Justin wrote:
>ALthough the Eastern Front is my front in WWII, I will say that
downgrading
>the importance of the Second Front is not a view that was shared by the
>Soviets at the time! Until D-Day, all Stalin and Molotov could talk about
>with Churchill and Roosvelt was Second Front, when? And whatever moron
said
>that the Western Allies faced children and old men at Normandy and the
>Battle of Bulge should talk to some veterans of those conflicts. I think
>that person confused the battle for the West with the final gasp in
>March-May 1945, when the Nazis did mobilize the home reserves. The Italian
>front was very tough too--Anzio was no piece of cake. And it _mattered to
>the Russians, oh yes it did. And indeed, to us all. --jks
Of course the Russians wanted a second front. And the Western and Italian fronts did help to hasten the German defeat. But that doesn't mean the Nazi's weren't already defeated by the time of the Normandy landings.
The real turning points in the war with Germany, the Russian winter of 1941 and the battle of Stalingrad in 1942, both occurred long before any serious pressure was applied to the Germans by the US and Britain. After Stalingrad, it was merely a matter of time until the Soviets wore down the German army.
The strategic bombing campaign, the North African campaign, the Italian theatre and the D-Day landings all shortened the war, but were not decisive.
Jordan wrote:
>And Overlord was planned and rehearsed for two years!
>I don't think there was a way to do it sooner.
This might very well be true. But again, it was not decisive. The final outcome of the war was clear by the time of the D-Day invasion.
Brett