the second front?

silverharp

In WW2 The second front by accident or design became the bombing of Germany which obviously killed a lot of innocent civilians and a lot of civilian infrastructure that was badly needed after the war. An alternative that was not taken by the Allies was a serious commitment to a second front along the Med, possibly a combined Italian and Greek invasion the later would have opened up the abilty to get at German oil supplies in Romania which were difficult to attack otherwise.
So did the combined Allied bombing lengthen the war assuming the above could have happened in 1943 with the follow on invasion of France in 44?

I know its a what if but people seem to like pointing out where the Nazis went wrong but one doesnt seem to same analysis in relation to the Allies.

jonniebgood1

silverharp wrote: »

In WW2 The second front by accident or design became the bombing of Germany which obviously killed a lot of innocent civilians and a lot of civilian infrastructure that was badly needed after the war. An alternative that was not taken by the Allies was a serious commitment to a second front along the Med, possibly a combined Italian and Greek invasion the later would have opened up the abilty to get at German oil supplies in Romania which were difficult to attack otherwise.
So did the combined Allied bombing lengthen the war assuming the above could have happened in 1943 with the follow on invasion of France in 44?

I know its a what if but people seem to like pointing out where the Nazis went wrong but one doesnt seem to same analysis in relation to the Allies.

The allied bombing acted as a second front as the alles did not have the resources in place for a land invasion earlier than 1944. The bombing was an easy option while they prepared and it did divert German resources away from the eastern front to appease Stalin. The allies did invade Italy in 1943 by the way.

silverharp

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The allied bombing acted as a second front as the alles did not have the resources in place for a land invasion earlier than 1944. The bombing was an easy option while they prepared and it did divert German resources away from the eastern front to appease Stalin. The allies did invade Italy in 1943 by the way.

sure it was a second front of sorts but bombing tied up over a million people on the allied side which could have have been diverted into ground forces and tanks etc. And of course I know they invaded Italy but it was a side show and didnt have the resources that later went into France.

Tony EH

silverharp wrote: »

In WW2 The second front by accident or design became the bombing of Germany which obviously killed a lot of innocent civilians and a lot of civilian infrastructure that was badly needed after the war. An alternative that was not taken by the Allies was a serious commitment to a second front along the Med, possibly a combined Italian and Greek invasion the later would have opened up the abilty to get at German oil supplies in Romania which were difficult to attack otherwise.
So did the combined Allied bombing lengthen the war assuming the above could have happened in 1943 with the follow on invasion of France in 44?

I know its a what if but people seem to like pointing out where the Nazis went wrong but one doesnt seem to same analysis in relation to the Allies.

While the Allied bombing campaign didn't lengthen the war, it also didn't shorten the war either, not until the allies started using their combined strength to target Germany's oil facilities instead of trying to bomb infrastructure (ostensibly at least) in the case of the USAAF, or simply bombing civilians, in the case of Bomber Command.

Also, the bombing campaign was obviously the most agreeable option to the western allies, as it meant the less casualties for the most damage to Germany, as a nation. Even though in terms of manpower it could be reckoned as quite costly, the destruction wrought upon the German people and the utter devastation to every German village, town and city exceeded the "level of payment". It also served to cripple Germany for many years after the war had ended and neuter her ability to be a competitor nation on the world stage.

However, by the time the allied bombing campaign had got going in earnest in 1943, the Russians had already sealed the deal in the land war and the western allies were quite happy to take the back foot with regards to a land based second front, until later in the war. Russia had been soaking up German blood quite effectively. In fact, I am of the opinion that by the Summer of 1944, the western allies were more interested in checking Soviet advances into western Europe, than securing the defeat of Germany, which had already been guaranteed by the Red Army, a year before.

So, in other words, it made perfect sense for the western allies to delay a second front in France and pursue the Italian "sideshow", because the Red Army was doing its job just fine.

HavingCrack

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The allied bombing acted as a second front as the allies did not have the resources in place for a land invasion earlier than 1944. The bombing was an easy option while they prepared and it did divert German resources away from the eastern front to appease Stalin. The allies did invade Italy in 1943 by the way.

Technically the western allies could have invaded in summer/autumn 1943 (some Americans even favoured an autumn 1942 landing) but the landing would be nearly entirely of British and Canadian troops with the US only capable of committing 4 divisions. If a landing had succeeded Allied casualties would probably have begun to reach Eastern front proportions.

silverharp wrote: »

sure it was a second front of sorts but bombing tied up over a million people on the allied side which could have have been diverted into ground forces and tanks etc. And of course I know they invaded Italy but it was a side show and didnt have the resources that later went into France.

Actually some people believed Bomber Command could win the war on its own by crippling German industry without the need for a land based invasion. However the fanaticism of some Germans combined with a general 'will to resist' due to the aerial terror similar to that found during the Blitz makes this seem unlikely.

