Africa and Western Front was almost none-existed and they still had enough air power to get within mile or 2 of Moscow, but it was pointless because army won't equipped with sufficient winter gear. Even still the Russians were willing to fight modern day sieges in there cities.

Your post makes no sense.

1.) The fact that the Battle of Britain was over is irrelevant, the relevant point was that all the war material used to prosecute that was gone. If you think that the German's have severl thousand more aircraft would not have helped hasten the initial advance you are just being naive. The fact is that further concentrated air power could have saved the German's weeks, allowing them to capture Moscow prior to the first major winter storm of that season.

Hell, at the very least Leningrad was always in bombing range, do you think a couple thousand bombers would not have helped to bash it into submission? Do you not think having that major northern port open for logistics support in the North would not have changed the game a bit?

2.) So what if the Germans "already knew" about the North African and Western Europe fronts? Of course they did, thats how then knew to DIVERT forces there! The fact is that a half dozen more corps would have made a huge difference. For instance it would have meant that the march on Moscow would not have had to be delayed whal Kiev was captured.

 

[Zelig]

That only shows who's the best at being killed. We did the cover for D-Day and 3/5 of the work, and also Pegasus Bridge, a great deal of the work in Italy and all the Air work in Greece, not to mention sorting out Africa.

How do you figure 3/5?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

How do you figure 3/5?

I believe he was counting the six beach heads, and then inadvertently illustrated the point of the thread by forgetting the Canadian beach at Juno.

Maybe he was referring to number of men though... damn, I need to review this stuff.

 

[MobBoss]

Of course they wouldnt. No one is saying it didnt help.

now tell me this, do you think D-Day would have been as successful without the Soviet effort?

Nope. And guess what? I never said it would have either.

Did you read that page?
If not; I'll quote: "Circa September, however, the Enemy Oil Committee appraisal of Ploesti bomb damage indicated "no curtailment of overall product output" as many of the refineries had been operating below maximum capacity."

Rofl. What did you expect them to say?

I bet you believed everything the german propaganda office put out, didnt you?

 

[Oruc]

Just check out D-Day by Antony Beevor. fun fact: on D-day more french civilians died then americans

I doubt their was many American civilians in France.

 

[philippe]

I doubt their was many American civilians in France.

american soldiers, you silly little rascal.

another fun fact btw, more french civilians died to allied bombing then brits due to the luftwaffe.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I bet you believed everything the german propaganda office put out, didnt you?

Mobboss I believe it was Goring who said that had the allies continued there thousand bomber raids German would have been finnish and he couldnt understand why the allies stopped.

This was pretty late in the war by that time the allies technology and tactics had been perfected. By deploying bombers en mass, fire bombing, conventional, and delayed timed bombs caused mass brutal destruction. The deaths and displacement caused massive distruptions and displaced civilians by the hundreds of thousands.

 

[FriendlyFire]

another fun fact btw, more french civilians died to allied bombing then brits due to the luftwaffe.

I know but the Allies had to smash the German logical capabilities using carpet bombing. These decisions were not made lightly either

In just one mission during dday cost 16 bombers as the bombers circled there target while waiting for cloud cover to clear in order to minimse French civilian casualties. IIRC some 14,000 french civiliand died when the main train marshal was flattened.

 

[Patroklos]

I think the 14K accounted for all French civilians killed in the specific D-day prep bombings. I find it hard to believe 14K civilians were milling about a singe train yard.

 

[RedRalph]

I think the 14K accounted for all French civilians killed in the specific D-day prep bombings. I find it hard to believe 14K civilians were milling about a singe train yard.

Maybe they were picking up their rations of strings of onions, berets, stripey jerseys and culture.

 

[Patroklos]

Dark, but funny.