Second Front

This is a two-parter... America entered the war after Pearl Harbor in the beginning of December 1941, and at that point in time the US was still building up its forces as FDR began the draft in September 1940, and the US was in the process of switching manufacturing towards war materiel, and even so the weapons that the US produced in the period of the late 30s through 1942 somewhat behind the other powers that had already been at war such as fighter aircraft and tanks. Not only that, but the US had to transport all of their infrastructure across the Atlantic and continue to build up and train manpower. How could Stalin have expected the West, particularly America, to open a second front immediately in France when the US was not on a total war footing at that point, the fact that they had to transport everything across the Ocean, etc.? If anything, France and Britain could have done more in 1939 when Germany was in Poland.

Secondly, The Western Allies eventually waged war in the Mediterranean, the air, and the sea before Normandy, all of which took German men and machines away from the Eastern Front. The Germans did transfer experienced divisions to Italy, regardless of the size of the front, and with the air war, the substantial German air materiel was for homeland defense, giving Russia air superiority. Why did Stalin not consider these early contributions as satisfactory, especially when the USA was not in a total war footing when attacked at Pearl Harbor and subsequently entering the war. German units were transferred to both the Mediterranean and back home for the air portion, which helped Russia before Normandy, in which the West knew they were attacking a heavily fortified area by sea that the Germans knew was coming at some point, though unsure of the location/time. Germany and Russia were dictatorships that had huge land armies and ground equipment built up as part of their regime. If the West was going to attack France by sea with all the logistical planning and man and materiel power involved, the right decision was to make sure they were sufficiently built up, trained, and gained experience in other areas first.

 

Not only that, but we were building up to also fight the Japanese, with the USA contributing the largest amounts of man, sea, and air power for the Pacific. I've read a lot of slanted essays along the lines of the post I've written... I'm guessing mostly leftist propaganda.

 

..I would think Stalin knew pretty much that we could not stage a second front/etc so quickly....wasn't much of Stalin's ranting for political purposes?? blame game? etc ...

 

yes..
..and I thought we helped the Chinese Nationalists after WW2---which also had an affect on the Korean War and the Chinese thinking
..in my readings, the communist groups in Europe were very organized after WW2 started....
..but like you said, it's understandable how Stalin and Russia would be very suspicious of the West during and after the war ....

 

....they still don't --do they? we flew recon over their territory ....they shot our planes down....I can see how the Russians were very suspicious/etc post WW2

 

I think it all boils down to the fact that the only thing Stalin cared about was...Stalin. He didn't give a damn how many of his own people died trying to save him, so why would he care how many American or British lives were lost? I doubt he even gave a damn whether a second front succeeded or not, just as long as it diverted enough German resources to enable the Red Army to stabilize their front and start building up the so that they could start pushing the Germans back and thus save the country and most of all, J. Stalin.

 

Absolutely. I keep getting in debates with people about this, with some saying Russia won the war and we didn't put our full weight into it, etc. That's not true by a long shot.

 

I also don't buy the argument that the Western Allies couldn't defeat Germany without Russia. A fully mobilized America and a Britain that was able to rebuild after fending of Germany during the Battle of Britain, the empire and dominion troops, and the free forces of other nations in my opinion had the ability to win.

 

Some say Dieppe was an example to show the second front was impossible.

If you also count the Germans Lost in North Africa some 300,000 men (incl Italians), Normandy some 400,000 with armor, Bagration some 400,000 wihin a year counting quickly. That is quite a loss in man power with armor and planes.

 

Dieppe also proved that a straight attack into the harbour was not possible or had the advantage.

 

Until Barbarossa The Usssr provided Germany with oil. The Allied vs Germa/Russian troops do not sound so good to me. Maybe it is just me.

 

Would the USSR have became active belligerents against the Western Allies? They were supplying Germany, yes, but we were supplying the all the forces of the British Empire plus the Free forces that went to Britain.

 

Yes, but without Barbarossa you were the enemy. Do not forget Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. The USSR was not an allied nation. They were already Germany´s allies provividing the goods. Perhaps even forces?