Tony EH wrote: »

It also served to cripple Germany for many years after the war had ended and neuter her ability to be a competitor nation on the world stage.

This simply isn't true at least for West Germany (the East was a whole different story obviously and still is today). By the mid 1950's the West German economy had begun to grow rapidly and by 1960 purchasing power had increased by 73% since the early 1950's. Your average West German in the late 50's/early 60's was definately better off than your average Briton to be honest. In fact the war was a lot more damaging economically in the long run to the UK than it was to West Germany.

Tony EH wrote: »

However, by the time the allied bombing campaign had got going in earnest in 1943, the Russians had already sealed the deal in the land war and the western allies were quite happy to take the back foot with regards to a land based second front, until later in the war. Russia had been soaking up German blood quite effectively. In fact, I am of the opinion that by the Summer of 1944, the western allies were more interested in checking Soviet advances into western Europe, than securing the defeat of Germany, which had already been guaranteed by the Red Army, a year before.

So, in other words, it made perfect sense for the western allies to delay a second front in France and pursue the Italian "sideshow", because the Red Army was doing its job just fine.

Quite true, the western Allies decided to let the Russians suffer the massive majority of casualties. In tactical terms it was an excellent idea. However it did mean sacrificing Poland (for whom they had "gone to war for") to Soviet domination. If the Allies had invaded in 1943 could they have beaten the Russians to Berlin and western Poland? I suspect not however so it was probably the correct call to make.

Tony EH

HavingCrack wrote: »

This simply isn't true at least for West Germany (the East was a whole different story obviously and still is today). By the mid 1950's the West German economy had begun to grow rapidly and by 1960 purchasing power had increased by 73% since the early 1950's.

That's only the case because the Morganthau Plan became the Marshall Plan after the western allies accepted the fact that Russia's intentions in Europe weren't entirely altruistic. Germany became the western bulwark against Communism and it made sense to prop her up.

The original intent was to destroy Germany as an industrial nation and a post war competitor, but the west's game of devil's advocate with Stalin turned around to bite Europe in the ass for the next 4 decades.

Allowing Germany to become a strong nation again, post war, was the western nation's best option in the face of an advancing Red Army.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Your average West German in the late 50's/early 60's was definately better off than your average Briton to be honest. In fact the war was a lot more damaging economically in the long run to the UK than it was to West Germany.

Britain became nearly bankrupt in 1945, because she had huge debts to pay to her ally. Within a couple of years of war, her business concerns and assets in the States were entirely stripped and her gold reserve shipped from South Africa too, in order to pay for her war. Churchill also surrendered extremely valuable scientific patents and highly prized technological secrets too.

Britain was further indebted after the war with Marshall aid, however, unlike Germany she squandered it and further unlike Germany, did not put industrial revitalisation and modernisation at the heart of her economic recovery.

Her pursuit of war turned her from the world's strongest nation in the 30's to a poor second fiddle in the mid 40's and was brought about largely by self inflicted wounds.

MAJR

The term "second front" is misleading. At the time Stalin was crying out for Britain, and later America, to open the so called second front Britain was already fighting the Germans on three major fronts - the Mediterranean and North Africa, the Atlantic, and in the skies over Europe - and were engaged in two smaller front in direct support of the Soviets - the Artic Convoys, and the Persian Gulf, both of which brought supplies and weaponry from the West into the Soviet Union - additionally British and Commonwealth forces were also engaged in two major front against the Japanese - Burma and Malaysia, and the Pacific.

In all, Britain was engaged on seven fronts when Stalin started demanding an invasion of Europe from the West, and while the Soviet Front may have been the biggest by far it was still only one front and Soviets show complete disregard for just how much effort the British had to put in to maintains all those fronts - in fact Stalin mocked them for it!

When the Americans entered the war they had to fight on a major front against the Japanese - the Pacific - entered a major front against the Germans - the Atlantic - and by the end of 1942 they had entered two more major fronts against the Germans - North Africa, and in the skies over Europe. They were never to be engaged in fewer than three front from that point until the Germans surrendered.

The British had attempted to get involved in Greece to disasterous effect in 1941 and had been unceremoniously thrown back out into the Mediterranean, the American's were intent on taking the direct America-Britain-France-Germany route to Berlin and Marshall vehemently opposed any attempt to deviate from it - such as the North African, Sicily and Italy Campaigns - and when Churchill suggested a campain in the Balkans and cited the Romanian oil-field as a goal for such a campaign in 1943 neither Roosevelt, Marshall or Alanbrooke were convinced of its merit - eventually Alanbrooke was convinced of it and the British did get involved in Greece again but without the support of the Americans they lacked manpower or material to achieve much.