Second Front ?

Did the second front in ww2 make any differnce.?

 

make any difference in the war? could you elaborate?

 

Wat does elaborate mean.?

 

Make your point clearer? More Specific? Any one thing you want to know about it?

 

Did the second front that the allies opened up in the west in 1944 finish the war quicker than if they didnt open up a second front.?

 

I believe so. The faster you can get into the continent, the faster Berlin falls.

 

For sure...the invasion of France launched the final assault on the axis force. Even if this operation was risky and could had made the war even longer if it has failed.

For sure D-day was important and helped the allies conquer germans. The Italian front was a good thing but the french front very important.

 

Forcing an opponent to split their resources, and focus on more than one thing at a time is always a path to success in any conflict. There is no doubt that Hitler having to maintain forces available to repel any Allied advance from Briton helped to lessen the effort that Stalin's troops had to make.

Even if the US and UK had only threatened an invasion it would have helped. Stalin himself was pushing for a second front long before D-Day to help relieve some of the pressure on his forces. I don't know the numbers of troops that were not available to help in the East. I know that not all of the troops that were in France and Belgium were the top troops in the German Army. The troops in the West were not the poorest troops either. The resistance to the invasion attests to this. Had the Western flank of the German Reich been secure all of those troops who were capable would have been in use against the Soviets. This would have slowed them down on their way to Berlin.

Another part of the Allied invasion in Normandy, if the Germans had France to fall back to when the Russians advanced they would not have had to make a last-ditch effort in Berlin. They could have continued a fighting retreat prolonging the war even more.

 

HI what even if the allies never invaded france in 1944 were the germans still very much beaten and would the war go on longer.?

 

Wasn´t it some 80% of German losses in the East so you can definitely guess who would have won in the end without operation Overlord....just my guess.

 

Just one point to your new question do the Allies continual to bomb Germany in 1944?

 

no they dont bomb cities in germany .

[ 22. March 2006, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: rifleman1987 ]

 

Yes, but I suppose Overlord made things somewhat easier

 

Are what about military and industrial targets?

 

k thats say the western allies dont invade france in june 1944 but at the end of 1945 they do would the russians of gotten to berlin by then or would they of halted their advance towards berlin.?

 

The SU would still have beaten Germany when I don't know at a guest late 1945 to some where in 1946.

 

I just wonder how far the German fortifications in Normandy would have got by June 44 I believe it was about 60%. One thing is sure AH would still had to keep troops in Normand, the Russians still would have taken Berlin.

 

What if the battle of the bulge was a total success for the Germans and they suceed in reaching the sea, could this of stopped the advance by the western allies on the western front.?

 

The only true way for the Battle of the Bulge to have stopped the advance of the Western Allies would have been for it to have destroyed the will to carry on of the Allies. It would have been a tremendous setback and the losses would have been terrible. The Allied generals would have evaluated the situation and continued the fight. This would not have been Dunkirk again.

 

What was the point of battle of the bulge if it could not be won by the Germans then y make a bad situation even worse by attacking the allies on western knowing for well it would fell and with that failure they wouldnt hav anything left to use to try and defend the German border i guess some could say it shortened for war do u agree with that.?